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

• 1531

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.)): We continue the sitting

[English]

of the special joint committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the Quebec school system, pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 1997.

The first witness this afternoon is REAL Women of Canada, represented by Madame Gwendolyn Landolt, the vice-president; Sophie Joannou, membre du comité de direction; and Diane Watts, researcher.

You're welcome with us this afternoon.

I'll just say a few words about the rules. You will be given about eight to ten minutes to make your presentation, and then after that we'll have a period where the members will be asking you questions.

I understand you're making the presentation, Madame Landolt. You may proceed.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt (National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Our organization is an interdenominational organization that has been in existence since 1983, and we are made up of Protestants, Catholics, as well as other faiths. We have taken a grave interest in this proposal to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, because we believe it will have long-range ramifications for our members and families across the country, not just in the province of Quebec.

In fact last May at our annual meeting in North Bay, we passed a resolution in connection with section 93, our concern being that this is a major change in Canada, and we would like to see this amended not by the section 43 amending formula, which we suggest would not be applicable, but rather by the section 36 amendment, which is dealing with the seven provinces and 50% of the population.

The reasons for this I'll go into later, but first of all, Madame Watts, who is representing Quebec, would like to make a few comments. Then I'll follow up with a few other comments and then we'll be open to questions. Madame Watts would like to make a comment from her perspective as a parent in the province of Quebec.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Watts (Researcher, REAL Women of Canada): Honourable senators and members of Parliament, we thank you for the invitation that has afforded us this happy opportunity to share our affirmation of the importance of the family.

In Quebec, 80 percent of parent have democratically chosen moral and religious education over secular moral education for their children in school.

These statistics show that the Quebec government does not have a mandate from the people to weaken Quebeckers' rights to denominational education.

Some 95 percent of the 2,500 Quebec schools have denominational status as a result of parent choice.

To impose the secular ideology of a political elite against the will of mothers and fathers would be a totalitarian rather than a democratic action.

• 1535

If Catholic and Protestant parents cannot rely on the their constitutional rights being a stable feature of the education of their children, how can we trust that the rights of the smaller religious and ethnic minorities in Quebec and Canada will be honoured in future?

In a country that views itself as pluralistic, this amendment of an important section of the Constitution sets a dangerous precedent. We feel that the elimination of federal protection for the rights of mothers, fathers, families and children would weaken our democracy in Quebec and probably in the other provinces.

This resolution attacks the rights of the majority of Catholic parents and the rights of the Protestant minorities in Quebec. It could open the door to other amendments that could weaken Catholic minority rights in Ontario and potentially in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. In many cases, these would be the rights of the Francophone minority.

A few members of Parliament were wondering what interest our organization, Real Women of Canada, had in this controversy. It is clear to us that the parents of Quebec and Canada have an interest in the education of their children. As an organization, our goals are to reassert the priority rights of the family and to promote, secure and defend any legislation that maintains the Judeo-Christian values of marriage and family life.

We feel that parents' rights to the support of denominational schools are very important. Our values should be part of our children's education within a comprehensive framework recognized by law, that is to say within the family, society and in the schools.

In the great debates on education, we tend to note the interests of government, unions and school boards, but to forget the priority interests of parents and their children.

Our institutions are often unaware of the concerns of parents, mothers, fathers and grandparents. What has occurred in Quebec in recent months is a classic example of this. Legislators and education ministers seem to think it is up to them alone to control the education that children receive, whereas the direction of education should really be a matter for parents.

It is mainly the family that suffers the consequences of inadequate moral and religious education and that, like society, benefits from comprehensive education. It is families that build the future of the country, and it is mothers and fathers who dedicate themselves to the education of their children, which is provided in part by the schools. Those children will be the next generation of citizens.

There is clearly a serious lack of understanding about the family, which is the most important unit in society. We hope that the discussions between the parents and the members of this committee will lead to a better understanding of the family's true function in our society.

We note that the consequences of this amendment request will spread across the country to strengthen society and our rights if the amendment is rejected or weaken them if it is passed.

We hope that you, honourable senators and members of Parliament, who are directly responsible to the people and not to the provincial government, will act in such a way as to protect parents' rights as regards the overall education of their children.

We hope you will protect us from any anti-democratic, anti-constitutional and anti-family action.

Thank you for your attention.

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

[English]

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Our concern from a legal point of view is that, as we all know, section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 says separate schools will be protected as they were at the time of Confederation. The only two provinces that applied to, of course, were Quebec and Ontario.

The amending formula in section 43 says there must be in fact a resolution not only from the province but also from all provinces affected. That would also include the province of Ontario, and Ontario has not been consulted on this. If you read section 43, that is the very plain reading.

• 1540

Similarly, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which entered Confederation in 1905, and Manitoba, which entered in 1870, also made references to protection of the denominational schools. They also are affected, yet under section 43 they have not been consulted.

We suggest that the amending formula in section 43 is definitely not applicable, because if you read section 43, it says it deals with provincial boundaries and language rights in a province. But we're not dealing with language rights here at all; we're dealing with a totally different issue, which is the right of education in denominational schools. That means section 43 does not apply for numerous reasons. There's no resolution from the other provinces affected by section 93 as set out in section 43 of the charter, nor has there been a response or consent from the provinces affected.

More significantly too, by saying this amendment from the Quebec National Assembly is only a provincial matter affecting Quebec, we are in effect stripping all the other provinces of their constitutional rights as well. As the Supreme Court of Canada said, the denominational schools were one of the basic compacts of Confederation; they said that in a 1987 case. What we're saying is if this resolution is passed, denominational schools are no longer constitutionally protected, but are just a private matter between the province that passes a resolution and the federal government.

If we can do this, and remove the constitutional shroud of protection for denominational schools by an amendment under section 43 of the charter, why can't we make all sorts of other constitutional changes on the premise that it's only a section 43 private matter with the particular province?

Our concern is if the precedent is set that Quebec, on the basis of a section 43 amending formula, has a private right to decide whether or not constitutional protections will continue for denominational schools, then a domino effect will also occur in the province of Ontario and again in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, which are also affected by section 93.

We submit that on this question, as Madam Justice Bertha Wilson said in a 1987 Supreme Court of Canada case on education, constitutional protection of denominations and education rights is a basic compact. It's the very pillar upon which Canada entered into Confederation. It's one of the major tenets. Language rights are constitutional. Religious rights in education were one of the very pillars upon which we entered into Confederation. This is suddenly being swept aside simply by a private resolution of the national assembly and the federal government, and it will have a domino effect across all of the country.

The problem is that inevitably, when you say the province can legislate away constitutional protection—a province, without the consent of the other relevant provinces—then in effect we are left with a provision of the Charter of Rights that says, very importantly, there's freedom of education and freedom of religion, under section 2.

We had two cases in the Ontario Court of Appeal that said the only thing that protects religious education in Ontario is in fact section 93. The Court of Appeal of Ontario, in two separate cases, has said if you sweep away section 93 constitutional protection, there will be no religious education in any public schools.

In other words, what happens if Quebec can remove the constitutional protection for denominational schools? A domino effect goes into other provinces, and we know that inevitably, in view of the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the charter will come in and sweep away all protections.

I know the province of Quebec has said they will continue to provide religious education, but they will not be able to do so, because it's quite clear that once you lose the section 93 protections, section 2 of the charter will come in, and there can be no more public funding for denominational or even for private religious schools. That affects Alberta. The Alberta government funds its religious as well as charter schools.

• 1545

In other words, the impact is going to be that we'll simply have a public school system throughout all of Canada. This again is so changing and so fundamental to our understanding of Canada that this has to be a section 38 amending formula. Previously I said section 36; I meant the section 38 amending formula, which says any change in Canada's Constitution must be by way of seven provinces and 50% of the population.

By this amendment, if the federal government goes along with it, the whole of Canada will be diametrically changed and the whole system will be changed. When you want to change your understanding of Canada, you have to have the section 38 amending formula. You simply can't do this private provincial matter under section 43, which is not applicable, as I've discussed previously. That is our concern.

We're on the edge of a precipice. If we pass this resolution, we're saying we no longer care that there be constitutional protection for denominational schools. We're calling upon the joint committee to look at this very carefully from a constitutional point of view, because the plain reading of the charter indicates that this one particular step will end our Canada as we understand it today.

We want to show our accommodation—we do want Quebec to be part of our Confederation—but we cannot at the same time do it under an invalid process. It's too important. And if we have difficulties constitutionally now, just think what's going to happen when all of this school system is changed.

Thank you very much. We're ready for any questions you might have.

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

We will now proceed with the question period, and we'll start with the first intervener, Jason Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, ladies, for your presentation.

I'd like first of all to ask you a theoretical question. The proponents of the amendment have argued that it's necessary, in an age of religious and social pluralism, to remove these special entrenched privileges for particular denominational groups. However, it's my understanding that in the Quebec education system, dissentient minorities generally have access to education rights now. Do you really think the interests of social and religious pluralism are well served by removing section 93, or do you think that pluralism is in fact protected by section 93?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: There's no question in our mind that section 93 protects the religious pluralism, and the dynamic of a country is based on different views, different perspectives, and different faiths. Section 93 was placed there to protect that pluralism and the differences—constitutionally protect, not just casually protect. You don't use a majority decision to remove constitutional rights. If we want a vital, lively, pluralistic nation, we have to retain section 93.

Mr. Jason Kenney: My supplementary question relates to the argument presented by the Government of Quebec and by Minister Dion that parental access to denominational and confessional education will not be diminished by the amendment to section 93, because Bill 109 of the amended Quebec Education Act provides for continued access to schools with a denominational character and to religious and/or moral education in the public school system. They further claim that these provisions allowing for denominational education will be sheltered from the charter by the invocation of the notwithstanding clause with respect to Bill 109.

In other words, this argument you've presented us, that the two Ontario precedents—the Zylberberg case and the Civil Liberties case—somehow present a threat to denominational education.... Well, the Quebec government's response is that they've been prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause to ensure that the charter does not diminish the confessional rights provided by Quebec statutes.

Do you think the statutory access to denominational education is adequate, given the protection of the notwithstanding clause?

• 1550

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: No, it's not adequate at all.

What will happen is that Quebec, as well intentioned as they are in saying they're going to retain the denominational schools, religious rights in education, will not be able to do so. If they try to invoke the notwithstanding clause, the difficulty with that is that it has a sunset provision in it, so that every five years it must be renewed. It must be renewed again at the will of the majority of the National Assembly. Again, it's removing the constitutional protection of minority rights, and for the non obstante clause, or the notwithstanding clause, to be invoked is extremely dangerous because it means the will of the majority again, over the constitutional rights.

Mr. Jason Kenney: It's been argued that the support of the majority is the ultimate protection for continued access to confessional education in Quebec. Witnesses before this committee, including you, have pointed to the large majority of parents in Quebec who choose religious education when given the option. They argue that this political majority will in a sense force the National Assembly to continue to invoke the protection offered by the notwithstanding clause.

Are you satisfied with this political protection that seems to be available in terms of a consensus in Quebec in favour of confessional education? Also, if this is the case, why do we need constitutional protection in addition to the apparent majority support for denominational education?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: I'm certainly not satisfied with the political...because the whole purpose of a constitutional protection is that the will of the majority will not overtake that of a minority. Minority rights are constitutionally protected, and it would be very unsatisfactory to know that the minority rights are protected only by the will of the majority.

It's totally anathema to our understanding of Canada and our understanding of the very pillars upon which our nation is built. We would be very reluctant and would never go along with that argument.

We've seen too much of party politics dictating votes. We've seen, even in Quebec at the present time, that the people who are the stakeholders, the parents, were not properly consulted and how easily they can lose their rights.

The only thing that can save minority rights is a constitutional protection.

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

[Translation]

We'll now hear Senator Lavoie-Roux.

[English]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux (Québec, PC): Thank you very much for being here.

Do you have the feeling that in Quebec for a long time...? Forget about the long time. Of the people who have appeared before us, even the ones who have much reticence about whether confessional schools will be properly protected or not...I would say that the large majority of the people who came before us said they were for a linguistic structure instead of a confessional structure. Is that your feeling?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: No, I think people want both the linguistic as well as the denominational. I understand that when the estates general met in 1996, something like 63% of the briefs said they do want denominational schools. It's significant that the Supreme Court of Canada, again, has said that linguistic schools can coexist with the denominational schools. My understanding is that the people in Quebec really do want both to continue.

In the references I've read from the Quebec groups coming, they all say they want both. We're quite happy to have linguistic schools, and the court has said that you can have both.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: This morning a group appeared before us—I believe it was the federation of the Quebec school boards—and they said the population was largely consulted. I think it's them. They distributed a list of consultations that have been made—unfortunately, I can't find it right away—which showed that there has been consultation. Maybe it was not on section 93, because I don't think people generally are very familiar with this, unless they really have addressed the problem.

Is it your feeling that the people have been consulted? That's what we hear.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Not at all.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Not at all.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Quite the contrary. There were no public consultations.

Also, the resolution in the National Assembly dealt with linguistic rights; it didn't deal with the issue of the loss of denominational schools. The problem wasn't addressed really directly. But people spontaneously, through the estates general hearings, have responded and said they want denominational schools.

• 1555

But Madam Watts, who is from Quebec, could probably answer that better than I.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Watts: Yes, the problem was addressed from a linguistic standpoint, but the danger of losing the rights we have had in this country for more than 100 years was not explained.

I believe that parents in Quebec rely on all the players in the educational field: the family, the clergy, the churches and the schools, all those groups without there being any conflict. I know that parents in Quebec want moral and religious education. They say so when they vote for religious moral education instead of secular moral education. They vote for that every year in the schools.

That's the choice parents have made and it's a democratic choice.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: As you know, there has long been talk in Quebec about a linguistic rather than denominational division in the school structure, and that has been for two specific reasons. First, it's been to consolidate resources for Anglophones which are now divided between the English Catholic and English Protestant sectors, and the same is true for the Francophone sectors, particularly the French Protestants who form a small group. Second, Bill 101, which you either like or you don't like, and Bill 22, which was passed by the Liberal government of the time, provided for the integration of immigrants into French-language schools. We now see this less and less obviously, but many of them were nevertheless required to go to English Protestant schools because there was this denominational division between Catholics and Protestants.

Don't you think it was legitimate for us as a society to think that the integration of immigrants was a good thing? Are you from Montreal, Madam?

Ms. Diane Watts: I was in Montreal. I no longer live in that region now.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: But you know that there was a massive integration of non-Francophone immigrants into English-language schools in Montréal. There were all kinds of reasons for that. Then, at one point, not just one government, but two governments wanted to change things slightly.

So don't you think it might be legitimate to want to have a linguistic rather than denominational division of schools since the idea is to consolidate educational resources on the one hand and to integrate immigrants into French-language schools more easily on the other? Do you find that legitimate or not?

Ms. Diane Watts: I believe you have to be careful not to say that one or the other must be done. We can have both.

Since Bill 109, there has been a decentralization of the school boards, which now permits a greater diversity and variety of choices for parents. However, I believe that telling us we have to choose one or the other, a linguistic or denominational system, limits us and is very restrictive. I wouldn't want to say it's totalitarian, but it's headed in that direction. I also believe it would be unacceptable for Quebeckers.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: On the other hand, we've also been told that Bill 109 contains sufficient guarantees to ensure religious education survives, or even for a school to declare itself denominational based on a decision by parents. That's not enough for you?

Ms. Diane Watts: No. And certainly not if the constitutional protection is removed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin (Shawinegan, Lib.)): Thank you, Senator Lavoie-Roux.

[English]

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Under section 2, on freedom of religion, the Charter of Rights prohibits public funds from going to any religious instruction in the schools. Right back as far as 1985 the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case called the Big M case, said freedom of religion means no faith is to take priority in Canada and every religion is the same. In other words, it's freedom from religion.

• 1600

That was way back in 1985. We're now in 1997, and we've had a repeat decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal. There would be no protection. As well intentioned as the Quebec government may be to provide that, it would be prohibited from using public funds to do that when the constitutional protections of section 93 are removed.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Senator Lavoie-Roux. Mr. DeVillers.

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

[English]

I guess it was Ms. Landolt, was it, who made the comments about whether we could use section 43 to make the amendment? If I understood correctly, the committee has heard evidence and expert opinion on whether this is the appropriate amending vehicle or not, and I believe we will likely be hearing some more.

I want to make sure I understand your comment. I think it was to the effect that because we're not dealing with the boundaries of the provinces or the use of English and French languages in section 93—that is, we're dealing with denominational rights—it's your opinion that section 43 isn't appropriate.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Yes, that's one reason. The second reason is that section 43 also says that the legislative assemblies of all provinces affected must also agree, and that has not been complied with either.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: On the second one, I think that's open to opinion. But on the first one, as I read 43, it says:

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces including

And then the two examples are only examples. It's any provision.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Yes, except we're dealing with something so broad and so profound.... As it is, section 43 is a quick action so that anybody...I understand 43. The purpose of putting that in the charter was so that if any other provinces were affected, they should agree.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Okay.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: But really, in effect, we are fundamentally changing the Canadian Constitution, and you have to go back to the amending formula of section 38. Section 43 is only for dealing with a minor issue, as it were, a private matter within the province.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So it's the second part of your argument that you're relying on. You agree that when it says “any provision...including” that on the simple wording it's open to—

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: No. I wouldn't say that. I think a persuasive argument could be made for both elements.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: That's the second element of your argument.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: In particular, but I think the fact that we're dealing with a fundamental constitutional right to denominational rights in education...even though they've given two examples, they never meant it to apply with a profound and fundamental restructuring of our Constitution. That was really only to be a private matter.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But then why would the words “any provision” be there?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: As I said, the whole purpose of section 43 was really just to be a private provincial matter—any provision dealing with any private provincial matter. Never in a million years did the framers of the charter ever consider that you could fundamentally wipe out a constitutional right, a pillar upon which Canada was built.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I understand that.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Senator Beaudoin, you're the next speaker.

[English]

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I have two questions. One is on section 43. You say it does not apply.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: That amending formulation is inappropriate in this particular circumstances. We would have to go to section 38.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: This is the first time I've heard that. The problem here is whether under section 43 it is bilateral or trilateral because of Ontario. But since later on we will have many experts who are going to come here to deal with section 43, I will not go any further. But you say it does not apply.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: I would absolutely, irrevocably, say it doesn't apply, and I am of the mind that it is such a profound decision as to the appropriate amending formula that this should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: I agree with you. It's possible to have section 93 as it is and to have a superstructure of French and English schools. Nobody disagrees with that. The Supreme Court decision was very clear-cut. The problem is they selected another way and the resolution before us is to discard subsections 93(1), (2), (3) and (4).

• 1605

If we are for denominational rights, I think we have to be fair and have denominational rights for all religions. One way or the other, you have to amend section 93, because now Catholics and Protestants are in a privileged situation. Of course, Quebec may give the same rights to the other religions. No problem. It may be done tomorrow night. It is already done to a great extent. The problem is, if we invoke the Constitution and the denominational rights, if we follow your logic, we should amend section 93 and do that for the other religions.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: First of all, we know it is Catholic and Protestant because that existed at the time of Confederation, as well as in the other provinces. But if you eliminate that right, I'm suggesting, because of section 2 of the charter, plus some decisions already made by the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada in the Big M supermart case, they would say we cannot fund any religion because it means public funds cannot be used for any religion. The Ontario Court of Appeal was absolutely clear on that, saying you can't have religious instructions, you can't have prayers in the school but for the protection of section 93.

For example, the province of Alberta already funds private Christian schools. They also fund charter schools; they can be Muslim or whatever you want. The provinces are free to do that. However, when you remove section 93, it says no religion, period, can be used for public funds. That's our concern about what's going to happen.

So if we want that pluralism, which is a dynamic and very important part of our national identity, we have to allow protection of religious rights and religious education.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin.

[English]

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Yes, but the problem remains there. If you keep section 93 because you want to safeguard denominational rights, in strict justice we have to do that for every religious group, not only for two.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: It depends upon the government. The Government of Alberta has decided if numbers warrant you can have a charter school and they'll pay for it. The province of Ontario may not, but the province of P.E.I. may say no, we can't afford that.

I know you're a constitutional scholar, but we know we have to abide by the terms of our Constitution. We can't say that's not fair in 1997. If we're going to change that framework of our Constitution of 1867, then we must do it by the amending formula of section 38. Let's all get in this and study it and say maybe that is unfair, but we just don't do it by bilateral agreement. This is so profound a change.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin. Mr. Mauril Bélanger.

[English]

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

First, I want to refute your categorical belief that section 43 doesn't apply, that it only applies to minor issues. Do you consider the guarantee of francophone rights in New Brunswick to be a minor issue?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Of course, I don't, but it's a matter of dealing only with the province in that sense.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is only applying to Quebec, and it's not a minor issue. We've agreed that section 43 does not apply to minor issues.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: No, I wouldn't say that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Maybe I used the wrong words, Mr. Bélanger. Perhaps I should have said dealing with issues only within a province.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's fine.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: They've given two examples. It's not a minor issue. Of course, I don't agree that language rights—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You used the words “minor issue”, Madam, and that's what I wanted to refute.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: I'm sorry, but perhaps I used the wrong word.

What I would like to make clear is that we want to preserve language rights, and if you remove section 93 you're going to remove the importance of language rights.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Let's get on to that. You want to preserve language rights. Tell me in section 93 where it covers language rights.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: I'm saying if you can remove educational rights and religious rights in education by bilateral agreement between the federal and provincial governments, there is no reason why that same precedent cannot, in the province of Saskatchewan or British Columbia, remove by the same precedent the language rights of other provinces.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Language rights?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Or New Brunswick, or even—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Careful. You're mixing language and religion.

• 1610

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you accept section 43 as a precedent for the constitutional protection for education, then it can also be applied for other rights in Canada.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Section 43 specifically prohibits using that formula—that's the bilateral or multilateral formula in the case of two provinces agreeing to a territorial change, for instance—for language issues. It's a red herring you're raising here.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: With respect, I don't believe that. The plain wording of section 43 would indicate that you cannot use it.... It's really an expedient solution for a private matter with the province.

But we're not dealing with a private matter; we're dealing with a long-range change to Canada.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Obviously, I'm not going to get where I want to go on this tack.

One more question, if I may. Which minority rights are you wishing to defend here?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: All rights of denominations with regard to education—all of them. Under the Constitution as it stands now we have Catholic and Protestant, plus in Alberta we have other faiths.

Once you remove section 93, I'm suggesting that from the previous decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada we will not be able to have any faith protected, whether that's Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish. That's because public funds will not be able to be used for any religious education.

Based on the cases we have to this day, unless there is a diametrical change in the minds of the jurists in Canada, which I don't think will be the case, the trend is very clear: that is what is going to happen. This is especially when the Supreme Court of Canada has already interpreted what it means by freedom of religion, which means really freedom from religion, in effect, with public funds.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you.

Mrs. Finestone would like to ask a supplementary question further to Senator Beaudoin's question.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Welcome. There are a few things I want to address with you, Mrs. Landolt. First of all, section 93 is not disappearing, but subsections (1) through (4) are disappearing. Section 93 says:

In and for each Province, the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education

Therefore, that remains.

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that they are not constitutionally required to provide faith-based education, although they may do so if they so choose.

You've just outlined Alberta and how Alberta has chosen within its own mandate and within its own province. Quebec, under Bill 107 and Bill 109, and using section 41 of their Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, has determined that their choice will be to ensure that the schools will provide not only, as you wish, to protect strictly Roman Catholic and Protestant education, but they wish to broaden the horizon by allowing the consideration under section 41 of all religious rights. This will be secular in terms of the school in language, but certainly there would be the right to have religious education determined by the local school boards.

When I read your introductory statements in your brief, I found them a bit too categorical, quite frankly. You say:

Whereas S. 93 of the BNA Act provides protection for denominational schools in Canada based on the recognition of minority religious rights....

That's true in a very restrictive sense, as Senator Beaudoin pointed out. It was why I wanted my question to go right after his.

Second, it said:

Whereas the protection of denominational schools is a matter which has serious ramifications for all Canadians since it relates to the protection of all minority religious rights in Canada....

Well, I'm sorry. I believe in what I have just read: section 93 standing, except for subsections (1) through (4), and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, in that the obligation, onus, and financial management rests with each of the provinces.

Quebec has demonstrated in this bill that they wish to continue to ensure, at the grassroots, with parents, and in the interests of their children, that decisions will be made there as to the character, personality, and teaching within that school.

Do you find the analysis I have just given you—I know you love to analyse—inaccurate?

• 1615

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Yes, with respect, it doesn't quite touch the issue. The issue is the question of constitutional protection for denominational schools within Canada. With section 93, it means they must protect them. With the removal of section 93, they no longer are compelled to do so.

Once that constitutional protection is removed, they will then be prohibited by previous decisions from having any public funds used for religious education in the public school system. Even though the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms of Quebec does have section 41, that will still be subject, unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you want it, to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also to the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on the interpretation of it.

I'm suggesting that if you can't have.... Quebec is simply removing—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Ms. Landolt, I'll point out to you that the Supreme Court of Canada—

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: —all the denominational rights in education to simply make that linguistic.

They can do both. They are welcome to it. They can have both. The Supreme Court of Canada said they can coexist. That's what we're saying.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): We still have three speakers: Senator Grafstein, Ms. Meredith and Mr. Godin.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib.): Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you for this evidence.

I want to deal with the question of section 43 and equality and section 93 and equality. Let me just pursue the model that people have been talking about in Alberta. We accept that section 93 will stay in place no matter what, which means that each province will have the exclusive right to education within its province, which is its historical right.

Now the question you raise is section 2 and what happens within that province. Let me suggest a model to you. Let's use Alberta as an example. Say that Alberta, under its provincial educational jurisdiction—this is exclusive to it, save and except section 93, which is still retained fully there—sets up a model whereby each denomination, where numbers warrant, are entitled to equal funding. What court in the land would strike that down?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Maybe no court would do it or no province would want it, but no province would be compelled. For example, Alberta is doing it, but even with the funding of the other schools, Alberta is still compelled under its terms of entering into Confederation, to maintain the Catholic and Protestant ones. That's what we're getting at.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: No, I understand that, but now I want to turn to Quebec and the Quebec model. I take your brief as being a serious brief, but when you use words to say.... I'm quoting from page 9:

As such, they cannot be construed as merely a private matter between one province (Quebec) and the federal government,

We are not, Madam Landolt, dealing with a private matter. This resolution is not a private matter. This resolution is a unanimous resolution from a duly constituted province of Canada. It's a resolution that has to be matched in part by a resolution of the Parliament of Canada. It's not a private matter between those two constituent assemblies. It's a public matter, but it's bilateral in nature.

So when you say it's private, it seems to demean the process here. Quite frankly, we're here to look at matters that Quebec did not look at, which is the question of consensus, law, and rights. But to say it's a private matter is being fair neither to the Parliament of Canada nor to the province of Quebec.

So I say that as a proposition, but I want to get back at this question. We've now heard that you represent women, but we have heard from organizations that represent both genders. There's the Catholic school teachers association, which has 3,000 teachers. I assume a great plurality of this is women. The Catholic school federations represent 136 school boards out of 159, which I assume represents a majority or a good plurality of women. We've heard from a student federation that represents 2 million students—the representative was a young woman—and I assume there's a plurality or a strong majority of women there. We've heard from the Arab association, which I assume represents male and female, and we've heard from the archbishops, which is the only group that I don't think represents male and female in their individual capacity but certainly in their religious capacity would represent a spiritual view of the Catholic church.

• 1620

All of these groups, almost of overwhelming consensus—it's not a minority consensus—have said, for whatever reason, they are in favour, or in fact not opposed to section 93. Now you come before us—and I respect your views—representing REAL Women, and we've heard from a mass of real women in the province of Quebec who have in effect said they are in favour of this change. Which consensus are we to listen to, yours or the ones I've just related to you today?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: REAL Women is part of a common front, as you probably know, that is right across Canada. We're one component of a whole organization of a common front of people who are very concerned about this issue and who do not agree that there has been a consensus in the province of Quebec, simply because the stakeholders, who are the parents and the children....

You can say it went to the National Assembly and it is not a matter dealing just with Quebec. That's the whole point of our position. All of us in Canada are going to be affected by this, because a precedent is being set.

We're suggesting that there has not been a consensus. Organizations have said that, but that's not the stakeholders.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: But, Madam, I have asked specifically that question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): A short comment.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I've asked that question of the school teachers, of the school federation, of the student federation, and of the Arab group. I've asked, does this represent the views of the parents and the students within the ambit of your organization? Nobody has said no. Quite the contrary, the teachers said they liaise with the students and the parents. The Catholic school federation said exactly the same thing. We've heard that the students' organization has liaised...they have looked at this and say there is not a minor but a very strong consensus within the province of Quebec.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: But you have also heard from many other people and organizations in the province of Quebec, and we've seen their briefs as well, Senator, who have said quite the contrary, who have said there has been no consensus, this matter has not had public consultation, and the issues at stake have not been prioritized and made quite clear. You can agree with one or you can agree with the other, but there are many who do not agree with the position that there has been a consensus. Many of those people are not just us, a national organization, but are Quebec-based organizations.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Madam Chairman, as a final comment, the consensus we got was here. In effect, we are having public hearings to do something the province of Quebec chose not to do, for whatever reason, which is to hear from the various groups within the province of Quebec. We've heard from them here.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: I hope you're not suggesting it has been absolutely unanimous, that there has been full consensus in Quebec.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: No, I didn't say that.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: There's much disagreement over the issue of consensus, Senator.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Madame Meredith.

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

I will say it's interesting that you are the first group who have addressed the real issue of this argument, which I have been bringing up; that is, this argument is over public funding of education. But I want to ask you if you feel in 1997 that the Canadian people believe there should be a constitutional guarantee for public funding for religious schools.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: My response would be yes. It seems to be that this is what people want. There's disagreement, but I do believe many parents—and certainly our membership has indicated to us unequivocally—want to have public funding of religious education. Not all of us want to have our children raised without any religious instruction within the school.

Ms. Val Meredith: The question is not whether there should be, but should there be a constitutional guarantee for public funds for religious schools?

• 1625

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: The answer is yes, there should be, and we will lose it if we follow through with this amendment. As you've said, the people do want constitutional protection for public funding of religious schools, and we'll lose it under this if this change goes through.

Ms. Val Meredith: If you feel that is the feeling of Canadians, then section 93 should remove any reference to any denomination and include all religious schools. I don't know, because we have never asked Canadians, but I question that Canadians want to be responsible for paying for any and all religious teachings in a school situation.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: I'm glad you raised that, because it probably is a basic issue that we're trying to address. All of Canada is involved in this, and if we're going to have a debate on whether it's Catholic or Protestant or all religions—Sikhs or Jewish or whatever—we should have it on the table and deal with a section 38 amendment, which would mean seven of the provinces and 50% of the population. We just don't set the precedent with Quebec only. I think it's a matter of national debate, because what you're suggesting would also change the constitutional structure of Canada. You therefore can't just whip this thing through and set the precedent of 43. Let's deal with the whole issue.

Ms. Val Meredith: Would REAL Women of Canada support an amendment to section 93 that would take out “Catholic” and “Protestant” and include “all religious organizations”?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: I have no idea what they would do. We've never addressed it because it's never come up. That's never been brought to our organization, but I can tell you that we certainly do believe there should be religious rights in education. I don't know whether they'd want to remove the “Protestant” and “Catholic”, though, because we have a vast mixture of members.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I would like to make a brief comment. You spoke about the union that was agreeable to repealing section 93. The union is not a machine; it consists of individuals, human beings. I have a great deal of respect for the unions that have done something so great for our country. People, parents, men and women work for a union. Today, whereas they are making a recommendation... We don't see anyone in the streets in Quebec telling the unions they did the wrong thing.

What's also difficult when you see what occurred at the National Assembly... Normally, the opposition likes to criticize the government. However, in this case, everyone said the same thing. It's odd to see. There had to be consultation of some kind.

It's true that some people came here and said there was no consultation. But there were people who had the opportunity, who were definitely in a position to say what they had to say. Those who took these kinds of responsibilities or made decisions will have to account for themselves before other people in order to get reelected. Consequently, they will have staked their careers on a single issue.

That's the comment I wanted to make. In one way, this disturbs and gives me pause. It's rare for the National Assembly to be unanimous on an issue. There could at least have been two objectors who wanted to make political hay. But there wasn't even that. To my mind, that poses a problem, a problem that concerns Quebec.

You also said that the change will cause a problem in Quebec that will spread to the rest of the country. But we in New Brunswick are already familiar with that. We haven't been protected by section 93 or by the Constitution because we don't have denominational schools. I believe I'm right in making that statement.

If the Constitution is there to protect minorities, which is definitely what we were in New Brunswick, and there are others elsewhere in the country... Only six are protected by section 93. The Constitution didn't protect all those people. Where has there been discrimination? In four of the Canadian provinces and in the Territories?

Those are the questions I have.

[English]

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: With respect, with regard to the unions, I don't believe they actually called a vote on the issue. I think it was a decision made by the union executive, but there has been no call to the rank and file. So that does change it somewhat.

With regard to New Brunswick, as you know, it entered Confederation in 1867, along with Ontario and Quebec and one other province. At that time, there were no separate schools in New Brunswick, so there were no separate schools at that time to be protected under section 93.

• 1630

Again, there is the fact that they're not constitutionally protected religious and educational rights, because at the time of Confederation it was a different situation. I therefore didn't mention New Brunswick for that reason. I referred only to the provinces that were affected by section 93 at the time they entered Confederation.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): I'm going to ask you to be brief, Senator Beaudoin and Senator Lavoie-Roux. Then we'll be finished.

[English]

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: It's just a question of the number of provinces involved. In my opinion, section 38 cannot apply because we have only six provinces to which section 93 applies: Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia—and there is of course the question of the confessional schools there, but that's another thing—British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island. So I cannot see how you could apply seven. Newfoundland, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta have a different wording. This is why we all come to the conclusion that section 43 applies in this case, obviously. The only question is whether it's two or three. I think it's two in this case, Quebec and Ottawa, but some may say it's three. But even if you go further than that, it cannot be more than six, because there are only six who have the same wording.

Anyway, I don't think it's—

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Senator Beaudoin, I think at the time of Confederation, section 93 applied only to Quebec and Ontario because they were the only ones with separate schools. Section 93 applied only to those in existence.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Yes, but 93 is the same.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: But if you look to the wording of the Alberta Act, entering it into Confederation, and of the Saskatchewan Act, entering it into Confederation, those acts refer to the fact that section 93 will apply. That is the difference. When Newfoundland entered under term 17, it did not refer to section 93. That difference with Newfoundland was a “twirl”, as you'd call it.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: This is not my opinion, but would you agree to extend the denominational rights to other groups?

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Our organization, as I mentioned previously—

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: I mean constitutionally.

Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: I don't know. We've never directly addressed the issue. Maybe the time has come to do so, but I think it has to be debated nationally, since it would fundamentally change the structure of Canada. But whether our organization agrees or not, I personally have no idea. We've never even thought about it.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Ms. Landolt. Senator Lavoie-Roux, have you finished?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Senator Beaudoin asked my questions.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Very good. Ms. Landolt, Ms. Watts and Ms. Joannou, thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you very much.

• 1633

• 1636

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): We continue our proceedings and now welcome the representatives of the Association pour l'éducation interculturelle du Québec, Ms. Fabienne Desroches and Ms. Rachida Azdouz. Ms. Desroches, you have the floor.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches (President Ex-officio, Association pour l'éducation interculturelle du Québec): Madam Chair, the two of us, Ms. Azdouz and myself, will take turns in making our presentation. As Ms. Azdouz is the President of APEIQ, she will begin.

Ms. Rachida Azdouz (President, Association pour l'éducation interculturelle du Québec): I would like to emphasize at the outset that APEIQ subscribes to the principle of the right to private religious practice. This is thus not the subject of this brief or of this debate, which concerns the place of denominational status in the public sphere.

First of all, I would like to talk briefly about the association that Ms. Desroches and I represent. The Association pour l'éducation interculturelle du Québec and the Projet d'éducation dans une perspective planétaire have joined forces to present their views on the amendment to section 93.

APEIQ, a non-governmental association dedicated to bringing Quebeckers of all origins closer together is working in this spirit to sensitize and train stakeholders in the organizational environment. Projet EPP represents five French-language universities and is striving to establish the concept of responsible citizenship as part of initial teacher training programs.

I should point out that, in the view of these two organizations, there is a great difference between denominational education and moral or religious education. The first concerns instruction in the beliefs and rights of a particular denominational group, whereas the second entails instruction in the spirituality, history and culture of various religious groups.

This is why what we are advocating here before you is not that religion be taken out of the schools, but that education in religious faith be replaced by cultural education in religion for the benefit of all students, not reserved exclusively for the students of either religious group, Catholics and Protestants.

This is where the full meaning of the amendment of section 93 of the Canadian Constitution becomes clear in the modern and pluralistic society in which we live. In this constantly changing world, education has a primary role to play, with schools being the ideal place for integration and education in equality.

It is an important role that must be played if we want our society to reflect our democratic values and compliance with the law. In this sense, school is a reflection of society and the first level of social integration. It is often the only place where all students of all origins and religious denominations can come into contact with each other.

• 1640

If we want to develop social cohesion and a sense of belonging to and our will to participate in the society in which we live, we feel it is important not to move toward a separation of denominational groups and to amend section 93 of the BNA Act. In this brief, we will attempt to explain the reasons for this statement.

The fact that groups wish to maintain section 93 may be explained in the historical context of the founding peoples, which had only two main denominations. However, in the modern context of a constantly changing society which has lost all the homogeneity that legitimized this exceptional provision or privilege, this section has harmful effects in that it legitimizes other requests and goes against the context of modernity and current values, including the well-known modern value of religious neutrality in the public sphere.

We here offer a brief overview of various harmful effects that would result if section 93 were maintained. In our view, this section does not reflect the values of respect for the rights of our democratic society since, as regards the public education system, it only guarantees rights for Catholics and Protestants. The consequences of this situation run counter to democratic values and to respect for rights in our society.

This state of affairs violates a principle very dear to us: the principle of fairness, which is as precious to us as the principle I stated at the start of my presentation, that of respect for the right to the private practice of religion.

This principle of fairness is very dear to us in that these exceptional provisions reserved for religious groups, despite their historical legitimacy, can scarcely be defended today in our modern social context, characterized by cultural and religious pluralism and the need to make schools a place for integration and education in equality rights.

What will happen to our modern societies when each of the other denominational groups also claims its own schools, since this section encourages other denominational groups to band together and seek subsidies so that they can offer denominational education consistent with their beliefs?

This will result in a proliferation of so-called ethnic schools and the death of the neighbourhood school, which is the place where students learn "to live together" and "to want to live together".

What will happen then if each of the other groups also demands its own schools—and this kind of claim is ultimately legitimate if we acknowledge that it is legitimate for the other two groups—and the same services as those offered to Catholics and Protestants?

What is more, we should not merely be thinking here of the ethnocultural groups immigrating to Canada. This is a sensibility we have because we are an intercultural association, but this does not apply just to ethnocultural groups. There are also all the sects whose membership is increasing at dizzying speeds. There are now more than 600 recognized sects in Quebec. Based on what logic can they be denied what only the main groups enjoy?

Who will subsidize these schools? Where will we find the buildings to locate them? People forming one specific denominational group will come and settle in the neighbourhood where their school is located, which will enhance the phenomenon of ethnic or ethno-denominational ghettos.

What will happen then to the neighbourhood school? All the surveys have shown that, first and foremost, parents want their children to attend the schools in the neighbourhoods where they live. If this can't be the case because of the splintering of educational institutions, it will be hard to create and maintain a climate of exchange and welcome for new arrivals. This will delay the harmonious integration of citizens as a whole.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: I'll continue.

As a result of this section, university faculties of education, which are represented by the Projet d'éducation dans une perspective planétaire, which has co-signed our brief, offer training in denominational education that monopolizes nine credits.

This training is provided to people who in many instances are not active church-goers, but want to increase their chances of being hired by potential employers who ask them to teach the subject. This training costs millions of dollars a year and, in Francophone training centres, is solely for Catholics.

• 1645

Who pays for this training? Is it the general public or the groups that benefit from it? As we all know, public taxes pay the cost of this training. Is this really fair for the other denominational groups? However, if section 93 were maintained, could we afford to pay for all the initial teacher training for each of the religions requesting funding? We very much doubt it.

Once again, the amendment to section 93 would help solve this problem. Besides, the section is not consistent with the spirit of the charters as regards minority groups since it protects only the rights of the Francophone and Anglophone majority groups and requires the other denominational minority groups to pay the cost: university training, denominational committees, scheduled time and educational material.

Lastly, the purpose of this amendment is not to abandon education in the values of spirituality, religious culture or moral instruction. The consequence of the amendment will be to strengthen parents' role as those primarily responsible for the denominational education of their own children. On this point, the most recent Léger & Léger poll on changes in attitudes toward the 36 issues concerning Quebeckers shows that the clergy have less influence than they used to, but that, while Quebeckers virtually no longer practise their religion, they have kept their faith and thus their spirituality. This led Mr. Léger to say that we were witnessing an evolution of denominationality toward spirituality.

Let us also consider the non-denominational status of the Cegep system in Quebec. The situation has not resulted in any claims by groups of any religious denomination whatever. This suggests that the primary and secondary levels could undoubtedly operate on the same basis of denominational neutrality as well.

Ultimately, we feel that denominational education is more a private than a public matter. If we want to make Quebec a harmonious society, it is imperative that we see section 93 as preventing this and agree to amend it as soon as possible.

As we have just demonstrated, it is the socialization role of the schools that is threatened by this section. All Quebec students will thus become skilled in and capable of discussing and working with the representatives of a number of religious, ethnic, social, sexual and other groups.

In conclusion, the amendment of section 93 would be a step toward the creation of a secular space that advocates instruction in spirituality, moral values and the history and culture of the various religions. Maintaining section 93, however, could result in a proliferation of ethnic schools and prevent those groups from coming into contact with others and being integrated into Quebec society.

This amendment does not in any way mean that the schools will be closed to any form of spirituality. On the contrary, we reject the negative secular model, but advocate cultural instruction in religious values. Our goal is the acquisition of knowledge about the history and conduct of the first civilizations that have shaped the world.

However, we also believe that the denominationalization of the members of a religious community is a private matter. To assist in this, secular educational institutions could eventually make some of their premises available for this purpose and the representatives of each group could share those premises.

Similarly, an extracurricular schedule could be developed based on the various requests made for this purpose. The content of denominational education would be determined outside any departmental program. It is in this spirit that APEIQ submits this brief. We are also submitting a brief overview of our association for the information of committee members.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Madam.

Ms. Rachida Azdouz: I'll try to do that fairly quickly.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Yes, please.

Ms. Rachida Azdouz: I'm going to introduce APEIQ briefly. We would like to make it clear that APEIQ is an apolitical organization. I was about to say "apocalyptic" organization, since we're talking about religion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Quickly, please.

Ms. Rachida Azdouz: Yes. My Judeo-Christian background is showing.

APEIQ is an apolitical association and refuses to identify with or officially join any political party. Our association wishes to maintain this orientation so as to be consistent with its status as a non-governmental association. It is also one of the few associations that promotes the intercultural model of interaction between the various cultural components of society to foster the emergence of a common democratic and pluralistic society model.

• 1650

APEIQ was founded in 1982 to bring the various groups involved together and maintain social cohesion.

APEIQ is an organization that is convinced Quebec is a fundamentally democratic society. We therefore advocate the values of democracy and total secularization. Secularization that is not anti-religious is one of the values we advocate.

Our democratic system is based on freedom, equality and the full participation of all citizens. School is one of the places where children learn and exercise this democracy and it must respect fundamental democratic values including fairness. All Quebeckers thus have a responsibility to respect the fundamental values stated in the Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms, at both the federal and provincial levels, and in the other statutes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you very much. We are now going to proceed with the question period. I'll ask Mr. Goldring to begin.

[English]

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

Thank you very much, ladies, for your presentation.

Some think when the National Assembly passed this motion or this resolution, because they passed it with a completely unanimous vote, it may have been passed politically. For example, I don't think we would have everybody in this room agreeing on it. But the National Assembly passed this unanimously.

With this consensus we spoke about earlier, Senator Grafstein mentioned some numbers from another group where 2 million were in the consensus. This was a group that I believe was in here earlier, and it had two series of numbers on it. One was 135,000 students, and there was another number here of 2 million students. There's a feeling in the room here by some that we may very well have a consensus totalling 20 million by the time these meetings are finished.

So my question to you, ladies, is how many people does your group represent?

[Translation]

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: Before giving a specific number in response to your question, I would tell you that the National Assembly was democratically elected by citizens who wanted to do their duty as citizens and that we are not questioning the legitimacy of our government bodies. That's the first point.

Second, here we are representing members of our association and the people we reach on each of the committees as well as the five faculties of education at five different universities and 24 Cegeps in the Cegep system.

We have not counted our members to determine how many students or individuals we represent. We have boards of trustees and we are here today as part of a process of democratic representation.

So I can't tell you exactly how many thousands of individuals there are in the Cegeps and faculties of education. At APEIQ, we have 20 trainers who work directly with us and are involved with several hundreds of individuals each year.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Was your group involved in discussions of this before the National Assembly passed this resolution? Was your group asked to be involved in any discussions on this reform?

[Translation]

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: We took part in the Estates General on Education, which addressed the denominational issue in 10 or 11 chapters. We were heard and we submitted a brief for each of the projects; we have been working with the Coalition for Undenominationalization for the past five years.

Ms. Rachida Azdouz: With your permission, I would like to add something. What we brought to the debate as part of the Estates General was not only the views of our members, but also those of hundreds of education stakeholders who deal with cultural and religious diversity on a daily basis.

We also represent this sensibility, which may not be quantifiable, but which is extremely representative of what goes on from day to day in our schools and of the urgent need to undenominationalize the public sphere.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Senator Beaudoin, the floor is yours.

• 1655

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Your presentation was very clear as regards denominational rights and section 93. So I won't question you on that because that's not necessary.

However, when you talk about religious instruction, what do you mean by religious instruction in the schools or elsewhere? I believe every society has values. I pity those that don't. Generally speaking, every society has its values. We have democratic, cultural, linguistic and other values, but there's another component. Religions in general have values. So can you tell us what you mean by "religious instruction"?

Ms. Rachida Azdouz: Do you want us to distinguish between the cultural and religious aspects?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: We're fine as regards cultural, linguistic and legal values. We would like to hear you on religious values. Do you mean historical or philosophical instruction in the major religions? Or do you go a little further in instruction in those religious values?

Ms. Rachida Azdouz: We don't think that instruction in religious faith is the only place where existential issues can be addressed. We recommend and advocate schools that are more than utilitarian and thus socializing schools, but there are also meaningful schools.

Both you and I know that, like all institutions, schools are in the midst of a crisis of meaning. It's in this sense that we don't deny the role of spirituality in the schools. However, spirituality is one of many potential answers to young people's existential questioning. It's one among many. I don't know whether I'm being clear.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: May I add a few words? Thank you.

When we talk about religious instruction, we distinguish it from denominational instruction. It is not instruction in the rites we took part in and that I knew denominational schools.

It is instruction not only in the history of these religions, but also in their impact on civilization. The idea is also to recognize the values that they transcended and introduced throughout history and to analyze all these trends as a result of which the differences may perhaps not be as great as one might imagine. It is the understanding of the entire evolution of religion in our civilizations so as to better understand why today we have come to the point today where we are advocating these values.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Mr. Ménard, the floor is yours.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I would like to say that I like this brief very much. Some may think that, under this somewhat sturdy exterior, I haven't thought about religion. I would like to tell you that those people are wrong.

I agree whole-heartedly with you that a distinction must be drawn between religious instruction and instruction in the values that religion has given us. I had a teacher who influenced me and defined religion this way: she said that a person who has a religious feeling is someone who believes that mysteries exist and that a person who sees problems where there are mysteries could be characterized as superstitious, not religious.

I admit I was quite proud I took that course and it helped me a great deal in understanding religion.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Was it a Dominican who told you all that?

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, Senator, it was a woman.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Was it a Dominican woman?

Mr. Réal Ménard: A woman you would have appreciated as well, Senator Lavoie-Roux.

I would like to ask you a question. We have very clearly been considering the proposition that, within a set of cultural values, there may be religious values and that Protestants and Catholics should not have the advantage. Isn't that what you're saying here this afternoon?

Could you show us how a city such as Montreal would do well to adopt thinking along the lines you are proposing in its educational institutions? As you know, for many, the amendment concerns only Quebec City and Montreal; not exclusively, but you will agree with me that there is a very particular problem in Montreal.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: First I would like to repeat that, when we talk about denominationalization, we're talking about Quebec City and Montreal.

I would like to draw your attention—and this stated in our brief—to the fact that the phenomenon of religious sects is much more predominant in the regions than in the major cities. Of all the sects, the most active in education are the Jehovah's Witnesses, who inundate us with requests for a denominational amendment. It isn't the Muslim or other groups that are making these requests.

• 1700

There are also requests for an amendment from Pentecostals and Evangelists. And we can see that all the religious dramas currently taking place in the United States and Canada are not originating within major known religions.

Mr. Réal Ménard: How do you define a sect?

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: A sect is very difficult to define. The Human Rights Commission and the charters have been consulted to determine whether sects are religions.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I won't tell you what my colleague...

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: Studies have shown that the tendency was to recognize sects as religious movements in the same way as religions are recognized, and the last brief by the Quebec Human Rights Commission was along these lines.

I believe that civil society is already operating on the model we advocate in this brief, since education is the last denominational bastion in a secular society and if we want to persist in denominationalizing the school system, we will increasingly see—and this has already begun—requests for denominationalization in the work place, that is to say requests for religious accommodations in schedules and places of worship. I'm talking here about Quebec, not about other situations with which I'm not familiar.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): One moment, Mr. Ménard. Ms. Marlene Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I would like to start by apologizing for being unable to attend the first part of your presentation. During the second part, however, I was able to look at your brief which I found very interesting and, like Mr. Ménard, I agree with many points you make.

In talking about the secularization of the school system, you said that this would be a neutral system.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: Negative secularization.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes. It's not negative. A secular school system can and must transmit spiritual values on the one hand as well as values that are entrenched in our charters and which are values of equality, fairness and non-discrimination. You also said that, even in a secular school system, parents and religious groups not wanting to continue providing religious education could certainly enter into accommodations with the schools to secure the necessary space and, if necessary, to have additional programs.

Can you tell us whether you have already seen these kinds of accommodations, whether they already exist, perhaps in other countries or in other societies?

Ms. Rachida Azdouz: To answer the first part of your question, our position is very clear: we are not advocating a form of secularization that denies any form of religious expression or even religious instruction, for two reasons.

First, there is an educational reason, a general cultural reason: we must understand the great civilizations that shape the world and we must know about the major religions. Second, we must respect the functions of the schools: schools are a place where we transmit not only knowledge, but also behaviour, and spirituality is one of the ways of learning behaviour.

As regards other places in civil society that could take over from the schools, I can't really give you any situation where that is being done, but parishes and parents, who are the first bastion of private life, must be restored to their rightful role. We think this is possible.

There are other reasons that are simply reasons of limits, and you know that as well as I, particularly in a region like Montreal. Schools can't do everything. We have already heard people tell us here and there that we have to teach them, educate them, help them and love them. And now we also have to give them a meaning for their existence.

There are also the limits inherent in the very nature of schools and school stakeholders. We believe there are definitely other places in civil society where the torch could be passed on.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

• 1705

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: I would like to add one comment and simply say that the existing models are neither Catholic nor Protestant. In Quebec, all the other denominational groups that are now required to transmit their beliefs outside the school schedule use different premises and develop their own programs.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you. I now give Senator Lavoie-Roux the floor.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I find it interesting that there is an association for intercultural education in Quebec. I didn't know that, and I think it is a good initiative.

I have a first question. You say in your brief that the Projet EPP involves five French-language universities that are working to introduce the concept of responsible citizenship. Have you approached any English-language universities or are you strictly Francophone? It seems to me that your association is concerned with intercultural integration.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: Here the project is Francophone for the moment because the Anglophone project was on the west coast of Canada. It's a pan-Canadian project and we advocate pan-Canadian values. Projet EPP has been structured and involves the Université de Moncton in the French-speaking Maritimes. The Anglophone project involves the universities of Victoria, British Columbia, Simon Fraser and Malaspina.

However, the Anglophone university project has shut down for lack of funding. I personally have agreed to work on the Francophone project on a half-time basis with the funds we have available to us. As a result, the Francophone project is still under way.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: If I understand you correctly, you recognize a value of spirituality, but what you are ultimately advocating is neutral education. You don't want religious education, but rather neutral education in which spirituality would be one value among many. Am I wrong?

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: We don't want denominational education. In our view, denominations are one thing and religion another. Religious values must be dissociated—and we said this at the outset—from the values of denominational education.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Well, it's still a bit confusing, but...

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: And we reject negative secularization. In our view, negative secularization means refusing to talk about religion. We don't want not to talk about religion when we're talking about civilization. It has to be recognized that this has been a factor since the last century and has greatly affected the history of Canada and Quebec. We don't want this kind of secularization. There is spirituality, but there is also religion which must be taken into account.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Denominational education would be replaced by religious education, which forms the basis of traditional Quebec spirituality. They obviously developed spiritual values, but they probably had them before they went to school.

I would like to raise another point. How are you funded? It seems to me you have more money than the Anglophones in the west.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: Oh, no, but we are more persistent.

Ms. Rachida Azdouz: We are funded partly by Heritage Canada and partly by the Quebec ministère des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: That's Mr. Boisclair's department.

Ms. Rachida Azdouz: There's also internal funding.

I would like to add something about the secularization we advocate. Our interpretation of secularization is not that it is the kind of secularization we see in France. We don't want to transpose the French republican model to Canada because we don't have the same history.

We also feel a need to ensure that cultural education in religion is provided for the benefit of all students, not only students who are originally Catholic or Protestant. We would like this instruction to be given for the benefit of all students. Of course, it must not be given in any way that smacks of proselytism.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I must say that I know of private religious schools run by religions orders in Montreal which are attended by children from various communities, Islamic children, Jews, Catholics and Protestants, and which observe the religious holidays of each group. The period of so-called religious instruction is used to enable each student to tell the others about the content of his religion. This happens in religious schools run by nuns in Montreal.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: There are open people everywhere.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: That's right. I have a very brief final question.

You say that a great deal of money is monopolized to train teachers. If I had this before me, I wouldn't contradict your thinking. A great deal of money is monopolized to train teachers. I have the information here, at the bottom of page 4. It costs more than $1 million, etc. You're obviously including faculties of education, universities, etc.

• 1710

First, the universities are criticized for providing little religious education and little preparation for religious training, so that the Dames de la Congrégation, I believe, established a school, or rather a Catholic institute somewhat along the lines of the one in Paris. So when you argue that religious instruction absorbs millions of dollars, you'd better be sure of your facts and figures.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: I'll give you an answer to that. You aren't interpreting this in the way we meant when we wrote it.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: No? Then what do you mean?

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: I'm saying it costs several millions of dollars to provide this kind of instruction. I'm not saying this instruction absorbs all the millions of dollars that are spent on instruction. I'm saying that several millions of dollars are devoted to a single group at the expense of others. Nine credits are awarded for religious education, which is more than one-third of all the credits awarded for the educational training our teachers receive, and instruction in mathematics, French, science and the humanities suffers as a result. Nine out of 30 credits are devoted to religious education. Any educational training that a teacher may receive in the other subjects is compressed into the remaining 21 credits.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Very well. I'm going to check with the Université de Montréal.

Ms. Fabienne Desroches: I'm talking about educational training. I am a professor at the Université de Montréal.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I'm going to look into that.

Thank you for your brief, but I don't think you allow much room for denominational or religious education.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Senator Lavoie-Roux. Ms. Azdouz and Ms. Desroches, thank you for your excellent presentation. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are going to adjourn for a few minutes to enable the next group to take its place.

• 1712

• 1715

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We continue the hearings of the Special Joint Committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 concerning the Quebec school system, in accordance with the order of reference of October 1, 1997.

It is our pleasure to receive the Mouvement pour une école moderne et ouverte, MÉMO, represented here by its President Diane De Courcy, and by Robert Cadotte, representing the elected members of the board of directors. Welcome to you both.

Will Ms. De Courcy be making the presentation?

Mr. Réal Ménard: The members of the House of Commons are going to have to go and vote. Would it be possible to give the floor first to the members of the House of Commons? I believe the vote will be held at 5:40 p.m. Since we kindly accommodated a caucus meeting the senators had to attend, perhaps we could...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): First, we'll give the floor to the members of the House. We're listening, Ms. De Courcy.

Ms. Diane De Courcy (President, Mouvement pour une école moderne et ouverte): First, I would like to thank the committee members for receiving us and to apologize to them for forwarding our brief late. We unfortunately received it late as well. So we will help you get acquainted with it through our presentation.

You have received two documents. This one, for Senator Beaudoin, is our actual brief. The other is entitled "Chapter 9, Provisional Denominational Rights System". Here we are providing you with the results of work done by the Mouvement pour une école moderne et ouverte in collating the amendments of Bill 109 makes to Bill 107.

This document, which has been submitted to you, "Provisional Denominational Rights System", will be the topic of our discussion with you. The text of the document is contained in Bill 107 as amended by Bill 109 and passed by the National Assembly this past June. It will undoubtedly help you better understand our remarks and what is currently going on in Quebec.

Mr. Robert Cadotte is with me here today and he will deliver part of our presentation. Mr. Cadotte is a school board member with the Commission des écoles catholiques de Montréal (CECM) in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. He's also a member of the board of the Mouvement pour une école moderne et ouverte. I'm also a school board member with the CECM in Ahuntsic.

Before submitting our views to the members of the Joint Committee on the amendments to section 93 requested by the Quebec government, allow me first to provide you with a little background on MÉMO.

The Mouvement pour une école moderne et ouverte is a duly establish political party which has been operating on the Montreal school scene since 1987; it is the only such organization in Montreal and possibly in Quebec. We are celebrating the tenth anniversary of our founding this year. Our longevity alone is unprecedented in Quebec. The short history of democracy in the school system is littered with experiments, organizations and coalitions that are founded at the time of school board elections and disappear shortly thereafter.

We are a resolutely Montreal body, and the reason we're here today is to present you a resolutely Montreal point of view on the request that has been submitted to you.

MÉMO is very much concerned about the integration of new Quebec citizens. In the 1994 school election, this interest led it to run a slate of candidates one-third of whom were representatives of the various cultural communities.

Currently, nine MÉMO board members sit on the Commission des écoles catholiques de Montréal, the same number as those of the Regroupement scolaire confessionnel whom you heard yesterday. I would note that the CECM is the biggest school board in Quebec, with some 90,000 students covering virtually all of the city of Montreal.

These, in our view, of course, are the real issues surrounding the constitutional amendment. We feel that many of the presentations that have been made to the joint committee reveal a high degree of confusion over the real issues of the decision that Ottawa must make in response to the request put it by the Government of Quebec to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The real issue is not at all linguistic.

Should Ottawa refuse to amend section 93, the existing Protestant and Catholic school boards will in any case be transformed into linguistic school boards next June.

• 1720

Moreover, I would point out that the provisional boards, that is to say the authority that is to organize these linguistic school boards, have already been formed and have already begun to sit.

The Supreme Court's 1993 judgment is very clear on Quebec's authority to abolish Protestant and Catholic school boards in Montreal. Section 93 does not protect those school boards; it does not protect the Catholic religion or the Protestant religion.

After much hemming and hawing, the government finally decided to comply with the judgment and chose, in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court judgment, to abolish denominational school boards. However, it took into account the special religious protection afforded Montreal and Quebec City by creating a mechanism for controlled supervision by religious orders within the new linguistic school boards.

All the arguments designed to convince the joint committee that the constitutional amendment must be denied in order to protect the rights of Anglophones are thus out of order in the current debate. A refusal to amend section 93 will not prevent Quebec from introducing linguistic school boards. The Supreme Court judgment allows it to do so.

Of course, groups or individuals may continue to pretend the issue is the removal of the language rights of Quebec Anglophones. However, artificially continuing to focus the debate on the linguistic aspect would do nothing but inflame Anglophone and Francophone relations even further. The only losers in this petty political strategy would be the children of Montreal.

In fact, the one and only question facing the joint committee is whether Ottawa will impose on Montreal a religious school structure that exists nowhere else in Quebec.

Next June, all but three Quebec school boards will have the same status, and I repeat, this will be effective next June; it's coming. The boards will be linguistic. Optional religious courses and pastoral services will be maintained in all schools. This universal status will also apply to two of the five linguistic boards on Montreal Island, that is the West Island English board and the West Island French board. The territories of these two school boards do not touch that of Montreal, which is protected by section 93.

Three school boards will partly escape this universal status. They will be those covering a portion of the territory of Montreal, that is the English school board in the east end and the French boards in the east end and downtown. These three boards will be linguistic, as the Supreme Court judgment permits, but they will also have supervisory committees controlled by practising Catholics and Protestants.

Ottawa's decision can only have an influence on this last point. In short, can these three school boards have the same religious neutrality as all the others, or will they be subject to a particular religious status and have an obligation to create denominational supervisory councils?

Our argument will focus on these denominational supervisory councils.

I give the floor to my colleague, Robert Cadotte, who will talk to you about them.

Mr. Robert Cadotte (Member of the Board of Directors, MÉMO): We would now like to explain to you why a refusal to pass an amendment to section 93 will undermine the social climate of Montreal, particularly for young people.

As we have already said, the consequence of this refusal will be continued religious status for Montreal. The outward manifestation of this status is denominational councils, in short supervisory committees.

These committees have the power to isolate Catholic and Protestant children from children of other beliefs. In practice, French- and English-speaking Catholics will choose this solution. Very few Protestants are seeking separate schools. In the short term, Montreal will therefore find itself with a Catholic school system and a neutral school system where religions courses will also be taught.

The first surprising consequence of this situation is that it will attack Montreal's urban fabric and encourage an exodus to the suburbs. By grouping Catholic children in certain schools labelled "for Catholics", we will break up the system of neighbourhood schools. There will be a considerable increase in the amount of busing. If a neighbourhood school closes or is no longer accessible, some 50 families will automatically move. The neighbourhood school is seen as a great benefit in Montreal.

• 1725

The second consequence will be even more explosive. If Catholic schools are systematically organized, all non-Catholic immigrants will be concentrated in certain schools. This will amount to an even more thorough form of religious apartheid than authorities are preparing to institute in Montreal. This kind of apartheid can only result in greater intolerance between Catholics and other ethno-religious groups.

The integration of new arrivals into common schools is essential for their harmonious integration into Montreal society. Only in this way can various groups smooth out their differences. The solution adopted for Quebec as a whole, with the exception of Montreal—and Quebec City, which no one is talking about because the situation is not really the same—permits this cohabitation while honouring the established privileges of Catholics and Protestants.

However, Ottawa's refusal to ratify an agreement before December 31 would obviously be the policy of the worst course.

The policy of the worst course is to deliberately increase religious and ethnic tensions in Montreal. Some may be pleased by it, but history's judgment of the joint committee and the Canadian government will be uncompromising if, in full knowledge of the facts, you choose to heighten these tensions by refusing to eliminate denominational councils.

This refusal would not support Anglophone rights in any way. It would merely satisfy the very small minority of ultra-conservatives in power at the CECM who are part of the denominational schools movement. Let's not forget that the bishops were very clear on the subject. They even made an ironic comment about the Prime Minister of Canada, who was trying to twist their message. No doubt you remember their remark: "What solicitude!" When small Catholic groups oppose the Conference of Bishops, you can call them not only a very small minority, but quite simply a sect.

In closing, we insist that Montreal's children do not deserve to be raised amid the sectarianism that appears to be particularly fashionable these days. You can't play with sectarianism and intolerance and get away with it.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Cadotte. We are now going to move on to the question period.

[English]

The first intervention will be by Mr. Peter Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you for the presentation.

As there seem to be doubts about the consensus and some doubts about minority rights and whether they affect aboriginal rights, confessional rights, and whether we can extinguish minority rights this way, should this opinion not be tested in the courts of Canada?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Cadotte: We would point out that, in 1993, the Supreme Court answered the many questions that were put to it concerning structure. What we are talking about today is merely religious structure. We're not talking about religion courses in the schools. The decision you are going to make has nothing to do with that. The issue is merely whether you are going to make it possible to introduce linguistic boards which will have the same status everywhere. We should be clear on that. There will be linguistic boards, even in Montreal, but they will not have the same status because religious rights are what is being protected in Montreal and Quebec City. In Quebec City, the question does not really arise; it's really in Montreal that there's a problem. So it's religious rights that are protected, not linguistic rights.

Furthermore, and this is quite surprising, this is not what is being discussed here. The problem in Montreal really arises in relation to the religious divide. It's the English Catholics of the CECM that don't want to be attached to the Protestant board.

There was an enormous debate on that point. They made every possible attempt to isolate themselves from the Protestants, that is to say from fairly neutral schools because, in actual fact, the Protestant schools are what one would call neutral schools.

On the Francophone side, the ultra-conservatives are in power at the CECM... If you follow what has been occasionally written in the newspapers over the past few years, you know what we're talking about.

It's not Anglophone rights that are at issue here. It's the same problem on both sides, English and French. It's the fact that we're going to separate the religions that will cause a problem.

• 1730

Does that answer your question?

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'll repeat it. Because it has been suggested it affects other rights—and it is education rights for aboriginals, it is education rights for other areas—I ask again, do you not think it would be prudent to have this tested in the courts as a method of procedure? Is this something that's done?

[Translation]

Ms. Diane De Courcy: The courts have ruled on Quebec's authority to make changes and have told it that it could proceed on the issue of school board structures and that there was no problem. That's why the Quebec National Assembly amended Bill 107. As a result, next June, there will be French school boards and English school boards. The Supreme Court has already settled this issue.

The question that was in abeyance, and this is the purpose of your work in our view, was whether this historical protection of religion-based rights, for all the reasons with which you are entirely familiar, should stand. On this point, we're saying that what is important now is to permit equality throughout Quebec. If section 93 is not amended, this protection will apply everywhere in Quebec except in Montreal and Quebec City. Don't forget that the question being put to you does not concern Quebec as a whole, but rather Montreal and Quebec, where section 93 applies. So as far as we're concerned, the matter has been decided in the courts. It's now up to the Canadian government.

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

Mr. Ménard, please.

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is a really the brief that we needed. You offer an extremely enlightening viewpoint and I would like to return to two points.

Ultimately, what you are telling us is that, whatever the outcome of our work and of future events, there will be linguistic school boards in Montreal. All committee members must understand that; this has been voted on and the National Assembly has decided on it.

What may occur if the constitutional amendment is rejected is that two structures will coexist. There would be linguistic school boards with a right to dissentience because, if section 93 applies, the right to dissentience for Catholic and Protestant boards will be in effect. That will mean a proliferation of structures in Montreal and Quebec City.

Do you agree with that interpretation?

Ms. Diane De Courcy: I would prefer not to discuss the exercise of the right to dissentience from this angle because it is currently a very complicated matter. I believe that, yes, you are right in your first statement, that is to say that there will be linguistic school boards.

As for your second statement, the real danger is that, as a result of the obligation under section 93 to establish denominational councils or, as a result of the mechanism provided for, children are divided along religious lines. In the provisional denominational rights system, you have all the obligations and everything the denominational committee must oversee. You will quickly realize from a reading that, in actual fact, there will be a denominational school board within the linguistic school board. So, ultimately, we'll wind up with nothing in Montreal and Quebec City.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ms. De Courcy, according to the expert views we received from a certain number of witnesses, there will be six school boards in Montreal. You're saying that that's not that many school boards. You agree that the right to dissentience will be exercised, but it will be within denominational committees, which is what certain school boards have requested since the month of October. However, we'll come back to that at another time and place.

What I would like to emphasize in your testimony is the first consequence you mention on page 3. You are the first witness who has spoken to us in concrete terms about what all this may mean for neighbourhoods. I would like you to come back to the entire issue of the urban fabric because, after all, school boards should provide the first link to the community. The schools and all that provide the first link with the community.

So please talk to us about the consequences for the urban fabric and the neighbourhoods.

• 1735

Ms. Diane De Courcy: Before giving my colleague Robert Cadotte the floor to explain this consequence, I would like to say that, in Montreal, there is no chance of this or that in terms of numbers of school boards; this has not been determined. There will be five school boards on Montreal Island: three French school boards, dividing the island in three, and two English school boards, dividing the island in two. This has been decided, voted on, it's in place; the provisional boards are established and will be in operation starting next June. Furthermore, our school elections will be held throughout the territory, whether section 93 is amended or not. I really would like to make that clear once again.

Mr. Cadotte.

Mr. Robert Cadotte: In concrete terms, in June, we'll have a provisional board. What will happen then is that, within the school board, we will have two French school systems, which is not the case right now. At present, immigrants, Muslims or others, who attend French schools also attend Catholic schools. Despite the CECM's policy direction, the present system is relatively tolerant. Teachers in these schools know perfectly well that, when 20 or 30 young Muslims attend a school... For example, at St-Pascal Baylon, 90 percent of the student body is not of French-speaking Quebec origin. People there are used to it. It's a school that could be called common. In fact, the case of St-Pascal Baylon is not an extreme case.

With new denominational school boards, in addition to the board of trustees which generally adopts policies, we will have a council that will determine that there are parents who have chosen to be Catholic and that Catholic schools will have to be established. So there will be a multitude of schools virtually everywhere. Wherever there is a larger concentration of Catholics, the number of Catholic schools will increase. We will be empowered by the act to use all kinds of approaches that are more Catholic: we can put Catholicism in French, Catholicism in the sciences or Catholicism wherever we want. This will be a pilot school and it will be the pilot schools that decide on that.

Of course, the immediate effect of this will be that young Muslims will find themselves in other schools, neutral schools. This is the effect that these two systems in Montreal will have. We will have fewer neighbourhood schools. In our neighbourhood, for example, in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, École Baril will be Catholic, whereas École Hochelaga, which is next to it, will be neutral. The students will travel by bus or however they can. It will be a real disaster for Montreal.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Cadotte, I have a message for the members of Parliament: the vote will be held in a few minutes.

Mr. Godin, a brief question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have to go and vote, so I'll be brief.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Go ahead!

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): After that, we are going to leave with the senators.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): No, we'll continue with the senators.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Are we talking about the linguistic school board or the whole thing?

Ms. Diane De Courcy: In our view, there is only one remaining concern, since, in our minds, two questions have been resolved. The question concerning the issues of language, French or English, in establishing school boards has been resolved. The question of religious education in the schools has also been resolved. This is currently being debated in Quebec, that is to say that the Quebec government has introduced committees, but this isn't your purpose, particularly since the issue of education in the schools is not a federal, but rather provincial jurisdiction.

What remains is a framework, a structure that remains with section 93, and we are forced to create school supervisory committees and thus to put questions to each student, something that has no place in Quebec in the 1990s. And these questions will not even be asked everywhere in Quebec; they will be put only to children in Montreal and Quebec City. We feel you must resolve the matter of Montreal and Quebec City so that those two cities can be on the same footing as the rest of Quebec.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Perfect. The members have been summoned to vote and the Joint Chair will continue on with the senators.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There's one position that seems to me to be very clear. Are you for or against Bill 109?

• 1740

Mr. Robert Cadotte: Bill 109 has already been passed and we spoke out in various ways on Bill 109.

To give you an example,...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I wouldn't want to hear a half-hour story.

Mr. Robert Cadotte: We would have liked certain aspects of the bill to be different, but the bill has already been passed. So all we can say is that we will have to operate in accordance with its provisions. In other words, we are now a provisional board. Furthermore, Ms. De Courcy and I sit on a provisional board. We have no choice; that's how we operate.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: What does that mean, that we have no choice? Just a moment! We have before us a resolution to amend the Constitution.

Mr. Robert Cadotte: No, that has nothing to do with it. The provisional boards...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Nothing to do with it!

Mr. Robert Cadotte: No, because...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: But what are we doing here?

Mr. Robert Cadotte: We have heard discussions here on the subject of the division of responsibilities and of section 93 itself which have no business being debated here.

When we say that the language boards will be in place in June, your joint committee and Parliament can do nothing about it. However, they can accomplish something very important: they can enable Montreal to have the same kind of linguistic boards as the other regions of Quebec. That is the only thing you can do. Will Montreal have linguistic school boards like the other regions? We'll have linguistic school boards in Montreal, and we'll have linguistic school boards in accordance with section 93 and denominational committees, if they are still there, which will require parents to make a choice regarding their neighbourhood schools.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, but I want the debate to stay on the rails. We're discussing this issue to determine whether denominational status will continue or not.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: Senator, we won't tell you any lies. Bill 107, as amended by Bill 109, was designed to circumvent section 93.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: You agree with me.

The introduction of denominational councils within French and English school boards and certain guarantees regarding pastoral services were designed to circumvent section 93. So that was the purpose. Because beyond that, nothing will be changed in Bill 107.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The Supreme Court told you that, if you wanted, you could maintain section 93 and have linguistic structures as well, together with the denominational structures that have been in existence for 130 years. That is what the Court said. That's all well and good, but you have...

Mr. Robert Cadotte: Senator, I don't think we understand each other. You're talking about linguistic structures together with the structures that were there 130 years ago.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: No, no. I'm saying that, for 130 years, there has been a system in which the structure are denominational. Quebec told the Supreme Court that it wanted to change that and have a system of French and English linguistic school boards. The Supreme Court said it was possible to do that while retaining section 93 as it stood and complying with certain conditions which it stated. The judgment is very well written and is very clear.

Quebec clearly does not agree and does not want to perpetuate the system. Quebec is saying it wants to have not denominational structures, but rather linguistic structures. Religious education will take place in the schools; that's provided for in section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

All that is very clear. But what do you want?

Ms. Diane De Courcy: I'm going to repeat it for you, Senator. What we want is the abolition of the provisions of Bill 107 in accordance with section 93. We don't want denominational committees within French or English school boards.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Then you agree with the resolution.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: Of course we agree with Quebec's resolution.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Then, it's very clear.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: Of course.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It wasn't all that clear at the start of your presentation.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: I apologize for that. Now you've had it stated more clearly.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Then you want us to support this resolution, and section 93 says that education is a provincial jurisdiction. That's the end of it. The matter is settled. Religious instruction will be given in the schools, as provided for by section 41 of the Quebec Charter.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: And in Bill 107.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Then we have nothing to discuss.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Senator Lavoie-Roux, please.

• 1745

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I have nothing to add. You know I've always been in favour of these linguistic boards and I was even the first person to propose them in 1976, when everyone in your organization was in favour of unified school boards or for the status quo, for other denominational boards. I have no problem with that.

However, I'm just as much in favour of maintaining denominational education as you are.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: Of course.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: So there's no problem there. I would like to thank you because I've wanted to understand this for some time now. The structures were piling up on top of each other and, ultimately amounted to six or eight. Here you've given me the arguments I needed regarding the provisional denominational rights system. I thank you for that. Would you like to make an additional comment? I could change my opinion once again.

Mr. Robert Cadotte: No, no. The way we see the situation is that there are a very large number of immigrants in Montreal and we have a lot of real and potential problems there. The solution that MÉMO is seeking, and which is allowed by what is on the table, is that there absolutely has to be cohabitation by all these wonderful people, with the necessary religious tolerance. In this way, Catholic children can have Catholic religious education. If the other groups had the resources to get organized, we would see no problem in them doing the same thing. What is important is that they be together in their mathematics, French and other courses.

Ultimately, what we are saying is that the provisions of section 93 will very definitely result in less of this cohabitation, by creating two school systems within the same Francophone school board.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: On the other hand, however, there are all kinds of reasons why immigrants have gone to English schools. I was the first to say that non-Anglophones should attend French schools. Bill 101, in my view, went a little too far in this direction. It told Anglophones, no matter whether they were Americans, English or New Zealanders, that they were not entitled to send their children to English schools. We saw children who had an English school on the corner of their street, but had to go I don't know where to attend a French school. But that's another problem.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Madam Lavoie-Roux. Can we go on to the next speaker?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, I'll come back later.

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

Senator Fernand Robichaud (New Brunswick, Lib.): If I understand you correctly, in your mind, parents who choose a religious education for their children will be able to get that instruction in the schools.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: Of course.

Senator Fernand Robichaud: You believe that the act and the Charter provide you with enough guarantees so that these rights that are theirs are respected.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: We're not asking for a 300-year jump; we'll take it a little bit at a time. Since we've been working on this issue for 10 years now, we feel the debate is very clear on the subject of undenominationalized structures. Efforts to undenominationalize the remaining structures, such as the denominational councils, should be abandoned.

The debate on the issue of the place of religion in the schools must be conducted in Quebec, but it will be conducted with, against or despite us. These are debates that normally occur in society which Quebec society will conduct at the appropriate time, whatever the fate of this amendment. For the moment, however, the guarantees are strong: the act, the tradition and the Charter as well.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Senator.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: On page 3 or 4 of your brief, you talk about sectarianism and intolerance in the schools today. I can't agree with you.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: No, no, Senator.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Let me finish.

Ms. Diane De Courcy: We don't say that, senator.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I was at the CECM. In the Catholic schools, there were children of other denominations and other cultural origins and everyone got along well.

Mr. Robert Cadotte: That's what we're saying.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Are you? Well, that's good. We agree then. That's not a problem.

Mr. Robert Cadotte: What we're saying is that they are currently in the same schools and we see things are much better. However, if the reform requires us to establish denominational councils, they're going to be separated.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes. I don't really understand these councils very well and that's why I plan to read your brief.

• 1750

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Ms. De Courcy, Mr. Cadotte, I would like to thank you for your presentation on behalf of all the members of this committee.

I'm sorry that some of our members had to leave and go vote, but I can assure you we have all read your brief carefully. Your presentation was so clear that we know exactly what you are asking. Thank you very much.

• 1751

• 1839

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We resume the hearings of the Special Joint Committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 concerning the Quebec school system in accordance with the order of reference of October 1, 1997.

• 1840

I would like to explain a little how we are going to proceed. The first five witnesses will have five minutes to make their presentations. Then we will hear the next group of five witnesses and we'll then move on to a question period.

Since there are so many of you to be heard this evening, I would ask you to limit your presentations to five minutes each.

It is my pleasure to welcome Mr. Gérard Picard.

Mr. Picard, the floor is yours.

Mr. Gérard Picard (Individual Presentation): Good evening. My reasons for asking you senators and members of Parliament in Ottawa not to amend section 93 of the Canadian Constitution as requested by the National Assembly of Quebec are as follows.

The majority of Quebec parents want to keep denominational schools. The people of Quebec have not had the opportunity to state their views on this subject. A petition containing more than 200,000 signatures had no effect. The vast majority of Quebeckers consists of baptised Christians who are entitled to a minimum of respect.

Quebec's civil laws and all natural regulations must be based on the faith of the people, not precede it or run against it. Civil and religious powers must live together and in harmony.

Catholic students should not be required to adjust to today's practical atheism, which leads to despair and suicide among our young people. We must live with everyone not live like everyone. Lastly, four young people committed suicide in Longueuil near by home.

Catholic schools advocate virtue, tolerance and respect for other beliefs, which will not always be the case in linguistic public schools, which would be at the discretion of school principals.

Denominational schools have made many parents happy. Why then do our political leaders want to abolish them? Because we are experiencing the evil of this century. The enemy we must fight is practical atheism, without God in society or in our schools. Christian morality has been removed and permissiveness is now the rule. This is a crisis that our leaders do not appear to see.

To serve the god of money, all accommodations are possible and personalized services proliferate, whereas government wants to dole out our greatest treasure, the faith of an entire people, through a single window that is imposed on everyone.

A religious presence in the schools is very important because it prevents this moral and spiritual decline in our children, because young people despair at a future without true love and without God. Many despair at the false love of all vices and the bad example set by adults.

Quebec's leaders, those democratic servants of the people, have decided to abolish the Catholic schools of Jesus Christ. Catholic schools come from the Catholic Church, whose head is Jesus Christ. God surely does not want anyone to touch his schools, but would rather have us protect them and make them grow, particularly if our leaders are Christians. This is even a duty.

• 1845

Members of Parliament and senators cannot unilaterally appropriate the powers of ownership when they are the good or bad managers of the property and people the Lord has entrusted to their care. I don't believe that anyone can be forced to live and be educated in a pagan environment where he cannot affirm his faith freely as he wishes.

Furthermore, we have no idea of the content of the Catholic religious instruction that will be authorized in the linguistic schools. Can there be a Catholic ministry? How much time will be allocated for religious education? I'm afraid it will be standardized instruction that satisfies none of the religious denominations.

I love you and I will continue to love you and to pray for all of you. Regardless of the decision you make, you know that the most important thing is ultimately the salvation of all our souls. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Picard. The following speaker is Mr. Charles Ward.

[English]

Mr. Charles Ward (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

I'm presenting a dissenting view, recognizing the difficulties facing Parliament relative to constitutional amendments and perceptions in Quebec, my home province. I believe strongly in this country's political and judicial systems and how they affect individuals or subjects.

In order to build social solidarity, we need a medium to allow people a buy-in. We need a democratic act to create the public ownership that all votes seek. You as politicians, in your caucuses and political functions, expect to be consulted. Why would the electorate be any different?

The process has not included citizen consultation, and hence it's an abrogation of rights. Certainly this request cannot be compared to Newfoundland's, where two referendums were held. The 1982 amendments were not ratified by national vote, creating dissension. Meech Lake was an autocratic top-only effort, followed by Charlottetown's precedent-setting mini-referendums entitling grassroots a say.

Québécois want their governments to provide leadership and to make positive things happen. They want protection of their language, culture, and democratic liberty—delegation not abdication. Francophones want equality. They want equal opportunity for their language. This has been a struggle for them, and out of this struggle has emerged a group of people who use language to create division and justify using undemocratic processes.

Why has Madame Marois not represented us here? Are Québécois dreams being addressed and enunciated in a fashion reflective of their wishes? No. This committee must challenge the Government of Quebec's intentions on behalf of the Quebec electorate.

Québécois, look to your leadership. They cry out for it.

Quebec determined what goodies were needed to appease the opposition party and school boards and passed a bill determining that a consensus sufficient to amend the Constitution was achieved. If you can forgive the pun, what constitutes a consensus? How can we have a consensus when only a nominal percentage of the five million plus voters has been asked?

Am I a lawyer? No. I'm a businessman and as such I am constantly involved with contracts of one sort or another. Do not overlook the fact that section 93 mentions subjects and class of persons, thereby bestowing rights on the citizenry—rights to be asked for their stamp of approval.

Getting things done successfully for all the stakeholders requires a two-way communication. The present Quebec leadership does not adhere to this philosophy; for example, Centaur Theatre. There are many examples of why Québécois believe they cannot trust the government in Quebec.

In leadership training one axiom stands out: past performance predicts future results. The past bad faith of the PQ predicts future bad faith and does not justify hope or trust. If Canadians in Quebec cannot expect protection from voter fraud nor the democratic right to debate and vote on constitutional amendments, we are left with non-democratic processes resulting in undemocratic institutions or UDI. Stéphane Dion has said no to UDI.

Section 93 should not be repealed; it should be amended, expanding or redefining the class of persons definition.

• 1850

In keeping with the constitutional promotion of equality of English and French, a federal standard in education should be sought by this committee, ensuring this duality right in every provincial school system. This committee, through use of your imagination, common sense, and desire, has the opportunity to open doors to improved educational systems for the development of proper bilingual instruction equally in all provinces across Canada, ushering in the dawn of a new era for Canadians related to their understanding of one another, their feeling of belonging in this great country, and their sense of pride that they are truly equal members of a bilingual nation from sea to sea.

However, you also risk the formation of a great divide, between democrats and non-democrats, federalists and separatists, all under the emotional auspices of language. The real debate is about rights, representation, hope, and trust. We can use language and education to build the nation or we can use it to destroy the country. It is in your hands now.

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

Do you have a copy of your presentation? I'm asking everybody to leave it with our clerk.

We will now proceed with Ms Brenda Donnelly.

Ms Brenda Donnelly (Individual Presentation): I'm saying this committee is just that, a committee. The House and the Senate are misusing their jurisdiction to take away our constitutional rights once again, this time using section 93 of the BNA Act. You know it goes hand in hand with other sections.

The federal government and the House of Commons are misleading and misusing the democratic institutions to make legal what is legally unacceptable. You're putting political will above the principle of democracy on which this country was founded.

Is this committee telling us, the Canadian people, our constitutional rights can be taken away at any time by any political government or political will, using hidden agendas, “flexible federalism”? Are senators and MPs so arrogant that you would disprespect our rights and pass this amendment? Is this committee a rubber stamp? I believe you are. You're all going to go back to the Senate and the House of Commons and you're going to vote along party lines.

If I lived in an undemocratic country such as Cuba, I would expect this from a committee, but I live in Canada. Is this a just society? Am I the pilot project for the last 25 years; we should just do what we're told or you, the government, provincial and federal, will take more of our rights away?

The example is the Constitution right here on the table. Is it because people like myself who wrote Mr. Dion as citizens and parents and who stood up for children's rights and asked him to protect us under the BNA Act...? Well, Mr. Dion appeared before this committee and he told you we had the Charter of Rights, and that's not true. All the way from the Prime Minister's office to the Solicitor General of Canada to the Minister of Justice, the two official languages, and the legislative court...I bring you today all of it. The federal government refused to respect the Charter of Rights or any other rights I have here. The amending formula can't be used to take away citizens' rights and bypass the body of the Constitution. You people are pushing a new Constitution through the back door.

I'm so convinced I put a verbal complaint in at the office of the Solicitor General of Canada. They assured me today, when I came in from Montreal, I could put in my claim in writing. I have a history here of complaints against this government. When I went, they even had a pass, and they told me I wasn't allowed. I even brought my paper. I've been checked out by the Privy Council. So I went over to the Minister of Justice and I put in a complaint.

What I'm saying is you are violating your oath of office to protect our Constitution. Where is your moral, legal, and ethical responsibility to the country? When are you going to stop harassing us?

We've had enough. If you don't defend our rights, who will? So I'm putting a complaint in against you and now I'm asking for a criminal investigation, because my rights were violated.

You people do not have a right to do this. This is a democratic country, and you forgot about it.

Quebec? Well, I'm fourteen generations Quebec.

I've worked in the school system. Do you want to know what is going on with some of those children? In my own community I appeared before the Catholic school commission several years ago. I went to my MNAs and MPs. In Sainte-Catherine-de-Sienne, in a day care school, a parent came to me...two-way mirror, which I believe is still there...and put tape across a four-year-old's mouth because he spoke English.

• 1855

It's still going on. There are a lot more horror stories. They're here if you want them.

You talk about the unions. What are the unions? The unions are there for their job. Do you know what this is about? This is about taking away the rights of francophone parents who want to send their children to the French Protestant sector, and they're under the English Protestant school board. It means taking them away. I listened to this committee....

My youngest child is 32 years old. I've been in this fight since regulation 6. It's only the immigrant children; well, too bad, eh. Who are you people to tell us what our culture's going to be, what our schools are going to be? Who are you to pick and choose? Do you know the high drop-out rate in the school system? Do you know what's happening to the children? You're robbing them of an education to go to college and be where you're sitting.

I'm telling you, it's illegal what you're doing. If you want to know how it's going to affect the school system, right here in my court case—and we're going to go to court, believe me—do you know what you're doing? It's called cultural genocide in a non-violent form. There's a law against it in Canada.

Thank you very much.

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

We'll now hear Elizabeth La Prairie.

Ms. Elizabeth La Prairie (Individual Presentation): I'm going to give this to that man from the Reform because, personally, I don't trust anyone else.

Does everyone have a copy of my brief?

Before you begin my five-minute countdown, may I just say that the accents on the French words used in my English text were, by an unfortunate oversight, not put in, for which I apologize.

I'll now begin my presentation, Mr. Chairman.

We hear so much today about the word “democracy” and the supposedly wide consensus existing in Quebec in favour of linguistic school boards. I intend to give you evidence of how very undemocratic actions have been and how deliberately misleading certain statements have been in support of eliminating confessional school boards.

My concern about this goes back to the Parent report in the sixties, when the Quebec government withheld the publication of volume 5, which dealt with religion, until after an election. It feared the population would react unfavourably if it became aware of some of the recommendations.

The vast majority of briefs urged the Parent commission to retain our confessional school system. Despite this, over the years, and mostly behind the scenes, steps have been taken to undermine our confessional schools. Relentless efforts were made to secularize everything.

The 1991 census revealed that 82% of the population declared themselves Christians while less than a fraction of Canadians stated they had no religious affiliation.

Author Kathleen Toth, founder of Women for Life, Faith and Family, states:

...we outnumber the non-believers by 23:1...yet, it is the minority of non-believers who have taken over our political system, our judicial system, our communications system, our education system and even our cultural heritage.

To illustrate specifically the deliberate lack of consultation with the population of Quebec and the repeated erroneous statements about wide consensus, I present the following.

Don MacPherson, in an exceptional article in the Montreal Gazette, April 17, entitled, “PQ plays fast and loose with democracy”, states:

Not one of the present MNAs was elected on a platform that so much as mentioned the possibility of amending the constitution to repeal the protection for Protestant and Catholic school boards.... ...there was no referendum [on the proposal] either.

Most revealing of all, the National Assembly refused to accept before the vote a petition with 235,000 names on it opposing the constitutional amendment. How determined were our politicians to railroad their proposal through? Then Premier Bouchard pressured the federal government to rush it through Parliament before the election.

To their shame, immediately both Prime Minister Chrétien and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Stéphane Dion, announced they supported the proposed amendment, as there appeared, so they claimed, to be widespread consensus.

• 1900

A September 23rd Gazette editorial entitled “Don't Weaken School Rights” accuses Mr. Dion of committing several errors in his haste to grant Quebec a constitutional amendment, by first “having made up his mind before holding public hearings” and then “He assumes there's a consensus on the issue when there isn't.” The editorial adds, “It was indeed disturbing to hear Mr. Dion claim last week that public hearings will not stop him from going ahead with the amendment.”

Mr. Dion is admitting this whole process will be a sham.

Regarding the supposed wide consensus mentioned by Mr. Dion, Senator Jacques Hébert, MP Réal Ménard and others, that several organizations and groups, both Catholic and Protestant, were said to be in favour of linguistic school boards, how many of their members were consulted?

The executives of unions often publicly press for changes without consulting their members.

The estates general on education of 1996 was also mentioned by Minister Dion as favouring linguistic school boards, but he fails to mention that the majority of briefs submitted were in favour of denominational schools.

A letter to the magazine Catholic Insight from Louis Lecomte of Beaconsfield in March 1997 states, “The PQ government is on the attack against the confessionality of our schools.” He says, “The Quebec motto, Je me souviens, should be changed to, Je préfère oublier mon passé, mes ancêtres, mes traditions, etc.”

The suicide rate among Quebec adolescents is reported to be one of the highest in the world. Should not efforts be made to strengthen moral and spiritual values instead of the opposite?

In a letter I wrote to Premier Brian Tobin in May, after his words to Mr. Bouchard on TV,

[Translation]

"to my friend Lucien, good luck with your amendment",

[English]

I related having heard a letter read on Mike Duffy's Sunday Edition on CTV from some chap who wrote about “spiritually bankrupt governments” and about an interview on CBC's The House when Roger Gibbons of the University of Calgary spoke about constitutional change being brought about between governments going over the heads of the very citizens whose lives are very much affected by these changes.

Isn't this what's going on between Quebec and Ottawa? What could be more undemocratic?

I beg of you to expose in your report the falsity of the claims about wide consensus and to take into account the lack of real and effective consultation with Quebecers.

Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Madame LaPrairie.

Denise LeMay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Denise LeMay (Individual Presentation): I'm going to share with you my experience with my commitment to my children's school and my husband's commitment to the school committee. First, I will also share our experience with the Estates General on Education.

I attended the workshop on denominational schools, where I sometimes felt that there was discrimination and that an attempt was being made to take away the opportunity to express our opinions and to forward those opinions to the commissioner. From the way it was all organized, those opinions did not make it to the commissioner. In the workshops, we had to reach a consensus among Catholics, Protestants and atheists for our opinions to be forwarded to the commissioner or to the minister. This was virtually mission impossible.

I was greatly discouraged by this experience with the estates general and lost faith in the government. I felt the government was conducting consultations in that way in order to give the public the impression that it wanted to consult them and that their opinion was important. Here again this evening, of course, I realize I'm sharing my opinion once again and I would like to tell you that I feel you are sincere. I thank you for what you're doing; I feel you are very sincere and I am very touched by that.

Now, I'm still very concerned about the consequences of this committee because Mr. Dion said he intended to approve the Quebec government's request. Consequently, I wonder a little what purpose this committee is serving.

• 1905

Now I'm going to share my experience with school with you. Knowing that a public meeting had been organized to inform people about the real issues surrounding section 93, my husband asked the school committee to distribute a notice to all school parents to invite them to the evening meeting because we thought they were entitled to be well informed.

The principal's office agreed to send out the invitation, provided however that the paragraphs that quite clearly outlined the actual situation, the real issues, were removed. So we had to delete those paragraphs and keep only the information concerning the place, the time and so on, and say that the meeting concerned the amendment to section 93.

The following month, 11 days before the school committee meeting, I asked the principal's office on behalf of my husband for permission to include very informative articles on the amendment to section 93 so that they could be distributed to school committee members for the next meeting and parents could be well informed.

Naturally, this touched off another song and dance because I came up against resistance from the principal's office. Since the committee chairman had not had access to the articles in question, he could not decide, he would be angry, etc. I was forced to make every possible effort to intercept the envelopes and insert the articles I wanted to send to the school committee members.

These are the things we deal with regularly. It's sort of like having your neighbour control your budget and, when you need a pair of socks, you have to go to him and say: "Excuse me, I have holes in my socks; could you give me a little money to go and buy a new pair?" He would answer: "I'm sorry, but no, it's not in your budget. There were some contingencies and you don't have any more money. You'll have to find something else."

This is roughly the experience of Catholics in our school system in Quebec.

The following month, I attended the school committee meeting as a parent observer and had three minutes to explain the real issues involved in the amendment to section 93.

This drew a reaction from one parent on the committee, who intimidated me and managed to bring discussion on the subject to a halt. The other parents were so... This caused such tension in the room that no one dared to speak or say anything else. The committee members included my son's godmother and a parent who says her rosary every day with her children. They didn't say a word in our support.

This is what goes on in our school committees. We are intimidated by certain highly politicized parents who are prepared to use any means to achieve their ends.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mrs. LeMay, for your testimony.

Mrs. Denise LeMay: I haven't finished. Could I have a few more minutes? It's very important.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. LeMay, I have to be fair.

Mrs. Denise LeMay: Do I have the permission of...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We're waiting for another group. All right, go ahead for one minute.

Mrs. Denise LeMay: I would like you to understand that you have no right... It's not up to anyone to decide whether we should keep or repeal section 93. This isn't even an issue. This is a vested right; that's all, the matter stops there. It's too bad I have to tell you that because you're putting so much effort and energy into it, but that's the fact of the matter.

This is not even an issue. To remove our constitutional protection would be a crime and would take away a vital right for the souls of the citizens of our country. They want to snuff out the souls of our people by amending section 93. This would have very serious consequences. If section 93 is repealed, we'll have to change our national anthem because it states, "And your courage, tempered by faith, will protect our homes and our rights."

Does this mean we're going to lose protection for our homes if we lose protection for our rights? If the supporters of linguistic school boards are concerned about the splintering of the school system, they don't have to go that far. The tear in the social fabric is right before our eyes.

• 1910

The Quebec government's plans are merely a cause of division among families, couples and in society. I've been dealing with this for weeks now. My children's godfathers and godmothers, my neighbours and my immediate and extended family don't support me in what I'm doing because, on television, in all the media, the clergy, priests and pastoral ministers agree that our rights and the catechism in our schools aren't threatened, that our religion courses aren't threatened.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. LeMay, out of fairness to everyone, I thank you.

May I ask those in the first group to withdraw and allow the others to take their places? At the end, I'll ask everyone to come back. Don't leave because some committee members will want to ask you questions. If you can take your places at the back, we'll have you come back later.

I would ask Carole Gosselin, Johanne Nolet, Marie-Anne Hotte, Roland Paradis, Marie Gibeault, Marie-Thérèse Roy and Brian Jewitt to approach please.

• 1911

• 1912

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. Carole Gosselin, please.

Mrs. Carole Gosselin (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I the mother of two primary school children. I believe that religion is the basis of life. It has been passed on to us by our parents and we must keep it and pass it on from generation to generation. Section 93 represents a vested right, and a vested right cannot be abolished. It's for life. We parents would also like you to remove a weight from our shoulders. We repeat our request that you leave section 93 intact in order to give us the best possible protection to guarantee our right to keep our schools Catholic.

Since our children are the most precious thing in the world to us, it's only natural that we as parents seek what is best for them. It seems to me that our request is reasonable and that this desperate attempt to change section 93 to reduce our Catholic rights is not justifiable. So let's be realistic. Don't touch our vested rights because they're too important. Thank you for listening to me.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mrs. Gosselin. We're going to move on to the next speaker, Johanne Nolet.

Mrs. Johanne Nolet (Individual Presentation): I haven't prepared anything. I just wanted to tell you that I am the mother of 12 children, the eldest of whom is 17 and the youngest nine months. I said 12 children: that's 10 plus two. Catholic religious education is very important to me because it is an important value in our family.

• 1915

What I find difficult is that, sometimes in our Catholic schools, we run into... Our children receive values that are contrary to those we would like to give them, whether in sex education or in other areas. I know there are places where teachers even make children worship the sun; that's already happened.

In my opinion, these are horror stories. I constantly have to turn back to my children to put things back into perspective.

I believe it's important for people to have God in their lives. I know you can't force people to believe in God. I have 12 children today because I've experienced the love of God in my life. I know that life is important. When I was a teenager, I espoused the values that people advocated in the schools, freedom, sexual freedom, freedom of choice, freedom of all kinds, and I wound up with my life in ruins at the age of 19.

Today I know my children need to know the love of God in their lives. I also know that the children of the entire world need to know that God loves them, that all living beings on earth need to know that God loves them and, for the good of society, I'm convinced we must keep our denominational schools because children need to know that God exists.

I'm not a psychologist or a sociologist. I only have a high school diploma, but I know from experience that we need someone to help us bear our suffering.

With my 12 children, I'm not an extraordinary woman. I'm a woman like any other. I manage to bear everyday troubles and cares because I know God is there. I know this may seem like a lot of nonsense, but I know I'm not alone with my problems. Someone is helping me.

If young people today knew they were not alone in their suffering, as a result of the separation of their parents or whatever else, that God is there to help them, perhaps there would be fewer suicides. Perhaps fewer young people would be dropping out of school because they would be in a better position to cope with their lives, with their reality.

What I would like for my children is schools where what they are taught is not contrary to my values or to the values of the Catholic Church. That's what I would like. In any case, it seems important to me that we guarantee children the right to schools where they learn proper values. That's what I'm asking you. I pray for that every day and I'm going to continue because it's important to me.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you very much, Madam.

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

The next speaker is Marie-Anne Hotte.

Mrs. Marie-Anne Hotte (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I'm not familiar with legal terms and I won't try to make a proper presentation on the validity of maintaining all of section 93. Other people, specialists in the field, have done that. We have heard some of them and you have obviously heard some as well.

I would simply ask you to hear my complaints as a Canadian and Quebec citizen, as a teacher with 40 years' experience and as a mother of 10 children who, feeling concerned and insecure, is asking you to intervene to safeguard the vested religious educational rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Knowing the precarious nature of the Quebec Education Act, I definitely want to avail myself of the constitutional protection afforded by section 93 so as not to be at the mercy of future elected governments.

• 1920

I won't be telling you anything new when I say that, regardless of the political party in power, since the Parent Report, we have witnessed a genuine conspiracy to destroy the existing denominational system. You need only glance through the Parent Report to realize this is true. I would even say that, since the Parent Report, we have witnessed a successful conspiracy, one that is being conducted by a group of intellectuals and, unfortunately, of clerics.

That's why we have come to ask for your help. Things have gone that far. It's unfortunate, but that's the case. Considering that the undenominationalization of education will not just affect teaching of the catechism, I wonder: what will happen with the choice of textbooks for courses in philosophy, psychology, history and theology? People will say these all amount to "demonology".

Won't this be an open door to complete permissiveness? A blank cheque, as it were? There will be no more right of inspection or right to dissent. Genuine dictatorship will follow. I went to Moscow about 15 years ago and I was arrested because I had a biblical drawing book that I had taken because we were supposed to visit a school. We experienced things like this. And we are going to experience things like this.

Furthermore, I fail to see how respect for diversity, the plurality of religions in this country and tolerance at all costs can be invoked in every case to deprive the founding peoples of their vested education rights. Where must the pioneers' concessions stop? Doesn't the freedom to stretch your arms stop where your neighbour's nose begins?

A government's first concern must be to introduce an education system that can instil values that can shape responsible citizens for a peaceful society. I'm repeating words from the Parent Report, but the means used to achieve this end are not the ones we think.

In this case, ladies and gentlemen, you now have the opportunity to exercise your authority through action that will help transmit to future generations the values from which you yourselves have benefited. I offer you my trust as a tribute, and I state by appeal once again: in the name of God and for the love of your fellow man, please decide because our bishops have betrayed us.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you for your presentation, Mrs. Hotte.

Now we are going to move on to the next speaker, Mr. Roland Paradis.

Mr. Roland Paradis (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I am here with my wife Pierrette and friends to present to you briefly our opinion on the possible amendment to section 93. Pierrette and I are the parents of four children, including three who are in high school and one in elementary school. We are here because we do not want to lose our constitutional right to denominational schools.

We have always understood that children's education, including schooling, is the primary responsibility of parents, not of various governments. Children's education starts at birth. From that moment on, children are taught the basics of their faith, starting with their baptism. However, we have trouble continuing this responsibility during their schooling.

We try to transmit Christian values to children at home before they start school, but the schools don't really help us discharge our responsibilities as parents in this regard. Not only is it becoming increasingly difficult to ensure our children grow in their faith in the course of their school education, but now an attempt is also being made to remove Catholic schools from the education system.

Why must we lose our right to educate our children in the Catholic faith? That faith is the basis, the foundation of our thoughts and attitudes; we're losing our Catholic schools in the name of what, of whom? What about the fact that the education of children is the primary responsibility of parents? It is up to parents to decide, not to others. We say no to any change that may mean our children will be educated in a school system without Christian values.

This country was built on the spread of the Catholic religion and we want our children to grow up with a Catholic background, both in their schooling and in their daily lives. In this respect, the Catholic Church is a fundamentally important instrument in discharging this primary responsibility of parents.

• 1925

Will the desired change to section 93 ensure the continuity of an education in the Catholic faith? Some may make this into an election promise, but once the amendment has been passed, that promise will be quickly forgotten and the silent majority will remain silent. The Catholic Church will be merely a matter for the elite, as the private schools currently are.

Why all the fuss? If there is a need for a better school in another language, then let's hurry up and build it. No thank you to the amendment. As parents, we don't want it. Leave us our denominational schools so that, through all the technological and materialistic change, our children can continue living and strengthening their faith.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for taking the time to listen to and consider the parents' point of view.

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

The next speaker, Marie-Thérèse Roy.

Mrs. Marie-Thérèse Roy (Individual Presentation): I'm going to begin by thanking you because I decided to join the other speakers at the very last minute.

I am the mother of two children and a teacher, and I've always been interested in the issue of education.

Does the expression A mari usque ad mare mean anything to you? I've searched through the first 100 psalms today because Canada's model, which was given to us by the Fathers of Confederation, was taken from the psalms, and this is proof that this motto was an expression of our founders' respect for and faith in our Judeo-Christian heritage.

As you know, our denominational schools were not established yesterday. They were founded at the same time as this country, in New France, with Champlain in 1608. Marguerite Bourgeoys had the first school in the seventeenth century. From the founders of New France down to today, there has always been a concern and respect for this cultural and Christian heritage which has been ours since our country was founded, long before Confederation.

Now it won't come as a surprise to anyone that prominent people such as Mr. Lamontagne and Pierre Elliott Trudeau were educated at the best educational institutions run by the clergy. The Collège des Jésuites in Montreal has given us our most prominent figures, and you know that even better than I.

People from our religious communities, men and women, members of religious orders and members of the clergy, have marked our history with the best educational institutions at the primary, secondary, college and university levels. We have one a stone's throw from here: the University of Ottawa. If we hadn't had the religious orders and the clergy, I don't know how the English and French education systems in our country would have turned out.

So I find it hard to understand this action by a minority that wants to impose its goals on the majority. If I'm entitled to do so, I want to warn you. Don't touch section 93, which guarantees our right to denominational status and guarantees respect for our Judeo-Christian heritage. If you change it, you risk setting a dangerous precedent and putting weapons in the hands of a minority that will undermine the freedoms of the majority. This won't come as a surprise to anyone. You've heard people tell you for days, "Watch out, the majority is being silenced."

• 1930

Amending section 93 is like going to fetch grandfather because the baby needs changing. In other words, people who want to get what they need don't need to amend section 93, which provides for a vested right that must stay vested. I beg you, don't set any dangerous precedents.

Section 93 is based on a legal stability that guarantees our right and our freedoms.

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

Mrs. Marie-Thérèse Roy: One last sentence, please. A people whose leaders cast off the values received from their ancestors will be deprived of the essential foundation on which to build a valid future.

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

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We will now hear another witness. Brian Jewitt.

Mr. Brian Jewitt (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

[Translation]

I am an Anglophone, but I can speak a little French, if that doesn't bother you or doesn't hurt your ears.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Use the language of your choice.

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Jewitt: I'm sorry.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We have translation.

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Jewitt: Seventeen years ago, I was living in New Zealand, and my wife and I thought we would return to Canada to reclaim one of the still valid heritages, the French heritage, because I felt the English heritage had become an American heritage. When I registered for tax purposes, the man asked me my religion. I answered that I was an atheist. He said there was no space for "atheist" and that I had to choose between "Catholic atheist" and "Protestant atheist". I said that, in that case, I was a Catholic atheist. I wanted my children to benefit from French culture. I have two children, Marissa, who is 15 and attends the Polyvalente L'Érablière in Gatineau, and my son Ulysse, who attends the École Massé.

Taken together, that means 15 years of French in Quebec. I sat on the school steering committee to help a bit or to do what I could to help. With time, however, I noticed I didn't like religious education in the schools. I was a Catholic atheist taxpayer. I realized that we in the Outaouais give birth to children outside of wedlock. In this region, we have the highest rate of illegitimate births in Canada. Violence is increasing and the drop-out rate here is the highest in the Western world. The suicide rate is the highest in Canada, except among the Aboriginal population. In addition, in the Outaouais, we have the highest consumption of heating oil in North America and the highest level of garbage production in the Western world.

All this is a testimonial to religious education. In addition, the Outaouais has the cheapest people in the world, with only $12 per capita in charitable donations. That compares with Newfoundland.

• 1935

I also realized that only 12 percent of Catholics attend mass on Sundays. Where are the other 88 percent? I ask you. Why do you strive to teach things to my children, to our children, when everyone else stays away from Church except for funerals and weddings?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: And baptisms, too.

Mr. Brian Jewitt: What irritated me the most was an article published on May 22 in the Ottawa Citizen—not in Le Droit because it's a very proper, Catholic newspaper that didn't mention it—concerning Cardinal Pio Laghi. Cardinal Laghi is the prelate who oversees all Catholic schools around the world and is sought after by women in Argentina for having assisted in the murder of 30,000 intellectuals.

According to an article published in the New York Times in May 1995, Cardinal Laghi's military priests boarded airplanes to help the executioners push the intellectuals out of the plane. And the priests were there to console the executioners who pushed the intellectuals, the social activists out the door. This is the man, the cardinal, the prelate who oversees my École Massé and my École L'Érablière which my children attend.

I don't care about this revision. What has caused the most wrong is what the Catholic and Protestant systems have produced. When I arrived here, I saw the Protestant and Catholic school buses and I wondered: Have I gone back to the Middle Ages, the Dark Ages? What's a Protestant or a Catholic in the twentieth century? I don't give a damn.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Jewitt, thank you for your presentation.

Mrs. Gibeault.

Mrs. Marie Gibeault (Individual Presentation): Honourable senators and distinguished members of Parliament,

[English]

honourable senators and distinguished members of Parliament, I come before you to share from the bottom of my heart my concerns in an open and frank manner. I also wish to explain my position from the perspective of a Catholic parent, former teacher, and concerned citizen on the matter at hand regarding the proposed amendment to section 93 of the Canadian Constitution.

[Translation]

I'm the mother of three children who are still at school and I have held teaching positions at a number of levels in Quebec and Ontario for some years. I have also worked as a volunteer member on school committees and in a number of other areas. I know that October will be a very difficult month for Canadians, and particularly for Quebeckers.

The entire issue of section 93 imperils the futures of generations of future citizens, who are powerless to make their voices heard and unable to exercise or even safeguard their rights, if the efforts of those who oppose the proposed amendment to section 93 cannot open your eyes to the hidden danger.

Not even our most educated leaders will be able to see all the pitfalls in this affair. I would like to touch your hearts so that you understand the importance of maintaining the status quo as regards section 93.

• 1940

If a change were made, it would be too late to go back. How then would you propose to restore order and unity to our legislature after signing a pact that leads to chaos and ruin throughout a country and to an uncertain future?

I admit I understand your dilemma. Personally, I have already been in the camp of those in favour of the change. In 1997, the Green Paper was published in Quebec, and I was very active in this issue. Along the way, however, I met people who opened my eyes to the beauties of what was in our Catholic and Protestant schools. I gradually came to understand the importance of keeping section 93 without making any changes.

I'm trying to skip to the most important points. You have a document before you and you will be able to read the parts I skip. Some things have already been said and I'm trying not to repeat them.

There is one great hero in Canadian history who is not very well known. I discovered a gem in the National Archives. It was Louis Riel's last letter to his wife and children. You will be able to read it. That got me thinking. I'm going to read it because it's too important. It reads:

My Beloved Marguerite,

I am writing to you at about one o'clock on this fine morning. Today is the sixteenth, a quite remarkable day.

I hope you will remember me fondly. I am writing today with advice which I offer out of the love you know I have for you. Take good care of your young children. Your children still belong more to God than to you. Strive to give them the care most consistent with your religion; ask them to pray for me. Write often to your Good Father. Tell him I have not forgotten him one single day. Find the courage to face this test. Life seems sad at times. But when we find it at its saddest, that is sometimes when it is more agreeable to God.

Louis "David" Riel, your husband, who loves you in Our Lord.

A word of love in the Good Lord to my sweet little Jean, and a word of love and tenderness as well to my sweet little Marie-Angélique.

Take heart. Bless you. Your father, Louis David Riel.

So denominational education for him was a constitutional right acquired through bloody struggles for freedom. Would he have abandoned section 93?

It is acknowledged that life without faith has no meaning. So why preserve faith in schools? Why keep section 93 intact? The following answers are of the greatest importance for people of good faith and even for others. Perhaps these explanations will help you better understand the duties of Christians toward their families, their country and the Church.

The faithful cannot refrain from watching over each other, since Christian thinking embraces all aspects of their lives 24 hours a day, wherever they may be. They examine topics of current interest in an attempt to find ways to help those who suffer.

I have given you the tools to afford you the opportunity to reflect, as a group or individually. I realize there are some who have changed their positions, somewhat as I have done since 1977. I'm thinking of William Coulson, who was in favour of the theory of the clarification of values and who acknowledged the wrong he was doing around the world. There are also a number in the political world.

• 1945

The catechism contains rules that help us direct education. You have the numbers that concern you on this matter, and there is also the encyclical letter by Pope Pius XI. I ask you please to read them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, for your presentation, Mrs. Gibeault. We are now going to pause for two minutes so that people can approach.

• 1945

• 1947

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are now going to move on to the question period.

Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much for your presentation, ladies and gentlemen. I thought it was excellent.

I would like to pose this question to Elizabeth LaPrairie because it's something from her submission. I sense there's a concern about how the consensus was reached. All the MLAs in Quebec City voted unanimously and solidly, and I'm suggesting it could possibly have been a political vote. When I look at your submission, I really question it. When we're submitting 235,000 names on a petition to the legislative assembly of Quebec and it comes out with a unanimous vote, it suggests to me perhaps there was some political motivation for that.

Further, in the report it suggests there was consensus, and it names groups and applicants such as Alliance Quebec—and Alliance Quebec showed up here too. It said it does not believe constitutional extinguishment is necessary, which kind of goes against the report too.

I would ask you to perhaps expand on it a bit. Is it your belief that consensus has not been demonstrated in this application?

• 1950

Ms. Elizabeth LaPrairie: It definitely has not. They didn't hold any public hearings and they refused to allow this enormous petition before they voted. In other words, they wanted to ram it through and give the impression.... At least in Newfoundland they had two referendums. They had none in Quebec. So they have taken away our rights.

Mr. Dion is saying he's in favour of it, and our Prime Minister...before public hearings are even held here. Mr. Dion says he's going to proceed with the amendment. So this whole affair is an absolute sham. Have they already written their report saying they agree with it? Is all of this just a facade? It's so undemocratic it's sickening.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: I wouldn't want to violate your rules. I don't have a question for any witness in particular, but would rather like to start a brief discussion on the way I feel about the exercise we're conducting here this evening.

I'm very pleased with the testimony by Mrs. LeMay and Mrs. Nolet, but I have a sense of disappointment with the rest of the testimony that I would like to share. I believe there is something sacred and something I am prepared to recognize as a citizen and that is called people's religious convictions.

What I have the most trouble with is when anyone thinks his religion is superior. When you appear before us and talk about cultural genocide, when you say we're not responsible, that we're doing our job poorly and that you question the legitimacy of people who have been elected, I don't feel that's being very open-minded, and I wonder how that is consistent with the principles of life which, as Christians, you believe you apply in your lives.

In closing, I want to say three things to you. Each person in life is entitled to his own religious convictions, and I have never questioned that. There was a consultation in Quebec which, on four occasions, enabled various groups, including a certain number of your representatives, to be heard. Not only was there a consultation, but there is a coalition, which you are free not to join, and people who appeared before us, in the course of our proceedings, who represented two million individuals.

As to the rights of minorities, I entirely agree with you on that. They cannot be conditional on the weight of the majority. I would have liked you to explain to me this evening how... It isn't true that a vested right is an argument because women were not recognized in the Constitution of 1867. There are a lot of anachronisms because societies and constitutions evolve.

If, apart from the vested right argument, any of you this evening feel that your God is superior to mine and are capable of convincing me that I should reject the amendment, I am prepared to hear you. However, I claim that, as regards this exercise, some of you have missed the point. I say that in a friendly way.

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

Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Thank you for the testimony you have given this evening. I know this is all the more difficult since, in the world of fairly uncertain convictions around us, one needs profound convictions to assert oneself as you have done.

I would like to ask you one question. I'm sure you didn't prepare your presentations yesterday or today. You feel you were not consulted. I see that the two million referred to by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Mr. Ménard, are students.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's the coalition. The 43 groups representing two million individuals.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Please continue, Madam Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: In more concrete terms, I want to ask you whether, in preparing your briefs or in the discussions you had amongst yourselves, priests helped you think through your positions. Did they take positions in your respective parishes or were they, as it were, completely out of the picture?

• 1955

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Madam Lavoie-Roux, could you say to whom you are putting your question?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I believe it's for anybody who wishes to answer.

[English]

Ms. Brenda Donnelly: I will. No one helped me prepare my brief or anything. I just came here because what you're doing is wrong.

That young man down the table just said it—once a woman gets the vote, it's there to stay.

Why are we here? It's an inherent right.

[Translation]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve says that women were not legally recognized in 1867, but when they were legally recognized, that took nothing away from men. But here, it is quite possible that something regarding denominational rights may be removed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Just a moment. Mr. Paradis is going to answer.

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

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Guarantees are being removed; guarantees are being removed.

Mr. Roland Paradis: I'm somewhat disappointed. I really don't feel I'm in a democratic country right now because the member is accusing me, without me being entitled to respond, of claiming that my religion is superior to his or any other. That's completely false. I never said that and I would never say it.

I came into the world in this religion, with good principles and good values. I have faults and I am certain I have sinned, but I have lived in various countries, I have seen different religions and different people, and we are completely prohibited from openly practising our religion in those countries, whereas here

[English]

we bent backwards

[Translation]

in order to please everyone. That doesn't bother me, but when someone wants to take away what our ancestors worked for in their faith, in their hope of a better life, a better country, without hurting others, without destroying others, without imposing themselves on others, I don't accept that. It's not democratic.

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

Senator Beaudoin.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Mr. Picard wants to speak.

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

Mr. Gérard Picard: Currently, and this is the big problem, a global Christian society in Quebec is being compared with paganism, a kind of practical atheism, from which the Parent Report—and Madam spoke of this earlier—sprang in the 1960s. I heard that an effort was made to recruit teachers in France and that authorities made sure they were atheists before hiring them. I haven't looked into that, but we've moved on from that stage to this business of paganism.

Our young people are losing touch. Grandparents, parents and grandchildren are losing touch with each other. Someone said only eight percent attended Church. That's true, that's quite true, but young people 20 to 35 years of age are no longer there. As a result of the dissolution of our society, there are children who suddenly find themselves with a key and who, at 13 or 14, fall into despair, and then its suicide. We see this almost every day.

In my community, near my home, in Longueuil, four young people died the other day, and this is increasing.

Furthermore, from a demographic standpoint in Quebec, we realize that democracy has a kind of rope around its neck. I just left Montreal and I don't feel like going back. The atmosphere is beginning to be so stuffy in Quebec that I feel like going and getting some fresh air in western Canada.

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

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: My question is for Mrs. Gibeault. You said you had changed your mind. You were in favour of this school of thought and changed your mind at one point. That's interesting and I would like to know why. When people defend their ideas, such as the right to practise a religion, and so on, I believe we all agree. Practising the religion of one's choice or not having a religion is a sacred right because the Supreme Court has ruled that both were in the Canadian Constitution. I would like to know why you changed your mind.

• 2000

Mrs. Marie Gibeault: In the 1970s, the emphasis was on teacher training. Future parents—and teachers are often future parents—were encouraged not to teach their children to read, write or count before sending them to school. This happened at the University of Ottawa. This was a friendly bit of advice that we were given.

In particular, it was said, don't show them how to pray, don't teach them anything religious at home because they'll be completely confused once they get to school. In 1977, given the path I had followed, I still had this attitude.

However, I also heard that we couldn't just establish French or English schools. There is a reason why there are Catholic and Protestant schools in Quebec, separate schools in Ontario, and so on. That got me thinking and various factors came into play as my personal training progressed.

I could give you concrete examples, but I wouldn't want this to be interpreted as aggressiveness on my part toward anyone of any nationality or ethnic group. Instead I would say that, here in Canada, Christianity has been so important that it has contributed to the founding of our social order; it's based on love.

In other countries, society is guided by other principles. There are societies where hatred is the guiding principle and societies where the principle of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" applies. There are various philosophies depending on the country.

Canada was built on the idea of love, on the gift of self. If we remove section 93, I fear I will no longer be able to recognize my country. I wonder then where I would live if I no longer felt Canada belonged to me.

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

Mrs. Sheila Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I listened to the testimony very carefully. I even heard what was implied, that is that we are all experiencing destabilization as a result of the dramatic social changes that are occurring, not only here in Quebec, but everywhere around the world.

It should not be forgotten that the changes brought about by globalization, the high rate of unemployment, the impossibility of foreseeing or dreaming of a future for our children as we used to be able to do, all the new technology, that all this has greatly disrupted our society.

Ladies and gentlemen, I understand you in one way. Yes, religion, faith and the existence of God are concepts of the greatest importance. However, they have not prevented us from having more suicides, more divorces, more unmarried women or more abandoned seniors. Our society is affected by all kinds of ills, not only in Quebec, but around the world as well. It is nevertheless true that on this entire planet, the best place in the world is here in Canada.

And I would add that it's not only in Quebec. When I say Canada, that includes all the other provinces. Together, we project the image of a good life, of respect for others, of respect for our home town. I believe we must really grasp what underlies this bill, which has been evolving for 30 years. We must understand, and I hope you will understand, that all these changes, as well as the arrival of refugees and immigrants, have brought about enormous changes in our society.

We are making all kinds of attempts to cope with this new society. One of those attempts is to group people together by language, that is French and what follows in its wake, culture and expression, Molière, etc., or English, which is another culture, that of Shakespeare and so on. We want to try to live properly together with mutual respect for our differences.

In addition to that...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. Finestone, do you have a question?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Personally, I have a great deal of respect for all these people. I read almost all the briefs earlier and I listened to them. I want them to know that everyone around this table is as concerned as they are, that we and our own families are as upset as they are.

• 2005

However, I don't believe that this is because of what is going on in the schools as regards religion. The values we have as Canadians are expressed in the charters, both the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter. They express values of respect for differences and so on. I believe we have to have a little more confidence. Your priests, the people who provide moral instruction...

[English]

I think that's the way you say moral. Have I got the right word?

[Translation]

So these people want to serve as well.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Could you speed up a little, Madam, because others would also like to speak in the debate.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I know. What I want to explain to you is that the bill does not concern protection. It only concerns small minorities. Section 93...

[English]

Do it in French for me, please. Tell them what it doesn't protect.

I'd like you to understand that if we remove 93, which is giving us some concern...but notwithstanding in section 93 school boards as such are not protected.

[*Français]

Ils ne sont pas protégés maintenant.

Language rights are not protected.

[Translation]

There is no protection, either for English or for French. I feel sad when I listen to these people...

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

Mr. Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'll try to limit myself to two minutes. First, I would like to thank you for being here. It's true that this was not easy. It's true one gets the impression that decisions have been made in advance. That's not pleasant for you. All of a sudden, we hear Mr. Dion define our mandate and state that this is what he wants to do. It's true it's not easy.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: He mainly said that we were going to hold hearings, but he would not change his mind.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to express my concerns. Whether we want to or not, we have to make a decision. When we have to make a decision, we have to say yes or no. That's the power we have. We have not yet made our recommendations, but we have to vote on them whether or not they are followed.

Who is in the best position to teach religion to our children? Isn't it the families themselves, with the aid of the Church, rather than a teacher who may not even be interested? We can't even control that. I tell you I haven't yet made my decision on this subject. I can tell you that.

I simply want to tell you that this is not easy for an individual, particularly when you see what is going on today. In your home province of Quebec, religion is taught in the schools and yet you have four individuals who committed suicide, and so on. And yet religion is present.

In any case, that's how I see matters and I simply wanted to make that reflection.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Two people are going to speak on this point, Mrs. LeMay and Mrs. Nolet.

Mrs. LeMay, I'm listening.

Mrs. Denise LeMay: I attended a talk given by Mr. Guy Côté of the Catholic Committee of the Quebec Superior Council on Education. He informed us that, in September 1996, a pilot project would be conducted in certain Quebec schools to introduce a cultural religion program which could be implemented in September 1998.

We hear assurances on television and elsewhere that religion isn't threatened, that section 93 is being repealed to make way for a nice cultural religion course, which seems reassuring. You think the name means that religion will be depicted in relation to our culture. In fact, however, what is concealed behind this innovation is that the instruction will focus on other world religions and on their differences. And this will be done starting in elementary school, if you don't mind. So there is much that is not being said and this method isn't honest.

All parents—and you are all aware of this—want Catholic religious instruction. That's 82 percent in Quebec and they are the taxpayers.

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

• 2010

Mrs. Johanne Nolet: What concerns me about religious education in the schools is that we are already constantly forced to fight—in any case, I am—even though we have denominational schools. My children are receiving values contrary to those I want to transmit to them, in so-called Catholic schools. If we eliminate denominational school status, what values will be transmitted to the children?

I had to fight with a school at one point because it was teaching things in sex education that I did not really agree with. In arguing with the school principal, I was able to rely on the argument that the school was Catholic and could not teach anything that contradicted the teachings of the Church.

At that point, I don't know what kind of influence I had, but my children were allowed to be exempted from the course. I won't tell you what there was in the course, but it really wasn't consistent with the Church's values or with my own.

If we can no longer say that a Catholic school can't teach these kinds of things, what do I have left for my children? That's my question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Madam. Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should not bring my alma mater into the debate, but I nevertheless feel somewhat obliged to the University of Ottawa to rectify the situation somewhat, being the product of that university.

I don't agree at all with the remarks I heard here this evening by one witness concerning the university. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion on this point. I respect yours, but I don't share it. I wanted to testify on behalf of my alma mater.

Yes, I have taken my time, Madam, because my question is very brief. It is for Mrs. LeMay. Incidentally, Mrs. LeMay, I thank you for your comments on the sincerity of the committee members, and I believe we were also able to perceive quite a high degree of sincerity in your presentation as well.

Mrs. Denise LeMay: Thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You said something that could be interpreted in a way that could be turned against you or against what you are trying to defend. Ultimately, what we are trying to determine in part, here in this committee, is whether or not there is a consensus in Quebec on this motion to amend section 93.

In the last paragraph on page 3 of your presentation, you say that there is tension in your own family circle similar to the tension in society as a whole. Your godfathers, godmothers, friends, the members of your family and your neighbours do not share your concern. With all due respect, that indicates to me that there are people in your own family circle who are part of the consensus we are trying to convince you exists.

Mrs. Denise LeMay: What I have to say to that is that there is a genuine conspiracy throughout the present education system. I witnessed it during my experience on the school committee. Some people are politicized and have power within government, the media and probably within the Church, at all levels of power in our society and use their power to trick the public, to make it believe that religion is not threatened if section 93 is amended.

Furthermore, an attempt is being made to make us believe that this operation concerns linguistic school boards, whereas we know perfectly that's not true. There are all kinds of things concealed behind this amendment request which these people are trying to make us believe and which are false.

The population of Quebec has been completely duped, completely kept in the dark, far from the truth. What hope is left for us to build a better world for our children, when there is a real conspiracy by our leaders and by all those who have power at a number of levels in our society, when all these people use their power to make us continue believing falsehoods and lies?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Even among the bishops?

Mrs. Denise LeMay: I don't want to speak on behalf of the bishops. That's for you to judge.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): An additional comment by Brian Jewitt.

Mr. Brian Jewitt: I would like to take a few seconds to return to what I said earlier. I accused the people who are trying to preserve religious instruction in the schools of being thieves.

• 2015

They steal the time of my children and of other people's children. Why not try to teach the Critique of Pure Reason by Emmanuel Kant, as they do in Norway, where people can decide from the age of 18 whether they want to be religious? So they are thieves. That's all.

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

Mrs. Hotte.

Mrs. Marie-Anne Hotte: There is some truth in what's been said. I'm in favour of change, but not demolition. When we are told that our bishops or other people in authority... It's like asking children who are walking on the street, abandoned by their parents, what they're doing there. It's like telling them that their parents don't take care of them. How do you want these poor children to answer? Their parents aren't taking care of them. That's quite enough, without deciding not to go and help them.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm asking that people respect the committee members as well.

Mrs. Marie-Anne Hotte: We're seeking the help of the Senate and the House of Commons. We're asking you for help. That's because we have been abandoned, and you know that. I'm sorry, but that's the situation.

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

Brenda Donnelly.

[English]

Ms. Brenda Donnelly: Two things. I think what Denise LeMay is saying is the same as we are saying. Our schools are being taken over by the political will all the way down to the regional, to the parents' groups, all the way up to the region.

We are a committee of regions in Quebec. I know. I've worked in a school for 30 years. I've got the first drop-out school, and last year was its tenth anniversary and we had 10,000 children that went through it. So I fought the school system and I know what it's like. In certain schools there is a highly political group of people.

But I want to ask the Hon. Sheila Finestone, you said that for 30 years this has been in the making, this whole new thing in the Charter of Rights. Are you talking about the Charlottetown accord that we turned down, the Meech Lake accord? Is this the same thing you're trying to do?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No. What I was talking about—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I'll take it as a comment, and I will go to the next intervention, by Marlene Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Good evening, everyone. First, I would like to apologize to those whose presentations I was unable to hear. I can tell you, however, that I have read and studied all the briefs that were filed by some of you.

I must salute you and emphasize that you are very brave. It was really an act of courage to come before a parliamentary body, a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons which reports to Parliament, to defend your ideas. You are definitely ordinary citizens, and this is not something you have to do every day, unlike some witnesses that we have already had the pleasure or displeasure of hearing here and who do nothing but make presentations before committees.

However, I must say to all those whose briefs I read or whom I had the opportunity to hear, that I do not share your views. I must tell you that section 93 of the Constitution, even if it were maintained, would not provide any religious guarantee for the minority. That has been stated very clearly here by several experts. It provides a religious guarantee for Montreal Island, for the City of Montreal, for the island, though not for the entire island of Montreal, only the territory of the city of Montreal and that of Quebec City.

There currently are and historically have been school boards that call themselves Catholic, but there's nothing in our Constitution, either that of 1867 or that of 1982, that protects them, except in the city of Montreal and Quebec City. There is a right to dissentience in the other regions, which apparently does not apply to Catholics, since they are in the majority there.

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

• 2020

One brief and final remark by Mr. Peter Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much.

I have a question for Charles Ward. It has been suggested that section 93 is not a minority rights statement, yet clearly this section refers to minorities and dissension, which means not majority or minority. I've dealt in contract specifications all my working life. I'm not a lawyer. But when I see words printed in a document that says something and has interpretation for something, I think they have meaning.

It's stated here that never before in Canada's history has an amendment been made to the constitution which diminishes minority rights. I would like to ask you if it is your belief, then, that these educational reforms would be better served by improving on section 93, building on it, as the original constructors did. They built on section 93. They built the Constitution. Rather than extinguishing subsections (1) to (4) out of it, should we build on it and modify the section as it is? Is that your belief?

Mr. Charles Ward: Yes.

First of all, I would like to say the reason I'm here is that I went to speak to a school commissioner to find out about this change. He said to me if I want to know about it, the place to come is to see this committee. So here I am. He really got my dander up, as it were.

I believe they should enhance and build on section 93. Section 93 clearly uses the word “subjects”. School boards are the subjects. The word “subjects” is used. “Class of persons” is used. You can define and expand the class of persons to be as big and as broad as we want to have it.

I think section 93 should be built on. I do not believe we can remove a right such as section 93 without a referendum, going to the people. In this case we have a government that put its complete constitutional package on the table two years ago and it was defeated by the people. Now we have a constitutional change being put before us and we're not being asked about it.

I have not had anybody explain any parts of this proposal to me. I am here. I have heard a lot of the groups saying they represent 250,000 people, they represent 150,000 people. I represent over 5 million people. Those are the voters of Quebec. I'm not a subset of the 250,000 in the other groups who were here. They are a subset of the 5 million I am representing.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Ward, would you believe perhaps this question on extinguishing this area of the constitution should properly be tested before the courts of Canada, for an opinion of the courts of Canada?

Mr. Charles Ward: Frankly, I would prefer that it go to the people. One thing I do agree with.... If I may say so, I don't often agree with, if you will excuse me, the separatists, but I do agree our political decisions should be made by the people and the legislatures, not by the courts.

I would like to see our legislators bring it to the people and ask us. You might be surprised. They might agree with you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Ward. I would like to thank all of you for your presentations to the committee. Thank you everyone on behalf of all the committee members for taking part in the democratic process.

We are going to receive the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represented by Harry Daniels. Thank you very much. We will suspend the sitting for a minute so that Mr. Daniels can get set up.

• 2024

• 2027

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Your attention, please. We resume the sitting of the Special Joint Committee in accordance with the order of reference of October 1, 1997.

Following last night's presentation, we received a request from the Council of Aboriginal Peoples, represented by Mr. Harry Daniels, to add to last night's presentation. We are going to try to do so as quickly as possible, with Mr. Daniels' assistance and with yours, committee members.

Mr. Daniels.

[English]

Mr. Harry W. Daniels (President, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples): I'm here to make a presentation on behalf of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Pardon me?

Mr. Harry Daniels: I'm not an addendum to last night, to Mr. Chalifoux. I'm here for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We were told that you want to add some elements to what was presented to us last night.

Mr. Harry Daniels: Yes. In support.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Oh, in support. Okay.

Can you make your presentation in five minutes? That leaves the members of this committee the opportunity to ask you some questions. Go ahead, Mr. Daniels.

Mr. Harry Daniels: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for adding the congress to the witness list at short notice. I greatly appreciate this accommodation in your tight schedule.

The last time I was in this room I met with Mr. MacEachen and the Liberal Party caucus. They didn't respond to our wants and needs at that time so we had to occupy the place. I hope we don't have to do it again.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Harry Daniels: I would like to introduce Mr. Bob Groves, who you met last night, and my assistant, Lorraine Rochon.

You have a six-page brief in front of you. I'm going to speak to points. I had an earlier speaking engagement, so I will be brief.

• 2030

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is a national representative organization of over 800,000 Indian and Métis people living in hundreds of communities from Yukon to Newfoundland. In Quebec, CAP provides national representation for the over 40,000 Indian and Métis represented by the Native Alliance of Quebec. And CAP is one of four national organizations with a mandate and jurisdiction to represent aboriginal people in constitutional amendments and intergovernmental negotiations.

As a constitutional background of our organizations, we've participated in six of nine first ministers conferences held since 1982. Progress in six was made, and an amendment was reached in 1983. The three FMCs from which we were excluded all failed because we were excluded.

CAP proposes any abandonment of the principle that aboriginal peoples must fully participate in any constitutional change when our rights are affected. If our rights are not supposed to be affected, the change concerned must say so, and must say so explicitly. Just look at the Charlottetown accord legal text—and I'm going to read it to you in a moment—to see all the non-derogation clauses to amendments that don't appear to directly touch on aboriginal rights. This was agreed to only five years ago, but it has changed in the interim.

Fear of failure about reform has driven governments to end-run the proper procedures. We have a separatist government in Quebec, and it is trying to stampede Parliament into withdrawing from the education front in order to set a precedent, and it's a very dangerous precedent. We agree with the Native Alliance of Quebec's argument on each of the five concerns that NAQ has expressed.

In our view, the most dangerous threat posed by the amendment is the use of the section 43 procedure. There are three additional reasons for this concern. First, section 43 was never intended to be used when altering Parliament's jurisdiction. Parliament's jurisdiction is of national concern. It is a legitimate matter of concern to all legislators, and that is why the general amending formula is appropriate. Newfoundland is really the exception that proves the rule. Section 93 does not meet the section 43 test.

Second, Indian people, regardless of status, did have educational systems in place in Quebec at union, and they were denominational. They were either ones they ran themselves, or were ones run by various religious orders by arrangements with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs or under agreements with the Hudson's Bay Company in Rupert's Land. If the amendment goes ahead with no saving or non-derogation clause, there is a loss by Indians of our right to petition Parliament.

Finally, some have suggested that section 35 and section 91.24 protect all aboriginal rights from any negative impact of Quebec opting out of subsections 93(1) to 93(4). If that is true, why won't the federal government say so? And if Ottawa won't say so, you are bound to add a non-derogation clause or pass a companion amendment.

By way of closing, clear and present dangers have been pointed out to you. Our affiliate, the NAQ, stands to have the rights of its members affected. At the very least, you might seek a reference to the courts. Quebec is seeking a precedent of bilateralism. It is set out in its own resolution, so Parliament should set the record straight.

We understand what Quebec's government is seeking. The real issue is Parliament's duty. CAP sees your choices as threefold: one, to use a section 38 procedure; two, if you use section 43, you must either put a clear non-derogation clause in or ensure in the resolution of Parliament that you set the record straight about non-effect on aboriginal rights and on Parliament's powers to implement those rights; and three, pass a companion amendment to the Quebec resolution.

• 2035

Whatever approach you choose, you must at least be clear that you intend to do no harm. For that reason, you must get a clear statement made in the resolution or by the government that no right of any aboriginal person in Quebec is intended to be affected in any way, whether in relation to protections for denominational education rights or otherwise.

It should be noted that when there are substantive changes made to the Constitution, vis-à-vis Meech Lake...the Prime Minister and the Liberal government of Mr. Bourassa held hearings. It is my understanding that no hearings were held to change section 93, and that is a substantive change to the Constitution of Canada.

I'm just going to read to you a non-derogation clause that was in the working draft for the Charlottetown accord, and this was accepted by all governments. To protect aboriginal rights, non-derogation clauses were added to everything else in the Constitution, but section 127—that was voted on and accepted—says:

For greater certainty, except to the extent that is otherwise agreed by the Aboriginal peoples concerned, none of the provisions referred to in subsection (2), and no agreement made under any provision referred to in subsection (2), abrogates or derogates from

(a) the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada under class 24 of section 91 consistent with section 91A, as modified by section 95E;

(b) the federal fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal peoples; or

(c) the aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including

(i) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763,

(ii) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired,

(iii) the inherent right to self-government referred to in section 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the powers and jurisdictions set out in self-government agreements, and

(iv) any rights or freedoms relating to the exercise or protection of their languages, cultures or traditions.

Education was not spoken of explicitly, but you could say it falls under our cultures.

(2) This section applies in relation to the following provisions:

(a) paragraph (c) of clause 10 of section 92 and all that portion of section 92 following clause 16 thereof;

(b) class 12A of section 92;

(c) sections 92B to 92D;

(d) sections 93A to 93D;

(e) sections 95A to 95D;

(f) section 95E;

(g) section 106A; and

(h) section 126A.

My question to the chair and to the members here is, were they being frivolous in doing this? No, because they saw and they understood that, for anything that may happen in the future, to protect the aboriginal people of Canada and to maintain the fiduciary responsibility they had to put non-derogation clauses into the Charlottetown accord where they saw fit, and where they may in the future have an effect on the aboriginal rights and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Indeed, section 93 and the changes proposed are going to be changing. Is that a dangerous precedent for Quebec in terms of being able to opt out of future legislative items in Canada? So if this precedent is set on the backs of other Quebeckers and in our case for aboriginal people, then you'll be doing a disservice not only to our people but also to the people of Quebec and to the Canadian political system.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Daniels.

Is it your belief that if this resolution goes ahead or proceeds as proposed, it would infringe upon your charter rights and would result in a constitutional conference in accordance...? In other words, would it activate paragraph 35(a) of the charter in that a constitutional conference would have to be called? Is that your understanding?

• 2040

Mr. Harry Daniels: If it's the 38 amendment, yes. I'm relying on my assistant here, of course, at the same time.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Section 93, extinguishing of (1) to (4). Thank you.

Mr. Harry Daniels: Yes.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I remember that we discussed this and some other propositions before, I think at the time of Meech Lake. I remember the debate.

Many lawyers think that the aboriginals are protected by section 35 and that strictly speaking perhaps there is no necessity to have a notwithstanding clause.

I think your message is very clear. You don't want to take any risk or any chance and for more prudence you just want to have that clause added as a companion amendment to the amendment itself.

Mr. Harry Daniels: It has always been our position, sir, to have those kinds of protections for greater certainty.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: That's right.

Mr. Harry Daniels: Let's look at Canada. We have a long history of our treaty rights and our aboriginal rights being abrogated, infringed upon, or extinguished by all kinds of language.

If you continue to do this—and it may seem innocuous—and say we're just going to do this and it's not really going to affect much, you're affecting a lot of things. You're setting dangerous precedents for the parliamentary procedure. You understand that as well as anybody else, sir. I've seen you around many years in the constitutional talks.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, it's what I would call the greater certainty clause.

Mr. Harry Daniels: Yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It doesn't cause any harm.

I think you are adequately protected anyway, but you want that as an additional—

Mr. Harry Daniels: For greater certainty.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: —greater certainty clause.

Mr. Harry Daniels: Mr. Groves could add some to that, please, as a supplemental answer.

Mr. Robert Groves (Congress of Aboriginal Peoples): Senator Beaudoin, we had a discussion last night on a similar issue, and I think you're getting closer and closer to understanding the concern; it is for greater certainty, particularly if you use section 43.

If, obviously, there was no section 43 amendment, then we wouldn't have as much complaint. But if it is a section 43 then be sure it is a pure section 43. If it is, put in the greater certainty.

I was doing some research today and talking to some of your former colleagues at the University of Ottawa—historians. I have a long a list of names of those I've talked to. Cornelius Jaenen was one of those who I talked to about French regime history and legislation in Quebec at union.

After talking to about five or six historians and Indian affairs experts in the Government of Canada and outside, we formed the basis of a memorandum, which will be coming over to the committee tomorrow, to set out for you the references in subsections 93(3) and (4) of relevance to laws in force in the union that are applicable to this issue that would in fact provide you all the evidence you need for the concern with regard to clear and present danger.

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

We'll go now to Sheila Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm very glad that Senator Beaudoin was here and that you have clarified, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Groves, how you think we ought to handle this, because my concern was, as I don't know enough about Indian rights.... The only thing I do know is I did section 31 and I do know there wasn't enough money put aside for the housing and the schools you required on all the reserves, as women were entitled to come back and be equal with the men.

If a greater certainty clause is what we need, does that mean it would go as an addendum to the resolution, or is it tacked on to it? How does it work?

Mr. Robert Groves: If I could speak to this, Mrs. Finestone, if you put in a greater certainty clause in the substance, this would be the equivalent of annex three to last night's presentation—something of that nature. You would simply add it to the substance of the schedule to the resolution. That, however, would be imposing a penalty on you politically. You would require the entire amendment to be re-passed in the National Assembly.

• 2045

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's what I wanted to—

Mr. Robert Groves: That is the reason we suggested last night a companion resolution for passage by the Senate and the House of Commons, of a parallel or companion amendment to come into force at the same time. That would not require the National Assembly to go back on its original vote. It would simply require the National Assembly, and Parliament of course, to pass a second and companioned or companionable resolution that helps clarify the matter.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: We've been very concerned about consultations and support. Have you had the opportunity in such short time to have consulted with the appropriate members of the aboriginal community who are in support of these steps you are recommending to us?

Mr. Harry Daniels: The NAQ has done some. As a national organization we don't have the kinds of resources to do that, but they have done that in the province of Quebec.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: This would be the Cree, the Mohawks, and the other aboriginal groups, and that would include the Inuit?

Mr. Robert Groves: The substance of the concern was relayed on Thursday and Friday last week to all the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, which of course includes the Cree. We also sent it to Matthew Coon Come, the Grand Chief of the Cree. We sent it to Makivik, representing the Nunavik Inuit, and to a few other groups who might be interested because they have this off-reserve problem with regard to insufficient schools on reserve for their own members, whether they're status, or in the case of the NAQ's concern, non-status as well as status.

I've held some discussions with representatives of Makivik. They're supportive of what we're trying to do. They note, however, that Katavik Regional Government and the Cree School Board are sheltered by virtue of their land claim agreement from any such impact. That's because they have the treaty. They're the only ones in Quebec with a treaty. Everything south of Naskapi Cree and Inuit territory is not covered by treaty.

So the only other exemption from the impact of section 93 is by virtue of on-reserve school systems. Of course that's why you generally have non-concern being shown by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador; they represent on-reserve Indians. To be blunt, there is less concern in opposing the Quebec government when Mr. Bouchard has been so active in the last few months trying to prove himself as a great ally, monetarily and otherwise, of accommodating first nations.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much for the clarification. It certainly helps.

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

Paul DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

Mr. Daniels, on a couple of occasions in your presentation you refer to the use of section 43 as creating a dangerous precedent. The committee has heard a lot of evidence, and will likely hear some more, on whether section 43 is the way to go, and so on.

In regard to the use of the term “precedent,” there's legal precedent and political precedent—maybe Mr. Groves will help you out here—but I would like to get some clarification on exactly what your concerns are on the use of section 43 becoming a dangerous precedent.

As I understand Minister Dion's position, what he's saying is should another province come with a similar request under section 43, then the process is being established: that the government would look to see that it's a good amendment, that it's in the public interest that it be amended, and that there has been consensus among the people whose rights are affected. Given that sort of explanation of any future request, what exactly is your concern about a dangerous precedent?

Mr. Robert Groves: We've been thinking about a number of examples. The clearest example would be, in fact, one raised by the member from the Reform Party with respect to the charter.

One of the references in section 35.1, that is, requiring a first ministers conference with aboriginal participation, is a non-substantive clause in the charter. That is an interpretative clause, section 25, which refers to the royal proclamation and other rights and freedoms. The royal proclamation is not a specific provision anywhere in the Constitution, right? So you can amend; you can try. If this happened, then Quebec or any province could come forward and say from now on the royal proclamation doesn't apply in Quebec. That would be a section 43 amendment, if this precedent is used.

• 2050

The royal proclamation isn't in any particular provision except for section 25. It is referred to, right. It is a provision referred to in the Constitution. Because of the nature of the royal proclamation it applies differently in each province. It doesn't apply in some provinces and it does apply in others. Quebec can simply say let's use section 43 to draw up the royal proclamation reference to our province. The royal proclamation of course provides protections for the nature of treaty settlements.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But I think what the minister told the committee was that in that example the government would look and ask, is it a good amendment, is it in the public interest that this be done? If it doesn't meet that test, then it's not of a precedent value.

Mr. Robert Groves: Governments have a certain amount of discretion, but they don't have discretion with fiduciary obligations of the crown. That is a matter for the courts to decide.

If you want to risk that, you can risk it. I would suggest Senator Beaudoin is on the right line. Don't risk it. Put a clear non-derogation or greater certainty clause in. Don't try to push it on that issue. Frankly, I don't think Mr. Dion, or whoever drafted the amendment, grasps fully the nature of section 93.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The last intervention, Peter Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Groves, since this seemingly affects it from the Rupert's Land transfer and you touched on it briefly, could you perhaps expand on it a bit? I know it's taking up some of our time on another issue, but the Newfoundland question is coming up very soon. Does this affect Labrador differently from Newfoundland? Does this same concern extend into the Rupert's Land transfer? Was part of that allocated to Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Robert Groves: Since I work for aboriginal groups in both Newfoundland and Labrador, it's an interesting question you pose.

The 1912 boundaries extension, if you look at Quebec documentation, includes all of Labrador except for the thin, narrow coast. If you look at the Canadian documentation and maps it doesn't. It goes by the height of land. That wasn't resolved until 1927, in the Privy Council decision. It's still, of course, as you know, the position of the Quebec government that Labrador, except for the thin boundary along the coast, the height of land—what they call the height of land is 12 miles inland from Cape Chidley to Blanc-Sablon—is entirely Quebec territory within Rupert's Land.

So yes, who wins depends on your interpretation. The Privy Council last disposed of this issue. It can always come up again. The Supreme Court has overturned former Privy Council decisions.

I think your point about whether, if section 93 is withdrawn, there is an impact on fiduciary obligations that were retained by Parliament but also applied uniquely to Quebec, yes, it would, I think, depending on how you interpret the 1927 ruling. It would apply in Labrador equally as it does to northern Quebec.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Daniels, for your presentation tonight.

Sheila Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I would just like to know at what point in the next few days the Association des parents catholiques du Québec will be heard. They have requested to be heard. It's quite a number of days this request has been in.

[Translation]

This association represents 900 parishes in Quebec.

[English]

I would like to be assured they will be heard.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Frankly, I don't know when we could hear them.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm sorry. I know that we have added other groups and I'm not going to start a whole debate.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We take note of your remarks, Mrs. Finestone.

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Martine Bresson): Who is the person in charge?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I thought Senator Dalia Wood had told you last Friday before she became ill.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): I believe the association has already been represented by Ms. St-Cyr, who appeared with another group, and by Mr. Caldwell, during the same sitting.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Who makes the decision, Mr. Paradis?

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

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: The Joint Chairs.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We'll keep you informed on the subject. We take note of your request.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: And Mr. Gary Caldwell as well.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We have already heard Mr. Caldwell. We take note of your request.

We'll adjourn until tomorrow at 3:30 p.m., when we'll hear two experts.

• 2055

The committee was adjourned.