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]

Wednesday, October 22, 1997

• 1542

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Welcome to this sitting of the Special Joint Committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 concerning the Quebec school system. We are sitting pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 1997.

I have a few preliminary remarks to make to ask those with cellular telephones to turn them off because we don't want to hear them during the sittings.

Second, for those who occasionally sit on the committee, we are going to hear the groups here before us for roughly 10 minutes and then move on to a question period of roughly half an hour. As I said during the other hearings, I would ask committee members to limit their remarks to approximately two minutes so that as many people as possible can speak. I would also ask our guests to be fairly concise in their answers.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton (Grandville, PC): Yesterday, I asked Mr. Dion

[English]

to table the legal opinions he was relying on to convince us that section 43 is the right one in the Constitution as far as the amendment formula goes. I don't know whether he agreed or not, but was there any follow-up to that request? I wasn't the only one. I think my friend opposite also asked for them.

[Translation]

We asked that the legal opinions on which the Minister relied to convince us that section 43 was the section that should apply respecting the amendment formula be submitted to us so that we could review them. We have yet to receive them.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): With your permission, I will give the floor to Mr. DeVillers, who wants to make a few comments on that same point.

[English]

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that the policy is that the government's legal opinions from Justice are kept by the government, for obvious reasons. Should there be challenges, then the legal opinions you're providing the opposition with are a basis on which to base their arguments if they know the legal opinion the original position is based on. So I think it's a matter of policy that those legal opinions are not released.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I was afraid that was going to be the answer, but I had hoped in this case they would make an exception. The issue is so important.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I can look into that and take it up with the minister.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Could you?

The other thing is this. Has there been any response from the Quebec authorities to the invitation we agreed to send them to appear before this committee?

• 1545

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): On that point, Senator, I should say that the official invitations from the Joint Chairs are supposed to go out today. We have already read a kind of pre-answer in the newspapers. I don't know whether we should interpret that as final, but we're going to send out the letters of invitation anyway.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: That shouldn't prevent the invitations from being sent out.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Absolutely not, they should go out this afternoon.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): So with your permission, we'll begin. I would like to welcome Mr. Brent Tyler and Mr. Keith Henderson of the Equality Party. Sirs, we are awaiting your presentations.

Mr. Henderson.

[English]

Mr. Keith Henderson (Leader, Equality Party): In their drive to supplant confessional school boards in Quebec with linguistic ones, Péquistes have run up against section 93 of the BNA Act, that old butter churn of a constitution separatists would like to ditch all together. Protestant and Catholic school boards are archaic holdovers, they argue. Language is the educational fault line of today, because it was not language but minority religious education rights that section 93 protected—in the wonderfully creaky language of the act, the rights of “dissentient minorities”.

Many have argued that section 93 stands in the way of progress and should be bulldozed. Keep it and Quebec is forced into a jigsaw puzzle of school boards—Protestant, Catholic, English, French. Get rid of it and reason and modernity prevail. Hence the rapid-fire Quebec provincial assembly vote of 103 to 0 some months ago in favour of an amendment to a constitution that Péquistes don't even recognize. Quebec Liberals, 95% of them Catholic, teamed up with their colleagues on the other side to squash Protestant rights.

“We have consensus,” Premier Bouchard trumpeted at the time, “so do the amendment, M. Dion, and do it now.” Dutifully, Mr. Dion said he would, although he promised hearings first, just to put a proper face on things. Recently, Mr. Dion stated he would pass the amendment by December, as requested, in which case I wonder what we are all doing here. Some of us might have preferred more genuine sober second thought to federal government window dressing. We nevertheless invite you to consider why section 93 was put into the BNA Act in the first place.

The main confederating state prior to 1867 was a colony called Canada. Ontario and Quebec did not exist, because Confederation created them. The process of creating them meant that the original state, Canada, had to be partitioned, a prospect the English-speaking minority in lower Canada regarded with some trepidation. “What will life be like in a majority French province?” they asked themselves justifiably. “Will our rights be protected?”

To make sure they were, as part of the bargain of Confederation and in return for allowing Quebec to be created, anglo-Quebeckers fought for constitutional guarantees: the right of the federal government to disallow provincial legislation, and the right to petition the federal cabinet against discriminatory provincial legislation and education—section 93 of the BNA Act. These are the protections Quebec nationalists have since fought systematically to dismantle.

Consider also what it is section 93 was meant to do. First it reaffirmed exclusive provincial jurisdiction in education, but ringed that power round with an important exception. Provinces could make laws in education, but, in the language of the act, “Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools”. If it did, section 93.4 allowed the federal government to step in and “make remedial Laws”.

These aspects of the BNA Act are vital for two reasons. First, provincial power in education is not absolute, and it never has been. There is a federal role in education, there has been, and, if we leave section 93 intact—or better still, renovate it—there always will be. Second, that federal role is as vital now in 1997 as it was 131 years ago, when Canadians first thought it up. That role is to guard against prejudice, to be the national umpire if provinces don't respect their minorities' rights—in other words, to step in and fix things when provincial legislative majorities have done wrong. This is a noble role and one Canadians should let lapse only after great soul searching, if at all.

• 1550

A far better course, rather than dismantling section 93 and making it inoperable in Quebec, as Quebec nationalists have unanimously demanded, is to extend section 93 to cover all aspects of the legislature's discriminatory behaviour against its educational minorities—discrimination on the grounds of language, race, ethnic background, birth, and religion; in other words, all the bases of discrimination our international treaty obligations require us to ban.

It is important to remember it is Canada that has signed these treaties and it is the state party Canada that is responsible for implementation and compliance.

Why then can't Canadians consider adding to their constitutional protections in the matter of education rather than subtracting from them? If, as the government pretends, section 23 of the Charter of Rights is sufficient protection for any Canadian, why did the Government of New Brunswick seek to protect the schools of the two linguistic communities in its province with the specific and additional language of section 16.1?

Please note that it is schools that are protected by the New Brunswick amendment, as it is schools that are protected by section 93. Section 23 applies to individuals and not the institutions that serve them.

Only four short years ago in 1993, New Brunswick modernized and renovated our Constitution by adding provisions that guarantee the English and French linguistic communities of New Brunswick “the right to distinct educational institutions...necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities” and confer upon the legislature and Government of New Brunswick the role of preserving and promoting that right. The Equality Party asks whether the minorities of Quebec are worth less than those of New Brunswick. Why would the federal government collude with Quebec to extinguish minority educational rights after having co-operated with New Brunswick to expand them?

In the light of the New Brunswick experience, what would be wrong with renovating and updating the whole of section 93 rather than scrapping it? Why must all the buildings of our forebears be razed?

There can be no doubt the protections we speak of are needed. When minorities take to the streets in that same province of New Brunswick to defend their communities' souls, their schools, those protections are needed. When Canadian courts take a dozen years and more to hear cases against discriminatory provincial legislation, the immediate effective veto of a federal government is needed.

When Quebec parents of a certain faith feel excluded from school councils and threaten legal action, such protections are needed. When the PQ's Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, introduced legislation in Quebec this past spring defining who is a member of the English-speaking community for educational purposes, how voting lists will be drawn up and taxing powers determined, all on the basis of that evil discriminatory concoction Bill 101, federal protections are needed.

What if that horrid mess had been adopted? To whom would the English-speaking community in Quebec have turned? Would it have turned once more to the long, drawn-out expensive route to the Supreme Court, only to have a notwithstanding clause imposed or, heaven forbid, some new discriminatory provision, a unique society clause? Would they then have been forced to turn to the United Nations, as Canadian citizens in Quebec shamefully had to do to protect their rights to freedom of expression seven short years ago.

The federal government, through its spokesman Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Stéphane Dion, has said it would grant Quebec nationalists their wish by Christmas. Section 93 protections in Quebec and nowhere else will be trashed.

Canadians might prefer being reminded of when section 93 was first conceived and by whom. Anglo-Quebecker and Father of Confederation Alexander Galt was the man responsible. During 1866, from a London conference, Galt wrote the following to his wife.

I telegraphed you by the Cable on the 24th, and hope you got the message either that evening or on Xmas. I thought the good news it contained would help to cause a merry Christmas. ... I am very much pleased to be able to say that the Education question is all right, and has been extended to and agreed in by all the Provinces...there is now, I may say, no fear of its going wrong in the Imperial Parliament. My enemies at home will not have the satisfaction they have hoped for. The Quebec scheme is adopted, very few alterations, and none I regard as at all impairing it....

• 1555

Now, 131 Christmases later, we have a federal minister of the crown proposing to undo Galt's legacy, to smash the gift he bequeathed to us, to extinguish rather than extend rights with a new and countervailing Quebec scheme. He proposes to destroy, in Galt's home province, what was agreed in by all. That sort of knee-jerk federal acquiescence to the nationalist agenda has characterized Ottawa's policy towards Quebec for over 13 years. We ask, could somebody at the centre kindly stand up just once for a truly Canadian vision of civil rights? Could they please take their inspiration from our forebears?

Our brief outlines to you the legal issue and states quite clearly what the section 93 amendment will do. We point out the courts have already ruled it is more than a mere legality. We also point out in the brief that section 93 provisions would not cover simply Protestants and Catholics. There was a Jewish school board in Quebec for a year until it was perhaps invalidly destroyed by Quebec legislation. There may be other school boards of a similar religious sort in the future, which section 93 may cover. Please let us understand that Canada's fabric is changing and we may have other forms of discrimination in the future that we may not know of right now.

It remains for me to note to you that section 93 was described by the Supreme Court as a fundamental part of the Confederation compromise. Section 93 was the principal consideration for the partition of the former province of Canada into the two new provinces of Quebec and Ontario.

The Equality Party submits that one cannot extinguish this section's constitutional effects in Quebec and so neuter federal supervisory authority over education in that province while it remains in effect in others without unbalancing what the architects of Confederation tried carefully to counterpoise. To do so is to practice asymmetrical federalism at its worst. It is to say some Canadians benefit from the protection of their federal government while others do not. It is to set up two classes of Canadians with two sets of rights, a principle that is anathema to our party and its raison d'être and that flies in the face of the first principle of the Calgary Declaration that all Canadians are equal and benefit from the equal protection of the law. If legislators believe in that principle, if they believe rights are accorded equally to all Canadians, and that those who suffer religious bigotry in education in one part of the country have recourse to Parliament on the same basis as those in other parts, they must reject this amendment.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I would ask you to conclude. All members of the committee have received your text in advance. If it's possible, conclude now so we have time for the members to ask you questions.

Mr. Keith Henderson: All the members haven't received the text. There are additions I have made. I'm coming to the conclusion, Mr. Chairman. I'll be there very shortly.

We in the Equality Party would like to go one step further. The fundamental anti-discriminatory character of section 93, its key role at the heart of the confederal process that led to the birth of Canada, suggests strongly to us that the simple bilateral amendment procedure sanctioned by the federal government will not suffice. All Canadians should have a say in this, for the amendment as proposed, stripping some Canadians of rights and recourse from which others in other provinces benefit, is a matter for all Canadians to determine, not one for the federal government and Quebec alone.

You have before you the recommendations we make to you, and I will summarize the last one because we think it's the most important, number 4. We suggest the federal government agree only to such amendments as extend the scope of section 93 to include all cases of unlawful discrimination in education. We list what they may be: racial, linguistic, religious, or any discrimination in education contrary to the international treaties signed by Canada.

• 1600

I will conclude, having said that, on this note. We note the political juncture in which the Government of Quebec is demanding an end to the limited federal supervisory authority in education that section 93 provides. If elected, the Quebec government has promised a third referendum on secession. That government has never forsworn the issuing of a unilateral declaration of independence to achieve its secessionist ambitions. Having threatened to resort to illegal means, the Government of Quebec may deem it expedient to go beyond the Constitution of Canada in other matters as well, including matters that relate to minority rights in education.

To denude the federal government of one of its supervisory authorities in Quebec at such a time hardly seems prudent. The Equality Party recommends that unless the Quebec government is willing to abide by the Constitution in general, to adopt a resolution in the Quebec legislature binding itself to do so, and to formally forswear its unilateralist and secessionist policies, the federal government should entertain no bilateral constitutional amendments with the Government of Quebec whatever.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

We will start the question period with Mr. Rahim Jaffer.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Thank you.

I have two brief questions to Mr. Henderson.

First of all, the Reform Party believes strongly in a public consultation process, and you spoke very sceptically about what's happened in Quebec with this process, so I'd like to ask what you'd like to see specifically and how the people of Quebec should be consulted on this issue.

Mr. Keith Henderson: I absolutely agree there should be a wider, more formal consultation process. I'm sure you know the Quebec government passed this 103-to-0 request for an amendment without holding any consultations with its own citizens whatsoever.

This is Ottawa. The people directly affected by this are in Quebec. They're not just English-speaking people, either. It's a question of religious bigotry in education. The people of Quebec should have been consulted in Quebec and there should have been time for that consultation, absolutely.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: And for my final question, I'm curious as to your opinion. I look forward to reading your brief, but if you could, just briefly outline how you see that Quebec could set up these linguistic school boards and still respect minority rights and not even amend section 93. Is that possible, in your opinion?

Mr. Keith Henderson: It is possible, and it's not just my opinion; it's the opinion of the court. I think the Supreme Court has already ruled on this and has indicated that it is entirely possible for them to do. So the elimination of section 93 protections in order to have linguistic school boards is not necessary. There may be practical difficulties, but the door should be open, as I tried to make clear in the brief, to renovating and modernizing.

After all, section 93 is a 19th-century understanding of discrimination. It's the way they understood things in religious terms. We know better. It's the 20th century, and we're moving to the 21st. We know of other types of discrimination, and we're treaty-bound not to allow them in education. This is our tool to prevent discrimination. We inherited it from our forebears. The last thing we should do is destroy it. We should modernize what we've built, not raze it to the ground.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Thank you.

[Translation]

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I have two brief questions.

[English]

The first question is on subsections 93(3) and 93(4). You said this authorizes the intervention of the federal Parliament and the federal government, and it is quite true. As a matter of fact the Supreme Court, not so long ago, decided that even if it has not been used since Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Charles Tupper, it is still valid. Do I understand that even though it has not been used in nearly 100 years, you still think it would be good to keep it in the Constitution?

• 1605

Mr. Keith Henderson: Yes, I do, and I'll tell you why.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court visited section 93 when the question of extending separate school rights to Ontario was considered back in 1987. That's only 10 years ago. Bertha Wilson, who wrote the judgment, said at that time that section 93 is operative.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Yes, there is no doubt.

Mr. Keith Henderson: The Catholic minority in Ontario is protected by section 93, as the Protestant minority is in Quebec, and dissentient minorities, never forget. This doesn't have to be Catholic and Protestant; it's dissentient minorities.

It was only 10 years ago that Bertha Wilson stated that it's part of the bargain of Confederation that we put this in. And it was used. It buttressed the requests of the Catholic minority in Ontario for separate funding. It was introduced at that time.

The other reason we should keep it is not because it was referred to and used, but because it sets up a vital federal supervisory authority. That's the key. It tells us that the Fathers of Confederation wanted the federal government to have some authority in education to play the umpire. If we scrap this in one province, what's to prevent us from scrapping it in another, and then another? Then the entire supervisory authority is gone. We cannot renovate what we will have then destroyed.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: But if rights are not complied with, is it not better to go to the courts than to ask the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada to intervene in a provincial matter, such as education, to protect the rights and privileges of denominational schools?

Mr. Keith Henderson: I'm so happy you asked that question. It's a very important question.

No, it's not good enough to go to the courts, and I'll tell you why. We know in Quebec what being deprived of our rights is like, because we have a government that has done so. It removed our right to freedom of expression. I know people sitting around this table understand what the Government of Quebec did to that right to freedom of expression.

People who value that right went to the courts, and they went immediately. The courts took many years to rule on the validity of that right, from the introduction of Bill 101 in 1977 until 1988, the Supreme Court judgment. That's a full 11 years. Then the notwithstanding clause was imposed for a further five years to eliminate rights. Added up, that's 16 years now of rights being violated. Then a further bill was introduced, called Bill 86, which continues to violate our rights under freedom of expression. It's now 1997—20 years of violation of rights.

We've been before the courts and we were in front of the United Nations and it's still going on. What we want is a federal power to step in right away so we don't have to live for a generation having our rights violated by our provincial government.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I would like to welcome the witnesses.

I got the impression at one point that you and I were not living on the same planet, and I'm going to try to confirm, through the questions I ask, whether I misunderstood your interpretation.

You come before us today wanting to defend the right to denominational schools for the people you represent. Do you agree—and I believe Mr. Dion was very clear on this point—that the debate we on this committee are engaging in doesn't concern the issue of language rights as much as the issue of denominational rights?

I would remind you that the reform the Quebec government is carrying out is a consensual one. You are democrats and you know the value of a national assembly. You know that all parties and all members of the National Assembly voted in favour of the amendment that is before us today, that is the amendment to create linguistic school boards.

Can you admit that we're not talking about language rights? When we talk about language rights, we have to refer to the Charter and to Bill 101.

I know your opinion on Bill 101, but can you admit that once the reform takes effect, religious education will be protected for everyone? A certain number of guarantees are given in the Charter and in the Education Act.

• 1610

You'll nevertheless admit that the greatest cohesive factor in Quebec society is that we don't consider ourselves as Protestants or Catholics first. Mr. Dion told us in his introductory remarks that this lack of convergence between language and religion was particularly in evidence in Quebec's English-Protestant public schools, where less than one-third of students are Protestant. I would like you to react to that.

So there is something a bit disturbing in the fact that witnesses are unable to recognize that, in the current debate... They come and talk to us about denominational rights, not about language rights. You must recognize that the reform before us works to the advantage of the Anglophone community.

Mr. Keith Henderson: Sir, perhaps it's you who didn't understand what I said. This is not a denominational issue as such, but rather an issue of rights and protection against prejudices of all kinds.

Mr. Réal Ménard: What do you mean by that?

Mr. Keith Henderson: Section 93 grants very specific protection, protection against religious prejudice. Furthermore, discrimination is prohibited under the international treaties signed by Quebec and Canada.

However, there are all kinds of discrimination. We now understand that because we are children of the twentieth century and have increased the number of prohibited forms of discrimination. There is no longer just discrimination on religious grounds. Discrimination on linguistic grounds, on racial grounds and on the basis of birth are also prohibited. Mr. Galt's view 130 years ago was that the federal government should be given the role of ensuring that the provinces would not discriminate against the minority. That is a valid role.

You say there is a consensus in Quebec, but it is a political consensus, nothing more. That doesn't mean there is a consensus among the general public. No public hearings were even held on this issue.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is the Conference of Bishops a political group in your view?

Mr. Keith Henderson: A consensus of 103 members to zero. We know perfectly well there is no consensus among the general public. It's a fictitious consensus.

Mr. Réal Ménard: There is no unanimity among the public?

Mr. Keith Henderson: I would add—because this is very important—that you said these issues had to be decided by political majorities. I say very sincerely that that is false. We have a Constitution to guarantee the rights of minorities and to prevent the political majority from doing something that undermines those rights. That's why we have a Constitution.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Henderson.

We are going to move on to the next speaker, Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Henderson, would you please elaborate a bit on what you mean by minority rights? In listening to your presentation, I thought I heard you refer to language rights at certain times and to denominational rights at others, and that you tended, from what I heard, to mix them up enough for us to lose track of what you mean.

I would like you please to explain to us what you mean by language rights and by denominational rights, and how the two go together.

Mr. Keith Henderson: It's very simple. Canada has signed treaties on educational issues. In those treaties, Canada and Quebec have clearly stated that there are certain internationally recognized forms of discrimination that Canada had to banish.

These grounds for discrimination apply to all educational matters. So you say all kinds of things are mixed up, but it must be understood that religious discrimination is not the only form of discrimination in existence. There's also linguistic, racial and ethnic discrimination and discrimination based on birth. The treaties exist and they are clear.

• 1615

Section 93 is very special, as I said earlier. It provides protection from religious discrimination. It is valid and important, but that isn't the only kind of discrimination anyone can suffer. What we're proposing isn't a mix. It's something that is exactly consistent with our treaties, which, like Canada, Quebec has also signed.

In our view, section 93 is there to enable the federal government to intervene, to play the role of arbiter, to prevent provincial governments from discriminating against the minorities.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Henderson. We are now going to turn to Senator Dalia Wood.

[English]

Senator Dalia Wood (Montarville, Lib.): I disagree with the Bloc in their statement of consensus. There has been no consensus in Quebec except a political one. The people of Quebec have not spoken.

I agree with you that we should be travelling also, because the people in Quebec should be heard. I'm not sure that individuals will have a chance to come before us.

I have three very short questions to ask you. I have them here.

Do you think the actions of the Government of Quebec are legitimate when they act under a charter they do not recognize? Mr. Dion assures us that the charter will protect English-speaking Quebeckers' rights to minority language education. Are you assured by his words? Do you feel sufficiently protected as things stand?

I come from Quebec, incidentally.

I understand that the English-speaking community has already had to fight for their rights under Bill 109, Quebec's new education bill. The Parti Québécois government tried to restrict the voting rights of English school boards and restrict those who could direct their taxes to those boards. Do you believe that your right to minority language education is at the mercy of provincial regulations, and that such regulations can make the exercise of this right difficult, if not impossible?

Mr. Keith Henderson: Thank you, Senator, for those questions. I think they're very pertinent. I'm going to answer the second one first, because it's fresh in my mind. But I'm going to ask you, after I've answered it, to repeat the first one, if you don't mind.

Do we feel sufficiently protected by section 23, as Mr. Dion has stated? No, we do not. I'll repeat why.

The people of New Brunswick did not feel sufficiently protected by section 23. It was after section 23 was introduced in 1982 that they came to the federal government to ask for additional protections. These are noble protections. These are what all Canadian provinces should.... I commend New Brunswick for this addition in section 16.1. They specifically added to our Constitution that the school rights of the various linguistic communities would be protected. The federal government accepted that as positive.

Now Dion says, in a totally contradictory way, that section 23 is enough. That doesn't fit with our own practice. The last time a province came to the federal government to ask for an amendment to the Constitution in education, it was to expand our rights. Everyone can applaud that. Now a province has come to extinguish them. No one should applaud that, and no one around this table should accept it.

I'm sorry, but as for your first question, marvellous as it was, I got so carried away with the second that I—

Senator Dalia Wood: I asked whether the actions of the Government of Quebec are legitimate when they act under the charter, which they do not recognize.

Mr. Keith Henderson: No, they're not. This is a point that we make in our brief. The Quebec government does not recognize our Constitution. It says so. I can't understand an amendment—one of them is “whereas”—that says they in no way recognize the legitimacy of the same Constitution to which they seek an amendment.

Senator Dalia Wood: Which they put in their own “whereas”.

Mr. Keith Henderson: Which they put in their own “whereas”. It makes no sense. For the federal government to accept this is to say that it's okay. Fine, you don't accept the Constitution? Well then, sort of neither do we. It doesn't matter what you say. It seems to me inconceivable that a federal government could accept such an amendment written in that way.

• 1620

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

We'll now go to M. Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Henderson, at the start of your presentation, you said that you were here, but that you felt that it was not worth the trouble because the decisions had already been made. Frankly, I sympathize with you. When the decisions have already been made, I get the impression I'm being used as a rubber stamp, and I don't appreciate that. So I have to sympathize with you, sir.

I would like to ask you whether you are opposed to the creation of linguistic school boards.

Mr. Keith Henderson: No.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Do you merely want to ensure that denominational rights are preserved?

Mr. Keith Henderson: We aren't opposed to this kind of educational restructuring, but we want the protections granted to minorities by Mr. Alexander Galt 131 years ago to be expanded and to apply in the same way to these new linguistic institutions that Quebec proposes to establish, and that the federal government retain its power to act as an arbiter under the Constitution.

So we want these rights to be expanded, as in New Brunswick, and we don't want our rights to be eliminated as the Government of Quebec has proposed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Henderson.

[English]

Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib.): First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony, but it heightens my confusion. As a senator from Ontario, I'm confused by the voices I heard yesterday and today from Quebec.

On the one hand, we hear the lawyers from McGill University advising that section 93, in substance, is discriminatory and that it has no place in a modern democracy. It's a voice we hear from lawyers. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing; I just want to put the proposition.

On the other hand, what you suggest for section 93 is an expansion of it, recognizing as you do—I guess we must as well—that if there were a bilateral amendment from the federal government to the province of Quebec, the present Government of Quebec would not accept that amendment. We find ourselves in quite a circular piece of reasoning here.

We have to deal with the tools we have. I'd like to deal with that if I can.

You told us—it is somewhat persuasive in a way—that the federal government, by allowing the dismemberment of section 93, disarms itself of its regulatory powers in education.

Yet it hasn't given up its disallowance powers. I take it that the disallowance power could be exercised if there was a political will in the federal Parliament to disallow legislation in a particular province that would be in breach of the Constitution. It would be an egregious breach of the charter, notwithstanding the fact that Quebec says—we'll deal with that in a moment—it doesn't recognize 1982. What about the disallowance power as a regulatory power?

Mr. Keith Henderson: I have two things. First of all, I don't agree with that McGill intervention about it being discriminatory. It does talk about dissentient minorities. That's any religious—

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: No. I looked at it quite precisely. It says dissentient minorities as it relates to Catholics or Protestants.

Mr. Keith Henderson: I don't think that has been tested. As we point out in our brief, for one year—perhaps two years, briefly—there was actually a Jewish school board in Quebec. It was collapsed. It's possible to read the dissentient minorities question differently. I know lawyers who do.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I accept that.

Mr. Keith Henderson: But leave that aside. The real question you're asking is very pertinent, which is the disallowance power.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Right.

Mr. Keith Henderson: There are a lot of people around Canada who are very wary about the disallowance power, understandably so, especially those out west. They regard it as more tools for the federal government to impose its will.

It may come to the point one day when we'll want to define that disallowance power carefully. Section 93 is an excellent definition of the disallowance power, which is another reason why we shouldn't scrap it. It says disallowance should be used, because it is in effect a version of disallowance. The federal government can step in and make remedial laws and scrap laws. But it's limited. It says that in this case, if you've basically discriminated for religious reasons, disallowance can be used.

• 1625

Until we have revisited the disallowance question, which we haven't yet done as a nation and a people, I would say leave those guideposts in the Constitution. They're there for a reason. They're helpful. Don't destroy them in one province, creating this patchwork. Because they'll still be there for Ontario if we do this. That's not the Calgary declaration I read, where all Canadians are equal. That's patchwork stuff.

So I say, leave it in there as a guide to what disallowance means. It's fundamental. It should be, as we've said, expanded.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I have another important question. The supervisory power is an open but difficult question under the disallowance provision.

Let me deal with the second issue, which is whether Quebec—and it's a tantalising question for me in Ontario—has or has not recognized the Constitution. I looked again today, and I've asked you to as well, at the actual resolution from Quebec.

Do you have a copy of it in front of you?

Mr. Keith Henderson: I don't. If someone could slip me one, I'd appreciate it. But I have excerpts, and I think I know where you're going.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: It's troublesome, but in a way it's interesting. Quite frankly, I find it amusing. Forget about the recitals; the recitals are really preparatory. The key is in the amending provisions.

The amending provision starts at “Therefore be it resolved”. Let me read the key that we're talking about here. The resolve says, “Amendment to the Constitution of Canada, Constitution Act, 1867”. Then it reads, “The Constitution Act, 1867, is amended by adding”.

Without being as knowledgeable as, say, a lawyer, you'd come to the conclusion as a layman that this is referring to the British North America Act of 1867. But guess what? It's not. If you take a look at the 1982 act—and perhaps the Bloc can help us with this—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): You're running out of time here.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: It's a short question, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Go ahead with that short question.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: The key is that if you refer to the Constitution Act of 1982, in “Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, Modernization of the Constitution”, it changes the name British North America Act, 1867 to Constitution Act, 1867. So in fact, on the face of this resolution, for a lawyer looking at this, the national assembly in Quebec has now in effect recognized—

Mr. Keith Henderson: Senator Grafstein, I think I understand the drift. I'll try to be brief in my answer.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, but it's quite a key question.

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

Mr. Keith Henderson: In response, I would just ask if we could please have a straightforward, formal declaration from a Quebec government that it accepts the Constitution of our country. I know what you're saying, that underneath and through the back door lawyers are going to look at this and say, well, you've accepted it. But I don't think that's good enough. I really don't.

As federalists—and not all of us around the table are—I don't think we should accept the notion that the 1982 part of our Constitution is somehow unacceptable. That's an amendment with a “whereas” that I think no decent Canadian would ever dream of passing.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux (Québec, PC): The question may already have been asked, but I want to be certain. You aren't opposed to an amended school structure based on language rather than religion.

Mr. Keith Henderson: We have no problem with that. It's protection that we are requesting.

• 1630

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You say you have argued, like others before you, that repealing section 93 would remove protection that was previously provided, and so on. How do you propose to implement a linguistic vision if we can't touch section 93?

Mr. Keith Henderson: We can touch it. We can offer Canadians another section 93, an expanded, more generous section with broader recognition of all the prohibited forms of discrimination, not only religious discrimination. We propose to modernize and renovate our Constitution in a positive way, rather than throw away the legacy of Alexander Galt, who was an English-Quebec compatriot.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Are you from Sherbrooke?

Mr. Keith Henderson: I'm not from Sherbrooke, but he was an English-Quebecker like me.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Alexander Galt was from Sherbrooke.

Mr. Keith Henderson: I know, and that's why... Mr. Price is from Sherbrooke or from around Sherbrooke. So he understands perfectly well why we want this protection.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: So you want a section 93 that is amended and expanded not only with regard to denominational schools, but also as regards language. I wanted to understand this.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): A brief additional question, Mrs. Finestone.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think many of the issues have been raised. However, I would like to pursue something that was raised by Senator Grafstein.

If you look at the McGill brief that was presented.... You don't need that. All I'm telling you is that these are researchers. This is legal counsel with no affiliation to anyone. They have made it eminently clear that section 93 is a hollow section. It is a discriminatory section and it reflects an era that no longer exists.

In my view, Mr. Henderson—and you may not be in agreement, but that's where we may differ—section 2, on freedom of expression, section 15, non-discrimination, section 25, the multicultural section, all those sections, and there are others that express the values of Canadians, the values this Constitution reflects for all of us, are good and sound protections for our country. Quebec was still part of Canada the last time I looked, and it will stay part of Canada. The action by the Parti Québécois or the Government of Quebec is an ongoing action that has taken 30 years to arrive at this point.

From my sense and the life I led.... I lived through discrimination, and you tried to describe it. Well, this way, thank you very much, I'm not giving a privileged situation and inequality, I'm saying everyone has a degree of equality. Therefore I am very comfortable with the removal of section 93, because I believe section 23 offers far more protection.

This is my question. Are you challenging the quote of the Office of Research on Educational Policy of McGill, which says:

Accordingly, section 93 should be retained until section 23 is amended and “brought up to scratch”.

That's something I would agree with. But it says:

We reject this reasoning as our analysis of section 93 suggests that minority guarantees contained therein are “hollow rights” and that section 23, although not perfect, is a more suitable framework.

They go on to detail...and I don't have the opportunity to suggest you read it more carefully.

Would you not agree it is far more hollow under section 93, which protects just Catholics and Protestants, than it would be under section 23, which touches the lives of every single citizen living in Quebec?

Mr. Keith Henderson: No, I do not agree.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's fine.

Mr. Keith Henderson: I do not agree with the researchers. I agree, as you know, with Alexander Galt, who put this into our Constitution, and I agree with our Supreme Court, which visited this. I will quote you from their decision very briefly, because I know you're out of time. It's one sentence. It reads:

The protection of minority religious rights was a major preoccupation during the negotiations leading to Confederation because of the perceived—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Did it protect my rights, Mr. Henderson?

Mr. Keith Henderson:

—danger of leaving the religious minorities in both Canada East and Canada West at the mercy of overwhelming majorities.

That's a decision made 10 years ago.

The Supreme Court understood that 1993 was still relevant; New Brunswick understands that additional protections are needed; and I don't believe section 23 is enough.

• 1635

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Henderson.

We will now proceed with the next group, which is the Chateauguay Valley English Speaking Peoples Association, represented by Mr. Brent Tyler.

Mr. Tyler, welcome. Could you give us a brief presentation so that we can go ahead with some questions afterwards?

Mr. Brent Tyler (Attorney, Chateauguay Valley English Speaking Peoples Association): I hope members of the committee have copies of the brief that was distributed just prior to our arrival.

I'd like to talk very briefly about our association, the Chateauguay Valley English Speaking Peoples Association. We have 7,000 members centred in the southwest of Quebec, along the Chateauguay River Valley. It is an aging English population. The youth are leaving our region. It's a cause of great concern to us, of course.

Listed in section 1 of our brief you'll see one of the activities of which I'm the most proud. Our association was behind a United Nations initiative taken by Gordon McIntyre, a funeral parlour director in the village of Huntingdon, where we have our head office. Mr. McIntyre was not happy with Bill 178.

It's a perfect example, Mrs. Finestone, of why we need to renovate section 93.

In that case Mr. McIntyre found himself against not only the Quebec government, which was violating his rights with a piece of provincial legislation; the Government of Canada also fought him every inch of the way before the UN committee on human rights.

Later on I'll be addressing what I see as gross federal and provincial complicity when it comes to the protection of minority language rights. But for now I just want to say that one of the things I'm proudest of about CVESPA and my association with it is that this association assisted Mr. McIntyre to get this very important decision from the UN committee on human rights.

With respect to the justification Mr. Henderson gave in domestic law and the considerations in Confederation as to why section 93 is there, there's another very important reason why we must have a federal supervisory power in our Constitution, and that has to do with Canada's international treaty obligations. I'm referring in particular to human rights obligations under international law.

Canada is a signatory of numerous international treaties and conventions, and I certainly will not give a long list to you today. I want to deal particularly with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recommendation against discrimination in education.

The essential role of a central government in a federation is to ensure that the federation's obligations under international law are respected.

I refer in the brief to the case of the Franklin Dam in the High Court of Australia. Very briefly, so that committee members will understand, the facts of the case are that the state of Tasmania wanted to flood an area of land that was protected by Australia's international treaty obligations. The High Court of Australia decided that it was essential and central to the role of the federal government to be able to intervene and prevent a state—or in our case a province—from putting the country as a whole in breach of its international obligations.

When we talk about international obligations in the area of education, we have to look at the state practice. In any consideration of human rights and international law, you have to look at the practice of the state.

Before the adoption of Bill 22 in the province of Quebec, there was complete freedom of choice between English and French. English and French were treated on a completely equal basis in our province. And it was only with the adoption of Bill 22 in 1974 and the subsequent adoption of Bill 101 in 1977 that this all changed.

Since Confederation the state practice has been equal access to schools. This has been confirmed in numerous UN studies. I give you the citations in the brief.

There's nothing in international law that requires a state to provide instruction in more than one language or to build new schools for a minority or unofficial language group. I've often heard people who advocate freedom of choice between existing institutions in Quebec say, what if Greek parents or Italian parents get together; can they petition the government on your argument to have schools in their language? The answer is no, international law does not provide that.

• 1640

What international law does say is that where you have existing institutions, the choice between those institutions must be left available to the parents, and you'll see when we talk about the recommendation against discrimination in education that this is exactly what it says—and we'll get there in a minute.

I'm sure much has been said before you about section 23, and certainly Mr. Henderson touched on it in his brief. We do not think section 23 is adequate. It provides for a lower standard of protection of rights as far as access to English schools are concerned, and that is clear. Any international law scholar—I hope you consult some international law scholars here—will tell you that.

Section 23 is higher than the international standard when it comes to forcing a state to provide new schools. Since the adoption of our Constitution in 1982, this has benefited greatly the French Canadian minority outside the province of Quebec. Due to the intransigence of some provincial governments, francophone parents have had to go to court, and they've gone to court at great expense to themselves, of course—the time, the cost. That's one of the things I'll get into about litigating these kinds of matters. But they finally succeeded, and now we have coast-to-coast protection for the francophone minority under section 23.

But we certainly don't have that in Quebec, because half of paragraph 23(1)(a) doesn't apply in our province. So when we're talking about section 23 as being adequate protection, Mrs. Finestone, it certainly doesn't meet Canada's international treaty obligations. Of that you can be assured.

Regarding the Convention on the Rights of the Child, I include annexes in the brief, and I invite you to look at them, because they're there and they speak for themselves. It is discriminatory under the convention to prevent access to a school or in fact to take away or give any right to a child based on the factual considerations of its parents. That is what we have done in Bill 101 since 1977, without a peep from the federal government.

While our school population has declined by 57% since 1977, where has the federal government been to stop that from happening? Is it going to tell us now that section 23 is sufficient when during that period of time we've lost 57% of our school population?

Who do you think you're fooling when you say section 23 is good enough? It is not. The only constitutional amendment that would suffice to meet our obligations is the one that was done in New Brunswick, as Mr. Henderson mentioned during his brief.

Canada's report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child talks about implementation and compliance. There's a recognition of Canada's obligations there. I invite you to read the extracts that are annexed to the brief.

I mentioned earlier the UNESCO recommendation against discrimination. This document specifically provides that it is discriminatory for a state to create or maintain two separate institutions or systems that are based on linguistic or religious grounds. The only thing that makes it not discriminatory is if the choice between these institutions is available to the parents.

In our brief we've talked about what Canada said before Bill 101 was adopted. Canada said, as I mentioned before, in state practice, English and French are equal and have been treated equally in our education system in the province of Quebec.

What do they say after Bill 101? Well, the bottom line, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee, is they have misrepresented the situation to UNESCO. They have lied to the international community about what is going on in Quebec, which is why Quebec and Canada have not been censored. If you want proof of what I am telling you, I invite you to look at the annexes to the brief.

The question then is, look at the fifth questionnaire of Canada. Look at the fifth questionnaire of Quebec. They say the same thing. They mislead the international community in a shameful way.

• 1645

The sixth questionnaire under the UNESCO recommendation is in the course of being prepared right now, and I'm trying to get a copy of Quebec's response but no one will give it to me. They say, oh, the consultation process isn't over, we can't give it to you, even though Quebec's brief has already been submitted to the federal authorities for inclusion in the federal report.

This complicity has been going on for a long time. This federal government and Quebec provincial government complicity has been going on for a long time. Precisely what we propose would avoid that from continuing to cause discriminatory situations in the province of Quebec.

I want to talk very briefly about the cost and the time involved in litigating issues. Quebec's English community can no longer afford to be the sacrificial lamb of Canadian unity. We have been doing it for too long and we will simply not survive unless we're given adequate protection by the federal government in our Constitution.

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

The first intervention is by Mr. Rahim Jaffer.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: If I understand you correctly, you're not opposed to the creation of the linguistic school boards in Quebec; that type of thing.

Mr. Brent Tyler: No, we're not, because we understand the resources have to be pooled for administrative reasons. The resources that have traditionally existed in the Protestant and Catholic school commissions have to be pooled for administrative and logistical reasons. But when we're talking about the repeal of 1993, that is a different issue. The Supreme Court has already decided you can go ahead with linguistic school boards except for a very small area in the cities of Montreal and Quebec City as they existed in 1867. So by all means, let's get on with linguistic school boards. But if we're going to give up a right, why should we give it up when we can modernize it and renovate it and make it applicable, and more importantly—and this is the main message I would like to leave with you—we can give the federal government a means to ensure Quebec will never place Canada as a country in violation of its international human rights obligations.

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

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: To the chair, I think it's important to see if we can get a copy of the UNESCO document that has been referred to. It will be vital for us to be able to understand the extent—

Mr. Brent Tyler: Mrs. Finestone, I didn't want to inundate you with paper, but if you look at the annex I've prepared, annex 4, the definition of discrimination is the most explicit definition existing in international law of discrimination in education. If you look at Bill 101 and read those articles....

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

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: If I understand you correctly, you want to keep the federal supervisory power in the field of education under subsections 93(3) and 93(4).

Mr. Brent Tyler: Correct.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Second, you say section 23, which of course deals with linguistic rights, is not good enough and you want to enshrine in the Constitution for Quebec the equivalent of what has been done in New Brunswick for the equality of the two communities.

Mr. Brent Tyler: Yes.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: And you think this would solve the problem; the modern problem of education in Quebec.

Mr. Brent Tyler: It would get rid of what is for us admittedly an anachronistic protection, because it's in the function of religion only, but we do not want to let go of what it provides for in terms of the supervisory power. So let's modernize section 93. Let's include other prohibited bases of discrimination that Canada as a member state under numerous international instruments is already bound to implement in its domestic law as we speak. Why not have that? I think, Senator Beaudoin, it would be a way to ensure discrimination in education at least would be minimized, if not eliminated, in the province of Quebec.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Yes, but you see, in 1867 the groups that were protected were the Catholics as a group and the Protestants as a group. They are not individual rights, they are collective rights. We forget about that: collective. The charter is for individuals, but denominational rights are collective, as aboriginal rights are collective. The Supreme Court has said this.

• 1650

Mr. Brent Tyler: In New Brunswick they're also talking about collective rights, community rights.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Yes, community rights, but we don't have any ruling from the Supreme Court on that. Obviously, it's quite valid, it's quite good. I don't disagree with that. But since 1867, we have been dealing with two groups. Since then, Quebec and many other provinces—not all of them—have become very pluralistic. At the least, we have to change something. At least the groups should be equal. Nobody may object to that.

Mr. Brent Tyler: Or else include it and go one step further and talk about prohibited bases of discrimination.

I didn't get a chance to address one of our concerns in my brief, so I'll do it very quickly now. I represent a lot of parents who are subject to these restrictions under Bill 101, and I can tell you that the cost and time of litigating these things are prohibitive. When people say we have our charter, that it's a marvellous document, that we should let the Supreme Court decide, the reality is that many parents cannot do that. They cannot have access to the court system in any kind of meaningful way.

To say section 23 is adequate and that we have the Supreme Court to make sure our charter is respected, in our respectful submission, is not enough. It doesn't take into account the facts on the ground. If parents had money, Senator Beaudoin, they would do what Mr. Bouchard does and send their children to an English private school.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to make sure I understand the view the witness has expressed. Like the last witness, you agree on the establishment of linguistic school boards. That's not a problem for you. We agree on that.

However, you say you feel the Anglophone community is experiencing a kind of discrimination.

Mr. Brent Tyler: With a 57 percent reduction in our school enrolment, Mr. Ménard, I think that's fairly obvious.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, that's true.

Allow me to make my point. I want to reassure you. I read the Chambers report and I believe the Anglophone community is right to be concerned that there is a 50 percent reduction in enrolment. We see eye to eye on this.

Can we find a solution to this in this debate? That's where I don't understand the connection you make. You say the discrimination you're experiencing is related to the declining fertility rate among Anglophones, and the Chambers report was well documented on that point. I would go even further. I would say that, in a future sovereign Quebec, we should entrench the rights of the Anglophone community in the Constitution.

What I don't understand is that you're telling us you agree on the establishment of linguistic school boards, but that, to all intents and purposes, you don't want us to touch section 93. You know perfectly well that's not possible. All governments, be they Liberal or sovereigntist, have tried to develop the school system so as to establish linguistic school boards, and that's not possible under the existing constitutional arrangement.

Mr. Brent Tyler: That's false, Mr. Ménard, because the Supreme Court has already ruled...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Wait a minute.

Mr. Brent Tyler: ... that it is possible to have linguistic school boards without amending section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Tyler, that would result in a profusion of structures that would make the Quebec school system incoherent. Do you admit that?

Mr. Brent Tyler: No, it wouldn't be incoherent. It might be difficult, and it wouldn't be ideal, but if you're talking about ideal, Mr. Ménard, I remember that, in the sovereignty bill that was tabled by Mr. Parizeau in December 1994, and that was reproduced in the paper by Mr. Bouchard in September 1995, which was remarkable, a sovereign Quebec would undertake to comply with all of Canada's international obligations, including those I have just mentioned.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Tyler, in our system...

Mr. Brent Tyler: So, you're not out of the woods yet.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Tyler, I'm asking the questions and I would be grateful if you would answer the following question. Are you telling us today, in all honesty, that you feel the Anglophone community is being discriminated against under international law? Remember that the Anglophones of Quebec have access to services from kindergarten to university. Let's get serious. Tell me that you're attached to section 93, but don't tell me that the Anglophone community is being discriminated against under international law.

Mr. Brent Tyler: Not only am I telling you that, Mr. Ménard, but I would invite you to read some 10 confirmations that I can provide you. We're talking about discrimination, Mr. Ménard...

Mr. Réal Ménard: On what basis?

• 1655

Mr. Brent Tyler: Don't tell me that a 50 percent drop in school enrolment...

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's not discrimination.

Mr. Brent Tyler: ... it's just a question of birth rates. It's a question of the enjoyment of rights that are recognized under international law. If you read the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recommendation on discrimination in education, and if you examine Bill 101, which restricts the rights of children based on the situation of their parents...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much Messrs. Tyler and Ménard.

The next speaker will be Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm from New Brunswick and I only have one comment. I don't think we have to send too many compliments New Brunswick's way. I don't know how good section 23 has been for my province, but I can tell you there are parents who were hit because the government wanted to close French-language schools in the spring of 1997.

Mr. Brent Tyler: That's inexcusable, sir. Don't ask me...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): One at a time, please.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, but they say that and they say that hasn't been tested in the law yet. So my only comment is that section 23 has not really been tested. The Francophone parents of Canada are trying to collect enough money to do it. I agree with you that it costs money to go to the Supreme Court to get your rights recognized. I just wanted to make that comment because, when you cite New Brunswick, I'd like to tell you that I'm not too proud of them.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Godin...

Mr. Brent Tyler: May I answer?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Tyler, that was a comment he made. We're going to move on to the next speaker, Mr. Mauril Bélanger.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've been listening very carefully and I still sense that there's a general confusion in terms of which rights we're talking about.

I refer to your brief, sir, where you mention—

Mr. Brent Tyler: What page?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Page 5, where you say “the English school population has declined by 57%”.

Mr. Brent Tyler: Right.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Here we're talking about linguistic rights. Correct?

Mr. Brent Tyler: We're talking about linguistic rights and access to an existing English institution without being discriminated against. That's what we're talking about. Can you get your ahead around that one?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I think so, yes. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

At some point, you have to push, but you have to push equally, please.

I'm a Francophone from Ontario and when you refer to the other provinces... First, I'm going to address this side issue because it seems to be politicizing the debate. When you say the federal government has done nothing to help linguistic minorities, you're wrong.

Mr. Brent Tyler: I was talking about Quebec.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Please, Mr. Bélanger has the floor.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There is a court challenges program. This party restored it and, with the money from that program, the Commissioner of Official Languages went and encouraged the communities to prove their cases and ask that the provinces discharge their responsibilities under section 23 because this is a linguistic right. What disappoints me in your presentation, because I'm fairly sympathetic to the question of minority rights, is that you completely and systematically mix up the issues of language rights and denominational rights. To inform and facilitate the debate, we should stop doing that.

Mr. Brent Tyler: No.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Well, I know that's so. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, Mr. Tyler, if you don't mind.

[English]

Mr. Henderson, if I may quote you, you were saying let us understand that Canada's fabric is changing. Somehow I get the impression that you resist that, that you want to hang on to it. But if indeed Canada's fabric is changing, perhaps its legal and constitutional framework can evolve as well.

Mr. Brent Tyler: Sure it can. That's what we're proposing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But you're objecting to a change in section 93, which is confessional rights, and mixing it up constantly with linguistic rights. You seem not to have—and maybe you don't, that's the question. Do you think there's a hierarchy of rights or not?

Mr. Brent Tyler: No. We're not confusing confessional rights, Mr. Bélanger, with linguistic rights. What we're saying—and I think it's fairly clear in the brief—is that Canada has international obligations not to discriminate on prohibited bases. Look at sections 2 and 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. You'll see that you can't discriminate against a child based on a factual consideration, such as where his parents went to school. Quebec's Bill 101 does that.

• 1700

So what we're saying is when we talk about—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's the statement of the Supreme Court of the land.

Mr. Brent Tyler: Can I finish? What we're saying is if we're going to renovate section 93, let's extend the federal supervisory power to all areas of discrimination that Canada is obliged to respect under its international obligations.

Obviously language, race, ethnicity, and all of that are things we would like to see the federal government having a remedial supervisory power over.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Chateauguay Valley English Speaking Peoples Association, and thank you very much, both of you, on behalf of everybody here.

We will have a five-minute recess before we hear the next group.

• 1701

• 1705

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We continue this sitting by welcoming the principals and teachers of the Greater Quebec School Board. The directors are represented by Jean-Marc Royer and Marc Fournier, and the teachers by Daniel Paquette and Mario Banville. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen.

We will proceed as follows. The two groups have a brief to present. We will hear Marc Fournier for the first part of the brief, and Mr. Banville or Mr. Paquette for the second part. We will then have a question period. Mr. Fournier, the floor is yours.

Mr. Marc Fournier (Principal, The Greater Quebec School Board): Madam Chair, Mr. Chairman, members of the Joint Committee, it is an honour and a privilege for us to address you this afternoon and to present a brief, first by the principals of French Protestant schools of Quebec City, of the Greater Quebec School Board.

The purpose of our brief is to show you that we feel the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 undermines our guaranteed rights and privileges. However, the idea is not to summarily dismiss the schools reform proposed by the Quebec government, as our brief explains in greater detail, but simply to outline the French Protestant minority's views on section 93.

Our brief refers to a proposal by Jean-Pierre Proulx and José Woehrling which appeared in March 1996 and was approved by the Quebec Liberal Party in a press release in April of that year.

As our brief explains, we are aware that the provinces have the authority to legislate in education. However, when the provinces approved the Constitution, both sides had to make certain compromises.

• 1710

In his paper, Mr. Woehrling states:

This certainty, concerning the fact that the adoption of article 93 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 is the result of a historical compromise and that without this compromise the creation of Canada under a federal constituency would not have been possible, it is shared by the various courts and has been expressed many times in the rulings of the highest Canadian court.

Thus, the result of this compromise was to guarantee denominational schools in Montreal and Quebec City and to guarantee the right to dissentient schools in the rest of Quebec.

When we talk about denominational schools, we also feel that denominational status includes the accessories, the tools with which it can be exercised. For that purpose, we refer, for example, to student and teacher selection.

We are administrators who must manage denominational schools. There are indeed French Protestants in Quebec. You have four here before you. They are real people who breathe and who want to make a positive contribution to society.

I'll let my colleague complete the summary of our brief. Mr. Royer.

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer (Principal, Greater Quebec School Board): I would like to talk to you briefly about the harm that the failure to enforce section 93 in respect of Quebec could have on the rights and privileges of French Protestants.

Let us say, first of all, that our status is one of a denominational minority that has a right to be dissentient. Professor Woehrling has recognized this fact, and I am going to cite him. In his recently published paper, he states:

Outside the Island of Montreal, and particularly in Québec City and the centre of the Province, the French-Protestant schools are mostly French Canadian. These schools did not come about with the arrival of Bill 101, as in Montreal, but rather within the religious values characterized by the evangelical branch of Protestantism. The dissension potential first comes from its religions values... But in this case, the right to dissentient schools given to the Protestant minority will find all its meaning since religion itself will be the first motivating factor.

So our status as French Protestants is consistent with what the framers of the Constitution foresaw when they drafted section 93.

We would like to state clearly from the outset that we do not object to the establishment of linguistic school boards. However, the province may proceed with the restructuring that, in so doing, it does not prejudicially affect the rights and privileges provided for in section 93 of the Constitution.

This mainly means that the right to dissentience must be upheld by obviously including all the means for it to be exercised, that is to say that the schools must not only have denominational status, but also a management right.

As it stands, the proposed reform removes, without the consent of the minority concerned, the possibility of exercising any managerial right. This obviously threatens the survival of our schools.

It will also be understood that the proposed school reform also prejudicially affects the history and socio-religious culture of the Province of Quebec. The French Protestants have been present in Quebec since the earliest colonial times. They have significantly contributed to Quebec's history and growth, notably through their social work (the Salvation Army) and in education (French-Canadian Missionary Society).

In our French Protestant schools, we are aware that we are distinct, but we do not want to be distant. We have certain criteria that are consistent with section 93, but we don't want to turn inward on ourselves. We want to be a part of society and to contribute our own character to it, as Francophones and Protestants.

Some will say that section 93 is obsolete. Yet the Supreme Court demonstrated in 1996, in the Adler case, that these rights are still applicable today. The Court repeated that section 29 of the Charter entirely protects the rights and privileges of section 93 of the Constitution Act and confirmed that the recognition of the rights and privileges of minorities does not violate the spirit of the Charter. The highest court in the country has therefore certified that these rights are actualized.

• 1715

It is important to understand that we are not demanding anything. We simply want to state that we exist as French Protestants within the spirit of section 93.

In conclusion, we believe that the government can proceed with an education reform, by, among other things, establishing linguistic school boards to rationalize public expenditures. However, this may be done in a manner consistent with the right to dissentient schools as guaranteed to the French Protestant minority.

The Parliament of Canada has a mission to protect the rights and privileges of all minorities. Lord Carnarvon, godfather of the Constitution Act, declared that the whole purpose of section 93 was to "guarantee that the religious minority of a province have the same rights and privileges and the same protection as other religious minorities in other provinces".

Thus, should the Parliament of Canada accept the Quebec government's request as stated, it would itself prejudicially affect the rights and privileges of the French Protestant minority as guaranteed in 1867, protected in 1982, and actualized by the Supreme Court in recent years. This prejudice could thoroughly tarnish the enviable reputation Canada has built during the years, a reputation of respect for minorities and the supremacy of rights.

In conclusion, we ask that section 93 apply to the religious minorities of Quebec.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Messrs. Royer and Fournier.

We are now going to hear Mr. Banville.

Mr. Mario Banville (Teacher, Greater Quebec School Board): Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, members of the Joint Committee, I am personally honoured to be here with you honourable people.

I am a science teacher at a French Protestant school of the Eastern Quebec School Board in Quebec City. My colleague and I represent an association of French Protestant teachers of Quebec.

The introduction of the Canadian Constitution begins as follows:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

When you found a country, you don't have to talk about the supremacy of God. So I believe that, right at the founding of this country, the Fathers of Confederation wanted to give the country a direction and to create a spiritual heritage.

It must be admitted that our country has a Judeo-Christian foundation. We believe deeply in that foundation. It is part of our history and to deny it would be, to some extent, to deny our history.

It is interesting to note that, when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, this preamble, this foundation remained intact. It can therefore be said that, until proven otherwise, Canada is officially based on two fundamental principles: the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Who are we? It is true that we are creatures of flesh and blood. But we are also French Protestants from Quebec, and we teach in schools that aim to pass on this Judeo-Christian tradition to the children we teach. We need tools to do that. We demand the tools to draw on this spiritual heritage that we have in Canada and to pass it on to our children.

We believe that the Quebec bill, the purpose of which is to render section 93 inoperative in Quebec, will be prejudicial to a right recognized by that section for the Protestant minority whom we represent. I believe that, in the spirit of the law, we have been characterized from the outset as a Protestant minority and we want to have the tools to carry on a Protestant denominational educational process.

Mr. Daniel Paquette (Teacher, Greater Quebec School Board): Good afternoon. I'm going to continue.

• 1720

Mr. Dion recalled that the amendment to section 93 would eliminate the constitutional guarantees of denominational status. That's what this will do.

Ms. Marois, for her part, has already indicated that those schools that so wish will be able to maintain their denominational orientation. Furthermore, the right to religious instruction will continue to be guaranteed by section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Thus, the question that arises is: What are we doing here?

We have certain problems to describe to you. In fact, we believe our impression that we will not be permitted to continue is valid.

First of all, section 41 states that parents may require that their children receive religious or moral instruction in accordance with their convictions in the context of the programs provided for by law. This is far from providing for denominational schools where all stakeholders share the same faith, as section 93 of the Constitution permits us to do.

Second, Ms. Marois' plan requires that parents vote every two years to determine whether the majority of them wishes their school to continue as a denominational school. However, under this plan, the common schools are required to accept all children wishing to attend them and, based on the call-back list, to accept all the teachers who teach at those schools. It is the constitutional guarantees that enable us to hire teachers on the basis of their religious orientation and to admit students on the basis of their religious orientation, or in any case that of their families as part of the Protestant school system authorized in Quebec.

We will lose these two options over time. Since we must accept all children wishing to attend these schools, ultimately and inevitably, the majority of parents will no longer be in favour of our educational approach and, in the medium term, there will be no more denominational schools.

You will agree with us that it is easier to amend the provincial statute than a section of the Constitution. Consequently, rights provided for in a provincial statute are not always permanent, even if they disappear only over time.

We are told there is a consensus in Quebec and that everyone is in agreement. We are asked who doesn't want section 93 to be repealed or amended, and people answer that they are all in favour. We, who stand at the back of the crowd, are trying to be heard, to say that we exist and that we don't agree. However, we are not big enough and we can jump up and down all we want, but people don't see us. It's as though we don't exist.

For example, the media don't talk about us. We go and meet them, but nothing happens; it's as though we simply don't exist. But we are here, very much alive. We have schools that are entirely consistent with section 93 as regards the hiring of Protestant staff. That staff convey the values they believe in; they don't merely approve of them on an intellectual level. We also have the right to admit students on the basis of their religious denomination.

During the estates general on education in Quebec last year, Mr. Gary Caldwell said the following in discussing our ancestral rights?:

Since a school cannot be denominational if the majority of its staff does not belong to the confession in question, Catholic schools should be able to hire Catholic teachers. This is exactly what the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Education in Ontario reaffirmed for the Ontario Catholic network.

We spoke a moment ago about two organizations, Catholic and Protestant, which, since they have been together from the very start, were entrenched together at the time the country's Constitution was framed. The same was confirmed elsewhere regarding the Protestant system in Quebec. Protestant authorities said they did not want the Protestant system if they did not have the right to hire Protestant teachers.

Mr. Mario Banville: We have to conclude quickly.

A school that conveys French Protestant values is more than a place where a moral and religious education is given. I personally teach physics and chemistry. As I talk to my students, my Christianity inevitably comes through in my life. The idea is not simply to retain the right to provide moral and religious education.

To be a French Protestant teacher is much more than that. There is the entire aspect of human relations with the children. When we enter into a relationship with them, even when we teach science, the religious aspect filters through the instruction in a way. I don't talk about God every time I open my mouth in class, but God colours all my teaching. That's why we believe that protection must not be limited to dispensing moral and religious instruction.

• 1725

In closing, I would like to emphasize that, while we have an obvious cultural heritage in Canada, we also have a virtually omnipresent spiritual heritage. I see it in the French version of our national anthem, when we sing, "Canada, land of our forefathers, knows how to carry the cross and the sword!" This affirmation speaks of our history. The gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is at the heart of the foundation of this country. "And your courage, immersed in faith, will protect our homes and our rights." That's what we sing when we go to a hockey game, and even here.

We invoke this faith claimed from the cross of Jesus Christ and we ask for Canada's protection of our homes and constitutional rights. Will we have to change this anthem because, as a result of Christian love and tolerance, people of other religions have come to enrich our country? We have nothing against their claim for schools permitting them to transmit their values if the Quebec government allows it, but we are taking nothing away from them if it doesn't.

As far as we are concerned, we're asking nothing more than the continuation of what has been permitted since Confederation, of what has forged the Canadian identity, without prejudice towards those who were not here then, but who benefit today from the privileges that our history and our battles have enabled us to obtain.

We believe that God has blessed our country and that he has lifted it to an envied rank in the world. I am proud of this country. It is this God whom we call upon and whom we want to make known to our children so that they, in turn, can do good for this country. May God give you the courage to maintain the principle which recognizes His supremacy and that has long permitted us to bring this country to where it is today. This way, our children's children will not only remember their origins, but will still have the means to build upon the foundations that have been laid down. Thank you very much for your attention.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Messrs. Banville and Paquette. We are going to begin the question period.

[English]

We'll start with Mr. Rahim Jaffer.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I'd like to thank all of you for coming out and making your presentations today. I really appreciate that.

I think it is clear you are all a little worried about changing or removing section 93. It seems to me you're also proposing that denominational school boards exist in addition to linguistic schools boards. If that is so, what do you propose that would look like? It's a little different question, but it just seemed as though Mr. Royer and Mr. Fournier were saying that. I'm curious as to whether I understand that correctly. Can you can expand on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Marc Fournier: What we are proposing is that the majority be able to have a linguistic system that reflects its situation, but that the religious minorities be able to continue denominational education with denominational schools and the means to exercise this denominational status.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you for your answer. Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I commend you for the courage you have shown. I still say that, if the Protestants had French- language schools in Canada, in Quebec, you would now be more numerous than you actually are.

In that sense, I imagine you don't object at all to linguistic schools. That solves one problem because there are many French- speaking Protestants who have had to assimilate over the years for structural reasons. However, you say you nevertheless want to retain the right to denominational schools and that section 41 is not sufficient to that end. Is that what I am to understand?

You want to keep section 93, subsection (1) and (2), I imagine, and subsections (3) and (4), I don't know, because that's something else, but that's what you want. But we don't even need a constitutional amendment for that. If we were prepared to pay the cost, we could have French and English schools, French Catholic schools and French Protestant schools. That would create six divisions, but that would be possible. We would not even need an amendment. Is that what you would suggest?

• 1730

My question is for everyone, let's say for Mr. Banville who spoke last.

Mr. Mario Banville: If the majority of Quebeckers want a purely linguistic system, would we necessarily have to introduce the divisions you propose?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I'm not proposing anything; I'm trying to understand.

Mr. Mario Banville: You mention it, yes. We think we can have French- and English-language schools in Quebec, while maintaining protection for the rights of those who want to preserve denominational schools in accordance with section 93. We can create a place for ourselves in Quebec society by retaining these rights.

We don't necessarily want to impose a system on all Quebeckers; we simply want our rights to be recognized because we are Canadians. Quebec is still part of Canada, until proven otherwise, and we want to take our place and be protected.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, but I'll ask you a question that follows from that. We won't do it just for Catholics and Protestants. We'll have to do it for all religions, for all religious groups, if you want denominational schools.

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: May I answer that?

A Voice: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Royer.

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: The rights recognized in section 93 are not currently universal. They could be if there was the will to extend them.

The rights currently granted under section 93 stem from a historical compromise. We are the result of that historical compromise. We are not demanding anything. As a result of this compromise, we as French Protestants currently have certain rights and privileges and we simply want them to be maintained.

According to Mr. Woehrling's report, Protestants in Montreal are not in the same situation as in the rest of Quebec. Ultimately, as he mentions, we may represent approximately 15,000 French Protestant students in all of Quebec; that's based on religious values. That's a distinction that is made under section 93.

What we are asking is that the religious minority rights already contained in the Constitution be continued, while making the necessary amendments for the province as a whole. We are not asking any more than that. If others can obtain more, good for them.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Thank you.

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: This testimony is very interesting. You should never be discouraged by journalists because sometimes you can break through.

Ultimately, your idea is the supremacy of God. The problem is that, if you and I went to Montreal to take a sample of 10 persons, the notion of God would not necessarily be the same for everyone. And talking about God is quite a bit more complex in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries than it was in the nineteenth century. Is it Parliament's role to organize the education system on the basis of people's religious convictions? That's the whole question.

Senator Beaudoin is right in saying there is no reason why what must be done for Protestants should not be done for Catholics, any more than for other groups of similar size. What can the solution be? It can only be a solution whereby a basic community, a school, decides on a denominational arrangement. If that denominational arrangement has to be validated in two or three years' time—in this instance, the National Assembly has given Quebec three years—I think that's healthy because this is a changing situation.

The Woehrling report ultimately considers the entire question of the right to dissentience. That was the basis of the Woehrling report. What is provided for is that, in Montreal and Quebec City, regardless of the numerical weight of Francophones or Protestants, there is a right to Protestant schools. Outside Quebec, schools are public and the right to dissentience is exercised by minorities.

We can't take the path you suggest. It's impossible because that path means that section 93 would remain in effect. What we can hope is that there is a spirit of tolerance, a sufficient open- mindedness so that, in society, the French Protestant approach can resonate in the basic community, that is to say the school.

Mr. Royer, you began your presentation by saying that this is not just a schools issue, but that the management of those schools is also at issue. By that, do you mean the right of school boards?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: Not necessarily. What is guaranteed in section 93 are the schools. Structures are not mentioned as such. We want to manage our schools because we want our denominational status to go beyond religious, Catholic, Protestant or pastoral instruction.

• 1735

This means schools management, the teachers and the educational approach. We won't have these protections.

As to the other aspect you mentioned, that we can't maintain section 93, the Woehrling proposal does not ask that it be preserved in full; at bottom, it asks that the Protestant minority of Quebec be able to enjoy the same privileges as the Catholic minority of Ontario. It's a matter of reciprocity. For Quebec City and Montreal, it's another matter. It's possible to make different arrangements for Quebec City and Montreal and to maintain for French Protestants privileges equal to those of the English Catholics in Ontario. No province should be treated differently from any other, particularly when it comes to a historical compromise. This is all tied together.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Royer, all this is really very interesting, but you're introducing two aspects. Do you really think that, under the Marois public school reform in Quebec, a school's parent committee would be prevented from hiring its school management on the basis of its French Protestant convictions? That could be done. What would prevent the educational system from including these values?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: The Charter of Human Rights also exists to protect individuals and prohibits any discrimination on the basis of religion. Once section 93 is repealed, we will be in an illegal position starting with the first court challenge because I won't have the right to discriminate and hire a Protestant teacher. A teacher will be entitled to a job on a non-discriminatory basis.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's correct.

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: And it's only section 93 that can protect what I would call this discrimination. People generally think of discrimination as a negative thing, but there is also a positive form of discrimination, that is to say the establishment of criteria to protect the minority, not to enclose it in a ghetto.

Mr. Réal Ménard: There is nothing in the educational approach...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard, we must move on to the next speaker, Mr. Paul DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: My question is simply a request for clarification. Yesterday in the committee, we heard the testimony of two associations, two groups of associations of French Protestant school communities from the Province of Quebec. Do you have any relations with those two groups? Do you represent the same community?

Mr. Marc Fournier: We are school principals in Greater Quebec and we stay in touch with colleagues throughout the province who run schools similar to ours. Yes, we are in contact with the Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Okay. That's what I wanted to know.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): All right. Thank you.

Senator Dalia Wood.

[English]

Senator Dalia Wood: My question was answered.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I'll go now to Marlene Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you very much for your presentation. I found it very interesting and I have two points to raise.

Earlier this afternoon, we heard witnesses from other associations who presented their position and arguments against the amendment or rather in favour of an expansion of section 93. In their view, the fact that the resolution requesting this amendment was unanimously passed in the National Assembly of Quebec was of no importance. That may be a somewhat simplistic summary of their position, but that's roughly what they said.

I would like to know what importance you attach to this unanimous backing by the National Assembly, that is to say by the members of every political stripe, elected in a democratic election. What importance do you attach to that?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: I believe there is indeed a full consensus at the political level. However, I haven't heard many people state their views; there wasn't much in the way of consultation to determine whether individuals... It's true that the people who form the Government of Quebec represent individuals and that there was consensus, but we did not hear the public express their views on the issue. That's our first comment. Obviously we acknowledge that there was unanimity on the issue.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: And what value do you assign to that unanimity? Do you think it was important all the same?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: I believe it's important. It can also mean that a very large portion of the population may need change or rationalization.

• 1740

Now, how can a minority go against the majority? How can a minority make itself heard, as we said a moment ago, and proclaim that it exists?

No one needs us to establish a consensus. That's why the Constitution exists. Otherwise, the majority can immediately sweep us to one side; that much is obvious. What we are saying is that the Constitution is there to protect minorities from the majority because they do not have the wherewithal. We don't have our own school boards; we don't have the wherewithal. So what can defend us? It's the Constitution that can support us in this issue, but we acknowledge there can be consensuses.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I believe the fact you are here today gives you a forum and a certain guarantee of the federal government's commitment to enable minorities that claim they do not have the right to speak on this issue in Quebec to have that right at the national level. Perhaps people in other countries are listening in on what is going on here today, although I don't know that.

Second, you say you want the protection or the rights and privileges that are guaranteed under section 93 to remain as they stand and that, if other religious minorities manage to convince the government to expand that section, as the Equality Party suggests, so much the better for them.

You talked a great deal about your values. In light of your Judeo-Christian values, don't you believe you have an obligation or a duty, if you acknowledge that you have certain privileges and rights that are not available to other religious minorities, to fight on their behalf?

Mr. Marc Fournier: It's hard for us to be the standard bearer for others because we might not be able to defend their positions effectively. We are speaking on behalf of French Protestants because that's the situation we know. Perhaps that's the way we can answer you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Fournier. Mr. David Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): First I would like to thank you for your presentation which was very interesting.

My question is more of a request for clarification. You are French Protestants. The term Protestant is different from that of Catholic in that it applies to a number of religious denominations. Even though you are all Protestants, there are nevertheless members of the United Church, Anglicans, Evangelists and so on. Does your group represent any particular one of these denominations more than the others?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: In our school, for example, there are 20 different denominations. It's not a coalition, but there are roughly 20 denominations. It can be said that there is one formal definition of Protestantism and another that is more political or administrative.

It is interesting to see the entry in the Larousse dictionary on this subject. Who are Protestants? It gives three criteria. They are people who believe, first, in the sovereign authority of the Bible in matters of faith, second, in salvation through faith, which is a gift from God and not through good works, which are not the cause but rather the consequence, and, third, the force of the testimony of the spirit. These are theological definitions...

Mr. David Price: Which means that Catholics are Protestants as well?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: If they believe so.

Voices: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: Both are forms of Christianity, and I believe there are common points. At the same time, the point where they differ is on the question whether good works are not the cause of salvation but its consequence.

Mr. David Price: That's why I had somewhat the same question as Ms. Jennings. Ultimately, haven't you been bearing a number of standards? Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. The next remarks will be from Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I would also like to thank you. I found your brief interesting.

• 1745

With your permission, first, I would just like to remind Ms. Jennings that the word democracy can indeed be used in relation to the National Assembly. However, it's a democracy that seems to have weaknesses since the Assembly did not even consider it appropriate to hear the people in a situation as important as this, in which something fundamental is being changed. So it's a very weak form of democracy.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator, could you address the witness, please?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: No, I don't think we should let things go and say... In any case, I apologize.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Committee members may speak among themselves after they have heard the groups. Senator Lavoie-Roux, I would ask you to put your questions to the group.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I have quite specific questions to ask you. It was something of a revelation for me, though perhaps not for the others, to learn of the relative size of the French Protestant community in Quebec. How many members does it have? How big is it? Is it 5,000, 20,000 or 50,000?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: Messrs. Proulx and Woerhling estimate the number of Protestant students at 15,000. There are currently 1,000 at the Greater Quebec School Board.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: But I'm talking about French Protestants in Quebec: mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and grandmothers. How many are there?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: There is the Round Table on Protestant Education... I don't have exact figures on that. Perhaps I could give you a few percentages.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: So one percent of the population of Quebec. How many French Protestant teachers are there approximately?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: Perhaps 100.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: About 100, for all of Quebec.

Here's my first question. Did the implementation of Bill 101 increase enrolment in your schools, since people were required to send their children to French schools and that was what swelled the ranks of the Protestant sector, the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal?

Mr. Marc Fournier: I don't know whether the effect was greater than in the other neighbourhood schools, but I know that our school has taken young people who are arriving in Quebec and who are required to enrol in French-language schools even if they speak English. We take in these young people, but I don't know whether the percentage is greater than in the Catholic schools.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Do you have Anglophones who come from the United States, England or Australia and who are required to enrol in your schools because of Bill 101?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: This year, for example, I don't know where the Anglophones in our school come from, but I have a number who are taking francization courses. In the school itself, there is almost the equivalent of one full-time position just to handle students who need to be francized. I have four students who come from Zaire, others from the United States, Canada, Ontario or other provinces, but in various circumstances. A great deal of francization is being done in our French-language schools.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: So that has helped raise your enrolment?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator. We will now move on to Senator Grafstein.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: You're relying on section 93 to grant you protection for religious practices in the schools that you say might be illegal if section 93 were dropped. That's your position, as I understand it.

Do you get any comfort from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN convention that was adopted in Canada in December 1991, that seems on the face of it to grant protection for religion? It protects in effect the parents' right to bring up and develop the child.

• 1750

In section 93, in 1867, there were two religions protected, Protestant and Catholic. Now, in 1997, we have, in addition to section 93, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Quebec charter, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child

It is my understanding that once we ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child those rights will become part of our local law in Canada and in Quebec. Does it give you any comfort that you will have the right to bring up your children according to a particular religious persuasion? Does that give you any more comfort than it did before 1991?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Paquette: I haven't read the 1991 Convention, and I am not aware of what rights it grants. The fear we have in Quebec is that we will have entirely neutral schools, without any religious instruction, because certain groups are convinced that religion must be removed from the schools on the grounds that religion has no place there.

So there will be a lot of lawsuits and harassment if the Constitution of Canada no longer guarantees the rights we currently have.

We said earlier that we did not want to take away what others have, but they don't have any rights; so we are taking away absolutely nothing from them. It's not a matter of being on an equal footing with others; it's a matter of the rights that we have and that were given to us at the outset.

When Canada was founded, certain rights were granted. Today, those rights are ours and we are simply asking that this continue because we are the minority. Furthermore, it seems to me that, in Canada, no one wants to take away the rights of minorities. On the contrary, Canada is recognized for expanding the rights of minorities.

So we have come here to tell you that we believe we won't still be protected if section 93 is repealed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Fernand Robichaud.

Senator Fernand Robichaud (New Brunswick, Lib.): What you're saying is very interesting. You're telling us about certain fears, that your community would be threatened if the proposed amendment were passed because you might lose the right to work in accordance with an ethic based on your religion. You are also telling us that all of this hinges on instruction in the schools.

Mr. Marc Fournier: I don't think the community as such is threatened, but rather the educational community, because school is not just students; it's also teachers and parents. Christian, Evangelic or Protestant, communities can obviously exist in the same school. The community does not exist because there is a school. The school is there to serve the community.

Am I answering your question?

Senator Fernand Robichaud: Yes. You seem to be saying that you will still exist as a French Protestant community, but won't have the schools.

Mr. Marc Fournier: Yes. It's the denominational schools that will be gone.

Senator Fernand Robichaud: There's one question of particular concern to me. When you hire a principal or teacher, who decides whether one person is Catholic enough to teach in your schools? What is the degree you consider acceptable?

Mr. Marc Fournier: The parents have developed an educational approach based on Protestant values. According to the hiring criteria, the person must have a philosophy of education that is consistent with that educational approach.

• 1755

In school, parents expect that, in teaching their subjects, teachers will also transmit values that are consistent with the school's educational approach. It's in this sense that there are criteria relating to the community's values.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Royer.

The next speaker will be Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a question, but I would understand if you did not want to answer it. It is more of a hypothetical question. If you had to choose between a denominational right and a right to instruction in French, what would be your choice and would you make that choice?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Can you repeat the question, Mr. Bélanger?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Let's say you have a right to education in French and a right to denominational education. Which would you choose? If you in fact wish to answer, what would your choice be?

Mr. Marc Fournier: Perhaps I could answer you by repeating what I recently heard from one parent. A woman was telling me that, when she was young, there was no French Protestant school in her area. Her parents enrolled her in the English Protestant school so she would learn Protestant values in the course of her education. So there are people who make their choice on a denominational basis. That's a coherent approach. The education provided in the family and at church is supplemented at school. Children grow up in a coherent atmosphere and then become citizens who are able to make a positive contribution to the society in which they grew up.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are you familiar with this statistic: that 8,941, or 60 percent, of the 14,632 Protestant students in Quebec have chosen Protestant schools and that the rest make do with Catholic schools? Does that mean that 60 percent of the French Protestant community could make a religious choice and 40 percent a linguistic choice?

Mr. Marc Fournier: I believe parents have often not had the choice. They sent their children to the neighbourhood school because there was no Protestant school in their area. Some parents have repeatedly asked that French Protestant schools be opened in Quebec and have never received an answer. So they registered their children in neighbourhood schools.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Then, would you please explain something to me? How can you say that section 93 protects you and allows you to have schools when you aren't actually able to get them?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: Indeed, section 93 exists, but there is a whole administrative system, clauses and work standards; there are unions and an entire administrative structure which is not easy to break through in order to develop French Protestant schools.

Many parents would like to have these schools, but are stonewalled at certain administrative levels. So they turn to schools that have a different orientation, but they would like to have French Protestant schools.

Mr. Marc Fournier: May I just add to what Mr. Royer just said?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Yes, go ahead, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Marc Fournier: Section 93 of the Constitution is not something you read on cereal boxes while eating your breakfast in the morning. I would say that most French Protestants did not know this section existed or that it concerned them. That may be the reason why people unfortunately did not avail themselves of the rights that existed.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I believe I have the answer to my last question.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I was trying to determine why section 93 had not been invoked. You're telling me you didn't know.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Cereal boxes, sir.

A brief remark by David Price.

Mr. David Price: Yes, it will be brief. In our constituency, the number of French Protestants increases regularly. Is the same true in the rest of the provinces? Yes? Very good.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): A brief remark by Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I didn't hear Mr. Price's question; so I may be repeating the same question. I would just like to know whether all the French Protestant schools are the same as those you have described to us today, where teachers must comply with teaching criteria established by the parent committee and transmit Judeo-Christian values. Or are there French Protestant schools where religious instruction is given, but in which teachers may belong to various religions?

• 1800

Mr. Marc Fournier: I believe you understand the situation. No, not all the schools are denominational, even though they are called French Protestant schools. Mr. Royer alluded to that fact when he said some schools are French Protestant schools because of Bill 101. That's the case in the Montreal area, where some schools are French Protestant schools because they are not Catholic and not because they are established on a denominational basis.

That isn't a judgment on those cases, but rather an explanation.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: What are the figures? What's the percentage of your schools relative to other schools?

Mr. Jean-Marc Royer: Relative to all French Protestant schools, those with criteria consistent with section 93 have about 1,000 students in the Greater Quebec School Board and about 3,000 students in all the regions.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Gentlemen, we thank you for your excellent presentation and for coming to meet with the members of this committee. We are going to adjourn until seven o'clock. I would ask committee members to remain in this room. Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will pardon my ignorance, but, being an Ontarian, I am not as informed as I should be about the Quebec education system.

I admit I am sometimes a bit at sea when people start talking about dissentience, double dissentience or the impossibility of having dissentience. I wonder whether one of our experts, someone some time could make a brief presentation explaining all that to us.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): All right, Mr. Bélanger, we'll do what we must to explain those matters to you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you once again, gentlemen. We will adjourn until seven o'clock, when we will receive other groups. I would ask committee members to stay here and grab a bite.

• 1803

• 1900

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

We now have the Fédération des comités de parents, and I welcome Mr. Gary Stronach, Ms. Johanne Smith and Mr. Jude Bourke.

Mr. Stronach will make the presentation. The floor is yours.

Mr. Gary Stronach (President, Fédération des comités de parents): I have two copies of the presentation. I'll give you one.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are listening, Mr. Stronach.

Mr. Gary Stronach: Thank you very much. I'll start off, then Ms. Smith will continue and I will complete the presentation.

Good evening, Mr. Paradis, ladies and gentlemen. We very much appreciate this opportunity to come and present the position of the Fédération des comités de parents on the amendment to section 93. I'll give you a little bit of background on the Federation and tell you what it does.

Even though responsibility for our children's education rests with the State, the latter is nevertheless mindful of the fact that parents play a very important role in this area. In 1968, the Department of Education established that the Service des parents (Parents Service), one of the first initiatives designed to get parents involved in the education system.

Bill 27, enacted in 1971, formally authorized the creation of parent committees which were composed of the chairs of each school committee. Until 1972, the role of parents in the education system was modest in nature. Basically, they were concerned about gaining acceptance from partners in the system. The year 1972 also marked the emergence of the Fédération des comités de parents de la province de Québec (Federation of Parent Committees for the Province of Quebec).

We represent approximately 40,000 to 45,000 parents committed to the school committees, orientation councils and parent committees; they are Protestants, Catholics, Anglophones and Francophones from all over Quebec's primary and secondary public education system.

Our mission is to educate and inform parents with a view to increasing their involvement in education, speak out on behalf of the parents to various partners in the field of education at the provincial level, defend the rights and interests of parents where education is concerned and participate in the development of education in cooperation with partners in the education system.

Ms. Johanne Smith (Vice-President, Anglophone Affairs, Fédération des comités de parents): The obsolescence of section 93 of the British North America Act of 1867: Quebec society has today become a pluralistic, democratic and open society and as such, section 93 of the British North American Act has grown obsolete.

As we understand it, this section guarantees only the existence of confessional administrative structures. The vested rights of Catholic and Protestant minorities who had been granted the right to descent prior to 1867 are protected.

The guarantees under section 93 extend only to schools under the administration of dissentient Catholic and Protestant school boards outside Montreal and Quebec City as well as to Catholic and Protestant school boards in Montreal and Quebec City.

Having recognized the strictly confessional nature of section 93, the federal legislator moved to safeguard linguistic rights in education in the Constitution Act, 1982, which included a provision respecting the right to instruction in the language of the minority.

• 1905

Until now, Quebec society has maintained two school systems, one Catholic, the other Protestant, thereby upholding the principle of confessional schools. Today, the government is proposing to establish school boards based on linguistic affiliation.

For the past 130 years, Canadians have promoted their unique social and religious values. However, our society has also become pluralistic, outward-looking and respectful of people's right to choose. These values which are the envy of other nations should not, however, be seen as a reason for maintaining a complex, inappropriate and inequitable school board structure given that the confessional guarantee is not one that applies to the Quebec population as a whole.

Mr. Gary Stronach: Now I am going to talk about concerned parents.

From the moment the initial components of the reform plan were announced, parent committees from Montreal and Quebec City school boards lost no time letting us know what they thought. First I should say that the Fédération des comités de parents was one of 17 signatories that requested that linguistic school boards be established, though without resorting, at the outset, to a constitutional amendment.

It was only when the bill was introduced by Ms. Marois, who acknowledged that there would be linguistic school boards elsewhere than in Montreal and Quebec City, but on Montreal Island or in Quebec City, there would be linguistic school boards without denominational committees, that our parents on the CECM and CECQ told us they wanted the same system as that introduced outside Montreal and Quebec City. They wanted linguistic school boards without resorting to other structures that would complicate their operation, such as denominational committees. With a denominational committee, we could have been in a situation in which we did not know which took precedence: the Council of Commissioners or the Denominational Committee. That could have had consequences for the school's educational approach, and that is why the Fédération des comités de parents had to change policies and say we were in favour of an amendment to section 93 to enable all parents in the province to take part in linguistic school boards.

I can tell you that, with respect to the establishment of linguistic school boards, I am recognized as a professional parent. With respect to the Beige Paper, Bill 3, Bill 40 or Bill 107, the Federation has always been in favour of establishing neutral linguistic school boards, maintaining in each case the denominational status of the school. These are components we currently find in Bill 107.

Thus, our official position is that the Canadian and Quebec charters as well as current laws recognize that schools may provide either moral instruction or Catholic or Protestant religious instruction. This choice will continue to be available and the instruction provided will be consistent with the convictions of parents. In the opinion of the FCPPQ, it is extremely important that the establishment of linguistic school boards be a harmonious, ongoing process.

The Fédération acknowledges at the outset that parents have the right to truly choose when it comes to the status of their children's school. Talking about Quebec parents, you cannot be unaware that, following the Estates General, there was a movement to secularize Quebec's schools. As the public mouthpiece of the coalition for open and modern schools, the Fédération des comités de parents nevertheless managed to reverse that trend and make the other partners realize that it was a valid idea to leave it to parents to decide on the denominational status of their schools.

The directions chosen and the proposals made for school board reform will not sever our links with the past. On the contrary, they will help to perpetuate the fundamental values which are evidence of a modern, dynamic society. With this approach, the government is inviting each stakeholder to draw up a social contract based on respect, diversity and striving for innovation so that each school can become truly responsible for its values and for the full education of its students.

The future belongs to the up-and-coming generations. We must ensure that they have appropriate institutions which will allow them to grow and develop to their full potential.

In conclusion, as regards protection and respect for the minority, I would like you to look at the man before you who is the President of the Fédération de comités de parents of the Province of Quebec, 87 percent of whose members are Francophone parents. He is an English Protestant. You have beside me the Vice-President for Anglophone Affairs, who is an Anglophone from an English Catholic background. Minorities are indeed respected within the Federation and we intend to ensure that this kind of respect is a continuing feature of education. Thank you.

• 1910

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Stronach.

We are now going to turn to the period of remarks by committee members.

[English]

We'll start right away with Mr. Rahim Jaffer.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two quick questions. First, do you feel specifically that with the extinguishment of the Constitution Act's section 93, the Government of Quebec will honour your rights, in fact, and uphold your right to have education in any choice you like? Do you think it would fundamentally affect your rights if they were to extinguish section 93?

Mr. Gary Stronach: First of all, if we look at what is right now, the schools that have a confessional status have been guaranteed that for the next two years they're going to maintain the same status.

We all know there's a move to secularize the schools. We're very conscious of that. But as I pointed out before, if you look at what we did in 1996-97, when we got something like 183,000 people to have respect for the wish of the parents in their own local schools, I would be foolish to tell you that I think the battle is won forever. It's an ongoing battle. It's a conflict of ideologies.

One of the things we're going to end up doing down the road...we're afraid that there are two things that can happen. You're telling me that section 93 guarantees my rights too, but I'm telling you also that the full respect of section 93 in the imposition of a confessional status on school boards and schools is not reflective of our community today. It imposes on other people, who are not of the Catholic and Protestant faith, things that they have to live with. Somewhere down the road we're going to come to an accommodation that may be different from what we're living today. It will be a constant evolution.

We feel very confident that we can play a role in that evolution. When we come down the road three or four years from now we'll have probably what everybody would agree to—respect for religious instruction in the schools. I have no fear at all of that, not at all.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: In fact, then, you would be in favour of linguistic school boards, but maybe with the amendment of section 93 in some form. Is that what you would be looking at?

Mr. Gary Stronach: No. I want linguistic school boards with an amendment to section 93 now so that all the parents of Quebec, be it in Montreal or wherever, so that there's no overlapping of school boards and no other structures, have the same rights.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Thank you.

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

Senator Beaudoin.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: From what you say, I understand that you accept that the education system of tomorrow in Quebec should be based on French-language lines. But you add that the proviso that this should make it possible to provide services that meet denominational needs.

There are two ways to do that. The first is to make an amendment to the main motion, to the resolution, and to leave the right to denominational schools in section 93 because, for the moment, it concerns only the right to denominational structures. This is a system that many people want to reform.

The second is to rely on the provincial Education Act; also under section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, religious instruction must take place in the schools.

If we stick with section 93, this is a constitutional problem. If we stick with section 41 by itself, it's quasi-constitutional. Where do you stand on this matter? There are many ways to protect denominational status. For the past 130 years, the denominational status of Catholic and Protestant schools has been protected and the groups concerned have been granted rights that no other group in Quebec has. Obviously there were only Catholics and Protestants in 1887; there weren't many people of other religions. Now there are other religions.

So do you really want an amendment to the resolution that Quebec has put before us or do you agree to a division along linguistic lines, while providing some sort of protection for denominational schools?

Mr. Gary Stronach: I'll answer that by saying that we want the opportunity to change the structures. The amendment to section 93 would enable us perhaps to find other solutions in the more or less near future.

• 1915

I believe that, for too long, we have had denominational structures that do not accommodate the minority, whatever it may be.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes.

Mr. Gary Stronach: Our wish is for an undenominationalized structure. So we're starting with the school boards. As I said a moment ago, I'm not sure that there won't be another structuring in three or four years that will protect religious instruction. There is a great deal of confusion. People used to think everything was black and white. Now I think there is a grey area where the community will ultimately get everyone's respect.

We are prepared to go ahead and position ourselves in structures that may be non-denominationalized, but that will maintain respect for the right to religious education. I believe that's the community's position; the committee doesn't want to maintain denominational structures at all costs.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: We have to acknowledge the fact that we'll have to assume our responsibilities at some point. If we say yes, we accept the amendment and subsections (1) to (4) are deleted, that means that the constitutional guarantees will disappear and the province will do what it wants with its education system.

That at least has the merit of being based on language: we're talking about French or English. As for religious education, there are many degrees that have to be determined. The Quebec Charter protects them, but that can obviously still change. We have a very good Education Act in Quebec. A government that really wants to govern well and to get elected will be forced to respect the freedoms and religions that exist in Quebec.

In that sense, it's a form of protection. From what I understand, you say you have to start with the linguistic structures and perhaps come back for something else perhaps in three, four or five years.

Mr. Gary Stronach: I wouldn't want to come back. I wouldn't want us to take any half measures and be forced to come back at some point. We've been seeking linguistic school boards for 15 or even 20 years.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, yes.

Mr. Gary Stronach: An Anglophone living on Montreal Island is very confident of his future. But just travel a bit and go to the small villages, down to the ends of the ranges where Anglophones have to help each other just to survive. Every effort has to be made to enable these people to survive, somewhat like in the Eastern Townships, where there are already de facto linguistic school boards. So everyone has to be enabled to do this, Anglophones and Francophones. I believe we have to pool and consolidate our efforts to achieve high-quality education.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Marlene Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Good evening, and thank you for appearing so late this evening. I would like to thank you for your presentation. I would like to know whether the Quebec government is aware of your position on the constitutional amendment issue. If it is aware, was it aware before the National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution on this amendment?

Mr. Gary Stronach: Yes. As I said, the first time we spoke with Minister Marois, we were one of the groups consulted and we were in favour of linguistic school boards, although we did not want to resort to the amendment. Since then, I believe they are quite aware that the Fédération des comités de parents is in favour of the amendment to section 93.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Marlene. Christiane Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): We have heard a number of speakers since yesterday. Some told us they thought there was not really any consensus on the amendment to section 93, while others have said there was a consensus on school boards. In fact, what is being criticized is the fact that there was not enough consultation in Quebec to be able to proceed with this amendment.

I would like you to tell me what percentage of the population you represent and whether you think there was enough consultation to enable us to proceed. That is the question that we as legislators are considering. Are we prepared to proceed and has the Government of Quebec respected the opinions of the various groups that were heard? There was the Estates General in Quebec when a number of groups that were representative of the population were heard.

• 1920

I know that all parties want to debate their own views. So I would like you to answer that question.

Mr. Gary Stronach: First, I would say that we did not intend to come and present a brief to you, even though our position has long been well known. However, since people who allegedly represented the parents of Quebec were coming to speak, we thought the Fédération was entitled to take its place.

Of course, I say there is a consensus, but we are far from having unanimity. The rumours were that I was opposed to the amendment. I'll set that matter straight at the appropriate time. That's far from true. It's false.

I attended one meeting two weeks ago where someone told me that the Fédération des foyers et écoles was opposed to the amendment. I would just like to tell you that the Fédération des comités de parents represents some 172 parents committees, some 3,667 schools and that the other group represents 59. Are we a representative organization? I believe so.

We don't have unanimity, but, notwithstanding the mistakes made in implementing Bill 109 and other statutes... Some were made, even quite recently, for the minority commissioners, and that's an acknowledged fact. There were mistakes that everyone witnessed together and no one subsequently came and told me they had changed their minds, that they were still opposed to the amendment. We took the necessary steps within our own structure to change and resolve the situation.

The consensus has long been in favour of linguistic school boards. The amendment is not a problem for 85 percent of the population. Among the other 15 percent for whom it will be problematical, I would say that the majority are nevertheless in favour of the amendment, which represents a broad consensus.

As regards the Estates General, it should never be forgotten that there were two seats for parents and seven or eight seats for the unions. Was there a consensus in favour of linguistic school boards and the denominational aspect? We were subsequently proven right, but it was hard to shape a consensus with 62 seats and only two parents.

Among those the most involved, the most affected, that is to say the parents of students in the education system, there was a broad consensus in favour of the amendment.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. Gagnon. Senator Grafstein.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: We haven't yet heard about the interests of the child in the evidence. We've heard about the interests of language, we've heard about the interests of professionals, and we've heard about the interests of the minorities, but we haven't heard about the interests of the child.

As a parents' group, have you done any comparative analysis from the perspective of the child in Quebec about how good the existing education system is and whether or not this reform is going to improve the education system from the perspective of the child? Will it be the same or will it be worse?

Mr. Gary Stronach: That's the $64,000 question.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: It strikes me that it's the fundamental one, but we've sat here for evidence for two days and we haven't heard what as a parent I would be most interested in.

With all its complex interests and differences, is this—and I'm not from Quebec—a superb education system that I'm helping to develop here or is it a second-rate education system?

Mr. Gary Stronach: I don't think the structure per se is what makes it second-rate. I think we have a very good educational system in Quebec, but I think what we're looking at in an era of declining resources is that the establishment of linguistic school boards is going to permit both communities to consolidate their resources and make them more effective, and then that'll trickle down to the schools.

As long as we try to maintain parallel structures within both the French and the English system, the Catholic or the Protestant...I'm from a school board that has 30 schools, with five French schools. That is very draining on the resources of the board. We need to have two pedagogical streams.

Those Catholic school boards that have English schools also have to have a parallel stream with pedagogical experts, specialists, and whatever. If we can consolidate those efforts, I'm a firm believer—I happen to come from the West Island—that when we consolidate Verdun and Sault-St-Louis, the western edge of PSBGM, Lakeshore, and Cartier, we're going to have one heck of a school board and a lot of resources. You can't help it; the better the resources you have, along with consolidation of them, the more the kids are going to benefit.

As to whether the confessionality aspect is going to give the kids a better education, I can't answer that, but I can tell you that there's a lot of children who cling more to the religious instruction than their parents do. The kids choose these courses in a lot of cases.

• 1925

I say to people who want to listen—and I'm a Protestant and I'm a victim or call it what you want to...PSBGM for the first seven years of my life, then I was on the Ontario system and in Europe, and one person marked my passage through school. It was a minister when I was in grade 8 in Kingston, Ontario, who sticks in my mind. It wasn't the religion he taught me; it was the outlook on life. I'll always hold that as very important, and I'll defend the right to have it.

What we're looking at right now in the consolidation and in making it equitable for everybody can only have a beneficial effect on the children's education.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Is your viewpoint shared by the other two witnesses?

Ms. Johanne Smith: Yes.

Mr. Gary Stronach: Jude is an employee. He's our director of administrative services. Jude isn't a parent involved in the structures as we are, but he very much knows what goes on around the table. I'm telling you this is not one person speaking with the other 19 wondering what I'm saying.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Stronach.

I'm going to move on to the next speaker, Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you for appearing here this evening. I still think we should have gone to see you.

Mr. Gary Stronach: I never said that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm saying it.

I have a problem that I believe I've mentioned on a number of occasions, and I will continue to do so until November 7. You represent the Fédération des comités des parents of the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Gary Stronach: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: According to what I've been hearing for a few days now, the National Assembly did not consult the people. It made a unanimous decision that was supported by all the parties concerned. I respect that. They did what they wanted to do.

What process did you follow? What public consultations did you conduct as the Quebec Fédération des comités de parents? You are an organization, but there are people behind it. I received a petition that disturbed me a bit. It came from Quebec and I'll read you a paragraph which I feel is important for you to hear:

Please be advised that I strongly oppose any change that will affect the protection granted by section 93 of the Canadian Constitution of 1867. I protest the fact that the Government of Quebec has not consulted the citizens of Quebec in order to validate such a change. I also state that there is no "reasonable consensus" among the public and that this amendment will have very serious consequences for the Catholics and Protestants of Quebec. It should also be noted that section 93 is the only section of the Constitution that protects the right to manage our Catholic schools in Quebec.

This petition, which comes from Quebec and was signed by a number of individuals, states that they were not consulted. What kind of popular consultation did you conduct?

Mr. Gary Stronach: We did not consult the parents to ask them whether they were for or against the amendment to section 93.

I will say, however, that since the process started, parents have wanted linguistic school boards at any cost—and I say that being fully aware of the scope of those words. We saw that, without the amendment, there was no respect for the parents of the CECM and CECQ. I will point out that the CECM represents some 100,000 students and the parents of those students told us they wanted to have the same conditions as we have. We then understood that there had to be an amendment.

You said you had received a petition on the amendment. I wouldn't want to tell you the names they call people who don't sign. There are names for those people. It's assumed there is something wrong with them, that they're not in their right minds.

An attempt is made to explain to people that the provisions in question protect people in Quebec City and Montreal. I don't live on Montreal Island. I'm from a school board for Protestants, but not a Protestant school board. Let's go back to the petition that was signed in 1996, to the Coalition for Modern and Open Schools, with and for the public. No, those aren't my words, Madam Lavoie-Roux. The purpose of that petition was to fight school secularization. We gathered 183,000 names on a petition signed by parents and people from the community who were stuck and who knew then that we needed help to establish linguistic structures for the entire province. We weren't talking about leaving what we had to Quebec City and Montreal. We weren't going to give them that. So 183,000 signatures was not a small number.

• 1930

People have been watching us in this process from the very start. I am convinced that if we go to the public, we will get the same answer. People want linguistic school boards without problems.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Godin. We're going to go to Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Mr. Godin has already asked my question. I also wanted to know what kind of public consultation had been conducted because it goes without saying that the Quebec government should have held a consultation. It strikes parliamentary committees to change cat and dog licences, but doesn't think it's necessary to act in a matter as important as this one. Which is quite surprising. In any case, you believe you've done enough.

Mr. Gary Stronach: I believe the process has been under way since, if we go back a way, the Estates General in 1985. The Estates General of 1996 and everything that followed was still headed in the same direction.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: In any case, the linguistic school boards aren't really a problem for me; I was the first to recommend they be established.

Mr. Gary Stronach: Yes.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I was the only person on the Board of Trustees to be in favour of them.

Mr. Gary Stronach: You were ahead of your time.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Not necessarily. At that time, others recommended unified school boards, that everyone be put in the same bag.

However, you contend that everyone knows that what this involves is an amendment to the Constitution. In that respect, I believe you may be going a little too far, because everyone who has appeared here has seemed fairly confused over the constitutional amendment. So if you think of your 186,000... But never mind. Ultimately, what counts is that we know whether or not they want linguistic school boards.

I'm going to ask you a question that may have nothing to do with that, but that may further our thinking on this issue. It would be up to the schools to decide on their denominational status and to the parent committee to decide whether it will be neutral, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or anything else. Aren't you afraid that this would introduce an element into the process that would be hard to manage and that could cause considerable conflict—not everywhere, but in many places—and sometimes very acute conflict? Has the Fédération des comités de parents considered this question?

Mr. Gary Stronach: Yes. I believe you first have to consider the guarantee, which the schools that have already acquired or already had denominational status now have, that that status will be preserved for two years. You also have to consider the governing bodies that will be introduced next year. These will be multipartite bodies and decision-making power will be in the hands of not only the parents, but also staff members.

I said earlier that we are going to see matters change in the fairly near future. I have my own vision of the future, of what the school should become. I believe that society will also evolve toward a certain position.

I'm not saying there won't be areas of conflict. I can imagine two or three that I could point out to you. However, I believe that will be more the exception than the rule. I also believe that a strong federation that provides information and increases awareness among its parent committees and parent members of the governing body will try to avoid conflict and leave the parents...

Ultimately, as this gentleman said so well a moment ago, why should this debate be moved to the forefront, ahead of the education of children, of our children? So I believe this value will prevail.

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

[English]

The next intervention will be by Jason Kenney.

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

Unfortunately I came in late. Could you simply clarify your position for me? I understand that you support the amendment insofar as it establishes linguistic school boards but you want to ensure continued access to confessional education as ensured by Bill 109. Is that more or less your position?

Mr. Gary Stronach: Yes.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I'd like you to answer whether or not you've considered this in formulating your position, but it occurs to me that the confessional school right guarantees in Bill 109 will be imperilled by the direction of jurisprudence under the Charter of Rights, in particular section 2 equality rights.

Several cases in Ontario have made it clear that in the absence of other constitutional protection, i.e., protection under this section, public funding for religious education would be found unconstitutional. This, of course, is why the notwithstanding clause has been included in Bill 109. So the only guarantee that really would continue to exist for confessional education in Quebec would be the willingness of any particular government at any particular time to continue to maintain the notwithstanding coverage or protection of Bill 109.

• 1935

Are you not then really jettisoning in the long run what is an acquired right for confessional education, leaving this matter to the discretion of politicians who, in the case of the present Quebec government as I understand it, have been quite outspoken in their disposition toward complete secularization of the system at some point?

Mr. Gary Stronach: I think you have to look at it from a certain perspective when you say that it's a government bent on secularization. I think there are a lot of institutional pressures on the government to secularize the schools.

You have to look at the fact that the parents of Quebec, of all the parents in Canada, are probably the most organized or the most formally structured group of parents anywhere in Canada. We have had legislative participation since 1972, with school committees and parent committees. The parents aren't on an ad hoc basis. They don't have to rely on going down to try to establish grassroots concerns and grassroots participation. At each and every one of our schools, we have a participatory institution called a school committee, an orientation committee, and, as of next year, a governing body. We have that in place.

The parents of Quebec are very easily mobilized when it's an issue that affects the education of their children or their values. When you say we know when the notwithstanding clause is coming up for renewal, and can bring pressures to bear every bit as strong as those we have proved since the estates general, it's because we basically took on labour and we took on the teachers union, the CEQ. We are a force to be reckoned with. I think the Minister of Education, whether she is Liberal or Parti Québécois or whatever, will listen to the population when it speaks in those kinds of numbers—and there was a grassroots movement for the maintenance of the confessional status of the schools.

So we're not jettisoning it, because the notwithstanding clause is there and the parents will evolve. They can bring their own pressures to bear.

Mr. Jason Kenney: But you are admitting that you are giving up a constitutional protection that would otherwise adhere for all time, in exchange for a political protection that may exist now but may not in fifty years.

Mr. Gary Stronach: We don't look at it from that perspective.

I'm an anglophone parent who works very hard within his school structure locally, regionally and provincially. Frankly, to the average parent sitting on a school committee or sitting at home, constitutional guarantees don't mean a heck of a lot. Whether or not he's sitting on a school committee, he knows the reality of the day-to-day, and that it is incumbent on his own school board, on the regional direction of the MEQ, and the MEQ. We know the solutions are going to be made in Quebec, whether it's curriculum or any of the other things.

The parents in the past have brought pressures to bear on curriculum and on confessional status, and will continue to do it. We don't perceive it as giving up. For example, for the parents that are on the island of Montreal and island of Quebec, if they want confessional school boards, that's fine. But basically, the other parents have been jettisoned for many years anyway. There are a lot of parents off-island. So we don't see it as a jettisoning of anything. We see that what we've asked for, we will have over the next couple of years. When the next battle comes, we'll fight it then.

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

We'll go now to Sheila Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

I've been quite fascinated by your very articulate and seemingly knowledgeable understanding of what's going on, notwithstanding the fact that you said it used to be black and white, and now it's grey. I'm glad that in the grey shades you're finding a light at the end of the tunnel.

My concern really comes from the fact that your experience now could perhaps help us with the groups that have appeared before us—particularly the French Protestants, who have developed their school system over the last twenty years. Of course they would be a minority within either the French system or the English system, as the case may be—and I think we could broaden that to even include the English Catholics. They have what they perceive to be acquired rights. They're very concerned that the nature of the teaching, the nature of the teachers that are available to them, the training and the values that those teachers have will be lost in the new system that's coming into play.

I don't know that I fully agree with that, but I really would like to hear from a parent who's been as involved as you have just described. What would you say to the French Protestant community, which has been here in fairly substantial numbers, given the number of presenters we've heard to date, and which is seriously concerned about the best interests of the child, about the best interest of the parent, the quality of the education, the value system, and moral teaching.

• 1940

In your experience, is there some way within these linguistic schools that we can assure these parents that there are some acquired rights for these teachers or that there is some acquired place? I'm really concerned about what they had to say. At the same time I feel very strongly that section 93 should go.

Mr. Gary Stronach: I'll draw a parallel between what these parents are looking for and what they consider acquired rights, and I'll dwell on international schools, where I think the parents...schools with a particular vocation or particular programs.

In the past what has tended to happen—and this is something we think will change on July 1, 1998—is we had schools that were exclusive. With the new legislation, they will have to become inclusive.

One of the things we're looking at is that the school should be welcoming to the community in which it sits. In too many cases over the last couple of years, be it of a confessional nature or a vocational nature, a school that is located within a given community is not open to the community because it gives itself a particular vocation. It says you have to enrol. You can come from the whole territory of this school board, but it's first come first serve, which might mean that the child who lives right next door to the school is not welcome in that school.

What we're looking at as of July 1998 is that the community school become a community school. But you have to maintain the rights of the parents who received a certain education in that school to have the same thing. It can be in part of the school; what we're saying is it can't be the whole school. We're hoping the school can be welcoming to all communities.

What has tended to happen in the past in some areas—and I won't say in all—is that the schools have become the exclusive domain of a given clientele. Under the new legislation that's proposed, that school must open itself up to the community. Section 93 will be able to do that, because the school can still give itself a confessional nature, but the board will decide the criteria for enrolment and the kids in the community can come in there.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I have some concerns about what you just said. I firmly believe there's a degree of right to choice on the part of parents for their children.

Mr. Gary Stronach: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: In the part of the city I live in, there's a school called Iona. There is a Royal Vale school, which deals with children who have particular talents. The line-ups start at 4 o'clock in the morning to ensure that these gifted children are able to be placed in these schools, whether it's cultural in terms of artistic expression or mathematics or geography or whatever the case may be.

You went on to say, with respect to schools' exclusivity, that schools in the public French sector—and I'm thinking of L'École Maimonide and the Jewish day school.... Those are exclusive schools in the sense that they are in a given sector of the society that is predominantly Jewish in this particular instance, whether they're francophone Jews or anglophone Jews. But there are children who come from other parts of the city. These are public schools. I'm not talking about the private sector now; I'm talking about the public sector. What will happen under your new system, because that's exclusive—?

Mr. Gary Stronach: Basically what we're being told and what we believe in is that those who have acquired rights in a lot of cases will maintain the status they have, but in the future—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: What makes you say that, please?

Mr. Gary Stronach: Well, there are schools right now that have an international program. They will maintain their international program.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor].

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: This is along the same lines.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, because I could have asked the same question, Mr. Chairman. This is important, and we have parents represented here, which is key.

We have Armenian schools for orthodox—we have a fine school system for them. There's a Greek school system, there's a Muslim school system, and there is a Jewish school system in both English and French in this particular instance. Part of them are private and part of them are public. We have a former Minister of Education from Quebec at this table. It's very important that we know, from a parental point of view in today's world, how you see this working out under article 41.

Mr. Gary Stronach: We would see it working out based on what you're talking about, the heart of the school. You're talking about an educational project. A given vocation—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It's the full atmosphere of the school.

Mr. Gary Stronach: In those cases not much would change. If your clientele remains the same, the school for all intents and purposes will keep the same vocation.

• 1945

We're saying that what's happened over the last couple of years is we're developing all kinds of special vocational schools—there are hockey schools, dance schools, theatre schools, etc.—and we're closing those schools to the other kids in the community. What's going to change in the future is you can still have those programs, but they will be within a building where other kids will have access also to other programs.

So we're not taking anything away. What we're saying is the school and the community will be open to the other members without necessarily having to be in the program that the other children opted for in that school.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So École Pierre Laporte would have to close its doors.

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

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm sorry.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We'll go to the next intervention, Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Stronach, you said that in two years' time the schools will be asked to decide once again what their vocation or religious affiliation or whatever will be. Can you tell me how that will happen? Will the parents all be convened? Will it be strictly left to the committee? I'd like to know the mechanics of how that choice is to be made.

Mr. Gary Stronach: If I look at what is done in the present, we'd be very shortsighted to think that the parents who sit on the governing body would take a decision amongst themselves. When you're deciding on something such as the confessional status of the school, at that committee you would convene a general assembly of all of the parents of the school and all the options would be put forth.

These are hypothetical. You could go through a period of consultation, where you'd go to all the parents, because you know you're not going to get them all to the meeting. You would try to reach as many of those parents as possible within the given community to decide on the confessional status of the school.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And what kinds of numbers will decide? Is it 50% plus one? It's a serious question.

Mr. Gary Stronach: Oh, yes.

I'm going to dissociate myself from the federation. As a parent in a school, I wouldn't accept the 50% plus one, because that would mean 50% less one didn't agree with me. I would think that if the best a school could do is come up with 50% plus one, the school at that point would probably be best to give itself a status of neutral and respect all of the communities. And I would think that would probably be the next resolution to be drawn up, and you'd probably get a majority there.

Right now you have the right to have a Protestant, a Catholic, or a neutral school. There are a lot of schools right now that for all intents and purposes are neutral, and you may see a growth of neutral schools with individual programs.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This isn't clear yet as to exactly what the criteria or barometer will be to determine—

Mr. Gary Stronach: In the past consultations have been done by the Catholic Council of the Superior Council of Education. That will run out in two years. At the same time a committee has just been formed called the Committee of Experts, which is looking at the confessional nature of schools in Quebec. They will be depositing a report next year, which will go to public hearings, and we will see then what the process will involve, what we will be doing two years from now.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): A brief remark by Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: How would you protect the right to religious education once educational structures are based on language?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's what I was wondering.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There are two ways to protect the right to religious education, but we don't hear them mentioned often. Those who have appeared here—but we have only been sitting for two days—don't say a great deal about this point, even though it is fundamentally important. A number have said that they want to delete the four subsections of section 93, but they want to preserve denominational schools.

So we have to see eye to eye on this issue. We don't agree on it. You can't eliminate constitutional guarantees and preserve them at the same time. There is something wrong there. It's one or the other. You'll say that we could have an Education Act that would protect religious instruction. I'm convinced that would be a good thing. Whatever happens, it's good to have an Education Act that provides for that.

Now what would you suggest?

Mr. Gary Stronach: In fact, there are two important points. First, you have the Education Act, then the curriculum. Religion is currently protected because there are prescribed periods that are devoted to religion as part of the curriculum.

If you're asking me to predict or forecast the future, I might see religious education protected in the schools, though without including the denominational status of the building itself. No one would be interested in the history of religions or of all religions. People want something more concrete. However, there would be room for Catholic education, Protestant education or other religious education. I believe we have to be more open to the options.

• 1950

This could be set out in the educational system, which takes precedence over the Education Act. You currently have to teach religion in the schools because it is set out in the curriculum.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: In conclusion, I still say it is possible to have so-called neutral or secular structures, while protecting religious education. It's possible. Our structures are currently denominational and they are so just for Catholics and Protestants, not for others. That should not be forgotten. So with respect to the other religions...

It was easy in 1867 because there were only those two groups. Today, however, there are more. Consequently, I feel the solution may be to have structures on which the state should base its law, while protecting the right to religious education. However, this will be another form of protection than the one we have right now.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin. We now go to Mr. Ménard for a brief remark.

Mr. Réal Ménard: My question has already been asked. I don't want to take up the committee's time.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Ménard. A brief remark by Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: No thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much. That completes your appearance. On behalf of the committee members, I would sincerely like to thank you for your presentation and for coming to meet with us in Ottawa. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gary Stronach: Thank you, Sir.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We now welcome the Citizens for the Constitutional Right to Denominational Schools. Please approach.

This group's brief was distributed this afternoon during the 3:30 sitting.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier (President, Citizens for the Constitutional Right to Denominational Schools): No, we delivered copies in both official languages to 180 Wellington Street yesterday. The brief contains an appendix entitled "Arguments". The English version of the appendix was delivered this afternoon, but the English and French copies of the brief were delivered yesterday to 180 Wellington Street. You should have the brief itself.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Both documents were distributed this afternoon.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Arguments is an appendix; it's not the brief. Some only have...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Yes. Ms. Morse-Chevrier, we are pleased to welcome you and Mr. LaPrairie to represent the Citizens for the Constitutional Right to Denominational Schools. Welcome to the Joint Committee. We thank you for appearing.

I imagine you understand the ground rules because I saw you arrive a little early. I'm going to ask you to limit your presentation to 10 minutes so that we can then have a question period during which the committee members will speak to you.

I believe you are going to make the presentation, Ms. Morse-Chevrier. We're listening.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, but I have searched through all my papers and I can't find the brief. I don't have it. I only have the part that you call...

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin (Shawinigan, Lib.)): The brief is being photocopied. We're going to distribute it to you.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: The appendix was distributed.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, I have the appendix. It's the brief I don't have.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: As I just said, it is being photocopied. You'll get it.

• 1955

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are going to listen to your presentation and I'm going to ask the committee clerk to ensure the briefs are distributed as soon as possible.

Ms. Morse-Chevrier, the floor is yours.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Paradis. Senators and members, as President of the Citizens for the Constitutional Right to Denominational Schools, I will be addressing this question from the Quebec Catholic parents' point of view.

We are pleased to have this opportunity to let our voices be heard on a subject that concerns us so intimately and which also directly concerns all the children, adolescents, parents and grand- parents of our province, as well as the whole population. The question before us concerns the very foundations of our province from within one of its institutions that is most central to its culture, its religious beliefs, its social mores, and its future orientation.

The Catholic school system in Quebec was developed by religious orders which are almost absent now from the public system but still present in the private schools of Quebec. These Catholic private schools are the preferred choice of the elite of the province because of the continuing academic excellence that maintains their reputations.

My first argument is as follows: denominational schools are the choice of the majority. The public school system in Quebec is also largely Catholic because of the status of schools which parents must decide. Hence since 1977, whenever a new school is opened, parents must vote on that school's status, as to whether they wish it to be Catholic or not. This parental decision is reviewed every five years by the Catholic Committee of the Ministry of Education; in addition every school is free to ask, at any time, for a change to non-denominational status. It is therefore clear that the process is open and democratic, and that parents are obliged to state clearly whether or no they want their school to be Catholic.

Since the inception of this procedure, 95 percent of Quebec's 2,500 Catholic schools have opted to retain their denominational status. Also, when the votes are counted, parents vote in favour of Catholic schools at a rate of 75 percent to 90 percent.

Religious education itself, is also subjected to a similar procedure. At the beginning of each school year, parents are required to choose "moral and religious education" or "moral education" without religion for their child. For the province as a whole, 80.6 percent of parents choose "moral and religious education". Even within Montreal itself, where the population is more diversified, there are still over 70 percent of parents who choose the religious alternative.

It is therefore clear that for over 20 years now, Quebec parents have been steadfastly choosing, in the most democratic manner, to have religious and denominational schools. It is a parental choice to transmit the faith through the education system. This choice is altogether legitimate.

In addition to all this, the teachers themselves are not required to teach religious education but have the option for conscientious objection. The school boards make no religious stipulation when they hire teachers. There is therefore no discrimination in that regard, even though the denominational character of the schools would be greatly enhanced by such a stipulation, as is the case in the Catholic school boards of Ontario.

My second argument concerns democratic choices for a modern nation. It would be an error to state that, because Quebec Catholics are lax in the actual practice of their faith, religion should henceforth be removed from the school to satisfy the idea of modernization that is so dear to the promoters of a non- denominational school system. As it stands now, with the constitutional protections which Quebec's Catholic schools enjoy, the democratic process is respected and the majority of families have the denominational schools they want; as for the others, there is no imposition of religious content on their children.

Nothing has ever prevented, and nothing now prevents Quebeckers unaffiliated with any religion from organizing a school system to their liking. Of course it would be a little more difficult for them as they represent a minority of approximately 20 percent of the population. However as Catholics we welcome this option for them as it exists under the present system, as a healthy and desirable one. The clearer the choice, the more people of both types of beliefs or orientations are able to live out their chosen values from within their school system. There is room for both, and it is this vision that best reflects our identity as an open and tolerant people.

In a society that considers itself pluralistic and respectful of individual rights, we find ourselves in an unjust situation regarding the amendment proposed by the Quebec government.

• 2000

Not only will minorities, particularly Protestant minorities, lose their denominational rights when the constitutional protections they were guaranteed are withdrawn from them, but even the Catholic majority will lose the right to profess their religion or their religious beliefs within the schools.

Yet our schools are not only an extension of family life, but they are also the privileged forum for social integration and hence a place that helps define Quebeckers as a people. As families, and as a people, the parent of the future generation of Quebeckers has repeatedly and clearly chosen Catholic education for their children.

There are those who are ideologically uncomfortable with the concept of a religious Quebec and who do not feel they are modern enough if their education is based on the Christian faith or on schools affiliated with a Church. These people do not reflect the concerns or the choices of the vast majority of Quebec parents. These people would impose their ideology on the whole of Quebec society, thereby depriving parents, without their knowledge, of their right to educate their children in the Christian faith, depriving them as well of the educational establishments which reflect their values and their religious affiliation, and they would do this by removing their constitutional guarantees.

My third point concerns the enshrined right to religion. At this point we need to state once again that it is not up to the state, the politicians, the religious leaders, nor even the teachers to judge for parents and their children whether or not the latter should be granted a denominational school system and Catholic instruction in the schools. One will hear the following types of comments from the proponents of a secularized school system: "the children can't even make the sign of the cross when they start school" or "the children make their First Communion and then are never again seen at Mass" or "the parents neither know nor practice their faith". Whether or not the above is true, is irrelevant. As long as the parents continue to choose denominational schools and religious instruction for their children within these schools, no one has the right to deprive them of it as it is a right that was acquired by their ancestors and has been exercise continuously ever since.

Parents have the necessary discernment and the responsibility to exercise their freedom to choose in this area. The Catholic Church specifically recognizes parents as the foremost educators of their children, all other educators are in loco parentis and as such they must respect the educational orientation chosen by the parents. The Church states in addition that the State must allow parents to have schools according to their faith.

The bishops of Quebec have always supported parents' right to denominational schools and Catholic religious instruction. The exercise of this right in the public school system in Quebec is only possible because of section 93 of the Constitution.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Morse-Chevrier, may I ask you to finish as quickly as possible so that the committee members can have the time to ask you questions?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes, of course. So do you want me to continue?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I would like you to summarize the rest of your presentation.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Well, I'm going to read the next paragraph because it is fairly important.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): All right.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: As my colleague said, since you have not received the brief, it is important that you hear it in full.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We have allocated approximately 40 minutes to each group. If we want the committee members to be able to ask you questions, it would be appreciated if you could summarize the main points of your brief.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Without section 93, Catholic and Protestant schools within the public system, despite the fact that they represent the choice and the religious beliefs of the vast majority of Quebeckers, would be considered discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (sections 2 and 15) and could therefore no longer continue to exist without some special provision being made to withdraw them from the application of these two sections (notwithstanding clause).

Quebec has already had to invoke this clause to protect religious practices in schools that are not explicitly covered under section 93. It is therefore obvious that this need would be all the greater if the vast majority of our schools did not come under this constitutional protection.

When the Charter was added to the Constitution in 1982, it contained a section, section 29, that confirmed the constitutional protections contained in section 93, indicating that the political will existed to support these constitutional protections.

• 2005

In 1982, this showed there was the political will to support this constitutional protection. If the constitutional protection of section 93 disappears, section 29 of the Canadian Charter will also become inoperative. Hence, the Canadian Charter which at its inception had the effect of reinforcing constitutional beliefs and rights entrenched in the Constitution could be used to oppose those rights.

Sections 2 and 15 would thus be used against the constitutional denominational rights, whereas the initial objective of the Charter was to support those rights. In our view, this would be a legal, political and constitutional aberration.

Section 93, Catholic denominational protection for the whole province: Although it is said that it is mainly Quebec City and Montreal that are protected with regard to Catholic education and schools, this right is in effect extended to the rest of the province. Second, it must be recognized that Montreal and Quebec City represent a large proportion of the Catholic school clientele of the province—more than 50 percent—who are entitled to Catholic schools under section 93.

Thus, granting this protection to Montreal and Quebec City also means granting protection to a large portion of the population. That protection is also in effect extended into the regions of the province because the Quebec government would be ill- advised to grant Montreal and Quebec City Catholic schools without granting them to the other regions as well.

We are also seeking linguistic school boards everywhere, even if section 93 is maintained. The Quebec government has requested this amendment to introduce linguistic school boards throughout the province. However, this reason is no longer valid today. The Quebec government has passed Bill 109, which provides for the introduction of linguistic school boards everywhere, whether the amendment to section 93 is passed or not.

We therefore feel the request is no longer valid since the Quebec government has found a solution which satisfies both section 93 and its own desire to introduce a single type of school board, a non-denominational linguistic type, throughout the province.

We therefore think the Quebec government should withdraw its request and that the Canadian government should acknowledge that it is invalid as a result of the legislative changes made to the Quebec Education Act (Bill 109) since the resolution requesting the amendment to section 93 was tabled.

Point 6: Protecting the schools themselves. In this point we want to say that section 93 protects the schools to a far greater degree than the school boards.

Although we have stated why there is not enough protection for the schools boards to change this section, as it is mainly the denominational schools that enjoy this protection, they will be threatened if section 93 is waived.

So it is clear that the entire population wants to preserve these denominational schools. It is also clear that, with section 93, the denominational schools boards will disappear. So this is not protection for denominational school boards.

The Quebec government is required to introduce an administrative authority which they call denominational committees within the linguistic schools boards and which will meet the requirements of the Supreme Court, which has ruled that denominational schools should be managed and maintained by administrative authorities, but that they not necessarily be school boards.

Section 93 clearly protects schools and religious education, not school boards.

Consequently, waiving section 93 means withdrawing protection for the denominational status of schools and withdrawing the right to religious education in the schools. Preserving section 93, however, leaves untouched the Quebec government's rights regarding the establishment of linguistic school boards. At most, it will require the Quebec government to establish denominational committees within the linguistic school boards.

I would now like to address the weak point, which is the need for religious education in schools. We think we can say that it is quite normal for parents to expect a school to provide assistance in the matter of religious education at school. Young children starting school often ask religious, metaphysical and philosophical questions. Parents often feel unable to answer their children's questions and feel a need for trained teachers to help them.

• 2010

They also, and mainly, want programs that are approved by the Catholic Committee on which they can rely to give their children a proper education.

We feel that children are entitled to this instruction which transmits their Christian heritage. This religious education is part of a person's overall training and can affect one's world view, life, value systems and, if you take it further, can affect all families and all of Quebec society since it is the cultural and religious identity of a people that is in question here.

Point 8 concerns the real Catholic nature of the schools. Some would say that Catholic schools are no longer truly Catholic. It is true that the schools have been emptied of many of their religious characteristics, but it is nevertheless a fact that the children benefit from many hours of religious instruction per year over a period of 11 years. They are also provided with pastoral services stemming from a collaboration between the schools themselves and the parish or the dioceses, and which provide the children with the basic elements of the Christian and Catholic faith. Consequently, withdrawing these constitutional rights would endanger those programs and services which we consider fundamentally important.

In summary, the amendment to section 93 is neither necessary nor desirable. The installation of language-based school boards throughout the province can proceed without such an amendment. On the other hand, the withdrawal of the protection afforded by section 93 would result in the withdrawal of the denominational status of our schools, of religious instruction and of pastoral services.

However, the parents want to preserve these rights, which are entirely legitimate. They show this desire by their actions each time they vote for the denominational status of their schools or for religious instruction for their children.

We believe that you, as members of the Canadian government, have a responsibility as legislators to each and every citizen of this country, and to each and every citizen of Quebec. You have no responsibility toward the Government of Quebec. Federal members are not elected by the Government of Quebec; they are elected by the citizens of Quebec. So they are directly accountable to us, the parents, and to the children who are future voters.

This is why we urge you to stand firm against political pressure from the Quebec government, which wants to change the Constitution and eliminate these constitutional rights which were acquired by our ancestors. In doing so, you will be preserving democracy in our country by ensuring that this protection remains entrenched in the Constitution.

Thank you for your attention.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Ms. Morse-Chevrier.

[English]

We'll proceed with the first intervention by Jason Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you.

Madame, as you know, the proponents of the amendment have argued that access to confessional school education would continue because of the inclusion of the “notwithstanding” protection in Bill 109, and that therefore denominational school rights would not be undermined through this amendment. This, for instance, was the testimony of the group that appeared just before you, which I know you heard.

How do you respond to the argument that section 93 protection is redundant because it's already inherent in Bill 109's invocation of the notwithstanding clause?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: First, with regard to the notwithstanding clause, in 1994, the last time it was invoked by the Quebec government, the group of parents here in this room, which represents parents from this area, were very instrumental in lobbying the provincial government to reiterate the application of the notwithstanding clause to protect the confessional rights outside of Montreal and Quebec.

Thousands of faxes were sent to the provincial government. At that time, even the Liberal government didn't seem that willing to pass the notwithstanding clause, and the Parti Québécois voted en bloc against it. Today the same Parti Québécois is telling us that they are in favour of denominational schools. I haven't heard them say that they are going to invoke the notwithstanding clause, mind you, but they do say that they are in favour of maintaining confessional schools. We personally doubt it.

When you look at other questions—for example the French language rights in Ontario presently—journalists are saying well, Franco-Ontarians should have their linguistic rights entrenched in the Constitution. And here in Quebec we're saying let's get rid of our entrenched rights for religion, which is completely the opposite.

• 2015

Even with the ruling on the referendum law, I was hearing on the radio yesterday that it was considered une situation grave to have to use the notwithstanding clause. It's supposed to be an exceptional measure. We have rights that are entrenched in the Constitution; we shouldn't just throw them away and then bring in a notwithstanding clause each time.

Each time, the parents would have to lobby. It's not that easy, because as parents we always have to go through the schools. Well, who are the schools controlled by? They're controlled by the Ministry of Education, and therefore by the government. If the government doesn't want to bring in the notwithstanding clause, it's very difficult for a parent, for example, to distribute materials throughout a school and say, everybody, let's get together and go and put pressure on to have this notwithstanding clause if the ministry or the government is not in favour of that. If they're behind you, fine. If they're not, you don't really have that many options of how to go about doing that.

Mr. Jason Kenney: As you know, Minister Dion and the federal government have argued that there is an overwhelming social consensus in favour of the proposed amendment. For the record, was your group or were associated groups consulted by the Quebec National Assembly during its consideration of this amendment? To what extent do you think this alleged consensus actually exists in Quebec?

Mrs. Jean Morse-Chevrier: First of all, this specific group was formed on April 22, therefore after the Quebec government submitted its request.

Mind you, there are numbers of people here in the room who did submit a brief to the Quebec government during the estates-general of education with regard to the issue of confessionality in the schools, but under other organizations. We do know that a petition of 235,000 names was submitted and that the government of Quebec never made itself available to receive by parents in Quebec a petition that specifically stated that they were against the amendment to section 93.

However, what I would like to point out is it might not seem like there are thousands of us here, and we just represent a small group in this province, but what I would maintain is 99% of parents in this province have no idea that losing the protection of section 93 could mean losing Catholic schools.

The only thing, with maybe one or two exceptions, that was reported in the French paper when the debate was going on in the National Assembly was whether English rights are being respected or not and whether or not we were going to have linguistic school boards. Never was the question of denominational status of the schools treated, or religious education within the schools, whether there was going to be an effect of changing the Constitution on these rights.

If you talk to any parent on the street, they have no idea. To them, it is just a question of linguistic school boards. The menace, the risk to Catholic schools, to Catholic schooling, is not even an issue. If you took a poll today among Quebeckers, probably they would only see it in terms of linguistic school boards, and who knows how they would vote, depending on how the question was posed.

In any case, the fact of the matter remains that they do manifest their desire every year with their children. In fact, we're very anxious with regard to the follow-up that was mentioned by the previous group, because they spoke about the fact that the Quebec schools will have to state what their denominational status will be in two years' time.

[Translation]

The Minister of Education, Pauline Marois said that, in two years, the schools will have to justify what their confessional status means and, as we saw with the previous group, how that would be done. That's not clear, but they mentioned the governing bodies that will replace the school committees and orientation committees currently in place in the schools and that must rule on the schools' denominational status. But parents don't form the majority on the governing bodies. At most, only half of the members of the governing bodies will be parents.

So through the governing bodies, it won't really be the parents who rule on the denominational status of the schools. However, if all the school's parents are asked to vote, that's something else. Currently, parents are not required to vote every five years on their school's denominational status. They have the choice to change their denominational status if they wish. So requiring them to justify their denominational status and to vote on that status, perhaps in governing bodies where they are not even in the majority would place new pressure on them. In the meantime, expert committees are being established to decide what place religious education should have in the schools.

• 2020

It can readily be seen that the objective is to slowly undermine denominational rights within the school system. Moreover, Minister Marois told the parliamentary committee, in response to one of the speakers, that she agreed with the speaker who was in favour of completely secularizing the school system. We also know that the Parti Québécois education policy has long been in favour of secularizing the education system. So it's not that surprising that it should take measures to achieve its goal.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Section 93 states, first of all, that the provinces have exclusive authority over education.

Second, in subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), section 93 states that denominational rights existing at the time of Confederation remain intact and that all the Quebec provincial education statutes must accommodate denominational rights and privileges. These are collective rights, which are very rare in our Canadian Constitution. There are only two types of collective rights: Aboriginal rights and the rights of Catholic and Protestant groups.

Third, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply because section 93 is a code in itself and because the denominational guarantees are not subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Furthermore, if I properly understand your viewpoint, which is entirely respectable, you are saying: it's the system that we want and, consequently, you must vote against the resolution before you. Is that correct?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes. In any case, the system, as the Department proposes, provides for the denominational status of schools and for the administrative authorities called governing bodies and, in that way, it meets the requirements of the Supreme Court. We therefore feel that this is an act that enables denominational status to work.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Section 93, as drafted and interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in decisions rendered virtually every year, meets the needs of Quebeckers in general.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: In linguistic terms, are you for or against language-based schools? What you say about denominational rights is very clear: you are in favour of the present system. But as regards language, French and English?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: A division along linguistic lines?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Do you have any view on that?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: No. Our group has not stated the position on that question and I personally don't feel able to do so.

I see that, thus far, there has been a division of schools on the basis of language and that that has worked well. However, I don't see exactly where you're headed with that question.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I simply want to know what you want. I think that's very clear.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: In linguistic terms, do you have any specific concerns?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: If we take the example of Ontario, where there are Catholic Francophone, public Francophone, Catholic Anglophone and non-Catholic Anglophone systems, I think we clearly can have a choice. I'm not saying we absolutely have to adopt the Ontario model, but they find that a division along language lines can be practical.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I can perfectly understand that point of view, which can be very easily defended. However, there are two or three arguments in play and we have to choose.

The last, that was in 1867, I believe. Section 93 suited the needs of the provinces at the time very well. Today, however, society has obviously become more pluralistic, and other religions feel that, if Catholics and Protestants have denominational rights, there is no reason they shouldn't as well.

• 2025

I believe that, as regards denominational rights, if we favour certain Catholic and religious groups, we also have to protect the others.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: To answer that...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I mean, for example, Jews, ethnic groups and so on.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: But is there anything in the act right now that prevents denominational schools for other religions from existing?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: No, it's very clearly stated that we can have Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist and other schools. However, the only two groups that have denominational rights are Catholics and Protestants.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes, but there is nothing preventing others from exercising such a right.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Furthermore, the Catholic Church declares that the State has a duty to meet the requests of parents who wish to have schools that respect their Catholic faith and who want to maintain and manage them. I believe the Church's position is consistent with the position we currently have in Quebec, with the Constitution and the Charter as they are and as they are currently used and implemented.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I understand you perfectly well on that point.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Beaudoin, with your permission...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Just a minute. At some point the State must nevertheless consider that, if it respects the denominational rights of Catholics and Protestants—and according to you, that's clearly what the people want—why would it not also protect the religious rights of other religions in the name of justice?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes, but as I was telling you...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: And they can do it!

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: And besides, that is also the position of the Church, which is in favour of a pluralistic school system. The Church is opposed to any educational monopoly. The Church is in favour of a choice in this area so that people can truly practise their religious values within the family and also within their institutions.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Your conclusion is clear: the present system is fundamentally good; it meets fundamental needs and we want to keep it.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: That's correct.

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

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: And it respects the public's wishes.

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I want to say hello to the parents who are with you.

I won't conceal the fact that I rather disagree, in a friendly way, with the view you express. It seems to me you have taken little account of the historic roots of this debate in Quebec society. At first, I thought you were a Quebec coalition, but you are undoubtedly more of a pan-Canadian coalition, which does not weaken your arguments, but I would like you to clarify that for me.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: We are not a pan-Canadian group.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are a Quebec group?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: We are simply a regional Quebec group, from western Quebec.

Mr. Réal Ménard: So you represent Quebec parents.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: That is correct.

Mr. Réal Ménard: When you say that 99 percent of parents are not always informed and that you feel you have the majority of parents behind you, I'm willing to believe that, but you must know that the last witness told us exactly the opposite and had the figures to back it up. So I'm sure you will agree that the Fédération des comités de parents, a Quebec federation, said it was in favour of the amendment before us.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes, but I don't believe they said that parents were uninformed about the threat the amendment represents for the schools.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's not my question.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: That's what I said.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, okay.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: I didn't say that parents were poorly informed about everything.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You said that this represented a threat for the schools, and that is an unfortunate judgment because it is consistent with your position, which I respect. However, you must admit that, in Canada as we speak, there are very substantial bodies, including federations of parents, that are in favour of the resolution.

Another major stakeholder that I would bring to your attention is the Quebec Conference of Bishops, which is fairly important.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: What did the Quebec Conference of Bishops say?

Mr. Réal Ménard: They said they were in favour of the establishment of linguistic school boards. The question I want to put to you...

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: We aren't opposed to it either.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but consider...

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: We aren't against it either.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I nevertheless want to ask you a question. I personally recognize the right of any individual—and I'm going to fight for that, you can be sure—to practise his religion. Everyone has the right to his or her faith. Senator Beaudoin emphasized that we live in a much more pluralistic society than in the nineteenth century and we can agree on that. The religious world is more complex and we have a certain number of denominations that were not represented.

However, I don't follow your reasoning very well and I don't agree—and I believe my party would hold the same view—when you say that linguistic school boards will prevent you from professing your faith and adopting a religious Catholic or Protestant approach in the schools. In what way will this prevent you from doing that? Of course, that's no longer constitutionally guaranteed.

I will let you answer.

• 2030

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: We didn't say we were opposed to linguistic school boards. We said we were opposed to the amendment to section 93. You can have linguistic school boards under section 93.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is difficult because that would result in an incoherent school system. That would mean a profusion of at least four or perhaps six school boards. That's what that means.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: But you introduced a bill, Bill 109, which provides for linguistic school boards with denominational committees and schools with Catholic status.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Well, what the bill provides...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard, this is your last remark.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'll stop there. You were much more generous with the last speaker, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): My generosity will stop at the end of your speech.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Well, the bill provides for the opportunity for parents who so wish to have a temporary denominational school that can be confirmed within three years. I find that very generous.

I agree with you when you say that a majority of parents want to see religious references in the schools. We see that in the public polls and I agree with you. However, that doesn't require a right to a denominational school board. That's the big difference.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: But that's not the subject on the table.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, that is what's on the table.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: You don't have to vote on whether the school boards will be linguistic or denominational. You just have to vote on whether or not to repeal section 93.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's the consequence.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Implementation in the province is a provincial not a federal matter.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard doesn't understand the debate.

Mr. Réal Ménard: The consequence—and I'll stop here, Mr. Chairman, because you are always stricter with me—is that linguistic school boards are going to be established in Quebec. That's the consequence of the vote we are going to have.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: You can have them in any case, whether you keep section 93 or not. You gave us the proof yourselves—not you personally, but all those who think as you do—by introducing Bill 109.

Did the Fédération des comités de parents, which appeared a little earlier, like the bishops and even the National Assembly, consider the effects of the amendment to section 93? This was proposed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and even under section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Claude Filion moreover said that he felt section 41 did not protect religious education in the schools and could even weigh against it, in the same way as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is to say that religious instruction must be provided in a manner consistent with each denomination if we want to grant it to Catholics and the Protestants.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's true.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Consequently, will there be a whole selection of schools or will that make schools secular? In fact, the risk is that they will become secular.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We agree.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Ménard. We're going to move on to the next speaker, Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have two questions to ask you which you can answer in whatever order suits you. I would like to thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Morse-Chevrier.

First I'm going to come back a bit to what Mr. Ménard said. I'm going to quote a letter that was submitted to us yesterday by Mr. Dion which is dated September 30, 1997 and signed by the Bishop of Baie-Comeau, Pierre Morissette, who is the president of the Quebec Conference of Bishops. I'm going to read the whole paragraph to give you the context.

However, we have not stated any position on measures that should be taken to make this change. The current discussions concern amendments to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Please note that the Conference has never come out in favour of repealing section 93. We know that other means than those contemplated by section 93 could have been used to make the desired change possible. However, the Conference has not objected to the choice resulting in the amendment of section 93. We have always been convinced that the choice of means was the responsibility of the political authorities.

I would like you to explain to us where you stand on this declaration by the Assemblée des évêques du Québec. That's my first question.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: I would just like to see whether we agree on what they're saying.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: They're saying that they are neither for nor against the amendment to section 93, if I understand it correctly.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Okay. They leave that to the political authorities.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's correct, to the political authorities.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Okay.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We could give you a copy of the letter, if you wish.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I come to the second question. I would like you to tell me a little about your organization because I didn't know it was formed after April 22. Who are you? How many members do you represent? How were you formed, etc.? Thank you.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: I'm going to answer the second question first because it's easier.

• 2035

We formed quite simply and quite spontaneously. We held a public meeting and we invited the parents of the region who were reacting to Quebec's request.

At that public meeting, we passed a resolution asking the Government of Canada to preserve section 93. Then we tried to obtain as much information as possible from lawyers to determine how this would affect Catholic schools and religious education. That's what mainly interested the parents.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: How many people are in your group?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: There were originally 45 of us who formed the committee.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: And to answer your question on the bishops' position, we respect the fact that they leave the matter to the legislators. I believe they made their position clear. They want to have Catholic schools and religious education in the schools. They are not legislators, but religious leaders who are defending the rights that form the basis of the Catholic Church's demands.

If we consider the documents of the Catholic Church starting with Vatican II, it does not say that there must be denominational school boards, but it clearly states that there must denominational schools and the means to manage them and maintain them, and that there must also be public funds used in maintaining those schools.

The State has a duty to ensure that the subsidies are paid, that religious education and the status of Catholic schools are respected. I therefore feel that the bishops, in their basic position, are completely reflecting the Church's concerns. The Church also states that pluralistic education is necessary, and I believe that the bishops respect this idea and accept the formation of linguistic school boards.

Furthermore, Mgr Turcotte told us at a parents meeting I attended that it was up to parents to make the necessary public demands over civil rights to maintain Catholic schools and that we must not wait for the Church to support us at every turn because we had to assume our responsibilities. That is also the Church's position.

As parents, we have a duty to defend Catholic schools. That's what we are doing today, and I see absolutely no contradiction between our position and that of the bishops.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: First I would like to congratulate Ms. Chevrier and Mr. LaPrairie as well as the parents who are here this evening.

This meeting is very important for us, particularly since we did not travel to Quebec. I must say you have stirred our interest and I am very pleased to be able to talk with the groups and individuals who are here at the hearing.

A while ago, I asked one group how it had reached the parents and whether it had already had the opportunity to speak before a committee. What is clear in my mind is that a petition was signed by only 165,000 persons, whereas Quebec has a population of six million.

Can you, who are parents, explain to me how you were approached and tell me whether you had the opportunity to express your views in your parent committee meetings to say whether you were for or against the amendment?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: In any case, not as regards the amendment to section 93 because the subject was never brought up in public. So, from that standpoint, although there was no contradiction between our position and that of the bishops, it would have been much easier for us as parents to reach other parent groups to inform them of the issues for Catholics if the bishops had taken a clear stand similar to our own.

If the bishops had clearly stated that the amendment to section 93 threatened Catholic schools, it would then have been possible to reach the Catholic population through the parishes, Catholic schools, Catholic groups, religious instruction and religious orders and to sensitize them to the subject. But that was very difficult without any clear stand by the bishops.

• 2040

When the bishops do not take a clear stand, it is very difficult to take action as Catholic lay persons in Quebec. I'm talking about Quebec in particular because it may be different in another cultural context. But in Quebec, religious leaders are very important.

So it's hard to mobilize the Catholic population and make it aware of the danger that this issue currently represents in the religious context of the Church. I feel a great deal of information and education work remains to be done. I also feel that a debate is necessary. I personally consulted experts on constitutional denominational schools in Alberta and Ontario, and I also consulted lawyers in Quebec. We feel our legal opinions are well founded. We therefore think a public debate on the real dangers facing us is necessary.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Perhaps the debate will have to take place. It seems to me understood that you are a group representing 35,000 people. Is that correct?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Not exactly. Our group is a local group, but we have joined the Coalition for Denominational Schools, which represents a larger number. I know they are going to make a presentation to your committee so I don't want to speak for them.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Senator Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Thank you for coming. I must say you are very eloquent.

You told us that you had joined the Coalition. Is that the Association of Catholic Parents?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: A number of members belong to the Coalition for Denominational Schools. The Association des parents catholiques du Québec is a member, as are the Mouvement scolaire confessionnel and the Juristes catholiques du Québec. I don't know all the member organizations. We are a member and the Table de concertation protestante pour l'éducation is a member. That's a coalition of Quebec groups.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Indeed. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that people always confuse the undenominationalization of school boards and with that of school. I believe a distinction has to be made at the outset. I would not generalize, and my colleagues will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the objections we have heard were not really over the undenominationalization of school boards, of the administrative structure, but rather over schools. Is that your case?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes, that's our case. This is always the problem that concerns parents. A school board is an administrative institution in that it has a certain control over our schools, over the funds that go to the schools and obviously over the management of the schools. We would prefer to have more control over teacher hiring, but, in the present system, we have the management, maintenance and control of schools, which represents a certain amount of power for Catholics in their own schools. It's enough.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I haven't taken that much time and I would ask you to allow me to ask one brief question.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): A brief final question, Senator.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: In light of what we've been told, it appears that the denominational status of all the schools would not change for two years. Is this what you understood from the Quebec government?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: That's what I understood as well, but, having said that, if section 93 is repealed, there will immediately be a lawsuit and the situation will change before the two years have elapsed. Here I'm relying on what happened in Ontario with the Zilberberg decision in 1988 and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association decision in 1990, which are cases which challenged the fact that there were religious practices and religious education in schools solely for Catholics. The courts held that this in fact violated the Charter, but that section 93 protected them. The moment section 93 is repealed, there will no longer be any protection.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator, we have to move on to the next speaker, Paul DeVillers.

• 2045

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I would like to return to the bishops question. Since the Conference of Bishops says it is satisfied with the measures or guarantees in place to protect religious education in Quebec, why are you or your group not satisfied?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: I'm not sure they said they were satisfied with the protection they would have without section 93. Otherwise they would agree.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I thought that's what they said, that they were satisfied with the provisions of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They said they were satisfied.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: All right. I wasn't at the press conference last Friday, but the journalists and others present reported that Mgr Turcotte said we would see in time how things turned out when the objection contained in the legal positions were raised. Exactly what legal points are they relying on in saying that section 41 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...

Mr. Paul DeVillers: And Bill 109, the Education Act.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: ... would offer them protection? From what I know of it, Mgr Turcotte acknowledged at the press conference on Friday that the legal opinions were divided on this point.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: They are quite clearly satisfied with Bill 109, section 41 of the Quebec Charter and section 23 of the Canadian Charter.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: But what clear legal opinions were they relying on when they said that?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I'm wondering that myself because they are, after all, religious leaders.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): You've talked about legal opinions since you began your presentation. Would you have copies to file with this committee? You say you obtained legal opinions. Could we have copies?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: I imagine so; I don't see why we couldn't provide them. I don't really know what the procedure is in this kind of case. Would it be preferable to ask the permission of the lawyer in question?

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Yes. We would like to have them and we are counting on you to send them to us.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: All right, if we have the lawyer's permission, we will send them to you tomorrow.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): You aren't required to do so. Thank you, Madam and Mr. DeVillers. The next speaker will be Mrs. Finestone.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I want to thank you very much.

I have two questions. First of all, have you met with your local member of the National Assembly? What have you told him? What has he said?

I also think it's wonderful to see a group of active citizens sitting behind you.

[Translation]

I congratulate you for the work you have done and for building such good support. Your spokeswoman is very competent, very eloquent, something I am not at this time of night.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: I would like to point out that, when the National Assembly was preparing to vote in the chamber on this matter, members of your committee sent documents by fax to our provincial representative and to the provincial government to express our opinion.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: But did you meet him?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: No, we didn't meet him at that time.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Don't you think that would have been a good idea, no matter whether it was passed or rejected?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Perhaps, but our effort was more at the federal level since, when our committee formed, the matter was already out of the provincial government's hands.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You said you represented only a few parents. I don't know how this committee, where discussions are held and decisions made, works. First, how many of you tried to become trustees and to be active in your schools? How many are actively involved and how many are not?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: I couldn't answer you for the moment.

• 2050

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm talking in general, actually. How many of the people you're working with have actually worked on a school committee? How do you know that your voice, as parents, will not be listened to? Why are you so concerned that section 41 will not give you the kind of religious education and religious school environment that seems to be indicated will be the case?

Not only do you make the case, you also point out how many different bureaucrats will be in place to make sure this happens: a confessional deputy minister, a Catholic committee and a Protestant committee in charge, a Catholic and Protestant committee from Montreal and Quebec City—just count the number of bureaucrats you're paying—confessional status for a school, and Catholic and Protestant religious instruction and pastoral services. There's someone in charge of all these aspects. So why are you so concerned as parents that you won't get your voices heard?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: To answer the first question, I think a lot of the parents here have been on school committees or are on school committees. Mr. Roland LaPrairie ran for a school director in his school board. I've been a member of school committees. I know there are parents here who are presently members of school committees. So the parents here are actively involved at their level.

Section 41 of the charter of Quebec doesn't specifically pertain to Christians, Catholics or Protestants, in any way, it just says parents have a right to moral or religious education in accord with their own beliefs in programs recognized by law in Quebec.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm sorry, then, I didn't place my question accurately.

The parents body or the administrative body will be able to decide every two or three years, as I understand it, the nature of that school—the confessional structure of that school. What makes you think there will not be the confessional Catholic school that presently exists?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Judicial challenges. Even if the law of Quebec continues to recognize those rights, they will be challenged before the courts by people who don't belong to those religious denominations. The province will be in the situation where it will have to have schools with programs of all religions and equal services for all religions in the province, or secularize the system.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Okay. That's in your defence in here.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: But there is, first of all, the use of the notwithstanding clause. You feel this is just the stepping stone to eradicate the whole thing and move to the secular board.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: As I said, the present government in power has made, as far as I know, no mention that it wishes to invoke the notwithstanding clause. The last time it voted against it. So it's not a very strong measure to base your religious rights on—a notwithstanding clause that has to be voted on every five years and all you need is a majority against it to get rid of all your religious rights completely. That means every five years you won't know whether you'll be maintaining your religious rights or not. It's not a very efficient way to run the school system.

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

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm sorry, there's one last question. I want to know if that's what Mr. Claude Filion said in his presentation as the president of the commission. Was that his concern, the notwithstanding clause?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: He was referring to article 41 and saying it didn't really give protection to Catholics.

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

Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I too want to congratulate the speaker and the parents who have come so late this evening and are listening so avidly to every word. Obviously they're very interested.

She was talking about how the amendment to section 93 came to public light, and I have a press release that goes back to February that announced the amendment. It went into the Quebec assembly in March and it was passed some three weeks later. I just tried to get the time sequence. It became an issue in the federal election in the sense that it was a preamble to the federal election. So that had some publicity as well.

You tell us—and I don't dispute this—you represent practically 80% of the Quebec population and 80% of the Quebec population feels as intensely as you. You said 99% of the parents across the province, who represent 80% of the population, feel intensely. Yet the Quebec legislature unanimously, in that period of time, passed this resolution. So it's as if there are two solitudes here. There's the public solitude of elected officials, representing all parties. Not one person as I understood it abstained. Nobody stood up—

• 2055

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Two people left the national assembly during the vote.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Two left.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Yes. The first vote.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: But then when they came back, because there was an amendment, that amendment was incorporated and then there was unanimity as I understand it. I'll stand corrected, because I haven't looked at the record, but I find it's as if.... We talk about two solitudes in Canada, but there seem to be to be two great solitudes in Quebec, which are the elected officials on the one hand and 80% of the population over here. How do you explain that?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: We feel the same way that you're presenting it, mind you. I don't know if I dare mention the media. For example, when we had our press conference in April on this issue and voiced our concerns, the English media picked it up and the media outside Quebec published it, but the French media showed no interest.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: That was before it was passed or just immediately after it was passed?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: That's just an example. That was after the resolution was presented to the federal government. There seemed to be a will on the part of the French media to make it just a linguistic issue with regard to linguistic school boards, because even during that period of time you quoted, February to April, in the English press, even in Montreal, there were articles saying this is a sham, there's been no consensus, the government has no mandate—that sort of article was in the Gazette. In the Toronto papers there were similar articles referring to the confessional issue or the denominational issue. But the French papers spoke almost uniquely of the question of linguistic school boards and whether the English in Quebec were going to have their rights under this new arrangement.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Is that the same on television as it was in print?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: I read the papers more than I watch television. I'm sure other people could answer that here. I think it was pretty much the same.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: You mean there were no discussions in the electronic media, on radio or television, about this event during this debate?

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: In the French language about the confessional aspect for the schools, for the maintenance of the schools, no.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: You should de-hire the media in Quebec.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: But you know it's like my associate here said, because of the fact that there wasn't any opposition, because the bishops of course were in agreement with the linguistic school boards and because it was presented just as a school board issue, it was very difficult to raise religious concerns. I know for a fact that there were press releases put out during that time by concerned groups that weren't picked up by the press.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: When I look at the resolution, the resolution only refers to the amendment that deletes paragraphs 1 to 4 of section 93 and says in effect that those sections do not apply to Quebec. That's the simple amendment. That's the simple two-liner that the Quebec legislature has put forward to us.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: And we're appalled. Really as people, as a population, as parents who stand to lose all our confessional rights, really and truly, we are appalled that all our provincial representatives have passed that so easily without really taking a closer look at what repercussions it would have on religious education in the schools.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Morse-Chevrier, I would like to congratulate your for the excellent quality of your presentation. On behalf of the committee members, I would also like to congratulate the parents who came here this evening. We appreciate their participation enormously. Thank you very much everyone of you.

The committee members will resume their work at 9:15 tomorrow morning in the room at the other end of the hall.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): I would remind the witnesses to send us their legal opinions.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): The Joint Chair is asking you, if possible, to send your legal opinions to the clerk of our committee.

Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: Of course. Thank you very much. I would like to thank you senators and members here present for receiving us, questioning us, listening to us closely and showing genuine interest in the parents' position. Thank you.

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

The meeting adjourned until 9:15 a.m. the next day.