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]

Thursday, October 30, 1997

• 0838

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin (Shawinegan, Lib.)): Good morning. We are very pleased to welcome representatives of the Greater Quebec Movement, Messrs. Richard Smith, Deepak Awasti and Giuliano D'Andrea. Welcome.

You have ten minutes to make your presentation, after which we will open it up for questions.

You may share the presentation if you wish, but please identify yourselves the first time you speak.

[English]

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea (Acting President, Greater Quebec Movement): Merci. I'll do the presentation and hopefully we'll have plenty of time to have an interesting exchange.

• 0840

[English]

The reason we're here actually is to have an exchange of ideas and to try to see exactly what the anxiety is within the anglophone community, at least the way we see it.

The first thing I want to do is thank you all for being out here this early in the morning. Since it's early in the morning perhaps we can begin with a little analogy, which is going to help us understand exactly where we're coming from. It's a story that was told to me in a Catholic school in Quebec by a missionary priest. I've adapted it a little bit so that we can fit the scenario for section 93A.

[Translation]

Once there was a Anglophone Quebecker named John who wanted to climb the Rockies to enjoy the scenery. As he was climbing up, all of a sudden he had an accident. John fell. Fortunately, he had his rope. He fell two hundred metres, but the rope was still holding. Above him, were two hundred metres; he couldn't see very well, though, because he'd lost his glasses. When he looked, he realized he was at least one hundred metres from terra firma. There he was hanging over a long drop.

Like any good Catholic Anglo-Quebecker, he decided to pray to God. He began by saying:

[English]

Is there anyone up there?

[Translation]

Hearing no answer, he again said, desperate:

[English]

Is there anyone up there?

[Translation]

All of a sudden, the clouds dispersed and a voice answered:

[English]

John, if you have faith, I can save you.

[Translation]

Imagine how happy John was:

[English]

Yes, yes, I have faith, I have faith. Tell me what I must do—anything.

[Translation]

And the voice answered:

[English]

If you really have faith, I can save you.

[Translation]

Once again, he said: Yes,

[English]

Yes, tell me what to do.

[Translation]

And the voice answered:

[English]

Let go of the rope.

[Translation]

So, John looked down, then up, thought a little bit, and answered:

[English]

Is there anyone else up there?

[Translation]

In a way, that is the dilemma the Anglophone and Allophone communities in Quebec are facing with this proposed amendment to Section 93 of the Constitution.

[English]

It's exactly the same dilemma. On the one hand, many anglophones feel they are clutching and holding onto that rope. When they look down, not having their glasses, they're not sure what they see. They may be afraid. When they look up they feel the climb is quite hard.

The voice is the voice of government saying let go. It's hard. We can understand that a lot of people in the community feel it's very difficult.

When I was growing up and going to school, section 93 represented more than just a text that was in the books. It wasn't just about religious rights. To many anglophones it also represented educational rights. For whatever it was worth, before 1982 a lot of anglophones felt this was the constitutional protection they had to their schools.

What might surprise you is that the Greater Quebec Movement, of which we are its representatives today, are actually in favour of the legislation.

We come to it from a very different view from most anglophone groups. We have a brief here. I don't know if everyone has copies of it. We were late churning it out, but we'll be happy to give you copies afterwards.

We are going to be looking at three areas of concern that we've identified. The first one in the bill is the term “English-speaking community”. In Quebec, the definition of “English-speaking community” seems to fluctuate depending on whom you speak to. That is certainly a concern for us.

We'd also like to suggest to you that part of the problem of the anglophone community is specifically its educational institutions and how they have not adapted to the modern Quebec.

• 0845

[English]

The second section we would like to discuss is section 93. I know you've heard a lot of anglophone groups advocate that perhaps section 23 of the charter should be beefed up in one form or another. They would be willing to let go of section 93 for a stronger section 23 in the charter.

We feel that is not necessary. In fact, section 93, in our analysis, has served as a crutch for our community and may have hurt it more than it should have helped.

Finally, given the nature of the changes being contemplated by this legislation, we would suggest that perhaps the committee format is not sufficient to really get a sense of what opinion is in Quebec. Perhaps there should be a royal commission, not simply on education but on the diaspora of anglophones from Quebec, which is tremendous. When every year thousands are leaving and many more are contemplating leaving, there's a definite problem. I think the federal government has an interest in trying to find out what the problem is.

You may be surprised that our movement does not necessarily buy into the argument that it's Quebec nationalism that is scaring anglophones away, although that is a factor. The concern that seems to be coming out of our meetings, especially from members of my generation, is the problem that so many of us in our thirties today, and those who are going through the system, may have a functional level of French as a second language, but it's certainly not a competitive level of French. When you hit the job market, you find the situation of many of our peers choosing to go to Ontario or western Canada or the United States, where their opportunities are better. They don't feel their language skills are strong enough to compete in a Quebec job market.

Those are generally the questions we would like to exchange with you today. Fundamental to that is, do we really need the kind of protection for our English-language educational institutions in Quebec that some of our anglo friends, who would be presenting a different vision, are articulating?

The Greater Quebec Movement is an integrationist movement. It feels that the anglos who will be most successful in the Quebec of tomorrow are those who are fully integrated in both languages—those who can live and work in French, not only those who can go to their local dépanneur and have a little five-minute conversation with their francophone counterpart.

So it's a real debate. What's sad for us, especially for my generation, is how this message has not gotten through. It is so rare to be able to articulate the message that we need to ensure that our English institutions take as a priority, and a very serious priority, the teaching of French as a second language. Often we don't feel that this is happening.

In conclusion, I'd like to suggest to you that in Quebec we have status anglophones and non-status anglophones. A status anglophone is the anglophone who is entitled to go to an English school. A non-status anglophone is the one who has English as a mother tongue but cannot go. The irony is, those who cannot go to English school will probably live out their lives in Quebec. Those of us who do go to English school become the workforce for Ontario, western Canada, and for export.

The philosophy of the Greater Quebec Movement is that there is a greater Quebec than the Quebec of political parties, or the Quebec of certain elites. There is the Quebec of the shop owner, the construction worker, the student, and the typical person living in Montreal, Quebec City, and the suburbs. That message, unfortunately, rarely gets through. We need to have that voice addressed.

• 0850

[English]

The last point that perhaps if we have time I would like to exchange thoughts on is, of course, this idea of consensus in Quebec. From what I read in the papers, you'll probably have very important witnesses this afternoon who will try to convince you that there is a consensus. Our position is that we don't find that there is any empirical evidence for it.

Many minority members of our communities don't even have the opportunity of approaching and discussing their points of view and fears, largely because they feel marginalized. So when you have members coming forward and saying, “Il y a consensus au Québec”, maybe in parts of Quebec there are, but not in my community, certainly not in Deepak's community, and Richard Smith can say the same.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. D'Andrea.

We'll hear the first intervention by Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): I find this very interesting, because I gather from your submission that you do support the government's move to remove Quebec from section 93, but you say that there is not a consensus from the minority group that is most affected by that move in Quebec. Did I read you correctly?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: Yes, you did.

Ms. Val Meredith: As an organization, do you still support the government going ahead with removing Quebec from section 93 without getting that consensus from the group that will be most affected by this change?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: I think the group that will be most affected by the change will probably benefit from the changes that are going to take place, largely because to understand anglo-Quebec you have to understand that it's a community that is emigrating, that is leaving. It's a community that is losing its youth.

The only point we're trying to make here is that by removing section 93 the process of change does not stop there. What happens is we'll have the opportunity to address ourselves to the National Assembly and to get the kinds of changes we want in Quebec. Ultimately, the bargaining that's going to take place between our community and the rest of Quebec will have to be bargained at home.

Mr. Deepak Awasti (Director, Greater Quebec Movement): The situation in Quebec is different in that the community is demanding more and more instruction in French. There are those established interests who will say that there is a need for greater control or greater management or greater rights than are guaranteed under section 23, but the community at the grassroots level is moving away from the institution. The institution isn't the question any more.

As a school commissioner at the Lakeshore school board, I can say that the demand in our community is more for French immersion. That is, we're not interested in whether we have control over an English school or not; it's a question of whether or not we can have French immersion or have our children being fully bilingual at the end of their education. That's more important, increasingly so.

It's really what you may hear from Alliance Quebec or the Equality Party or these established interests who will express an interest or a viewpoint that is not necessarily consistent or consonant with the views of the community at the grassroots level.

Ms. Val Meredith: I'm still concerned that you feel, even though it does not have the support of the community that will be most affected— We have been told many times that this is not a language rights issue, this is not a minority rights issue; this is an issue of denominational schools, of the ability for a religious school to exist in Quebec. The question that I still pose to you is that you are in favour of a government doing this to a people, taking away their rights without a consensus from the people that this is a good thing. It's like saying, “We know better for you”, without allowing them to express themselves in a democratic way as to whether it's something they accept. I'm a little bit concerned that you don't see a problem there.

• 0855

[English]

Mr. Deepak Awasti: Montreal is different from the area outside of the island of Montreal. It's a much more cosmopolitan city, and the issue of religious guarantees is not as significant, although, for example, the Jewish community of Montreal has come out through the Canadian Jewish Congress in support of extending the right of religious orientation of a school to groups other than Protestants or Catholics.

Effectively, the debate is now that if the Protestants and Catholics can have the right to declare the religious orientation of a school as Protestant or Catholic, the others should have the same right, so it's a greater debate now. It's not the same debate it was 30 or 130 years ago.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): It's my turn?

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: Usually you go over to the Conservative side, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): You're right. Mrs. Lavoie-Roux.

[English]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux (Québec, PC): This is the first time I have heard about your movement. Who do you represent?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: The movement began, ironically, within the Equality Party. The Equality Party in 1992 lost its youth wing of 300 members. I was the president of that movement. Richard Smith was in it. Several other members left in 1992—some a little later, some at that point.

Later we branched out and made contact with people of our generation to try to understand whether the political and social debate in Quebec was not an old debate that had been going on for generations, in which we were not represented.

We've been around now at least since 1992, in different forms. We called ourselves the Greater Quebec Movement in 1995 during the National Assembly commission, which went around for the future of Quebec, and we presented briefs at that stage. We represent a different group from most groups you will hear, which are established groups. We are a young group. We're a different generation. We're the children of the Quiet Revolution.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: How many members are in your group?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: We have approximately 300 members.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: That's not very many.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: Revolutions have started with much smaller numbers of members.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: In any case, that's beside the point. I had never heard of your movement and obviously it recruits younger people.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: That's right.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You feel the old establishment should get out.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: No, that would be a poor way of characterizing it. We certainly respect the older establishment, but we'd like to have our views heard also.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You're saying that—

[Translation]

I imagine you speak French.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: Yes, I certainly hope so.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: In that case, I will address you in French. You seem to be saying that there should be only one type of school board, where instruction would be in French and everyone would end up becoming bilingual.

However, I want to mention that those who have worked hardest at French immersion... I have seen some, either in my own circle or elsewhere. I believe it all began on the South Shore, with the Greater Montreal Protestant Board, which had tremendous success with its immersion classes.

But did parents actually want to enroll their children in immersion classes? That is quite another matter. But blaming the English-language education system for not making enough effort to teach... The other day, for the first time, I heard Francophone parents say that what they need to help their children learn English is English immersion classes. I had never heard anyone say that before.

I do think, with all due respect for our witnesses, that you are being rather harsh, and it seems to me we have to be fair when it comes to assessing what has been done in the past.

• 0900

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Was that a question or a comment, Senator Lavoie-Roux?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I would like to hear their reaction.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: In 1966, 1967 and 1968, a model of the kind of instruction we're talking about here—a bilingual school—was put into practice in Saint-Léonard. Maybe it was avant-garde at the time, but in that school, they tried to teach Quebeckers to master the two languages. Most of them were Italian, but there were also some from French-Canadian and Irish families.

In 1969, as you may recall, there was the infamous crisis in Saint-Léonard.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, I remember!

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: Well, I was one of the 300 basement children, and it was really tough. What we seem to have lost since then is the concept of an integrated school. You say that we are a little harsh, and you're right: we do judge our Anglophone institutions harshly. The truth of the matter is that if I am able to converse with you today in French, it's because in addition to attending school, I threw myself into a French-speaking environment, where I worked in French. Like Richard Smith, I had to take additional classes.

You know, there's something quite ironic about the situation in Quebec.

[English]

In high school we have to do French 422—it might be 522 today—which gives you a certificate of bilingualism.

[Translation]

It's a certificate that declares that you're bilingual. If you don't pass the ministerial exam, you don't receive your—

[English]

secondary five reading certificate.

[Translation]

The day that student leaves school and applies for a job in the Quebec public service, or even in the federal public service, he again has to take a test to determine whether he is proficient in French. So, there is obviously problem somewhere.

If the Quebec Ministry of Education declares you to be bilingual, why is it you have to take the same exam over again when you're looking for work?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Are you a public servant?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: No, but I was.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. Lavoie-Roux, just a moment, please.

We are going to move on to the next questioner. A lot of people have asked for the floor. Réal Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want to begin by saying that I really enjoyed your presentation. I found it very, very refreshing. It reminded me of a group of young people from the English-speaking community who, like you, felt the need at one point to bring to the discussion a different perspective from the one usually presented by the Anglophone majority. I'm thinking here of young people from Forum Quebec, who came to see us.

You raise three main points in your presentation, as I understand it. First of all, you say you hope the Committee will support the National Assembly resolution. I understand that your support is based on your conviction that this will consolidate the English-speaking school system and allow for more fluid links between our two communities.

What I also find both interesting and extremely positive about your message, is that you are saying we have to engage in dialogue. We have no choice but to begin that dialogue, as we are destined to live together. If you had to tell the Committee what more could be done for the Anglophone community to foster the dialogue you would like to see between the majority and the minority, what would it be? I ask that because I am at a period in my life where I'm doing a lot of soul searching about how we can get even closer, but without taking as extreme a position as some.

[English]

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: That's the million-dollar question. I wish I had the answers to that. I guess there are steps one could take.

First and foremost, there has to be dialogue. Since the 1995 referendum, a bit before and certainly after, I think relations have soured to the point where extremists on both sides are dictating the debate. When we get to a point where there is a dialogue I think we can start doing that.

• 0905

[English]

I concur with most of your observations. There are a couple of things in the school systems that we would have a problem with. On the idea of the anglophone schools consolidating, that's not exactly the model we would like to see.

But certainly the first and foremost thing that has to happen in the anglophone community is a dialogue and the ability, the channels, to be able to have a dialogue. Right now the problem we have—as was pointed out, we're a small group—is that traditionally you have larger groups that dictate the level of dialogue and will give you an impression of what people think.

Mr. Awasti has mentioned that as a school commissioner he feels the grassroots have other opinions and that they're not being expressed.

Richard, did you want to say something?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Did I understand you to say that you would like there to be a Royal Commission of Inquiry?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I might agree if Senator Pépin were to chair it, but I must admit our sense is that Royal Commissions of Inquiry involve intensive work over a long period of time. Why are you making that recommendation?

[English]

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: Because the issue is so vast and is so important, we're going to need a lot more consultation.

I know there was a question before where it was characterized that we are kind of saying, who cares what the English community thinks; let's just ram this through. That's not exactly what we're saying. What we're saying is there is no consensus and people are nervous. Although we are in favour of the legislation, we would also like to see some other things done, specifically a royal commission.

There could be a legislative commission. There was in the 1960s or early 1970s, after all, la commission Parent, which did a wonderful study of the educational system in those days. We don't have that today. Society has changed radically in the last 30 years, and that's why we're calling for such a commission.

Mr. Deepak Awasti: I would add that I believe the Parent commission was actually 40 or 50 years ahead of its time when it recommended the establishment of unified regional boards. The Quebec government supported the idea of regional boards until 1984, and then they came out with the idea of linguistic boards. They were talking about regional boards on the island, or linguistic boards on the island, and regional boards across the province. So it's there. We can do something about it. It's only a question of the divisions and the establishment interests that is preventing us from going further, and it is further isolating the so-called anglophone community.

Also, we have to define what the anglophone community is. As Giuliano said, what is the anglophone community? Am I an anglophone? Is Mr. Paradis, because he speaks English, an anglophone? Some people would say yes, he's an anglophone, simply because he does speak English.

It's unfortunate that in this way the debate has been brought to a point where we're not clear as to what the community is. There are a multiplicity of groups within the so-called English-speaking community that aren't being heard because a few powerful groups are being given more press and more air time because it's in their best interest.

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

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): I personally despise those two labels because I think it categorizes us, and I wish one day we could go back to the good old times when we were all Canadians—of some other origin, yes, but we were Canadians first and foremost.

I'm discouraged sometimes when I hear young, intelligent, bright people like yourselves make the comments you do, because I share an awful lot of those concerns. In my riding, it comes to my attention every day. By the same token, I'm very encouraged when I see how, through your determination and your effort, you're determined to stay in Quebec, you're determined to make Quebec a better place within Canada, and I salute you for those efforts. I think because of people like you we'll have a future in Canada and in Quebec.

I am disturbed by one comment you did make, which is that you feel there is not a consensus, because for me there has to be a consensus among the minority being affected in this change.

I wonder if I can reassure you that there is enough protection for linguistic school boards and access to linguistic education through section 23 of the Canadian charter. There seems to be a consensus in Quebec, an almost unanimous consensus, to going along with linguistic school boards.

• 0910

[English]

If you don't feel there is a consensus, then you shouldn't be in favour of that amendment. Every time someone comes here and says they're in favour of it, but by the same token they show reservations— if they say they're in favour of it, that's what is retained by the provincial assembly.

Do you not feel there's enough protection for the anglophone community through Bill 107, through Bill 109, and in the Canadian charter? Does that not reassure you enough that maybe there is a wider consensus than you really feel?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: We feel there is plenty of protection. I don't want to mischaracterize our brief or our position. We don't feel there is any problem with the bill from the point of view of protection. The only thing we feel is that there isn't enough consensus.

I'm willing to go along with it, as is our movement, because we accept the bill, but we're a little bit disturbed when we hear that somehow we have to claim that a consensus exists, and because a consensus exists, then we can go along with the bill.

Mr. Nick Discepola: That's very important.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: Maybe it is; I'm not challenging that. All I'm challenging is that there is a consensus. If you cannot vote for the bill unless you see a consensus, and that becomes the determining question for you, then maybe you shouldn't vote for the bill.

What I'm saying is, there's no consensus. This doesn't mean there couldn't be a consensus, but at this stage, there isn't.

Mr. Richard Smith (President, Greater Quebec Movement): I would summarize this by saying that while we favour the elimination of section 93, we don't agree with the overall objectives the Quebec government's pursuing. So we agree that the school system should be deconfessionalized, but we don't agree with linguistic boards. That's the thrust of our message.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Do you feel there's a hidden agenda here by the Quebec government?

Mr. Richard Smith: Actually, the irony is that if you look at French Canadian history a clear theme is that French Canada survived in the 18th and early 19th centuries in large part because of certain institutions. So I think in many respects there is a willingness among Quebec francophones to say, well, it's only fair that we extend to you what helped benefit us historically. That's why there doesn't seem to be a real challenging of the right of English schools to exist, even among people in the Parti Québécois. What we're saying is that the opposite is true for us.

Whereas institutions may have benefited French Canada historically, we think the continued existence of separate English institutions and separate English school boards would actually be the worst recipe for us. It might only encourage the diaspora. As we pointed out, the school system in Quebec is not properly teaching.

We're looking at our existence; we have more francophones involved with us in our daily lives vis-à-vis friends and co-workers and what not than probably our parents' generation ever had. We're asking why, if we live together and work together, we should send our kids to separate schools. This is really the social partitioning in Quebec that gives rise to a lot of these other political problems.

So we agree with the legislation but we don't agree with the overall goal of the legislation in a provincial context.

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

We'll now go to Sheila Finestone.

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

Good morning. I find there is a significant difference between your perception and mine. That, I think, we can lay out right at the very beginning.

I am of the view that in Canada as a country, built not only by its aboriginal people but also by its two founding nations, the English language and English culture, which has a worldwide import and worldwide stature, still has, and will have, a message and a cultural perspective that we can be very proud of. While still being able to speak French—having that window on French culture, French language, French theatre, French art—this does in no way, and I would never want it to, negate my English culture and my English background and my own Jewish particularity.

I think it's the beauty of Canada and the beauty of Quebec that we have the right to develop our diversity and our pluralism, and we recognize that we are now not just two cultures and two languages but we are multicultural.

• 0915

[English]

I would like to understand why you feel you have to reject your background and your history and arrive with a toothbrush and join the French language, the French school stream, and the French cultural stream. That's the message I got from what you've been saying, and I find it's totally outside reality. That's number one.

Number two, I give all three of you credit for writing a brief and making the effort to come here. I admire that and congratulate you for that effort, but the message you bring is not the message of the young people. You are the same age as my children. My children are fluently bilingual. In fact, they speak four languages and five languages each. The purpose and the beauty of speaking languages other than your own mother tongue is that you have windows on the world. Do you not want windows on the world? That's my question. Do you want your children to know only French culture and French language? Don't you want a broadened world?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: I don't know where you got that perception.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: From what you have been saying.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: No. I think it's a misperception and I'll try to clear it up for you.

We're not saying we're turning our backs on our culture and our heritage. For one thing, my name is D'Andrea and I'm Italian. I was educated in English schools and I love the English language, probably to the same level Wilfred Laurier loved the English language when he was in New Glasgow in a Protestant school. I respect the anglophone community and to a large extent, if the definition of what an anglo is includes me, and it often does, then I am very proud of that.

We're not saying we want to be assimilationists. You'll never find in any of our documents a call for assimilation. We are integrationists. There is a very important difference.

I'll just give you an example. I lived on Filion Street in Ville St. Laurent, and a girl I know, we will call her Lucie, also lived on Filion Street. We grew up on the same street. I am now 34 years old. I met her three weeks ago. It was a shock to find out we lived on the same street. I went to the English Catholic school and she went to the French Catholic school. I went to the Transfiguration of our Lord parish up the street. She went to Sainte-Odile down the street. The only thing we could find in common in our neighbourhood was a dépanneur, Bisaillon. That's it. We lived two separate existences, and that's the problem.

If as Quebeckers we are supposed to live in Quebec and work in an integrated workplace, why do we have to wait until our kids are 25 or 26 before there's such an integration? Why not start when they are 7 or 8? That's the point.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's what the local park is for.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. D'Andrea.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I am moving up in the world, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions.

You say in your presentation there is no empirical evidence to a consensus. I recognize that the onus of providing such empirical evidence does not rest with the community but with the presenter of the amendment sought. Would you be kind enough to comment on whether or not you have any empirical evidence as to a lack of consensus? That might be useful.

Second, I want to go back to the organization you represent here today. You started out with 300 members, but a group broke away from another group. What is the status of your membership today? Is it still 300?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: Our status fluctuates. We're not like Alliance Quebec or some of the other groups that get federal funding or provincial funding or things of that nature. We're more of a think tank. We have free-flowing kinds of meetings. We have lists with about 400 people. Do 400 people come out? No way. No organization has all of its members coming to any of its events.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Except the Liberal Party, of course.

• 0920

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Merci, Monsieur Bélanger.

We'll now proceed with Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib): —[Editor's Note: Inaudible] —lack of a consensus.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: I was a TA at the Université d'Ottawa. When I was sitting there examining the papers that were given to me, as an instructor, I looked for a clear line of argument that was backed by footnotes and research.

The Greater Quebec Movement does the same thing. We don't have the funds to go and poll, but I can tell you one thing. I haven't seen any significant polling in the allophone community to suggest that there is any consensus or that there's a lot of support.

I'll have to throw the ball back and claim that the movement does not have the funding to do its own research, unless of course someone wants to donate money to us. We don't have a problem with that, but we're not there yet.

As researchers and people with university educations who are sitting down to look at the argument presented to us, we ask where is the evidence of consensus? To me, consensus is more than just a few groups claiming it exists; it has to be backed up, and I don't see any polling to that effect.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I find your brief interesting, but puzzling. You indicate that it's not necessary for there to be an improvement of section 23 through to paragraph 23(1)(a). You think there's plenty of protection. I want to focus and separate myself and my questions from the religious or denominational issue versus the linguistic issue.

We're here, as I read it, to deal with essentially a denominational issue of section 93. Really the subject matter of our venture here is to examine that to see what its ramifications are or what its removal would do.

As for section 93, I have no problems with that amendment. Then I look to see what will be left after that amendment. I look to section 23 and the other protections, but when I look specifically at Bill 107, Bill 101, and Bill 109, I find that the notwithstanding clause is there.

My understanding of what you're trying to say is that you want people in Quebec not to be treated as classes but as equals. The essence of your movement is equality no matter what the origin or language. It's so you can be treated equally in the workplace, and so on.

My question to you is, why do you tell us that you feel there's plenty of protection if in the educational bill, as presently presented, there's a notwithstanding clause that essentially removes the equality ability of those groups who may not agree with the consensus to at least move against the Quebec government.

I'm puzzled by the essence of your brief.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: There are a lot of questions there. I'll try answering the first one you asked.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Well, just focus on what you said about greater protection, plenty of protection, and not being necessary to improve paragraph 23(1)(a). Section 23 doesn't exist in so far as it applies to Quebec, either with the Quebec charter or the federal charter, because it's the notwithstanding clause in the legislation. Just focus on that for me.

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: I'm going to answer that and come to it because there's a whole line of questioning there.

Section 93 is about confessional boards. I'm a Catholic, and a very staunch one. I went to Catholic school. If my cousins in Italy had come over from their Catholic schools and saw what kind of Catholic schools we had, they would have been pretty shocked by the liberalism. When labour unions are able to have atheists teach in our schools, then where's the Catholic essence of it? When you have a high school of 2,000 members and morning masses are attended by two or three people, one of whom is a cleaning lady, there's a problem.

So what are we defending? Section 93 spoke to an era back in 1866, when religion was taken very seriously. It's not so today, or at least the majority of people in the system wouldn't recognize it. Go to a Catholic school in the States and you'll see what a Catholic school is, because they're private. We don't have that experience here.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. D'Andrea.

A very short last one by Peter Goldring.

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

It's stated here in your brief that:

—it will not be Status Anglophones which will contribute to the Anglo-Quebec of tomorrow but the Non Status ones who were forced into French language schools—”.

• 0925

[English]

With that in mind, and the other statements you made, it's clear a consensus of the minority communities has not been made to see if they are in favour of this. Would you not think a consensus should be taken of the minority interests in this? And how would this be accomplished? Could this be accomplished by a referendum? How do you think a consensus of the minorities should be taken?

Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea: First we have to establish what level of support is there. I think polling is a good way to do that. Secondly, yes, the referendum idea is a good idea. In fact, I believe I put it in the brief. I don't recall on what page.

But once we establish that there will be a consensus at some point, or not, the first point you came to and you were a little puzzled by was how is it that non-status anglophones are going to be the anglophones of tomorrow whereas the status ones are not. The answer is simple. Today, whether you like it or not, whether I'm harsh with the anglo community institutions or not, young people are leaving Quebec, and that is a fact. When you poll people in my age group and ask them “In the next five years, how many of you are going to leave or think you are going to leave?” you get surprising results: 70%, 80%, 90%, depending on how you ask the question. There is a definite problem. And the ones who are saying they are going to leave are the ones who are in our English institutions today, or who have come out of those institutions today.

What is the solution? I don't know. But there is a problem, and we cannot just whitewash the problem away.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. D'Andrea, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Smith, Mr. Awasti, for your presentation today.

We will take a one-minute recess to permit the other witnesses to be ready to proceed.

• 0927

• 0929

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The Special Joint Committee is resuming its hearings to Section 93 of the Constitution Act. This morning, from the District of Bedford School Board, which has become the English Language School Board 50-03, we are pleased to welcome Mr. James Bissell, Director General.

Welcome, Mr. Bissell. You have the floor.

Mr. James Bissell (Director General, District of Bedford School Board, English Language School Board 50-03): Thank you very much for your invitation.

• 0930

[English]

My name is James Bissell. I have spent the last 30 years as an educator in the southern part of Quebec—the last 20 years as the director general of the District of Bedford Schoolboard.

We have, in fact, in that whole period of time operated as a linguistic school board. We did so by entente with anywhere from 6 to 14 different Catholic boards in the region, but consistently since 1967 we have effectively operated as an English language board.

In doing that, with a population of approximately 3,000 students, we have offered for every student a choice of religious or moral education; in other words, Catholic moral and religious instruction, Protestant moral and religious instruction, or moral instruction. That is true for students in a school of 500 or 1,000. It's also true of a school where we have 25 students.

As we have moved forward in operating as a linguistic board, that has allowed us to feel comfortable and confident, and therefore we have probably evolved far more rapidly than most school systems, in that we share buildings, we share services, and we share administrators with the current Catholic boards, who of course—because we were operating as an English language board—are operating as a French language board. So the division has not pushed us apart, but, rather, has allowed us to work very constructively together.

As we move into the now structured English language boards, which now include the District of Bedford and another school board, plus some other adjustments that the ministry and the minister allowed, we are now looking at a territory that covers approximately 15,000 square miles and will have a student population in the neighbourhood of 7,000—again, obviously in a language context.

Therefore a consensus on the question of linguistic boards in our area is a moot point. We have, in fact, had one arrived at, perhaps outside the legislation, for a considerable period of time.

For example, with the new English language board—of which I was pleased to have been named director general—we are actively looking at opening a new school. Frankly, in 30 years I do not remember opening a new school.

Given the student base that we now have, it allows certain flexibility of decisions that in the past divided, was more difficult. I hope within a matter of a month or two to be able to announce that we'll be opening a new English language school in Drummondville. That, as I said, will certainly be a pleasure for me and perhaps one of the highlights of my own career in the southern part of Quebec, to actually see the opening of an English language school.

I hope that background may allow you to ask questions. Certainly my contribution can only be from a practical level, from 30 years of working with the school system.

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

We'll now proceed with questions from members.

Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you for being here. I appreciate that perhaps you can give us an idea of whether or not you feel that it is necessary to remove Quebec from section 93, which does offer some denominational protection, in order to achieve what you have achieved. Is it necessary to remove Quebec from section 93 to have a linguistic school system?

Mr. James Bissell: In theory, no. In theory, of course, every right of every individual citizen of Canada should have its full magnitude.

In practice, however, one of the concerns that we've had over the last 30 years in acting like a linguistic board is simply that it's fragile. We could at any point have had divisions in our clientele. The net result of that would have been, frankly, to close small schools, because when you're looking at small unities of 25, 50 or 75, you can't divide it.

• 0935

[English]

The other side of the coin is I think we've demonstrated for 30 years that the confessional aspect of education doesn't occur at a board office, it doesn't occur in a principal's office, it occurs much closer to the student. I believe we've demonstrated that we can meet those individual needs at the level of the classroom, with the student, without having other structures imposed.

Ms. Val Meredith: You said that consensus was not an issue because you were a linguistic school system, and I don't argue that. But the consensus that is required is not to support linguistic schools but to remove the protection in the Constitution for denominational or religious schools. Would there be a consensus in your clientele for removing the protection for teaching religion in the school system?

Mr. James Bissell: If I might clarify your question, I don't believe there is any attempt to remove religion from being offered in schools, and that's the distinction I would make. Our population, notwithstanding the existence of section 93, decided in 1969 to operate in a linguistic fashion. So I would say yes, there's a consensus.

Ms. Val Meredith: But we have been told by witnesses that if the protection of section 93 is removed under the charter, section 2, you may not be allowed to teach religion in the school because it contravenes the charter.

Mr. James Bissell: I can only answer, not knowing the future, that le régime pédagogique of the province of Quebec certainly makes an option for religious instruction mandatory. It's not optional. It's optional only from a personal conscience point of view.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

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

We'll go now to Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Thank you for having come to us. I know you're from the eastern townships, and because of the existence of common school boards in the rest of the province, apart from Montreal and Quebec, in daily life, as the populations were not too great or too high in numbers, you've slowly evolved towards a linguistic board. You put your resources together with the French school board, not in terms of administration but in terms of sharing the school facilities, and probably transportation, too, I would imagine, which is a good way of immersion, either French or English.

You say the proposal from the Quebec government is fine and is not creating any problems for your community. You're not concerned about it at all. But if you put yourself in the larger frame of the whole English community of Quebec, do you feel it's normal that some of them might have apprehensions about it, not so much in terms of school instruction, because as you say it will be decided at the school level by the parents, but also in terms of the future English situation?

[Translation]

Mr. James Bissell: It's difficult to respond in terms of the larger community. On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that for the rural section of Quebec as a whole— [Editor's Note: Inaudible]— That may be true for the Island of Montreal, because there are not the same risks, given the size of the student population, which makes for greater choice.

I think we have to be realistic. The Island of Montreal may be in a position to provide choices without there being any negative impact on the schools. However, I cannot see that being the case elsewhere in the province of Quebec.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Your French is very good. I should have spoken to you in French. Thank you.

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

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I don't know whether my questions are relevant. You seem to be satisfied with the facilities that already exist within the linguistic school boards, since you are living outside the city. What advantages will linguistic, versus denominational, boards have for Anglophones? There are certain advantages for the English-speaking community and I would appreciate your discussing some of them.

• 0940

[Translation]

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

Mr. James Bissell: Well, I am not really sure that making linguistic school boards official will really mean a big change for us. There will still be discussion about services in English.

However, I do think it will make for a more stable future in our case. We will know that this is something that has been given official recognition in legislation and we will be able to plan on the basis of what is set out there. As I was saying, although we have operated as a linguistic board for thirty years now, separation of the different school populations is always an option, although we have never requested that. So, I think it will bring greater stability.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: A number of witnesses have expressed a concern that religious instruction will not benefit from the same consideration and that it will in fact no longer be offered within linguistic school boards. As you are already a linguistic school board, could you tell us whether it is easy for parents to access religious instruction in the schools? Did any of your schools want to remain denominational?

Mr. James Bissell: In my twenty years as Director General of a school board, I have never heard a parent say that his right to choose had not been respected. So, it is possible to respect parents' wishes with respect to religious instruction, despite the special circumstances of the small schools. I have to say that it is certainly possible, because we have done it.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I would like to ask you a question along the same lines as the one Ms. Gagnon just put to you. If we undenominationize the system—and that is what Quebec is asking us to do—we will be allowing ourselves to be governed by Quebec provincial legislation, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am inclined to believe that religious instruction can continue to be given, but only if public funds are expended for the purpose of providing that religious instruction. But there would be no room for discrimination against religions or religious groups. I certainly agree on that point. I think that would be appropriate. Does it satisfy you?

Mr. James Bissell: Yes, most definitely. Over the years, we have always been able to find ways to comply with the wishes of parents in the schools.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The basis for dividing the school population would be language—French and English—and the denominational system created back in 1867 would be eliminated. On the other hand, religious instruction could continue to be provided with public funds, as long as there is no discrimination, people are treated fairly and the applicable provisions of Quebec legislation and the Quebec Charter apply. A completely new system would emerge. I don't think anyone here is against linguistic school boards. Everyone agrees on the need for them. However, some continue to have concerns about what will be taught in the schools.

Mr. James Bissell: I'm certain that even though we operated as a linguistic school board, we never received any additional subsidies as a result of our way of organizing the school population. Despite that, we were always able to provide these services and respect people's wishes using regular public funding.

[English]

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

The next intervention will be from Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Thank you, Mr. Bissell.

• 0945

[English]

I'm trying to understand paragraph 23(1)(a) and the confusion it has for me as it applies to denominational rights.

What I take it you're saying is that you're in favour of section 93, save and except that lack of protection for the 10,000 students not covered by the application of 23(1)(a). Section 23 applies, but 23(1)(a) exempts a certain group, and but for that you'd be in favour of an amendment to section 93.

Mr. James Bissell: In favour of an amendment to it, yes.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: So essentially what you're saying is that, as the Quebec resolution says, “Whereas in doing so...Québec reaffirms the established rights of the English-speaking community of Québec”, you are comfortable with that designation save and except in so far as the exemption applies to those 10,000 not covered by 23(1)(a). It's really an access question.

Mr. James Bissell: I'm afraid not having the text in front of me, and not being a constitutional expert, I can't answer a question that specific, sir. Sorry.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We go now to Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much.

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

I want to clarify this. Would you still be in favour of extinguishing paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 of the Constitution if it lessened the rights protection and it allowed for charter challenges that could lead to the complete removal of religious instruction in all publicly funded schools in Quebec, as a decision in Ontario to that effect would seem to imply?

It has been suggested previously this is a concern in Ontario because of the public schools in that province that allowed for charter challenges that seemingly completely removed religious instructions in Ontario. The suggestion is that the same could happen in Quebec—complete removal of religious instruction—if paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 were removed.

Mr. James Bissell: Knowing the population that I serve, I cannot envision that receiving the kind of support it would require to successfully be overturned.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm sorry?

Mr. James Bissell: I believe the pressure from parents—and there would be a true consensus there again—would be such that even if we were not compelled to, and if there were some legal challenge that said we were not compelled to provide those services, parents would expect them to continue to be provided at the school level.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But the case in Ontario seems to indicate that religious instruction be removed from publicly funded schools. Would you be prepared to accept removal of section 93 if it meant that public funding for any schools that offer religious instruction would be withdrawn?

Mr. James Bissell: That's a fairly hypothetical question. I don't know that I could answer it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's in the courts of Ontario.

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

Could you explain to us, very summarily, where there was

[Translation]

merger of the District of Bedford School Board and the Eastern Townships School Board. Perhaps you could give us a brief explanation of what stage has been reached in the merger process and where you're headed exactly.

[English]

Mr. James Bissell: The new school board, which has the catchy name of 50-03 until we can suggest to the ministry a proper name, was formed on September 29. I was named director general on October 6, and we are in the process of preparing the school year in 1998-99.

Certainly as an administrator the bureaucracy of going through that, and some of the technical things such as having to change deeds and so on through the registry offices and so on, is negative. On the other hand, despite comments I've heard that it was an impossible task and that it would be disruptive, we are looking forward to being in a position to open for the next year, and to say we are looking at opening a new school. We are renegotiating all of our agreements with the various French school boards to ensure that we can continue to share services and to build new services together, with us providing those services when the clientele is English, and them providing them when they are French.

• 0950

[English]

It's a lot of work, but in fact we're targeted to be ready to offer the new services on September 1 of next year.

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

We will have a short question from Senator Lavoie-Roux.

[Translation]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: People talked to you.

[English]

There was no problem for religious teaching and so on, but as for the first time, anglophone Catholic and Protestant—I'm not talking about you, but the rest, particularly in Montreal, who will come under the same roof—you've never encountered any problems in satisfying at the same time the religious teaching for Catholics and the religious teaching for Protestants? Or maybe the Protestants didn't request any teaching; I don't know.

Mr. James Bissell: There are organizational difficulties. I'll give you an example. I keep picking on our smallest school, which is a little unfair to that school, by the way, but with 25 students—and I don't know the exact numbers—I would suggest that probably 10 have requested religious instruction Catholic, 10 have requested religious instruction Protestant, and 5 parents have asked that it be moral instruction. There's an organizational challenge, but certainly if you can do it at a microcosm of those numbers, as you get into larger units it's not an overwhelming administrative act to ensure those services.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: And there was never any friction between the two groups?

Mr. James Bissell: No.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Madame Lavoie-Roux. That was one short question. I will have to—

[Translation]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: The other one is even shorter.

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

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: How many English-speaking students are there now in the Eastern Townships?

Mr. James Bissell: How many students?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes.

Mr. James Bissell: We have a student population of approximately 7,000 over an area of about fifteen square miles.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: So there are still some Anglophone children in the Eastern Townships.

Mr. James Bissell: Yes, some.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: No, I'll pass.

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

[English]

Mr. Bissell, thank you very much, on behalf of the members of this committee, for your presentation today.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for coming to Ottawa to make your presentation.

Mr. James Bissell: It was a pleasure. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We will take a one minute break to allow the next group to be seated.

• 0953

• 0956

[Translation]

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

[English]

It's our pleasure to have with us this morning the Parents Support Group, represented by Steven Potter,

[English]

President.

Welcome, Mr. Potter.

[English]

We'll proceed the following way. You will have about seven or eight minutes to make your presentation, and then there will be a question period by the members of this committee.

You may go ahead, Mr. Potter.

Mr. Steven Potter (President, Parents Support Group): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, there appears to be general agreement in principle that linguistic school boards should be permitted in the province of Quebec. There is considerable concern that minority education rights in the province of Quebec may be further compromised by a constitutional amendment affecting education in the province.

The Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged that the minority language education rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were written specifically to eliminate restrictions contained in Quebec's French language charter, Bill 101. I quote:

It is therefore not surprising that Bill 101 was very much in the minds of the framers of the Constitution when they enacted s. 23 of the Charter, which guarantees “minority language education rights”. This is confirmed when the wording of this section is compared with that of ss. 72 and 73 of Bill 101, and with other provincial statutes on the language of instruction.

Quebec is the only province in Canada for which minority language education rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are suspended pending approval of the province's legislative assembly or government.

Some of the minority education rights in the Constitution Act of 1982 have not yet been brought into effect in Quebec because of a delay section contained in that act. The section states that the suspended rights should not come into force in respect of Quebec until authorized by the legislative assembly or the Government of Quebec.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien admitted in his book, Straight from the Heart, that he was responsible for modifying the principle of minority language education as applied to the province of Quebec in his futile efforts to obtain René Lévesque's signature on the 1982 Constitution agreement. He added that he used to joke that these were the first constitutional amendments in history to have been negotiated over the telephone. The thousands of children and their families who have been affected by this in the 15 years since do not think that having their rights suspended is a joke.

Studies conducted for the Commissioner of Official Languages in Ottawa and for the

[Translation]

Conseil de la langue française, the Secrétariat à la politique linguistique, the Office de la langue française and the Commission de protection de la langue française

[English]

in Quebec have shown that approximately 13,000 English mother-tongue children of school age in Quebec are denied access to English-language schools in the province. That number corresponds to about 12% of the English school-age population and corresponds to less than 1% of the total school-age population of Quebec.

The same studies show that approximately 12,000 children are eligible for education in English in Quebec who are actually attending French schools in the province. Enrolment in English schools in Quebec has dropped by more than 53% since 1977, with a corresponding closure of more than a third of English schools in the province over the same period.

• 1000

[English]

The Chambers Task Force on English Education, commissioned by the Quebec government in 1991, stated in its report that broadening access to English schools would benefit Quebec, the English school system, and English-speaking Quebeckers who wish to provide for their children an education both in English and in Quebec. It would be evidence that Quebec welcomes immigrants from parts of the world in which English is a common language.

The first recommendation from the Chambers Task Force is that the Minister of Education recommend to the Government of Quebec that access to education in English be widened at least to include any child who is being educated in English or who has a parent from an English-speaking part of the world.

Alliance Quebec's official policy on education calls for the total elimination of restrictions on access to schooling altogether. Parents should be free to choose the kind of schooling they want for their children without interference from the state. There should be no restrictions on access to publicly funded education. Such limitations are not consistent with the principles of democracy and human freedom that form the basis of a civilized country such as Canada claims to be.

Article 26(3) of the internationally recognized Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Canada, as a member of UNESCO, is obliged to abide by recommendations made by UNESCO, including the recommendation against discrimination in education, adopted in 1960. Canada has failed to comply and continues to be embarrassed internationally by her continued violation of international agreements signed in relation to the elimination of discrimination in education and in relation to protecting the rights of the child. Canada has in fact continued to lie about the level of compliance with such agreements.

The restrictions contained in Quebec's Bill 101, supported by the restrictions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly as modified for application in Quebec, are in violation of Quebec's own Civil Code, which states that every decision concerning a child shall be taken in light of the child's interest and in respect of his rights. It also states that all children whose filiation is established have the same rights and obligations, regardless of their circumstances of birth, and the father and mother have the rights of custody, supervision, and education of their children.

My son has been declared

[Translation]

ineligible to receive instruction in English in Quebec.

[English]

He begins his secondary studies next school year. The only way he can attend English school in Quebec is for me to take my pension savings to enrol him in a non-Quebec government-subsidized, totally private English school. Almost all of the private English schools in Quebec receive subsidies from the Quebec government, and the Quebec government insists on having the restrictive eligibility requirements of Bill 101 applied to those schools.

When I was granted my Canadian citizenship in 1984, I received a letter from then Secretary of State Serge Joyal, which stated:

This is an important day for you and for Canada. From this point forward, as a Canadian citizen, you will share fully in the rights and privileges enjoyed by all Canadians. At the same time, you assume the special responsibility of protecting and preserving the principles of democracy and human freedoms which are the cornerstones of our nation.

I have taken those responsibilities seriously and I have done my best to protect the principles of democracy and human freedoms, which this nation claims to hold so dear. But I have yet to see the day when I or my children will share fully in the rights and privileges enjoyed by all Canadians. I've respected my side of the bargain. The time for Canada to fulfil her promises to me and my children is long overdue.

Any amendment to the Constitution that would allow the Government of Quebec to make changes to the province's education system must be made subject to the same delay that is currently applied to full application of minority language education rights in the province. Such an amendment must not be allowed to take effect in Quebec until the provincial government brings minority language education rights, as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, fully into effect in that province.

It must be clearly understood that the amendment as proposed has been contrived in such a way as to foster the false impression that the English community in Quebec has full access to and control of its schools.

Two clauses of the resolution preamble contain false or deliberately misleading assertions. One:

AND WHEREAS the National Assembly of Quebec has reaffirmed the established rights of the English-speaking community of Quebec, specifically the right, in accordance with the law of Quebec, of members of that community to have their children receive their instruction in English language educational facilities....

The law of Quebec, Bill 101, supported by the suspension of part of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, denies access to English school in Quebec for some 13,000 English-mother-tongue children of school age in the province.

Secondly:

and whereas section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees to citizens throughout Canada rights to minority language instruction and minority language educational facilities—

• 1005

[English]

Section 23 is not fully implemented in Quebec. Paragraph 23(1)(a) is suspended by virtue of article 59 of the 1982 constitutional agreement. That denies access to English education in schools for about 13,000 English-mother-tongue children of school age in the province. Quebec is the only province in which paragraph 23(1)(a) is not in effect.

The federal Liberal Party's own caucus research bureau concluded in a paper released in 1991:

On December 4, 1990 Québec's Immigration Minister Monique Gagnon-Tremblay called for the doubling of French-speaking immigrants to Quebec by 1995.

As Québec moves towards this goal it may become more comfortable with Section 23(1)(a) and it may become easier to negotiate the implementation of Section 23(1)(a) and the repeal of Section 59 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Parents Support Group therefore demands that the proposed amendment be modified as follows—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Potter, you have to give the members the opportunity to ask you some questions.

Mr. Steven Potter: It would then be incumbent on the Legislative Assembly or Government of Quebec to bring both provisions into force at the same time. It should be noted that such an amendment does not go nearly far enough to fulfil Canada's international obligations with respect to education of her children, but it would be a long overdue step in the right direction.

I close with the words of Mr. Claude Ryan:

Experience has taught us that if this country is to prosper and survive, it must place the rights of its two major language communities on an equal footing. The clear acceptance of this duality is a fundamental premise for Canadian nationhood.

I'll skip to the end.

Twenty years have passed since Bill 101 became law in Quebec. An entire generation of children has passed through the school system in that time. Your responsibility, ladies and gentlemen, is clear. This amendment must not be allowed to pass into law until Quebec accepts the full application of the minority language education rights already defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nothing less is acceptable.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Potter. We'll now proceed with question period. The first intervener will be Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming this morning. It is apparent from your comments that you do not support the amendment of section 93 unless Canada repeals section 59 of the charter and paragraph 23(1)(a) is adopted by the province of Quebec. Is that a right assumption?

Mr. Steven Potter: Yes. Right now paragraph 23(1)(a) is suspended by virtue of section 59. We're suggesting we simply modify section 59 to suspend the application of the proposed section 93A so the two provisions come into effect at the same time. We would swap religious protection for language protection.

Ms. Val Meredith: That would be your condition for supporting it. Do you know of any consensus in the minority community that is affected by removing Quebec from section 93? Are you aware of anything that has polled the opinion of the minority group affected?

Mr. Steven Potter: I don't know of a poll that relates specifically to section 93, but I do know There was a Sorecom poll conducted on behalf of Alliance Quebec some years ago and some 70% of the English community were in favour of having paragraph 23(1)(a) implemented at that time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We'll proceed now with Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I understand you don't want to proceed with this amendment until subsection 59(1) and paragraph 23(1)(a) are dealt with. It's true Quebec has a special status in this. Obviously you're right on this. But we are dealing here with denominational rights. Section 23 deals with school rights.

I may understand your point of view. But in any case you would need the consent of Quebec, and you don't need even an amendment to get rid of this, because if Quebec is issuing a proclamation, then of course paragraph 23(1)(a) would apply to Quebec. We don't even need an amendment for that, just a proclamation from Quebec. But we need the consent of Quebec. It's unlikely, because it is enshrined in the Constitution.

So I cannot see why you mix the two together in the same resolution. I follow your logic. You would like Quebec to get rid of this. But we don't need an amendment, and it can hardly be related to the same resolution that is before us.

• 1010

[English]

Mr. Steven Potter: I could say that we're discussing apples and oranges but they're in the same fruit bowl. We're discussing minority education rights, whether linguistic or religious. To put it simply, Quebec is coming to Ottawa to ask for a constitutional amendment to allow them to tamper with minority education rights. We're saying let's trade one for the other.

In principle we don't believe there should be any restrictions on access, but it's a fact of life in Canada that we do have specific rights outlined in the charter and in Bill 101.

I've been hearing for 12 years that it's never the right time to discuss 23(1)(a). It seems to me that if Quebec is asking the federal government to make a constitutional amendment on education rights, be it religious or linguistic, it's the perfect time to raise the subject and it should be negotiated at this time.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, but once again you don't need an amendment. You just have to convince Quebec to make a proclamation, and that's the end of it. For school rights Quebec will be exactly on the same level as all the other provinces.

Mr. Steven Potter: I agree with you. That's the point here today.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I think it's clear-cut in law, but of course this is probably the problem.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you for appearing before the Committee this morning. With your permission, I would like to clarify three points.

I can only agree with Senator Beaudoin. Today we are talking about denominational rights, as we have been since the beginning of these hearings. So, we are not here to talk about minority language education rights. But since you have raised the issue, I'm sure that since the passage of Bill 101 in 1977 and the introduction of the Canada Clause... It seems to me you're being rather harsh when you talk about Anglophones' right to minority language instruction. If you read the statistics, you will see that the combination of the Canada Clause, which replaced the Quebec clause—without the consent of the National Assembly—and the language law, which is Bill 101, has made it possible for half a million English-speaking children—and I want to emphasize those numbers—to attend educational institutions.

So, Quebec's intention is not to interfere with the historical minority—those parents who received their primary education in one of the provinces of Canada. We recognize that the Canada clause applies under those circumstances and we respect their right to receive their education in the minority language.

Having said that, what you are asking, as far as I can see, would not allow us to be respectful of the needs of the communities living side by side, nor would it allow us to achieve the necessary balance. Your position is that whatever part of the world a person happens to come from, if his mother tongue or the first language he learned as a child is English, he should have the right to be enrolled in an English school. That is what you are asking, and I would like you to give us an example of another country in the world with such a liberal policy; it's important to remember that the National Assembly is responsible for protecting and promoting the French fact in North America.

Earlier, you suggested that you were being dispossessed and victimized. If you can find a lawyer who is willing to stand up in front of an international court of law and say, in attempting to make that argument, that the English-speaking community in Quebec has only two dailies, seventeen weeklies, sixteen...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Please put your question, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: —five CEGEPs, three universities and twenty-six schools— I think you'll agree with me that when it comes to mistreatment of minorities, we've seen a lot worse.

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: Calm down, Senator.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You're starting to annoy us too.

[English]

Mr. Steven Potter: The statistics you quoted don't help the 13,000 children that are denied access. There are about 12,000 children that do have access who are in French schools, so the number is balanced.

It's really a symbolic thing, and I think it's rather mean-spirited of the Quebec government to insist they need these to protect the French language. That's nonsense.

English children can learn the French language in an English school and there's nothing wrong with that. However, for all the arguments you could give me for protecting the French language and culture in Quebec, the parents of those children would use the same arguments that they want their kids educated in their own language since it's available at public expense here. It's the same logic.

You asked me for examples of countries. There are plenty of countries where there are multiple linguistic school systems. Switzerland is one; they don't have the same restrictions.

As far as the international context is concerned, if a parent has $10,000 to spend on court fees they might as well put their child in private school.

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

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm very pleased that you have come, and particularly with the documentation you have brought.

• 1015

[English]

Mr. Potter, you by now have recognized that the issue of paragraph 23(1)(a)is not the issue at stake in this particular setting. The issue is minority religious rights and the preferential treatment given to Catholics and Protestants only under the BNA Act, and the reality of the multicultural society, of the pluralism within which we live in Quebec today.

I share your view, and let me make that eminently clear. While I support this legislation and I believe we should remove section 93, I recognize that it's a good thing the Constitution of Canada was patriated so that we could have this process. Quebec can be part of the evolving federation. I think all of this is great. It is too bad that we cannot discuss the implication of going from minority religious protection to minority language teaching protection.

The degree to which we're protected in section 23 is fine, but it doesn't go far enough and it's exactly as you said; it is mean-spirited. There are 10,000 to 12,000 young people who are involved. It means their parents can't help them with their homework. It means they can't learn either language properly because they don't have a good base and they don't have an enabling help in their household. So there's lots of psychological, psychosocial reasons why goodwill should be demonstrated, and only 1% of the total school population of Quebec will be implicated. This is not the milieu unfortunately to agree with what you've had to say and effect the change. That's another debate.

We have been asking la Ligue des droits et libertés and many other Quebec-based groups to please take this issue back and enter into that second stage of the debate following the removal of section 93. I'd like you to know that you have been part of the initiative to move to do that, but this is not the milieu. Do you appreciate that point and do you accept it?

Mr. Steven Potter: I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with you. Every day that this legislation is delayed is another day for these kids in the wrong system for many of these families. I've been hearing for 12 years that it's always the wrong time to raise it. I'd like to know what conditions could be better suited to raising this issue, given that Quebec is asking for a constitutional amendment.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: There couldn't in my view be a better time. However, that's not the way the political structures work. The constitutional amendment that came from Quebec is the one that this federal government is dealing with. This federal government has the obligation to deal with what has been tabled before it. We have made certain adaptations in the introductory “whereas” phrases. We have indicated the application of section 23 so that we indicate goodwill.

The Quebec government indicated goodwill when they reaffirmed the established rights of the English-speaking community of Quebec. So there is goodwill advancing. Could you not agree that there has been some effective change?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Can we have your comments, Mr. Potter?

Mr. Steven Potter: The reference in the preamble that you referred to is whitewash. It is very misleading to say that those rights apply to the English minority in Quebec, because I'm English in Quebec and I don't have those rights. I'm not included in that group.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Potter, I want to carry on with the same theme, but before I do that I want to express a great deal of sympathy, being a francophone from Ontario myself. I know where you're coming from.

The sad state of affairs, however, is that the task in front of this committee is to be part of a bilateral request for an amendment to the Constitution dealing with section 93 in a format that is a yes or a no. We're not here to bargain, to tie our approval to another and so forth. We might tinker around or try to with a whereas and so forth.

I ask the same question to you that I asked to a group who appeared before us yesterday with the same kind of an approach, the “yes, but”. There is no but. We cannot grant you what you're looking for, which is the implementation of paragraph 23(1)(a). That is under Quebec jurisdiction. It is not ours to tell them how and when to do it.

So the question to you, sir, if you are prepared to accept that—and you must because that's the state of affairs here—without the “but” do you support the notion of amending section 93 of the Constitution?

Mr. Steven Potter: No.

• 1020

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Mr. Steven Potter: The simple answer is no. In principle, we don't believe there should be any restrictions on access to school whatsoever. So if you're going to take away protection for linguistic groups without getting the deal on the language group, then there's no deal. We would not support it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You're not taking anything away from our linguistic group necessarily.

Mr. Steven Potter: The religious group.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: They're taking religious denominations here.

You would not support it without the caveat that you put forward.

Mr. Steven Potter: No.

I realize that you're telling me something about process, and I admit that I'm ignorant of the process here.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's okay, we've been called ignorant by others, too, so not to worry about that.

Mr. Steven Potter: I do think this is the right opportunity to negotiate this.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Merci, monsieur Bélanger.

We'll now proceed with Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I want to say to Mr. Potter that I have deep sympathy and empathy for your position. I find your brief very useful to remind us about what was discrimination at the core when we thought section 23 provided equality. In effect, it was equality with some exceptions, and that wasn't our understanding. So we thank you for bringing back to our attention in this cogent brief the fact that there was a deficit in the Constitution. I can assure you that, for some of us, this deficit is something that has to be in some way corrected.

Our problem, however, is that we're confronted with a very narrow issue here. While many of us would like to broaden the issue and end up with a mini constitutional exchange here, we're prevented somewhat because of the format and section 43. But that does not take away from the fact that I think we have to say to ourselves, over and over again, in the media and amongst ourselves in the party, that section 23 is not section 23; it's section 23 with some exceptions.

I think that's a very valuable historic lesson, because I find over and over again that we hear a distortion of history. I thank you for trying to remind us constantly—ourselves, our party, our leadership—about that deficit.

Having said that, I find difficulty with your position representing Alliance Quebec, which at the base of it is an equality movement. Here we're confronted with section 93, which everybody tells us is a preferred right and it's not an equal right. Section 93 prefers two religious groups, somewhat at the expense of others. I understand your response to my colleague Mauril, but I'm asking as a representative of the Parents Support Group whether or not, on the denominational side, you are in favour of inequality as section 93 does apply to Quebec.

Mr. Steven Potter: I'm not in favour of the inequality, no.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Having said that, what you're saying is you're in favour of removing that inequality, but you'd like a constitutional bargain here.

Mr. Steven Potter: Yes.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Our problem is, unfortunately and with deep regret, we don't see how we can enforce that bargain because of section 43.

Mr. Steven Potter: I have felt a certain amount of frustration over the years when I hear section 23 being mentioned as being adequate protection. Paragraph 23(1)(a) is rarely mentioned as an exception, so I do feel some frustration over that.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: We share that.

Mr. Steven Potter: The legislation has been there since 1977. It has gone on 20 years now, and we've missed the boat again. It's deeply frustrating and disappointing.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: All I can say to you is that we share your frustration. Some of us are committed as best we can in our limited functions to try to remove the deficit in section 23. We consider that to be a rights deficit.

We hope the province of Quebec, as Senator Beaudoin has pointed out...all they have to do is a one-liner: “We proclaim”. That's all they have to say, and it's done. There doesn't have to be another trade-off or amendment. We hope that when the ministers come here today we will raise that with them. Perhaps we'll seek their response.

I hope it's better, quite frankly, than my friend from the Bloc, who seems to feel that exempting 13,000 students, parents, and families from their rights in Quebec is somehow equality. To me, it's not.

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

Peter Goldring, with a short question.

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

If a companion resolution was possible to this, would it accomplish your aims if it was issued concurrently with this resolution, which will extinguish subsections 93(1) to subsection 93(4), so that it establishes paragraph 23(1)(a) and it repeals the then redundant subsections 59(1), 59(2) and 59(3) and at the same time calling for the issuance of a proclamation by Quebec.

• 1025

[English]

Is this in accordance with what your wish is if a companion resolution was issued?

Mr. Steven Potter: Our feeling is that this is a practical point that might be negotiated at this time. Our position in principle is that there shouldn't be restrictions at all, not even in the Canadian charter. A larger-scope amendment to the Constitution that would bring it in line with the agreements signed internationally is closer to what we would be aiming for in the long run.

At this time, however, we think paragraph 23(1)(a) is possibly negotiable.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a supplemental question. You were past chairman of Alliance Quebec. Is it your opinion that you and Alliance Quebec both agree with the principle of linguistic school boards but disagree on the extinguishment of subsections 93(1) to (4), unless there's some trade?

Mr. Steven Potter: I was chairman of the Montreal regional chapter for a number of years and was influential in having the policy of Alliance Quebec adjusted for complete freedom of choice in access to schools. I can't speak for the alliance, but it is my opinion that they have been more outspoken on access to schools and minority language rights in this area, partly because of our efforts of a few years ago. But I don't speak for the alliance now.

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

[Translation]

One last brief comment, Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You're telling me to be "brief"?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Yes, I am.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: But this is the first time I've had the floor. I guess you must really like me.

Mr. Potter, you were not born in Quebec. Where are you from? Are you American?

[English]

Mr. Steven Potter: No, I was born in England.

[Translation]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: And that's why they won't let you send your children to English school?

[English]

I'll speak English. I don't know why, but I thought you spoke French.

[Translation]

Mr. Steven Potter: I learned French in school in England, but only for a few years.

[English]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: They did a better job in England teaching a second language than we do here.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Let's get back to Section 93, if you don't mind.

[English]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Thank you for having come here. I want to tell you that I share your—

Mr. Steven Potter: Frustration?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: —grief about some aspects of Bill 101. All of Bill 101 is not bad—

Mr. Steven Potter: No.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: —but the extreme restriction we put on access to English schools has resulted in that community decreasing and decreasing. It's very difficult for them to.... I was in agreement with the fact that people who didn't speak any English and came from any other country should go to a French school. This apprehension was expressed by—and I'll name him again; you cannot suspect him of being a liberal, or whatever—Pierre Carignan, who said the best way to asphyxiate a community is not to permit any renewal. I think this is what is happening, and I hope there will be another occasion where we might be able to correct the situation.

I agree with Senator Grafstein that we're caught only with this question of confessionality, and this is what we have to dispose of.

Mr. Steven Potter: I have a short comment. The parents in the group I've met with don't want to give the impression that they don't want their children to learn French. That's not why they want their children to go to English school. The problem is, in the French schools the children don't get any English instruction that's of any use to them. For some of the kids in grade 6, for example, their homework consists of learning a few words for a spelling test at the end of the week, and that's it for the week. It's pointless.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Potter, on behalf of every member of the committee, I thank you for your presentation this morning.

Mr. Steven Potter: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We will take a short break to allow the next witnesses to take their places.

• 1029

• 1034

[Translation]

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

We are pleased to welcome this morning the representatives of the Coalition pour la déconfessionnalisation du système scolaire: Ms. Louise Laurin, Coordinator; Mr. Jowad Skalli, from Alternatives, an International Solidarity Network; Mr. Henri Laberge, Coalition Advisor; and Mr. Michel Couture, from the Fédération québécoise des directeurs et directrices d'établissements scolaires. Welcome to you all.

• 1035

[Translation]

Ms. Laurin, you have the floor.

Ms. Louise Laurin (Coordinator, Coalition pour la déconfessionnalisation du système scolaire): Our Coalition includes some forty-three organizations representing almost two million people, including students, teachers from the kindergarten to university level, school principals and management, administrative staff, nationalists and grassroot citizen associations and community cooperatives.

I'm accompanied today by Mr. Jowad Skalli of the Alternatives group, which focuses on international co-operation; Mr. Michel Couture, of the Fédération québécoise des directeurs et directrices d'établissements scolaires; and Mr. Henri Laberge, Advisor.

I would also like to introduce some other members of the Coalition who are with us today. They are Jean-Guy Fournier, from the Confederation of National Trade Unions; Pierre Demers, of the Fédération autonome du collégial; Bara MBengue, of the Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain; Diane Fortier of the Alliance des professeurs; Juan José Henandez, of the Mouvement des Québécois d'origine latino-américaine; Guillaume Vaillancourt, of the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec; Marie Marsolais, of the Syndicat des enseignantes et enseignants de Le Royer; Micheline Bouchard, of the Fédération des enseignantes et enseignants des commissions scolaires; Denise Longtin, President of the Association du personnel administratif de la CECM; and Monique Richard of the CEQ. These are only some of the members of our Coalition appearing today to present their views on the issue.

I forgot to introduce myself. I am the spokesperson for the coalition and have extensive experience in the teaching field. I am a former principal with the CECM. I have worked in many different schools and in every possible area, Senator Lavoie-Roux, from the poorest to the most well-endowed, and from the academic section to those that serve the most underprivileged. So, my experience is very broad.

The Coalition pour la déconfessionnalisation was founded in 1993, when the then government was to implement the provisions of the Public Education Act, as revised in 1988, which provided for the establishment of two systems of linguistic school boards. It was at that point that we came together as a Coalition to oppose that legislation.

The Coalition's response to reforms of one kind and another has always been the same: the current restrictions under Section 93 should no longer apply to Quebec.

We come before you today to make three basis points. First of all, there is a very broad consensus in Quebec society on the need to proceed with the constitutional amendment requested by Quebec. The large number of organizations in the Coalition—a list of which appears at the end of our brief—and the unanimous support this resolution receives in the National Assembly provide increasingly cogent evidence of just how important this issue is to Quebeckers.

The primary purpose of Quebec's request is to modernize our school system, and part of that modernization involves allowing the principle of equality, as set out in the Canadian and Quebec Charters, to take precedence. The Coalition believes that the provisions of the Canadian and Quebec Charters, and those of Bill 109 in Quebec, as well as the long-standing tradition of respect for the traditional English education system provide adequate guarantees.

If the National Assembly is asking that Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, be amended, it is primarily to bring the Quebec school system up to date by establishing school boards on the basis, not of denomination, but language.

• 1040

[Translation]

For Quebec, it is a matter of having full powers to develop a school system that meets the requirements of a pluralist society respectful of the rights and freedoms of all citizens. We want a more coherent, less fragmented system of education that respects and promotes equality rights.

That system must also help all cultural and denominational groups that currently make up modern Quebec to enter the mainstream of civil society. The composition of Quebec society is no longer what it was back in 1867. Quebec's increasing pluralism, which is particularly visible in the Montreal region, clearly illustrates that it is no longer appropriate to try and justify the maintenance of privileges in the name of the Protestant minority's rights. Protestant students now form a minority within the Protestant School Board school population, not only on the island of Montreal, where they represent only 36 per cent of the Board's school population, but throughout the province, where they represent 37.7 per cent of that population.

In these same Protestant school boards, students belonging to a denomination other than Catholic and Protestant are present in greater numbers than are Protestant students, specifically 47 per cent on the Island of Montreal, versus 41 per cent all across Quebec.

Students professing no religion whatsoever also represent a not inconsiderable proportion of the school population, namely 15 per cent on the Island of Montreal versus 12 per cent for the province as a whole.

Among English-speaking students enrolled in primary or secondary public schools, Catholics are the largest group, at 34 per cent of the school population, followed by students who identify themselves as having either a different religion or no religion at all, who represent 33 per cent of the school population. Protestants are in third place, at 32 per cent of the student population in English-speaking facilities.

On the Island of Montreal, the gaps are even wider: 43 per cent of English-speaking students identify themselves as Catholics, versus only 10 per cent who declare their religion to be Protestant, and 46 per cent who say they have no religion.

The principle of segregation based on one's denomination is no longer appropriate, as it no longer jibes with Quebec's social and demographic situation.

In addition, maintenance of a denominational school system violates another fundamental principle, which is that all citizens must be equal before the law. This denominational system is bound to have unfortunate consequences, as it will maintain artificial divisions based on religion, with the result that staff and school groups that don't fit into those categories will not feel they're being treated fairly.

Such denominational enclaves can only continue to act as obstacles to immigrant integration. The school system should instead aim to socialize students, bring them into the mainstream of civil society and allow them to get to know each other better.

A recent poll conducted by the Coalition showed that 80 per cent of the population believes that religious beliefs and practices belong in the family and church setting, but not in the school. Also, 88 per cent want to see all children attend the same neighbourhood school.

The idea here is not to deny the fact of religious beliefs or affiliations; however, the school system must not be based on denominational affiliation.

There is a consensus in Quebec on this issue. Thirty years ago, the Parent Commission recommended in particular that school boards organized along religious lines be done away with. The Conseil supérieur de l'éducation has repeated again and again, over the last twenty years, that denominational guarantees contained in Section 93 should be abolished. In 1995-1996, the government of Quebec convened the States General on Education. In its final report, the Committee clearly emphasized the need to undenominationize the school boards in order to tailor the school system to current needs.

Last spring, the Education Commission held consultations on a draft version of Bill 109, the legislation establishing linguistic school boards. However, the obligation under Section 93 to maintain denominational school boards in Quebec City and Montreal proved to be a major obstacle to reforming the educational system. And, as you know, the Quebec National Assembly passed a motion asking the government to amend subsections (1) to (4) of Section 93 so that they no longer apply to Quebec.

• 1045

[Translation]

The Coalition has always maintained that a constitutional amendment is needed if we are to successfully tailor the system now in place to the needs of the populations it serves. In order to develop the kind of schools we require in Quebec, and make them a focal point for social and cultural integration as they should be, it is urgent that we no longer be required to maintain privileges granted 150 years ago to two religious denominations.

I would like to speak briefly about minority rights. Minority rights refer above all to the right of every minority to be treated fairly, and their members' right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their specific differences.

Section 93 of the Constitution Act guarantees such privileges to only two denominations. It does not protect the rights of all religious minorities or of those who say they have no religion. It represents a permanent obstacle to equality rights.

The denominational status of school boards leads to religious discrimination in favour of two specific denominations, the Catholic and Protestant religions. Yet that religious preference no longer has any social justification. I believe the most fundamental provisions are Sections 3 and 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, although there are similar provisions in the Canadian Charter.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Ms. Laurin. You will certainly have an opportunity to answer members' questions.

We will move immediately to question period. Val Meredith.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: I heard you say that a poll was taken and that 80% think that religious beliefs should be taught in the churches and by the families, that 80% supported a common school system or whatever you want to call it. Could you please share with me who did the poll? Was it done just in the main city areas or was it done throughout the province? Could you table it with the clerk so we can have access to what questions were asked?

[Translation]

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

Ms. Louise Laurin: I would be very pleased to table the results of the Sondagem poll carried out in October of 1996. I can certainly pass on those results so that you can have a look at them.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: Was the survey carried out outside of the main cities, or were just Montreal and Quebec City polled?

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Laurin: The sampling was done all across Quebec.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: My question relates to what you referred to as the reality of religious instruction.

• 1050

[Translation]

By way of introduction, I would like to say that I am not in any way opposed to linguistic school boards. Indeed, I don't believe anyone is.

Denominational facilities were just fine back in 1867. While there may be nothing wrong with them, they no longer meet current needs because, as you say, two religions receive preferential treatment over others. Subsections (3) and (4) are questionable in our legal system because they provide that any appeal shall lie to the Governor General, and that has never led anywhere. So, in my view, that has to be changed.

As far as some members are concerned, though, there are still some unanswered questions as regards instruction. I believe that Catholics, Protestants and other parents will be in a position to request Catholic, Protestant or other types of religious instruction, but if the government of Quebec is providing funding for that instruction as I imagine it will, there must be no discrimination as far as religions and philosophies are concerned.

So far, we're okay. I, personally, have no problem with any of that. However, you did refer to the fact that religion or religious instruction is a reality. Do you have anything to suggest there? How do you think that would work under general Quebec legislation on education? If subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Section 93 are set aside, Bills 109 and 107 will have to undergo considerable change if the problem we're dealing with is not the same.

Mr. Henri Laberge (Advisor, Coalition pour la déconfessionnalisation du système scolaire): There are a number of ways of answering that. I think that debate will have to go forward in Quebec, among Quebeckers, and particularly in the National Assembly. One possible position would be the one that emerges from the Sondagem poll. You will see that the questions used in the poll do not use labels but refer to actual situations.

We presented people with three scenarios and asked them which of the three they preferred: first of all, that we maintain the current system of exclusively Catholic and Protestant religious instruction; secondly, that we teach all religions currently represented in Quebec, but only to the affected religious groups; and thirdly, that we provide culturally-oriented instruction on all the religions, but that this instruction be provided to everyone. A very significant majority—I don't remember the figure but Louise may know—chose the third option. I think that is one of the avenues we may want to consider.

I cannot speak for the National Assembly, but I believe the Minister will say that she would like to maintain Catholic and Protestant religious instruction at this time. Within Quebec society, there is an increasing number of people who believe that it would be dangerous to fragment religious instruction. Either we maintain religious instruction only for Catholic and Protestants—which of course seems discriminatory—or we provide religious instruction for each religious group, which would not only have perverse effects, but would be totally unmanageable. That is why increasing numbers of Quebeckers are saying that students should be introduced to religion and taught about the great religions of the world, particularly those that have influenced Quebec history, but that this should be given in the form of general instruction. However, that is not something Quebeckers have debated and taken a position on.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Quebeckers obviously have to debate the issue, but this is also something that concerns Canada, because it is important. Of course, the Quebec and Canadian Charters would remain. The first one is quasi constitutional and the second one is constitutional. I think if we want to avoid problems, we will have to opt for equality: equality in terms of subsidies and equality in terms of recognition. In that sense, we cannot—and I'm not in favour of it either—give preferential treatment to one religion or another. So, as far as that goes, I think we pretty well agree. But I do think we at the very least need some sort of system to be in place. The second option may well be the best, but that is a whole other debate.

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

Ms. Louise Laurin: I just want to add that it is in fact another debate, but that it's important to consider that option since we're talking about a wide diversity of backgrounds and religions, particularly in the Montreal region. I think it's important that we give this further thought in order to determine the best possible approach.

• 1055

[Translation]

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are certainly one of the most important witnesses to appear before the Committee, as you represent almost two million people and a coalition of some forty-three organizations. In fact, you represent just about everybody and anybody in the education sector, both upstream and downstream, and each of you has considerable experience in education. I would like to ask you two general questions that should clarify the situation for Committee members.

First of all, I would like you to clearly indicate how deeply rooted this debate on linguistic school boards really is in Quebec society. We don't want anyone to think that this issue has emerged in the last two weeks. So, I would appreciate your emphasizing that point.

Secondly, I think it's important that you, and particularly Ms. Laurin, who is well acquainted with the situation in Montreal, make it clear to the Committee that this is a particularly important issue for the City of Montreal, because it is more pluralist and cosmopolitan. I would like you to discuss the consequences for the City of Montreal of not implementing linguistic school boards.

Ms. Louise Laurin: I believe I have provided ample evidence that this debate is very deeply rooted in Quebec society. The population of Quebec is made up of citizens of various origins. We must seek to socialize the students, bring them into the mainstream of civil society and teach them to live together; otherwise, we will become a mosaic of small communities and I don't see how we could then refuse to let other communities have their own schools. We prefer that there be one public school for all, where all students would come together under one roof and learn to respect each other. That is the goal we are pursuing. It is important that every individual know that his beliefs and his religion will be respected and that he will have an opportunity to learn something about the religions that have shaped Quebec's history. We do not want an atheist society; religion has been of the strongest influences in the history of Quebec. And as far as Montreal is concerned, this is an issue of the utmost importance. The vast majority of the immigrant population is concentrated in Montreal and there are people of all different origins.

I was the principal of a school where there was some sixty people from different countries. We have to try and create a climate where everyone feels comfortable and where children can learn to live together. Otherwise, all of this is pointless, because we will only be creating little ghettos here and there and we will never form a cohesive society. There are very specific issues in Montreal. I will ask Mr. Skalli, a Quebecker born in different country, to discuss the particular issues facing Montreal.

Mr. Jowad Skalli (Alternatives, International Solidarity Network): I think it's important to remember what we're discussing here. Whatever decision is made here, linguistic school boards will be established in Quebec. The question for us is: will Montreal and Quebec City be treated like the rest of Quebec or will they continue to be special cases?

In other words, Section 93 places us in an odd situation. In those very places where there is an urgent need to undenominationize the school system—in other words, Montreal, where there is tremendous ethnic, cultural and religious diversity—schools will remain denominational if Section 93 is not either abolished or amended.

I am not saying that the rest of Quebec does not consider it important to undenominationize the school system; no, this is an important issue everywhere, because it is not only new immigrants who want common, public schools. However, it is an even more of an issue in Montreal, which is a real focal point.

• 1100

[Translation]

I want to say that quite frankly, as an immigrant Quebecker and father, I feel that I am a victim of discrimination under the denominational school system. Belonging, as I do, to another denomination, and having had to choose, when I arrived here, whether I would enroll my students in a Catholic or Protestant school... I really had no choice. Naively, I asked whether there wasn't a public school, neither Catholic nor Protestant nor anything else, where I could enroll them. I was told that public school was either Catholic or Protestant. As a result, I am a ratepayer of the Catholic board with children...

Although I have great respect for the Catholic faith, it is not my faith nor is it my children's faith. I don't see why a common, public-funded institution should have a denominational status.

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

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

Mr. Mauril Belanger: I just want to make a comment. Like my colleague opposite, I think it's fine to want to shed light on the issue for the committee's benefit, but without transparency, that light won't go very far. So, let's go with transparency.

Ms. Laurin, we're starting to recognize, having heard of this from a great many different groups, that there is somewhat a consensus with respect to amending Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. That consensus rests in part—and that's where the situation may not be all that clear—on the accommodations set out in Bill 107—in other words, the possibility of having denominational schools. That is the impression people have been left with. There is another consensus that seems to be emerging...

Ms. Louise Laurin: It is not a consensus.

Mr. Mauril Belanger: Well, what we heard here is that setting up denominational schools, as provided under Quebec legislation on education, seems to be very important.

Another consensus has emerged over the last few days: that in the absence of subsection 93(1) to 93(4), that you yourself referred to in your presentation, the current provisions of the Quebec or Canadian Charter would take precedence. So, if the notwithstanding clause contained in the Quebec statute, Bill 107, ceases to be used, denominational schools will disappear. I believe I understood you to say—and I would ask you to confirm that my understanding is correct—that you are opposed to use of the notwithstanding clause contained in the Canadian Charter. Am I right about that?

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

Mr. Henri Laberge: Yes. I think it's important to make a distinction between the groups presenting their consensus, the Quebec government's position and our position on this issue. We are in favour of removing the denominational status of both school boards and schools. Some groups are in favour of undenominationalizing the school boards, but would still like to have denominational schools, which is not our position.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I see.

Mr. Henri Laberge: We believe that in order to foster cross- cultural understanding among groups of different origins and religions, it's important that people attend common, neighbourhood and village schools, where no distinction is made on the basis of origin or religion.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: As I understand it, then, you are not in favour of invoking the notwithstanding clause contained in the Canadian Charter?

Mr. Henri Laberge: We would not support that if the idea were to maintain schools where children would be divided up on the basis of their religion.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Either Protestant or Catholic.

Mr. Henri Laberge: Yes.

Ms. Louise Laurin: That issue has not really been debated all across Quebec, although we, in the Coalition, have discussed it. We are still considering the various ways that could be accomplished. But everyone has not been involved in that debate. The groups we are representing today have given that matter some thought. We certainly would like to see all Quebeckers involved in that debate, but we do think the first step must be to bring everyone together under the same roof. That is the first step, and one we consider essential.

There may be a transition phase or special programs of study, but that should not prevent classes from proceeding. We don't want religion class... What we're advocating is a form of cultural appreciation of all these religions so that children can be taught to respect one another. However, these issues have not been thoroughly debated within society as a whole. The first step, though, is to straighten out our school board system.

• 1105

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. Laurin. I ask the cooperation of all those who have requested the floor— Senator Wood, Nick Discepola, Senator Lavoie-Roux, Senator Grafstein, Sheila Finestone, Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Goldring— so that we can hear as many points of view as possible, including from our witnesses.

Senator Dalia Wood.

[English]

Senator Dalia Wood (Montarville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Laurin, I'd like to bo back to the poll you mentioned earlier. I think that here in this committee we've established there is a consensus for the need for linguistic school boards. However, with regard to the poll you mentioned, do you know if the Quebeckers are ready to part with the right to religious schools? Was this one of the questions that was asked?

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Laurin:, Yes, but it wasn't formulated quite like that. I don't have the poll in front of me, and I don't remember exactly how that question was phrased. But people said they would prefer to have a common school, that children of all backgrounds and religions would attend and where they would be given a course on cultural appreciation of the world religions, rather than actual religious instruction. That is what seemed to emerge from the poll. Our Coalition has not really considered these issues in depth. For now, the important thing is to bring students together under one roof, in a common school.

[English]

Senator Dalia Wood: So in conclusion, there are no statistics to say that they do not want it.

I have another short question. Would you support the use of the notwithstanding clause to protect the provisions of Bill 109?

[Translation]

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

Mr. Henri Laberge: As we have already stated, our Coalition is in favour of removing the denominational status of both school boards and schools. That is not necessarily the position of the Quebec government. If the government of Quebec wants to maintain the provisions of Bill 109, which preserve the specific denominational character of the schools, it will have no choice but to use the notwithstanding clause, because that would violate the provisions of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter. It would also violate a similar provision in the Quebec Charter. But that is a decision the National Assembly will make. As a Coalition, we would like to see the denominational status of the schools eliminated as soon as possible, so that all children, whatever their background or beliefs, can attend the same village or neighbourhood school. That is our position.

When we conducted the poll, we asked people whether they would like their children to attend the same village or neighbourhood school, whatever the religious beliefs of the parents, or whether they would prefer their children to be split up into different schools based on their parents' religious beliefs. A very significant majority...

Ms. Louise Laurin: Yes, 88 per cent felt that the real priority for parents is to have their children attend a school that is close to where they live, rather than...

Mr. Henri Laberge: A very significant majority said they would prefer to see their children attend the neighbourhood school, whatever the parents' beliefs.

Ms. Louise Laurin: Yes, that's pretty well what emerged.

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

Ms. Louise Laurin: It's something that has to be debated.

• 1110

[Translation]

Mr. Nick Discepola: My questions also relate to the poll and Section 93. We have heard other testimony which seems to better reflect the reality, namely that when parents are asked whether they want their children to receive religious instruction, they say yes. That has been proven in a poll. I believe more than 80 per cent of Quebeckers said they want their children to receive religious instruction.

So, I find it a little inconsistent on the part of the Quebec government to be asking us to repeal Section 93 for that province. Since that would be a violation not only of its Charter but of the Canadian Charter, would it not be preferable that the government of Quebec ask Section 93 to be broadened to cover all religious groups, rather than asking us to repeal it?

Ms. Louise Laurin: But surely you realize that would create a lot of small ghettos. That is unthinkable.

Mr. Nick Discepola: That's the system they use in other provinces and it works very well, Ms. Laurin.

Ms. Louise Laurin: According to our vision of Quebec society, people should all be part of the mainstream, not divided along religious lines. We respect...

Mr. Nick Discepola: You stated in your testimony that you are in favour of completely undenominationalizing the schools. But you also want all religions to be taught in the schools so that children will have a better understanding of them.

Ms. Louise Laurin: No, not at all.

Mr. Nick Discepola: How do you explain that?

Mr. Henri Laberge: We would like the schools to offer a single course—a cultural introduction to the world religions, but we are not in favour of there being separate courses for each—in other words, one course for Muslims, another for Jews, another for Protestants, and another for Catholics.

Ms. Louise Laurin: It would be purely didactic.

Mr. Nick Discepola: And this course would teach children about all the world religions.

Ms. Louise Laurin: Mr. Chairman, that is not what we are here to discuss. We have said that this is what we would advocate, but that approach has yet to be debated in Quebec society as a whole and it is not clear that Quebeckers would agree with it.

Mr. Nick Discepola: The reason I'm asking all these questions is that I sincerely believe the government of Quebec's hidden agenda here is to eventually undenominationalize all the schools.

Ms. Louise Laurin: Well, we are not privy to any such information.

Mr. Henri Laberge: That certainly is not our perception of things.

Ms. Louise Laurin: No, that is not our perception at this time.

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

Mr. Skalli, did you wish to make a comment?

Mr. Jowad Skalli: I think there's a danger there that you should be aware of. Earlier I described denominational schools as being a major obstacle to immigrant immigration. But there is another danger within the immigrant communities associated people who identify themselves first and foremost by their religion—in other words, the fundamentalists who are fighting to get the same thing. Muslim fundamentalists would like to have Muslim schools. Hindu fundamentalists would like to have Hindu schools, and so on. And that is not at all the kind of society we wish to build.

The vast majority of Muslims, Hindus and members of other religious groups want to be part of the mainstream; they very much want to be like others, to grow up having the same opportunities and live with people from all different backgrounds. One of the main reasons they're attracted to this country is precisely that diversity. If they come to a country where there is that diversity and end up living in ghettos where they all attend the same schools, live in the same neighbourhoods and heaven knows what else, then I really wonder where we're headed as a society. We just cannot accept suggestions like that—that all the world religions be taught or that there be a whole range of denominational schools that would be open to everyone, from Jehovah's Witnesses to Hindus. That is impossible and utterly inconceivable.

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

Senator Lavoix-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoix-Roux: There is a representative of the Fédération des directeurs d'écoles here this morning, isn't there? Does it cover all of Quebec or just Montreal? Quebec, you say.

Mr. Michel Couture (Fédération québécoise des directeurs et directrices d'établissements d'enseignement): They are part of the Coalition.

Senator Thérèse Lavoix-Roux: Have you conducted a survey as well? What I find surprising is that all school principals in the province of Quebec are in favour of abolishing religious instruction. I find that a little surprising.

Mr. Michel Couture: It's important to remember, though, in terms of the background to all of this, the whole process related to the States General. That process resulted in new provisions being added to the Public Education Act which will largely decentralize powers to the school level, giving them substantial flexibility, and which at the same time emphasize greater dialogue and cooperation with parents, who are, after all, the main clients when it comes to setting up and organizing the school. School principals are prepared to work in that spirit and meet the needs of the community, because those needs obviously vary from one region to the next.

• 1115

[Translation]

Senator Thérèse Lavoix-Roux: But the name of your association is the Coalition pour la déconfessionnalisation du système scolaire. You say you are prepared to work in that spirit, which is fine, but are all school principals in favour of undenominationalizing the school system?

Mr. Michel Couture: The Federation's position is that the school system must be undenominationalized.

Senator Thérèse Lavoix-Roux: Does that mean that ultimately, you are in favour of secularizing the entire school system?

Ms. Louise Laurin: In a sense, yes. We are in favour of secularization, but not necessarily to the exclusion of religion.

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

[English]

Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Thanks very much to you and your group for your brief, Madame Laurin. This new dialogue that I'm hearing from Quebec is refreshing. The dialogue is based on equality of treatment and respect for pluralism. This, to my mind, is a welcome and refreshing change.

It seems that we're moving from the extremes to almost a consensus in Canada, because the same words you speak in Quebec are the words we hear in Ontario. In that sense, our provinces are growing together, not separating.

Having said that, you premise your brief on equality and on both charters, the Quebec charter and the federal charter, both of which premise equality. Yet when we look at the aftermath of section 93, if we remove the inequality in 93, we end up with Bills 101, 107 and 109, and we have the notwithstanding clause, which removes the equality provisions in the educational bill.

That's the present situation. It's not a future situation; it's what we have today. So if section 93 disappears, we end up with the government being able to establish a preferential treatment because they've removed the Quebec charter and the federal charter from the educational act.

Given that situation—and at this moment, we can't change that until we hear from Quebec—is it your position that if there are to be denominational schools in Quebec...? That's the way it sounds to me. I assume your position is that whatever treatment is available to the two majority religions, subject to the numbers being practical, you would want to provide equal treatment from the public purse to other religions. Is that a fair statement?

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Laurin: Logically, that would be the fair thing to do, even though the religion of the majority is Catholicism. We believe it's preferable to teach religion from a cultural perspective: the history is there. There are other religions in Quebec, and I think that sort of general instruction is preferable, given Quebec's history and the fact that there are a great many newcomers. In order that faith and religious practice may be associated with the Church, rather than the school, we believe it would be preferable to provide a culturally-oriented introduction to religion, and to confine faith to the Church setting.

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

Sheila Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I must say that yours is a pretty impressive Coalition. It would seem there is a consensus among Anglophones, according to the Chamber's Report, just as it would seem, based on what you have said and the statistics you have just tabled on behalf of Francophone communities, that there is also a consensus in Quebec as a whole.

• 1120

[Translation]

My question is along the same lines as the one put to you by Senator Grafstein. Mr. Skalli, given the way the Bill is drafted, if we accede to Quebec's request, we will end up with schools that teach the Catholic faith. Indeed, between 80 and 90 per cent of parents in Quebec want Catholic instruction, especially in the small villages—such as in your area. In certain districts of Montreal, there are greater numbers of Greek Orthodox, Francophone Sephardic Jews or Muslims. There is a whole range of religions there. Considering the way the legislation is drafted, and the presence of the notwithstanding clause—which is Section 33—the fact is the notwithstanding clause must be renewed every five years to ensure that the government of Quebec keeps its promises with respect to religious instruction. Then you come along with your poll and the weight of your considerable representation and ask that the school system be secularized.

So, I'm interested in knowing whether you would be prepared to take a closer look at a proposal put to us by the Canadian Jewish Congress, that a number of other groups support, which is that the funds follow the child. The cost of a child's education, as described by the government of Quebec—in other words, the academic training provided to a child—would be the responsibility of the public sector, while the cost of religious instruction would be supported by the private sector. In that way, 50 per cent of the funding used to operate schools would be public, and the other 50 per cent would be private sector funding, depending on parental choice. Would you be in favour of that kind of arrangement, Mr. Skalli or Ms. Laurin?

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

Ms. Louise Laurin: I would like to ask Mr. Skalli to respond.

Mr. Jowad Skalli: First of all, I want to thank you for your question. We are certainly not naive enough to think that abolishing Section 93 will really solve all the problems associated with the Quebec school system. At the same time, though, we see it as a significant obstacle which has thus far thwarted every attempt to improve the system by making it more democratic and more diverse.

The abolition of Section 93 is certainly needed, but this alone will not allow us to attain our future goals as far as the educational system is concerned. We are very much aware of that and we know full well that once the Constitutional amendment has gone through—I am quite sure you will make a positive recommendation and that it will pass—we will still have a great deal of work to do if our schools are truly to reflect our vision.

As for the suggestion made by the Canadian Jewish Congress, I think it's important to point out that we live in a pluralist country and that people cannot be prevented from sending their children to private school. As far as I know, private schools are subsidized to a certain extent by the Quebec government, based on the relevance of the program of study they offer.

One cannot really oppose the idea of parents sending their children to private school if they feel it is essential that their children be in a denominational setting where religious instruction is provided. We can accept that. Personally, I'm not against the government paying that part of the cost relating to basic instruction that the children would have received anywhere else, and allowing parents to pay for private school out of their own pockets if that is their choice. But the system of education currently in place is not a public system.

• 1125

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Just let me finish.

Mr. Skalli, I listened to what you had to say. I understood that you wanted to integrate into the French society. You wanted that comfort level. But you weren't comfortable with the religious education your children were receiving. It was not what you wanted to them to have.

So I'm asking you specifically, what other system would you like? Or would this system of the Canadian Jewish Congress be one that you could accept? And you're saying yes. Is that right?

[Translation]

Mr. Jowad Skalli: To be perfectly honest, I don't agree with the system that has been proposed by the Canadian Jewish Congress, for a very simple reason: we have a serious problem when it comes to integrating young members of the Jewish community into Quebec society. Until the age of seventeen, there is virtually no contact in the setting where people tend to get to know each other best—in other words, the schools. When you spend the first seventeen years of your life going to one school, while your neighbour goes to a completely different school, already you are setting yourself up for communication problems.

At the same time, I can certainly understand the Canadian Jewish Congress' interest in teaching Hebrew, as well as English and French. I can understand where they're coming from. But as far as I'm concerned, that is anything but an ideal situation. I believe it is in the interests of members of the Jewish community, like members of other communities, to be full-fledged participants in a common, public school system open to all, even if that means complementing public school instruction with private lessons that meet the specific needs of a community. As far as I'm concerned, that would be the case with every community, and not just the Jewish community.

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

[English]

Very briefly, Peter Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much for your presentation. My understanding is that with the removal of section 93, subsections (1) to (4), the notwithstanding clause will be used in the short and long term to reinforce the understandings of section 93, subsections (1) to (4). There is really no gain in it at all on the short to medium term.

My understanding is that your general preference seems to be the generic type of religious teaching with religious and cultural integration, if somehow a course could be designed that way. I foresee a problem. Do you not see a problem? Have the bishops been asked whether they would be in favour of this generic type of religious and cultural teaching? Do you feel they would be in favour of that?

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Laurin: I certainly cannot speak for the Bishops. That is an issue that has not yet been openly debated in Quebec, except among the organizations we represent. But it is not something that is being officially or publicly debated at this time. The members of our group and others have given this some thought. But so far, there has been nothing resembling a public debate on this approach.

Mr. Henri Laberge: If I might just add something, there are still net benefits. First of all, school boards will cease to denominational; as for the schools, that's another debate. But as soon as the constitutional amendment has been passed, there will no longer be denominational school boards in Quebec.

Also, as far as the other issues are concerned, this gives Quebec society an opportunity to organize the school system in a way that best meets its needs. That, too, is important. If the notwithstanding clause has to be renewed every five years, then each time there will be an opportunity to debate this again and decide whether the notwithstanding clause should be maintained, or whether we shouldn't simply abide by the two Charters, the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights, as regards equality for all citizens.

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

Senator Lavoie-Roux, one last brief question.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I have a very brief question— that's all I'm allowed.

You talked about culturally-oriented religious instruction. We don't really know yet what that would involve, but I, for one, would have been interested in Buddhism, Confucianism, and so on. Aren't you concerned that by introducing young people to different doctrines, we may be encouraging them to take an interest in religious sects?

Ms. Louise Laurin: Religions are not sects, Senator Lavoie- Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, I know that religions are not sects, but if people have a confused understanding of Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and so on, couldn't that lead to involvement in religious sects? By the way, this is not my question; it's one parents have put to me. That's why I am putting it to you.

• 1130

[Translation]

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

Mr. Jowad Skalli: I believe there is some misunderstanding of what is meant by culturally-oriented religious instruction. We are not talking about teaching or talking about all the world religions. The idea is really to teach the history of religious thought and to introduce young people to the notion that different peoples, living in different parts of the world, have certain beliefs that result in their explaining the way the world works in one way or another. It's important to explain the history of humanity through the history of those religions, collectively, and to talk about what they mean.

I don't believe there's any reason to be concerned about what you talked about or what the other Senator referred to earlier, when he asked whether it would be possible to teach all the world religions simultaneously. Obviously, that is impossible. But one can certainly introduce the students to the spirit of religion, the history of world religions and religious thought in a general way, without referring to any particular religion.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: But there is still a danger there.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Pardon me for interrupting you. We had agreed that only one last question would be allowed. So, that concludes your presentation. Ms. Laurin, Mr. Skalli, Mr. Couture, and Mr. Laberge, on behalf of all the members of this Committee, I want to thank you for your presentation this morning.

We will take a two minute break, to give the next group time to be seated.

• 1131

• 1134

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The Special Joint Committee to amend Section 93 of the Constitution Act is resuming its hearings.

Our next witnesses are from the Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois, which is represented today by Jacqueline Hekpazo, Secretary, and Chantale Turcot, Treasurer. Good morning, ladies. We are very pleased to have you with us.

• 1135

[Translation]

Will Ms. Turcot be making the presentation?

Ms. Chantale Turcot (Treasurer, Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois): Yes.

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

Ms. Chantale Turcot: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen.

The Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois (MNQ) is a federation of sixteen national and Saint-Jean-Baptiste societies organized by region and representing some 180,000 individual members. The organization is fifty years old, having been founded in 1947 under its original name, the Fédération des sociétés Saint-Jean-Baptiste du Quebec.

The MNQ is not a specialized organization. It is open to people of all ages and backgrounds. Its target public is not any particular professional, ethnic or denominational group, but rather the entire population of Quebec, regardless of ethnic origin, mother tongue or religious beliefs.

The MNQ supports the civil, economic and social integration of the various ethnic, cultural, denominational and ideological groups that make up modern Quebec, with due respect for the differences between those groups. It attaches considerable importance to the participation of all groups in the development and dissemination of a common culture, and to equal rights for all citizens. It is from that angle that it defends the status of French as Quebec's national language, the collective property of Quebec society as a whole, and of all its constituent parts above and beyond the diversity of mother tongues and languages used privately by Quebeckers.

The MNQ recognizes that public schools are without a doubt the most important of the collective instruments available to Quebec society has in forging a truly inclusive society. Like the vast majority of Quebeckers of every political stripe, it considers the defence and promotion of Quebec's independence in educational matters to be of the utmost importance. The Quebec National Assembly must have the independence to adjust Quebec's school system to changing circumstances, needs and attitudes. In particular, it must have the freedom to promote, through education, democratic values like freedom of religion and the principle of equality of all citizens.

We come before you today to support the proposed draft amendment to Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The primary purpose of that Section is to confer on the provinces exclusive authority over education. That fundamental provision must obviously be maintained, but Section 93 also places very significant constraints on the exercise of that authority by Quebec, thus limiting Quebec's independence in this vital area. This Section imposes far more restrictions on Quebec than it does on other provinces to which it applies.

The MNQ is therefore asking the Parliament of Canada to consent to a constitutional amendment that would release Quebec from the unacceptable constraints placed on it by Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as regards the reorganization of its school system.

The constraints that Section 93 places on the exercise of provincial authority in education do not apply to all provinces. They have no effect in the provinces that granted no specific privileges to denominational groups with respect to the organization of their schools before they joined Confederation. Only those provinces that did grant such privileges are now required to maintain them and also prohibited from amending them. This legal situation contradicts the claims of those who would assert or demand the equality of the provinces. However, this inequality works to Quebec's detriment, rather than in its favour.

In the provinces affected, the constraints of Section 93 do not apply in the same way. Quebec's obligation to maintain Catholic and Protestant school facilities in Quebec City and Montreal, without regard for demographic changes that have occurred over the past 150 years, has no equivalent elsewhere. In Canada as a whole—Quebec and Newfoundland being two surprising exceptions—the basic public system is nondenominational, including in Ontario, which is nonetheless bound by Section 93. To the best of our knowledge, no Ontario city enjoys special status in this regard.

• 1140

[Translation]

While Section 93 does not impose the same constraints on the provinces to which it applies, it also fails to describe the school system that it requires provinces to maintain, merely referring to a system in existence before each province joined Confederation. It entrenches pre-existing privileges, which varied from province to province, and limits the power of each province to change its school system, depending on the nature and scope of the privileges granted to its denominational groups.

The constraints resulting from Section 93 are all the more unacceptable in that they prohibit the Quebec National Assembly from moving in a direction that would be far more consistent with the democratic principles on which Canada claims to be founded. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms proclaims the right of all Canadians, without exception, to freedom of conscience and religion. The equivalent provision appears in Section 3 of the Quebec Charter. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter proclaims the equality of all citizens and prohibits all discrimination based, in particular, on religion (Section 10 of the Quebec Charter). The obligation to maintain specific privileges for two denominational groups is thus a flagrant departure from the spirit of the Charter.

The passage of Sections 2 and 15 of the Canadian Charter should normally have been interpreted as repealing the incompatible provisions of Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 29 of the Charter was needed to maintain the denominational privileges protected by Section 93. Section 29 thus operates as a permanent notwithstanding clause. Unlike the notwithstanding clause provided for in Section 33, Section 29 does not merely authorize a temporary override of a given provision of Section 2 and Sections 7 to 15; it requires, on an ongoing basis, that Parliament override the right to freedom of religion and the right to equality, within the meaning of Section 93.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Turcot, could you please conclude now.

Ms. Chantale Turcot: The interim arrangement provided for by the Quebec government, should the constitutional amendment be delayed, is simple in appearance only, as it fragments the public school population to the same extent. It also has its own disadvantages, including the possibility of endless disputes between the different levels of decision-making and the risk that it may not survive a court challenge.

We believe the constraints placed on Quebec with respect to the organization of its school system are unreasonable. Thus we ask that Quebec no longer be subject to Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Thank you.

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

We will now move directly to questions.

We will move immediately to question period. Val Meredith.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: I was interested in comments that you have made. I take it from your comments that you support the amendment to section 93 removing Quebec from that section, removing the protection for denominational schools in the Quebec education system. You feel doing that would allow Quebec—and I believe I'm fairly close in a quote—“to focus on democratic principles of equality of individuals without discrimination”.

The concern we have heard from a number of individuals is that, by removing Quebec from section 93, in essence what you're doing is prohibiting any religious teaching in the classrooms, in schools. Court cases in Ontario have indicated this is a direction that might occur.

• 1145

[Translation]

A concern has also been raised that without the protection of section 93 and without the protection of paragraph 23(1)(a) there is a possibility that other discrimination may occur; Quebec's focusing on the equality of citizens is not happening now and will not necessarily happen in the future with regard to respecting a parent's right to have religious instruction in a school system. Or do you believe a parent has a right to have religious instruction in the school system?

[Translation]

Ms. Chantale Turcot: I want to point out that in the 100 years or more since the Constitution was signed, the denominational guarantees you refer to have been become privileges, and that we consider them as such. As a result, two denominations enjoy privileges now considered unacceptable in the open, pluralistic society of modern Quebec and Canada.

As regards parents' concerns with respect to religious instruction in the schools, I think we have to trust the government of Quebec. There is no doubt that exempting Quebec from Section 93 does not necessarily mean that schools in Quebec will lose their denominational status overnight. Some schools have voted in favour of either Catholic or Protestant educational programming, and I believe that will be protected or respected over the coming years.

However, there is no doubt that Quebec society is evolving. As we all know, the notwithstanding clause provides for a review every five years. In my view, this is clear evidence of the wisdom of legislators. From one five-year period to the next, Quebec society evolves. Fifty years from now, will there be enough people demanding religious instruction to warrant maintaining it? Will that be the case twenty-five years from now? Or even twenty years from now? No one knows. But I believe exempting Quebec from Section 93 will give the government of the province the flexibility it requires to ensure that its school system meets the current needs of Quebeckers, whether they've been here for generations or are newcomers to the province.

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo (Secretary, Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois): With your permission, I would like to add something.

What we are talking about here is bringing Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, up to date. Nowadays, modern societies operate on the basis of the separation of the Church and the State. It's quite true that we cannot move faster than society itself or the people that make up that society. But in the long term, there is no doubt that religious instruction currently provided in the school setting will once again become the responsibility of families and the Church. If we truly want to build a modern, open society, with a school system accessible to all, whatever one's religious or political convictions or whatever one's background, religion must be a private matter.

By way of reassuring Anglophone minorities or parents with respect to religious instruction, it's important to point out that there is a long-standing democratic tradition in Quebec. We are governed by Charters of Rights—the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter—and minorities are well organized. There are public interest groups. So, I don't think we need to be concerned.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much. The next questioner will be Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I don't really have any questions for you about denominational facilities. You would like Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) to be set aside, so that the first part of Section 93 would continue to apply, of course. That's obvious.

That being the case, you will be relying on the two Charters, the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights. Will you be relying on them alone or, if the possibility of using the notwithstanding clause still exists, only as required?

Ms. Chantale Turcot: A notwithstanding clause is clearly required in order to maintain denominational schools. But that issue has yet to be debated in Quebec. We think we have to go step by step. In any case, the notwithstanding clause must be reviewed every five years.

• 1150

[Translation]

This is a good way of monitoring the evolution of Quebec society, but there is certainly no doubt that the notwithstanding clause is needed if we wish to maintain denominational schools.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: You certainly won't hear me advocating the use of notwithstanding clauses, because I, personally, am not really in favour of them. Of course, I understand there may be exceptional cases, but... That being the case, we would fall back on a system based on non-discrimination, freedoms of one type and another—which is exactly what you want.

Ms. Chantale Turcot: Yes, but our hope...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Mind you, I have nothing against Charters of Rights; on the contrary, I am very much in favour of them.

Ms. Chantale Turcot: Yes, but our hope is that society would eventually move towards complete separation of the Church and the State, as Ms. Hekpazo said earlier.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: But that is already a fact of life. The Supreme Court has made that abundantly clear: Canada is a country that applies the principle of the separation of the Church and the State; there is no State-sponsored religion. On the other hand, two religious groups are given preferential treatment under Section 93. That is another matter. The Court has made its position very clear. I just wanted to clarify that.

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: There is no State-sponsored religion in Canada; however, there is discrimination in favour of one or the other of the two groups, which makes some people—although not all—uncomfortable. It is clear from your comments, however, that there is a consensus in Quebec and that the Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois has been both leading and following this debate for a number of years.

I gather, then, that you are in favour of the amendment, for the reasons you have already mentioned.

Senator Thérèse Lavoix-Roux: That seems pretty likely.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, it does, as Senator Lavoie-Roux mentioned.

Could you perhaps explain why this is not a partisan issue? When you think about it, a number of governments, from the one in which Senator Lavoie-Roux was a Minister to the current government, tried to get around Section 93 and tried to outdo each other when it came to finding ingenious ways of getting around it, all for the greater good of the Quebec school system. But when all is said and done, it is clear, after three decades of debate—which is not much—that anyone with a serious interest in this issue can only conclude that unless Section 93 is abolished, the Quebec school system cannot be modernized.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, but that is something we could discuss at great length.

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo: Based on the direction in which Quebec society has been moving, as you say, it is clear that attempts have been made over several decades to deal with this particular issue. My view is that we have to complete the work of what is called the Quiet Revolution, as regards the school system, and put a system in place that is truly modern and current, rather than outdated. As far as I'm concerned, this is a logical development that is completely consistent with the current direction of Quebec society. It comes rather late, but then again, better late than never.

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

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Ms. Hekpazo, you gave an answer earlier to a question about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and particularly, Section 23. Am I to understand that you do in fact agree that this Charter has the force of law in the province of Quebec?

Secondly, what are your organization's views on paragraph 23(1)(a)? You said the English-speaking community had no reason to feel threatened. However, here in this Committee we have heard representations from various members of the Anglophone community, which claims it still needs paragraph 23(1)(a). I would be interested in hearing your views on that.

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo: Section 23 contains guarantees with respect to the rights of linguistic minorities in education. I personally believe that is well accepted in Quebec. I see the establishment of a Joint Committee to review this issue as an educational exercise, which is intended to clarify the various issues. What we are talking about here are not linguistic rights, but religious issues. If we were to start talking about linguistic issues, I think all of that would be acceptable under Bill 101.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But you are the one who raised this.

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo: No, no.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm only repeating what you said.

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo: No, no; you are the one who referred to the various Anglophone groups who came before the Committee and talked about paragraph 23 (1)(a).

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In responding to a question from a member of the Reform Party, you referred to Section 23, saying that it guaranteed a full range of rights and provided all the linguistic guarantees the Anglophone community needs.

• 1155

[Translation]

I just want you to know that over the past two weeks, we have heard representations from various groups within the English- speaking community, most of whom demanded that Section 23, including paragraph 23(1)(a) apply. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And they asserted, rightly or wrongly, that without paragraph 23 (1)(a), they would be threatened in the long term. That's what I'm asking you to comment on.

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo: I would repeat that there is a democratic tradition in Quebec. If we look at the various Charters that currently apply, either in Canada or Quebec, and Quebec's reputation, which is like that of Canada's, and the reality of minority groups, which are used to defending their rights—I belong to the Black community, which is also used to defending its rights—and other interest groups that defend rights and freedoms, not to mention the fact that every citizen is aware of his rights, I don't think we really have much to worry about as far as that goes. However, as regards the results of the Joint Committee's work, I do think we have to make a special effort to reassure those people who still have concerns about the future.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So, if I understand you correctly, you do not support the application of paragraph 23(1)(a).

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo: I would just like to read this paragraph out of context:

23. (1) Citizens of Canada

(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside,

I would respond by putting this question to you: what was it that most worried the various representatives who raised this issue with you?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Although I don't really think it's up to me to provide you with that information, I can certainly pass on a copy of their briefs.

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

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm sorry. The question was, did you ask this? Did you poll your membership? I see from the previous applicant that your organization is part of the organizations represented under the 2 million people in the previous applicant. I'm trying to determine, did you poll your membership and do you know if the membership of this larger group was polled on the understandings of the various approaches to religion in the schools, specifically this generic form of religious teaching that you're talking about? Did you poll them?

[Translation]

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo: We actually focused more on civics—in other words, instruction in social values. There is no doubt that social values are influenced by culture and religion. However, we particularly advocate programs that foster social cohesion—in other words, teaching the different values that underlie religious beliefs; while there are different religions around the world that are predicated on specific moral values, there are also universal values, such as justice and equality, just to name the ones we consider most essential here in Canada and Quebec.

All those values, as opposed to religion per se, should be taught in the classroom and be part of the school curriculum.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: I notice that you state in your brief that you represent 180,000 members. Has this question of the various choices of religious teaching for the schools been put to your membership? Have they given you an opinion on whether the schools of the future should be with no religion or with denominational or with generic religion? Was this question put to your membership?

[Translation]

Ms. Chantale Turcot: We have no official position for the time being. There's no doubt that this is a concern. What we would like to see most is for the school system to be undenominationalized, and then we will wait to see what happens in the school setting. Religion is not the main focus of our movement. It is a secondary issue for us.

• 1200

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Turcot, just to come back to Peter Goldring's specific question, have you in fact polled your members?

Ms. Chantale Turcot: No. We have discussed it, but we have not yet taken a position on this. All kind of opinions have been expressed, but there is nothing conclusive at this point. So, we are not able to take an official position at this time.

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

Senator Fernand Robichaud (New Brunswick, Lib.): Good morning, ladies.

When our hearings first began, we heard from a number of witnesses who said they had grave concerns about eliminating Subsections (1) to (4) of Section 93. As far as they were concerned, that would mean the end of religious instruction in the schools. Other people tried to reassure them, saying that they would be protected by the two Charters and by the Quebec Public Education Act, and that religious instruction could continue. People tried to reassure them.

On the other hand, it has been mentioned that Section 93 is a permanent notwithstanding clause. And people are realizing that in order to provide religious instruction in the schools, the notwithstanding clause of the Quebec legislation will have to be invoked so as to protect these groups. Am I to understand that you are totally against these notwithstanding clauses that favour one or the other of the two groups? Is it fair to now tell these people that even though religious instruction is being provided in the school setting, that it is a thing of the past, and will no longer be provided? The assurances we tried to give them simply don't hold water.

Ms. Chantale Turcot: As I explained in my first answer, for the time being, we will just have to put up with our notwithstanding clause that protects religious instruction in the schools. However, we are aware that by giving preferential treatment to certain religious groups, we are violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our hope is that Quebec society will evolve enough that in the not too distant future, we will no longer need the notwithstanding clause and religion will become the sole concern of the Church, rather than the concern of the State in the public schools. Our long-term goal—and I would emphasize that it is long-term—is to see Quebec society accept the idea that schools should be public, non-discriminatory and open to all.

That is our wish. That doesn't mean that tomorrow morning, I will be out protesting against the notwithstanding clause that protects educational rights, since I don't want to start a revolution in Quebec either. I cannot wish for Quebec society to evolve more quickly than it is capable of doing. But I truly and sincerely hope that it will evolve quickly enough that we can eventually establish public schools that are not denominational. However, that will not happen overnight.

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

The last questioner will be Nick Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Ms. Hekpazo, you asked why we had concerns about paragraph 23(1)(a). Let me give you two examples—one that affects me personally, and another that was raised on a number of occasions.

Almost 13,000 children whose mother tongue is English are affected by this section of the Charter. Because they were born outside Canada, they will not be allowed to attend an English school in Quebec.

Now let me cite a personal example. I have been unable to get an answer from any of the people I have put this question to thus far. I have four children who all received their education in the Francophone school system. Will my grandchildren and great-grandchildren be allowed to attend an English school?

Ms. Jacqueline Hekpazo: No one knows what the future holds.

Mr. Nick Discepola: According to the current Charter, without paragraph 23(1)(a), the choice I made freely to send my children to a French school, even though I had every right to send them to an English school... No one has been able to answer that question so far.

Ms. Chantale Turcot: I'm inclined to say it is completely out of order. To be perfectly frank, I think everything that has to do with Bills 101 and 86 in Quebec is part of another debate altogether. I would be quite willing to discuss that outside the purview of this Committee, but I do think it's a completely separate issue.

Mr. Nick Discepola: But surely you see what I'm getting at, Ms. Turcot. You are penalizing someone...

Ms. Chantale Turcot: Yes, I do.

• 1205

[Translation]

Mr. Nick Discepola: You are penalizing someone who has freely chosen to be part of the Francophone community. You are discouraging him with this clause.

Ms. Chantale Turcot: Well, I have no desire to debate that with you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much. On behalf of all the members of this Committee, Ms. Turcot and Ms. Hekpazo, I want to thank you for your presentation this morning.

The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 P.M.