SJNS Committee Meeting

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AMENDMENT TO TERM 17 OF THE TERMS OF UNION OF NEWFOUNDLAND

COMITÉ MIXTE SPÉCIAL CONCERNANT LA MODIFICATION À LA CLAUSE 17 DES CONDITIONS DE L'UNION DE TERRE-NEUVE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 27, 1997

• 1530

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.)): Members, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to meeting 12 of the Special Joint Committee on the Amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland. It's a pleasure to be here again. Thank you all for attending.

Members, this is the second-last witness we'll be hearing in front of this committee. I'm very pleased to reintroduce the Honourable Roger Grimes, Minister of Education from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. He is joined by Ms. Gail Welsh, from the Department of Justice of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Ms. Deborah Fry, the deputy minister of education for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is, as you're aware, Mr. Grimes' second appearance before us. He was in the initial presentations.

Minister, we welcome you back again. Thank you again for agreeing to appear.

Mr. Schmidt, on a point of information.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Is it possible for us to have another copy of the brief?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): In advance of that suggestion, the clerk is already making photocopies. They will be circulated shortly.

We have approximately one hour scheduled. We may or may not go over that time. Being the fair and just co-chair that I am, I will try to employ some latitude. However, discipline, as always, will be enforced.

Mr. Minister, the floor is yours.

The Honourable Roger Grimes (Minister of Education, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, Mr. Joint Chair.

Committee members, we certainly do appreciate the tremendous effort the committee has been putting into this issue over the last couple of weeks. Of course we've been following it with great interest in our province, Newfoundland and Labrador. I particularly appreciate this opportunity you're providing for us this afternoon, mainly to make a very brief statement—not to rehash old ground but to make a very brief statement about a couple of concerns we've noted have been raised within the committee over the last ten days or so—then to provide an opportunity for the committee members to seek any final clarification they might like from myself on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to touch on just three items, then throw the floor open for discussion and question—three things that have come to our attention in the work of the committee over the last number of days. Basically, we understand there have been some suggestions, as were raised when I was here a week or so ago, about possible amendments to the current proposal which has come forward from the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to deal with that issue briefly.

Concern has been expressed on a couple of occasions as well about whether or not the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, when they voted in the referendum, had a clear understanding of the distinction that was being made, particularly on the type of very fundamental change which would occur with religious education offerings in the schools and the provision for religious observances in the schools.

Some reference has also been made to the prospect of “joint service”, as it's known in Newfoundland and Labrador, as being a solution to this; that maybe the committee and the Government of Canada in its entirety shouldn't even need to deal with this request from the people to amend the Constitution.

On the notion of amending, I think it has been repeated several times that maybe we should not make any reference to the provision of religious education that is non-denominationally specific, and we shouldn't make reference in the Constitution to guaranteeing in the third section of our proposed term 17 that there be provision for religious observances in the schools.

Those items, I might point out to the committee, are currently in our term 17. They are exercised differently now from the way proposed, but the notion that placing a provision in the Constitution that deals with the curriculum, basically religious education...it's in the term today. It's exercised today in separate denominational schools, which are all publicly funded.

I pointed out to the committee in my opening brief last week that I think it's been reaffirmed by witnesses before the committee from Newfoundland and Labrador that the same people in our province, fundamentally, as wish to have the churches and the denominations removed from governance and administration do want a constitutional guarantee that religious education and observances will be protected from challenge in our schools.

• 1535

As a matter of fact, in the public debates over the years, particularly with respect to this referendum period and most recently in the summer of 1997, the issue has been raised notably by the Pentecostal representatives and Dr. Regular, who you've heard from before, and also by Catholic representatives. They've raised a concern in Newfoundland and Labrador to suggest to people that it wasn't going to be possible to enshrine in a constitution a protection for religious education and observances. We always found that a bit of a strange argument because it's in our Term 17 today. It's referenced in a couple of issues that I might point out briefly to you.

There is a section where it says “have the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances”. Those are words right from the current Term 17. It's practised in the province today in separate denominational schools, but that notion that there's a constitution that refers to the right to do these things is there now. It's always been part of our system, and the people want it to stay there.

There's always been a very unique situation in our province, and our people want that enshrined and they want it guaranteed in the Constitution so that it will withstand the kinds of challenges that have succeeded in other provinces and in other states. I made that point in my opening statement a week or so ago.

Those issues that we want included in sections (2) and (3), co-chairs and committee members, are basically fundamentally reflective of the current system in Newfoundland and Labrador, the kind of system that was brought into Confederation in 1949, the kind of system that's still there today. They are the elements of the system. I can't stress this too much; they are the elements of the system with respect to denominationalism and religious influence that the people of our province want to maintain. They do not want a Godless secular school system.

They are very fearful that if there is not reference in the Constitution tomorrow, like there is today, that protects the right to religious education and religious observances, then somebody may come along who feels offended or disaffected and challenge the fact that we're offering religious education of any description. They might challenge the fact that we're having a Christmas concert, a Christmas pageant, or recognizing the importance of Easter or some other particular celebration, and succeed in their challenge so that our schools would become public, secular schools like they are in the United States and in parts of Canada.

That's not what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have ever had. It's not what they want. It's not what they were asked to deal with in the referendum, in the question. It is not what is requested of the Parliament of Canada's deal within this particular constitutional amendment.

We are evolving and moving forward to a much more inclusive system. I think we've gotten much support in our province for that kind of a move. There is no question that there are certain elements in the population again that still would like to preserve the status quo. That's why we took an issue of this importance, put it to a referendum, got a solid mandate that was clearly understood in the province, and went on from there to the point where we're now making this request.

The issue has been raised a number of times as to whether the people clearly understood the significance of exactly what was involved in this amendment and the question before them. I think again if you reflect on the witnesses from Newfoundland and Labrador, it should be clear to the committee that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador understood this issue very clearly.

I just might add these three brief comments. The system we have today was basically enshrined in the Constitution in 1949 because it reflected the status quo. It reflected the way education had always been in our province: 100% denominationally based, no public schools.

For 30 years there was a little bit of debate. In 1967 there was a watershed debate where certain of the denominations decided to pool their resources and provide education together in what is known and recognized and understood in our province as the integrated system. There has been a lingering debate since that time, over the last 30 years, as to whether there should have been a fuller integration and whether we should have gone to a single school system instead of having the integrated system of a separate Roman Catholic system, a separate Pentecostal system, and a separate Seventh Day Adventist system. So we are evolving and it has been a matter that's been debated in the province through that whole period of time.

The debate got particularly focused after the royal commission in 1990 and it has been debated openly, publicly, thoroughly, completely in the kitchens of the homes of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in public meetings and in private conversations. Everybody has been talking for years about the education system.

• 1540

I might reflect back to my own first days of teaching in 1972 when I first taught in the Pentecostal school system and later in the Catholic system. In the staff rooms, the teachers themselves would be debating the issue and discussing whether or not it really made sense for us to have all these separate denominational schools. But because, of course, we were employees in the system, you didn't want to run afoul of your boss, which was either the integrated system or the Pentecostal system, or the Catholic system, so the teachers largely stayed out of the debate.

That was not so in the last round. It's evolved to the point where even the teachers got very openly involved in the debate, even though their employers were specific boards that would either be of one of the denominations or others.

So those issues have been there, and there is no doubt that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador have dealt with this issue in its entirety and they want and have asked the Parliament of Canada to deal with the issues that will move us to a single school system and preserve a constitutional basis for non-denominational religious education and a constitutional basis for religious observances in our schools at the request of the parents.

There has probably been information before the committee that other witnesses you've heard from, like Dr. Regular, and so on—and we can distribute it if you don't already have it—in public interviews indicated this time around that the question that was put to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was absolutely and fundamentally clear, that the choices that people had to deal with were fully understood. As a matter of fact, they felt it made it easier for them to argue that people should vote no, because they were given a much clearer choice this time.

I might make this final comment, that the leader of the official opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador, who I don't believe had an opportunity or could avail of an opportunity to appear before the committee, in his speech on the night the referendum was announced—we can provide copies of the leader of the official opposition's speech, and we have copies of Premier Tobin's speech as well—knew that the people in the province knew that the choice was clear. In explaining on the night the referendum was called why he could not support it, he commented that he supported everything else about the proposition except the fact that we were taking away denomination-specific religion courses. He said if the government was going to keep denomination-specific religion courses in the proposition he would vote for it.

So even on that first night, it was already understood by the people of the province, by the leader of the opposition and others that the proposal put to the people was for the protection of religious education and it would be non-denomination-specific.

Finally, co-chair and members, if I might, I'll speak a few minutes on joint service. Joint-service schools do operate in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I think in the range of 16.5% of our schools operate on an agreed arrangement between certain denominations. They do have some value and merit; there's no question about that. But what they do is retain all of the administrative trappings of separate denominational schools and they come together for a convenience because it's a convenient way for two different denominational systems to maintain their entity and their presence while sharing a school. So they do make some very practical concessions.

But at the end of the day what you have is two separate denominational schools in the same building, and the trade-offs in the agreements have normally been that there would be a split of the administration. If it's a Catholic joint service with an integrated group, then there would be a Catholic principal, and if that's the case, the agreement usually says there has to be an integrated vice-principal. The staff would be split on denominational lines: so many Catholic and so many integrated.

If the chemistry teacher happens to resign, retire or move away, you don't necessarily have to write to hire the best chemistry teacher. You have to figure out first which religion he or she is, and the religious quota in the school has to be maintained.

So it's sometimes touted as a great model, and sure it certainly is a step forward from completely separate buildings, completely separate schools, but it maintains separate denominational schools in the same building. That's been debated in the province, considered as an option, and considered to be not nearly what the people of the province now want and have asked us to do.

So at the end of the day, basically what we put forward is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have asked us to put forward.

I think a week or so ago Mr. Harris, the provincial leader of our New Democratic Party, when asked a question by one of the members as to why the vote changed by almost 20% this time around, said that in his view—and I think it was very insightful—this time the people were given a very clear choice: a single school system as opposed to separate denominational schools. They were finally asked the question that was proposed in the royal commission of 1990.

• 1545

We asked them a very different question a couple of years ago and got a very mixed result, and as a result we have the current Term 17, which in the view of the government and in the view of many of the people of the province is not working and is not in the best interests of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador and the opportunity we're providing in our education system.

So with those few points, Mr. Co-Chair, I'll stop and indicate again that I really do sincerely appreciate the opportunity to come back to provide clarification and have an opportunity to follow up with the committee members.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Minister Grimes. Thank you for the succinct presentation.

I conclude that Ms. Welsh or Ms. Fry don't have anything further to add at this time, so I'll move directly to questions and answers. Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of questions I'd like to ask the minister. One of the questions I have, Mr. Minister, has to do with the determination of the actual content of the religious courses that will be offered and the kinds of religious observances that will be made. Who will determine the content of the curriculum that will be offered if Term 17 as it has been proposed is adopted?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

There is a curriculum committee at the Department of Education now. They're currently engaged in the task of trying to determine for the next school year what exactly will be offered in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador for the generic religious education program.

As I've explained to the committee before, it already largely exists in the province. It's the kind of program that has been in what's called our integrated system, whereby the Anglican group, the United Church, the Presbyterians, the Methodists and the Salvation Army, which all used to have their own separate systems, have all come together. They had developed a curriculum over the years largely in terms of comparative religions, values and ethics. And largely because they are all Christian religions, they are Christian values and so on that are explained and explored in a series of texts from kindergarten right through to graduation.

They're looking at those materials as offering opportunities for the Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics and anyone else who would like to have some commentary as to how they might be best adapted for use in all of the schools of the province in the next school year.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: What I haven't heard you say, though, is that if it is comparative religion, what religions are not covered?

Mr. Roger Grimes: At this time, to my knowledge, there are none that aren't referred to in the materials at some point over 13 years of schooling. And that's the whole issue. We don't expect that anybody would be excluded in those 13 years, and if there is somebody, they have an opportunity to come forward, be identified and be included.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The proposed amendment also suggests that the religious courses will continue and the religious observances will continue at the request of parents. If the parents do not request them, they will not be there. Would the request of the parent to have certain religious observances take place in the school carry on in perpetuity? If it doesn't, who would stop the observances? Or do the requests have to come just before each particular observance? What will be the practical process of recognizing certain observances? Will these be all religious observances or only some? What criteria will be applied?

Mr. Roger Grimes: I have a clarification on the religion courses. They will be available in every grade, in every class, in every school, period. Whether a student participates or not is entirely up to the student and the parent.

With respect to the observances, whatever observances occur are triggered by a single parent of any denomination wanting an observance to occur in the school, during school time and during a school day. Any one parent can trigger the request. Our last section of Term 17 says that any request must be abided by. The school will administratively determine how it can be accommodated and for whatever number of parents who join in and want to be part of that particular observance for their children.

So in regard to the administration of it, again, we have never done it before, but the initial indication is that the schools will know they have to accommodate the request, period. That's what section (3) of our requested amendment calls for. And then they'll know from within the school how many people will want to be involved and make arrangements for it. Those who don't want to be involved won't participate.

• 1550

The suggestion we have from the department, and we haven't gone forward yet into public because this term is not passed.... Our new legislation isn't passed, so regulations and so on have not been drafted. But our thinking, which I can share with the committee, if I may, is basically that we would assume and we would ask schools, school-based administrators and school boards to assume that once a request for an observance is made they should expect to continue on with that annually unless the parent or the child of that particular faith has left the school or left the community. They would not necessarily have a parent come forward every year.

However, the administrators themselves and the school-based councils, which have parents, teachers and community representatives on it, may decide that it is more practical to ask them to apply annually if they want the observance to occur again.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Schmidt, you may conclude with one last question.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'd like to change gears then completely with one question. I'd like to have another round later on.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): If you want to, we can come back. I'll put your name down. I would assume that we will indeed have time for a final round if you want to change your thought processes.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'd like to move right into the next one. It has to do with the application of the amendment to private schools. How will the proposed amendment affect private schools?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Not at all, to my understanding. First and foremost, there is nothing in the amendment that precludes private schools from being established presently. There's nothing in our current term that precludes private schools from being established. There's nothing in the proposed new term that precludes private schools from being established. And as I understand the constitutional provision, it's that in the single school system the government will offer in the province we will have religious education and will have observances available. If I've misinterpreted that, Ms. Welsh or my deputy minister can let you know.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. We really should move. Thank you.

Senator Pearson, followed by Elinor Caplan, followed by Mr. Doyle, followed by Mauril Bélanger, followed by Raymonde Folco.

Senator Landon Pearson (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was very impressed with the presentation today from the representative of the Métis association. I feel their sense of concern about being absorbed into larger groups and so on. I'm wondering what kind of commitment the Ministry of Education is prepared to make to the cultural sensitivities and the need for the children from Inuit, Innu, Métis and Micmac backgrounds to have adequate and culturally appropriate teaching.

Mr. Roger Grimes: As I understand it, the issue is dealt with today in the sense that in Newfoundland and Labrador, primarily in Labrador, we do have a number of native schools at this point for which we're in the final stages of discussion, particularly with the Innu and the Inuit, as to even passing over complete administrative control of them and moving toward self-government, which has been under some continuing discussion between the government and their leaders.

The Métis group are currently accommodated in schools that are run by the Labrador School Board, and I don't know the exact status of any particular direct discussions that are going on with them as a recognized separate different group.

The Micmac in Newfoundland and Labrador at this point are largely concentrated on the only reserve we have on the Conne River. They have complete and total control of their own system. They run their own education system. They get the equivalent of provincial funding from the provincial government as if it were a provincial school. Any additions they put into their system comes from their own funding, which they receive from the Government of Canada.

So each of them, as I understand it now, is accommodated in their own way, but I don't know the particular or peculiar concerns of the Labrador Métis group as a separate group.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Senator. Do you have another question?

Senator Landon Pearson: I wanted to follow it up by saying I feel strongly that we would like to feel you were prepared to accommodate their special concerns, even within the public school system.

Mr. Roger Grimes: I can, and the deputy might want to make a comment as well and add to it.

• 1555

Other groups, while not aboriginal in nature like the Métis group and others, have had special accommodation, particularly in the Labrador School Board. For example, in the history of the involvement of the Moravians, which was on more of a denominational basis—the Moravians who did some settling in the coastal communities of Labrador—even though they had no rights, they've always provided for membership of the Moravians on the school board. They provided for them to have increased involvement in the schools in the communities the Moravians have had a big presence in.

I think we've normally gone even further than that with the Innu and Inuit. As I indicated, I don't know the circumstances, with the Métis, but there would be nothing in our proposed new term that would in any way preclude them from full rights and full treatment, just as they have access to today, in the current system.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We'll now move to Madam Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Thank you.

To follow it up just a little more clearly, their concern was that in the existing—in other words, the new term 17—they actually were afforded some recognition in that term, which was passed in 1995, and they are concerned the wording of this term excludes them. I think what they would like is some assurance on the record that the intention of the previous term, while that's not the—

Senator Lowell Murray (Pakenham, PC): They want a non-derogation clause, don't they?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Well, they would like a non-derogation clause, but I see that as a separate issue from the education clause. I see that there are concerns about the precedent that might set, whereas the previous Term 17 actually acknowledged the education needs of that community. While yes, I think they would like to go where Senator Murray has interjected, at this point my concern is that the last Term 17 amendment that was before us actually went part of the way to addressing their concerns. It might be helpful if you could clarify that, Minister.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Gladly, Ms. Caplan.

I think the clarification from our point of view is that if they felt that happened in the current term, which was the last amendment, in our view they are mistaken. The classes referenced in the current Term 17 have nothing to do with aboriginal groups or others. It's completely, totally, solely denominational groups. If you're a particular denomination, the classes referenced in our term in 1949 and the classes referenced in the current term, which was changed only a year ago, are denominationally based and have nothing to do with the aboriginal issue.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you. I think that clarification is extremely important for this committee.

We had a presentation from Mr. Joseph Hutchings, quite a thick document, on clause 14, I think. On page 5 of that document there's a concern raised that the wording of your new Term 17 may have an impact on the ability—and I'll quote the sentence:

The ability of even private schools to exist as religious institutions would, in any event, be doubtful, given that the right of a parent to request any religious observance....

Is it your intention to have any impact on private schools operating in your province?

Mr. Roger Grimes: None whatsoever. Private schools, as I indicated the last time I appeared before the committee, operate in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Private schools can operate in Newfoundland and Labrador if this current requested amendment is passed. We don't see anything anywhere that would preclude any group of people. The only provision in our current provincial legislation is that they must offer a curriculum that's approved by the Department of Education. That's the only provision there now.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Doyle, please.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Roger, I have to say I'm on this committee only three days, and just when you think you have things in clear perspective, you're making a bit of progress in trying to understand this whole issue, you come along and you throw a bucket of mud in the water again. I'll tell you, I'm more confused every single day on this committee, because all of the conflicting reports that we seem to be getting about this are just horrendous.

• 1600

I'm not wondering at all now about why a member of the Reform Party wants to have this committee extended. It's so that we can talk about these issues further, maybe for a few months, until we can finally solve this thing.

You're saying, on the one hand, that our people in Newfoundland want a Christian-based system of education. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you're correct. I agree totally and completely. This is what they've been indicating from day one. They want a Christian-based system of education.

But in that whole process, in preparation for the referendum itself, your lawyers said that even the word “Christian”—Mr. Binnie said this—had to come out of that term. Now it's public knowledge down there that we couldn't have the word “Christian” in the term itself. The other legal people who appreared before this committee have said that this new religion, which will be state-authored and state-run, has to be generic in content to such an extent that it can't even mention the word “Christian”.

I just can't seem to get a handle on how this new system of education you're talking about is going to be Christian in nature, given the fact that all of the legal people who have appeared before us.... We had the president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association meeting here the other day. He said that even if you mention the word “Christian”, you're in for a very rough ride in the courts on this. We had people from the University of New Brunswick, professors and people with Ph.D.s in law, who said that this will be struck down by the courts and that we could not possibly have the word “Christian” in there.

Still, you come along to us today and say that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador want this Christian system of education. You're cautioning us to make sure that the Constitution of Canada reflects that, when in reality, the term you've placed before the people precludes that from ever happening. It'll be struck down by the courts by saying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is at stake here. The president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it's a violation of the covenant of political rights and freedoms in the country.

So just when I thought I had something squared away in my mind here, you came along and put that all to lie. So I'm really concerned about all this. I really don't know where we're going from here. It only lends credence to the fact that—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Give a chance for a response to your comments.

Mr. Norman Doyle: To sum up, if I may—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Just to sum up, if I may—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Doyle, excuse me, please. This is a time for questions and answers. We'll have debate and an opportunity to provide comments between members in due course. Please use this opportunity to provide questions to the witnesses.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Summing up, if I may, Mr. Chair, let me say that there's the proposal put forth by the member of the Reform Party that indicates he would like to see this explored a little bit more.

What's the big rush for December 5 to get this into the House of Commons? We're already into the school year. Obviously, all this would be passed in time for the following September, when we get into a new school year.

So why isn't this motion or proposal that the member of the Reform Party is making...? Would you consider postponing this? Please comment on these various things that upset you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Doyle, I'm ruling that particular question to this witness out of order on the basis that it's not within his jurisdiction to answer what is in the purview of the Parliament of Canada. I will again ask you to ask a specific question to the witness, please.

Mr. Norman Doyle: On that point of order, Mr. Chair, if that motion were to be considered, I think one of the people we would have to go to is the Government of Newfoundland and the Minister of Education to find out what their opinions are on it. So I think the question to get his opinion here today on that motion is very much in order.

• 1605

I want to get his opinion, first of all, on the things I said. How can we have a Christian system of education when that course you're going to be introducing in Newfoundland is so generic in nature that they can't even mention the word “Christian”? Why did Mr. Binnie have to have the word “Christian” taken out of that term?

Mr. Roger Grimes: I think the unfortunate part again, obviously, to my good friend, Mr. Doyle.... We have known each other for many years. I'm not here before this committee trying to change Mr. Doyle's mind. Mr. Doyle has made it publicly 100% clear to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, where he's an elected MP, where he stands on this issue, and that no matter what anybody says, he will never vote for this proposition. I'm not here to try to change Mr. Doyle's mind.

However, with respect to what he said, there are a couple of things that make me understand why he very well may have blinkers on with respect to the issue. He was in the cabinet of Newfoundland and Labrador before I ever got there, and dealt with this issue some time ago.

If I might, Mr. Chair, I normally.... Since he's a friend of mine and since we're from the same province, maybe if I can just have a minute—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Minister, I will ask you to respect the member of Parliament's privilege, please. However, continue.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Doyle mentions the information that we're here saying the people of Newfoundland and Labrador said they want a Christian-based system. I didn't say that. The government didn't say that. The people of the province didn't say that. In all of the polling that was done—I have said to this committee on three occasions, twice in my first appearance and once already today—the same group of people that want the churches out of the administration of the schools want religious influences in the schools.

Now, it happens that 95% or more of our population is Christian, but we have never talked about “Christian”. The people, when polled—and I think Dr. Graesser and others who have polled this issue for a number of years.... When the question was asked in Newfoundland and Labrador whether they wanted Christian-based doctrinaire religious education in the schools, they said no. When asked whether they wanted Christian values, ethics, and those kinds of things tied to a particular denomination, they said no. But do they want to make sure they can celebrate Christmas if they want? Absolutely. Do they want to do something in recognition of Easter and other pageants and other special events? Absolutely. Does it have to be Pentecostal? No. Does it have to be Roman Catholic? No.

We haven't come here asking for Christian-based. We want it to be more all-inclusive. That's what this whole proposition is about. For Mr. Doyle as a member of the committee or any one else to suggest that I said we had to be Christian-based—we didn't do that, and for exactly the reasons—

Mr. Norman Doyle: Hold it right there. Your premier said it.

Mr. Roger Grimes: —for exactly the reasons that were pointed out when we debated in our province whether or not we would put the word “Christian” into the amendment.

We decided not to ask the people to do that, because that would be exclusive and restrictive. We knew full well that in fact if we had said it had to be Christian-based, then the inclusivity we now want to move towards would be denied the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We would not ask that to be in the—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Order, please. Order, Mr. Doyle. Please allow the witness to answer.

Mr. Norman Doyle:

[Inaudible—Editor].

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Yes, but as soon as the witness has answered the first questions.

Mr. Roger Grimes: I have two other brief comments, if I may. The first concerns the language of “state-authored, state-run”. We don't mind that language being used by people who are not from Newfoundland and Labrador and haven't grown up there and maybe don't 100% understand our system. But for Mr. Doyle to suggest that the religion programs that are in our integrated school system are state-authored and state-run—they are not. It's that program the Department of Education authorizes. In each of our schools we're going to follow that same process. That is not language that's used in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When a religion program is authorized by the Department of Education, developed by professional curriculum developers and implemented in our schools, nobody sees that as being state-authored and state-run. That's language that some members of this committee have used. It's not language that's used in Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm surprised that one of our MPs would use that kind of language.

On the issue of why the rush, and should we extend, we would say please take the time that you need. We understand you've done a great job on this. But there's one reality with respect to some of the issues. This issue has been debated in Newfoundland and Labrador, as I said in my comments today, for thirty years extensively, and the last seven years intensively and extensively. We have asked for this particular change. I would suggest to you with all due respect that this committee could meet for six months and not come any closer to resolving some of these differences, because there are some fundamental differences.

• 1610

We are asking for approval for a clearly defined new approach in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're pleased to have an opportunity to provide clarification here.

Please, again, Mr. Doyle, you know that if we're going to make changes in our school system in Newfoundland and Labrador for next September, the educational change and deliberation process is already on the verge of not being able to be accomplished. You can't turn around in May or June and say that we're having a fundamental change in our schools in September.

What we would hope is that the committee would finish its deliberations in a timely fashion in the next week or so, as was scheduled. You would then file a report with your best information and judgment and you would give us an opportunity to go back to what we have to do in our legislature.

We have to put forward a new schools act that's not yet even introduced in our legislature. We have not finished our final deliberations based on the outcome here. We then have to go through a process of electing in Newfoundland and Labrador, for the first time ever, school boards on a non-denominational basis. Those newly elected school boards have to take the new education act based on the new Term 17, if it's passed, and they have to plan a school year for next year.

We'll have great difficulty if Mr. Doyle accomplishes an objective of delaying any change and any reform in the school system for at least another full year. We would clearly ask you not to delay unless the committee is convinced that by delaying you would come across some new and different information that might be a revelation to everybody.

I've heard those words used around here in the committee to the point that you might find out something so startlingly new or different that you would come to a different conclusion than if you were to debate the issue yourselves as a committee in the next day or so.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Mr. Grimes.

I will allow a supplementary from Mr. Doyle on the basis that it's very important that we continue on with the debate and discussion on this particular matter. What I will not allow, however, would be conversations between members. We have an allocated period of time in which we as members within the committee will be discussing this among ourselves. This is not the appropriate time, nor will I be allowing interruptions of witnesses when they're answering questions.

So let's be very clear on this. In my efforts as co-chair I will endeavour to stimulate good, sound, solid discussion on this issue. I will adhere to the rules of order. I will be maintaining those rules of order.

Mr. Doyle, I will allow a supplementary question on the basis that you have very good questions that deserve answers.

Please, all members, respect my position as co-chair.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I certainly will respect that, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for your latitude.

I want to draw the minister's attention to the brief that was presented this morning by the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland.

The minister says that I'm wrong in assuming that Christian-based religion was said, or that the government placed it before the people. In the brief that was presented this morning by the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, it says that the implications of the referendum question for denominationally specific religious instructions were not well understood.

When the premier launched the campaign he stated that there would be an opportunity for religious education for all students on the basis of a “common curriculum”. He also stated that schools will continue to operate in accordance with Christian principles as they now do.

This is where I'm getting my information from. I'm getting it from your premier. Quite apart from that, Mr. Grimes, I would like you to make a comment.

Given the fact that the Pentecostals voted overwhelmingly to retain their rights in education and we had Mr. Graesser here this morning, who confirmed that, I want you to make a comment with respect to Mr. Dion's comments. He said that “This appears to have a fair degree of support among the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the affected minorities.”

Would you not agree that given Mr. Graesser's statements this morning, this certainly does not have any degree of support among the Pentecostal Assemblies? I believe he said 28%, or 38%. Anyway, 70% of the Pentecostal Assemblies voted to retain their rights in education. How do you square that with the comment Mr. Dion made that it appears to have a fair amount of support among the affected minorities in Newfoundland? It doesn't.

• 1615

Mr. Roger Grimes: Again, this is the notion of the context of the statement that they expect the schools to continue to run based on Christian principles, as they largely do. It is absolutely and totally understood by everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador that unless the 95% of the population that is currently Christian absolutely refuses to participate in the religion programs or stops asking for observances that are Christian-based....

Why would we not expect that this will be the dominant feature of schools in Newfoundland and Labrador? That's all the premier was saying to the people of the province. If we are 95% Christian and if the observances are triggered by parents, then there will be a lot of Christian observances unless they're going to stop asking for them. They've always had them, they've always said they wanted to keep the right to have them in the Constitution. So the only way it wouldn't happen, Mr. Joint Chair and committee members, is if the people stop asking. That's all the premier was saying, no more and no less than that.

The fact of the matter is that with any analysis done of the vote, I think we can tie ourselves in knots trying to suggest who voted what way on what issue. It was a private, secret ballot done in a referendum, as it is in any type of electoral process. The numbers speak clearly for themselves: 73% of the people who were interested enough in this issue in Newfoundland and Labrador voted to say the proposition put by the government is the one we support.

The issue was raised twice, in both referenda, as to whether the votes should be counted by denomination. Everybody found the notion of having to declare what your denomination was as you picked up your ballot to be so offensive that we wouldn't conduct the vote in that manner. Therefore, why would any of us spend a lot of time deliberating, trying to figure out which private individual, exercising a secret ballot, voted which way?

It's interesting if you want to spend a lot of time at it. Statistical analysis has been done doing several different models with several different assumptions, Dr. Graesser's being one of them. He even differs with other information that's been provided. I think others have provided the committee with information suggesting that a majority of the Roman Catholics voted against the proposition. Dr. Graesser provides information suggesting that his analysis shows a majority of the Roman Catholics voted for the proposition. I guess if we brought five or six more in we'd get five or six more different answers. There is no way to tell, folks.

The reality is that 73% of the people voted for this proposition. We are bringing it forward on their behalf and asking you to deal with the request that's been passed unanimously in the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Grimes.

We'll now move on to Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I believe Mr. Bélanger was before me.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I am sorry, Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I want to follow up on the tail end of your answer, Minister. We've heard criticism, whether it's justified or not—you'll be able to help us understand that—of the way the referendum itself was conducted. I have a few questions and I wouldn't mind having your comments on those, if you would.

First I'd like to know if you could explain briefly which entity in Newfoundland, if it can be referred to as such, is responsible for the good conduct of a referendum. What is the relationship of this entity with the government?

I'd like to know what rules or laws govern the use of public funding for or against the proposition put forward. We've heard that the scrutineers for one or two religious denominations were not allowed. We've been told that. I'd like to know if you can verify that. If so, why? If not, please let us know.

Finally, I have a hypothetical question, which I suspect you may not wish to answer or may not be able to, and I'd understand that. Would there have been a way of conducting this referendum to identify whether there was a majority support within certain denominations?

Thank you.

• 1620

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): There are two questions before you. One is an optional one, and then the first question.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Any referendum conducted in our province is always conducted by the electoral office, which is mandated legislatively to conduct any particular election or vote that's of a provincial nature.

The chief electoral office in our province, as I think in other provinces, is appointed by the legislature by a vote of all parties, an independent, impartial person, and an act that says that his job basically is to run a fair election. We all understand the process, and I think the language is specific, but the notion of the legislation is that these people under the direction of the CEO are to run a fair election with a proper opportunity for everyone.

So an independent electoral office ran this particular referendum, the same as it ran our provincial election, the same as an electoral office runs federal elections, and so on.

The issue of scrutineers came up. We did provide scrutineers in the 1995 referendum.

The question was raised again this time.... Because there were so many other groups this time, the element that surfaced in the 1997 referendum that wasn't there in 1995 was that there were very structured support groups for the yes side, such as the Education First group of volunteers that this committee heard from.

The last time there was no structured support for the yes side. The government itself didn't even participate in a meaningful education or promotion campaign. We did this time.

The decision of the electoral office and the government, when asked to intercede, was that we completely and totally trusted the electoral office to run a fair vote, and that as a matter of fact some people were very offended and affronted by the suggestion that an electoral office could not conduct a fair vote on any issue.

That was the whole notion, that you don't need the scrutineers. The scrutineers in a political campaign where there are political parties and candidates are clearly there to look out for the best interests of an individual candidate. There were no individuals here to look out for except the children of Newfoundland and Labrador and the education system.

As the government, we were fully confident that the electoral office and the officers and the staff could conduct and would conduct a fair election.

On the denominational votes, in 1995, when that issue was raised the government of the day went back to the church representatives, the Pentecostals and the Catholics, and said if you want to count them up by Pentecostal and by Roman Catholic and by all religions, we'll do it. We didn't hear back from them, because I think they understood, when they deliberated again, the offence that some people would take from that particular notion, that when I went to the ballot box I would have to say “I'm Roger Grimes, I'm Pentecostal, and I want a Pentecostal ballot.” It was such a foreign concept that at the end of the day nobody wanted to do it.

The issue was raised both times. This time it wasn't even given serious consideration, and to my knowledge the request for that particular notion didn't surface as a specific request as it did in the referendum of 1995.

So again, it's basically and fundamentally an issue there are so many offensive components to, having to identify yourself by virtue of a religious denomination in order to cast a ballot, that it didn't get serious consideration as a real way. Could it be done? Certainly, if everybody wanted to do so.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): A small supplementary, please.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's not a supplementary, Mr. Chairman, it's the one question on what rules or law govern the use of public funding to promote either side of the question being put.

Mr. Roger Grimes: The Newfoundland legislation with respect to the conducting of referenda is silent on the issue of funding for any side to the campaign. There's no reference to funding for referenda in the Newfoundland legislation.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Now we'll move to Madame Folco, followed by Senator Murray.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I would like this afternoon to join with two of my colleagues who previously referred to this morning's presentation by the Labrador Metis Association.

This Association's representative brought up a dimension that seems somewhat different from that of the other minorities or religious groups who have testified here in the last few days.

The modification of section 17 obviously refers to a denomination, and if I am not mistaken, this is still a Christian denomination. I will set aside the other religions. There is mention of Sikhs, there is mention of Jews, but based on what I know about the demographic situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, I do not think there is a very large Sikh population there. I will not speak of the Jewish population for the moment.

• 1625

My question also refers to the question I asked you when you first came before this committee last week. At that time, I asked you what would happen if, within a given school, a second group of parents, i.e. a second minority, requested from the school board that their children have the right to have their own religious rites.

I am referring this morning to the Metis group, who, if I understand their presentation, are often in school boards where they are a minority within a religious minority. Now these groups are Christians, officially that is, but their ancestral traditions are different from the Christian traditions.

If these Metis parents—and I speak specifically of the Metis- -who are a minority within a school, asked their school board, thereby asking the government and Department of Education, for specific courses based on their own ancestral traditions, albeit for specific skills courses, what chances would they have of receiving a positive response?

[English]

Mr. Roger Grimes: It would be the same as it is today, although the request can be made today by any group of parents on behalf of their students to have specialized locally developed curricula matters dealt with in the school for their children. It's always determined at the local level, strictly as a total function of the administrative capability of delivering it within existing human resources in the school.

If they have enough teachers available and enough potential students to carve out a particular locally prescribed curricular activity, they can do it. But there would be no constitutional right to go in and demand that it happen by virtue of some statement in Term 17.

It would be exactly the same as today. There are groups of parents in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, who want to participate in accelerated French programs. So there's a core French program, there are French immersion options and there are francophone schools. Others want accelerated French programs. That's strictly a local administrative matter. If there are enough students gathered together and the school, from its currently existing staff component, can carve out enough of a group and fit it into the schedule, it is offered. But no one can point to a term in the Constitution, whether it be Term 17 or section 23, and say “I have a right to my ancestral practices being taught or to accelerated French.” So the issues are then along those lines.

It's possible to accommodate it administratively today. It will be just as possible to accommodate it administratively if the new Term 17 is approved.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: This is more or less the answer you gave me last week Sir. If I am not mistaken, the situation of these students is somewhat specific, because they are currently a minority and will become even more so with the school board consolidation. Am I wrong on this? And if I am not, what are the real, concrete chances they will obtain what they are asking for?

[English]

Mr. Roger Grimes: I don't believe the issue is at all related to the consolidation of school boards. The issue is dealt with on a local school level as to whether or not that particular component of the population in that school is there in sufficient numbers to allow the local administration to accede to the request. Whether we have 27 school boards, like we did a year ago, 10 school boards like we do today, or one school board like they effectively have in New Brunswick, that's not going to affect the locally based administrative decision as to whether that request for a localized curriculum option can be met in that school where those students actually physically show up and register. It's a very localized administrative issue.

• 1630

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I'm now moving to Senator Murray, followed by Senator Doody.

Senator Lowell Murray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had two questions arising from testimony given to us by previous witnesses, and a third just suggested itself from what I heard the minister say.

I want to be very clear that we have the same understanding of section 23 of the charter. You do agree that French-speaking people in Newfoundland have a right to their own schools where numbers warrant, and that those schools are controlled by French-language school boards?

Mr. Roger Grimes: There is no question about that, Senator. In fact, we've just done that in Newfoundland and Labrador. Under section 23 we've just established a francophone school board.

Senator Lowell Murray: The two questions relate first to the brief this morning from the Labrador Métis Association, and have been raised several times here. I will not take you through their brief, but their statement is that their problem is rather more fundamental than has been indicated in previous questions. They say:

We need a general protection clause added to the terms of union that clearly states that aboriginal rights, including our unique right to have a full say in the education of our children, are not to be affected.

And they have this non-derogation draft, which they've placed before us:

Nothing in this Section affects the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada respecting class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, or sections 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So the question I would like you to answer as a minister is whether your government will accept the addition of that non-derogation clause, and if not, why not?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator Murray, excuse me, but before we continue, I would like to point out that the witnesses this morning said that they were forwarding a slight amendment to that.

Senator Lowell Murray: Yes, and have they done so?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): They have not done so as yet.

Senator Lowell Murray: But the principle is the same.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I won't argue that. I just want to put that in....

Senator Lowell Murray: Well, they are seeking a non-derogation clause to ensure that nothing in this proposed new Term 17 would affect the legislative authority of Parliament as it respects their status and rights. That was my first question.

Now I will ask my second question. I might as well put them both at the same time. Minister, you may wish to refer it to your legal adviser.

Term 17 is going to create non-denominational schools in Newfoundland. In these non-denominational schools there are going to be constitutionally mandated generic courses in religion that, among other things, will help children understand revelation through God's creation, God's word and human history as key elements in religious traditions.

The possibility of religious observances, which could be anywhere from an observance of Passover to a novena to St. Patrick, will also be constitutionally mandated in these non-denominational schools.

Also in these non-denominational schools, although not covered in the new Term 17, is the possibility of denominational-specific religious instruction. You summarize this by saying:

There are two ways in which parents can have their children receive specific religious instruction in their faith: through local churches, or through local courses offered at the school.

Now, we have had testimony from legal experts here stating the obvious, that there will be charter challenges. That does not concern me very much. There's going to be charter litigation on almost anything that is done. But it would appear that certainly with respect to the religious observances and the denominationally specific courses the chances of those aspects of your reform surviving a charter challenge would be very slim indeed.

What are you going to do? Are you going to invoke the notwithstanding clause? You may want to answer that yourself, or refer it to your legal adviser.

• 1635

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Minister.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you. Of the two issues, I'll take the first one first.

With respect to the issues the Métis raised, the non-derogation clause and so on, in our view there are clearly a couple of things to mention. I think the committee should understand that in Newfoundland and Labrador there has been no official recognition of the Métis group as an aboriginal group with rights in our province. There has been official recognition—

Senator Lowell Murray: That's why they want this.

Mr. Roger Grimes: I would suggest that it's probably inappropriate and improper for the group to be trying to get something that has to be debated fully and completely in another forum through a different mechanism that is not related, such as a term that deals with our education system. That is whether or not that group will be recognized by the Government of Canada and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as an aboriginal group with full recognition and standing in our country and our province.

Senator Lowell Murray: Rights prejudice—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator, please, we have basic tenets under which we are operating this committee, and that is not one of those tenets.

Mr. Minister, please.

Mr. Roger Grimes: I understand, Mr. Co-Chair and Senator. Again, the issue is that unless and until any particular group has been granted the rights, or has established the rights, you can't take away rights from people who have not yet been recognized in any way.

They are not recognized in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know they wish to be recognized at some point. There's been a discussion and debate, but that's a completely different and much wider-ranging debate than our Term 17, about our education system.

Let me turn to the notions you mention again with respect to challenges on the denominationally specific and the fact that we talk about Christian principles and revelation as being part of it in a non-denominational setting in a generic course.

We fully expect that at some point in 13 years of schooling a student in Newfoundland and Labrador might come to understand some of the basic tenets of the Christian faiths. So at some point in their 13 years of schooling they would be exposed to the basic tenets of other faiths that are non-Christian. That's the whole notion of the approach over the 13 years.

Will there be challenges? Maybe. We can't predict. There probably will be. There seems to be a whole industry in the country challenging the charter for different reasons at different times. It may go on indefinitely. There's nothing wrong or bad about that. People feel very strongly about an issue, and they test to see exactly what any particular piece of legislation—up to and including the Constitution—provides for.

With respect to the specific religion and the faith, the big distinction, again, is that certainly parents can ask for Roman Catholic religion in a school. The difference in this term is that today under the current term they can demand it, because it's provided for in the current Term 17. It provides for denomination-specific religion courses in our schools as a matter of constitutional right.

If this current term is passed—and we certainly hope it is, and it's the basis of our making the request—it will be like everything else. It will be a request that, if administratively possible to deliver at a school, because there are enough Roman Catholics, enough teachers, and so on, may be possible.

No Roman Catholic, however, would be able to go to a school and say that because of Term 17 I demand that there be Roman Catholic religious education for my child in this school.

So they can ask, and it will be the same then as advanced math, accelerated French, or a chemistry program, if they don't have it. It will be in that category, and I think everybody understands that. There are people who don't agree, and it's fair not to agree, but 73% of the people who voted understood it, and agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Minister. Now I'll move to Senator Doody, please.

Senator William C. Doody (Harbour Main—Bell Island, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions. Whether I get to ask the second one will depend more on the length of the minister's answer than on the length of my question, although I must say, as I listen to your gorgeous lilt, that you make me homesick.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Senator William Doody: The first question deals with the rather surprising display of lack of voting enthusiasm by the Roman Catholic people in some of the Roman Catholic areas of the province. There was not a great turnout, nor was there a massive display of support, although the amount of support can be argued depending on whichever set of statistics you want to look at.

The question you are all familiar with is “Do you support a single school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided?”

Now, let me provide a quick tour. As you leave St. John's and head up the southern shore through Ferryland district, we go through Witless Bay, Bay Bulls and Tors Cove and Aquaforte and Renews and Fermeuse and Cappahayden and St. Shotts and Trepassey. And I'm sure I've left one or two out and I'll hear from somebody on this.

• 1640

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Senator William Doody: But go on around the Cape shore and through St. Mary's Bay and down into Placentia and up through the Harbour Main district, which I represented—and which my friend Norman Doyle represented later—and through Holyrood, Harbour Main and Avondale and so on.

These are single-denomination communities by and large. There may be 1% or 2% of the population...and there may be some of them who are not Irish Catholic. All of them have one single school system in place. They all have a Roman Catholic high school that serves many of the communities around, and they have Roman Catholic grammar schools and so on. But the only system they've ever known in my experience—and in theirs—has been a single-school Roman Catholic system, which is a single-school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend school and where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided.

That is the system. When they voted yes—or didn't bother to vote at all—what they were voting for was what they've known all their lives. This is the only system there is, and of course they had to endorse it. If they said no, that they didn't support it, where would they have been then?

I could go on, but I know that's not the way we're suppose to operate here. I just ask for your thoughts on that, Mr. Minister, and then if I get an opportunity, I'll ask you an unrelated question.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you, Senator. Your description of it is accurate. There is no question about it. That reflects the make-up of the population of many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. And for the committee's information, many of the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador only have one school anyway.

But the committee shouldn't be misled—and I don't say that unkindly or in any kind of derogatory fashion—to believe that those people in those Catholic communities that the senator described—because that's largely what that area of the province is—didn't know that the vote was about whether or not they would have Catholic schools versus what was described by the people who were against it as “public schools”.

Don't ever think as a committee that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in every community, regardless of their religious affiliation, did not understand, because the people who were opposed to it, led by Dr. Fagan, let's say, with the Roman Catholic group, and Dr. Regular, with the Pentecostal group, in all of their discussions would say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, “Don't be duped into voting `yes', because that is the end of your Pentecostal school”. Or it was, “Don't be duped into voting `yes', because you must all understand that this is the end of your Catholic school.” And everybody knew that.

Now as to whether they voted yes, as the senator would describe it, because they were all Catholics and they knew what they were doing and they couldn't vote no because the question was loaded, I don't think so—

Senator William Doody: I didn't say that, sir.

Mr. Roger Grimes: —because the opponents of it had made it abundantly clear that a vote for “yes” was to do away with your separate Roman Catholic school, a vote for “yes” was to do away with your right to have a separate Pentecostal school.

The reflection of it, and the conclusion, if I might very briefly say so, is this. In those communities, it's a perfect example of whether we are likely to have what Mr. Doyle and those in the committee have described as a state-authored, state-run religion program or whether we are likely to have Catholic religious education.

In my view, we're likely to have Catholic religious education. Why? Because 95% or 98% or 99% of the children in the school are Roman Catholic. Unless they've changed their minds completely from years past, they will likely ask the school board for Catholic education in their schools. And the answer will be, “Sure. Why not? You're all Catholic.”

But can they go in, say they are Catholics, point to Term 17 and say they must have Catholic education? The answer will be no.

So I appreciate the senator bringing forth the proposition because it provided an opportunity to clarify exactly how we see it unfolding in certain areas of the province.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Grimes. And because the senator has embraced with such vigour and such respect the rules of order of Parliament, and has respected this chair so well, I will reward him with a second question.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I'm being facetious.

Senator William Doody: It always gives me such a warm feeling—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Senator William Doody: —to have somebody award me something. I thought I was here by right, but then again, rights can always be abridged.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Where's that warm feeling coming from?

Senator William Doody: I think the minister pretty well emphasized the point that I was trying to make. In the future, if Roman Catholic people get a Roman Catholic education they'll get it by courtesy of the Newfoundland House of Assembly and not by right of the constitutional protection.

• 1645

My other question deals with the minister's mention a little while back that the people of Newfoundland were offered the opportunity to vote by class of people, but they turned that down. That's in complete variance with the information that I have at hand.

When Premier Wells phoned me prior to the first referendum—and I'm sure he phoned all the other representatives from Newfoundland as well—I specifically asked him that question. I told him I could support his change to the Constitution if he would allow the affected minorities to vote as an individual class. If they wanted to extinguish their own rights, I told him, he had my complete support.

He said that couldn't be done. As far as he was concerned, at least 95% of the population was Christian and would vote as a bloc. I subsequently asked authorities in the Roman Catholic system—a bishop and Pastor Batstone—if they had some confirmation of that offer or what their memory of it was. They provided me with correspondence that in no way signified that they did not agree with the opportunity to vote. They expressed dismay at being asked because they didn't agree with the process at all. They didn't want Term 17 even touched, but at no time to my knowledge did they reject the concept.

If you have any documentation or correspondence demonstrating that the province offered these people this opportunity to vote as a minority group and that they refused it, I think that would be very helpful to the deliberations of this committee. It will certainly put a different complexion on the matter for me.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you, Mr. Joint Chairman and Senator. I'll certainly undertake to provide....

Although not the Minister of Education through that period but having been in the cabinet and involved in all of the discussions, I know the issue was raised. It is clear that Premier Wells' initial predisposition was to not entertain the notion.

Following that, however, one way or another the groups were told that if they were really serious about that, they should let us know. If you are absolutely serious that you want Catholic and Pentecostal votes.... The rest voted because the Catholics and Pentecostals had raised the issue. They didn't care how the rest voted. They weren't interested.

As you indicated, they weren't any more interested in the process in 1997 than they were in 1995. I may not be able to produce anything where they wrote back and said they weren't interested, but we never heard from them after that. So they were asked whether they were serious, and if so, we would deal with the issue, but there was no further correspondence.

Senator William Doody: My point is that it's a very important issue and it shouldn't just be left out there dangling.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you.

Mr. Gigantès.

Senator Philippe D. Gigantès (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

After listening to Newfoundlanders speak with such eloquence, I don't want to shame myself by trying to match them. So I'll say nothing.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay, Senator.

Moving right along, Senator Kinsella, please.

Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Fredericton—York—Sunbury, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thanks for coming back again.

When I compare this constitutional resolution with the constitutional resolution affecting the school system in Quebec, there are two points on which I would like clarification from you. First, on the change in Quebec from a system whereby certain denominations had rights to a linguistic system, the affected groups that had educational rights consented to this change. For example, in the Quebec case there was a letter from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops saying they wanted to do this.

In this instance, notwithstanding the debate around the numbers, we've had explicit testimony from the Roman Catholic archbishop of St. John's representing all the bishops of Newfoundland and Labrador. We've had explicit testimony from the leader of the Pentecostal Assembly and the Seventh Day Adventist Church that they do not consent to giving up their right to denominational schools. So I see a fundamental difference between Quebec and Newfoundland on that count.

On the second count, we had a little bit of a discussion this morning. We heard two excellent questions from Madame Folco and Mr. Bélanger. I'm focusing there on the situation in Quebec. The affected denominations have a guarantee such that, for example, Catholic schools can continue, but it will be under the Schools Act.

• 1650

If necessary, if that's challenged, the National Assembly would use the notwithstanding clause, but as the report said, not necessarily in that situation, so therefore not necessarily section 33 of the notwithstanding clause.

When we compare that to the Newfoundland resolution, the affected denominations, as it appears now, will not have any right to have denomination-specific schools.

Now my question to you is the following: under proposed Term 17(2), in particular where the exclusive jurisdiction will be in the hands of the House of Assembly for education, can you envisage a situation in the future whereby your House of Assembly or you as Minister of Education or one of your successors might find it perfectly reasonable that at...?

Am I correct that St. Mary's is a heavily Roman Catholic population?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Yes.

Senator Noël Kinsella: If in that community the Catholic community had the right to ask—this would be in place of the interfaith course in religion—for a Catholic course in religious education, and if it was approved by the school board, then that would be the religious education course. Under Term 17(3) they could also ask for Catholic religious observances. They would have those two things.

As you said a moment ago, your guess for a community like that is that things would continue to be heavily Roman Catholic. The same would apply in a community where another faith is in great numbers and they had a school.

How far away would that situation be from allowing a Roman Catholic school, which would be a public school, to exist? If the Ministry of Education finds that perfectly reasonable to do would you not think that the model in Quebec would be an appropriate one to follow?

In other words, you could accept an amendment to what we have here that there be a Term 17(4) that would say something like “pursuant to subsection 17(2), a uni-denominational or a denomination-specific public school or a public school that is specifically uni-denominational may be permitted”.

In other words, if it's in the Constitution, it's safeguarded. If it's in the Schools Act, then in Quebec we'd have to use the notwithstanding clause if it were challenged. Do you get the thrust of my question?

Mr. Roger Grimes: I guess I'll move to the point right at the end about the possible inclusion of a further part to the term that would actually mention that in the Constitution.

In our view, it would be clearly redundant. There's nothing, as was pointed out today, that prevents a group of Roman Catholics in Newfoundland and Labrador from having their own school. There's nothing in this new term that prevents a group of Roman Catholics from establishing a school for Roman Catholics.

The difference then is that it's in the hands of the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador to decide whether or not we fund it. What the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know quite clearly is that the current government has absolutely no intention of funding private, separate Roman Catholic schools as such, or any other denomination for that matter. That's clear in the minds of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If by virtue of the rights they have in a community that's almost a single-denomination community.... If, for all intents and purposes, it becomes that, then nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador has a difficulty with that. That's just reflecting what the community and parents there want.

• 1655

The big difference is that school boards themselves would not be obligated under the Constitution to provide such schools if any member of the class said they have a right under Term 17 as a Roman Catholic or a Pentecostal, and they insist on a Roman Catholic or a Pentecostal school. That's what's happening today. That's what we're proposing we change.

Also, basically and fundamentally we can have a circumstance where we will have very little difference, in reality, to the schools today, other than it will not be triggered by any one person on behalf of a class of people, as it can be now. The archbishop today can say that we want a Catholic school in this area, and it can be triggered under the Constitution. He will not be able to do this.

Dr. Fagan is the education officer for the Roman Catholics today. In the current group of schools that we have, by pointing at Term 17 he has triggered circumstances where Roman Catholic schools were established in certain areas because there is a right to them under Term 17.

If parents trigger it collectively under Term 17, as we propose it, it may very well happen, but nobody can say they have a right to that specific denominational school because of Term 17. Even if there were a paragraph (4) that said “may be permitted”, if it's mentioned in the Constitution then we would get back very quickly the advice that when it's permitted, you must fund it publicly. If they have access to it, obviously that means you must fund it.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador put the proposition in the referendum that there would be a single school system funded in Newfoundland and Labrador. No separate schools would be funded. If its character by virtue of its population is that it is almost just like a Catholic school today or almost just like a Pentecostal school today, it will be because of circumstance, not because of anybody exercising a right under the Constitution.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): All right, Mr. Minister, that concludes our round one session.

I note that it is now 4.57 p.m. We are approximately 30 minutes over budget in terms of the timing here, but this is such a lively and spirited discussion that it's worth continuing.

Mr. Schmidt and Madam Caplan have both requested supplementaries, and I will allow those two questions.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to refer to pages 10 to 13 of your earlier brief under the section of the prejudicial effect on people, and in particular the effect it will have on other provinces. I would like to ask the following question. Is it my understanding, after having gone through those three pages, that the statement is yes, it could prejudicially affect the minority rights of others in other provinces as well as in the province of Newfoundland?

Mr. Roger Grimes: No. My understanding and my reading of it clearly is that you will conclude the exact opposite. There could be absolutely, totally, positively zero impact and effect on denominational rights exercised in the education system in any other jurisdiction as a result of what happens in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That's my understanding of it. I'd ask Ms. Welsh or the deputy if there is any other conclusion.

Unless we articulated very poorly, the brief is not intended to lead you to conclusions. In our view, it was intended to point out that there could be no effect.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It wasn't intended to be just your conclusions?

Mr. Roger Grimes: It wasn't supposed to do that. And the information would certainly point out that there could be no effect on any other jurisdiction.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: May I then in particular refer to the last sentence in the first paragraph. It says that in order to explain the province's position, it is helpful to focus on two main themes: the situation across the country as it was and the situation as it currently exists under the fundamental rule of law that the Constitution of Canada is a living document, which is open to amendment in accordance with the Constitution Act.

• 1700

Going on to the last paragraph under this section, which is in the middle of page 13, it says:

Similarly, if other provinces were to be held to this standard of not prejudicially affecting a right with respect to denominational schools held at the time of Union, it would be impossible to move forward and accommodate changing times. The Constitution itself recognizes the absurdity of such a result, and provides for an amending formula to permit growth and change in the Constitution. To lock a constitutional provision in time cannot be right in principle or in law.

Doesn't that, by implication, suggest that indeed this does prejudicially affect the rights of certain denominations within Newfoundland and could be interpreted in other provinces as allowing that very thing to happen?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Mr. Co-Chair, a yes and a no. Is it going to affect the rights in Newfoundland and Labrador? Absolutely, and everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador understands it and knows that the currently held rights to single, separate denominational schools will cease to be. We're asking to take that right, which has been in the Constitution since 1949, out of the Constitution. That's what this is all about. That's the fundamental issue.

Now, what impact would it have in Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia? Absolutely none, because it's a provincial jurisdiction. If the governments of those provinces want to change the way denominational rights are exercised in education in their province, they would have to bring forward a request to amend the arrangement they have with the Government of Canada and the constitutional provision that affects them with respect to education.

The only thing that could possibly happen is that someone in a debate might say they did it in Newfoundland and Labrador, so we might want to do it. But whether anybody ever does it, or anybody will ever say because it was done in Newfoundland it must happen in Quebec.... You can never possibly make the connection. It's a separate, bilateral arrangement.

These issues are here under section 43—provincial jurisdiction, enshrined in the Constitution of Canada, an amending formula to follow. Any other province can exercise its rights as they've been arranged under the Constitution and can change them if they bring forward a request. It's not that they will be changed or could be argued to be changed automatically because of a different circumstance now in Newfoundland and Labrador than was there last year. There's no connection.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Schmidt, do you have another point you want to follow?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, I would like to follow up, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

I quite agree that this does not directly or automatically change anything in any other province. That is not the question. The question is that Newfoundland is a part of Confederation, as are the other provinces, and to suggest that what one province does is immaterial to what happens in other provinces or will not affect them, I would consider a naive position. I think we do affect one another. Just as there is a synergy and a dynamism in a group like this, and although each of us can do something different that does not affect someone else, there are other actions we take that do affect other people. At least, psychologically, I think there is an implication to this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Very briefly, Mr. Co-Chair, there are clearly some issues in the Constitution that affect all of us, and if there's a change it has an impact on every part of the country. Those issues are dealt with through an amending formula that requires the consent of a certain number of provinces and a certain percentage of the population, because it's recognized they have an impact on the whole of the country.

There are others issues, such as education, for which there are constitutional protections. How we deal with it in Newfoundland and Labrador has absolutely no relation, legally or otherwise, to how it's done in any other jurisdiction. I think the distinction is made clearly, and that's why there's a different amending formula.

The only thing we have to do here is go through section 43. Our legislature needs to approve it, the Parliament of Canada needs to approve it, and it's done. That's the legal requirement, and it reflects the fact this is a different issue. It relates only to how it operates in our province.

It makes for good speeches somewhere else to say look what they did to the Catholics in Newfoundland; look what they did to the Pentecostals in Newfoundland; they might be going to do that in Ontario, for goodness sake. Well, if they're going to do it in Ontario, they'll have to debate it in Ontario; they'll have to go through the Legislature of Ontario; they'll have to come to the Parliament of Canada; and they'll have to deal with it the best way they know how for their people.

We are asking the people to deal with it the best way we know how for our people, which is to deal with the amendment you've been getting information about and dealing with for the last couple of weeks or so.

• 1705

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Minister.

I would like to move to Senator Gigantès, please, and then to Madam Caplan.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: Minister, isn't it true that even before you brought forward your amendments to Term 17, any other province could have used section 43 since 1982 to ask the agreement of the Parliament of Canada to a resolution passed by its provincial legislature to change something that was in the jurisdiction of that province and nobody else's jurisdiction?

Mr. Roger Grimes: That's my clear understanding of it, Senator. Others here would know better. I deal with a limited portfolio. I'm not a constitutional expert, and so on, but my understanding is, as you've articulated, for matters of provincial jurisdiction, section 43 is the vehicle to contemplate change.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Senator.

Madam Caplan, we'll now move to you.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I hadn't planned on saying this to the minister, but I think it is appropriate following the interchange: I am from Ontario and I believe anyone who looks at the reality or the history in Ontario will see that there are more differences than there are similarities with the situation in Newfoundland, and I do not believe anyone who raises the issue of whether or not this will have an impact on any other province, including Ontario, does anything more than fearmonger where there is no need to raise those kinds of fears.

I spent 12 years in the Ontario legislature. I cannot imagine a unanimous vote in the Ontario legislature to change what we have today, and I'm not going to make a speech about why. I want to say very clearly that there is no relationship whatsoever between the situation and the reality and the history in Newfoundland and the reality in Ontario as it exists today.

So I want to thank you, Minister, for being so clear about your situation and also responding to the previous question from Mr. Schmidt the way that you did.

The question I have actually is one on that unanimous vote. For the record, could you tell this committee the standing of the different political parties, how many representatives and the non-partisan support you had in the legislature when it came to that unanimous vote—how many Conservatives, how many independents, how many New Democrats, that kind of thing?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Our legislature, Mr. Co-Chair and Madam Caplan, is a legislature of 48 members. There are 36 in the Liberal government; 10 in the official opposition of the Progressive Conservatives; one New Democratic member that the committee heard from, Mr. Harris, who's also the leader of their party; and one independent member.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Is it correct that the one independent member represents part of Labrador, I believe, where there is a very significant aboriginal community?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Yes, she does. Actually she represents the area, I guess, where the Métis group that you heard from would have been most predominantly featured in the geography of our province.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much. I think it is very significant and something this committee must give prime importance to, the non-partisan nature of the vote, of the debate, and ultimately of the unanimous vote that took place.

Given the fact that you have had this discussion for such a long period of time and the debate has been so thorough, I want you to know, as I said, I can't imagine this debate having this result in the province of Ontario. The fact that it has in Newfoundland would suggest to me that you certainly are deserving of the support not only of this committee but of the House of Commons and of the Senate, as expeditiously as possible.

I personally believe it is important for your communities to move on and put the divisiveness behind you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I am seeing no further questions on the paper, so I will ask one, if I can. It's a point of clarification on one of the points.

• 1710

In the community of Conche, a place where I am thinking of going this weekend to cool my heels and be spiritual, if parents decided that they wanted Roman Catholic religious instruction, it is the responsibility of the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure there is also religious instruction available in a non-denominational nature. Is that correct?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Under the proposed new term?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Yes.

Mr. Roger Grimes: The constitutional responsibility of the government would be to ensure that the non-denominational religious education program is available to every student in every class.

If in a circumstance like the community of Conche, which is predominantly Roman Catholic again, a lot of the parents wanted to do Roman Catholic religious education instead, they wouldn't have a right under the new Term 17 to say we must have Roman Catholic religious education in our school. They could ask and if that's the request of the vast majority of the students, it's up to the school board and the local school administration to accommodate that if they feel they can, but it won't be a right. Under the new term it would not be a constitutional right; it would be a request that would be accommodated if possible.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator, you had just a brief word?

Senator Philippe Gigantès: Minister, if the parents of a student do not want this student to participate in religious education of a non-denominational type, that student need not participate. Do I understand that correctly? Can the student by himself or herself take that decision?

Mr. Roger Grimes: The decision to opt out, which is the phrase that's recognized and understood in our province, from religious education even today, which is denominationally specific, has always been triggered by the parent. Because of our high school population, we have some students now who are of legal age and they can trigger the opting out of and by themselves.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: Thank you, sir.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Minister, thank you very much for taking the time once again to appear before this special joint committee. Your time is very much appreciated here and we thank you for your answers and for just participating in the deliberations. On behalf of the committee, I express our gratitude.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you very much, Mr. Joint Chair. Thank you to the committee for your deliberation on this matter over the last couple of weeks. We certainly appreciate your efforts.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We will go to deliberations regarding the agenda for the remainder. There is a suggestion that we assemble tomorrow at 9.30 a.m. in camera to present views on general directions for the final report. Do I hear some discussion on that particular point?

I will point out as a piece of information that it is our intention to hear from Minister Dion at 9.30 a.m. on Monday for a period of approximately one hour. I will entertain discussion. I think there are members who would like to discuss that point.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chair, earlier in the week I had already indicated some reluctance on my part to proceed with the discussion of a report before we had concluded hearing witnesses, and we still have a final witness to hear. I would caution the committee about embarking on discussions, even in camera, before we've done that. I'm not sure of the appropriateness of that way of doing things.

If there's a concern in terms of a time line, I might suggest that members approach the committee chairs to make suggestions on their views on what might or might not be in the report and on how a report could be structured so that some preliminary thinking and crafting might be done. But that would be in the absence of discussions, because I think to have discussions without having concluded witnesses is very awkward. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Your point is well taken. I will just provide some background information.

The nature of the suggestion is not to make decisions but to provide drafters with a general sense of direction from members, from input. They require some input from members in order to generate a sample for consideration. So no decisions would be taken at this particular proposed meeting.

• 1715

On the reason we have to delay with regard to hearing from Minister Dion, our joint chairs have been attempting to be as flexible as possible. We have respected the fact that Minister Dion was not available to us for tomorrow's session. We're just trying to be flexible. But I am very open to this. If you feel it's inappropriate to meet tomorrow, I suggest we not meet tomorrow.

Senator Noël Kinsella: Can you remind us when the report of this joint committee, pursuant to the respective House order, has to be tabled?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): It has to be tabled on December 5.

Senator Noël Kinsella: That's Friday.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That's correct.

Senator Noël Kinsella: Working back from that date, I tend to agree with Mr. Bélanger that it would not be ordinary parliamentary procedure for committees to initiate the drafting of a report when all the witnesses have yet to be heard. You just don't do that. I say this for the following reason. We agree that there are going to be witnesses or at least another witness. We cannot anticipate what that witness is going to say, and he or she might say something that would precipitate a need to recall another witness.

The researchers have been with us. The record is the record of the testimony, and the organization of that data, grouping it under various kinds of headings, is not something that I think would require a great deal of direction. I would prefer to have the specific direction given by this committee immediately after the last witness has been heard, and mindful of the need for translation and preparation, there would be four days. It could be tabled with the clerks of both houses so it wouldn't have to be in session on the afternoon of December 5, 1997.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That is correct.

Senator Noël Kinsella: But I anticipate the Senate will be sitting on Friday, December 5, so that's no problem for us.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): We also have to take into consideration the time that is needed for translation of the report.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): To add to the point, Senator, and I'm sure you'll appreciate this, I understood you may or may not be with us on Monday, so I wanted to be respectful of your input into the report. That's one of the reasons I suggested some input on Friday. We want to be inclusive. That said, we can certainly adjourn until Monday morning.

Senator Gigantès, do you have a point to raise?

Senator Philippe Gigantès: With all due respect, I disagree with my friend Senator Kinsella. He knows very well how reports are written. I have participated in the draft, and there are chunks you can draft that will not be changed by testimony. I'm sure our drafters have many of those chunks in their computers already. It would be insane not to do it.

As you well know, writing is rewriting. I'm about to do the 14th version of a book I'm writing now. I started it four years ago, and many chunks will stay as they are. I don't think it is realistic to maintain that our drafters cannot start working—they already have. I'm convinced of that because I worked with them before. I would say that they have 80% of the report written by now.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay. We certainly have a fair degree of latitude, and that's one of the things I'd like to emphasize. We do have latitude in terms of meeting at night next week and taking the time that's required.

• 1720

With that said, I am getting a sense that what we should probably do is adjourn until Monday morning, that we will respect the fact that the drafters may indeed have a draft report to table for our consideration on Monday morning without our direct involvement. We will not knock them on the knuckles for doing so. We would actually encourage that, if that's the sense that I'm getting from members.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: You can read us like a book, Mr. Chair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay. That's excellent.

With that said, I will adjourn this meeting until Monday morning at 9.30 in Room 253-D. Thank you all very much for your participation. The meeting is adjourned.