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]

Tuesday, November 18, 1997

• 1537

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.)): The meeting is called to order. Thank you all very much, ladies and gentlemen, for joining us for the second meeting of the Special Joint Committee on the Amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland.

This is our second meeting, of course, and we're very honoured today to begin our witness testimony. We also have appearing before us the Hon. Stéphane Dion, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

During the course of this afternoon's proceedings, in addition to hearing from Minister Dion, we'll be hearing witness testimony from the Hon. Roger Grimes, Minister of Education of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; and as well, Mr. Jack Harris, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

To begin, I'd like to welcome Minister Dion and to say thank you very much for appearing before us as our first witness for this special joint committee.

Mr. Dion is joined by Yves De Montigny from the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs; and Mary Dawson from the Department of Justice. Thank you all very much for joining us.

Of course, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister Dion has a key role in this particular legislation. So, Minister Dion, the floor is yours.

[Translation]

The Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Privy Council and Minister of Inter-Governmental Affairs, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Thank you for inviting me to appear before the Special Joint Committee on the Amendment to Term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of union with Canada.

As I explained in my October 27 House of Commons speech, the special joint committee has an important role to do and its consultations will enhance public understanding of the proposed amendment.

[English]

This afternoon, my purpose is to explain to the committee why the Government of Canada believes the Senate and the House of Commons have to adopt a resolution to give effect to the changes Newfoundland is seeking. In addition, I would like to use this opportunity to address some of the important questions that were raised when I met recently with Catholic and Pentecostal education leaders and when the resolution was introduced in the House of Commons on October 27 and in the Senate on November 5.

• 1540

Specifically, I will explain how the amendment, first, conforms to the legal requirements of the Constitution; secondly, has merit and is in the interest of Newfoundland and Canadians; and thirdly, enjoys substantial democratic support, including a reasonable degree of support among affected minorities.

First, I would like to review and clarify the constitutional and legal basis for educational governments in Newfoundland. Contrary to what some parliamentarians have suggested, legal authority for education in Newfoundland does not derive from section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The legal basis for education in Newfoundland is set out in Term 17 of the province's 1949 terms of union with Canada.

Term 17 was enacted in place of section 93 and was tailored to accommodate the province's unique circumstances. Unlike section 93, which sought to protect the existing denominational rights of the Roman Catholic and Protestant minorities in other provinces, Term 17 granted seven denominations the right to operate their own publicly funded schools. Thus, it established by law an exclusively denominational education system. There are no non-denominational public schools in Newfoundland, and the education system is not and never has been subject to guarantees or provisions set out in section 93. So section 93 does not apply in this case at all.

Term 17 only applies to Newfoundland, and it can be bilaterally amended under the section 43 procedure of the Constitution Act, 1982. This procedure was used successfully to amend Term 17 on two previous occasions, in 1987 and in 1997.

Its rules are clear. It requires only the consent of the House of Parliament and the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies. There are no rules or constitutional conventions requiring the consent of anyone other than the formal participants set out in the section 43 procedure.

[Translation]

We will now discuss the merits of the proposed amendment. Committee members are aware that for many years the province of Newfoundland has been involved in a difficult and divisive debate over the role of the Churches and religion in education. In 1985, the Government of Newfoundland sought to reform the education system by bilaterally amending Term 17. That amendment, which was proclaimed on April 21, 1997, was a compromise that retained a governance role for Churches in education and did not seem to eliminate all single-denominational schools.

The amendment provided the House of Assembly with additional powers to organize and administer public education through a system of inter-denominational schools, while retaining the rights of Roman Catholics and Pentecostals to unidenominational schools under certain conditions.

However, the attempt to implement the new Term through legislation was successfully challenged in the Newfoundland Supreme Court. Noting that there were legal problems with the Newfoundland Schools Act—and not with the amendment itself—Justice Leo Barry granted representatives of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal Churches a temporary injunction halting the entire educational reform process. In Newfoundland, this action resulted in a great deal of confusion and uncertainty about the future structure of the education system. And it led the government of Newfoundland to conclude that the compromise inherent in the amended Term 17 was unworkable.

Consequently, Premier Tobin decided to go to the people once again to seek a mandate for a subsequent amendment to Term 17. The purpose of that amendment, which the committee and Parliament are asked to consider, is to create a single, publicly funded and administered school system.

• 1545

[English]

Contrary to what some parliamentarians have suggested, the proposed term will not take religion out of Newfoundland schools. The new term contains a mandatory provision that guarantees that courses in religion must be taught and religious observance must be “permitted in schools where requested by parents”.

The term clearly indicates that the religion courses to be provided “are not specific to a religious denomination”. This provision is consistent with Premier Tobin's July 31, 1997, referendum announcement, in which he stated that the religion courses to be offered would not be formulated—and I quote him—“on a denominational basis, but on the basis of approved curriculum common to all of our students”.

Correspondingly, the term will not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or international human rights covenants, and will not require children to attend religious observances or classes if their parents object.

This interpretation is supported by legal opinions from the federal Department of Justice and from two eminent lawyers commissioned by the Government of Newfoundland—a well-known constitutional expert, Mr. Ian Binnie, and a former federal justice minister, the Hon. John Crosbie.

The Government of Canada believes the proposed amendment is supported by a substantial majority of the province's population and enjoys a fair degree of support from affected minorities. We also note that the amendment was unanimously approved by the House of Assembly on September 5.

[Translation]

In considering this amendment and establishing this committee, the government has sought to ensure that its consultative process is thorough and gives due respect to affected minorities. Some committee members will recall that the issue of minority rights was not central to the government's consideration of the previous Term 17 amendment. The old Term 17 granted certain rights to seven denominations representing 95% of the population. At the time, the majority was made up of a composite of the seven denominations and there was no single majority denomination in that sense.

However, following the last amendment to Term 17 the integrated group—Anglican, Presbyterian, Salvation Army and the United Church—became one majority class of persons comprising 52% of the population. The Roman Catholics became a sizable minority of 37%. The Pentecostals are a minority of 7%.

[English]

Given this amendment's impact on minority rights, a mere 50%-plus-one referendum majority would not have been sufficient or adequate in measuring the degree of consensus among those affected. But the referendum did not result in a narrow majority. It was an overwhelming majority of 73%, which provided evidence of minority support. The proposal carried in 47 of Newfoundland's 48 electoral districts. Voter turnout was 53%, but given the high probability that opponents of the education reform proposal were most likely to vote, the results send a clear message that there is substantial support for this amendment.

While some sincere opponents have devised mathematical formulas and scenarios in order to demonstrate that the majority of Catholics voted no, these scenarios are based on assumptions that do not seem reasonable or plausible.

For example, they suggest that almost all non-Catholics and non-Pentecostals voted yes, which imposes an unusual degree of homogeneity on what is a very large and diverse component of the population. Indeed, to prove mathematically that the majority of Catholics voted no, such scenarios require you to accept the assumption that at least 96% of all non-Catholics and non-Pentecostals voted yes. In a democracy, it is almost unheard of to have unanimous agreement on anything.

• 1550

The government's conclusions regarding the referendum outcome are not based on improbable assumptions but on what appears to have happened on polling dates. Our analysis, which employs data from census studies of religion and demographics in Newfoundland, indicates that in heavily Roman Catholic areas the proposal was supported by a majority.

The St. George's Bay region, which is 74% Roman Catholic, voted 59% yes. The Avalon Peninsula, which is 48.5% Roman Catholic, voted 72% yes. Coincidentally, the Burin Peninsula is also 48.5% Roman Catholic and it also voted 72% yes. Approximately 75% of all Roman Catholics in Newfoundland and Labrador reside in these three regions. Moreover, these regions contain a majority—25 out of 48 or 52%—of the province's electoral districts and the proposal carried in all but one of them.

It is difficult to assess accurately the exact degree to which members of the smaller Pentecostal community supported the proposed amendment. However, on September 5 the three members of the Pentecostal faith who sit in the Newfoundland House of Assembly and represents districts with significant Pentecostal populations freely joined their colleagues in unanimously supporting the resolution to amend Term 17.

These groups included Mr. Roger Grimes, the Minister of Education. Mr. Graham Flight, who voted no in the referendum, is a member of the House of Assembly whose district contains a large Pentecostal population. He changed his position and voted in favour of the amendment because, as he stated:

I believe that we now have to move on. The people of Newfoundland have spoken in a very decisive manner...to amend the Constitution to accomplish the proposed education reform that this government is proposing and, Mr. Speaker, I respect that decision.... I will support the resolution.

When assessing the proposed amendment, the committee should accord due respect to the fact that all the members of the House of Assembly voted in favour of the resolution to amend Term 17. This included all Catholic and Pentecostal members, even those who had campaigned for the no side and voted no in the provincial referendum. Such unanimity is rare in democratic assemblies and we should give it due weight.

The overwhelming support the amendment received in the referendum and the House of Assembly represents a clear consensus that appears to include a reasonable measure of support from the affected minorities.

The committee of Parliament should interpret this as a clear signal that the population of Newfoundland and Labrador wants to proceed expeditiously to reform its education system in a manner that is fair to all and in the national interest.

The government acknowledges that the Newfoundland and Labrador Roman Catholic bishops and the leadership of the Pentecostal church have concerns about the new amendment. However, we feel the Government of Newfoundland is demonstrating the spirit of openness with regard to a continued role in religious education, albeit non-constitutional role, for the churches.

In anticipation of the adoption of Term 17 amendments, the Newfoundland Department of Education has begun setting up a consultative process for developing the new religious education curriculum. Although there is no requirement to do so, the Department of Education has indicated that this process will seek representations from the province's various denominations.

• 1555

To conclude, in the future, should another province come forward with a proposed change to its terms of union or to section 93, it will be up to Parliament to make its own assessment on the facts of that case and on the merits and appropriateness of the proposed amendment. Parliament will also wish to carefully assess whether the amendment enjoys a reasonable degree of support from the citizens affected by it.

In the case before Parliament, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has, under section 43, properly authorized an amendment to Term 17 that will only apply to that province: Newfoundland. Under the circumstances, the Government of Canada believes that the amendment is appropriate and in the national interest. We believe it enjoys adequate support from affected citizens, including minorities. We believe that it merits the committee's support and ultimately Parliament's approval.

Merci beaucoup.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Minister, for taking the time to appear before us to present your brief this afternoon.

We are now of course proceeding to a question-and-answer period. What I'd ask of all members of this special joint committee, to enable us to ask as many questions as possible given the size of the committee and the obvious desire of committee members to ask questions and to hear the minister's response—and indeed the response of all witnesses who appear before us—is that we be very, very deliberate, and try wherever possible to keep our questions precise so that we can hear as well precise answers. This is not an opportunity for statements per se, but a time for questions and answers.

We have before us a short list of questioners who have indicated to my Senate co-chair and me that they would like to ask a question. I want to proceed with Mr. Jason Kenney from the Reform Party. I also have on my list at this time Senator Kinsella, who has requested an opportunity to ask a question, as well as Mr. Pierre Brien from the Bloc. Please signal to me if you have a desire to ask questions.

I now throw the floor open to Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister, for your very lucid presentation.

Minister, I would like to ask you if you have any concerns at all about the process under which the referendum was conducted. I understand that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador directly participated in the referendum on the yes side, financially and politically and in every respect. It strikes me as unusual in the history of referenda that the government, which is the arbiter of fair play in the political process, ought to so directly support one side in a referendum. Does this in any way trouble you? That's my first question.

Secondly, you have discussed at length the apparent popular support for the amendment. But I recall in several interventions on the proposed amendment to section 93 vis-à-vis Quebec that you adduced the lack of opposition from the formal spokespeople for the Catholic church to be evidence of consensus. In this case, you have been mute about the opposition—the very clear and explicit opposition—of the institutional Catholic church and Pentecostal churches.

My question to you, sir, is why in the debate on section 93 did you raise the apparent indifference of the Catholic bishops? And in this case, does their very clear opposition concern you with respect to the alleged consensus that exists in Newfoundland?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you, colleague. I will start with the second part of the question.

There is no requirement in the Constitution to have a referendum. We said that we would not make a change if there was no reasonable support. The principle that we have decided to follow is not a requirement in the Constitution, either, and a province is free to show this consensus in the way it wants.

• 1600

In Quebec, I suppose the reason it was not necessary to have a referendum was that the support was so obvious that even the bishops did not go against the change. In Newfoundland, since the bishops are against it, it is necessary for the premier, for the government, to show that there is support.

That is my interpretation of the choices the two governments made, but it's up to them to choose what they want to do, and it's up to us to decide if it's enough. If the bishops are supportive and the result of the referendum is overwhelming, then we are sure there is no problem. But since the bishops were against it, it was important for the government, I guess, to show that their support was there. That's my interpretation of their choice.

On the second aspect about the referendum, it seems to me a government cannot call a referendum to say “I'm neutral”, because it's spending money for taxpayers. If a government decides to have a referendum, it's because the government believes that it's good for the people—that it is its right or even its duty to show why it is good for the people. To me, that the government was involved in the referendum in supporting the case is merely logical.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I presume, then, that you would not object to, say, perhaps the Government of Quebec directly intervening with public funds in a future referendum in that province?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Could you repeat that? Excuse me?

Mr. Jason Kenney: Presumably you would not then object to the Government of Quebec directly intervening in a future referendum in that province with the considerable use of public funds, with the apparatus of the state, on behalf of one particular side in a referendum.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: This depends, from one province to another, but in this province I understand that it was done according to the province's Elections Act. It was not something illegal. You may say “It's not fair; in my province I don't want to have that.” You may say that, but it was not illegal. It was the province's Election Act that allowed the government to do that.

Mr. Jason Kenney: It sounds like a double standard to me.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Thank you, Minister.

I move now to Senator Kinsella, who has requested a question.

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

Minister, I want to focus our attention on the precise words contained in the resolution. I would like to draw your attention to proposed Term 17(2), where it says the Legislative Assembly will have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of education. I have no difficulty with that. It's the rest of the sentence, “but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination.”

The value issue that I would like to get your reaction on relates to this point. Does the Government of Canada believe that parents have the right to have their children receive religious instruction in accord with the parents' religious convictions? Does the Government of Canada continue to accept the obligations assumed in 1976, when Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in particular article 18 of that covenant?

Article 18(4) speaks directly to the point that parents and, where appropriate, legal guardians have the right to have religious education provided for their children in accordance with the religious convictions of the parents—not the religious convictions of the state, but the religious convictions of the parents.

It seems to me, Minister, there's a grave difference, a fundamental difference, in what is being proposed here and what has been proposed in Quebec. You're fresh out of that discussion. My understanding—and we'll be debating it with a report in front of us shortly—is that in Quebec the family or the community is able to, under Quebec's Education Act, request that there be religious education, or even indeed a denominational school, and there are safeguards built in. But in this instance, in proposed Term 17(3), it's only religious observances that parents may request and that “shall be permitted...if requested”.

There is such a major difference between what is in Quebec and what is in Newfoundland, if you read these words. Why do you think that dichotomy should exist between providing a constitutional safeguard to the right parents would have to request religious observances, and taking away from parents and giving to the state the right to determine religious education?

• 1605

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Minister, I ask you to respond.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: First, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't recognize the right to religious education in publicly funded schools. This is why the proposed term will not require children to attend religious observance in classes if their parents object. In this way, it will not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's the first point.

Also, since it will be enacted as a part of the Canadian Constitution, it will not be subject to the charter because one part of the Constitution cannot override another part of the Constitution.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Thank you, Minister.

My focus was not on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but rather on the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, le pacte international, and article 18.

In 1976 the Government of Canada, with the consent of all jurisdictions in Canada, deposited the instrument of ratification at the United Nations. We have assumed those obligations. Article 18(4) speaks directly to the right of parents to have the religious education of their children based upon the religious convictions of the parents.

When you read Term 17 as proposed in subclause (2), it would seem to me they would be much better off to put a period after the word education. The best I can say is that the rest of the sentence is redundant. If the legislative assembly has all the jurisdiction, which it will have, why do they need to specify that? And if not, they're trying to intend something and then we have to know exactly what is being intended.

My question to you is whether it is the Government of Canada's position that the right that Canadians have, as protected by all human rights standards, for freedom of religion includes the right to have your children educated according to your religious convictions, not the religious convictions of the state.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: But you see, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that you are speaking about is the same about that. It only recognizes the right to have your children educated in private schools with religious education. We are speaking about public schools. But maybe Madame Dawson from the Department of Justice can say more.

Ms. Mary Dawson (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Justice, Special Adviser to Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): If we just take a look at the article 18(4), we will see that it says:

The states Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

But as Minister Dion says, there's nothing in that statement to suggest that it's at the expense of the state or that it's provided in state schools. It's a legal obligation to ensure that the parents have some control over the religious and moral education, in whatever way.

Senator Noel Kinsella: But there's nothing in there that accepts state religion either?

Ms. Mary Dawson: There's—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Excuse me for just one moment.

We will be taking varying degrees of latitude during the course of the questions and answers, members of this committee. But I ask you to have the chair to recognize you before we go into a bit of a to and a fro here. I think we can enjoy certain latitudes in the discussions here, but it's important and in the interest of all members to be afforded time. That's very important. So members, let me simply ask you to have the chair recognize you before we get involved in supplementary questions.

I'll ask the witness to respond now. And please, I do have a rather long list of questions that have to be answered.

Mr. Minister.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I just want to add a point. The United States is part of this convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and there the right to teach religion in schools does not exist. So you see, we are speaking about the right in private schools, not in public schools. This is the point.

• 1610

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I'll just go over the list of questioners that I have before me right now. It extends to Mr. Pagtakhan, who has asked for a question, as have Mr. Pierre Brien from the Bloc Québécois, Senator Gigantès, Paul DeVillers, Senator Bill Doody, and Mr. Bélanger. In that order, I will ask Mr. Pagtakhan if he could begin by providing his question.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your presentation, Mr. Minister.

I would like to have a clarification. You equally spoke of the future and made an analysis of the various denominations in terms of percentages. It occurs to me that were a question of a similar nature posed to a people of a province in the future, it might be more prudent and wiser to identify those various designations on the part of the voters when they so choose, so that we will have no more basis for just analysis, but an actual count. What do you think of that approach in the future?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): It's against all Canadian principles. It's against every principle I would ever stand for. No way.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: It's a good suggestion, but it was not done the last time. It's something provinces may look at, but it's not in our tradition to identify who you are when you go to vote. There is something there that we would have to think about a lot.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: And say no.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I'll now go to Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): I would like to make a short comment. I agree that the last suggestion does not make a lot of sense, Mr. Chairman. But that is not the purpose of the debate.

Minister, there is a sentence in your remarks that seems to come out of nowhere, and that seems illogical. Perhaps it's a sentence from another speech that got into your remarks today. I would like you to explain it to me, if you can.

You say that, given the amendment's impact on minority rights, a mere fifty-plus-one referendum majority would not have been sufficient or adequate in measuring the degree of consensus among those affected.

In the circumstances, I would like you to explain why the federal government considered the results of the first referendum— 54% support with 52% participation, both sufficient and adequate. How exactly do you define sufficient?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: There are two reasons for that. First, the amendment was less important the first time around. This amendment would have a more radical impact. Second, there was no clear majority-minority relationship during this referendum. The first amendment affected almost everyone—95% of the population—but the issue was discussed, since some members of my party felt that there was indeed a majority-minority relationship, and that the majority was not sufficient. Many Conservatives agreed, and it was defeated in the Senate. So it's a question of judgement.

This time around, I told Premier Tobin that there was a fairly clear majority-minority relationship, and we were going further than with the other amendment. If support for the amendment had stood only at 52 or 53%, I would not have advised Premier Tobin to bring it before this Parliament.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Minister, there are many value judgements being made on the sufficiency and reasonableness of what you are doing. The mathematical interpretation of the results is also to some extent subjective, since it can never be demonstrated. That is of course desirable in that we don't want to force citizens to write their names on their ballots. Some relationships therefore remain difficult to establish. So you are making a value judgement, and that means the federal government must assume responsibility for determining what is in everyone's best interest. So at the end of the day, the federal government, in its wisdom, acts as supreme judge.

Could you please explain how the first amendment could have been contested before the courts, which did not let the government go as far with reforms as it would have liked. Did the government of Newfoundland or the federal government make some error in their analysis, or in their legal analysis, of the first amendment's scope? Did those two governments make errors in assessing the impact of the changes, and in defining the exact amendment required to achieve the reforms proposed at the time?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'd like to make one comment on your preamble. The government is not the supreme judge; parliamentarians are the supreme judges, and each of them makes up his or her own mind.

• 1615

The government's perspective was that the majority was sufficient to proceed, including the majority in affected minorities. If the majority had been extremely narrow, we would have advised the province not to act, in view of the changes proposed. In a democracy, fifty-plus-one is fine for some decisions, but does not work well at all for others.

Your other question was a very good one, though I have some difficulty remembering it. Oh yes, the court ruling. That's a very good question, because some parliamentarians are confused about the ruling. The judge did not invalidate the ruling, but the Schools Act, which the House of Assembly passed pursuant to the amendment. The amendment was perfectly in order, but the Act was not.

Pursuant to the amendment, both types of school boards had to be treated in the same way. But the provincial government assumed that those who did not vote had an opinion. Thus, they were not receiving the same treatment, something the judge found unacceptable. So the problem was caused by the Schools Act, not the amendment.

[English]

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

We have to move along to Senator Gigantès and as well to Mr. DeVillers, followed by Senator Doody.

[Translation]

Senator Philippe D. Gigantès (De Lorimier, Lib.): Minister, I would like to deal with government participation in a referendum. There have been referendums in many places in the world. Switzerland has held them, and the government participates in them. There was a referendum in Greece in the 1970s to decide whether the monarchy should be reinstated or not, and the government participated even though it was an anti-royalist government that urged people to vote no. In California, the governor opposed proposition 13 with the whole force of his government. And in 1968, General de Gaulle, with his government, campaigned to have his amendment passed and, when he lost, he retired to his estate. Are these not precedents of governments taking part in referendums?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, they are. That is why I said earlier that it was not scandalous on the part of a government to get involved in a campaign if it believes it is good for the public. In other provincial legislatures, in particular in Quebec, care is taken to share funding between the Yes and No sides. These are defendable viewpoints. A recent Supreme Court decision found that both viewpoints could be defended. The idea is to balance the forces so that money is not the deciding factor, and the various participants must have the same freedom of action. There is a balance to be achieved, which is not necessarily the same in Newfoundland as elsewhere.

Senator Philippe D. Gigantès: Thank you.

[English]

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

I offer the floor to Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mine is not a question for the minister. I'll leave that for other committee members.

In the spirit of co-operation and information sharing, I'd point out that Mr. Kenney in his question indicated that the minister's presentation was mute on the question of the bishops and the Pentecostal church, and I'd just like to point out paragraph 3 on page 5 of the English draft, which indicates quite clearly that concern.

Thank you.

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

I'll go to Senator Doody, but I would remind members that this is not an exchange between members. This is an opportunity for questions and answers.

Senator Doody.

Senator C. William Doody (Harbour Main—Bell Island, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, the heart of this matter really is the history of the protection that was provided to the various classes of people in the province of Newfoundland under the terms of union. The minority religious rights—they could be language rights, they could be anything, but in this case they're religious rights—were guaranteed under the terms of union, and these were put in there obviously specifically to protect the minorities.

A vote of the majority to me seems irrelevant. If minority rights were not to be protected, you didn't need them in the Constitution. They could have been left to the legislature, which is in effect what's happening now. The two legislatures are deciding on the validity of the minority rights of the people of Newfoundland.

There are those who will say there has been a referendum and the majority has decided we no longer need these protections for the minorities. I say when you leave the fate of minorities to a referendum to be decided by a majority, it makes a mockery of the whole system.

• 1620

Having said that, and realizing that I'm whistling against the wind, I just wonder, has the Government of Canada given any thought to some procedure whereby they can look, from their vantage point in Ottawa, to the protection of those minorities who will no longer have the constitutional protection that they then enjoyed? Will the Pentecostal people be at the mercy of the vagaries or the moods of the legislature of the province of Newfoundland?

I notice that in your very comprehensive brief, sir, you said the Department of Education has indicated they will have a process of consultation, but there's no obligation for them to do that. That sounds very cavalier when one thinks of the history of the province of Newfoundland and the deep involvement of the denominations in the educational system, and when one thinks of the history of the Pentecostal people, how they started with their small little communities out in isolated places such as the Horse Islands, out in far distant parts of the province of Newfoundland, or the island of Newfoundland, as it then was.

Suddenly, after being embraced in 1982 by a constitutional protection, they're now cast aside and at the whim of the Department of Education, which has indicated it will seek representation from the province's various denominations, but it's under no obligation to do so.

Has the Government of Canada thought of any oversight on this thing at all before the Parliament passes what to me is a terrible travesty?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you very much.

Assume that a province would lose its mind and would vote—

Senator William Doody: We've known that to happen.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Stéphane Dion: No, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I would never say that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Say 80% or 90% of the province voted to abolish liberty of religion in the province. If they came here, we would say no way, don't pass the door of this Parliament.

So you see, it depends on what we're speaking about. You cannot say minorities have absolute rights about everything, because otherwise the aristocrats would still be in power. They had a lot of rights before we abolished them, and they were a tiny minority. So it depends on what we are speaking about.

In most democracies, and in many provinces in this country, the churches have nothing to do with school boards. It's not a fundamental right. It's not considered a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of Canada. So we have to weigh what we are speaking about.

What the Government of Canada has said is that for this change, we want a consensus and a reasonable support among the minorities affected. And we think we have it. What will remain is paragraph 2(a) of the Constitution, of the charter, about liberty of religion, and the fact that the amendment has some provisions for the remaining rights of religion. According to democratic practice, it's fair to have that.

As long as we have reasonable support among minorities, we support this change.

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

Mr. Bélanger is up next, followed by the Hon. Sheila Finestone.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Minister, I would like to ask you a question that is not directly related to the issue before us, but which deals with education in Newfoundland and the Constitution Act of 1982, of which section 43 is being invoked to make this amendment.

There is another section in the same Act, section 23, which imposes obligations on the province of Newfoundland in the area of education for its minority official language groups. Could you inform us as to whether the province is complying with this section of the Charter of Rights?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The government of Newfoundland will be able to tell you more because it has agreed to come to meet with you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I was intending to ask them that question.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Good. What I know is that Premier Tobin, when the amendment was first requested, had said that the amendment would enable him to help the francophone minority. He said that, because the present system is a denominational one rather than a public one, he cannot help francophones in his province. What you will be able to say to this premier is that he no longer has any excuse. He can act and you will be able to ask him to act.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Minister.

[English]

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

Ms. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. It seems to me we've been seeing a lot of you these days around these issues.

• 1625

I'd like to follow up on the direction taken by my colleague Mr. Bélanger, because that's exactly where I'd like to look. I think it's fine that Newfoundland wants to proceed expeditiously to reform its educational system in a manner that is fair to all and in the national interest. That's to quote you directly. My concern is that if we are moving to a secular system, which I am pleased to note we are doing now both in Quebec and potentially in Newfoundland—and I heard you allude to section 2 of the charter, I presume section 15, the non-discrimination section of the charter—in what way will the Canadian Constitution, if it isn't under section 23, which protects minorities, in a sense, and ensures that we can now move to linguistic rights...?

Were you saying that with this change both francophones and anglophones will be eligible for sectoral education, that it will be at the school level itself that the decision on a religious direction will be taken? If that is the case, these schools, which will become like non-sectarian schools, will certainly have a minority and majority situation. Then what?

You are talking about the application and the right of having religious...as I understand it in subclause (3) of the proposed new term, “Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents.” Does that mean, if I'm in a school where the majority of the parents are Catholic, or vice versa, where the majority might be Protestant but of five or six different sects, that they will determine in some way that their religious education and observances shall be permitted? I believe we should be moving toward a sectoral school system, non-sectarian.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: My answer will be very short, because I'm not the Minister of Education of Newfoundland. It's a question you may want to ask the minister when he comes.

I don't know exactly how they will organize the education system. Section 23 will apply. That means the language minority will be entitled to have school facilities or education facilities where numbers warrant. But how this will be concretely organized, I cannot say.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Can I have a supplementary to that?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): You certainly can, Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you for answering part of my question, but I continue with my concern around the right to religious education as a minority within a minority within a minority, which is where I find myself in the scheme of things in this very diversified Canada, a country of pluralism.

I am not anxious to see religion in the school, period. Frankly, I think religion should be left in the hands of the parents and in the private sector and in the churches. It certainly doesn't belong in the schools. I think children should learn about differences between people and sameness between people, and have respect for those differences. That's what Canada is all about—respecting differences and living together with an understanding of how we all have differences in points of view.

What does “religious observances shall be permitted” mean? It means we will light Hanukkah candles and also have a Christmas tree? That's fine if that's what it means, but you'll also learn about Muslims and about Pentecostals and all the other sects.

I want to know if that's what this means and if that's what we would accept as the understanding.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I believe the question has been put. I'll give the floor to the minister.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: It is written that: “Religious observance shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents.” This will be in the Constitution. It will be a constitutional right.

Madame Dawson may want to comment more.

Ms. Mary Dawson: How this will actually be accomplished in practice is a matter for Newfoundland to decide. Newfoundland is bound by the charter, of course. A number of precedents have been established over the last 10 or 20 years under the charter as to the extent to which one religion can oust the other religions or take over or be imposed upon other groups. There are limits to that.

So those legal limits would continue to apply to Newfoundland. It's just a matter of balance, the extent to which anything could be done under subclause (3).

• 1630

I would suggest that probably under Term 17(3) the Province of Newfoundland would have to be quite careful not to apply the request of a parent in such a way that it went too far in imposing any particular way of behaving on the rest of the students in the school. It will be a question of finding the proper balance, and the particular rule that was applied would always be subject to scrutiny by the courts. We certainly have a number of rules already that we understand under the charter, as applied over the last 10 or 15 years in this area.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. It was said that one of the questions raised would be valuable and more pertinent directed to the Minister of Education from Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm quite happy that he is indeed in our presence and will be appearing before us shortly. With that in mind, we can focus these questions specifically at the expert qualifications of this particular presenter.

I will now provide Senator Kinsella an opportunity to ask a question followed by Mr. Kenney. Not seeing any more hands raised in requests for questions, we will if time permits offer Mrs. Finestone an opportunity to put in a small supplementary. But I now give the floor to Senator Kinsella followed by Mr. Kenney.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, should this resolution pass as it's presently worded, in addition to Newfoundland can you think of any other North American jurisdictions where the state or the provincial government has the right to teach religion in the public schools?

Professor Yves de Montigny (Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa): It depends what you mean by teaching religion, of course.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. Now Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Chair. As a preface to my question I'd like to briefly respond to a couple of basic points of debate.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Kenney, make it very short. This is a question period and answer period. It's not a statement period.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I know, but you let them make their statements.

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

Mr. Jason Kenney: Senator Gigantés said that referenda in Switzerland and California Proposition 13 involved the direct intervention of the government. That's not true. I've read those statutes. The California and Swiss referendum statutes prohibit direct intervention by the state and direct funding by the state. I suggest many members of this committee would scream bloody murder if the Government of Quebec were to use the full apparatus of the state in favour of a referendum.

The citation with respect to the bishop's position on page 5 does not accurately reflect the position. It says they have concerns. They don't have concerns, they're fully opposed to the amendment.

My question to the minister follows on the comment from Madame Finestone, who essentially stated what is really behind many people's support for this amendment, which is the secularization of the school system. My question for the minister is a theoretical one. You've said it's not necessary for funding to be provided in order for parents to exercise their natural rights to direct the sectarian education of their children. Isn't it true, Minister, that rights are only truly rights insofar as people can practically exercise them?

If you're taxing low-income parents to fund a secular state education system—a monolithic, not pluralistic education system—and they don't have the ability to separately fund religious education in keeping with their own consciences, have you not effectively and practically abrogated that right that Senator Kinsella has spoken about?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: If you are asking me, if we have the constitutional change asked for by the province, whether some denominational right to have religious education in the schools and the school board system will decrease, the answer is yes. It's the purpose of the change.

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

Mrs. Finestone, do you have a brief supplementary?

• 1635

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: The choice of dollars to follow the child, which is in the child's best interests, would be my choice if I was the minister of God knows what, but particularly education.

My question really was to Mary Dawson. You noted that there are legal precedents that would preclude any kind of unsupportable manoeuvres on the part of any province with respect to excluding religious practice. That was the nature of your observation. If that is it, could you please give us some of the court decisions you were referring to so that we can read them and better understand the response you gave us?

Ms. Mary Dawson: I was really referring to the series of Ontario judgments in the 1980s. The point I was making was that there's a limit as to the extent to which a government can impose one religion upon the whole population. That's where the freedom of religion protections and the equality protections of the charter come into play. There's a line of two or three cases, whose names escape me at the moment.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Were those the Mennonite cases of southern Ontario you were referring to?

Ms. Mary Dawson: I've forgotten the names. There were about three of them in the 1980s.

The point that's made in those cases is that in the absence of particular constitutional provisions such as section 93 or Term 17, the way the charter would normally operate is such that a particular religion is not given an undue preference. All I'm suggesting is that those cases would have some application in applying the Term 17 amendment.

In the Term 17 amendment in subclause (2), the focus is on a general educational capacity with respect to religion without any specific religion, and in subclause (3) the focus is on religious observances to specific groups. All I was suggesting was that there would be a limit as to how far that particular provision would be allowed to be applied in the sense that it couldn't be imposed on the whole school population.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So it gives more latitude. Is that the point you're making?

Ms. Mary Dawson: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: If I may, Mr. Chairman—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Very briefly.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: If you don't wish me to, I'll do it later.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): No, it's quite okay, but I do want to extend the opportunity for questions from others. It's very important that all members have an opportunity. Not seeing any names right now on my short list, I will extend this courtesy.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I was asking Professor Kinsella—I just changed him from a senator to a professor—the name of the case I'm trying to use as the example.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Ms. Dawson, perhaps you would oblige this committee by providing some further details of some of the case references to which you referred in your presentation.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: The reason I really wanted to pursue that with the Department of Justice's legal counsel is that it strikes me that subclause (3) of the new text would have allowed the Supreme Court to have rendered a different decision on that particular case, the name of which I can't remember. Whereas the Supreme Court has read it in perhaps a more narrowly defined sense, this gives it the larger latitude so that Pentecostals or others—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. It appears that we could probably get some more research done on this. Ms. Dawson, if you could oblige and help the honourable member, I'll now turn the floor over to Mr. Pagtakhan, who has a short question.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have just one short question in reaction to an earlier question with respect to the issue of a minority being thwarted by the wish of the majority and making a mockery of that right. Of course this is a very strong argument and I was persuaded by your argument that it depends on the nature of the right being spoken about.

I did hear as well a significant factor in your presentation that in this instance, in this population, we have a minority that has yielded in their wisdom to make a choice. In a sense, the minority became part of the majority. I thought I heard that in your presentation. Am I correct in hearing that?

• 1640

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you are speaking about the former referendum?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, the last one.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: In this one, the minority is becoming part of the majority in which way?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Because they voted with the majority, the numbers have increased.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: No, no. What I and the government are saying is that it all depends on which rights you are speaking about. There are some fundamental rights that no majority can override.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: But there are other rights that are considered as not fundamental, according to our Supreme Court. There are some rights that are not considered as fundamental, yet before we can remove them from the Constitution, it is important to see if there is reasonable support especially among the minorities affected.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. I saw two significant factors that—

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

Here's what I would like to suggest. The minister has agreed at this point in time that he could reappear if members wish to have a second opportunity for this near to the conclusion of our hearing of witness testimony. That will depend, of course, on timing, both our time as well the minister's, and on whether or not there is a perceived need to actually have him here.

Here's what I would suggest at this time. Minister Grimes from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is among us. Seeing that there is a wrap-up of questions, as I see it, with the exception of Mr. Goldring, who has asked for an opportunity, I would suggest, if members have any feedback to give me, that we should proceed immediately to hear Mr. Grimes.

We'll offer Mr. Goldring the last question.

Minister, thank you very much.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Dion.

It was suggested in the other meetings that there may be some concerns for the aboriginals. Rupert's Land was transferred to Quebec in 1912. It also affected parts of Labrador too in the Rupert's Land transfer.

Do you see any possibility at all that the aboriginals may have some rights infringed on by this? After all, the aboriginals on reserves and in reserve areas also have confessional schools. They have two of the different denominations. Are their rights being impacted at all by this request?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Frankly, I don't see any link between the two issues. There is nothing about Term 17 that is connected with the issues you just raised.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So in the Labrador area, there would be no impact on the aboriginals at all.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: There's not a word about that.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: But thank you anyway.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Rompkey, we'll go to one last question.

Senator William Rompkey (N.W. River Labrador, Lib.): Minister, just on the point of the rights of aboriginals, isn't it true that under the new legislation, in fact, aboriginals will have more rights than they had before? Under previous legislation, aboriginals were like all other citizens: they had to go to confessional schools. The churches had the right to administer schools in the province. Under the new legislation, of course, aboriginals will have the right to have their own schools.

This isn't insignificant, because at this moment we have an agreement in principle on the first land claims agreement in our province that we've ever had. The Inuit of Labrador, whom you refer to, are about to sign an agreement in principle on a land claims agreement. Part of that will be control over education.

Is it true, Mr. Minister, that this legislation gives them the latitude to set up their own aboriginal schools, whereas previous legislation did not give them that?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I may answer with a broad comment on this. If, as the government hopes, this amendment is accepted by Parliament, the Government of Newfoundland will have a lot of room to help different populations. This was not possible before because schools were under the control of some churches.

In addition to that, if you think about this situation in other democracies, it would be considered against the rights of human beings to have this kind of situation, to have the kinds of school boards and educational system that were there in Newfoundland.

• 1645

So regarding aboriginals, regarding francophones, the answer is, I guess, yes, then the government will have more capacity to help different populations than was the case before, as happens in other democracies.

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

Senator, we have time.

Senator William Doody: For the record, at no time in the history of Newfoundland was any group denied the right to set up a school or to open their own school or have their own school—the francophones, the aboriginals, anybody else. The system was that there had seven classes of people who were guaranteed the right to have their own schools, but nobody was denied the right outside to set up their own schools, and that is—

The Joint Chair (Gerry Byrne): Order, please.

Mr. Minister, if you would like to make a comment on the comment, you are more than welcome.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'd like to made a short comment. It was a very costly system, and because of that, the room for the government was very narrow—in a province that is not the richest one in Canada. You have to take that into account also.

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

Thank you for clarifying that. I would certainly agree with that last statement.

On behalf of the special joint committee, Minister, I would like to extend to you our sincere appreciation for taking the time to appear before us. We realize that your time is somewhat limited due to the broad scope of your duties. We invite you to come back again. Thank you once again.

To members, I would like to say thank you very much for engaging in the spirit of debate but keeping a sense of order to our proceedings. On behalf of both chairs, we very much appreciate it.

So, Mr. Minister, thank you very much.

We will now take a very brief break, and then we will hear from Mr. Grimes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1647

• 1651

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Grimes, welcome to the Special Joint Committee on the Amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland and Labrador, sir. I understand you're joined by Deborah Fry and, as well, Gale Welsh from the Department of Justice.

Thank you very much, Minister, for taking the time to appear as our first witness before the committee. Undoubtedly you heard from Minister Dion.

I will simply remind committee members that as we heard in Minister Dion's testimony, questions—and answers, of course—should focus on that which is the jurisdictional or expert base of this particular witness. Without supposing that Mr. Grimes is able to answer questions specifically about the position of the Government of Canada, his role here is to answer specific questions about the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Minister, I'll ask your indulgence. We may very well have a vote. In the middle of your presentation, the bells may chime. We have asked you to come prepared for one hour and thirty minutes of questions and answers, including your statement, your brief, but at any time the bells could chime, in which case we'll have to scoot relatively quickly to take in the vote.

So, Minister, within the context that you have an hour and a half, please base your brief and the questions and answers that follow, accordingly. Thank you very much. Proceed.

Hon. Roger Grimes (Minister of Education, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, Joint Chairs and committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and make a presentation basically on behalf of the premier, the government, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in all the deliberations with the government, on behalf of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador who take advantage of the opportunities offered in our education system.

I apologize to the interpreters for not having available for them a drafted version of the speaking notes that I'll use.

As to the process I'll use, if it's okay with the committee, our brief itself has been distributed to you, but I think it's better if I choose a couple of topics I would like to focus on in my short presentation before we deal with the questions and answers, to make sure that we deal with the whole issue in what we consider to be the most appropriate context, because it's a critically important matter in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I appreciate that you've already made reference to the fact that I'm joined by my deputy minister, Ms. Deborah Fry, and also by our solicitor who advises us from the Department of Justice, Ms. Gale Welsh. As well, I understand that Ms. Welsh will have an opportunity sometime later before the committee and has been invited to give some legal opinions and expertise as the committee seeks out the answers and the information that it needs over the next days and weeks.

So I will leave the written brief with the group and hope you will have an opportunity to look at the details that are presented there. But I'd like to remind you that the brief itself, the written document, touches on the items that are in the table of contents. It touches on the issue of the path to reform and the need to amend Term 17 again, in the view of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, speaking for the people and the school-aged children in the province.

It also speaks to the effects of reform on minority rights. That issue is dealt with in our formalized brief that has been distributed for your information and use.

• 1655

The brief itself addresses what effect, if any, these changes will have on other provinces. The written brief we've left with you also addresses the role of religious education and religious observances in our new proposal and how it would actually work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'd be more than willing, Joint Chairs and members, to address any and all of these issues in our question-and-answer period. I'd also be willing to address at any other time any other issues that are not mentioned in the list, if we deem it necessary to appear before the committee again before you conclude your work. However, I'd prefer in this brief oral presentation—and I'll try to keep it as brief as possible—to deal with two main issues to present before the committee.

First and foremost, I'd like to provide a reminder of the uniqueness of the circumstance in Newfoundland and Labrador, the circumstance with respect to education and to ensure that the matter is discussed within the committee and debated in the context in which it's seen in our province. Minister Dion touched on it briefly, but I'd like to elaborate on that for just a little before the committee if I could.

Secondly, I'd like to present to you, as best I can, why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is convinced that this change is necessary when we all know that it was less than a year ago when we came to the Government of Canada to ask to change Term 17 before. In fact, it was on December 4, 1996, less than 12 months ago, that the House of Commons voted the passage of our previous request for a change, and the proclamation of the currently functioning Term 17 didn't occur until April 21 of this year, 1997. So I'd like to address that issue as to why in such a short timeframe the government has been convinced that the only solution that makes sense for Newfoundland and Labrador is to come back to the Parliament of Canada and to ask for another change to the Constitution, a broader, more wide-reaching change that's described in our current proposal.

So to set the tone and the context with that, Joint Chairs and members, first of all Minister Dion did outline the context in our province. I think there are a number of things that need to be repeated. First of all—and you'll hear it again in the legal presentations—there aren't any linkages or roles for section 93 here. We are making a proper request under section 43 for a bilateral amendment to the Constitution. In Newfoundland and Labrador there's never been a public school system as is known and understood in the rest of Canada, the other provinces and jurisdictions of Canada. It's always been a completely, 100% denominationally based system in which in 1949 some seven denominations were guaranteed certain rights, and then an eighth denomination was added in 1987 with an amendment that provided protection and guarantees for the Pentecostal group as well.

So we had a circumstance up to a couple of years ago where eight particular denominations had guaranteed constitutional rights and the rest of the people had no rights. They could be accommodated within some system, but if you talked about who had a right to a certain kind of education system in the province, there were eight denominational groups that had it enshrined in the Constitution.

So those kinds of issues are important to understand. If the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were to have a secular public opportunity, it would have to be above and beyond the opportunities that were traditionally provided in the province and there would be another school system layered onto what had always operated in Newfoundland and Labrador. So I think it's always important for committee members and others who are not 100% familiar with the circumstance in our province to be reminded of this: that we had the only 100% denominationally based system in operation in the country. There was no public system for people who didn't want to participate in that. There were no rights to have such. And if the government of any day wanted to set it up, it would have been an additional system above and beyond the ones that were already operating.

In the context of the change from a couple of years ago, basically we had a circumstance where it was down to four systems operating instead of eight, because a number of the denominations had decided, of and by themselves, to co-operate and operate together, a single system called an integrated system. We were at the circumstance again where, if we wanted to have a public system in Newfoundland and Labrador up to a couple of years ago, again it would have been a fifth system added into the mix in our province. There was no thought or no sense that this was the right thing to do in Newfoundland and Labrador, because the other people were being accommodated within one of the denominationally based systems, but they didn't have the rights that those denominations held under the Constitution.

• 1700

Also, a letter was sent from our premier, Premier Tobin, to the leader of the official opposition, Mr. Manning, with respect to some of the issues he had raised in his discussion of this matter when it was first tabled in the House of Commons. There were a number of items where the premier reiterated those circumstances, indicating that the system in Newfoundland and Labrador was indeed unique. There is no parallel anywhere else in the country. It's in that context that we came forward seeking changes two years ago and in that context that we are seeking changes again today.

If we track the history of it—and you'll probably hear from representatives of the Pentecostal denomination as part of your hearings—one of the things that led to a separate Pentecostal system in Newfoundland and Labrador is that in fact from 1949 onward they didn't have any denominational rights. This can be verified by questioning other witnesses. They were not one of the groups that brought rights into Confederation, but in fact their students were being accommodated in several of the other systems.

The series of events, as recounted to me, that led to a separate Pentecostal system really becoming a factor in Newfoundland and Labrador was that Pentecostal students in certain communities found it increasingly difficult to get accommodated in other systems, and were told they could only be accommodated if there was room. If all the members of this denomination or that denomination were taken care of within the school and if there was space left over, then the Pentecostal students could come into that system. They had no rights.

As a result of that, the Pentecostal movement in Newfoundland and Labrador determined they should start establishing their own schools, where they had enough members and enough school-aged children to do so. Then of course the governments of the day, the governments through the whole period of time, treated them as if they had rights for funding purposes and otherwise. They did that voluntarily, even though there was no constitutional right. The constitutional amendment that gave them a right equal to the other denominations did not occur until 1987, just 10 years ago.

So there's a story with respect to that issue in terms of a group that did not have the rights that were brought into Confederation in 1949 for other groups, and that finally arrived on the scene and were granted in 1987. That's the context and the background of what we have.

It is clear that leaving the current Term 17, even the one that was only changed a year ago, would require another system to be added in Newfoundland and Labrador to guarantee accommodation of those who desired a single school system, a public school system, a secular school system, or any description of that particular nature that someone might want to apply to it.

The second item I wanted to deal with, after trying to give you that contextual background, is why then, if we were here only just over a year ago, are we back again suggesting that the only answer we can see in Newfoundland and Labrador is to change the Constitution again.

As indicated by Minister Dion, we're not here to change the Constitution in what we saw and what we described before the Senate committee that was struck a couple of years ago—and it's nice to see some members from that function as well as some new members. But certainly what we described as a minor adjustment to the denominational rights at that time turned out to be exactly that, and what was described by those who were opposed at the time as an absolute loss of their of rights turned out not to be that at all.

Be that as it may, why are we back? What has happened in a short period of time that has convinced the government, first of all, to have a referendum to gauge the mood of the province, and secondly, to go through the legal process that requires and requests a constitutional change? Did we give the current system, which we only started implementing a year ago, a chance to work?

They're fair questions, and that's what I'd like to spend the rest of my time and presentation dealing with. The other issues are before you in the brief, and certainly I'll be free to answer any questions on any of them.

If I might deal with why we're back, it's a long story, and a sad story, in my view, but I'll try to give you the abbreviated version. Our brief outlines quite a bit of this as well.

Fundamentally, we have a system in Newfoundland and Labrador that's been in decline for some time. There are 4,000 fewer students a year entering our K-to-12 school system. This year alone we're—

• 1705

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt, but as you can hear from the background noise, it does appear that a 30-minute bell has begun to chime. We can go for 15 minutes more, but I just want to let you know so that the flow of your presentation is not interrupted, which I just did. In about 15 minutes, we'll have to temporarily adjourn.

Senator William Rompkey: Just briefly on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, can you tell us when we'll get an opportunity to question the minister later? Will we come back after the vote?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): It sounds like there's been a deferment until probably 6.30 p.m., because the bells have now stopped.

Senator William Rompkey: That answers my question.

Mr. Roger Grimes: I fully understand if there's a need for interruption to attend to the business of government. We certainly understand that fully.

I'm glad we're on local time, because if it was 6.30 p.m. Newfoundland time, we'd be running off now for the vote. So we do have some time.

Basically, we do have a system, as I was saying, that's in serious decline. It has been so for some time for a number of reasons. This year, there are 4,600 fewer students in our schools from K to 12 than there were at this time last year. So the registrations are down by 4,600 in one year alone.

Over a 12- to 15-year period, we've gone from a student enrolment in our province of 162,000 to now just over 100,000 students. Of course, those 162,000 students were taken care of in seven systems at one point. Then it went down to four systems. Now of course we have 100,000 students who are in a school system that's still basically as it was fundamentally before we changed Term 17.

As a result of those kinds of circumstances, the government of the day set up a royal commission in 1990 to look at how we should shape the future direction of our educational system, recognizing these circumstances in the province. I might be so bold as to summarize the major thrust in terms of the general direction and the gist of what the royal commission recommended to the people of the province and the government, which we accepted in principle.

There were two things. The first was based—by the way, this is for your information—on the largest public consultation ever conducted in Newfoundland and Labrador on any issue. In the royal commission of 1990, there were more meetings, presentations, information, and interest than on any other issue ever before in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Second, there were the results, As for the gist of it, I'm paraphrasing. You can get the recommendations for yourself.

The first one was that the government should diminish the role of the denominations in the administration of education. No question about it. They heard it from all parts in all regions of the province that the administrative role of the denominations and the churches in Newfoundland and Labrador should be diminished.

Second, and just as strongly recommended in the report, was that the positive religious influences that had been historic—these continue—in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador should be maintained.

Those were the main thrusts. Then there were a lot of recommendations, but all of them were driven by those two major conclusions: in administration, the denominations and churches should be out of education, but the government and the province should maintain the strong, positive religious influences that had always been in the 100% denominational schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There were some three years of negotiations. This was repeated before the committee a couple of years ago. The story was that we could co-operate and work this out. We didn't really need to change the Constitution to do it. Three years of negotiations failed at that point.

There was a referendum in 1995, which was narrowly passed in the province. There was a constitutional amendment, but the constitutional amendment that was sought and granted just within the last year was not based on the model that was in the Williams commission report, the royal commission report; it was based on a compromise model that did come out of those three years of discussions. It didn't lead to a compromise that could be implemented without a constitutional change.

What was brought forward to the Parliament of Canada was the seeking of a constitutional change to implement a compromise that government and the churches had arrived at in terms of trying to maintain some interdenominational schools, as they were called then and now, as well as some unidenominational schools. The assurances were given again that with this compromise model, we shouldn't expect the denominations and the churches to be unreasonable in the exercise of the remaining rights, that they understood the educational circumstances in the province, which was a serious decline in the system, and that everybody understood the provincial circumstance of severe fiscal restraint. It's in that context that the whole move was made.

• 1710

As I indicated, the amendment was passed in the House of Commons in December and proclaimed in April. A new Newfoundland Schools Act was passed in our province on January 3, 1997, less than a year ago. Then of course it was based on the new term. We went about trying to organize the system based on the new constitutional term and the new legislation.

I feel I must tell you the story. The first necessary step in the exercise of the denominational rights under our current Term 17 was defined in our legislation to be a registration process to determine how many people wished to exercise their right to maintain single-denominational schools.

The senators who were here before and those who participated in debate in the Senate and the House of Commons would understand that there was an amendment to talk about changing the term to put in “where numbers warrant”. That amendment was not passed. It was not part of it. So the legislation that gave rise to the exercise of rights said that we would determine how many people wanted to continue to have separate Roman Catholic schools, Pentecostal schools, Seventh Day Adventist schools, and integrated schools through a registration process. We would ask the students to register what kind of school they wanted to appear in.

In the view of the government that was a necessary first step that was put in the legislation, and it again led to the first evidence of complete lack of co-operation. I say that quite strongly and without hesitation. As a matter of fact, the lack of co-operation in terms of not being reasonable in exercising the right was so complete that there were efforts to misrepresent and deliberate attempts to foster confusion as to what the registration meant.

It wasn't with any particular group, because in Newfoundland and Labrador what had occurred was a view from everyone that on one side of the equation the government had gone too far and on the other side the government had not gone far enough. There was no consensus that we had done anything right in the compromise model that we put forward with the current Term 17.

Everybody, those who thought we had gone too far and those who thought we hadn't gone far enough, contributed to the mass confusion, suggesting that the registration process, rather than being a necessary first step to determine how many people wanted to exercise their rights under Term 17, was a vote and not a registration. Confusion reigned in the province, with nobody at fault and everybody equally sharing in trying to generate and perpetuate the confusion.

The boards were encouraged by the minister of the day, who just happened to be myself—and I'm still in the position—to optimize student offerings while accommodating the results of the registration, because the results would trigger the exercise of a constitutional right. The directives from the minister suggested that they should be given equal consideration, that we should indeed try to optimize the student educational opportunity, but we had an obligation to recognize as well the constitutional right to continue to have separate denominational schools.

However, the denominational representative's position basically was that there had to be an accommodation of the rights regardless of the educational opportunity for the students at large and as assessed by the boards. The right had to be predominant and the educational opportunity might have to suffer if that were the case.

Co-chairs and members, there was an injunction sought and granted shortly after that. Justice Barry did make a couple of quotes that point to that very circumstance. I would just reference a couple of quotes from Justice Barry's decision in granting the injunction, because again I think there's some reference that the act was found to be not in compliance. The act has not been tested in court.

There was a request for an injunction, which was granted. The court case as to whether the Schools Act currently complies with and conforms to Term 17 has never been heard in the courts of Newfoundland and Labrador and we should all understand that. The Schools Act currently applies. Term 17 as written today currently applies. There has never been a court case as to whether or not the current Schools Act is in violation or contravention of the term. There's been an injunction granted on actions taken awaiting the case, which was never heard. So the government indicated it would appeal, and then when we were going through the process, rather than an appeal there was a referendum called.

• 1715

Justice Barry, however, made two comments. On page 45, paragraph 63 of his ruling granting the injunction, he said:

Parliament and the Legislature, in maintaining a denominational system of education by Term 17, must have known this would result in less than the maximum educational opportunities for children in this Province.

Even in granting the injunction, the judge said this was not the maximum educational opportunity. He said we as legislators should have known that when we put those rights into the new Term 17.

Then on page 47 paragraph 65, Justice Barry said:

So one may reasonably conclude that the Legislature has accepted a less than optimal standard of education by opting to preserve at least some of the denominational system of education. This statement is made not as criticism but as a matter of fact.

So even in granting the injunction, Justice Barry indicated we had far from the optimal system of education for the students in Newfoundland and Labrador. But the position of the denominational representatives, in going forward to the court and seeking the injunction, was that they felt clearly and asked the court to rule that the exercise of the right in Term 17, as currently stated, is more important than boards making decisions that might in some way ask them to set aside part of their right for the better educational opportunity of the students as the primary focus.

Government made moves to comply with the injunction. We reinstated some $7 million back into the education budget. We opened some 20 extra schools above and beyond what the school boards had planned to open and operate for this school year of 1997-98.

I think it's fair to say—we have said in the province repeatedly—that the opening of the 20 schools did not provide for a single enhanced educational opportunity for one student in Newfoundland and Labrador. It did provide for the exercise of the right in Term 17, but it did not provide for increased course options or offerings or additional benefits of a strictly educational nature in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, in a couple of areas there are a number of examples where it can be clearly shown that the educational opportunities for the students in terms of program offerings and the like actually decreased by virtue of opening these extra schools.

I would like to give just two examples. In the community of Springdale there are two small high schools, one Pentecostal and one integrated. The student population is roughly 200 in each. The school board thought, in compliance with the directive from the minister, it should optimize the educational opportunities and respective rights and run a single high school in Springdale. The students would have additional course offerings and they would be better served in their overall education.

After being granted the injunction, the denominational authorities decided to reopen two small separate high schools in Springdale, and in both schools students now have access to fewer courses than were planned for them in the single high school. Their educational opportunities, in the view of the government, is not at all enhanced by virtue of having a second school.

The same thing happened in the community of Bell Island. There was a small Catholic high school with a population of roughly 200 and a small integrated high school with a population of roughly 200. The school board judged that the students would have the best educational opportunities in a single high school. Again, because of the injunction and the actions taken by the denominational representatives, they have insisted that two high schools operate again this year with fewer courses for the students in both schools. The denominational right in Term 17 was preserved but the educational right, as referenced by Justice Barry, was not enhanced at all or optimized. That's the circumstance the government was in.

If I might refer again to a couple of other quotes from Justice Barry, on page 54, paragraph 78 he says:

I agree with the respondents that with schools closed and teachers, principals and students dispersed in the belief they will be following a certain plan this coming September for the reopening of schools, an injunction preventing implementation of the plan will cause significant disruption and, possibly for a brief time, even chaos.

Finally from Justice Barry on page 58, paragraph 86:

This decision will not, by itself, without the agreement of the parties, result in a search for excellence in our school system this coming year. But that is probably a necessary consequence of the choice by the people of this Province, our Legislature and Parliament to preserve a modified system of denominational education. That choice does not come without a cost.

• 1720

So that's the context in which the government found itself: trying to organize a system in the middle of July, when school boards had planned in April and May of last year to do things a little bit differently. I wrote personally to the denominational representatives and the boards' subcommittees, because each of the boards has a subcommittee for each of the denominations that has rights under Term 17. They were asked to accommodate teacher transfers without exercising the full range of their rights to hire and dismiss teachers based on denominational affiliation, which is spelled out in the current Term 17.

We asked them to accommodate teacher transfers last spring when organizing for this school year, in light of the fact that the government, on another agenda—balancing its budget and taking its fiscal responsibility seriously—had issued lay-off notices to 468 teachers because of the declining enrolment over the last two years. With those large numbers of lay-offs, we asked each of the denominational representatives to be lenient in terms of accepting into their schools teachers who might not be of their faith if that was what the school boards decided was most appropriate.

One of the sad parts that I relate to the committee, Joint Chairs and members, is that instead of having that co-operation and willingness and accommodation, the boards, their subcommittees, and the denominational reps retrenched to a system that had basically relaxed from some thirty years ago. They retrenched to a system in which they would hire in their schools only teachers of their faith. Catholic schools took only Catholic teachers, Pentecostal schools took only Pentecostal teachers, even though some years ago....

I'm a prime example of it in my teaching experience. I was a Pentecostal who spent the majority of my teaching career teaching in the Catholic system, because they had adjudged that I was the teacher they wanted at the time and had put aside the denominational issue. Now, in 1997, because of the new Term 17 and because of the court injunction, they've retrenched to the position in which nobody accepts anybody of the other denomination to teach in their schools. They insisted on having teachers of their own faith.

That sets the scene for why the government felt we should have a referendum, why we should come back and do what we're asking the House of Commons and the Senate to deal with at this point. Rather than having co-operation, we found ourselves with no co-operation. We found ourselves in a circumstance in which there was more insistence on rights in Newfoundland and Labrador than we had seen in probably thirty years, and maybe because of the tone and nature of the debate over the last five or six years in particular.

We had a major disruption in the system. I think I quoted from Justice Barry. He described it as absolute chaos in the system in the middle of a summer. The parents had seen their children come home, had been told where they were going for school next year, and they found out in the middle of the summer that they had to be told, through some communication method, that they were likely to go someplace else.

Also, in our view, government was faced with the likelihood that this would happen probably every year. It would have to go through a process of the boards getting consent from denominational representatives as to whether or not they could close certain schools, assign certain teachers, and put certain programs in certain buildings. The boards could not plan without the permission or consent of the denominational representatives. It was ordered by the court in the injunction.

There was a limited ability to amend the legislation in light of the constitutional protections that are currently in Term 17. We would have had to further enshrine a system whereby the hiring and the firing of teachers was guaranteed on denominational bases and so on. So on balance, the government therefore decided to recommend to the people of the province another solution, and the solution as we saw it—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The joint chair will recognize Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: With all due respect to our witnesses, sir, may I suggest that we perhaps proceed to the period in which we can exchange and ask questions? We've been at this for a little more than half an hour now, and perhaps we may be lacking time to ask certain questions that might be asked.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Grimes, if I could ask you to quickly wrap up, we'll then proceed to a question-and-answer period.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Yes, thank you, Mr. Joint Chair, and I appreciate the intervention. I was getting to the conclusion, but it's so critically important to us that I beg the indulgence of the group to let me take a little longer than I normally would.

The solution that we put forward was to ask the people of the province if they wished to continue with the current system and to try to make it work, or whether we should start afresh with a new vision. The new vision that we put forward was for a single school system in which there would be equal rights for everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador—not for eight denominations with some others maybe being accommodated, or for four groups with maybe others being accommodated, but equal rights for everyone—and in which, consistent with the royal commission report, there would be protection for religious education of a certain description and also for religious observances in our schools. History then takes over. There was a referendum, a 73% vote, and this request—the request now before the House of Commons and the Senate as the Parliament of Canada.

• 1725

The province, Joint Chairs and members, anxiously awaits the results of your deliberations so that we can get on with what will, in our view, be equal treatment for all citizens in a single school system that constitutionally protects the right to religious education observances, but forces no one to participate in anything they don't want to participate in related to religion in the schools.

Our vision is there for now and entering into the new millennium. There is broad-based support in the province. We ask you to deliberate this fully, as you will over the next week or two with respect to the issue. I'm available to answer any question and I hope that, at the end of the piece, you will be able to support the proposition presented on behalf of the government, the people and the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. On behalf of the committee, we appreciate that you have indeed travelled a relatively long way on short notice. The committee's first meeting was just yesterday, of course, and your invitation was just given formally as of yesterday.

Ms. Welsh, the minister made reference to the Barry decision. That's a supplementary text to the presentation that was given to us. If you could facilitate the forwarding of that particular document to this committee for circulation to committee members, it would be very much appreciated. That's at the request of certain members of the committee.

We're now proceeding to the question-and-answer period. On my short list, Mr. Goldring has requested an opportunity, and he'll be followed by Mr. Bélanger, Senator Rompkey, Senator Kinsella and Mr. McGuire, and then by Mr. Brien and Senator Doody. That's the questioners list.

Mr. Goldring, you have the first question.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Minister.

On page 5, it indicates that the announced referendum was called on July 31, to be held on September 2. It stated a question, and the question was right below: “for religious education and observances are provided”. On August 25, the wording was changed, and it was changed substantially in my mind.

Is it not a concern that the true definition of the final interpretation or the final statement was fully understood by all those who voted on it? Specifically, I'm talking about where it says, “Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents.” I then go to your page 14, where it states, “While not guaranteed under the proposed new Term...the school board determines...denominationally specific religious education”.

Is it the parents who determine this, or is it the school board that determines it? If it is the parents, what percentage of parents would have to make such a request to determine whether or not denominational education would be in the schools? Is it a simple majority, or could it be a 40% majority of the minorities? In other words, could you explain the procedure and explain whether or not you have concerns that the question was fully understood?

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

There were two issues. First of all, on page 5 of the brief, with respect to the question that was put forward in the province on July 31, the question was framed in a non-legalistic way in order to frame and focus on a policy debate in the province. We wanted the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to focus on the issues raised in the question: did they want to move from the current denominationally based system—which it still is today under the current Term 17—to a single school system in which all children would go to the same schools regardless of their religious affiliation, and with assurances that there would be religious education and religious observances in those schools?

• 1730

We spent the first two and a half to three weeks of the referendum debate in the province asking people to wrap their minds around that policy question and decide whether they wanted to make that fundamental change in the type of system that was in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The wording at the bottom of page 5 presents the legal text of the term we've asked our own legislature to pass, which it has approved unanimously. We're asking the Parliament of Canada in both Houses to deal with it, and the committee is now seized with it.

In the province it was clearly understood that the general nature of the change was described adequately, appropriately, succinctly and clearly in the question. Those who wanted to look at the legal aspects of what words would actually give rise in a constitutional provision to the concepts presented in the question were given the opportunity on August 25 to deal with that wording, which is now before the Parliament of Canada and this committee to deal with.

Second, on the issue of religious education courses, there are two components to the issue you raise on page 14. Religious education will be offered in every single classroom in every grade and every school in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be a generic common course that's currently under development by the government. It will be available to every student in every grade and every class, but nobody will have to take it. It will not be specific to any particular religious denomination, and it is that way today. Even in our Pentecostal and Roman Catholic schools in most of the grades, the religious education programming that's offered is not specific and dogmatic to a particular religion. It's more about values and those issues than about the dogma of a particular denomination.

The reference on page 14 is to the fact that even though there are prescribed Department of Education courses in every grade in every classroom, parents may ask—there's no constitutional right to have it—to have a Roman Catholic or Pentecostal religious course in their school. The school board would make the decision now the same as if it were placing and ceding to a request for advanced mathematics or an extra social studies course.

There would be no constitutional right to the locally based or denominationally specific course. They can ask and it would be considered by a school board, the same as it considers any other request for an addition to the curriculum. But there will be a guaranteed religious education course in every school, in every grade, in every classroom.

So there are two different notions we're dealing with in those parts of the brief.

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

We'll have a short supplementary by Mr. Goldring. The 15-minute bell is ringing right now, so I suggest we proceed for one more question and then reconvene immediately following the vote.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Minister, it's my understanding that during the first three weeks of the referendum the statement being made for religious education observances was an assumption. Parents had an assumption they had those rights, but in the final week of the referendum it was clear the rights of the parents would be limited. On page 14 you're saying the school board will determine it. So do we have three different understandings here?

Mr. Roger Grimes: The religious education course that will be offered as part of the curriculum in every school, every class and every grade is being developed now by curriculum developers. It's guaranteed in the actual term itself, as shown at the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6 of the brief: “...shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination”.

It must be provided by the government. If people request a separate religious education course, they have no right to insist they have it. They can ask a board and a board can decide whether or not in its view it should be offered, the same as it might offer chemistry along with physics or biology and other sciences.

The religious observances in the term, as you see on the next page in subclause (3), are triggered by any one parent who wants to have a particular religious observance in the school. It must be granted and then it's just left to the school-based administration to decide how it can actually be conducted.

There's no decision to make with respect to religious observances. There's no decision to make with respect to the Department of Education-prescribed religious education. There is a decision to make with respect to a separate Pentecostal religion course, a separate Roman Catholic religion course, a separate integrated religion course and so on. That's in the decision-making process, as are all other requests for curriculum additions today.

• 1735

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

I would suggest at this time we take a brief recess for members of the House to participate in the vote. Immediately upon conclusion of all votes we'll head to Mr. Bélanger for the next question.

Mr. Minister, if we can ask for your patience and indulgence, we welcome you to the gallery to watch the vote if you so desire.

I note that we began this presentation at 4.50 p.m. and it's now 5.35 p.m. We'll judge your time references accordingly. I would ask for the indulgence of members present. This is a very important witness, so we may just want some latitude on the timing here.

My psychic transmission has indicated this will take about 45 minutes. There are five votes.

Thank you very much.

• 1736

• 1843

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, we are resuming meeting number two, following the vote in the House of Commons. I'd like to welcome everyone here once again, and those viewing us on CPAC, either live or recorded.

We're resuming our questioning of witnesses who are here today. We have before us, of course, the Hon. Roger Grimes, Minister of Education from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; Deborah Fry; and as well, Gale Welsh.

When we last met, the order of questions was as follows: Mauril Bélanger, Senator Rompkey, Senator Kinsella, Mr. Joe McGuire, Mr. Kenney, Mr. Brien, Senator Doody, the Hon. Sheila Finestone, and Ms. Raymonde Folco.

So with that said, Mr. Minister, thank you once again for your patience during that short interruption. The questions will again proceed, and we'll begin with Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Joint Chair, Madam Joint Chair.

Mr. Grimes, I'm going to express a very serious concern that unfortunately has been reinforced with your presentation today, which is the total lack—and correct me if I'm wrong and I will sit corrected, gladly—of any reference to a minority that exists in Newfoundland, and that is the francophone minority. I understand we're talking about denominational rights here, not linguistic rights, but I believe the changes in the educational system in Newfoundland and Labrador give the government an opportunity to address its constitutional obligations.

• 1845

Your brief has been tabled only in English, and there is no reference that I could find in it to the francophone minority, which disturbs and disquiets me. Because I would like to come back to this, depending on your answer, I want you to briefly describe the situation with respect to what the government intends to do about francophone educational rights in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. I appreciate the question.

Joint Chairs and members, before I answer the question, let me just mention that while we were in recess, in response to Mr. Goldring's question about what people knew and expected about the religious education observances, offerings, in the question that was posed versus the legal language later, we distributed a kit that includes a copy of Premier Tobin's speech of July 31, the night he announced there would be a referendum.

If you have an opportunity to read it, you will see that he spells it out in that speech so the people of the province would know clearly that there would be a non-denominational specific religious education offering in the province and that there would be other opportunities for religious observances. Those things were known from the very day the referendum was called. I think that might be important for Mr. Goldring and others as a further answer to the question, because I may not have covered it adequately for everybody on the committee.

I'll leave that with you. It has been distributed and members can look for it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Minister. Perhaps you could just proceed, though, to the question at hand. I appreciate that side-bar.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Mr. Joint Chair, with respect to the question from Mr. Bélanger, I'm glad you asked it as well.

We've made no reference to the issue with respect to the francophone minority in Newfoundland and Labrador in this presentation because following the passage of the current Term 17 a year ago and the new Schools Act that we introduced into our legislature on January 3, 1997, the total legal framework for the establishment of a francophone school board in Newfoundland and Labrador was done at that time.

The school board now has its initial staff in place. The director has been hired. Their assistant director, actually, was a person seconded from the Department of Education. They have written me and asked me to defer the actual election of their first board, because they're in the final stage of organizing for that now, but the total legislative framework for this has been accomplished in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was a commitment that Premier Tobin gave when he visited Ottawa prior to the last term, and immediately upon having the Schools Act changed in our legislature last December and enacted on January 3, it was included. There was a temporary provision prior to that, and it's now actually in the existing Schools Act.

There is a francophone school board for Newfoundland and Labrador. The governance of schools and schooling for the francophone minority of Newfoundland and Labrador will be completely in the hands of this francophone school board as soon as the election is completed. I'm pleased to report that it's actually been accomplished and doesn't depend upon the passage of this amendment. We've already acted on it.

Actually, part of the debate in the province was that some people were asking why we would go from denominational school boards to non-denominational school boards, from 27 down to 10, and then create an 11th school board for francophones. It was raised as an issue by some people who thought we were applying a double standard, one for denominational rights and one for francophone rights, but it was explained to everyone in the province, Joint Chairs and members, that there were two separate issues. One was an issue under section 23, which has now been dealt with.

I understand the representatives of the francophone association groups from Newfoundland and Labrador will likely make a presentation and will, as I understand it, explain that they have the system they want.

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

Mr. Bélanger, knowing this is an issue near and dear to your heart, do you have a supplementary that you want to ask?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think I would expect to have the same latitude you extended to colleagues with respect to having a supplementary. That's all I wanted.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Go right ahead.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You, as a representative of the Newfoundland government, are enabled to state categorically—and I'd like you to do so if you feel comfortable doing so—that in your view and in the view of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the government is now meeting its constitutional obligations of section 23 of the 1982 Constitution Act and intends to continue doing so.

• 1850

Mr. Roger Grimes: To the joint chair, to you and to the committee, that's my understanding of the circumstances. I'll be shocked and surprised if the representatives of the francophone association tell you anything different when they appear.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Joint Chair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Any time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I'll now turn the floor over to Senator Rompkey.

Senator William Rompkey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, in the proposed new Term 17, 17(2) refers to courses in religion, saying that “the Legislature shall have exclusive authority” to make laws, “but shall provide for courses in religion”. It doesn't say it “shall provide courses in religion”; it says it “shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination”.

In the text of your remarks, you refer to consultation that would be carried on in the course of constructing a curriculum, including, I think, curriculum consultants. I want you to elaborate on how the government intends to provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination.

Then I also want you to comment on the second point in subclause 17(3), “Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents”, which is something completely different from the courses that will be taught.

But to tie them both together, it seems to me—and I'd like you to answer this—that parents will have some rights in both cases. Presumably, parents will elect school boards. We did not have elected school boards before, but we will have elected school boards now. Presumably the voters will be parents and in that sense parents will have some rights in the administration of schools. Similarly, parents will have rights in religious observances.

So I want you, if you can, to comment on the curriculum, how it's going to be designed, how it's going to be applied, who will teach what in the schools and what rights parents will have. And secondly, I want you to comment on the religious observances. How will that particular part of the policy be carried out and what rights will parents have there?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you, Senator. I'll accept the challenge of trying to explain it for the full committee, because I think this first part with respect to the religious education courses is in our view the remaining biggest challenge for the government and Department of Education. This is new territory. To our knowledge, this is not done in any other jurisdiction in terms of the government, through a department, putting together, formulating and creating a religious education course that is non-specific to any particular denomination.

The good news, however—and I referred to it in my opening remarks, Joint Chairs—is that the courses in our schools now, which are all denominationally based, Roman Catholic schools with Roman Catholic religion, Pentecostal schools with Pentecostal religion, and so on...by and large a goodly portion of the content of those courses is not specific to that particular denomination. It's more along the lines of values that are inherent in the Christian religions that dominate Newfoundland and Labrador, and as well, there is some comparative study in each of the school systems as they are today.

So the challenge, again, for our curriculum consultants....and we've offered a role to the representatives of the Roman Catholic church and the Pentecostal church in particular. Whether they will participate at this point is not certain, but they've been offered an opportunity to participate with our curriculum consultants to see which version or versions of currently available materials could be refined and used in September 1998, provided this provision passes.

As an example, in the integrated system the courses are broadly based now and reflect the views of three or four different separate denominations that have come together by agreement. They teach general principles that all have agreed to.

So the group is already working within the department. They're doing their consultation. They're screening the current materials that are generically and broadly based to see which ones will be most appropriate for all the schools in September.

Observances are a different issue and are spelled out as such in the new term. Religious observances, such as a Christmas pageant or a celebration at Easter and so on, would be triggered by a request from any parent. There are no limitations in terms of numbers and those kinds of things. It concerns any religiously based observance that a parent wants to see observed in the school, while the school is open.

• 1855

I make that distinction because in other jurisdictions, people celebrate certain religious holidays. We're not talking about holidays here, we're talking about activities that can be requested to occur in the school when the school is open. This is where there's a broadening in Newfoundland and Labrador that is new, that's welcomed in the province and its the communities as we understand it. It's much more inclusive. It's not restricted to the traditional denominations that have had rights since 1949, or to the new rights that were added for the Pentecostals in 1987.

Any parent of a child of any denomination can request that an observance occur in the school while the school is open. The constitutional term says that it must be permitted, and the only remaining challenge will be for the school-based administrators to decide how it can be permitted, how it can actually be observed, without infringing upon the rights of others who may not want to participate.

The religion course is available for everybody. No one, however, is forced to take the religion course. Every parent can opt their child out. The observances are available to anyone, but again, no one else has to participate other than the child or children of the parents who requested the observance.

So there are some administrative challenges that will be new in the system, but we're very confident that they'll be able to be worked out at the local level with our school-based administrators, our school councils and our school boards.

Senator William Rompkey: It's interesting to note that minorities—Jews, for example—were not permitted to serve on school boards before. They could not get appointed and they could not get elected to a school board in Newfoundland, but not only will they now have the right to sit on school boards, they will have the right to religious observances in schools. Is that correct?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Absolutely, there's no question. One of the things I think the people of the province generally are awaiting and hoping for is the passage of this particular term so that we can go to the next step, which is to have the first ever fully non-denominational school board election in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Senator William Rompkey: Does that apply in the province of Prince Edward Island?

Mr. Roger Grimes: In Prince Edward Island at the present time, they have elected school boards that are non-denominationally based. There is no reference to any denominational categories.

Senator William Rompkey: But do parents have—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We have a point of order here.

Senator William Doody: In all fairness, Mr. Chairman, we've been pretty limited to a question. With your indulgence, we're sometimes allowed a slight—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): You're absolutely correct.

Senator William Doody: I can understand where Senator Rompkey is coming from. This is the way we do the committees in the Senate, with a pretty wide open exchange with the witness. But I was labouring under the thought that we were using the House of Commons rules.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): No, you're absolutely right, Senator Doody, and I'll be returning the committee to order, appreciating that Senator Rompkey has a certain passion for this particular issue. He's well versed in many of the issues, however—

Senator William Doody: He's a passionate man, sir.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We will be carrying forward with Senator Kinsella.

Senator William Rompkey: Oh, I don't get a supplementary?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): No. In fairness, Senator, you've had a few supplementaries. If we do have time at the end of this list, we will return to you.

Senator William Rompkey: Do I have that as a firm commitment?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): You have that as a solid, firm commitment.

Senator William Rompkey: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator Kinsella, you now have the questions.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Thank you, Chair. Maybe I'll be helpful to the previous questioner, because I want to proceed along the same lines.

Minister, in response to an earlier question from a member of this committee, you used the terminology “the government course in religion” to distinguish it from the kinds of courses in religion that may be developed, as you've indicated on page 14 of your brief. If I understood the reply to the previous questioner, you said this is going to be a unique experience in North America because we cannot seem to find any other jurisdiction in North America—and Minister Dion couldn't either, because I asked him—in which the government puts on a course in religion.

Is that your testimony—that in terms of their experience, there is no other jurisdiction we can turn to in which the government puts on a course in religion?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Not to our knowledge.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Would you therefore agree that we have to be terribly, terribly careful here because this resolution is a constitutional amendment? If an error has been made, in the judgment of the legislators, there's always the possibility to amend that legislation through the ordinary legislative process, whether it be in your House of Assembly or in Parliament.

• 1900

But a constitutional amendment, notwithstanding the recent experience in dealing with this issue in the past two years, where we seem to be amending the Constitution as if it were a municipal by-law with the frequency of it, but because there is no other precedent we can find, according to your testimony and that of Minister Dion, of the government giving a course in religious education, we really have to know where we're at. We do not agree that is in the interest of all of us. Therefore, building on Senator Rompkey's question where he focused on religious observances and that religious observances pursuant to term 17(3) may be permitted where requested by the parents—

Senator William Rompkey: No, it's “shall”.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Shall be permitted—but where requested by the parents. So the substantive right that the Constitution of Canada will be conferring will be a right conferred upon the parents to be able to request religious observances and those religious observances must be responded to by the state.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator, I'm quite confident there's a question in here.

Senator Noel Kinsella: You're absolutely correct. The question is, Minister, why not use that same model you have in Term 17(3) for the provision of religious education courses? In other words, where requested by the parents, which in effect is what you're saying is your policy on page 14 of your brief. Would you be open to a friendly amendment along those lines?

Senator William Rompkey: Constructive.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the question too, and I would hope, Joint Chair and members, you might give me a minute or two to deal with this, because this was a very intensely debated issue in Newfoundland and Labrador as we approached how we would frame this particular request to the people and now to the Government of Canada.

The notion that we would have either a generic religious education course guaranteed as in Term 17(2), “but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination”.... That's why I referenced the supplementary material, Mr. Chairman, that we passed out, because the premier referenced it the night he called the referendum. He dealt with that issue. He wanted to make it clear the religious education that would be guaranteed constitutionally would not be denomination-specific.

The question, as I understand it from the senator, was why wouldn't we say, if you request Roman Catholic religious education courses, let the parents request it and then put them in place.

The thought processes all came out of the current court case and the current injunction, and all of the advice we had follows this particular logic: that if we were, as a government, to ask the Parliament of Canada to enshrine that procedure in the Constitution, and if the Constitution said you shall be able to request a denomination-specific course and then get it if you ask for it, all of the legal advice we had said we should be prepared, just as Justice Barry said, for what that would lead to.

The advice was that it would lead to a right for denomination-specific religion in the schools, and therefore a court would most likely rule that if you're constitutionally providing for Roman Catholic religion, Pentecostal religion, it would be a normal expectation that you must also expect parents and school boards to say they must have that taught only by Roman Catholic teachers, Pentecostal teachers or integrated teachers.

One of the things in the whole scheme of things that the people in the province have found offensive and wanted to change was the notion that you would hire and fire teachers on the basis of their religious affiliation rather than the basis of their training, skills, merit and ability. So rather than leave any possibility that we could inadvertently lead to a circumstance where even one of the teachers in the future could legitimately be hired or fired on the basis of their denominational affiliation—we debated it fully and said we must not leave that possibility.

• 1905

We were challenged by the denominational representatives with respect to that. We were challenged in public meetings. We were challenged in our own caucus. We were challenged in the debate in the legislature.

At the end of the day, we're convinced that short of allowing for a constitutional provision as described by the senator that would then lead to some of the teachers being hired and fired constitutionally on the basis of religion, we didn't want to go there. That's not part of the new vision that's being promoted and embraced in Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, we couldn't put that particular provision in.

I appreciate your giving me the time to give that answer.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We'll move to Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions.

First, I'm just curious as to how this occurred in 1949. Why did the Fathers of Confederation choose to go denominational rather than public denominational? Why wasn't the choice made at that time?

The second one is pretty well the same as what everybody else is asking here: how can you design a religion course that's going to be acceptable to all, especially in a multi-religious community, and of which parents would approve? It would have to be non-dogmatic. You say that today people are hiring their teachers. They're reverting to hiring teachers on the basis of religion rather than of competence.

I just don't know how that would work, but obviously the people of Newfoundland voted for it. I'd just like further clarification, if possible, as to how a religious course that is non-denominational could ever be put in place to the satisfaction of enough parents to make it a fact as well as a theory.

It sounds very good, but you have so many communities and schools, and if you went school by school, then each school would decide what kind of course it would have. I'm assuming that's what would take place, but maybe I'm wrong.

Could those two things be clarified for me?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Minister, would you like to respond?

Mr. Roger Grimes: I appreciate the questions, Mr. McGuire. I'll take the second question first.

It won't be a circumstance of going school by school. A religious education course, which is currently being finalized, will be offered in every school. It will be the same course offered in grade 2 in every single school in the province. The same course will be offered in grade 9 in every single school that has grade 9 in the province.

It won't be different in different communities. That will be the one that's to be constitutionally provided for and developed by the curriculum developers. They are currently working at it.

There's the issue of how we're going to do that. I indicated clearly that this is the biggest remaining challenge for us. It's one that they're working on now.

Just to give a little bit of the background, it starts with a process of looking at what the learning outcomes and expectations are. Basically, the committee has been charged with a generic statement that says those who experience the course and graduate at the end of 13 years of exposure to this religious education programming will demonstrate understanding and appreciation for the place of belief systems in shaping the development of moral values and ethical conduct. It's a very generic statement. It doesn't make reference to any particular denomination or set of beliefs. That's the challenge for them.

I said two or three times now to the committee that the surprising part of Newfoundland and Labrador is that the courses that are currently in our integrated schools are largely like that. The courses that are in our Roman Catholic and Pentecostal schools, in many instances, are largely like that. There are comparative religions and value systems rather than dogma and doctrine.

Any dogma/doctrine components that are in there now will have to be removed. They will not be presented in the government-sponsored courses, as one of the senators referred to it.

That's the issue. We're working at that. We have every confidence that we'll be in a position to offer that for the school year next year if the amendment is passed.

As for the issue with respect to 1949, for the information of the committee, basically every school in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949 was a denominational church school of one description or another. All we brought into Confederation was a constitutional amendment that enshrined what was existing in the province at the time.

There was no talk in Newfoundland and Labrador at that time in our history, as I recall it, of saying we should debate whether we want to join Canada and change all our schools to public schools, like in other parts of Canada, or whether we should have.... It was just a matter of enshrining in the Constitution what existed.

The debate has now gone through three stages in the province. There was a major debate in the mid-sixties as a result of a royal commission that led to integration and some of the denominations coming together voluntarily. There's a debate now in the nineties that's in its second stage of asking the Government of Canada to change the Constitution so we can go to a single school system. But the 1949 issue wasn't a debate at all in terms of the people of the province asking whether they wanted a public system or a denominational system. It was an enshrinement in the Constitution of Canada of what has always existed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

• 1910

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We have roughly 20 minutes left in the questioning of this particular witness. However, we've had some significant interruptions, through no fault of any member of this particular committee. Mr. Minister, if time permits we may ask you to stay on for just a few minutes extra to allow for the interruptions.

We have Mr. Harris waiting in the wings. In the final round of questions we have Mr. Kenney, Senator Doody, Madame Finestone, Madame Folco, Mr. Pagtakhan and of course Mr. DeVillers, who have indicated they would like to ask questions of this particular witness. So I will ask members, not in the interest of limiting debate but of actually enhancing it so all members have an opportunity to ask questions, to please in this final round stick to one question only to the witness.

Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to dwell a little further on what's been the dominant theme of these questions, which is exactly what constitutes religious education as guaranteed in the amended Term 17.

If I were a layman who read the question asked of Newfoundland voters September 2, “do you support a single system” etc., “where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided” I would probably have inferred that religious education meant religious education in the conventional sense, that is to say, education about a religion.

What I've heard in your testimony this evening is that the state-determined religious education, which is not specific to a particular denomination, will not really be religious education. It will be, as far as I can infer from your comments, a kind of syncretism married to a kind of moral relativism, or a kind of values clarification course. I think many religiously observant people find they cannot in conscience submit their children to that kind of education which is not compatible with their religious faith. So I think the real concern here is the content of this course.

I wonder if you could comment on what leads you to believe this kind of vague, syncretistic, values clarification course has anything to do with religion and religious education conventionally conceived. I fail to see the link here at all. As somebody who has studied the whole question of religious education, I don't think what you're talking about is religious education. I think it's something altogether different.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you. I don't disagree at all with your assessment of it. It is clearly not religious education in the traditional sense. The premier of the province wanted to make that clear the very first night he announced there would be a referendum.

If you will refer in the supplementary information to a copy of the speech by the Hon. Brian Tobin, regarding the referendum on education reform, 7 p.m., July 31, 1997, on page 6 in the first full paragraph he talks about opportunities for religious education and observances. This was a televised address to the whole province and was repeated by the premier, me, other ministers and other government members throughout the province through the whole month.

Let's be clear about what that means. It means an opportunity for religious education for all of our students, not on a denominational basis but on the basis of an approved curriculum common to all of our students. So we wanted to make it clear it wasn't going to be traditional religious education as we knew it for Catholics, Pentecostals and so on. It was going to be a general course.

• 1915

The thing that makes us believe it's totally acceptable in Newfoundland and Labrador is that it will continue to be constitutionally guaranteed that it will be offered. But just as today in Newfoundland and Labrador, nobody has to participate if they don't think it meets their needs or they can subscribe to it. If they are not satisfied with its content, just as today...it's getting to the point now where in some circumstances upwards of one-half of the students at some of the schools don't take the religious education courses, because they are entitled to opt out. That's a feature that will continue here. The course will be provided, but if parents on behalf of their students don't think it meets their needs because they want something different, then they will clearly exercise their right to opt out.

So it's not forced on anyone. It's available. If it doesn't meet the needs as prescribed by some parents as to what they think it should be, then clearly they will exercise their right to opt their children out of the program.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Kenney, you have 30 seconds for a supplementary.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, my supplementary to the minister is that one of the elements of this whole debate which I find offensive is the way in which the proponents of the amendment, including the premier in his speech of July 31, set parents against their churches. He says here, and I quote:

What we're proposing, quite simply, is that parents, not the churches, have the ultimate right and responsibility to direct their children's education.

Minister, will you not agree that many parents, many parents who belong to the minorities that oppose this amendment, would like the choice of conferring their responsibility on the church? They do not see a dichotomy between their educational responsibility and that of the church. They see those two things as being commingled; and that is a choice that this amendment will forever remove from those parents, the choice to confer that responsibility on the church to direct the education of their children.

Mr. Roger Grimes: There's no question this is the whole crux of this request for an amendment. The people of the province have voted 73% to a proposition that says they do not any longer want the churches to run the schools. They do want religious influences in the schools, and one will be provided by the government through the curriculum department of the Department of Education. If they don't like that, they won't participate. They can request their own and the school board will deal with it. They will have no constitutional right to it.

What is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador is a fundamental shift, and that's what we're asking the Government of Canada to support: a change in that new direction, whereby a system that always had the churches running the schools 100% will revert to a system now over time from 1949 to 1967 to 1997 through a series of political exercises in the province whereby the people are now saying by a 73% vote that they no longer want the churches themselves to run and direct the educational offerings in the province.

The same people, though, do want a religious influence of some description in their schools, which is why we've included proposed Term 17(2), which about religious education, and 17(3), which says they will be guaranteed a constitutional right to religious observances in the schools and they will not be able to be denied such things as a nativity scene or a celebration at Easter and other activities they might want. That's clearly what we're asking for, to change the direction, go with a new vision and a new direction, and the people of the province have supported—

Mr. Jason Kenney: To remove that choice from parents.

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

Senator Doody.

Senator William Doody: Mr. Chairman, the more I hear this afternoon, the more terrified I get. This is becoming the big leap backward. In China Mr. Mao thought the state would decide what the religion is and what would be taught.

The parents can be included if the state finds it convenient, but they are under no obligation to do so. The students may or may not be consulted, but that also is up to the state. Some faceless, nameless bureaucrat in the department of education or wherever—maybe there's going to be a department of religion; I don't know—will dictate what the curriculum is going to be in terms of religious instruction. Religious instruction will not be religious instruction as I understand it. It will be some sort of an ethics course—and there's nothing wrong with ethics—or a philosophy course or some other scheme devised by the bureaucrats in the department. That surely is not the way the children of Newfoundland have been raised in terms of religious beliefs and their moral values and their ethics in the past.

• 1920

This is a completely radical departure. The minister said—and I congratulate him on his frankness—that this is the new vision. The new vision sounds to me like “new think” or 1984 gone mad.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Respectfully, Senator, we really should move on to a specific question to this particular witness.

Senator William Doody: I'm working on it, sir.

The minister can correct me on this, but it seems to me that this lack of specific religious instruction is designed for the protection of teachers. It says they will be no longer required to teach any specific religion and will be protected by this new legislation or new amendment. Is it not more the responsibility of legislators to protect the children, the morality of the country, and the future mores of the population? Are the parents to be cut out of this thing completely?

Above all, Mr. Chairman, with due respect, why is this thing being enshrined in the Constitution? Why isn't it in the Schools Act of Newfoundland? Why do you have to enshrine the fact that specific religions will no longer be taught in schools? Are we really that anti-religious now?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I'll ask you to answer the question please.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you, Mr. Joint Chair.

I believe I answered the question before in response to an earlier question along the same lines, about why we could not have these denominationally specific religion courses available. I went into some detail as to the fact that the legal advice would—and the senator addressed it properly—lead to a circumstance in which we should fully expect the courts to say that if we are going to constitutionally enshrine the right to denominationally specific religion courses, we must expect that school boards and others would therefore expect to be granted the right to have teachers of that denomination selected to teach those courses, because of the history and tradition of how it's developed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We don't want that to happen, and that's not what's proposed. It has been fully debated, and was fully debated in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador during the period of the referendum. It resulted in the outcome that we saw.

With respect to the state-offered, generic religion program, as I've indicated several times, it is the remaining challenge for us. In discussing this within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador during the referendum in the summer, the premier, I and others indicated to the people that maybe we'll turn out to be just like the people in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Not only do they not have any state-run religious education program, they don't have any.

I'm not sure that the senator or anyone else would suggest that school children in the rest of the Atlantic provinces are awful, terrible, amoral, non-religious people because of the fact that there haven't been denominationally specific religious education courses in their schools. We see that as no threat to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, no threat at all to the ability of parents and churches to continue to foster the continued strong faith and growth in the religious beliefs that each family and person holds near and dear.

If they don't find that a mandated religious education program that is more generic in nature is of use to them and of value in the school, we think it's a great benefit to be able to opt out rather than saying that they be exposed to it even if they don't want to be. We think there are many more advantages to this than any disadvantage that could be described by virtue of the fact that we are going through a very radical change with respect to this request for a constitutional change.

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

I'll ask Madame Finestone if she could place a question.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much. We have a very articulate witness before us. He gives a very convincing argument, which I find perfectly acceptable, but there is something I'd like to understand.

Essentially, you call them religious values, but I call what you will be teaching moral and ethical values. I hope part of that teaching will be the Canadian Constitution, which gives us a very fine grounding in a value system that I think many countries in the world would envy.

I specifically want to know if a private sector that can teach religious education will be allowed, be it a Catholic sector, a Pentecostal, or whatever. Will there be any consideration of financial support for the educational component that would be part of the fundamental educational component of the school system?

• 1925

In other words, if I choose to send my child to a Catholic school or a Pentecostal school where the religious atmosphere would be more suitable to me as a parent, but I am going to, of course, teach the curriculum that is the mandatory curriculum of the school, except for the moral and ethical—or what you're calling religious—part, will any dollars follow the child to ensure that those schools also get some kind of financial support for that part of the education system that's relevant to the province?

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

Mr. Roger Grimes: Again, I appreciate the question. You've raised a very important point. Nothing today in Newfoundland and Labrador precludes the establishment of private schools.

As a matter of fact, we do have a private Baptist school in Newfoundland and Labrador. We do have a private Seventh Day Adventist school. They had rights under Term 17. They brought rights with them since 1949.

This year the school board in which the Seventh Day Adventist school operated made a decision to close the school because of low enrolment. The parents themselves decided to keep their school open as a Seventh Day Adventist school. It's completely permissible under current legislation. They did request funding from the government. This government refused. This government has consistently refused to provide any funding for any private schooling in Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, that's a political discussion, a debate. And it's a legislative position to be taken at any point in time by any government. If some other government wants to run in Newfoundland and Labrador on a mandate that it will provide funding to private schools, it's free to do so.

There is nothing in Term 17 that would prevent the government from funding private schools, but in direct answer to the question, Mr. Joint Chair, with respect to the government of today, when asked if we would provide funding for any of the private schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, the answer has been—and in my understanding will continue to be—no. They have a right and they can be sanctioned to run their schools under the current legislation and the current Constitution. We're glad to have people do so if they feel that's in their best interests for their children, but there will be no government support at all for private schooling in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

I'm going to ask Madame Folco to present her question.

Members, although it's not in the queue, Madame Dockrill has suggested that she would like to pose a question. The list as it stood before—and I'm exposing this in the interest of fairness—was Madame Folco, Rey Pagtakhan, Mr. DeVillers and then Madame Dockrill.

With the discretion of the committee, would it be acceptable if I suggested that following Madame Folco's question we ask Madame Dockrill to ask her question, for the simple reason that the New Democratic Party at this point has not asked a question? With the discretion of the committee, do I hear consent?

Some hon. members: Sure.

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

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Minister, if I have understood what you are telling us about schools that might develop in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are three possibilities for any school regarding the teaching of religion. First, there would be what I would call religious education courses. There could also be, at the request of parents to the school board, courses specific to one religion given on the side. There could also be students who do not take any religion course. If I understand correctly, there are these three possibilities and they could be implemented within a given school, quite realistically. Could you tell me if this is the case, because that will enable me to ask some related questions?

[English]

Mr. Roger Grimes: Madame Folco, I don't believe you have misrepresented the issue at all. I believe that would be an accurate assessment.

The departmental course in generic religion would be available in every school. Students themselves would choose whether or not they participate. It's constitutionally guaranteed that this course will be provided. Whether anybody participates or not is up to the parent and the student.

Secondly, as you describe it, parents may ask for a denominationally specific course.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That is the point of my question, Minister, if you will allow me to interrupt you. Could we have a situation in which parents of different religions in a given school might ask the school board to have their own religion courses? If so, a situation might arise in which some children were taking Roman Catholic religion courses, others were taking Jewish religion courses and so on. Is that a possibility? If that is the case, are there protections for parents who would ask the school board and be told that there were not enough resources to provide this service and that it would divide the school too much? What would the protections and assurances be that all parents would have access to the religious education that they would ask the school board for?

• 1930

[English]

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you again, Madam Folco.

The short answer for the committee is “none”. The parents would have no guarantee that they could have access to the courses they've requested.

They can ask. Then the school board decides whether it's administratively feasible to offer it or not. They have no constitutional right to demand a denominationally specific religious education course under this proposal.

Their choices are: to participate in the course that will be offered, which will be common in every school; to not participate; or to ask—it's only by permission—for two or three different denomination courses to occur in a school at the same time. The school board and school-based administrators will decide whether or not they can arrange that with their current staff, resources, and student bodies.

In larger schools, if they have the staff, resources, and so on, and if they can accommodate it, they board might grant it. But no parent could go in by virtue of pointing to the constitutional term or our legislation that will flow from it and say that they have a right to have Roman Catholic religion in this school for their children. That will not exist.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I'll now move to Madame Dockrill.

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Minister, like some of my colleagues here, I'm having a really difficult time getting past the courses in religion, specifically regarding a generic religion course. What I hear you talking about is more in line with a value enrichment program.

My question is in two parts. When you refer to a course in religion, first, I would like to know what religious input would be there in order for it to qualify as a religious course. Also, who will decide that input?

My concern is that with the various religions we now have within our society, what qualifies it as a religious course? What I hear you talk about is more value enrichment, which I'm a little bit more comfortable with than that label of religion.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you, Madame Dockrill.

The issue again probably is exactly that. Because of the history and development of the system in Newfoundland and Labrador, you had denominationally based and denominationally run schools with denomination-specific religion courses. That's the way it has always been described.

What I've been trying to get across to the committee concerns when we talk about a religion course in a Roman Catholic school. If we go back in history in Newfoundland and Labrador, it would largely be the whole notion that it would be very dogmatic and looking at the issues with respect to the Catholic religion.

Today in Newfoundland and Labrador, it's largely a values and ethics course, with comparative religion. So we don't go back to the kind of religion courses that were in the schools thirty years ago. It has evolved over time.

So that more generic type of religion course that we refer to in our language is what's in the system now, both in our integrated schools and in Roman Catholic and Pentecostal schools. We expect to offer the elements of that in every single school in Newfoundland and Labrador as the education department's religion course.

It's largely there now. The people of the province would understand that they would likely expect to see the courses that are currently in all grades of the integrated system, because there are four different religions co-operating now in developing a religion course that they find acceptable to all of them. That course, with some modifications done by curriculum experts and with the input of the other churches, if they want, would be the course that would show up in the schools in September 1998.

• 1935

So as I've indicated again, we've recognized that as the remaining most significant challenge for us in Newfoundland and Labrador should we have a successful passage of this Term 17 amendment request.

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

I'll now move to Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, since the question was framed as religion, I think it has to fulfil that intent as religion is understood by the society of Newfoundland. I know it can create problems, but I think this was the question that was posed.

As I read the amendment 17(2), when the courses in religion are not specific to a religious denomination, can I read it to mean that when it is common to more than one religious denomination, therefore it could qualify as fulfilling that requirement?

Mr. Roger Grimes: This again is the remaining challenge for us in terms of striking the right balance. If people are going to get very insistent about what the content will be, as opposed to what the generic content is in our schools today, then we may have some continuing discussion, dialogue and even challenges, about whether or not the course that's in the schools is satisfactory to certain groups or certain people. We'll continue, then, to have the course work evolve over time. We're fully confident that the general nature of the course work that has been in the integrated system today, and has been there for some number of years, which is generic and broad-based in nature, which looks at the whole idea of values, moral and ethical growth and those types of issues, and also studies comparative religions, will qualify and be satisfactory to the parents who would want their children to participate in that course. If they don't find it satisfactory—because the one redeeming feature in all of this is that no parent has to see their child exposed to a religion course of any description or any content that they find in any way offensive or not satisfactory—they opt out.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: That leads me to my second question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Pagtakhan, just a short one.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: This leads me to the second question, the opposite of what Mrs. Finestone was asking: instead of the funding going for the whole set of courses, for the whole class, the funding going to a private school—which of course would be a very difficult question to answer. However, if it's only opting out of a particular subject, can the cost of funding that particular course, should the parents so opt out, go with that group of parents?

Mr. Roger Grimes: Again, with respect to funding for anyone who opts out and looks either within the system or outside for funding to support their particular course, there's nothing constitutionally or legally to prevent the government from doing that, other than that politically in the province we have directly told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that if they want this to happen they'll have to elect a different government, that this government is not interested in that proposal.

So we've been very direct, very straightforward, with the people of the province: exercise your right to opt out, but if you're so insistent that you must have denominationally specific religious education, either in that school when a school board of its own decision-making process is not going to provide it, or if you're going to go to your own school because that's the priority for you and your children, then you pay, not the people of the province.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

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

I will move to Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question deals with the difference between the first referendum and the second referendum, an approximately 20% increase in support for the amendment. Given that it was Minister Dion's evidence, and I believe yours as well, Mr. Minister, that the changes are more drastic in the second proposed amendments to Term 17 than they were in the first, this evening the wording of the question has been called into question and the process of the holding of the referendum has been called into question. But as the minister who was involved in the referendum, what is your take on why the increase in support for a more drastic change?

• 1940

Mr. Roger Grimes: Very briefly, my take on it clearly would be this. The level of frustration arose from trying to organize a system under the current Term 17, which we asked the Government of Canada to put in place in all good conscience, and also from the matters arising from the court injunction that was granted as a result of the application put forward to the court by two of the denominations that did not agree with the decisions of some of the boards and were granted an injunction. The combination of those led to a frustration level that I described in my opening remarks.

Nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador was satisfied with the current system and they then broke into two camps. There was clearly a group of people who felt that the government had made a complete mess of this because we had gone too far and had taken away some rights. Another group felt the government had made a complete mess of this because we hadn't gone far enough and we left too many denominational rights. And there was clearly a mood to clear the air, to get on with organizing the system in one way or the other.

The compromise that we asked the Government of Canada to enshrine in the current Term 17 was found in one try in the matter of a few short months to be absolutely unworkable and satisfactory to nobody.

Therefore, we asked the people if, instead of looking at the compromise—and I was part of the government of Premier Wells—we would ask the people of the country through the Parliament of Canada to put in place the current Term 17. That was based on three years of negotiations and discussions, but it did not reflect what was proposed, as I pointed out, in the royal commission.

The royal commission, which had done the most extensive public consultation ever in the province, came to the conclusion that the churches should be out of administration and that positive religious influences should stay in.

That is not what we have with the current Term 17, the present law of the land. The attempts by the school boards to work with the current system and the outcome of the court injunction, where two of the denominations were not satisfied with some of the boards' decisions, led to such a level of frustration in the province that the people were begging...I think the premier in his comments was saying it: it's not that the government was bringing this to them, it's that they were asking us to do something about it, to fix it, because what they had wasn't working, they said.

The fix that the government proposed is fully in line with the basic gist of the royal commission of 1990-91, which is to keep denominations and churches out of administration, but to find a way to keep positive religious influences in our schools.

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

I indicated to Senator Rompkey some time ago that because I interrupted him in the line of questioning, if he had a 15-second question...if not, fair enough.

Mr. Minister, may I say on behalf of the committee, as committee joint chair, that notwithstanding the actual substance of your presentation, in terms of your readiness to answer what I will call a very strenuous battery of questions, you have upheld yourself quite well in the sense that you've given the committee specific latitude.

We are now 15 minutes over our schedule, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very sincerely for tolerating the interruptions and for handling yourself in the manner which you have. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to travel to Ottawa to present yourself in front of this committee. And if the committee sees fit, we will have you back, if you so desire.

Mr. Roger Grimes: Thank you. We very much appreciate the opportunity and hope it's been helpful to the committee in its deliberations.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, we will now take a very quick one-minute break, if we could. Mr. Harris is waiting to take the witness stand.

• 1944

• 1946

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Ladies and gentlemen, we have the distinct pleasure of having before us to appear on our special joint committee on Term 17, an amendment to the terms of the union with Newfoundland, a very distinguished guest, one, quite frankly, who has the full respect of this Parliament as a former member of Parliament himself, for St. John's East. I welcome Mr. Jack Harris.

Sir, I invite you, with the full dignity and full respect of this committee, to present your brief.

Mr. Jack Harris (Leader of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, Mr. Joint Chair.

Joint Chairs and members of the committee, I first wish to thank the committee for the opportunity and honour to be present and be heard before this special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, of which, as your co-chair has pointed out, I was once a member, on what is a matter of great importance to the province and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's the second time in two years the Province of Newfoundland has invoked section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to seek to achieve a bilateral amendment to the Constitution affecting a most important part of the constitution of Newfoundland, that being the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada.

As a bilateral amendment, it affects only the Government of Canada and that of Newfoundland and applies therefore only in Newfoundland, and it ought not to be regarded as having any legal consequences for another province or territory. Of course—and we understand this—the Parliament of Canada has a legitimate and proper role, in fact an obligation, to examine and improve on such an amendment. I'm pleased to have an opportunity to participate in that process by my presence and representations here today.

I and my party support the amendment and urge its passage in Parliament. As leader of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, I participated in a televised address reacting to the announcement of the referendum on July 31, 1997. In fact, a week before that I urged the new referendum on the government and I provided copies of a written version of my televised address to members of the committee and asked that they be tabled before the committee.

I was very pleased to see that a clear and unequivocal question was asked in the referendum, and pleased to see such a significant level of support for the proposition, signalling a broadly based consensus on a question that was once so controversial that politicians in Newfoundland and Labrador chose not to speak about it in public. Those of you who are from Newfoundland or who are familiar with the problem would know that's the case. In fact, the NDP, my party, was the first party to speak publicly on the issue and challenge the system of denominational education for its perceived faults, they being the waste, the duplication, a lack of opportunity for those who were non-believers to participate, etc.

I was also most gratified to see, ultimately, that the legislature of the province of Newfoundland passed the resolution by a unanimous vote.

• 1950

I have also prepared a photocopy of the Hansard proceedings of the Newfoundland legislature for September 4, for the benefit of committee members. It includes a copy of my speech to the legislature, and I will just read a portion of it:

This debate about education in the Province of Newfoundland and in particular the governance of education has been going on for quite some time. In the past five years of course, it has intensified and has been at times a difficult and a tense debate and has been so because people have felt that their way of life, that their beliefs, that their ability to pass on those beliefs and traditions to their children are at risk, so it was not an easy thing to get from where we were five years ago to where I think we are today, and that is to recognize that as a people we wish to see a change in our system that served well in the past, that the majority of people of this Province feel need no longer govern our system of education.

After so many years, a province-wide consensus had been reached, and the needs of the school children and the challenges of maximizing available resources to provide the best education possible to our children, regardless of the religious faiths of their parents, were now to denominate the debate; not the argument about governance, control, multiple bureaucracies, discrimination against teachers on the basis of religion, duplication of services, wasteful school bussing, allocation of finances to various denominations—all the features of denominational education that the people of Newfoundland had come to resent and ultimately reject.

The debate about the Newfoundland school question has been alive on Parliament Hill for only a couple of years, but it has been going on in Newfoundland and Labrador for decades. Therefore, it is understandable that members of the House of Commons and the Senate relate the debate to section 93 of the Constitution as it affects, in particular, their home province.

I will repeat the point that I made to the Senate committee that held hearings on the previous amendment to Term 17 in St. John's, and which was reiterated today both by the Minister of Education in his brief and by Minister Dion. The circumstances of Newfoundland at the time of entry into Confederation were not those of Ontario and Quebec at the time of Confederation in 1867. There was not a minority that required constitutional protection, such as the Catholics in Ontario or Protestants in Quebec, who were concerned about their educational rights in the face of a public education system in the case of Ontario, or a religious education system in the case of Quebec.

In Newfoundland, there was no public system. All the schools were denominational, and there was consensus to keep it that way. It was not seen as, nor was it an issue of, minority rights. Thus, Term 17 of the Terms of Union replaced section 93 of the Constitution at the request of Newfoundland, not Canada. It was not an imposition by Canada as a condition of Newfoundland's entry into Confederation. It was the desire of the people of Newfoundland to have the status quo or to have that there. It had the effect of freezing the status quo forever in time. There was no protection in Newfoundland at the time. In fact, if it hadn't been for Confederation, a simple act of the legislature of Newfoundland could change the situation at any time. Unless amended, however, Term 17 froze the status quo.

That consensus of 1949 has now been replaced with the consensus of 1997. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to change the constitutional status of their school system to that of a single school system for all children, regardless of religion. I wish to urge the committee and the Parliament of Canada to support such a change as embodied in the resolution under study and now before Parliament. It is in accordance with the wishes of the people, as expressed in the referendum and through the unanimous vote of their elected representatives in the Newfoundland House of Assembly.

I thank you for your attention, and I am prepared to deal with any questions you may have about my support and my party's support for this amendment, and my take on what has been happening in Newfoundland.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. Once again, we appreciate that you have taken the time to appear before this committee. It is not your first time in these hallowed halls, but we certainly appreciate the fact that you have done so indeed.

The line of questioning is now open. Mr. Goldring, you may lead off the questions for today, followed by Senator Kinsella, Mr. McGuire, Senator Pearson, and then Ms. Dockrill and Mr. DeVillers.

• 1955

Mr. Peter Goldring: Looking at Term 17(3), it says very clearly: “Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents.” It doesn't mention quantity, it doesn't mention numbers. But then we've just listened to the minister explaining that the school board will determine it, even where religious observances will be. In the Term 17 it's very clear that it shall be permitted.

What is your understanding on this? What takes precedence here?

Mr. Jack Harris: Thank you for the question, Mr. Goldring. I didn't understand the minister to say that religious observances would be at the discretion of the school board. He was talking about specific religions' instruction; for example, catechism for Catholics, or a particular religious instruction. My understanding of Term 17(3) is that it refers to religious observances. It may well be the lighting of a Hanukkah candle, it may well be a mass, it may well be any type of religious observance that the parents may request.

I didn't understand the minister to say that, and in fact I've discussed this with him before. My own understanding of it is that “religious observances” is not the same as “religious education”.

Mr. Peter Goldring: “Religious observances” is pretty specific. If you're talking about a Christmas tree or about other symbols of various religions, that's getting quite specific. That's not falling into the guidelines of the generic form of religious education, is it? We're getting more specific than that, because would that not also infer that if they can be permitted in a school by a request by parents, then parents could also ask for exclusion of certain religious symbols of other religions? Is that not possible?

Mr. Jack Harris: I read it quite strictly, Mr. Goldring, as “religious observances shall be permitted”, so it's not a discretion of the school board in the case of Term 17(3). It's permissive as opposed to exclusive. I don't think that it requires or permits the school to exclude a particular religious observance at the parents' request.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Mr. Harris, would your party be amenable to a suggestion that would go something like this: Term 17(2), where the Legislative Assembly has exclusive jurisdiction over education, would end with a full stop? In other words, is it your party's priority to move from a denominational school system to a public school system?

Mr. Jack Harris: Yes. Quite frankly, the desire of our party was to move away from the denominational education where the whole system was in fact controlled by church authorities. So they should be out of the administration. This provision here, “but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination”, I think is unnecessary. But I think, in keeping with the type of schooling we have had in the province of Newfoundland, to move from what I suppose critics in the province would call a denominational-based education to a godless education system was a step that many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians weren't prepared to take. I think that is there to ensure that religion will not be excluded from the schools.

Madame Finestone asked earlier about cases in Ontario, where religious education and activity were prohibited in the school. I think the point of including this provision here is so that those cases may not in fact apply in Newfoundland and that you can in fact have religious education in a school despite the fact that in other respects it is a non-denominational system. So the kinds of cases that apply in Ontario are something I'm sure your committee will be looking into with the legal people who have done the legal research.

• 2000

Although I'm a lawyer, I haven't done a legal brief in this area. My understanding is that this provision would assist those who wanted to have a religious education, would provide for that and would not exclude it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. I'll now move to Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you, Mr. Joint Chair.

One of the reasons that's common to all provinces is the lack of dollars to provide an education system to their population, to the children of the population. You quote on page 3 the multiple bureaucracies, duplication of services, wasteful school busing, allocation of finances to various denominations, and a whole list of things that are done at least four times on a lot of occasions, if the four systems are operating.

Obviously this is costing a lot more money than would normally be the case. I wonder if you could tell the committee about that aspect of it. How much money would you save, and where might those savings be used to better the education system that would be put in place here under the new regime that's proposed? I imagine there would be considerable dollars saved and maybe a better opportunity for the children of Newfoundland to have a better education.

Mr. Jack Harris: Thank you for that question. It's an important question. In fact, it focuses on some of the areas on which our party may well differ quite strongly with the government. As I pointed out in my support of the amendment, numerous political questions are still going to be at large, and our party is prepared to fight the government on them.

One of them is just that. The various figures have been bandied about as to the savings that could be generated in a single school system. The figure of up to $30 million a year has been used. Figures of as much as $8 million or $9 million a year on school busing alone have been used, not by this minister but by the previous Minister of Education in the province.

One of the very strong positions that I have had and that our party has had is that any savings generated by the efficiencies of a new school system ought to go back into that system to improve the quality of education and the course offerings, and to support a matter I've been campaigning on for about a year now, that of a universal school lunch program.

We have a situation in our province where it's been determined that some one-third of school children go to school hungry. We know from studies that have been presented to the government in our province that this clearly affects their ability to learn and participate fully in school activities.

I feel, and we feel as a party, very strongly that government has a responsibility to allow children to maximize the educational opportunities, and that the money saved through this type of reform ought clearly to be used to enhance the value of the education of students and to enhance students' opportunities.

I'm very concerned about that issue. That was the one that drove this from the beginning. Thirty years ago we had small communities with sometimes three one- and two-room schools instead of having them all go to the same larger school. That has changed quite a bit in the last number of years, but the bureaucracies have still been there, with each board or each denomination having the right to have people within the Department of Education—curriculum people, etc.—involved.

There are considerable savings. We hope—in fact we will be insisting, on a political level—that they will be used to enhance the value of education to our students.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Harris and Mr. McGuire. Now I'll move on to Senator Pearson.

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

I'm particularly interested in your description of the fact that there has been a lot of consultation over rather a long time about this issue—a lot of discussion, a lot of debate in Newfoundland. I became quite well aware of it when the Senate went down last year to hear.

To what degree has your party, or have the various parties concerned, involved students in these discussions?

Mr. Jack Harris: That's an interesting point. I made the point or suggestion quite recently that although this has been a live debate only in the past five or six years, with referenda in the last two, if there had been a referendum among high school students in the province of Newfoundland in the late 1960s , certainly where I went to school, there would have been an overwhelming majority of people who would have wanted all students to go to the same school. That was what we felt when I was a high school student in the late 1960s.

• 2005

At that time it was a political no-no. That wasn't on politically. The politicians did not wish to talk about it. It was a political suicide note to raise this issue.

But now it has obviously changed. The consensus very clearly has changed quite a bit. I see it as being an important change as part of change in Newfoundland society.

High school students themselves haven't really been very much consulted, but I think the consensus among students is what it would have been 30 years ago, that students would prefer to go to the same school. There are obviously those who might be particularly involved in a Pentecostal church or church group and they would feel it's very important to keep the separate schools, but I think the overwhelming majority—I would suggest more than the 73%—will be very happy to have a single school system for all students.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Ms. Dockrill.

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Harris, my concern is not one of exclusivity but rather of inclusiveness. I'm going to go right back to that word again. Do you feel Term 17(2) as it's written now allows for possible change within what is now the definition of religion in Newfoundland?

Mr. Jack Harris: I'm not sure I understand the full question. It certainly would be much more inclusive than the seven denominations that have constitutional rights under the existing Term 17, but I don't think it's a big difference from what might be taught in some of the schools now. Islam, for example, is not one of the protected religions, but obviously in a course on religion, not specific to a religious denomination, one would expect Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and other religions which are not majoritarian, obviously, or not even significant groups of population within our province...their religious adherence, their religious beliefs, the respect for and tolerance for those views about religion and beliefs that are not our own, would be more inclusive, more likely to be present in proposed Term 17(2) than they would in a religion course now, because I think the government, the Department of Education, and those who are willing to participate in developing those courses would want to see that.

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

Mr. Paul DeVillers: On page 2 of your brief, Mr. Harris, you indicate you were pleased to see it was a clear and unequivocal question in the referendum. I'm interested in the difference between the first referendum and the second referendum—why the increase in support. I think you were here when Minister Grimes answered my question on his take on it. I would like your opinion on the referendum process and your explanation for the increase in support.

Mr. Jack Harris: I wasn't very happy with the first referendum. The minister has characterized it as a compromise agreement between the churches and the government. I didn't regard it as that at all. I regarded it as the government's version of a compromise between going all the way and doing what the churches wanted to do, which wasn't very much.

No consensus was reached with the churches as to what should happen in the first referendum. Obviously the churches opposed it, or some of them did, quite vigorously. The results of the referendum are well known.

It was a confusing question, because what happened was that a complexly worded term, as you see it here, was in essence put before the people without a real debate about that term. It was devised by the government coming out of their discussions with only the church leaders. It was only the church leaders involved in the process and this came out as the government's last offer, that was then put to the people. It was take it or leave it. It was sold as reform. Those who wanted what we have now were dissatisfied because it didn't achieve the reform that was sought. Yet, if you had any query about it at all, if you didn't like it enough to vote no—which I did, I voted no in the first referendum—you were regarded as one who wanted to have the status quo and have no change at all.

• 2010

So it was very difficult for some people to get their heads around the first referendum and what they should do and what it meant. The ultimate result was that there was a campaign going on in Newfoundland for six or eight months, it was called the “Yes Means Yes” campaign, where the people who were the supporters of reform were trying to get the government to do more than what Term 17 provided, because they believed that what had been decided in the last referendum was to reform the system and get rid of the church control over the administration of education. That obviously is not there, and if you read the term you would realize that it wasn't there, but that was the perception people had.

I was pleased that the second question was a clear question and was unequivocal. It was that we are taking the churches out of education, out of the administration of education; the premier made that clear. I was aware that this was what the situation was going to be, and I think it was because we had a clear question that people said, now we can answer it, now we can say what we really want.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: The increase came through it being clear.

Mr. Jack Harris: The increase came through because it was clear, and I suppose because of the history of what had happened with the unclear one. People asked themselves, didn't we vote on this already yet? Didn't we say we wanted reform? How come we're not getting it? I think that pushed people into saying, look, let's just do it once and for all. I think that's what happened.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. Mr. Pagtakhan, followed by Senator Kinsella.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: With the clarity of the question posed...and I was just reading the eloquent speech you gave before the House of Assembly when you indicated that a source of constitutional law is the will of the people. I thought I should place that on record. You also observe in your presentation the pure expression of the power of the people and at the same time the unanimous vote on the part of the House of Assembly, so I sense that you would be extremely disappointed were you not to receive the unanimous support of this committee for this amendment.

Mr. Jack Harris: I would be very disappointed. I told the House of Assembly of my first experience with constitutional law as a law student when, after going through all the usual sources of constitutional law, the British North America Act, the constitutional conventions, etc., the professor at the University of Alberta asked the students—there were 150 of us there—are there any other sources of constitutional law? Not one of the 150 or so—we thought—very bright students came up with the answer. The answer was that the people themselves were the fundamental source of constitutional law, and so I told that story to the House of Assembly.

I think it is important that since this is a part of the constitution of Newfoundland, I don't see us as Newfoundlanders coming to Parliament saying, please change our constitution for us. It's a bilateral thing, there's a responsibility there, but it's a provision that Newfoundlanders wanted in 1949 that they don't want now.

I think the people have spoken quite decisively both in terms of the numbers in the referendum and the unanimous vote of the legislature. I think it's extremely important because even those who voted no, even those who felt strongly about it themselves, supported the will of the people in the unanimous vote of the legislature. If this doesn't get a majority support in Parliament, I would be terrifically disappointed that the people of Newfoundland can't have their will expressed in their constitution.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Just one last point, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My understanding of religion, and I studied the literature, is that it always speaks about a Supreme Being, about God. Even the Constitution of Canada introducing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms invokes the supremacy of God. Is that your understanding of religion too as a leader of a political party?

Mr. Jack Harris: You're asking a deep philosophical question, and I'm not sure I know how to answer it. Clearly, we understand our society has an understanding of a Supreme Being, of a God, and religion is the various expressions of how we understand God and what philosophical or faith beliefs we have to express that. Religion must be a belief system related to God. I suppose there are belief systems that don't include God. I was reading about Scientology in Maclean's on the plane today, and some think it's a religion and some think it's not. So there can be debates about that too, I suppose.

• 2015

It's a kind of open philosophical question. We accept that our society is a God-based system with religious beliefs and religious freedom. I don't think there's anything in the proposed Term 17 that impinges upon religious freedom. In fact, it recognizes that religious observances are a very important part of our society and that parents have the right to have their children exposed to religious education and engage in religious observances in the schools, even when they are publicly funded, as they are here.

The Joint Chair: (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. I'll now move to Senator Kinsella, who at this time is the final questioner on my list.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Harris, would you be less disappointed if you had a public school system in place of the confessional system but did not get government courses in religion?

Mr. Jack Harris: I don't share your concerns about what might be called a government course in religion. I understand from your earlier remarks that you see it as some sort of state imposition of religion upon the people. I didn't understand it as that. I saw it as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador being required to make provision for courses in religion, but it's not a state religion. The provision is there for it.

Presumably the minister has talked about the consultation process, hopefully with the participation of all those denominations that now play a role in education so they'll be satisfied that it is fully representational of the various belief systems. I would hope the Catholic people, through their church representatives or others, will get involved in helping design the course, and others as well.

But I don't see it as a monolithic state religion that's imposed by government. I see it very much as inclusive, open-ended and non-dogmatic. I don't see it as teaching a belief system but as exposing students to the whole panoply of religious observances and beliefs.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Does your party support what the minister has submitted to us on the matter of how you design this government religion course, where the minister states it will be designed to help students understand Revelation?

The issue becomes whether it is Revelation that's inspired or Revelation that is inspired and believed. If that is the case, what about systems or faith traditions that are not based on Revelation? They will be made relative, and the state with its authority and dominance by having a state-sponsored course, even if it is the history of comparative religions, will be leaving some out. Does your party have a clear idea as to what the criteria will be for the drafting of the state religion course?

• 2020

Mr. Jack Harris: I haven't consulted party policy on Revelation lately, but I doubt very much if even the New Democratic Party has a policy on that.

But to treat the question seriously, I don't take the minister's words in his brief as dogma either. I'm sure there are revelations in the Mormon faith, which is very different from the Revelation of the Christian faith based on the gospels. There's revelation in other faiths as well, such as in Islam, I'm sure, that differ widely...or reincarnation or Judaism or whatever. But I don't think there needs to be a consensus on that. I don't believe that Mr. Grimes and his government are going to have a state dogma imposed on people, and if he does, I can assure you that the New Democratic Party will fight against it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Jack Harris: Unless he converts me.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I will just interject that as joint chair of this particular committee, just to get to a serious point here for a second, I will take great care in making sure that questions presented to witnesses are worded in such a way that they do not seem to attempt to reflect a personal religious belief or ask witnesses to present their own particular religious beliefs.

I want to take care, members, that we don't put witnesses in harm's way in any way, shape or form, respecting that Senator Kinsella's question is very consistent with what we should indeed be asking of a witness.

Senator Noel Kinsella: On a point of order, I did not understand your observation, Mr. Joint Chair. Would you repeat it? What is your point?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Certainly. My point is that I just want to be careful that the line of questioning we use for witnesses is not in some way, shape or form perceived to be an attempt to actually have them present their own religious beliefs. We're speaking on a policy matter here and it's very important that witnesses be given the opportunity to speak to the policies.

As I stated, Senator, your line of questioning was completely in line. I have not made a remark that it was out of order. I merely want to state that it is a sensitive issue and I am just asking members to bear that in mind. That is a line we do not want to cross. I simply will leave it at that.

Madame Caplan, you wanted to ask the final question, I think.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Actually, Mr. Chair, I don't really have a question. I just wanted to thank the witness and compliment him on the clarity of his thoughts and for bringing forward to this committee the non-partisan nature of the debate in Newfoundland.

I visited Newfoundland and had the opportunity to discuss this issue with a few people I encountered. I was struck by the fact this was not a partisan issue, that it had support across the province in all communities. While it wasn't unanimous, certainly leadership was found in all political parties in the legislature. I want to thank the witness for coming forward and reinforcing what I heard from the people of Newfoundland.

Mr. Jack Harris: Thank you. If I may, I'll just comment on that briefly, though, because I think it is very important and vital. In Newfoundland, we have a history of great sectarianism and great difficulties with this since many years, 100 years. I think that all parties were careful in this debate to avoid trying to take advantage of divisiveness and sectarianism to gain a political advantage.

I believe there were some delicate moments during the last four or five years, and it is always tempting for political parties to see an advantage in a particular situation. I think what you say is quite right. It is quite commendable that all parties in Newfoundland were able to resist any temptation there might be and to regard it as an non-partisan issue, and I think it was shown by the ultimate unanimous vote in the legislature, which I thought was a very fine thing to have happen.

• 2025

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

Seeing no further questions coming from the floor, I'd again like to thank you for taking the time to appear before this special joint committee, understanding it is a long trek, and you've done so on short notice. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to offer our appreciation to a former member of the House of Commons for appearing before us.

Thank you very much.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Jack Harris: Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We've heard from Minister Grimes from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We've heard from Mr. Jack Harris from the opposition New Democratic Party. I just want to state that Mr. Sullivan has indeed been asked to appear before the committee. He has not been able to, for the simple reason that the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador is currently in session, and he thought it prudent at this point in time to prepare for the House. He will be given the opportunity, though, potentially to appear as a witness later on or to take advantage of video-conferencing technology.

I raise that point in the interest of those viewing these proceedings, especially those from Newfoundland and Labrador, who are aware that we've indeed had the government representative and we've had representatives from one particular party in opposition. The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Newfoundland and Labrador has been asked, but at this particular point in time he is not able to appear before us. However, that opportunity still remains open into the future.

So thank you once again, and I'd like to say thank you very much to the House of Commons employees, who are standing behind the cameras here with us. Thank you all very much to everyone who's helped us put this together this afternoon. We have a long three weeks ahead of us, so carry forward.

We'll adjourn to reconvene again on Thursday at 9 a.m. in this particular room. Thank you.