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]

Monday, November 24, 1997

• 0935

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.)): Order. Thank you very much for attending meeting number 6 of the Special Joint Committee on the Amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland.

We have a very ambitious schedule today, members. We will go from 9.30 a.m. until approximately 9 p.m., with a few breaks in between. We're going to be hearing from numerous witnesses.

In the course of the deliberations, since we have a number of witnesses back to back to back, I'm going to ask for your indulgence to keep questions very succinct and to allow very succinct answers. Please bear with me: I may have to be a bit strict. It's not against any particular member or against any particular issue. It's just that we do have a number of members who want to ask questions.

Therefore, I would like you to ask one question and one question only for your initial round. If we do have time subsequently we will go to another round. In the interest of making sure that all members have the ability to ask questions and have them appropriately answered, I would ask your indulgence in that regard.

We're first going to be hearing a witness from the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association, Ms Debbie Ward, who is the first vice-president. I understand she will be joined by Louise Irwin, who is a board member.

Ms Ward.

Ms Debbie Ward (First Vice-President, Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association): Good morning. I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation on this very important matter. Certainly it is an issue that impacts on Catholics across this country and we are pleased to be able to speak on behalf of them.

I'm a trustee from Regina, Saskatchewan. Louise Irwin is a director from Wellington, Ontario. We are joined by John Flynn, who is the executive director of the CCSTA. He's from Brantford.

The CCSTA is an organization with representation from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland. We also have liaison with the Catholic parents of Quebec. Although I don't know the exact numbers, in total we represent over 300,000 Catholic families in this country.

You each have been given a copy of our brief and we hope you'll be able to take the time to read it. It isn't very long, but it makes some points we believe need to be considered when you are making a decision about the resolution concerning further amendments to Term 17. Those amendments certainly would affect the rights of the minority Catholic group in Newfoundland and have the potential to impact on Catholics across this country.

I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the points we believe are central to our brief. The first is the tradition of Catholic education in this country and in Newfoundland in particular and the right of parents to choose it.

Catholic education has existed in Canada since before Confederation, and many parents choose it because they wish their children to be educated in a particular way that recognizes and celebrates the spiritual side of their whole being. This choice is a fundamental right, the right of a class of people to choose and direct the education of their children.

The resolution before your committee concerns the extinguishment of that right. The proposed new Term 17 would provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination and would be under the authority and direction of the legislature.

Catholic parents in Newfoundland have always had the opportunity to have their children educated in Catholic schools where experts in the field decide on courses in religion. These experts reflect the wishes of the parents and the positions of the church. Under the new term this would no longer happen.

I would like to stress here that Catholic education is more than the religious instruction students receive in a day. The most important feature of Catholic education is the fact that religion is not compartmentalized. Instead, it permeates every facet of the life of the student.

• 0940

Secondly, we are concerned about the way in which the Constitution is being used. In light of what has just happened in Quebec, we are even more concerned. In less than one year, three constitutional changes have been asked for. Two have been granted, and you are studying the third. To say the least, we are surprised at the way the Constitution is being used to solve problems. As we state in our brief, religious rights were written into the original Confederation agreement to ensure their protection from the possibly capricious actions of provincial parliaments and governments.

Less than a year ago, Newfoundland asked for and received approval to change Term 17 so that it could make changes to education in that province. Reforms proceeded, but when problems arose, the provincial government moved to solve them by a further amendment to Term 17. We don't believe the Constitution was ever meant to be used in this way. Surely it is the job of the federal government to make sure the Constitution is used as a safeguard, and not to diminish the rights of the minority.

It is not the desire of the CCSTA to get involved in educational issues within particular provinces. We believe that trustees and their equivalents in the provinces are best able to deal with them at the local level. But because the Newfoundland issue has come to the federal government, it has taken on a national perspective that we are very concerned about. This is the third area that we would like to speak about: the national impact.

Although we have been assured many times that the Newfoundland question is unique and has no connection with similar provisions for minorities in other provinces, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs commented in April 1997 that the Newfoundland and Quebec educational issues were the same, and would be treated in the same way by Parliament. The reality is that this is not merely an educational issue for one province. If the constitutional rights of Roman Catholics in one province are extinguished, similar rights in other provinces are at risk. In Ontario, shortly after the last change to Term 17 was made, the Minister of Education suggested the same could happen in his province. In my own province, changes in Newfoundland have caught the attention of people who would like to see publicly funded separate education done away with.

Our final concern is that of minority rights. As I stated before, religious rights were written into the original Confederation agreement to assure their protection. It was surely intended that protected rights could not be easily extinguished or diminished, and certainly could not be removed without the clearly demonstrated consent of the affected minority. This must be central in any discussion of the situation in Newfoundland. Never were the religious minorities consulted as to what they wanted to have done. Two referenda were held, but in both cases the entire population of Newfoundland was asked to vote. We have substantial membership of the affected minorities claiming the process was unfair and that the resolution does not represent the assent of the affected minorities.

The essence of a minority right is that it exists even though a majority is opposed to it, and the majority may not by itself remove it. If a minority is not given the opportunity to decide on the disposal of a constitutional right by a plebiscite limited to that group, then Parliament must be relied upon to protect the right.

This is a minority rights issue. If these educational rights are extinguished, then all other minority rights in the Constitution are at risk. If the religious groups cannot rely on Parliament to protect their educational rights, then other groups—aboriginal people, minority racial groups, linguistic groups, disabled persons—must be concerned at the possibility that their rights may be weakened or diminished if they are perceived as politically inconvenient to a majority or to a government.

In concluding, I want to reiterate that the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association believes strongly that a role of the Parliament of Canada is protector of minority rights within the Constitution. The rights of minorities should not be removed without the clear assent of that minority. If there is any doubt as to that assent, Parliament should not proceed with the requested amendment. The resolution should be refused, and a defensible process for determining the desires of the affected minority should be developed and implemented.

Please, let's not underestimate the potentially negative impact on similar minority rights in other provinces, or on other minority rights enshrined in the Constitution. The political reality is that every amendment to the Constitution affecting minority rights is seen as having an impact on all other minority rights. The loss of Roman Catholic school rights in Newfoundland will cause concern for all those parents whose children attend Catholic schools across Canada. Please consider this potential impact as you study the resolution.

• 0945

In closing, I want to thank you for giving us time to present to you today. We would be happy to try to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Ms Ward. I appreciate the succinct brief.

We'll move now to questions and answers. Again, of course, as for questions and answers, to all members, we have to allot our time accordingly.

Mr. Goldring, you'll lead off with our questions this morning, followed by Senator Rompkey, followed by Mr. Bélanger.

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

Thank you very much for your presentation. I'll ask this question. Your organization represents 60,000 families in the province of Quebec. How many families in the province of Newfoundland does your organization represent? Were these families polled in the government polling in early 1997 when there was a request for people to come forward with requests for denominational education? How many of these parents did come forward with a request for the continuance of the denominational education in early 1977?

Mr. John Flynn (Executive Secretary, Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association): We do not represent them directly. They're represented by their own association. They're one of our affiliates.

Our information from that affiliate is that about 24,000 to 25,000 parents made that particular choice back in February when the election was held regarding the choice of school. That is our information.

Mr. Peter Goldring: How many of those 25,000 parents did request for the continuance of denominational education based on that government polling in March and April of 1997?

Mr. John Flynn: I'm not sure of the specific numbers, but it represented about 70%, as I understand it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: About 70%?

Mr. John Flynn: That was my remembrance of the information from the people in Newfoundland, yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So a very substantial majority of the parents registered for that educational process.

Mr. John Flynn: A substantial number of Roman Catholic parents, given the specific choice, made that choice.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator Rompkey.

Senator William Rompkey (North West River, Labrador, Lib.): I have two questions. The first is with regard to your statement that parents have the right to choose and direct the education of their children.

We have heard testimony—indeed, it's my belief—that parents have more power now than they did before. They have the power to elect school boards, which they didn't have before. They also have the power to enroll their children in school, and the power to withdraw them from classes where there are instructions that they do not want their children to have.

The other day, we also heard that parents have the right and the power, if they so wish, to ask that courses in specific denominations, courses relevant to, concerned with, and about specific denominations, can be put on in the school if it's the wish of the parents and the school administration.

The example was given of the community of Conche. You won't be familiar with Conche, I'm sure. It's on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland. We had some argument about what the percentage of Catholic people was in the community, but it's a majority. The argument was made that if they wanted to have a course in Catholic education in the school, they could ask for it. If the school administration wanted to give it, it could do so.

It seems to me that this gives parents a lot of power and influence. I'm wondering if you would agree with that.

Ms Debbie Ward: I have two concerns. I would like to speak to that, and I'm sure John would too.

Catholic education is more than a religion course, it's something that happens in the school in every class. The ability to be able to set the course does not give you a Catholic school. It doesn't give the children the opportunity they had until now. That would be my first concern with that.

Senator William Rompkey: Are you aware also that there is a right in legislation in the new Term 17 to have religious observances and ceremonies in the schools? Parents can ask for that, and it's guaranteed in legislation. Are you aware of that?

Ms Debbie Ward: I understand that, yes.

• 0950

Senator William Rompkey: Thank you very much. I have another question, but maybe I can't ask it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Could we go to the second round without interrupting the thought processes on that one?

Senator William Rompkey: Sure.

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

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): You make references throughout your brief to the same issue using different vocabulary. I would like you to clarify some of that vocabulary. For instance, you mention on page 2 that these are recognized rights of Canadian parents to choose a religiously based school for their children. You refer to these as fundamental rights in the next sentence. You further refer to these as educational rights and minority rights.

I think on all counts you're wrong. I believe the Supreme Court disagrees with you that these are fundamental rights. It refers to them as denominational rights and privileges in similar language to that of section 93 of the BNA Act.

We've had other witnesses here agree that this is not a question of minority rights. If you have a minority right, then presumably there's a majority somewhere. Maybe you'd care to identify what that majority is.

As far as educational rights are concerned, this is the first time that's come up. We're not talking about educational rights here, we're talking about denominational rights or privileges. I find it unfortunate that this reference is everywhere.

I really also take exception to a statement in here where you say that if the Parliament of Canada proceeds with the request from Newfoundland, all other minority rights in the Constitution are at risk. What is the premise that allows you to say that? The francophones of Newfoundland certainly don't seem to agree. They're apparently quite happy with the way Newfoundland is finally recognizing their educational rights under section 23 of the charter. They even declined to come here because they think everything is hunky-dory. In whose name are you talking when you say that all other minority rights are at risk—educational, linguistic, racial and so forth?

I find there's muddled thinking here when you're addressing rights. You're all over the map. So please help me understand what you're trying to say.

Mr. John Flynn: I appreciate the question. I'm not going to attempt to get into a discussion with you about the legal thing, because obviously we're not qualified to deal with that.

As parents we have responsibilities and rights regarding the education of our children. That is what we are saying. As you indicate, these are listed as denominational rights. They're denominational rights affecting education rights because that's the kind of education we provide—denominational education. The rights relate to that. In our view these are fundamental. Nothing can be more fundamental than the actual core of what a family is.

At the Senate hearing on the previous version of this, the point was made—it is listed at the back—about all other rights, particularly all other minority rights in Canada and so on. It's not a direct quote, obviously, but it certainly refers to a quote that was made by the then chief of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

He made the point to the Senate committee hearing the last Newfoundland item. It was very telling to us when we talked to other people who thought they had rights in Canada—the disabled and so on and so forth. He made the point about aboriginal rights, whatever they are and however they're in the Constitution, that one has to wonder about the integrity, validity and credibility of those rights if other rights in the Constitution are allowed to be extinguished.

• 0955

That's really the point we're trying to make here. We feel that you cannot just move into the Constitution and extinguish one right, whether or not it's a denominational education right. We feel that is a fundamental right for parents, the right to choose the kind of education they have, as they are the primary educators. If that is extinguished, I think that's too bad.

Surely those rights were put into the Constitution back in 1867, and thereafter in 1949 for Newfoundland, for a specific reason. They were put in there because they were thought worthy of protection. We're saying “Parliament, protect them.”

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We'll now go to Mr. Brien, followed by Senator Kinsella, Mr. Pagtakhan, and Ms Caplan, and then back to Mr. Rompkey if we have time.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): On page 4 of your brief, you say that several of your members have complained that the process is unfair. I would like you to explain that to me.

Ms Louise Irwin (Board Member, Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association): Since I am the only French-Canadian in the group, I will answer your question.

Newfoundland parents have found the process unfair because everyone is included in the referendum. It wasn't only Catholic parents who were asked: would you like to relinquish your rights to Catholic education?

It goes without saying that if you ask people to vote on a specific right, especially a minority right, the majority will win. So there wasn't any specific question. The question was not asked of parents who had rights to religious education, whether they were Catholic Pentecostal, or from an other religion.

[English]

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

Now Senator Kinsella, please.

Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, PC): Thank you, Chair and witnesses. I have two questions: one relating to this matter of who speaks for the class of persons who are Roman Catholic, and the second relating to the government course in religion and how that would stack up against Catholic religious education.

As to the first one, to what extent does a Roman Catholic bishop in a given diocese speak for the Roman Catholic people of that diocese? Does the bishop, for example, determine religious education content? Does the bishop determine church doctrine on the basis of referendum or public opinion polls? We need to know to what extent does the bishop speak for that class of persons that currently has a constitutionally protected right.

The second question is with regard to—and you allude to it on pages 2 and 3 of your brief—the government course in religious education, which is designed to be, as I understand it, sort of a multicultural course that speaks to the multi-faith nature of Canadian society, and there is a lot, in my judgment, that's laudable about that kind of a program. In your view, to what extent would that government course be conflictual with Roman Catholic religious education?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): There were two questions asked. If you could integrate the answers to both questions, it would be appreciated.

Mr. John Flynn: In the Catholic church, the bishop is “the chief teacher” of the Catholic religion within his particular diocese, and certainly the bishop has a very strong influence to make sure the doctrinal content of the courses and materials presented are in compliance with the church. Of course, this would be also in compliance with the wishes of the parents, as well.

• 1000

The bishop himself would not be developing the documents. That would be done by trained experts, teachers and so on in the field, who will be developing the programs, but certainly the bishop would have the end say in who specifically designs the program.

If in actual fact the program is designed by the government—the legislature “shall provide for courses in religion...not specific to a religious denomination”—then it is our view that in that situation there would be a considerable possibility that some elements of the course would be at contention with that which the majority of Roman Catholic bishops might wish or the parents might wish to see taught to the children in their schools.

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

We'll now move to Mr. Pagtakhan, followed by Madame Caplan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You indicated that Catholic Canadian parents would like their children to be educated in a way that will celebrate the spiritual side of the whole person, while at the same time recognizing and respecting that they be educated as well in the secular aspects of education. That is very laudable, and I support that approach.

You indicated later on that you have concerns that such an amendment would impact on other minority rights. Could you not be reassured that since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there and will protect minority rights, in fact the fear that other minority rights will be affected should not be a fear at all, that we can be reassured that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there to protect them?

Mr. John Flynn: I hear the point you're making very well and we certainly appreciate the point you're making. However, unfortunately our experience, as in Ontario, has been that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been used to take away religious education of a specific nature in public schools. The reason this is not done now for Catholic schools, as, say, in Ontario, Alberta and Quebec, is because the Catholic denominational schools have protection under the Constitution from that aspect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If in actual fact their protection under the Constitution is removed, they are then exposed to charter challenge, and what has happened in Ontario could possibly happen in Newfoundland and in other places as well.

The result, of course, would be that while meeting the requirements for freedom of religion, and so on and so forth, we would have a number of Catholic families for whom the freedom they would experience is that they would be told they may not provide any religious education, or that religious education may not be provided in the schools that these other children challenging it would attend.

That is one of the potential problems that is not dealt with in what we see as the proposed new term. It talks about the courses not specific to religious denomination, and religious observances. What will happen when a family challenges the religious observance within a school under the charter?

According to the Ontario experience, that challenge might well carry, in which case that would be the end of religious observances of any type in that school. That's what has happened in Ontario. That is really what our experience has been there. We have seen that, and that's why we are concerned.

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

Madame Caplan.

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

We've heard testimony before this committee that this debate has been going on for about eight years in Newfoundland and that Newfoundland is the only province in Canada and one of the only jurisdictions in North America that does not have the opportunity of public education.

They've gone through an extensive debate. We heard that one of the features of that debate was how non-partisan it was in nature, and at the end of not only the debate but referenda and so forth, it resulted in the unanimous vote in the Newfoundland legislature.

On the issue of who speaks for the communities, how can you explain the fact that every member from every party representing every community, even communities where there were, as you would describe, majorities of the minorities, if you will, every one of the those members supported the request that is here before us today?

• 1005

Mr. John Flynn: We certainly acknowledge the vote that came from the legislature in Newfoundland and that all of the members voted in a certain way. We're also aware of the information we've had from our people in Newfoundland that the issue was not quite as clear-cut as the honourable member suggests. Certainly the overall picture would seem to be very telling.

We just wonder, if the question was so serious, why the Government of Newfoundland didn't go to the Catholic people specifically, and to the other group too, to say, “Here are the reasons why we want you to give up your educational rights, your schools; here is is the rationale”, and put the question very plainly and simply to them instead of putting it in the overall context of a general referendum, which they are bound to lose no matter which way you look at it. If they had gone specifically to the group, which is the way it should have been done, what then would have been the result?

Our contention is that this is not clear-cut, and is not clear-cut enough that such a major move as a change in the Constitution should be considered. Surely a change in the Constitution demands absolute, irrefutable evidence. We don't find that.

Ms Elinor Caplan: As a short supplementary, are you suggesting that the people of Newfoundland did not understand the issue and the question before them, either the majority or the people from your community?

Mr. John Flynn: From our discussion with the people of Newfoundland about that, they did not totally understand the full impact of the question. That's the information we've had.

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

We will now move to Senator Rompkey.

Senator William Rompkey: I'm interested in your testimony that the people did not fully understand the question. I thought the question was very clear and very simple. I would submit that most people not only understood it but also voted clearly on it.

With regard to minority rights, which is what my question is about, you say that these minority rights should not be changed unless the will of the people is clearly demonstrated.

Is it your contention that the will of the people was not clearly demonstrated? The testimony we had was that not only a majority of the vote, 73%, voted in favour of the amendment in the referendum but also—and I haven't seen this refuted—that a majority of people in districts where there are Catholic majorities, those political districts, also voted yes in a majority in the referendum. I would submit that the will of the people, including the will of the minorities, has been clearly demonstrated.

My real question is with regard to the spillover effect that you have some concern about. You say that if the will of that particular minority is affected, perhaps the rights of other minorities might be affected. You talked about the aboriginal people.

Mr. Flynn quoted Chief Mercredi, I think. However, I must tell Mr. Flynn that testimony from aboriginal groups in Newfoundland and Labrador did not necessarily agree with the testimony from Chief Ovide Mercredi. In fact, we have had testimony from aboriginal groups in Newfoundland that their rights and their abilities, their power, under the new Term 17 will be greater than it was under the old Term 17. The fact is, they never had aboriginal schools in Newfoundland, but the new Term 17 gives aboriginal groups in Newfoundland the right to have their own schools, in the same way that the French minority in Newfoundland have their own school board now and will have their own schools.

So I'm wondering where you get the evidence to draw the inference that because a minority right of a class of people is affected there might be some spillover into minority rights of aboriginals, because to my mind, there isn't evidence for that in our province.

• 1010

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

The question has been put. I ask the witnesses if they are able to respond.

Mr. John Flynn: Clearly, on the question you put, sir, it's not a question of which one could ever find evidence one way or the other, is it?

It's really a matter of opinion. Our opinion is that if in actual fact you change or you alter, up or down, the rights of one particular group within the Constitution, the rights of other persons within the same Constitution are likely to be affected in some way. Some person who may have some particular motive or whatever to do something about those other rights may in actual fact feel more empowered thereafter to pursue his or her particular agenda in that way. That's our consternation across Canada.

I take very humbly your correction regarding the rights of the people in Newfoundland. It had always been my understanding that aboriginal education was a federal and not a provincial matter, so I'm pleased to hear that Newfoundland is going to be doing that. Other provinces may wish to do that as well. That would be interesting.

Whether or not the rights are going to be there, it's going to be interesting to see what the result will be if this Newfoundland item goes through. What will people who have some power over educational rights of minorities in other provinces say or do in that regard? We're concerned that they may feel empowered to come back here and say, “You did it for Newfoundland; do it for us.” That's our concern. And that's an opinion.

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

Mr. DeVillers, do you have a question?

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

Do you believe that when there are a group or groups with rights that are protected in the Constitution, it would be appropriate to amend those rights or extinguish those rights if there is a clear willingness amongst a majority of that group? Do you believe that?

Ms Debbie Ward: A majority of the minority?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes.

Ms Debbie Ward: Yes, I—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So your objection here is simply on your interpretation as to whether that majority of the minorities or of the groups affected...because we have a number of groups who represent something like 97% of the population of Newfoundland who have denominational rights. Your interpretation is that it hasn't been demonstrated and that's why you're objecting to this. Is that it? Is that fair to say?

Ms Debbie Ward: That's correct.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Now we will hear from Mr. Goldring, followed by Mr. Pagtakhan, but as well, we have with us representatives from the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association. Because of a slight scheduling mix-up, we're going to fit them in at 10.30 a.m., so if that's the conclusion of questions, after Mr. Goldring and Mr. Pagtakhan, I'll ask representatives from the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association to appear.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to carry on with what I was leading to with my question before. It's my understanding there was a petition some three or four years ago that was signed by 50,000 Roman Catholics requesting that their Roman Catholic denominational education be maintained. Early in 1997 some 24,000 students were registered for denominational education by the Roman Catholics. In July 1997 the first referendum question was out, but it was not specific on that question as to the removal of the denominational education. Is it your feeling, then, regarding the final clarity to the question that was put out one week before the referendum, that there was not a sufficient time to provide clarity of the situation to the voters?

Mr. John Flynn: Again, we're going on the information we have received. We were not in Newfoundland. We don't operate in Newfoundland, but certainly we were well acquainted, I think, or we tried to get as much information as we could.

It just seemed to us from where we were sitting that if you really want to do the thing correctly, you don't run a referendum on schools in the first Monday of September, or early in September right after the summer holidays when people have been down, parents have been away, and so on and so forth. If in fact you want to do the thing, and you have a process in place that is thorough and totally defensible, then you're going to say, what do we want to know, from whom do we want to know it, and what exactly is the question? Let us clarify the question, and then let us ask them all, thoroughly, openly and independently, without any stuff going on, and let's really see what they say.

• 1015

We have not seen any evidence. The whole process seems to be very clear as to how the voice of the people was determined. Clearly, as all of you here know, you can do with these kinds of surveys whatever you want to do. But if, in fact, they wanted to find out exactly what the Roman Catholic population in Newfoundland actually wanted to do with their schools—did they want to give us the right to their schools and get into interdenominational or non-denominational schools, with those kinds of risks we talked about—they should have asked that question of those parents.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So to clarify this, do you have an explanation on how there can be solid support for denominational education three years ago, by 50,000 people, and how there can be solid support for denominational education in March of this year, by 24,000 students, but on referendum date it indicates there's no support? Can you explain that?

Mr. John Flynn: I would be guessing about what the people thought, about what majority of people didn't vote, what preparation they had, what kind of information they had. There are so many factors involved that the whole thing is very unclear, and that's why we say the thing is so unclear, so ill-determined, that to make a change to the Constitution based on that kind of ill-determined information is unseemly, which is the word we have used in our brief, and we think it's.... Surely the Constitution is a tad more dignified than that, I would think.

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

Mr. Pagtakhan.

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

I would like to observe with you that when the existing Term 17 was incorporated in the Constitution at the time of Confederation, equally in our Constitution is the provision to be able to amend the Constitution depending on the will of the people at a given time. In other words, even the forefathers and authors of the Constitution recognized that in the future a change may have to happen.

Last week we heard witnesses who tendered testimony that in fact courses in religious education and religious observances will be permitted when requested by parents through the new Term 17. This will be enshrined again in the Constitution following passage of this amendment. So in a sense, it will equally be protected to the extent that it will be modified at this time.

I share the sentiment of your association, and I am persuaded that in fact the sentiment of the association will be fulfilled within the new Term 17. Are you not equally satisfied that the new Term 17, as proposed, will satisfy the mission of the association, and that is secular education as well as the spiritual side of the pupil?

Mr. John Flynn: No, we're not satisfied that the new Term 17, certainly in the wording we've seen, will do this. It will provide secular education in Newfoundland. It will provide secular education with a government-provided or a government-directed religious denominational program, not specific to a specific religion.

That religion will be open to charter challenge. The charter challenge will carry, and our estimate is that if things go the way they have in other provinces, like public schools in Ontario, then within a relatively short time there will be very little religious activity in any of the schools in Newfoundland.

That is what secular education means, and it will be that for a number of parents in Newfoundland—whatever number it is, 20,000, 50,000, 24,000—those parents will not be able to see their children have religious education of the type they want for their children in the schools. As parents that's what they want, and as parents it's their responsibility to try to provide.

• 1020

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thanks very much, Mr. Flynn.

Seeing no other questions, we have the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association waiting in the wings. I want to say that we have Mr. Brendan Doyle and Wayne Noseworthy from the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, who will be delayed because of the scheduling conflict. I ask your patience and I appreciate very much your waiting for us.

Senator, you could have the final say.

Senator William C. Doody (Harbour Main—Bell Island, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several people here have expressed amazement, or at least some doubt, about the support for a Catholic school system by the Catholics in Newfoundland because of the vote result. It seems to me that many of the Catholics and others in Newfoundland when they were shown the question...which was as follows:

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?

I submit that many of the people who voted thought they were going to get the religious education they were already getting in their schools. The question says “attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided”. It seems to me that they didn't vote against religious education, they voted in favour of religious education.

The new amendment to the Constitution is quite different. It doesn't parallel the question that was given to the voters. It is quite different. It says “not specific to a religious denomination”. Had that clause been in the question, I suspect the results of the referendum would have been quite different.

I would ask you to comment on that.

Mr. John Flynn: We agree.

Ms Debbie Ward: Yes. I don't think we can say any more than that. People really didn't understand. I think they understood what they were voting for but didn't know what the next step would be.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Ms Ward. We appreciate it very much. We very much appreciate your attendance before this committee. Thank you for your succinct opening remarks and for your astute answering of the questions.

Seeing no further questions from committee members, we will now bid you adieu and thank you very much again on behalf of the entire committee for appearing before us.

Ms Debbie Ward: Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity. We appreciate it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We will move very quickly to the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association. With us today will be Mr. Patrick Daly, president; Mr. Patrick Slack, executive director, and Arthur Lamarche, regional director.

Mr. Daly, as president of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association I would assume that you will be leading off our presentation today. Perhaps we could hear your brief and then we'll follow with questions and answers.

Mr. Patrick J. Daly (President, Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association): Thank you, honourable committee members. It is my pleasure, together with Mr. Art Lamarche, our regional director and trustee on the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, and Mr. Patrick Slack, the executive director of our association, to present our brief to the committee.

Founded in 1930, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association represents 53 Catholic school boards. Collectively, these boards educate over 600,000 students from junior kindergarten to grade 12-OAC. This is the largest minority denominational school system in Canada.

• 1025

The mission of all Catholic school boards and their schools is to create a faith community where religious instruction, religious practice, value formation and faith development are integral to every area of the curriculum. This is accomplished through our distinctive approach to completing and implementing the curriculum as defined by the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training.

We believe Canada is facing a critical moment in its history with the advent of the Newfoundland resolution. Our association appreciates the opportunity to present this brief to the Special Joint Committee on the Amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland.

On pages 3 and 4 of our brief we highlight the fundamental rights of parents in education. The United Nations, in its Declaration on the Rights of the Child, of 1959, asserts that the best interests of the child must always guide those responsible for his or her education and guidance. This declaration then states unequivocally that this responsibility lies in the first place with his or her parents.

It is parents, then, who have the primary responsibility for the education of their children. To exercise a responsibility, one must have corresponding rights.

Elsewhere, the United Nations asserts these rights: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. This is a principle long espoused by the Catholic education community, which traditionally has grounded its education system on the pillars of family, school and parish, with families being given priority of place.

Both these United Nations' declarations and our Roman Catholic educational tradition envisage the state not as determining and dominating the education of children, but rather as assisting and abetting the educational efforts and desires of parents. The school thus conceived is intended to support and confirm the values, traditions and beliefs of the family. This concept of the respective roles of state and family is increasingly important in our contemporary society.

The desire of assistance from the state may be quite different from family to family. Some wish a secular school system for their children; others wish systems that espouse particular educational theories and practices. Many parents still favour educational systems that will support the values and beliefs of their family. Our association supports these legitimate aspirations, not only for Roman Catholic parents but for all parents where sufficient numbers allow the state to respond favourably.

It is within this context that the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association and its member Catholic boards, which represent parents and other electors within the Catholic community in Ontario, strive to provide a kind of education that creates a learning environment faithful to our beliefs and manifests a coherence and consistency between home and school.

On page 5 of our brief, we outline the rights of Roman Catholic parents, and again, we believe this is fundamental to the question the committee is dealing with.

It is as representatives of these parents that we, on behalf of Ontario's Catholic trustees, make our presentation to you. It is their values and their wishes that we seek to incorporate into the Catholic schools of Ontario. In fulfilment of this task, Catholic parents in Ontario—and we as their elected representatives—feel that we are seriously threatened by the amendment the Government of Canada wishes to make to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.

It is not only Catholic parents and parents of other denominations in Newfoundland and Labrador who are threatened. Catholic parents in Ontario consider that the very rights declared by the United Nations, guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada, and upheld by the traditions of our church, are also seriously compromised.

Whatever the legal precedents that may or may not be established by this piece of legislation, it is certain that it will profoundly affect the political and social culture of Canada. It will affect not only minority educational rights but the minority rights of any class of persons so protected by the Constitution of Canada.

• 1030

Effectively, parents in Newfoundland and Labrador who have had the right to educate their children in Catholic schools will now in large part have that right taken away from them. They have had that right removed not because they agreed to it but simply because the majority of their fellow citizens voted to take it away upon the suggestion of their provincial government.

On page 6 we outline at length the nature of a Roman Catholic school. Again, we believe this is significant, particularly in terms of the question that was asked in the referendum. We ask you to make no mistake: despite disclaimers to the contrary, denominational schools are now at risk in the province of Newfoundland. The new Term 17 does not provide any constitutional protection for the future existence of viable Roman Catholic schools, since the criteria for their continued existence would be subject to provincial law.

Those who have been promoting this change in the Constitution of Canada, especially the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, have been suggesting that to change the terms of union does not take away or abrogate the educational rights of Roman Catholics in this province as guaranteed by our constitution. This betrays either deliberate duplicity or failure to understand in any way way what Catholic education and Catholic schools are all about.

What is being conveyed by supporters of this change is that guaranteed constitutional rights will be preserved because the churches will perhaps be allowed to provide religious education and other activities and observances in the schools to be established by the interdenominational boards. The distinctiveness of Catholic schools lies not in these important but partial activities. It lies, rather, in the distinctive anthropology that inspires all educational theory and practice within these schools. In its simplest terms, this anthropology views each child who enters a classroom as a wondrous and mysterious creation of God, launched upon a journey of life whose ultimate destination is the same loving God. That perspective radically changes the way education is done in Catholic schools.

Catholic schools therefore are not public schools in which a period of religious education will be taught each day. No one would define Catholic schools in this way.

On page 7 of our document we outline, and ask you to read at your leisure, the contribution Catholic schools make not only to their students but to public life. It is within this context that members of the special joint committee are asked to consider the value of constitutionally guaranteed denominational education rights. We believe these rights continue to say as much about the Canada of today as about its past.

On pages 9 and 10 of our brief we outline at length our deep concern with the unfair referendum process used. The question of fairness about process must be raised. It is basic fairness to allow both sides, the yes and the no, to have approximately the same opportunity to influence the outcome of the referendum. Both sides should have input into a referendum question. In this case they did not.

The sudden announcement of the referendum on July 31 left little time for minority groups to prepare. The government immediately announced its intention to attempt actively to persuade voters to side with the government. To carry out this intent, the government spent $350,000 of public money on its media campaign, in addition to the almost $1.6 million required for the referendum itself. At the same time the government refused to grant funds to the representatives of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal people.

A further question of fairness must be asked about the last-minute release of the proposed wording of the amendment. The late release of the amendment effectively prevented any dialogue about its real meaning and its discrepancy with statements and promises of the premier and his government.

• 1035

As you will know from reading the amendment, not even the word “Christian” is used. The school system contemplated by this new term is in fact a non-Christian system.

A further concern about process is the fact that no scrutineers were allowed on polling days. No one was assigned to supervise the risk of irregularities or to ensure compliance with the Canada Elections Act.

It should not go unnoticed that some 24,000 children of Roman Catholic schools had registered for Catholic schools in February 1997. This fact was the basis on which Justice Barry granted the injunction against closing certain Roman Catholic schools.

The parents of these children, who represent approximately 60% of the Roman Catholic parents in Newfoundland, likely voted no in the referendum. Many more would have voted no had they known or understood that the new Term 17 will remove parents' rights to denominational education for their children.

On pages 11 and 12 we outline legal opinions on the new Term 17 from three distinguished legal counsels—one in the province of Quebec, one in Ontario, and one in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, we invite you to read it at your leisure, but I will highlight a few of the significant points.

The opinions all agree that the proposed amendment to Term 17 eliminates completely the constitutional right to separate Roman Catholic and Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Second, the proposed amendment to Term 17 does not provide for a Christian religious education program in Newfoundland schools. The religious education program referred to in the proposed term is limited to a non-denominational, religiously neutral program like those in public schools in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.

It is important to note that it is less than a year since the current Term 17 amendment was passed by Parliament and less than six months after it was proclaimed, yet the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador now wishes to change Term 17 again.

We did not support that amendment on the same grounds that we now state our opposition to this second amendment.

This matter is now before the courts. It is appropriate and necessary for the Government of Canada to allow the courts to determine the fairness of the referendum, the validity of the process for removing minority rights, and the appropriate, if any, amendment formulas to be used in such cases.

In conclusion, parents in Ontario with children in Catholic schools feel that their rights to Catholic education have already been compromised by this federal government in its easy compliance with the extinguishing of the rights of parents in both Quebec and Newfoundland. The right guaranteed under the Constitution of Canada for such parents to educate their children in schools that will support and reinforce the values of their families is now less certain.

The present commitment of the Government of Ontario to maintain the constitutional rights of Catholic parents is appreciated and must be acknowledged. Nonetheless, there have always been voices in Ontario that have called for the dissolution of the Catholic school system. There are still such voices.

We respectfully submit that it is foolish to pretend, therefore, that there has not now been created a political climate that could easily subject all of the constitutionally protected rights of minorities to the whim of the majority.

Members of the special joint committee will realize that however one approaches the constitutional amendment you're considering, there remains a simple, ineradicable flaw in it: it takes away constitutionally guaranteed minority rights by the will of the majority.

Our country has a well-deserved reputation internationally for a government and citizenry that lives by rule of law that's ensured by both our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this matter of amending the Constitution of Canada, and in particular Term 17, we are convinced that the House of Commons faces one of its primary responsibilities—that of upholding and defending the Constitution of Canada in its protection of minorities.

• 1040

We ask and recommend, therefore, that the members of the special joint committee assure that no action by the House of Commons is used to diminish a constitutionally protected minority right. We believe that the only way to send this message to all concerned is by defeating this resolution to amend Term 17, thus allowing Newfoundland to deal appropriately with the reforms in education that it needs to make without injury to the minority groups within that province.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Daly. We will now proceed to the question-and-answer portion of your appearance today. Again, thank you for your brief.

We'll begin with a question from Mr. Goldring, followed by Senator Rompkey, followed by Mr. Doyle, and then Senator Pearson, Ms Caplan, and Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I want to thank the chair for that, and to thank you, Mr. Daly, for your presentation.

As it would appear to many that clearly the removal of “denominational” completely was not understood, do you think it would be fair to amend the amendment by removing the second part of the second sentence—in other words, amend it by removing “but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious domination”? Would that be fairly received by yourself?

Mr. Patrick Daly: No. I think clearly what we are suggesting is that the entire process was flawed and that a new process would have to begin.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I understand.

Second, we seem to have several witnesses who are saying that there may have been confusion in the question being asked. Would it be of material benefit for this committee to see and review the transcripts of television and newspaper advertising that the Newfoundland government participated in, to get an understanding of how they supported their referendum question in the media?

Mr. Patrick Daly: It would be extremely helpful. It would also be helpful as well to perhaps—I don't know how one would do it, but to question many, especially the minority affected, as to how they interpreted the question before voting.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's right.

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

Senator Rompkey.

Senator William Rompkey: I want to deal first of all, Mr. Chairman, with the issue of “they didn't know”. They didn't know what was happening. They got it too late. It wasn't explained to them. They didn't have enough time. They couldn't put any money in. They couldn't have scrutineers.

I find that at best patronizing, and at worst, insulting. The fact is that the people in the province know only too well what is going on. As a matter of fact, they are sick to death of the debate and they just want to get on with their lives.

We've been debating it for 10 years. To say now that after 10 years people don't know what's going on, don't know what the question is, is absolutely ludicrous. The image is—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Rompkey, we're going to have to carry on with the question here.

Senator William Rompkey: —of a happy Newfie in his dory who doesn't know what's happening. It's about time people change their thinking on that issue. I think people know only too well.

You say that parents have the primary responsibility. Are you aware that this legislation gives parents more responsibility, more power than they had before? They have the power to withdraw their students from classes where the material in the course is objectionable to them. Moreover, they have the power to ask the school board to put on courses in religion that are specific to a denomination, and of course the right is there now for religious observances in the schools. I would contend that parents have more rights, more power than they did previously.

Mr. Patrick Daly: I think that gets back to the heart of our comments on the nature of the Catholic school. We would argue that the primary right of the parent is to send their children to the school they choose, that espouses the values they believe and practise in the home.

• 1045

In our case, and for the Catholic parents of Newfoundland and Labrador, that would be a Catholic school. A Catholic school is not simply a school that observes Catholic religious practices. Our faith and our beliefs transcend everything that happens within that Catholic school. So our belief is in the right to choose the school we send our children to, not simply one part of it, albeit an important part, which means the observances you mentioned.

I want to come back to your comment about being patronizing in terms of the question. I would suggest that well-informed people—I'm sure that many, if not most, of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador are well informed—could have easily misinterpreted the question that was asked. That is in no way being patronizing or suggesting that they perhaps did not study, but the question was not fair. Whether they were informed or not, the question was not fair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Daly. We'll now move to Mr. Doyle, who has joined us.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): First of all, let me just say it's a very good brief. I want to offer congratulations on that. I was particularly interested in your comments on the UN charter, when you said that parents have a prior right to have some say into the religious education of their children.

I would say to Senator Rompkey that he misses the point completely. I don't know why he misses the point. This debate has been going on for quite some time. In Newfoundland, of course, we will be the first province in Canada to have state-run religion. So apparently Mr. Tobin, with the concurrence of the federal government, feels this is the way to go.

I'm particularly interested as well.... I'm sure you'll be familiar with this individual, Dr. Thomas Langan, president of the Catholic Civil Rights League, who said:

For the first time in the history of Canada, a referendum is being used to defeat constitutionally guaranteed minority rights. ... Canada will become a country where only the powerful elites and minorities are secure.

I think that's a very valid comment and should be read into the record.

I know it's a very broad question, but apparently Mr. Tobin feels that religious rights and the teaching of these rights are to be the exclusive domain now of the provincial and federal governments. We will have a generic course on religion. It will be state-run and state-authored religion.

I know it's a broad question, but could you make some comment on why you feel governments seem to be leaning in that direction today? They seem to be adamant in their desire to get rid of any religious involvement in our schools.

It's starting in Newfoundland, but we just put a Quebec amendment through as well, which I'm sure you know quite a great deal about. That one will be eroded over time as well, and denominational rights will go.

But it seems to be the mandate of the provincial government in Newfoundland to get rid of any religious involvement in our schools. Maybe you could make a comment on that.

Mr. Patrick Daly: I wouldn't want to speculate as to the reasons why specifically that appears to be the case in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I think throughout Canada and North America the increasing secularization of our society obviously has had an influence on every aspect of the society in which we live, including our government.

Unfortunately, that's the case. They appear to be not respecting the rights of those parents and families who wish to have their children educated in the system that supports their own beliefs. My own belief is that, as in other areas in our society, they too have been influenced by that and the media, who appear to be promoting a similar situation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. Now I'll move to Senator Pearson, followed by Madame Caplan.

• 1050

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

I'll preface my question a bit by saying that to some extent I concur with Senator Rompkey's reaction to your presentation. I'm not a Newfoundlander, but I do feel that there are assumptions about the people of Newfoundland contained in your presentation that are patronizing.

It's a discussion that has been going on for many years. I was on the Senate committee that went to hear it last year, and I felt people knew very well what the issues at stake were, and I'm still sure that's the case.

My question really relates to the fact that the referendum is not an essential part of the amending process. What it is in the central part is the vote of the legislature, and that was unanimous. So in another way, you may be questioning the democratic process if that vote were unanimous and the members include representatives from most of the groups that had had protected rights before. How do you respond to that unanimous vote of the legislature?

Mr. Patrick Daly: I think, Senator, what it comes down to, at least for us, is the fact that we do not believe a minority right should be allowed to be taken away unless the majority of the minority affected votes to do so in a scrupulously run referendum. Whether it be by unanimous vote in the legislature, we do not believe it should still occur unless the majority of the minority—

Senator Landon Pearson: You are disagreeing with the constitutional process.

Mr. Patrick Daly: Yes, we are. We're suggesting that the majority of the minority has to agree to the change.

Senator Landon Pearson: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Daly. Thank you, Senator Pearson.

Madame Caplan.

Ms Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much. I'm going to ask for a little leeway from the chair. My question has a bit of a preamble.

I met with the chair as well as the director of the York Region separate school board. That's in Ontario; in fact, that's in my riding. We had the following discussion, and I think you would agree with the statement that we both agreed on.

The statement was that the separate school board in York Region and in Ontario provides high-quality education with excellent educational outcomes; it is cost-effective, it is community supported, and many non-Catholics declare themselves separate school supporters in order to send their children to separate schools.

I see Mr. Lamarche nodding his head. For the record, could you answer yes or no that you agree with that? It's an important part of the preamble.

Mr. Patrick Daly: I would agree to everything except the last part, the non-Catholic supporters.

Ms Elinor Caplan: You don't think any non-Catholics declare themselves separate school supporters in order to send their children to separate schools in York Region?

Mr. Patrick Daly: They do so—it gets very complicated—in a marriage by a lease arrangement. So some do, yes.

Ms Elinor Caplan: I think it's important, because I would also argue that the same support by virtue of the debate and the discussion and the differences in educational systems is not the same in Newfoundland. In Newfoundland the system is entirely different. It does not compare to the Ontario system. There is no public system. In fact, the situation in Newfoundland, in my view, cannot be compared with the system of education in Ontario.

Therefore, I take exception to your conclusion where you say that parents in Ontario with children in Catholic schools feel that their right to Catholic education has been compromised. If they do, they shouldn't. The constitutional amending process permits bilateral changes that affect only one province and not every province.

That's my preamble as I ask the following question. There was a unanimous vote in the Newfoundland legislature, with all-party support and a debate that has been going on for the last eight to ten years. Why do you believe that has any impact on parents in Ontario who support the separate school system in Ontario when you know that only has an impact on the population of Newfoundland, who had the opportunity—which was not a requirement of the constitutional amending process—to vote in a referendum? A majority in every riding supported that amendment, even where there were Catholic majority constituencies.

• 1055

Mr. Patrick Daly: In answering the question I just have a little bit of a preamble myself.

Although here as president of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association and as a trustee on the Hamilton Roman Catholic board, first and foremost I'm here as a Catholic parent with three children in an elementary Catholic school in Ontario. I can say quite directly as a Catholic parent, I'm concerned about my children's ability to attend Catholic schools in Ontario in the future because of what happened in Quebec and because of what hopefully will not happen in terms of Newfoundland.

There is no question that a political precedent has been set. As we indicated, we are very much assured by the support of the current Conservative government in Ontario in terms of their support for Catholic education. But I want to see the Government of Canada years from now, if ever is the case, when the Government of Ontario comes with a similar amendment—I want to see the government being able to turn that down. I don't think there's any question that this is a very dangerous political precedent and one that we are asking, pleading with you not to allow to happen.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Mr. Daly. Now we'll move to Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to deal with that last point on the political precedent.

I understood, both from your comments and also from the previous witnesses, the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association, that there is agreement on the constitutional principle that it is proper to extinguish even or diminish a certain group's rights when there's a demonstrated consent of the majority of that group. Am I stating your position correctly? We agree on the principle.

Mr. Patrick Daly: Yes.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Where the disagreement comes, both with yourselves and with the previous witnesses, is on the process that was conducted on the interpretation of the results, etc. I think the precedent is clear. It is the principle that is being set out. How, by a misinterpretation of the results or the holding of a referendum, does that create the concern for Ontario that you're expressing now?

Mr. Patrick Daly: The courts in Newfoundland will decide whether or not the process is fair.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes. Sure.

Mr. Patrick Daly: But that still would not create a situation that you began the question with, where the majority of the minority would have the right. That wasn't the case in Newfoundland.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But the principle is the precedent, not its interpretation. Do you not agree with me when I say that—that the government is acting on the same principle you are telling us you agree with? What you disagree with is on the interpretation of the facts.

Mr. Patrick Daly: There was not a vote of the Catholic people of Newfoundland in terms of taking away their rights.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: And that's what you just agreed with.

Mr. Patrick Daly: Exactly, yes.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But the principle is the same. So if in the future Mr. Harris or someone else came from Ontario with a similar request, the Government of Canada and the Senate would have the same principle to rely on, and it would then be a question of interpreting whatever evidence was brought forward at that time.

I'm having difficulty understanding how you feel that parents in Ontario with children in Catholic schools feel their rights to Catholic education have already been compromised.

Mr. Patrick Daly: It's because they see those rights being taken away, extinguished in other provinces in Canada.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. The question has been put and the answer given, so we'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. DeVillers. We'll now move to Senator Kinsella.

Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Chairman.

In our attempt to determine whether or not the Roman Catholic community is a class of persons who have the right currently protected by the current Term 17 for Roman Catholic denominational schools, in our desire to determine whether or not the Roman Catholic community has in fact consented, agreed, accepted to give up that currently protected right, we have the interpretation as expressed by unanimous vote of the House of Assembly. We have the results of the referendum.

• 1100

What weight should this committee give to the declaration by the Roman Catholic bishop in the given diocese that the Roman Catholic people do not consent to have extinguished this right? How are we to assess this?

Mr. Patrick Daly: I didn't hear what you quoted the bishop as saying. I'm sorry.

Senator Noël Kinsella: My understanding is that the Roman Catholic bishops have said that the Roman Catholic Church does not wish to give up this right.

We have that, on the one hand, but we have the unanimous resolution from the House of Assembly, and we have a significant result in a referendum. We're in the position here, up along the Rideau River, of trying to assess who speaks for the class of persons who have this right protected. My question to you is, what weight ought this committee place upon the declaration of the Roman Catholic bishop as a spokesperson for that community?

Mr. Patrick Daly: I think, Senator, that you should give a considerable and significant amount of weight—

Senator Noël Kinsella: Why?

Mr. Patrick Daly: —to the position of the bishops as the teachers of the faith in each of the dioceses and throughout Newfoundland, Ontario, or wherever. Obviously they are spokespersons for the Catholic community in many of the issues involved in our everyday life, particularly in the area of religious education and Catholic education. We think that what the bishops say and positions they take should be of considerable influence in terms of your final decision.

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

Mr. Pagtakhan, followed by Mr. Bélanger.

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

I hope you are making a distinction between political precedent and constitutional precedent. You are?

Mr. Patrick Daly: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: With the proposed Term 17, if we set aside any anxiety one may have as to whether this is to be challenged and the challenges are to be successful or not, if we set aside for a moment those concerns and considerations—which are legitimate, I must admit, in a society where honest differences of opinion could exist—would you not agree that the proposed paragraph (2), which mandates courses in religious instruction, albeit non-denominational, indeed places an obligation on the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that those courses in religion will be there and that therefore this will subserve the spiritual side of education? Would you disagree with that?

Mr. Patrick Daly: Yes, I would disagree.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Why would you disagree?

Mr. Patrick Daly: First, in our brief we talk about the nature of the Catholic school, and I ask you respectfully to read that, if you could. Clearly, a Catholic school is not simply a school where religious education is taught; it is everything that happens within that school.

Secondly, and importantly—and I heard it mentioned earlier by the previous organization—if you look at the legal precedents in Ontario in terms of the Elgin case, one finds that was challenged constitutionally. The position taken by those parents in Elgin County was upheld, and religious education was not allowed in public schools in Ontario.

So we do not believe, first of all, that it would be a Catholic school—what's stated there—and secondly, that it would not be upheld legally.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Why will you not be reassured when the very proposed Term 17 will be entrenched in the Constitution itself; when read, it will be read with the other parts of the Constitution? In other words, it will be there. Why can you not be reassured? What more reassurance would you like to have?

Mr. Patrick Daly: Well, that the parents have the right to send their children to what we know is a Catholic school. What's defined in paragraph (2) is not a Catholic school.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You are assured that courses in religion will be protected in the Constitution.

Mr. Patrick Daly: I'm not assured of that, based on what we've seen in previous court cases in Ontario.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Albeit even in a public school system.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): If the witness wants to answer that last and final question....

• 1105

Mr. Patrick Daly: In Ontario, they challenged it in the public school system. Three families, three parents, challenged the ability of the public schools to teach religion, and those families won that case. So now, as you know, in Ontario public schools are not permitted to teach any religion. We believe this could be the similar case in Newfoundland.

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

Next is Mr. Bélanger, followed by Senator Murray and then Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Daly, Mr. Slack and Mr. Lamarche, the last time you three gentlemen were together it was at another set of hearings for another constitutional amendment, two or three weeks ago, if I recall.

You stated at the time, sir, that you felt there was no desire, no appetite, whatsoever in Ontario to have a similar constitutional amendment pertaining to Ontario's denominational education. Are you still of that view?

Mr. Patrick Daly: Your question was in terms of the Government of Ontario, and I think what I said is that's our view, although, as we state in our brief, clearly there are strong forces in Ontario that would think otherwise. But in terms of the government, yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

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

Senator Murray, and then Mr. McGuire.

Senator Lowell Murray (Pakenham, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Daly, let's try to quantify how strong those feelings are.

If the Government of Ontario decided soon to hold a referendum in Ontario and the question was, 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, what do you think the result of the referendum would be? In what proportion do you think the Catholic voters would go to the polls, and in what proportion do you think they would vote yes and no?

Mr. Patrick Daly: I'm not going to speculate as to what the results would be, because I think the first question would be in terms of the process. If it was an unfair process and an unfair question, as in Newfoundland, then clearly I wouldn't want to speculate.

Senator Lowell Murray: Supposing it was a matter of controversy for a year or 18 months, and the government decided to put that question to the voters in a referendum, what do you think would happen?

Mr. Patrick Daly: Again, I'd be speculating, but I think with the work of our association, Catholic teachers and bishops in Ontario, parents and others, the majority of Catholics would in fact not support a similar question. But then again, it comes back to the process.

I don't believe it would be the case with this current government, but if the question was so unfair and if the public relations campaign was so strong, who knows what would happen? That's why we're asking you not to allow that to happen.

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

Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. The question is on the ability of the province, since education is a provincial jurisdiction. If this amendment did go through, is there anything to prevent the province from setting up with the Catholic community a separate school system where numbers warrant in Newfoundland?

I know in Ontario the Catholic school system only went to grade 10 until, say, a number of years ago. One of the last things Mr. Davis did as premier.... I don't think he had a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to extend Catholic education to grade 13 or not. He just did it because it was under provincial jurisdiction. He just did it, sort of thing.

Is there anything to prevent the Newfoundland government from doing something similar with, say, the Catholics in Newfoundland, if this article were amended?

Mr. Patrick Daly: If this were amended?

Mr. Joe McGuire: Yes.

Mr. Patrick Daly: Oh no. I think that's what we asked in terms of Quebec, when we made our presentation in terms of Quebec, and suggested that you expand constitutional rights rather than take away. So if there were changes, obviously an agreement with the Roman Catholics and Pentecostal and others to secure their school system, then sure that could be done.

• 1110

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

Joe, did you have a question?

That being the last questioner that I have on my list, I will throw it open to a brief second round if people want to entertain an additional question.

Not seeing any, I would like to thank very much Mr. Daly, Mr. Slack and Mr. Lamarche for appearing before us. Your time is very valuable and we appreciate your making the efforts to come forward with a succinct presentation. Thank you once again on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Patrick Daly: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Members, we'll take two minutes and thirty seconds. How's that for being precise?

• 1110

• 1115

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Members, we are over our two and a half minutes that we were allowed.

I'll ask representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association to join us at the table. I'll introduce Mr. Brendan Doyle, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. He will joined this morning by Mr. Wayne Noseworthy, his executive director.

Gentlemen, on behalf of the committee, I welcome you both. We have approximately one hour for presentations, and then questions and answers. Use your time wisely and accordingly in terms of the division between your brief and the questions and answers.

Mr. Doyle, I take it that you'll be presenting a brief this morning. I'll let you proceed.

Mr. Brendan Doyle (President, Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association): Thank you very much.

Good morning. I'm certainly very pleased this morning on behalf of the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador to have this opportunity to participate in the discussion and, to some extent, the debate.

The operative word in Newfoundland respecting education for the past year or so has been “chaos”. Only the Parliament of Canada can now effectively, in my opinion, provide the framework to end that chaos.

We'll explain why we stand for change. We hope to impress upon this committee the need to grant the amendment to Term 17 and why it should be done in as short a time as possible.

You'll be pleased to know that it's not my intent to read the brief. I would prefer to walk through it and make some commentaries as I go along. I trust I'll have some leniency.

As you can appreciate, this is an extremely important issue for the people I represent. Who are those people? They are all of the teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador of all religious affiliations. This association has been in existence for 107 years. I guess we have a twofold purpose. Certainly we are to represent the interests of teachers, but also to promote and enhance the cause of education. It's in these two veins that Wayne and I are here this morning.

I want to state clearly at the outset—perhaps it should be taken for grant, but I don't think it is—that what I say here today, certainly what's in the brief before you, is endorsed by the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador. We've been engaged in this process for the last eight to ten years. We have consulted widely with our membership. We have had our position vetted through our annual meeting, which is our parliament. And as recently as this past week, I had the position that is being put in front of you today endorsed by our board of directors or provincial executive.

So I can say with great confidence here this morning that we represent the views of the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's not to say there aren't some individual dissenting views. That will always the case.

I also state at the outset that I teach in a Catholic school, and have done so for 24 years. I have four children, who have gone through a Catholic school system. I'm an active member in the church.

You may ask why I'm saying that. The teachers association consulted widely with teachers for their views. I have to say, with disappointment, that all too often I sat in my church and was told what my views were on education and why they were so. I still await the opportunity to speak as a Roman Catholic parent and teacher. I think oftentimes people, perhaps at this table and elsewhere, are speaking for others, and we sometimes have to question where the mandate for such a position comes from. So I state that at the outset.

• 1120

A little over 10 years ago this association took a bold step in a document we called Exploring New Pathways. We tried to bring attention in our province to what we saw as a major problem in the educational system. I say it's a bold step because what was being suggested by us at that time had the very real potential to cause job losses for our members, and that's not what an association like ours is supposed to be doing. But we did know and teachers accepted that what we were proposing as being in the best interests of the system had the potential to reduce the number of teachers.

We concluded that the system as currently organized, the denominational system, had a serious and extensive flaw. That flaw is isolation by denomination. It is a flaw that, if not corrected, will in time lead to the dismantling of the system. It is a flaw that is now seriously reducing the quality of education that this province is capable of delivering. We felt that at the time; we still feel it.

We then went on to call for a royal commission so that all stakeholders in education in the province would have the opportunity to discuss this very matter. At the same time, and prior to our submission, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador established another royal commission on employment and unemployment—and I don't have to comment at this table in terms of the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to unemployment. But this particular commission did recognize the importance of education and called into question the system that existed at the time. In a separate report called Education for Self-Reliance, it also went on and called for a further study into the system.

The result of that was to call for a royal commission in the province on education, what we refer to as the Williams royal commission. That commission reported. The Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association endorsed the basic thrust of that report and had hoped that government and the church leaders would get on with the meaningful reforms that were proposed. By now I'm sure you've heard the story that this did not occur, resulting in a referendum call of September 5, 1995. In that referendum the people of the province, by 55%, voted to support the proposed amendment to Term 17. That would have created what would have seemed to be maybe the best of both worlds, a reasonable compromise, schools for all denominations, which we would refer to as interdenominational, but there would be provision for schools that operate for single denominations, called unidenominational.

I have to comment at this time that very often I hear people referring to keeping what we have. As a person who has taught in the system for 24 years, I don't have the same comfort. We have to ask what it is we want to keep. In particular, I hear people refer to the terrible system; we'll end up like the United States. Or closer to home I've heard reference that we'll end up like Nova Scotia. I would ask people to examine what they're saying. I would not pretend before any group that these systems are somehow terrible.

I guess when we look at a denominational system and what it is we're trying to do, we have to look at the students we're supposed to be serving. What are we doing for them?

I'm a former guidance counsellor, so this will come into it. I look for a student's feeling of self-worth, self-esteem, confidence. I can't sit in front of this group and say we are accomplishing that, that we are successfully doing that in our present arrangement.

• 1125

So I have to ask people who want to resist change: what is the evidence that what we're doing at the moment is working for the children of the province? When I look at suicide rates, alcohol and drug abuse, teen pregnancies, and the like in our province, it's a concern I have. Among other things, it would cause me to re-examine what it is we're doing to see if there's a better way that we can do it.

We all know the result of Judge Barry's decision this past summer and the impact it had. But I would like to draw your attention to one section in that decision:

[We've] accepted a less than optimal standard of education by opting to preserve at least some of the denominational system of education. This statement is made not as a criticism but as a matter of fact.

We submit that we can no longer accept a less-than-optimal standard of education for the students in the province we just left. I believe this alone is reason to cause us concern and look seriously at the need for change.

Then, of course, we went into a second referendum. I don't need to go into that detail. You heard it. You know what the question was. You'll understand if I try hard to resist the temptation to jump in and respond to others who are trying to interpret what we in Newfoundland felt and said. I'll let that one go by, but the urge is there. I can feel it coming on.

As for the second referendum, as in the first one, this association reluctantly agreed to the referendum route. We know that at best it's a blunt instrument to effect change, and it can be very divisive. We understood that, but it seemed that we had no choice. For that reason, this association endorsed it.

So at the end of the day, the people and teachers of this province concluded that we wanted change, we wanted substantive change, and we wanted it now. Fundamentally, I think there's something wrong when we believe that somehow successive generations will not have the wisdom we have, so therefore we have to lock things in and not allow them to change.

I would like to think that my four children at some point would see the world a little differently than I do. There will be different realities facing them. I would hope that I'll leave with them the wherewithal to make changes to adjust to those realities. I hear people all too often wanting to remove that right from them.

Look at the rights of students. My prime mandate is to speak about the rights of teachers, and I'll confine most of my comments to that. But one of the most distressing things for me as a parent and teacher was how seldom during the referendum discussions students were mentioned at all. We heard about the rights of churches and classes of people, and the list goes on. I very seldom ever heard about the rights of students and teachers.

I think most people would recognize that it's in the classroom that the magic occurs between the student and teacher. That's all-important. Without it, I don't know why we would be here. So because it's in the classroom, we submit that we have to make sure we put all of the possible resources, financial and human, into that classroom. This is so that this magic can continue to exist. We believe students have a fundamental right to that. We believe this process would allow that to occur.

Consider the rights of teachers. As we spoke to our colleagues over the years across the country, they shook their heads in disbelief when they learned that teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador don't have the same basic human rights as others. We can legally be discriminated against on the basis of employment and religion, and we have been for years. We don't have the protection contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Teachers are terribly frustrated over that. We've suffered many wrongs as a result of that, but we were hopeful that change would occur. We've been disillusioned once again.

• 1130

This past year saw the reassignment of teachers in the province create a situation that can only be described as absolutely intolerable. It certainly showed the teachers of the province just how vulnerable they were. As this table perhaps understands, as a result of the last change we now have denominational committees at each district level. These denominational committees have the power and authority to overrule the boards with respect to the hiring and reassignment of teachers. It strikes me as rather odd that a committee of a board can overrule the board on such an important matter.

I'd like to very quickly cite two examples. Let's put some human faces on this. I would ask you to keep in mind that the two decisions I'm going to reference were actions done in the name of Christ and Christianity. You judge for yourself how that was achieved.

The first case is of a teacher with 24 years of teaching experience—an exemplary teacher recognized by all. She previously taught in a Pentecostal school but later moved to another community with her husband, applied for a position in that community and was accepted into two systems, an integrated system and a Pentecostal system. Because the job description in the integrated system was closer to the teacher's training, she accepted it.

This past May this teacher became redundant in the integrated system. Her board, in accordance with our collective agreement, reassigned this teacher to the school next door, the Pentecostal school. That teacher with the 24 years of exemplary teaching service was very involved in her Protestant church and extremely involved in her community. She was denied access to that school and was required to travel to another community. It tore the community apart unbelievably. It angered the staff. I sat with that staff trying to reconcile it. They angered and they guilted over their anger. They cried and I cried with them. It can't be repeated.

In a second case a month and a half ago, a young man who was extremely well qualified was living in a community and substituting for an elderly teacher who was experiencing some illness. This teacher substituted for a considerable period of time and was well liked by all in the school—teachers, staff and the like.

When the teacher he was substituting for retired just recently, this individual applied for the position and was interviewed by the principal of the school and a specialist at the board level. Following the interview process he was recommended as the best person to go into that school with those children. The board accepted the decision. That individual did not get the job. The integrated denominational committee refused him because he was a Roman Catholic.

This individual at the moment does not have a job. The individual who was selected over him unfortunately was teaching for a few days when they discovered the person didn't have a teaching certificate.

So one has to ask what the priorities are when it comes to getting the best qualified people in the classroom with the children. So I cite those two examples, but I can assure you there are many others.

We refer in our brief to the myth of minority rights. I haven't been here a long time, but just this morning it satisfied me that this table has had a fair amount of discussion and debate with respect to minority rights.

• 1135

In the province 96% of the people are minorities. When 73% of these people vote on what they know they are voting on, I believe saying minority rights are being denied is a bit far-fetched. But I will defer to those who have the legal expertise to explore these myths further.

I'd like to make a few comments on what we call learning and life. We're all preparing to enter the 21st century. I think you would agree that it's extremely important that we get our education system ready and prepared for that.

Sometimes I think we have to step back, step out of our own situation, and look at the global picture. I have a document called Learning: The Treasure Within. This was a report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century. With regard to that, 15 prominent individuals worldwide with various expertise and various backgrounds were asked to consult with people and reflect on of what education systems will need for the 21st century. I read their report with great interest.

In his report, Mr. Delors identifies four pillars as the foundation of this education system for the 21st century: learning to live together, learning to know, learning to do, and learning to be. I think their comments on the pillar, learning to live together, sums it all up best, and with your indulgence, I would like to read that particular section. It says:

The far-reaching changes in the traditional patterns of life require of us a better understanding of other people and the world at large. They demand mutual understanding, peaceful interchange and indeed harmony.

These are the very things that are most lacking in our world today.

Having adopted this position, the commission has put greater emphasis on one of the four pillars that it proposes and describes as the foundation of education. That is learning to live together by developing an understanding of others, and their history, traditions and spiritual values.

On this basis a new spirit would be created. Guided by recognition of our growing interdependence and a common analysis of the risk and challenges of the future, this would induce people to implement common projects, or to manage the inevitable conflicts in an intelligent and peaceful way.

Some might think this is a Utopia, but it is a necessary Utopia, indeed a vital one, if we are to escape from the dangerous cycle sustained by cynicism or resignation.

We, the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador, would submit that there's a clear message here: children in Newfoundland, like the children throughout the world, need to learn to live together. What better way to learn to live together than by learning together? So we do support the removal of the churches from the governance of education in our province.

As you can appreciate, it's most unusual for associations or unions like my own actually to agree with your government, but I must confess we do in this situation, and we agree with an observation the Minister of Education made before this very group.

He said:

We no longer want teachers hired or fired on the basis of religion. We no longer want school board members elected on the basis of religion. It's time to allow all of our children, of every denomination, to sit in the same classroom, in the same schools, to ride the same bus, to play on the same sports teams, to “live” and “learn” together in the same community.

• 1140

This, in essence, is what the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador want. We want it for ourselves. We want it for the children we teach.

I'm again most appreciative of the opportunity to make a presentation before this distinguished group. Both Wayne and I will now certainly make ourselves available to respond to any questions or comment you may have. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. We appreciate your brief.

We will now move on to questions and answers. The list is extended, starting off with Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Doyle.

As paragraph (2) of the Term 17 allows for courses in religion that would be non-specific and non-denominational, could you expand on that, and give us your viewpoint on what you believe will be taught in the non-specific religious courses, if they're requested by parents.

Mr. Brendan Doyle: It's my understanding that they would be as described—religion courses of a generic nature where you allow students to explore the spiritual dimension, to discuss morals and values. I guess we already have an example of that. We do have, and for some time have had, in the integrated school system in our province a common religion program, in which all children of different faiths in that system would participate.

We do believe in, and have always supported, the spiritual dimension being a part of a child's education. In fact, the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador would insist on that. That opportunity to explore the spiritual dimension would be there.

Is it necessary to have a course in Catholicism? We would suggest not, but that would not be precluded at the moment, as I understand the proposed amendment. It would not be guaranteed, however.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would that generic religious instruction perhaps include information on such things as Confucianism or aboriginal spiritual teachings, or would it go into the anti-religious areas, too? How broad a scope of training would this be?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: We see nothing particularly wrong with students exploring most concepts, most areas, under supervision that does occur in a classroom with an adult.

The religious curriculum would be developed as any other curriculum subject in the province. It would be developed by local people, teachers, people from the department, the public at large, and there would be church involvement. There would be nothing to preclude that. In fact, I would assume that's what would happen.

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

Now we'll move on to Madame Caplan, followed by Senator Kinsella.

Ms Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much. My question will be brief. I want to thank you for a very passionate presentation on behalf of the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My question is related to the testimony we have heard about the fairness of the process, and the clarity of the question. In your opinion, the opinion of your association, was the process fair? Do you believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who voted in the referendum understood the question that was presented to them?

Last, as an adjunct to that question, I think the fact that there was a unanimous vote of all the parties in the legislature of Newfoundland is an important dimension. While a referendum is not required in the process, the significant support of the legislature is. I wondered if you'd like to just address the fact that it was a unanimous vote in the legislature, as well, and share your views on that.

Mr. Brendan Doyle: On the first two questions, was the process fair, and did people know what they were speaking about, the answer is unequivocally yes.

• 1145

I take strong exception to people outside the province who suggest it may have been otherwise. I was immersed in that debate, in that discussion, and there's no doubt in my mind that it was clear. People knew what they were voting for.

In terms of it being unanimous in the legislature, again, I do believe people in that legislature reflected what their constituents said, and said it very clearly. I would hope that the Parliament of Canada would do likewise.

Maybe I could just follow up on that and comment on the suggestion that perhaps there was confusion. It's my sense that the people who are referring to that confusion may have been talking about the confusion respecting the school designation process we had gone through.

This is where parents were asked, did you want to send your child to a Catholic school, etc.? Was there confusion there? Absolutely.

People were asked, do you want to send your child to the Catholic school? I'll use St. John's as as an example. Parents there who thought they had to say yes if they still wanted to send their children to Brother Rice High School or Holy Heart High School felt parents were voting for the school. I think you will find out that this is where the affinity of parents is. It is with a building, with a school they went to, where their older children went. In my humble opinion, whether that's Catholic, Pentecostal or integrated is not as important to the parent as that particular building.

Many parents will tell you, yes, I voted for a Catholic system, thinking that would guarantee that my child would be able to go to this particular school. Was there confusion there? Yes.

Ms Elinor Caplan: Thank you for the clarification.

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

Okay, we're moving on to Senator Kinsella, then to Mr. Doyle.

Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Doyle, whether or not the religious education program of the governments or the religious observance provision of Term 17(3) is provided for in the Constitution, or whether it is provided for under the Schools Act in Newfoundland....

From the standpoint of your membership, on religious education teaching and religious observances that may be requested, is your association developing a protocol around such issues as a teacher who, for reasons of conscience, would not want to teach the government's religious education course, or where a religious observance has been approved by the school board a teacher does not want to participate in the delivery of that religious observance course?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: To my knowledge, the issue hasn't even arisen with our membership. Have we reached the point of a protocol? Absolutely not. Up to this point we have respected the fact that the administration of a school assigns teachers to their teaching responsibilities.

Senator Noël Kinsella: Well, what will you do if a teacher is asked to teach the government's religious education course and that teacher says, this is contrary to my conscience, as a bona fide conscientious objection? Or what will you do if a religious observance has been approved, assigned to a teacher, and the teacher says, I don't want to participate, and that offends my right of freedom of religion? Is it your position that you're not going to protect your teachers in those situations?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: Being new, maybe I should defer that one to the executive director. I'm saying that we've not had any discussion. I think that is accurate, and he can feel free to contradict me here, if he so wishes.

Mr. Wayne Noseworthy (Executive Director, Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association): The executive director never contradicts the president, certainly not publicly.

Brendan's response is the correct response in terms of the question of protocol and so on. That issue has not been a problem or matter of debate within the association or amongst our membership.

I could only give you one answer to your other question, your later question relative to what the association would do if a member felt offended or felt himself or herself to be in difficulty relative to any particular assignment. We would have to say at this point that this member, like any other member, would be afforded the full rights and protections of the association, subject to the provisions of the collective agreement and his or her rights within that collective agreement. That would happen until such time as some amendment, correction or whatever might be made to the agreement. I guess that's the only answer one could give.

• 1150

Senator Noël Kinsella: Just to complete the thought, would this not be a good reason for placing both the religious observances commitment and the government's religious instruction commitment under the Schools Act, so that if there are some problems as this is being worked out, the House of Assembly would have exclusive jurisdiction, could deal with it, and not have to go back for a third constitutional amendment?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: That's a real possibility, yes.

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

Mr. Doyle, followed by Senator Pearson.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I know that as a group of educators you have to be concerned for the education of the whole person—academically, physically, and spiritually. Do you think there's a role today for educators in the spiritual development of children? If there is a role, are you concerned that the protection afforded by the Constitution for a Christian-based system will no longer be there? Do you see that as severely limiting your ability to get involved in the education of the whole person?

The law firm that advised Mr. Tobin said you couldn't have the word “Christian” in the term. He mentioned that it may not be necessary to have a course in Catholicism or what have you, but the law firm says you couldn't even mention the word “Christian” in the term. How do you square that with your mandate to be involved in the full development of the child—academically, physically, and spiritually?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: We have no difficulty at all reconciling that. It's very much a part of what we do. The whole child—as you mention, the social, intellectual, physical, and mental are all there. We feel the amendment as proposed will give us the latitude to do that.

It is my clear understanding that the only reason there is not a guarantee of a specific denominational curriculum is that it would bring us back to where we started. If you guarantee a Catholic curriculum in a school, who develops it, who teaches it, who hires who teaches it? We are back where we started.

Failing that, I feel the guarantee that religious observances and religious instruction can be provided is adequate. Add to this that we still have to be remember parents are there with parental responsibilities. As a Catholic parent I have responsibilities and obligations to fulfil, and working with the school I think we can do it quite well.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I keep coming back to the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, who comprise only 7% of the population. They keep making the case that their school system is based on the partnership of home, school, and church in scriptural involvement and Bible readings and what have you. Given the fact that this generic course in religion will take away the right of these people to be involved in that kind of a partnership, what do you see as being the solution for them in this whole scenario?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: I certainly would not profess to speak for the Pentecostals in the province. They have people who can speak for themselves, and it would be presumptuous—

Mr. Norman Doyle: Speak to this amendment.

Mr. Brendan Doyle: Let me comment this way. There seems to be the assumption that somehow, unless there is a Catholic curriculum in a school, it's missing. I'm of the view that the religion is not in the school, the religion comes into the school with the children.

We kept hearing in the province that with any changes religion will be left at the door; it's like taking off a carpenter's tape and laying it down. That disappoints me, coming from church leaders. Religion is in the soul. It's there. You bring it in with you. I think the important thing is to provide the opportunity through all of these children, once they're in there, to allow it to come out and share it with others.

Mr. Norman Doyle: That doesn't answer the concern I had—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. You've had three questions now. I will allow a supplementary, but this will be the final one.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I've had two questions so far.

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

• 1155

Mr. Norman Doyle: I want to pursue that point. I've had a couple of hundred letters at least, maybe 300 letters, from the Pentecostal people. They keep making that point, and I really don't know how to answer them. I've asked several people. They do have, they say—I've no reason to disbelieve it, and I think they make the point well—the kind of a school system in which they have a very close partnership with home and school and church. Their system of education is very much involved with scriptural things and Bible readings.

So again I ask the question and make the point: what is the solution for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, who want to maintain that kind of system, albeit they're only 7% of the population? They want to maintain that kind of system, and under this term all reference to Christian or Christian-based religion will be gone. Not only are the Pentecostals concerned about it, but also the Catholics are concerned about it. What is the solution for these people who want to maintain that kind of system because it is an integral part of their school system?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: I think more than ever before the parents and the community will have to play an active part in the child's education and be involved in it. I could certainly offer them some consolation. What you describe as happening in a Pentecostal school I hope nobody here thinks is exclusive to any one group. It occurred in the Catholic school. It occurred in the integrated schools in Newfoundland and Labrador and still continues. I think it's evident in all of our schools, so I have no reason to believe it will change.

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

Now I'll move on to Senator Pearson, please.

Senator Landon Pearson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was very pleased to see your reference to the rights of students and I agree with you that they haven't been raised as often as they should be.

I was wondering if you could give us a couple of concrete examples of how you think the rights of students will be enhanced by the new Term 17. I'm conscious of the fact that one of the current problems in Newfoundland, as came out in some statistics last week, is that quite a number of people had dropped out of school at an early stage and were now finding it difficult to find jobs. In that context, could you give me a couple of examples of what you think will help?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: In a very concrete way there's the importance of maximizing the human financial resources for programming. We are not graduating students in Newfoundland and Labrador necessarily to get employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. They're going elsewhere, so we have to ensure that their exposure, their program of study, is up to what would be presented elsewhere.

At the moment, given the way we have our students grouped in the province, there is still duplication. On a little island, Bell Island, in Newfoundland, we have two high schools, which is absolutely incredible. The particular school board, which the minister may have referenced, spent $600,000 reopening that school when it was not necessary. I can think of all kinds of things that $600,000 could have done for the students of Bell Island. Perhaps there could have been an enrichment program or some of the basic core programs that are missing in some of our schools.

Certainly in that respect, having the maximum resources and program needs available to them, I think they're losing out. They're being discriminated against and put at a disadvantage.

I do believe having to go on separate buses to separate schools is somehow putting these children at a terrible disadvantage. That's not where they want to be. I'm a little disappointed that when I go through the list, I don't see a lot of representation from students. I understand it's difficult when you're here in Ottawa, but I'm very close to students in the province and listen to a lot of them. They thoroughly enjoy any time they can get together.

Senator Landon Pearson: Thank you.

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

We will move now to Senator Murray, followed by Mr. Pagtakhan and Senator Doody, and then back to Mr. Goldring.

Senator Lowell Murray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It was 15 years ago, in 1982, and I think around this time of year that Parliament voted what became the Constitution Act of 1982. Provided for were, I think, five amending formulas, ranging from unilateral action by Parliament or a legislature at one end of the scale to some matters that would require unanimous consent of all the provinces and Ottawa.

• 1200

It was open to the framers of the 1982 Constitution to decide that since Term 17 dealt with education, a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and in some detail with a system that's absolutely unique to Newfoundland, it ought to be amendable by the House of Assembly of Newfoundland acting alone. Instead it was clearly left to be subject to section 43, the double veto, the bilateral action of Parliament and the Newfoundland legislature.

Why do you think they did that if it was not because they wanted to have added protection for minority rights? What consideration do you think we in the federal Parliament should give to the assertion by the Catholic associations that have been here that somewhere between 51% and 62% of the Catholics who turned out for the referendum voted no? More impressively, 70% of the Pentecostals turned out to vote—and that was a higher proportion than the provincial average by far—and almost 83% of those voting voted no. Do you think we should give any consideration to that in our deliberations?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: Give consideration, absolutely. I would assume that the people who came forth with that information have some statistics and some validation for it. I think the numbers speak very clearly. We do have districts in the province that are predominantly Roman Catholic, and the vote there was very clear.

With respect to why they may have amended the Constitution or set it up as they did in 1982, I am sure you can appreciate, sir, that I would not feel comfortable offering a person like you a reason for why they might have done it. Did they do it to afford greater protection to minorities? I would hope so. I don't want anybody here thinking that I or the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador somehow want to diminish minority rights or to make the process of changing them any easier than it is at the moment. I think it should be a difficult process but one that is doable, if you like. I believe what we are engaged in here does precisely that. I am comfortable with it.

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

Mr. Pagtakhan, please.

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

Thank you for your presentation. In giving due consideration, when you replied to Senator Murray, if one of the options chosen by those groups affected was to have a denominational school funded by the provinces when numbers warrant, how would your association treat that potential request in the future?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: We would certainly have some reservations. First of all, “viable” and “where numbers warrant”—all of that would have to be defined. We thought we were getting that the last time around. We thought it was a reasonable compromise. But we all know what happened. Unfortunately, I think we have the proof now that it doesn't work or it can't work, people won't let it work, whatever the case may be. I don't see it as an option any more, quite frankly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But you do not object to the principle, where it can be made workable in light of the new changes as now proposed in the new Term 17?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: The Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association has always maintained that the real possibility of maintaining denominational schools was always there. There are areas, particularly the urban areas of the province, where it is very easy to maintain a particular structure that may be primarily of a Roman Catholic faith or some other faith. We have never had that problem.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: As for courses in religion, it was alluded to earlier during a question that even anti-religion courses can be offered in so-called generic courses in religion. I will take the view that courses in religion may not include courses against religion. What is your interpretation of that? Do you believe a course against religion can be a course in religion?

• 1205

Mr. Brendan Doyle: My view is no. The legal advice we have been given suggests no, and I have to be comfortable with that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Although it will be mandatory for the provincial government to provide these course in religion, enrolment in the courses will be optional. I assume that when the course is taken, they will be given due educational credit. Is that right?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: Yes, they would. If I could comment, this is something we fully endorse. Making it optional, we believe, provides for a better course. I wish I had had some options.

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

Mr. Pagtakhan, we will return to your question at the conclusion of this round.

Senator Doody, please.

Senator William Doody: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Doyle, for your presentation.

I must say I was quite relieved to see you hadn't changed very much. My notice of meeting said that Brenda Doyle, president, was going to be here and I thought, with some apprehension....

Having said that, I want to explore briefly the part of your presentation that dealt with what appeared to be discrimination against some teachers in some systems.

I remember when this Term 17 discussion took place last time. Some of us said this is going to be worse than the previous system, because they're going to set up these denominational subcommittees, which are going to create a lot of sectarian strife and problems of that sort.

My understanding and my memory tells me that this was not the case under the original Term 17. My understanding was that the teachers drifted back and forth between the systems without a great deal of difficulty at all. Indeed, a Pentecostal gentleman told us that Mr. Grimes, the current Minister of Education, had done his teaching in the Roman Catholic system and had experienced no problems whatsoever.

I guess I'm saying this for the record more than anything else, but the major problem down there now is not the original protection of denominational education under the Terms of Union but the tinkering with the system under the amended Term 17 and the implementation. They reduced the number of school boards from 27 to 10, which I think was a worthwhile project, but in so doing they emasculated them by setting up denominational subcommittees. Is that not a fair summary of the situation?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: Yes, in my view that's a fair summary. You mentioned tinkering. I believe that's what they did. We're here today asking you to go beyond tinkering and do it properly.

The last time around, as you know, there were denominational boards. A teacher's right to reassignment was guaranteed by the board, but now you have subdivided within the boards and that is creating a problem. The problem was always there. Teachers were always discriminated against, but it wasn't so blatant. Once these committees were set up, it became obvious for the world to see, and hence the outcry.

Senator William Doody: My contention is that it isn't necessary to eliminate denominational education in order to correct the school system in Newfoundland. It can be done administratively. However, you and I differ on that and we'll continue to differ.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Goldring, and then I will return to Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Doyle, you said that the only reason denominational instruction is not mentioned as an option is that the system would return to what it was previously. Then what is perceived to be problematic about removing the denominational reference in the second sentence of Term 17? I would think removing that reference would leave hope for the parents that they could approach the board and the board would have the authority to recognize some denominational instruction. By at least removing the second part of that sentence, it gives some hope to the parents of the system that denominational instruction will be considered in some cases.

Mr. Brendan Doyle: Perhaps you could clarify for me, please, what you would delete.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Delete specifically in paragraph (2), starting with “but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination”. I would think by deleting that or amending this amendment, it will give the parents confidence that they could approach the board for denominational instruction where their numbers warrant and where other factors are considered. Would that not be a fair approach to this?

• 1210

Mr. Brendan Doyle: It's quite possible.

I assume the reason it was put there was to provide assurance to the people of the province who wanted a continuation of religious education. If it were not referenced there, it would be interpreted as though it were exclusive. You would have the right to refer to what I heard others talking about this morning, the experience of Ontario and elsewhere, that people in the province wanted the provision of religious education if parents should want it. This is intended, as I would read it, to offer that assurance.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But this reference clearly excludes denominational religious teaching. If it were not specifically excluding it, at least leave some reference that the school board could determine in specific areas where denominational teaching can be accomplished.

Mr. Brendan Doyle: I do not read it to exclude specific denominational teaching; they don't guarantee it. Parents can request it, and you can develop a specific curriculum that could be called Catholic, Pentecostal, or any other. Nothing there would exclude it, but it doesn't guarantee it.

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

Mr. Pagtakhan, we can return to you.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With respect to opting out of the courses in religion, since the courses in religion would be given credit, could the alternative opted-out course be developed and then be given equal credit?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: I'm not sure I understood the question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): If I could interject, I think the question is, if an individual opts out of a specific religion course, will there be something to replace it so that credit can be given?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: Yes, absolutely. Again, that happens at the moment. We have students in the province who, under the denominational system, will opt out of religious education. Where possible, we provide an alternative program. At the moment there is no guarantee in the school system. If you opt out of a religion program, you may very well be in a room reading. Here an alternative would be provided.

Where is an alternative desirable? Let me give you an example, a personal one, if I may. A child can do only so many courses, and as parents we want them to broaden their base as much as possible. We want the school very often to do what we are perhaps least good at doing. I had four children in school, who basically graduated with very little in computer education. I would have liked my child to have the option in the senior year of high school of doing a computer course as opposed to a religious education course. I think I could have provided the religious components. As a parent I could do that and hopefully would have done it anyway up to that point. But the system I was in mandated that my children do the religious education program, and as a result other programs were not available to them.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My next question relates to religious observances, where more than, say, five or six requests of different types of religious observances have been made and shall be permitted as required in the proposed amendment. How does the association envision implementing such a request? Could you give me a picture of the future?

Mr. Brendan Doyle: I would assume the process would not be greatly different from what presently exists. What goes on in a school in our province would be very much dictated by the district and by the board. Now we have the parent advisory councils, which are very active at the local school level, and with the administration of the school they would determine what was appropriate for a particular school. I assume that if someone had difficulty with it, they would have the normal recourse to the courts or what have you.

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

Senator Murray.

Senator Lowell Murray: I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask Mr. Doyle to confirm what I trust is the case.

Notwithstanding your views in favour of a single system, you do support the section 23 guarantees of French-language schools where numbers warrant in the province of Newfoundland and the control of those schools by French-language school boards.

Mr. Brendan Doyle: That board, as you know, is presently set up in the province and we are working with the people there to make it operational.

• 1215

Senator Lowell Murray: You support it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Not seeing any further questions I will, on behalf of the joint special committee, thank the witnesses for appearing before us.

Thank you, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Noseworthy. I appreciate that you've travelled a long way and thank you very much for taking the time.

Mr. Brendan Doyle: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Members, we will adjourn until 3.30 p.m. We will be meeting again here in room 237-C in the Centre Block. Thank you all very much.