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]

November 20, 1997

• 1531

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Lethbridge, Lib.)): Colleagues, welcome back for the afternoon. We have more than a quorum, so we can begin.

We have two groups this afternoon. The first one is the Newfoundland and Labrador Catholic Education Association, and the other is the Newfoundland-Labrador Human Rights Association. We would hope to give each group an hour for the presentation and the questioning, with perhaps 10 to 15 minutes for the presentation and then time for us to question.

This morning it was a very generous type of questioning. This afternoon, because we're on a little tighter schedule, perhaps we could do a round of initial questions and then see how our time is going.

I would like very much to welcome representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Catholic Education Association. They are Helena Bragg, the executive director; and Alice Furlong, the vice-president.

You are very welcome here. We're delighted you've made the trip to come and we look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Please begin.

Ms. Alice Furlong (Vice-President, Newfoundland and Labrador Catholic Education Association): Thank you very much.

I thank you for your welcome, but with all due respect, Madam Chairman, I don't know if I can share with you our delight at being here. We have been, as a class of people, tremendously affected by what has happened over the past eight years. We're very weary and very troubled by what has happened. So while your welcome is very generous, I think you can understand exactly how we feel.

I speak to you today on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador Catholic Education Association. Helena Bragg and I will share this presentation. We shall endeavour to be as prompt as possible.

All schools will continue to be denominational in character and all students will continue to have the opportunity to participate in religious education, observances and celebrations at their school. In addition, where the parents wish and there is a sufficient number of students, a uni-denominational school can be operated. In those schools, Term 17 will provide for denominational rights comparable to those available in separate schools in other provinces.

Expert witnesses appearing before this committee have stated that the proposed amendment affords adequate protection for minorities and that, in fact, denominations with constitutionally guaranteed rights in this province would have more power and control over education than would be the case in many other provinces.

Do those words sound familiar to you, ladies and gentlemen? Those are the words of our Minister of Education, Roger Grimes, in his submission to the Senate on July 11, 1996.

• 1535

A little over one year later, his government was endeavouring to remove the amendment he so supported. That amendment, which currently exists, was approved December 4, 1996, proclaimed April 11, 1997, and threatened with abolition July 31, 1997.

Ladies and gentlemen, the question that needs to be asked is why we all need to be here at this time. I know why we are here and you will have to decide why you are here.

We wish to express the view of the many Roman Catholics who have voted to retain their constitutional rights and who reinforced that position by registering their children for Catholic schools in February 1997. Sixty percent of our Catholic students were re-registered by their parents for Catholic schools in February 1997.

The terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada provides protection for denominational schools, but now we see it's the intention of the Tobin government to remove this protection entirely and to remove the right and the opportunity to denominational religious instruction, contrary to everything that had been promised a little over a year ago.

Unlike issues pertaining to the Quebec education amendment, where a consensus is said to exist on revoking constitutionally entrenched protection of confessional schools, there is clearly no clear consensus of the minority affected in Newfoundland and Labrador.

After two referenda and a school registration process, there is still dissension. The school registration process in February 1997 was the only clear expression of choice by Catholics, which saw 60% of Catholic school children re-registered by their parents for Catholic schooling.

We feel that the September 2, 1997, referendum was not the proper approach to ascertain the wishes of the minority affected. It was held, and so we have some obligation now to deal with the outcome. Issues such as the lack of funding for the no side and the lack of time for consideration, debate, and analysis make the referendum results questionable at best.

You will be told that all Catholic districts voted yes and that every district in Newfoundland and Labrador but one supported the Tobin government. We understand that you will be given a presentation to that effect next week.

The fact is, we do not know who voted or how they voted. Catholics as a distinct group cannot be identified as voting in any particular way. You must remember, we were allowed no scrutineers and our people were not required to vote in their specific districts. In addition, our populations were determined on 1991 statistics. Also, the concept of “where numbers warrant” has nothing to do with electoral boundaries.

We commend the Honourable Paul DeVillers when he enunciated so well our position on the need for the minority to decide upon its own rights. Mr. DeVillers spoke in the House of Commons on the debate on the proposed amendment to section 93 of the BNA Act, and we quote from Hansard of November 17, 1997, page 1755:

Particularly when a legislature is considering changes to constitutional guarantees of rights, it is critical that the minority affected by the change be aware of the proposal. Further I believe it is critical that a majority of the minority affected be supportive of the proposal.

He goes on to say:

...the majority of the minority is what I expect from any province that intends to change its minority rights guarantees in any area.

That principle must be applied similarly to us in Newfoundland and Labrador. Concern for the decisions of the minorities affected in this instance in our referendum was not expressed by those who imposed the referendum upon us, nor was there any suggested way as to how they might measure the opinion of the minority.

• 1540

As I said before, voters were not required to vote in their own districts, and we were not allowed scrutineers. In fact, an analysis done by Dr. James Feehan, Professor of Economics at Memorial University, for the denominational commission shows, based on reasonable assumptions, that as many as 61% of Roman Catholics who voted in the referendum voted no.

This, you will see, correlates very well with the outcome of the government-required parent registration in February of 1997, where, again, we saw 60% of our children re-registered for Catholic schools. This, I'd like to remind you, took place in the month of February, where parents had to get out and register their children. Those who did not desire to register for unidenominational schools did not have to vote.

In many areas of Newfoundland and Labrador numbers no longer justify separate schools. Roman Catholics attend what we call “joint service” schools, where religious instruction in their own faith is available to them.

This figure, then, of 24,000 assumes special significance when viewed with the total school population of 101,608 students and by virtue of its concentration of the results in areas where numbers do warrant the continuation of separate schools.

Unlike Quebec, where it's proposed through provincial law to provide alternative protection for religious-based education, no such provision, however inadequate by comparison with constitutional entrenchment, is offered in Newfoundland and Labrador.

You will remember what was offered to us, and you will know now what has happened to us in terms of the provincial legislation. The government itself—and it was found to have done so by Mr. Justice Leo Barry—contravened its own legislation. So much for the protective powers for minorities in provincial legislation. Instead, the Tobin government is proposing to eradicate entirely denominational schools and religious instruction and instead to provide for courses in religious that are non-specific.

The Hon. Stéphane Dion said in his remarks to you on November 18, 1997, that it leaves no doubt that this is a removal of a constitutionally held minority right. He argues that the rationale for removing this constitutionally held minority right is the agreement of the minority right-holders; however, nowhere does he cite the evidence for this.

There is an assumption, as he quite clearly states, that is supported only by the belief that it appears reasonable. There are no facts to show that Catholics, a minority, have forfeited their rights. Instead, there is only supposition.

That seems to be adequate for the Newfoundland government and for the Hon. Mr. Dion, but I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, does not the complete abolition of a constitutional right require no demand of higher standards? Again, I refer you to Mr. DeVillers' statement.

Ms. Helena Bragg (Executive Director, Newfoundland and Labrador Catholic Education Association): Take a moment, ladies and gentlemen, to address the issue of why this amendment is unacceptable to us. In fact, this whole issue of reform is circumspect as far we are concerned.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that terms like “education first” and “school reform” are purely generic terms. No one can reasonably object to any of them. We all want reform where it constitutes an improvement, and we all put education first for our children. There's no question about this. We all agree with school reform 100%, and we all agree that the best education for our children is our primary concern.

This proposed amendment to Term 17, however, has very little to do with school reform in the generally understood meaning of the term. If “reform” means improvement in any sense or at any level, then certainly we have no quarrel with that, but Catholics in Newfoundland have, over time, been totally supportive of the reform process. They've agreed to a reduction in the number of school boards. They've agreed to a reduction in the number of schools. They've entered voluntarily into dozens of joint-service agreements. All of these arrangements very significantly predate the Tobin government's so-called reforms.

• 1545

We've also supported the streamlining of the school bus transportation system, and we've agreed to establishing a government authority that will replace the churches in decisions affecting school construction.

In addition to that, the government in Newfoundland and Labrador already controls teacher training. It controls teacher certification. It negotiates teachers' salaries. It negotiates conditions of work. It's entirely in control of the curriculum, excepting only religious instruction, and now it intends to abolish that.

The current amendment seeks to remove every vestige of Roman Catholic, not to say Christian, education. It has already caused the disbanding of the Roman Catholic school boards. Now it intends to remove denominational representation on school boards completely, and further, it intends to remove the right to have unidenominational schools even if numbers do warrant them. These actions are precisely why the amendment is unacceptable to us.

In addition to that, this amendment represents the total removal of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, without our consent. Under the guise of educational reform, it would abolish the right of Roman Catholic parents to choose a religion-based education for their children.

It has been a confusing issue, ladies and gentlemen. We were asked to vote on a proposed question that would provide religious education in the schools, and then, at the eleventh hour, we were presented with the intended change in Term 17 that would eliminate those rights. That in itself is a contradiction.

There's no question about it; we've been betrayed by our government. Having voted for our rights to be continued, we were promised provincial legislation in lieu of constitutional entrenchment to make these rights ours. Now we're seeing that this promise has been reneged upon by the provincial government, and worse still, there is the likelihood that the Parliament of Canada, which we are justified to expect would protect our rights as a minority, may become complicit in destroying them.

The purpose, clearly, in Newfoundland and Labrador is to produce a single, conformist, secular public school system, contrary to the expressed wishes of 55,871 Canadians in our province—and many of them are also the parents of over 24,000 children who were re-registered for Catholic schools in February 1997.

As citizens of Canada whose rights are at stake, we deserve to be listened to on this issue. Furthermore, I'm sure you'll realize that across this country there's a growing opposition to constitutional change that carries the far-reaching consequence of stripping Canadians of entrenched rights without their consent.

At this time, ladies and gentlemen, you have in your hands the opportunity to deal reasonably, responsibly, and fairly with this issue.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Both the Wells and the Tobin governments have used the Williams Royal Commission report, Our Children Our Future, as the basis for the proposals for reform. They have suggested that the elimination of our constitutional rights is essential to this process. However, you may or may not know that the provincial government has had the right since the 1930s to create a public school system and it has not done so.

You should also know that prior to the first referendum in 1995, the churches of Newfoundland and Labrador, representing their people, had agreed to 90% of the 211 recommendations offered in the Williams report, and over the past 30 years much of the duplication has been eliminated voluntarily from the Newfoundland school system. Any excess duplication that remains to be removed can be done through co-operation.

Very briefly—Madam Chairman, I know you're concerned about time—we feel that it's important for the members here to know that there are schools in only 241 communities in our province. Today there are only 391 schools. In 1995 there were almost 500 schools; in 1967, 1,100 schools. It is also important for you to know that 90% of our communities with schools have only a single school system. Today only 10% of our communities with schools have more than one school system, and these are in the cities and the larger towns. There are only 10 school boards. That was desired by the government, and it was agreed upon by the churches. There is one school construction board.

• 1550

We've already told you that the government controls teacher certification, allotment, teacher ratios, curriculum, curriculum content, programs, finances, construction, and capital expenses. Now they want to control religious education. They want to do that by bringing in what they call, and what we are calling, a “state religion”.

Newfoundland and Labrador has to be evaluated with special consideration. Except for a few urban areas, the population is sparse and far-flung. The rugged coastline, to which most of our population at one time did lay claim, ranges over 10,000 miles. School consolidation is different. Sometimes by closing out a school you simply put a child on a bus for longer periods of time. The decisions are not easy to make.

Only larger urban areas have multiple schools, as we've said, yet all the people there, of all religious denominations, have made every effort to improve educational opportunity for their children. They did that by coming together to form joint service schools, which serve all faiths. That's in 90%. They provide particular religious instruction opportunities where the classes of people provide them. That will be eliminated.

A major obstacle to even greater consolidation appears to be the lack of government funds to upgrade facilities. One of the reasons justifying the first referendum was the need to downsize, to save money, to put money back into the system and hence to be able to bring about the changes necessary. We've now been told by our government that the money saved will not be going back into education.

Our rights under Term 17 were first modified in the 1995 referendum. The first amendment, as you know, ensured continued protection of remaining rights. Now we see that the promises of protective rights were empty, and from our perspective misleading. Our rights are being abolished without our permission, the minority affected. They are being abolished by the vote of a majority.

In February of 1997 the government conducted the registration I spoke to you about. It told parents they had to get out. They had to register their children if they wanted a unidenominational school for their children. The parents got out.

You would have to understand February in Newfoundland to appreciate the effect of a return of over 60% of those children being re-registered. Yet the government ignored the expressed choice of these parents from whom it had solicited that choice.

In order to exercise their rights, then, the parents found that they had to go to court in the spring of 1997. The court ruled in favour of these parents. It halted the designation process. It didn't halt school reform, as has been reported here. It halted the designation process of the schools. That did not halt reform.

The school boards were working out the process of designating the schools according to the wishes of the parents, and then a directive from the Ministry of Education to the boards put this process in confusion. It was that particular directive that Judge Barry found to be unconstitutional and misleading. So it was the attitude and the approach of the ministry that caused the difficulties in this instance.

We feel that all these actions show no respect for the promises made to the House of Commons or to the minorities affected. They do show, however, that we are a minority whose rights are being decided upon by a majority. If this action is successful, then the might of the majority may well be used in the future to extinguish majority rights of other Canadians.

What they do show is that the action of the Tobin government reflects contempt for the people whose rights they had promised to protect. This is not acceptable. Minorities in a democratic country must possess constitutionally protected rights.

• 1555

Ms. Helena Bragg: A word about the issue of choice in education. I'm going to shorten considerably what I have here, but I would like to say that Roman Catholics fully respect the rights of believers in secularism to send their children to schools based on that doctrine if they so prefer. Yet the Tobin government is indicating intolerance of the rights of Catholics to schools that teach their children according to their own faith.

As far as we're concerned, this is clearly an instance of religious intolerance. It offends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian concept of tolerance and freedom of choice. It's plainly wrong.

From time to time you'll hear the suggestion that the power of the churches has to be removed from education. In fact, on July 31, in announcing the referendum, Premier Tobin himself voiced such an assertion.

We tell you, this power no longer exists as a significant factor in the governance of our schools. The people are the church today, and it is they who are insisting on their right of choice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives parents prior right to choose the kind of education their children will receive. This right is being taken away from us.

There's no doubt that the proposed amendment to Term 17 will eliminate denominational schools and the right to denominational religious education in schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. Consequently, it will eliminate freedom of choice in education.

Our position on this issue of choice is very clear. We support the continued right to denominational and dissident schools as well as the means to maintain them where numbers warrant. Where numbers do not warrant, we support the right to religious education of our choice in our faith.

Likewise, we support the same right for people of other denominations, and we respect those people who select a secular public school for their children, but we must ask for this same respect for our right of choice as already protected in the Constitution. If this protection is not preserved now, the precedent for political decisions is going to be set for the future. There could be complete secularization of our education system and complete elimination of choice.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, we have a few points we want to leave you with. Many of our people feel that we have been bullied by a government with power and influence and money—and you'll excuse me for saying so, but it's our money.

We have had removal of our rights justified by a 37% vote of the majority. According to the government's own statistics, only 53% of voters went to the polls in September 1997. Of that 53%, yes, 73% did vote yes, but that means only 37% of the Newfoundland and Labrador voting population are seeking to take away the minority education rights of over 55,000 people who voted no.

So we find that in an attempt to exercise our rights to viable schools we had to go to court. Consequently, the Tobin government rebuked us—rebuked us—by moving to take away our remaining rights without our consent.

We find, ladies and gentlemen, there's very little security in our Constitution today, for what good is a right if it is not entrenched or if it can be removed at the whim of the government through the majority?

All of us—we the people and members of the House of Commons and the Senate—have been literally duped by a government that promised, prior to the first Term 17 amendment, that our remaining rights would be protected by provincial legislation, and that we would be treated equitably. We hold the position that the referendum results in no way give a clear and unequivocal indication of the rights of the RC minority to relinquish their rights.

We think our position is very reasonable here. We're not asking for Roman Catholic schools where they would incur extra, unnecessary costs, or a duplication of services. In fact, I reiterate what has already been said. Little of this duplication exists today, and where it does it's often the result of lack of government funds for capital improvements.

What we ask is what we have asked for from the start: the protected right to preserve our denominational schools where numbers warrant. What we ask as well is that where numbers do not warrant a separate denominational school there be the protected right to Roman Catholic religious education in joint service schools.

• 1600

In this respect, the wording of this new amendment to Term 17 prejudicially affects us. The action of the Tobin government affecting our minority rights is wrong, and it should not be abetted by the federal government. This precedent, once set, raises the possibility of a Canada-wide assault upon minority rights, even those that may seem constitutionally protected and guaranteed.

A case in point is the Pentecostal minority in Newfoundland and Labrador. Their constitutional right was only given to them in 1987. A decade later it is being stripped away.

What then, ladies and gentlemen, you must ask yourselves, is the value and security of a constitutional right, and which minority group will be the next to be affected?

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, both of you.

We have at the moment the next half hour to work on questions.

I have some names: Peter Goldring, Senator Kinsella, Senator Rompkey, Mr. Mark, and Senator Doody.

Let's start with Mr. Goldring, please.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation, ladies. My first question is for Ms. Furlong, please.

As the question seemingly changed from July 31 to August 25, just before the referendum was taken.... Within the information package we received from the Newfoundland government the other day there was a sheet of questions and answers, dated September 4, two days after the referendum.

Were there questions like this, very clearly and explicitly laying out what this meant, before the referendum? There must be scripts or copies of the advertising the government did or said. Did they give in their advertising any additional information that would clarify the situation and make it very clear? Were the advertisements as clear as the question was?

Ms. Alice Furlong: My recollection is that there were questions and answers released—and I could be corrected on this—after Mr. Tobin made the announcement of the referendum on July 31. He released then what he thought would be questions the people would be interested in and their answers to them.

Other than that, sir, I'm not aware of another release of questions and answers.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Were the questions satisfactory? The sheet we received is dated after it, September 4. Did you have satisfactory questions and answers released before the referendum?

Ms. Alice Furlong: Well, it was very confusing, because the question as posed implied in it...if they're the same questions and answers. For example, the people were promised that the schools would remain Christian—in essence, as they have always been. When the term was actually presented to the people, it then became very obvious that it conflicted with the information offered as of July 31.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would it be possible to have a copy of the questions issued so that we can compare them with the questions and answers issued after the referendum?

Ms. Alice Furlong: Certainly. I'm sure we have copies. We can get you one.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much. Senator Kinsella.

Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, PC): Thank you, Senator.

To the witnesses, I certainly understand your presentation and your argument on why the Parliament of Canada ought not to support this proposed amendment. It effectively abolishes the currently constitutional guaranteed denominational school system. I understand that clearly.

• 1605

I would be very grateful to you if you could help me understand the other provisions of the proposed amendment before us. Particularly, I would like your help in understanding Term 17(2).

After it says that we'll give exclusive jurisdiction for education to the legislature, it goes on to say that the province “shall provide for courses in religion” of a non-denominational character. Term 17(3) says that the province shall permit religious observances “where requested by parents”.

Ms. Helena Bragg: You see, the sections of Term 17 that refer to religion don't give any guarantee of any kind of Christian instruction. Let's face it, what is religion? I can say to you that this jug here is my God, and you have to say to me, fine, if that's what you choose, that's what you can worship. So religion is a very broad-based word.

In terms of having any type of Christian content—or intent, for that matter—in the Newfoundland system after this amendment is passed, I can't see it. I'm not a lawyer, and I wouldn't presume to bring any of the cases before you, but there are many precedents to show that when a system becomes secular, in the interests of everyone—in the interests of preserving the freedoms of everyone, sir, in that system—there can be no religion in the schools. Freedom of religion allows for that.

Senator Noël Kinsella: It's your view, then, in summary, that Term 17(2)...or the policy that was explained to us by Minister Grimes. It was clear to us that the government course would not be specifically Christian or any other faith tradition. The religious observances, guaranteeing to the parents the right to request those religious observances, in your view is not worth very much.

Ms. Helena Bragg: I can't see it, because if one is entitled to religious observances then the other two hundred or four hundred in the school are also entitled to religious observances. Where are we going to get time to do anything else? The obvious answer is going to have to be that they won't be allowed at all, because the curriculum has to come first.

Ms. Alice Furlong: I think it also says there would be the opportunity, but I think you also have to apply to have that. It's not a given.

With reference to the religion program, if they actually do develop something that will satisfy everyone it will be an amazing feat. I doubt very much that they will. It would appear that it would be some type of comparative religion study. That is already in the curriculum in Newfoundland. Our students already do that. Our students in the Catholic schools study all of the religions, and it's called “comparative religion”. My own sons have done that. So that's not new to us.

As a Catholic people, of course, we see the integral relationship between the home, the school, and the parish. Our interest is in exposing our children not only to these other religions, which we do certainly at the high school level, but also to understanding their own faith, morals, values, and teachings, which have meaning to us.

So this will never satisfy, because it will offend other people in the system.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Senator Rompkey.

Senator William Rompkey (N.W. River Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I went to an Anglican school in St. John's. I'm pausing here, because I'm sure Senator Doody is going to make an intervention at this point. Seeing that he hasn't, I'll go on, and wait for further interventions.

• 1610

I went to an Anglican school. There were Jews in that school. When we had religious instruction the Jews left the classroom. They were in the school, of course, because they could not have schools of their own. They therefore had to go to a denominational school, because there were no public schools in Newfoundland at that time. Neither could a Jew sit on a school board.

Jews now can be elected to school boards. Jews now can go to any school they want. Moreover, they now can have religious observances in those schools, according to this legislation, as can Roman Catholics.

Don't you think it is a better situation in 1997 than in the 1950s, when I went to school? Both Catholics and Jews can go to the same schools, have religious observances, and equally be allowed to sit on school boards. Isn't that a more democratic and open and fair system than having religious schools from which minorities—real minorities, like Jews—are excluded?

Ms. Alice Furlong: Two things, Senator Rompkey. First, we don't object to a public system where all that is enabling...and the government, as I said, has had the right to create that system since the 1930s. We don't object to that. That's what the Catholic school is, a school of choice.

As you already know, over the years in our Catholic schools many children of other denominations were in those schools by choice. So I can't argue with you on that, because I believe there should be a public school system where all that is enabled to happen.

Senator William Rompkey: But you could, of course, have a Catholic school now, if you wanted, except that you would have to fund it yourself. You cannot have a Catholic school funded by taxpayers' dollars.

Ms. Alice Furlong: But those are my dollars you're talking about.

Senator William Rompkey: That's right.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Catholics are not exempt from paying taxes, or not that I know of.

Senator William Rompkey: No, but I pay taxes in the province, and you would ask me to spend my tax dollars on Catholic schools.

Ms. Alice Furlong: I would be very happy as a Catholic parent to be able to carry my taxes with me in order to fund my school. When people tell Catholics to pay for their own schools, then I have to inquire as to where all my husband's and my tax dollars have gone, because we've been paying them.

Sorry, but that's a very soft argument, sir.

Senator William Rompkey: I happen to think it's not a soft argument. I happen to believe in a public school system, but the right of people to have their own schools if they're prepared to fund them.

Let me ask you about reform.

I don't know how much time I have, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Go very quickly, please, Senator Rompkey.

Senator William Rompkey: You talked about school reform, and that this really wasn't school reform. Surely this makes Newfoundland like most other provinces in Canada, except for the fact that in legislation, religious instruction will be provided for. There will be, as I understand it, if this passes, a constitutional guarantee for individual denominations to have religious observances, and for people generally to have a general course in religious instruction.

Doesn't this legislation put us in our province on more or less the same footing with all other provinces in Canada, with the exception that we do have the right—people do have the right—to religious observances in schools, which no other province will have?

Ms. Helena Bragg: Senator Rompkey, right now seven of the ten Canadian provinces have separate school systems—seven of them. The only public school systems in this country are in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. We call it denominational, they call it separate.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I should preface my comments by telling you that for the last 27 years I've been a teacher in the public school system. From your remarks I got the feeling that you believe this is really about control rather than reform.

I wonder if you could address for me what you believe are the motives of the government, whether they be economic or religious.

• 1615

Ms. Helena Bragg: As far as we can see, the government wants total control of the education system. It controls everything now except the religious curriculum, which is just one subject that's taught in certain schools.

They want complete control of the education system. They told us in the beginning that it was to make a better system, to save money that would go back into the system. Then, after the fact, Minister Grimes himself said, no, we're not putting any of the money we're saving back into the system.

We are already seeing in Newfoundland a lot of conflict in the schools this year, all across the island. Student assistance hours have been practically slashed to nothing, and substitute teaching has been slashed to nothing.

A couple of days ago in two high schools in the province the students walked out because they couldn't avail themselves of programs, music programs, etc., that they had always had in the past. Now, if this is an indication of where reform is going, it's not a good indication, sir. It's not good at all.

When I speak about the education system in Newfoundland I speak with authority. I taught in the schools of Newfoundland for 36 years. The rest of my life I was in school in the system. I have brought three children up through the system. So I think I understand it, and I don't like the way I see it going.

Mr. Inky Mark: If it's an issue of reform, then, do you believe reformation could take place without changing Term 17?

Ms. Helena Bragg: Most certainly.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Yes. We have demonstrated to you the willingness to do that. I can't see that any parent group would want anything less than the best for their children. Of course we want reform. But since 1995, or before, all reform has meant was the desire and the drive to remove a constitutional right. You can see that in terms of controlling reform in the system it's within the hands of the government.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Mark.

Senator Doody, Mrs. Finestone, and Senator Murray.

Senator William C. Doody (Harbour Main-Bell Island, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to go into the referendum question itself for a moment. I am trying to get some idea of how you feel with regard to the question as presented on the referendum ballot and how you feel it is reflected in the amendment as proposed.

The question on the ballot asked:

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

It seems to me that many people assumed that “religious education” meant their religion was going to be provided for them, and accepted that quite—

Ms. Helena Bragg: It was a masterful question, Senator.

Senator William Doody: The amendment as proposed doesn't reflect that sentiment to me at all. It is an entirely cold and impersonal type of question.

Can you give us your thoughts on that?

Ms. Alice Furlong: With reference to the referendum question, as you say, it is a very difficult question to say no to. For the most part, people do not want a complete segregation of their children. We are talking about a choice in education, but we don't have our children placed in pods so that they don't talk to each other after school. That's ridiculous.

I've outlined to you that many of our schools now are in joint service arrangements. This means something like 73%...and I could be corrected on that number. For the most part, the people in those joint service arrangements throughout the island, when they voted on that question, voted yes because they were voting to keep what they already had. What they already had was a joint service school in which their own denominational, religious programs could be offered.

Senator William Doody: Am I fair in saying that up to 75% of the school population is already in joint service or multidenominational schools?

• 1620

Ms. Alice Furlong: Yes. I don't want to mislead you, Senator, but there is a very high amount of joint service situations, something around seventy. It slips my mind right now.

Senator William Doody: Let me put it another way, then. The majority vote of 73% is not that far distant from the number of people whose children are already attending mixed-denominational schools of one type or another.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Yes—except, of course, when the amendment came out. Mr. Tobin then said that the Christian aspect could not be protected. It then took on a completely different meaning when the amendment was released.

Senator William Doody: Just to finish up, then, you feel that there is not a great similarity between the proposed amendment and the question that was asked. Do you think that was misleading?

Ms. Alice Furlong: Yes.

Ms. Helena Bragg: Very definitely. The amendment to Term 17 came out at the eleventh hour. There was really no opportunity to evaluate it.

Senator William Doody: It was the day before the advance polls.

Ms. Helena Bragg: Yes. The day before the advance polls, it was released.

Ms. Alice Furlong: I think less than 24 hours before the advance polls the actual wording of the amendment was released.

Senator William Doody: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm having a bit of difficulty on the thought of minority, majority, and all that. Frankly, I have to tell you, my bias is the best interests of the child. That's my first bias. My second bias is this wonderful country of ours, which is very diversified and pluralistic. I don't particularly cotton on to majority/minority. I just cotton on to plain education.

You made a statement that religion is a very broad-based word. You referred to the pitcher of water, and how you could declare that as a religious practice. You said that your perspective allows for moral, religious, and cultural values to be transmitted between the home, the school, and the parish.

In a society where you already have quantified six or seven denominational groups, if you count Anglicans, Presbyterians, Salvation Army, United Church, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, and Seventh Day Adventists, it strikes that in looking at these percentages we have in front of us—never having lived in Newfoundland, I have to look at the chart and see what it tells me—the Roman Catholics are 37% or more of the population. This puts you in a majority situation.

Where are we abridging your minority rights? That's my first question.

Ms. Alice Furlong: First of all, those religions you refer to, aside from Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventists, and Catholics, have joined together as an integrated group. That has been in existence for many years.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes, I understand that.

Ms. Alice Furlong: These are terms that I thought I would never have to talk about; that is the Protestant majority group.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Although everyone believes substantially in a belief in God, they all have a different form of practice. They all have a commonality in terms of beliefs in the Judaeo-Christian or Muslim fundamentals of life.

It strikes me that if you have a school system that reflects our charter, with the charter being really the fundamental reflection of Canadian values, then you would want to have the teaching of your children not separated...but learning how to live together in respect for difference.

I find a majority community—that's what I see you as, and I'd like to see you defend the fact that you're not the majority—looking for the protection of a minority rather than supporting an integrated system. I'm having some difficulty accepting and understanding that. I wonder if you would explain that to me.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Senator, however you look at it—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm not a senator.

Ms. Alice Furlong: —as a Catholic group we still make up 37% of the population, at least according to 1991 statistics. I've explained to you that when you're looking at the other groups, they are really a Protestant majority group.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Well, I don't see it that way.

Ms. Alice Furlong: They have come together, by choice, to form what they call the integrated school system.

• 1625

I'd like to respond to one thing you said. You're concerned about the best interests of the child. I think most of us sitting around this table share the best interests of the child. But the person who makes the decision in this country about the best interests of her or his child is the parent.

In this instance, it's the Catholic parents who have decided that they want to maintain their minority rights, maintain the right to denominational schools, and have their children, where the numbers warrant, educated in those settings.

Ms. Sheila Finestone: I think we would agree to disagree on that principle.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Well, maybe we'll have to. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

We are getting close to our time limit, so I would ask the remaining questioners and answerers to do it as quickly as possibly so everybody does get their point of view across.

Senator Murray, followed by Mr. Pagtakhan, followed by Mr. Matthews, followed by Mr. DeVillers.

Senator Lowell Murray (Pakenham, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have only one question.

The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada presented us with a brief indicating that some 70% of their eligible Pentecostal voters turned out to vote in the referendum. Of those who did vote, almost 83% of them voted no. I must confess that this gives me pause on the question of minority rights.

You must be very disappointed at the turnout of the Catholics. Just eyeballing the numbers, it occurs to me that if the Catholics had turned out to vote in the same proportion as the Pentecostals and voted no in the same proportion as the Pentecostals, you would have had a rather different result. The Pentecostals cared. They turned out in a proportion much higher than the provincial average and voted no by an overwhelming majority, I think you would say. What do you say about the Catholic turnout and vote?

Ms. Helena Bragg: That's a little bit difficult to assess. That's a hard question. I'm not an economist, of course, so I can't do any analysing of the results as such. Our best figures show that somewhere between 51% and 62% of our people showed up for the referendum. The Catholics, of course, are a much larger group.

I suppose one of the big factors was the time of the year. To call a referendum at the end of July for a vote on September 2 would make it difficult to get a high percentage of votes.

Also, a great deal of the Roman Catholic population, just by virtue of population concentration, would be in the Avalon Peninsula area, the St. John's area, so that may well have been a factor too. These people had just voted to put their children into Catholic schools. They had just been through a government registration. I would imagine that, to a great extent, this negated for them the importance of that referendum, but that's just an opinion.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Senator, we really don't know who voted or how people voted. We don't know. The estimates are based on certain assumptions.

Senator Lowell Murray: We do know there was a turnout of 53%.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Exactly.

Senator Lowell Murray: That doesn't indicate there was much passion to the campaign.

Ms. Alice Furlong: That's right. But I would suggest, as I explained before, that with a significant number of our people in joint service arrangements, they already felt they would be voting for what they already had.

Ms. Helena Bragg: Also there's the fact that with the voting district boundaries, in every case, because the Election Act was waived from the point of view of not having people vote in their districts, they could vote anywhere. Because of the time of year, I suppose that was a factor. It's really hard to assess.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Senator, if I might, the other thing is just to say that, as a people, we have been battered with this. We're tired. This has been a tremendous experience, and people are weary. Just as we think we established the right to have our denominational schools, we're slapped with another referendum. It was from April to July. It was proclaimed on April 11, and then we turn around and lose everything again in July. Is that the way a government is supposed to treat its people? We're battered.

• 1630

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

I'm sorry, Mrs. Finestone, but we do have others on the list. I would like to give them a chance. I don't think we'll have a minute at the end.

Mr. Pagtakhan, quickly.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you for your presentation. Perhaps, at least for me, if the committee would agree, could you provide the committee with a full copy of that study by Dr. Feehan, to which you have alluded? A copy of the full analysis of that paper would be appreciated. This is so we can give a full study of the paper in the context of your submission.

Second, my question is this. Obviously, the right to vote was given to everyone. I think we heard already that the participation, unfortunately, did not exceed 53%. The right was given to 100% of the population. I heard from your submission earlier that the provincial government was predisposed to give funding for denominational schools in a separate system and that this would be a welcome alternative from your point of view. Did I hear you correctly?

Ms. Alice Furlong: I'm sorry, I gather that you're asking whether we would be happy with the idea of the funding of a separate system.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Senator William Doody: As for the study that was asked for by Mr. Pagtakhan, there was a brief presented by the Roman Catholic Education Committee, and it was circulated to the members. Appendix D contains all of that information. I expect it has already been circulated.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I haven't had access to it yet.

Senator William Doody: I know it's a lot of paper.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): It's a big subject. Thank you very much.

Mr. Matthews and then Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): There are a number of observations I'd like to make. I was educated in an integrated system more than 30 years ago. In that system we had Roman Catholics, Anglicans, the United Church, and the Salvation Army. Everything went just fine. We started reforms 30 years ago.

My observation is that over the last number of years the government really has had difficulty in governing the education system of the province. That's my own observation.

Just going back, you did make some observations that the only thing the government didn't have control over was religious education. How do you react then to the point of view that the government indeed pays the salaries of teachers but really the hiring for the most part lies with the boards and churches? A lot of that hiring has for the most part been done because of religious affiliation. Correct me again if I'm wrong, but wasn't it just within the last 12 months or so with the lay-off of teachers that there was bumping for teachers in one direction but there couldn't be in another?

Your comment about the people being tired is relevant in this issue and this vote. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been wrestling with this issue for too many years. They've indeed worked hard, Madam Chair. I don't know how many of them said to me that they had to deal with this, get it out of the way, and move forward.

I think in the minds of most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, it was the quality of education inside the four walls of the classroom that mattered most. I think what we've seen over the last six, seven, or eight years is sort of a turf war.

I don't think we've talked enough about the quality of education of the students. Our focus has not been on that. I say that in all sincerity here today. The focus has not been on improving the quality of education in the classrooms of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'd just like you to react to those few comments I made. There are the teachers, who are being paid by the government, but really the government couldn't hire them. Most of it was done by religious affiliation, not whether someone was better qualified to teach or not, which impacts on quality.

Here's the other thing. It's a difficulty that I find myself in, to be very honest with you. I have been in politics for the past 15 years or so. Say on June 2 you were in St. Georges and 20% of the people turned out to vote. If 11% of them had voted for me, I would have been so gracious and grateful that they had voted for me because that was the majority.

I listen to all these things about why people did or didn't vote. For someone who's profession is democracy, I have difficulty with some of the arguments put forward here.

• 1635

Ms. Alice Furlong: Your colleague Mr. DeVillers made it very clear you're dealing with an entirely different matter. Dealing with an election and dealing with a decision on a minority right are two completely different things.

On the matter of hiring—and Dr. Feehan will be addressing you later—my experience as a trustee on a school board is that we always endeavour to find the best teacher for the job. In our situation, in a Roman Catholic school board, on many occasions the best teacher hired was not necessarily always Catholic. So it is erroneous to say teachers were hired primarily on the basis of their religious affiliations.

If I'm not mistaken, 460 teachers lost their jobs because of the reorganization of the system last year. They went out of the system, and there was a lot of transferring of teachers throughout the system. I was given the understanding the other day that in the largest board on the island, out of hundreds of teachers who were moved around and accommodated, there was one grievance. One teacher was dissatisfied with reference to an accommodation. So we just didn't see the turmoil that was portrayed.

Mr. Bill Matthews: It was certainly portrayed. It was a big issue in the province.

Ms. Alice Furlong: Yes, it was certainly portrayed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Ms. Alice Furlong: But I'm sure Dr. Feehan will be able to address that particular aspect even further.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

We will have a final word from Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the witnesses I'm flattered you took my quotes in the House of Commons on the issue of minority rights. But the principle we're talking about there is minority.

I think the difficulty some of us are having in the case of Newfoundland is trying to determine who is the majority and who is the minority. If we look at it as those who have denominational rights and those who do not, then I think we're reversing it. I think the majority has the minority rights. So in this case it might be argued, if I understand the mathematics and the proportions correctly, that we're extinguishing rights of the majority. I'd like your comments on that.

The other thing I'm having difficulty with is the reason for the increase from the first referendum to the second. The support for the first one, I believe, was around 53% and for the second one it was up around 73%, and more rights are being extinguished by the second proposal. I'd like to know, if more rights are being extinguished, why that didn't bring more people out to vote whose rights are affected.

I'd like your comments on those two issues, please.

Ms. Helena Bragg: One of the reasons for the large turnout in the second referendum was the slick government advertising. An enormous amount of money went into government advertising for that referendum. The thrust of the advertising was something you really couldn't argue with because it portrayed putting the child first in the educational system. There's not a parent in the world who can disagree with that.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But the turnout between the two referenda was not that significantly different, was it?

Ms. Helena Bragg: The turnout wasn't.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: The result was different but the turnout was roughly the same.

Ms. Helena Bragg: Yes, but you must remember something else we've already said. In this one, based on the question we were given, an awful lot of people thought they were voting to keep what they had, because the joint service schools predominate in Newfoundland. We're not clear on the exact figure, but maybe 80% of the schools are already joint service, and in joint service schools children are offered religious education in the faith of their choice. That's what this was addressing. So they said, okay, that's what we've got; that's fine; we'll keep this.

• 1640

It's only in larger centres like St. John's or Corner Brook or Grand Falls-Windsor that this becomes an issue. There are multiple school systems there, but there are multiple schools there because the population allows for viable schools. In St. John's, for example, all the schools are full. We have Pentecostal schools, we have Roman Catholic, we have integrated schools. But they're all full, and as they become non-viable they are closed. There's no question about that. There are no underpopulated schools open because they're Roman Catholic, or of any other religion for that matter.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I have one last question, Madam Chair.

I understand you to say, then, that part of the difficulty was the campaign that the government put on. Is that correct?

Ms. Helena Bragg: I would say that, yes.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yet in the legislature it was a unanimous vote. The other evening we had here the leader of the New Democratic Party, who is not part of the government and is in opposition to the government. He was saying that he believed the question was fair and he believed the process was fair. How do you respond to that?

Ms. Helena Bragg: He is certainly entitled to his opinion.

Ms. Alice Furlong: It's not our opinion.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you again for making this trip and for bringing your very strongly held views to this committee.

Colleagues, if we could roll right along, our next witnesses are waiting. Our next witnesses are from the Newfoundland-Labrador Human Rights Association. Mr. Buddun is the vice-president and Mr. Vink is the executive director. They have circulated a presentation.

Although not by much, we went over a little bit on our last presentation. We are looking to spend about an hour with the presentation, and obviously you came in at the tail end. There's a lot of interest in questioning, so if you could perhaps keep it at ten to fifteen minutes, it will then give all of our colleagues who wish to ask questions an opportunity to do so. Thank you very much. Please begin.

Mr. Geof Buddun (Vice-President, Newfoundland-Labrador Human Rights Association): Thank you. As Senator Fairbairn has just said, my name is Geof Buddun, and I'm the vice-president of the Newfoundland-Labrador Human Rights Association. With me is our executive director, Jerry Vink.

Our association was established in 1968. Since then, we have been active promoters of human rights in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are a non-governmental organization with a volunteer board of directors and a small paid staff. Our mandate, which has changed over the years as the needs of our province have changed, is presently focused on education, advocacy, and research.

We have tackled many issues over the years, but no issue has taken as much of our attention or really has been as much of a concern for Newfoundlanders interested in human rights as has been our education system.

• 1645

The Newfoundland-Labrador Human Rights Association has taken a consistent position on the denominational school system throughout our existence. We have consistently advocated for a non-denominational public school system as a clear alternative to the present denominational schools, and over the past 10 years in particular we've made numerous presentations and have made this a public issue on numerous occasions.

Just a very limited selection of those occasions are: our submission to the provincial Royal Commission of Inquiry on Education in 1991; a detailed brief in response to the royal commission's recommendations the following year; a response to the government's white paper, Adjusting the Course, in 1993; and our presentation to the Senate committee in St. John's approximately a year and a half ago. We've also had numerous interviews with the news media.

This presentation isn't intended, with the limited time available, to restate all our views on all issues. However, our concerns and problems with the denominational school system are basically focused on five areas.

In our view, the denominational school system perpetrates censorship in the curriculum, censorship exercised by religious groups. In the past, that has caused the removal of excerpts of literary works by authors such as Hemingway and Atwood. It has caused restrictions in the delivery of information on AIDS and sex education. It has led to curriculum changes in areas conflicting with particular denominational religious teachings on topics such as natural selection evolution. Perhaps most importantly of all, and most fundamentally, it has led to the segregation of students on the grounds of religious affiliation and it has led to systemic discrimination in the selection of candidates for school boards, with our religion being used as a criterion.

Our association strongly supports the proposed amendment to Term 17. We do this because we believe the amendment is consistent with our demands that all citizens be treated equally, and we believe it is consistent as well with the protection of the rights of all Newfoundlanders, including the rights of all religious minorities. We see it essentially as a step that will address injustice, not create injustice.

In our presentation today, we wish to address three issues that have been raised as a result of Newfoundland's desire to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union. We'll be addressing the international human rights legislation and the amendment to Term 17, the separation of church and state, and minority rights and privileges.

Mr. Jerry Vink (Executive Director, Newfoundland-Labrador Human Rights Association): I would like to deal with the first two of the three issues that were mentioned. They are international human rights and the amendment of Term 17, and the issue of separation of church and state.

One of the things that has happened during the debate, the referendum and so forth, has been this constant harping on certain selected clauses or sections of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The obvious one is that parents have the right to choose a certain school system for their children.

I'd like to remind you of how international human rights works. The basic document in international human rights is of course the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of that major document next year.

The teeth given to that document come through from many covenants, but for our purposes there are two covenants that have a bearing. One of them is the covenant on social, economic, and cultural rights, and the other is the one on civil and political rights.

People love pointing to article 18, for example, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But rather than use quotes, on page 4 of our brief I have given you the whole article from the universal declaration. Rather than just taking article 26.3, which says parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children, I've given you the whole article.

• 1650

I'd like to remind you there are three points raised in this article. First is the right to education for all. Second, it talks about education that promotes humanity, respect for others, understanding, tolerance, and friendship. Third, it talks about the rights of parents to choose the kind of education they want for their children.

Obviously the amendment the government is proposing meets the first two of those. We are talking about the right to education, and that is a given. Second, we're talking about introducing a kind of education system that promotes humanity, respect for others, understanding, tolerance, and friendship. That can be done without any problem in a unified school system. Right now an “us versus them” mentality exists in our schools. Unfortunately, it's something that's over and done with.

The covenant that has a bearing on this issue of parents' rights is the covenant on social, economic, and cultural rights. For your purposes, I have reproduced those on pages 5 and 6. If you go to page 6 you will notice that basically the first two items about free education and tolerance and respect are word for word almost the same. They're just in reverse order from the universal declaration.

The important point is that the covenant adds something when it speaks about education. It talks about the right of parents to choose a kind of education for their children, other than those established by public authorities. In other words, we are saying that parents have the right to set up private schools if they so wish. That's all the universal declaration and the convention are saying.

What we have now in Newfoundland is totally contrary to human rights legislation. We have a system where churches impose their standards on those who are non-religious or non-Christian. If anything, the present system contravenes the international covenant.

There is talk about funding a separate school system. We feel very strongly that this cannot be a possibility. It would threaten the viability of the public schools that should exist in our province. We cannot have a system we can't afford. It's as simple as that. Those of you from Newfoundland just have to picture some of the areas. We can't have two school systems. It's not possible.

In conclusion, in terms of the International Declaration of Human Rights and the covenant that is relevant, we feel very secure that the amendment being proposed does not contravene. If anything it strengthens and will strengthen the construction of a more humane school system where respect and tolerance will be able to be fostered.

On page 8 there is a short section dealing with the separation of church and state. I've highlighted in the second paragraph the fact that the present Newfoundland and Labrador educational system is a complete mockery of the concept of separation of church and state in that the churches run all of the schools. So we don't have a separation of church and state in Newfoundland. We agree with separation of church and state.

• 1655

Mind you, we probably, I think, will all agree that we don't want to go the American route in total. It gets rather extreme sometimes. Nobody wishes to take cribs out of the schools at Christmas. I mean, that's a bit silly.

However, during the debate on changing our school system there were letters about God being barred at the school door; we didn't want American secularism; and the historical role of religion had to be protected.

In a typical Newfoundland way, government and those who wanted change tried, after the first referendum, to make a certain give or a certain openness to the other side. Of course, the government came up with the idea of having a core program of religious studies—the study of religion, religious studies; all kinds of names get bandied about. This is grabbed upon by certain people as meaning that we want government to teach religion.

Nobody wants government to teach religion. Far from it. Education is a process between government and school authorities and parents. I've given the example, on page 8, of sex education. I have an obligation to teach my child about that. Certain parts of sex education will be covered in school. Fine. That's called partnership.

The same thing goes in the area of religious ideas. What we're saying is, we don't want what now exists, which is religious formation, the system where Catholic kids—my son, for example—are made more Catholic, or a Pentecostal child is made more Pentecostal. That's not a role for the schools. That's religious formation. That's my obligation and the obligation of my church.

The issue has been brought up that, well, parents must make that decision. We're saying, look, you have your time to do that; it's not to be done in school.

The argument that if you have this and if certain groups are left out of that system...we don't think is valid. We're not talking about indoctrination; we're talking about general ideas about religions in the world. That is why we strongly feel that having a course on the study of religions is not government teaching religion. We do not feel it runs counter to article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Rather, we think this is an appropriate system to have.

At this point I'll ask my colleague to go on to the next section.

Mr. Geof Buddun: With respect to the issue of minority rights and privileges, whether or not the right to run a publicly funded denominational system is a right or a privilege is a matter of debate. Even assuming that there is at present—and arguably, there is—a right as opposed to a privilege for Newfoundlanders—Catholic Newfoundlanders, Pentecostal Newfoundlanders or members of the other enumerated denominations—to have their children educated in schools, controlled by their own denomination, while that may be a right, it is clearly a right at the expense of individuals who aren't members of those denominations. Basically, if you are Roman Catholic, you have that right, but if you're Jewish, you don't. It's as simple as that.

Adherents of the enumerated faiths enjoy benefits and advantages that flow from this position of privilege. I would suggest that this right, such as it is, is a very different kind of right from fundamental rights such as the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, as enshrined in sections 2 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's a very different kind of right.

As a human rights association, however, we are naturally extremely concerned about any effort by the state or any component of the state or any other party to eliminate or take away a right, even a fairly limited right. We have come to the conclusion that the argument that a right can never be taken away under any circumstances is wrong. There are occasions when the rights of others—the rights of the majority, so to speak—demand the removal or curtailment of an existing right.

• 1700

To understand how this right arose in Newfoundland, one has to be familiar to some degree with how it came about, or the background of Newfoundland's education system. Again, I'll be brief, but essentially Newfoundland did have a non-denominational system at one time, in the 1830s. However, in the climate of the time, when Roman Catholics had suffered certain obstacles because of their position in Newfoundland society, they felt themselves to be victimized by the teaching of Protestant doctrine in these supposedly non-denominational schools. As a result of this situation, Roman Catholics lobbied for and were eventually granted, through political action, the right to run their own separate school system. That took place in 1847 and clearly was, in retrospect, the right and proper thing to do in the climate of the times. Pentecostals achieved the similar right through a somewhat different process in very recent years, in the 1980s.

I would suggest that the circumstance giving rise to the need for a separate school system for Roman Catholics, for Pentecostals and, by default, the other enumerated denominations, no longer exist. After 150 years, it does not seem unreasonable to stop and reconsider our denominational system in the context of a society that is no longer exclusively Christian and a society wherein the religious rights of Roman Catholics and of all citizens are protected by section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a right which obviously did not exist in any shape or form in 1847. It's a different world now, and we would suggest that the need to enshrine a separate system is no longer there.

However, given that the circumstances have changed and it is appropriate to reconsider rights, how should a society go about altering a right that has been in effect for 150 years? We would suggest that it should do so very carefully. Rights are not to be tampered with casually, particularly when it is a majority taking away a right that the minority, or certain members of a minority at least, hold dear to their hearts. We believe, however, that what happened in Newfoundland was anything but casual, anything but inconsiderate of the rights of minorities. What we've had here is a process that one can only truly appreciate if one has lived in Newfoundland over the last number of years.

This has been a well-argued, well-debated, well-thought-out process. There have been two referendums, during which each side had ample opportunity and did articulate their views. At the end of that process, in a referendum that was as democratic and as fair, I would suggest, as any referendum or any election in Canada, a significant percentage of the population—73%—answered a non-ambiguous question and said they wanted a school system that was not based on denominational lines.

As an association, we would again suggest that in reviewing the process, it's a process that we had no problems with. It ended in a result that, while removing a particular right enjoyed by certain members of the community, granted much broader rights to the balance of the community.

In conclusion, as an association, we endorse the process by which the Newfoundland government is attempting to amend Term 17. We have no concerns as a human rights association, and we urge this committee to recommend the adoption of Term 17.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Mr. Buddun and Mr. Vink.

We will now open questioning. The first person on my list is Mr. Goldring. He'll be followed by Senator Murray, Mr. Pagtakhan, and Senator Rompkey.

Please, Peter.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for your presentation, gentlemen.

• 1705

Mr. Vink, in the paragraph on page 1 it says:

It is beyond the scope of this presentation to restate the extensive materials previously submitted to government in support of our position.

Could you maybe elaborate on that a little and tell us if there is more to it than what followed?

Mr. Jerry Vink: We've been involved in the debate probably the longest of any organization, and every year new issues have come up. In our collective wisdom and knowledge we tend to be selective and forget things.

We've had debates in our province about such things as a French language schoolbook for French immersion grade 1 or grade 2 that contained the word “danser”. A certain religious group said we couldn't have a book with the word “danse” because it was against their religion to dance. Guess what? They reprinted the books with the word “chanter”, to sing. This is an issue people have forgotten about.

A slew of anthologies for grades 11 or 12 came out and the word “damn” was in there. We actually had to take out that Hemingway section or edit it. I can't remember what we had to do. Now these kinds of things have been forgotten.

We've had problems with sex education because certain groups object to that and other groups want this. With the power of the church it's been stopped. So that's what I'm referring to.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Do you believe now that decisions about the curriculum, the schoolbooks, and those concerns will be made strictly by the school board without consultation with the parents?

Mr. Jerry Vink: The system is quite different from that. Of course, you realize that in Atlantic Canada, courses are being merged right now. The whole system is in flux there also. Basically a working group is set up—I belong to some of those—and a particular course is developed. You get community groups participating in it and input from it. It then goes out for piloting and testing. You get reactions from parents and from lots of people. You make amendments and then perhaps you go with it. That's the basic process in every province.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But in the application by the government it says “but the school board determines”. In other words, this decision-making process could start and finish with the school board. It may consult the parents, but it could start and finish with the school board on its own.

Mr. Jerry Vink: Under the agreement that is now in place on an Atlantic basis, courses are developed and brought in. School boards may also develop their own courses, which obviously would reflect the situation in certain areas. Newfoundland culture would be one of them. Possibly one could see certain religious things coming in there too.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Senator Murray.

Senator Lowell Murray: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Just for the record, in view of your expressed concern about a galaxy of religious, secular, linguistic, and ethnic schools being produced under some circumstances, I take it you support the charter guarantees for official language minority education across the country controlled by those minorities.

Mr. Jerry Vink: Obviously yes.

Senator Lowell Murray: Okay.

As a resident of Ontario I don't think I recognize the kind of awful society you think is produced by denominational schools. We have three publicly funded systems co-existing harmoniously here, so I don't really recognize some of the symptoms you cite in your brief.

• 1710

I have just one question for you. In view of your convictions and your statements with regard to the separation of church and state and church and school, how can you support subsection 17(3) of the proposed new Term 17, which provides for religious observances in school where requested by parents?

Mr. Jerry Vink: We can because we also believe in the idea that parents must have a role through what will probably be the school councils. Take a simple, easy example. If in a given area, an exclusively Catholic area, they want to have school plays and so forth, that's fine. If that's the decision of the school council, we should allow them to do so. In other areas it might have to be more of a compromise, but that decision should be up to the parents, and we think that's quite reasonable—

Senator Lowell Murray: A majority of the parents in a district.

Mr. Jerry Vink: There is also a certain wisdom among people, and I think we should allow people to make that decision themselves. We shouldn't prohibit it. I don't think we should. We're not the United States.

Leave it up to the people. They usually come up with wonderful solutions among themselves.

Senator Lowell Murray: Don't you see the potential that one of our witnesses saw this morning for a successful challenge under the charter if, for example, the parents of some children in the school felt their rights were being infringed by virtue of having religious observances of a religion other than theirs in that school?

Mr. Jerry Vink: This happens all the time in the United States. I think in Newfoundland we should be allowed to develop our own school system with our own specific and unique characteristics. I think these are the kinds of things we can work out. If there is a challenge further down the road, we'll deal with it.

Senator Lowell Murray: That's what you have now—

Mr. Jerry Vink: We want to change it.

Senator Lowell Murray: —in spades.

Mr. Jerry Vink: But most Newfoundlanders don't want it.

Senator Lowell Murray: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Senator Murray.

Next are Mr. Pagtakhan, Senator Rompkey, Senator Pearson, Mr. Mark, Ms. Caplan, and Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Chair. I too would like to put on record my observation of the beauty of denominational schools in parallel, even with the public school system, with the two systems funded by the provincial governments. There is an example of that in my province of Manitoba. To what extent the funding would be provided is of course a challenge to the provincial government.

So I am not persuaded by your symptomatology of doom and fear. In fact, to me it would be beautiful for a provincial government—if I may say so on record—to so challenge itself, because then it will see that it is indeed giving parallel equality to the beliefs that are pluralistic in any community.

In fact, it would sustain your argument, if I may say so: if the basic right is free education at a given level, wherever that basic education is obtained it ought not to matter whether it is in a denominational or non-denominational system, provided we can feel that the core curriculum is defined by the community itself. In fact, I believe that funding must go to that core curriculum. The extras that the two systems will give are the expenses that will be absorbed on the one hand by the public system and on the other hand by the private system.

I am like Senator Murray. I have a beautiful experience...and I have served on the Catholic school board as a chairman, I have served as a public school trustee, and I see the beauty of both systems.

My question to you—

Senator William Rompkey: May I ask Mr. Pagtakhan a question?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My question, Madam Chair, is as follows. The right to education for all only becomes meaningful if in fact at the elementary level there is no fee for it. You don't have to worry because you have paid your taxes. They rise at the higher level based on accessibility, of course, and that is and can be understood. But would you not agree that the right of parents to start schools of their own, the right of parents to choose the kind of education to be given to their children, even with a strong religious component, will only be meaningful if funding by a government that the citizens support will also be forthcoming through a formula to be arrived at? Without the funding, it will be a hollow statement. What do you say to that?

• 1715

Mr. Geof Buddun: I don't accept that the right is only meaningful with funding. Even in Newfoundland, other denominations, such as the Baptist community, have operated their own schools for a number of years. Elsewhere in Canada I know members of other religious denominations operate schools without public funding. While it is clearly more difficult to operate a school system without public funding, it's not impossible. For every individual there is a non-denominational school available. If that's not what someone wants and that person wishes to opt out of it, just as a person could opt out of many government programs, I suppose, that is a person's right. But I don't believe it's only meaningful with full funding.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: This is my last question, Madam Chair.

Will you agree and acknowledge that precedents exist across the country in other provinces whereby those fundings have indeed been provided by provincial governments, and that the earlier statement made by your colleague indicating that it would threaten the public school system has no basis in precedent?

Mr. Geof Buddun: I'm sorry, I spent most of the day on a plane, so I missed part of your question.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In light of the experiences in other provinces in Canada, there is no basis in precedent that giving support to others in the public school system on the part of the government is a threat to the public school system itself.

Mr. Geof Buddun: Newfoundland doesn't have a public school system, and that's the fundamental problem.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, I'm not asking about Newfoundland. I'm asking you about the precendents in the other parts of the country. Are you aware of those?

Mr. Geof Buddun: In other parts of the country, to my understanding, there is a public education system in every province.

Senator William Rompkey: There is no other province like Newfoundland. There never has been.

Mr. Geof Buddun: I believe there's no other jurisdiction in North America that lacks a public education system. It's only Newfoundland.

Senator William Rompkey: Exactly.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Senator Rompkey.

Senator William Rompkey: Let me just take a minute, Madam Chairman. I know Mr. Pagtakhan is quite serious about grappling with this issue, but perhaps he doesn't understand the last point that was made.

In his testimony yesterday, Mr. Grimes very clearly sketched out for us what happened, what the situation was, in Newfoundland in 1949 and what has evolved since that time. There clearly has never, ever been a public education system in Newfoundland, so the problem is that comparing Saskatchewan and Newfoundland leads us into all sorts of difficulties simply because they can't be compared.

If you did say now that you wanted to have a public system in Newfoundland and a Catholic system in Newfoundland funded with taxpayers' dollars, I would be the first one to start a movement for Anglican schools in Newfoundland funded by taxpayers' dollars, and we would be right back to where we were in 1949. The Pentecostals would say that if you're going to fund a public system and a Catholic system, you must fund a Pentecostal system. As I say, again, I would ask to fund an Anglican system.

To simplify it, the point clearly is that no other province in Canada has had the kind of system that we have had in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the fundamental thing that people have to understand. There has never, ever been a public school system in Newfoundland. Never. It is different from every other province in Canada.

I have two questions, and I'll try to be brief. You said that in the past the churches could impose standards within the school boards. You gave examples of where standards were in fact imposed, where authority was exercised, and where various textual variations were withdrawn. We heard other testimony today that the churches really didn't exercise that kind of authority, that most of the schools in Newfoundland were in fact joint service systems in which people had come together voluntarily. There was a question on the percentage—maybe 70%, maybe 80%—but the testimony given was that most people had come together in joint service systems and that it was unnecessary to impose the public school system.

• 1720

I'd like you to address that, bearing in mind, of course, that we did hear from Mr. Grimes about instances where joint services had initially been agreed to. He pointed to Springdale, for example, where two schools of 200 were going to come together in a high school of 400, but with the Barry decision went back to a Catholic high school of 200 and a Pentecostal high school of 200 as well.

I want you to comment on the joint service and how that is perceived.

Mr. Jerry Vink: Let me make it quite clear: we're not government. In fact, this is a very strange position for the human rights association. We're normally fighting quite heavy-duty against government on a lot of things. In some ways, it's difficult for me to sit here and defend government, but so be it.

I cannot judge, and I cannot speak to you about, the joint services between schools, but let me give you two examples of our particular perspective.

One of my neighbours is now married to a wonderful woman. Before they were married she was—and still is, in fact—a principal of a Catholic school. We're talking here about people in their late 40s. When she spent the night with him before they were married, she had to park her car around the corner, on another street.

In other words, we had this system in Newfoundland where, sure, often the church's authorities didn't directly come out, but they were there all the time.

A second example is a modern one. It goes back to after the first referendum. Government changed the Schools Act and elections for school boards. The school boards have been divided, two-thirds, one-third; two-thirds for representatives of religious denominations and one-third for people without affiliation. Catholics thus vote for Catholic members, non-religious vote for a non-religious member. However, Catholics may also vote for the non-religious. In other words, if you're Catholic, you have two votes, but if you're Jewish, you have one vote.

That became clear. Just before the second referendum campaign started, the Catholic school board in St. John's in fact encouraged Catholics to also run for the non-affiliated seats on our council.

I'm bringing this out for a reason, to show that, yes, perhaps there is sharing—and we can talk about that—but the dominance of the churches in the school system has been there in the past, is changing, and is still there today. It is time, in our view—and the people of the province have spoken on that, 73%—that we develop one system, publicly funded, for everyone in the province to get rid of all this playing around and this interreligious conflict and so forth.

Senator William Rompkey: Thank you.

My second question is with regard to voting patterns and the differences that various people have tried to make in where authority lies. What I'm trying to get at is that there really isn't a difference between a parent and a voter. It seems to me that a voter is a parent and a parent is a voter, and you can't really split them. The people who voted in the referendum were parents. The people who will vote school boards in are parents.

In that sense, parents have choice. They have choice over who sits on a school board and they have choice over what school their child goes to, and whether or not they take religious instruction, or what kind it is.

Doesn't this law put much more power in the hands of parents than they ever had before? We have had testimony today that the parents want to make a choice and they have a right to make a choice. I agree with that, but it seems to me that this law gives parents in fact more rights than they ever had before. They have the right now to vote for the school board members of their choice. If it's a Catholic community and they're all Catholics, they can vote in Catholic people to that school board.

• 1725

Mr. Geof Buddun: I agree with that.

Mr. Jerry Vink: More than this it's also at the school council level that parents will get a lot more power. This is a wonderful idea that we want to bring into the province.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much. Now we will move to Senator Pearson, then Mr. Mark, Ms. Caplan, Mr. Bélanger, and Mr. DeVillers.

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

I've been very grateful for your presentation of the full articles in the declaration and in the covenant. It's very helpful to see it all written out.

I would like to bring up another covenant we have agreed to, which is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada has ratified and Newfoundland has assented to, and which guarantees in article 12 the right of children to be heard in administrative and other decisions that are being made about them.

I was wondering what your comments are on your experience of the role of young people in this whole business.

Mr. Jerry Vink: If you type into your computer on the Alta Vista search engine the words “Newfoundland human rights”, you will get to our association's home page. If you get into that you can click onto the rights of the child, and there is all kinds of stuff there on it.

Obviously, I should have been in Newfoundland today. It's national child day and I think it's quite appropriate. We had a number of activities planned and a nice poster done.

We are committed—

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): It's probably a good thing to be with Senator Pearson today.

Mr. Jerry Vink: We're aware of that.

We did not use the rights of the child in this particular brief. Again, much as I mentioned about the conventions, the rights of the child also reflect the ideals of the universal declaration. It is most unfortunate that in all the debates we've had, very little has been heard of children in an organized manner. I think I would fault government on that one. In the context of the heated debates we had, probably it would have been misconstrued as propaganda or something, but I would hope that children will more and more get involved in all of the debates, including—and, I might add, this is intriguing, but in the school councils that are to be set up there will be student representatives, which is fairly unique.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Like Senator Murray, I believe in diversity, because that's what makes this country so rich. I also believe that even though Newfoundland doesn't have a public system it should perhaps learn from the other systems in this country.

As you know, I'm from Manitoba, and we have a separate system. It's a denominational system we call separate. It doesn't receive the equal funding that the public system has, but at the same time we have multilingual types of schools that also receive funding, both on a private level and on a public level. We seem to be able to get along and co-operate and live together and be happy. So there are ways of getting around the issue of conflict and problems.

Because I believe we have about seven other provinces that have diverse systems, would you say they are in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you illustrated in your handout?

Mr. Geof Buddun: Mr. Vink spoke about the universal declaration guaranteeing the right to choose the education of your child. However, the declaration also requires the state to create a public school system with certain other caveats, such as being free for the primary grades.

• 1730

Again, there's nothing in this amendment that would prohibit any denomination, or presumably perhaps other groups, from creating their own schools or school systems, as others have done even under our present regime, such as the Baptists.

So I don't believe this puts Newfoundland in violation. I suppose it may not be a theoretically perfect system, but I can't see it as a system that slights the rights of any Newfoundlanders.

Mr. Inky Mark: If I may just make a short response, I find it ironic that Newfoundland has had the legal mandate to set up a school system, but they haven't. I also believe that because education is a provincial matter, they haven't set up a public system.

In terms of the direction of the reorganization of all the systems in Canada today, this is pointed toward more parent involvement and decision-making. It's a more grassroots approach. How can we fit this all in now that you're asking for a centralized public system in Newfoundland?

Mr. Geof Buddun: I think the problem we have in Newfoundland is that we're still stuck in the stage that the rest of Canada moved out of—that's if they were ever in it at all—decades and decades ago.

Look at the future. This is not necessarily the end of the argument, and the future may bring other options, but at the present time this is the one that the majority of Newfoundlanders want. They've come to that decision after an exhausting and exhaustive debate.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Mark.

Ms. Caplan.

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

I think most people haven't realized that Newfoundland did not have and does not have a public school system. In that way, it is distinct, unique—whatever word you want to use—from the rest of Canada, and quite likely North America. I don't know of any other jurisdiction that does not have a public non-denominational school system. So I can understand your population and the anxieties you've gone through to reach the point you've come to today.

My question in particular has to do with this. We heard a comment on the government advertising campaign. I didn't have a chance to see any of the ads. I was in Newfoundland and I did talk to ordinary people, who told me what was going on and gave me their views. It was there that I learned about the history. I heard about the too often partisan and divisive debates. I wanted to hear from you, the association for human rights, whether you felt the government advertising was biased or whether it presented a clear statement of what the referendum was about.

Mr. Geof Buddun: The government advertising obviously made the case for a single school system by using terms such as “all of our children educated together”. It certainly wasn't particularly inflammatory.

I think it would also be a mistake to conclude from the fact that the government advertising was there that it was a one-sided debate. It most certainly wasn't. Anybody who was in Newfoundland at the time of this referendum would be quite aware that each side had ample opportunity to make its case both through its own advertising and the media. I don't know the figures either way, but I do know from having been there, at least in St. John's and some others areas of the province I visited in that time, that there was a debate. It wasn't just one voice speaking.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm aware that there was a debate. Would you say there was a very high level of understanding? You said it was a simple, clear question. Given the extensive amount of advertising and debate there was, do you think people knew what they were voting on?

• 1735

Mr. Jerry Vink: Can I just comment on this? I know they did, and it's all anecdotal. We were not part of the government planning process, obviously, but I spent the whole day driving people to the polling stations, and you should hear some of the horror stories.

I had one woman who had never voted in any election. She had never voted for anything. She decided she was going to vote this time, and she wanted to vote because of this system. In her case, she lived 300 metres from the school. Her child had been accepted until they looked at the birth certificate. When they realized the child wasn't Catholic, the child then had to go to another school quite a distance away.

Yes, the people were informed. Yes, they knew what had been going on. The fact is that the other side, the pro-denominational school side, had spent piles of money in the first referendum. Strategically and tactically, it decided it wasn't going to do anything, so that it could then say the government put all the money out. That's the name of the game. I know we spent many hours knocking on doors, making phone calls and so forth, and we weren't funded by government.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Did you have one last question?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's very small.

I know this is all subjective, but do you feel that people understood the question? In their desire to have a public system that was to deal with the confusion and the costs and that was to put the interests of the education of the children first, was that the motivation of the people you had contact with?

Mr. Geof Buddun: I think people saw this as really the culmination of a process that, in some ways, has been going on in Newfoundland for some time. I'll use myself as an example. I'm 35. I started school in a United Church school that emerged when I was in grade 1. Those systems merged after kindergarten, with the Anglican and Salvation Army schools also integrating. If people looked back in retrospect and thought of a separate Anglican and a separate United Church school system, I think it would be almost ludicrous.

The sense I get is that people just feel it's time. We're all Newfoundlanders. Our values aren't that different, if they're different at all on denominational lines, and it's time to all come together within a common school system. The terminology, “public school system” or “inter-denominational”, may matter to those of us who are especially interested in the debate. To the public, though, I think it's basically that we're ready for all our children to be educated together and for the churches to remove themselves from an active role in the governing of the education system.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Ms. Caplan.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

I have two things. Once the witnesses are done, I would like to just debate a little bit about the coming schedule of meetings, perhaps in camera, if you will, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): That said, I wanted to go over that as well. It's certainly not cast in stone.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Gentlemen, I'd like to explore a bit with you a notion that we struggled with at a very similar committee, the one dealing with the constitutional amendment for Quebec school boards, and that's section 93 of the BNA Act. The one thing that we initially struggled with for a good while was this notion of minority rights. In that case, we were talking about denominational rights versus linguistic rights, and some people tend to confuse them. Whether it was willingly or not was irrelevant, but there was that element of confusion.

I sense a bit of that confusion here, and I would like to get your reaction to something. The section on page 11 of your document deals with minority rights and privileges. When you mention minority rights, what comes to mind, of course, is that there has to be a majority. Traditionally, you protect the minority from the majority, so to speak. That's why you have these constitutional rights to protect them. In this case, I wonder if there is indeed a majority that the minority has to be protected from. I understand there are four denominations that have now pooled themselves, and that together they may represent a little more than 50% of the population. But of the seven denominations that have recognition in Term 17 right now, not one represents a majority.

• 1740

Are you accurate in calling these minority rights? Should they not be called denominational rights? That might help clarify a bit of the debate, because in my opinion—and here you'll see my biases—there are minority rights in Newfoundland, but they're more along the lines of linguistic rights. Those are dealt with in a totally different manner and, from my understanding, to the satisfaction of the minority concerned. Would you comment on that, please?

Mr. Geof Buddun: On the first three, I would point out that the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal communities comprise close to 50% of the population. So this amendment could not have passed in the face of a great reaction in those communities.

I would also agree with you on another point you're making, that collectively these privileged denominations are far from the minority; they're probably 90% to 95% of the population. The true minority would be the members of our Jewish community and other individuals who aren't part of the enumerated denominations.

We use the term “minority rights” just because that's how the argument has been framed. We're not necessarily conceding that this is a true minority right, as the linguistic rights clearly would be—a small group distinguished by its particular characteristic.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So you would be agreeable to referring to these as denominational rights.

Mr. Geof Buddun: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

Monsieur DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a follow-up to the question Senator Murray asked the witness, Professor Bayefsky, this morning. She indicated that with Term 17(3), the proposed amendment, there would be the possibility of charter challenges because religious observances are permitted in schools, where requested by the parents. I assume that as a human rights association you might have some experience in charter challenges.

Mr. Vink, I think you started to make a statement but didn't finish it in answer to Senator Murray. You said “if there were a challenge” and then you didn't finish. I wonder if you could complete that thought for us.

Mr. Jerry Vink: For any society to be alive and vibrant you need to have give and take, but you also need to be challenging one another constantly. As we develop a new public school system for the province, and in terms of religious observances, if councils or schools boards want to have certain observances and there is a challenge further down the road, let's deal with that and see if we can find a Newfoundland type of compromise.

One of the intriguing things about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is they're able to work things out. They're not inclined to constantly go to courts on these kinds of things. But you're right that it could happen, so let's deal with that issue when we get to it. We've always been very active in taking the side of the underdog in a lot of cases, and I assure you we would. We hope we'd be able to find a compromise, as we usually can.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: In other words, this potential for charter challenges is not something you find particularly disturbing.

Mr. Jerry Vink: No, that's what makes life interesting.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming. I know it's been a long haul and a long day. We're very grateful you took the time to come. I thank colleagues also for their interest.

• 1745

Mr. Jerry Vink: It's been a longer day than you would think. We got fogged in at Halifax airport and were rerouted through Toronto. We haven't checked into the hotel yet, and to be quite honest I need to—

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Well, have a good dinner and a nice evening.

Mr. Geof Buddun: And our luggage is somewhere en route; we don't know where.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): I go through that all the time.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I wanted to note to you that we have circulated another version of our draft program, and I underline the word “draft”. This is a work in progress as we contact people and find out whether they can confirm or not confirm, but the bulk of these have. There are already a couple of changes inasmuch as you will notice that we had wished to hear from the Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. They had been invited and chose not to come. We are trying to seek, perhaps, a statement from them in their absence.

One other group that was on this draft list who also sent regrets was the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. They are elsewhere outside the country at this point, but their views may be encompassed by those of others.

We have also had, both from Senator Kinsella and from Mr. Kenney, a request for a representative from the Civil Liberties Association. We are endeavouring to contact someone from that group. I understand—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I suggest that tomorrow the first group of witnesses only be heard from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., for two reasons. One is that we can then hold the next group from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. and not impede Question Period. The second reason is to be fair, because you'll see that from 3.30 p.m. to 4.40 p.m. on the following day, Monday, November 24, we have two witnesses and they are only given an hour together. That's my first comment.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Point taken.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: My second one—with all due respect to the Minister of Education—is that I don't know that it is necessary to have him revisit the committee. I have some doubts as to the necessity of that. I would suggest one of two things. First, that we do not necessarily invite him and that we use that time, should Minister Dion be available, to invite Minister Dion.

In my view, we should not start the discussion of the preliminary report before we've heard all the witnesses. We have a situation proposed here that on November 28 we start the debate and on November 29 we have Minister Dion. I would therefore suggest we have Minister Dion visit us as the final witness on November 27, if he's available. If he's not, then have him on Monday, but let us not start debate until we have heard him.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Your points are well taken, Mr. Bélanger. It is a question initially of scheduling. We will keep working on that with your concerns in mind. Certainly for tomorrow, in view of the Question Period in the House of Commons, we will take the suggestion and—I will certainly pass on the word—seek co-operation to keep fairly strictly to a timetable so we can have our two sets of witnesses, each with an hour, to be questioned by us and completed in time for Question Period, if that is agreeable to all. And we will continue to work with Monsieur Dion to see how we can accommodate.

• 1750

Ms. Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much, Senator.

I've noticed on the agenda as well that there are a couple of occasions where an hour and a half has been allocated. The morning of November 25, from 9 to 10.30, is one of those, and then the next one is 10.30 until 12 noon.

It would seem to me that the only exception to the one hour, which we've already had, was for the Government of Newfoundland. That one hour for presentations seems adequate to allow us time for questioning, and it would free up additional time. Members do have other obligations as well. So unless there is a real need, I would request that all of the delegations be one hour.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): We will definitely take that under advisement, Ms. Caplan, and I would want to check myself to see exactly why there is that extra bit, if there is a valid reason. We will certainly get back to you on that.

Dr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the document I have here, Mr. Dion is contemplated to appear on December 1. I support the application of Mr. Bélanger to have his testimony before the consideration of the draft report, but although I support that, it should not necessarily be a deterrent to proceed with the consideration of the draft report, because it can be the first opportunity for the committee to have a distillation of our views. Therefore we can clarify some of those very points with the appearance of the minister thereafter. So I am not definitely tied to having it after the first consideration of the draft report.

My only suggestion, though, and in fact only because I have a prior commitment and will be out on Thursday, is that, the minister being a critical witness, he not be on Thursday. It can be Friday or Monday, but not that particular Thursday, if I could so request.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): As I say, we will continue to work with the minister's office and we will see what compromise we can come up with. We will certainly be in touch with the committee on that. I won't promise it for tomorrow, but we'll keep working on it.

I do thank you all. I know these are long and busy days for everyone, and I very much appreciate your attendance.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.