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]

Monday, October 27, 1997

• 1009

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.)): Welcome to this special joint committee meeting to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the Quebec school system, pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 1997.

[Translation]

Senator John Lynch-Staunton (Grandville, PC): A simple question, Mr. Chairman. Were invitations sent to the Government of Quebec and the Official Opposition?

The Joint Chair (Denis Paradis): Yes, letters of invitation were sent to Mr. Bouchard, asking that he or someone from his government come to meet with us, and to Mr. Johnson, for him or someone from the Official Opposition to come.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Fine. Last week, we talked of inviting representatives of Quebec's bishops, following the appearance here of some English speaking priests from the Montreal area. Was that done?

• 1010

The Joint Chair (Denis Paradis): You are talking about the Quebec bishops, Mr. Senator?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Yes, the Quebec bishops had been cited by Mr. Dion as being in favour of the resolution, but their letter was somewhat ambiguous and he wanted to know what their opinion was more precisely by asking them to come and express it directly themselves. We spoke of—

[English]

Do you remember the name of the fellow we—

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Denis Paradis): But the clerk tells me that they were not contacted. Madam Clerk.

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Martine Bresson): One of the committee members contacted the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Canada. They told us that they were not interested in coming. That is all I can tell you.

Now, if you want us to contact the Assemblée des évêques du Québec, I would like to have very clear orders on what to do.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I have what I need here; it is the Assemblée des évêques du Québec whose president is Monsignor Pierre Morissette.

The Joint Chair (Denis Paradis): All right. Madam Clerk, we can contact them today.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I would have one last question. When we are sent, from time to time, a list of witnesses who are to appear, are all the witnesses informed that they will be invited to appear on a given day?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Yes.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Because I received—and others have perhaps received as well—a letter

[English]

from the pentecostal organization that said they had been invited to appear, but then had their appearance cancelled.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Denis Paradis): What organization is it, Senator?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I am looking for it; give me a moment.

[English]

I'm sorry. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada claimed they were invited to appear on the 27th, and then were advised that they were not to appear.

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Mr. Senator, this organization wrote to us and asked to appear. We told them to be ready, pending agreement by all members of the committee. There are a number of organizations that have not been invited like that.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: That were not invited. But they claim that they were invited for the 27th and that their invitation was later cancelled:

[English]

—though earlier this week we were told we would be appearing on the 27th, today the Clerk of the Committee informed me that we would not be appearing.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Do you know what time they were told to—

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: It just says “appearing on the 27th”. It was to be at 4.30. This is addressed to Ms. Bresson:

Having been informed by your office on Monday, October 20 that we were scheduled to appear before the Special Committee on October 27th at 4:30 p.m., I am deeply disturbed by your call this morning informing me that this invitation has been withdrawn.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): I don't remember that specific case, sir. It could have been—

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I don't want to flog it, as we have more important things to do, but could you look into it to see whether maybe there was a mix-up at their end?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Okay, but do committee members want to see them?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I have no feelings one way or the other, but if they were invited, it would be interesting to know why they were then cancelled.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): There are many witnesses who are directly affected by the debate going on in Quebec and who have not been able to be heard. I think that there are other groups than the one mentioned by the honourable senator that should be invited to appear before that one. There are a number of witnesses that are really parties to the debate.

I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that we agreed that this was a bilateral amending formula. It therefore seems logical to me, given what was decided in committee, that priority should be given to witnesses from Quebec. That should not exclude people who have a particular expertise, as is the case, I believe, of the Faculty of Education of the University of Alberta. However, if all the religious groups across Canada succeed in getting heard instead of witnesses who are more directly concerned, we will never finish.

The Joint Chair (Denis Paradis): Are there any other comments? We will check today on what happened. Madam Clerk, has the new list we have before us, which includes all the invitations for this week, been updated for the members of the committee?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): All the witnesses have confirmed except the one for October 29 at 3:30 p.m. and the one for October 30. Where it says: "to be confirmed", it means that we have left messages that have not yet been answered.

• 1015

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin (Shawinigan, Lib.)): I hope that everyone has received the list. Would you ask them, please?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Everyone must have received the list. We sent it by e-mail and by fax.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): On what date?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Last Friday, at 2:00 p.m.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Is that alright? Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: The list may not be up to date, but I thought that we had agreed that no one on the committee wanted to hear from the REAL Women movement. This group does not have any particular expertise on this subject. I also suppose that Mr. Caldwell, who was already heard, is not supposed to come back.

Perhaps I don't have the right list, but this one that has—

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): If people do not have the right list, it is surprising. I personally saw to it that each person received it by e-mail or that it was sent by messenger on Friday afternoon. I left Friday evening to ensure that everyone had the documents.

Mr. Réal Ménard: First of all, I certainly do thank you. I think that on the following point, we are going to agree, Senator Pépin; we agreed at the first meeting of the committee that the REAl Women group does not have expertise that could enlighten the debate. I conclude that we do not wish to receive them.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): It seems that the president is a specialist in constitutional law. She insisted on coming to make her presentation in that context.

Mr. Réal Ménard: For my part, I want to point out that there would be no direct advantage. I do not understand how witnesses such as the Mouvement national des Québécois and other types of witnesses who have asked to be heard would not be invited. If you want to see Quebec mobilize over a dispute regarding witnesses, the best way to go is to invite REAL Women and to refuse witnesses from the Mouvement national des Québécois, which has taken part in the debate for 30 years. REAL Women does not have that expertise.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): I quite agree, Mr. Ménard, but I think we must not go backwards. The schedule you have in hand was approved last week. I do not want to start again.

Mr. Réal Ménard: There was never a consensus on that point.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): The list was distributed to you three times last week, the last time on Friday. I do not want to go back to square one and change the program around, because then we will not be able to meet our deadline.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, not start over again.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Look at what you have and you will see that we have tried to satisfy everyone as far as possible, that is the members of Parliament and the senators who are here. We cannot do any more, given the time constraints we have to work within. I am sorry.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am telling you that it is unacceptable that REAL Women be invited if the Mouvement national des Québécois is not. I made this remark from the outset to the chairman. This is the best way to mobilize groups.

I will raise two points. Gary Caldwell, who is not for the estates general because he has signed a dissenting report, and who was here on Friday, should really not come back on October 30. We really do have to take our work a bit seriously. Let us give an opportunity to each witness, not two to Gary Caldwell.

The Joint Chair (Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard, we have taken note of your comments and we'll reflect on them. If you will allow us, we will immediately begin hearing the witnesses who are here with us.

[English]

It's our pleasure this morning to welcome Dr. Martin Murphy and Mr. Wilkins from the English Speaking Catholic Council. Good morning.

The rules of procedure are something like this: you will be asked to make a presentation for eight to ten minutes. Then we'll proceed with questions from the members of the committee. So if you would like to go ahead, we're listening.

Mr. Robert Wilkins (Member, Board of Directors, English Speaking Catholic Council): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am a lawyer from Montreal, and at the present time I am also a member of the board of directors of the English Speaking Catholic Council. I am delighted and honoured to be here before you this morning, together with the executive director of the English Speaking Catholic Council, in the person of Dr. Martin Murphy.

The English Speaking Catholic Council was founded in December 1980 in Montreal. Its function is primarily to act as a focal point—as a spokesperson, if you will—for very close to a quarter of a million English-speaking Roman Catholics living in the metropolitan Montreal area. Its functions include, among other things: identifying the needs and the resources of that very numerous community; analysing issues of concern and interest to that community; making representations on them; and assisting in the resolution of problems and challenges that may face those approximately 240,000 English-speaking Catholics.

• 1020

The council has a board of directors—of which Dr. Murphy and I are members—made up exclusively of volunteers from our community. These are volunteer men and women who devote a considerable amount of their time and expertise to supporting the community, to representing its interests, to studying the issues that concern it, and, if they can, to resolving the problems that beset it at any given point. These men and women volunteers are drawn from both the public and private sectors.

Members of the committee, because of its particular mandate to represent English-speaking Roman Catholics from the Montreal area, the English Speaking Catholic Council obviously cannot be indifferent to a proposed constitutional amendment to the Constitution of Canada. In our humble opinion, that amendment would represent a serious threat to the survival of religious education in the province of Quebec, and particularly to Roman Catholic religious education in that province.

For that reason, Dr. Murphy and I are very pleased today to have this opportunity of presenting to you our brief on the proposed amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act 1867, requested by the National Assembly of Quebec. Without further ado, I would call upon Dr. Murphy to explain to you the reasons for the grave concern among the members of our council and the constituency the council represents.

Mr. Martin P. Murphy (Executive Director, English Speaking Catholic Council): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I know the chairman asked me to make the presentation in eight or ten minutes. However, I prepared this based on the notice of having fifteen minutes. But I will do my best.

There are a lot of key points on the Constitution of Canada that I'd like to make this morning. Just to accelerate it, if you're following me, I would ask you to go right away to the third page. Obviously I'm not going to read all the report, but I do want to point out to you the key issues of concern to us.

On the third page, the third paragraph is about the Minister of Education, Madam Marois, saying in June 1996 that the Government of Quebec would not seek a constitutional amendment, because that would delay the implementation of linguistic school boards for three or four years. At that time she invited 20 groups to be very sure that she could proceed in that manner. Please notice that when asked the clear question about abrogating section 93, 15 out of 20 groups said no. Among them, please notice the Assembly of Bishops of Quebec, as well as La Fédération des comités de parents de la province du Québec.

I want to underline the fact that this particular initiative is not required to effect Bill C-107, which has been judged to be constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, many prominent politicians, both federal and provincial, are leading the public to believe that the proposed amendment is necessary to allow for the establishment of linguistic boards.

For example, I have a letter here from the Prime Minister. It says that such an amendment will allow Quebeckers to establish linguistic school boards. Well, you know the amendment is not necessary to establish linguistic school boards.

On several occasions Mr. Dion has also been quoted as saying that the amendment is “intended to permit the establishment of linguistic school boards in Quebec.” Again, we know the amendment is not necessary for that purpose.

We deplore the fact that there were no public hearings in the province of Quebec on the change to our Constitution. Indeed, we would have been very amenable to searching together for an acceptable solution for the benefit of children. We were denied that opportunity.

• 1025

We celebrated the fact that the federal government was going to conduct public hearings. But, again, in the September 20 Globe and Mail Mr. Dion was quoted as saying “The hearings must take place. It will not change the decision of the government.”

I hope the democratic process will be respected by our government and that this is in fact a legitimate exercise.

The Parti Québécois government did not win a mandate that included a pledge to proceed with educational reform of denominational education through a constitutional amendment. Nor did any member of the official opposition formally consult his or her constituents prior to supporting such a measure. So when they speak of consensus, I think they're referring to the fact there were 102 members of the National Assembly; that is the only consensus that exists.

Our concern about the future of education is identified in boldface letters on page 5. A year ago the estates general recommended that religion should be dispensed in places more appropriate than the schools, in spite of the fact that 74% of the population who were polled by SOM, La Presse, and Télé-Québec on the very day that report was published said no to the question “Doit-on sortir complètement la religion des écoles québécoises”.

I want to draw your attention to footnote number 16 on page 5 of our brief. Along with many partners, the Catholic Council deposited 10 boxes of petitions on behalf of 283,000 persons on December 10, 1996. I was there, and I was accompanied by the president, Mr. Stranach, the president of la Fédération des comités de parents de la province de Québec, whom you heard last week.

We are being assured by many politicians that we have nothing to worry about, because, after all, section 41 of the Quebec charter exists. But section 41 is not constitutional protection; it's provincial legislation. Second, it only assures religious instruction, not necessarily religious education, in schools designated as Catholic and Protestant.

Knowing the position of the Parti Québécois government on the role of the school in religious education doesn't give us much confidence that what exists today, and what is promised, will continue for very long if the constitutional guarantees are removed.

The notwithstanding clause was invoked in 1989 and in 1994. Incidentally, on both occasions the Parti Québécois—at that time in opposition—voted against the application of the notwithstanding clause. The purpose is to shield the education act from judicial attack against the application of the charters.

It is up for renewal in 1999, and I hope my colleague will address the notwithstanding issue in the exchange we have later.

“Whereas section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees to citizens throughout Canada rights to minority language instruction— ” Well, section 23 does not entirely apply everywhere in Canada. As indicated in the whereas clause just quoted, the Quebec government has steadfastly refused to extend its scope to make it applicable in Quebec.

I want to emphasize that section 23 of the Canadian charter provides greater educational rights for French-speaking minorities outside Quebec than it does for the English-speaking minority in Quebec.

• 1030

Mr. Bouchard says that the federal government cannot accord guarantees to the anglophone minority of Quebec that it has not accorded to the francophone minority outside Quebec. Mr. Bouchard failed to add that the right to minority language instruction, based on an individual's first language learned and still understood, in paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Canadian charter has been adopted by every other province in Canada except Quebec.

Several people are mentioning that section 23 will provide stronger guarantees than section 93. We know that section 23 deals with linguistic rights and that section 93 deals with denominational rights. But implicit in that suggestion of section 23 providing stronger rights is the fact that you have to have one or the other, and make a choice. Not so—we all know section 23.

In the preamble asking the federal government to amend the Constitution, which explicitly asserts that the amendment in no way constitutes a recognition of the Constitution Act.— I regret to say that there are some people who still believe that Quebec is not bound by the Constitution Act of 1982, given that it didn't sign the agreement. Imagine.

Speaking to the Newfoundland amendment on March 6, 1996, fifteen members of the permanent council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, of which six bishops were from Quebec, agreed to the following recommendation:

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops asks the members of the House of Commons and the members of the Senate of Canada to weigh carefully the implications of this proposal, and to indicate that they cannot associate themselves with the passage of legislation that would deprive minorities of religious and educational rights.

All along during the debate on the establishment of linguistic school boards—which, incidentally, we have consistently supported, with Bill 40 in 1983, Bill 3 in 1984, and Bill 107 in 1988—the English-speaking Catholics have consistently supported the establishment of linguistic school boards with confessional guarantees. The parents of the children attending English Catholic schools spoke, and continue to speak, time and again with conviction of the legitimacy of English Catholic schools, and the merits of their role in Quebec society. On our education committee we have representatives of parents who are invited to our meetings. They are from the seven Catholic boards that are in the same geographic area as the metropolitan Montreal area where we have our mandate.

The English-speaking Catholic Council opposes the constitutional amendment to section 93 proposed by the National Assembly for consideration by the Government of Canada. If adopted, it would not only eliminate constitutional guarantees of a denominational nature, but also place at risk the endurance of the Catholic schools in the future. In addition, it diminishes religious and linguistic rights for minorities in Quebec.

We submit that no consensus supporting this measure exists. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of opposition that includes, for example, the Assembly of Bishops of Quebec. It continues to demand a constitutional guarantee in order to assure that parents may have the right to a confessional school where numbers warrant.

Mr. Chairman, on that point, to give testimony to my words, I have a copy of the brief the Assembly of Bishops of Quebec produced to the parliamentary commission.

[Translation]

[— ] we are continuing to ask that real guarantees be recognized:

Among these guarantees is this one:

- a constitutional guarantee to ensure that parents can "when numbers warrant" have a right to a denominational school.

• 1035

[English]

Do you want me to table the document?

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Yes.

Mr. Martin Murphy: With pleasure.

The last page is the important one.

The PQ government has not revealed what motivated it to seek an amendment to the Constitution that would eliminate the protection of confessional education, especially since the Education Act has been judged to be constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, it is now being implemented. All the wheels are in motion for linguistic boards to be effective by 1 July 1998. According to Law 107, the provisional councils have already been appointed and the officers are now working.

The PQ government has given no substantive reasons for why it objects so strongly to expanding rights in the Constitution to include linguistic educational guarantees, or why it adamantly refuses to accord to the English-language minority in Quebec rights to education that are enjoyed by French-speaking minorities in every other province in the nation.

Section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 is the product of an historic compromise without which Canada would not have been possible. Any change to the constitution of a country is not an insignificant occurrence, but one which demands due process, scrutiny and consideration for the implications for our society and for future generations.

Bishop Leonard Crowley, our honorary chairman, reminds us of our duty in regard to religious education:

It is very important for the Council to make insistent representation that the values that have been part and parcel of our Catholic schools will continue to have a place in whatever school pattern emerges in the future. To do anything less would be to forego our heritage and our responsibilities to the future of the Faith in Quebec.

Thank you.

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

We will proceed to the question period. The first intervention will be by Peter Goldring.

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

Perhaps I missed it before, but was your group consulted prior to the passing of the resolutions by the Quebec legislative assembly?

Mr. Martin Murphy: Yes. Our board of directors meets on a regular basis and the 25 members are elected annually at an annual general meeting. They are representative of the community inasmuch as it's possible to do so.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So was your group part of the consensus for removal of section 93?

Mr. Martin Murphy: Our position is that we oppose the amendment proposed by Quebec's National Assembly. That's the first point. Second, we are not anachronisms. We are amenable to exploring together alternatives to see if.— We always try to strive to better what is, and that's why we deplore the fact that we were not given an opportunity through the National Assembly to work together for that best solution.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a supplemental question.

Would it be your opinion, as subsection 93(3) indicates, that an appeal process to the Governor General and a remedial process by the federal government is a better method of appeal than in section 23, where the appeal process is simply to the courts of the process? In other words, do you agree that the appeal process in section 93 is of a higher or preferred level?

Mr. Robert Wilkins: I think our body believes that the best guarantee of confessional education in Quebec would be one enshrined in the Constitution, rather than effected through any sort of appeal process. This is why I can only reiterate Dr. Murphy's opinion that the council does not oppose the establishment of linguistic school boards in Quebec. We favour it, and we have favoured it for many years, as the record plainly shows.

• 1040

What we oppose is the establishment of linguistic school boards without any constitutional guarantee of the continuation of the confessional rights in education, which in our view are an acquired right of Roman Catholics and Protestants in Quebec, and which appear to continue to correspond to the aspirations of the majority of Quebecers. They certainly correspond to the wishes and aspirations of the constituency that our council represents.

I think it should be very clear to the committee that we favour linguistic school boards but with confessional guarantees, and with those confessional guarantees enshrined in the Constitution. We do not favour confessional “provisions” that exist only in Quebec statutory law, and which, because they are only statutory provisions, can be eliminated at the whim of the present or future government of the province of Quebec.

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

We will now go to Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Don't take this the wrong way, but how can you argue in favour of protection for only two denominations? Why in today's society should they continue to have a special privilege under the Constitution? Why aren't other denominations allowed the same privilege? Should they not be allowed the same privilege?

Mr. Martin Murphy: It's a question of ancestral rights. The constitutional prerogative of access to Catholic and Protestant schools was granted by the British Crown in 1774, and it was entrenched in the Constitution in 1867 by all parties concerned. Whatever one might think of that right, it exists. The question I would pose is this: Should Catholics abdicate their rights in the name of others who wish to have other rights?

We are not campaigning to deny others' rights. Why are others campaigning to deny us what we have? Pluralism in education is the reason given to explain why we go to the lowest common denominator—so we don't offend anyone. Pluralism in education requires that we be attentive to all individuals and groups, but not that religious and cultural differences should be reduced in order to give everyone a single system. Respect for democracy and socio-religious pluralism, far from demanding the disappearance of the Catholic school, justifies its existence.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: That really wasn't the question.

I'm one who is very sensitive to minority rights, so I'm not going to support any change without a thorough study of the implications. I would have been more impressed with your argument if you had recognized the pluralistic society in which we live, and had said we should bring in other religions and denominations under this umbrella and not just keep it exclusive to us.

Why should not Jewish students and those who follow the Islamic religion and all the other religions have the same right and privilege to have their education be part of their curriculum in a public school system without taking away anything from what is already there?

Mr. Martin Murphy: Certainly we would be in favour of others having the rights that we have. How could we possibly insist on our rights and deny others those rights?

Law 107, constitutionally valid, allows for the very model you're proposing. Every year each school has to offer Catholic moral and religious instruction, Protestant moral and religious instruction, or moral instruction, and there is a subarticle that says where numbers justify it you could in fact have that Jewish school that you're talking about.

English-speaking Catholics have been very attentive to the issue that you raise. I was the director of curriculum for a school board and we had many registrations of other faiths—Jews, Muslims, and so forth. We spoke with the parents and asked what would be acceptable to them, and we had different models. The child would attend the class when religious instruction was taking place, and with the parents' consent would remain there and do other work. Some even suggested they didn't mind that their child learned about the Catholic religion as long as we did not impose the religious observances. Indeed there are many models that people have used with great effect, and it demonstrates the sensitivity we have to others who may not enjoy the prerogative that we do.

• 1045

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: But you don't trust Law 107. That's why you don't want to let go of section 93.

Mr. Martin Murphy: We have supported Law 107 fully—the linguistic school boards with the confessional guarantees that are in Law 107—but please remember that this was in the context of the existing Constitution. We never expected that anyone would ever ask for all of section 93 to be deleted without a quid pro quo that would be acceptable to our community.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: So you support Law 107 as long as section 93 is there.

Mr. Martin Murphy: Or a variation of it. Maybe subsection 93(2) would be sufficient, but some accommodation, some compromise, rather than giving up 100% and getting nothing in return.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Denis Paradis): The next speaker is Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Good morning. With due respect, I believe that claiming there has been no consultation is not the best argument that you could bring before this committee. Since the nineteen-eighties, there have been four bills and, of course, the States General. If we made a list of all the people who have been able to express themselves on the problem of linguistic school boards, we could easily come to the conclusion that each witness who appears before us has had the opportunity of expressing himself or herself two or three times in Quebec on this issue. I'll make that my first comment.

My second comment is this. Do you agree with me that, in fact, no denominational rights will be taken away from you? I mean by that that the public education law enables you and all parents at the beginning of the school year to make a choice and to indicate that choice to the education authorities.

Second, the denominational status is conferred by two committees: the Protestant committee and the Catholic committee, which come under the department and which will continue to function. I find, therefore, that conclusions are very quickly drawn regarding amendments to section 93 and the end of access to religious rights in school which could result from these amendments.

Third, and I will end on this point, there are currently no linguistic rights at stake. Paragraph 23(1)a does not apply with respect to access to education in the minority language. That is covered by Bill 101. You know very well that the decisions of the various courts, particularly those of the Supreme Court, have resulted in the Quebec clause, which applied in 1997, being replaced by the Canada clause. This is not being contested.

Now, the link you are establishing with a minority's access to its preferred language of instruction does not come into play in this debate. I would like you to be able to admit this, because otherwise, confusion will arise in the minds of our fellow citizens.

What is being debated is the denominational school structure under school boards as administrative entities. That is what we are discussing.

[English]

Mr. Martin Murphy: First, on the estates general, I made a presentation to the estates general in August 1995, as well as last September, and subsequently was involved in the large group meeting. To my knowledge, at the estates general there was no reference at all of the possibility of Quebec asking to have it tied in to the abrogation of section 93. It certainly was not in that context whatsoever. So when we're talking about links that I'm making, there was no link at all in terms of that debate and the present debate.

With regard to confessional rights potentially being taken away because of article 41, I will ask my colleague to speak to that.

On your third question, about the confessional status as conferred by the two committees, the Catholic committee and the Protestant committee, that is true and exists today. I'm talking about our duty to this generation and future generations to complete their studies.

• 1050

On March 15 Minister Marois made a ministerial statement where she announced that she would form a working group to study the pertinence of religion in the schools, which tied in with the recommendation of the estates general about the place.— In other words, she said that education should be dispensed in a place more appropriate than the schools.

Notice the sequence of events, which doesn't give us a lot of confidence. That working group has been established, and it's due to report in the fall of 1998. We expect there will be public hearings in the spring of 1999. So it is possible that this working group and that public parliamentary commission to be held in the spring of 1999 might recommend that the two presently existing committees be disbanded.

I'll ask my colleague to speak about the implications of the confessional rights, because it ties in with the issue of the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Robert Wilkins: Thank you, Dr. Murphy.

Our concern with the proposed repeal of section 93 as it applies to Quebec without any accompanying quid pro quo—we underline that phrase—is that once the existing section 93 ceases to apply to Quebec, there is no constitutional guarantee of confessional schooling as such.

It is true, as Mr. Ménard has said, that under section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, parents may request religious education for their children. But this is a statutory provision rather than a constitutional guarantee, so it is subject to the whim of the legislature. As Dr. Murphy has pointed out, the Minister of Education has already given indications that the permanence of confessional education in Quebec is doubtful, or has at least questioned whether it is still meaningful and appropriate. She has established a task force on that subject and has stated that within two years of the establishment of linguistic boards, each school will be asked to review its confessional status and decide whether that is meaningful and appropriate.

When one sets that in the context of the recommendations of the estates general, that Christian education be dispensed in places more appropriate than the school, committee members can easily understand the grave concern this causes in our organization and in the people we represent. It would mean that section 41 would apply, but would only be a statutory provision that could be changed.

It is also a provision that is directed at parents rather than at schools, and at religious instruction rather than religious education in the wide sense of the term, including pastoral animation, religious worship and other elements that in our view are essential to a full religious education.

Furthermore, the notwithstanding clause that could be invoked by the Parti Québécois to protect the continuation of confessional schooling in Quebec is unlikely to be invoked by the Parti Québécois the way it was by the former Quebec Liberal government in 1989 and 1994, when section 726 of the Education Act was enacted and then maintained five years later.

Because the Parti Québécois, when it was in opposition during those two years, voted against the implementation of the notwithstanding clause to protect religious schooling in Quebec, it is likely that when section 726 of the Education Act comes up for review again, as it must in 1999, the Parti Québécois, now in government in the province, will not support it.

It would mean that the highest law of the land, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, would override the Quebec charter and its section 41. The Canadian charter, in our view, could very easily be used to oust religion from the schools of Quebec, prohibit religious practices, prohibit religious worship and attack pastoral animation services, as the charter has already been invoked, and I understand successfully, in many of those fields in litigation emanating from the province of Ontario with respect to its public schools.

• 1055

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

We'll now proceed with Nick Discepola.

[Translation]

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

The witnesses have made an important point and I would like to press again to have the Assemblée des évêques du Québec invited to appear. In their testimony, the witnesses were reading excerpts of what the Assembly said before the parliamentary commission in Quebec, and it seems to me there are contradictions.

[English]

I was wondering, Mr. Murphy, about this. You quoted from the brief, and I'll quote it myself. It says:

[Translation]

- a constitutional guarantee to ensure that parents can "where numbers warrant" have a right to a confessional school.

[English]

Yet in the letter they addressed to the Honourable Stéphane Dion they stated:

[Translation]

Our acceptance of the school board's change in status has always been subject to one condition: that the denominational guarantees established by Bill 107 be maintained.

[English]

They seem to imply they're satisfied that Bill 107 gives them enough protection. Why is it that you wouldn't be satisfied with that protection for religious instruction?

You've used the terms “religious instruction” and “religious education”, implying that there's a difference between the two. I'd like you to explain to me what the difference is. Then I have a supplementary question.

Mr. Martin Murphy: Thank you.

In March we met with the then president of the Assembly of Quebec Bishops, Monseigneur Gaumond, of Sherbrooke. We asked him the question about their position, and at that time, as all of us do now, we supported linguistic school boards, with confessional guarantees.

Mr. Nick Discepola: But everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to die, especially the bishops.

Mr. Martin Murphy: What happened, by accident or design I don't know, was that some politicians seized the moment and consistently referred to the position of the bishops as not opposing section 93. But I wish they had completed the sentence: “nor do they support it”. There's a period right after “nor do they oppose it”. That's the first thing.

I know that the new president, Pierre Morrissette, sent a letter to Mr. Dion on September 30, in which it was explicit that the Assembly of Quebec Bishops, while supporting linguistic boards, never argued in favour of repealing section 93. Now I wasn't here, but I understand that the Prime Minister had the letter, or maybe it was Mr. Dion—

Mr. Nick Discepola: I just quoted from the same letter, the September 30 letter, in which they state they're satisfied that Bill 107 gives them the required protection. Why is it that doesn't satisfy you?

Mr. Martin Murphy: Bill 107 is subject to the notwithstanding clause. If the notwithstanding clause is not invoked in 1999, the charter is the highest legal document governing our right. An individual in your constituency on West Island can say his rights are violated and go to court, and the charter has to uphold the individual's right. The net effect is that religion cannot be taught in the school.

Mr. Nick Discepola: But is it being taught right now?

Mr. Martin Murphy: Of course it's being taught.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Explain to me the difference between religious instruction and religious education.

Mr. Martin Murphy: First of all, I want to say that although religion is taught in our schools, I am not pretending we're in the kingdom yet where there's perfection. We can build on what is there, but parents send their children to Catholic schools when they have the option do so because it is an important formation of the value system that will sustain their children in the future.

The difference is that religious instruction, which is limited to 60 hours or 50 hours a year on the official program of studies, according to the régime pédagogique, is the minimum that will take place in boards where you cannot have an autonomous Catholic school. A Catholic school doesn't mean simply the juxtaposition of religious subjects with secular subjects, but it is the whole commitment to a philosophy, to a value system in accordance with the mission of Jesus Christ.

• 1100

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

Nick, if you don't mind, we'll proceed now with Paul DeVillers.

[Translation]

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

[English]

First was the position of the bishops. We seem to be going around with almost every witness talking about that. As Mr. Discepola pointed out, we have the letter of September 30 saying, as I understand it, the bishops are neither for nor against, dealing with the abrogation of section 93, so long as there are guarantees, and they don't specify whether those need to be constitutional or otherwise.

Today we have your submission to the provincial parliamentary committee, which you've tabled. We also had the interview from Monseigneur Turcotte last week at RDI, in which he said that he's satisfied with the guarantees in place under the Quebec laws. So we seem to be getting different information on whether these guarantees need to be constitutional or not.

On that point, you say you're not opposed to other groups coming in and receiving protection. Is it your suggestion, then, that all religions or confessional rights need to be guaranteed in the Constitution, that they need to be constitutionalized? If so, how would it be manageable? In Newfoundland, for instance, it was deemed not to be manageable.

Mr. Martin Murphy: You raise the issue of the bishops again, and I have to respond, because this letter was signed by the newly elected bishop of Baie Comeau. He was just elected as president of the Assembly of Quebec Bishops.

Please remember that in August it was Monseigneur Jean-Pierre Blais, the president of the Episcopal Committee on Education, who said that there must be a constitutional guarantee. I ask the rhetorical question: Did the newly elected president have sufficient time to brief himself completely on the circumstances and the position of his president of the education committee?

I'm just giving you the facts. Surely the bishops are not going to respond and say we didn't mean that, we didn't mean to have a constitutional guarantee. I mean, here it is.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Denis Paradis): Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Martin Murphy: Incidentally, Archbishop Turcotte was one of the six signatories on March 6, 1996, who warned the Commons and the Senate to weigh carefully the implications of the proposal from Newfoundland.

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

[Translation]

We must still hear Ms. Gagnon, Ms. Jennings, Senator Lynch- Staunton, Mrs. Finestone and Mr. Goldring. Therefore, could I ask for your co-operation in being brief, please, so that all members of the committee may have the opportunity to speak?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I did not get an answer to my question

[English]

on how we manage the constitutional entrenchment of all confessional rights. That was what I was interested in knowing.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Wilkins: I just wanted to point out that in Quebec there is a lot of talk about establishing linguistic school boards with denominational guarantees. But the denominational guarantees implied by that expression are merely those found already in the provisions of the Quebec Education Act.

When people use terms like linguistic school boards with denominational guarantees, they are mainly referring to provincial legislation, provincial acts that are not ratified by the federal government in the Canadian Constitution. This may cause some misunderstanding.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Wilkins.

Ms. Gagnon, briefly.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Good morning.

You seem to doubt that there is a consensus in Quebec, despite the fact that most associations or federations of parents and teachers and school boards have expressed their views.

I would like to remind you that between 1973 and 1994, there were 12 public hearings to find out what the public thought and right now, more than 60% of the people around Montreal and Quebec City think that their language is the most important facet of their identity.

• 1105

I think that must also be respected. If a survey were done today, I think the results would show that 50% of the population defines itself based on their language rather than on their religion and would like to have linguistic school boards as well as religious instruction in both English and French schools. That would be much more in keeping with the world we now live in, with a society that is respectful of various cultures and other religions.

Do you realize that 58 to 60% of people— A fairly recent survey conducted by Léger & Léger showed that as well. If a referendum were held today, that is what most people would say.

Mr. Robert Wilkins: I think that is very much the opinion of the English-Speaking Catholic Council, the traditional position that we also support the establishment of linguistic school boards, but—

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Surveys and public hearings show that parents and other people want school boards to be determined along linguistic lines and that thereafter religious instruction be taken into account, but they no longer want denominational structures in Quebec. In fact, in 1861,—

Mr. Robert Wilkins: Precisely.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: —they also wanted to do that.

Mr. Robert Wilkins: We are not advocating maintaining denominational school boards. We have tried to be fairly clear on that today. We object to the proposed amendment if there isn't some sort of other protection that goes along with it. The important thing, in our view, is to maintain denominational schools, and not denominational school boards.

It is also important to note that in the surveys Mr. Murphy referred to, 74% of Quebec parents seemed to object to eliminating religious instruction from Quebec schools. And, as was mentioned by the Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes du Québec on page 5 of the brief it presented to the committee last week, 2500 schools in Quebec consulted parents about reviewing the denominational status and less than five school communities chose to eliminate the denominational status of their schools.

Moreover, of the 200 new schools that opened their doors over the past few years, less than 5% requested a non-denominational status. I think that is a clear indication that most Quebeckers feel religion is important, perhaps not as far as denominational school boards are concerned, but they do want denominational schools and religious education, in the broad sense of the term.

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

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I support the view you just presented. That seems to be the overwhelming view. Am I right in suggesting that there is a major consensus with respect to keeping denominational schools—schools, not commissions? Is that accurate?

Mr. Robert Wilkins: I think that would be my understanding too.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I come from the view, Dr. Murphy and Mr. Wilkins, that we live in a very evolving society. I have some serious problems when it comes to protecting just two denominations, notwithstanding which I do believe there are inherent rights in the structure of Canada that must be respected. I'd like to see that right, however, broadened with respect to today's society.

I want it understood unequivocally that I support language schools, and I particularly support English-language schools because I do believe there is no equality in Quebec as there is in the rest of Canada for English-speaking people in the school system. I am very upset about that, and I would like to see paragraph 23(1)(a) put in, but whistling Dixie isn't going to help.

I think there has to be a way in which we can see that the rights of the child—and by the way, we have signed an international document in that regard—are respected, as well as the parental right to choose.

• 1110

In one of the many papers and documents that came along with your English Speaking Catholic Council presentation, there was a view that we should recognize the power of the Province of Quebec to continue to legislate denominational matters in the school system. It was in one of the multitude of briefs that we got to take home to study, and I thought that was the document supporting your view.

Would you support an amendment or an enlargement of protection under section 93, or would your preference be for new language, which as you well know we cannot do?

Mr. Martin Murphy: Section 23 exists, so it's not a question of having one or the other. That's the first point. Second, in relation to your wishes to not limit the opportunity for religious instruction to Catholics and Protestants, I addressed that in the response—maybe not the direct question, but certainly I addressed it with Senator Lynch-Staunton—how can we insist on something for ourselves and deny you something. We would be very supportive of that. I pointed out articles in Bill 107 that allow it to happen.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Are you referring to schools in the public interest?

Mr. Martin Murphy: Yes, certainly, and where numbers warrant. If you have five children in a certain location, it's not possible, but it is possible to give these five children— to respect the wishes of the parents in terms of their culture and their identity from a religious point of view, and I have experience in doing it.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: My final question essentially is that if we could assure ourselves that Bill 107, with the amendments brought in by Bill 109, could be in some way supported by a constitutional structure, until such time as such a constitutional structure is in place, we have to leave section 93 in place. There is a lack of trust—

Mr. Martin Murphy: Absolutely.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: —there is a lack of concern, and we have the future and history to teach us that you need to have constitutional structures. I remember rights and no rights, and I was the first one to get rid of the rights. There was a very famous Premier of Quebec who—

Mr. Martin Murphy: I just want to say that had we had public hearings in Quebec.— We are very amenable to working together to search for a good solution for children, and we were denied that opportunity. We are not dinosaurs. We are willing to look together to respect the wishes of the people who care very much about the value of religious education as an option in our society.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So you support language teaching as I do, English-language teaching and French?

Mr. Martin Murphy: Absolutely.

Mr. Robert Wilkins: Absolutely.

We also respect the pluralism of religions. In a number of Roman Catholic schools in Montreal, not only are children of non-Roman Catholic and non-Christian faiths welcomed and respected and not brainwashed and not obliged to convert, either by overt or covert pressure, but also, Mrs. Finestone, in certain Roman Catholic schools in Montreal rooms have been designated as Muslim prayer rooms for the benefit of the Muslim students. This is in the English Catholic schools particularly.

It is our position that far from the maintenance of Catholic schools threatening contemporary pluralism in our society, in Quebec at any case they can be very compatible with that laudable objective and in some cases can go further than the non-sectarian schools have already gone in recognizing and fostering that kind of very healthy Canadian environment.

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

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: May I make an observation?

I just want to tell you what a pleasure it is to hear that. I come from a history in Quebec when that was not possible. It just shows you how we can evolve as a federation, and we should support that evolution.

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

Mr. Peter Goldring: My question is directed to Mr. Murphy.

Your group represents some 240,000. There was one group here last week that represented 650,000. Seeing as there seems to be ambiguity even with the bishop's statements, and there certainly seems to be serious doubts about the consensus mentioned in this application, could you possibly venture a guess, because that's all we really could do, as to what percentage of Quebeckers you feel would be against the extinguishment of section 93? What percentage would be against the extinguishment?

• 1115

Mr. Martin Murphy: I will answer your question with this prefix. I am appealing to the committee to consider the fact that if there is a feeling that there is a consensus for the amendment, it could well be that that consensus is from the majority of the people. However, we are here looking at minority rights. We are English-speaking Catholics, and while we are Catholic in a majority context, we are really in a minority context in terms of having to live an educational experience within a Catholic board, and certainly as English-speaking people in Quebec we are a minority.

To answer your question, I will tell you that the very respectable poll of a year ago might even be increased beyond 74% in favour of keeping religion as an option in the schools of Quebec. Please remember that the 74% was from the French-speaking population.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So that 74% would be in favour of retaining section 93.

Mr. Martin Murphy: Well, no. Answer it, Robert—go ahead.

Mr. Robert Wilkins: No, 74% was in favour of maintaining religious education as an option for parents in Quebec schools, quite different from the question of denominational school commissions.

Our concern is that the elimination of section 93 would then render vulnerable the maintenance of religious education generally in Quebec—be it Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or any other—in public schools.

The simple elimination of section 93 without any accompanying quid pro quo—without any accompanying constitutional guarantee of religious education rights—would be in our view contrary to the 74% public opinion that wants to ensure that religion is not ousted from Quebec classrooms.

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

[Translation]

for the presentation of the English-Speaking Catholic Council. A little earlier, you told me that Mr. Harrington, your president, had just lost his wife. On behalf of committee members, I would ask you to send him our condolences.

[English]

Mr. Martin Murphy: Thank you very much. I appreciate the reception, and I wish you all the best in your very difficult task.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Wilkins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be pleased to transmit your condolences to Mr. Harrington and expressions of sympathy from the members of this honourable committee. I would also like to thank you for being so attentive during our presentation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We will now hear from the representatives of the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers of Quebec.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): I would like to inform you that we contacted members of the Assemblée des évêques du Québec who, during their meeting, agreed unanimously that they do not want to appear before the committee. I just wanted to inform you of their response.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are now ready to proceed with the second group this morning, the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers of Quebec.

[Translation]

You have the floor.

Ms. Jan Langelier (President, Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers of Quebec): My name is Jan Langelier and I am president of the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers of Quebec. I am here today with Mr. Alan Lombard, executive director of our association.

I believe the English and French versions of our brief have just been handed out. To save time, I will speak in English since that is my mother tongue and I can therefore speak faster. However, I will be pleased to answer your questions in French if you so desire.

[English]

The Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers of Quebec is Canada's oldest teacher association, having been formed in 1864. It is a federation of 12 teacher unions spread across the province of Quebec, representing some 6,500 teachers. The PAPT is non-denominational and operates both in French and in English.

• 1120

I would also emphasize that we are a democratically constituted federation of teacher unions. We represent teachers who speak French or English, at least, and who are from a multitude of cultural and religious or non-religious backgrounds. Our policy positions are arrived at after debate and consultation with our general membership. The PAPT is an independent union, which has however a close working relationship with the two other teacher organizations in the province—the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec and the Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers.

Before getting into the meat and potatoes of our presentation, I would like to make two points in opening with you. The first is that PAPT has had concerns about this particular question for a long time—a very long time. We do not feel that the issue is being pushed too quickly. It may be a new concern for some, but it certainly is not for us.

In a more modern era, in the Parent report and onward, we have been seeking a way around the obstacle of the confessional guarantees in section 93—the obstacle, by the way, which we feel has been raised in particular by the two confessional school boards on the Island of Montreal, the PSBGM and the Montreal Catholic School Commission. The PAPT has been urging such an amendment long before any Quebec government took it up. We have been very concerned about the kind of education we offer in our schools for a long time.

Secondly, when we saw the opposition growing once again in this last round of talks, we decided it would be very important that we try to clarify the situation for the English education community in Quebec. So, with the faculty of law and the faculty of education of McGill University, we co-sponsored a symposium at which Dr. Pierre Foucher from the University of Moncton was commissioned to give us a paper on the constitutional guarantees within the Canadian Constitution. Dr. Foucher is a long-time legal militant for section 23 rights in the other provinces.

Our objective in the symposium was to inform honestly and with open-mindedness the English educational community about the position we have supported for so long.

That being said, I will refer now to our brief.

It is perhaps worth noting, at the risk of repeating what has already been said by better-qualified analysts, that it is abundantly clear to us that section 93 provides very few protections to anyone. It is largely hollow, in effect, except for provisions that make the implementation of language-based boards unnecessarily difficult and messy.

Subsections 3 and 4 of section 93 have in fact never been used and to all intents and purposes are obsolete. All of the interpretative concern has focused on subsections 1 and 2, which have provided ample opportunity for lawyers and scholars to mislead themselves and the rest of us. Fortunately, things are now a great deal clearer than was the case some years ago.

Twenty years of litigation has culminated in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference case on Bill 107 in 1993. This decision continues a line of interpretation taken in earlier cases by the Supreme Court. It was not therefore as much of a surprise in all circles as it was apparently in some. From this point forward it became clear, even to those who had originally taken the position that Bill 107 was unconstitutional, that the issue was decided once and for all. It is therefore all the more remarkable the extent to which some recent commentators have felt the need to make claims as to the meaning of section 93 that have been rejected by the highest court of the country.

As our contribution to this debate we prefer to clarify the question by first establishing what is not protected, after which the question may be seen to be a good deal simpler. On page 5 is a list in point form about what we believe is not covered by section 93. School boards as such are not protected. Language rights are not protected. Minority language rights are not protected. A minority's right to govern and manage schools or school boards is not protected. The teaching of religion in schools is not protected. The designation of schools as Roman Catholic or Protestant is not protected. The right to tax is not protected. The right to control curriculum is not protected.

• 1125

What is protected? The right of a Roman Catholic or a Protestant minority to dissent from the majority is protected. Certain rights of Protestants and Roman Catholics resident within the city limits of Montreal or Quebec are protected.

Why do we supported linguistic school boards at PAPT? We believe in the idea that the most reasonable form of organization for the governance of schools is one based on language. Management and control by the minority community has not been an issue for the anglophones in Protestant boards, but it has been for anglophones in Catholic boards and francophones in Protestant boards.

The desirability of change is so evident and so widely shared that we believe little more needs to be said. The only remaining question is how quickly can we remove the obstacles that would impede the rapid and easy implementation of language-based boards?

What is the problem with the status quo? A certain number of people have suggested that the amendment is not really necessary or desirable. We are emphatically convinced that this is not so.

Bill 109, which is the bill that establishes linguistic school boards, contains provisions for the creation of confessional councils in order to respect the constitutional requirements of section 93. As we said in our presentation to the parliamentary commission on that bill, we believe that those councils are the best-possible short-term solution to the problem.

We do, however, have very serious reservations about the viability of these structures in the long term. Our feeling is that what might appear relatively benign in the first few months would surely attempt to exercise real power sooner rather than later. We would also very much like to avoid protracted constitutional challenges to this formula that would have the effect of disrupting the new school system.

As pragmatists, we are only too aware how unworkable maintaining section 93 protections would be in the city of Montreal in particular. Surely very few would really want to have children attending the same school but with different rights. This is not to mention the teachers, who, although employed by the new linguistic school board, would have to follow orders from the confessional council for some students, but not all, and only for as long as those students remained on the territory of the city of Montreal.

For example, the right to dissent only for a Protestant or a Catholic minority is, to our minds, completely anachronistic in the Quebec of today. We do not support this right, and we're all too aware that continuing to permit the exercise of this right risks the further splintering of an already fragile school system.

There are a small few to whom this option has been generally important from a religious perspective. Far more often, however, this right, when exercised, has been for non-religious ends. It is also our observation that some of those who wish to preserve this right for themselves fail to understand that they are in the majority, which precludes their dissent.

Consider section 23 of the Canadian charter. We subscribe to the belief that section 23 provides considerable guarantees for the management and control of the minority-language system by the minority-language community, as well as entrenching the right to such education where numbers warrant. This is a very important right for the anglophone in Quebec and for the francophone in the other nine provinces.

PAPT is the only organization in Quebec to be a member of the Canadian Teachers' Federation. That has allowed us to closely watch the process of implementation of the provisions of section 23 following the coming into force of the stipulation by our francophone friends across the country. It is little realized outside those communities how much real progress was made because francophone groups were successful in persuading the various courts that recalcitrant provincial governments had real obligations by virtue of section 23.

The success of their struggles as well as the various court decisions have shown us that these protections are real and useful in contrast to the empty shell that section 93 turned out to be. It is possible that section 23 could be improved, but that is an amendment to the Constitution that would, and should, include the whole country.

We are also aware that paragraph 23(1)(a) is not enforced in the province of Quebec. This deprives a small number of English-speakers of the right to the schooling and language of the community in which they feel at home.

We are convinced that this change would have much less of a real effect than many who firmly oppose it or desire it believe. We deplore the fact that this provision is without effect only in Quebec, and have said so many times to the Government on Quebec on many occasions. It is, however, to that government, not this one, that we can and will continue to make our representations.

• 1130

In conclusion, the PAPT supports the request of the Quebec government that section 93 of the Canadian Constitution be amended to abrogate subsections 1 to 4. We are convinced that this amendment is widely supported by the education community, both French and English. We are very interested in seeing the Government of Canada adopt the necessary motions before January 1, 1998. That would render a great service to the children and parents that we serve, as well as to the teachers, whom we represent.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Ms. Langelier. A brief comment?

Mr. Alan Lombard (Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers of Quebec): Like Ms. Langelier, to save time, I will speak in English.

[English]

I would like to add one or two things. Probably the most prevalent myth in the Protestant system when I began years ago, when I was a young teacher, was that there was tremendous protection in section 93 of the British North America Act. I remember—and I think Dr. Smith, who presented here last week, would also remember—being told that this Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal had a secret opinion that would defeat the efforts of any Quebec government to change the blah, blah, blah.— I think what has become remarkably clear over the last 20 years is that although that opinion existed, it was dead wrong, and the courts have told us so.

The other conclusion we've come to—and I want to emphasize the importance of our presentation here this morning, because we take it very seriously—is that section 93 is an obstacle to what we all want to achieve. You cannot imagine, unless you've lived it as I've lived it in the past 20 years, the number of times the effort to create linguistic school boards has come a cropper because of section 93. The number of court challenges should tell you that. Any time you try to bring about change, and it's a fundamental change that everybody supports, you will run into the problem of the Island of Montreal.— I'll separate those problems. Somebody somewhere will find a way to attempt to seek a remedy or a relief in the courts for an imagined right or an imagined wrong against one of their rights in section 93, and you'll be on to another five-, six-, eight- or ten-year delay.

That's why we're here. We want to implore you to not only accede to the request, but to do it quickly and before January 1, 1998. We would desperately love to have a clear, simple picture for all of the students, parents and especially the teachers we represent.

Finally, we're quite clear on who we represent. We represent the people who pay us fees to represent them and who are concerned about the opinions we express and hold us accountable for them. We make no claim to larger numbers than we actually represent, but take it from us, we do represent the people we claim to represent.

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

We'll proceed with the question period. The first intervention will be by Mr. Peter Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you for your presentation. I understand that you represent a federation of 12 teachers unions in Quebec.

Do you not believe that section 93 could be improved upon rather than just cancelled or extinguished? Could section 93 not be improved upon as we build and improve our Constitution on an ongoing basis? Could it not be improved upon rather than extinguished?

Ms. Jan Langelier: No, it cannot be improved upon. It needs to be gotten rid of, in our opinion. Section 23 is sufficient.

Mr. Alan Lombard: I'll add to that by saying that at the time of Confederation, the four founding provinces—Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Lower Canada and Upper Canada—all had section 93. We're only trying to join what New Brunswick and Nova Scotia did from the very beginning, which is to not have section 93 apply.

• 1135

Mr. Peter Goldring: In your brief you mentioned that a certain number of people are affected by paragraph 23(1)(a), which has not been adopted by the Quebec government. In not being affected, would these rights now not be somewhat covered by section 93? In other words, if we're removing section 93 without having paragraph 23(1)(a) adopted by the provincial government— Why has the government not been prepared to adopt it, and does that not affect the rights of a certain number of people?

Mr. Alan Lombard: To be absolutely clear, I don't think there's one person covered by paragraph 23(1)(a) who gains any benefit from section 93 in the sense that you intend the question.

Second, you have to understand the culture of Quebec to understand that papragraph 23(1)(a) was and always has been a thorny question. I believe it is much overvalued by the anglophone community as an important symbol of a wrong, and it's very much overvalued by the francophone community as a terrible breach that might occur in the charter of the French language. I take the position it's a plague on both houses. It's not that important as a problem, but it's a symbolic problem in both camps.

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

We'll now proceed with Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: It's nice to get a different view because more and more section 93 is something that's being put on a pedestal, although I don't think it deserves being knocked to the ground as you're trying to do.

How would the existence of section 93—and I'm quoting your words—“make the implementation of language-based boards unnecessarily difficult and messy”?

Ms. Jan Langelier: I think we gave a bit of an example here. Within the city limits of Montreal today you could have a linguistic school board set up with a confessional council that will be there to see to the confessional needs of, in our case, the Protestant children, as expressed by the Protestant parents of those children. First you have to identify who is Protestant.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: So it's more of an administrative problem.

Ms. Jan Langelier: Yes, there's that. There's also the question of what you as a teacher do in a classroom where you have some children who are under the protections of section 93 and others who are not, and you as a teacher are expected to deal with both categories of children. It's having different—

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Am I to read in this brief that, although you don't come right out and say it, you are not in favour of a religious component in the public school system in Quebec?

Ms. Jan Langelier: We have not been in favour of confessional religious education as such. We have said that there is a place for a plurality, an understanding of religion in a general overall sense, and in the inclusion of all kinds of religions in our schools. Actually, the Protestant system in Quebec has had that kind of plurality as its tradition much more so over the history of the Protestant system in Quebec than has the Catholic system. Protestant and “other” have been coming to our schools for a long time.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: So you would prefer a state-supported system whose religious component is as neutral as possible and would not identify any particular religious group, whether Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, etc.

Ms. Jan Langelier: Exactly.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: So it's more spiritual values than the endorsement of any particular religious group or number of religious groups.

Ms. Jan Langelier: Exactly.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: So you would like to see section 93 dropped because you feel it doesn't meet today's—

Ms. Jan Langelier: One of the reasons.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: One of the reasons. Thank you.

[Translation]

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

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Good morning. A number of people we have heard for the past week have told us their biggest concern is that there will not be any religious instruction in the schools. They fear that will cause some deterioration.

I wonder if there are examples, in other societies, where there is no religious instruction as they have in Quebec, but where religion is practised because of family values. Take France, for instance, where religious practice is not threatened even though they don't have this type of denominational school structure. I would like to know what the situation is elsewhere.

• 1140

Ms. Jan Langelier: You've just given one example, France. On the other hand, in the United States, there is no religion whatsoever in public schools. That is the case in some other Canadian provinces.

Mr. Alan Lombard: Most other provinces, including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have a separate school system and, although they are subject to section 93, it has never been enforced, since there was no obligation to do so under the Constitution Act. In Ontario, there is a little bit more of a mixture because of the position of separate schools. The provisions of section 93 apply, but the systems in Quebec and Ontario have both theoretically been designed based on the same Act.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You are not the least bit concerned about the perpetuation of values and religious instruction in schools. Apparently, a very high percentage of Quebeckers want things to remain as they are and to see denominational schools maintain their status. Don't you think that is dangerous, despite the fact that some groups have told us they fear religious instruction will disappear, even though they support the idea of having two structures. They are in favour of linguistic school boards, but also of maintaining denominational school boards; the structures would therefore be superimposed. They do not think that would be difficult to administer.

Mr. Alan Lombard: The question of religion in schools can be settled at the provincial level. There is a political choice to be made, but there is no reason to maintain section 93 to keep religion in schools. In fact, section 93 does not guarantee religion in school, at least as far as we are concerned. I think we have a firm position on that.

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

[English]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Good morning, and thank you for your presentation. I found it very interesting, and there was one point that really raised some questions in my mind.

On page 8 you talk about the issue of the right to dissent, which is limited to Protestant and Catholic minorities in the province of Quebec. You say that there are relatively few to whom this option has been genuinely important from a religious perspective.

Far more often this right when exercised has been for non-religious ends. It is also our observation that some of those who wish to preserve this right for themselves fail to understand that they are in the majority which precludes their dissent.

Let me ask for some clarification. Are you talking about some groups that profess Catholicism, and have made presentations here requesting that section 93 not be repealed, that it be be maintained? However, they are in the majority, and therefore we're talking about French-speaking Catholics?

Mr. Alan Lombard: Yes, we are talking about French-speaking and/or English-speaking Catholics.

I think English-speaking Catholics are in a majority as well, since a large number of people who are titled Protestant under our bizarre view of the word “Protestant” aren't in fact Protestant in any sense of the word. That is to say that they're Jewish, Muslim, or non-religious lumped together under the word “Protestant”.

But if one understands the Constitution correctly, to define yourself as a dissentient Protestant you have to be Protestant in the mainstream sense of that word. I don't think we're going to find— except in one population who are genuinely concerned—but I don't accept their concerns—and that is the French Protestant.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Okay.

Mr. Alan Lombard: That's the group we're referring to.

I'd also like to point out to you that if you take the two operating dissentient school boards that exist today, those are majority Catholic school boards. There are dissentient Protestant boards in Baie Comeau and Ste. Agathe, but Baie Comeau has 100 Catholics in a school of 104 students. That's certainly not the sense of section 93 dissent. Ste. Agathe is about 85% Roman Catholic in a Protestant dissentient board. I don't know that we're preserving very much when we preserve that.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The second clarification—and you just raised part of it—is that the real group that would be affected by the repeal of section 93 would, for instance, be the French-speaking Protestants, who are a true minority.

• 1145

We have had some French-speaking Protestant groups before us say that they are not in favour of this repeal, precisely because they would be completely diluted in a French-language school board. What would PAPT have to say to that, to try to reassure or change their minds?

Ms. Jan Langelier: Well, we are aware of the fact that there are, in our own ranks, for example, a very small number of teachers who proclaim French Protestant religion as the most important element of their educational approach. However, they are very small in number. Therefore, when we do our consultations, and in our democratic process, they are certainly not anywhere near being influential in the sense of democratically deciding our positions.

Certainly we understand that some of our members might feel that way, but not enough for us to change our position, which has always been a very strong position.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much. La prochaine intervention, Sheila Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me compliment you on one of the most clear, concise, and well-drafted reports. Not that I agree with the totality of the report, but I think it is one of the most succinct and well done.

I have a problem again, and it will flow from.— I have some concerns with respect to your brief. Aren't you concerned that for Quebec to carry on with Bill 107, the newly revised 109, there would have to be an ongoing use of the notwithstanding clause, the nonobstant section 33? Is that a democracy, where you have to use an avoidance of your charter, which is the defining picture of your values in your society?

That's my first question. I'll let you mull over that one for a moment, because it gives me great anxiety to hear anyone be supportive of ongoing nonobstant. I would rather find the mechanism—and I hope you will find a mechanism—that will ensure that we don't have to use notwithstanding clauses.

I agree with you that section 93 is a hollow section. Absolutely. I think that subsections (3) and (4) are obsolete. But I'd like to know what we're going to do that would ensure the language system I agree with.

I'm a product of exclusion. I'd like to be a product of inclusion. Therefore I will take you to a clarification I would ask of you on page 9 of your brief. You talk about the fact that it is this paragraph 23(1)(a)—which is not in force in Quebec, and therefore does not allow for equality of citizens and equal status of English-speaking citizens in Quebec—that I find abhorrent. You state that it deprives a small number of English-speakers.

How do you qualify a small number? If I have come here to settle, if the economy would improve, and if we would get the sword of Damocles off our head with the referendum, we might have more Americans, more Brits, more Australians and more Hong Kong people wanting to come and work, live, and contribute to a very exciting and dynamic society, a bilingual society like Quebec.

Mr. Nick Discepola: What about more Albertans, more British Columbians?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, no, they can come if they come from those places.

I really find that particular phrase out of context with what I consider to be a well-balanced report. So I would like to understand why you've said that.

Ms. Jan Langelier: I'll address the second question first, and then Alan can address the notwithstanding clause question. Certainly he can add to what I'm going to say about this section.

Obviously we're concerned about the future of English education in Quebec. There is no question. However, based on our experience to date on the numbers of people who have been disadvantaged by the fact that paragraph 23(1)(a) is not applicable in Quebec, we feel it is a small number.

That doesn't mean we support it; we don't. As a matter of fact, we continue to make representation to the Quebec government that it should be changed. However, in the larger scheme of things, it is a smaller area that we need to continue work on, definitely, and looking to the future, as you have suggested. But it is not something we feel should be the reason we stop everything else in terms of the implementation of the language system in our province.

• 1150

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I would ask you with respect to what I call in the public interest.— You responded to my colleague with respect to her question to you on page 8. Does that include your view of those schools that are now in place, that have been declared in the public interest? These are the Armenian, the Greek, the Jewish day schools, those schools you believe no longer, or should not, have the right to be part of a linguistic system, whether they are in the French stream, as the Sephardic system, or in the English stream.

Mr. Alan Lombard: We haven't addressed ourselves specifically to schools that are—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You specifically answered her question. That's why I'd like some clarification.

Mr. Alan Lombard: Well, okay. We haven't addressed ourselves specifically to private schools that are nevertheless declared in the public interest, and that receive state funds, or that would get a certain number of services in a few instances from school boards. We haven't opposed that in the past, and I don't think we would in the future particularly.

We are generally opposed to private education being state-supported—if you asked that question—but that includes the state support of all the private schools, whether it's Brébeuf, Lower Canada College, or an Armenian school. I think that is the fairer answer to your question.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

Mr. Alan Lombard: To go back to your very first question, we have opposed the use of the notwithstanding clause for any of the purposes to which it has been applied to deny charter rights to anybody at all times—including us in the case of special legislation. And we do oppose its use in the Education Act. But understand that we use the notwithstanding clause not because section 93 gives any particular coverage, but because it's necessary to keep the present Education Act clear of a challenge under either the Quebec or the Canadian charters according to our understanding.

In other words, I don't think there is a linkage to be made between the removal or abolition of subsections 93(1), 93(2), 93(3), and 93(4) and the use of the notwithstanding clause. The use of the notwithstanding clause is there anyway in Bill 107 to allow for a certain number of positive discriminations towards Roman Catholics and Protestants.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Okay, Mr. Lombard. We'll now go to Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Could you clarify for me whether or not there are already linguistic school boards in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Alan Lombard: In theory there are no linguistic school boards in the province of Quebec.

Now, in practice a large number of school boards are linguistic, because they are in, say, Chicoutimi. So a school board for Catholics in Chicoutimi will likely be a school board for francophones, because there are very few anglophones in Chicoutimi. We have one school there, so in fact it's in essentially a francophone school board. You'll find that situation in a good portion of the province outside the large urban area.

A large number of our so-called Protestant school boards outside the city of Montreal, or greater Montreal, are de facto anglophone school boards. A long time ago the Catholic school board ceded its English education rights to the Protestant school board. In practice, a lot of rural school boards are English, although still called Protestant.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I think Ms. Meredith has a supplementary on that.

Ms. Val Meredith: If reality is that there are already linguistic schools in Quebec, I was wondering, why the need to remove Quebec from section 93 if it is possible to bring that kind of a system in under 93?

Mr. Alan Lombard: All right. There are two main reasons. The first is the Island of Montreal, which enjoys special protection under section 93.

The Supreme Court has told us that within the limits of the city of Montreal, classes of citizens who are either Protestant or Roman Catholic have special rights. Those people can make, and have made, it very difficult, if not impossible, to create a linguistic school board within the limits of the city of Montreal. It's a little bit of what Mr. Lynch-Staunton was asking earlier: what are the difficulties?

Well, if you live in NDG—as I do—the difficulties are that you have more rights than somebody who lives in Montreal West, which is where the school my daughter goes is. Montreal West is not the city of Montreal, and NDG, where I live, is. That's a very peculiar situation for places that are 10 blocks apart.

That's the kind of difficulty, the kind of constitutional difficulty, that is created by small groups, groups that represent very small numbers of people, but make a tremendous amount of impact.

I read the newspapers last week. A large number of people who made presentations here would be the first to rush to a court to make some sort of challenge to the constitutional accommodation that the new Education Act, Bill 109, comes to. But let us understand that the creation of confessional committees was a suggestion that we made, and McGill made, to the minister. It was to get us over the hump temporarily while we were living this kind of nightmare where you try to do something new, but you still have something old hanging on that prevents it.

• 1155

I'm not sure but that those confessional councils would be contested.

The second problem is the right of dissidence. A lot of people would immediately try to use this to create parallel school systems that wouldn't be linguistic, but would be based upon religion in a lot of areas. That's not what we think is a good idea.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. We will now move on to Mr. Clifford Lincoln. I will come back to you after for a brief question.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I would like to ask you something. The whole basis for this exercise has been a question of consensus in Quebec. Do you feel there is a consensus over this in Quebec? If so, how do you explain several groups that have appeared here—the English Speaking Catholic Council, Alliance Quebec, and many others—and don't feel there is a consensus. Are they misguided?

Mr. Alan Lombard: If you want a short answer, I think, yes. It's been one of the things we've noted in our long progress towards this, that there's been tremendous opposition. That opposition has shifted ground every time you take away.— We started with linguistic protections in section 93, and now we've shifted to religious protections in section 93 that are very important to us as well. Along the way we found it odd that we've been fighting with a group of people who are expressing themselves for reasons that are not absolutely clear.

The only group who I think are perfectly logical and consistent are the French Protestants. There's something there in their arguments. After that, I lose the thread and have done so all the way along.

By the way, in the community that we represent, in which we work a lot—the anglophone community—we started as probably the only people who were immediately in favour of the amendment. And we've seen the consensus grow within our own community to the point where we think that all the significant players in the education community, people who actually are involved—almost all, if not all, of them—are in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Are you suggesting that the position of, say, the English Speaking Catholic Council, which represents 200,000-plus people who feel they have an acquired right in section 93, the right to defend like anybody else, is completely misguided, and only the French Protestants can claim the title of minority under section 93 and in this exercise?

Mr. Alan Lombard: Yes, I am suggesting essentially that. Obviously there are going to be places.— And I don't want to be tarred with a brush that says we said, you know, a blanket statement, there are no situations. But by and large, as I read the right to dissent, the minority group would be French Protestants.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Lombard. If you don't mind, we'll go with a short question by Senator Lynch-Staunton, and after that Senator Beaudoin.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Thank you.

After hearing your description of the school system in Quebec, after Mrs. Meredith asked the question about its linguistic aspect, would you agree that a lot of the linguistic evolution of our system in Quebec is a result of section 93? Or, to put it another way, had it not been for section 93, we would have a totally different school system right now, rather than one where English and French have tremendous respect in certain areas of the province as languages of education. Is that not due to section 93?

Mr. Alan Lombard: I think section 93 has been an obstacle, not a help, if that's your question.

What has happened in the rural areas has happened because people recognized that it was far better to be 450 students in one school with a decent gymnasium than 201 in the one and 250 in the other. People have said we think we can bury our difficulties and get around all the legal problems, because the interests of the children and the educational system outweigh our differences.

By the way, every community in my experience—and that goes back now some 25 years—has gone through this kind of a variation on the debate. What are we going to do about religion? What's it going to be like? How are we going to live together? The answer has always been, after six months, what were all those problems we anticipated or apprehended—they're not there.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: No, my question is.— You're dismissive of section 93. I just want to go back and suggest that the Protestant School Board in Montreal would not be the English school board it is today were it not for section 93. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. Alan Lombard: Well, I don't know that it's an English school board as we speak. It's probably about 42% or 43% francophones.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Well, it's evolving all the time.

• 1200

Mr. Alan Lombard: It has a majority of francophone teachers. The majority of people we represent in the PSBGM are French-speaking and ask for their documentation in French. Given those reserves, I suppose section 93 had something to do with it, although the Protestant school board pre-existed Confederation.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: And section 93 confirmed it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I have a quick question.

Last Friday we discussed the famous question of the consensus. On linguistic school boards I understand there is strong consensus all over Quebec on this. On subsections 93(1), 93(2), 93(3) and 93(4) and whether we should keep them or not, we have different opinions. One area that has not been dealt with very profoundly is whether the teaching of the religion in schools should be solved by a legislative or constitutional solution.

I gather you are against the constitutional solution, but what do you think about the legislative solution? Do you think there is something there to be dealt with?

Ms. Jan Langelier: As far as I am concerned, the evolution of the teaching of religion in our schools is something that will be decided by the parents and the people who are sending their children to our schools. At the present time and in Montreal, for example, where we have such a huge diversity in our schools, it may not be fair to say the Protestant religion or Catholic religion should play the important role in the schools that parents in Montreal would wish. The parents in the schools that I know are interested in their children learning about religion in a more general way to understand and accept the differences so that we can live together in a multicultural way that is acceptable to all. I think that's the kind of thing that will continue to develop over the years, and that's the way it should be. We shouldn't have a system that's cast in stone. It's a system that needs to have room for evolving. So I think the legislative approach to that is the appropriate way of dealing with it.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: So it's legislative in a pluralistic society.

Ms. Jan Langelier: Yes.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Ms. Langelier and Mr. Lombard, for your presentation to committee members.

Our next witnesses are the representatives from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. We will suspend for a minute or two so that they can come to the table.

• 1204

• 1206

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Please take your places. We continue our hearings of the Special Joint Committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 concerning the Quebec school system. We will now hear from the representatives of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, from the president, Mr. Gérald Larose, who is here with— Mr. Larose, could you please introduce the people who are with you today?

Mr. Gérald Larose (President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux): I am here with Mr. Jean-Guy Fournier, from the CSN's Research Department, and Pierre Bonnet, from CSN's Campaign Department.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Larose. You have the floor.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us. Since we are here in Ontario, I would like to say a special hello to the teachers who are fighting very hard to protect the most precious thing we have in our society, namely our education system.

For those who are not familiar with Quebec's institutions, the CSN is a union organization with 250,000 members, of which 45,000 are from the education sector. We represent a whole range of workers, from those employed in daycare centres to university professors, with the exception of elementary and secondary school teachers, as well as workers from other major related areas.

The CSN is also part of the Coalition pour la déconfessionnalisation du système d'éducation du Québec, which represents 43 groups, for a total of over 2 million people.

After 30 years of debate and imaginative legislative proposals, on April 15, the National Assembly decided to ask the federal government to repeal subsections 93(1), 93(2), 93(3) and 93(4). The Canadian government decided to hold hearings, and based on what we have seen so far, there seem to be three major issues, and these will form the basis of our presentation.

First of all, is there a consensus in Quebec? Secondly, what is the real nature of the question being debated? Thirdly, is this debate overshadowing another?

The first question is whether there is a consensus. If a consensus does not mean unanimity, there is indeed a consensus in Quebec. I remember the Parent Commission, which was not chaired by Trotski or Mordecai Richler, but by a bishop, had advocated linguistic school boards as early as the beginning of the 1960s.

I recall the various positions of the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation, which had always reiterated that section 93 was a hindrance to implementing linguistic school boards; the various parliamentary commissions that had been set up to study Bill 107, Bill 109, and the many imaginative measures introduced by every education minister, including Mr. Claude Ryan, to get around the persistent obstacle that section 93 presented.

I remember the Bélanger-Campeau Commission had to deal with it, as did the commissions studying Quebec's constitutional future. Very recently as well, it was brought up during the States General on education, and when section 93 was brought up during the final meeting, the vast majority of participants around the table—there were nearly 80 of us—said that section 93 must be abolished. The bishops themselves took part in that debate.

Finally, it is the National Assembly, that has the legitimate authority to make a ruling on the consensus in Quebec, which unanimous by concluded that section 93 had to be repealed.

• 1210

By the way, we know of governments that pass legislation without being unduly concerned, even if there isn't as strong a consensus as there is on this.

Second point: the real nature of the matter being debated. What is it really about? A determining factor, a characteristic of an education system, or the fundamental rights of one or several minorities? The text is very clear. It is about a school system's denomination, so an attribute of a school system, and not about basic rights of minorities.

It is important to note that in 1867, francophones and Catholics had common interests, as did anglophones and Protestants. But 130 years later, it is clear that Protestants are themselves a minority in their own school boards. They are not even the second largest group, nor the third. The least one can say is that a denominational school system that produces a minority of that same religion is a sign that something isn't right.

Only 10% of anglophones claim to be Protestants. In 1997, religion is no longer the social indicator it may have been in 1867. One hundred and thirty years later, you have to recognize that Quebec society has evolved, as has Canadian society. The 1789 notion of separating the Church from the State has come a long way, even if we still live in a constitutional monarchy.

The intent behind the 1789 measure that would ensure equality of rights for groups and individuals has come a long way in our own society, even without taking into account the fact that our population has changed a great deal, has become much more pluralistic and cosmopolitan. This pluralism and cosmopolitanism mean that we should have open and welcoming structures to avoid the formation of ghettoes, the isolation of various groups, and to avoid tensions and breakups. These structures must also cultivate a common culture. The school network is one of the first places to start developing this common culture.

I would also like to point out that the trend toward a non- denominational society can be traced back in history. Take the CSN as an example. In 1921, it was called the Canadian and Catholic Federation of Labour. Since the 1940s, there has been an ongoing debate which led the CSN to become non-denominational in 1960. So becoming non-denominational is an historic trend.

Last point; you mustn't confuse making schools non- denominational with keeping religion out of education. There is a call for non-denominational structures, but Bill 107 ensures some continuity in a school's religious approach.

Finally, there is one last question I would like to answer: Is this debate covering up another? Of course, some witnesses will focus on the real political issues, while others are just petty politicians. Stating that section 93 is critical to protecting the anglophone community is really using every means available to promote one's cause. It is used mostly to arouse every anti-Quebec alliance that has cropped up over the past months or years.

Quebec's anglophone community does not need section 93 to guarantee its continuity. It has the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, its own institutional network—more than 100 daycare centres, 26 private institutions, both subsidized and non-subsidized, 19 school boards, 5 cegeps and 3 universities—an entire health network, 107 municipalities, 2 daily newspapers and 17 weeklies, 9 radio stations and 3 television stations, as well as its own economic, political and association networks.

• 1215

Are you going to tell me Quebec's anglophone community needs section 93 to guarantee its survival? Come on; enough already. It has nothing to do with the fate of Quebec anglophones.

If this committee wants to hold a debate on that, the CSN is certainly willing to do likewise. It will speak out loud and clear about the fate of other minority communities in Canada, that of the francophone community, whose institutions, as we all know, are in jeopardy, such as the Montfort hospital, which is to become a big local community service centre, and the Saint-Boniface General Hospital, where 90% of the staff is unable to provide services in French. We could have some real debates on this.

If the Quebec government wants to make a ruling on the consensus in Quebec on section 93, I would point out that it is doing so in violation of the attitude the federal government itself adopted when it repatriated Canada's Constitution against Quebec's will. Did it allow the British Parliament to make a ruling on the consensus in Canada? No. And it was right in doing so.

This is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The only authority that can rule on the consensus is Quebec's National Assembly, which noticed a change in the Quebec consensus, made the claim and is the only body that can interpret it. Since the federal government is the trustee of the document, just as the British government did at the time, the Canadian government must respond to the Quebec government's request.

That is putting things in their simplest form, Mr. Chairman. I tried to summarize my brief and am now ready to answer your questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We will now give the floor to our first questioner, Mr. Peter Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you for your presentation.

I have a question for Mr. Larose. You mentioned in your address—and I hope you can clarify it a bit—anti-Quebec alliances and then went on to speak about the anglophone community. Could you explain what you meant by that?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: I was referring to the political trend to make Quebec look bad. A few days ago, some federal ministers were challenging the democratic quality of Quebec society. I do indeed think there is a huge anti-Quebec campaign going on.

Some people appeared before your committee simply to take advantage of a very simple demand, namely to make the school system non-denominational, to fuel that debate. That is what I was insinuating.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a supplemental question. When you were referring to the Quebec legislature and you were saying “we” as with the Quebec legislature, are you representing the Quebec legislature's point of view on this matter? Are you representing the legislature itself?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: I introduced our organization as being part of the labour movement in Quebec. The CSN is an institution in Quebec, a labour institution. Our views on making schools non- denominational, as well as those of 43 other groups totalling 2 million Quebeckers, were supported by the Quebec National Assembly, whose opinions we also share. But I am not a representative of the Quebec National assembly.

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

• 1220

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like to say a few words about section 93. People say we want to abolish it, but that is not the case. We want to abolish subsection 93(1), 93(2), 93(3) and 93(4). No one in Quebec can object entirely to section 93, since it gives the provinces jurisdiction over education.

That said, we all agree on that. It is true that if subsections 93(1), 93(2), 93(3) and 93(4) are repealed, the school structure will become non-denominational. You are correct on that. That is the immediate effect. And even if we wanted to keep these subsections, in a modern context, in my humble opinion, they would have to be amended. I always say that subsections 93(3) and 93(4) no longer meet current needs because they have not been used for a century. It would be up to the courts to decide.

As for subsections 93(1) and 93(2), in this modern era, if one religious group is protected, all religious groups would have to be. I am saying this as a preamble.

Your position is clear; you say that by withdrawing subsections 93(1), 93(2), 93(3) and 93(4), the school system becomes non-denominational. That is true. What is less clear, however, is whether religion will be taught in schools. So far, we have heard people say— I am not talking about denominational schools here because if those subsections are withdrawn, there is no longer a denominational structure. There may be religious instruction in schools, which is another matter, and that is what I would like to ask you about.

You say there is a consensus in Quebec to make schools non- denominational. But is there a consensus on religious instruction? I don't know. I am asking you. That seems less clear to me. I have the feeling some say yes, religious instruction will continue pursuant to section 41 of the Quebec Charter, which is still in existence. I think there will always be religious instruction. Whether it will be for one, two, three or four religions specifically, I don't know.

I presume you're not against religious instruction, but I would like to know whether you think there is a consensus on it in Quebec.

Mr. Gérald Larose: The question of taking religion and religious instruction out of schools has been a topic of debate in Quebec for many years. There is no consensus to take religion out of schools.

Some groups would like that, but the Quebec government feels there is no consensus. So continued religious instruction is guaranteed by law. I would say that if most people feel that way, it is a sort of consensus. All groups want basic values to be instilled, which can also be done through religious instruction.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: And the solution would be legislative, not constitutional.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Precisely. After all, there is discrimination in that Catholics and Protestants have a constitutional guarantee. What about Muslims? What about all the other religions? Are these members second-class Quebeckers?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: As I was saying a moment ago, if anyone ever wanted to argue in favour of maintaining these subsections, section 93 would have to amended, because these subsections do not really reflect modern circumstances, as in subsections 93(3) and 93(4).

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

Mr. Réal Ménard: Good afternoon. I can't tell you how much I appreciated your presentation. I would like to explain the three problems this committee is having, Mr. Larose, and I would ask you to use your teaching skills to clarify a few things.

You know how often it has been said that there is no consensus in Quebec. This whole exercise would then be useless and the matter we are dealing with—that you so aptly define as making school boards non-denominational—would merely be the product of biogenesis, would not have been discussed and would not have any roots in Quebec society.

For the benefit of our colleagues, I would like you to comment again on the consensus and its deep roots.

RECORDING 37 WAS ERASED (END OF HEARING)

This is nothing new.

• 1225

Secondly, I would like you to give us your thoughts on the rights and privileges of anglophones. Nobody would want them to be taken away. We recognize that the rights and privileges of the anglophone community must be maintained within certain limits. I think the research you mentioned in your brief ought to be mentioned again.

If this amendment is ever defeated, which is unlikely at this point, in your view, what would that mean for the future of the Quebec school system?

Mr. Gérald Larose: Let us first deal with the consensus. Over the past 30 years, Quebec's education ministers have all tried different ways to avoid implementing the four subsections of section 93. Bear in mind that people assume the Canadian Constitution cannot be amended, that it is an insurmountable obstacle and that if that road is taken, you never get to the end of it. You would not believe what people have tried to do to get around section 93. Every time, we ended up with some awkward legislative proposal, including Bill 107.

I'll go to your third question right away. What would be the concrete effects of not amending section 93? You'd get the superimposition of linguistic school boards and denominational school boards. I can tell you, if this kind of superimposition is imposed on our public system, we're deluding ourselves greatly if we think we'll be achieving what's been talked about around this table, in other words simplifying the system, making it more efficient, less costly and so forth. So, it will be impossible to modernize our education system, which remains a social instrument, a fundamental instrument of society.

Now I'll come back to the second question: would it create a problem for anglophone rights? Not at all. Saying so is a pretext that's being introduced to get into another debate. I maintain that we're ready for that other debate. But it's not true in real life, when 10% of the anglophones say they are Protestant and that as Protestants they're a minority themselves in their Protestant school boards, that the future of the anglophone community is at stake especially, as I was saying before, when you take into account all the means available to that community. That's more likely what will ensure their survival.

Mr. Réal Ménard: If I understand you correctly, Mr. Larose, if this amendment were not to pass, the result in Montreal, for example, could be that you'd maintain four or six school boards. Senator Beaudoin agrees on the figure six. So we should certainly be able to count on him. It would be six.

Mr. Gérald Larose: As a minimum.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's what I think. We all know what that means in terms of overlapping of networks and schools and what it means for the public treasury. The taxpayers and children would be very ill-served with such a formula.

Mr. Gérald Larose: The ripple effect would be to set up a system that would remain very closed, very focused on entities while what we actually need, in a modern society, is what I might call a republican school, a school for all.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Just say it.

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

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Larose and representatives of the CSN, welcome and thank you for the presentation you've made here today.

I'll start off with a short preamble to say that in my opinion, the constitutional amendment sought by Quebec's National Assembly would be a good thing for Quebec.

However, and this is where I'll come to the point I want to look at, you say that it's not up to the members of Parliament and senators who are members of the joint committee to make a judgement about the quality of the consensus in Quebec on the subject nor to contribute to helping Ottawa meddle once again in the field of education, which is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. You will doubtless admit that it's not only those members or senators from Quebec who will be voting on the motion tabled before the House and the Senate.

• 1230

So if this committee is to properly discharge its duties, it must hear all opinions and present a report containing the recommendations that the other members of the other parties sitting in the House and the senators siting in the Senate will find convincing as to the merits of the request made by the National Assembly.

So when it is said that it is not up to us to judge the quality of the consensus existing in Quebec, I think that, on the contrary, we do actually have that duty. Only in doing so will we be able to convince the other members and senators of all political stripes that Quebec's National Assembly is really basing its undertaking on a real consensus.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Larose, a brief comment.

Mr. Gérald Larose: I insist on this. How is it the Canadian government told the British government that it had no business getting mixed up in Canada's external affairs, and that it was not to question the consensus concerning the patriation of the Constitution as this was under Canadian jurisdiction? The text was in Great Britain. All Great Britain had to do was process the paperwork and this is what it did.

We're asking the Canadian government to do its work, not to question the consensus that was validated by the only institution that can do so in an area of provincial jurisdiction, to wit: Quebec's National Assembly. In that sense, yes, you must do your work.

However, you can't put on the same footing the judgment of the National Assembly and the opinion of four or five groups who might not agree with the National Assembly decision. It's a matter of democracy and respect for institutions.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Larose, no one here, on this committee, has cast any doubt on the will of Quebec's National Assembly. No one. However, we do have an obligation. The motion was tabled in the House and then in the Senate at the request of the National Assembly. The request was made by the National Assembly. And because of that request made by the National Assembly, a motion was made to set up this committee.

We have an obligation and it is to make recommendations to the House and the Senate after holding consultations with people from Quebec and even from outside Quebec who say, for example, that the amendment should not be done bilaterally and that it's not true that there's a consensus in Quebec. You come here and tell us we're getting involved in an area under provincial jurisdiction. I am sorry, but this committee got its green light because of Quebec's request.

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

The Honourable Sheila Finestone: Congratulations, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Larose, I totally agree that section 93 of the Constitution should be repealed because of its subsections (1) through (4) and for all the reasons you have given and that everyone else has given. You started off by saying we should examine this proposal using three magnifying glasses. You mentioned the consensus and many questions have been raised in that respect. I, for one, have none, but a lot of others do.

You have added that we should not politicize this debate. Now, from the very beginning, you've been talking about the Quebec people. I am very proud to be a Quebecker, but I'm a part of the Canadian people which includes Quebeckers.

• 1235

If you have come here to express your opinion on this proposal that was submitted to us by Quebec, I think you should at least respect the fact that we're dealing with the Constitution of all Canadians and that all Canadians will be affected by this bill.

I for one found it neither necessary nor very nice—I actually found it quite disgraceful—when you mentioned Mr. Mordecai Richler and others. That is unacceptable.

I for one—

Mr. Gérald Larose: That came up at the House of Commons meeting.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It was not necessary to mention either one, Mr. Larose. That's what I meant.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin): Your question, Madam Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: My question then, Mr. Larose, is this: should we continue using the notwithstanding clause to ensure that bills 107 and 109, acceptable in the eyes of the Supreme Court, might be implemented?

Mr. Gérald Larose: Could I be so bold as to put forth the idea that there isn't only one people, but several peoples in Canada.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: There is one in Quebec and in the regions, but there is one people—

Mr. Gérald Larose: Amongst others, there is a Quebec people that has its own prerogatives and the country was born because of a historical contract between two peoples. We can get back to this before another committee.

As to your question on the notwithstanding clause, I would answer this: if the notwithstanding clause is a social disease, the government of Canada should withdraw it from the Constitution. However, if it's a democratic tool allowing for the affirmation of the rights of peoples and the implementation of the prerogatives of institutions such as the federal Parliament and the Quebec Parliament as having priority over other authorities, more particularly the legal ones, then I would tell you that I'm in favour of the notwithstanding clause. It's an instrument of Canadian democracy.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Larose. The next intervener will be Ms. Val Meredith.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

It's quite apparent to me what side of the fence you sit on. Following Ms. Jennings' comments, I would note the concern that section 93 was placed in the Constitution when they were trying to create a balance between Upper Canada and Quebec. Since there are two parties involved in that balancing act, perhaps it cannot be changed without the consent of the other partner.

I am concerned about your comments about the consensus and your reference to the anti-Quebec participants that we've had here, and you infer that they are anglophones. You may not have meant to have done that. To me, section 93 guarantees that Protestant Quebeckers—you have referred to them as anglophones—would have public education, that the public would pay for that education. I think there is concern that the day will come when the majority of francophone Quebeckers would deny that protection and the public purse will not support the Protestant or anglophone education system. Are you telling those people who are concerned that this is not an issue and is not something they should be concerned about?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: I could remind you of how the Quebec people has dealt with issues historically. In Quebec, there was never any Regulation 17; in Quebec, minority rights were never abolished, it was never forbidden to speak your own language. There are exemplary ways of treating one's linguistic minority and I would even go so far as to say that Bill 101 protects the anglophone community far better than the Official Languages Act, because in Bill 101, there are no criteria about numbers.

• 1240

If you're afraid that Quebec will exercise ostracism, then that fear must be fed by an anti-Quebec political current, because the concrete historical practice of the people of Quebec vis-à-vis its minorities is exemplary in this country.

There is proof enough in that you don't find 69% assimilation as you do in British Columbia. Unlike in Saskatchewan, we don't have 63% assimilation either. The anglophone community has all the instruments that we have been demanding for all the minorities in this country: a complete education network, a complete health network, from kindergarten to university, the economic instruments, the radio stations, the television stations and so on, everything that a community needs to flourish. That's what it has and those are the guarantees for long-term survival.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The next intervener is Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) Mr. Larose, I totally agree with you on the fact that the anglophone community in Quebec is well treated. There is no doubt about that. It has its own institutional networks, its own organizational network and so on. What I find a bit saddening is that there is a tendency to use the fact that the francophone minorities outside of Quebec, in the rest of the country, don't have what the Quebec anglophones have to go in the direction of the lowest common denominator.

That's a debate that I find particularly offensive. I would encourage you not to adopt this tendency for going towards the lowest common denominator.

Second, concerning the constitutional amendment, you say that the federal government has only to accede to the National Assembly's request. This is a bilateral amendment, not a unilateral one. As parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to make sure, simply as a matter of domestic peace, that there actually is a consensus of the population affected or concerned by the matter. That's what we're trying to do here.

It would seem that there is unanimous agreement for setting up linguistic school boards. That's not the question anymore. We're trying to emphasize the consensus that we've been told does exist.

Unfortunately, during the first week of our hearings, many questions arose concerning the wisdom, the desire or the necessity to amend section 93. I think that during the coming week, we'll probably see a better balance between the positions. That's when the federal parliamentarians will have to bring their judgement to bear.

We should not uselessly diminish the role of the parliamentarians sitting here. They do have a role to play in the case of a bilateral amendment. For example, we've seen time and again the famous list that comes up in all the briefs we're being handed, in those of the 20 groups that were consulted, 15 of which are supposed to have been against the idea of amending section 93. We're beginning to see that there are maybe not 15 against it and two or three now support it.

I'd also like to point out that the work being done here is not being done with an anti-Quebec mindset. Maybe there are people around this table who are anti-separation. Let's call a spade a spade. But if, as you tend to do, you say that being against separation is being against Quebec, I'm in complete disagreement with that. Thank you.

Mr. Gérald Larose: As for me, I can tell you that I have a lot of problems dealing with this questioning of the unanimity of Quebec's National Assembly.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So do we.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Yes, in my mind, the Equality Party has the right to express itself and it does express itself. But to have you, as parliamentarians, trivialize a 30-year process that led our National Assembly to say: enough of this running around and attempting to get around the requirements of section 93— Let's just bow to reality and ask for what it would seem normal to obtain, which is an amendment to section 93.

If an amendment were to be refused, it would be like sinking your own ship. That's clear. It isn't possible that such a consensus arrived at by the Quebec community and validated by the National Assembly be questioned by other parliamentarians. You should, and it's your work to do so, tell those people who question this process that a democratic debate has been taking place for the last 30 years. At some point, you have to bite the bullet and move on. That's what your work is, not rehashing the whole debate that's occurred over the last 30 years.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Bélanger has pointed out that this decision must be bilateral, Mr. Larose.

• 1245

I shall immediately give the floor to Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gerald Beaudoin: It's true that it's impressive. I'm impressed by the fact that the vote at the National Assembly was unanimous. That is a parliament which, in the area of education, has full powers.

That said, no one can blame us federal parliamentarians for making sure that there really is a consensus. The National Assembly's unanimity is already a good starting point because there is more than one party there.

We heard many witnesses last week. The witnesses this week have a different orientation, it seems to me. We're here to make our decisions. You know, everybody agrees on the linguistic structures. Absolutely no one has come here to say anything against that.

There is still a debate on the four clauses of section 93, but I think that the arguments from all sides are well known now. They're very clear. You can be for it or against it but we're continuing the debate anyway because it's our role to make sure that if a section as interesting as section 93 is changed, it's because a consensus has been reached that one cannot just ignore.

You are very eloquent when you say that a consensus does exist. We hear you and we're listening. On the other hand, you can't blame us for looking at both sides of the coin. That's why I came back on this matter of education a while back. What you said seemed very clear to me. There seem to be many points of view in Quebec on education. I'm not talking about secularization according to the terms contained in those four clauses. You summarized the matter and have made yourself heard on that.

As far as teaching in the schools is concerned, the consensus is less clear. I think there are many possible opinions. I asked you if you wanted us to stick to a legislative decision. You answered yes. Others say that there should be denominational education. That raises a problem because if you set aside subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4, there will be no denominational education. You'll be able to teach religion, but there will be no denominational structure.

I'd like us to put the debate back into its proper perspective. I think that what you're saying is very useful because it's clear. But, once again, I think that we shouldn't imagine that we're not playing our role. We are playing our role. We're a legislative body here and the Constitution of Canada does spell out that you need the consent of Quebec and of the two federal Houses although, for the Senate, it's only a six-month suspensive veto.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Larose, you who know Quebec rather well—

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is it a question or a university course?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It's not a course. I don't while away my time giving courses.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Because we did take notes, you know.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Larose, a comment on professor Beaudoin's comments.

Mr. Gérald Larose: In truth, I don't think that a Constitution should set out the privileges of certain denominations. After all, this is 1997. We should modernize our whole structure, including the definition in the Canadian Constitution. This is a relic that should be shown some respect, but our society is broader than that these days.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard, for a brief question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: As brief as the preceding interveners, Mr. Chairman. Let us act out the play, and don't ask for a vote on that.

Mr. Larose, you personally know Quebec well. You know the interveners very well. For a week now, we've been witness to an attempt to prevent the real stakeholders from prevailing.

I would like to draw to your attention to the arguments that are put forth in this matter of the erosion of the consensus. Can you believe that we were given a list prepared by our friends from Alliance Québec where it is said that the Mouvement pour une école moderne et ouverte is supposedly against the repeal of section 93. We could name others like the Assemblée des évêques, the Fédération des parents, and so forth.

Once again, it seems to me that with your experience and knowledge of the Quebec school system, you could perhaps remind us of the nature of this Mouvement pour une école moderne et ouverte (Movement for an open and modern School) and tell us why there are a certain number of major players in the educational system who support the Quebec National Assembly proposal.

• 1250

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Your comments, Mr. Larose.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Later this week you'll be hearing the coalition. This is a coalition of some 43 groups—unions, grass roots groups, community groups, massively from the areas of education, the cultural sector and political groups. I will repeat once again that people are not against religion in the schools but against a denominational school network. The MEMO is not against religion but it is quite favourable to doing away with denominational institutions. In that sense, I think you must appreciate the fact that anything moving in Quebec and the least bit open and awake wants to see us going into the XXIst century with a school network that's adapted to a cosmopolitan and pluralistic society. That's what Quebec is all about today.

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

One last intervention: Mr. Nick Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I just want to point something out to Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Ménard, it's not our friends from Alliance Québec who distributed and quoted that list. That table came from a source within Quebec's Education Department.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard, we're not engaging in any debate, right now. Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Larose, I think there is almost unanimous consensus on the fact that to modernize our school network we'll have to at least reorganize it on a language rather than on a denominational basis. I think everyone is in unanimous agreement on that.

But I must share with you the concerns of some people and groups, because I think that's my role as a parliamentarian. When we're asked to change the Constitution, which is the fundamental basis of our society, I can't take that responsibility lightly. I believe that when we're asked to change a constitution, we must especially have the consensus of the minority which will be affected. From that point of view I do have some problems.

If you look at section 93, it's quite clear and evident that there's no mention of language rights. What is mentioned is the access to denominational schools. However, traditionally and historically speaking, a community of a given language has tended to choose a denomination for its school whereas the other community chose another denomination for its own schools.

Our concern, Mr. Larose, is that the National Assembly, as unanimous as it may have been when it voted on this resolution, did not get a clear mandate. During the election, they did not ask for a mandate to amend the Constitution. I accept it anyway because its members were democratically elected and they speak for the Quebec community.

But they're asking us to repeal section 93 of the 1867 Constitution. Now, section 93, as such, does not address language protection. On the other hand, they don't recognize section 23 of the 1982 Constitution, which seems to give assurances and the language security that the anglophone minority is looking for in Quebec.

So I'm going to ask you if you're going to strive relentlessly to get the Quebec government to recognize the 1982 Constitution to reassure Quebec's minority community and give it the protection it's looking for.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Your comments, Mr. Larose.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Listen, we were invited here to address clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 93. The matter is very specific. If you're looking for a constitutional debate, fine. It's a well-known fact in Quebec that I don't detest debating that matter. I can tell you that I'm ready to come and debate subsection 23(1)(a) and all the other provisions. That's no problem for me.

Now, very concretely, is our anglophone community suffering miserably, whether it's in the area of its culture, its language, its economics or its place in society? I figure they're not too badly off, broadly speaking. It has the same problems that the francophone community might have in Quebec. It has fewer than the other francophone communities elsewhere in this country.

If you want to get into that other debate, I can tell you right away that my name will be on the list, no problem. But for today, we're here for denominational school structures. I think it's time to stand up and settle that problem. Too many ministers of education, some of them your friends, came up short when they tried to imagine all kinds of solutions to get around the problem. If you can't get around it, then you have to get rid of it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Larose. We thank the CSN for its presentation. We'll resume the hearings at 3:30 p.m. in this room. We will then be hearing the CECM, the Commission des écoles catholiques de Montréal.

The meeting stands adjourned.