SJQS Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 23, 1997

• 0926

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.)): Order! We are resuming our study of Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 concerning the Quebec School System pursuant to the Order of Reference of October 1, 1997.

Before we start, I will hear from Mrs. Sheila Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mister chairman, this is a very complex question for everyone. It is an emotional question and it is a question of human rights.

[English]

Given the fact that it is a complicated and difficult question and one in which every member around this table is interested—the well-being of the child as a first premise and the best of schooling as a second premise—I have asked from the very beginning that briefs be circulated to the members prior to hearings so that we have an opportunity to read the briefs and have a more enlightened exchange when the witnesses come before us.

I spoke to Alliance Quebec, for example, last night. Their brief has been here for two days. I have not received it. It is the minority English-speaking community's voice, one of a number of voices that we will hear from, and it would have been important for all members to have been able to read and study that brief so that we can ask the kinds of questions that can ensure the English-speaking community of Quebec that their school system will be effective.

I have spoken with the clerk, who was kind enough to advise me that these briefs left her office at 3 p.m. yesterday and supposedly went to our office. I checked with my office last night; I have checked again this morning. Those briefs are not in my office. It's not very helpful to any of us to be able to have an enlightened discussion—either the dissentient Catholic boards, the French Protestant boards, or the English-language boards.

I'd like to know what's happening with these documents, please.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Madam Clerk informs me that, as you mentioned, these briefs were sent to our offices yesterday afternoon.

Is there anyone who has received or has not received them?

Mr. Paul DeVillers, please.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): They arrived in my office between 8 o'clock last night and 7:30 this morning.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mrs. Jennings told me that she received it two days ago.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Yes, I received it two days ago.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: The clerk told me that she sent it yesterday afternoon at 3 p.m. How is it that she received it two days ago when it was sent only yesterday afternoon and that I have not received it at all?

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mrs. Martine Bresson): Did you receive it from my office?

• 0930

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I know that my assistant came to join me at the end of the day. Today is Thursday so it was at the end of the day on Tuesday, just before we left, and that he gave me a pile of briefs that included the one from Alliance Quebec. The only brief missing in terms of today's witnesses was the one from the Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park. All the others that were to be presented today were in that pile of briefs. I simply assumed that the envelope containing these briefs came from your office. However, you said they were sent only yesterday.

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

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): As Mrs. Jennings said, the clerk sent a series of eight to ten briefs from her office because it arrived with a memo from you, Madam Clerk, and I received on about October 21; I therefore received it the same day, Mr. Chairman.

However, I think Mrs. Finestone raises a good point I think it would be in everyone's interest if, in future, we could receive the briefs as quickly as possible.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Colleagues, we take note of your comments and we will try to improve the process as soon as possible.

Peter Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): I'd like to comment on this too. I understand that we were to have translations, and this is in French. If we have had this information, the briefs, for a day or two, I'd like to know why we could not have a translation for today.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Every group is advised not too many days in advance.

[Translation]

We just received the brief for this morning.

As for this morning's brief, Madam Clerk will ensure that each member has a copy. We take note of your comments about the distribution and the translation of the briefs, and, the tight deadlines we are given notwithstanding, we will try to improve the situation.

Mrs. Finestone.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know that this has been difficult for the clerk, and for you as the co-chairs. Seeing as how yesterday was kind of confusing, with all the names of the associations that were very similar and the difficulty of defining which document belonged to which group, given the timing of their appearance, I asked yesterday that we number the document related to the group being heard, or at least put the time on the document so that we can locate it and don't have to bother the clerks to try to find out which document is related to the group we're hearing. Seeing as how I've just received one document—it's not timed, I haven't looked and I don't know if that's the group appearing now or if it's the group that's coming in 45 minutes from now or this afternoon—it would be helpful if they were numbered, please.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): You have the agenda for today; perhaps we should add the estimated hour at which the groups are supposed to appear if that would help you Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That is something that could help us.

[English]

I think it is very important. This is not an ordinary hearing.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I agree. We take note of your observations and we may have a meeting with the clerks to ensure that everything runs as smoothly as possible.

On that, let me welcome the group before us, the Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park, represented by Mr. Gilbert Dionne, president, Mrs. Denise Lucier, Director general, and Mr. Louis Coallier, legal counsel for the school board. Welcome to our Joint Committee.

We will give you a maximum of about ten minutes to make your presentation and then move on to a question period from the Committee members.

• 0935

I remind members of the Committee that if most of them want to be heard they must limit their addresses to about two minutes. I would ask for cooperation so that the time allotted to questions and observations not be monopolized by one or two or three, but rather that as many people as possible around this table may express themselves. I think that is important.

Mrs. Lavoie-Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux (Quebec, PC): Mr. Chairman, we have not received the brief and now you tell us that we have 10 minutes. I have participated in commissions and parliamentary Committees. Normally, when people come to present a paper that they have spent a lot of time preparing, we give them 20 minutes. With 10 minutes, they won't even have time to read it.

As for the time for questions, I think I agree with you: let's not drag it on. But you say that we have to limit ourselves to two minutes. How long was your intervention? And it wasn't even on the briefs and the presentation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Madam senator, first let me say, in fairness to all groups that come before us that this not our first session. It is the time we had agreed to give to the other groups.

Secondly, I repeat that given the number of members that make up this Joint Committee and all the parties represented in the House of Commons, if we want all members to express themselves the interventions must be as brief as possible.

In that spirit, it is important that the majority of members be able to express themselves and ask our guests questions.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Mr. Chairman, I find that the government has pushed us enough with this deadline of November 7. I found out yesterday that I had to be here Friday and Monday. You will have peace because I will not be here. I have other commitments. In Quebec, they have found an expression, and I won't tell you for whom: stop rushing us so that we don't have time to ... It's enough with the time limit. At least give us time to breathe when we have people here.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. Lavoie-Roux, I'm not the one who set the date for submitting our report. You know the House of Commons voted to have the report tabled on November 7 and you know that the Senate voted for the same thing. We are, therefore, stuck with that date.

We will immediately hear form the group in front on us. You have the floor.

Mr. Gilbert Dionne (President, Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park): I thank the Committee for seeing us today and I regret that we did not have time to table our brief so that people around the table could read it. Unfortunately, we were told only yesterday afternoon that we were to present it this morning.

[English]

We also want to apologize for not having translated this document. The deadline was very short.

[Translation]

The Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park covers the territory of the city of Greenfield Park, which has a population of about 20,000 and is located about three miles outside of Montreal. We have 1,800 students. It is a dissentient school board that has always exercised that right and that has been continuously active. It is a school board that, under Act 109, is dissolved and integrated into two school boards.

Because time is very short, it will immediately give the floor to Mr. Coallier, from the firm of Guy & Gilbert, who will present the position of the Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park.

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

Mr. Louis Coallier (Legal Counsel, Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park): I would like to present certain facts.

First, it is inaccurate to pretend that there has been a consensus, as the Quebec government pretends.

• 0940

I also submit that there is especially an absence of consensus among the groups affected by the repeal of Section 93 of the Constitution Act, among groups affected generally and especially in Greenfield Park, where a petition with 4,000 names was obtained from which came a large consensus to maintain the dissentient denominational structure of the school board.

Second, we deplore, since we are talking about the individual rights of parents, the absence of popular consultation such as a referendum, as has been the case for example in Newfoundland.

There is also an element that must not be forgotten and that is of overriding importance. Except in terms of the repeal of Section 125 of the Act on Public Instruction and the order on the distribution of the school boards, insofar as the dissentient school board is concerned, it is not necessary to repeal Section 93.

Another overriding point must be brought to light. One of the primary stakes in the repeal of Section 93 and the introduction of linguistic school boards in the Montreal area is a linguistic one.

I have received a copy of a confidential document, a memorandum to the Conseil des ministres, which appears to be signed by the Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, and that was sent to the Conseil des ministres on February 21, 1987. This memorandum was not to be made available to the public. I cannot certify that the document is authentic but the person who gave it to me assured me that she had not altered of modified it except by underlining it or adding notes referring to other parts. I would like to quote an excerpt from this memorandum from Minister Pauline Marois.

Nevertheless it is in the metropolitan area that the changes will be the greatest and the most widely felt. The main stake in this for the Montreal area is the ability to put in place a school organization that will help as much as possible to integrate immigrants into the francophone community.

We therefore submit to you that, contrary to what has been said or reported in some media, for the Quebec government, the stake is a linguistic one.

If you wish, I can give you a copy of this memorandum.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Agreed. You may table it. Madam Clerk, there is a document to be tabled, a copy of a memorandum.

Mr. Louis Coallier: I repeat that unfortunately I cannot certify its authenticity, except that the person who gave it to me has assured me that except for the underlining and a few marginal notes she had not altered it.

We are also asking ourselves certain questions that are almost of a moral nature regarding the current process. Why repeal the exercise of dissidence? Is the exercise of dissidence a socially unacceptable process? We submit that it is not. Is the exercise of dissidence a morally unacceptable process? We submit that it is not.

We are respectfully of the opinion that the federal government has a type of fiduciary obligation under the Constitution to maintain the protections granted to minorities. If we use reductio ad absurdum and start with the reasoning of the Quebec government, even if there is a consensus among the majority—I have already indicated to you that we believe that there is no consensus and that one cannot pretend there is one—does the federal government not have an obligation to refuse to ratify a proposal presented by the majority of a province that demands the repeal of constitutional rights granted to the minority of a province?

• 0945

If one follows the reasoning developed before you, any majority in a province can rightly ask the federal government to repeal the rights enshrined in the Constitution that benefit a minority. It therefore seems to us that the current process is flawed and dangerous by its very nature. We also wonder why the Quebec government wants to create linguistic ghettos in education.

Another aspect of our intervention is that the Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park today tabled in the Superior Court in the district of Montreal an action, a recourse to declare unconstitutional and inapplicable to itself the repeal of Section 125 of the Act on Public Instruction and the order that in effect dissolves the Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park within the anglophone and francophone linguistic school boards located on the same territory.

This judicial recourse, following an agreement with the prosecutor for the Quebec government, will be heard on substance next November 24th and 25th. Therefore, in about three months a court will deliberate on the constitutionality of the Act on Public Instruction as it applies to Section 93 of the Constitution.

We also wonder about the province of Quebec's and the Quebec government's refusal to appear before your Committee. We are extremely worried about the haste in the amendment process. The order that created the restructuring of the school boards and that confirmed the dissolution of the Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park was adopted last August 27th.

Are the tight deadlines imposed from the start there to prevent other judicial recourses or render any judicial recourse ineffective, as seems to be the case for the one we have undertaken?

There is also the question of constitutionally acquired rights, which is certainly an interesting thing to debate since the school board has been continuously active since 1934. In addition, I have been told that a representative of Minister Pauline Marois, faced with a reproach because of the shortening of the deadlines and the haste in the process of setting up linguistic school boards, candidly admitted to two representatives of the school board that the minister wanted to move quickly because she was afraid it would not happen otherwise.

We also wonder about the fact that Quebec is speeding up the recourse by the school board that was taken a few days after the adoption of the order in September and we note that Quebec has not respected the authority of the courts.

• 0950

We are forced to conclude that when it suits Quebec, the province tries to base itself on the 1993 reference to the Supreme Court to justify its process and that when it does not suit it, an amicus curiae must be named before the Supreme Court.

In conclusion I would like to make a few additional comments. We have read the memorandum from the Quebec Association of French Protestant School Communities that, in our opinion, is an excellent one and that also has a little more scope than ours since our only aim is the protection of the school board. Our interests are therefore a little more limited but we agree with the memorandum of the Quebec Association of French Protestant School Communities presented to you yesterday or the day before yesterday by Mr. Aubut.

We also wish, in the light of our fears related to the acceleration of the process and the complacency of Ottawa to satisfy Quebec in this area, to express to you our surprise regarding the complacency of Minister Dion towards Quebec's demands and the haste in the hearings on a constitutional issue as important and as basic as this one.

Without wishing to criticize this Committee, we are forced to conclude that its hearings have a certain air of improvisation. We learned the exact time yesterday, at the end of the morning, and there were still some negotiations to determine a what hour we were to come before you. We did not have adequate preparation time.

This Committee is going full steam to meet the requirements of the province of Quebec, which is asking the federal government to repeal a constitutional provision that protects minorities. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much for your presentation. We will move on to a question period.

[English]

Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib.): On a point of order, to the witness. If the witnesses feel they haven't had adequate time to prepare, it's my view they should be able to redo their brief and get it to us early next week. That way we will have any information they can't supply to us today before we take our decision. I think that should be general advice to any witnesses or groups, so they feel all their viewpoints are expressed in writing. I can assure them, speaking from our side, that we will read all those briefs very carefully.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): It is a perfectly reasonable remark, Senator Grafstein.

If you wish to submit a more complete memorandum at the beginning of next week, feel free to do so.

We will now move on the question period.

Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much for your brief.

Do you believe linguistic schools can operate in Quebec for those who wish it, without having to extinguish section 93 for Quebec?

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Coallier: The Act as it exists, The Act on Public Instruction as modified by bill 109, includes exercising the right to dissidence until Section 93 is repealed.

Our judicial recourse is that one cannot repeal the result of an exercise of dissidence, which is therefore the school board. However, the government of Quebec has kept, in the Act on Public Instruction, clauses that allow the exercise of the right to dissidence in the future. These clauses will automatically be repealed when Section 93 will be repealed, but the Act as it exists, except for the dissolution of the school board, can perfectly be applied without repealing Section 93. It is not necessary to repeal Section 93.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Are you and your group convinced that the protection afforded your education rights now by section 93 will, after this extinguishment, be guaranteed by the Quebec government, which does not support the 1982 Constitution it references?

• 0955

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Coallier: The answer is that already, at a time when Section 93 has not been repealed, an order has been adopted that makes provision for our dissolution on July 1, 1998.

Our recourse currently before the courts is based on Section 93. The day you repeal it, you will complicate our chances of success considerably.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Our witnesses may be able to, if they so wish, rework their briefs. They cannot change that of the Conseil des ministres. I want to congratulate them on their network because, on the face of it, it seems completely in accord with what we are used to seeing in such circles. I say this by proxy since I have never sat on it myself.

I would like to make two comments and ask one question if I may. First, you will agree that there is a coalition of 43 organizations that reflects both the forces in the field of education and those from all other fields.

When you say that there is no consensus, I would tend to say that there is no unanimity. I agree with you on that. I hear your concerns this morning. However, we are not in a situation where there has been no debate.

The courts have overturned two bills. As early as 1965, there was a recommendation in the Parent report along the lines of linguistic school boards. You must recognize that this debate has deep roots in Quebec society. I can understand that you, as a dissentient school board, feel threatened in terms of a right you are currently exercising, but I cannot agree with you when you say that it is something about which there has been no debate and no consensus.

You know very well that as soon as the legislator wants to establish linguistic school boards, something must be done with Section 93. Otherwise, the school system would be a tangle of school boards. There could possibly be six school boards in Montreal and in Quebec. That is what the legislator wants to remedy.

Is what is most important to you that there be a coherent school system in Quebec within which, I remind you, you could, in your educational project, have religious and denominational reference points? Do you agree that the Marois Act allows for that within the educational project? Do you agree with me on that?

Mr. Louis Coallier: No, because the Marois Act dissolves us and forces us to start the dissidence process over again until Section 93 is repealed.

Giving someone rights, repealing them every five years and forcing people to again set up a structure in the current complexity of our social system is a denial of the right to dissidence.

In 1867, when we wanted to exercise our right to dissidence, we took a barn, put a steeple on it, wooden tables inside, and a teacher in front. We had a school. Now, it's a lot more complicated.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But there is a fundamental difference. It may have made sense in the 19th century, and even up to the middle of the 20th century, that two religious denominations had special rights. But nowadays, on what principle would we base that? Do you agree that Quebec is now considerably more pluralistic than it was 150 years ago?

According to what specific principle would Catholic and Protestant minorities have specific management rights in their school system in Quebec in 1997? I say this with great respect for people's religious convictions.

Mr. Louis Coallier: First, in my humble opinion, except in the metropolitan area of Montreal and in certain small pockets, multiculturalism does not exist in the province of Quebec. When people come from other cities to study in Montreal, they discover that there are anglophones, coloured people and immigrants because there aren't any in their own communities.

Therefore, it is true in the metropolitan area of Montreal.

Mr. Gilbert Dionne: If you will permit, I would like to add something.

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

Mr. Gilbert Dionne: If you do a comprehensive study of the briefs submitted to the Estates-General held in Quebec that were not specifically on this topic, you will find that more than 70 per cent of them wanted religious teaching in the schools.

• 1000

Contrary to what has been said, i.e. that the majority of the briefs received by the Estates-General said that they did not want denominationalism in the schools, a deeper analysis shows finds exactly the opposite.

Mr. Louis Coallier: We are not against the undenominalization of part of the system. We are in favour of the protection of our historical minority rights. We are a minority and we are speaking to an organization of the Canadian Parliament saying that if there has to be a consensus every time to repeal the rights of a minority, in Canada there will be no more minority rights enshrined in the Constitution.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): There is only one aspect I would like to underline. Denominational rights and minority rights are not exactly the same thing. For denominational rights, it is the Catholic and Protestant groups that are protected as groups. Those are collective rights.

Catholics in Quebec are a majority and we must not forget that. It is true that Protestants are a minority, but the protection under Section 93 is purely denominational, aimed at catholic groups as Catholics and Protestant groups as Protestants.

If I follow your reasoning, you are not satisfied with the Quebec legislation on this issue. I can understand that. You said, at the end of your testimony, that you were not against undenominalization, but I thought I understood that you wanted to keep Section 93 intact. Have I understood correctly?

Mr. Louis Coallier: Those who have denominational structures or want them should have the option of keeping them.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: In terms of the current debate, it seems to me that we need to point out that our current structures under Section 93 are denominational. There are some people who are against denominational structures but in favour of denominational teaching. They are not the same thing. In other words, we can change a system. We can say that the structures will no longer be denominational but that there can still be denominational schools. Is that what you really want?

Mr. Louis Coallier: You make a distinction between an individual's right in terms of his religious beliefs and the right to assemble within one denomination. We defend the right to assemble. We agree that the Quebec government is not affecting the individual's rights. But the right to assemble, within a denomination, in a minority situation is the very essence of Section 93, whether it is the Protestant minority in terms of the Catholic majority or the denominational minorities in terms of current non-denominational majority.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: In other words, you want to maintain the structures of the Catholic and Protestant denominational groups.

Mr. Louis Coallier: No. Those who want to keep them should have that option. Those who would like to exercise their right to dissidence in the future should have the option of exercising that right.

As soon as Section 93 is repealed, the Act on Public Instruction repeals all clauses relating to the future exercise of dissidence. The right to dissidence must be maintained for a minority.

The Quebec government has the right to undenominationalize the majority of its schools but it must maintain the right or the possibility for the Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park to continue to exist and it must maintain the fight to dissidence for other groups of parents who wish to exercise it in the future.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Coallier. The next speaker is Mr. Nick Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I would like to agree with Senator Beaudoin because I find it difficult to understand.

• 1005

In your presentation you said that the repeal of Section 93 was a political stake. But for the last 10 or 15 minutes the stakes seem to be linguistic. To my mind, the repeal of Section 93 is a religious issue. You have said in your presentation that it is our obligation, as the Government of Canada, to especially protect the acquired rights of minorities.

If I am analyzing Section 93 correctly, I see that the right we are protecting it that of Catholics and Protestants. Therefore, if you are in favour of virtue, despite the fact that there is a consensus, if not unanimity, to create school boards based on language, how can we protect dissentient school boards such as yours while reaching the ultimate goal?

Second, you say that can be done with Section 93. In that case, if we want to protect the rights of minorities, should we not offer the same protection to someone who wants to establish a Jewish school board or an Orthodox school board?

Mr. Louis Coallier: First, we are dealing with Section 93 as it currently exists. We are not asking for a constitutional amendment to add, for example, people who believe in Judaism or who are of Islamic persuasion. It is for the legislature to decide whether it wants to grant additional rights to other minorities. That is not our concern or our reason for being here.

Second, the Act on Public Instruction as it currently exists allows for linguistic school boards and maintains the right to dissidence so long as Section 93 remains in force. The law allows the exercise of dissidence by a Catholic or Protestant minority in relation to a linguistic school board.

Mr. Nick Discepola: But to reach our ultimate goal, which is to create linguistic school boards, Section 93 must be repealed says the Quebec government. That is what we have to deal with. It seems to me that there is a compromise in Mrs. Marois' reform; schools that, through their parents' Committee, wish to have religious or moral teaching could do so. Does this aspect not please you enough or not at all?

Mr. Louis Coallier: The Act dissolves the Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I understand that, but Mrs. Marois' project allows you to assemble...

Mr. Louis Coallier: Yes, but once the board is dissolved... We are the result of an existing constitutional right, which was the exercise of dissidence by parents who wanted to give themselves a structure. There is the difference. The right to have a structure and the right to have religious instruction in a school are two different things.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Why?

Mr. Louis Coallier: Because parents who so wish will be able to get religious teaching if they are a majority, but the children of parents who do not will not attend religious teaching. There are no structures. It is the exercise of an individual right that is protected not the exercise of a collective right to have a structure. There is a difference.

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

The next speaker will be Mr. Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): My question is to you, Mr. Coallier. First, I must say that I agree with you about the planning of the meetings. You were only informed yesterday about today's meeting and that is terrible. You are certainly not alone in that. Even I, as a member of the Committee, support you in this. That does not give minorities the chance to express themselves. In Quebec, minorities may have had the chance to be heard. They have had the opportunity to do many things, but when that happens here, at the federal level, we only give two weeks to submit a report. I do not agree with that.

Second, one thing worries me when we talk about the Constitution and protecting the rights of minorities. It also worries me when you say that Newfoundland had a referendum. I always worry about a referendum when we are speaking of minorities because during a referendum the majority can go completely against the minority. You wonder why Quebec did not do like Newfoundland and hold a referendum.

• 1010

Mr. Louis Coallier: All I wanted to say was that when we state that there is a consensus among the population, which is not true. There was a consensus among certain targeted groups who said they were in agreement.

We say that there is a consensus. The way Quebec went about it is not the way of reaching a consensus, it is a way of stating there is a consensus. But it is a fact that a referendum can interfere with the rights of a minority.

Normally, before saying there is a consensus, steps must be taken. Incidentally, I will say that it is true that we have been talking about the secularization of schools for many years but we have not spoken explicitly about repealing existing structures and no longer allowing denominational structures. Those are two different things.

We are not against the secularization of schools; we want to keep our right to exist and we believe that we must protect our right to structures similar to ours if parents feel the need because it is their individual right to assemble in structures where numbers allow. Here I will paraphrase a famous Ontario law.

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

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I have listened to you closely, Mr. Coallier, and I have noticed the passion with which you express your concerns.

[English]

There are two things I would like. I would like the document that was tabled by Mr. Coallier and his committee distributed, please. I'd like to read that document.

Secondly, you made a statement about a language ghetto in the education system.

[Translation]

That's what you said at one point. Can you explain to me what that means for you?

Mr. Louis Coallier: Incidentally, it is interesting that the brief from the Quebec Association of French Protestant School Communities states it much better than I do. It says that diversity is an element of emulation, allows excellence and prevents the levelling that Quebec wants to do.

If we have no choice other than to be in linguistic school boards, we are creating ghettos The Commission scolaire dissidente catholique of Greenfield Park will be dissolved and its schools will be divided between the two current linguistic school boards. Currently, two languages cohabit in this school board and that is healthy.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Anglophones and francophones are together in your school. Is that right?

Mr. Louis Coallier: There are English schools and French schools within the school board. Those who want this kind of a structure should not be bulldozed. The problem is that the Quebec government doesn't give us the choice. To anglophones or to francophones.

[English]

that's it,

[Translation]

You no longer have the right to dissidence, you don't have the right to give yourselves other structures. The system is forced on everyone whether you want it or not. I repeat: we are not attacking the fact that there are linguistic school boards. We are asking for the right to be different, the right to dissidence and the right to our existence, which is protected by the Constitution.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It's the protection of the Constitution, because under Bill 109, in section 41, you have the right as parents to select the nature of the confessionality of the school system you're going to be in. So you would have the right to protect the school system you presently have because the parents want that, according to what you've just said.

So you don't really need droit acquis in that sense, and that's my concern. You have to ensure that Bill 109, with section 41, keeps the notwithstanding clause,

[Translation]

The notwithstanding clause. If the notwithstanding clause falls, you will be in direct confrontation with the Charter of Rights.

[English]

And there you are challenging the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Coallier: No.

[English]

I apologize, it's much easier for me to answer in French.

[Translation]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It's the same thing for me. I try to express myself in French but sometimes I find it difficult.

[English]

Mr. Louis Coallier: There is a discrepancy between individual rights and collective rights.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes.

• 1015

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Coallier: The law protects the individual right to the choice of denomination and is in agreement with the requirements of the Charter. We are asking that the rights of a minority acting as a group and wanting its own structure be protected.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's paragraph 23(1)(a).

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Coallier: ...in order to increase the right to be different

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

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: How many dissentient school boards are there in Quebec? I should know, but I don't.

Mr. Louis Coallier: There are five that are protected under section 125 of the Act on Public Instruction and the Protestant and Catholic schools boards of Montreal and Quebec are also protected. Normally, there are four school boards that are protected under Section 93 in Montreal and in Quebec and there are five dissentient school boards.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I know the ones in Montreal and Quebec very well.

Historically, how did you arrive at a dissentient school board in 1934? You have Catholics and, on the other side, you have the English and the French; finally, you use the English language or the French language, depending on your parents' choice. Why did you have to create a dissentient school board?

Mr. Louis Coallier: In Greenfield Park, there were Irish immigrants. I believe, but I may be wrong, that there were Irish Catholic immigrants who found themselves in a minority within an anglophone Protestant group.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: But why didn't they do like all other anglophone Catholics in Quebec at that time? Was it because their numbers were too small? Of course not. Therefore, it was their choice.

Mr. Louis Coallier: I can tell you that in 1934...

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I don't remember it much and you even less than me.

Mr. Gilbert Dionne: If you will allow me, both groups that were in the minority at the time decided together to ask to be recognized as dissidents and to work together within the same school board.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): These two groups...

Mr. Louis Coallier: Yes, the anglophone and francophone Catholics.

Mr. Gilbert Dionne: Yes, the anglophone and francophone Catholics who were in the minority in that environment at that time.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Today, in the contemplated English and French structures, will the denominations be sufficiently protected even if we say that everyone will be allowed to make their own choice? There will be some nice battles within the schools. I've seen that before.

Don't you think that within a linguistic structure, with the possibility of denominationalism for the school, you could respond to the wishes of the parents?

Mr. Louis Coallier: We are the representatives of the parents. We do not represent an administration that wants to see its role endure. More than 4,000 signatures of Greenfield Park parents have been obtained to support the continuation of the school board as it currently exists and more than 80 per cent of the students' parents are still Catholic. We come from the parents. We are not the representatives of an administrative establishment that wants to live forever. We are here for the parents, some of whom are here. The judicial recourse taken by the school board also includes four selected parents because the right to dissidence is an individual right. It is up to the parents to assemble and to have their own denominational structure.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Thank you.

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

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Thank you, Madam Chair and witnesses, for this rather passionate and fascinating exchange.

• 1020

To the counsel, let me review what I consider to be the narrow, narrow legal issue here and see if he agrees with me.

We throw around the word “rights” quite loosely. My family every day talks about their right to take out the garbage and stuff like that. I really want to talk about rights in a much more precise way.

First of all, section 93 really isn't a right in constitutional terms, as Senator Beaudoin pointed out. It really is a collective privilege to two particular groups in society to band together for their particular purpose. But it isn't a right, because a right means that everybody is equally entitled to the same protection, right, and privilege, and that doesn't apply to section 93. I think you've accepted that. In effect, it's a collective privilege.

Let me take you through my reasoning to see if you're not exactly in the same place before and after section 93. Section 93, in effect, is a collective privilege, but under the Education Act of Quebec, sections 726 and 727, which cover the rights and privileges to a religious affiliation, shall apply in effect. It stays in effect under that act. So the right of an individual to choose their religious affiliation in the school and to practice it in the school system doesn't disappear.

What happens then, as I understand it, is that section 93 removes itself, and parents can then, individually, reassemble a collective right by agreeing that a particular school in a particular area, if there's a majority, should have a certain religious affiliation, or in effect establish teaching practices within that school. So the so-called individual right of religious practice within the school doesn't disappear, it reconstitutes itself in a different way.

At the end of the day, it isn't exactly the same as before, but the practical effect is exactly the same. That's if in fact each individual parent, or a group of parents, decide to band together and coagulate, or concentrate, their individual rights. Individual rights become collective rights if two parents, or in this instance a certain number of parents, get together in their district or area to say that for this school or this school board in this area, they want to have religious practices within the school. I'm having difficulty understanding the before and after. Yes, collective privileges remove themselves, but the individual rights for parents are the same.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Coallier: Yes, but then where is the need to repeal Section 93 since the Act on Public Instruction protects... In any case, they don't have a choice since the Charter recognizes it. I have no congratulations for the Act on Public Instruction. Section 93 is not part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it confirms a privilege. It confirms the privilege of building one's own structure, the privilege to be different, the privilege of the minority. This section suits us and we see no need to repeal it. The Act on Public Instruction can be applied without repealing Section 93 and it has clauses that allow dissidence until it is repealed.

We have no quarrel with the creation of linguistic school boards but we demand the right to be different and to keep our structures.

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

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Coallier, you said there were five dissentient school boards in Quebec.

Mr. Louis Coallier: Section 125 of the Act on Public Instruction states that until 93 is repealed, undenominalization does not affect the following dissentient boards... that's what the section says. Bill 109 repeals that section and, therefore, no longer recognizes our right to exist. In Section 125, five are mentioned.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Do you know if there are some that are not mentioned?

Mr. Louis Coallier: There would be two that are inactive and one that is still very active. As for the other one, we do not know.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Agreed. Is it true you challenged Bill 107?

Mr. Louis Coallier: Yes.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Why?

• 1025

Mr. Louis Coallier: Because as long as Section 93 is in force, the Quebec government cannot dissolve a dissentient school board. The power to regulate does not include the power to dissolve. Now Bill 107 dissolves us and divides us between two linguistic school boards. Therefore the existence of the school board that is before you will cease if we do not win in court. On July 1, 1998, there will be no dissentient school board in Greenfield Park. Our schools will be divided between two linguistic school boards.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Only if section 93 is repealed?

Mr. Louis Coallier: If Section 93 is repealed, I will have to make judicial efforts to plead acquired constitutional rights, but I hope it won't come to that. It's especially the order on distribution. The minister, pursuant to the act, has repealed the section that protected our existence, notwithstanding the fact that linguistic school boards are created and, secondly, she went ahead with our dissolution when she published, last August 27th, the order on school restructuring. Our schools will be consolidated within the linguistic school boards, megaboards covering an area far greater than Greenfield Park.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: As a dissident Catholic school board, what are your comments on the position of the Assemblée des évêques du Québec and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops?

When Mr. Dion testified before this Committee, he tabled a letter from His Grace Pierre Morissette, President of the Assemblée des évêques du Québec. That letter said, and I quote:

The bishops wish to state again that they are not opposed to the creation of linguistic school boards that would preserve unchanged the right of parents to denominational schools.

In addition, on October 17, on RDI, His Grace Turcotte, President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that for the moment, the bishops had the assurance that the rights of denominational schools were protected in Quebec by Quebec legislation. That is very important for us.

I would therefore like to hear your comments on the bishops' position.

Mr. Louis Coallier: We have nothing against the fact that the Quebec government wants to implement linguistic school boards where parents still have the choice of denominational teaching. We are against the fact that the creation of linguistic school boards is compulsory, and the bishops have not said anything about that. The bishops have not said anything about the right to dissidence. The bishops have not taken a stand on the repeal of Section 93. They have made a statement of principle. Everyone is in favour of virtue.

We agree on undenominalization if you want it. Why go against the authorities? You keep the right to religious teaching, ant that's fine, but the bishops haven't said anything about the absence of diversity that the Quebec government wants to impose by levelling in two linguistic school boards and

[English]

that's it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul DeVillers: From what I understand, they are satisfied with the guarantees that are in place in Quebec's legislation.

Mr. Louis Coallier: They have not taken a position on the guarantees. In addition, I would like to point out that the report of the francophone Protestants, on page 5, in the third paragraph, qualifies the statements made by the bishops and we agree with the qualification. A general statement of principle must not apply to specific cases or to minorities. Ask the bishops to make a statement on the rights of minorities and we may hear a different tune.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): The next speaker will be Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much for your presentation. If I understood correctly, you recognize that the right to dissidence is in fact a privilege that exists only for the Catholic and Protestant minorities in Quebec.

• 1030

Mr. Louis Coallier: That is correct.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: And you have no interest—even though you want this privilege maintained for the two religious minorities—in extending it to other religious minorities in Quebec.

Mr. Louis Coallier: Personally, I believe it would be a good thing, but I understood that our appearance before this Committee was to react to the repeal of Section 93. If you want to recommend improving Section 93 and the protection it grants, that is fine. We certainly don't want to be accused of bigotry. Personally, I think it would be valid to extend this right to other denominations.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We have no intention of accusing you of bigotry. It's only because other witnesses have said that since it was a privilege, it should be extended to all linguistic minorities. Therefore, when an organization comes to present its position, I like to know if they have a clear position on that. If you tell me that you did not deal with it in your presentation because you had a single goal, that's fine.

Mr. Louis Coallier: Our goal is to ensure our survival, but if you ask us if, in principle, this right should be extended, I would answer yes because the basis of our presentation is that a certain diversity, in structures that the parents want, is a valid element of emulation and excellence, as opposed to the levelling at the lowest common denominator that the Quebec government is trying to impose by creating these compulsory and unique megastructures.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Coallier, do you believe that if reform is being attempted to the educational system in Quebec, section 93 should be maintained rather than be completely removed, and if reform is desired for Quebec, section 93 could be added to or improved? In other words, improve the Constitution to allow for these other linguistic areas rather than extinguishing section 93.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Coallier: Yes.

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

Senator Fernand Robichaud (New Brunswick, Lib.): I understand that you want to protect a structure for parents who have assembled. If we made the proposed change to Section 93, how would that affect the quality of instruction and the training that your children are currently getting in school?

Mr. Louis Coallier: The debate on the quality of instruction is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. One can have a personal opinion about the result, I mean the result of creating only linguistic school boards, but that remains under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government. If it wants to massacre its educational system, unfortunately that's part of its jurisdiction.

I would rather hang on to a solid bone, Section 93 and our right to be different. But one thing is certain. If you are talking about academic performance, the school board's schools are excellent, well rated and provide a quality education. In fact, that is the reason why, in a small town of 20,000 people, we were able to get very quickly 4,000 signatures of parents who want to maintain that structure—because it performs and, up to a point, it is multicultural, and because it is bilingual

• 1035

Mr. Gilbert Dionne: I would like to add that the Minister of Education told us during a parliamentary Committee that the Greenfield Park school board was a model and that it hoped that model would be followed in all schools in Quebec. If you wish to find the text, go to the proceedings of the parliamentary Committee and you will see that that is what she told us.

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

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): This is not a question, but I would like to remind you that the Assemblée des évêques was not opposed to changing Section 93. In fact, I have the text in front of me. The bishops said: "Our assembly, however, did not oppose the choice leading to the amendment of Section 93".

You seem to be saying the opposite. I have the text in my hands.

Mr. Louis Coallier: I understood that the bishops did not take any specific position on the right to dissidence.

We have to understand that the bishops are not the legislator. You are the legislator. Therefore, since religious instruction is maintained and the bishops are satisfied, they have, within their area of competence, expressed their opinion. Does that mean we have to buy all that?

I would like to say that personally I have relied mainly on the report prepared by the francophone Protestants who, however, qualified what the bishops had said.

The bishops do not have decision-making powers. They may very well come to a consensus because religious instruction is maintained and be happy with that. Does that mean that because the bishops said what you seem to be telling me, and I don't deny it, that we have to accept our dissolution with a smile?

Mr. Gilbert Dionne: The bishops said they were not opposed. They did not say they approved. The bishops said they were not opposed but they wanted assurances that religion would remain present in schools and that they expected assurances.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Speaking for all the members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for your presentation and for coming to Ottawa today.

Mr. Gilbert Dionne: Thank you for allowing us to appear.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Coallier and Mrs. Lucier.

Is the Canadian Catholic School Trustee' Association present? I would ask that its representatives please approach.

• 1040

• 1041

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Please take your seats. Yes, we have the brief and it has been distributed. Do we have the ones for tomorrow? Before we start, Madam Clerk I would like you to give us an update on the brief.

I have been told that you received the brief.

Allow me to welcome

[English]

the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association. You are most welcome. You will have eight to ten minutes to make your presentation and then we will have a question and answer period.

We are pleased to have with us Mr. Mervin Lynch and Ms. Louise Ervin. We are listening to you, Mr. Lynch.

Mr. Mervin Lynch (Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association): Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. It is our pleasure to be here. I listened to the previous brief and it seems to me that you have been mildly scolded for the short notice given to the members who are making presentations. I won't add to that scolding. We did bring four copies, and your staff was very kind to reproduce all the copies you have. During the break I think some of you had a quick read of it.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is a five-part presentation.

First, I think it's important for you to know who we are. The Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association is a federation of various Catholic trustee associations in Canada. They are British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland. In all, we represent or educate 750,000, or three-quarters of a million, students in our Catholic schools.

In addition to this—and I want to emphasize this—we maintain a liaison with the Coalition of Catholic Parents in Québec, an organization that represents approximately 60,000 families. We would argue and suggest that our voice speaks for a substantial number of parents in light of those numbers. The opportunity to speak and dialogue with your committee on this significant matter is very much appreciated.

Members of the committee, I now want to briefly address Roman Catholic education. Parents choose to send their children to Catholic schools, and I suspect that some of you are graduates of Catholic schools, as I am. They wish their youngsters to receive an education that is beyond the secular curriculum. They wish an education where spiritual and gospel values are infused into the curriculum, where appropriate. I hope some of you will take me up on this; I can give some specific examples.

• 1045

I hasten to add, though, that we are not denigrating the significant contribution of the secular public schools, but we believe the Catholic schools in this day and age in particular have something to add.

Members of the committee, you read the news as well as I do. They talk about values and character education, particularly south of the border. I would suggest to you that Catholic and denominational schools have been doing this for many years.

Now let me get to the meat or the substance of our presentation. This is page 3 of the brief. I'll give you an opportunity to find it. Its heading is “Educational Rights Guaranteed”.

Members of the committee, it's important to remind ourselves that the Fathers of Confederation wrote religious education rights, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, to act as a broker or bulkhead on any government to remove or alter those rights. I hesitate to say that to this committee because you all have a good sense of history. It was written to protect the rights of the Protestants in Quebec and similarly to protect the rights of the Catholics in Ontario. At this particular juncture in our history, we must rely on Parliament to protect the educational rights of religious groups.

I was intrigued by the comment that it was not a right but a collective privilege. As a member of a minority, if you understand what I'm speaking about, I would prefer to call it a right rather than get into the legal niceties of a collective privilege.

Let me repeat that we must rely on Parliament to protect the individual rights of religious groups. If this reliance is dubious or doubtful, then any other minority group.... We have a host of them; I can spend a good part of this morning telling you what the various minority groups are, but you deal with it on a daily basis so I won't bore you with that. It seems to me that all the rights the minority groups have could also be simply abrogated if you accede to this request. We are not overstating the case, but we find that a very frightening scenario.

Some will argue that the matter before us today is an isolated one, that it is discrete and not precedent setting. I want to emphasize this. We say it is not discrete; it could be precedent setting. We see it as a dangerous signal. We do not embrace that point of view of discreteness, unless Parliament states positively that it only applies to Quebec.

Let me give you this scenario, and it's not a doomsday scenario, ladies and gentlemen. Quebec comes along and says it wants to remove this right. I ask you why then can't Ontario do this tomorrow? Why can't the Alberta government do this? What is really frightening is that the minority may not have a say in this. The majority will then make the decision for the minority, and that's the trampling of minority rights.

In brief, what we are saying with this section is that the committee should really look at this whole matter of minority rights and how it could be taken away or added on. It's not a discrete matter by any stretch of the imagination.

Let me go on now, Madam Chairman, to the Quebec issue and national impact. I'm on page 4. It is not the norm for my association to be involved with educational issues in a particular province. As I have intimated before, the issue before us today is of deep concern to us because of its potential long-term consequences. In that light, we endorse and support the position of the Quebec Association of Catholic Parents and the Quebec Association of French Protestant School Communities.

• 1050

I want to respectfully suggest that the claim of the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Dion, that the Quebec proposal is supported by all educational groups, is contradictory to the views of the two associations I just described and to the information we have.

We find the argument is made by the two Quebec groups that the implementation of linguistic school boards in Quebec can be achieved without extinguishing the rights of parents to schools with a religious dimension. They do not want a secular education imposed on their children without their consent...and their views are heard across the country. This is why my association is here today.

I want to just stop and comment. I had the benefit of listening to the questions in the previous discussion. I have not seen the details of what Quebec is proposing; I have the general framework. What I heard during the questions is that individuals can get together if the amendment goes through, and then they can form...they can have the ability to offer religious education. We say that won't be good enough, because that's statutory, and what one government puts in, another government can take out. Therefore we say our rights are more firmly established in the Constitution, where hopefully it would be more difficult to remove.

Having said that, what we want is an education that has a religious dimension that encompasses all aspects of the human spirit, and we rely on this Parliament to be the final arbiter of protecting those rights. What is little known in the educational community is that Roman Catholic and other denominational schools existed prior to Confederation. I want to repeat that—prior to Confederation, particularly in my province, Alberta, which I know quite well, there were Catholic schools before public schools. Section 93 recognized the rights of parents to have this. There was tremendous foresight when that was written. The possibility was seen that the Catholics and the Protestants in a given community could become a minority, and hence section 93 was included. This was applied, I hasten to say, when Alberta and Saskatchewan were formed in 1905.

We hold the strong view that the exclusion of Quebec from section 93 could have a severe, long-term impact on the rights of Catholics in other provinces.

We live in constant fear for educational rights, and we acknowledge the occasional reassurances received by provincial political parties that this would be respected.

Madam Chair, I see you're giving me the look. I would like to conclude by saying that this is not simply a matter of Quebec and educational rights. We're dealing here with minority rights, and it should be given the very deepest consideration. Secondly, we say that what happens in Quebec has the possibility of happening in any other province that has minority religious rights.

I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

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

We'll proceed now to the question period, starting with Peter Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Lynch.

Do you feel that perhaps a better approach to educational reform would be to amend, if necessary, or add to the rights of section 93? This clearly is designed to extinguish section 93. Would it not be a better approach if reform is sought by adding to section 93, retaining what we have there but improving our Constitution, rather than tearing it apart and dismissing it?

Mr. Mervin Lynch: Before I answer that, Mrs. Ervin and I will go back and forth in answering the questions. She will supplement.

• 1055

That would be a useful approach, Mr. Goldring. I believe you are from Alberta.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's correct.

Mr. Mervin Lynch: There is something happening in Alberta with respect to francophone education, which perhaps can help this committee. As you know, the francophones now have their own school boards. In the Edmonton area, the francophone school board does offer religious education. It's Catholic-oriented. Well, we are now having a francophone board that will offer public education without the religious aspect.

The parallel I'm drawing, and we said this in our brief, is that it is possible to maintain section 93 and still have linguistic rights. So what you are saying—can we extend the Constitution? I would say yes, if the wording is proper.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So it is your feeling that we can have these other forms of education, linguistic and otherwise, and still maintain section 93.

Mr. Mervin Lynch: Of course. That's what we have in some of the provinces.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

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

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: I would like first to say that when you referred to right or privilege, you were right, because in section 93 it is stated very clearly:

Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools....

So it's more than a privilege; it's a right. The two words have been enshrined in the Constitution because there may be some aspects that come under “privilege” and some others under “right”. The question is that rights or privileges are protected, but they are denominational rights—it's with respect to religion and religious groups.

I would like to know if I follow your reasoning. You want to keep section 93 as it is, and if ever we wish to extend another dimension to our Quebec system—in other words, if we want to base the system of tomorrow on language instead of religion—Quebec should keep the system as it is as far as denominational rights are concerned and add another dimension that is purely linguistic.

This is what Quebec tried to do in 1992 and 1993 and it went to the Supreme Court. There is a possibility like that. There is no doubt that it's possible. The question is, it is a very complex system, but is this exactly what you want?

Mr. Mervin Lynch: It's what I am suggesting as a possibility to help the committee, that if you look at this—and if I am speaking for trustees across the country—then I would say this could apply to any province, including my own or Ontario, if the wording is proper, and not necessarily Quebec.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Yes, but the resolution that is before us, of course, concerns only Quebec. Obviously, as you say, each time we pass an amendment in this country, it may have some effect or some consequences as well, but obviously it's only Quebec that we are talking about.

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

Ms. Louise Ervin (Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association): Our main concern is the recognition that the provinces have rights to their education. They have their own education acts and they can make a lot of changes within their regulations and legislation. The opening of the Constitution to deal with the section that protects rights of individuals and minority groups is of concern to us, because if we do it for one province, we.... Obviously in Ontario we have a lot of concerns, and rightly so, I would say.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Thank you.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: I join our joint chairs in welcoming you.

• 1100

There is a paradox in our current debate as parliamentarians and I would like to present it to you. We are facing a constitutional amendment that would, as you know, repeal subsections (1) to (4) of Section 93.

I believe you err in your belief that it is possible for the Quebec government to pursue its objective, namely to implement linguistic school boards throughout Quebec that could coexist with Section 93.

I remind you that two governments, the previous one and the current one, have had problems with the law and that judgements have been rendered. If we continue the pursuit of the Quebec government's objective while maintaining Section 93, there would be an unprecedented fragmentation of the school system. To give you a very specific example, there would certainly be four school board networks, with as many school networks, in the city of Montreal alone. We believe that is not an integration factor in Montreal for immigrants, nor a positive factor for the public purse.

It seems to me that Quebec has chosen the right course insofar as your concern is the requirement for religious education. I believe in this way of doing things. The requirement for religious teaching is prescribed in the Act on Public Instruction and you know that each year parents can choose the type of religious education they want for their children. That is not under attack by Mrs. Marois' reform.

We want to attack a problem that has been ongoing for at least 20 years, i.e. that for the coherence of the Quebec school system, Section 93 and the creation of linguistic school boards cannot coexist; the result would be a fragmentation of the Quebec school system that would not serve the citizens. We are convinced of that.

That is our dilemma. Nothing else. No one in Quebec says they no longer want religious teaching. I believe the surveys are quite clear. Parents want religious instruction and the one speaking to you would not want it to be different in the schools. But it is not true that we can reach that objective by fragmenting the Quebec school system. That is very, very clear.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Lynch or Mrs. Ervin.

[Translation]

Mrs. Louise Ervin: I will try to answer your question or your comment as much as possible.

Everyone in the field of education, all governments and all parents always say that a child's main teachers are his or her parents. Therefore, parents should have the choice between a linguistic education and a denominational education.

Parents in Quebec have told us with great conviction that they want to keep the school system as is in Quebec. Therefore, we are defending them today.

Mr. Réal Ménard: For your information, yesterday the Fédération des comités de parents du Québec, committees that exist in almost 70 per cent of the schools in Quebec, came before us and said it agreed with the Quebec resolution.

In your case, you are a national association of parents, an association of Canadian parents.

Mrs. Louise Ervin: We are an association of school trustees.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Of trustees.

Mrs. Louise Ervin: Of school trustees, yes.

There is at least one parents' association in Quebec that has sent a representative to our annual meeting in Calgary in June. He came to ask us to support his association. We have received many letters from other groups but I don't have their names here.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you represent the trustees first, the elected representatives.

Mrs. Louise Ervin: The trustees represent the parents.

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

We will now go to Senator Grafstein.

[English]

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

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I want to thank the witness for adding an outside Quebec dimension to this problem. Coming from Ontario I try to look at this through not only national or federal eyes but also, in effect, provincial eyes. When you turn to the actual amendment we're dealing with here, on its face it applies only to Quebec. So the constitutional protection, if there is such in section 93, as a privilege or a right—and I'll deal with that in a moment—is in effect not changed by this. This is purely and solely an amendment coming from the Quebec National Assembly to the federal government and does not in any way, shape or form, in my reading of it, apply to any other province.

• 1105

I can understand the concern of the future, but in practical terms, in today's terms, in terms of the item we're dealing with at this particular moment, in my view it's limited to Quebec.

We're confronted, as you can understand, with a difficult dilemma. We have a unanimous resolution...representing the people of Quebec in the legislature from Quebec who asked us to approve this. We have a serious dilemma.

Having said that, when you turn to Senator Beaudoin's point about rights or privileges, I still make the point that if you examine the Constitution through the living tree doctrine—in my view the Constitution evolves clearly in 1997 as opposed to 1867—section 93 would not really be a right. It would be presumed to be a privilege because it doesn't apply to all denominational groups. In that sense a right, in my notion of rights, is equality, equal treatment under the law. That particular section of the Constitution doesn't provide equality of treatment.

Would you accept that? It's limited to Catholics and Protestants as of 1867, so how does it apply to all the other groups in society?

Mr. Mervin Lynch: With all due respect to the senator, that's a revisionist view of what transpired in 1867. We can't interpret with the views in 1997 what existed in 1867. So we don't agree with it at all.

Let me make a point, which is even more informal. I don't have a legal background. I can challenge him in my own field. I would defer to him on that but not necessarily accept his views. With respect to our dealing only with the Quebec question, there's no doubt about it. That's why we're here. But I am an elected official. So are you. The problem we have as elected officials is that our horizon is too short. We just look at what it is right here.

I say to you, ladies and gentlemen, we have to look beyond what is happening in Quebec. If you accede to the Quebec situation, I say to you—and I repeat myself—what prevents a future government in Ontario from coming before you in the next two years and saying they want to abolish Roman Catholic schools in their province? If I were the Premier of Ontario, I would say that when we had the Quebec situation, you acceded to it.

That's the way things work. It's just like kids. Most of you around here brought up kids. If you do it for Marcia, why can't you do it for Gregory? Haven't you all faced that situation? That's the way politics work too, and that's what we're considering. We are looking not at today but at 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the road. God help us. I don't know where I'll be.

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

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Lynch, I'd like to explore with you, if you will, a bit more of this notion of “without the consent of the effective minority”—the sentence I lifted from your presentation. I think so far from what we've heard there is no doubt there is a consensus for the creation of linguistic school boards. I certainly have not heard anybody in front of this committee saying they disagreed with that. The rub is whether or not the section 93 denominational rights will be maintained.

We are told by some quarters that there is a consensus on that. You affirm by saying these rights or the Constitution should not be altered without the consent of the affected minority.

• 1110

My question to you is what is a consent, in your opinion? Can you please define here which minority you are talking about in Quebec?

Mr. Mervin Lynch: We have the Coalition of Catholic Parents in Québec, who have made a presentation at our national convention on this issue. We do not deny that the assembly in Quebec was unanimous, but we are saying there are certain minority groups that do not agree with it. I don't have your agenda or your schedule as to who is appearing, but I would presume this group would probably appear before you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You say this is a minority rights issue. In your mind, which minority are we talking about? Can you please describe it more specifically?

Mr. Mervin Lynch: All right; let me put it in perspective. The burden of my presentation is that in Quebec at the present time the majority is non-denominational. The minority would be the Catholics and the Protestants. We are saying if these rights are abrogated, then they have implications in future for what can happen to other minority groups in Canada, whether they be aboriginal, blacks, or whatever.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So you're representing here the Catholics as a minority group in Quebec.

Mr. Mervin Lynch: No, no, hold on.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's what I heard.

Mr. Mervin Lynch: No, I am saying we are representing the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association. If I misunderstood your question, do correct me. You were asking which minority group in Quebec I was referring to. I'm referring to this group. But I want to emphasize, ladies and gentlemen, that I am speaking for a national body, the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association.

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

Mr. Mervin Lynch: I hope I didn't sound too pedantic.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I have not gotten an answer on what constitutes a consent.

Mr. Mervin Lynch: This is a fundamental question in democracy. In theory, if not in practice, what should constitute an assent is a majority of the minority. I'll explain that. If you leave it to the minority to simply say you shouldn't have Catholic schools in Alberta, for instance, the majority would vote it down. What should happen is that the Catholics should vote on whether they want to continue having Catholic schools. If the majority of Catholics say no, then fine, that should apply to all the provinces. That's all we are saying.

Did I make myself clear, sir?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Perfectly.

Mr. Mervin Lynch: Thank you.

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

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Madame, I'm sorry I missed your presentation but I am familiar with your position.

It's been argued by several witnesses before this committee, including the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that access to religious education and Catholic education in particular will continue to be protected in Quebec under Bill 109. The threat that might be posed to it by charter jurisprudence, the likes of which we've seen in Ontario in an effort to eliminate public funding of Catholic schools, would be saved by Bill 109's invocation of the notwithstanding clause. In other words, there is this kind of quasi-constitutional protection for continued confessional education in Quebec under the statutes that are available.

How do you respond to the argument that there is continued constitutional protection insofar as the Quebec legislature is willing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, section 33, of the charter?

Mr. Mervin Lynch: Not having a background in law, I can't comment on how the notwithstanding clause will be used. We are familiar with how it was used in Quebec with respect to language rights. What I did say in the presentation, Mr. Kenney—and I want to repeat this—is that Bill 109 is statutory. You all deal with statutes all the time, and the problem is that today they're here and tomorrow they could be gone—am I right?—whereas with the Constitution it makes it more difficult.

Maybe you would like to expand on that, Mrs. Ervin.

• 1115

Ms. Louise Ervin: The group that spoke before us was quite clear in saying that in effect the new legislation in Quebec dissolves their boards and regroups them in different manners. So you can have a notwithstanding clause all you want, but to regroup under the new format may be a very difficult thing to do. That's what they are very concerned about and that's what we are concerned about as well.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Ms. Ervin and Mr. Lynch.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I have one quick question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lynch, you represent the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association. Is the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association part of your association? Are they a component?

Ms. Louise Ervin: Yes.

Mr. Mervin Lynch: Thank God for them; they support us financially.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Louise Ervin: They are the biggest and the largest member of the association.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I suppose I should address my question to Ms. Ervin then.

Are you familiar with a letter that was sent by the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Gray, after a meeting that representatives had had with the Deputy Prime Minister, wherein they confirm his explanation to them that the amendment to section 93 with respect to Quebec's denominational schools creates no legal precedent in Ontario? It's stated in that letter. Have you seen that letter?

Ms. Louise Ervin: I haven't received a copy of that yet, but I have been made aware of the meeting with Mr. Gray.

Regardless of the comments made—even though it is said that it is without precedent—in Ontario we are very concerned.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes, the letter goes on to say that the trustees' association is concerned.

Ms. Louise Ervin: The reason we are so concerned in Ontario is that there is pending legislation that may be brought to the House within the next year on the use of referenda. If that law does pass in Ontario, that the government can have a referendum at will, we are pretty sure one of the first questions that will be on such a ballot will be regarding the existence of Catholic schools in Ontario.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mrs. Ervin and Mr. Lynch, for your presentation on behalf of the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association. On behalf of every member of this committee, thank you.

Ms. Louise Ervin: Thank you.

Mr. Mervin Lynch: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We will now proceed with the Archdiocese of Montreal.

[Translation]

Allow me to welcome the representatives of the Archdiocese of Montreal.

[English]

They are represented here by Reverend Patrick Meehan, Father Francis McKee, Joseph Zemanovich, and Father Thomas McEntee.

You are most welcome at this joint committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867, concerning the Quebec school system. We're sitting pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 1997.

• 1120

Reverend Patrick Meehan, I suppose, will be starting the presentation.

You can go ahead, Reverend Meehan.

The Reverend Patrick Meehan (Archdiocese of Montreal): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I can make a very brief presentation, because we are focusing on one issue only.

We are the representatives of the English-speaking priests of the Archdiocese of Montreal, who serve the English Catholic population. We wish to present this brief to this special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, which is examining the Quebec government's proposal for school board reform. In presenting this brief, we are acting in the name of our people, whose children are taught in our present educational system. We are representing 40 parish priests of the 40 English-language parishes.

What has prompted us to submit this brief is our pastoral concern to see that our English Catholic schools are maintained with their full services, following the implementation of the Quebec government's proposed school board reform.

In view of our pastoral concern, it appears to us that the present efforts to modify section 93 of the British North America Act will weaken the status of the Montreal Catholic School Commission, but even more importantly it will jeopardize the rights of minorities to dissentient schools, which are also guaranteed by the same section 93. As a minority group, we have every reason to ask you not to proceed to put at risk what is presently safeguarded by the Canadian Constitution.

The Roman Catholic bishops of Quebec support the establishment of linguistic school boards, provided that the parents' right to confessional schools is guaranteed. They also insist that the confessional guarantees of laws 107 and 109 be maintained, namely the right of each child to confessional religious education and to pastoral animation services, and the right of parents to request a confessional status for the school their children attend.

We respect the position on this matter represented by the Quebec bishops, and as far as it deals with our concerns for maintaining confessional schools within linguistic boards, we are in solidarity with it. As argued by Archbishop André Gaumond of Sherbrooke and Bishop André Rivest of Montreal, the establishment of linguistic school commissions need not entail the disappearance of the confessional status of our schools. This is further elaborated by Archbishop Gaumond in a document tabled at the recent gathering of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in Cap-de-la-Madeleine between October 16 and 21.

However, as English-speaking Catholics of the Archdiocese of Montreal, and given our minority status as English-speaking, we the pastors believe that our minority rights would be better guaranteed by maintaining section 93 of the British North America Act of 1867.

• 1125

In that document tabled by Archbishop Gaumond, if I may quote, he says explicitly:

We [the Quebec bishops] have never argued for the repeal or the amendment of Section 93. We have made it known that we agree with the establishment of linguistic school boards and have left it up to the government how best to proceed.

It is our point of view that under the present reforms parents will have to adopt a take-charge attitude and assume their rightful responsibility for assuring the confessionality of the school their children will attend. It is our contention that in preserving section 93 of the British North America Act of 1967, parents' rights and responsibilities will be affirmed and supported. And while it is true that the Ministry of Education's plans for establishing linguistic school boards and maintaining confessional schools are adequately achieved through the implementation of laws 107 and 109, we maintain that preserving section 93 of the British North America Act of 1867 will enhance those intentions.

It is our firm belief that the rights and guarantees of the Constitution are the foundations upon which the country of Canada was built. None of the rights and guarantees should be given away when there is no necessity for them to be sacrificed. Amendments to existing rights should be proceeded with only after the same care has been given to the sense of justice that motivated the drafting of the original constitutional guarantee.

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

We are at the end. We will now proceed to the question period, starting with Jason Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Fathers. I appreciate you coming here. I think it's unfortunate, in a way, that groups like yours have to take this initiative in order to defend your entrenched rights.

Any of you can answer this question. I'd like you to address a critical issue that has emerged here, which is the question of consensus. The Quebec government, of course, has made this application on the basis that there is virtually a unanimous consensus in Quebec society in favour of the amendment.

The federal government, through Minister Dion, who made his presentation here this week, also argued that there is a very strong consensus. Indeed, they have argued that there is a consensus in support of the amendment on the part of the official spokesman of the Catholic Church, the bishops conference.

You, of course, referred just a moment ago to a statement by Archbishop Gaumond, but I would like to quote from the statement made before this committee on Tuesday by Minister Dion:

The Catholic bishops have long agreed that establishing linguistic school boards is appropriate, and they have maintained that the choice of means is the responsibility of the political authorities. From that perspective, the Catholic bishops do not oppose amending section 93.

To my knowledge, the bishops have never said they do not oppose amending section 93; they remained neutral on it. Do you think the inference Minister Dion has drawn from the bishops' position is an accurate one?

Rev. Patrick Meehan: First, I think it is inaccurate. The bishops have always been on record as saying they have never argued for the repeal. It is equally strongly on the record that they are in agreement with the change to linguistic schools. They leave to the government the way that will be achieved.

• 1130

Mr. Jason Kenney: My supplementary question is this. To the extent that the Catholic population of Quebec is aware of the potential jeopardy into which their confessional school rights will be placed by this amendment, is the Catholic population opposed to it? It may threaten their confessional school rights.

Rev. Patrick Meehan: In so far as the English-speaking Catholics are concerned, of those who are concerned with what is going to happen in not the immediate future but the not too distant future, then yes, there's no difficulty with the immediate future. The confessionality of the boards is going to be transferred to the schools, and we are going to be able to maintain our confessional schools.

But there's no doubt about the fact in Quebec that there are hints we are moving toward a school system that will rule out religion as having a place in the school. The estates general last year recommended that the schools should no longer be religious. Madam Pagé, the president of the teachers' union, has been quoted as saying that she doesn't think a majority of the parents, or even a significant minority of the parents, demand a religious education for their children. We can answer that simply with statistics.

Just recently, Professor Jean-Pierre Proulx, who is the head of that committee.... I don't know whether he was tipping his hand or whether he was just being affable with reporters, but he did suggest at the end of their discussion that they could arrive at the decision that the estates general gave last year, which was that they would recommend the removal of religion from the public school system.

So that's our concern, but if the right to denominational Catholic schooling in the public schools is removed as a result of the amending of section 93, then we would have no recourse.

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

Mr. Joseph Zemanovich (Pastoral Services, Archdiocese of Montreal): To be fair, and to put your question in the context of awareness, it's somewhat unfair. When you talk of awareness, that's an awareness of what? I would suggest that the question and the problem here is whether we are talking constitutionally or legislatively.

The bishops have implied that they are quite maybe satisfied with a legislative change. The population you refer to may be assuming that a legislative change is sufficient.

So if I knew whether or not they were fully aware of the implications of the legislative change, then I think your question could be answered.

I submit that there is an assumption by the population that indeed bills 107 and 109 will be sufficient. However, given the minister's initial intent to ignore the federal level, as you know, for this linguistic change, given that she went 180 degrees a very short time afterwards, and given that she's established Mr. Proulx's commission to look at the validity of Catholic schools or Catholic education, you better believe there is a concern with the community that it would seem there's going to be this magic number that will say secular schools are in order.

Should that be the case, I think the position here is that there's still a significant minority that ought to have the right. Now this “oughtness” is not in that legislation; it's in the school.

Take a given area. I happen to be historically more functional in the Lakeshore. You can have five schools and the majority in that new linguistic board will clearly be non-Catholic. You can have five schools and they will all vote, as they currently do, and say that they want their schools to be non-Catholic. So if we have 20% of the population in each school, what do they do? You have five buildings that are all non-Catholic.

Try to find the law that says, with a 20% minority, where your school is. There is no school, because the law clearly now says that you vote at the school level.

• 1135

There isn't that power to dissent, and I think that's the key. If you can find a way to do that.... What would happen in that area right now is that those 20% would get together and form a dissident linguistic board. They cannot do that with 107 and 109. At least they can do it currently with section 93 and establish a system whereby the Catholic needs would be met. They cannot do that with what is being proposed, and I think 20% of the population in any given area is significant.

I think this country, when it came to minority rights, long ago gave up this notion of majority or collective notions.

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

We'll proceed now with Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton (Grandville, PC): I think the second speaker argued against the first one, who told us that he was satisfied with a confessional guarantee, the 107 and 109. We just heard now that they're not as strong as the existing system because the dissenting minority won't have a place to situate itself under the new system, whereas it does now.

The question I'd like to ask is this. The minister told us that the bishops were in favour of linguistic schools but forgot to add—it was brought up today—that it was on the condition that the denominational guarantees established by 107 be maintained. My question is this. Have those guarantees been given to the bishops who wrote over the signature of the bishop of Baie-Comeau, Monsignor Morissette, on September 30? Have these guarantees been received from the Government of Quebec?

Rev. Patrick Meehan: I can't answer that because I've never asked that question of the bishops, but the presumption is that they have received that guarantee because they're still speaking in favour of supporting the change—

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I guess you can't speak for the Assembly of Quebec Bishops, but I hope they could be invited here to clarify their stand. The condition is so important that their views may change once they realize that if Quebec is removed from the conditions imposed on it by section 93, in effect the whole charter will start applying. That means non-denominational schools will become a reality in no time at all, based on various judgments we've already seen in Ontario.

I'm surprised the bishops—and I know you're speaking for a smaller group of Catholics in Montreal—jumped in so hard without realizing the implications for Catholic and Protestant education in Quebec once Quebec is removed from section 93. Then the whole charter applies, and the charter has not been very kind towards denominational schools.

I'm making a comment and a plea, but do you have any reaction to that? Are you aware of the possible significance to denominational schools once Quebec is removed from its obligations under section 93?

Rev. Patrick Meehan: Yes, we are, particularly as this minority English-speaking group in Montreal, and that's one of the reasons we've come here to encourage you as strongly as we can to maintain what we already have without sacrificing the....

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I'm delighted to hear your view, and I think you have probably a better understanding of the impact of section 93. But I hope the bishops also understand your view and appreciate and incorporate it in their sentiments regarding what we're studying.

Mr. Joseph Zemanovich: To be precise, I think the bishops are prepared to trust the legislative changes.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Well, not if—

Mr. Joseph Zemanovich: I really think that. I'm a layman so I can say it, I guess, but I don't think that contradicts what is being said here.

I think the anglophone priests are clearly saying no, we want more of a guarantee, which we feel is in section 93. The bishops have said they have enough confidence in the Government of Quebec. That's my opinion, and I haven't seen anything in there that says they haven't said that.

I can't speak for the fathers, but I think they feel the same way. They're saying that may apply for the majority of Catholics in Quebec, but as far as the English-speaking Catholics are concerned, that is not acceptable. That's what they're saying.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I believe in the power of prayer too, but I think that's a bit excessive.

• 1140

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. Christiane Gagnon now has the floor.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Good morning. I would like to point out that if we had subsections (1) to (4) of Section 93, we would have to live with two types of structures and that is impossible. We have been discussing this topic for 30 years in Quebec and it seems to be your position and that of many witnesses who came to say that. But it is a paradox. We cannot have both linguistic school boards and denominational school boards.

Yesterday, a witness from the Fédération des comités de parents de la province de Québec came to state its position and did not seem in the least bit worried that there would only be linguistic boards because there could still be denominational schools, as the majority of parents want. He said that letting parents decide what they want and act in a spirit of tolerance and openness is much more in tune with today's reality.

In 1867, we were in a unique context that is not quite the one we live in now. There would need to be much more openness for religious instruction to be given according to the wishes of the majority of the parents. There would still be a diversity of teaching in these schools, which would perhaps allow better give and take between the children in a school.

I would therefore like to hear you speak about the possibility of openness and tolerance that religions often impart to us at a very young age.

Father Francis McKee (Archdiocese of Montreal): I think we all recognize that there was a problem in terms of the different school boards. We are well aware of this situation. We do not come before you as lawyers who want to resolve these issues.

After all, it's a situation that has to be resolved at the governmental level. We are here to testify simply to ensure that our Catholic schools are protected while recognizing that there will be a dilemma. We did not come here to propose a solution, but simply to say that there is a problem and to ask how we are going to solve it.

We do not see the protection currently afforded to us under Section 93 in the same way with bills 107 and 109. That's about where we are coming from. We recognize the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

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

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: The guarantees are also given by Section 41 of the Charter, which allows for the right to religious instruction. What the Fédération des comités de parents seemed to be saying is that parents are well-enough organized and responsible to demand religious instruction. Protestants and Catholics are part of the Fédération des comités de parents de la province de Québec and neither group seems worried about the future of religious instruction in the schools because a strong majority of the parents want it and want to keep it, whether it is Catholic or Protestant.

We are asking for the repeal of Section 93 to make school management easier in Quebec after 30 years of talking, and to allow the restructuring of the school system along linguistic lines. I do not believe that religious instruction is threatened. It will be protected by the Charter, by Bill 109 and by the will of the parents to keep religious instruction.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The next speaker will be Mr. Nick Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a proposal before asking my questions. It seems to me that we are going to the trouble of discussing the letter of the Quebec bishops at length and I have noted that they will not be appearing before us. I was wondering if the invitation was sent, especially to Bishop Morissette. If not, would it be possible to hear them on Monday, October 27 or Wednesday, October 29? It seems to me that we have not had clear answers on their position and I propose that we invite them to testify before this Committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): There was no formal invitation; all interested parties are invited to come before the Committee.

Mr. Nick Discepola: If the Committee wishes, I will propose it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We take note of it.

• 1145

[English]

Mr. Nick Discepola: I would like to know, Reverend Meehan, if l'Assemblée des évêques du Québec speaks on your behalf. More importantly, does Reverend Pierre Morissette speak on your behalf?

Rev. Patrick Meehan: As I said in the brief, we really have no difficulty with the position of the Quebec bishops. I'm not even certain that we're different from them. It's just that they have argued that they've never argued in favour of the repeal.

Mr. Nick Discepola: That's the nuance I wanted to make. They've never said they're in favour of.... What they're saying is that they haven't argued against....

Rev. Patrick Meehan: That's true. That's where we, as this group of priests representing the minority English group.... You have to remember that with the exception of one bishop, all the bishops in Quebec are French, so we are speaking as the minority Roman Catholic—

Mr. Nick Discepola: But I would implore you then to make sure their position is clarified before the committee finishes its hearings, because it's a very important issue.

The problem I am grasping is that this committee is forced to make the following decision: either we approve the request for the amendment as per the unanimous decision of the National Assembly, or we reject it. We're not here as a committee to propose constitutional amendments or changes. We have that to decide.

That's a very difficult decision for me, because I personally feel that the Catholic and Protestant voices have not been heard. I've stated clearly that in my opinion we're relying on laws to allow confessional schools to continue. I firmly believe that within 10 to 15 years there won't be confessional schools if section 93 is removed.

However, that being said, there is a strong will for the creation of linguistic school boards, and I want to work toward that end, because I think there's a consensus in Quebec. However, I question whether we should not maybe sever the relationship now between church and state.

We've had the debate of our Fathers of Confederation back in 1867. They looked at the nature of Canada as it existed then and developed a very good constitution, but today that nature has changed drastically.

I take a look at my personal situation. I send my kids to Catholic schools. Yet as a practising Catholic, I have a choice as to whether my children should receive moral or religious instruction.

That choice is already there, and I'm saying, do we have to go to the extent of ensuring that this be given to institutions and protected in the Constitution, or are you not satisfied with the proposed provincial laws that would allow each individual parents' committee to choose the religious instruction of their own individual school? Does that not satisfy you?

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Discepola. Do you have a brief comment?

[English]

Rev. Patrick Meehan: For the moment, we would have no difficulty with that, because Catholic schools would continue to exist. But we would have a great difficulty with that after the secularization of schools where....

For us, Catholic education is not just Catholic instruction. Catholic education is bringing up the child in the formation of the Catholic faith. We would have difficulty seeing how that could be done—

Mr. Nick Discepola: Deep down...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Rev. Patrick Meehan: Well, not very well.

Mr. Nick Discepola: If they have to receive confirmation or first communion, my children have been taught that outside the school system.

Rev. Patrick Meehan: Yes, in short instructions that are given around the Catholic Church on Sunday morning or during the week. That can be organized very easily for a small group of children, but our concern is when you're thinking of the whole English-speaking Catholic population of Montreal.

With no Catholic schools, do we as parish priests have the resources, the personnel or even the space to pursue that kind of Catholic upbringing of our children in the practice of the faith? That's our pastoral concern.

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

We'll now go to Senator Beaudoin.

• 1150

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: I would like to come back to the basic question that was raised. When the bishops said, well, we do not object to a reform based on language and linguistic rights, linguistic school boards, etc., they had one condition. If I understand it correctly, the condition is that the teaching of religion should continue in the schools.

For me the question is, could it be done legislatively or constitutionally? If it should be done constitutionally, why not keep section 93 as it is or prepare an amendment that will take the place of (1), (2), (3) and (4) when they are obligated, and have that amendment enshrined in section 93 for the rights of Catholics and Protestants or any other religious teaching?

If it is the other choice, that it be done legislatively, as is done in many countries, then it's another story.

There is now a quasi-constitutional protection for the teaching of religion in the Quebec charter. Of course, if it is only quasi-constitutional, it may be changed by another statute. It's not easy politically, but legally it's possible.

If it is in the statute dealing with instruction in Quebec, you may have all kinds of legislation in the fields of education and religious teaching. Usually the governments are prudent, because they don't want to be defeated at the next general election.

I would very much like to know what the bishops are thinking. Are they satisfied with the legislative protection for religious teaching or do they want a constitutional guarantee for the teaching of religion in the school? This entirely changes the perspective of this resolution.

Father Francis McKee: Thank you. I have a copy of the educational question in Quebec that was presented by Bishop André Gaumont, and I would like to propose that it be circulated. I don't want to speak on their behalf, but I would agree that it would be good to have them speak.

In their very first statement they talk about the attitude of bishops in Quebec:

We have never argued for the repeal or the amendment of Section 93. We have made it known that we agree with the establishment of linguistic school boards and have left it up to the government how best to proceed.

That's why we're here, to somehow influence the decision the government will be making.

It would be appropriate to have them come and help the process of the government. They're part of the people. Even though they have a particular responsibility, they're part of the people. They should help the government precisely know how to proceed. I think that would follow up on the very statement they've made.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: If the solution is legislated, we may go ahead with the resolution as it is. If the protection they ask for is constitutional, it may be done only by an amendment to the resolution.

Legally speaking, it's clear cut, in my mind. It's either A or B, but what they want exactly is not too clear. They say, oh yes, keep the teaching of religion. This is clear cut, but in what way? Via legislation or constitutionally?

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

Father Thomas McEntee (Archdiocese of Montreal): As has already been mentioned by one of my confrères, of all the bishops in the province of Quebec there is one who is an auxiliary and who is at present very ill. Therefore, maybe we have not had a voice in bringing these things forward.

If I were a French Canadian living in, say, Chicoutimi or anywhere else, I would have the security of my culture. I would also have the security of everyone else speaking the same language, a whole tradition. Therefore, I would possibly have no fear of my rights being eroded. But when you're living as a minority, and in our case as English-speaking Catholics we are a minority within a minority, we see the possibility of our rights being eroded.

• 1155

I should go one further perhaps into a political theme and say that if the government decides to amend section 93, what is to stop the Quebec government from making some other kind of rule tomorrow? You then find yourselves debating the possibility of another change in the Constitution, possibly along linguistic lines, and having a unilingual province.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Father McEntee. If you don't mind,

[Translation]

the following people have asked to speak to continue the debate: Sheila Finestone, Senator Lavoie-Roux, Paul DeVillers, Mauril Bélanger, Senator Prud'homme, Senator Grafstein and Peter Goldring. There are about 10 minutes left. I would therefore ask for everyone's cooperation so that the questions and answers can be briefer. I immediately give the floor to Mrs. Finestone.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, I hope we can accommodate your desire, but I can tell you, I think this is an extremely important presentation.

There is no doubt that I am extremely concerned about minority rights, but they are much more the right of my linguistic minorities, particularly the English-speaking minority, to come together and to have greater power through the force of numbers.

In that light, as far as I know, the Canadian Constitution protects two languages. It doesn't protect religious rights in general. I would suggest to you that this is the way I would like to see a charter and a constitution in a multicultural, bilingual country such as Canada.

We have those rights protected and expressed in a very value-based charter that covers many areas, from freedom of expression and freedom of religion to non-discrimination, to the protection of multicultural, aboriginal...all kinds of things.

Frankly, as an English-speaking Canadian living in Quebec, my concern is section 23. I don't think section 93 is really important. I think it's too exclusionary in today's society. I do believe that section 23 is very important, and particularly for the English-speaking Catholic community. You have large numbers of English-speaking Catholics coming from other parts of the world to Quebec. The very restrictive nature of the exclusion by Quebec of paragraph 23(1)(a) is a serious impediment to the growth and development of the English school system.

Notwithstanding that, if you put all the English-speaking people together in one school system and you continue to have what are the expressed rights in Quebec under section 41 of Bill 109, to allow for confessional schools, you have strong, convinced parents who will ensure that the Catholic educational system will continue under the English school system.

Now, do you really believe that in Quebec society, as parents under section 41 in Bill 109, you will lose the right to those schools? Are you concerned that they will stop using the notwithstanding clause and eventually we will run into no religious schools at all?

Do you think Catholic parents are going to allow that for the Catholic children? If they allow it for the Catholic children, don't you think they're going to allow it for the English-speaking Catholic children?

Rev. Patrick Meehan: That is precisely our concern, yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You are therefore saying to us that you think both French-speaking and English-speaking Catholic children and their parents.... Our interest is the best interest of the child and the best education system as a first priority. Is this, delivered through a Catholic school under a French-language board or a Catholic school under an English-language board, going to disappear in Quebec? Is that what you're concerned about?

Rev. Patrick Meehan: Not instantly.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm looking down the road, too, Father.

Rev. Patrick Meehan: Looking down the road is our concern, and that's why we asked for the constitutional—

Mr. Sheila Finestone: And you think section 93 protects you?

Rev. Patrick Meehan: —protection, yes.

[Translation]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Do you all understand French? No?

[English]

I'll do my best in English for awhile.

• 1200

First of all, I want to thank you for coming before us. I think they are true porte-paroles of the anglo-Catholic community of Montreal. Not that I know them individually, but I remember when we were working on the committee for la restructuration de l'île de Montréal, the Montreal Catholic school board did the survey with the anglo-Catholic part of the commission, where there were 45,000 students at the time. I suppose there are about 20,000 today; I'm not sure.

It came out strongly that in the French and English sectors of the Montreal Catholic school board, which at the time was the largest school board in Canada, the attachment of the parents of the anglo-Catholic section of the school board was extremely strong. It was much stronger than the one from the French-speaking sector. It has probably changed a bit because that was 20 years ago, but still I think it's fundamentally also because of the various origins of the people in that sector.

I'm with you in the sense that I think linguistic boards would have a good effect, not for the aim of getting more English kids and sending them to the French sector, but in terms of making the English-speaking pedagogical resources stronger, for instance, because they are spread thin over various boards.

I'm not at all assured that the parents will be able to decide at the school level what kind of school they want. I think somewhere there should be a stronger guarantee than that, because you're going to witness nice little wars in the school too. People who have lived in Quebec all their lives—and I'm old enough now—have seen the movement, not only the erosion but the disappearance of confessional schools. Forget confessional school boards; just look at confessional schools. There's no guarantee left anywhere. Anything can happen.

I think we have a duty—at least I feel I have a duty—to make sure that we give better guarantees than would exist if we only removed section 93, with no other provision.

That's all I wanted to say, Madame.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, madam.

[English]

Both Mr. Kenney and Senator Lynch-Staunton made reference to Minister Dion's testimony and his references to the bishops' position. I'd like to point out that Minister Dion also tabled a copy of the letter he received from the bishops.

On Mr. Kenney's point, specifically from that letter, he wasn't aware of any pronouncement by the bishops. According to what Minister Dion said, they were not opposed to the establishment of linguistic schools or to the modification or amendment of article 93.

I'd make reference to the second paragraph in that letter of September 30, addressed to Minister Dion from the Assembly of Quebec Bishops. I quote:

[Translation]

The bishops wish to state again that they are not opposed to the creation of such linguistic school boards as could maintain the parents' rights to denominational schools.

[English]

Again, in the last two sentences on page 1 it says:

[Translation]

Our assembly, however, did not oppose the choice leading to the amendment of Section 93.

[English]

I think that's what the minister was making reference to.

Mr. Nick Discepola: But read the other sentence. It says:

[Translation]

We must point out here that our assembly never argued for the repeal of Section 93.

[English]

Mr. Paul DeVillers: The minister said they were not opposed. That's not to say they are in favour of it. The minister didn't say that and it's never been suggested.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: It might be useful to have that letter circulated and also translated.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): We can do that and discuss it. The next speaker is Mr. Mauril Bélanger.

• 1205

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. and Mrs. Joint Chairs, I believe we are in a situation where, as it says in the song, "everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die". If I understand correctly, there is a consensus, there is even unanimity for the creation of linguistic school boards. Right? But we seem to want to cling to denominational school boards. That's more or less the situation.

I have a question for this gentleman.

[English]

Mr. Meehan, can you explain to this group how it is that the next witnesses we will have, the Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers of Quebec, the 3,000 teachers who teach in anglophone schools, support the abrogation of section 93 as proposed by the National Assembly?

In my view they are the front lines, and they are making a case for the consolidation of the anglophone linguistic minority in Quebec, something as a francophone from Ontario I can very well identify with. They are arguing that consolidation would serve the community better than the current situation, yet you are arguing that section 93 should be maintained. How do you explain the difference in position, please?

Rev. Patrick Meehan: I think it's because we are an English-speaking group and a minority.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So the status you're claiming is that of a minority of a minority. As such, you think section 93 should be maintained.

Rev. Patrick Meehan: Yes.

[Translation]

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

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Reverend Meehan. We will give you the chance to answer to somebody else.

We'll go to Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, I have a question.

Seeing this application is based on using references from the 1982 Constitution and there are difficulties with paragraph 23(1)(a), there's a suggestion that the notwithstanding clause could be used too. On the very reference on the application it states that the Government of Quebec does not recognize the 1982 Constitution. Is this not of major concern, particularly when the application is for the total extinguishment of section 93? It's not an amendment, it's a complete removal.

Do you feel it would not be a better method of doing reform in the province of Quebec by adding to section 93, improving it where necessary, but keeping the references in section 93 the way they are? It would be improving it rather than destroying it or deleting it.

Rev. Patrick Meehan: That is a purely political question, which as a pastoral priest I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer. Earlier one of you—I forget which one it was now—said that we're not here to discuss the question of whether you will amend the Constitution but simply whether or not the application of it to Quebec will be abrogated. I could only suggest that's a political discussion you could carry on. I can't really help you with it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: On the other part of the question is one of your concerns, which is that the Quebec government's very application states on it they do not recognize the 1982 Constitution.

Rev. Patrick Meehan: That's true. It's because of the easy way in which provincial law can be changed, the easy way in which provincial charters can be changed that we appeal to you to preserve what we already have in the Constitution by not agreeing to this amendment.

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

We'll now go to Senator Grafstein for the last intervention.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I'm interested in the specific example one of the witnesses gave about what would happen in a particular area where there are five schools and 20% in each of those schools are English-speaking Catholics. Am I correct in concluding that assuming the passage of section 93 and under Bill 109 there's nothing to prevent the parents of the 20% in each of those schools getting together and applying under subsections 508.4, 508.5 and so on of Bill 109 to reassemble and reconstitute a Catholic school with English teaching, preserving in effect your rights?

• 1210

You imply that would disappear. My understanding is that if the parents choose and it's the parents' right, they can come together, the 20% in each of the schools, and in effect vote. If they do vote for English-speaking Catholic schools in that particular area, it's incumbent upon the government or the school boards to establish them. Nothing gets extinguished; it gets replaced by the same school.

There's a timing problem but not a practical problem. One system is dissolving, but the schools themselves are not disappearing. They're present, with the same structure inside the school, the same teaching. It's essentially the same coagulation or concentration of students who wish to, and whose parents wish them to, be taught in English with Catholic teachings.

Mr. Joseph Zemanovich: That's a specific technical question. The fact is, as I explained in my analogy, currently, and this would apply across the board, we have Lakeshore School Board, which is non-Catholic, and we have Baldwin-Cartier, which has a portion of English Catholic. Put them together and you're going to have the new linguistic board. That English Catholic group will be a minority.

Now parents have a choice of sending their kids to any school they want. They can send them to school A, B, C and D. There are four schools. If all four vote to be non-Catholic, what do you do, sir? There is nothing in the law. It refers to religious instruction. I'd like to have someone define that.

Mr. Discepola may have raised the question as to whether there's a difference between religious instruction and a Catholic school. I think Father Meehan made a fundamental difference.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: No, just let me—

Mr. Joseph Zemanovich: I'm saying the law would not allow that 20%—it doesn't matter what statistic—the minority of English Catholic parents to have a school. How could they? They've all voted to be neutral.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Let me just read the section, because I'm confused. Section 508.5 of Bill 109 says any number of natural persons domiciled in the territory of the school board, except persons domiciled in Montreal or Quebec, who are of a religious confession, Catholic or Protestant, different from that of the majority, whose names are entered, etc. They take steps. It goes on to say they can establish a school.

In practical terms, how is it different? In other words, is this legislation not precise enough to provide for schools that are Catholic or Protestant? Obviously the linguistic problem is solved.

Mr. Joseph Zemanovich: Answer your question, I think, yourself. If the five schools have voted—there are only five school buildings, sir—and they all vote to be neutral, how do you have a building that doesn't exist? How are you going to get it?

In reference to the question of tolerance, I can tell you as a former membre de commission scolaire, when we had a situation that the French community needed a school, and I know it happened in Baldwin-Cartier, you wouldn't believe the heavy discussion to get that school and move the children all over the place. I understand you're saying be nice, be tolerant, but my example is a real one. In this particular community you could have a significant number of kids without a school. Indeed, what some people might then propose is offering them 40 minutes of religion a day. They'd say, what's your problem? You've got your religious instruction.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): May I ask Reverend Meehan to conclude.

Mr. Joseph Zemanovich: Just to finish, I don't think we disagree with linguistic boards. But it's very clear, and I think Father's being very polite, we do disagree with the bishops. We're saying we want a constitutional guarantee. That's what we're saying in effect.

If I had an infection in my leg, give me some medicine to treat my leg. Don't kill my leg.

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

• 1215

Father Thomas McEntee: Was it Mr. Bélanger who asked who's coming up next, or was it you? I thought that was rather strange, because we can't speak to them. So I can take advantage of your remark.

Madam Marois consulted 20 organizations on the repeal of section 93, and 15 said don't touch it. I have a few statistics here that 750,000 people in the province of Quebec, obviously not English-speaking, want Catholic schools and Catholic school boards. So that will give you an idea of what.... Bringing it down to our level, as a minority group we're asking that our rights be protected. I think not only do we ask, we can demand it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you Father McEntee, Reverend Meehan, Mr. Zemanovich, and Father McKee. On behalf of all members of the committee, I would like to thank you for your presentation here today.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, could we have a copy of the list of 20 groups consulted that this witness has mentioned?

[English]

Could you share that list of 20 groups with us, please?

Father Thomas McEntee: I don't know the 20 organizations.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You don't know them?

Father Thomas McEntee: The APCQ, the association of parents, Catholics—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Maybe you can just provide the clerk of the committee with the list.

Father Thomas McEntee: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Father McEntee, for your nice presentation.

We will now proceed with the Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers, represented by Michael Palumbo, president, and Donald Irving, executive assistant. We welcome you to the Special Joint Committee to Amend Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Concerning the Quebec School System. Our rules are that you take five to ten minutes to make your presentation and after that we will proceed with a question and answer period.

We're glad to hear you, Mr. Palumbo.

Mr. Michael Palumbo (President, Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers): I would like to thank the members of the joint committee for giving us the opportunity to be heard here today.

[Translation]

I apologize to the members of the Committee who would have preferred to have the French version or our brief. There is a French version but it is only a summary and not the full text of our brief. Unfortunately, it has been impossible, given the deadlines that you know about, to have the full text translated and printed. Nevertheless, the ideas...

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Palumbo, if you don't mind

[Translation]

you could send us the full text and we could have it translated.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: The ideas in the summary obviously reflect those in the full text. In the coming days we will ensure that the Joint Committee will receive the French version of our brief.

Mr. Nick Discepola: All things considered, we could avoid imposing this on the witness by asking our translation services to take care of it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Absolutely, we could have it translated internally, Mr. Palumbo.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The clerk is advised to go ahead with the translation of the full text. You may continue, Mr. Palumbo.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Irving will start the presentation and I will conclude it.

[English]

Mr. Donald Irving (Executive Assistant, Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers): I'll introduce ourselves and our particular situation, and then I'll hand you back to Michael for the argumentation.

• 1220

The Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers of Quebec, PACT, represents more than 3,000 teachers in English-language schools and centres in 25 school boards in the province of Quebec. As a representative of teachers working under the jurisdiction of Catholic school boards, PACT has supported the numerous efforts of Quebec governments over the years to replace confessional school boards with linguistic ones.

The current confessional structures have the effect of dividing pupils attending English schools in Quebec between two systems, one Catholic and one Protestant. This division has resulted, in many areas, in an inequitable distribution of resources, paralleled in some areas by their needless duplication. It has also prevented the English-language population from speaking with one voice when enunciating positions on educational matters. We find this situation unnecessary and unacceptable.

The particular situation of English-speaking Catholics has been a determining factor in securing the support of this sector of the linguistic minority for linguistic school boards. In fact, the particular situation of English-speaking Catholics illustrates the irrelevance of section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 in that it contains no guarantees for the linguistic minority in Quebec but has been the cause of the splitting of the English-speaking population between two school systems.

Consequently, English-speaking Catholics find themselves in a minority position in all Catholic school boards, and thus under the current confessional structures are largely deprived of the opportunity to participate in the real control and management of the schools attended by their children. In many cases English-language schools are isolated from the English-language pedagogical mainstream because they constitute the lone English-language school in the board.

In the 35 Catholic school boards where English-speaking Catholics receive services in English, 17 have a single English-language school. You will notice a discrepancy between the figure in the first paragraphs of 25 and 35. That is because in the other ten, English-speaking Catholic teachers are represented by the CEQ, and that's further evidence of the fragmentation of our population.

In addition, in most rural areas the Catholic school boards have transferred their English-language pupils to the Protestant school boards under contracts of service. While this may appear to be a de facto linguistic school board arrangement, the parents of these pupils are in fact disenfranchised by virtue of the transfer and are therefore excluded from the control and management process.

We believe the establishment of linguistic school boards in conjunction with the amendment of section 93 will lead to the correction of these long-lived anomalies in Quebec. We believe the consolidation of pupils that will occur will lead to a unification of resources and the creation of structures that will permit a more effective use of these resources. We also believe the structures thus created will permit the English-speaking Catholic minority to create a more cohesive educational community that will enable it to speak with a single voice on such educational matters as funding, curriculum, pedagogy, articulation with the CEGEP system in universities, and access to schooling.

I'll now pass you back to Michael.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: As you can tell from Mr. Irving's presentation, above all else the PACT considers the status quo—that is, the confessional school board structure—to be unacceptable, and we have supported every attempt over the last 30 years to replace confessional school boards with linguistic ones.

In that support we were motivated by two objectives: the first was to ensure that the English-speaking minority in the province—all of the English-speaking minority in the province—would be given effective control and management over their school system; and the second that the English clientele be consolidated and unified in one common system. We wish to see an end to two English schools across the street from each other, both half empty.

Therefore, while we have supported all attempts to replace confessional school boards with linguistic ones, we have done so because we considered them a step forward. However, we acknowledged at the same time that each of those solutions was an imperfect one.

• 1225

We refer in our brief to legislative and administrative contortions to ensure that the legislation that would effectively implement linguistic school boards would at the same time respect section 93. We believe that in the past those legislative contortions have led to a watering down of our objectives. Those objectives were compromised—in some instances a lot and in others a little. In every case the resulting approach was a complicated system: overlapping school boards and overlapping and potentially conflicting levels of authority.

In the draft Bill 109 that would co-exist with section 93, we have overlapping levels of authority and confessional committees in the cities of Montreal and Quebec, with jurisdiction over important matters that would surely place these councils in conflict with the council of commissioners in the linguistic school boards in those cities. Elsewhere in the province we have the potential for the exercise of the right to dissent, and thus overlapping school boards, which means a splintering of the student clientele. With 100,000 students attending English schools in the province, I posit that this minority cannot afford to be splintered and fragmented.

In that context, and only in that context, have we supported what we call less-than-perfect schemes. Today I believe we can do better. We have the opportunity to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 so that we can do better. We believe it must be done, and must be done rapidly, according to the delay stipulated in Bill 109. We believe this will permit the establishment of a more coherent system of English school boards, one that will permit us to best achieve the goals pursued. We must not do anything that will compromise these goals now.

The English-speaking community must be given a system of English schools over which they will exercise control and management, one that will effectively consolidate all children studying in English within that system. It is for this reason that the PACT supports the amendment of section 93 to subtract the province of Quebec from the application of subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4).

With Bill 109 we are well on our way to replacing confessional school boards with linguistic ones. On July 1, 1998, French and English school boards will be a reality and will begin operating. We have the opportunity with the amendment of section 93 to free these school boards from the cumbersome confessional committee structure. The amendment will also eliminate the threat of fragmentation represented by the exercise of dissent.

We recommend therefore that the federal Parliament work with the National Assembly of Quebec to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 so as to subtract the province of Quebec from the application of the four subparagraphs, and within the delays stipulated in 109.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Thank you. We will now move on to questions. I already have eight people who have asked to be heard. I will ask you to be precise. Mr. Kenney.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you for your presentation.

I didn't get all of your verbal presentation, but having reviewed the written presentation I don't find anything that clearly states whether your organization is in favour of continued access to religious education and continued access to schools with a denominational character as provided for under Bill 109. Are you in favour of or opposed to such continued rights to confessional education?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: We're in favour. We're also satisfied with the provisions contained in Bill 107, which are maintained in Bill 109.

Mr. Jason Kenney: My supplementary question would be that if you're in favour of confessional school rights, are you not concerned that by eliminating section 93 of the Constitution the entire charter will apply to the Quebec education system? This will threaten the continued publicly funded aspects of religious education in Quebec in so far as the jurisprudence in Ontario indicates that the charter will likely be used to attempt to extinguish confessional school rights. Are you not concerned that the statutory protections in Bills 107 and 109 are insufficient to guarantee confessional school rights? Simply put, if you're in favour of confessional school rights, why would you be in favour of eliminating the only constitutional guarantee for these rights?

• 1230

Mr. Michael Palumbo: First of all, the constitutional guarantee we speak of imposes confessional school boards on the structures. We're in favour of the teaching of religion. We're in favour of schools being recognized as Protestant or Catholic if the parents so choose. We're not in favour of the maintenance of confessionality at the level of the school boards. We believe that causes splintering and fragmentation, and we believe it should be eliminated.

Furthermore, right now the statistics that are available point to a large majority of the parents in the province wishing to maintain religion at the level of the school in terms of teaching, pastoral services, and the recognition of the school as Catholic or Protestant. With that majority we feel confident that it's not threatened.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Do you know whether that majority will be there in 50 years to continue to provide political protection for what is now constitutionally provided?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I don't know.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you.

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

Senator Beaudoin.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: My question will be a quick one. You say you agree with the resolution that has been submitted to us. If I understand correctly, you are also not opposed to religious instruction in the schools; you are in favour of it.

[English]

You are in favour, I understand, but you rely on the legislative solution and not on the entrenchment in the Constitution in place of section 93. This is what you say.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: We've been consistent; that has been our position for years.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: In other words, we live in a democracy and if a parliament or a legislative assembly is not taking care of such a right as the right to be taught in a particular religion, they would be defeated at the polls. This is what the legislative solution is about. This system exists in many other countries. The question before us is whether we accept that solution or not.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I don't believe it should necessarily be stated in terms of choosing one over the other. I think it's safe to say that for the English-speaking community in Quebec, their primary concern right now is English education. Their primary concern is that English education in the province remain strong, vital, and not threatened constantly by fragmentation and splintering.

The competition between English schools run by Protestant school boards and English schools run by Catholic school boards is unhealthy. I would venture to say that often not the best pedagogical decisions are made on behalf of the children when the objective is to entice the clientele to your school and your school board as opposed to the other school or the other school board. Once the students are all together in the same system, we can go about deciding how we want to educate those children.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: I understand that. Nobody objects to linguistic reorganization.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I understand that, but as I've said before elsewhere, we're in favour of linguistic school boards everywhere. We're not in favour of linguistic school boards somewhere and confessional school boards in other places.

• 1235

Earlier you heard the evocation of the possibility of a dissentient school board in the West Island of Montreal. That would be a disaster.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Thank you.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is a very refreshing brief that does a lot of good, at least for those on this side. I would say that that its greatest merit is to bring out clearly the advantageous side effects for the anglophone community.

I believe that one of the difficulties facing this Committee during its work is that people create links, not always based on the debate under way, between denominational rights and linguistic rights. You tell us that the greatest merit of the proposed resolution, if it is adopted, is that it would consolidate the anglophone community's school network, that it would put an end to the unhealthy competition between two networks an that, in short, the anglophone community would benefit.

In the final analysis, that is the objective. We can't say it often enough. The objective of the legislator in the National Assembly is to put an end to a fragmented school system and to improve for the future the organization of the school boards by structuring them not on a denominational basis but on a linguistic basis.

I therefore hope that your message will be understood. Your greatest merit will no doubt be to convince our unaligned colleagues, especially the one I do not want to name but who is at my side, that this is really the best thing that could happen to Quebec.

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

[English]

Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: We are obviously concerned that the minorities in Quebec are essentially in support of a resolution that the legislature is unanimously in support of.

You represent more than 3,000 teachers right across Quebec, I take it. From your personal perspective, has this issue been widely discussed between the parents and the teachers in order to come to your conclusion, or was this something taken purely by the teachers without large consultation with parents?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: There is co-operation on areas of policy and such at the level of the leadership of the parent committees. The representatives of the Fédération des comités de parents de la province de Québec who were here earlier this week—we certainly collaborate with them. We received a call from them for a copy of our brief, and we exchange positions all the time.

At the level of the school, schools are communities—closely knit communities—and teachers and parents are constantly in contact with each other. Sure they discuss it at a different level, but when the teachers tell us what they think about something it's certainly a function of the exchanges they will have had with the parents. Likewise, when the parents feed into their structure they will be influenced by the exchanges they will have had with the teachers.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: When you say you represent 3,000 teachers in the English language schools, are you comfortable in making the representation to our committee that your conclusions here represent a wide consensus within your client group?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I can certainly speak for the teachers we represent. On the other hand, we have often assumed, I would say, a leadership role within the larger English-speaking Catholic community, and also within the English-speaking community at large on issues of policy, linguistic school boards, and other issues of that sort. So while I'm reluctant to speak on their behalf, leaders of those groups will surely have the opportunity to do so in a formal way. I think PACT has always played a determining role in the formulation of policies beyond, if you will, our strict membership.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): If you will allow me, I would remind you that the following members have asked to speak: Mrs. Jennings, Mrs. Finestone, Mr. Bélanger, Senator Lavoie-Roux, Senator Robichaud and Mr. Goldring. If you could please limit yourselves to two minutes, I would be most grateful. I immediately give the floor to Marlene Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I want to thank you very much for your presentation. I read the summary of your brief and listened to you very carefully, and I appreciate all of your comments.

• 1240

As well, I think I like what I heard, but I would like to know how you would answer the dissident Catholics who wish to continue with confessional school boards. You addressed it briefly in saying that you think this solution is the real solution and that it is a positive solution and will bring positive benefits to the anglophone community, but you're not unaware that there still are some who wish to have the maintenance of a mixed system. They say, “We don't have a problem with linguistic school boards, but we want to maintain our right to dissidence and have religious school boards continue.” Could you address that a little bit more?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I hope I'm going to answer your question, but I'm going to do it through an anecdote.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Please do.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: Some 15 years ago in a meeting where parents, teachers, and the community at large were debating the merits of linguistic school boards at the time—we weren't debating the merits of amending section 93; we were still at whether or not we should have linguistic school boards—an English-speaking parent said to the assembly, “I would sooner send my children to a French Catholic school than to an English non-Catholic school.” I disagree with her.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Next intervention, Sheila Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

You made a very interesting presentation. I would like to look at the school system 25, 30, or 40 years down the road, because this is not a one-shot deal in terms of amending the Constitution. It's a serious matter of rights and it's a serious matter of responsibility for the child's education.

You are the teachers; you're representing teachers. As an anglophone, I have chosen to ensure that my children will be well-prepared for the French-language world of business in the future. So I'm going to send them to an immersion school under the present Protestant school system, which is exactly what I have done.

I now have grandchildren. What happens to grandchildren's rights, or what is the impact of English-speaking people choosing to send their children into immersion French classes given within the English school system and therefore their children's first educated language—not first language spoken, paragraph 23(1)(a), but paragraph 23(1)(b), the language of education.... What is going to happen to the English school system that you as teachers are involved with and want very much to protect?

As a parent and a grandparent, I want to ensure that my children don't assimilate. It doesn't necessarily mean integrate, but it does mean being effective members of society and choosing whether they wish to participate in strictly French culture or English and French culture. What's the future? I think you've got to look beyond tomorrow. If paragraph 23(1)(a) is not going to come in, what's going to happen?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: My daughter is not Catholic, and she attends immersion classes in a Catholic school. I too am worried about what will happen 20 or 30 or 50 years hence. If you're asking the question whether minority language rights should be strengthened—of course. I would never disagree with that. How could I? What we're discussing today is whether my daughter, who is not Catholic, attends a Catholic school. What difference does it make? What she's attending is immersion classes in that school because we have opted for the services that school offers.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You are suggesting, Mr. Palumbo, if I understand it, that the right to choice by parents of the educational facility that they believe to be the best is the right that should be assured. It's the right of choice of parents for the education of their child, not the imposition of the denomination or the imposition of the language.

• 1245

Mr. Michael Palumbo: We believe the imposition of denomination at the level of the school board is redundant and unnecessary.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: We're talking about the parent and the child, the right of the child and the right of the parent to select the best education and to ensure that both options are out there in the future.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: The legislation that has been adopted by the National Assembly assures those choices right now.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would rather make a comment and I will be brief.

[English]

I've tried with previous witnesses to get at the notion of a preference of rights, in a sense a hierarchy of rights. Are linguistic rights more important than confessional education rights and so forth? Reading your brief and listening to you, I certainly have the impression that you seem to place a higher value on the ability of the anglophone minority in Quebec to consolidate its assets and ensure its cultural survival and within that framework to have denominational rights. Would you say that impression is a fair one?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I would say it's a fair one, and I think it runs to the very nature of this country.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

[Translation]

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

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Thank you.

Where do you teach

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I am not teaching currently but I am an teacher in the CECM.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: In the CECM.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: Yes, in the English sector.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: And you to?

Mr. Donald Irving: No, not currently. I have been a teacher in the CECM. I am currently attached to the Chomedy school board in Laval.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Your brief surprises me. I agree with you because I have known for a long time that in the beginning the linguistic division was not easy to accept for anglophone Catholics. But I think that now everyone has come to the obvious conclusion that it is for the best in terms of consolidating resources, etc., it was the best thing that could happen. You, too, also had some minor diverging points of view internally in the English Catholic sector.

What surprises me a little is that you are satisfied with the guarantees offered by Bill 109 in the area of maintaining denominational schools. You know there is a movement to secularize the schools. That movement has been around for a long time. What happens when, at a certain point in time, we make a small change to Bill 109 and all those guarantees go down the drain? Doesn't that concern you? You say to yourselves: let's abolish Section 93, be happy and go on living.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I would say that is another debate and that it has already started. A committee has been struck to study the situation. There will be debates shortly during which varied opinions will be presented.

I would bring you back to the case of English schools located in the regions of the province. Often in some population clusters there is one school that must serve the entire population. This school must be all things to all people. This is already the case. The debate on the secular school in these regions is already resolved because there is one school for the entire community.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, but you are talking about Saint-Glin-Glin where the population might be 6,000 or 10,000. When we talk about...

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I hope we don't mean that the rights granted for the city of Montreal must be more advantageous than those...

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: No, no, but you take the most isolated example you can find.

• 1250

But you aren't worried. All right, fine.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: As we said in our brief to the parliamentary commission that was studying Bill 107: we aren't worried. We said it again to the parliamentary commission on Bill 109 and we are repeating it here today.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You answered someone a while ago that you form a community of teachers and parents, that everyone talks to everyone, etc. Are you ready to say that the existence and content of Section 93 were openly discussed, well perhaps not as specifically as my good friend Senator Beaudoin would? Have you discussed the meaning of all this with the parents?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: We are not the ones who enter into debate with the parents.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: No, but have the teachers done it with the parents?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: We came here today and we can state the position of our organization without reservation. I refuse to speculate on the interpretation of the position and the writings of other groups.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, but you said a while ago that you were not worried because, through the teachers who are in contact with the parents, you knew that the latter were in agreement. But are they really familiar with the content of Section 93 and the meaning of its repeal?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: I believed that the representatives of the Fédération des comités de parents had testified here this week.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Palumbo. If you please, Madam Senator, we will now hear from Senator Fernand Robichaud.

Senator Fernand Robichaud: If I understood what you were telling us, Section 93, in its current form, imposes structures on you that in many cases do not benefit the quality of teaching that you could offer to your children. Did I understand correctly?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: That's it. Mr. Irving has alluded to the situation in areas where there is one school per school board. The pedagogical support for the teachers is non-existent and the instructional material and the retraining possibilities do not exist, certainly not in English anyway. Therefore that is the situation that has existed for 30 years and that we should change.

Senator Fernand Robichaud: The children in those schools are deprived of a quality of teaching that they could find elsewhere.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: Certainly.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The last intervention is from Mr. Peter Goldring.

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

You made the comment that you're against the confessional school boards but you're for the confessional schools. With that in mind, I'm wondering why we're so intent on throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. We have subsection 93(3), which is an appeal process, and subsection 93(4), which is a remedial process. Would it not make more sense to modify or change section 93 by removing reference to school boards but leaving in confessional schools and maybe making other improvements to it? In other words, we would be improving section 93 rather than extinguishing it forever and all time.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: Comprehensive constitutional reform in this country is elusive at best. For years we have supported what I call less than perfect schemes because prevailing opinion was that section 93 either could not be amended or, if it could, it could only be done through a very lengthy process. We are told today by experts in the field, who I defer to, that section 93 can be amended. If it can be amended in a way that does not impose on us schemes that I have called less than perfect, I'm not going to oppose them.

• 1255

We have been in favour of any scheme that would bring about the consolidation and the control in management. Assure us of that and we'll support that too.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a supplemental. With the extinguishment of section 93, the 1982 document would stand alone for national protection of Quebec's rights. How do you answer very real concerns that the Quebec government references the 1982 Constitution but refuses to recognize it? Where are the national rights then?

Mr. Michael Palumbo: The contradictions you raise, if I can call them that, are real. I would venture to say that we have specifically not said we support the request of the National Assembly because there is wording in the “whereases” that we object to. But we believe section 93 should be amended.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Amended, not extinguished.

Mr. Michael Palumbo: Amended to subtract the application of (1), (2), (3), (4).

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

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Palumbo and Mr. Irving, for this presentation on behalf of the Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers of Quebec. Speaking for the members of the Committee, thank you again. The hearings will start again this afternoon at 3:30. Before we adjourn, I would like to let Mrs. Sheila Finestone speak.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be within the parameters of an undertaking by the research staff or your assigned staff to list the interveners who have appeared, the position they have taken, and a slight summary. If we know the position they have taken it's going to make it far easier. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Good observation. We will proceed with that.

This meeting is adjourned until 3.30 this afternoon.