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

• 1530

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The special joint committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the Quebec school system is resuming its hearing pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 1997.

[English]

I would like to welcome the Quebec School Board Association, represented by Ron Edwards, president; Ann Cumyn, first vice-president; Allan Butler, vice-president; and Peter Riordon, vice-president. Welcome, everybody, to this joint committee.

I should just say a few words to explain the rules. You will be asked to make a short presentation of between eight to ten minutes, and then the members will have the opportunity to ask you some questions.

Will Mr. Edwards make the presentation?

Mr. Ron Edwards (President, Quebec School Board Association): Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Please go ahead, Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Ron Edwards: Thank you for the invitation. The Quebec School Board Association welcomes this opportunity to address this joint House of Commons and Senate committee regarding the proposed amendment to section 93 of the BNA Act of 1867.

To begin, let me make it clear that the Quebec School Board Association favours the creation of linguistic school boards, but at the same time we question the need to proceed with the proposed amendment.

By way of introduction, the Quebec School Board Association is a provincial organization representing almost the entire area of Quebec. The member boards cover virtually every elementary and secondary school and adult services in the province and approximately 110,000 students. The Protestant School Board administers 248 English-language schools and 88 French-language school boards, the latter representing approximately 30% of our clientele.

While confessional in designation, Quebec school boards are also common in the sense that they are required to enrol students within their jurisdiction who so desire and who are not of the same religious affiliation as that of the board. In addition, the Quebec act prevents parents from choosing between Protestant or Catholic moral and religious instruction and moral education for their children, irrespective of the school's confessional designation.

It is important to recall that up to the time of the adoption of the Quebec charter of the French language, known as Bill 101, in 1977, the Protestant school boards administered few French-language schools. The Protestant system was at that time primarily an English-language school system, and in many ways, particularly in greater Montreal, it attracted a significant number of immigrants.

The adoption of Bill 101 had the initial effect of reducing the number of potentially eligible students for English-language instruction, and at the same time it increased pressure on Protestant boards to develop a French-language school board. At the same time the English-language education school community was divided between two systems: one Protestant and one Catholic. This division became more apparent in the 1980s as language replaced religion as the predominant social cleavage in Quebec.

For the English-speaking community this shift in emphasis from religion to linguistic boards became all the more relevant in the context of declining enrolment of English-language schools. English-language students enrolled in both Protestant and Catholic public schools exceeded 230,000 in 1975. Today, 20 years later, the numbers of English-language enrolment have declined to approximately 105,000, a tremendous drop. This drop can be accounted for by the decline in the number of English-speaking young people who are residents in Quebec—so they're not having children here—and second, to the limited access to English-language schooling as a phenomenon.

• 1535

The proposed amendments and school board restructuring in successive provincial governments, dating back to the early 1980s, have attempted to introduce reforms to replace the current confessional school boards with linguistic structures. In 1981 and 1984, the Quebec government adopted Bills 3 and 40, and sought to implement language boards, irrespective of section 93 of the British North America Act.

At the same time, these two initiatives met with considerable opposition. The Quebec School Board Association, known at the time as the Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards, challenged the legislation on the grounds that it violated the constitutional guarantees of section 93 of the BNA Act. In addition, certain groups representing the interests of the Catholic community, particularly in the Montreal region, objected to the proposal on the grounds that section 93 provided guarantees to their community.

The courts, fully and in part, favoured the Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards' and Catholic interests, and effectively declared that Quebec must live up to its constitutional obligations as set out in section 93. The courts said that Quebec could not unilaterally dismantle the historic confessional system, particularly with regard to Montreal and Quebec City, and the rights of the minorities to dissent.

In 1988, in an attempt to reconcile the political will to introduce linguistic school boards with the confessional protection, the Quebec government adopted Bill 107. At the same time, they decided to verify the constitutional verity of this legislation by way of a reference case, which was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In June 1993 the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of Bill 107. It gave the Quebec government a green light to proceed with the implementation of linguistic school boards, provided it respected the rights of religious minorities to dissent and the confessional rights within the cities of Montreal and Quebec City.

The court ruled that it was free to impose linguistic school boards on the territory of both the protected Protestant and Catholic boards and on the whole of Quebec. However, four protected boards, two in Montreal and two in Quebec City, enjoyed a particular status that could not be undone without their consent. Secondly, the court ruled that section 93 afforded the right to dissent to Protestants and Catholic religious minorities within the future territories of the remaining school boards.

Among the issues the court dealt with were the right of Quebec to limit schooling, voting, and tax rights on individuals of the same religious order as the dissident schools. The right of Quebec to merge dissident school boards within the same religious category and the right of Quebec to introduce administrative structures other than school boards to ensure the religious character of dissident schools could be maintained. The court also ruled that dissident schools are subject to the same curriculum as other schools, although adapted to the needs of the particular religious characteristics. The dissident schools are entitled to a fair and equitable share of public funding and the use of buildings consistent with their needs.

While this landmark decision by the Supreme Court placed a limit on the confessional education rights, the courts did reiterate its constitutional thesis that section 93 represented an historical compromise between upper and lower Canada, in the sense that the religious minorities in both provinces are entitled to certain protections regarding the control and management of their schools. However, the court did reaffirm that each province must determine the appropriate level of measures to confer that right. Hence, in 1993 the court's decision clarified much of the uncertainty revolving around the meaning of section 93 as regards Quebec. It also signalled two types of structures—confessional, or dissident, and linguistic—or coexistence within the context of section 93, provided certain denominational education rights are respected.

• 1540

Following the Supreme Court decision of 1993, the Quebec association reviewed its position and concluded that it would work with the Quebec government in moving towards the implementation of linguistic schools. In 1994 we participated in a commission created by the Minister of Education, whose mandate was to examine how Bill 107 could be applied.

A series of recommendations were made to reconcile the imperatives of section 93 with the desire to create a province-wide system of linguistic school boards.

In February 1996 the current Quebec government announced another attempt would be made to implement linguistic school boards. The Minister of Education met with different sections of the education milieu, including the Quebec association, to determine whether a consensus still existed for linguistic school boards. The association reiterated its support for the creation and argued that the coexistence of conventional and linguistic structures was possible in light of the 1993 Supreme Court decision.

Further, we noted that maintaining it in the light of dissidence was of major concern to a number of our constituents, particularly the French Protestant community that over the past number of years have developed specific educational projects under the auspices of the Protestant school boards. This position continues to reflect our point of view.

The attachment of the French community to the schools is demonstrated by the fact that approximately 25 notices of dissent have been filed throughout Quebec during the past few days in reaction to the current transition towards linguistic school boards.

It is our view that for certain components of the French community, the loss of dissidents will jeopardize their capacity to maintain their educational projects. These are in areas where the members will be dispersed, and the distinctly English religious minorities within a very large French community....

While the current debate on Quebec to abrogate section 93 is one that centres on religious rights and the transition to linguistic school boards, the association is fully aware that section 23 of the Canadian Constitution provides certain constitutional guarantees regarding the rights of linguistic minorities throughout Canada to exercise a degree of control in management of their school system.

We have followed with considerable interest the evolving jurisprudence developed by the courts regarding the meaning and scope of section 23, particularly since Quebec does not politically recognize this section, or indeed the Constitution Act of 1982. To date most observers would concur that the courts have defined fair and equitable criteria that provincial jurisdictions must respect in order to establish appropriate levels of support for the linguistic minority.

While acknowledging that this jurisprudence would be remiss if we did not express our apprehension for the future of English-language schools in Quebec, the ongoing decline in the size of the English community could well call into question the very existence of certain English school boards in the not-too-distant future. This is because section 23 imposes, where numbers warrant, a provision that limits the obligation of the provinces regarding the degree and type of support to be provided to their respective linguistic minority communities.

The demographics facing the English-language community in Quebec, coupled with the constitutional nuances of section 22, lead us to speculate about our future to exercise meaningful control and management of our schools. We raise this concern to signal that while education is a provincial jurisdiction, we believe the charter rights, and particularly those that define linguistic minority education rights across Quebec, deserve nothing less than the full support of the federal government.

In conclusion, while the association supports the creation of linguistic school boards in Quebec, it questions whether it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed amendments to section 93. The Supreme Court has effectively ruled that the guarantees of section 93 and the implementation of linguistic school boards are not incompatible. In the light of this ruling, the right of dissidence for minorities can coexist with the linguistic educational structures.

• 1545

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Edwards. We will now proceed with question period, and start with Jason Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Thank you all for your very thoughtful and insightful brief.

I'd like to hypothesize for a moment. We've received advice from several organizations, including yours, that the linguistic school boards could be incorporated without removing section 93. I think you clearly demonstrate that in your brief.

Why do you suppose the government of Quebec is seeking to eliminate section 93 when clearly this is not a necessary step to implement linguistic school boards and to continue the right of dissidence?

Mr. Ron Edwards: I think one of the reasons is essentially that they would find it a nuisance to have more administrative structures than they really want.

Their answer in the long term may be not to remove religion from the schools. That could well be an interpretation, but any interpretation we put can only be a surmise.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Do you think the removal of section 93 would at some point in the future likely lead to the complete secularization of the Quebec school system?

Mr. Ron Edwards: That could be. We have had, from successive governments actually, as I mentioned, Bill 40 and Bill 3. Bill 40 removed school boards and divided us up into a French community. That was fought on section 93 and won.

Mr. Jason Kenney: So in the absence of section 93 you see no other ultimate legal protection for confessional education in Quebec?

Mr. Ron Edwards: I'm sorry, could you say that again?

Mr. Jason Kenney: Apart from section 93, do you see any other really meaningful protection for confessional education in Quebec?

Mr. Ron Edwards: No.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin, (Shawinigan, Lib.)): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): My impression is that you agree with the recent—1992-93—decision of the Supreme Court, in the sense that we may leave section 93 as it is and add a superstructure for linguistic school boards, French and English. That would answer your—

Mr. Ron Edwards: We believe it could coexist. Everything could coexist.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: So you agree entirely with the creation of linguistic school boards, but you are raising the question of whether it is appropriate to proceed with the amendment that is before us here. My guess is that you don't think it is appropriate. You think we should not go in that direction.

Mr. Ron Edwards: Yes, that's essentially what we're saying.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: I see.

The problem is that there may be some other reasons the Government of Quebec is interested in going ahead definitely at this time, because it would raise the question of school boards in a city like Montreal. We may end up with four or six school boards. Since people are affirming that, I would like to know from you if you agree or disagree.

Mr. Allan Butler (Vice-President, Quebec School Board Association): No. I think Montreal will stand on its own. I don't think you would have any more than we have now in the way it has been structured.

The major problem here is the fact that religious minorities will lose their right of dissent. Another major factor is that in the future schools will lose the possibility of having confessional status.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: I see. In other words, the perfect answer from your point of view is the decision of the Supreme Court in 1992-93.

Mr. Allan Butler: Yes—not that we were happy with the Supreme Court decision, but as far as.... As chairman of the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal...the commissioners of the Protestant School Board felt that they could live with this Supreme Court decision as it was delivered.

• 1550

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Life would be easier for you with that decision of the court than it would be with the resolution that is before us.

Mr. Allan Butler: In so far as Montreal is concerned, I think if all they were concerned about was the duplication or multiplication of school boards in Quebec City and Montreal, they could have amended the law in a way that still allowed the right of dissent for religious minorities.

[Translation]

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

Ms. Christiane Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Good afternoon. I'd like to thank you for your presentation. You've expressed a point of view shared by a number of witnesses we've heard in the past two days relating to the matter of dissidents and denominational schools. There is agreement with linguistic school boards but a desire to keep the same denominational structure. I know that attempts have been made for the past 30 years to change these structures and set up new ones but there have been no concrete results. The fact that the government has chosen this procedure indicates, I think, that the previous choices have been impossible to apply. We have to adapt to the new reality and also allow for a better integration of other cultures and religions in our schools.

Do you not think, as was claimed by the Federation of parents committees of the province of Quebec, that the social and religious culture is strong enough in Quebec to perpetuate this religious practice in schools and that it should be up to the parents to decide freely whether they wish to maintain or give up the denominational character of a school? Do you agree with giving the parents this choice and allowing them to decide on the type of religious upbringing they wish to give their children?

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

[English]

Mr. Ron Edwards: I agree with you that it's up to the parents, but I think there's a certain number of people in Quebec who clearly want religion in the school system. They clearly want Catholic education, and there are elements of the community who want Protestant education and Protestant values. And they want them set into the program. They don't want them at their option at the church or something like that. They want them built into the culture of the program. When this happens in the French community, the community will be divided. Because they are a very small minority, they will be completely at a loss.

Certainly there are various Catholic communities that would like to have crucifixes in the school and Catholic teachers. Personally I see no problem with that. I'm not a Catholic myself, but I see no problem with it and I see no problem with running a school board like that. I believe parents should have the choice and should be free to choose. I think what you're being asked for here is something a little bit different.

• 1555

Ms. Ann Cumyn (First Vice-President, Quebec School Board Association): I'd like to add, yes, the parents can and want to have religion in the schools according to their wishes, as you said. They get the right to have their religious schools from section 93.

The Quebec charter of rights puts in the right to religion courses in the school, but the Quebec charter of rights does not mention the religious schools. They could of course have changed it if they so wished, but the right to have the religious schools flows out of section 93, whether it is the parents who choose to have their schools Catholic or Protestant schools or whether it is the school board that determines the school is Catholic or Protestant.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The amendment we are suggesting strikes me as being much more open. It is said that in our present system some children are excluded and are unable to go to a particular school because it is a denominational one and they do not belong to that religion. This means they have to go to another school. I think that what we are proposing shows much greater openness.

One of the witnesses talked to us about a school which both francophone and anglophone children attended. I don't remember whether it was a Catholic or Protestant school. We could show much greater openness to children of different religions, as was the case for this particular school, consistent with a spirit of openness and a willingness to adapt to our present reality. In 1867 there were English-speaking Protestants and French-speaking Catholics in Quebec; they did not cohabit. At one time I used to imagine Protestants almost as if they were a kind of ghost. The adoption of this proposal would allow for the integration of new immigrants from all religions within the same school where the same language is spoken.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Any comments?

[English]

Ms. Ann Cumyn: If you're saying it's the parents who can choose the kind of confessionality they put on the school, the parents make up the wide community and the parents of that wide community have a right to make a decision under section 93.

Mr. Allan Butler: Across Quebec there is an evangelical French Protestant community. There have been 25 dissents made to this time because the children will be forced from their religious schools, based on the parental decisions to place them in French Protestant schools, and forced into the mainstream of the Catholic school system. This is unreasonable. That's what will happen if you amend the Constitution.

So far as general integration into the school system is concerned, 55% of the school population of the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal goes into an English system and 45% goes into a French school system. There is no problem in the French school system of many faiths being served.

So it's got nothing to do today with the fact that the school is identified as Catholic or Protestant. Even within the Montreal Catholic school system, there is an integration process going on and the children are not refused acceptance. Remember your history. In 1867 part of the understanding was that both the PSBGM and the Montreal Catholic school system were identified as common school boards to which everybody was entitled to go. It had only to do with the management of the schools, and the management of the schools was what we foresaw as being protected at that time.

• 1600

As far as I personally am concerned you are destroying religious rights, short term and long term, if you proceed with the amendment.

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

We'll now proceed with the next intervention. Sheila Finestone.

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

Thank you very much for appearing. This is becoming far more complex than the simple issue of just removing section 93 and moving into linguistic boards. I essentially support that move.

What I don't support is the fragility of assurance of English-language minority rights, which would include the protection of religious rights within those English or French streams.

If you look at today's section 93, I think it's very much outdated in the multicultural reality. It seems to me that you talked about three conditions: one has to do with control; the other has to do with consolidation; and the other, which you imply by the drop in the student ratio and the student proportion, is access to the school system.

I'd like to ask you if you're of the view we need constitutional language protection with respect to the kind of protection we once had for the constitutional minorities. In particular, do you believe there can be help if we recommend the repealing of section 59? Do you think that would be helpful? Do you think it will be helpful to insist that paragraph 23(1)(a) allow parents the right of choice? What would you say would be the way in which Bill 107 and the amended now 109 might be most effective?

Mr. Allan Butler: I'm giving you a personal opinion. I have no major concerns with the protection of English language. I would rather somebody else advance that if it's a problem. The major concern I have is the fact that religious minorities are going to be deprived of their religious schools.

I would turn it over to somebody else to answer, because as far as I'm concerned the English community in Quebec can live with paragraph 23(b) of the Canadian Constitution as long as we're in Canada. I don't think we're going to be leaving Canada for quite some time to come.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Butler, Canada does have two official languages, but it doesn't have an official religion. So I think protection of strictly Catholic and Protestant is certainly not within the interest of a modern Canadian society.

I'll return the question to you—Mr. Riordon, Mr. Edwards or Ms. Cumyn.

Mr. Ron Edwards: The question is obviously of vital importance to the English community, but unfortunately it was the Parliament of Canada that made section 59. They put in section 59, which limits the effectiveness of section 23. As for coming back to us and asking us about the question, I think it is academic actually.

The other question is that in all the hearings that have taken place up in Quebec City determining 109, access has not been an issue. What we've been talking about is the confessional system. When we were up there, when we were dealing with 109, we made a very strong point, for exactly the same reason Allan Butler gave earlier, concerning the confessional system. We're just repeating it here.

Access, in my view, is very important, but it's really a subject of another discussion and another source.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You have no concerns that the English-language school system will disappear. You have no concerns that under the removal of section 93, with the potential of the diminishing school board and the desire of parents to have their children learn French, the numbers will not warrant the maintenance of English school boards except in defined circumstances.

• 1605

Mr. Ron Edwards: Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. That's what we've been saying. We believe that under section 23—if you can believe it's applicable to Quebec, and we're not really sure because it depends on the day of the week whether they're in the Constitution or out—we're going to be removed. If you take out section 93, in effect you're dealing with section 23, which says where numbers warrant. When you're dealing with communities far away from Montreal with very small school boards and small schools, we don't see that those schools will exist or continue to exist.

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

We'll now proceed with Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib.): Earlier today we had evidence from the Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers, who made the point that from their perspective as Catholic teachers the removal of section 93 would in effect remove the overlay of the confessional system but still afford access to confessional routes, confessional education, and that this would be a much more useful consolidation of public resources.

Have you examined the proposed structure from this perspective: under which structure, the older structure that has the duplex structure or the overlay structure versus the proposed modernization or rationalization, would the student or the child receive a better education? In other words, in terms of deploying the scarce resources, the taxpayer...for the purposes of education and from the child's perspective, under which system would he get a more highly qualitative education?

Mr. Allan Butler: They'll be equal; there will be no saying one way or the other. But if you want to go back to your lead-in for the question, what the Catholic teachers said, it's very dubious to my mind that the provincial government, if the amendment goes through, will continue to allow religion within the schools.

One of the recommendations of the estates general was that religion should be taken from the schools. I remind you that the education minister has already appointed a committee—before your committee makes its recommendations to Parliament—to look into questions of religion in the school. I wouldn't count on the continuance of religion within the schools in the school system.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: So you're not prepared to rely on the 1982 charter or the Quebec charter or the human rights law when dealing with the rights of the child.

Mr. Ron Edwards: There's nothing in the Canadian charter, under section 23, that deals with religion.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I'm talking about access to education on language. I'm not talking about the Quebec charter. When I looked at—

Mr. Allan Butler: The Quebec charter is clearly an act of the legislative assembly of Quebec, which they can treat as they have done now in so far as the removal of religious protection by the Constitution is concerned. They don't have to go through a constitutional amendment to look after that.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: So you give no substance at all to 109, which in effect seems to preserve rights of religious affiliation within the school system.

Mr. Allan Butler: Yes, I think it should be protected within the school system, and I think the continuance of section 93 protects it within the school system. Conversely, I think they can proceed with a linguistic school board system, which will allow for Catholic schools and neutral schools and Protestant schools, particularly if people in the community want those things. But once you remove section 93, you're going to lose all that.

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

We'll now proceed with Peter Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Good afternoon, gentlemen.

This amendment is in fact an extinguishment of section 93. As section 93 was placed in the Constitution during the formation of this country and dealt with minority education rights, I think what's important to keep in mind are subsections 93(3) and 93(4).

• 1610

Subsection 93(3): this application will extinguish and remove forever an important appeal process. Subsection 93(4): a remedial process by the federal government will be removed.

In the process of reforming Quebec's education, would your group not consider it better to improve on section 93, to truly amend or modify section 93 that is there to achieve your aims, rather than scrapping it and cancelling it entirely?

Mr. Ron Edwards: I don't think in all respects that we have studied the option to modify. I'm not saying there may not be a merit to modifying it, but I'm not sure at the moment what that modification is.

I'm aware of the motion being presented here—to actually remove section 93 as it applies to Quebec, or rather to leave it in the Constitution but to take out the word Quebec in application for that section.

That is what I am aware of. I'm not very aware of the other aspects of it. Maybe some of my vice-presidents would like to comment. Ann?

Ms. Ann Cumyn: I would think that if there were an opportunity for modification, we would want to see what the modification was and study it. We would be open to looking at a modification if one was going to be presented.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This application itself by the Quebec government references the 1982 Constitution for rights but refuses to respect its references. Paragraph 23(1)(a) has not been accepted at all.

Is this a concern as well? Is it not a concern for your national rights?

Mr. Ron Edwards: I think we're mixing up two items, actually. The item you are talking about, paragraph 23(1)(a), is very important, but really what we're dealing with is the removal of section 93, which is a confessional right. I don't think confessional rights, in other words section 93, should be removed.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The same application has reference to the Constitution Act, 1982, but it also makes special notice in the reference that the Quebec government does not recognize the Constitution Act, 1982.

Mr. Ron Edwards: I realize that. But that's one reason to keep section 93, because at least they recognize 93.

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

[Translation]

There are three more people who wish to ask questions.

[English]

Go ahead, Peter Riordon.

Mr. Peter Riordon (Vice-President, Quebec School Board Association): Thank you. I think we're dealing with an issue here that has boundaries that may be subject to different definitions by different people.

Our position clearly is that we feel that language boards are appropriate today and that they should be implemented, but they can be implemented without touching section 93.

If we're talking about changing section 93, the majority of the population probably does not object. The parents have come and said that it's okay with them. However, constitutions have a lot to do with—and so does democracy have a lot to do with—minorities. There are minorities within the Quebec population to whom section 93 is extremely important.

There are minorities within the Protestant community, and minorities within the Catholic community, all of which feel it is extremely important to them to have access to confessional schools.

We believe those minorities should be heard. Does the English school system face a threat with respect to the removal of section 93 or other constitutional considerations? The English school system very clearly faces some severe challenge to its future existence by virtue of the limited access to English schools.

We did not come here particularly today to address that question, although it is an extremely important question and has implications in the constitutional area.

No question, that is a serious concern, particularly when we're faced with, where numbers warrant, consideration in remote areas, and eventually perhaps not-so-remote areas.

These are all valid questions. However, our sense coming here today was that some of these questions were beyond the limits of today's agenda.

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

• 1615

[Translation]

We still have three questioners left: Paul DeVillers, Mauril Bélanger and Senator Lavoie-Roux. We'll start immediately with Paul.

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

[English]

Just looking at the wording in your brief, in the introduction you say your association is in favour of “the creation of linguistic school boards in Quebec, but at the same time calls into question the need to proceed with the proposed amendment”, and then again in the conclusion you say:

The Association, while in support of the creation of linguistic school boards in Quebec, questions whether it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed amendment to section 93.

Given that this committee has to report to the Parliament of Canada, and that our option and that of the Parliament of Canada is a yes or no answer—yes, we accept the amendment that's proposed by Quebec, or no, we do not—and given that if it's a no, it's back to the status quo, what—

Mr. Ron Edwards: As far as I know, not as far as linguistic school boards. Linguistic school boards are in effect. The provisional councils have been formed. The whole process is being kick-started.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But procedurally we're being asked by—

Mr. Ron Edwards: You are; yes, I agree.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: It's our answer that is yes or no.

When you say you're in favour of linguistic school boards but you're calling into question—that's not very strong language, as I read it, “calls into question”. Given that we can only say yes or no, does that mean you want us to say no? That's what I'm asking for clarification on.

Mr. Ron Edwards: Yes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: It wasn't very clear, and that's what I wanted clarification on.

Mr. Ron Edwards: I think maybe that's clearer.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: We heard this morning from the Catholic teachers' association, and they were saying it was a good idea to say yes. They were recommending that we say yes because they saw it as an advantage that they could consolidate the anglophone population in a situation where the population of the anglophone schools is declining. How do you react to that position?

Mr. Ron Edwards: I think that comes back to what Allan was talking about before. I think the minister has chosen a certain way in which to divide up the island of Montreal, and divide up the confessional system, and she's made it in a very difficult position.

It's very interesting. I can remember not too long ago when the same group you have just referred to, the Catholic teachers, supported our position on the non-removal of section 93. Immediately, the difficult way in which the minister divided up the island of Montreal in that relationship...they seemed to back off, actually.

Mr. Paul Devillers: That's why; they see it's an advantage to amalgamate.

Mr. Ron Edwards: Allan, do you want to comment?

Mr. Allan Butler: Yes.

If you leave the Constitution as it is, in my opinion the school reform will go ahead. They will establish linguistic boards, and certainly on the island of Montreal, at least, there will continue to be Catholic schools and other schools, and neutral schools, in my opinion. That will meet the needs of a modern community.

I would suggest that maybe at the high school level there will be consolidation of schools, but certainly in so far as the elementary schools are concerned, in the City of Montreal and in the suburbs of the City of Montreal there will continue to be—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: What about the rest of the province?

Mr. Allan Butler: I think in most sections of the rest of the province, because of numbers, they are already consolidated within the one school system, so there's nothing for them to basically lose at this point.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: One other point of information please, Mr. Chair—

Mr. Ron Edwards: Can I add something? In the case of the Mormons there are 25 people who have lodged the dissident status request with the ministry. I believe they're scattered over Quebec; I don't have the details of where they are. The Supreme Court looked at that and I believe said they could be grouped together on the one school board. So you're really not dealing with 25, or a large proliferation of school boards, but a very limited number.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: One last point of information. Do you have figures or estimates on how many students received a Protestant education and how many received a moral education under the present system, in your boards?

• 1620

Mr. Ron Edwards: I would say 50:50.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. DeVillers. We'll now have questions from Mauril Bélanger and Senator Lavoie- Roux. I'd like to ask you to be brief since we'll have to break in a few minutes because of technical problems.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib): I'll ask my question later. I was going to ask whether there is a majority somewhere in Quebec, because all we hear about are minorities and minorities, but I'll come back to it.

[English]

I have a brief comment here, because something you put in your brief is intriguing. You question the validity of 23 and the future of linguistic rights—not confessional but linguistic rights—and you comment that since Quebec does not politically recognize this section, nor the Constitution Act of 1982.... I recognize that the current Government of Quebec may not recognize it, but do you acknowledge that it does apply to Quebec?

Mr. Ron Edwards: We reckon it applies. If you read the print, it goes on and says we don't want to be dumped by the federal government. We believe we should get some federal funding for when this case comes up, and every issue we have to fight that goes all the way to the Supreme Court.... We've already fought cases up to the Supreme Court. You're talking about $200,000 a crack.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I know.

Mr. Ron Edwards: So we're talking about some child or group of children not being included for some reason. If we believe they should, then we're saying we'd like someone to say that they would like to overlook and, if it's a reasonable case within the charter, that they will support us.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I believe the intervener funding might just be there, because I know of what you speak in terms of funding cases.

I want to have your comments on the “where numbers warrant”. As you know, it applies to the entire country and to linguistic minorities outside of Quebec. It's a bit of a thorn, and in some cases much more than that. Are you aware of the jurisprudence on that and the threshold that's been set in some cases, particularly the—

Mr. Ron Edwards: I would like to refer the item to one of my colleagues.

Mr. Peter Riordon: We watched the judgment in the Mahé case with great interest. We're aware of it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Our next intervention will be from la sénatrice Lavoie-Roux.

[Translation]

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux (Québec, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[English]

Welcome. I apologize for being late.

I want one thing clarified. You say, okay, let's go ahead with linguistic boards, but it can be fixed by means other than taking away section 93. How can you go ahead with linguistic boards? Which way would you go to accomplish it? They're trying to tell us that the only way you can do it is to abrogate section 93.

Mr. Peter Riordon: The Quebec government convened the Kenniff commission to address the question of the implementation of linguistic school boards some years ago. The commission submitted a comprehensive report that was based on the implementation of linguistic boards, with the existence of section 93 assumed, and that report puts forward a very credible and workable implementation of linguistic school boards. We were represented on that commission and we support its results. It certainly did not require the removal of section 93, and our position is that we do not need to remove section 93.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: What report or commission are you referring to?

Mr. Peter Riordon: The Kenniff report.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: But then people protested, if my memory is right, about the super position of confessional over the school board, and that it was getting to be too heavy.

Mr. Allan Butler: That's the way the provincial government has gone under the present circumstances, but I don't see it as being a two-headed thing. I think it's only over confessional education. That would be most important, I think, in so far as the Island of Montreal is concerned, to the Roman Catholics. It doesn't apply outside the city of Montreal; it only applies within the city of Montreal.

• 1625

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: And Quebec City too?

Mr. Allan Butler: And Quebec City too, but I don't see it as a major problem given how the Education Act has now been designed. It's not quite the way I might have done it, but I think it's adequate to meet the needs of the community and still leave the confessional rights in place so that there can be confessional schools at the local level.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I think I would have to look more closely at the Kenniff recommendations.

When les États généraux were worked out, were any of these questions discussed? I presume you went to the les États généraux to present something. Did you? Was this question of modification through linguistic boards and guarantees and others discussed? What was la réaction des États généraux? Estates general—I find it so funny.

Mr. Allan Butler: The estates general came forward with a recommendation that religion be taken from the schools. That was clear.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, I do remember that.

Mr. Allan Butler: That's what I am concerned about in the long term. Currently the minister has guaranteed religion within the schools for three years. As far as I'm concerned that is short term. I would remind you that the initial amendments to the Education Act as first presented to the committee of the National Assembly called for the continuation of the Protestant and Catholic school boards within the city of Montreal. Then they reversed their positions and took up the question of confessional committees. So they moved half way, and I think they moved as far as they needed to because the confessional committees will meet the needs of the various communities in the city of Montreal. However, the amendment will not meet the needs of the French evangelical community outside the city of Montreal. That is clear.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator. Mr. Butler, Mr. Riordon and Mr. Edwards, Ms. Cumyn,

[English]

on behalf of all the members of this joint committee, thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Ron Edwards: Thank you for a hearing.

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

We'll take a five-minute recess.

• 1635

• 1639

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are resuming the hearings of the Special Joint Committee established to examine the resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 concerning the Quebec school system, pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 1997.

We will be hearing from Alliance Quebec and its president, Mr. Michael Hamelin. Welcome. I would also like to welcome the Chair, Connie Middleton-Hope, the Chair of the Provincial Education Committee, Joan Dougherty, and the Education Consultant, Don Myles.

• 1640

I will quickly summarize the rules of the game before we begin. We would ask you to make a presentation of approximately eight to ten minutes and then the members of the committee will ask you questions. Will Mr. Hamelin be making the presentation?

[English]

Perhaps you'd like to proceed now.

Mr. Michael Hamelin (President, Alliance Quebec): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Alliance Quebec welcomes the opportunity to address the issues pertaining to constitutional education rights and their impact on the official language minority communities of Quebec.

Alliance Quebec is a forum for Quebec's English-speaking communities. It is committed to the preservation and enhancement of the English-speaking communities and institutions within Quebec.

I will address five points in my oral remarks, which are reflected in our brief: the first area is the matter at hand, the matter that's before this committee today; the second element is the process that brought us here; the third is Alliance Quebec's position on linguistic school boards; the fourth is language rights; and the fifth is our recommendations to this committee.

[Translation]

Some will have you believe that the resolution tabled in the House of Commons to have section 93 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 amended has nothing to do with language rights. This is not so.

First, the Intergovernmental Ministers of both Quebec and Canada have time and again stated that the move to have the Constitution amended was directly related to the implementation of language-based school boards in Quebec. It would be, at the very least, intellectually dishonest to avoid debate on minority- language education rights when discussing an education system based on language.

[English]

The resolution tabled in the House demands that language rights be addressed. While the resolution deals with section 93, it also deals with the charter of the French language and section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, both of which we address in our brief.

The resolution tabled in the House and these hearings have very much to do with minority language rights.

Second, Alliance Quebec finds it unacceptable that the National Assembly of Quebec adopted a resolution calling on the Government of Canada to repeal certain minority education rights contained in our Constitution without consulting the people through a public process of hearings.

[Translation]

The House of Commons has condoned such an action since it has found receivable the request from Quebec's National Assembly. The National Assembly of Quebec would have minority rights withdrawn from the Canadian Constitution without any process of consultation!

[English]

In Quebec there were no hearings, and with respect to these hearings we can't help but wonder about the sincerity of the government's commitment to the exercise when we consider some of the remarks attributed to Stéphane Dion, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I quote from the Globe and Mail article dated September 20, 1997:

But Mr. Dion said the hearings must take place, even if the government is not swayed. “It will not change the decision of the government, but the government will receive this information.”

In May 1996 the education minister of the province of Quebec consulted 20 groups. Now these groups are listed in an annex to our brief.

Alliance Quebec was part of the large consensus that said yes to linguistic school boards, yes to law 107, yes to the maintenance of confessional provisions contained in law 107, and no to constitutional amendments.

In a letter to the minister following this consultation, Alliance Quebec said that it endorses the reorganization of school boards on a linguistic basis. This reorganization will better reflect the social complexion of Quebec today. As well, it will allow the English education communities to consolidate their clientele and resources to better plan to meet the needs of the children receiving English-language instruction.

In the same letter we said:

Alliance Quebec can't agree more with Premier Bouchard that the time has come to implement linguistic school boards. Any recommendations to modify the Constitution will most certainly invoke renewed debate and cause further delays to a reorganization.

• 1645

The debate was held for years. Law 107 was passed and the Supreme Court declared that law constitutional.

In response to our letter the minister, Madam Marois, wrote to us on July 10, 1996, stating the following:

[Translation]

The direction taken by the government and presented last June 12 fulfills its commitment to ensure that the anglophone community has full control over its schools and responds to the important concerns raised by your organization. This direction does not require a constitutional amendment and respects the denominational rights guaranteed by the Constitution Act of 1867 and those given under the current Loi sur l'instruction publique.

Alliance Quebec is part of the strong consensus that lead the Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, to announce on June 12, 1996 that she was proceeding with the implementation of linguistic school boards for July 1998. To do so, she chose to use the provisions of Law 107 and the recommendations of the Kenniff report with respect to denominational structures in Montreal and Quebec City. The Minister acknowledged Alliance Quebec's support when in a letter dated June 10, 1996 and addressed to the Alliance's president, she said: "I appreciate the clarity of your comments as well as your organization's desire to co-operate."

[English]

Alliance Quebec has helped build a solid coalition for the long overdue change, through more than a decade and a half of lobbying, negotiation, and debate with key educational partners in the English-speaking communities across the province. We believed at long last linguistic school boards were to become a reality, but unfortunately the Quebec government suddenly decided to abandon the consensus—a consensus it built—that had been reached through a democratic process. Alliance Quebec finds this deplorable.

Parliament has decided to proceed with hearings on a motion that addresses minority education rights contained in the Canadian Constitution. This is in your motion.

[Translation]

It is deeply disturbing to us that a motion tabled in Canada's Parliament would acknowledge significant restrictions on minority language education contained in the Charter of the French Language.

If the resolution is adopted as written, Parliament will confirm as acceptable that the minority-language community in Quebec be treated less favourably than the minorities in the rest of Canada with respect to minority-language education rights.

[English]

The motion also states that section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees to citizens throughout Canada rights to minority language instruction.

The above is patently misleading. It sends the message that there are equal rights to minority language instructions across the country, and this is not the case. This is the injustice we're seeking to have readdressed here.

Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lays out three criteria for access to minority language instruction. Paragraph 23(1)(a) is applicable in all provinces except Quebec. That paragraph states as follows:

(1) Citizens of Canada

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

have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.

However, since this is not applicable to Quebec, an English Canadian citizen who completed the major part of his elementary schooling in the United States or England, for example, does not have the right to send his children to English schools in Quebec.

If Parliament adopts the motion put before the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on September 29, 1997, it will be legitimizing a special power for Quebec with respect to minority language education rights. It will accept that the English-speaking minority in Quebec will not have the minority language rights contained in the Canadian charter that are granted to the other official language minorities in the rest of the country. For that, this is unacceptable.

[Translation]

Alliance Quebec is before you today not to negotiate minority- education rights, but rather to demand them. It is the Parliament of Canada that has agreed to open a debate on the Constitution; we are here to call on the federal government to ensure that we be granted the rights due to us as a minority; rights equal to those granted to the official language minorities in the rest of Canada.

We are recommending that the Parliament of Canada pledge its commitment to equal minority-language rights throughout Canada, and that that include the province of Quebec.

• 1650

[English]

That the Parliament of Canada make a stated commitment to actively seek the repeal of section 59 of the Constitution Act of Canada in order to bring about the equality of minority language education rights throughout Canada; that is, the minority language education rights as stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms completely.

In his presentation to this committee, Mr. Dion stated it is only normal for any group to want to enhance their rights and that linguistic minorities can always count on the support of the Government of Canada in this respect. We trust that this committee will carry forward on this recommendation.

Thank you.

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

We'll now proceed with questions. We'll start with the first member, Peter Goldring.

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

I want to point out again that this amendment is in fact an extinguishment of section 93, minority education rights. This extinguishment removes forever from the Constitution two important subsections: subsection 93(3) and subsection 93(4). In subsection 93(3) it removes the appeal process. In subsection 93(4) it removes the remedial process for the federal government to intervene.

I understand that in the process of reforming Quebec's education your group feels it is not necessary to extinguish section 93 of the Constitution. Do you feel section 93 could be improved or enhanced so it could better reflect the current realities of the wishes of those in the province of Quebec to have linguistic schools?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: First of all, I think it is extremely important for us to understand something. With all due respect to everybody here, the process of moving toward linguistic school boards in the province of Quebec is happening. In fact, it's happened. You already have the creation of the provisional councils; the matter is moving forward. With respect, nothing that you're talking about here has anything to do with linguistic school boards. It's going to happen in the province of Quebec. We supported this—a large consensus. You have an annex to our brief that talks about a whole panoply of groups in the province of Quebec cutting across linguistic cultural lines that are in favour of language school boards, and they're happening.

Our concern primarily is that people have to understand, and I think this committee has to understand, that this process can take place and is taking place without there being any type of constitutional amendment. As we said in the letter to the minister, Madam Marois, and as she agreed about a year and a half ago, the moment you do that you begin to raise all sorts of issues—issues you're raising; issues the groups before us raised; issues groups that will come forward will raise—very legitimate concerns. I think we have to understand that aspect.

From our perspective as an organization that represents the linguistic minority in the province of Quebec, the English-speaking community, there is, specifically because your resolution makes reference to it, an anomaly in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that frankly must be addressed. You can't have two classes of Canadian citizens, and that's what we have in Canada.

You have a situation in this country, as I said, where if you're coming from the United States or England to Quebec, you are English-speaking and become a Canadian citizen, you cannot send your children to an English-language school. But if, for example, at the other end of the spectrum, you are from Madagascar, decide to immigrate to the province of New Brunswick and want to have your children educated at the French language school, if you become a Canadian citizen you're able to do that. So we have two classes of Canadian citizens, and we have to be able to address the anomaly. Addressing that anomaly is absolutely critical for the future of the English language school system, as far as we're concerned. That issue is what has to be addressed.

Please let's understand something. Linguistic school boards in Quebec are happening right now, and the issue has nothing to do with whatever decision you're going to make here. It's going to happen.

Mr. Peter Goldring: My supplemental question is this. This application by the Quebec government references the 1982 Constitution and uses terminology from the 1982 Constitution, but it refuses to respect its own references. Is this not also of concern to you?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Yes, it's the whole notion of the Constitution and the references being made that are wrong. There are obviously inherent contradictions in the resolutions before you. There are constitutional protections that apply.

• 1655

The difficulty we have is that since we've been into this debate, since February, a lot of people, including those in Quebec City, including the Premier of the Province of Quebec, have been talking about the English-speaking community being protected by section 23. We're not. We don't have a full application section 23. If he's serious about it, let's implement section 23 tomorrow. Let's get rid of section 59 and implement section 23.

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

We will now proceed with Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton (Grandville, PC): Thank you, Chairman.

I must say that I'm of two minds regarding your brief. It's very eloquent, it's very convincing, it's very well written, as usual. It's of the typical high standard that Alliance Quebec has gotten us used to.

On the other hand, we are called on here to assess the impact of removing Quebec from the responsibilities inherent to it under section 93, which relates to the rights and privileges accorded to religious denominations, but nowhere in your brief do you mention the religious denominations. Of course, if a removal takes place, it will eventually have an impact on the linguistic boards, but the main impact will probably be....

I'll put it this way: what is Alliance Quebec's policy on keeping denominational schools in Quebec more or less along the same lines as those allowed or imposed by section 93?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Our position, as I said earlier, was outlined in the various points we stated when we went to see Madam Marois in the spring of 1996. It's that you had a principle in Bill 107 that allowed you to move to linguistic school boards but allowed the right of choice of confessionality to remain at the level of the parents. This is extremely important.

You have in Bill 107 a law that has been constitutionally tested and I think will allow the broader spectrum of people to be satisfied from both the linguistic and the confessional perspective.

We are a group, let's be honest, that cuts across various religious lines. We're not here talking about the whole question of confessional protections; we're concerned about linguistic protection. But they do relate and they do relate in this resolution. I think it's important to know that our position, which was the consensus, if you want to talk consensus, that derived from Madam Marois' consultation in 1996, was that we move toward linguistic school boards, under the auspices of Bill 107, and that we allow choice at the parental level for confessionality.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I don't want to be too long on that, but I really would have preferred more pertinent observations on the impact on Catholics and Protestants. There is a school of thought now developing to the effect that if section 93 goes in Quebec, it means that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply in toto and we may see the disappearance of confessional schools. Would Alliance Quebec have any objection to that happening over the years?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: I think that's why we stated last year that the moment you get into constitutional amendments, you are opening up so many different—

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: No, no. My question was does Alliance Quebec have any policy on the retainment of denominational schools in Quebec, more or less similar to what is taking place now? All I want to know is what your position is, if any, on denominational schools.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Our position on that question relates to what Bill 107 provides, which is parental choice at that level. In other words, you can have denominational schools—

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Through provincial legislation.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Through the provincial legislation.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I guess you're like those who came this morning.

I want to go to one other topic.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Maybe Ms. Dougherty can better address—

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Let's do one round. We can come back to it, or others will pick it up.

There's some question as to whether the amendment formula contained in section 43 is the appropriate one to use in this case, since section 93 involves more than one province. Do you follow me on this?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Yes.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Do you have any legal advice on whether section 43 is appropriate or not?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: No, we don't.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: You haven't gone into that.

Thank you, Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Lynch-Staunton.

We will now go to Réal Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Welcome. Needless to say, your testimony is long-awaited by one side and desired by the other. Obviously, your comments are very important to us.

• 1700

Initially, you appear to see the debate along language lines. Personally, I see this as a denominational issue. Logically speaking, if this were a language issue, the language rights that you now have would no longer be there in the future. I would like you to identify these rights for me, referring, if possible, to the particular section of the law if you know it.

I'm going to ask you my five questions one right after the other, because the chairman gets a little bit nervous and sometimes cuts me off.

Secondly, when your Anglo-Protestant colleagues appeared before us, they were in favour of the resolution, saying that it would consolidate the school system for anglophones. Do you share this opinion?

Thirdly, you know that on Monday, the House of Commons will be dealing with a resolution to strike a committee to do just about the same type of work, except that it will be dealing with section 17 and Newfoundland. Do you think that the members from Quebec, those sitting on the government side and opposite, should make a vote in favour of this section conditional on reciprocity? In order to get a favourable vote on section 17, should we ask the members from Quebec to demand reciprocity for francophones in Newfoundland?

Fourthly, would you be in favour of a free vote for members on the government side? You have told us that this is something that is extremely important.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Mr. Ménard, I think that you're already up to four questions. Don't you think you should let the witness respond?

Mr. Réal Ménard: All right, but I want to be able to ask more questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We will try to get around to everyone.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: It would take a long time to answer all of these questions. First of all, the language issues are connected to the resolution because the preamble of the resolution that is before you today contains a direct reference to section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This preamble talks about the language rights of the anglophone minority communities and it affords full protection, which does not exist under section 23. It is absolutely essential that this be understood.

Secondly, yes, we were in favour of consolidation, namely, the establishment of linguistic school boards as suggested by the consensus that Ms. Marois arrived at in 1996 after polling groups involved in this field. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that there was no consensus with respect to taking the constitutional route or making amendments to the Constitution. We must be honest when we talk about this consensus: the consensus arrived at by the Quebec Minister of Education in May of 1996 pertains to the establishment of linguistic school boards, not to a constitutional amendment. This is the only consultation that took place because, as you said, the National Assembly did not feel it was important to hold public consultations last summer.

As I'm no expert on Newfoundland legislation, I can't answer your question pertaining to Newfoundland.

Mr. Réal Ménard: And reciprocity? I asked you whether you felt that the members from Quebec, regardless of whether they were Conservatives, Bloquistes or Liberals should push for a constitutional amendment. Since you said that there should be equality for everyone, we are wondering whether it might not be beneficial for Newfoundland francophones to have the same rights as the anglophones in Quebec. That is reciprocity.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: This is the key point of our debate, Mr. Ménard. Newfoundland's francophones had more constitutional rights than Quebec's anglophones. I would encourage you to read section 23.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Pardon me?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Read section 93.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): This is not a debate. You asked a question and he is giving you an answer.

Mr. Réal Ménard: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Let us move to the next speaker.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard, we are going to move to the next speaker, Nick Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Monsieur Hamelin, I would like to know—and I would like to strike this right off the bat.... It seems to me that in your brief you state categorically that section 93 has nothing to do with language rights. Is that clear?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: It has nothing to do with language rights?

Mr. Nick Discepola: That's what you said on the second page of your brief.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Sorry, some will have you believe that.

Mr. Nick Discepola: In your testimony I didn't hear anything contrary to that. Is it true or not that section 93 is only about confessional schools and access to confessional schools, whereas linguistic rights are elsewhere in the Constitution?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: I think we have to understand that what's before you today is a complete resolution that talks about section 23 as well as section 93. This notion that we can somehow divide both of these sections—

Mr. Nick Discepola: But that's what I'm trying to—

Mr. Michael Hamelin: —is impossible to do.

Mr. Nick Discepola: —understand in my own mind. So if you tell me that section 93 is really about religious access to school, and elsewhere we have to protect linguistic rights, then I can move on. But If you tell me that section 93 has everything to do with linguistic rights, then I have a hard time with that. Okay?

• 1705

You say you're agreeable to linguistic school boards. You accept Bill C-107. You accept the concept of confessionality. Then why can't you support the abrogation of Bill C-93, conditional upon some other things that you state also in the sense that...?

You're saying, do I understand that if section 23 was accepted by the National Assembly and by the province of Quebec, you'd feel more reassured about eliminating section 93?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Well, I think the question we're concerned with here is.... Look, we didn't ask to have and I think it's very clear there is no consensus about this constitutional amendment. If there is a consensus, it is to move on linguistic school boards without touching section 93.

From our perspective, however, the resolution before you does not simply deal with section 93 only. In the preamble resolution it talks very specifically about constitutional protections as contained in section 23 of the Canadian charter.

Our problem is that you do not have complete protection for the English-speaking community of Quebec, and when you start to get into the Constitution—-

Mr. Nick Discepola: Why not?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: —-you get into the great unknown.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Why doesn't the 1982 charter apply? Why do you think that the Constitution of 1982 doesn't apply in the territory of Quebec?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Paragraph 23(1)(a) does not apply in Quebec.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I agree, but then you should be at the National Assembly asking them to respect that through section 59. We can't do it at the House of Commons.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: With all due respect, as far as I'm concerned, there is a responsibility in the federal government to protect the rights of linguistic minorities across Quebec, be they francophone outside Quebec or English in Quebec. I think there is a responsibility for this committee that is not only studying a major constitutional change here.... They have to take into consideration the fact that the English-speaking community in Quebec does not have complete protections the charter can provide. I think they have to be able to start to address that, as our conclusions do.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are going to move to the next speaker. Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: My question concerns sections 23 and 59. The resolution does not directly affect these articles, but you have raised the question.

You want equality, that is for section 23 to apply equally to all provinces, and I understand that perfectly. But that was adopted in 1982 that way, and section 59 said that paragraph 23(1)(a) which, by the way, deals with immigrants, could only take effect in Quebec by proclamation, etc. In my opinion, this is the main reason.

Anything can be done with an amending formula as long as the right formula is chosen. But if you want to amend it, it seems clear to me that Ottawa and Quebec City should perhaps amend it with section 43 since it does not concern only Quebec. The chances that Quebec would say yes seem to me to be very, very slim. Finally, what do you want us to do? You say that the federal government should go ahead and encourage or force Quebec to recognize the coming into effect of this aspect of section 23 in Quebec. I think that the federal government can always invite Quebec to do so, but only a constitutional amendment could force Quebec to do it.

An hon. member: At the request of...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: As for section 43, either the federal government or the province can take the lead, and if the approach is a bilateral one, normally it is the province.

Nonetheless, I would like you to tell us, since this suggestion seems to be rather theoretical, if you think that it can be implemented.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Hamelin or Ms. Hope.

• 1710

Ms. Connie Middleton-Hope (Chair of the Board, Alliance Quebec): We are wondering what the consequences of repealing section 93 will be. As far as we are concerned, it should be noted that we are focusing on our linguistic rights.

Linguistic rights, clearly, would come into effect if paragraph 23(1)(a) were to become real. I think, of course, that we will have to insist on this point, that we will have to call and continue to call for assurances to have the linguistic rights in our schools that exist across Canada.

But I have the impression that you are implying another question. I think that you are asking us also how we can relate the issue of section 93 to our point of view on the linguistic issue.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Section 93 should remain as it is, but four paragraphs must be repealed. That changes absolutely nothing in paragraphs 59(1) and 23(1)(a) concerning linguistic rights. I understand now why you are so insistent about linguistic rights. Whether the amendment passes or not, it will not change the particular problem posed by section 59.

[English]

Mr. Don Myles (Education Consultant, Alliance Québec): If I may, Senator Beaudoin, I think what you're asking is what are we asking of you in terms of section 59—what do we expect of you?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes.

Mr. Don Myles: I think we expect that the federal Parliament of Canada recognize that there is an inequality in this country with regard to minority language education rights. We'd like the federal Parliament to clearly state that they recognize that this exists.

Second, we would like our Canadian Parliament to make a stated commitment that it will use its legitimate influence to see what it can do to bring about correction so that there is equality in terms of minority language education rights across this country. We would like to know that our federal Parliament is concerned about us, and is making statements in that regard.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: But you know, if I may answer that, it's not the first time we see a certain asymmetry in the field of linguistic rights in the Constitution of Canada. Some provinces are bilingual, some others are not.

But most of the provinces are not bilingual in the sense that there are only three provinces that are obliged—

A voice: What's the difference?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: —to have legislation in French and in English. There are only three provinces like that. So that's one asymmetry. Legally speaking, it is, of course, an asymmetry.

But that's not the only one in the Constitution—that's all I'd say—especially in the field of linguistic rights.

Mr. Don Myles: That's the only one we're asking for today, sir.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Oh yes, of course, I understand this.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to see you all here today. It was also a pleasure to hear you.

I have two questions. One arises out of the statement that Mr. Hamelin made concerning the fact that, given that paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is inoperable in Quebec, the application has been suspended in Quebec. It creates two categories of citizens. I agree with you. It does create two categories of citizens in Canada.

Given that, and given the explanations you've given about how important it is that this particular section become operable in Quebec, I would like to know what Alliance Québec's views are on the fact that section 93 creates different statuses for citizens in Canada, in terms of religious rights.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Look, I think it's important to understand that section 93 has a whole history in terms of—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I do.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: —its application, in terms of how it came about, what the point was of the resolution in the first place. It was to protect minority education.

• 1715

Again, I come back to this point of the necessity of having to go through this process. When you get into constitutional abrogation, in whatever form, things are never that clear. Frankly, from my perspective, you end up getting into the great unknown.

What is most annoying here is that you don't have to do this to reach the objective you're trying to reach. That is consolidation, which is linguistic school boards in the province of Quebec, which is the modernization of the educational system in Quebec. You don't have to get into the constitutional debate and affect rights in one form or another.

On the other hand, however, the constitutional protections, the anomaly I raised.... I respect the senator's comments in terms of the fact that there is asymmetry in the Constitution. However, in this section, paragraph 23(1)(a), we have a situation that exists in only one province, in Quebec, affecting a community that frankly has lost two-thirds of its school population and has closed a third of its schools over the last 20 years. So if we're serious about having an English-language school system, à la linguistic school boards, as we do, you have to have sufficient ability to be able to grow as a community.

Ms. Joan Dougherty (Chair, Provincial Education Committee, Alliance Quebec): I'd like to add to this. There seems to be an assumption, and it has come up several times—I've read about it in the paper, and so on—on what's been going on here. There is an assumption that if we take away section 93, somehow, all of a sudden, there is going to be all kinds of respect for diversity, cultural rights, and so on.

I happened to be very closely involved with the creation of Bill 107 when I was in the National Assembly. I can tell you that Bill 107, which is the education act in Quebec, modified now by Bill 109, and so on, and which altogether now is moving into linguistic boards as we speak.... Bill 107 is the vehicle, not section 93. Bill 107 is the vehicle that is creating a respectful milieu at the school level for parent choice, whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, non-confessional, neutral, laïque, or anything you want. We have put our faith in the parents, and in the common sense of parents.

Now, the desire for religion, morals and ethics, or whatever, is evolving. It's evolving with time, and with demographic change. It's different on the Island of Montreal from Victoriaville or the Gaspé. We know that. Therefore, the only way we could create a milieu that was respectful of evolution and whatever cultural and linguistic diversity was there was to make it happen at the school, and put our faith in parents' choice. We believe that parents will respect each other, and will look after things in a proper way, and not governments. That's what Bill 107 says.

So what we're telling you is that the respect is going to be there, not because of section 93 or the Constitution, or whatever, and that all of this debate is a matter of politics. It has nothing to do with education. Bill 107 is taking care of education.

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

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I just want to correct one statement. And thank you very much; I really appreciated both your interventions.

I just wanted to correct one statement that was made saying that the limited access to English-language schools in Quebec only concerned immigrants. I think we could have a situation where a Canadian-born was raised and educated outside of Canada, comes back to Canada, becomes a parent, and their child would not have that right.

A voice: You don't have to be born in the country.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, I'm just giving an example.

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

We'll now go to Sheila Finestone, and after that to Madam Lavoie-Roux, but let's start with Sheila Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: First, I want to thank you for coming. And, as usual, it's a very enlightened text.

I particularly would commend to all of us a review of the consultation that was done. It indicates clearly the position of the major organizations that represent parents, teachers, and users of the service, who feel very strongly that the abrogation of section 93.... There are fifteen who do not want that abrogation and three are for it. Under the Proulx-Woerhling it's no by eleven of them. Under the maintenance of the dispositions of Bill 107 and now Bill 109, it is fourteen for.

• 1720

So in no instance is there any major support by these 20 organizations for the abrogation of Bill C-93, which I find very different from what we've been told over the last three days.

It's enlightening to see what the Province of Quebec found when they did their consultations. Even though they didn't go directly to the parents, there were plenty of parents and enlightened teachers involved who all said no. That gives me some serious concerns, because I happen to agree that the removal of section 93 is a good move.

The diversity this country finds itself with in 1997, and certainly that we find in Quebec.... By the way, it is not just in Montreal. You can find it in Chicoutimi, Lac-Saint-Jean, the Gaspé, Sherbrooke and Hull, so it's not just Montreal.

Joan, I found your particular explanation most enlightening. If Bill 107 with the Bill 109 amendments—I wish we had a consolidated bill in front of us, but we don't—is as good as you say it is, and I'm sure you must be right in that regard, then the problem does become the accessibility and the numbers warranted that will be protected under section 23, whether you have paragraph 23.(1)(a) or not. So section 23—where numbers warrant—and now the lack of access to English-speaking people from the United States or Ireland, England or anywhere else, reduces the potential for access to our schools, because Quebec is built by immigrants. I'm not talking about those who don't speak English as their mother tongue.

I'm coming to my question.

So never mind paragraph 23.(1)(a), what about looking at what New Brunswick did to protect its English and French minorities? I would ask all of you who have a copy of the Constitution Act to turn to page 62. I would like to ask you of Alliance Quebec, if instead of article 59 being removed and instead of insisting that paragraph 23.(1)(a) go in, because it doesn't look like Quebec would be very sensitive to that.... In light of the equal status of all Canadians.... Subsection 16.(1) says that the English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick “have equality of status and equal rights and privileges”, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities, and the role of the legislature and Government of New Brunswick is to preserve and promote the status, rights, privileges referred to in the above section.

If we could ask our government to consider, following the removal of section 93, which I agree with, the application of that, would you feel that the goals your brief outlined and that the 20 organizations have indicated—would it be answered?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: We're not prepared to come up and comment on subsection 16.(1) today, but I certainly think we would have no problem with the application of that article.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

[Translation]

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

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I am pleased to welcome you and to see among you a former schoolmate and a colleague from the National Assembly.

I found the table at the end of your brief interesting. It is interesting to see who is asking for section 93 to be repealed. Among the groups, I noted the Quebec teachers federation, led by Ms. Pagé, and the Mouvement laïque québécois. But that is not the point I want to make.

• 1725

According to your table, the Montreal Catholic school board said no to repealing section 93. Why is it that they are now asking us to repeal section 93? What happened?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: That is a comment for others, perhaps.

Mr. Don Myles: Just a quick comment, Senator. We received this information from the Quebec department of education.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: That is better still.

Mr. Don Myles: One would have to get in touch directly with that organization and ask it why it said one thing here and something else to Ms. Marois. I don't have any other answer.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: In any case there certainly seems to be a contradiction.

Next, the Catholic committee of the Conseil scolaire de l'éducation said no, as did the Protestant committee of the Conseil scolaire de l'éducation.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Yes, both the Conseil scolaire de l'éducation and the Protestant committee.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I have never understood why you became Protestant, but in any case...

Mr. Michael Hamelin: It is for that reason.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: This is a strange turn of events. It is the Montreal Catholic school board that undertook to have section 93 amended and now we learn here in these documents that it is apparently against the idea.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): It is not section 93.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: It is not this section?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Yes, it is, the four paragraphs of 93.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: I feel it is important to mention that since February, we have been hearing the word "consensus". The word "consensus" has been used daily in the newspapers in speaking of the amendment. I think that the only consultation in which there was a consensus was the one mentioned in the Alliance Quebec brief, and that was the consultation carried out by the Department of Education in May 1996. I cannot make any other comment.

Ms. Joan Dougherty: I might point out to Ms. Lavoie-Roux that this is not the first time the Montreal Catholic school board has changed its mind.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Senator, the Montreal Catholic school board will be appearing before the committee on October 28. They have not yet appeared.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Yes, but this information is before us.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Discepola. Ms. Lavoie-Roux, you may finish.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: With respect to the second question, I think we have an answer. Some of you had already mentioned that it was possible to have linguistic school boards without section 93 being repealed.

Ms. Connie Middleton-Hope: I would like to help the Senator by saying that Bills 107 and 109 allow for schools where there are denominational committees working directly within the school board. The parents then have the opportunity of choosing either a Protestant school or a Catholic school.

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

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I have one last question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): A short one?

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: A short one, I promise.

There was a lot of discussion regarding the solution proposed by the Kenniff report. What do you think of it?

Ms. Joan Dougherty: It is now in Bill 109.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Oh, it is.

Ms. Joan Dougherty: And we agree with it.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You can live with that.

Ms. Joan Dougherty: It is not perfect, but it will work.

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

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

Senator Grafstein.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Thank you for this brief. I continually find the Quebec situation even more fascinating than I thought it would be as we move through the process. The diversity of viewpoints is fascinating.

I'd like to turn to your major recommendation, which is that federal government deal as best they can and reaffirm paragraph 23.(1)(a), recognizing as they do that it takes two to tango. If we want a constitutional amendment affecting Quebec as it applies to paragraph 23.(1)(a), we must get the Quebec government and the assembly to agree. As realists, I think you all recognize that at this moment in time, and for the short foreseeable future, it appears that the Péquiste government in Quebec will not tango with us on that point.

• 1730

So as we're confronted with section 93, and this doesn't seem to give you the same concerns as others, the question is, would you be satisfied or would you be comfortable if the federal government, if the federal Parliament, the two houses of Parliament, reaffirms 23(1)(a) in so far as it applies to Quebec and says, as we've said recently on other matters, that as and when there is constitutional change, this Parliament and this government is committed to a reaffirmation of those particular rights in 23(1)(a) and we do it—which we can—by a resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons? Would that give you some comfort that in fact the collective federal mind supports English minority rights in and for the province of Quebec?

Mr. Don Myles: That would certainly go a long way, Senator.

The only thing, if I may say this with all due respect, is if we could leave out the part about if and when there is constitutional debate or discussions. We would ask that, in making the statement you have just made, the federal government make a stated commitment to use now any legitimate influence that it can, as the Canadian Parliament, to bring this about.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I appreciate that, and that's very helpful.

Let me just deal with the other issue that troubles me in analysing the two resolutions. In the Quebec resolution the second paragraph says that the National Assembly of Quebec reaffirms the established rights of the English-speaking community of Quebec. What does that mean? Does that mean save and except 23(1)(a)? What does “established rights” mean?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: That's an extremely good question, and I can tell you the only experience we had since this resolution was passed in the National Assembly last spring was not a pleasant one. That was when law 109 established both the voting rights and the participation in an English language school system. Initially it was so restrictive as to make English language schools, for example, outside of Montreal, virtually non-existent over a period of maybe 15 or 20 years.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: But just on the face of it—and this is important in trying to analyse the various resolutions—the established rights are historic rights. It goes back to pre-Confederation. Language rights in and for the province of Quebec pre-existed the Constitution.

Mr. Don Myles: I think that resolution goes on to say “selon la loi du Québec”.

Ms. Joan Dougherty: That's it.

Mr. Don Myles: It's in accordance with the law of Quebec.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: No. Just to correct you, it's a separate sentence. It says:

WHEREAS in so doing the National Assembly of Quebec reaffirms the established rights of the English-speaking community of Quebec.

Then it goes on to say more specifically, which doesn't deteriorate the general statement, “whereas Quebeckers whose children”, etc. But it establishes historic rights, in effect.

I'm just reading the resolution. I'm not as familiar as you are with the historic rights of the English-speaking community in Quebec, but it pre-dates the Constitution.

Mr. Myles: When I read the resolution that we received here, tabled in the House on September 29, it says:

WHEREAS the National Assembly of Quebec has reaffirmed the established rights of the English-speaking community of Quebec, specifically the right, in accordance with the law of Quebec, of members of that community....

I think the intent—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We'll have to proceed with—

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: No. Mr. Chairman, it's quite important.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I know it's quite important, but—

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: It's important because of the element of reading from a September debate, whereas the actual text is from April 1997 and the wording is completely different. We're reading from two different texts here.

Mr. Don Myles: We're reading from the text of the resolution that's before us today.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: We have the official resolution with a stamp and all.

Mr. Don Myles: Oh, I'm sorry. This is what we received.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I'm reading the resolution from our book that was given to us by the government on September 24, 1997—

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

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, I think there is confusion here.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Yes, okay, go ahead.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I'm just trying to clarify some factual confusion here so that we'll know what we're talking about.

• 1735

I assume that the resolution that we were given by the committee or by the government is in a brochure of September 24, 1997, which refers to a true copy of a proclamation moved on March 26, 1997, by Brassard and is dated in Quebec April 15, 1997 by Pierre Duchesne, secretary general. That's the one I'm referring to.

Mr. Don Myles: I think, Senator, you were making reference to the Quebec resolution.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Yes.

Mr. Don Myles: I'm making reference to the resolution that the Government of Canada has put forward.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I understand that.

Mr. Don Myles: I won't dispute, but certainly the intent here is what is related to the French charter of the French language.

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

[Translation]

Now we will move to Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would first like to come back to the appendix to the brief presented by Alliance Quebec, because it contains information that may not be accurate.

It states, for example, that the l'Assemblée des évêques du Québec is opposed to repealing the provision. And yet we received a letter from this group in which it does not take a stand either way. Further on we see that the Fédération des comités de parents of Quebec is opposed, and yet we heard from this group and it seemed to be in favour of the proposal.

However, it could perhaps be said that the francophone Protestant community of Quebec is opposed, although that is not indicated. It might be interesting to keep this list up to date as we hear from our various witnesses.

[English]

I want to explore briefly—because we're not going to have much time—the importance to the anglophone community of Quebec of the absence of paragraph 23(1)(a). How does Alliance Quebec project its impact? I'd like to understand the high significance you put on that, because I must admit to having some great sympathy with that. I'd like to understand.

Ms. Michael Hamelin: To have an educational system in the future, you have to have a means to replenish that system.

In the English-speaking school system itself since 1970, we started at a rate of about 250,000 students. We're now below 100,000. So that's a significant drop in your effectifs, as they say in French, in terms of your school system.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you attribute all that to paragraph 23(1)(a)?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: No. My suggestion is that you now have to look at the situation we are in today and ask how you are going to ensure that you're going to have an English-language school system. In order to have that, you have to have a realistic application. You have to have a way to replenish yourself.

Paragraph 23(1)(a) would allow the English-speaking school system to replenish itself in complete, logical conformity, because basically what we're asking for here are the same constitutional rights as are already in the Constitution, to avoid an anomaly that's here that Quebec is not part of that section.

More importantly, I gave the example of an English-speaking person coming from Rhode Island who is an American who becomes a Canadian citizen but cannot send their children to an English-language school system.

So that's very significant. It helps our system and I think it levels the playing field in terms of constitutional guarantees.

[Tanslation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Please wrap up, Mauril.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Michael Hamelin: They're grandfathered.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The flip side of 23—call it a flip side or something else—is the application of the clause essentially where numbers warrant. May I have a comment on that?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: That's an element of concern, obviously, in terms of that's existence. I think we've had historically the situation in the province of Quebec where we've allowed our system to exist without having to deal with that particular situation. So obviously that in and of itself is a concern.

Where we sit right now, the ability of an English school system, wherever it is in the province of Quebec, to exist or continue to exist is seriously threatened unless you have a way to replenish yourself.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mauril. The final speaker will be Paul DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Under Bill 107 you'd have francophone and anglophone school boards. With section 93 still applying, then you could have Catholic and Protestant rights of dissidence from that. So by not removing section 93, are you not losing the opportunity to consolidate? We've heard from other anglophone groups that that's the desirable part of removing section 93?

Mr. Michael Hamelin: I'll let someone else deal with the mechanics of that.

• 1740

I think the fast answer has always been, and I'll pass it off, that you already had the Bill 107 decision and a government committee, of which one of your previous speakers was part, that was putting linguistic school boards in place in a logical, rational fashion that would allow all of these various situations to co-exist. I think we've theoretically created a monster of a problem that we don't know, practically, would have existed.

Ms. Joan Dougherty: I think in the English-speaking community the desire for consolidation is very great. Regardless of religious or whatever differences they will come together. We've already proven this. Off the Island of Montreal, where there are smaller numbers, they have been consolidated for years in the same schools. It's the lack of numbers, I think. In the English community I don't see that developing—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Is section 93 not an impediment to that consolidation, that right of dissent?

Ms. Joan Dougherty: No, I cannot foresee much dissidence in the English community. It's a religious dissidence, you know. That means by definition dissidence belongs to religious minorities.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Right, that's what section 93 deals with, religion.

Ms. Joan Dougherty: I learned today, actually, from the Protestant school boards, that some 20 groups, I believe, of French Protestants have applied for dissidence. The history is that the French Protestants have had considerable autonomy under the Protestant school boards to manage the French schools. They obviously wish that autonomy to continue in the linguistic school system.

So that's where you're going to find the dissident desire.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: That's where I'm having difficulty understanding, because what I thought you were trying to remove by removing section 93 is the right to religious dissidence, not language.

Ms. Joan Dougherty: We're not talking about manoeuvring or not manoeuvring section 93. We want to—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But we are. That's what we're here to decide.

Ms. Joan Dougherty: That's your problem.

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

I would like to thank Mr. Myles, Ms. Dougherty, Mr. Hamelin and Ms. Middleton-Hope for their presentation in front of this joint committee.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.

Mr. Michael Hamelin: Thank you very much indeed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The next group will be the Native Alliance of Quebec.

[English]

There will be a two-minute recess.

• 1742

• 1747

[Translation]

We are resuming the hearings of the Special Joint Committee to amend section 93 of the 1867 Constitutional Act with respect to the Quebec school system, in accordance with our order of reference dated October 1, 1997.

[English]

It's our pleasure to have as the next witnesses the Native Alliance of Quebec, represented by Robert Groves and Karyn McMahon.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, before the witnesses—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Is this a point of order? Yes?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: If you care to call it a point of order. It's just a point of frustration and a desire—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): A point of frustration.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: —to do fairly by the Alliance autochtone du Québec.

During the course of the hearings, while we were listening to Alliance Quebec and the other group, we received this brief. It's a very substantive brief. The aboriginal people deserve us to have had an opportunity to read it. I wonder if we could have ten minutes as we sit here as a committee to at least hear it, or allow a longer period of explanation of their brief by the witnesses.

Frankly, the first page gives me pause to realize it's an entirely new approach, something we have not heard before. It's questioning section 43 and it's aboriginal rights. I am not as familiar with aboriginal rights, and I really would like to listen attentively and understand, or read attentively.

Which would you prefer to have us do, Mr. Chairman?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'd like to speak to that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Would the other members like to express their feelings about that?

• 1750

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I too have just begun looking at your brief. There are some issues, as Mrs. Finestone has mentioned, that are completely new, and at this time I'm not prepared to discuss them. I would suggest that first we see if it is possible, without too inconveniencing the Native Alliance of Québec, for them to come back another time. If not, can we adjourn for at least 15 minutes to allow us the time to go through this?

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

Mr. Peter Goldring: I concur. There are some peculiarities involves in aboriginal dealing with land transfers, Rupert's Land, and Ottawa's fiduciary responsibility. We should be given a little more time to review it.

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

Mr. Robert Groves (Principal, Aboriginal Affairs Group, Native Alliance of Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should just point out that we would have preferred, of course, if the grand chief, Fernand Chalifoux, had been present today to respond to specific substantive questions of members. Unfortunately we were only given notice yesterday, and the grand chief is in a courtroom in Quebec City and could not get out of that duty to make it here, delegating it to me as constitutional adviser. If it's possible to schedule on Monday afternoon, he is available.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): They would come Monday evening.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I would like to apologize for all the time we took with the previous group. I think that all committee members want to have as much information as possible and feel this is an extremely important point. We very much appreciate that you could be available on Monday evening. Would other members care to say something about the adjournment?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes.

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

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, so there is no repetition, if possible, I wonder if the clerk could tell us if she has other briefs for the persons appearing tomorrow, so we could take them home and read them now.

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Martine Bresson): Yes, Madam. They should be waiting for you. I have a special delivery today after 5 p.m. They should be in your office.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Groves, I would just like to thank you for being so accommodating and understanding.

Mr. Robert Groves: Not at all.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm sure I can express this on behalf of other members. Please express it to the chief, who will be coming on Monday, that we appreciate the accommodation.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I would also make the comment, Mr. Chair, that if there are any expenses they are going to incur because of that, the committee should make sure they are paid for.

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

[Translation]

Thank you very much. We will resume our hearings tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. in room 253-D.

The meeting is adjourned.