SJQS Committee Meeting

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE TO AMEND SECTION 93 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 CONCERNING THE QUEBEC SCHOOL SYSTEM

COMITÉ MIXTE SPÉCIAL POUR MODIFIER L'ARTICLE 93 DE LA LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1867 CONCERNANT LE SYSTÈME SCOLAIRE AU QUÉBEC

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 28, 1997

• 0917

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.)): The Special Joint Committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 concerning the Quebec school system is resuming its hearings, pursuant to the Order of Reference of October 1, 1997.

We are pleased to welcome the Rassemblement arabe à Montréal, which is represented by its President, Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud, as well as another Board member, Mr. Ali Daher. Welcome.

[English]

The rules are the following: You will be invited to make a short presentation of between eight and ten minutes. After that, we will proceed with questions from the members of the joint committee.

I don't know who is making the presentation.

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud (President, Rassemblement arabe à Montréal): I am speaking.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Mahmoud, just go ahead. We're listening to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Thank, Mr. Chairman.

• 0920

Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Honourable Members and Senators, the Rassemblement arabe à Montréal is an organization that works with Arab communities in Greater Montreal. Although we have maintained an informal presence in the field for some four years now, our organization was only incorporated a year ago. The RAM, as it is known—which has nothing to do with random access memory—represents Canadian citizens from a variety of Arab countries, as well as both Quebeckers and Canadians.

Our work revolves mainly around cultural and civilizational exchange and the successful integration of new immigrants to Canada. We are researchers, teachers, students, and men and women who deeply believe in the future of the society we have chosen, a society that we seek to enrich, a modern and pluralistic society.

As I have just said, successful integration of immigrants is one of the main objects of the Rassemblement arabe à Montréal. We believe that successful integration basically depends on two things: school and work. Since we are here this morning to talk not about work, but about school, let's really put our heart and souls into this once and for all. We believe that a balanced education is the surest and shortest path to the job market. The two complement one another. Indeed, a successful education in a modern and egalitarian school system that provides equal opportunities to all, is the first guarantee of a better future and of the professional success that means so much to us as both individuals and as a society.

Last year, we represented the Arab communities at the States General on Education organized by the Government of Quebec and our message was exactly the same. We were pleasantly surprised to see that there is a broad consensus in Quebec on the need to reform the school system. Most of the participants presented views that are shared by the majority of parents, organizations and institutions. We were even more thrilled when the National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution to move in that direction. That resolution, which was supported by both government and Opposition members of the National Assembly, reassured us in more ways than one.

The context and spirit in which the Constitution Act, 1867 was drafted have changed. For society, change is the quickest way to a better future. At the time, members of the two religions practiced in Canada needed strong assurances. And that could only be done by protecting what each of the two churches, Catholic and Protestant, already had. Some 130 years later, the whole context has changed. Canada has become a richer country, co-existence of many races and cultures being one of its distinctive characteristics.

The historical context of that section of the Constitution Act, 1867 dealing with education has changed. Nothing can possibly warrant the maintenance of such restrictive provisions—provisions which can only lead to the creation of a multi-level education system in Quebec. In other words, there could be as many as six levels of education in Quebec.

The socio-demographic context has also changed. No longer is there the Catholic—Protestant dichotomy that prevailed when the Constitution Act came into effect in 1867. Both attitudes and immigrant patterns have changed as our society has evolved into one that accepts freedom of choice when it comes to religious beliefs. The presence of followers of other religions and of people with no particular religious beliefs are new realities that must be reflected in an open and democratic society such as ours. By way of illustration, we would point out that half of the students in the Quebec school system identify themselves either as followers of other religions or as having no religion at all. Thirty-four per cent identify themselves as having another religion, while 12.5 per cent claim to have no religion at all, which adds up to about 50 per cent overall.

• 0925

In addition to that, there is no longer any connection between Protestantism and the fact of speaking English, as a significant proportion of students—indeed the majority—in English-speaking schools follow religions other than Protestantism. We have a perfect illustration of that in Montreal. There are students there from the Indian sub-continent who speak English but are neither Protestant nor Catholic. They alone represent some 40 per cent of the English-speaking sector in Quebec.

Nor is the intellectual context the same. Since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms came into force, there has developed an ever-increasing tendency to accept the notion of equality for all and people's right to be different. This principle of universal equality, which is the very foundation of modern society, seems to be pointing us towards a particular path, where education is concerned, in the best interests of future generations.

The changes that have occurred in these three areas lead us to believe that the fundamental reasons for creating the separate schools are no longer valid in our modern society. In the Quebec society of today, there is clearly a solid consensus on the need to change the school system.

The school system is the main engine for change in society. The Quebec school system has thus far proven itself to be effective. However, we are being asked to take a courageous step that will allow us to adapt our school system to new and future realities.

Indeed, the issues of the future for our society are not those of the past. There is therefore a need to change the school system so that it reflects contemporary Quebec society and builds toward a better future for coming generations. In the largest urban centres in Quebec, Montreal and Quebec City, we have witnessed the emergence over the past two decades of a new trend: a dramatic rise in the number of students who are neither Catholic nor Protestant.

Under no circumstances should the spiritual dimension of a society be neglected. However, the dichotomy that currently characterizes the Quebec school system interferes with the principles of equality and pluralism. While two religions benefit from official recognition and preferential treatment, others that are just as well established are ignored.

A Grade 7 student who follows a religion other than Catholicism or Protestantism does not understand why the beliefs of another student carry more weight than hers. Must we not now, in the name of rights and equality for all, change our school system to put everyone on an equal footing?

You have heard and will be hearing from people whose views are both different from, and similar to, our own. We have equal respect for both groups. One cannot do otherwise in a fair and democratic society. My comments are addressed to you and them equally, as well as to all of us.

We need a more open, just and balanced school system that forges closer links with citizens, rather than the opposite. We need a fair system that brings citizens together, rather than setting them apart by branding them in early childhood. We need a modern school system that reflects our current and future society, a school system open to others, rather than one rigidly focused on its own values.

It is time that Quebec—and probably Canada as well, one day—had a school system that prepares students for the economic and societal issues of the next century, particularly in an era where our planet is reduced to one big global village. It is time to give Quebec society the kind of choice that will pave the way to a more brilliant and promising future for generations to come.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Mahmoud. We will now move directly to questions. Val Meredith.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 0930

Thank you for joining us today. I appreciate your comments in the brief. I understand your concern that this provision in section 93 only protects the religious rights of two denominations and excludes others. There is a concern, however, as I understand from other witnesses, that the Constitution did recognize the rights of Protestants and Catholics in Quebec to have publicly funded education, and that with changes at a provincial level the public funding for the minority groups may be removed. As you already are a minority in that pluralistic society in Quebec, do you feel that it is a justified concern of the Protestant community?

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: My personal belief is that a multi-tiered school system is not a good thing for a society that claims to be open and egalitarian.

With respect to the matter of funding, if the minority group of which I am a member were to have—because that is not the case now—an independent school system or one that was recognized as such, I would personally prefer, in the interests of our future together as a country, to see that system offering preferential treatment to my community eliminated, even if that meant losing funding.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: So if I understand what you have just said, the time may come in the future when you would want your own school. Would a Muslim school be in the context of a public school system? Would you see that being allowed within a public school system in Quebec?

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Perhaps my comments weren't clear. That is not what I meant. I am not in favour of Muslim schools, any more than I am in favour of Jewish or Catholic schools. I support a single school for all the students of Quebec.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay. The reason I ask that is because in British Columbia, where I represent, there is a Muslim school. I am not sure within what context it operates, because we don't have this constitutional protection within a public school concept, and I'm not sure that it's funded by the Canadian taxpayer. I ask because I see this as a fundamental concern of parents, the funding of education. I wonder if there aren't better ways of guaranteeing that support, through tax credits or some other means rather than constitutional protection.

Basically I'm asking whether there are other ways to assure parents that they will not be losing something by giving up constitutional protection.

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Madam Chair, if you don't mind, I would like to ask my colleague, Ali Daher, to respond. That is his area of expertise.

Mr. Ali Daher (Board Member, Rassemblement arabe à Montréal): First of all, I should point out that we are not here representing Muslims. We are Arabs. We make no reference to any particular denomination or religion. We are speaking on behalf of Arabs. This is an issue that is linguistic, rather than religious. However, far from being against religion or religions, we are in favour of them. Every religion must enjoy the same advantages, but that cannot be accomplished by separating religion and school.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC):, You say on the last page of your brief, and I fully agree with you there:

"A Grade 7 student who follows a religion other than Catholicism or Protestantism, does not understand why the beliefs of another student carry more weight than hers. Must we not now, in the name of rights and equality for all, change our school system to put everyone on an equal footing?

I fully agree with you there and, as I was saying yesterday, if we accept the principle of denominational rights, then all denominational groups must be on an equal footing; otherwise, our system will be unfair. And as I was also saying yesterday, I support amending Section 93, because in the context of our current legal system, the last two sub-sections have a distinctly 19th century flavour to them, whereas the first two protect only Catholic and Protestant groups.

• 0935

My view is that we cannot allow that, because all groups are equal. No particular religious group should receive preferential treatment. So, the two options are as follows: either we amend Section 93 to extend it to other religious groups—although that is not my preferred option—or we amend it and leave the task of passing legislation on religious instruction in the schools to the State, in other words, to Quebec. However, that is a legislative, rather than a constitutional, solution. Is that what you are thinking?

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Yes, in a way that is what I would like to see happen. We are not in a position to decide. I personally favour secular schools for all. However, it is up to the people to decide. I think your task is to amend the Constitution and leave it up to Quebec to take further action. I fully agree with you.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I have no further questions.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin (Shawinegan, Lib.)): Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Good morning, Mr. Mahmoud and Mr. Daher. Thank you very much for your presentation and for travelling to Ottawa to appear before the Committee.

I found both your brief and your position on the issue of amending Section 93 to be extremely interesting and, like Senator Beaudoin, I support the amendment. On page 3 of your brief, you raise a point that goes to the heart of the issue.

"Canada has become a richer country, the co-existence of many races and cultures being one of its distinctive characteristics.

In order to be true to those distinctive Canadian characteristics, it is important that we open up the school system and modernize it. However, I would like to come back to the point Ms. Meredith was trying to make. I think there may have been a misunderstanding.

We have received briefs from other groups that would like to be guaranteed in some way that if they wish to establish their own school and determine the denominationality of that school, they will be in a position to do so. Clearly, though, under the terms of the amendment to Section 93 requested by the Quebec National Assembly, there would be no constitutional guarantee.

Perhaps there would be quasi-constitutional guarantees under the Quebec Charter, and legislative guarantees. As a number of people have already pointed out, though, as far as legislative guarantees are concerned, the legislature of any province can always amend its legislative framework. Whether we're talking about Jewish, Greek Orthodox or other denominational schools, if I am not mistaken, these are private schools which receive government funding in Quebec, just like any other private school, denominational or otherwise. Am I right about that?

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Yes, you are absolutely right.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: We are not talking about a public system, because under the current public school system in Quebec, the only public denominational schools are those of the two officially recognized religions, Catholicism and Protestantism, which are currently protected under Section 93. I would be interested in hearing your comments on that.

Mr. Ali Daher: As Canadian citizens living in Quebec, we end up paying twice. If I send my son to a denominational school—for example, to a Maronite school—I will be paying for that Maronite school and at the same time paying to help Catholics and Protestants provide instruction to their students. So, I end up paying twice.

• 0940

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): A number of groups have questioned the idea that a consensus exists. People are coming before the Committee claiming that there is in fact very little consensus. Some even maintain they have not been given a chance to voice their opinion on Bill 109 dealing with public education, which is not actually true, since I have lists of associations that made presentations both to the Commission and to this Committee, even though they say otherwise. You stated that it was your impression during the hearings that there was a broad consensus on the issue. Some 2,000 briefs were presented as part of the States General. Some groups said that they had not been given an opportunity to present their views in Quebec, which is totally untrue, because we in fact have the list of people who presented briefs. You say that when you appeared before the Public Education Commission or the States General, that you sensed that there was some consensus on the issue even though there were differing viewpoints. I would like you to reassure us with respect to the consensus you saw emerge from these consultations.

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Thank you for your question. It gives me an opportunity to address that point. I would have liked to speak to it on previous occasions, but this is the first time I have actually had a chance to do so.

I appeared before the States General representing the Arab community, as part of the cultural committees in Quebec. We assumed that there was very little consensus on the issue of secular schools that would be open to all and operate outside the private system. I am not talking about the private system now. I think it is important to make the point to Ms. Meredith that the private system is completely separate.

We thought that few Quebeckers were in favour of secular schools that would be open to everyone. But we were very pleasantly surprised by the number and quality of the contributions made by Quebec-born participants whose position was very similar to that of a group like ours, representing citizens who came to Canada as immigrants. We would like to have schools for our children, who come from countries where denominationality is an almost ongoing or daily issue, and one that sometimes leads to dissent, disorder and even war. So, we were pleasantly surprised to hear Quebec-born participants ask for a single secular school system for all children, one in which everyone would be on an equal footing.

That consensus then moved to the National Assembly, which unanimously—something that happens rarely in the history of elected assemblies—passed a resolution to that end. If Quebeckers' representatives in the National Assembly decided to unanimously adopt that resolution, then there must be some consensus there; otherwise they would be putting their seats at risk in the next election.

So, I did indeed speak to a number of Quebeckers who told me over and over again that they were in favour of secular schools—in other words, one school system for all Quebeckers.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'm sure you know what is being suggested in Quebec these days. If the majority of parents wanted to keep denominational, Catholic or Protestant schools, and other religions were to be taught in the schools, would you be comfortable with that? Could you live with something different from what now exists?

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: No, I would not be comfortable with that, and I say that quite openly. That is not something I feel comfortable with at this time, but I do want to say that I have nothing against anybody's religion, just as I have nothing against someone who has no religious beliefs. I see no reason why my five and a half or six year old child should come back home singing songs that have a religious connotation.

I respect everyone's beliefs. That is something I learned at home when I was very young. I lived in a multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-denominational society, so I am not bothered by that.

• 0945

However, I would like my child to be educated in a school system that is free and open to all. Right now, when his Catholic friends go to their religion class, he takes moral instruction where he learns practically nothing about moral values. So, no, I don't feel comfortable with that system.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib.): I want to thank the witnesses for their brief; it's very helpful. The witness and I have had exchanges at other parliamentary committees, and this I think is one where at least we share some basic principles.

First of all, it would be very helpful if in fact we could get the statistics this brief alluded to. In other words, I think up until now we've had general discussions about minorities within minorities, but the statistics this witness brings are quite interesting. I didn't realize that the educational demographic in Quebec has radically changed.

I know in Toronto, as an example, in the last 15 years it's not the same city in terms of demographics.

A witness: It's the same thing in Montreal.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: So it would be very useful if we could have as part of our analysis at least the statistical analysis of religions, backgrounds, and so on. I want to thank the witness for bringing that to our attention. He's the first one who has done it.

Could you give us a better understanding of the treatment of Arab, Maronite, and Muslim schools? In other words, for a parent who is either a Catholic or a Muslim coming from an Arab land, what choices are available to him in Montreal, as an example, as opposed to the agricultural parts of Quebec? What choices are available to that parent? In other words, you've said to us that you choose an open school system for your child, but if you were a Maronite, or you happened to be in effect a Muslim and you came from an Arab land, what choice is available under the existing school system to have a denominational education, and who pays for it?

[Translation]

Mr. Ali Daher: What I can say is that the choice is minimal. According to statistics, there are approximately 45,000 Muslims in Quebec, but according to religious leaders, there are close to 100,000 of them. Muslims have lots of children. There are only two Muslim schools in Quebec, however; so the choice really is minimal. To my knowledge, only one school is subsidized by the government, but not to the same extent as Protestant and Catholic schools, because it's a private school.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: So if the amendment goes forward, if section 93 in effect is absorbed by the wider context of rights, what do you anticipate will happen to parents who want to choose an educational entity for their children from the communities you represent? What do you think will happen? Right now, the choice you say is virtually nil because it's private. What do you anticipate will happen?

[Translation]

Mr. Ali Daher: I have contacts with teachers, and representatives of the Muslim community in Quebec and they tell me that their children are always forced to attend a Catholic or Protestant school. Parents also have another option. Some of them no longer want to live in Quebec, for instance. There are some parents who have indicated that they intend to leave.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: The proposal by the Quebec government is to move from a denominational-encrusted system to a linguistic system, and your brief speaks in favour of that. As I understand it, you're in favour of a linguistically based open system as opposed to a denominational linguistic system. That's my understanding of your brief.

• 0950

What happens under the proposed linguistic system as it applies to those parents who wish to have their children retain the Arabic language? How will the parents of Arabic children and the children who wish to have an Arabic language be treated under the new system, the proposed system?

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Senator, they have the same choice as do Jewish parents who want to preserve the use of Yiddish.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Which is what?

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: To send their children to a private school.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: So in effect, as you have suggested, parents have to fund that out of their personal dollars as well as continuing to pay for the public or denominational system. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Ali Daher: But you are putting religion and language on the same footing, yet there is a big difference between the two.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I'm just interested in the language now.

[Translation]

Mr. Ali Daher: The language issue is completely separate from the religious one. There is a big difference between the two. We may forget our language; we may no longer be able to speak Arabic, or French, or Yiddish, but we cannot forget our religion. Within society as a whole, religion is more deeply rooted, whether we're talking about children or their parents.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you very much for your presentation.

It's been stated that there has not been an application to date that diminishes minority rights, and yet that reducing this section 93 does reduce minority rights. Do you not believe education improvement in the province of Quebec could be accomplished to better reflect the multicultural aspect of the province by improving on section 93, by making modifications to the existing section 93 without removing it or repealing it, as this application is? In other words, would it not be better to build on the Constitution and modify it to better reflect the multicultural situation in Quebec education?

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: As far as deciding which would be better, to repeal this provision or to amend it, I will leave it up to members of the Senate and the House of Commons to make that determination. However, my aim here is not to see minorities win more rights, but to emphasize the need for a one-tier society, rather than a two-tier society. I am not seeking the establishment of separate institutions for the Arab, Pakistani or Indian minority, say, which in this case would only lead to greater ghettoization, rather than build a society that is united around its differences, and at the very least united as regards its system of education.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, but you stated earlier that some of your group would like to have private schools or may have private schools. My question is that if there were provisions for a system of voucher funding for students or tax credits per student, would it not satisfy your concerns for taxpayer funding of other school systems if that were implemented? It would still just improve on the Constitution.

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that I stated earlier that I represented people who send their children to private schools.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: You mentioned that you represent approximately 100,000 people in your community. The question was whether members in your community would set up private schools if the Jewish community set up private schools. My understanding was that there was a certain percentage in your community who would send their children to private schools. I'm suggesting here that a voucher system or a tax credit system would be a way of equalizing the educational approach for members of your community so that at least on a footing of funding it would be more equal.

• 0955

[Translation]

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: I believe that amending Section 93 along those lines would be inconsistent with the position we have taken in support of an equal, free and open society, and a school system that reflects that society. It seems to me the funding mechanisms you refer to are inconsistent with our approach and will not ultimately solve the problem.

For example, if one of the options is to repeal Section 93 to create a freer, more open school system, I would certainly applaud that initiative. I don't know whether that is under discussion or not. As far as I know, what is being proposed is an amendment to this section. Of you do decide to repeal it, though, that would be great.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Mahmoud. Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux (Québec, PC): I would like to know what the source of your information is for the comments that you make on page 3 of your brief, where you say:

"... we would point out that half of the students in the Quebec school system identify themselves either as followers of other religions or as having no religion at all."

Where did you get that information, in other words, that half of the students in Quebec fit into one or the other of those two categories? You are the one who wrote that.

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: When I say half, the actually breakdown is as follows: 37 per cent of Quebeckers are neither Catholic nor Protestant, and 12 per cent are not followers of any religion—in other words, they pretty well consider themselves atheists.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You simply added the two together?

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Yes.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: It looks as though you took a few liberties.

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: No, not at all. This information appears in the study appended to the Parent Commission Report, I believe. I am not the one...

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: The Parent Commission?

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: No, I think it was a school board. But I did read that. Earlier, the Senator...

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: The Parent Commission goes back to 1960.

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Just a moment, please. Earlier, the Senator asked me for some figures. I would be very pleased—indeed, I undertake to send you the figures as well as detailed information regarding my sources as soon as I get back to Montreal.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You said you were pleasantly surprised...

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Yes, very pleasantly surprised.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: ... very pleasantly surprised to note at the States General that the majority, indeed participants as a whole, presented briefs in support of an open, uniform school system for all.

It seems to me that contradicts—unless I am mistaken, and you will correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chair or Madam Chair—what Mr. Caldwell said when he appeared yesterday or the day before yesterday...

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: Not the day before yesterday.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: That's right; the day before yesterday was Sunday. Not that they wouldn't ask us to sit on Sunday... but you are right. So, when he came, he said that based on what came out of the States General, the majority... I hate the term "old stock". There are no "old stock" Quebeckers; whether you like it or not, everyone's blood is a little mixed, not with English blood, perhaps, but certainly with aboriginal blood. And it's a good thing that our blood is a little mixed. One shouldn't be offended by it. Otherwise, we might now be... I won't say what. We were pretty few in number when France abandoned us. Only 35,000 people stayed.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: No, no; 60,000.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Well, we won't argue about that. When you say everyone, you are contradicting what you said earlier, when you referred to a broad majority. So, I think we have to take a closer look at that.

There is another thing I find a little disturbing, not only about your position on the issue but also what I've heard from others. As far as I'm concerned, it is perfectly justified to ensure proper treatment for children of Arab origin, just as others have requested for their communities, such as Jewish groups for children of Jewish faith. But everyone has to be the same. What about these so-called "old stock" Quebeckers? The fact is that in Quebec, there is a tradition of Catholic, and even Protestant teaching, although the tradition of Catholic instruction has probably been around longer. I guess that can probably be traced back to what was called the period of French rule.

It seems to me people are a little quick to dismiss all of that. As far as you're concerned, it's unimportant, as long as people can have access to the system and that everyone is the same. Well, just as you are justified in asking that people respect your children's beliefs and give them an equal opportunity to develop...

• 1000

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator, could you please put your question?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I already did, and now I'm going to stop talking so that he can answer it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Great. Mr. Mahmoud.

Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud: I'm glad you came back to the point about "old stock" Quebeckers in discussing Catholicism. Again I am pleasantly surprised and encouraged, because there is a reality there that we cannot deny. I might just mention, in passing, just so that the differences are clear, that among Arabs, there are both Muslims and Christians; among Christians, there are a number of different denominations, but the same applies to Muslims.

I am not asking for preferential treatment for any of these communities. That is not what I am asking for. In terms of the context or background to this issue, I did not come here to deny the fact of Quebec's Catholicity. On the contrary, I believe it has contributed something to Quebec and continues to do so. No one can deny that. However, I am saying that in the Quebec of the future, if we want to build an open society where people's rights are respected, Senator, we must have a free, equal and egalitarian school system.

We are not here to deny the past or replace one religion with another; we are only here to request that the system we have now be opened up. Personally, I am all for Catholic culture insofar as it doesn't interfere with other cultures. I am in favour of acculturation in a multi-cultural context. However, I am not in favour of superimposing a series of school systems that would upset the entire structure of the educational system.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Mahmoud, Mr. Daher, on behalf of the members of this committee, I would like to express our sincere thanks for your presentation today.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I have one last brief comment to make.

You talk about the need for a free, open and egalitarian school system. Everyone favours virtue, then come what may. You have private schools. I'm not referring to Muslims in particular; I could say the same about Catholics or Protestants. So where does an egalitarian school system fit in? The fact is, often private schools offer an environment that is far more favourable to a child's development, much broader in cultural terms, and so on. So, when you use the word "egalitarian" in referring to the school system, I can assure you we still have a long way to go.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you for your comment.

We will break for two minutes, to give the representatives of the next group time to take their seats at the table.

• 1004

• 1007

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): I just want to inform Committee members that during the presentation, they will be receiving a paper that summarizes the briefs we received last week. It should prove helpful.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The Special Joint Committee to amend Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the Quebec school system is resuming its hearings, pursuant to the Order of Reference of October 1, 1997.

We are very pleased to welcome the Féderation des commissions scolaires du Québec, represented by Mr. André Caron, 1st Vice-President; Mr. Gilles Taillon, Director General; and Mr. Guy Beaudin, Adviser. Welcome.

I imagine Mr. Caron will be making the presentation?

Mr. André Caron (first vice-president, Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec): Exactly.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): You have the floor, Mr. Caron.

Mr. André Caron: The Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec welcomes this opportunity to address the members of the Special Joint House of Commons—Senate Committee on the issue of the Quebec government's application to amend Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec represents 136 of the 156 school boards in Quebec, including 131 Catholic school boards, two Catholic denominational school boards, two dissentient Catholic school boards and one of the three special status school boards.

The member boards of the Fédération provide educational services to over one million students, or 90 per cent of the Quebec student population at both the primary and secondary levels.

The Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec, which was founded in 1947, has a two-fold mandate: to promote education in Quebec and to defend the interests of its member school boards.

• 1010

Over the past twenty years, the Fédération has been an active participant in extensive discussions and consultations on proposed school system reorganization initiatives introduced by successive provincial governments, and has also expressed its position before the courts on the scope of the constitutional protection afforded under Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Since the late 1960s, there has been much debate in Quebec regarding the type of school boards that would best meet the needs of Quebeckers. However, a consensus has emerged in recent years: it is felt that the current system no longer meets the needs of Quebec society and that school boards organized along linguistic lines should replace those currently in place.

The Quebec government has never had a restrictive interpretation of the provisions of Section 93, nor has it limited itself to establishing common school boards outside Montreal and Quebec City and dissentient school boards in areas where the religious minority requested them.

For more than 25 years, Quebec has had two school board systems in place all across the province: one for Catholics, and one for Protestants. However, Quebec society has changed. It has become pluralistic where religion is concerned, as a result of a large influx to Canada and Quebec of people of different religions, races, languages and cultures.

As protection of language rights became an increasingly important objective for large segments of the population, school boards inevitably came to be seen as a means of attaining that objective.

For the minority English-speaking community, governance of the Protestant school board constituted an effective means of protecting and developing its cultural and linguistic interests.

At the same time, declining student enrollment in both Protestant French-language schools and Catholic English-language schools operating in the same regions of the province, lead to greater cooperation between two denominational school boards operating in the same area.

To make up for the shortcomings of the current denominational structure, a special mechanism was put in place, such as the use of service agreements. However, what began as an exception has now become the rule.

As a result, in a number of regions of Quebec, Catholic school boards in fact became Francophone and Catholic and Protestant students began attending the same schools. The same thing occurred in certain Protestant school boards, which are in actual fact Anglophone.

Of the 153 denominational school boards in Quebec, 104 are Francophone and five school boards provide services in English only. There is even a Protestant dissentient school board where the majority of students are English-speaking Catholics.

In communities where the English-speaking minority is numerically larger, the situation is different, however. The Protestant school boards admit both English-speaking and French-speaking students. They are usually administered in close cooperation with the English-speaking community in an Anglophone environment.

In recent years, however, we have witnessed a noticeable change in the type of clientele attending these schools administered by the Protestant school boards. More and more of their students are being educated in French and may soon form a majority in some of these school boards. The reform being advocated by the government of Quebec aims in particular to correct that situation.

It is our view that the amendment to Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, unanimously passed by the members of the Quebec National Assembly on April 15, 1997, will pave the way for the establishment of a school board system that meets the needs of Quebec society today.

It is important to note that over the last fifteen years or so, the various reforms introduced by successive provincial governments, with a view to replacing the current denominational school boards with linguistic school boards, were quite complex and required legislators to make a number of exceptions in order to avoid legal challenges.

The ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in June of 1993 on the validity of the Education Act, which was passed into law in 1988, clearly demonstrated the complexity of replacing the current system of school boards organized along denominational lines by one organized along linguistic lines in the current constitutional context. It was possible for there to be as many as six super-imposed school boards operating in the same area. That is socially unacceptable.

• 1015

In order to fully appreciate the complexity associated with establishing a system that would be consistent with Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, one need only examine the provisions of Bill 109 on provisional governance which was passed June 19, 1997 (Sections 493 to 508.42).

At the National Assembly Education Commission hearings on Bill 109—legislation introduced to establish linguistic school boards—the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec clearly stated its view that in light of the amendment to Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the current approach is simpler and thus the new law would result in fewer court challenges.

Apart from the actual system, however, there is another issue the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec sees as fundamental, and that is the right to religious instruction and to recognition of a school's denominational status. Reform of the Quebec education system in no way questions that right. As far as recognizing a school's denominational status is concerned, the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec has always believed that it is up to the parents to decide.

We believe Bill 109's provisions, particularly Section 21 and 36, and those dealing with the right to religious instruction which is guaranteed under Section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, are adequate in that regard.

Throughout the debate on Bill 109, we expressed our concern that the constitutional amendment to Section 93 might not be passed by December 1997. For one thing, the already tight schedule for implementing linguistic school boards will be that much more difficult to meet in that steps will have to be taken, over that same period, to set up dissentient school boards before July 1, 1998.

The process for determining whether a dissentient school board will be established involves quite a number of steps. This means that provisional school boards charged with implementing linguistic school boards will have only six months, rather than ten, to carry out the various tasks entrusted to them, such as handling student admissions, setting up a network of schools, enrolling students in schools, arranging for transportation, transferring and reassigning staff, distributing equipment, organizing school elections, preparing budgets, and so on.

Furthermore, superimposing linguistic school boards on denominational ones would have the effect of making yearly activities such as student admissions, assignment of personnel, resource distribution, preparation of electoral lists and allocation of funding, both complicated and cumbersome.

In conclusion, in order to avoid the pitfalls associated with implementing and managing linguistic school boards, it is extremely important, in our view, that the constitutional amendment be passed as quickly as possible, that is, before December 31, 1997.

Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes education as an exclusively provincial area of jurisdiction. The restriction set out in Section 93 clearly reflected the situation that prevailed then. Today, however, our challenge is to show the kind of vision that will allow us not only to meet the needs of the present generation but to begin to shape the society of the future.

A positive response by the Parliament of Canada to the Quebec National Assembly's application before December 31, 1997, would enable Quebec society to modernize its school system for the benefit of all Quebeckers while respecting the values of every group.

That completes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. If you have any questions on our brief, I would be pleased to answer them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Caron, thank you for your presentation. We will move immediately to the question period. The first questioner will be Peter Goldring.

[English]

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Caron, for your presentation.

Has your group explored the concept or the idea of truly amending section 93—in other words, modifying or improving section 93 to better reflect the educational concerns of Quebec today, and its society? Has it explored that aspect, as opposed to this application, which is to extinguish section 93 for the province of Quebec?

[Translation]

Mr. André Caron: In terms of repealing Section 93, basically what is involved is bringing it down to its simplest expression. As far as we're concerned, if we limit ourselves to the introduction, which gives the provinces exclusive responsibility for education, that would be enough to allow us to successfully implement linguistic school boards.

• 1020

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Let's assume as a given that the application by the National Assembly of Quebec refers to that section of the Constitution Act, 1982 and then rejects that act in its same application. In other words, it does not wish to recognize it. Would you not feel that along with this application for amending section 93, there should also be a statement here that the Province of Quebec will now accept paragraph 23(1)(a) in the 1982 Constitution and also accept the 1982 Constitution? Do you not feel that this would be prudent to go along with this application?

[Translation]

Mr. André Caron: I'll ask Mr. Beaudin to respond to your question about the different sub-sections of the Constitution Act, 1982, as it's quite technical.

Mr. Guy Beaudin (Research and Development Advisor, Féderation des commissions scolaires du Québec): Mr. Chairman, the member's question refers to a provision that deals more with linguistic matters, while Section 93 only deals with the matter of religion. In my view, that's distorting the debate.

What is at issue here is religious protection guaranteed in 1867 and set out in four separate sub-sections of Section 93. We are only talking about those four sub-sections. Just because it has become a vehicle for linguistic groups doesn't mean we have to debate it at that level. I think there might be more appropriate fora for that debate. Here we are viewing this more from the standpoint of religion.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm sorry, but my interpretation is that section 93 deals with minority rights. I think this would go along with the application.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Beaudin: From the standpoint of religion, yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I'm very glad we're having this debate, because over the past week, people have been making a connection between Sections 93 and 23, and I think that's a mistake. If we want to amend Section 23, this is not the right amending formula; if we want to amend Section 93, it is. I hope we can steer this debate back on the right track. For instance, some are saying they are prepared to accept an amendment, provided that we amend Section 23. That is all well and good, but Section 23 deals with linguistic and educational rights. Section 93, however, deals with religious and denominational rights.

As far as I'm concerned, we have to make a decision one way or the other when it comes to denominational rights. I don't think we can mix the two amendments, because we might end up in a dead end, particularly since the formula for amending Section 23 is not the same as the one provided for amending Section 93. In that respect, I think we have to be very careful not to let the debate veer off onto the wrong track.

This is what I need to know from you. You say you want to preserve the first paragraph of Section 93, which states that education is a provincial responsibility. Is that right? Good. But things have changed since 1867 and you would like sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) to be set aside.

Mr. André Caron: Exactly.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I understand. And with respect to school instruction, there you rely on Section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, correct?

Mr. André Caron: Yes, the section that gives every school the privilege of determining its denominationality.

Mr. Gilles Taillon (director general, Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec): Here we are relying on Section 41 of the Quebec Charter, and more particularly Sections 26 and 31 of Bill 109, which guarantee every school the right to choose its denomination.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I see. And does that satisfy you?

Mr. André Caron: Yes, it does.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I have no further questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin. Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, this brief provides a highly enlightened analysis of the issue.

I'm sure you know that we have two specific matters to deal with in this committee. Senator Beaudoin has already referred to one of them. I see that you strongly support the amendment, and you have in fact highlighted the issues associated with it. You have also had a chance to closely observe change within the Quebec school system in recent years and you know just how much debate these issues have generated.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take advantage of the witness's presence here to officially table a paper that pretty well summarizes the various consultations that have been held on this issue. I have had copies made for my colleagues. I would like the witnesses to talk about how deeply rooted this whole debate is in Quebec society and give us their insights into the four major consultations that took place. First of all, there was the Kenniff Report, then the consultations...

• 1025

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Are you describing your paper?

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): What exactly is this paper?

Mr. Réal Ménard: It discusses the various consultations held in Quebec on the issue of linguistic school boards.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I see.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like every Committee member to be informed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Fine. Please proceed.

Mr. Réal Ménard: There are also the groups that were heard in Quebec City and Ottawa. I guess I'll go directly to my question, because I think I'm running out of time.

Can you confirm that there have been four major consultations on these issues in recent years: the Kenniff Report, the consultations held by Minister Marois, as well as Bills 107 and 109? Could you perhaps tell us once again just how broad a consensus there is in Quebec on this issue?

Mr. André Caron: Mr. Ménard, we can most certainly attest to the fact that those consultations were held. You have just described them and I won't go over that again. What we are saying is that among our members and at the National Assembly, there is indeed a consensus in support of repealing Section 93; that is our position. It is our feeling there is a strong consensus, certainly strong enough to proceed with the repeal; that is what we are asking.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excellent.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. Finestone.

The Honourable Sheila Finestone (Mont-Royal, Lib.): Thank you for being here.

I have a very specific question. You said that it was important that every school have the option of choosing religious instruction. But, whether you like it or not, you are governed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act, 1982.

Could I ask you whether you feel sure enough about your legal arguments to be able to defend your position before the Supreme Court? Do you believe the provisions of Bill 107, Bill 109 and Section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provide adequate protection and that they are unlikely to be challenged by the Supreme Court, which might look at sections 2 and 15 of the Canadian Charter and tell you they're discriminatory? I think it's important that you ensure that the right to freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination will be protected, and yes, it is advisable to move towards Anglophone and Francophone schools that are organized along linguistic lines. I fully agree, but will vested rights be adequately protected and are we certain that parents can feel reassured that the best interests of their children will prevail if we choose this course of action?

Mr. André Caron: Indeed, our view is that Sections 21, 36 and 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provide adequate protection to meet current needs. But I will ask Mr. Taillon to elaborate.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: I just want to point out that we are not unhappy with the Canadian Charter.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Great! Now there's an enlightened man!

Mr. Gilles Taillon: We at the Fédération des commissions scolaires are confident, given the rights set out in the Quebec Charter and Bill 109, where the right of each school to choose religious instruction is guaranteed, that there won't be a problem and that we do not require constitutional protection to proceed. We are confident in that respect, just as confident as the Cardinal-Archbishop of Montreal. We are just as confident as he is that religious rights will be respected under Quebec legislation.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Taillon, I'm sure you are well informed, and you do seem satisfied.

• 1030

Yesterday, some witnesses were discussing the case of Mennonites who had their own school—Elgin School in Ontario, which did not constitute an actual school system. The Supreme Court ruled that they did not have the right to provide a form of Protestant instruction to their children. That is why I keep coming back to this issue. My question is perfectly sincere.

Mr. Guy Beaudin: We are offering a solution and we feel confident about that solution for the reasons we have just described, although there is another one as well. We have been living with that constitutional protection, as well as with a legislative assembly, now called the National Assembly, for some 130 years now. Looking back on those 130 years and the way in which religious rights, minority rights and linguistic rights have been protected, as well as the way these different pieces of legislation have been administered, our sense is that we have every reason to trust our institutions and the National Assembly to make the right decisions at the appropriate time. We trust in our political institutions—and not just the Constitution—to make the most appropriate decisions in due course. That also informs our perspective on this issue—that confidence in our political institutions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Beaudin. Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I'm very pleased to welcome you here. Did you drown your president?

Mr. Gilles Taillon: She was unable to attend.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Oh, I see. Is it still Mrs. Drouin?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Yes, it's still Mrs. Drouin.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: Yes, it is.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: There hasn't often been a woman president, so I was a little worried.

Mr. André Caron: And she is an excellent one.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Good. Everyone is talking about all kinds of guarantees. Don't you think those guarantees are a little uncertain, in the sense that it's easier for the legislator to decide to change them?

Mr. André Caron: That may be the case with Bill 109, but it certainly isn't with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which would be far more difficult to amend. And it contains very explicit guarantees.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I keep hearing people say that Bill 109 guarantees this and guarantees that; but your view is that it's the Charter that guarantees rights, correct?

Mr. André Caron: Yes, that's basically it.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: If there were only Bill 109, we might be a little more concerned. The fact that we have Section 41 of the Quebec Charter is reassuring, though. We see the combination of the two as satisfactory.

Mr. André Caron: Exactly.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You referred earlier to Protestant school boards, and I must admit I've learned something this morning. I didn't realize that Protestant school boards were administered by the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec.

Mr. André Caron: Some of them are.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Some of them.

Mr. André Caron: Yes.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Is there not a Protestant school board federation?

Mr. André Caron: An association, yes.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: But you absorbed some of them along the way.

Mr. André Caron: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Mr. Beaudin, what is the exact number?

Mr. Guy Beaudin: We only represent the Catholic school boards, as well as one with special status, which is neither a linguistic nor a denominational school board. So, we only represent Catholic school boards.

Mr. André Caron: Well, then, I made a mistake.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Now what do you think of the dissentient school board in Greenfield Park which argued that repealing Section 93 would result in its losing its right to dissentience? How important is it to make provision for dissentient school boards? How could they be protected in the context of a language-based school system, which is something I have been advocating for a very long time?

Mr. André Caron: Are you talking about protecting Greenfield Park?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Not only Greenfield Park, because other cases could also arise.

Mr. André Caron: I believe Greenfield Park is the largest dissentient school board.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes.

Mr. André Caron: The others are small school boards. We represent all 137 school boards and the majority of our members agree on the need for linguistic school boards.

• 1035

There is also the matter of organizing and establishing all those school boards, starting on January 1, 1998, if Section 93 is not repealed. We see that as a complete waste of energy if the end result is to be linguistic school boards.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Does that mean you're against dissentient school boards?

Mr. André Caron: We're not necessarily against dissentient school boards. If we must have them, so be it, but it seems to us...

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, but again, no one will be protected there.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: That's right. As far as we're concerned, if there is no longer a Section 93, clearly there should no longer be dissentient school boards. Denominational choices will be available in the school setting, but the educational system, as well as the provisional structure, will be organized along linguistic lines, rather than denominational lines.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Lavoie-Roux.

We will now move on to the next questioner, Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Caron, the Federation represents some 136 school boards. How much consensus exists within the Federation and how did it emerge?

Mr. André Caron: The consensus is very, very broad, because we have been talking about linguistic school boards for some ten years now. We have the sense that there is strong support for this idea. I don't claim that 100 per cent of our members are in favour, but I know a very significant percentage of them support the idea of linguistic school boards in Quebec.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: To begin with, could you be a bit more precise? What do you mean by "broad"?

Mr. Gilles Taillon: During the States General, we organized a consultation with all our members as part of our General Meeting, and there was almost unanimous support for measures to implement linguistic school boards in Quebec. So, members took a firm position on the issue at the General Meeting.

Some did express reservations.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Pardon me for interrupting you. That much is clear.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: Yes, it's clear.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There is practically unanimous support for the idea of creating linguistic school boards.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Now I'm talking about the application currently before us, which is to repeal sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 93.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: You want to know whether it's supported by our members?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, by your members.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: I can answer that. We appeared before the parliamentary commission studying Bill 109 and presented the same views we have just expressed here; we have never received any resolutions from any of the school boards telling us we're wrong. We sensed that there was broad support among our members for that position.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Did you consult your members?

Mr. Gilles Taillon: Not formally.

Mr. André Caron: Not on that specific question.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: We felt we had a mandate, given that the position developed at the time of the States General had been validated by our members. Also, the brief dealing with Bill 109 was sent out to all of our members. No comments came our way. Since we didn't receive any feedback, there is no doubt in our mind that we had a clear mandate.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, one last question, please.

I would like to get some clarification with respect to the areas affected—namely Montreal and Quebec City—by the repeal of these provisions of the Act. In particular, I would like you to comment on the position taken by the Montreal Catholic School Board, whose representatives appeared before us yesterday and stated that the Board is not in favour of repealing the four sub-sections of Section 93. In your view, what is the level of consensus in the two areas affected and how do you explain the position taken by the Montreal Catholic School Board on this issue?

Mr. André Caron: As regards the position put forward yesterday by the Montreal Catholic School Commission (CECM), their comments are still fresh in my mind. While I didn't actually review all the technical details, I did not get the impression they were opposed; rather, their support seemed to be lukewarm.

As far as the Quebec City area is concerned, I believe the situation there is completely different. Mr. Beaudin.

Mr. Guy Beaudin: Indeed, our position is quite different from the one expressed by the movement behind the CECM, but I don't believe the CECM, as an organization, has actually taken a position yet. As I understand, the brief was presented on behalf of a specific movement. As far as I know, the Commission has not yet taken an official position on the issue.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. Senator Grafstein.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I'm interested in the same question as my colleague is.

Yesterday we heard two groups, one of which was the Commission des écoles catholiques de Montréal, which I assume is an affiliate of your organization. We also heard a representative of the Catholic Civil Rights League. He said to us in specific terms that one of the hurdles we must overcome as a parliamentary committee is to satisfy ourselves that there's a wide consensus with respect to the parents affected when their rights are being diminished if not extinguished.

• 1040

Are you telling this committee in clear and unequivocal terms that you're comfortable with the fact that a solid majority of parents, who are the substructure of your organization, parents who send the million...? You say you represent one million students, and I would assume that's roughly two million parents. At the end of the day, are you satisfied that there's a wide majority of the parents representing your school boards who are in favour of the amendment in section 93? Is that what you're telling us?

[Translation]

Mr. André Caron: Yes, my view is that the protection is adequate. Parents will be in a position to choose the denomination of the schools they establish. We feel the guarantees set out in Bill 109 and the Charter of Rights are strong enough for parents to feel assured of their right to exercise that privilege at the school level.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Taillon.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: I don't claim to speak for the Fédération des comités de parents. However, in the course of our discussion with them, in particular when we worked together during the consultations on Bill 109, it was our sense that so long as they were guaranteed the right to choose the denomination of their school, they were satisfied and were prepared to see Section 93 amended.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much.

The next intervention is from Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

I would like to bring back something that I believe André Caron said, which is that with the amendments or changes to section 93 there would no longer be dissentient schools. It would be denominational choices that would have to be made.

When I look at your numbers, you represent the majority. There were two numbers given, 136 or 137 school boards in Quebec. Now, 131 of them are designated as Catholic school boards, so that's the majority obviously. Two are confessional schools and two are dissentient boards, so those would be the Protestant school boards, I would understand. Basically you're only talking about a few school boards that you represent that would be considered the minority in this situation.

I think the concern I've heard from people representing that element is that because they are obviously a minority, if their protection in the Constitution is removed, the guarantee of public funding for their school boards will be removed. Although denominational choices will have to be made, there's no guarantee in provincial legislation or in anything else that the public funding would continue to go to those dissentient schools now, which would be minority schools in the future.

[Translation]

Mr. André Caron: Let's be clear: we're not talking about dissentient schools, but of dissentient school boards. But I'd like to ask Mr. Beaudin to answer your question, Ms. Meredith.

Mr. Guy Beaudin: The reason there are so few dissentient school boards in Quebec, as we mentioned at the outset, is that some twenty-five years ago, the government of Quebec began establishing a comprehensive system of both Protestant and Catholic denominational school boards. That means that some groups no longer have to identify themselves as dissentient in religious terms, and there may not be any need to establish a denominational school board. Why? Because the National Assembly got one step ahead of the game by generalizing access to educational services based on people's religious denomination. That was in the early 1970s.

Since then, we have witnessed a gradual transformation that has resulted in school boards being organized in a great many cases along linguistic lines. For example, that is the case of the Baie-Comeau Protestant Dissentient School Board, which has a Catholic but an exclusively English-speaking majority.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: But if it's already happening, I guess the question is why do we have to make a constitutional change to allow it happen?

• 1045

The second point is that of the numbers you have given me, you have said 131 of the 136 or 137 are designated Catholic school boards. I guess I should be asking if you represent all the school boards in Quebec or just part of them. Am I just seeing part of the picture with your numbers or the whole picture?

[Translation]

Mr. André Caron: We represent 136 of the 156 school boards in Quebec.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: Actually, we do not represent Protestant school boards; we only represent Catholic school boards. The latter form 90 per cent of the student population of Quebec. So, we represent 90 per cent of that population. Those are the facts.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Do you have a further intervention, Ms. Meredith? No?

[Translation]

The next questioner will be Mr. Nick Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Thank you and my compliments on your brief. As far as I'm concerned, it shed light on a great many different points. I want to commend you on it because it was extremely clear and well presented. I definitely intend to reread it.

The facts remains that as members of Parliament, we have an historical decision to make. Indeed, notwithstanding past events, we are being asked to amend the Constitution and in so doing, remove rights enjoyed by minorities. That is a responsibility that I take seriously.

You have definitely made some convincing arguments and I certainly accept what you're saying—although I did try to read through Bill 109, which refers to Bill 107, and I found it almost incomprehensible.

However, I would like to try and sort out the following problem. How will parents who form a religious minority be protected in a school where the decision regarding denominational instruction is made by the Parents' Committee? For instance, if a group representing ten or twenty per cent of parents professes a particular religion and wishes to have that religion taught to children in the school, how will it be protected under Bill 109? Would that protection have to be renewed every two or three years, subject to the goodwill of the Parents' Committee?

Mr. André Caron: We believe the current provisions of the Bill offer adequate protection to those minority groups.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Please proceed, Mr. Caron.

Mr. André Caron: I am sure that at the school level, the majority will determine the denomination of each school.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Well, then, answer my question, please.

Mr. André Caron: How can the minority in a school be protected? Can anyone help me here? I really don't know.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Well, that's precisely my problem. I believe that the decisions made will eventually mean that there are no more denominational schools in Quebec for that very reason. Protestants, Catholics and others could find themselves lumped together and the Parents' Committees will end up deciding that in the interests of the majority, religion will no longer be taught in those schools.

Mr. Guy Beaudin: I think it's important to make certain distinctions, though. The fact is the system operates at three levels, which complicates things somewhat. For example, at the first level, we have school boards, which may or may not be denominational. They are part of the structure.

At the second level, are the schools. Will the schools be declared Catholic or Protestant? That is decided one level up.

And at the third level, we have religious instruction per se. Under the current system which... Let's take the example of the Montreal Catholic School Commission, all of whose schools are currently Catholic. There are in fact Muslims attending schools that are administered by the Catholic School Commission, because in addition to being denominational, it is also public.

That same situation prevails in each and every school in Quebec. Other religions are represented in the schools managed by Catholic and Protestant school boards. That system will remain in place; there's no reason for it to change.

As regards protection of the right to religious instruction—because that is what we're talking about here—I believe Section 41 of the Charter already provides adequate protection of that right.

• 1050

Mr. Nick Discepola: I do not agree, and I'd like to give you an example. In answer to my question earlier, you said it was clear that minority groups would not be protected. Furthermore, every two years, they will be at the mercy of the Parents' Committee, when it comes time to decide whether in future they might...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Caron.

Mr. André Caron: Perhaps I could try and reassure you by citing an example in our own board. We have Catholic denominational schools. Moral instruction is given in our Catholic denominational schools and it's working very, very well. People have not protested or complained, and the program is working well.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Robichaud.

Senator Fernand Robichaud (New Brunswick, Lib.): You talk about religious instruction. But if, as a member of a minority which is neither Catholic nor Protestant, I attend a school which is neutral and I want to receive instruction in the religion I happen to practice, should I be concerned?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Taillon.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason for concern because under the current system, as set out in Section 41, some schools already have programs of religious instruction for minorities. And that will continue to be the case, because Section 41 remains in effect. This type of program already exists. Certainly there are religious instruction programs for Catholics and Protestants, but there are also secondary religious instruction programs for minorities, in those schools where there are minorities.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): On the same point, Marlene Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: As I understand the provisions of Bills 107 and 109, once Section 93 has been amended, parents will be responsible for deciding the denominational status of their school every two years.

We all know that for many years, the government of Quebec has been following a policy of regionalized immigrant settlement which has not worked very well so far, because more than 90 per cent of newcomers settle in the Greater Montreal area.

But what if in the near future, that policy began to bear fruit and we had new immigrants settling in Abitibi, Sept-Iles, the Beauce region, and so on? I would just like to digress for one moment to say that I support the Quebec National Assembly's application. Section 93 would be amended, parents would decide every two years on the denominational status of their school, and we would start to see immigrants settling in various areas of the province—immigrants who would become Canadian citizens after three or four years and who might belong to a denomination other than Protestant or Catholic. It's possible that at some point, a school could have a majority of students of a denomination other than Protestant or Catholic, and that the parents might decide that its denominational status was going to be Muslim, Greek Orthodox, Shi'ite or Hindu. However, the situation described by my colleague, Mr. Discepola, where the parents would be in a minority position, could also arise.

If that were to occur, their religion would not be on an equal footing with others, because the majority might decide that the denominational status of the school would be Catholic, for example. In a primary school of 600 students, 200 might have a different religion, and their parents would only have access to secondary religious instruction programs; the denominational status of the school would be determined by the majority.

The reason I raise this—and I don't mean to question the broad consensus in Quebec on this issue—is that many groups belonging to a denomination other than Catholic or Protestant, and even some who do belong to those denominations, are concerned about this very problem. They realize that those groups currently form the majority and that they will be able to continue to guarantee the denominational status of their school.

• 1055

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Jennings, if you don't mind, perhaps we could hear Mr. Caron's comments.

Mr. Caron.

Mr. André Caron: I can certainly understand that concern, and I think you share it. Clearly we have to work with the majority, but it will happen occasionally that that majority will change over time. If a minority ends up forming a majority, then we will change the denominational status of the school to reflect the needs of the moment. But these concerns relate to a situation that may arise only in a couple of places in Quebec. They do not justify depriving the Quebec school system of a major reorganization and preventing it from moving into the future.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Robichaud, please be quick.

Senator Fernand Robichaud: This has nothing to do with what might happen, because only Protestants and Catholics are affected.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Exactly.

Senator Fernand Robichaud: Absolutely.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Can I come back to my colleague Senator Grafstein?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I asked for the floor quite awhile ago.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Yes.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Again, taking the example of parents in a particular school voting for denominational affiliation, and let's say it's Catholic or Protestant—it really doesn't matter for the moment—let's assume that 25% of the school happens to be Muslim because they live in that particular area. What happens to those Muslim students or those non-Catholic or non-Protestant students going to that school? Are they then given alternate instruction, or are they compelled to attend all the classes in that denominational school? How does it work?

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Caron.

Mr. André Caron: I want to return to my earlier example. Catholic religious instruction is provided in our institutions as well as moral instruction for those who are interested. I think that it would be quite a simple matter to organize instruction for a group belonging to a denomination other than that of the school.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Christiane Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The right to dissentience is given to Catholics and Protestants, but not to other minorities. I think it's important to make that distinction.

Spokespersons for a number of groups have said they are concerned that this might create a precedent in terms of the way the system is managed from one province to the next. Yet we all know that various provinces have implemented other regulations and other ways of administering religious instruction.

Did you know, for example, that in Manitoba and Newfoundland, under provisions governing their entry into the Union, and even in Ontario... Quebec may seem to be doing something unique here, yet steps have been taken in the past to reflect the actual situation in the different provinces. Could you talk a little bit about that? It's important to reassure the Committee as to whether or not this creates a precedent, as well as on the consensus in Quebec, which seems to be questioned to some degree, and on the stability of religious instruction in the schools. Those are the three variables we must consider.

Mr. André Caron: I guess I can only refer you back to the situation we described in our brief. Basically, we are saying that by repealing of Section 93, we will simply be formalizing a system that has been around in Quebec for twenty-five years now. Even though, officially, we have denominational school boards, in actual fact, they are linguistic school boards in the vast majority of cases.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Caron. Before we conclude, I will allow two very short comments, first from Sheila Finestone, and then Mrs. Lavoie-Roux.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I am very pleased to hear that it was direct contact with parents that prompted you to act. That was the answer you gave Senator Grafstein.

In terms of Section 41 and Bills 107 and 109, we have never really considered the fact that they all depend on the notwithstanding clause. If we don't keep the notwithstanding clause, Section 103 and everything else fall by the wayside. I gather you are still comfortable with that—I want to explore the issue with you one more time. I want to be certain that you agree with me that the government in power will have an obligation to ensure that your schools are not threatened.

• 1100

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That was my question. I asked it.

Mr. André Caron: You are concerned about minority parents. Is that correct?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes.

Mr. André Caron: I believe we already covered that.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm talking about implementation of Bills 107 and 109, because they depend on the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. André Caron: Well, that is not a concern for us. We feel very comfortable with it.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I understand. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Very briefly, Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Did I hear one of you say that some school boards administer schools where, even though their official denominational status is Catholic or Protestant—although I think the discussion involved Catholic schools—other religions are also being taught?

Since I have not been part of the educational system for a long time, my information probably isn't current, but at the time, moral instruction was offered as an alternative to those parents who did not want their children to receive Catholic religious instruction. You talked about other religions. Can you tell me where they are being taught and what religions are involved?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Taillon.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: I believe Mrs. Lavoie-Roux is right. Parents and students have the option of not taking religious instruction, be it Catholic or Protestant. Instead they receive moral instruction. We do know, though, that in some school boards, religious instruction of a denomination other than Protestant or Catholic is being provided. I could send you the list, if you like.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You are not able to tell me...

Mr. Gilles Taillon: Well, I don't have all the information up here, but I do know that there are schools in some areas of Montreal that...

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, I would be interested in receiving that information.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: We do have the list of local programs. I could certainly send that to you, Mrs. Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Fine. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Caron, Mr. Beaudin, and Mr. Taillon, on behalf of the members of this Committee, I'd like to thank you for your presentation this morning.

Mr. André Caron: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We will take a two minute break to allow the next witnesses to take their seats at the table.

• 1102

• 1105

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Order, please. Please take your seats. The Special Joint Committee to amend Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the Quebec school system, is resuming its hearings, pursuant to the Order of Reference of October 1, 1997.

We are pleased to welcome Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin of the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec, who will be speaking on behalf of the Fédération collégiale du Québec. Welcome, Ms. Sarrazin.

Mrs. Lavoie-Roux has a question.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You must be making history today, because I for one have never seen a student federation represented by a woman who was not surrounded by men.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Indeed! Ah, ah!

Honourable Members: Ah, ah!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Welcome. Please proceed.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin (Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec; Fédération collégiale du Québec): My presentation will essentially be limited to what you have received in written form. For those who are more comfortable in English, my presentation will likely clarify things.

Our position is that Section 93 is unworthy of a modern state. Our Federation represents more than 135,000 students in Quebec who belong to fifteen different university student associations. We have three basic points to make.

First of all, the constitutional amendment requested by Quebec enjoys very broad support in Quebec. The magnitude of the Coalition pour la déconfessionnalisation du système scolaire, which has forty-three member organizations, including the FEUQ, and represents some two million people—is clear evidence of that, as is the unanimous support this initiative received in the National Assembly.

Secondly, Quebec's application essentially aims to modernize our school system. One aspect of that modernization is to have the principle of equality, as set out in the Canadian and Quebec Charters, take precedence over the rights and privileges granted to two denominations in bygone days, in order to eliminate the requirement to organize the school population according to religious affiliation.

Finally, the Fédération believes the longstanding Quebec policy of respect for English-speaking educational traditions, coupled with the current government's determination to give full control over English-speaking school boards to the Anglophone communities, offer adequate guarantees, thus we feel confident that the rights of minorities will not be interfered with as a result of this school system reorganization. On the contrary, they will enjoy full control over their institutions, whatever their denomination.

Indeed, linguistic school boards are a must. Young people in Quebec, and particularly Montreal, see denominational school boards as an anachronism that has disastrous social effects. Indeed, the majority of Francophones born in Quebec end up in the French-speaking—Catholic school system, while allophones form a majority in the French-speaking—Protestant system. Not only does this slow integration of immigrants, who find themselves ghettoized inside the school system, but it certainly doesn't encourage the Francophone majority to demonstrate more tolerance and openness to newcomers.

As for the English-speaking community, it ends up being controlled by a Francophone majority within the Catholic school boards; within the Protestant school boards, it is forced to manage French schools, even though it has no desire to do so. We believe that the establishment of linguistic school boards would make it possible to consolidate the Quebec school system in accordance with the provisions of Quebec legislation.

The current situation, which serves the interests of neither the Anglophone nor the Francophone communities, is forced on us by the Canadian Constitution, and specifically Section 93 of a Constitution that was passed in a bygone era.

On what grounds could one possibly oppose modernity? Only the most reactionary among us could be against a government that wants to ensure that children can grow up together, whatever their religion or the religion of their parents. We were astounded to discover the position that some members of Parliament have taken on this issue.

Perhaps opponents of this initiative agree with the idea of ethnic ghettos? Perhaps opponents of this initiative agree with school segregation, as it is currently practiced in Montreal? Or perhaps opponents of this initiative are simply allowing themselves to be manipulated by some federalist big guns who are always quick to view any consensual initiative as an attempt to oppress Anglophones in Quebec?

• 1110

We simply want to remind opponents of this initiative that the secularism of the State is a principle widely applied in modern states. School boards, like the schools themselves, should not associate themselves with any particular denomination. The fact that the State is secular in no way prevents any citizen from practicing the religion of his choice. We simply believe that a school system organized on denominational lines is a relic of bygone days.

A refusal on the part of the federal government would have two consequences. In concluding, we would also like to emphasize that the consensus in Quebec includes most of the Anglophone community, in particular Anglophone Catholic or Protestant teachers associations, and Anglophone student associations. A refusal on part of the government of Canada to pass the proposed amendment would have two consequences—one unfavourable, and the other favourable.

First of all, the government of Quebec would be forced to comply with Section 93, as it is currently worded. It has already undertaken to maintain religious instruction, but it would also be required to guarantee protection of Catholic and Protestant denominational rights within linguistic school boards, through the creation of denominational committees acting as "religion police", an invention worthy of only the most retrograde States.

Secondly, the Parti Québécois could use this federal blunder as an additional argument in support of Quebec sovereignty. Even though we are sovereignists, we are willing to improve the operation of the Canadian federation in the interests of children in Quebec, and particularly in Montreal. If you are determined to maintain your policy of predicting gloom and doom and prevent Quebec from modernizing its system, you will only be giving us an additional argument with which to demonstrate your complete inability to understand what Quebec is all about.

Our generation has absolutely no interest in a school system organized along denominational lines. That is obvious. The establishment of linguistic school boards will in fact strengthen Anglophone rights. That, too, is obvious.

Quebec has long been under the yoke of the clergy. Our parents are proud of the Quiet Revolution, proud of having achieved the separation of the Church and the State. That work is not yet completed. Section 93 is a vestige of the Church's control over society. We would like the Constitution to accommodate the new reality, rather than the opposite.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the best interests of the youth of Quebec, both Anglophone and Francophone, and in the interests of newcomers who have every right to harmonious integration into society, we ask that you not allow yourselves to be swayed by the arguments of the anti-Quebec lobby, and that you amend Section 93 of the Canadian Constitution in accordance with the consensus in Quebec.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. Sarrazin. I am sure your presentation will generate some questions from our colleagues.

Senator Grafstein.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We do have to attend caucus, and I did want to hear this brief, so I thank my colleagues on the committee for allowing us to go out of our turn for this particular brief.

Could you tell me what percentage of the students you represent are Catholic, what percentage are Protestant, and what percentage are other than Protestant or Catholic, or do you know?

[Translation]

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: Well, to be perfectly frank, we have never done any surveys to determine that. The particular denomination to which our members belong in no way influences our position. Perhaps that in itself is evidence that students base their position in this case on their aspirations for their society and their school system, and not on their religious values.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Do you have another question, Senator Grafstein?

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Just to expand on that, one of the obligations we have when we deal with rights or collective rights, or whatever one wants to call them, is some obligation to satisfy ourselves that the minorities who have those baskets of privileges or rights are in effect consulted and they agree. How can we, from your evidence, determine that a majority of Catholic students, a majority of Protestant students, and a majority of other students agree with your position? Or is this just a position of your executive?

• 1115

[Translation]

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: I didn't think I'd have to convince Committee members of the legitimacy of our position on this issue, but if I must, I will.

As part of the States General on Education, held in Quebec recently, the Student Federation organized a number of discussion groups with various members, including Anglophones.

Subsequently, before tabling our brief at the National Conference, a Quebec Student Assembly was organized in order to ensure that student members of our Federation would be well represented. It was at that same assembly that our position on linguistic school boards was reconfirmed.

So, as I said earlier, the Fédération's position on this issue is not based on the religious affiliation of our members, but rather their aspirations for the school system. It is our view in order to fulfill the needs of our modern society, school boards must be organized along linguistic, rather than denominational, lines.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. Sarrazin.

Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: It was obvious from the outset that you were sovereignist, but at least you're honest about it, since you clearly state that at the end of your brief.

The position taken by the Fédération does not surprise me. But I think it's important for you to know that despite the opposition expressed last week or over the past ten days, people generally agree with the principle of organizing the system on the basis of language. It's really the repeal of Section 93 that has many people concerned that guarantees are being dropped.

I have a question with respect to the last paragraph on page two of your brief. Are you against denominational schools or are you in favour of a completely secular school system? I know among sovereignists, and perhaps even among federalists, there is support for a totally secular system.

When the possibility of linguistic school boards first began to be discussed, I was the first to officially recommend them in Quebec back in 1976. So, I certainly am not against the idea, although the question of whether the system should be denominational or secular was not as burning an issue as it is today.

Am I to understand that your real goal in the mid- to long- term is complete secularization of the school system?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: Exactly.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I see.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: That is our goal: complete secularization.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You are too young to remember this, but the French-language secular school system movement dates back to... I think I was in my early twenties at the time. That was a long time ago. The main obstacle today is Section 93; it is what prevents them from lobbying even more openly against a denominational school system and in favour of a secular one.

I think it's important that people have a choice, as long as it is the system is open, or as some people were saying, there is no discrimination. But I'm not sure that in a society witnessing a erosion of values—there are hardly any left, family is no longer a priority—we should necessarily be discarding all our spiritual values. That worries me a little.

Doesn't it worry you?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: We are in fact concerned about the vacuum in current Quebec society as far as values are concerned. On the other hand, we don't think that maintaining denominational school boards will allow us to restore those values, rebuild the family, and so on.

Rather, it's by teaching the history of the different religions that we will achieve that, so that young people are able to decide for themselves what values are most important to them.

As things now stand, we have a choice between two denominations: denominational Catholic or moral instruction, as the previous witnesses were mentioning. That's the way it was for me in both primary and secondary school, and my view is that the system did not yield the desired results in the wake of the Quiet Revolution.

We have to make our school system fit the current reality. We have to find other means of encouraging young students to develop their own system of values. I believe it's by teaching students other things—whether it be civics, the history of the different religions, or the history of our own society—that we will attain that goal, not by maintaining a denominational system.

• 1120

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: In any case, your position is clear: your medium- and long-term goal is complete secularization of the school system. You say on page three that the government of Quebec would be forced to comply with Section 93, as it is currently worded. It has already undertaken to maintain religious instruction.

You say that to reassure people, yet you are not ruling out the possibility that it might be eliminated and that people would establish their own...

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: That's a debate we may want to have at a later date, but as far as we're concerned, amending Section 93 so that it applies in Quebec is a step in the right direction. We realize that any amendments made to a Constitution must come at the end of a thorough debate and enjoy broad support, which is certainly the case now, and we also believe the guarantees given by Quebec are consistent with the current consensus.

Now in terms of our aspirations, as both students and future parents, it will be up to us to initiate that debate, perhaps a few years from now, with a view to putting comprehensive legislation in place.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mrs. Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Beaudoin, please be brief.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I don't want to cut her off.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Lavoie-Roux, did you want to ask for an additional clarification?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: No, I'm sick and tired of being muzzled.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I'm not trying to muzzle you at all. If you want an additional question, please go ahead and ask it. If you don't, we will move to Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: What I wanted to say about ethnic ghettos is that I think it's important to realize that religion is not the only cause of this phenomenon. Certainly religion has been one factor, but cultural ghettos have also been created as a result of attitudes on the part of some members of the Francophone community. In that sense, I also think it is natural that new immigrants be integrated into the French-speaking community, since it makes for a smoother process of Francization. I said that back in 1976. So, there's nothing new there, as far as I'm concerned.

But we mustn't blame religion alone for the problem of ghettoization. You are young. A great many other factors were involved and may even have played a more important role in creating that kind of ghettoization. How is it that even though we tried at one point to distribute immigrants all across Quebec, they all ended up in Montreal? There again, there are a number of factors at play, including the facilities to handle and absorb them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Briefly, Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: With respect to the consensus, there is no doubt that the National Assembly supported this initiative unanimously. But do you think there are other factors that support that consensus?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: I think it can also be argued that the very existence of the Coalition pour la déconfessionnalisation du système scolaire, which represents some two million people, is additional evidence of that consensus. If there has been such a substantial mobilization of civil society to request that our system be undenominationalized, and if members who represent Quebeckers are unanimous in asking that this go through, to me, it's pretty clear that there is consensus on the issue.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Where does your figure of two million come from?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: From adding up the members represented by each of the member organizations of the Coalition. I believe the Coalition will be presenting a brief to the Committee. It may be able to provide you with further clarifications regarding that figure.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Perhaps I should also point out, Ms. Sarrazin, that you are represented in two different places. You are also represented by Quebeckers in the Parliament of Canada.

Your brief is entitled: "Section 93: Unworthy of a Modern State". I thought I should point that out because Section 93 is the section that deals with education, and which declares it to be a provincial responsibility. So, I presume you are referring to sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Section 93.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: The title was obviously meant to shock people a little. That's how young people change society's customs and attitudes: by shocking people into listening. But you're right, we are referring to those parts of Section 93 that deal with denominational schools.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Quickly, Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There I'll have to raise a point of order. But you don't object to that part of Section 93 of the Canadian Constitution that says that education is an exclusively provincial responsibility. That certainly is not unworthy of a modern state.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: I realize that...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I understand what you're saying about the first four sub-sections, because that is the whole basis of your position, and I respect everybody's view on this, but I'm just trying to establish that you do not in fact object to the idea of education remaining a provincial responsibility.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: No, certainly not.

• 1125

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Goldring, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you for your presentation.

With your separatist leaning, in removing section 93 from the Constitution, are you more interested in stepping away from the Canadian Constitution with your application on this, or has your group actually considered and explored or been advised of the existing section 93 and whether it could be improved upon to reflect the modern education concerns of Quebec? Have you actually investigated improving it, or is it simply your interest to step away from the Canadian Constitution by repealing this section for Quebec?

[Translation]

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: I believe I spoke to that during my presentation. We did indeed state that we are sovereignists, out of a desire to be completely up front with everyone taking part in these hearings today. It's always a good idea to set the ground rules.

At the same time, as we've already stated, we are quite prepared to improve the Canadian Federation, notwithstanding our sovereignist position, so that it can better meet our needs.

To respond to your specific question, we believe that it is by repealing the first four sub-sections of the Constitution, rather than by improving on them, that we can bring it into line with the principles of modern Quebec society.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): A supplementary for Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: The question was: Did you investigate whether section 93 could be improved upon—in other words, left where it is, but changed and improved upon—rather than simply repealing subsections 93(1) to 93(4) for Quebec? Did you investigate whether it could be improved upon?

[Translation]

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: As far as I know, in all our discussions on this issue, the Federation only ever considered repealing these sub-sections, rather than improving upon them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The next questioner will be Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't need to tell you that I really enjoyed your brief, not only because of your conclusion, but also because of the premises you set out. Basically, your brief clearly states three things. You say—and I would like you to elaborate on this—that if this amendment passes, one of the major consequences for the Quebec school system will be to allow it to consolidate the Anglophone system, given the fact—and I know you read a lot—that the Chambers Report said there was no real Anglophone school system in place at this time. There are schools, but all of that is being eroded, and the amendment would in fact have the effect of consolidating the school system. I think you should say a bit more about that. Secondly, you clearly suggest that what you are demanding—and you have every right to demand this, even if it means upsetting people's habits, because you represent 135,000 people who are the heart and soul of the Quebec school system—is a school system that is truly inclusive.

There will be common schools and newcomers—and we hope to have more, because of the 35,000 who come to Quebec, 90 per cent settle in Montreal—will be taking part in a plan to develop a common culture, because they will be in a school system that fosters that. That's what your brief says.

It is your third premise that I am not quite so much in agreement with. It's on page three.

Honourable Members: Ah, ah!

Mr. Réal Ménard: As you can see, there's a real sense of camaraderie amongst parliamentarians. What is important is that our colleagues here understand that everyone, or so I believe, wants to see this amendment pass.

In any case, linguistic school boards will eventually be put in place because Bill 109 contains provisions to that effect. Were that not the case, linguistic and denominational school boards would have to co-exist. Nobody wants that to happen, because that would mean six separate school boards for Montreal. That is not in the interests of taxpayers.

On the last page of your brief, you say:

It has already undertaken to maintain religious instruction, but it would also be required to guarantee protection of Catholic and Protestant "denominational rights" within linguistic school boards, through the creation of "denominational committees"...

You are referring to the Woehrling Solution, named after the famous university professor who I believe will be appearing before this committee—a solution which amounts to creating religion police. I'm wondering whether "religion police" isn't one of those expressions that only a twenty-year-old who's full of fire can get away with.

• 1130

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Sarrazin.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: First of all, in terms of consolidating the Anglophone system, the figures speak for themselves. The situation that currently prevails in the denominational school system is in no way helping to solve the problem of consolidation of the Francophone and Anglophone systems.

According to the Coalition's figures, among English-speaking Quebeckers, 34.32 per cent are Catholic, 33.24 per cent follow other religions or have no religion, and only 32.4 per cent of English-speaking students are Protestant. What that means is that the current denominational system no longer fills its primary role, which is to bring Protestant students together under one system.

So, give them full powers to structure their school system on the basis of one criterion—which is what everyone wants—that criterion being language. Quebec has two official languages: French and English... Sorry. Two languages co-exist.

The school system is one of the best means of helping students to learn that language more effectively. That is why school boards have to move with the times. What was your second question?

Mr. Réal Ménard: My second question had to do with your lively defence of proper integration of new Quebeckers, something that will finally be possible, especially in Montreal, because that is the whole mission of a common, inclusive school system. That is a goal your Federation supports.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: Yes, because as we see it, the way the system currently works tends to ghettoize or separate Francophone Catholics from new Quebeckers. It is important that they be together in the same schools, that they learn to live together—either through play or by learning about different things—that they learn to respect each other's cultural differences and that they make them part of their lives. The City of Montreal and Quebec as a whole can only be enriched by their cultural contributions.

As regards the religion police, you may be right to say that the fact we are young and full of fire may have influenced our choice of expressions, but it is a fact that the Quiet Revolution entrenched the separation of the Church and the State. We see it in other areas of our lives—in marriage, for example.

The Church forced us to accept its conditions with respect to entering into marriage, its effects, the causes of nullity, and so on, and the Quebec National Assembly was determined to include those same rules in its Civil Code in order to give civil legitimacy to an act that is part of our lives as citizens; if we choose to do it in a religious context, we follow the rules of the Church. I think it's time we did the same for our educational institutions as well.

We are taught in our constitutional law classes at university that the Canadian Constitution must keep pace with the times. The authors make that point and Jacques-Yvan Morin repeats that in the introduction to his book on the constitutional evolution of Quebec in Canada.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Perhaps Committee members would like a copy?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Please continue, Ms. Sarrazin.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: Mr. Morin tells law students like us that one might be tempted to believe that our Constitution is immutable, but it has in fact been shaped over time through the will of the citizens governed by it.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Morin is contributing to your education.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Marlene Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Good morning, Ms. Sarrazin. I read your brief with great interest. It really made me laugh. It reminded me of the time I was twenty and the world seemed very black and white to me. There was no hint of grey or any other colour for that matter. Now that I'm a few years older, I tend to see things in a lot more shades. But I want to commend you anyway. It's a great brief. I don't agree with everything you say, but I do agree with your conclusion, which is to support the amendment requested by the National Assembly.

• 1135

I would like to get your feedback on two specific points.

On the second last line of the last paragraph on page 3, you tell us not to allow ourselves to be swayed by the anti-Quebec lobby. I think it's very important to point out that the men and women of Quebec who came here to advise us not to support this change are of every possible political stripe in Quebec—in other words, they include sovereignists, indépendantistes, nationalists, federalists, Marxist-Leninists perhaps, socialists, and social democrats.

So, it seems to me that's a rather insulting thing to say, and I'm sure that's not what you really meant. The fact that someone doesn't support the resolution passed by the National Assembly does not mean that person is anti-Quebec or that he is against the plan for Quebec society the Parti Québécois is advocating.

I would be interested in hearing your comments on that.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: The reason why we added that sentence to our presentation is that we believe there is currently a consensus among both Francophones and Anglophones in Quebec.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, there is.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: On what grounds could one possibly reject a constitutional amendment that seeks to respond to a consensus, a consensus that takes the form of unanimous support in the National Assembly and support within a civil society that mobilizes in order to bring forward this request? I realize we cannot expect every one of our fellow citizens in Quebec to support this. However, we are part of a democratic system. I believe the majority has made its position very clear and it's for that reason that we...

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Before that paragraph, you in fact state that the Fédération supports sovereignty for Quebec. I'm sure you will admit that the way it is worded, people reading that second last sentence of your brief might interpret it as meaning that they are anti-Quebec or anti-sovereignist. As far as I'm concerned, support for, or rejection of, this amendment to Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 has nothing whatsoever to do with a plan to achieve sovereignty or anything else.

It's really a matter of bringing this into line with a modern society that recognizes the separation of the Church and the State. Fortunately, we have already witnessed that in Quebec, with the Quiet Revolution. To continue this process of modernization, we are now talking about implementing linguistic school boards which, sooner or later, may even become secular.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: Perhaps the wording of our brief suggests a cause-effect relationship, but that is not the basis of our argument.

When we say we are sovereignists, our only point in mentioning it is to make it clear that even though we are sovereignists, we are prepared to amend the Canadian Constitution to... We want the Federation to continue to work effectively. We do have an ultimate goal, but it's important that the Canadian Federation continue to operate effectively in the meantime.

As far as the anti-Quebec lobby is concerned, as I have already said, the connection being made was between a strong consensus in Quebec and a refusal on the part of federal parliamentarians.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You said your Federation had no data on which religious groups its members belong to. However, do you have data on the linguistic background of your members?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: The majority of our members are Francophone. We also have one student association made up primarily of Anglophones, which is the one at McGill University's Macdonald College campus. However, our Federation does work closely with the McGill University and Concordia University Student Associations. It's a question of establishing closer ties between the Fédération and these other associations which are not members. That process is already underway.

• 1140

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a couple of brief comments to make before I put my question.

First of all, I find it reassuring that irreverence is still alive and well in student federations, as it was back in my militant days. I completely agree with you: that's the way it should be.

Secondly, I want to comment on an observation, or rather, a question you asked in your brief:

Or perhaps opponents of this initiative are simply allowing themselves to be manipulated by some federalist big guns who are always quick to view any consensual initiative as an attempt to oppress Anglophones in Quebec?

I think I should point out that we have heard from at least four Anglophone groups, two professors from McGill University, as well as Alliance Quebec, which I should mention was not against the amendment. If you read between the lines, I would venture to say they are leaning in favour of repeal of sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 93. We also heard from Forum Action Québec, a group I just discovered, and the provincial association of Catholic Teachers of Quebec. At least those four are all in favour. So, you shouldn't think that anyone here is being manipulated or oppressed by federalist big guns. In my view, there is a very strong argument being made by the English-speaking community in Quebec in support of an amendment to Section 93.

As far as you're concerned, Ms. Sarrazin—and this brings me back to Ms. Jennings' questions earlier—is it possible to be against the separation of Quebec and to love Quebec at the same time?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: Of course.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: We very much appreciate your presentation. You are a very clever woman. You can tell your professor that he will soon be looking at a politician.

You think you were the youngest, but you're about to be outdone by Ms. Sarrazin.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: He already has been.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Ms. Sarrazin, you raised the matter of the Chambers Task Force in your presentation and I found that quite interesting. You also say that there must be a well-established consensus, that people must live in harmony and that a reorganization of the school system will not interfere with minority rights.

If we do proceed—and I certainty hope we do—with establishment of linguistic school boards, and there are new Quebeckers whom you refer to a number of times during your presentation—from the United States, England, Australia, and Hong Kong, say, where people speak English, do you think these immigrants should be included in the language-based school system?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: You're asking whether they should enter the language-based system, since their mother tongue is English?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes.

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: My view is that if they arrive in Montreal at a time when linguistic school boards are already in place, they should first be required to learn French, even though their mother tongue is English. Then they'll be able to get along, but I do think that in order to adapt to life in Quebec, they absolutely must learn French.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Nothing would prevent them from learning French. All my children attended English schools, but they speak French just as well as you do. That has nothing to do with learning a language. You may learn several languages, but you have only one culture. It's a country with a common culture, but not a common religion.

Have you reviewed the issue with respect to paragraph 23(1)(a)?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So, you have studied Section 23 of the Charter?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: Not in detail, but I do know something about it.

• 1145

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I think it would be worthwhile to take another look at the connection between social aspects, cultural life and language, to see whether it's all the same thing or whether there are special differences between the French language and the English language.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much.

The next and last questioner will be Mr. Nick Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I want to go back to your comments about consensus and clarify one thing. There is a consensus regarding the need to establish linguistic school boards. I would even say there is unanimous support for the idea. I challenge you to name one parliamentarian who has spoken against that consensus.

On the other hand, there is no consensus or unanimity on how that can be achieved. That is quite another matter.

I would also like to say that the purpose of a Constitution is not to protect the majority, as you mentioned a couple of times. The purpose of a Constitution is to protect the minority, and I think it's important to say that when you change a Constitution, you have to be sure that there is a consensus within the minority that's affected.

Those are my only comments, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Do you have any additional comments, Ms. Sarrazin?

Ms. Marie-Claude Sarrazin: And according to you, would the affected minority be those people who want to continue to have denominational instruction in schools, or would it be the Anglophone minority? If it's the Anglophone minority, how can we give them school boards organized on the basis of the things they want to preserve—such as the English language? That's discriminatory towards English-speaking Quebeckers. That's what I'd like opponents of this to explain.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: On that subject, it's very important that Madame Sarrazin understands that equally important in learning a language comes a learning and appreciation of the culture. English is not only a language; it is also a cultural heritage, the same as French has a cultural heritage. Both are magnificent heritages. But you are not looking at assimilating a population, I would hope; you're looking at integration.

There's a great difference between integration and assimilation, and there's a great difference between English culture and French culture. That's what I believe my colleague Nick was referring to.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Sarrazin, I want to thank you on behalf of the members of this Committee.

You say in your brief: "We are willing to improve the operation of the Canadian federation." I say: you are most welcome here. Thank you very much for your presentation today.

The Committee stands adjourned until 3:30 P.M. this afternoon.