EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, November 24, 1997
• 1532
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.)): Members, seeing quorum, we will reconvene with meeting number seven of the Special Joint Committee on Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland.
We are joined this afternoon, from our first group of witnesses, by Mr. George Morgan. He is a member of the lay council of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Canada, and is joined by Mr. Barry Bussey, who is legal counsel for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Canada.
We have one hour slotted to hear a brief from these witnesses and to entertain questions and answers following the brief, for a total of one hour.
Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you very much for agreeing to appear before this special joint committee. I will now turn the floor over to you, Mr. Morgan. I understand you will be presenting the brief.
Mr. George Morgan (Spokesperson, Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Newfoundland and Labrador): Let me clarify one thing. I'm here representing the Seventh-Day Adventist people in Newfoundland. I was elected in the convention to be their spokesperson on matters relating to education. What I want to do is to give you some background to the Seventh-Day Adventist education system in Newfoundland, which no longer exists as a system.
In 1895, the first Seventh-Day Adventist minister arrived in Newfoundland and found a group of eleven people who were calling themselves Seventh-Day Adventists. He established a church, which was incorporated in 1896. Before they had a church incorporated, they had a school operating.
One of the first converts was a teacher in the Methodist college. All schools in Newfoundland were church-owned and operated at that time. If a person changed his or her religion, they had no job. It was understandable—teachers were seen to be roughly equivalent in status to the clergy.
This first school was started with half a dozen children in a living room. In 1903, the Government of Newfoundland passed the Seventh-Day Adventist School Board act, which recognized the operation of Seventh-Day Adventist schools in Newfoundland. The school that existed at that time was not funded by the government. It was totally funded by the congregation in St. John's.
• 1535
In 1912 an amendment to the Department of Education Act extended
government funding to Seventh-Day Adventist schools.
The motion was tabled at that time by the Prime
Minister of the day, Prime Minister Morris, I
believe it was.
The schools in Newfoundland at first were entirely funded by the churches. Later they received partial funding by the government. Over the years the government share increased. In 1943, I believe it was, the Department of Education Act was amended so that schooling was to be free and compulsory to all children up to the age of 13. By that time the government was fully funding the teachers' salaries and teachers' pensions. The Seventh-Day Adventist schools were included in that.
In 1949, when we entered Confederation, J.R. Smallwood, the first premier and a member of the negotiating committee, wrote the Term 17 that supplanted section 93 of the Constitution. That guaranteed the continued existence of those school systems that were in existence at that time.
There were in 1949 three Seventh-Day Adventist schools in Newfoundland, with 150 students and 6 teachers. This is where we believe our right to education that was supplemented by the government existed.
In 1968 four churches—the Church of England, the United Church, the Salvation Army and the Presbyterian Church—came together, bringing four minorities together to create a new system, the integrated system of education. By bringing those four minorities together, they created a majority. Today they comprise 56% of the population of Newfoundland.
The Seventh-Day Adventists considered joining in integration, but decided that it was contrary to our policy that wherever we operate in the world we try, if possible, to operate Seventh-Day Adventist Christian schools, and our unique needs would not be met by an integrated school board.
In 1996 Parliament passed an amended Term 17. This amended Term 17 had the effect of allowing the Government of Newfoundland to discriminate in education spending.
Sections in the old act that referred to non-discriminatory funding were removed, and in January 1997 all the Seventh-Day Adventist schools in Newfoundland were taken over by the newly appointed public school boards. They operated until June of this year and closed at the end of June. Government funding was withdrawn. The Seventh-Day Adventist teachers and students were assigned to other schools.
There was a group of Seventh-Day Adventist parents in St. John's who said, whatever happens, we want Christian schooling for our children. They came together and discussed many things, but there was absolutely no way that any government funding was available any more.
These parents formed a new school board and applied for permission to operate a private school. That school is operating now. It is funded one-third with tuition, and two-thirds from the local churches and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Canada. There are approximately 40 children in that school.
The feeling of the Seventh-Day Adventists about the Term 17 amendment was that it was like a death in the family. It removed something that we had grown proud of and that we were very pleased with. The parents were not at all satisfied that the integrated board would offer to their children the schooling that they wanted for them.
• 1540
This new amendment—I believe that Judge Barry
ruled in effect that, having come to the House and the
Senate with an amended Term 17, which was passed, and
having passed a revised Department of Education Act, the Government
of Newfoundland ignored their own law and the law of
Canada. This is Judge Barry's decision. The
Department of Education was not bound by the law. When
the Roman Catholic Church and the Pentecostal Church
objected and went to court for an injunction, this was
granted.
The Government of Newfoundland is now asking you to pass a new amended Term 17. What guarantee have we that they will obey this law either?
We are very disappointed in what has happened in education in Newfoundland. We are particularly offended by the part of this act that says the Government of Newfoundland will offer a religious education curriculum in the schools of Newfoundland. That's absolutely opposed to our principles. For the government to be involved in religious education, we feel, goes beyond the purpose of the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Barry Bussey (Legal Counsel, Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Newfoundland and Labrador): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to refer the committee to the brief we have presented you with. I'm not going to read through all of the brief, but I'm going to highlight the points we make, starting at page 4.
Basically there are criticisms we wish to address. The first is the criticism that the current denominationally based education system is anachronistic where division along religious lines is encouraged and teachers are hired and fired according to their religious conformity. Education is a provincial responsibility, and complete control over schools, curriculum and teaching should be in the hands of elected representatives who are accountable to the public for the expenditure of tax dollars.
Our response to that criticism is very simple. Denominational education is far from being anachronistic. In fact, we would suggest that the system illustrates the importance of Canada being a multicultural society. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Regina v. Videoflicks, stated that religion is the dominant force in any culture. We would suggest, recognizing Canada as a multicultural society, that the concept of denominational education is certainly not something of the past. It is something that we should, as a society, consider for the future.
Further, we would suggest that when it comes to denominational education, as Seventh-Day Adventists we have a particular desire because of our stand with respect to our understanding of scripture with respect to the sabbath. This is an issue we hold very dearly. Oftentimes our church membership has to deal with systems of public schooling where our students are constantly faced with the issue of trying to make it to team sports, and this kind of thing.
When it comes to trying to get exemptions for sabbath observance, I can tell you as a former student of the Newfoundland education system that, being a student at the Queen Elizabeth High School in Conception Bay South, I did not make the volleyball team because I couldn't play on Saturday, and that was something I would have to take personal exception to. I know times have changed. Nevertheless, it was just an example of how it was important for us as a people to be able to have our own school system so we could have our students be able to participate. This was a very important thing for all of our people.
• 1545
So we would suggest that criticism is not valid. It is a
situation where we as a people suggest that as a people
we should be able to have our own school system.
The other part of that deals with the issue of public funding. We have no problem with the concept that governments should be held accountable for the expenditure of tax dollars. However, we also have to realize that members and parents who have sent their children to the Seventh-Day Adventist school system are also taxpayers. We are now being forced into a situation where, as Mr. Morgan just highlighted, our parents, those who can afford it, are running their own separate school system in the province of Newfoundland. Where previously we had five schools, now we have just the one school in St. John's, with approximately 40 students.
There are a lot of other parents we used to be able to assist, primarily those of the Jehovah's Witnesses, those of other religious backgrounds who would come to our school system. Unfortunately, now they are unable to participate in our lone school in St. John's because they simply cannot afford the private tuition.
I would just highlight on page 8 that when considered in real terms, the Seventh-Day Adventist School Board received 0.24% of the provincial school's operating budget. At the same time our school population was 0.21% of the whole student population in the province. Again, we would suggest when looking at the whole numbers the school system we did have was not one that was hard on the public purse.
The next criticism we often hear, as we have highlighted on page 9, is that God is not left at the door of the school; Christianity is in the heart; and further, the government's proposal will ensure that religion continues to be taught and religious observances continue to be held. As the government is now proposing it under this new Term 17, we would suggest they are not going to be giving instruction of religion but instruction about religion; and this, as Mr. Morgan has highlighted, the church finds very offensive.
There is certainly a place for instruction about religion—we encourage that and often do it in our own school system—as to what other faith groups believe. But that does not meet the particular religious ambience that we as a group or the other denominational groups require.
The next criticism is found on page 12. What these people do not seem to understand is that a right, whether constitutionally guaranteed or not, can properly be diminished or eliminated by due process. This is what democracy and the will of the majority are all about. Besides, we are not talking about individual human rights but about the so-called right of religious groups to indoctrinate their children at public expense.
Our response to that criticism is that any time an individual in our society and in a western democracy has been given a right, whether a right of property or some other privilege of one sort or another, and every time a government seeks to remove that right or privilege, throughout history there has always been some form of compensation. In this case there is absolutely no compensation.
Further, we have a situation where this particular right, this privilege we have held as a class of people in the province of Newfoundland for such a long time, has been taken away and in part legitimized by a public referendum. In fact, two referenda have been used by the government as a means of justification for taking it away. I don't know of any other time in Canadian history when this has been used.
• 1550
It is interesting that there
are critics who suggest this is what the rule of the
majority is all about; let the majority rule.
One is reminded of the observation of the elite
member of the French aristocracy of the 18th
century, Alexis de Tocqueville, when he came to America.
One of the criticisms he had of the American form of
democracy, or as he said, one of the weaknesses, was the
fact of the tyranny of the majority.
That was in a system where there were checks and balances in the majority rule. We are living in a parliamentary system, and now we are having, I would suggest, an American importation of political rule through plebiscite and referenda. This we find very troubling, because as a minority we can never seek to win in a referendum. It's impossible. We find that the use of the referenda in this particular case—
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I apologize for interrupting, but we're 20 minutes into the brief and we still have a question-and-answer period that has to follow, so I would ask you to wrap up, if you could.
Mr. Barry Bussey: Sure. I'll do that.
Anyhow, that is an area where we have a lot of concern about the whole use of referenda.
I would like to highlight just a couple of other points about which we have some concern, on the Schools Act, 1996. The first deals with section 117. That section states that those who are teaching in the private schools—and “private schools” is defined by the act, and our school as we currently have it would be falling under the definition, and we've had to seek permission to be open—section 117 suggests that every teacher employed by a school board or in a private school to which sections 43 to 49 of the Schools Act, 1996 apply shall be an active member of the association, namely the Newfoundland Teachers' Association.
As a church, we have a long-standing religious view about our teachers being members of the NTA. Formerly our teachers were basically involved in the Rand Formula, where we have been forced to be members of the NTA yet our union dues, or the NTA dues, were paid to a charity.
We find this particular proposed section of the Newfoundland Schools Act—and I know we're dealing with Term 17 here, however it's something we feel we should voice at this level—this section is particularly offensive to us in that as a religious body, now having private schools, we feel our school teachers should be exempt from the NTA.
Secondly, on the Schools Act, it appears at this point the Newfoundland government is not so interested in our school buildings, but we as a church would like to support the view of the Pentecostal and Roman Catholic denominations on the manner in which the school properties, built with a mixture of public and...at least in our case it was all private funds from our church. This issue needs to be resolved in a more adequate fashion than as described in the act.
Those are my comments and our concerns.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Mr. Bussey. I apologize for interrupting. I very much appreciate your and Mr. Morgan's brief. It's just that we have a long list of questioners who want to be heard.
With that I'll move directly to the question-and-answer period. Mr. Goldring.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You mention that the Seventh-Day Adventists is funding its own schools and buildings. It has been mentioned by a couple of the other religions too that they fund their own schools. What percentage of the school construction do you fund on your own, from your own group? Is there a percentage?
• 1555
Mr. George Morgan: If you're talking about the present, we have reopened one of our schools that was closed by the Avalon East School Board. That school was built 100% with Seventh-Day Adventist funds; there is not one government dollar in it.
Mr. Peter Goldring: So to add to that, when we are talking about costs to reorganize this into a strictly non-denominational school board structure, there will be more costs because now the non-denominational public school system will have to pick up costs of school buildings. Is that correct?
Mr. George Morgan: Yes, except that there are not going to be very many new school buildings in Newfoundland for a while, because we do have declining population and enrolment.
Mr. Peter Goldring: But there will be additional costs.
Mr. George Morgan: Yes. Capital funds were distributed on a population basis. During the 1980s we built $1 million worth of Seventh-Day Adventist schools and we had something like $80,000 government dollars. The rest of the money was raised from Seventh-Day Adventist sources.
Mr. Peter Goldring: So in an estimation, if the government was to take over all of the schools that have now been built and funded privately, would that not be a considerable cost for the government to take on?
Mr. George Murray: But the Department of Education Act says that all schools automatically became the properties of the new school boards when they were formed, without compensation.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Really?
Mr. George Murray: Really.
Senator William Rompkey (North West River, Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Morgan, assuming that it is your position now that the government should continue to fund the Seventh-Day Adventist school, would you also feel that it should continue to fund other schools run by various Christian denominations if there were any? For example, there are about 5,000 or 6,000 Moravians in Labrador who have never received any government funding and they don't have schools now. The schools will probably become aboriginal schools. If they did have schools, would it be your position that the government should continue to fund those schools?
Would it also be your position that the government would continue to fund non-Christian schools? For example, there are about 1,000 to 1,500 Muslims in Newfoundland and Labrador. Would it be your position that the government should fund Muslim schools if they existed?
Mr. George Morgan: We are very happy with the arrangement we have with the Governments of B.C. and Alberta and Manitoba. A small Seventh-Day Adventist school in Manitoba, for instance, is funded one-third from tuition, one-third from the local church and one-third from a government grant. If the church and the parents cannot raise their two-thirds, then the government grant wouldn't be forthcoming, would it?
Senator William Rompkey: Would it be for all churches? Is it your position that all churches should have schools funded if they want to establish them?
Mr. George Morgan: Why not? The government would save money.
Premier Harcourt in B.C., a year after he was elected, was asked when he was going to fulfil his election promise to withdraw funding for public schools. He said, we couldn't afford it, because it would cost millions of dollars, because in British Columbia anywhere from 30% to 80% of the operating cost of a school comes from the government, but none of the capital investment. So we have probably 10,000 Seventh-Day Adventist students attending school in British Columbia and the school is receiving government grants.
The government saves money in these places by partly funding Christian schools.
The Chairman: Senator Rompkey has a supplementary.
Senator William Rompkey: I had a question for Mr. Bussey, in that he talked about the sabbath observance and he regretted that he couldn't make the volleyball team because he wasn't able because of the sabbath observance. I would have thought that Jews would have had the same problem.
Won't that problem be easier to overcome under the new Term 17, because parents would in future have the right in future to request religious observances in the schools—I'm sorry, they have the “opportunity”; they don't have the “right”—and this will be enshrined in the Constitution, to request religious observances in schools. Doesn't that give Seventh-Day Adventist parents more opportunity in the public school system than they had before?
• 1600
Mr. Barry Bussey: In that particular situation, I was a student of the integrated school system. My point is that in fact you'd have greater opportunity in a Seventh-Day Adventist school system because the nature of the curriculum would be built around it.
As it turned out, in my own particular situation, in grade 10 I went to a private Seventh-Day Adventist school here in Ontario, basically because I lived so far from an SDA school in Newfoundland that was the option.
Your question is whether or not it would be better. My answer is, that depends. When you have a majority group of people running—for instance, in that particular case, a sports curriculum—you're going to go with when the majority plays. In that particular case, even though they played tournaments not only on Saturdays but also on the weekdays, when I was eligible to play, I couldn't make the team, period, because I couldn't play on Saturdays.
I'm not sure that would be any better in this new public system, basically because of the majority situation it would be organized around.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Senator.
Senator Doody, followed by Senator Murray.
Senator William C. Doody (Harbour Main-Bell Island, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for either of the two gentlemen. I know they're both extremely familiar with the entire education system in Newfoundland.
My memory tells me that prior to the previous amendment to Term 17 there were three—or was it five?—Seventh-Day Adventist schools.
Mr. George Morgan: We had seven in 1991, and we closed two small schools. There were five immediately prior to the amended Term 17.
Senator William Doody: These took in students from other faiths as well, did they not?
Mr. George Morgan: About 75% of the students were not Seventh-Day Adventists. Most of them were Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and others. In any given class anywhere from seven to nine different religions were represented.
Senator William Doody: So it was multidenominational.
Mr. George Morgan: It was multidenominational and extremely tolerant. The children from all these denominations, including some from the mainline churches, really appreciated attending a school where so much tolerance was shown to everybody's beliefs.
Senator William Doody: Under the new regime you now have one school.
Mr. George Morgan: One school.
Senator William Doody: With 46 pupils.
Mr. George Morgan: No, 42, of whom 4 are not Seventh-Day Adventists. It's only 10% now instead of 70%.
Senator William Doody: So 10% of them are not Seventh-Day Adventists. From a multidenominational school, then, you're pretty well reduced to a denominational school.
Mr. George Morgan: Yes. Most of these parents just couldn't afford the tuition.
Senator William Doody: The effort to turn the multidenominational system into a much larger multidenominational system has in your case backfired. You now find yourself with a denominational school, which you've never had before.
Mr. George Morgan: That's right.
Senator William Doody: And that's past experience.
Mr. George Morgan: Well, we've come full circle since 1912.
Senator William Doody: I know. This is progress.
Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Morgan.
Senator Murray, please.
Senator Lowell Murray (Pakenham, PC): There was a reference by the witnesses to the fact that rights were being abrogated without compensation.
This leads me to ask whether there was some compensation package that would have mitigated, for you, the effect of this proposed amendment, or was the reference to compensation related solely to the apparent expropriation of your school buildings?
Mr. George Morgan: No. I think the reference there was to the Constitution.
For instance, when the Newfoundland railway was discontinued and the Peckford government came to an agreement with the government at the time in Ottawa, they agreed that the railway, which was protected by the Constitution, would be closed, the tracks torn up and so on, but that Newfoundland would get $15 million a year for 15 years to rebuild the Trans-Canada Highway. There was the compensation. That way there was an agreement between two parties on the Constitution.
• 1605
In our case there is no agreement between parties
on the Constitution. A majority of 55% in the first
referendum imposed their will on 45%. I
have the feeling that if Adolf Hitler in 1938 had had
a referendum on solving the Jewish problem he would
have had no trouble getting 55% or 70%. That's my opinion.
With a referendum, so much depends on the wording of the question.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I think we'll reserve comment on any discussions. I will just say that there is respect by this chair for all members of this committee.
Senator Murray, do you have a follow-up question?
Senator Lowell Murray: I've asked my question.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mrs. Finestone, if you have a question I would certainly be prepared to entertain it.
Senator Kinsella.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, PC): Thank you, Chair.
I want to give some focus to Term 17(2), where it is proposed that the House of Assembly would have full jurisdiction over education in Newfoundland and Labrador but that the province would provide for a course in religious education.
My question is, do members of your faith community have any fear that with a government course in religious education, notwithstanding the good intent to make sure this is about religion as a non-denomination specific course, but because it is government sponsored, with all the power of the state behind it, it would place at a disadvantage a course in religious education advanced by your faith community?
Mr. George Morgan: To us a religious education program is Bible based. Our children are raised in the scriptures, they memorize the scriptures, they spend an hour a day discussing the scriptures. What the Government of Newfoundland will develop is a program that has no scriptural references because it will be non-denomination specific. It won't even be Christian specific.
There is in the existing Newfoundland Schools Act, and it has been there for over 50 years, section 10, which says that any parent can write to the principal of the school and have his children exempted from religious instruction and practices. But that's in the act, not in the Constitution. The Constitution is giving the government the authority to teach children a course about religion, but it's the provincial act that provides the exemption, and that can be changed at any time in the legislature.
Senator Noël Kinsella: My supplementary question is that if the state is teaching religion, that fact, that the power in the state and the authority of the state is behind this course of inquiry into matters of religion...would that in and by itself constitute a threat to the theological foundation of the Seventh-Day Adventist presentation on matters of religion?
Mr. George Morgan: I think it would comprise a threat to the faith of the children.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Was the answer that it could?
Mr. George Morgan: It could.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
I'll now move to Mr. DeVillers, followed by Mr. McGuire.
• 1610
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, gentlemen.
I look at the second heading in your brief, where you talk about the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and the minority, the whole issue of minority rights, and the minority majority. What we're dealing with here is a request from the Province of Newfoundland to amend the Constitution in such a way as to have the effect of removing denominational rights. When we look at who has denominational rights in Newfoundland, we see that a total of about 96% of the people have them, and that about 4% of the people therefore don't. So in the traditional minority majority, that's how it would strike me. The minority is the 4% of the people who don't have them, yet your position is to look at the entire group of people that have them, and then subdivide them. Is that your position on it?
Mr. George Morgan: In a way.
We have spoken on behalf of other minorities on a number of occasions. We had minority rights because we operated in three schools in 1949. This has been lost, it was gone with the first amendment to Term 17.
We are concerned about the rights of minority religions in this new revision to the act because of the imposition of the state-designed religion curriculum. And I think I'm speaking on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Christadelphians, and all these other people who I went to school with and who've been attending Seventh-Day Adventist schools for seventy years.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: So it's on the implementation of the new regime, the new regulations.
Mr. George Morgan: Yes.
Mr. Barry Bussey: The other thing, as well, is that the case law is very clear that the right is with the class of persons. It's obvious that there is a significant group of persons in Newfoundland who have these rights but are willing to let them go. Of course, what we're saying is that there is a minority of those who are saying they don't want to let them go.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Right.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
Now I'll move to Mr. McGuire, followed by Mr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for you, Mr. Morgan. I was wondering what arrangements are made in other provinces for schools for people of your religion. Are they private, or do members go to public schools? What would be different in Newfoundland if the new Term 17 was implemented?
Mr. George Morgan: We have schools in every one of the ten provinces. Government funding today is only available to us in British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba. In the other provinces, the schools are totally funded by the church and the parents, but if children live in a town where there aren't enough Adventists to support a school, they have to attend a public school. There's no religion taught in the public schools in the other provinces, so we don't have that problem.
As far as religious practices are concerned, yes, it's always a problem that so many things are organized to happen on Friday and Saturday, when the Seventh-Day Adventist children can't go. Earlier, somebody referred to the Jewish people. Well, I went to school with Jewish people in St. John's. The practice was that the women observed the sabbath, but the men and boys didn't feel they were obligated to. With the Adventists, the whole family observes the sabbath together every week.
Mr. Joe McGuire: So now, under the new Term 17 in Newfoundland, what will your alternatives be?
Mr. George Morgan: well, 450 Seventh-Day Adventists live in towns where there are too few of them to operate a school, so they will be in public schools after the new Term 17, and I'm concerned about them. They are concerned that their children will be force-fed something they don't want. As I say, they can opt out of religious education under the existing Department of Education Act, but that is not guaranteed in the Constitution, just in the act.
Mr. Joe McGuire: But can't they opt out under the new Term 17 also?
Mr. George Morgan: Yes, as long as the Newfoundland government leaves that section in the act.
• 1615
Mr. Joe McGuire: Do you see any other discussions with the provincial government if the new Term 17 is passed? Is there anything else you can do, besides form your own schools?
Mr. George Morgan: No, there's no provision. In fact, we've already lost any contact with the government. We were cut off January 1 of last year. Our teachers became public school teachers and our schools were run for six months by the boards in whose jurisdiction they were found.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
Mr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): My question relates to one aspect, because repeatedly you have used the word “coercion” or “coerced”. I find it difficult, very frankly, that you would reach that conclusion when the process has gone through a referendum. It may not be as completely ideal as you would have wished. It has passed the legislative assembly unanimously. You may not want it to be the result. It is now before the Parliament of Canada. We do not know the results emanating from our deliberations. How can you be so sure that there has been coercion when what we have followed are processes of democracy?
Mr. Barry Bussey: If you don't mind, I'll respond to that.
We are dealing with a group of people in our particular denomination of around 700 adult members in the province of Newfoundland. You're asking, because there was such a public referendum, because we've gone through the process with respect to the amending formula and so on, how can it be coercion? Well, we sit here before you and we say that our members have not agreed to this formula or to this change. If this committee wishes, because we have active lists of membership, we could have each member of our church sign a petition to that effect where, I would suggest to this committee, a majority would say no, they would not want their rights taken away.
The thing is, this small group, this small minority, has lost a right. That is coercion when we have not agreed with it. So that's how we come up with that term. The process appears to be quite fair, but this is the whole rule of the majority. This is the rule of democracy.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I understand that democracy is the rule of the majority, but taking into account the concern of the minority. What I see in the amendment so far is the combination of these two. In fact, it is a tribute to the genius of Canada that it is able to reconcile the heritage of 1947 to the present reality of 1997. Obviously, there has been a change.
My question to you is this: if we assume for a moment that you are satisfied with the referendum process, satisfied with the legislative assembly, satisfied with the recommendation of a committee that, on the basis of assumption, is to proceed and concur with the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador—let us assume that is the result and everything is proper—would you still object on the basis that denominational rights have been breached?
Mr. Barry Bussey: There's no question they've been breached, surely they have. You've gone through the process and you've now taken away denominational rights, and that certainly is a breach.
I would further suggest that if the government were concerned with maintaining a semblance of listening to what we have offered and suggested, we have suggested on two occasions to the Government of Newfoundland that we would take no more than the average cost per student to use in our denominational school. In other words, if it costs $500 a year to educate a student in Newfoundland, we would gladly accept that amount to run our own system. In our view, that would be recognizing our concern and would also show us some respect for the right that we have now lost.
• 1620
A voice: If I could speak to that—
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I have no further questioners on my list, so Mr. Doyle, go ahead, and then we'll come back to you, Rey.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): I just want to refer once again to page 13 of your brief, and I want to give you the opportunity to make it perfectly clear. You say:
It was mentioned a moment ago that we did have a referendum and we keep hearing that certain minorities did give up their rights. But are you saying to us that we can take for granted that you are speaking in your statements on behalf of your entire membership and that you're accurately reflecting its views?
Mr. Barry Bussey: There's no question—in fact, George, do you want to speak to that?—in the sense that George was specifically given the authority to appear here today.
Mr. George Morgan: You talk about consent being unanimous in the legislature and so on, but one of the steps in this process of school closure was that all parents in Newfoundland received forms to register their children for the 1997-98 school year. This wasn't a referendum, but it was a statement of preference.
The parents of 82% of the children in the Seventh-Day Adventist schools—this is parents of many denominations—asked to register their children for Seventh-Day Adventist education in the current school year. However, the school board published the figure as 0.031% of the population of the East Avalon. Nobody in Trepassey, which is 99% Irish Catholic, voted to send their child to a Seventh-Day Adventist school, nobody in Ferryland, nobody in St. Mary's, and so on, all the way around up that shore.
I saw the tally forms from the Avalon East School Board. They showed that only in two schools, the two Seventh-Day Adventist schools, the elementary and the high school, did the parents express the intention of sending their children to Adventist education, but 82% of them did. The ones who had it were very happy and wanted it, but the school closed.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
Mr. Pagtakhan, we have the time for one brief question.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You also spoke in your brief of the multicultural nature of the country. You indicated in one of the cited cases that religion constitutes a dominant force in any given culture.
If in fact there are, say, 15 or 20 ethnocultural groups in Newfoundland—it may not be the number today—and each one requires a separate school system of its own, where will you draw the line as to the reality of having a core curriculum for all that will be pluralistic in nature, and at the same time allowing the courses in religion to prosper and thereby enhancing the very multicultural fabric of the country?
Mr. Barry Bussey: I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In other words, I see your conclusion as being that the multicultural heritage of Canada is being aggrieved because of this proposed amendment. I am persuaded to think that in fact it is the opposite. It would not be pragmatic to have as many educational systems as there are multicultural groups in any given unit of the country. Would you not agree with that?
Mr. Barry Bussey: We are coming now into a philosophy of multiculturalism. In other parts of the country our church, with other denominations, as Mr. Morgan has just highlighted.... We see the provincial governments giving funds to the smaller groups, the denominational groups, as was mentioned—British Columbia and Alberta and so on. Here we have a situation in Newfoundland whereby they're saying they need to have just the one system.
• 1625
Which makes a better multicultural mix: the
Alberta-B.C. system or the proposed Newfoundland system
of just the one school system? Which would be better
for multiculturalism?
We would suggest that the B.C. and Alberta situation
would be best, because the individual groups will
be able to maintain their own distinct identities.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, if I may just add this by way of comment, your group will challenge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador by making that submission. Of course I'm sure that the politicians of the day will be realistic to the reality of the day.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Not seeing any further questions, I will bid both gentlemen a very fond thank you for appearing before us. We recognize that you have indeed travelled a long way. Once again, on behalf of the committee, thank you for appearing before us. Thank you for your testimony.
Without taking a break, I would like to ask the representatives from the Pentecostal Parents Action Committee to appear before the committee. Mr. Randy King, the chairperson, was originally slated to appear before us, but I regret to say that due to a death in the family, Mr. King will not be appearing before us.
In his place is Mr. Ron Mosher. We also have Sharron Collins, the secretary of the committee. I'll call on these two witnesses to appear.
Thank you very much, Sharron Collins and Ron Mosher, for agreeing to appear before this committee. As you are aware, we have 60 minutes. Part of that time will be consumed with your brief, and part will be consumed with questions and answers. I ask that you make your brief relatively short so we can proceed with questions and answers. We look forward to hearing your testimony today. You have the floor.
Ms. Sharron Collins (Secretary, Pentecostal Parents Action Committee): Thank you for allowing us this opportunity. We trust that you have all received our brief. There was some question when we arrived that you might not have received it.
I would like to clarify for you that we are the Pentecostal Parents Action Committee, which is a local ad hoc committee. We represent three schools in the Grand Falls-Windsor-Bishops Falls area in central Newfoundland.
However, for these hearings we have consolidated. We are now representing 16 schools from Deer Lake to the New World Island area just in the interests of having all of our voices heard and in the interest of you guys not having to hear 16 different presentations. For the purposes of this brief, we're speaking on behalf of approximately 3,000 students. Those 3,000 students include kindergarten to grade 12. This represents about half of the Pentecostal student population in all of our Pentecostal schools on the island and in Labrador.
• 1630
When we talk about our Pentecostal
students in Pentecostal schools, you may ask what about
Pentecostal students who are not attending Pentecostal
schools? From what we've just heard, I'm sure that is
a question that would come to your mind.
The Pentecostal students who don't have access to Pentecostal schools live in more remote areas. They don't have numbers large enough to operate a viable Pentecostal school.
We just want to make the point that we're not looking for Sunday schools. We're not looking for 10 or 12 students to operate a school. We are certainly well aware of the cost factor and we are well aware that we need to be viable for our own children's sake, not just for the sake of having schools. But we need quality schools.
I have a lot at stake. I have two children, one in kindergarten and one in grade 2, who have just started on their school experience. I speak strongly as a parent and on behalf of all the parents in the region we're representing.
Other students attend joint service schools. I'm not sure if you've been informed about that up to this point. Joint service schools are schools that are tolerant of all the denominations that attend. They are integrated in nature, but they have a proportionate representation on staff of all the religious groups that are represented in that school building. A lot of our Pentecostals are being represented in non-Pentecostal schools through joint service arrangements.
Further than that, right now we have the right to have any Pentecostal child's concerns brought directly to government, because we have that right in the Constitution as a class of people. It doesn't matter what school they're in. What we're talking about right now is our rights being removed from the Constitution so that we no longer have a right. No matter if it's a Pentecostal school, an interdenominational school or whatever, that right will not be present in the proposed Term 17. These are some of our concerns.
As a class of people, Pentecostal parents want to maintain Christian influence, not merely religious influence.
As you have already seen from our brief, we've tried to show you that Pentecostal parents have been involved in education of their children in Newfoundland since the denomination began in the 1930s. Many of the first schools were built by the parents and concerned Pentecostals, through their own funding, at their own expense. At the time this was necessary. The Pentecostal assemblies decided to help by operating community schools, because we weren't recognized by the government for educational purposes.
There were no roads; we're talking about a very rural situation. This was done out of necessity. We didn't jump into schools because we thought it would be lots of fun; we were sort of forced into it. Having done that and worked for it and put our time and energies into it, we still feel that since we've done this, since we've seen how well our schools operate and we since have had our rights enshrined in the Constitution, we wish to continue having those rights.
The schools we represent include the very oldest Pentecostal schools. In appendix A at the back of your brief you'll see a list of all the schools we are representing. They include three school districts as well.
In appendix B you'll see that we've put our money where our mouth is. We want our schools. We know that schools cost. We want a very viable program for our children. We don't want a second-rate education. We have put our money, again, where our hearts have been. In appendix B, you see contributions for operations over that 10-year period of just over $500,000.
• 1635
Two pages later you see in appendix B the capital
construction contributions being almost $4 million in a
10-year period. We are not wealthy people. You've
noticed that Newfoundland is not way up there
economically, but I think this demonstrates to you our
strong commitment to what we have, and we have been
willing to contribute sacrificially to a system we
believe in.
To give you an amount a little closer to today's dates, we'll just pull an example of the two schools in the town in which we live, the elementary school and the high school in Grand Falls-Windsor. Over the past 10 years, up to 1996, $1,727,871 has been contributed to those two school buildings. We're talking of a population of about 800 people in those two churches that have contributed this much money. We do have a strong commitment to our schools.
Right now, so you don't get tired of my voice, I'm going to let Ron do some presenting on some of the other issues, and I'll return to have a little more to say.
Mr. Ron Mosher (Pentecostal Parents Action Committee): If you're following with our brief, you will notice that we're not sticking specifically to the text that's there.
Following that same process, on page 5 we get into a description of our Christian world view and our responsibility in the education of our children. I'll summarize it by saying that as Pentecostal parents we feel, on a scriptural basis, that the Bible clearly indicates the primary responsibility of parents in the education of children. Therefore, this is why we look at a school system as one that supplements the home and the church and provides the same world view as that of the parents and by which we want our children to be educated.
The whole idea that education can be religiously neutral is really a myth, because it springs from some philosophical base that a person has whenever you promote a certain world view. As Pentecostals, we feel that within the denominational system this permits us to base our education for our children on our Christian philosophy of life.
We feel that what we've had in Newfoundland over the past few years, since the royal commission, has really been a disagreement over a philosophy of education, a clash of ideologies, if you would. This disagreement and dissension is not new. It has been, historically, if you trace the history of schools in Newfoundland over the last 20 years or so, that with different denominations that had specific grievances or specific principles of operation, there were issues and concerns that occurred that went against them. We've just heard, for example, the brief from the Seventh-Day Adventists in relation to some of their principles and beliefs.
We've also had differences in terms of our philosophies in terms of curriculum matters, particularly in science programs and in value-laden like health programs, social studies and family studies. We've even had differences of opinion in relation to our teachers as a group in relation to collective bargaining in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, particularly in cases where we've had teachers strikes in the province, where Pentecostal teachers refused to go on strike as a matter of principle. As a result, there was a clash that occurred.
Historically, in terms of our recognition, we were not officially recognized until 1954, when we began to be treated on an equal footing with other educational authorities, and from there our schools expanded rapidly. In fact, it went from 13 schools with 750 students in 1954 to 53 schools and a student population of 5,174 in 1968, in just 14 years. These rights corresponded with those entrenched in Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. But it wasn't until 1987 that the Parliament of Canada, following the approval of the legislature of Newfoundland, renumbered the text of Term 17 to allow Pentecostals to receive the same rights.
• 1640
We feel that Term 17 originally was not intended to
remove Newfoundland from the obligation of section 93
of the original Constitution, but was intended to more
clearly define those obligations.
However, with the new Term 17 being proposed to you today, we feel that the Newfoundland government is attempting to remove itself completely from those obligations, which means that section 93 has to be considered in relation to what's being done in terms of how the rights of Newfoundland children will be affected as compared to the rights of other students in other provinces, especially in light of the fact that as Pentecostals we have made clear through our voting, our polling and that sort of thing that we did not vote to give up our rights in education. In fact, in a district-by-district analysis of the votes in the last referendum, it was shown that Pentecostals voted close to 83% against the referendum.
In the St. John's Evening Telegram of this past weekend there's an article by Mark Graesser, a political scientist at Memorial, who also says that close to 70% of Pentecostals voted against the referendum.
So it's quite clear that as Pentecostals, as a class of people, they were in favour of retaining their rights.
When the Honourable Stéphane Dion made his presentation to you, he made the argument that since the majority voted in favour of the resolution, the amendment should be accepted. However, we think the evidence shows that a sizeable majority—70% to 90% is what we're saying—of Pentecostals voted against the amendment, against giving up their rights in education. We're only 7.1% of the total population, a small minority, but we're still citizens and parents—I want to make that clear—who are concerned about our children. And now who's responsible for ensuring that their rights are looked after in this vote?
It has to be you as parliamentarians who are responsible for seeing that our rights are maintained. We think this clearly shows Pentecostals did not give up their right to denominational education in this referendum. We say to you that it was unfair and we ask you to protect us.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
Ms. Sharron Collins: I have another bit to say in concluding the presentation.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Sure.
Ms. Sharron Collins: We have other statistics if you need more information and other surveys that support what we're saying.
Before we conclude our part of the presentation and Ron does a short recap for you, I want to walk you through what has happened, especially since January. We've had a roller-coaster ride in our Pentecostal schools since January. I'll be zeroing in mostly on School District 5 because most of the upheaval occurred in that school district. The examples I'll be giving will be from that district.
In 1992 there was a royal commission on education. That royal commission recommended the removal of denominational rights even though 91% of the presenters to the royal commission were in favour of retaining denominational schooling. Why they made that ruling is anybody's guess, but 91% of the presenters were in favour of retaining the schools. In 1995 we had a referendum and we all know what happened there.
In January 1997 school boards were appointed. The government went ahead with implementing Term 17. Term 17 wasn't signed into law by Parliament until April, but in January they started implementing a term that was not signed into law. That was step one. They started by appointing these boards. If you read Term 17, you'll see that school boards must be elected, so first they violated their own Term 17 in step one.
In February 1997 a registration process took place. The Seventh-Day Adventists have already spoken to you about some of that. You could register your wish that your child attend either a uni-Pentecostal school—or uni-Catholic or uni-whatever—or an interdenominational school.
• 1645
Our parents, in all the schools we represent but one,
had over 90% of the parents registering their child for
uni-Pentecostal schools. We are talking about over
3,000 children; 90% of those parents representing those
children wanted to retain uni-Pentecostal schools.
That was their request.
Another little quirk, if you want to put it in that way, in the registration process was that if you didn't register, you were automatically put into the interdenominational category. Now, if we ran government like that, whoever didn't come out to vote could be dropped into one party or the other. It might work in your favour or it might not. That's how the registration process was dealt out. A big problem.
March came. The school boards had all their registration, the parental preferences, and they started their school designations. They started putting the children into these buildings. Parental preference was at the top of the list of five or seven items they were supposed to consider in designating schools. They designated in School District 5 uni-Pentecostal, uni-Catholic and an interdenominational.
When all this came out, the interdenominational parents, who, for some reason, were under the impression that the current Term 17 was just going to wipe the slate clean of any denominational schools, got up in arms and said, listen here, we thought we were getting rid of unidenominational schools, but instead we still have these denominational schools. The reason for it was that these schools were viable. They met the criteria that government had outlined. So we had viable schools under the Term 17 that government applauded and by now was getting close to law.
Because of the outcry of the interdenominational parents about allocations, for example, in the town of Grand Falls-Windsor one child would have to attend five different buildings through their schooling. Any parent would be upset with that. There were major problems in all the administration there, in how the designation was done. That's just one example.
We're talking of a small town, going to five different schools.
The frustration grew, and it eventually turned and got directed at the Catholics and Pentecostal as: if you had all come in the pot together, we wouldn't have this problem. They stopped looking at our rights and their rights in the Constitution. This is where things started to get muddy; emotions overrode logical reasoning, and on we went.
Three weeks later, because of that pressure, schools were redesignated and there were three remaining schools in all of that district 5. The school board had done an about-face, with some interference from the Department of Education. The Department of Education decided to send out a memo saying, excuse me, but parental preference does not have to be at the top of the list, here's a new list. Parental preference was now at the bottom.
You have rules before you start to play a game. You don't change the rules part way through.
This is some of the frustration that we've been facing on a daily basis since January.
Because our school boards weren't listening to us, our government wasn't listening to us, we said, where do we go from here? We can't just all stand in the streets and cry, we have to do something concrete.
We called together our Pentecostal people, parents and the people like Ron, who's a grandparent, who has a large stake in this too. All Pentecostals came together in a meeting in central Newfoundland, for that area. We asked our church leaders to come and, for goodness sake, help us. We need someone who can take the time and resources and direct our needs. They were a bit reluctant. They said, we're not into court action, we're not into all this; normally things are working okay. But we said, look, we have to have someone speak on our behalf, we have to have our rights protected, because what's happened here is total injustice. So, chaos.
Any reasonable person who had been through this process would be as frustrated as we are, and I don't think we're unreasonable in saying that. Our Pentecostal assemblies said, okay, we see what you've gone through. Out of sympathy and compassion and having the resources—and of course we opened our pocketbooks and helped with that expense—they were the chairpeople for the parents. So the Pentecostal assemblies did not come and say, excuse me, but this is what you need to have done. The parents said, we have a need; we need you as our leaders to speak on our behalf. It's the parents, the stakeholders, who were doing this.
• 1650
That was May. Every month has a new colour. We should
put a different flag out for each one or something, but
it was quite a colourful year. In June they started an
orientation process and school reassignments. Teachers
started packing things. They actually got permission
from the Department of Education to close schools early
and send the children home early for summer vacation.
This was before the court injunction was heard. The
court injunction didn't come through until July.
So in June again the government was jumping the gun. It had teachers packing up the schools. It boarded up windows for schools that were designated as being closed in September. It had children doing orientation, going into different schools, getting little prizes, and being told, welcome, this is where you're going to be next year.
Our principals and our parents totally objected to this. We said we wouldn't be part of this. There was court action in the works. We wanted to wait to hear what was being said. For that reason most parents did not participate in the orientation. I didn't want to put my kindergarten child on a bus to send him somewhere else to a school that I firmly believed, if anybody heard clearly what we were saying, was not going to be where he would go next year anyway because of the mess and the injustice of it.
So the schools were boarded up, the kids were off early, and the teachers had their boxes packed. The school books were ordered, and this was another nice little expenditure. Thousands of dollars worth of school books were sent to the wrong schools because they assumed that was where everybody was going.
On July 8 the court injunction came through. Judge Leo Barry said “What you've done is ludicrous. We cannot tolerate this. You're breaking your own rules. You're breaking the law. You've gone too far. You start over again. Everything is going to be as is in September.” So all the decisions, the boarding up, the packing up and the moving had to be undone, which necessitated another few days off school in September so the teachers could unpack everything again.
On July 31 Premier Tobin just didn't want to play the game any more and said “I'm totally frustrated, let's get the churches out of it altogether and call a new referendum. There won't be any questions this time. We're getting churches out. It's not even going to be an issue. As a token gesture we'll put in religion, and all of you know that religion and Christianity are on two different scales. You can have religions that are non-Christian.” He put in a clause that was supposed to pacify us by saying we'll have a religion course, but that's not what we're about.
August came and there was a referendum campaign. The government would not allow funding for the no side to present its views, but it went ahead and spent our taxpayer dollars to present their yes side.
On referendum day we know the vote ended up to be 72.7% yes and 27.3% no. The proposed amendment was quickly passed through the House of Assembly and rushed to Ottawa. In light of all the confusion that was going on from January to the time of the September referendum, I don't think anybody was thinking clearly on September 2. I think it was a frustration vote and we have to seriously consider what led up to that, the context in which that vote was made.
I'd like to say again before Ron concludes that I appreciate the opportunity of you hearing us again.
Mr. Ron Mosher: I think you can understand from what Sharron was saying that originally in the first referendum—the one that's existing right now—after Term 17 was passed, we felt there was a due process set up. With any change there's going to be chaos and with any change there are going to be adjustments and so on. We felt with the Schools Act that was done and that sort of thing before Term 17 came into operation, our parents were rebelling and concerned.
But when they did make decisions in terms of the law and so on and there was disagreement on the part of parents in the central Newfoundland area, this disagreement was part of the process and the court action that was set up was part of the adjustment process of setting up a new system.
• 1655
But Mr. Tobin's
government did not let it play out.
In the middle of the game he called a second
referendum, which brought out the specific—how can I
say this—aim and goal of government right from the
beginning, and that was to get churches out of the
controlling aspect of education in
Newfoundland. That's what concerns parents.
They feel that with what they had before they had direct
involvement in education in Newfoundland and now,
with the change of Term 17, education will basically
be in the hands of
government—not
government in the sense of elected people like you, but
in the hands of civil servants who are unaccountable to
the people.
It will be out of the hands of parents.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Mosher, we've just consumed—
Mr. Ron Mosher: I'm going to close it right now.
All we're saying is that right now we have a voice as a class of people and once this change occurs we will not. We want to maintain that voice.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much for the brief.
We will now proceed immediately to questions and answers. We have approximately 30 minutes left. My list is as follows: Mr. Peter Goldring, followed by Senator Rompkey, followed by Senator Doody, followed by Madam Caplan, and then Mr. Norm Doyle.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your presentation, Ms. Collins and Mr. Mosher.
First a question on the financial contributions. What percentage of those contributions for the operation and the capital costs of schools would be by the religious organization? Would you have any number on that? Is it 60%, 80%, 90%?
Mr. Ron Mosher: It varies from place to place, or it has varied from place to place. At one time, about the time of Peckford, I guess, there was a 70-30 ratio, where parents had to raise 30% and the government raised 70%. In some of these cases the parents put in 50% or 60%. It varied from time to time according to the funds that were available. For example, if a building was $2 million, the government might say, we don't have enough money for that, we only have $200,000 or $500,000 to put in; if you can build it, then do it.
So it varies from place to place. In some cases it has been 100%, in some cases 70%, and in some cases 50%.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Is it your belief or understanding that the question was crystal clear all the way through and that people honestly understood exactly what they were voting for in this referendum, that it meant the removal of denominational instruction as you know it? Was that made very clear?
Ms. Sharron Collins: Based on the history of January to June, there was so much frustration that, no, I don't think people were clear. I think it was as much a hate campaign. I don't know if you want to call it that, but there was a lot of misunderstanding.
I think the question sounded clear, but there were so many coloured emotions that played into it that it was just “let's vote with government and get this over with”. I don't think they thought it through.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator Rompkey, please.
Senator William Rompkey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome both Sharron Collins and Ron Mosher.
If you will allow me a personal observation, Ron will remember that in 1968, when I was superintendent of education in Labrador, we created a new school board and a new high school in Goose Bay of which Ron Mosher was the principal. It was interesting, because he was a Pentecostal and yet we had students of all faiths in the same school in 1968.
It didn't last much longer after you left, Ron. If you had stayed, perhaps we would have been able to maintain it.
I do welcome him again.
I wanted to ask a little bit about Goose Bay, because it's interesting. There is a large Pentecostal congregation there; always has been. In fact, it is growing now in spite of the fact that the Pentecostals have never had their own school in Goose Bay. This is a community that's certainly in the top ten in the province, perhaps the fifth, sixth, or seventh now, in population.
• 1700
I know you haven't been making this argument,
but obviously the fact that there hasn't been
a Pentecostal school per se hasn't diminished
the faith of the people or even the growth of the denomination.
I'm wondering if you'd care to speculate on that at all.
Mr. Ron Mosher: I could facetiously say they haven't seen the light yet, but I won't say that.
Senator William Rompkey: You mean the Pentecostals haven't seen the light yet.
Mr. Ron Mosher: Oh, oh!
The point is, it depends on the group of people who exist from town to town. I should say this: as parents, we're not here arguing for schools, really, we're arguing for a voice in education. Even if there were no Pentecostal schools, if there was a denominational voice in education, as it is now in Term 17, we would be satisfied. But we still feel there has to be the right to establish a school by a group of people if they have a viable population and they wish to do so. There has to be that right, but viability has to be a factor.
In terms of size, we could name others beyond Goose Bay. We could name Labrador City, or Corner Brook, or Gander. In most of these cases there is not really a population large enough in terms of numbers of students to make a school viable. A school would be the ultimate in the sense of atmosphere, how the school is run, who teaches there and that type of thing. In the cases where that's not so, but there is still a Pentecostal voice maintained, your rights are still there, as occurred in Goose Bay.
Senator William Rompkey: With regard to rights, what we're really discussing is the right to public funding. You will have the right to have your own schools. We just heard from the Seventh-Day Adventists that in fact they have their own school, but they operate it themselves—
A voice: With no students in it.
Senator William Rompkey: —without public funding. Clearly you have the right to have your own schools. What you will not have is the right to have your schools funded with taxpayers' dollars, as you have in the past. Is that the right you're asking for?
Clearly you will have the right to have your own schools. I therefore would argue that if that's what gives you the voice in education, you will have the right to have the voice in education. What you will not have is the right you had before, constitutionally entrenched, to taxpayers' dollars.
Is that the case?
Mr. Ron Mosher: Just remember, Pentecostals and Seventh-Day Adventists are taxpayers too.
Senator William Rompkey: Absolutely.
Mr. Ron Mosher: So it's their funds. Why should a group of people have to pay twice for education? That's the argument.
It is for tax dollars, yes. All you had to do was listen to the last brief, in which the representative said their enrolment had dropped from, I think, 100 to about 40 because of the fact that they've gone independent and are paying for it themselves. Other parents cannot pay the fees.
Senator William Rompkey: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator Doody.
Senator William Doody: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mosher, in your reply to Mr. Goldring's question on the financing of the schools you mentioned that some of them had been financed by the Pentecostal assemblies—30%, 50%, and in some cases 100%, and so on.
Have any discussions taken place with the Government of Newfoundland for any compensation? I understand that under the new Schools Act these schools will be taken over by the Government of Newfoundland and operated by the Government of Newfoundland—through school boards, perhaps, but by the government. Has there been any discussion on some compensation for this?
Mr. Ron Mosher: I'm not privy to information on what's being done, actually, because I'm not a member. That question might be put to the PAC when they come on with their brief.
I understand discussions are going on, but right now, as was mentioned last time, schools or buildings that are operating for educational purposes are automatically transferred over to the new school boards that exist.
In a number of situations we have schools that are church-school complexes, where the school is joined onto the church. I think where discussion is occurring it's in relation to this: if those schools are operated and/or shut down, who gets what, or how are they paid for?
• 1705
Senator William C. Doody: It sounds like another great mishmash, because many of these schools are built on church property, even those that are not associated with the church. I don't mean only the Pentecostal schools, I mean the school systems generally throughout Newfoundland. Some of them are in the basements of churches, or had been.
I was just interested. I'll ask Pastor Batstone when he comes down. He'll know more about it, perhaps. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. The Honourable Elinor Caplan, please.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Thank you very much.
You mentioned School District 5. Is that the area or the riding with the largest concentration of people of the Pentecostal faith in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Ms. Sharron Collins: We would consider it the Bible belt, for want of a better term. The largest concentration is not only in district 5 but district 6 also. Those two districts would encompass over 50% of all Pentecostals on the island, yes.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's my understanding that both of those districts voted in the majority in support of the referendum that was put forward. Is that correct?
Ms. Sharron Collins: Yes, but you have to realize that even if all of our Pentecostals—and we're saying about half are there—even if all of them, half of 7% in each one, you're only talking of us ever being able to make up about 3.5% of any vote. We have the support, but you can't see it in provincial statistics because.... That's assuming that all Pentecostals are in those two districts, and they're not. They're scattered.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: The representative in the provincial legislature, the MLA for that area, voted in support of the amendment to Term 17 that was presented in the legislature, is that right?
Ms. Sharron Collins: Yes, there was a unanimous vote there. I think they were carrying party line. They were carrying majority, not necessarily our views.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: When you say carrying party line...it's my understanding that there are multiple parties in the provincial legislature in Newfoundland and that all parties supported this.
Ms. Sharron Collins: Yes.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Over the years, have you had the opportunity at hearings in Newfoundland, before royal commissions, before meetings of the provincial legislature, to present your views and petitions and so forth on behalf of your community?
Ms. Sharron Collins: During the 1992 royal commission, yes, there were extensive briefs presented. As I said, 91% of all denominations at that point chose to maintain a denominational system. Even though we had a chance to speak, the commission reported as one of its recommendations the elimination of the denominational system.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Did they use as their rationale for making this recommendation in the royal commission report back in 1992 the view that they felt it was in the interests of quality of student education as well as cost-effectiveness of education in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Ms. Sharron Collins: I'm not as close to that document as Ron is. Maybe he can answer that better.
Mr. Ron Mosher: That's the argument they used, yes.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you. Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Norman Doyle: I want to congratulate you, Sharron and Ron, on a good presentation.
You mentioned Mr. Dion and the comments he made about this particular issue. I want to say to you that there's a fair amount of misinformation going around up here on this particular issue. I have a quote here from Mr. Dion. He says:
You say that 70% of Pentecostals voted to retain their rights in education. Of course, I have a poll here that was done on August 29. I guess you're familiar with that poll. It was done by the parents action committee and shows that the poll discovered 90% of Pentecostals supported the continuation of viable unidenominational schools. You made reference as well to the Telegram article over the weekend in which the political scientist, Marc Graesser, said that over 70% of Pentecostals supported the continuation of unidenominational schools.
Ms. Sharron Collins: The poll you're referring to was done by the St. John's Parent Action Committee and it was done by an independent survey group. It was not done by Pentecostals.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Yes. It was done, I believe, on August 29, 1997.
Ms. Sharron Collins: Yes.
• 1710
Mr. Norman Doyle: We've all been dealing with this particular issue now for about a year or a year and a half since the first amendment. I've received a number of letters, to the tune of 300 to 400 letters, many supporting you, and a number of negative letters as well. I think the two questions that come up from time to time are: what are Pentecostals complaining about, what will Pentecostal children lose if Term 17 is changed; and isn't the assurance of a generic religious education course enough for Pentecostals? I would like you to comment on that.
Ms. Sharron Collins: I'll take the first part of your question and I'll let Ron take the second part. I'll talk about what our children stand to lose and Ron can talk about the other part.
Right now my children have a full-time music teacher in a K-to-6 school. That's nowhere else in our district, and it's paid for totally by our churches. If our schools are taken away from us, and our rights, my children won't have a full-time music teacher. Music is an important factor in our family. Probably it is in others as well. That's one of the curriculum areas that will be greatly diminished. They will have probably a systems person who will cover three schools, and what kind of music depth can they learn with that?
That's one thing. On the curriculum, what my children will also lose is an atmosphere that is totally in line with our philosophical beliefs. When my father-in-law was sick last week my children went to school and said, “Teacher, I want us to pray for Poppy”. He was in the hospital. And that was totally acceptable. It's what we did at home. It's what they have the environment to do right now. In a public system we're not going to have that. That wouldn't be considered a religious observance. You may say the Lord's Prayer at the beginning. We see that as being diminished.
School assemblies: Right now when we have a Christmas assembly we have a spiritual Christmas assembly, we don't have a manger scene stuck in one corner and Santa Claus in the other one. That's our Christian belief. That's our belief as a class of people. We all have Santa Claus.
The crux of the matter is those foundational beliefs of our faith are reinforced in that school, in assemblies, in the classroom, through the teachers' lifestyles, through the teachers' attitudes to the curriculum they present. That will not be present in a public system.
My children stand to lose a whole lot in a public system, in dollars and in quality.
Mr. Ron Mosher: We feel the two pieces added onto Term 17 in relation to the religion course and religious observances were put there by the government as a carrot to the groups that were vying for denominational rights. As a group of parents, we don't think a religion course is a solution. That's not what we're asking for. We're asking for the right as a class of people to maintain a right as that class to a say in education. The religion course we're talking about would be the lowest common denominator of everyone involved in the planning of that course.
Religious observances are not a solution. For example, Santa Claus represents Christmas. The Easter bunny represents Easter. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about schools that are run...and have an atmosphere that's conducive to the beliefs and philosophy of the parents. We're talking about teacher assignments. We're talking about teachers who will be on the same wavelength as the parents and will be bringing out the same philosophies and so on as the parents have.
In saying that, I would just like to add this. We are not against consolidation. We believe education viability must be a factor. We're not talking about having schools every which way and everywhere in the province. We're thinking size has to be a factor. But when you think in terms of a viability factor and a minimum size for a school or a program for a school, when you start adding on numbers, you don't necessarily enrich the program. All you do is increase units of the same program. In other words, you increase your units vertically rather than enriching them horizontally.
• 1715
Size is not a factor, really, in terms of quality
education. If you look at any studies done in terms of
what makes an effective school, you'll find it is the
atmosphere of the school, how the school is run, how
closely the parents are involved, the family situation,
and so on. That's what makes an effective school.
Within our situation we think that the church, the home, and the school set up sort of a triumvirate in terms of the education in Newfoundland, in terms of our children, and that's what we want to maintain.
How it should be maintained, we don't know. We have no solutions for you. But there are other ways that we think should be looked at—other things that are being done across Canada. For example, even in Newfoundland right now we have joint services this year as a stopgap measure, where our rights are being looked after, and there is co-operation between the Pentecostals, let's say, and the integrated group.
But there are other ways that the Newfoundland government could have looked at this and worked with it and through it with the denominations, if they had had the will to do so. But they didn't choose that. They chose to go the referendum route, and with the referendum route to cut out Term 17 as it exists now, to take out all rights that existed since our Terms of Union, and make a complete change—in other words, to throw out the baby with the bathwater, if you want to say it that way.
There are other ways that as educated people, as sophisticated people in the 1990s, we could have worked out a better solution in terms of what we had and what we wanted to maintain from here on to the next millennium.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
Madam Finestone, please.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say this has been a very interesting experience. Ms. Collins, you present a very stressed view of what happened to the parents and I presume therefore to the children over a course of about six to nine months. Believe me, I can sense what a sense of frustration you had and how difficult that must have been.
On the other hand, Mr. Mosher, I heard you say, in exchange of conversation with my colleague Senator Rompkey, that you ran a school that was partly Pentecostal but was a non-denominational school, a secular school, in which the children evidently flourished. They had that sense of church, home and school, I guess, in the atmosphere. You must have a very special way of bringing things to the fore. The school had the kind of atmosphere that made the parents happy and met the best interests of the children. I gather they are sad that you left.
I listened to the prior presentation in which they said they ran a school—there were no children with Seventh-Day Adventists, but they ran a school that was a mixed school.
I find this a dilemma, quite frankly. You've had the experience of running secular schools, non-denominational schools, in a province that 50 years ago was mostly denominational. Fifty years later the picture of Canada has changed dramatically in every part of this country. We are the most mixed country in the world. Certainly we are a reflection of civil society, which I think is something to be very proud of. I heard you say that as a class of people it is Christian, not religious, influence we wish to promote. I also wondered when you said something about instruction is about religion, not of religion.
There are Judaeo-Christian values that are fundamental to this country—that's the founding fathers, way back when. But the way back when is no longer who we are today. We are a very diverse people.
In the travels I've done in Newfoundland—and I have a daughter-in-law who's from Corner Brook and I know something about your part of the world—it would seem to me that from your very experience this should be a welcome challenge. I understand it will be difficult at the beginning, Ms. Collins, given what you've lived through, but it should be a welcome challenge.
Quite frankly, there are many, many people who do not hold to the Christian world view that Christ was the only begotten Son of God and is the centre of everything that we think, say or do. That is no longer the reality, and quite frankly, I think that's a very difficult concept for some people to accept.
• 1720
If you are in an environment where you are taught the
difference of perspective and point of view and can
learn to embrace that difference with respect, so that
if you have contemporary learning about difference, I
think that's the Canadian way. It is respect for difference.
I got the sense as I was listening to you, Ms. Collins, of how lucky your children are. They're in an environment that promotes a sense of values that you hold dear. I feel my grandchildren are in an environment with values that they hold dear. They're somewhat different from yours.
I hope the day will come when they will appreciate both the differences and respect that. I think it's in a non-denominational school where that can happen. When you're isolated, without the exposure to the thinking of others, I think that's not in the best interest of Canada as a multicultural country.
I'd like a comment from you on that observation.
Mr. Ron Mosher: You mentioned, in relation to our exchange with Senator Rompkey, that I was in a secular school. All schools in Newfoundland to this point in time are denominational schools. There are no public schools. Even integrated schools where the denominations come together are still denominational schools.
Denominational education is such that each class of people, as I said before, has rights.
In studies that have been done in relation to bias and prejudice, it's been shown that children who have a healthy identity of who they are, what their beliefs are, where they come from, and those sorts of things are much more open to understand others.
We're saying that within the atmosphere that we have within our schools now.... You see, the difference of someone who is not in Newfoundland as opposed to someone who is in Newfoundland is that we have something and we see the results of it. We feel we're losing it.
We feel that with the way we have run education in Newfoundland, what we have in our schools is a value that we don't want to lose, which allows our children to be comfortable in terms of their identity, in terms of their beliefs and their belief structure. This is what we want to maintain.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Do you not feel, Mr. Mosher, that in the development...? When Minister Grimes was here, although his written brief gave us some pause for concern if you read the mandate that they had given themselves.... I think it was a mandate they might find a little bit difficult to realize. Notwithstanding that, the philosophy behind it is, yes, I believe that you have to know who you are and what you are. You have to have respect for your ancestral history and have pride in who you are. Then you can be more open and more understanding, if you haven't got an environment of bigotry and prejudice.
One of the big fights that we have here in this country, one of the big challenges, one of the reasons for the anti-racist campaign that we run in March, is precisely that: to ensure that there is an embracing of difference.
I heard what you said, that you were in a denominational school. I know that there were no secular schools there. If there were some sense of comfort and assurance.... I in no way want or have the right to interfere or even suggest direction for the development of educational curriculum in a province. Every province is sovereign unto itself in that regard.
But would you have a better sense of comfort about the future were you to have a voice, let's say, where you could look at and have input into what will be the secular aspect of moral, ethical, values, comparative religion, whatever? Would you feel more comfortable if that was somewhat what you felt was ahead of you? And would you, Sharron Collins?
• 1725
Mr. Ron Mosher: What bothers us, or what our fear is, is that we are moving at this time in Newfoundland to a melting pot situation. There you have the lowest common denominator.
We have always prided ourselves in Canada in being a mosaic of differences. I think, or we think, that a denominational system of education allows us to maintain our identity as a class of people. If we are involved in curriculum making, which we will be, as individual people we only have a voice as an individual, not as a class.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: This is my last point.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Please do so. I have a number of questioners on my list.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I don't think that learning about all the other religions brings you to the lowest common denominator. I think it raises your sights to a much higher level.
Mr. Ron Mosher: Learning about them, yes, but not a generic religion course.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator Kinsella, we'll give you some leeway.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mosher, I would like to return to your important statement concerning the latter part of Term 17(2) and 17(3). You said in your opinion it was offered as a carrot by the province to the people.
To continue with your metaphor, should that carrot be toxic, wouldn't it be better to have that carrot in the Schools Act where you can make whatever change is necessary to deal with the toxicity rather than to have it in the Constitution, which is going to put us back into this situation?
And to build on Madam Finestone's point along the same line, wouldn't it be much better for the federal government and the federal Parliament to keep out of curriculum, since Term 17(2), the latter part, is speaking directly to a matter of curriculum?
Mr. Ron Mosher: We don't appreciate Term 17(2) at all, and I think if you talk to the Roman Catholics, and as we heard from the Seventh-Day Adventists before us...we don't think that a generic religion course will prove anything or result in anything as a generic course in religion. We feel that to have the principles and values put forward, it has to be in a system where as as a class we are considered.
So your question is whether we think it shouldn't be there. It doesn't matter whether it's there or not, it has no value.
Ms. Sharron Collins: What we're talking about really is the removal of our rights that are there in the current Term 17. We're not really interested in the new Term 17, because our rights are not protected there. And this is our concern, that our rights are not protected.
Senator Noël Kinsella: But if the majority in this Parliament can decide they're going to accept the request from the House of Assembly—which is based upon an impressive vote in the House that's unanimous, requesting this change—if there is to be a granting to the legislative assembly of that province exclusive jurisdiction in education, then these other matters, which by themselves it seems to me are not static, will change, will need modification.
Wouldn't it be far wiser and more prudent to place the entire matter in the hands of the legislative assembly of Newfoundland, in the hands of the House of Assembly? They want this authority. Then let them have the authority, but also let them assume the responsibility that goes with it.
In other words, if you're not going to win, if you're going to lose the denominational school right.... We've got these other two matters to deal with, and to what extent do these other two matters present themselves, as I put it, as a carrot with some toxicity in it?
• 1730
Ms. Sharron Collins: If through provincial legislation we give over to government the governance of our rights, we could see another January to June scenario. They've already demonstrated that in trying to do something that was enshrined. We had our rights and they've made such a mess of it. If we give them total control of our rights....
And here's another thing. I have children who are in school for 12 to 13 years. The government can change three or four times in that span. Why should the government have the ultimate say for my child? I'm the one who's there for those 13 years. It's the parents who should be having the say. And now, with our rights in the Constitution—as opposed to provincial legislation—we have that right to be heard. If we give that up, the whims or agendas of any government that decides to take over and gets elected can alter a provincial document. What I see as being stronger is our right in the Constitution. It's probably just a matter of trust. They don't have a really good track record since January.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
The last question will have to go to Senator Pearson, because our time has elapsed.
Senator Landon Pearson (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you.
We have heard testimony here that one of the things driving the proposed changes in Newfoundland has been the desire to improve the quality of education overall. I've brought up five children around the world in a foreign service family and I know a lot about changing and not having access to some of the things you might like to have access to and so on. I know it's very challenging.
But because of my experience around the world, I know that the world in which my children and grandchildren will live when they're my age—it will be 2050—is going to look very different from the world we are living in, even now at the end of the 1990s.
The concern I heard expressed to us was the desire to have the capacity to prepare Newfoundland's children for the 21st century, with some the resources being now blocked in the current system. I've heard about what you're going to lose, but do you think there's nothing to gain?
Mr. Ron Mosher: As a former principal, I would like to have my statistics here to show you how Newfoundland children stack up in standardized tests across the nation. You will find that in terms of achievement, broadening of the program, and graduation statistics, Newfoundland children are equal to and most times surpass Canadian statistics.
In fact, if you had been in Newfoundland and watched a CBC program in terms of our movement and what's happening in Newfoundland right now, you would have found that we are hemorrhaging. All of our very qualified, highly educated children are wanted and needed all across Canada and North America. This is boasting. Take it for what it's worth. You'll find that our children, our students and graduates, find top employment as engineers, doctors, etc., all across the nation.
The argument that the government has used since 1990 says that Newfoundland education does not achieve in a way that is equal to what is happening in the rest of Canada. This is something about which they used to try to persuade people, but actual statistics and data did not bear out what they were saying.
Senator Landon Pearson: Perhaps your challenge is how to keep those people home to create jobs.
Mr. Ron Mosher: That's not my problem.
Ms. Sharron Collins: It's government again.
Mr. Ron Mosher: That's government again.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. Our time for these witnesses has expired.
I'd like to thank you both for taking the time to appear before us, appreciating the fact that it was a long journey here and a long one that you have in front of you. It's one that I take every week.
Mr. Ron Mosher: Could I just add this? We have a petition here. We just brought the one from Grand Falls-Windsor. It is not following the proper format for us to present it to you as a committee, but it has 623 names on it from Grand Falls-Windsor and we have another 3,700 names that will be presented to you on Wednesday. Could we leave this with you?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Sure you could.
Mr. Ron Mosher: These are names of the Pentecostal class of persons who want to retain their constitutional rights.
• 1735
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you both. On behalf of the committee, we offer our sincere thanks. Again, thank you for travelling to come and see us.
Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, we're going to take a 300-second break. That's five minutes.
We're about to hear from a panel of witnesses. Representing the St. Pius X Parent Teacher Association will be Janet Henley Andrews, who is president, and Susan Hiscock, who is vice-president. From the Gonzaga High School Parents Association we will have Dr. Patrick O'Shea, and from the Committee to Keep Gonzaga Jesuit we will have Ms. Catherine Young, who is a member. We will be hearing them as a panel.
We'll reconvene in five minutes, please.
• 1736
• 1742
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I would like to introduce Ms. Janet Henley Andrews, from the St. Pius X Parent Teacher Association. She's joined by Ms. Susan Hiscock, who is the vice-president. Welcome to you both.
We also have appearing before us Dr. Patrick O'Shea, from the Gonzaga High School Parents Association; and Ms. Catherine Young, from the Committee to keep Gonzaga Jesuit.
Catherine, I think you wear your name well.
Thank you very much for coming and appearing before us. We have one hour. That time will be used for both a brief and questions and answers. Since it appears this is one of your preferred formats, I'm open to who will begin the brief.
Dr. O'Shea.
Dr. Patrick O'Shea (President, Gonzaga High School Parents Association): Mr. Chairman, members of the House of Commons, senators, ladies and gentlemen, Gonzaga High School is located in St. John's and has 647 students from grades 9 to 12, who come from four feeder elementary and junior high schools.
Gonzaga is proud to be a Catholic school in the Jesuit tradition, and has been since its inception in 1962. St. Pius X Elementary and Junior High Schools were built on the same parcel of land as Gonzaga, and also St. Pius X Catholic Church. In fact, St. Pius X Catholic parishioners have contributed directly over $1 million from 1962 to 1997 towards the cost of educating the students in these schools.
The other schools providing students for Gonzaga High School are located in slightly more distant areas of the city. I have letters of support from those schools, so I'm speaking on behalf of the entire Gonzaga family of schools.
As a Catholic parent, I am angry and frustrated that I've had to come to Ottawa to appear before this committee. Once again I must beg for my rights—my rights to choose the type of educational experience my three children will receive. It is particularly frustrating to be here after the chairman of this committee has been quoted as saying that most of its members have already made up their minds on this issue.
It is wrong to say that Catholic parents are against reform. We supported many changes which have already taken place. However, at all stages of the process over the past five years we have continued to consistently state our position.
• 1745
For instance, a petition containing 50,000 names
from across the province requesting Catholic schools
was presented to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in 1993.
Parents have written numerous briefs that were presented to
both levels of government.
In the school designation process, held as recently as February of this year, 12,000 parents in our school board and 24,000 in the province indicated they wanted their children to attend a unidenominational Catholic school. Gonzaga High School and its feeder schools were all designated to stay Catholic, no doubt due to the overwhelming majorities of each school community requesting Catholic education. Then, less than six months later, a referendum was called with the purpose of totally eliminating my right to choose Catholic schooling.
No matter how many hoops Catholic parents have been forced to jump through—and we've had to jump through quite a few—it is never enough. It has been a draining, never-ending nightmare for the past five years.
It is appalling that so much credibility has been given to the September referendum, which is of such interest to this committee. Others have pointed out the serious flaws and deficiencies Catholics see in its process. How could a Catholic population of only 37% ever expect to win against the majority?
Furthermore, we feel that all the analyses in the world cannot accurately gauge how Catholics voted. As we were not allowed scrutineers, and there was no religious designation on the referendum ballot, no one, including the provincial government, can conclusively state how the Catholic population voted. All we do know, based on the designation process, is that the rights of 24,000 Catholic parents in our province are about to be lost forever.
I'm sick and tired that we have had to keep fighting for protection of our minority rights to education. After all, other minorities in our province, notably the aboriginal people in Labrador and the French-first-language people, have their own schools protected by the Newfoundland government. Why must I be forced to defend my rights over and over again?
I'm angry that the government thinks a generic religion course will appease us. This course will certainly not make us happy, as it will be more of a sociology course on comparative religions. Yet this was the token offered to those of us who want to maintain a religious nature to our schools. A Catholic school is more than just a single religion course.
At Gonzaga High School the students have a sense of belonging to a strong, proud, Catholic school community, where their Catholic identity is constantly affirmed. We have significant parental involvement and support for this school, partly because there's a consistency in the attitudes and values promoted between home, school and parish. There is a sense of mutual support among parents and teachers, and the students benefit from observing that consistency in values. We know our children will not receive such benefits in a new school system devoid of Catholic character.
In conclusion, we Catholic parents, who wish to maintain our choice of Catholic schooling for our children, want an end to this wearying process as much as anyone. But take heed: we plan to fight this to the end, if necessary through the courts. I and the other parents like me will not voluntarily surrender our rights. We cannot for the sake of our children.
We are saddened that in this democratic country of Canada such a threat to our rights is even being considered. We demand that you uphold these dearly held rights, enabling us to provide our children with the Catholic education they deserve.
Thank you.
• 1750
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
Ms. Janet M. Henley Andrews (President, St. Pius X Parent Teacher Association): Mr. Byrne, we have three separate groups, so what we—
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Absolutely. If you each want to present shorts.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: That's what we plan to do, although we have tried to eliminate as much of the duplication as we can.
Susan Hiscock and I will split our presentation, and then Catherine Young will make a presentation on behalf of the Committee to Keep Gonzaga Jesuit.
We'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today. It's a refreshing change for the no side to be publicly funded for this purpose. That is a courtesy that has not been extended to us in the province of Newfoundland. In Newfoundland we've had to put our hands into our own pockets every time we've needed to protect our constitutional rights.
We hope we're not wasting our time in coming here tonight, even though the chair of the committee, Mr. Byrne, did say he thinks that on the Newfoundland issue many of the members have indeed already reached a decision or conclusion on how they're going to vote. If that's the case, then the concept of a fair hearing has reached an all-time low in Canada.
We sincerely hope you have all come here with open minds. If not, the process is a mockery. Few listened to our warnings about the existing Term 17. We hope that this time you'll pay more attention to our needs and our concerns.
Ms. Susan Hiscock (Vice-President, St. Pius X Parent Teacher Association): The St. Pius X Parent Teacher Association represents the parents of the roughly 500 students of the St. Pius X Elementary and the St. Pius X Junior High Schools in St. John's, Newfoundland. The schools are K to 4 and grades 5 to 8.
Our grade 4 students scored highest in the school district in the 1996 Canadian test of basic skills, scoring in the 83rd percentile for Canada.
In February and March 1997 we participated in the Newfoundland government's school registration process. In this process, parents and the province were given the opportunity to indicate whether they preferred a Roman Catholic or an interdenominational school for each of their children.
Despite a process that the Newfoundland Supreme Court has declared to be biased against unidenominational schools, 86% of the total population of the elementary school and 80% of the total population of the junior high school were re-registered for unidenominational Roman Catholic schools. This represented 96% and 91%, respectively, of those who actually registered.
In the Avalon East school district, similar results were obtained at Roncalli Elementary, Saint Francis of Assisi, Gonzaga High School, St. Bonaventure's, St. Patricks Hall, Mary Queen of Peace, Brother Rice High School and St. Teresa's, among others.
In spite of this strong support and the obvious preference of parents in these schools, the Newfoundland government proposes that our schools and every other Roman Catholic school in the province shall become a public school for September 1998. Given the level of commitment shown by parents at St. Pius X and elsewhere in the district, this is unjust, unwarranted and shows a complete disregard for our rights, our beliefs and the investment we have made in our school and school buildings.
In the case of both St. Pius X Elementary and the junior high school, the existing school buildings were built on a 50-50 cost-shared basis between the school board and the parish. In other words, 50% of the capital cost was paid from the Roman Catholic capital grant and 50% was paid for by the people of St. Pius X parish.
Attached to our brief is a letter from the parish outlining what it has invested in these two buildings over the years. It amounts to more than $1 million. As parents we have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the acquisition of computers, library books, furniture, carpet and flooring, supplies, curtains and cafeteria equipment over the last ten years. Our fund-raising efforts have averaged more than $15,000 per year over at least the last eight years.
The Newfoundland government plans to take our buildings and their contents and make them into public schools without providing one cent of compensation for the buildings or their contents. This amounts to expropriation without compensation. It is grossly unfair to us.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: We are constantly asked, what is special about a Catholic school? A Catholic school is a collaboration among parents, the school, and the parish or community it serves. It's a supportive environment where Roman Catholic teachings, moral and theological, are promoted and supported.
• 1755
We teach respect for the beliefs of others, not just
tolerance. In a Catholic school, we get respect for
our religious beliefs, not just tolerance. Equally
important, in a Catholic school, children can practice
their faith openly, attend sacramental preparations,
and participate in liturgies in the school and the
church without apology and without feeling they are
missing out on something else.
Some argue that Catholic schooling amounts to segregation. We disagree. Our children associate daily with children of other faiths in their neighbourhoods in their extracurricular activities and in the community. They're also exposed to a variety of beliefs and opinions through the media and television. Sending a child to a Catholic school is a choice for an education where the daily influences on the child's spiritual and personal development mirror the influences that the parents seek to impart at home.
We understand that this week you will hear from a Newfoundland political scientist, Mark Graesser, who will try to persuade you that a majority of Roman Catholics voted yes. In our opinion, Mr. Graesser is biased. He is a long-time supporter of having public schools and eliminating denominational schools.
He was the author of a letter to the Williams Royal Commission on Education in 1991, after 90% of the submissions received were in favour of continuing the denominational system. He suggested in his letter that it was a good time to conduct a public opinion poll since the Catholic church was in crisis due to sexual abuse charges. He then got hired to do it. The letter exists in three different filing systems.
In a paper presented in Victoria on May 27 to 29, 1990, at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Mr. Graesser also promoted activism in changing the system in light of the crisis in the Roman Catholic community. I have a copy of the paper.
The Newfoundland government deliberately chose a general referendum. It deliberately chose not to know how a majority of Roman Catholics and Pentecostals feel about eliminating their rights. Neither Mr. Graesser nor the Newfoundland government is in a position to guess or speculate on who voted or how they voted.
The only objective measure of support for Roman Catholic schools is the result of the government-sponsored registration process, which took place in February and March of this year. That process asked the express question of whether parents preferred uni-denominational or common schools.
As we indicated, 24,000 Roman Catholic children were re-registered in Roman Catholic schools in that registration process. That's more than 60% of the total number of children who were attending Roman Catholic schools in the province. Our St. Pius X schools are located in the Avalon East school district. In that district, 12,000 students registered a preference for Roman Catholic schools. An analysis of the results is attached to our brief.
The overall turnout in Roman Catholic schools, at 75%, was much higher than in the referendum. Two-thirds of the total population in Avalon East Roman Catholic schools actively re-registered for Roman Catholic schools. Of those who actually registered, 85% chose Roman Catholic schools. This is in stark contrast to the results of the referendum in which only 53% of eligible voters turned out and in which only 37% of the eligible voters in the province voted yes.
Our demands are very simple. We want to be able to continue to have Roman Catholic schools where parents want them and when they are viable. We want the right to choose the type of education we believe is best for our children. Our choice of Roman Catholic schools is no different from the choice made by parents for French immersion or French-first-language schools.
We don't need school boards. Our schools could be publicly funded independent schools with parent boards of directors. We need not interfere with public school boards. Catholic schools can be independent of such boards.
• 1800
In conclusion, we've
been fighting this battle now for eight years. We've
spent a lot of money and time trying to protect our
freedom of choice and our freedom of religion. In the
last eighteen months we have participated in six separate
hearings or consultation processes focused on
eliminating Roman Catholic schools. We are tired. We
are cranky. We are fed up.
We have been called on to defend our rights fourteen times in the last five years. The Wells government and the Tobin government have had the same mantra: bully the Catholics and the Pentecostals and if anything goes wrong blame them.
We thought the issue was resolved with the new Term 17 and we took comfort from the representations of the Newfoundland government at the Senate hearings in 1996, although we questioned their real intent. From the day the House of Commons passed the Term 17 amendment, it has been clear that the Newfoundland government is doing all it can to make it difficult for us to exercise our remaining rights.
Apparently we were not intended to exercise those newly modified rights because at our first attempt to enforce them the government response was to take them away altogether. That is not good faith. That is not a respect for rights. It is not a respect for choice.
The Parliament of Canada is supposed to protect the rights of minorities. Some of you have suggested publicly that you will support this initiative as long as it is not considered to be a precedent for other provinces. Newfoundlanders are not second-class citizens in Canada, thank you all the same. Our rights are as important to us as they are to other Canadians.
Some of you are members of other minorities in Canada who also have constitutional protection. If ever there was time to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this is it. Our schools, our children, our parents deserve your support.
Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you.
Ms. Catherine Young (Member, Committee to keep Gonzaga Jesuit): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Catherine Young and I have recently graduated from one of Newfoundland and Labrador's finest educational institutions. This school is not a private school subsidized by the wealthy, nor is it a school subsidized entirely by the taxpayers. This school, my school, is of Jesuit descent built on morals, values, tradition, and most importantly respect.
I'm here today on behalf of Gonzaga's student alumni and the Committee to Keep Gonzaga Jesuit. Let me begin by thanking those who have given me this opportunity to speak here today. I consider it to be both an honour and a privilege to serve Gonzaga in this way, and I empower you to take my words, my experiences and my beliefs into consideration when deciding the future of my school.
It was only three weeks ago that I received my high school diploma from Gonzaga, and as I walked proudly across the stage I found myself overcome with feelings of both joyfulness and sadness—joyfulness as I thought about how Gonzaga had prepared me for future endeavours by giving me a solid foundation, and sadness when I thought about leaving behind a world that had taught me so much about respect and values, a world whose own existence is now being threatened.
Throughout my unforgettable years at Gonzaga I was involved in numerous extracurricular activities, such as the pastoral retreat team and Viking volunteers. These activities did not all take place during regular school hours, nor were they activities that students found themselves pressured into joining. These activities took place on weekends and on weekday mornings, afternoons, and evenings. They were comprised of many students with different ambitions, backgrounds, and futures.
In January 1996 the Keep Gonzaga Jesuit Committee was formed. It was comprised of many teachers, parents, students, and alumni. Through the efforts of this committee we have educated all the students in our school about the pros and cons of an interdenominational education and briefed them on the registration process that was held in February 1997, through information sessions organized by the student council.
• 1805
We have
attempted to educate the public through newspaper ads
about why it is important to keep the Jesuits at
Gonzaga. We have organized both letter and car
campaigns, and by letters signed by parents, alumni and
students who supported Gonzaga's efforts, which were sent to
the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We have organized numerous
student rallies that encouraged many students to
participate in our efforts to keep Gonzaga Jesuit and
to increase our school spirit in order to overcome the
hard times we were about to endure.
We have had two parent information nights that were attended by over 500 parents who had children attending either Gonzaga or our feeder schools. The purpose of these nights was to answer parents' questions as best as possible and to inform them of what interdenominational education would mean for Gonzaga. We have completed a flyer campaign whereby over 100 students volunteered and distributed over 5,000 information flyers in the Gonzaga and feeder area.
As you have heard, Gonzaga students, alumni and parents have been very active in the campaign to keep our school unidenominational. You might be asking, why does she care if Gonzaga becomes a public school if she has graduated? My answer to such a question revolves around the fact that some day I wish to marry and have a family. When that day comes, I can think of no better gift to give my children than the gift that Gonzaga and the Jesuits have given me: a strong foundation built from moral values, traditions, and, most importantly, respect.
Keeping Gonzaga a Catholic school is of utmost importance to many people. This support has been stated over and over again by both the parents and the students. How can the government turn around today in our democratic world and take away our rights? Why do my friends and I have to fight so much for something we truly believe in? Taking the Jesuits out of the Newfoundland and Labrador school system would be a loss to the educational system, a loss to the students who are presently attending Gonzaga, and a loss to the students who wish to be taught by the Jesuits in the future.
I would ask all of you here today to please keep my school the way it is right now, so that future students will have the wonderful experience that my friends and I have had.
Once again, thank you for allowing me to speak on this issue, an issue that has the potential to affect more people than any of you can possibly imagine. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Miss Young, and to all the panellists. We'll proceed now to question and answer.
Senator Noël Kinsella: I have a point of order.
Honourable colleagues, Dr. O'Shea, in his presentation, has levelled an accusation or made a statement with reference to comments of the distinguished co-chair. This joint committee, as are all committees, is governed by the rules of the House, joint committees being governed by the rules of both houses. In this instance, I think the chair should be given the opportunity to respond to that statement, because a prima facie case of breach of privilege or breach of order may ensue. We might have to deal with this, because it is a reflection, if it is true what has been said, and I think the co-chair should have an opportunity to respond to that. Otherwise, the privileges of all members of this committee are possibly breached, because if what is said is true, the prima facie nature of the breach is that our work is a sham, a charade, and I wish to have no part of that. So I think in fairness to the—
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I'd like to comment, if that's all right. Basically, the comments that were made were made completely outside of my chairmanship of this particular committee, so they were not made of the chair.
Secondly, comments that were made were not necessarily quoted completely in context. However, I'm not going to comment on that, because I am the chair. I would simply state that unless there is a prima facie case, Senator, that you'd like to address, comments made outside of a chair being appropriate to comments that were made within the context of being chair.... I see none. Therefore I'll resume with the question and answer period, unless of course you have a further point of order.
• 1810
Senator Noël Kinsella: The first time I heard of this matter was when the witnesses spoke here, so I'm apprehending the issue only now, and of course pursuant to the rules if we think there's a prima facie point of order to be made we must make it at the earliest opportunity. So I simply raised it because this is the first opportunity. I take the chair's explanation about it, and it satisfies me.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
Senator Doody, on a point of order.
Senator William Doody: It's really a point of procedure, I think, Mr. Chairman. Some of the briefs that were so well presented to us today contain some very interesting statistics, and it's impossible to absorb them all and keep them all. Are copies of the briefs available for distribution?
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: We were told that as members of the public we weren't expected to provide the full 23 copies, because it's very expensive. I gather they will be copied.
Senator William Doody: We can manage that if you can give us the originals.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: We have done that.
Senator William Doody: Fine. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Yes, we certainly will. Thank you very much.
Senator Rompkey.
Senator William Rompkey: I wanted to comment on the point of order. Presumably the comments were in an article in a newspaper, and as the chair says, they may or may not be an accurate reflection of what he actually said before he was the chair of the committee. I just want to point out for the record that what is reported is not always what is said. On Saturday I was reported to have said something by a journalist I not only had not talked to but have never met in my life. I just make the point that what is reported is not always what was said.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I take it there is consent of this committee that the point of order is indeed not in order and therefore, with explanation from the chair, the matter has been sensibly dealt with. Do I hear that consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Therefore the matter is concluded.
We will now take questions and answers. Mr. Goldring.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for a very thorough brief, and in particular you, Catherine. I thought that was very poignant.
I have some concerns, and they do thread back through what you were saying. A 50,000-person petition was signed three years ago and it was solidly in favour of retaining Roman Catholic denominational education. There was what I believe to be a reaffirmation in March of this year, when the province was asking for the enrolment of students in denominational training. I look at that as a form of reaffirmation of a strong wish for denominational instruction. So we come to the referendum; and the referendum doesn't reflect that by numbers.
Could you comment on your feelings, please, Doctor or Janet? Was the question fair? Was it fairly presented and was it well known by all?
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: No. The question looks fair on the surface but the reality is that the government hired a local public relations firm in advance of the referendum being called. The question and four others were put to focus groups. They were subjected to mini-polls. They were massaged until the public relations firm was sure the question was sufficiently broad to get the mandate the government wished to get.
If you look at the specific wording of the question, it says “Do you support a single school system which all children can attend and where religious education will be taught?” In the previous presentation by the Pentecostals they referred to the community of Ferryland. Ferryland is 98% Roman Catholic. It has a single education system where religion is taught. So for the person who was sitting and voting in Ferryland, if they answer yes to that question they are answering yes to what they have, a single school system with religion. The problem is that the school system they have is a Roman Catholic school system with a Roman Catholic religious education program.
When the government announced the referendum on July 29, they said it would be a Christian school system. A question and answer form that was sent out to all the households in the province said all schools would continue to be operated in accordance with Christian principles, as they now are. I'm quoting the answer. However, it appeared that when the lawyers started working on trying to come up with some wording for the proposed Term 17, they couldn't come up with something that was going to pass a constitutional challenge.
• 1815
The day before the advanced polls opened, the wording
of the new Term 17 was released. That wording
indicated that there was not going to be a Christian
religious education program, and there were not going to be
Christian schools. So there we were, seven days before
the referendum and with the Labour Day weekend in
between, with an entirely new concept.
So if take into consideration that 80% of the communities in the province only have one school system and then throw in all of that confusion, you feel the tremendous frustration that we have all felt over the last couple of years, and particularly the last year. We have been beaten up so badly. Our people are worn out. I don't know who voted in the referendum. I seriously considered not voting, because I figured it was a waste of my time.
So who knows?
Mr. Peter Goldring: Could you please comment, Janet, on your impression of the Newfoundland government's advertising campaign—the TV ads, the newspaper advertisements. How did you perceive them? Were they informative?
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: They were soft-sell ads—living together, working together. There was never once an ad that asked people if they supported taking away the constitutional rights of people to have separate schools. The issue of eliminating constitutional rights was never addressed. It was all a cosy, warm, fuzzy, little-kids-in-the-classroom type of advertising, with a very generic, simple message. It did not deliver any information on issues. It just said to vote yes.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Janet.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay, thank you.
Mr. DeVillers, please.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I originally had two questions, but I think Janet has answered one with her explanation for the increase in the results of the referendum. The first one was about 52% to 53%, and the second one was 73%. I guess what you just answered to Mr. Goldring's question is also your explanation of why the popular support—
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: I'm no great fan of Clyde Wells, I will tell you. In fairness to him, though, his first referendum asked the question; it said “Do you support changing the Constitution in the manner proposed by government?” It addressed change in the Constitution, it addressed taking away rights.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: My second question was on the vote in the legislature. I know a lot has been said about it being the government's plan all along, etc. You're no great fan of Clyde Wells, but there were other parties in the legislature that voted in favour as well. What's your understanding of that?
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: Of what?
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Opposition parties.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: I have to come up with an answer that's politely phrased. Let me see....
I think they were lily-livered, and that's as polite as I can get. They only cared about getting re-elected and earning their pensions. They saw the way the majority was going, and they went with the majority. I mean, let's face it, in a democratic society where people get elected by majorities, if you're looking over your shoulder and want to be elected premier in the next provincial election and you're the Tory leader, who are you going to go with?
Mr. Paul DeVillers: But in this case, the denominational rights of 96% of the province are being extinguished here.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: But the denominational—
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Politically, if I were running in Newfoundland, I don't think I'd accept your position. I'd say it's not good politics.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: Mr. DeVillers, what you have to realize is that during the referendum campaign, the Anglicans, the United Church, the Salvation Army and the Presbyterian churches all came out and announced that they supported the government. The churches that represent 56% of the population all announced that they were in favour of the government.
We don't have a problem with a public school system. The government can have a public school system. All we're saying is that a right to have separate schools should also be retained. We don't want the school board. God knows we've had enough of it for the last six months to show us it will never work. We want to retain the right, where numbers warrant, where a school will be viable, to have public funding for our Roman Catholic schools. If there aren't sufficient numbers to have a Roman Catholic school, we won't have one.
• 1820
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thanks, Mr. Chair.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you.
Senator Kinsella now, followed by Senator Rompkey, Mr. Doyle, and then Ms. Caplan, please.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Chair.
I understand very clearly your position. It has been very articulately brought before the members of this committee.
The question I want to raise is the following, and it's hypothetical in this sense. If your experience these past three or four years has been one where the denominational school system that you have has been modified against your will, should this amendment be passed against your will, do you think it would be better, from the point of view of Catholic education, that if the exclusive jurisdiction is given to the Province of Newfoundland, which is what Term 17(1) and the first half of 17(2) will do, and that you would be in a much stronger position in not having the rest of the proposed amendment?
You would be in a situation like in the province of New Brunswick, where the provincial legislature has exclusive jurisdiction over education, and where the communities have been able to work out arrangements with the province under the Schools Act. In the city of Saint John, for example, you have several Catholic high schools. You have Catholic elementary schools in Saint John and Fredericton and elsewhere. That is all done pursuant to the Schools Act, and the flexibility is possible because it's not in the Constitution.
I understand completely the rights argument, and I support you on that. But if the die has been cast, if it's going to happen, from your standpoint would it not be better to not have the rest of that—to put the period after the word “education” in 17(2), so that you might be able to do what we do in New Brunswick and still have Catholic schools?
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: You have asked two questions, really. First of all, the premier announced on the night of the referendum, and has said on several occasions since, that there will not be a single Roman Catholic school or a single Pentecostal school in the province once this new Term 17 is passed. There is no prospect at the present time of getting Gonzaga or St. Pius X to remain as Roman Catholic schools in Newfoundland.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: In the public sector.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: In the public sector.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It could be private schools. I think that has to be very clear.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: And that's in spite of the fact that we have half-built the schools and the fact that 80% to 85% of our parents have made the choice that that's what they want.
As for the second part of the question, those two little subparagraphs are largely meaningless. I don't care whether they're there or not. I'm not interested in a generic religion program. Our provincial curriculum already has a comparative religions course, but a generic religion program is no religion program at all.
If we're talking about complete separation of church and state, which is supposed to be the whole thrust of this whole thing, then I don't know what business the government has designing a religion program of any sort.
Senator Noël Kinsella: My supplementary question to that, Janet, is this. If someone does find meaning in the government teaching religion courses and the religious observance provision, if the exclusive jurisdiction for education is in the Schools Act, the present leader of the provincial government may say there will be no Catholic schools left. A subsequent government might change that. The change will not mean coming back to Ottawa. It will mean a change in the Schools Act.
• 1825
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: But you see, that's true even now. The provincial government has the right now to create public schools. It doesn't have to come to Ottawa to change the act to create public schools. The provincial government has the opportunity now to negotiate with the various parents groups or the various church groups. They can pass legislation right now with their exclusive jurisdiction that does exactly what you're talking about. They just don't want to do it.
I know what you're saying, but what it does is it puts us on the same footing as Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, where at the present time there are no constitutional rights for denominational education. But what is happening is right now we have a constitutional right. We have a guarantee. I don't see that our guarantee is any less important than the guarantee of francophone schools.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Senator. I'll pass the question now to Senator Rompkey, please.
Senator William Rompkey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question about something I need some information on. That is the registration process. I'd like you to explain how the registration process takes place. How do you identify people or how do they identify themselves during the registration process?
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: What happened was that each school board went through a process, which took them months, of sending in to the school board office computerized lists of all of the students in all of the schools under their jurisdiction. Every parent for every child they have in the school was sent a form called “information for parents”, which was issued by the department of education and indicated what the process was. It's a four-page document. It came in a self-addressed stamped envelope.
Inside it had a questionnaire where you filled in the name of your child, the school your child was attending, your home address and the grade level. And there was a question at the bottom that said “we prefer that the child named above attend” and you ticked off a box for either an interdenominational school or for a unidenominational school.
Once you ticked off the box for the unidenominational school there was a supplementary question that said “If you have chosen unidenominational, please indicate the denomination for which you wish the school operated.” So for Roman Catholic you filled in RC. Each parent, if they wished to have a unidenominational school, had to put that form in the envelope and mail it by a certain date.
If you didn't wish to have a unidenominational school you didn't have to do anything, because it was deemed that you had chosen an interdenominational school. So the non-returns were all deemed to be choices for interdenominational schools. That was what Judge Barry objected to in his decision. He said that was tipping the balance in favour of interdenominational schools.
We know in our own school, for every poll you send out there are a good 20% to 25% who don't respond to anything. The bottom line is that we know in our school that 86% of the parents of the elementary school and 80% of the parents in the junior high school filled in the form, sent it in and chose RC. The same thing at Gonzaga: 82% of the parents completed the form, sent it in and chose Roman Catholic. There are 20 schools in the Avalon East district where more than two-thirds of the parents not only sent the forms in but also chose Roman Catholic.
We know that there is a significant number of children for a very viable Roman Catholic system in the Avalon East, St. John's area, even though it would be smaller than the system we have today.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): You have a short supplementary.
• 1830
Senator William Rompkey: Thank you very much. That's interesting. I hadn't gone through all the details of it.
People had simply to suggest what school they wanted their child to attend and—
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: What type of school. You didn't pick the school. You can have the forms. You didn't pick St. Pius X; you said unidenominational, Roman Catholic.
Senator William Rompkey: I see.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Could that particular document be tabled, please.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: I'm sorry. The information form you can have with it, if you'd like.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We would like to have that tabled as well, if you would permit. Thank you. And the envelope as well, if you would. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Janet, I don't know if you're aware of the letter that came.... There was one that came to me; I would imagine it went to all members of Parliament. It was from the Honourable Kevin Barry, who's a retired Supreme Court judge.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: Yes, he is.
Mr. Norman Doyle: A retired Supreme Court judge—not to be confused with Leo Barry, who was the judge ruling on this educational matter.
Judge Barry says in this letter that he sent to me:
He says here—and there's only one more line left:
So the nub of the issue, I guess, is what you consider religious education to be. In Newfoundland, I guess religious education means religious education in your own particular faith.
It's quite an eye-opener. You have a legal background and I want you to comment on that. I'm sure there must be some validity in it, or else Mr. Berry wouldn't have said it.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: I think what he says is true. But what you have to understand in the context of the confusion is that in 1990 we had a totally denominational education system. If you went to an integrated school, you got a generic Christian religious education program. If you went to a Catholic school, you got a Catholic program. If you went to a Pentecostal school, you got a Pentecostal program.
Then the government proposed the first amendment to Term 17. At that point they were promoting interdenominational schools—not public schools, but a new animal, never before seen in Canada, called an interdenominational school. Children of all faiths would go to an interdenominational school, but they would all have access to their own religious education program. Catholic children would get a Catholic education program, etc. That was 1996.
In 1997 we have a new referendum with a reference to religion, and yet what's promoted is a public school system, which Newfoundland has never seen before, has no concept of and that is going to offer a non-denominational, non-Christian—and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, but a non-denominational teaching about religion. It is something that is completely different from what we're used to.
If you talk to any one of us, you'll find we're constantly stumbling over interdenominational, public, uni-denominational. All this is new terminology, and the different concepts of religion are different all the time.
I agree with what Judge Barry said. On July 29 the concept was a Christian school, and by August 22 the concept was a public school, in the same campaign.
• 1835
Mr. Norman Doyle: The second question I want to—
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): If you have a supplementary, please address the chair so the chair can acknowledge you. Do you have a supplementary?
Mr. Norman Doyle: I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Norman Doyle: My question was in reference to your opening comments. You didn't seem to have too much confidence in the process that's going on here. I was just wondering if you feel that the current process of testifying before the committee will serve to amend or stop the proposed amendment, and I'm just wondering if you feel that you're bearing witness in support of a school system that you expect to be eliminated forever. Do you have any confidence in this system that you're going through right now? Or is that a fair question?
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: It's a fair question. I came with a group of ten parents to Parliament Hill in 1996 just before this matter was dealt with by the House of Commons, and I have never been so disillusioned in my entire life. I was used to gutter politics in Newfoundland, but I expected better of Ottawa, to be perfectly honest, and I didn't see it.
We're here today. We're trying again. We have a story to tell. We think we've been abused. We think that people are taking advantage of us. And what can we do?
When all of this is said and done, whatever you do, I have to look at myself in the mirror in the morning and I have to be able to say to myself, “If it's lost, it's not for anything that I didn't do.”
Ms. Susan Hiscock: Can I also respond to that?
I have no political experience other than my experience as a parent on the PTA, which is not a whole lot. I have no real expectations of this committee. I'm not even really sure what the quorum is or what everybody's position around the table is, or in fact who will make the decision, what the deciding vote will be and where it's even going to go.
I do not want to be insulting, but if this were a classroom environment an awful lot of people at this table would be in detention by now. I don't feel really comfortable in the response that I'm generally seeing. I see a lot of people who aren't even really listening—or who don't appear to be listening—or who are talking while people are speaking. I don't have a lot of confidence. I feel that we're in a puppet situation. I'm not sure that we'll have a whole lot of impact. I don't know.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Madam Caplan has a question for these witnesses.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to assure you that we are listening, that I am listening. I don't consider this to be anything other than an important part of the process, but it's a process that has a long history.
I am a new member of the House of Commons. I was elected in June. So I personally have no history, but I'm aware of the history, and I know that this is something that Newfoundland has been discussing and debating since...well, we've heard it's been eight to ten years.
I also visited Newfoundland this summer so that I could just talk to ordinary people and get a sense of the history in order to be able to really understand what was going on. And I find it difficult to buy the premise that you're putting forward, which says that notwithstanding the debate of a royal commission and notwithstanding the fact that you had a previous amendment, a court decision, a second proposed amendment and two referenda, the people of Newfoundland were confused and did not understand what the government was proposing when it proposed this new amendment on public schools.
I come from a province where we have had public schools. I know that my province is different from Newfoundland, but I respect the democratic process within the province and I am also aware that while you say that your premier has said—and I know that he has—that it is not his intention to fund denominational schools, that is something, notwithstanding this change in the term, that could be done in the future if that is the will of the majority of the population of Newfoundland, just as each province across this country has jurisdictional responsibility for education and chooses to fund alternative schools if they wish, and just as they choose to provide different educational opportunities appropriate to their provinces.
Maybe this is a long preamble to the question, and I appreciate your patience, Mr. Chair.
• 1840
My question: Given the unanimous support in
your national assembly by members of all parties, many
of whom represent very significant Roman Catholic
communities and Pentecostal communities, how can you
dismiss as lily-livered the views of those people who
have to stand before their electorate and justify their
vote on an issue that is one people feel very
passionate about?
Ms. Susan Hiscock: First of all, when you look at Roman Catholics comprising, I think, 37% of the population, if all 37% voted—it's only the adults who can vote—you would never get a majority win, anyway. How can you vote on an issue that has a minority base and expect a majority result in the general population? That's issue number one.
Issue number two is this: If you went around district by district and saw that every district had a majority population that voted for the change, for every member the expectation is that you support your party. You don't go against the will of the people in a majority vote. However, how can you put a minority issue and right to the vote of the majority?
You wouldn't be able to do it for aboriginal rights or for French language rights in this country. Let's put French language rights to the vote of the common people of Canada, across Canada. What's the percentage of English versus French? It would never come out. It's a similar thing here; 37% of our Roman Catholics are not going to win a majority vote.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: I have one supplementary. I hear what you say and I want you to know I understand what you're saying, but we know there are constituencies where there are very significant Catholic majorities within the constituency. All of those people just didn't—
Ms. Susan Hiscock: Sorry. Let's look at the southern shore. The southern shore is in the middle of a major economic crisis. They have no kids. The percentage of their families who were even there.... You have people voting who don't even have kids in school. The issue was not relevant to them on the—
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Is your position that only people with children in school should be able to vote?
Ms. Susan Hiscock: No, not at all. What I'm saying is the relevance of the question—
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Excuse me. Please, order. One question, one answer is the procedure of this committee. Otherwise, we will have to put you in detention.
Ms. Susan Hiscock: Sorry.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I'll now move to Mr. Bélanger, please, if the question has been answered satisfactorily to the members.
Senator Noël Kinsella: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman—and I apologize for raising it—there's no excuse for our two clerks, having received a copy of the brief of these witnesses about three-quarters of an hour ago, not to have been able to go out and have a photocopy made and delivered to the honourable members of this committee.
My request to the chair is that when witnesses come in and they bring with them a copy of their brief and pass it to our clerks, our clerks are instructed to go out and make a photocopy of it and distribute it. It would only take, I would guess, ten minutes.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Your point is taken.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Chair.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We will attempt to improve the efficiency of that particular service. I have spoken to the clerk directly about this. He has assured me that there was a technical problem that related to the provision of photocopying services. However, I will note your concerns and we will endeavour to provide a faster, more expedient service in the future.
Now Mr. Bélanger, please.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been relatively quiet, so I hope you'll bear with me for more than 30 seconds.
Madam Henley Andrews and Madam Hiscock, if I deserve to be sent away you'll let me know. If my mind has wandered, it's because of the...I won't say the quality of your presentation in terms of its earnestness. It's direct and rather frank, whether we like it or not, and I appreciate that.
I want to come back to a couple of items you've raised that can become somewhat disquieting. One is that I've sensed—and I hope I'm wrong, but you'll correct me if I am—almost an element of bitterness towards the francophone community of Newfoundland in that.
A voice: No.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm happy to be corrected on that.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: Perhaps I could explain it a little bit. That might give it a context.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I haven't asked the question yet, but I'll take an explanation.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: I'm sorry.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I would like to remind the witnesses that we have a procedure to follow: a question first, followed by answers.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: Sorry.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Bélanger, please, I'd ask you to cooperate in this in regard to the witnesses.
• 1845
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If it's not a bitterness I'll be happy to hear them, and I'll be somewhat comforted by that. But I would caution you in the terms you use or the way you've put them in that case, because I am francophone, and what I consider francophone rights in Ontario and in Newfoundland are true minority rights in terms of two official languages in this country. We do have them, and it's only since 1982 that the francophone minorities throughout the country have had the ability to have their education provided in French. It took over 15 years in Newfoundland to implement that, and it's just starting to be implemented. So I caution you to use that lightly.
I'm going to make a comment that will seem lighthearted to you, and it's not. The comparison I'm trying to draw is that there are two official languages in this country. There is no official religion in this country. In Canada there's a holus-bolus acceptance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 2.(a) and 15, which prohibit discrimination based on religion, which is contradictory to certain terms that were in place such as Term 17, Term 93, and so forth.
There seems to be a general tendency, whether we like it or not, in the population of the country and more particularly in some provinces, to tend toward the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its true application as it is today, as opposed to what it might have been in the past. When you chastize members of Parliament, as you seem prone to do, remember the framework that some of them are coming from.
[Translation]
Mrs. Janet Henley Andrews: I can answer in French, but it is easier for me to speak in English, I don't have that many opportunities to speak French in Newfoundland.
[English]
The truth of the matter is when we use the francophone illustration it is not out of bitterness, but out of a little bit of frustration. I recognize, and every one of us here recognizes, that francophones in Canada have operated at a significant disadvantage, being a minority, particularly in preserving language and culture. To some degree Newfoundlanders have often felt some degree of community with Quebec, and on many other occasions have not.
The reason we use the francophone example is because in Newfoundland this year the Newfoundland government created a francophone school board—no problem with that—for a total of 500 children. We don't question the right and the need for a francophone school board for those 500 children. They're entitled to it. But it gives us a certain amount of frustration that with 24,000 Roman Catholic children registered for Roman Catholic schools, we're told there's not enough money to pay for Catholic schools.
We applaud what has been done for the francophone community in Newfoundland. But at the same time, it's really frustrating to see that one group, with such a small number, can have so much when it's being taken from us.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: A brief supplementary, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Bélanger, you certainly may.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have two comments on that. In terms of money, you must be aware it is the Canadian taxpayers from coast to coast to coast who will be funding the francophone school board.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: Actually, no.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It will be for the most part, because the negotiations are ongoing between the federal government's Department of Canadian Heritage and the Government of Newfoundland to substantially assist financially.
How do you respond to the fact that that community, as large or as small as it may be, has chosen and is quite content with non-denominational schools?
• 1850
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: In fact that's only partly true. On the Port au Port Peninsula the parents of the children in the unidenominational francophone schools actually chose a Roman Catholic francophone school.
In the St. John's area the parents of the 54 children attending the francophone school did choose at the time an interdenominational school.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We should read into the record, Mr. Chairman, the letter that we have received from la Fédération des parents francophone de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. I don't know if you've seen that letter.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: No, I haven't.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It was sent to us on November 21. It's quite clear that they chose not even to appear before this committee because they have no qualms about what's being done.
Ms. Janet Henley Andrews: My view and our view all along has been that parents should have the right to make that choice, that if the francophone parents prefer to have a public school then they are entitled to have it, but all we're asking is to be accorded the same respect.
Ms. Susan Hiscock: We've just had three French-first-language children who are very good friends of my son move to our school, and all are Roman Catholic. All three of them have just moved to our school from the French-first-language school. Luc Clair, Brian Revert, and Philip St. Aubin—all three of them just moved into my son's class at a Roman Catholic school. I don't know the reasons. We welcomed them.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
That will conclude our questions and answers from these witnesses. I appreciate the appearance of you all, who have travelled a great distance, and on behalf of the committee I would like to extend to you our sincere thank you.
Members, if I may comment very briefly to conclude an answer that arose in the previous testimony, questions of privilege are very important and dear to all members of both houses. It's very important that when questions of privilege arise, they be dealt with in accordance with the standing orders.
Of course I hope, I trust, given your approval, that the issue has been successfully dealt with, in that it is not my role to comment to the media in the capacity of chair—nor have I done so, with the exception of announcing the fact that I have been indeed elected as chair by my colleagues.
Questions of privilege are very important. I will simply ask all witnesses in future to maintain a factual account of any accusations that are being made in relation to a member's privilege. That is something I will hold extremely dearly, not in the protection of my own interest, but in the protection of all members assembled around this table. That is something we hold very dear as parliamentarians, and that is something nothing less of which I will accept.
Thank you very much.
We'll recess shortly. There are sandwiches for members and members of the staff, and I invite anybody present in the room to join in as well.
• 1853
• 1923
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Welcome again, members. Thank you for your indulgence.
For the benefit of those observing us on camera, you may see sandwiches around the table. Just so that you understand the life of parliamentarians, we will occasionally take 20-minute breaks for supper—delicious, delicious sandwiches.
Ladies and gentlemen, before us now is Mr. Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Mr. Borovoy, we asked you to sit patiently while we took our break. Thank you for your indulgence. I understand you have a plane to catch at some point tonight. What I will do is open the floor to your brief and then follow it up with a question and answer period. Let me know if you're under any time pressures.
• 1925
Mr. Alan Borovoy (General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association): Thank you very much for that special courtesy, Mr. Chair. I very much appreciate it.
I should tell you that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is very grateful for your invitation to participate in these important proceedings. There is, however, a disclaimer I have to add to this. Since the invitation came at the end of last week, we necessarily have to confine our remarks to only some aspects of the issue before you.
Please understand, that is not said to rebuke you but to excuse us. I put it to you in that way.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association welcomes and very much appreciates the general direction contained in the proposed new Term 17. Our remarks will be confined to the terms of the proposed new Term 17 and not to any of the collateral issues.
Insofar as that is concerned, we think it represents real progress. The state of religious equality and fairness can only benefit by the abolition of special preferences for any denominational groups, even if those denominations happen to comprise a large percentage of the population. This is an advance, as far as we are concerned, for the state of religious equality and fairness.
There are, however, some problems, problems contained in Terms 17(2) and (3). I would like to address each of them in turn.
Term 17(2) would constitutionally oblige schools to provide “courses in religion”, as it says, “not specific to a religious denomination”. The difficult question about this is, what does it mean? How far does it extend? For these purposes, I think it's useful to try to draw an important distinction at this point.
As far as religious freedom and religious equality are concerned, it is perfectly permissible for the public schools to promote knowledge about many religions. What is impermissible is for the schools to promote a belief in any particular religion.
On the basis of the wording alone, it's hard to tell which way this terminology will be construed if ultimately it becomes the subject matter of litigation. But that's what creates the problem. The comments of the current Minister of Education in Newfoundland are not awfully helpful, because as I read them—and perhaps I haven't seen enough of them—there are hints of both aspects of this.
Something that I would find bothersome, for example, are the references to revelation, to belief. Are they talking about simply promoting knowledge about what some people believe or are they saying this is appropriate for the schools to promote as a matter of acceptable ideology for everybody?
Now, that's the difficulty that kind of terminology creates. When he says what he does, he leaves us wondering what is the intent. In fact, it reminds me a little bit.... When I see the term “not specific” to a denomination, I worry whether this might be a replay of something we had here in Ontario a number of years ago. We had here a program of avowedly Protestant indoctrination in our public schools, and they said it was non-denominational. What they meant by that was that it represented a consensus among the major Protestant denominations. That's what they meant by “non-denominational”.
• 1845
So we have to be
awfully clear what this means by
“non-denominational”, and the minister's remarks
don't help that much, even if the minister could
control what subsequent ministers might decide to do.
After all, we're only looking at what he wants to do.
Another troublesome thing is the reference to “exemption”. He guarantees there will be a right of exemption. If this program is nothing more than promoting knowledge about many religions, there's no need for an exemption. In fact, it's questionable whether there ought to be exemption. Why exempt any students in the schools from acquiring useful knowledge about the great religions in this society? On the other hand, if this course is designed as or becomes a course in indoctrination, where they are promoting a religious ideology for the students to believe, then the right of exemption, though necessary, is not sufficient.
Let me tell you just one short anecdote about the right of exemption. Our organization took the Ontario government to court over the program of religious indoctrination to which I referred a few moments ago. Our co-applicant was a family that belongs to the Baha'i faith. Their youngster complained to them of having nightmares that the devil was chasing her in hell, and it frightened her. They learned that this came shortly after the youngster had participated in a religious class where they told the kids that non-Christians would go to hell.
The interesting thing about this story is that the parents resolutely refused to exempt their youngster from religious classes. They did so because the youngster implored them not to exempt her, because to her the experience of being rendered conspicuous by virtue of a religious belief was worse than being exposed to that kind of class.
I cite this example to you not because it's unique but because on the contrary, our organization in its involvement in this fight over the years had confronted this sort of issue many, many times. So I hope nobody will use the right of exemption as any adequate answer to the objections people might have to doctrinal courses in a public school.
I go from paragraph (2) to paragraph (3). Paragraph (3) would constitutionally oblige the schools to provide for religious observances if parents request it. Again, what does this mean? If it means nothing more than that a Christian child wants to wear a cross or a Sikh child wants to wear a turban or a Jewish child a yarmulke, I don't see any great problem with it. If it simply says that the school facilities must be made available to those who want to have religious observances during non-curricular hours, I don't see any great problem with it. But if they're saying that a parent could request a religious observance that could become an activity of the schools during curricular hours, I see a great problem with it.
• 1940
Are we going to revisit the whole issue of prayers?
Are we going to say that it's all right to have
Christian prayers recited in the schools and promoted
by the schools during curricular hours? I would
suggest that such would represent coercion. It would
represent an impediment to the religious freedom and
equality of those families who do not share in the
religious observances being promulgated in the school.
To wrap this up, I could put it this way: I don't know how the courts would construe this terminology. It may very well be—and it may be the better interpretation—that the courts, having the charter as part of the Constitution and these sections as another part of the Constitution, might say that we have to read them consistently with one another. Therefore, the more benign interpretation—I'm not sure what adjective I should use to describe it—or more liberal interpretation that I have suggested to you in each case might very well be the one that prevails. But I must tell you that there is no guarantee of that. Often these things depend upon the cosmic coincidence of which judges are sitting at which times. That is not subject to any exercise in clairvoyance at this time.
So that becomes the issue we face with this. The best solution, the ideal solution from the point of view of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, is to abolish the special preferences that some denominations currently enjoy so that there will be a state of equality, but to not constitutionally entrench the latter part of 17(2) and the whole of 17(3).
All of this is, as always, Mr. Chairman, respectfully submitted.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Delightful. Thank you very much, Mr. Borovoy. I appreciate your succinct presentation, and I will note that you are speaking without notes. It's a matter obviously dear to your heart or your head. Because you were speaking from your head, you do not have a presentation to submit to members, of course, so I'll just put that in for members' information.
We'll move to questions and answers, starting with Mr. Kenney, followed by Mr. DeVillers, Senator Pearson and Madame Finestone. Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Borovoy, for your very allusive presentation.
You began and ended your presentation with an exhortation to remove what you regard as special preferences for certain religious groups, and you predicated your view on the basis that such preferences are not in the interest of religious equality. Sir, do you have any evidence that the status quo structure of denominational education in Newfoundland is in any way inequitable? Do you have any evidence that any denominational groups or religious groups that wish to have publicly funded schools have been denied such schools?
I ask this question because it's my understanding that the structure of the Newfoundland school system is a very model of pluralism, a model that permits different denominational groups and parents who hold different religious views to access public funds for the education of their children.
• 1940
So my first question to you would be, what evidence do
you have, if any? Presumably, you would have jumped on
it and begun the process of litigation, as you have in
Ontario, had you any evidence that the current
structure of Newfoundland schools has denied parents
access to the kind of education they would choose for
their children.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: Mr. Kenney, had we had the kinds of resources you are fantasizing we might have, we might very well have done that. However, I think your question is confusing a couple of concepts. I was addressing a question of constitutional right. You are addressing a question of political practice.
What I am saying is regardless of what the practice has been, whether Newfoundland would fund other denominations or wouldn't fund them is a political question that might arise at any given time. The issue here is that the Constitution entrenches certain preferences only in some groups and not in others. You don't have to look at any experience in order to determine that this is a necessary and unavoidable inequality.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Presumably, you would support the conclusion of the Ontario appeals court in the decision you referenced in Ontario that the equality values of the charter ought to see these denominational education rights expanded to all religious groups. Let me get this straight. Are you in favour of the complete secularization of the public school system as a matter of ideology, or are you in favour of the civil rights of dissentient minorities to access publicly funded education that they choose?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: Again, I have to separate out the questions. I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about the “secularization of the school system”. If by “secularization” you mean it is not the role of the public schools, with public funds, to promote a religious ideology, yes; if you are saying that secularization means that the schools should be cleansed of any reference to religion, the answer is no.
In fact I can't conceive of an education worthy of the name that doesn't promote a lot of information, knowledge, and insight into various religions. How does one understand history without appreciating something about how religions have shaped history, the contributions they've made? How does one appreciate literature unless one appreciates the religious inspiration in so much literature? How, indeed, do we enjoy our multicultural society unless somebody is sensitizing somebody, and hopefully our young people, to the various religious customs in our society?
So, no, if you mean by “secularization” the complete cleansing of the schools from any reference or any involvement with religious subjects, of course not. But if you mean by that promotion of religious ideology, then the answer is yes.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Borovoy.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: I think there was another part to it that I've forgotten, I'm sorry.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We can come back to it, because Mr. Kenney has indicated that he would like to continue on this process. You had mentioned that you may only take a half-hour this evening.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: No, I have more—
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Batten down your hatches, I think you're here for the hour.
Mr. DeVillers, followed by Senator Pearson.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Borovoy.
What the Parliament of Canada has been asked to do is approve a resolution that would have the effect of extinguishing denominational rights for seven different denominations in the province of Newfoundland. Some witnesses have characterized that as extinguishing minority rights. But when we add up the representation and the population of those seven denominations, we have approximately 96% of the population of the province. On that issue of minority rights, I'd just like your comment. Do you see this as a minority rights issue?
• 1945
Mr. Alan Borovoy: From your point of view, I may have an unsatisfactory way of describing these things. I'm not as interested in the dichotomy between majority and minority. I'm interested in what's fair, in treating people fairly and equally.
My argument is simply that when you have a system of entrenched preference where you grant entrenched preferences to some and not to all—and in answering this I will respond in part to what I was asked earlier—of necessity you can't avoid that when you enter into this arena of publicly subsidizing denominational institutions. The difficulty is that at some point you're going to have some people whose numbers are so small that they won't be able to constitute a denominational institution for these purposes, or they may not belong to any demonination.
And we are constitutionally obliged, and I will take it further, we ought also to be ethically obliged to protect their rights as well, and their claim to equal standing with everybody else in our community.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: We're dealing with the fact of the Constitution and Term 17 at the time of Newfoundland joining Confederation. There were seven named denominations. The effect of this resolution, if it goes through, would be to extinguish those denominational rights. As a matter of principle, do you think that when there is sufficient support in the community it is proper to deal with those entrenched rights in such a fashion?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: My reply is that this is the best way I can imagine to treat everybody equally and fairly in the community, and an abolition of those preferences is the best way I can imagine to do it.
This means that people who seek denominational instruction get it from their churches and their homes. We're all equal. In the school we use that to promote what we agree on and in our separate institutions we promote the things we disagree on. That's treating everybody equally.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Borovoy.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Mr. DeVillers. Senator Pearson, please.
Senator Landon Pearson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With your usual clarity you raise issues that make one think. In the two areas or the two phrases that you have trouble with, I'm wondering.... I just want to preface that by saying I'm interested in your comment on the question of exemption, because I'd be very sympathetic to that in primary school where everybody's doing the same thing, but in the secondary school where you already have a lot of choice one of our witnesses who was a Catholic suggested to us that he would have preferred his child to have been able to exempt himself from the religion course in grade 12 so he could have taken the computer course in grade 12. I just want to say there are some nuances to it that impressed me.
Given the issues and the concerns that you've raised, it is clear that there is still some vagueness around what the province will do with religious instruction and so on. Do you think that within their Education Act they can make it clearer so that one Minister of Education does oblige the succeeding ministers to follow in a certain way, rather than amending the term as we have it now?
• 1950
Mr. Alan Borovoy: If they did, what I have suggested is permissible for a public school to do. Of course, for those purposes, it's not necessary to have a constitutional amendment; they already have the power to do that. The answer to it is yes, of course they could do that. Whether they would, I don't know, but they could.
Since you've raised that, I might just use this opportunity to make some comment about the nature of religious courses they may be talking about. That's what worries me. When I hear the word “religious courses”, I'm even a little concerned. If we're talking about that in every grade, I wonder what they have in mind. I would have thought the way to get across that kind of material for young people is not through a formal course, but rather using opportunities as they otherwise arise in the curriculum.
If you are learning history, then you're teaching an awful lot, or you should be, about what various religions stand for, and the same with literature and things like that, particularly when you're talking in the younger years. In the later years, to have a course in comparative religion or something like that, I can see, but of course that's one of the hints I got when I saw what the minister was talking about, that he may be talking about the kind of thing that in Ontario was religious indoctrination but not peculiar to a particular denomination.
In fact, if I can just add this, I recall at the time that they said the course will consist of those areas where all the major Protestant denominations are in substantial agreement, and a United Church minister friend of mine said that it will be a mighty small course.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mrs. Finestone, please.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I would hope that every member of this committee will read your presentation and give it the thoughtful consideration it deserves, because I think you have brought—I'm not surprised about that—a brilliant light to focus on a very emotional issue. As I watched each of the groups here today who have very strong personal feelings that have grown over two and three generations and you could see it was an issue that is burning, there is a great fear that they are going to lose a value within their family and for the growth and development of their children. I had the sense that it wouldn't really matter what we said, that it was too late for them to think in a more open-spirited mind about the importance of this particular country and the impact of the changes that have taken place, significantly since 1982.
I don't know, maybe I'm being unkind or unfair, but in fact I didn't even want to ask questions of some because I felt they weren't prepared or able to hear. So that's why I'm sincerely hopeful that they will listen and take into account the evolutionary thoughts that you've put before them, where treating everybody equally and fairly is fundamentally the Canadian way of life and I think it's what distinguishes us in the global society.
I want to ask you, as I don't believe in this entrenched privilege.... And as Mrs. Pearson shared with me, I lived with “Old Testament boys, please step down.” I know all about that. I lived outside or felt excluded on too many occasions to be comfortable.
When we did section 93 for Quebec, where it was point à la ligne, we are just removing the privilege of Catholic and Protestant within the school system of Quebec. Our own Quebec Charter of Rights and Quebec Bills 107 and 109 would be the guiding principles.
• 1955
It is true they were not entrenched, but there was a
message in the quality, presentation, and reason why
they moved in this direction. There was a lot of
protection, notwithstanding the fact I was very upset
that we couldn't do quid pro quo on access for
English-speaking people from wherever they came into the
English-language system. So there we removed the
special privilege of two religious groups. We moved to
the linguistic system.
Here we come, in this flexible federalism within which we live, to reflect the personality of Newfoundland. It has never had the open Protestant system we had in Quebec. I've never lived in Newfoundland. You talked about political reality in your response. I can't think of the political reality, but at the first table we had I asked why we couldn't have gone directly to the removal of Term 17 and the concept of adoption of language similar to that of section 93 that would move the obligation and responsibility for the development of curriculum, standards, and choices to the Province of Newfoundland and the Government of Newfoundland, the same as we had just done for Quebec.
The sense was Newfoundland wasn't ready at the same pace. You had to go one step at a time and couldn't wipe out the whole denominational system in one fell swoop. There needed to be a sense of comfort as we accommodated to that. I want to know if you agree that if we were to remove, as I've discussed with Senator Kinsella, paragraph (3) and cut down paragraph (2) it would in a sense be what we did with section 93.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: On my recollection of the precise terms of section 93, I know what it generally provides but I don't have it sufficiently in my memory to be able to do justice to your question. I think it would suffice to respond to the terminology of the proposed Term 17, since that is what's on the table.
Though I have promised to eschew political judgments, it seems to me that in getting into the framework of this dialogue between Newfoundland and the federal authorities, the best thing is to do as little as you have to do to what is before you. If that could be done by deleting those parts, I think it would probably contribute immeasurably.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: May I have a short supplemental?
What's wrong with letting your Supreme Court make those decisions? This is the province of Newfoundland. It has made its consultations and had two referendums. This is what it has come up with. Send it back and let it live with the consequences and the Supreme Court will solve it. Why should I have to solve their mistakes, if it is a mistake?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: The difficulty with that is if you are satisfied to entrench in the Constitution provisions that might wind up infringing on religious liberty and religious equality and if the court's interpretation of those provisions are other than what I think they ought to be, and I say they might, then that's why there is a role for the legislators to play now in trying to get this into a form that you can be satisfied best fulfils the values we're concerned about.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We will now move to Mr. Pagtakhan, followed by Senator Kinsella, then back to Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Borovoy. I apologize, I was late.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: Did you bring a note from home?
• 2000
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: If we were to not change Term 17 and proceeded with what actually exists now, would you say that the provisions contained therein would be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I quite got that. Let me try to repeat your question. Are you asking me that if it were enacted in its present form—
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No. Before the amendment, the current Term 17.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: You mean the one that was enacted previously. You will have to forgive me, but I explained at the outset that since I got this invitation only at the weekend, I haven't been able to wade through some of that.
I remember looking at that section and feeling relieved that I didn't have to master it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Well, I'd like to pursue....
You indicated at the end of your presentation, which I caught, that in fact the courts may well give a benign interpretation and consider the clause of courses in religion to be provided by the province, and religious observances when requested by parents, to be okay with the charter because they are being entrenched in the Constitution as amendments.
Did you say that the courts may well give that benign interpretation?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: What I meant by “benign interpretation” was that they would read the sections consistent with the terms of the charter and thereby narrow the interpretation of those two sections. In the case of Term 17(2), it would apply only to the promotion of knowledge about religion, and not a belief in any religion.
With respect to Term 17(3), it would mean nothing more than, if a youngster wants to wear a turban or a yarmulke, it would be acceptable, or if they want to have anything larger than that, they could use the facilities of the school during non-curricula hours.
That's what I meant by a benign interpretation. That interpretation would be one most consistent with the charter.
You might then have an interpretation where they'd say, well, since they're both in there we're going to attach more to this and we're going to allow this to outweigh some of those charter values.
I don't know which way it will go; that's what I'm saying.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: We just—
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Pagtakhan, we will return to a supplementary if there is time.
Senator Kinsella, I'll give you some latitude on this, because I understand this is a witness you recommended.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: You mean, I'm his boy.
An hon. member: You're his Borovoy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Borovoy, for coming, even though it was at short notice.
Turning first of all to Term 17(2), if it is referring only to courses in religion that are of the multicultural, multifaith type and that, to use the language of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, would be taught in a neutral and objective way, respecting the convictions of parents who do not believe even in any religion, wouldn't all of what follows after the word “education” in Term 17(2) be quite redundant?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: Not necessarily redundant, but I think it would not be necessary, because the province could do that without any constitutional amendment.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Yes. If we're giving exclusive jurisdiction for education to the House of Assembly, period, it includes all matters of curricula. If this is simply another ordinary course.... I mean, we don't put, “but they shall teach courses in history”, or mathematics.
If it's not simply redundant in that sense, then it must mean something. If it does mean something, what are we going to think is the special reason for putting it in there?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: That very analysis is the kind of thing that worries me; you could have one line of interpretation that would flow from that sort of analysis.
• 2005
It's possible,
these things are so elastic and the terminology is so
vague and unhelpful, that might be read the other
way and they might simply say, well, they wanted that in
there because they wanted to ensure every
government till the end of time, or until there's a
constitutional amendment, will provide religious
information in the schools.
I look at that and I say you would hardly need that. Given
what political realities are for the foreseeable future,
you would hardly need anything like that in order
to achieve that result.
That's one possible argument which would go the other way from what you're suggesting. But because what you're suggesting remains a conceivable interpretation, even if not, in my view, the best one, I think we would be better off deleting that.
Senator Noël Kinsella: My second question relates to proposed Term 17.(3), on religious observances. If we look at that one from the standpoint of a school employee, whether a teacher or teaching assistant or somebody else, if, as it is now worded, a school board receives a request from a parent for a religious observance in the school, it shall be provided for.
Now, the staff generally are the teachers. What problems do you see associated with the rights of that individual teacher who, for his or her reasons of conscience, may say they don't want to be associated with that kind of religious observance? Would that not impose upon the employees of the school, who would somehow have to be associated with the religious observance, if granted by the employer...?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: In all fairness to the other points of view in this debate, I think we do have to appreciate that the right of exemption would apply, and it would apply to teachers as well as to students. I can't imagine that it wouldn't. So the teachers could opt out.
Because of the things I've said, my concerns around the right of exemption focus much more on what happens to the young kids than it does to an adult teacher. In that kind of situation my real concern is what happens to the kids.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Briefly, and in general terms, can you describe for members of this committee the jurisprudence in Ontario around the issue of opting out? You mentioned you've had some association with that case.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: Both in the school prayer case, where we intervened, and in the Elgin County case, where we were the co-applicant, the court held that the right of religious exemption does not answer the fundamental objection to the coercive character of the public schools' promoting a religious ideology, because, they said, particularly among youngsters, the need to conform is such a great one that they are put, in their tender ages, in a rather difficult dilemma: on the one hand, to go to a class that subjects them to a religion alien to their home, or on the other hand, to experience the embarrassment that often accompanies religious withdrawal from the classroom. For all of those reasons the court held in both those cases that religious exemption does not mitigate the fundamental infringement of the constitutional rights of freedom of religion and equality.
• 2010
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Just as a point of information, is the Elgin County case the case of the Mormon school?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: This involved public schools in Elgin County, around St. Thomas, Ontario. We took both the board of education and the Ontario Attorney General to court in that case. We applied for a declaration that what they were doing infringed the charter.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. What I will do is ask our parliamentary researchers if they could uncover some further details.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I was trying to research that case the other day—Adler, this one, and Videotron or something like that. Video-something-or-other is the other case, anyway.
A voice: Zylberberg.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, not Zylberberg.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We can capture the details of it. Mr. Borovoy, our parliamentary researcher is right here. If you could just provide him with some of the details at the conclusion of the testimony, then perhaps we could get him to flesh out some of the facts, if that's all right.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: Do you guys think I have that at the top of my head, too?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Well, you've been pretty astute so far.
I will now move to Mr. Bélanger to conclude this round, but I will then move to Mr. Kenney, and I see Madame Caplan would like to ask a question.
I told you you'd be here a while.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to explore a bit what the impact would be of deleting Term 17(3). Would we be going too far the other way by deleting that, as has been suggested around the table? Insofar as religious observances would be permitted by this clause, would its absence prohibit religious observances of the type that you have suggested might be appropriate, such as wearing a crucifix or a turban, or, as some others have indicated, having a Christmas tree in the hall of the school? Would the absence of Term 17(3) prohibit those, in your opinion?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: I'll just come back to the examples I used, because every time you come up with another example, I have to think it through.
I mentioned the wearing of a cross by youngsters, or a yarmulka or something like that, and the requirement to make the facilities of the school available during non-curricular hours. I do not think you would require a constitutional amendment to do that. There's nothing in that infringing on any section of the charter of which I am aware.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would come back with a supplementary, since my questions are usually brief, Mr. Chair.
Could one make the argument that the charter, as it stands today, would allow such religious observances in the sense that no matter what denomination or which religion you observe, there is freedom of religion, and that inasmuch as they don't impose on the students next to you, you would be free to wear a turban, a crucifix and so forth? What about the Christmas tree? Would you care to elaborate on that?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: You're a lot sharper than I'm comfortable with.
Let me just come back to the turban business. I think you might very well have an argument that the school denying it might raise some questions. I think the issue then would be a section 1 argument in terms of whether or not the decorum of the school required some kind of uniformity. I would be on the side of those arguing to permit the Sikh, the Christian, or the Jew to wear those things.
Coming back to the Christmas tree, I think the issue there is the way it's done. Is it done as a religious celebration, or is it done as part of a folk custom in our society? If it's the latter, I don't think there's any difficulty, but the former might raise some problems. But if it were done in the right way, I think it would pass charter muster.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Good taste is always de rigueur.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Alan Borovoy: I agree with you.
• 2015
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much for those sharp questions and sharp answers.
Madam Caplan, please.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Earlier I mentioned that I was one of those children who dealt with the exclusion policy, and I have had a lot of time to think about that. The question I asked before was whether the experiences across the country in dealing with those issues of exclusion would have an impact on the courts as they were dealing with this new term in Newfoundland on that issue.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: The question there—really, there would be a first hurdle to cross, and that is, to what extent will the courts feel the need to assimilate the rights in the charter to the interpretation they place on these sections? That is the first hurdle to cross.
If they said that it should be read consistently with the charter and is not an exception to the charter—if that's the way they read it—then I would think the jurisprudence from the Ontario Court of Appeal would be awfully compelling. I don't think what I say represents any Ontario chauvinism when I say that those judgments are really first-class, and I would expect them to at least influence courts in other provinces.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: I've been very supportive of Term 17(2), which requires non-denominational educational teaching, because I agree with you—I think it's important we learn about each other and our different beliefs and our differences in the context of a well-rounded education.
I said earlier that we all bring our own experiences to this table. Having experienced the policies of exclusion as a child, it was a great thrill for me to drag my electric frying pan and my bowl of grated potatoes and go to the school of my children to explain the celebrations of Hanukkah at the time there was a Christmas tree and the celebration of...whether you call it folklore or religion, it didn't matter to me. It was an important educational opportunity for those students at a very young age to learn about the differences within our society.
I have been very supportive of the obligations to teach the non-denominational aspects of all of the religions in the multicultural society here in Canada today. I wanted your views on the comfort children would have wearing the apparel of their religion, whether it's the Muslims or the Jews or the Catholics or anyone else, given the term that is before us, and the encouragement in that it says all of the above are acceptable as part of constitutional law in Newfoundland.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: If we were talking about youngsters wearing these things, I could well imagine that many youngsters would be quite uncomfortable that way. The one thing that could redeem this exercise in that case is that the request would be coming from that youngster and that family. When it comes from them, it doesn't raise quite the same difficulty as a situation where a religious practice is being imposed on those who don't share it. That, I think, is the critical issue.
I'm trying to suppress an observation about how your Hanukkah latkes might be clogging the arteries of these young people.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I was just hoping you would, actually. The sandwiches didn't quite cut it for supper.
Mr. Kenney, we'll return to you, and then to Mr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Borovoy, if I understand you rightly, your problem with Term 17(2) is that the religious education it speaks of may take on a denominational character and therefore be exclusionary. Is that accurate?
• 2020
Mr. Alan Borovoy: It may take on the character of religious indoctrination.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Of religious indoctrination. Well, sir, I would ask you to consider a different objection to Term 17(2) that might come from those whose civil liberties we are considering extinguishing here. They would argue—they have done so before this committee—that courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination would in fact take on a secular character. This would be characterized by religious syncretism and moral relativism, which are indicative of an ideology that denies the possibility of objective truth in ultimate matters. This I think is an equally serious concern.
You have discussed the problem of dissentient students absenting themselves, exempting themselves, from courses of this nature. Are you not equally concerned that a Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, or Seventh-Day Adventist child in Newfoundland might object to the kind of secular ideology, moral relativism, and religious syncretism being imposed and indoctrinated in this kind of a generic religion course? Are you therefore not concerned with the problem of exercising the right of exemption?
Mr. Alan Borovoy: Mr. Kenney, with great respect, there is a very serious flaw in that question, which is the assumption that if a school avoids promoting certain religious absolutes then it's necessarily promoting moral relativism.
I'm suggesting to you that it would be a colossal non sequitur to draw the conclusion that because you don't do the one, you are necessarily doing the other. I would be just as opposed to the school promoting the doctrine of moral relativism as being superior to any religious absolutism. The school has no business doing that either.
What I'm suggesting to you is that the school not be partisan about which is its preferred ideology. Its role for these purposes is to promote knowledge and information and insights into these things and to help young people think relevantly about these things. That's the sum total of what's done by the schools and other institutions.
Those who subscribe to religious absolutes or moral relativism can do that in their extracurricular activities. It is not the role of the school to do either. It simply doesn't follow that if you refuse to do one, you are necessarily doing the other.
Mr. Jason Kenney: It doesn't necessarily follow, but surely you'll admit that it may follow. Such generic religious education courses may mutate into that kind of indoctrination of moral relativism. I gather that you would be opposed to such a mutation of such courses.
Mr. Alan Borovoy: The answer to your second question is yes. As for your first question: could this happen? Of course it could. Moreover, you could prescribe something that is relatively objective. I say it's relatively objective because there are limits to objectivity. We know that. You may prescribe that with the greatest intentions. Particular teachers may promote the ideology of moral relativism, others might promote the ideology of certain absolutes. Of course, those risks would remain.
The question then is how best to minimize those risks. One way to minimize the risk is certainly not to constitutionally entrench an obligation to do this.
• 2025
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
Mr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Borovoy, I'd like to bring you a little closer to politics, but nevertheless invoking the principle of fairness, which you're very passionate about.
Mr. Allan Borovoy: You're trying to compromise my purity.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: For the sake of fairness.
It has been tendered before the committee, at least by some witnesses, that they may have a preference for a separate denominational course for which groups may want provincial funding. Knowing that these groups equally are taxpayers in the envisioned public school system, would it not be in fulfilment of fairness that the provincial government equally grant funding when so requested when numbers warrant?
Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's a voucher system. Is that what you're talking about?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In a sense, yes.
Mr. Allan Borovoy: That is no. I thought I had answered that earlier, but it may be that you weren't here then, and that's one of the penalties for coming late.
The answer to that is no and for two reasons. You appropriately inserted the qualifying clause “where numbers warrant”. What about those whose numbers are so small they don't warrant? They then are the—I hope it doesn't sound sexist to say it—odd man out.
Secondly, what about those who don't belong to any denomination who could never make that claim?
I don't think access to public funding for the promotion of religious ideology qualifies as a fundamental freedom for a democracy. I think what does qualify is the need to treat people fairly and the need—apart from some key exceptions—to treat them equally.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You have to realize, Mr. Borovoy, that in any given school curriculum there will be a core curriculum—mathematics, science, arithmetic, English—that would not be religious subjects by definition. Where these subjects can be transferred to a denominational school, to that extent would not an appropriate funding for those subjects be in the spirit of fairness?
Mr. Allan Borovoy: No, I don't think it follows that the public is obliged to subsidize the propagation of any religious ideology. Remember, as I said to you, you necessarily are eliminating from the enjoyment of these rights those people where numbers don't warrant and those people who don't belong to denominations. So you are ending up in a situation where you are giving people certain preferences by virtue of their denominational affiliation. I'm suggesting to you that democracies ought not to do this.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: If courses in religion will be provided—not to a specific religious denomination—and the whole of subsection (3) is deleted completely, and then the province adopts this as a practice in the legislative assembly—
Mr. Allan Borovoy: Would adopt...?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: A part of the provision of subsection (2) and the whole of subsection (3).
Mr. Allan Borovoy: Right.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The likelihood of them withstanding a charter challenge is less than if they are now entrenched in the proposed amendment.
Mr. Allan Borovoy: Yes, that's true. I don't know what conclusion you draw from that. As I suggested to you, if they did nothing more than promote knowledge about various religions, there isn't a charter problem. If we talked about making the facilities of the school available to certain religious groups after hours, that doesn't raise a charter problem. What would raise a charter problem is if the school promoted a religious ideology or engaged en masse or in large numbers in religious observances.
• 2030
Well, I think that should raise
a charter problem. That would be most inappropriate to
do in the setting of a multicultural public school
where the youngsters of all religions are required to
attend. That would be an awful thing to do to people.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
This has been a very, very interesting discussion, I can see by the look on members' faces here at the committee. I appreciate the thought processes which went into this. You've obviously spent a lot of time in researching the subject.
Honourable members, could I ask one question of this witness? In the absence of unanimous consent, I will not.
Some hon. members: Go ahead.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): You mentioned that you would agree with an education process which would include.... There would be inclusion of religious historical references, or we'll just call it religious references, within the body, the text, of a broad-based curriculum: history, sciences, and so on. You mentioned that one of your concerns is that there may be a potential for religious indoctrination in what is being proposed in the Newfoundland issue, as it's currently being proposed.
If you're suggesting there should be religious reference within the grander body of the religious curriculum, there should be no bounds on that curriculum with the exception of what is found in the charter.... What is being proposed here by Newfoundland is a specific reference, “but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination”. Specific boundaries are being placed as it's proposed by Newfoundland. No specific boundaries are being placed if you put religious reference in other curricula. How would you balance out those two forces?
Mr. Allan Borovoy: First of all, if you're not talking about a constitutional amendment, then everything you do is subject to the charter. It's not permissible for the public schools to promote religious ideology. That is the best interpretation, I think, that would be given to the charter in the light of those Ontario Court of Appeal judgments. At the moment that's the best law there is, and I think that would likely be followed elsewhere. So there you have the boundaries you need.
Then remember what I'm saying. Any good educational program is going to deal with religious material. It just comes up. And they should deal with it. As I say, you can't hope to understand history unless you have some appreciation of the religious forces that shaped history, so the schools have to be promoting that.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): With the specific words “courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination”, are they still open to indoctrination?
Mr. Allan Borovoy: This is what I'm worried about. Arguably, an interpretation might be placed on those terms to suggest that all they mean is that they will avoid disputes among the major Christian denominations. Indeed, as I've read some of the evidence you've already heard, it appears from some of the witnesses that's exactly what they are talking about.
It may be that isn't what would happen. I don't know. But it is so murky and so many of the contributions to the discussions have suggested those things that I'm simply suggesting the best way out of it is to be clear about it. It may well be that the courts would construe it, as I say, in the more benign way I would like to see the courts construe it and I think they ought to; but there are no guarantees in the real world.
• 2035
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. It's been a very interesting session. On behalf of members present, I would like to offer the committee's sincere gratitude for your appearance before us, without prejudicing...it's just that I appreciated the opportunity to ask a question as well. It's been quite an experience.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Perhaps our honourable guest would like to know that in the Ottawa Citizen of today there is an article about author Lois Sweet, which is about putting God back in schools. Not coming from Ottawa, you may not have seen this and you might want to know that I think she agrees with you somewhat.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Sort of, maybe, and I can't wait till you read it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I wanted to ask you a question about it, but I didn't have time.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Actually that book is well worth reading on both this and the Quebec amendment. I just read a copy on the weekend.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.
I would like the committee to move its attention to the principal of St. Michael's College School, Father T.F. Mohan, who has been asked to appear before us.
Father, on behalf of the committee, if I may, thank you very much for taking the time to appear before us. We have kept you late. We have been delayed somewhat because things went over the scheduled times in the afternoon, so we very much appreciate your patience.
The floor is yours, Father.
Father T.F. Mohan (Principal, St. Michael's College School): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am the principal of St. Michael's College School in Toronto, and as a matter of fact I am due in school tomorrow morning, so I am very conscious of the time myself.
When I was asked if I would comment and say a few words to the committee, I guess I thought of the great confusion in this country over education and whether we've even lost the ability to speak to one another because maybe we have lost the language.
I'm reminded very much of the story—I'm Irish—of the man in Killarney who got lost. If you ever get lost in Killarney, or in Ireland, and you ask somebody for directions, they'll probably end up by telling you, “Well, if I was going there I probably wouldn't start from here.”
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Father T.F. Mohan: Or something similar to that. This man was lost in Killarney and asked a man at the side of the road where this place was and the fellow said, “You know, I've lived here all my life and I don't know where that place is.” The fellow said, “I thank you very much. You're the first honest Killarney man I've met in a long time. You haven't wasted my time, and thank you very much.” He put the car in gear and started away. All of a sudden he heard a “Hey, hey!” and he stopped and looked back. The fellow was signalling him back. He backed up and the fellow said, “I'd like you to meet my brother. He doesn't know where it is either.”
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Father T.F. Mohan: So as we get to talking about education, I'm really wondering. Education is a family affair. I hear people talking in other terms. I want you to know that the tradition I represent here is an academic tradition. We're not churchy, and I just about die as a principal when I hear people talk as if we're genuflecting every five minutes, or if somebody writes a plus sign on the board you have a reason for giving a lecture on the crucifixion or something.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Father T. F. Mohan: It really is a little bit outrageous. Teaching is an art. It's an art form and very much a philosophy. That's what I'm really here tonight to tell you about: the philosophy I represent and the pedagogy I represent, which go right back to the very roots of this country.
I'd like an opportunity tonight to tell you about some of the people who are Fathers of Confederation of this country and what they had to say about education, and I'd like very much for you to understand that we're not talking about a service like garbage or street-cleaning or something like that. We are talking about education, and it has very much to do with the fact of a child having a mother and a father and belonging to a family.
• 2040
For 12 years I was at the deputy level of education in
Calgary, Alberta. At that time the Hebrew schools
asked us, the Catholic school board, whether we would
take them in. As far as I was concerned, why not?
That's what Catholic means: here comes everybody; it's
universal. So we were the only school board probably
in the country, or maybe even in the world, that had the
Hebrew schools under our jurisdiction. It worked very
well. We represented the Hebrew parents, but we also
very much respected them.
Nothing's very equal, and I realize that, but there is equity. I certainly want you to know that at St. Michael's the prize goalie for our hockey team last year was a Jewish boy. We have all sorts of people within our school, but we're not about to indoctrinate in the sense of putting their heads in a vice and trying to make sure they only think in one way.
What we do in this particular tradition I'm talking about is invite people to consider. It's very invitational. With this other business where they have to do this and these other things, I can't get anybody to do anything. Even as the principal I can make these kids sit down, read, and turn a page, but I can't make them learn. The only way I'm going to get them to learn is if I make sense.
Tonight, in coming before you, I want you to really understand that I'm telling you about a tradition, and it's a tradition that I'm not frightened to offer to any parent. Parents are the first educators.
Who was the man who did all those Nelson books on reading? He said that some day we must try to find out how these children learn so much and learn it so well before they get to school, because we're never able to replicate that in public education again. Frankly, it's because of parents. I understand after forty-some years in the classroom that I need the permission of parents to teach a child, and certainly so does everybody else.
Secularists speak as if they're not religious. My golly, they have so much dogma I could never take it. I would much rather be a Catholic than a secularist in that sense.
My name is Tom Mohan and I'm a member of the Basilian Fathers. We're a teaching community that was founded in France in the early 19th century. We have schools and universities throughout Canada, some of them founded prior to and others subsequent to Confederation. As you've heard, I am the principal at St. Michael's College School. It's a private, pre-Confederation school founded in 1852. We were founded to teach the poor immigrant families and prepare them for post-secondary education, especially university studies.
Since its founding, St. Michael's work has expanded into the University of St. Michael's College, Toronto, and the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto. These institutions are both Catholic and public. The Pontifical Institute has been referred to by the federal government as a national treasure. When we talk about Catholic education and the abolition of it, we're talking about what these people are doing as well.
Canadian Catholic education covers elementary, secondary, post-secondary, and graduate schools. These institutions are not merely government services; they're communities of Catholics respectful of the centuries of Catholic scholarship, investigation, and study. They are academic and religious communities that share a respect for the Scriptures and the teachings of the church. They are communities that study and pray. This ability to create a synthesis of Catholic traditions and modern scholarship and research is a Catholic academic tradition.
Catholic schools and universities are communities. Their religious commitment and teaching permeates every moment of the day. One period of religious education will never suffice for the work of a Catholic educational community studying together. As a matter of fact, sometimes I think we could do away with the period of religious education. The school, by the very atmosphere and the way we conduct the school, would certainly convey the religious teachings that we have for the students.
• 2045
St. Michael's College School is disturbed that our
Canadian Constitution, which guarantees minority rights
to education, could be withdrawn based on general
referendum or an estimation based on someone's count of
the numbers of Catholics. You would expect that a
minority would lose a vote of the majority, wouldn't
you? Why was a vote not confined to the minority if
you wanted to find out what they wanted?
At the time of the repatriation of the Constitution, the Canadian Catholic School Trustees made representation to a joint committee of the House. Senator John Connolly was a member of that committee, and he made a statement concerning minority educational rights. He said that Confederation would never have taken place, there would be no Canada, if there had not been guarantees for minority educational rights in Upper and Lower Canada. He referred to that guarantee as the ark of the covenant of Canada: no minority rights to education, no Canada.
Minority rights to education are the first principle of Canada's existence. I wonder what would happen to the Constitution of the United States if the first principles of their constitution, which they think are self-evident, were suddenly to be put to the test of modern-day preference. If you change the first principles of your constitution, you eventually change the country.
Was it the original intent of Confederation that minority rights would last only as long as the majority was willing to grant these rights, as long as a referendum of all the voters was willing to say yes? Is it different in principle? I wonder if this process of scrutinizing minority rights will become a paradigm for legitimizing other constitutionally guaranteed minority rights. I wonder whether minorities are going to be that welcome within Canada. Or must we all become secularists?
I'm sure that significant numbers of Newfoundland Catholics who have and are still objecting to the loss of their educational rights are Canadians who are feeling that the Constitution is not protecting them. They are wondering what precedent is being established. Block votes of the legislature or a referendum vote can rewrite history and the guarantee made to them in the Constitution.
It should be understood that we have Catholic schools, not schools for Catholics. A Catholic school cannot fulfil its obligation to parents by teaching one period of religious education. The whole of the academic program speaks to the Catholic culture. Catholic schools do not teach Catholic geometry nor physics, but they do teach and consider the moral dimensions of knowledge. How does knowledge affect my neighbour? How does knowledge affect other people?
All schools have their values and their principles. Secular schools have secular values and philosophy. That was not enough at the time of Confederation and it is not enough today.
The document The Religious Dimension of Education in a Catholic School, written in 1988, from Rome, says:
Not bad stuff.
It was not good enough for the early settlers of this country to isolate the education of their families into categories described as secular and religious. You might remember that the public schools were, in their origins, founded as Protestant schools. I got a great kick out of it here today, as if the public schools were secularist from the beginning. They were Protestant schools. They were religious schools. The first schools we had in this country were religious schools.
Contrary in modern day, religious or moral education is often considered as private, something to be carried on in the home or in a church on Sunday. On the contrary, Catholic schools have maintained their religious affiliation and academic tradition.
• 2050
Catholic schools are successful. You should note
the recent studies done in the United States
that claim that Catholic schools are not only working but are
also successful in their appeal even to the
underprivileged, in places where education
has never taken place before. To do away
with Catholic schools is to diminish
education in Canada.
Catholic schools have traditionally organized their academic programs liberally—that is, students study a broad range of subjects, including religion or theology. For the Catholic school to leave out such subjects as religion and theology would be to deny the very basis of a liberal education.
The liberal educational program of our schools is capable of and willing to face all mathematical, scientific, literary, social, and religious issues and ideas in relationship to each other and to the life decisions each student must make. Decisions concerning life, creation, and our relationship with our neighbour are based on our faith-knowing, our Catholic traditions. Such knowledge is pertinent to all of our knowing and doing as human beings and citizens of Canada. An education that is unwilling to consider religious and theological knowing in relation to all other knowing is an education that leaves out valid human experience.
I heard tonight that you can study “about” things. You know, it's very difficult, really, to study about things when you're just going to say, “it's about”. Is it a matter of memory or is it a matter of coming to a judgment concerning what are the things you're considering?
An education that isn't willing to consider religious and theological knowing in relation to all other knowings is an education that leaves out valid human experience. These people are. They they could be Jewish, they could be Catholic, they could be Protestant. Whatever they are at home, that is part of their human experience, and therefore part of what we would call education.
It is an education that truncates, leaving out things. It lacks wholeness. Our Catholic academic traditions do not fear relating what we know through religion, the Scriptures and the teachings of the church, of what we know through all other sciences and sources of knowledge. Truth is one.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee, that eloquent father of Confederation, defended this liberal view of education in Toronto at the legislative assembly on June 23, 1858. It had been moved by T.R. Ferguson that the separate school system be abolished in Upper Canada.
McGee answered:
There is an obvious metaphorical limp in the comparison between salt and education, and a child's ability to float and possible risks to education. However, for McGee and those of us who espouse the Catholic academic tradition on which Catholic schools are founded, the metaphor speaks clearly of intellectual convictions and deep-seated feelings concerning the place of religious truths in our life decisions and the manner in which our lives will be led.
Catholic education is conscious of its responsibility to provide students with an education that is whole and current and modern. The truth that comes to us through our religious knowledge must be descriptive of the way we live our lives. It is preposterous and illogical to think that any part of the truth can be appropriately, politically, or fashionably confined to certain places or times. Logically, educationally, and pedagogically, truth must take its place in all of our decisions.
• 2055
When Wilfred Dwyer, one of the great Canadian scholars
and educators, described Catholic education he said:
Father Dwyer was anxious that his students be exposed to all truth and that all truth be exposed to the test of being related to all other truth; that each of his students live that truth regardless of the cost to personal comfort or convenience. These same ideas would be repeated years later in the Roman document of 1977, The Catholic School:
Truth cannot be taught in a selective manner which chooses the acceptable and avoids the controversial or that which might ask a great deal of us. Our Catholic tradition asks us to lead lives of faith and scholarship. That makes for good Canadians. There's no necessary conflict between faith and the reason demanded by good scholarship.
Catholic schools are not churchy. It is a fact that they are founded and related to the scholarship of, in this case, the Catholic Church. However, they are not necessarily places of worship. Their first objective is to impart knowledge; to share truth. The first task or objective of the Catholic school is the pursuit of truth; the leading of the young to knowledge. Faith must lead, inspire, and complete, without compromising the academic program of the school. The Catholic school brings faith, culture, and life into harmony through love and respect for knowledge.
I am quoting again from The Catholic School. It says:
It is obvious that our post-Christian society questions the authority of the church. Religion has become a personal pursuit. We have seen many examples of that change, anything from the treatment of the Holy Father in Holland to the public challenge of the magisterium of Catholic theologians and the horrible abuse of children by religious people. Given all this, no wonder there is an erosion of respect for religious education. For many they have been scandalized and they have lost their confidence in these denominational schools.
Yet it's an easy task to be cynical in considering the possibility of attaining the religious and theological objectives of religious schooling. It's easy to be cynical. Something happens and the whole thing is painted that way...forgetting the great treasure we have as Canadians and the ability and what these schools have done for this country.
Other public and private establishments have abandoned religious objectives as not possible nor pertinent to education. The public school system is no longer Protestant. Many of our public universities confine their investigations to the empirical only. Many of our Catholic people have abandoned the faith in favour of secularism. Maybe some of the votes you're talking about are Catholics who have done that very thing.
Regardless, Catholic education has done and will continue to do great service for Canada. The minority rights of Canadians who profess faith in their own religious affiliation and her academic tradition deserve the protection and the guarantee made to them at the time of Confederation.
• 2100
Our age needs an education that teaches the young to
discern right and wrong, teaches principles whereby the
young may identify what is good and what is evil, what
is good for them and productive of a good life and a
happy life, and what will lead to them to something
less than what they could be as human beings.
Tonight I have told you what I do as an educator in a Catholic school. I would hope, really, that these same ideas would apply to the evangelical tradition, to the Hebrew tradition, all of these various traditions that are family traditions in this country. We are going to be very disappointed, terribly disappointed, if the rulers of this country, the legislators of this country, touch the rights that were given at the time of Confederation. I think we are going to be not only disappointed but I think you are going to touch families very deeply.
Thank you for listening to me.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Father.
We'll move to questions and answers. We'll start off our questions with Mr. Jason Kenney, followed by Senator Kinsella, followed by Mr. DeVillers, and then from Madam Caplan.
Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Father, for your very forceful and articulate submission, and your articulation of first principles, something we don't often hear.
Father, firstly I'd like to anticipate a common objection that is raised to the argument you've just presented, and this objection is that this amendment and similar amendments, such as the amendment to Quebec's section 93, would not and does not remove from parents access to Catholic schools; it merely removes their access from publicly funded Catholic schools. How would you respond to this view that private Catholic schools such as the one you preside over would still be able to provide education in the tradition you just articulated?
Father T.F. Mohan: I think it's very true that we can do things privately in this country, and I don't think we can expect that the state is going to forbid us from doing this.
I would tell you, though, that the guarantees are a subject that has been much debated since Confederation. What did the Fathers of Confederation mean? Did they mean separate public schools in Ontario right through to grade 13 or to the OAC year, or was it only up to grade 10? We have had many arguments like that. Certainly the granting of public education right to grade 13 in Ontario was one of the answers to that question.
I don't think you can take family rights and all of a sudden say, yes, you can do that, you have a right to do that, but you'll have to pay your taxes and still do it privately. I don't think we would do that. A crass example would certainly be in medicine. What do you do? Yes, you can get a private operation, but the state has taken over those things and is funding them and I think it should be available to all.
I believe that family education should be available to all. There is a reason why I wrote that paper in support of the Hebrew schools in Alberta. I still very firmly, and we as Catholics certainly very firmly, believe that schooling must be a family affair, not a state affair.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Father. Reflecting on your response, I think it's peculiar indeed that some who criticize any movement toward what they call two-tier health care are quite happy to create two-tier education when it comes to accessing denominational education for parents.
• 2105
My second question relates to the interchange I
had with the previous witness, Mr. Borovoy, from
the Civil Liberties Association, whom I think you
heard. In my question to Mr. Borovoy, I asked him if
he was concerned at all with the proposed Term 17(2),
which creates a provision for courses in religion that
are not specific to a religious denomination. I asked
him if he was concerned at all that this might lead to
the creation of a course that might, to use his
terminology “indoctrinate students in an ideology of
moral relativism and religious syncretism”.
Given your lifetime as an educator, are you at all concerned that this kind of generic course might in fact lead to that kind of secularist ideology, that kind of indoctrination of relativism? Would you have any other comment with respect to his answer to me on that point?
Father T.F. Mohan: Yes, I would. I would say that the first right of educating a child is that of the parent. That's the first point. For somebody else to come in saying that they're not going to allow that to happen, that it's only going to be such and such that parents and children will get, something that's going to be appropriate or acceptable to the state, it's not family education. It offends really. It would be very offensive.
For instance, when the separate school board in Calgary took over the funding of the Hebrew schools in Calgary, we were very sure we were not going to offend the Hebrew people. They were people who knew what they wanted to teach and what their family traditions were. Certainly, we were there to help if asked, but we certainly didn't dictate.
This is a very dogmatic thing that this gentleman was saying. The state is coming down, and the state is saying what is objective. The state's going to say what is acceptable? I think that's a statement that is so dogmatic that it just lacks credibility.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you.
Senator Kinsella.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Chair.
The witness has provided us with a very lucid presentation on Catholic education. I'm reminded of the passage from, I believe, Proverbs 118:66, which in Latin Vulgate says: Bonitatem, disciplinam et scientiam doce me. I believe that is the motto of Father Mohan's Order of the Basilians: Teach me goodness, truth and discipline.
Father T.F. Mohan: Goodness, discipline and knowledge.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Is that still your motto?
Father T.F. Mohan: Yes, very much so.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Not bad. Why might I know this? It is because you made reference to St. Michael's in Toronto, and you work at the college in the institute. From 1910 to 1923, your order operated St. Thomas College, in Chatham, New Brunswick, which is the province I represent in the Senate. That is the only reason, colleagues, that I happen to have known the motto of his order, because it continues to be the motto of St. Thomas University.
I think this would be helpful for members of this committee. There has been a great deal of controversy around whether or not the class of people who have the right for unidenominational schools under the current constitutional law of Newfoundland, as we speak—and in particular the Roman Catholic class of persons—have agreed to have their constitutionally protected rights extinguished. There's a controversy about that.
To what extent does the Roman Catholic bishop have anything to say about what the Catholic community of his diocese thinks or believes? In other words, if the Roman Catholic bishop came here and said the Roman Catholic people of Newfoundland do not wish to have extinguished the rights we now have, to what extent does that bishop speak, as far as the Catholic culture is concerned, for those people? In other words, does the bishop provide authentic interpretation as to the wishes of the Catholic community? Can you help us with that?
• 2110
Father T.F. Mohan: Yes, I think I can. That's the reason I made sure that...telling you today the education we offer is invitational. We have never really discovered the means whereby we could get inside the brain and really twist things around. What we do is articulate that which we understand to be true, and invite them to take part in that truth.
The bishop is something similar. The bishop can't make anybody do anything. He has moral authority, and if he's an educator and a scholar and somebody who has studied and has qualifications and credibility in the things he's about to say, then yes, he does take a position of authority within the school, the same way anybody who knows something within a community takes that authority of knowledge.
Can he speak for the...? He can speak really for the Catholic Church, or where the Catholic Church is at this particular moment.
I think we should understand that certainly theology is something that develops. One of the great heresies of the church is to say that there isn't a continual revelation and growth in theology. The bishop is saying what all the theologians, the Holy Father, and other people and scholars are saying: where we are as Catholics in our understanding of our faith. He says that, yes. He's a chief teacher of that particular area—that's it.
Senator Noël Kinsella: If he tells us that the Catholic community does not agree to give up its rights for denominational Catholic schools, as they currently have the right to, are we to interpret that as being the qualitative response to the question of whether that community has agreed or not?
Father T.F. Mohan: You know, the question you're asking me—I should really throw it back at you and say, would you believe him?
Senator Noël Kinsella: I would, yes.
Father T.F. Mohan: Well, the thing is, I think he has a perfect right to say that. If he believes that that is true—if he's discerned that, he's done his survey, he knows what the people are thinking, and he says that, I think I'd believe him.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Okay.
Father T.F. Mohan: But does he have the right to speak for this? I think this is in the political order, although it does have the effect upon family and the religious life of people, but it is in the political order. And you know it would be wrong for a bishop to get up and speak from a pulpit politically, or to advocate things politically. But I think he could teach people—as I've tried to do here tonight—that if you do this, here is where it's liable to end up, or here's the logical extension of what's going to happen. He can do that. He could come here and say in all honesty to you people, look, the Catholic people don't want to give up those rights. He can say that, yes.
Can he speak for the people? I think he can speak really for the Catholic Church in that way.
Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Chair.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Father.
We really should move on, Senator. We have a few more questions. If there is some time left over, we'll get to a second round.
Mr. DeVillers, followed by Elinor Caplan.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This morning the Canadian Catholic School Trustees Association and the Ontario Catholic Trustees Association were both here at the committee.
I think their position is similar. They both accept the principle that constitutionally entrenched rights can be given up when the majority of the people who enjoy these rights or privileges are in agreement.
• 2115
As for the case we're dealing with in this committee
now, the question of the amendment to Term 17 in
Newfoundland, their objection was based on whether
there's sufficient evidence that the people affected
have agreed to give up those rights. So their concern
is more one of process than principle.
On the point of precedent, they are concerned about setting a precedent. I would like to know if you agree with the principle I've just enunciated. Do you agree that if there's a dispute over principle and process that the precedent set up would be accepting the principle?
Father T.F. Mohan: If there are any questions deemed questionable, such that those rights have not been given up by the majority, I don't think you have one bit of right to take them away. Frankly, as you know, even when you come down and talk of a referendum and things such as that, I don't think this government or the Government of Canada is going to be able to hide behind the fact of just having a referendum for making a decision such as that.
I think that certainly as scholars and people who are the governors of this country, you too must be able to see that justice is to be done. I think that when the Canadian Catholic School Trustees Association—they apparently spoke to you this morning—and the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association spoke to you, I think they were saying that this whole referendum business is certainly not very clear in Newfoundland. I've spoken to some of the people from Newfoundland. Some of the people certainly tell me that the clarity is not there. Certainly the unholy haste with which they've—
Mr. Paul DeVillers: In a clear case, would you accept that principle?
Father T.F. Mohan: If it was a clear case. But here I ask the question: why wasn't the vote confined to the minority? The right of the minority is not dependent upon the will of the majority.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: In this case, Father, 96% of the population of the province was in that position of having denominational rights. So it would be very difficult to identify which of the seven groups—
Father T.F. Mohan: Well as far as I'm concerned—
Mr. Paul DeVillers: It might be one of the reasons why.
Father T.F. Mohan: Of course, as you know, at one time, some of the denominations in Newfoundland gave up their right and became unified schools. But certainly, I think those Confederation rights still remain there in Newfoundland with those people who are saying they want their Confederation rights. I think these are still there. It's a first principle of Confederation, and I don't think you can just dismiss it.
I think you should have respect. I think we all have respect for Senator Connelly's notions of the law and the history of the law and the history of Confederation. Certainly I think Senator Connelly's statement was a very strong argument about the way this country was formulated and the way it began.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Father. We'll move now to Elinor.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: My questions follow along this line of thinking. It really has to do with a very general, first principles question, Father, of how we make constitutional change.
That's what this is about. We say we have a Constitution that's a flexible, living thing. It's able to change. We are given the authority to make bilateral changes with provinces that have been able to show us that their population is desirous of that change.
The history in Newfoundland is very different from the history of any other province, certainly Ontario, where we come from. In Newfoundland, as I understand it, given the testimony before this committee, this is a debate that has been going on for 10 years. It's a debate that was focused by a royal commission. It was a debate all the interested parties and religious leaders participated in, trying to convince the public of their views.
• 2120
There were two referendums and both resulted in
proposed constitutional change. In the last
referendum, even in ridings where there were
significant Catholic majorities, the numbers would
suggest support from the broad community. But if you
discount the referendum and all the debate, hype,
advertising, and all the rest of it, the most significant
thing, given my knowledge of political reality, is you
had a unanimous vote of all parties in the Newfoundland
legislature. People with different points of view
representing different constituencies came together in
support of this change for their province.
My question really is, if we can't respond in a positive way to that kind of history, what does it take if not that kind of unanimous expression of will from the people who speak for the public interest in Newfoundland, who speak for their constituents? If we ignore that, how do we make constitutional change in this country?
Father T.F. Mohan: I understand you. You're saying it is a great dilemma and I'm not saying it isn't. I am saying those rights came at the time of Confederation of this country, and they were given to a minority; not to the legislature of Newfoundland but to a minority of people. You asked me the question and I put that in my paper. I said if you could identify the minority, if the minority voted it out, if there weren't enough, if numbers didn't warrant it and there were so few left who still wanted it, that would be one thing; that would be another thing. But you don't have that type of evidence.
You asked me the question that suggests that. We're talking about a constitution and constitutional rights. I don't think we can talk in terms of so many being Catholic in this area and so draw conclusions. I think the notion of a person's ability to vote on that particular issue would be a very constitutive and convincing argument. Right now, if you ask my opinion, I would suggest you don't have the evidence to deny this minority right.
Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Rey.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Father, thank you for your presentation. Obviously, you can see that taking part in Jesuit education is very agonizing. But at the time those denominational educational rights were entrenched in the Constitution, in the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution, they equally put in place a provision to amend the Constitution.
Since these rights are now being removed within the process of the provisions of the Constitution and don't even require a referendum, it is an additional option the province of Newfoundland took. Would you not say that in this period of the Constitution, which is the very essence of your claim why it should not be removed, the very document that permits it to be there allows it to be changed? We are using that process, so how can it be wrong?
Father T.F. Mohan: It's an interesting question you're asking—how can it be wrong? It can be wrong because certainly this whole business of Catholic schools has.... Certainly even in the repatriation of the Constitution, at that particular time, it was stated that educational rights would be protected. That was one of the reasons why the Constitution was repatriated to Canada, and it's one of the sacred things of our Constitution. It's the first principle of our Constitution, the denominational right, family right to education.
• 2125
Whether you would say in the Canada Act,
yes, there is a method whereby the Constitution may be
amended...even that process has not been
followed in this particular issue. We're trying to
amend the Term 17 based upon a referendum and a vote in
the legislature.
I would go back to my original point, not to be a bore about it but because of the fact that it is so fundamental. Whether we like it or not, I think that has been the interpretation of the beginnings of this country, and I don't think we're going to change that.
I gave one way I thought it could be changed, and that would be if the people it applies to within the country, by individual vote, would say no. Then I personally would wonder whether those people in Newfoundland today who have that denominational right can speak for ages to come. I'm not even sure of that.
It's a very difficult question, I would grant you, and I don't know all the answers, but we're certainly convinced, really, that those rights are there, and I don't think we've seen a reason why they should be diminished or taken away.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you.
We'll now head to Mr. Bélanger and then for the final question to Mr. Goldring.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Father Mohan, I want to differ a bit with something you said regarding the patriation of the Constitution and essentially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was established with that patriation. You said that educational denominational rights was the first thing or the very first right above everything else, almost.
I rifled through that charter, and I want to point out that the first thing we're dealing with is section 1, which is the guarantee of rights and freedoms. They're only subject to reasonable limits. Then we delineate fundamental freedoms—conscience, religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief and so forth, then democratic rights, and then mobility rights. Then we get into legal rights and then equality rights, where again we mention that everyone is equal under the law, with no discrimination with regard to a bunch of other things, including religion. Then we get into official languages rights.
It's only when you get to section 29 that you deal with:
So it's not quite that up front as you might have suggested. It sort of comes after certain other so-called fundamental rights. My understanding also is that there has been a judgment of the Supreme Court that says denominational rights are not on the same footing as fundamental rights.
Father T.F. Mohan: I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have two questions for you.
In your opinion, could we be talking about privileges instead of rights? The significance of that is that the language we find in section 29, and in section 93 of the BNA Act, refers to rights and privileges, and there's a school of thought that argues that what we have here are certain denominations that are privileged over others. That's the first question.
The second question is, when you talk about the minority, and a lot of people do, what's the minority and what's the majority in Newfoundland? Would you kindly give us your thoughts on that? Would it be possible that if 96% of the people are covered by seven denominations the minority is indeed the 4% or 5% remaining that do not adhere to one of those seven denominations, that it is the true minority addressed by this? How would you react to that?
• 2130
Father T.F. Mohan: First of all, I would like to say that if I gave you the impression that educational rights were number one in that, I am very sorry. I certainly meant that it is mentioned in the repatriation, and section 29 of course is where it is mentioned. I think that is pretty impressive, whether we like it or not.
I would suggest as well that what is the minority and what is the majority is certainly going to be one of the dilemmas of attempting to solve the problem of this conundrum of Newfoundland and rights. I do know that it was solved at one particular time by having a multiplicity of schools and school systems. That was one way. They certainly saw themselves as a community of minorities.
What is the majority? The majority certainly would be all the rest. Even within a society of minorities the minority you are talking about would be in the background of all the others that would make up the majority. That is the only answer I can give you. As a matter of fact, I don't even think I should have tried to answer that question because it is one of those questions where you like pistachio and I like chocolate. There is not enough evidence for anyone to say, except that they've already acted upon the notion of minority in their seven-school systems.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. We will now go to Mr. Goldring for the final question.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Father.
It appears that there is a theory being proffered that the sum of the minorities constitute a whole that can be simply fractionalized as a part of the whole and having a simple majority to extinguish all of the rights. The Pentecostals had their values entrenched 10 years ago, to my understanding. They came into the entrenchment as a single entity. I have a problem with seeing how they can lose their long-sought values as a whole with everything else. I submit that each minority is in effect an equal and as such should each individually be consulted, as you were saying earlier. This is the way that would be correct in assessing it. We may very well have some of the groups wish to change with the system and some remain in the system they are in. But that would be a more fair way. Is this something you feel yourself? It might be a multiple type of referendum, an eight-point or six-point one, to address each one of the minorities individually. But it would be a more fair way of assessing it.
Father T.F. Mohan: I think it's the only way, frankly. I don't think these rights are granted by the majority. They come constitutionally with Confederation and their coming into Confederation.
Somebody asked me tonight how I would do it, how I would change it. I say the only way you could is by having the people who have the rights say no to them.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Could you comment on my first statement, that it appears there is a theory that we can somehow just add all of these minorities together to get a majority and then somehow using a fraction of that to come to a solution to this? Can you comment on the fairness of viewing it in that light?
Father T.F. Mohan: That was Mr. Bélanger's question as well. How do you get a majority in this multiplicity of minorities? How do you answer a question such as that. He would probably say there is no majority so you don't have a minority. I don't know what the logical extension of his argument is going to be except that we do know that the rights—and they're not privileges—come by way of family, and the rights come by way of the Constitution, and Confederation. I think the only way you can ever remove them is by the will of the people who have those rights.
• 2135
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Father.
That's going to conclude our session this evening. Thank you again for your patience while we addressed our scheduling problem.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to offer you a sincere thank you for taking the time to come here, appear before us, and provide us with your testimony.
Members of the committee, we will now adjourn meeting seven. We will reconvene for meeting eight at 9 a.m. tomorrow in 253-D.
This meeting is adjourned.