SJNS Committee Meeting

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AMENDMENT TO TERM 17 OF THE TERMS OF UNION OF NEWFOUNDLAND

COMITÉ MIXTE SPÉCIAL CONCERNANT LA MODIFICATION À LA CLAUSE 17 DES CONDITIONS DE L'UNION DE TERRE-NEUVE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 26, 1997

• 1532

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Lethbridge, Lib.)): Colleagues, we are back again for our discussions on the amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland, and as always, Labrador.

This afternoon we will begin with a group of witnesses. From the Roman Catholic Education Committee we have with us Dr. Bon Fagan, who is their executive officer; from The Catholic Education Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Most Reverend James H. MacDonald, who is the Archbishop of St. John's and the chair of the council; and from Poole, Althouse, Clarke, Thompson & Thomas, Barristers and Solicitors, Joseph S. Hutchings, legal counsel.

Gentlemen, we welcome you and thank you for coming to meet with the committee to share your views on this very important topic. We have an hour and a half, so I would suggest that we proceed right away with your comments, which in order to make the most of the time could be as succinct as you wish to make them. You should know that the questioners in this committee are very lively and interested, so they will want to have a good opportunity during this hour and a half to ask questions of the three of you. Thank you very much, and please begin.

The Most Reverend James H. MacDonald (Archbishop of St. John's and Chair of the Catholic Education Council of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you. I represent today myself as a witness in favour of the retention of educational minority rights held by Roman Catholics in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On behalf of the bishops of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to you that Roman Catholics as a class have not at any time indicated that they wish to renounce those education rights.

Parents have both an obligation and a right to educate their children in schools that reflect their parental religious convictions. Parents therefore must have a true freedom in choosing schools for their children.

In this regard, teachers play a critical role in the education of children entrusted to them. That is why teachers must collaborate closely with the parents and be willing to listen to those parents in regard to the values in which they wish their children to be educated.

• 1535

Civil authorities, we assert, must guarantee this parental right and ensure that parents are given their just share of public funds in order to have schools that meet parental values. This applies not only to denominational schools as we have known them, but to all schools. Such a right is of course not unlimited. Governments may rightly apply standards of viability that are uniformly applicable to all groups and schools.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we have in fact developed a means whereby different schools have come together without the parents of any particular religious persuasion giving up their rights entirely. The joint service school, as such an arrangement is known in the province, is a unique solution to the viability dilemma that solves viability in practical terms and yet each group preserves their right to educate their children in their own religious values. This solution must not be dismissed as impractical when it has demonstrated just the opposite.

The proposed amendment to Term 17 contains a paragraph that we find offensive in a most serious way, namely paragraph (2), which reads:

In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination.

To our knowledge this is the first time that a government in a western democracy has decided to create a state religion. In the Roman Catholic church, the local bishop is charged with determining the appropriate religious education program to be used in his diocese. In Canada, the Canadian Conference of Bishops has developed a religious education program that is accepted by the Newfoundland and Labrador bishops. No other person, not even the most qualified Roman Catholic, and no other agency have the authority to determine the content of a religious program for Roman Catholic children.

We find it offensive that Roman Catholics will not be able to have their own religious education program, even though that program has been part of their education system for some 150 years. We are not relieved of our anxiety when we hear comments that the government may permit Roman Catholics to have their own program on request. At the present time we have a constitutional right to our own religious education, taught by our own teachers. It is a matter of legal debate whether or not government, even if it wanted to, could permit under the proposed amendment a religious education program of any particular religious denomination, because all schools will be non-denominational.

It is not a matter of debate that Roman Catholics, even if government could and would grant permission to them to have their own religious education program, could not be assured that the religious program would be taught by qualified and acceptable Roman Catholic teachers. The amendment to Term 17 does not permit the Roman Catholic people any say in who teaches their children their religion. That authority rests with the non-denominational school board. This is an insult and unacceptable.

After the February registration, in which parents of some 24,000 Roman Catholic children expressed a preference for their children to be educated in Roman Catholic schools, the Government of Newfoundland through its Minister of Education proceeded to instruct school boards to ignore the parents' wishes. The result was that viable Roman Catholic schools in many places in the province were being unjustifiably closed. Parents felt they had no choice but to resort to the courts. As bishops, we support the parents in this action.

• 1540

Given that treatment, we should not be surprised that our people once again feel they have no other recourse but to lay their case before the courts. Again, we support them in their efforts. While they were always anxious to find a political solution to education challenges that face the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Roman Catholics have felt betrayed by its government.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Archbishop.

Mr. Joseph S. Hutchings (Legal Counsel, Poole, Althouse, Clarke, Thompson & Thomas, Barristers, Solicitors & Notaries): If it's okay with the committee, I'll proceed next and deal with some of the legal issues.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Yes.

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: I would say to you initially that in terms of importance in recent Canadian constitutional history, the deliberations concerning this particular amendment to the Constitution of Canada are probably second only to the 1982 patriation itself. There have been several amendments passed since the 1982 patriation of the Constitution, but none of them have given rise to particular dispute or controversy. There was an amendment with respect to language rights in New Brunswick. I think there was general support for that. As you're all aware, there was an amendment to add rights for Pentecostal education in Newfoundland. Again, everyone was happy with that and it passed without difficulty.

On this occasion, however, we are faced with a situation in which an amendment to the Constitution is actually taking rights away. There are minorities affected by this amendment to the Constitution. The amendment is now an issue, and the process of amendment is now an issue. You already know, as we all know, that this process is being challenged in the courts. There are very important legal, as well as constitutional, issues to be considered here. There will be some precedents set by the handling of this particular amendment to the constitution.

I want to deal specifically with a couple of the items that are raised in the brief. The brief has been filed with the committee, so I don't intend to take you through it all. I would commend it to your reading outside the committee room. The legal issues there are dealt with in the level of detail that such time would permit.

The first one I want to deal with here is, I think, the most important issue in terms of a general legal issue that arises out of this amendment, and that's the notion of minority rights. In reviewing some of the previous testimony before your committee, it seems to be suggested that minority rights are not at issue in this amendment. Frankly, I can't see how one can reach that conclusion.

If you look at the wording of Term 17 as it initially was in 1949—and that's attached to appendix B in the brief that has been filed—you can identify the rights that we're talking about here. Those are rights that any class or classes of persons have by law in Newfoundland at the date of union. So it is the class that has the right, the adherents of a particular faith. The class of Roman Catholic adherents has the right, and the class of Anglican adherents has the right. The rights attach to minorities.

it goes without saying that Christians, as a group, are the vast majority of the population of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. But Christians are not given a right under Term 17 and never have been, nor have they been under section 93 of the Constitution. The individual classes have the right, hence each of those classes is a minority and the right attaches to the minority. The right of the Roman Catholic class is to Roman Catholic schools; the right of the Anglican class is to Anglican schools. The Roman Catholic class does not have a right to require Anglican schools for Anglicans. So it is not a majority right we're talking about; it is a minority right.

• 1545

We have alleged in the statement of claim filed in the court action, and we suggest to you here as well, that there is a constitutional convention in this country that minority rights will not be taken away without the consent of that minority.

At page 17 of the brief that has been filed here, you will note a quotation from the Honourable Stéphane Dion, who moved the creation of this committee in the House of Commons on October 27, 1997. That quotation deserves your attention.

In answer to a question, he says:

...let us assume that one province, with a very strong majority, were to turn up with a constitutional change that was clearly discriminatory toward a minority in that province—and I am not singling out New Brunswick with this, it being a bilingual and profoundly democratic province—but let us assume that sometime in the next few decades a government with a bad idea were to say to us “We've had enough of official bilingualism in New Brunswick, and we have a clear majority behind us in this”. We would still ask them

—and I take it he's speaking for the Government of Canada—

what the Acadian minority in New Brunswick thought about this.

Despite a clear majority, the Government of Canada—probably a Liberal one—would say “You will not even get that past the first door of this Parliament, because there are minority rights that have to be respected”.

With respect, there is no distinction to be made between the situation of minority language rights in New Brunswick and the situation of minority educational rights in the province of Newfoundland.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest that there is some hierarchy of rights under our Constitution, and the Constitution doesn't support that. We don't say aboriginal rights are more important than language rights are more important than denominational rights. They are all constitutional rights and all entitled to the protection of the convention that we have suggested exists in this particular case.

Frankly, whether or not that convention exists is a question best decided by the courts. They can hear the evidence; they can see the experts cross-examined and reach a conclusion as to whether that convention exists. Our first suggestion to you is that you not allow this process to carry on so as to prevent the court from hearing that.

Let me be quite frank in terms of the position of the people that I represent in court. If the amendment carries on, if the amendment is passed by the Commons and the Houses of Parliament, there will likely be an application to court to restrain the proclamation of that amendment. That may succeed; it may not.

If the amendment is proclaimed, there will likely be an application to the court to restrain the implementation of any legislation that follows upon it. Frankly, I would suggest to you that this application is likely to succeed because it is very much like the application that was made before Mr. Justice Barry in July 1997.

Where we do not want to be in July 1998 is in court with another injunction and another school year disrupted for the children, for 1998-99. In my suggestion, the prudent course is to allow the courts to make their decision, allow the current system, which is functioning—and Dr. Fagan will tell you about it, too—to continue to function for another year, and let's find out the answers to these legal questions in a very concrete way before we rush ahead and make further amendments that may in fact cause additional chaos and disrupt the educational lives of the children in Newfoundland.

There's one other point that I want to touch on very quickly with you, and that relates to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its impact here. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should not be regarded by governments as an enemy of government. The charter is not intended to merely represent a fetter on the power of government. As legislators, you should be looking for ways that you can nurture and enhance the fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of religion, that the charter talks about.

This amendment diminishes freedom of religion. What it enhances is freedom from religion. Freedom from religion is actually a legitimate part of freedom of religion, but it is a small part. In the present situation, freedom of religion is enhanced by publicly funding schools for those religions that choose to take advantage of them. That's consistent with the multicultural society we have here in Canada and which is confirmed in section 27 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

• 1550

Multi-denominationalism is merely a facet of multiculturalism and ought to be encouraged in this country. The suggestion is made that Term 17 is not inclusive, that it in fact discriminates against those classes that don't have rights under the term. But the history will show that this is not a barrier. If you look at what happened in the province of Newfoundland, in 1954 a class, the Pentecostal assemblies, which did not have rights under the original term were given rights under Term 17 by the legislature. They were at that stage only statutory rights and they later became constitutional rights.

Term 17 is not exclusive. It allows for additional classes to be recognized and to be given those rights, and that has happened. If you, however, take away the protections of Term 17 and the equivalent protections of section 93 for other Canadians, then it will not be possible for the government to foster freedom of religion and support denominational schools as they have.

I would only recommend specifically to you two other pieces of information. In the brief that has been filed, at tab 5 you'll find the report from the Ontario court general division in the Bal case. If you want to know what a secular school system is under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it would be in Newfoundland with this amendment passed, have a look at the Bal case. It is there.

The other item I'd recommend to you is at tab 11, the recent Libman decision from the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the Quebec referendum law. That will allow you to see what, under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, constitutes a fair referendum. Dr. Fagan will, in describing the most recent Newfoundland referendum, let you see what an unfair referendum looks like.

Thank you.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): On a point of order, the last witness referred to a report and he kept referring to certain pages of a report and certain tabs in the report. It seems to me, Madam Chairman, that we don't have the report and so the reference becomes meaningless.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): This is what we have been given.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's what we have, but that's not the report he was referring to.

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: It's this one. It was forwarded by courier to Mr. Armitage on November 14.

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Blair Armitage): We copied it and sent through distribution. I apologize to the members of the committee. He's right, we did receive it by courier. My belief was that we copied it and forwarded it. I'll check with my office.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Chair, this is a very complex issue. A very significant brief has been compiled and members of the committee are at a distinct disadvantage not having this information before them.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): To the members of the committee, I would agree and I apologize to the committee for not having this particular document. I wonder if the committee would agree that we continue with the presentation. Mr. Armitage will make inquiries as to where it went and what happened to it. We will report back to you as quickly as possible.

Senator William C. Doody (Harbour Main-Bell Island, PC): Excuse me, Madam Chair, will we have a further opportunity to discuss the document with the witnesses after we receive it? Obviously we won't have an opportunity at this point to discuss it or to refer to it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): We can discuss that as—

Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, PC): I would move that if we are to proceed we have the right of recall of this witness and that it be an order of this joint committee. It's the only fair way to deal with it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): To Senator Kinsella, I will certainly entertain that motion with the caveat that we will be able to do it within our deadline of operations.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It's a second point of order, then, Madam Chairman, because what's happening here is that the committee is being denied access to certain information. And yet for some artificial reason of time barrier we are not going to be able to do the work of the committee adequately.

• 1555

This is a rather serious issue, because this witness has travelled all the way from Newfoundland, and to call this witness back is a rather serious thing. Is it possible, Madam Chairman, to have this information brought to us within the next 20 minutes or so? Surely it can't be that far away.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): To Mr. Schmidt, my first suggestion was that we dispatch Mr. Armitage as quickly as he can move to ascertain exactly where the situation lies, and then we can come back to it later.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's fair, thanks.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): As far as Senator Kinsella is concerned, if there is a requirement to recall the witness, we have the time certainly to do that. Thank you.

Mr. Fagan.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan (Executive Officer, Roman Catholic Education Committee): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I guess it's fair to say I'm not terribly excited about being here. I find I've had to suffer through the last couple of weeks, and I expect I'll have to suffer through a few more days yet. The truth of the matter, to put it in very simple, honest terms, is that you can look in the mirror and say to yourself, “This is a profound embarrassment to this country.”

In 18 months we are back to amendments to the same term in the Constitution. Any honest person looking at this would be able to identify immediately the sole responsibility for this, what we call in our province “codology”. Minister Dion is right: we have here an example of a government with a bad idea.

I have distributed to you a brief. I won't follow it exactly, because of the time restraints.

I want to say a few words about the referendum itself. You will recall—we certainly do—Judge Barry's conclusion that the Schools Act of 1996 would probably be found to offend the Constitution. That's the current one, not the one we're going to do. It's hard to keep them straight.

However, instead of addressing the deficiencies of the Schools Act—which by the way had been identified to the Government of Newfoundland prior to the passage of that Schools Act back in December of last year—we had a referendum called as a basis to amend further the Constitution.

We have outlined in our brief where we feel the Constitution question and the referendum process were unfair. One of the questions this country and you, as the federal government, the federal Parliament of this country, have to address is what is the proper way of addressing constitutional amendments that remove minority rights?

We can quibble—and you're going to, some of you—about whether these are majority rights or minority rights. We have to simply cut the nonsense and get to the heart of the matter. What is an appropriate way to do this? This, I would suggest to you, was not a very appropriate process.

Newfoundland's weather is the butt of a lot of jokes in the province as well as out. At the best of times summer is a very precious moment—not months, moment—in our lives. For a government to call a referendum in the month of August in Newfoundland is, well, ridiculous to say the least. Not only that; we had been through it two years ago and the same problems were evident then.

• 1600

In announcing the referendum, Premier Tobin announced that the Government of Newfoundland was not going to sit back, that it was going to be actively involved in the campaign. And in that process, the public treasury has cost us about $1.5 million in terms of the referendum itself. Mind you—and you've heard it, and you are going to hear it again—how precious the dollars are in Newfoundland! Between referenda and doorknobs, we spend a lot of money in our province on nonsense.

In addition to that, the government admits that it spent at least $350,000 of public money on advertising in various media, not to count all of the civil servants and all their time spent on this campaign.

We immediately asked government to play fair, to give us a few dollars for those who were opposed to the referendum in order to let us conduct an honest, open, fair campaign. Not a cent did we get. While 37%—and some of you will be slamming that at us, whether we're a majority or a minority—of the population is Roman Catholic, their tax dollars are used against them.

To top it all off, we had the last-minute release of the proposed amendment. Now, I don't care; again, you can talk to yourselves until you're blue in the face, but I am telling you that nobody is fooled by these arguments that people knew that the question asked in the referendum and the proposed amendment were one and the same thing. If that's the case, then you are all illiterate. There's a world of difference between them, and the fact of the matter is that this proposed amendment has nothing to do with that question.

Nobody had adequate time to reflect on the amendment. And just bear with me. It was released seven days before the poll. I've been here for two weeks and I have heard very intelligent men and women—not necessarily people who are passionate like myself about this—around this table, witnesses and you yourselves, discussing what this amendment means, and I would submit to you that right now you don't know what it means.

How then, in all honesty, could anybody conclude that the public of Newfoundland knew precisely what this amendment was with seven days' notice before the referendum, in the last week of August, with Labour Day weekend taking three days of the time?

In regard to scrutineers, you could vote where you wanted and no scrutineers were permitted. Now, I don't even need to go on about that, because I'll tell you right now that for the ordinary citizen of Canada who was listening to something like that happening in another country, you know what that country would be called. This is Canada. I've heard some of you talk about the importance of democracy. Let's see it lived.

I want to review for you what happened in the last several months in Newfoundland. In February of this year, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals and others who wanted to continue to have unidenominational schools were put through a registration-of-preference process. It was a flawed process, but I ask you not to listen to me on this one: I ask you to read all of Judge Barry's findings, everything, and don't take one sentence out of it as I heard certain people do as witnesses here. Take the whole judgment and see what he says about that process: badly flawed. But he did say this—that at the end of the day, at least we know the Roman Catholics, Pentecostals and Seventh-Day Adventists want their schools. At least we know that. We don't have a clue about those who didn't register. Some 24,000 Roman Catholic students were registered by their parents.

• 1605

School boards then proceeded to put into place what they called their “designation process”, designating schools, whether they be interdenominational or unidenominational. So offensive was that process, absolutely insulting...to a lot of school board members of our province, because they told me so. They weren't just Catholics.

Very simply, here's the nub of the issue, and one example of it. In Grand Falls-Windsor, central Newfoundland, the population more or less breaks into three distinct groups of religious denomination—Pentecostal, Roman Catholic and the integrated. All have had previously independent school boards. So let's not get on with this nonsense that we're creating out of a blank sheet three schools. All had their school boards. All had many schools.

The school board decided that, on the basis of the registration, it was fair, it was legitimate, it was viable, that there be a Pentecostal school K to 12, that there be a Roman Catholic school K to 12, and that there be integrated schools K to 12.

Now, I would not fool you for one minute; administratively, they made a mess of the integrated schools, absolutely. If I was an integrated parent, I'd have been savage.

So they had three school systems identified. What happened? The minister didn't like it. They received legal opinion, first of all. Was their decision legitimate? Was it in keeping with the Constitution of this country?

The legal opinion came back clear and unequivocal: You are doing the right thing. The minister said just the opposite, that in his opinion they had done it wrongly.

The school board then proceeded to meet again, reversed their decision, and turned all their schools into interdenominational schools. They didn't fix up the integrated schools they'd made a mess of. They proceeded then to wipe out Pentecostal and Catholic schools and integrated schools and made them all interdenominational.

I cannot tell you the number of calls I had. This is another aspect you need to know. I'm sick and tired of hearing that the only people interested in Catholic education in the province are the three people at this table. I have had hundreds of calls from irate parents in those communities. I have had hundreds of calls from people in Stephenville, from Goose Bay, from St. John's—everywhere where they were being offended, deeply offended. These parents demanded that we take action immediately.

We didn't take it immediately. We tried desperately to give time to see if the school boards would come around. I might say to you that in the legislation of Newfoundland, in the same legislation, if a board makes a decision on the designation of school they are not to revisit the designation for five years, as I understand it. They revisited it in two weeks.

I'm not going to go on about that. I'm simply going to tell you to read Judge Barry's conclusion. On the basis of what can only be called a disaster, simply a disaster, the minister...said we have to grant this injunction.

I've attached to the back of my report—and I won't take long, Madam Chairman—two little maps, one of the island of Newfoundland and one of Labrador. Please be patient with me. I don't want to take too much time, but this is important.

• 1610

On those maps on the back of your report there are a number of communities identified. Newfoundlanders among the crowd and certainly others will recognize there are several hundred more communities in Newfoundland than we've identified here. Those communities represent the only communities in Newfoundland where Roman Catholics are in a school system where there is another school system.

You understand what I'm saying. Let's take Stephenville, where there is a Roman Catholic system and an integrated school system. In Grand Falls-Windsor there is a Pentecostal system, an integrated system and a Catholic system. If you count them up, I think they come to nine. In all of Labrador, one community...Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So you can understand our frustration at hearing about all these duplications.

What about the rest of the schools in the province? In Labrador, for example, in Labrador West which is not showing on your map, Labrador City and Wabush, all of the schools are joint service this year. That means they're all together. Who allowed that? Who permitted that to happen? It was this committee, because it was the appropriate thing to do.

You can go through the rest of the province and exactly the same thing happens. I just want to refer you to one situation. Down in St. John's board there are something like 31 Roman Catholic schools. Why are there that many schools? There are that many schools because that's how many kids registered for schools.

We and this committee made a decision that if our people registered for interdenominational schools in February we would not hold them. As a result of that, Holy Trinity down in Torbay and Holy Heart at Marion St. John's—the biggest school in the province, by the way—have become interdenominational. It was painful for us, absolutely, but our people chose that and we respect it.

Reference was made yesterday or the day before to the atrocious situation of two schools in Bell Island. We proposed over and over again to St. John's school board and to the integrated school committee that we have a joint service single school there. You'll have to ask the integrated committee why it turned us down.

I don't want to spend any more time on the outcome of the referendum. I would simply say that in the brief there is a review by Dr. Jim Feehan and today I've attached another review by Dr. Roy Knoechel. They have looked at the referendum and given their assessments of it.

I'm not a statistician, but I suggest that if you want to have an intelligent discussion about what the outcome of the referendum was in terms of the Catholic and Pentecostal vote, you need to get hold of Dr. Roy Knoechel.

I notice you have Dr. Mark Graesser on your list, and you heard yesterday testimony from our people on their concern about the testimony Dr. Graesser might give and how non-objective it is.

In summary, I just want to say that as a result of the injunction granted by Judge Barry we closed 35 Roman Catholic schools in the province. We put our money where our mouth was. As a result of it, all it got us was more—as I said earlier—codology. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Mr. Fagan.

Now we will proceed with questioning. The first on my list is Mr. Goldring, followed by Mr. Doyle, Mr. Pagtakhan and Senator Doody.

• 1615

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for your presentation, gentlemen.

Mr. Fagan, I have here a paper that was produced by the Liberals in a method of talking points. I want to read one paragraph from here and get your opinion. It states:

This is why we are prepared to amend such constitutional guarantees, only when there is clear consensus among the citizens affected by such change, including reasonable support of the minorities affected, and the proposed amendment is a good thing for the citizens affected by it.

This was a statement made by the Liberals, and it particularly points out the clear, reasonable support requirement. I believe it meant a consensus of the majority of the group concerned. I believe your group demonstrated clear, reasonable support in the February survey requested by the Newfoundland government for denominational schools.

Could you comment on this and demonstrate other occasions where clear, reasonable support for retention of denominational schools has been made by your group?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Yes, I could.

In order for you to understand this, I think you have to understand that the referendum of September 2 ought not be looked at as an isolated incident. I have to be frank that this process—and I'm going to say it bluntly—has, from day one, been to get rid of Catholic and Pentecostal schools. The Seventh-Day Adventists were written off, they were joked at by the former premier. So that's been the goal.

We've gone through this process now for seven solid years. You heard the minister talk about the royal commission, about how the greatest consultation in the history of the province was carried out before the royal commission came to its conclusion. Well, what is the point of carrying out all the consultations in the province if 75% to 80% of the people who are heard are ignored? That's not fiction. That's right in the royal commission report. Our people had their say, but they were ignored.

As a result of a continued threat by the Wells government, in a period of about one week in February or March of 1993, I think it was, the Catholic parishes of the province carried out a petition. Let me just read what the petition says:

We the undersigned are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our province.

—now, remember, we're not supposed to be interested in quality; we're just interested in power—

We support Roman Catholic schools, and want to keep them. In the same way, we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support cooperation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights, and the rights of other people in our province taken away, and we ask you, as our representative(s), not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

There were 50,000 signatures, all Roman Catholics. What happened? They were ignored, except when the premier rose in the House on March 13 because his MHAs were saying to him, “We're in difficulty. We have to go into an election in the spring. What are we going to do?” He rose in the House and guaranteed us that it was not on his mind to change the Constitution. Not only that, before he rose in the House, he consulted with church leaders to see if the statement was okay. Well, we're really impressed with it.

We then went for the first referendum, and we suffered through that. We had hundreds of letters to the Prime Minister, we had hundreds of letters to MPs and senators, hundreds of letters to MHAs and the premier and that. The common comment that was made was that none of them had heard from anyone. Do you know that the archbishop is still waiting for answers on the letters he wrote to the Prime Minister on the first referendum? That's the first one. That's the kind of nonsense we've had to put up with.

We went through the Senate hearings, okay? Overwhelmingly ignored. We went through the designation hearings last fall. We haven't talked about those at all, because they will just take up time. Ignored. The registration process was apparently listened to but was then simply squashed. The designation process wiped us out. We went to the court to get an injunction. The result? Instead of dealing with it with sound leadership, leadership that I might say everybody in our province thought was there and too many think is there...ignored again.

• 1620

I tell you in all honesty that our people are so fed up there's not another petition, there's not another darn thing that Roman Catholics are going to do in this province except what we're doing—and that is, we'll see you in court, because what we've been treated to is a sham.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

You may ask a very short question, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Fagan, would you have documentation to substantiate that petition, and could you comment on the content of that petition? It's 50,000 people, you say. What would you think the opinion of the 50,000 people would be if they were polled today? Would there be any distinct difference? Maybe you can comment on that, please. But do you have documentation of that petition?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: I do have documentation. I have a copy of the 50,000-name petition right here, if that's what you would like to see.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Can we table that documentation, please? Thank you.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: The second point is, I don't know what you'd get today. Our people are so tired—I can't use certain expressions—they're so ticked off that they are not going to participate in any more indications of where their support is.

We have the February registration. You check the February registration against that petition, against the polling that the government itself did, and you'll find there has been consistent—60% at least—support of Roman Catholics for the schools.

You're not going to get that kind of support any more, for a number of reasons. One is that a lot of communities in this provinces, as the question in the referendum asked, are already there; 73% of the kids, as I point out in here, already go to single-community schools. So asking them if they want to go to a school where everybody goes, what else are they going to answer?

I need to make this point: to answer that question differently, you had to read something into the question. I'll give you an example.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Could you please give a quick example?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Yes, I will.

We're down in the community of St. Brides, 100% Catholic. Do you want your children to go to a single-community school where everybody who is here would have religious education observances? Think about it. In order to answer no, you had to infer that the question meant something else, because you were already there. I know that place; I know the people there. People told me, what's the point of voting? And they're right.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Fagan. Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Next on our list is Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pursue with Mr. Hutchings what he touched on a moment ago, about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We heard evidence a few days ago, and on a number of different occasions, as a matter of fact, from legal witnesses who argued that the proposed new Term 17 is going to be subject to the full scrutiny of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They argued that denominational education is now exempt from the charter by virtue of the fact that it was part of the Confederation compromise back in 1867 and again in 1949. The proposed new Term 17 is rejecting denominational education, and it won't be protected by that compromise, so it'll be subject, I guess, to the rigours of the charter. Because we've been hearing some conflicting reports on this, what in your opinion does that mean for the government's assurances that religious education and observances in the proposed Newfoundland school system will be there?

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: You're quite right, Mr. Doyle, in saying that this new system will be fully subject to all of the rigours of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think essentially what that means for the Newfoundland school system is that it will be a secular system, along the lines of the public school system in Ontario, as has been illustrated in some of the cases that I've referred to.

It perhaps even goes a bit further in its implications. If you look at this amendment passing and the Quebec amendment passing, which is in the process at the same time now, you will be left with a constitution in Canada where there is specific provision allowing eight of the provinces to create denominational schools, because section 93, as it exists in the other provinces now, not only protects the existing denominational rights but also contemplates and allows the creation of further denominational schools within a province.

• 1625

With these amendments with respect to Newfoundland and Quebec, there will be two provinces that will not have that; and that even confirms further, in my mind, the conclusion that the legislature in Newfoundland, after the passage of this amendment, could not publicly support a denominational school even if it wanted to.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I have a question for Mr. Fagan.

You seem a little bit frustrated with the whole referendum process and the way it was conducted, with the fact that there were no scrutineers and what have you, but still, we were hearing from Mr. Tobin that the referendum was conducted in accordance with the Elections Act. We don't have a referendum act, so it was conducted in accordance with the Elections Act, which means you are allowed to have scrutineers and people are not allowed to vote in any community that they find themselves in. What's your comment on that?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: My comment is that it's fact. The Elections Act was supposed to apply, except in areas in which there were exceptions made. In those two areas there were no exceptions made, and therefore people could vote where they wanted and we had no scrutineers.

I'll simply say this to you, and this is part of the difficulty with the analysis of how people voted. I'll just give you one example. It may be the only example in Newfoundland. Perhaps it is.

In a poll in Placentia, there were 168 names on the list. The first 10 people to vote had to be registered. Just think of it. It's not a bad start to the day. That's the first 10. I don't know how many there were during the rest of the day. We weren't allowed scrutineers, and I suppose somebody saying that to me was probably giving me privileged information. But I do know that. It's just possible that it happened in other places. It's just possible that the people who voted weren't from Placentia. Don't forget, we're talking about September 2.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Did you ask for—

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Excuse me, Mr. Doyle. We have quite a list here and I'm wondering if we could get through that and come back to a second round. Thank you.

Next on the list is Mr. Pagtakhan, followed by Senator Doody, followed by Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the presenters.

You indicated, Mr. Hutchings, that it would be prudent to allow the courts to make decisions first. Then Parliament stops doing its work of committee deliberations. Is there not a legal principle that the courts would usually say it is not ripe for adjudication because there is no law before them?

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: If I understand the question, you are asking if a court would not say at a certain point that an issue was not properly before them, not ripe, as you say, for adjudication.

There are circumstances in which a court can reach that conclusion. However, there are a number of legal devices whereby an issue can be put before a court in order to obtain what we call either a “declaratory judgment”, whereby the court will look at a question and declare what the rights of the parties are, or—and this is a device often used in constitutional matters—there's the power to “make a reference”.

Provincial governments, probably all of them now, I think, have the power to refer questions to their own courts of appeal, and of course the federal government has the power to refer questions to the Supreme Court of Canada. The provinces did that in the patriation case in 1982, but the federal government has done so with respect to the Quebec succession case.

There are provisions whereby courts can be asked to answer questions, and in the case of a reference, they will almost inevitably be, notwithstanding that there may be other proceedings pending at the same time.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: How can you make a value judgment that a decision of the courts would be of a greater value than the decision of Parliament?

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part of your question.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: How could you make a value judgment that a decision of the court, one way or the other, would be of a greater value than the decision of Parliament?

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: It's not a question of value, it's a question of legal effect. If the court ultimately holds, for instance, that the only proper amending formula to pass this particular amendment is the section 38 general amending formula, then it makes no difference whether Parliament has passed it and Newfoundland has passed it and the Governor General has proclaimed it. It's no good. It's of no legal validity. And anything done under it is no good.

• 1630

So what we're trying to avoid here is the prospect of this Parliament passing this amendment perhaps, Newfoundland having passed it, the Governor General proclaiming it, and next October the court may say that's all very well, but it's no good. Then whatever new schools legislation the Newfoundland legislature has passed falls and we're back to the old amendment and the old act, and the schools have all been reorganized. Then we have real chaos.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Fagan, is it clear to you now that the proposed amendment is removing denominational control of the schools? Is it clear to you now?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: The proposed amendment?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Is it clear to me that it's the removal of denominational control of schools?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: We don't even exist. How can you have control?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, no. My question is, is it clear to you that if passed, it will remove denominational control of the schools?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Absolutely.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Why then was it not clear to you before, during the referendum?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: I don't understand.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: If it is clear to you now, and the terminology has remained the same—

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: That's very simple, sir. We didn't have it until the week before, number one. Once it came out, it was clear to me. It wasn't necessarily clear to everybody else. And I'm not trying to be condescending to the rest of the public; I'm just saying there was confusion.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, I'm trying to establish that the interpretation varies with time. In other words, if it is clear and understood by you as you read it now, and if there was a good public announcement of this thing and it was right in the poll itself, why can it not be understood when you go to the polls and read it at the time when you vote?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Madam Chair, may I give a very short answer?

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Mr. Pagtakhan and Mr. Fagan, please keep it very short.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Part of the reason it wouldn't be clear is, of course, people received assurances that what they were reading wasn't what was. You're going to have Christian schools and all of a sudden it doesn't appear here. People did legal and political gymnastics in order to account for it. People do get confused in those kinds of things.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Fagan.

We're going to be tightening up a bit, colleagues. I wish you would co-operate, not with me, but with each other.

The Honourable Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I have a point of information, Madam Chair. I do notice that our clerk has arrived with a large bundle. Are these the documents?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): No, these are the petitions.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Senator Doody.

Senator William Doody: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to comment for the record that I really feel nervous about this tightening up concept that seems to be climbing into these meetings on a daily basis.

We're facing an artificial timeframe of December 5, which has been ordained by the Government of Canada for some reason unknown to us. We bring witnesses in, at considerable expense and at great inconvenience to them, expert witnesses who are in a position to advise us as to what decision should be made by this committee, but our prime preoccupation seems to be to cut the meetings as tight as we can so we can get a report ready by December 5, whether or not we have taken advantage of the information that's available to us. I really want to get that on the record so we can raise it in the debate when, inevitably, it occurs.

A voice: Good point.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Senator Doody, we have been trying to give time to everyone to have their point of view expressed. When I said “tightening up”, I also said it with a smile, because we were getting into a couple of real debates here. I know you are going to cut right to the heart of it.

Senator William Doody: Let the record show that the chairperson smiled. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question for whichever one of our three distinguished witnesses wishes to answer it. It's one of great importance, about the analysis in appendix D of the vote on referendum day.

It has been alleged by many that a majority of the Roman Catholic people voted in favour of this amendment. It has also been alleged that a majority of the Newfoundland Roman Catholic people voted no in this referendum. The analysis shown in appendix D of the brief that I received, back on October 17, demonstrates that given certain assumptions, anywhere from 50.1% to 67% of the Roman Catholic voting population voted no.

• 1635

It's written in an esoteric fashion that escapes my rather limited ability to decipher it. I wonder, Mr. Fagan, if you could help us go through this, or whether you would suggest that we try to get the compiler of this document in here.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Senator, Madam Chair, the author of appendix D, the analysis of the September 2, 1997 plebiscite, is Dr. James Feehan of the economics department of Memorial University. He's currently working in Ukraine. I'm afraid that if you're going to keep your December 5 deadline, he won't be here for it, as he's not coming home until just before Christmas.

I received an analysis yesterday evening—I attached it today—from Dr. Roy Knoechel, who is an associate professor of biology at Memorial University. Just let me set the context very quickly.

On the weekend, Dr. Mark Graesser, who is to appear before you tomorrow as an expert witness in interpreting these kinds of things, wrote an article in which he suggests that the majority of Catholics did indeed vote yes. Dr. Knoechel, on reading it, examined the data and arrived at, using a different formula, a totally different perspective.

Now, I cannot take you through that statistical information, as I don't have the expertise. I simply say to you that his conclusion is that the majority of Roman Catholics and Pentecostals voted no. That's based on the line of progression that you can see there. I would suggest to you in all sincerity to please get Dr. Roy Knoechel to appear as an expert witness.

You have Dr. Mark Graesser, who with the greatest respect, as you heard last night from witnesses, just simply has been a government interpreter and statistician for so long that our people simply will not accept—I say that in all sincerity—anything that Dr. Graesser interprets as our people's wishes.

I would like you to invite Dr. Knoechel. He can do that, I'm certain, by videoconference. If nothing else, it will show the confusion about the analysis.

Senator William Doody: So you feel quite comfortable with the numbers shown in this?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: It confirms completely our informal operation. During the referendum, because we didn't have the timeframe, our parishes went to work as they could on telephone things. They confirmed our lack of surprise at the outcome of this referendum. You can check the record. You'll see that I said exactly on referendum night that we were not surprised.

If anything, we were surprised that it didn't go past 73%, because that represents to us the identical starting point. That was the starting point. Government didn't go any further.

I'll simply say to you—I can't remember where it is now—that 46% of the public stayed home. I know you live and die by results in elections, but this is a referendum on the Constitution. So 46.6% did not give any authority at all to this government to do the job on our rights.

We've got to respect that. The last time around, you'll recall that the premier at that time included all those who didn't vote as part of government's vote.

Senator William Doody: I have one other matter, Mr. Fagan, on a different subject. You tossed off some terms when you were listing the rather awful list of your frustrations. You told us that the registration and designation were matters of frustration for you. I think I know what you mean, but maybe other people don't. Could you explain the registration and designation process for the committee for the record?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Senator, I'll do it as succinctly as I can.

A year ago, in the fall of 1996—things collapse so quickly that you don't know where you are—the minister carried out province-wide consultations to see what people would like in terms of the registration of their children. This was the process of the designation of schools.

It came up with a registration process within the legislation then. In that process, if you wanted a unidenominational Catholic school, one had to say that I, Bon Fagan, want my children, Francis and Cherie, to attend—I had to fill it in—Roman Catholic school. If I didn't fill it in, they went to an interdenominational school. By the way, the interdenominational school didn't exist, but they were already in it. If I did register them for interdenominational school, fair enough. Then, when the February registration was carried out, we had, as I say, 24,000 kids registered.

• 1640

In the designation process that was supposed to put into place this kind of thing, the minister said, oh, instead of looking at what people prefer as an important element in it, drop it to the bottom of the list. When you have everything else taken care of, look at what the people like.

I mean, parental choice? People were so frustrated and so maddened. I am telling you not a word of a lie that the fact that we did not have physical violence in Stephenville and in Grand Falls is a miracle, a testament to the religious character of our people.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Fagan.

We now will move to Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses who've appeared here. I'm very impressed. I'd first like to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Hutchings.

The issue you raised had to do with class identification, that the rights were given to a class, the class being a particular religious denomination, if I understand you correctly.

Is there a relationship here in the provisions of the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms? Is there a difference between the rights of an individual and the rights of a class?

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: There are rights under the charter that adhere to individuals. There are group rights that are primarily language rights, aboriginal rights and denominational rights. The challenge is to honour all of these at once. No individual right necessarily has priority over any of the group rights, but the courts have to struggle to ensure that all of those rights are in fact respected.

The result on the ground, if you will, of any particular dispute over rights will take into account not only the individual rights guaranteed in certain sections of the charter but also the denominational rights and group rights guaranteed in other sections. This is what we have seen happen in Ontario, where funding for denominational schools as a group right is upheld, but if you're not in the denominational school then the individual rights guaranteed under the charter will make that a secular school. No individual in the school is forced to participate in a religious observance he doesn't want to participate in or to ostracize himself by having to step down.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I think there's a different issue here as well. I quite appreciate the statement you've just made.

The point I think you made, Mr. Archbishop, had to do with the right of the parent. This would be an individual right to determine the education of their particular children. If that particular parent is part of a class as well, but does not wish to participate in that participate class group, what happens in that case?

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: As a legal question, there is not a charter-guaranteed right to the parent to direct the education. But that is accepted in the sense that I've never seen anyone suggest that such a right doesn't exist. That is a right in some of the international conventions to which Canada is a party.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That is precisely my point.

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: Within the church context, I think you'll find the answer is the same, that the first right is the parent.

Rev. James MacDonald: Yes, the first right is the parent. We have always, since my time in St. John's, advocated that Catholic parents who wished to send their children to schools other than Catholic schools were free to do so.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The particular proposed amendment, then, you feel would not allow that kind of freedom to exist.

• 1645

Rev. James MacDonald: If there are no Catholic schools, then our children cannot go to Catholic school. They'll be all public schools. So the parents will have no choice.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: May I follow up on that question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Could we—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Go another round.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Yes—if we can get to another round.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: We have to get to another round.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): We'll see. Next is Mr. DeVillers.

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

My question deals with the referenda, the first and second one. I've asked other witnesses the question. I've heard your evidence that in your opinion the electorate was confused between the proposed question and now, when it actually has come out. The fact remains, though, that there was an increase in support between the first referendum and the second referendum. We've asked various witnesses their take on why in the first referendum the yes obtained something like 53%, and for what seems to be—it's questionable whether it was clear or not—a more drastic change to the rights, the support goes to 73%. I'd like your take on that. Why that increase?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: I don't have a simple explanation of it, but I would say to you that there are a number of factors. If we were to ask in this room how many people prefer pears as their favourite fruit and we were to come back in a year or two and ask how many people would like bananas as their favourite fruit and the percentage went up.... We're dealing with two different questions.

The question that was asked in the first referendum had about three questions in it. The question this time on the surface is a clear-cut question. What I say to you again is that when you look at the demography of the province and understand the kinds of community patterns that are there and the kind of school attends that are there...I was not surprised by it.

I will say to you that one of the mysteries of this, I suppose, and maybe it's part of the confusion—I think it is, personally—is why in the last seven or eight days did the expected turnout drop from about 75% to 80% down to 53%. There's a 20% gap.

I will admit, like anybody else, there are some Newfoundlanders who are not particularly interested in education, but in this particular referendum there was a very high turnout predicted—not by us, by government; confirmed by us, but by government. What happened in that last week? I think what happened in that last week is that people didn't know what was going on.

There is a law professor from Queen's University—I confess I can't remember his name—who was interviewed 10 days before the referendum. The question wasn't out. He was asked, what do you think of the fact that we haven't seen the question? His answer was that people were not going to have enough time to study it and understand the implications. I think that's part of the answer.

Rev. James MacDonald: I would like to add, again, that I don't know the total explanation, but I do know that I have engaged in conversations with Roman Catholics, after the wording was made public, in which they were adamant that what was meant was that there would be Catholic education in the schools for the Catholics who wanted it.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: On that point, as to the confusion in the minds of the voter, have you or anyone to your knowledge done any polling after the voting to determine what was in people's minds? I use the Quebec referendum as an example. There have been a plethora of polls saying what the Quebec people thought they were voting for, etc. Has there been any such polling done by you or any other group that you're associated with?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Not that I am aware of. We haven't done it, and you'll understand that one of the reasons why we haven't done it is because we reject the process. The process is simply—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But would it not be supporting your argument if your position is correct? Would it not have been nice to have this?

• 1650

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: I'll simply say to you, with all respect, that our views haven't been accepted on anything yet. I suspect that if we carried out three polls, and they showed that the majority of Catholics voted no, I suspect that the first one wouldn't be accepted because it's the first one, the second one wouldn't be because it's in the middle, and the third one wouldn't be accepted because it's the last one. So no, we haven't carried it out. Interesting question, but we haven't done it.

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: That is a point that the committee obviously should look into. One significant difference between the first referendum and the second referendum is that government campaigned in the second referendum, and spent a lot of money doing it.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: And the other side didn't campaign or didn't have the resources?

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: In the first referendum, government specifically said it would not campaign, and it did not campaign. It didn't spend public money seeking a particular result in the first referendum. In the second referendum they announced they were going to campaign, and they did.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

I will now go to Madam Finestone because she's quite right, she had her hand up earlier. I will then go to Senator Kinsella, grace of Senator Murray. Then we will move through Mr. McGuire, Senator Pearson and, time permitting, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Schmidt.

Senator—or rather, Madam Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Well, that's very nice. It seems I'm the only one who has “Hon.” in front of her name. I think that's quite amusing. This is nice. Usually the tandem is the other way around, Dr. Kinsella and then me. So now I'm glad to see that it's me and then you, Doctor.

I just heard Reverend MacDonald say something, and it triggered a thought in my mind that I'd like to pursue in a moment with respect to “we had no money to work on the referendum”.

First, though, I would like to ask Mr. Hutchings a question. You were describing rights in an exchange with Mr. Schmidt. With respect to your saying that one has to balance all these various rights, both group and individual rights of the charter, of the Constitution, and the covenants that we have signed, there is a very important covenant which I would ask you if it doesn't have a very key role to play in what we have been talking about—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 26 says:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

That reflects, as you know, section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, which we worked very hard on and had a three-year delay in coming in. I happen to have sat on that committee.

The present Term 17 is in total contradiction and violation of that particular equality provision, as I'm sure you can well appreciate, because it obliges, in a sense, public funds for only eight Christian religious groups, and there are many more found in that province. There are people left out. So wouldn't you say that in a sense we're privileging eight groups, there is no public sector, and that it's about time that all people in Newfoundland be treated fairly and not be discriminated on on the basis of their religion, and that it flows from that article and from the section 15 article?

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: Yes, I agree, Senator, with everything you say—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: See what happens?

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: —and that everyone should in fact be treated equally.

What we have to deal with is the fact that the language of the classes of persons and so on from section 93 dates back to 1867, and in Newfoundland's case from 1949. What we're looking at, however, is that there is a particular guarantee in respect of those classes. There is no disability in respect of other classes, as has been demonstrated in Newfoundland. The fact of that guarantee did not prevent the recognition of rights for the Pentecostal group and would not prevent today, under the original Term 17—because the new one is too complicated—a Moravian group on the coast of Labrador from coming to government and saying they have a viable school and would like to have funding. The government, as the original Term 17 stood, would have been allowed to grant that funding and grant that public funding, and thereby enhance equality under the law and enhance freedom of religion. If you pass this one, they won't be allowed to do that.

• 1655

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: With all due respect, Mr. Hutchings, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland have involved significantly. In 1947 we didn't have a Charter of Rights, and in 1997 we have a totally different population, which is very multicultural, multilingual, and has a different reflection on society.

Mr. Joseph Hutchings: If you have a problem with the way that's worded now, Senator, I would encourage you to broaden it. Don't do away with it, broaden it.

Say that any class that has a viable school community organized on the basis of religion, or on any other basis you wish to choose, should be entitled to government funding. That's enhancing freedom of religion for those religions that wish to get public funding of that.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I don't agree with you, and I don't agree with that interpretation. I find that totally contrary to both the charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

But I'd like to go to something else.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): If it's only a very short question.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Fagan, I've been intrigued at seeing you here for the last two weeks. I wondered who you were, and I made some inquiries.

I've heard Reverend MacDonald say here that there were no funds to fight the referendum. Now, as I understand it, the Government of Newfoundland does provide funds. Currently the budget is in excess of $400,000.

I'd like to know how those funds are used, why those funds could not be made available, and just exactly what is your job, what is your duty, as you were here? Were you paid staff of a particular organization that supported you during the two weeks you were here, and what for?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Thank you very much, Senator—not Senator, but Senator-to-be perhaps.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It's just plain Sheila Finestone.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Yes. The fact is that His Grace said that we spent no money in the referendum, but we did, of course, spend some money. That was money we had to raise. We had to raise it on our own. We did not spend any public moneys.

Now, if you want to count my salary, you can certainly count that, but then again—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You did work in the referendum.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Well, then again, if you read the legislation, I am an executive officer of the Denominational Education Commission, which by provincial law is to provide advice to the minister, to school boards, or, I suspect, to anybody else concerning the rights that Roman Catholics have on any matter whatsoever. So I'm not going to apologize for my salary one tiny bit.

But we would not access funds from the commission to spend on such as things as advertising in the referendum. What we did is raise enough money through our church to set up a phone bank of people.

In fact, the Catholic education association appeared before you earlier, and they were the ones who then organized what organization there was at the parish level.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So, in other words, the responsibilities that you have.... You're an ardent advocate for your point of view, and I commend you for that. That's the beauty of this country: you can have differences in point of view and express them freely and openly.

So the responsibilities you have are part and parcel of the responsibility you have as an adviser both to the government and to the—what did you say, the denominational—

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: The committees at the school board level. Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Good. So you've been playing that role, and I've noticed, Dr. Melvin Regular, that you've been here too.

As a matter of fact, I also note something you've said on radio. I'm looking forward to exchanging—

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Ms. Finestone, I think maybe we've come to a natural end of this exchange, and I—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: As long as I can understand that the work Mr. Fagan was doing was part and parcel of his responsibilities, and paid for out of the Government of Newfoundland's—

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Yes, we are a legislative commission of government.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Mr. Fagan and Madam Finestone.

Senator Kinsella.

Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Senator Fairbairn.

It seems to me the most important piece of evidence we've had this afternoon was the unequivocal, categorical statement by His Grace the Archbishop to the effect that the Roman Catholic community does not yield, does not accept this amendment, does not give up its present unidenominational school rights.

Mr. Hutchings, I think it was, made reference to New Brunswick and the amendment to the Constitution affecting the two linguistic communities in my province, and should a referendum be held and the majority say it wanted to change the Constitution bilaterally and expunge those rights.

• 1700

Even if there were a plebiscite and even in times of national emergencies in which the life of the nation itself was threatened, I, as a parliamentarian, would not vote in favour of extinguishing that right.

It seems to me—and I want to have the response of the witnesses—that if we are to make a judgment on whether this proposed amendment to Term 17 passes, it's a judgment that has to made in terms of both a qualitative analysis and a quantitative analysis.

We've had a great discussion this afternoon on the quantitative analysis, but I'd like to hear again from the archbishop, on behalf of the Roman Catholic people, in regard to his qualitative judgment about whether the Catholic people of Newfoundland do or do not agree that their minority right, their educational right, should be expunged. This is so different from the resolution that we have dealing with the Quebec schools.

Rev. James MacDonald: I reiterate that the Roman Catholic constituency of Newfoundland and Labrador does not wish to have the rights they now enjoy expunged.

I would like to add that the only real indication we have is that provided by the registration that was held, in which the parents of 24,000 Catholic children indicated that they wanted their children educated in Catholic schools.

We have to remember that there are many places in Newfoundland—as has already been pointed out—that have but one school, and there was absolutely no reason or rationale for a Catholic in those particular areas to register for a Roman Catholic school because it was impossible. There were no Roman Catholic schools that they could possibly attend. If, in those communities, there had been Roman Catholic schools, I submit that the number would be much higher than 24,000.

I realize that 24,000 is a small number if you come from Ontario or from British Columbia, but in Newfoundland it is a very significant number. It is approximately 60% of the Roman Catholic school population.

If there had been Catholic schools in many of the communities where there are Catholics, I'm sure that the number would be much higher. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Roman Catholic parents from the province of Newfoundland wish to retain their rights in education.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. McGuire and Senator Pearson.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to ask Dr. Fagan a question, and commend him, first of all, on his very forceful presentation. I think it was one of the most forceful I've heard in my nine years here.

To the issue at hand, the amendment to Term 17 is back here for a second time. The first attempt apparently ended up in failure in the courts and for some reason it's back here again. We hear a lot of conflicting views on the pros and cons of this amendment.

• 1705

There are two particular groups in Newfoundland that I'd like to question you on. First, all of the MHAs in Newfoundland voted in support of this amendment. They represent everybody—Liberals, Conservatives and NDP—and to a person they voted in favour of this amendment.

In other types of circumstances one political party would want to see an advantage here, taking the other side of the question and maybe achieving electoral success because of it. That often happens in our business.

The other is the teachers union, which I assume represents all the Catholics who teach in Newfoundland. They say they are in favour of this amendment, and I assume these are the people you have hired to teach in your schools.

I think these are two pretty influential groups that we should be listening to. Why shouldn't we listen to them? Why should we turn back this amendment?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Thank you.

Mr. McGuire, everybody around this table—senators and MPs—understand what's involved in the political process better than I do, but as Bon Fagan, citizen of this country, let me tell you what I think of the political process. I have it with the greatest respect, so we might as well lay the truth right on the table.

Jack Harris is the only NDP member in the House. One week before the referendum, Jack Harris wrote in public that the solution to this dilemma was to give.... You have uni-schools and secular or public schools. He changed his mind—party pressure. I'm laying it on the line; I just want to be true. It was party pressure.

Mr. Loyola Sullivan, the leader of the PC caucus, is a Roman Catholic. When he goes into caucus, who are the majority? He has to respect the majority of people in his caucus, just as you do. You understand the political realities.

There isn't any doubt in my mind what the thinking was in the Liberal caucus. As politicians they were faced with a 73% to 27% result. Was there pause for reflection on what it meant? You check the dates. You're politicians, so you check it. There was no pause for reflection. It was “ram 'er through” because people don't want to have anyone take a second thought.

The MHA for Placentia district, which everybody thought was the one district where there was a majority for no, asked can this one dissenting vote retain the denominational system in Newfoundland and Labrador? The answer is no, so he's going to vote yes. Frankly, I don't think it matters what party he was in, because he would have used that kind of logic anyway.

So you know better than I do what the realities are, but I just want you to understand that the ordinary citizen out there understands it as well. We understand what's going on in your caucus. We understand the power play.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Could you respond on the teachers, please?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: You heard the president of the teachers union yesterday, I think, the NLTA. I don't know which article it is, but there is an article in the constitution of the NLTA that no member of the NLTA may criticize the union in public. I have no idea. Perhaps 1,000 teachers think this is a stinky deal. There's no way for me to know. His answer yesterday, of course, was that he had checked with the local presidents.

• 1710

Mr. Joe McGuire: So they operate the same way? The majority of their caucus said, this is a good thing; therefore, everybody has to agree?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Yes, and don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to downplay the democratic role in the union. They have to do a task to represent their members. All I'm saying to you is that there's no way I know that I can find out what Catholic or Pentecostal teachers think, because I'm not allowed to ask. And if I were to ask—

Mr. Joe McGuire: They're not allowed to answer.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Let me assure you—

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Fagan.

Archbishop.

Rev. James MacDonald: I'm going to say something about the NLTA. Shortly after my arrival in Newfoundland, a considerable percentage of the teachers wished to form a Catholic union, and it was disallowed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): I think we're going to have to move on, Mr. McGuire. We're well over, as it is.

Mr. Joe McGuire: You're a hard taskmaster.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Senator Pearson.

Senator Landon Pearson (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

My question is with respect to the joint service schools. When you speak of 24,000, you were speaking of 24,000 children, which is obviously not 24,000 parents. It might be, but it's unlikely. You were saying that there would have been more if in some places where they were in joint service schools.... They didn't get a Catholic education at a joint service school?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: No, a joint service school is a school that results from.... Let's take a community like Gander. It's a big community. The Catholic parents felt that the school was no longer viable. They wanted—and I want to show you it was the parents—to get together with the integrated school and have what they call a joint service school. In that joint service school, a percentage of the staff would be Catholic to reflect the Catholic percentage. Therefore, we had no difficulty delivering the religious education program. The same was true for the integrated.

Now, let's take on the registration process. I know the terminology is difficult. Parents could register for an interdenominational school—which is not a joint service school—they could register for a uni-school, but they could not register for a joint service school.

So here was the interpretation. I mean, it's a genuine interpretation. If I vote now as a citizen, a Roman Catholic, in a joint service school's community for a Roman Catholic school, then the inference is that I want the joint service school to break up. And people did not want the joint service schools to break up. Darn it, they were the ones who put the darn thing together.

Now, some did, because, as you can understand, every time you bring people together in the joint service situation.... I mean, it wasn't 100% of the Catholics in Gander who were enthralled with going together. So we had some votes there, a few votes.

But the fact of the matter is that joint service wasn't on the list. People didn't have.... If it had been on the list, I assure you—absolutely, I don't have any doubt in my mind—that we would have had a tremendous number of people who would have registered and continued for joint service. In fact, it was on that basis that Judge Barry said, look, joint service is a perfectly viable solution here, so go ahead.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

Colleagues, help me. We are over our time. We have our other witnesses here. If I could be assured that we would have a very brief exchange, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Doyle, then we would accommodate you.

But I do ask for co-operation on all sides. I know this is important, and I want our witnesses who follow to get their extra bit. We will permit that too, but please co-operate.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that very much.

The question I have has to do with joint service school and the provisions under the proposed amendment. Is the concern that the Catholic, Pentecostal, or any other denomination would not be able to determine the actual religious instruction that takes place in the school?

• 1715

Rev. James MacDonald: That's one.

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: It's only part of the package.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: If that were assured, would your concern still be maintained?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Again, to make it short, it can't be, because in order to do it, they're going to have to give us their teachers, and they're not going to do that. So this is a scuttling of our rights.

Go back to the current Term 17; it lists the rights there. It lists them and you see what's in there. It includes the appointment and dismissal of teachers and so on, because that's fundamental too in our case, in a Catholic school. So it can't be. This is a dead duck.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Fagan and Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Doyle, the challenge for you is to be very brief.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Yes, I have one very brief question, Madam Chair. I believe the NLTA were here yesterday. They made reference to hiring and firing teachers on the basis of religious affiliation, and I noticed some people around the table raising an eyebrow about that.

I wanted to ask you a question about that. I know the answer to it already, but I do want to give you the opportunity to respond to it and set the record straight. To my knowledge it's never been a problem, and I just wanted to give you the opportunity to—

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: No, this year largely it was not a problem. We have a couple of focus points, and I think Dr. Regular will probably be asked that question in the morning. He's probably better able to handle it.

But I'd simply say that of something like 6,000 teachers who got involved in the designation, reassignment and all that type of thing this year, we had a couple of instances. So it's not bad. They also had other ways of doing it.

But I'll need to distinguish here the kind of problem that was encountered with the current Term 17. Prior to the current Term 17, there was a Roman Catholic board, an integrated board, and a Pentecostal board.

As a board you hired your own teachers. Check the record; don't take my word, but go and check the record. By the way, I worked on the school board for 23 years—Catholic boards. We hired the best qualified teacher. If it was a Catholic, we darned well took them and never made any apologies for it at all. But there were lots of times when we didn't have a Catholic as the most qualified person, so we hired whomever.

When it came time for redundancies—in other words, you have to lay somebody off—you laid them off within the board. It wasn't a problem. We had 25 Catholic schools, so you moved them to another Catholic school within the rules of the collective agreement. The same applied for the integrated and for the Pentecostals.

This current thing that we have now has an umbrella school board. Again, I want to point out to you that this is your term, not mine, because we didn't like it. There is an umbrella school board with denominational committees. Those committees have the jurisdiction of the former school board. The problem was that nobody wanted to address the issue that if you read the collective agreement literally, you had a built-in time bomb between the committee's responsibilities and the school board. Well, if the time bomb went off...and of course, as with many of those things, really it was a firecracker, and it got turned into a bomb.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): A final word, colleagues, from Mr. DeVillers, on whom I was a little harsh earlier, and that will be it.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fagan, I know your position is very clear. You would like this resolution rejected. But if that is not possible—and I know you've been monitoring the hearings for the past couple of weeks—there's one member, whose initials are Senator Kinsella's, who has been proposing an amendment to paragraph (2) to remove the reference to the religious courses being established by the government.

Would you support that amendment if it's not possible to have your first position, the rejection of the resolution?

Dr. Bonaventure Fagan: Madam Chair and Mr. DeVillers, with great respect to Senator Kinsella, I understand perfectly well what is going on there. Let me make it unequivocally clear to you that at this point we are not interested in unfriendly or friendly amendments. The problem is with the resolution: the people's rights are being taken away, period.

How they get taken away in the unfair process that's going on.... At this point we are not prepared to say anything about any friendly amendment. I understand precisely the situation you're in here, but with all respect, I want you to understand that you will not see us say that we will accept such an amendment.

• 1720

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much. I thank the three of you for coming and giving us your time.

We will continue with our next witnesses. I could give an interim report on the document. We will have it in our hands by about 6 p.m. Perhaps our clerk could have a discussion with Mr. Hutchings, and we can see how we can accommodate that.

Thank you very much again.

Colleagues, we now have two very patient people from Education First, Ms. Oonagh O'Dea and Ms. Brenda Bryant.

Ms. O'Dea and Ms. Bryant, thank you very much for your patience. Thank you very much for being here. We will carry on with the allotted time and have a few more minutes, if necessary, for questioning. I invite you to present your brief, and in the process I'm sure you will tell us a little bit about Education First.

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea (Education First): My name is Oonagh O'Dea. Brenda Bryant is the other parent here with me. We're very pleased to be able to come here tonight and make this presentation to you. These have been a very tense couple of years, and we had hoped that everything would have been settled now, mainly for our children.

Education First is a group of non-political, multi-faith citizens of Newfoundland, who want the best possible education for all children in Newfoundland. We believe this type of education can only come in a single school system attended by all children.

In this day and age the economic realities do not allow us to have two or more separate religious school systems in our communities. With this in mind, we actively campaigned in the Avalon East area during the recent referendum for support for the yes vote.

We are parents who want to be able to provide to schools basic services such as plumbing and to optimize educational opportunities and program offerings for the students. When we have two high schools in an area where one can be used, we short-change the students. There are not sufficient personnel or resources to provide these students with a range of high school credits.

We have students throughout Newfoundland who do their senior high school credits through distance education. Some even have to leave to live in a community that has the course offerings they need to move on with their careers. We recognize that some of this may continue under a reformed system, but we feel we can minimize it.

We're parents who want to reduce the time students must spend on buses—if indeed they have to spend any time at all.

I heard the other day of a student who lives in Paradise, which is not very far from St. John's. She's a grade 7 student. She attended primary school within walking distance of her home. Now she leaves the house at 7.30 a.m. She buses past a kindergarten to grade 8 Roman Catholic school that is 10 minutes away by bus, another kindergarten to grade 8 school that is 20 minutes away by bus, and a grade 7 to 9 school before she arrives at her school one hour later. The process is reversed in the afternoon, to return home at 4.30 p.m.

• 1725

In order to attend five hours of instruction time, this young student must spend nine hours away from home. She also has to forgo all after-school activities that take place at the school, unless she can get a ride home afterwards. This scenario is repeated around the province.

In front of the junior high school that two of my children attend, there are 10 buses every day. That school has only 500 children. It sits right in the middle of the capital city of St. John's. Those 10 buses aren't used for any of the city students. They have to use public or private transportation. Instead, they're used to transport children past other schools of other denominations.

You've heard over the past week from a number of groups and individuals who have had problems with the 73% result in the democratic process. The comments have included such things as it didn't reflect the Roman Catholic vote, it takes away minority rights by a majority, the voters didn't understand the question, and government funded only the yes side.

Well, the Roman Catholics in our province, as you already know, represent 37% of the population. We are the largest single denominational group. I say “we”, because both Brenda and I have been raised and educated in the Catholic faith and our children are Roman Catholic. One of Brenda's attends a Roman Catholic school, while we decided that our three would attend the integrated system.

I'm not a statistician, but out of the 48 provincial electoral districts, 28 of them have Roman Catholics as the largest group and 4 have Pentecostals as the largest group. If you take 14 of those districts and if you add the Roman Catholics and the Pentecostals, they represent over 50% of that district's population. Only 1 district out of 48 went no.

Did the voters understand the question? The question was quite plain and simple. There was ample discussion by both side on the question through the various media. I'm insulted to have someone or anyone assume that we and my fellow Newfoundlanders did not understand the question. Yes, we knew what we were voting about and we still voted 73% yes.

Who funded the yes side? Who funded the no side? Who were on the yes side? Who were on the no side? Government had those problems. Government did not fund any group who campaigned either for or against the referendum. Yes, we asked for funding. We ran our campaign on volunteers with entirely privately donated funds of less than $20,000. We reached out to 70,000 households. That's the equivalent of two federal ridings in our province, 14 provincial ridings. We distributed a pamphlet, and I've included that pamphlet with the brief, and we phoned every one of those 70,000 households at least once.

On the day of the vote we contacted by phone our voters again, at least once. Any of you who have run or been involved in a political campaign would have been amazed at the level of campaigning we actually did. Our hundreds of volunteers gave up that very valuable summer vacation time to get involved. This was a very important issue for them. This type of campaigning was also seen throughout the province. We didn't have a Bon Fagan or a Melvin Regular, who is paid with government bonds.

• 1730

On the issue of religious education courses, government is responsible for the development of all curriculum used within the school except for religious education. In developing these courses they use curriculum specialists and other professional people. The religion course would follow the same pattern, and who better to provide the knowledge but members of the various religions?

The voters of the province supported through their vote the retention of religious education within the curriculum and the opportunity for religious observances. To change the amendment in order to remove religious education curriculum from the Constitution would be against what was voted on in the referendum. At this time Newfoundlanders have indicated they want to include religious education as a curriculum course. The option is there for students to opt out.

Church control or parental guidance? It's time to remove the schools from the control of the churches and place the guidance of the schools in the hands of the parents. We've striven over the last few years to develop school councils with representation from parents, teachers, and the community. These councils are legislated bodies. As parents we, not the churches, should have a say in the running of the schools. The election of members to councils and boards should be based on their ability and what they will bring to the system, not on their religious beliefs.

What about the rights of the child? Lost in the argument and central to the whole issue has to be rights of the child. As parents our only concern is for our children. This is not about power and authority but about being able to give our children the best quality education our province can afford. This is about reaping the maximum benefit from our financial resources while minimizing the stress on our children.

We want to ensure that our students can successfully compete with students in other provinces and other countries. Education is essential to our students' future success.

I have to say there is stress on our children. We have children who do not know where they're going to school next year, when they graduate from the existing schools, and they didn't know last year. They were all asking their parents where they were supposed to go. Come January and February, when we have to register these children for senior high credits, we don't know where to send them.

I find it very hard to believe the rest of the country would have such a problem with the people of our province asking to integrate rather than to segregate our children in schools.

Can the religions continue to flourish outside the school system? If the religion is serving its purpose, it will remain strong through its churches and its people. Integration of many faiths teaches children to accept and respect others regardless of race and religion. Children who have been educated in a non-segregated environment do not consider one religion or race superior to another, nor do they judge anyone on the basis of either their religion or their race.

Integration of religions does not lower Christian values or the morals of our students but rather can strengthen and reinforce what we have taught them in the home and the church. If a society is tolerant of all religions and encourages its people to respect each other, all religions are free to flourish. In a country that is considered to be a leader in social tolerance, segregation in schools, whether on race or religion, should not be acceptable.

• 1735

The people of Newfoundland have indicated overwhelmingly they wish to integrate all children and request you recommend the amendment to Term 17 as put forth by our government. Please respect our democratic process and allow our children to live and learn together. Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Ms. O'Dea.

Ms. Bryant, would you like to say—

Ms. Brenda Bryant (Education First): Yes, I would. I have a few comments I'd like to make. One concerns the registration process that took place last February.

At that time we were told that a registration process would take place. We were unaware of what it really meant as to what our options were. Most schools had somebody from their school board area speak to the parents in the school system. We asked whether our children were guaranteed to stay in the school they were in currently, regardless of the registration. You have to remember that the registration process was registered with the school boards; it was a database, so from that day on, for example, it was known that I registered my child for a uni-Roman Catholic school.

We tried to find out whether, if we say uni-RC school or interdenominational, it will ensure that our children stay where they are. We were told that there were absolutely no guarantees that our child could remain in the school they were in. We were told the school board did ask the denominational committees to leave the children where they were but at that time there were no guarantees.

As parents we were trying to find the best solution that night. A lot of us that night said we were going to put ourselves in a two-way win situation.

My daughter's school is directly across from my house, and it's a Roman Catholic school. If I say I'm going to register my child for a unidenominational Roman Catholic school, that means if my daughter's school is designated to be an RC school, I'm guaranteed a seat there. However, by saying a uni-RC school in the school board's database, if my school became a neighbourhood school, I was guaranteed a seat there as well. Later on we found out that a lot of people did this to keep their child where they currently were.

That's a side I haven't heard come out, and it's a point I definitely would like to make to a lot of people.

Next is the proposed amendment to Term 17. As a Roman Catholic and like many parents in our province, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican, or whatever, when I voted yes it was based upon the fact that my children would receive religious instruction in the school—that they would be permitted to have their morning prayers, their noon prayer, their Lent, and their Christmas nativity scenes. That's exactly what we want. Our parents would not accept any amendment at this time. If so, I think it would be a big disgrace to the Newfoundland people.

We knew what we were voting on; this was the first time we knew what we were voting on. For the first referendum we had no idea, and I, like numerous others, went in automatically and said no because I wasn't quite sure. I was afraid of losing Christmas, Easter, and all other religious observances in our schools. I wasn't prepared to do that.

I took the next two or three years to educate myself and become more informed as to what the proposed amendment would mean. I found out that it would include this. We wanted the guarantee put in the Constitution, to be enshrined in the Constitution.

That's what was given to us, that's what we voted on, that's why the 73% of us who voted said yes for education reform.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

Now we will begin our questioning. We will start with Mr. Schmidt, followed by Mrs. Finestone, Senator Kinsella, Mr. Brien, and Senator Pearson.

• 1640

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much to the two witnesses for a very articulate, very well-presented brief. Congratulations to both of you. I want to thank you for the clarity of your presentation.

The question I have is whether the assurance that the kind of religious education you believe the amendment will provide you is the kind of assurance that you have under the denominational schools. Or do you believe a different kind of religious education will take place under the new amended term as compared with what you had until now?

Ms. Brenda Bryant: Yes, we were told it would be different. There was no hiding that fact. We were told it would not be, for example, the Roman Catholic religion taught in our classrooms. We were told it would be more or less a world religion, where we would learn about all other religions, all other faiths, and our children would have a broader knowledge and a greater tolerance and acceptance of everybody's religion.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I understand both of you are of the Catholic persuasion.

Ms. Brenda Bryant: Yes.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Your concern then isn't that the denominational provision has been removed with this amendment?

Ms. Brenda Bryant: No, it's not a concern to me, because my children will receive Roman Catholic instruction in their church.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So both of you believe that your right as parents to determine the kind of education your children will get is preserved under the proposed amendment?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

Madam Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I can only make the first observation: I wish you were running a political campaign. The efficiency of your ability to impart information in a succinct and meaningful way was a delight to listen to, and I congratulate you on that undertaking. I'm sorry you're non-political.

Joe, maybe you'd like to have them on your team.

Really, it was a sure delight to listen to what you had to say.

I must say, as the best interest of the child is always the focus, I found the fact that your children spend nine hours supposedly schooling but mostly travelling is not exactly in the best interest of the child. I was pleased to have you bring that to our attention.

There's no point in my reviewing the points you made, because there was an incredible degree of clarity and coherence, as well as answers to the questions many of us have had in the course of the undertakings and the presentations.

I believe that the Canadian Charter of Rights, much of it being based on the United Nations Charter and on the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, written jointly by an American and a Canadian, John Humphrey, is something we as Canadians can be so proud of. It's a road map that we're still working on, but our federation is one that demonstrates a flexibility. I say that in the light of what we're doing today, and I pose the following question.

We just finished, in this committee, doing section 93 of the Quebec charter. Imperfect though it may be—because there is nothing perfect—I think we came up with a solution for Quebec that is right in its time. I believe the same thing for you, because I heard you say, both as Catholics, that there is a place within the school for those things that you feel are important in the learning mode. At the same time, it does not constrain the relationship between church and school, which is at the point of evolution for Newfoundland. Is that accurate?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes. The churches have been involved in the schools up to now, and they will still be involved through the various observances that will go on. If we have a Remembrance Day ceremony or an Easter assembly or a Christmas concert, the ministers come in.

• 1745

We've been told that they can also use the schools for religious instruction, and I know some Roman Catholics felt that they would like to have the instruction in Holy Communion and Confirmation stay in the schools, and they can do that within the school environment if they so wish.

But where there is a religious education course, government has said that they will involve the stakeholders, and certainly all of the religions of Canada are stakeholders in it. I know that members of the religions like Sikhism and Hinduism and the Jewish religion have all said they are interested in participating, in having some input at these levels.

I think that's what is important. We're not saying the church will no longer be around in our children's lives. It will be. There is a very strong tradition and history of the church in Newfoundland. The church schools have been around for a long time.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I think we've all sensed the spirituality that is at the substance of the Newfoundland people and have had a great sense of appreciation for that concern. I think we've also sensed that there has been an exclusionary mode, as you've only had a religious education and it's about time to move to a far more inclusionary model, which I think this presents. Would you agree with that?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes, definitely.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: The last observation I'd like to make is that I would hope the courses that will be developed will be developed to the point that the understanding of why there's conflict around the world and the role that history and religion and culture has played, and plays in an ongoing way, will help us understand where we're at in this whole undertaking.

The last observation I'd like to make—and I really got a kick out of this—is that in talking to Mr. Fagan earlier, I asked him about his role and the financing and who was supporting him. I think it must have cost more than $20,000 to spend two weeks here, travel back and forth and do the work that he did during the referendum. You noted the same thing in your observation, so I thank you for bringing that into perspective.

Ms. Brenda Bryant: I would like to add one comment to that.

As Oonagh said, we from Newfoundland have a very strong tie with church and with our religion, and God will not be left at the doorstep of our schools, which was implied to us as voters during the referendum.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

We'll have Senator Kinsella, followed by Monsieur Brien.

Senator Noël Kinsella: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

I'm going to focus first on the religious education part. Under the proposal, in addition to the requirement that the government provide for courses in religious education, Mr. Grimes told us—it's on page 14 of the government's brief—that it is going to be their policy that if a group of parents want to have a denomination-specific course put together, where administratively feasible that would be allowed. Do you support that second kind of religious education course?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes.

Ms. Brenda Bryant: Of course.

Senator Noël Kinsella: Okay.

If a group of parents asks for a denomination-specific religious education course, say it's Roman Catholic in preparation for First Communion at the elementary level, you're supporting that even though that will not be guaranteed in the amendment. There would be something done pursuant to the Schools Act or policy thereunder.

If a group of parents asks for specific religious observances, that's provided for in proposed Term 17(3). Do you support that as well?

Ms. Brenda Bryant: Yes.

Senator Noël Kinsella: What would you say, then, if as indicated in the appendix to your brief—I'm looking at the appendix with the numbers on it—a group of parents from Placentia and St. Mary's, who your graph tells us are 91% Roman Catholic, came and said they would like to have Roman Catholic-specific religious education, not the government one; they would like to have Roman Catholic religious observances. They say that with 91% of the population, they would like to go one step further. They would like to have a Roman Catholic denominational school in Placentia-St. Mary's. So would you support that?

• 1750

I'm basing this on what you say on the page under church control or parental guidance. You say you want the guidance of the schools in the hands of the parents. These are the parents at Placentia-St. Mary's, who are all Catholics, who say they would like the school to be a Catholic school.

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Placentia and St. Mary's is 91% Roman Catholic, so you would have a curriculum religion education course. You could have a Roman Catholic instructional course.

I talked to a parent who was involved on the Pentecostal side of the referendum. This was on the night of the referendum after the results had come in. I said to her at that time that one has to remember that the make-up of the school will still clearly reflect the people within that school. The tones that are set will be set by the parents and children in that school.

So if you have a community that's highly Anglican or Roman Catholic or Pentecostal, what is and is not allowed within their beliefs will still be very strong in that area. She's a parent in a Pentecostal school in a section of St. John's that is highly Pentecostal. I said that she would always have that make-up until the neighbourhood and the parents change.

It's not to say that the religious observances will not be Roman Catholic, they will probably be strongly Roman Catholic. More so, they will be strongly Christian.

But that's not to say you cannot also respect the 9% who aren't Roman Catholic—they may be Jewish—in that community. They could ask about letting them come in and have the teacher allow this parent to talk about Hanukkah.

Senator Noël Kinsella: My supplementary would be: would you be open to the idea that we would provide the guarantee along the lines you're speaking of such that, pursuant to Term 17(2), where the province has the exclusive jurisdiction over education and the province is obliged to provide for the interfaith course in religion, a unidenominational school would be permitted where numbers warrant and where requested by the parents of that denomination.

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: No, it would be still a single school system. The people did not say they wanted unidenominational schools. They said they want one school system to which all children would go.

We have a policy under each of the faith's boards whereby the priority for children to enter that school is first on the basis of their religion. Only after every child of that faith who has applied to that school—it doesn't make any difference whether they live in that community or not—has been accommodated will they accommodate the others. We'll bring in all these other children, and only then will we accommodate that 9%.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you. Monsieur Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): I was very happy to hear you say you had confidence in people's judgment. You believed they could understand the question. That's very good.

I often hear the same arguments applied to Quebec. During a referendum, people might fail to understand the question, and I assure you that we, the Bloc Québécois, will respect the will of the people of Newfoundland as expressed through the referendum process.

Since you were an organizer, I would like you to explain something that has confused me a little—the participation rates in the referendum.

• 1755

Since you were directly involved in the campaign, and since you were calling people to get them out for the vote, you must know what reasons they were giving for voting or not voting. So what reasons were they giving for voting or not voting?

[English]

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Oh, we had lots of reasons, but the main reason that people said they had decided to vote yes, whether they had voted yes or no in the last one, was they were tired of the confusion; they were tired of the fighting; they did not feel that there would be a danger to their beliefs to vote yes this time. They had enough faith in government—and that's stretching people's faith when they say they have faith in government; people tend to question it—but they had enough faith with this particular question that they were willing to vote yes.

I don't know where Mr. Fagan got the numbers of expected turnout. We certainly didn't have expected numbers of turnout, but we did have a very clear indication prior to the vote of the percentage of people that were going to vote yes. In fact, my number the week prior to it was out by 0.1%. That is how close we had had a feeling prior to the vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: But I'm asking about those who didn't vote at all, not those who voted yes. I'm sure that some of the people you called said: I won't be going to vote, for such and such a reason. So, what reason did those 40 people who did not vote give for not voting?

[English]

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes, there was a high percentage that did not vote. In the area that we dealt with, the Avalon East area, those 14 provincial districts, we had a very high turnout. Of the people who did not vote, some said they didn't care one way or the other. Some people said they don't vote, whether in a provincial election or a federal election or a referendum. There were some people that were away, but there are always people who are away. Of the people I spoke to on the phone, I don't remember anyone saying to me, I'm not going to vote because I don't think government will listen.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much. Senator Pearson.

Senator Landon Pearson: Thank you, Chair.

I was delighted to hear your reference to the rights of the child. I don't know whether you know, but last night we did have two panels of students. We did them by video, one from St. John's and one from Corner Brook. It was terrific, because they gave all kinds of insight into the kinds of issues you are discussing. They didn't all agree—surprise, surprise—but they were fresh, and they said they were very pleased to have been included in the discussion.

So I was wondering, in the work you did in preparing and discussing, obviously you consulted your own children, but did you have some young people helping you?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Oh yes. They were our computer experts. The students we had were mainly senior high, although every day there were always younger students in the office running around doing all sorts of errands. We had an awful lot of senior high students who went out and did distribution of our pamphlets. We had some of them do telephone calling, but that's a difficult sort of thing for them to do. But they did come in. They packed up the pamphlets, they did all our computer translating, entered all the data on those 70,000 households, and they were really terrific.

We had good feedback. It is very difficult to get hold of the students during the summer, so many of us called upon whoever we knew who had been involved in designation processes earlier in the year.

Ms. Brenda Bryant: Yes, and my seven-year-old thinks she should be able to go to school with her friends in the neighbourhood, which some friends have to be—that is, be in the neighbourhood to go to their schools.

• 1800

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Mr. Pagtakhan is next, followed by Ms. Caplan, Mr. Goldring and Mr. McGuire. That will complete our first round, and then we'll go to Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. As a pediatrician, I'm delighted as to how you look at the child. In fact, this type of approach will be best for the whole child. I'm also delighted that, as Roman Catholic parents of school children, you are reassured that the type of change being proposed is precisely the type of change that not only will not pose any hindrance to your faith and your family's faith but will better reinforce the pillar of that faith by understanding other faiths as well. So that's very heartening to see.

I can appreciate the stress on children that you have identified, and I will agree with you on that. Although you didn't say it, I suppose the message is that you would like speedy passage of this amendment so that the registration can be effected with great dispatch. Is that clear from you?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes. We had kindergarten registration yesterday in the Avalon East area, so we have children who were registered yesterday for kindergarten in the school they think they will be attending in September. As I said, we have high school students about to go through it in January or February and trying to identify the courses they're going to do.

So yes, we want this settled quickly. We would like to have it resolved so that the provincial house can go through and pass the education act. Then the school boards can go through the process of what they have to do with each of the schools. It is a tremendous involvement. In our area alone there are 87 schools.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Earlier this afternoon, in another environment, I also reflected on the sentiment you just expressed here, except that you said it even more articulately—to change the amendment in order to remove religious education curriculum from the Constitution, as an amendment of course, would be against what was voted on in the referendum. Again, I am delighted to see that I almost read your minds before you came.

I do have one question, however. You concluded a section of your presentation by noting that the option is there for students to opt out. My question is only about process. Since the curriculum would be optional—and there are examples of many optional courses in universities and community colleges across the country where people who like to register for the optional courses would register, in other words, the whole citizenry is not automatically registered unless you opt out—do you have any view about whether it would be a better process to opt in when you like to register for the course, rather than having to opt out if you do not like it?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: The problem is that the schools would not know until the children turned up for school in September—except with senior high school courses—that they were opting into religious education, because at every level below grade 10 the students are automatically registered for every course. When they decide to opt out of a particular course, they must have the written permission of the parents. In some cases, if the numbers are insufficient the child may have to be removed from the school because we do not have enough people to supervise them.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So from you point of view, administratively, opting out would be better.

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Opting out is better. It would be an administrative nightmare for the schools to try to handle that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

Ms. Brenda Bryant: We have children in my daughter's Roman Catholic school who are not of the Roman Catholic faith and they now opt out of religion courses.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

Ms. Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Thank you.

My question also focuses on your view that there should not be any change or amendment to the proposal that has been sent to us by a unanimous vote of the legislature in Newfoundland. I look at it on the basis of the partnership of our federation and the fact that bilateral process for changes to the Terms of Union can be proceeded with and that it requires the federal body, both the House of Commons and the Senate, to believe the people of Newfoundland have been consulted and agree. I was very impressed with the fact that it was a unanimous vote, an all-party-supported vote in your national assembly at your provincial parliament.

• 1805

The concern I have is what would happen if, I think, the well-intentioned suggestions of some of the members of this committee actually resulted in a change to the term that has been proposed? How do you think the people of Newfoundland would feel if the joint House of Commons and Senate of Canada changed what the people of Newfoundland, through their parliament, have sent to us for ratification?

Ms. Brenda Bryant: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador would be quite upset. They have been tortured in the past five years. First of all, we had to vote on something we weren't quite sure of because the government didn't inform us of what we were voting on, so therefore we had a very slim majority of the people vote in favour the first time.

As I said, then we went through, and we've been in court. We've had another referendum. People were satisfied with that. We're moving ahead. We're going to conform with what most provinces are doing. We're going to agree that we have to maximize our resources. It would be ideal to have a school, perhaps, for every religious denomination. It's not practical in Newfoundland. We have people migrating daily.

So therefore the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been tortured. They want the best possible education for their children, and they want it to start right away. By sending it back to us again, the people would be very upset and it would have to go through the whole process again. People would not accept it as it is.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That was the answer I wanted to hear, which was to whether or not you felt that it would require additional process, procedure and debate in the legislature, and then coming back once again.

Ms. Brenda Bryant: Definitely.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think there are some who think that if we amend the term it can then be implemented in Newfoundland. It's your view that the people of Newfoundland would want their say on what was being proposed here in Ottawa.

Ms. Brenda Bryant: Yes, the people of Newfoundland would be quite upset. I can see another referendum, and we don't need it—definitely not.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: As to the last question I have on this, when you discuss the evolution and the history and the torture, this is a process that has been going on for some eight years. If this were accepted by the House of Commons and the Senate in Ottawa and implementation would begin, is it your view that's the end of the debate? Or do you think this is going to be something that will evolve over time, and notwithstanding a change to the constitutional amendment, that there may be things that would come along through court challenges or other that would require change in the way education is provided in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Well, we've certainly heard here this afternoon that the Roman Catholic Church, speaking for the Catholic people, intend to take it to court, regardless. The only people who are going to benefit from that are the lawyers.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. O'Dea, you had stated that your preliminary estimate of the voter turnout did not change from one week before to the voter turnout date, or within one percent.

As the question in the first three weeks of the referendum was considerably different from that proposed for Term 17 that was released one week before, would that not indicate that denominational exclusion in Term 17 was not recognized by the voters and would not have been...? Also, for that matter, was that voted on in the Newfoundland legislature, or what did they vote on? Did they have the Term 17 details when they voted in the legislature? Would that not indicate that voters would not have understood that denominational exclusion?

• 1810

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: The House did not vote on it until after the referendum had already taken place. The vote took place on Tuesday, and it was voted on in the House that following Friday.

Prior to the full terms of the amendment being made available, a lot of people, when we called, said that they wanted to see the question. Right from the beginning, our group said that we supported the gist of the amendment but that we did want to see the wording of the question. When we got back to people who were still unsure prior to the release of the question, they were willing to go with this. They said they could live with this.

The open-line shows went on every day. There was constant feedback on the three radio stations. The inclusion of a religious education program and the opportunity for religious observances were the key for many of the voters voting yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Your advertisement was included with this advertising package here from the government. It indicates here in your advertising that religious observances shall be permitted and religious education should be available, which is still the suggestion of the wording that was out for the first three weeks.

I have a question on the advertising. How many newspapers was that advertisement put in? How many times was it put in? What was the cost of that particular advertisement? From the top of the sheet, it looks like it may have been scheduled to go in some 12 or 14 newspapers. How many did it go in?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Would you just hold that ad up for a second?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Is this the only ad you put in?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes, I believe so. It was a long time ago. I could not tell you about the exact cost of the advertising. I will say that we also did radio ads right in the week prior to the vote. Our budget for the whole referendum was less than $20,000.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The ads were paid for out of your $20,000 budget?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Everything was paid for out of our under-$20,000 budget.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Mr. Goldring. Mr. McGuire has graciously ceded his spot to Madame Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Unfortunately I missed your oral presentation, but I did get a chance to quickly look over the written text. I wanted to thank you very much, because some of the things you say resonate with me. I come from Quebec, where we have attempted in some schools to also segregate our children.

You talk about integration and segregation. It's very refreshing to see two peoples—I'm not trying to be paternalistic here—who have taken it into their hands to really fight for what they believe and talk about integration in the school system, which from what I understand of the amendment to Term 17, would not mean uniformity in the schools. It would mean rather that children and their parents will be more likely to have a kind of religious education in small groups within the schools as they ask for it.

I do have a question. It seems probable that if the amendment is passed here in Parliament, then this would not be the end of the education problem in Newfoundland. From what I've heard from several of the witnesses, they might be willing to carry it even further. It means going to the courts. It means having access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Is this a feeling you have in terms of the people who are against the ideas you have presented? If so, are you willing to go that far? Do you see the backing of the people in Newfoundland—those people who believe the same things as you do—to go that far as well?

• 1815

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes, that's the way we see that it may well proceed. We don't think the people are willing to put up with it. I'm sure the archbishop has had many calls from church members who said let it go, get on with the issues, get back to the churches, teach the faith within the churches and get out of the schools.

I don't know what harm he is doing to the church in the province, or what sorts of feelings are coming out of it. It's put families against families, neighbours against neighbours, and it's upsetting to see it go on.

As for whether we would be willing to go further, we said we'd be in this for the long run. We'll see it through. We can't afford lawyers but we're willing to go in as witnesses, parents and guardians of our children to talk on their behalf. We don't want to do it but we will.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: And you feel that a significant segment of the population is behind you in this.

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes, very definitely.

Ms. Brenda Bryant: In the first referendum about 50% turned out to vote. In the second referendum I think it was 54%, but the yes side increased by 19%. I think there is a growing trend. I think we all have to start working together in our schools to give our children the best possible education and to start mending fences. The more they fight, the more challenges.... If you walk through my daughter's school you can feel tension in the classroom and in the corridors. People are speaking out and it's making for bad friends, bad families and bad marriages.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: In small communities, where everyone knows everyone else.

Ms. Brenda Bryant: That's right.

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: We are a close community.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Pagtakhan, and that will be the end of the list.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Earlier I think you both made the point that the amendment as proposed would not infringe on your right to have your children taught in the religion of your choice. How in practical terms do you see this operating, given the premier's statement—and this is a correct quotation—that “there will certainly be an opportunity for all of the traditional observances within the schools, and all of that will be guaranteed”?

I'm not sure exactly what he means by all of the traditional observances, and I'm not sure what you understand by that, but how do you put that together with your earlier statement? What co-ordination is necessary to make that statement true?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: It's interesting, because Brenda said that she spent the last two years getting herself educated on what was going on. She recently commented to me that she didn't know they had morning prayers, said grace before lunch, or had Christmas concerts and Easter assemblies in the integrated schools. Many Roman Catholic parents did not know this went on in the other schools, and these are some of the observances that the government has referred to. The Lord's prayer and Christmas concerts were two of the major examples they gave that would be guaranteed to continue.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I have no trouble with that. It's the word “all” that causes me the problem here. “All” would include the Muslim, the Sikh, the Hindu, the Baha'i, the Christian, the Jewish—I don't know how many there are, but there are lots of them, and all of these particular holidays that go with this.

• 1820

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Yes. As I indicated, my children attend an integrated school. My children have had the opportunity to visit a Jewish synagogue, to have people of the Muslim faith come in and talk about observances and festivals within their faith, to understand what Hanukkah was about. I remember my youngest child coming home and saying “Mom, can we celebrate Hanukkah also? They get gifts just before Christmas. Then we could also have Christmas.” I thought, well, wait a second, this hasn't quite come across to you right. But he was in grade 1 or grade 2.

What it does now allow is that a parent can come to a teacher and say “My child is of this particular faith, and I would like to be able to come in and talk, during one of the religion classes that you have coming up this week, about what this festival is and what it means to him and why he celebrates this one, maybe, instead of why he celebrates Christmas”.

When government talks about the traditional ones, they do mean that it's the traditional Christian observances that have been held in the past.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's very interesting, because you have introduced a very significant adjective there. The phrase as it is written here is “traditional observances”. You've indicated here “traditional Christian observances”.

I don't know what the premier meant. He may have meant what you just said, but if one took this as a clear statement, I think it would mean more than just being able to talk about it, and to have the actual occurrence of that happening in the school. Obviously we're maybe not understanding that completely, but I find it interesting that you have no difficulty with that.

Mr. Oonagh O'Dea: No.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much. Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Your group is multi-faith in nature. Just for information, could you give the committee an estimate of the size of your group and what proportion of the group is Roman Catholic?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: No, I could not, because when the people walked in the door or telephoned to say they could help, we didn't ask them their religion. We didn't ask their political persuasion. We didn't ask them their race. It was not a requirement. It was “Can you support what we as Education First believe in, and are you willing to work on this campaign? If you are, we'll take your telephone number and put you to work.”

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: And what would be the total number?

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Over the five weeks, all we know is that there were hundreds. As I said, we had 14 ridings, and we had people out in ridings who we never saw inside the office at all. They went out. Each riding would have had anywhere from 30 to 36 polling districts, and every one of those polling districts would have had probably a minimum of two people. It may have been two people for a pamphlet drop; it may have been another two people for telephone polling. The numbers were horrendous. We have no final list of everybody who was involved.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Thanks, both of you, very much. It has been a pleasure. I know it's been a long day for you, and we are very, very grateful that you came to talk to us. It adds a new dimension to what we have been hearing.

Ms. Oonagh O'Dea: Thank you, Madam Chair. We were very pleased to be able to come and enlighten your committee.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Now then, colleagues, we have our final witness of the day, the principal of École St. Anne in Cap St. Georges—

A voice: Mainland.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): —from the mainland of Newfoundland, Mr. Joe Benoit.

[Translation]

Mr. Joe Benoit (Principal, St. Anne School): I'm the principal of St. Anne School, in Grand'Terre.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much. We're very pleased to have you here, Mr. Benoit. You have been able to see the interest that the group has in this issue. We will be very interested in the information you bring to us.

• 1825

Mr. Joe Benoit: There's no doubt that it's an interesting topic, to say the least.

[Translation]

Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, honourable members and honourable senators, before beginning my presentation, I would like to thank you most sincerely for having given me this opportunity to appear before you tonight.

This is an issue I care a great deal about, and which is very important in my own life.

First, let me say that I consider myself a good Catholic, and I'm proud of my Catholic upbringing, as well as the role it has played in my personal development.

I am in no way advocating anti-Catholic or anti-religious sentiments. However, I believe that there is a place for everything, and that everything should be in its place.

The history of Churches' and especially the involvement of Catholic Church in education and administration of schools in Newfoundland and Labrador is long and colourful, to say the least. But, as the saying goes, "Time changes everything and you must be prepared to change with the times."

Education in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, like in other Canadian provinces, is being challenged to meet the 21st century head on. Finding ways to achieve that is no easy task.

Over the past few years, the government of our province has been attempting to reform our educational system to help us achieve this goal. Part of those proposed changes included determining the past and future role of the Churches.

Whereas no one disputes the contributions Churches have made to education in our province, the majority feel that it is an antiquated system that must be changed, and is ready for change.

With the first referendum held on this issue, a democratic process, the government received the mandate to continue with its reform. However, the Churches did not accept the results and took the decision to court. As far as I'm concerned, that was because they felt their power was being compromised.

The government showed quite a bit of flexibility on the sharing of school administration, but the church continued to resist the reform. To use an old adage, they did not know when to leave well enough alone.

The end result of the Barry decision of the summer of 1997 was continued chaos. The average parent blamed and still blames the Churches for the chaotic conditions that existed at the beginning of the new school year.

As you know, a second referendum on the question of educational reform was put to the people of our province this past September. Let me add that, the first time around, many Catholics, myself included—voted more out of loyalty to my Church and the way things were than out of logical thinking. The Church's arguments prevailed over the government's.

The second time around, we decided to be more rational and voted in the best interests of our children. The second time around, as opposed to the first, I voted with my head.

As you know, the end result shows a clear, large majority in favour of eliminating the denominational system in our province.

As a Catholic parent, I have been taught and continue to teach my children the importance of respecting the rights and opinions of others. And, in a system such as ours, that means accepting the results of a democratic vote, even when we are not included on the majority side.

And governments, in our provincial and federal systems, take power with a simple 50% plus one majority, and have the right and responsibility to govern the province or the country. As it now stands, the Catholic Church is not respecting the democratic process, and—more importantly—not respecting my rights as a Catholic parent to decide what I feel is best for my children. I consider that unacceptable. This comes from an institution that is hierarchical in nature, certainly not democratic, and moreover repressive in its dealings on this issue.

• 1830

It has, by its actions, put aside the more important element in all of this debate: What is best, from an educational standpoint, for our children? The fact that the Catholic Church is once again turning to the courts on the question of minority rights being eroded has left parents more confused than ever. The most frequently heard comment coming not only from Catholics but Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in general, including many of those who voted No, is:

I thought that I had voted to change the system, but now I see that the Church has more to say and more rights than I do. It would have been better if I had not bothered to vote.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a strong statement in a democratic system. One might ask, "Am I turning against my Church?". The answer unequivocally is no. However, as I already mentioned, I am asked as a Catholic to respect the teachings of my Church. But my Church is not reciprocating that respect. It continues to be dictatorial on this and most other issues.

It too must make giant steps if it wishes to move forward into the 21st century. One way it can do this is to leave behind its Draconian 18th century attitudes. One of the points that the Church makes in its defence is that we don't know what percentage of Catholics voted in favour of this reform during the last referendum. However, through its committees and organizations like the Knights of Columbus, the Church can hold a plebiscite in each of its parishes and get the answer to this.

But even that is not really necessary, since the result of most opinion polls already predicted what we found out at the beginning of September. And I truly believe that the Church will not do this, because it too already knows the answer. The results will be same as in the September referendum, if not by a larger majority. What would the Church's position be then? I do not believe they will ever change their attitudes on this matter, because it is a simple case of losing a power that we had given them so many years ago. Though we appreciate all the Church has done over that period, we must move forward.

Fagan and the boys in St. John's do not speak for me, nor for most Catholics in the province. No rhetoric from any so-called experts can change what we, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so clearly stated at the polls on September 2nd.

I am sure, ladies and gentlemen, that you have heard from many people on this issue, including no doubt several MPs. Let me add this: all districts except one show the majority in favour of eliminating Church-controlled schools. While I do not know the opinion of all federal MPs on the issue, I do say categorically that it is irresponsible for any MP not to support the amendment of Term 17.

• 1835

As elected members of Parliament, they are responsible for representing their constituents, from both the political and moral standpoint. Their choice, like ours, should have been made on the day of the vote, as it was for all other Newfoundlanders.

Let me tell them the same thing I am telling you, ladies and gentlemen. We voted for the change, we want the change, and you are responsible for completing the process by amending Term 17 and giving us what we asked for on September 2nd.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do not know if what I have said will help you make up your minds to recommend the amendment of Term 17. But I do hope that you can find it in your hearts to accept the wishes of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Please, amend Term 17 and let us get on with what should be the most important question: What kind of educational system will we have and how can we best deliver it so that our children will be prepared for the 21st century, like all other children in Canada?

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Colleagues, I believe everyone around the table is prepared to put a question to Mr. Benoit. We will proceed, beginning with Mr. Goldring, Senator Kinsella, Madame Folco, Senator Corbin, Monsieur DeVillers, Monsieur Brien, Ms. Caplan, Mr. Pagtakhan, and then Mr. Schmidt. Let's go.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Benoit.

You stated that Bon Fagan and the boys—and I'm assuming you're referring to the Roman Catholic education system—do not speak for most Catholics, yet they tabled a petition of 50,000 Catholic names requesting retention of denominational education system. They referred to the school registration system that showed 24,000 Catholic students registered for denominational education specifically. How do you reconcile this with that statement that you made?

Mr. Joe Benoit: May I ask you, sir, what the date of that petition was?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I believe the date of the petition was three years ago, or something like that. I don't know the exact date.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Three years ago. Okay, for argument's sake, let's say it was at least before this September.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Three years ago, and then again in February of this year. One seems to reconfirm the other one; there still is very strong desire for the Catholic denominational education system. In other words, it's continuing the indication that the interest is still there. How do you reconcile that with your statement?

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Colleagues, just for the record, the date on this is March 19, 1993.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Well, I'm sure most of you realize that this has been an ongoing question for us over the past four or five years. Without a doubt, there have been a lot of sentiments expressed over those years. With the information that was given to people, I'm not surprised that 50,000 people signed the petition the first time around. I'm sure that if you looked at it, my name appears there also, and I have no qualms with that.

However, the first time around, people were confused as to what they were voting for. I'm not saying I understood all of the issues, but people thought they were voting to change a system. In the final analysis, most of the changes that were proposed weren't really what the people wanted.

• 1840

The fundamental question that was put September 2 past was very clear. Basically the question was: do you want a denominationally run system, or do you want a single school system where all children would be together under one roof and have the problems that go with it?

The question was much clearer this time. When people looked at it they understood what they were voting for. The result was 55% the first time—54.3% I believe it was—and 73.4% this time.

Regardless of how many names are on the petition, the fact that people decided this time around, simply because they thought the question was much clearer, should tell this committee something. To the people of Newfoundland and Labrador it was a lot clearer, and that's why there was big surge in the percentage.

I don't know if I have answered your question.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Not exactly. I was referring to a petition four years ago that clearly indicated the desire for Roman Catholic instruction. Then in February the government asked parents to state whether they wished to have denominational instruction or not. At that time 24,000 wished it. The question really wasn't clarified as to denominational until one week before the referendum.

The lead-up question was not clear about denominational instruction. That came to be crystallized only one week before. As the previous witness stated, her polling information from one week before the polling date up to the polling date didn't change at all. That would indicate a possibility that the denominational suggestion might have been missed altogether.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Probably. I can speak only for the community I live in.

People are finding everything about the question of denominational rights a fuss, and a fuss that's not necessary. When they went to the polls they were voting to change our system—73% voted to change the system—and that's the only thing they have on their plate right now. This is what we voted for, this is what we want. There should be nothing going on other than what we voted for. That's what's coming back to us, and it's coming back to me as an educator.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I would refer to my original, and I would suggest that Bon Fagan and the Roman Catholic education system may very well be representing the majority of the Catholics in that opinion.

Mr. Joe Benoit: I would challenge that, sir.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Because of the petition that was presented and the information prior...?

Mr. Joe Benoit: I would go so far as to say if it were tried right now, you would find a very substantial drop in the number of people who would sign the petition. I'm speaking purely from a factual basis.

The Barry decision didn't say there was something wrong with what was going on. He says we've “accepted a less than optimal standard of education by opting to preserve at least some of the denominational system of education”. He says the statement is not made as a criticism but as a matter of fact. It's true. He is saying that what we have proposed didn't go far enough, because we wanted to eliminate the denominational system. That's the way I interpret this.

Mr. Peter Goldring: What I was referring to was whether this group represented the Catholics they purport to represent. By weight of numbers, 50,000 for the petition, and the earlier statements about registering in early February, I would suggest strongly they do represent the Catholic people.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Sir, I would have to challenge the validity of that right now. Four years ago and now is not the same thing. The scene in the province has changed dramatically. The percentage of people who voted to change the system has risen dramatically, and I think that in itself is the best indicator.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

Senator Kinsella.

[Translation]

Senator Noel Kinsella: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Benoit. In your brief, if I understood correctly, you state it is very important for members of this committee to respect the wishes of Newfoundlanders. Our problem is to determine exactly what those wishes are.

• 1845

For example, the Pentecostal community seems to be saying it is completely against the idea of taking away the right to denominational schools. So I have to ask the question. Your position is that we should to respect the wishes of the people. In that case, what about the wishes of Pentecostal communities?

Mr. Joe Benoit: My answer to that, Senator, is that the question was put to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is the democratic process, that is how it works. Everyone had to answer the same question.

If a question is put to the people, and every person votes for him or herself, we must be bound by the results. Sixty-three per cent of us said that we wanted to change the system. That is not a small number, and we cannot question that result. The first time around, the Church contested the result because it said it did not know whether 54.3 per cent was representative. But for goodness's sake, if 73 per cent is not representative, I would begin to question the validity of the democratic system.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Let's take a situation that affects me. I am a senator representing the province of New Brunswick. In its Constitution, New Brunswick protects both linguistic communities. Let's take a hypothetical situation, which I hope never happens. Let's imagine that there is a referendum in New Brunswick, and pursuant to this referendum, a unanimous vote in the province's Legislative Assembly passing a resolution that abolishes the right of francophone communities to be on an equal footing with anglophone communities. What would we do then?

Should we, in the national interest, render a decision on the request put before us and protect rights enshrined in the Constitution? It would not be the first time in Canada's history that a request was made to abolish rights guaranteed to a given minority. This would seem to me to be a very serious precedent. How would you respond, particularly with respect to the Pentecostal community?

Mr. Joe Benoit: With respect, Sir, I see no similarity between the issue of language rights in New Brunswick and religious education in Newfoundland. In New Brunswick, 100 per cent of the population is not francophone, but in Newfoundland, 100 per cent of the population is of one religion or another.

Senator Noel Kinsella: In your opinion, does the bishop of the Catholic Church have any role to play in determining Church policy?

Mr. Joe Benoit: In the Church itself, yes, but it should stop at the Church door, not at the school door.

Senator Noel Kinsella: Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I would like to begin by congratulating you, Mr. Benoit. It is a great pleasure to hear you speaking French. I know how hard the francophone minority in Newfoundland has fought to survive. So I am doubly glad to see you here before us this evening.

If I may, I would like to refer to Mr. Goldring's question earlier about the two referenda. You said that the vast difference in results—from 54.3 per cent to 76.4 per cent—was due to the different wording of the questions.

I can understand that very well. I come from Quebec, where the wording of a referendum question in 1995 led almost 50 per cent of Quebeckers to vote in favour of something they did not quite understand. So the wording of the question is fundamental. And I can understand very well how you and others changed your mind because the wording of the second question was different.

• 1850

But I would still like to ask two or three questions. Tonight, are you speaking on your own behalf or on behalf of one or several groups?

My second question is a little more fundamental. In your presentation, you said—and I quote:

Whereas no one disputes the many contributions the Churches have made in education in our province, the majority feel that it is an antiquated system that must be changed, and is ready for change.

In your opinion, why must the system change, and why is it ready for change?

My last question is what I also put to the witnesses who appeared just before you. You heard the question, but I will nonetheless repeat it. It seems likely that opponents of the Term 17 amendment will want to go further, if the amendment were approved by the Parliament of Canada. Do you think that the people with whom you work, perhaps even the people whom you represent, are ready to go on with the battle and take it further than just appearing before a parliamentary committee today?

Mr. Joe Benoit: In answer to your first question, I am here as a parent. I am concerned with what is happening in the Newfoundland educational system, for two reasons: First, because I am a parent, and second, because I am a teacher and school principal.

I think that my primary responsibility is to my children, as a parent. That said, I firmly believe from the bottom of my heart that my responsibility as a parent includes everything that affects my children's lives, including religion. As a parent, it is my job to instill my faith in my children, and teach them the traditions of my religion.

Last autumn, we gave that responsibility to the schools, through their Churches. That should never have happened, because it is my responsibility. I think things should go back to the way they were. Parents must be responsible for teaching religion at home, and schools must be responsible for educating children and helping them in their development.

I firmly believe that religious values should be conveyed at home. That is the role of parents.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: You said that most people believe that this is an old system which must be changed and is ready for change. I would like you to explain to us why. What does that mean to you?

Mr. Joe Benoit: For me, it's very simple. The first time we addressed the issue, 54.3% said: We want to change the system. The second time, 73% said: We want to change the system. This is a fact that hits us straight on. Therefore, the result cannot be questioned. The role that the Church plays in the education system goes beyond just a religion class. At present, the system is not democratic. Members of the clergy are not elected to school boards; they are appointed. However, we parents must be elected in order to represent our people. I find that unacceptable.

Second, they have input on all issues discussed in the school board, such as what goes on in the schools, curriculum, hiring of staff and layoffs. I'm sorry, but these people are not being elected. Such power is unacceptable nowadays. These things go back to the 1940s, 1950s and the 1960s, and people accepted them then perhaps because they were less well educated than today.

Today, people do not allow themselves to be led by religion. We have the right to question every aspect of our lives. I think that such questioning is productive. People question everything affecting their lives.

• 1855

Ms. Raymonde Folco: You are the principal of the "École St. Anne". What sort of school is it, Mr. Benoit?

Mr. Joe Benoit: It's a francophone school in the Port-au-Port peninsula, the French-speaking part of the province. It goes from kindergarten to grade twelve. Last year, we had our first graduating class.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: But is it a Catholic or non-denominational school?

Mr. Joe Benoit: I think you could say it is Catholic, because the region where I live is Catholic. Therefore, the question doesn't arise.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: By a "Catholic school", I mean a school controlled by the Church, where the teaching staff and the principal must be Catholic, and where the teaching is also Catholic.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Yes.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Therefore, it is considered a Catholic school.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Yes, but if you were to ask the same question of the students from 10 to 18 years of age, who are old enough to understand, the answer would be clear: 80 to 90% of them would tell you that religion should no longer play a role in schools.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That was not what we heard yesterday evening, during the video conference we had. We spoke with a number of students from various sorts of schools: non-denominational schools, Pentecostal schools, Catholic schools, etc.

I noted, and I think the other committee members also noted, that the students tended to want the system that they were familiar with to continue. If it was Catholic, they considered their school was good and that that was the case because it was Catholic. If they were Pentecostal, they said the same thing, and if they were from a non-denominational school, they also considered that their school was the best of all.

Therefore, for discussion purposes, I would say that my experience through the video conference was different. Obviously, there were just a small number of students involved, and we should be careful not to generalize, but I just want to make that comment.

Mr. Joe Benoit: That is a good point, Ms. Folco. But does that really affect the reality of life for all young people? As you said, we don't know.

I teach at the secondary level. I teach law, mathematics and economics. When courses had to be chosen, and I have 55 pupils going from grade 10 to grade 12, not one wanted to take a religion course.

At Sunday morning Mass if religion is so important for everyone, why is it that in a church with room for a congregation of 400, there are only 100 people, 95% of whom are parents or senior citizens? There may be about 10 children there, although everyone still tells us that religion is important in their lives.

If that is the case, let them prove it. That is not what I see at the present time. Even my child told me that before I came here today. He said to me: Dad, for the moment I don't want religion or to go to mass, but I know that when I am a parent I too will want something for my children, and I will be able to choose.

These are words from the mouth of a child. You can't have anything more truthful than that. And that is what young people in my area tell me. I don't know what's happening elsewhere, but I am very familiar with the Port-au-Port peninsula, and the majority of children there no longer want religion in their schools. They consider that it is a waste of time, that if they want religion it could be provided by the Church, and that the Church has nothing to do with the education system.

That is what we want to do: we want to separate education and the Church. Unless I am mistaken, that is what they wanted to do in Russia in the 1800s or 1900s just before the Bolchevik revolution. They wanted to separate Church and State. We want to separate Church and Education. There is not a big difference between these two examples.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Senator Corbin.

[Translation]

Senator Eymard G. Corbin (Grand-Sault, Lib.): Was the Roman Catholic Church a factor in you obtaining your schools in Newfoundland?

Mr. Joe Benoit: I don't understand.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Did the Church play a leading role in the creation of your francophone school?

Mr. Joe Benoit: No.

Senator Eymard Corbin: No! Could you please explain that.

Mr. Joe Benoit: When I went to school, the clergy weren't interested in that at all. They weren't in the least interested in francophones. The fact that there is still a French-speaking population, which demanded its rights, is thanks to the work of the parents, amongst whom I include myself. I have been fighting for Canadian francophones for 25 years.

• 1900

If I had waited for the Church to act, I would have waited a long time. I am not saying that attitudes have not changed. The attitudes of some people have changed. They see the importance of that. But, in the case of the priests I have known, their attitudes have changed very little. They think that everyone should be considered in the same way; we should all be placed in a melting pot and go along with that. For my part, I consider that we are different.

The fact that we fought to have the school, that we demonstrated on the highway with placards and stopped the traffic, that we forced the clergy and school board to listen to us, these were the reasons why we and other people in the province have French-speaking schools.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Mr. Benoit, as you will remember, when your provincial government first tried to have a constitutional amendment adopted here in the House of Commons and the Senate, French-speaking Newfoundlanders expressed some concern and sought to obtain from the provincial government certain guarantees regarding the maintenance of education in French, and if my memory serves me correctly I think that the said guarantee was given to you by the Premier himself, going over the head of the Minister of Education. Is that correct?

Mr. Joe Benoit: Yes.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Now, you have that guarantee. However, it does not provide the same protection as the guarantee given to New Brunswick, which is now included in the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Therefore, in language and educational terms you are in a minority situation. How would you react if, tomorrow morning, the majority of Newfoundlanders decided to put an end to French- speaking schools?

Mr. Joe Benoit: Do you think that is possible?

Senator Eymard Corbin: It's up to you to answer that question. I'm the one who is asking it.

Mr. Joe Benoit: I'm saying to you frankly, Senator Corbin, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not have the same effect in religious terms as it does in language terms. I continue to maintain that position. The two are not comparable.

Senator Eymard Corbin: On the one hand, you do not seem to recognize the demands of a religious minority in Newfoundland, be they Pentecostals or members of some other religious denomination, who want the protection granted to them when Newfoundland entered Confederation to be maintained. They do not accept that a majority should be allowed to impose on them a change which they do not support.

In other words, Pentecostals, as a minority community, have never been specifically asked what they wanted, and if I understand correctly they are still opposed to this amendment.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Don't forget, Senator Corbin, that I am a member of that same minority questioning the changes sought.

Senator Eymard Corbin: I'm sorry?

Mr. Joe Benoit: I am a member of that same minority which calls into question and wants to change our education system.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Yes, I see.

Mr. Joe Benoit: I am a Catholic, but...

Senator Eymard Corbin: But you are not a Pentecostal.

Mr. Joe Benoit: No. I spoke earlier about the Church which didn't know how many people voted. Do you know Dr. Mark Graesser from Memorial University? He is not known at the political level, but he has done a lot of research. He has analyzed and assessed the results.

From the process he used, he concluded that 62% of Catholics voted. If the majority of Catholics want to change the system, we're not losing our rights; we are voting to change them. It is we who are choosing to change them.

It is no longer a question of minorities; we are voting for a change.

Senator Eymard Corbin: I'm talking to you for the moment about the Pentecostal in Newfoundland.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Excuse me for a moment. You were referring to a document, Mr. Benoit. Could we have that so we can get copies of it?

• 1905

Mr. Joe Benoit: Yes, I was due to arrive at 12 o'clock today and I was going to finish all this work. Unfortunately, my plane was delayed and I didn't get in until 5.45 p.m., but you are quite welcome to this.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Mr. Joe Benoit: It was taken from the Evening Telegram on Saturday.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much. I apologize for interrupting.

Senator Eymard Corbin: I don't think I want to pursue the question, because we are obviously not on the same wavelength in this instance.

[Translation]

Mr. Joe Benoit: If you would ask the question again I will try to answer it.

Senator Eymard Corbin: I have asked the question twice, and you still come back to Roman Catholics. At the present time, under the Canadian Constitution, Pentecostals enjoy protection. They are a minority. From what I have understood, I do not believe that the majority of Pentecostals support the change sought by the province. Is that the case? Am I right?

Mr. Joe Benoit: If I remember correctly, between 30 and 35% of them also voted to change the system. However, that does not represent the majority of that particular group.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Exactly.

Mr. Joe Benoit: What is important with respect to religious education is that the question was put to everyone in the province. Everyone was asked, on a district-by-district basis, to vote on the issue.

I'm sorry, but I have to come back to that. We embarked on a democratic process with our eyes wide open this time. Once the decision is taken, the least you can ask is for people to respect it. That is the least you can ask for.

If you look at Newfoundland as a whole, there are a number of small groups and the majority of them are not questioning the decision. Therefore, they are telling me as parents that other people want to do the same thing, that they want us to move forward.

The question was finally voted on. It cannot be voted on again. We voted on it twice and the result was the same both times. If you ask the question a third time, I imagine the result will be the same. Do we have to go on talking about this because there is a small minority of Pentecostals who say they do not want the system changed? Should we allow a small minority to destroy everything we want to do with the education system? Are they being prevented from continuing to practise their religion in their churches?

Senator Eymard Corbin: Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Mr. Benoit, Senator Corbin, Mr. DeVillers, Pierre Brien, Madam Caplan, Mr. Pagtakhan and Mr. Schmidt.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul DeVillers: A number of witnesses told us that the referendum question was not clear. Obviously that is not your view, but as regards the percentage of Catholics who voted for or against the resolution, you express the view in your brief that the Church did not conduct any polls because they knew what the answer would be.

As regards the clarity or lack of clarity of the question, first are you familiar with the polls? Who conducted these polls? And why was that not done?

Mr. Joe Benoit: I will read to you the question put to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador:

[English]

Do you support a single school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided?

[Translation]

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, it was quite clear. People said yes or no. There is no clearer question in the political system. I'm sorry, but when I made my decision as a parent, as far as I'm concerned, it was clear.

Senator Eymard Corbin: As regards whether people clearly understood the question, are you aware of the polls?

Mr. Joe Benoit: I can only answer that the majority of people with whom I spoke before voting told me that they were happy, that they wanted to go ahead. It was either yes or no. If the Church believes that the provincial result does not reflect the wishes of the Catholic population, it should address the issue within its own communities.

• 1910

I am a member of the Knights of Columbus. I would be pleased to call every home in my community. There are 400. A committee of 20 can easily do that in one day. If they do that in every community and examine the results... I would say to you that the results...

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I have to make two comments before asking my question. Some of the things I have heard here surprise me. It is regrettable that Ms. Folco is no longer here, but for the record I must correct something she stated earlier, when she said in the case of Quebec that the people did not understand the question.

When 94% of the population vote, I presume that they know what they are doing and that they will be deciding on an issue about which they took the time to obtain information. I consider that such statements reflect a lack of respect for the population concerned, and a lack of judgment. This applies to all referendums; in my view, the people voting know what they're doing.

As regards the linguistic minority, when you refer for example to New Brunswick and suggest that a referendum could remove minority rights thus leading to a problem, what did in fact happen? A number of references have been made in the committee to the case of New Brunswick. The possibility that such a thing could happen shows that there is a clear contradiction between the fundamental values of tolerance recognized in Quebec and the rest of Canada and the actual acceptance of minorities.

I am convinced that if we held a referendum in New Brunswick, people would agree with the status quo and that it would be the same in Quebec for the rights of anglophones: those in favour would win by a large margin. I am not a specialist on what happened during the Newfoundland referendum, but we might wonder whether a large number of people did not participate in the exercise.

In your opinion, what are the reasons for this? Would it be for historical reasons? Traditionally, people participate little in democratic exercises. Is this because a certain number of people are not concerned because they do not have children? I'd like to know what your hypotheses are to justify the fact that 47 per cent of people did not go to vote.

Mr. Joe Benoit: I think that you have answered the question by putting it to me. If I remember correctly, in a very few instances, in Newfoundland, we had more than 70 to 75 per cent of voters turned out. Therefore we can easily say that from 20 to 25 per cent don't give a hoot. If you don't take the time to vote, you don't have the right to speak out on a question; you do not even have the right to criticize the decisions which have been taken, because you did not do your democratic duty. You did not even take five minutes to go and vote.

Therefore, I would say that 20 to 25 per cent of people never vote, we never see them. This time, the fact that the Church contested the decision of the first referendum so strongly made the people completely disgusted with the system. They are saying that if the majority cannot decide on a question of this importance, without having a target group which is not even elected challenge the results, we can easily say that it is not worthwhile. And because of this, we lost a good 10 per cent. There are other people, as you say, who are not parents. And these people say, I have no children or grandchildren, so this does not concern me.

Senator Eymard Corbin: I am raising a question of privilege. Mr. Brien has completely distorted what I said.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I never quoted you.

Senator Eymard Corbin: You alluded to my statements, I was not talking about the referendum in New Brunswick. I wanted to make a comparison with a possible referendum in Newfoundland on the question of French schools, to make a parallel with the referendum on religious matters in schools in Newfoundland. That's all that I said. I think that you understood me at that time.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you, Senator Corbin. You've clarified your remarks.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I did not name you, but if you think that the hat fits you, then wear it.

Senator Eymard Corbin: You'll come to New Brunswick and I'll show you a few things.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Thank you for the invitation.

• 1915

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Perhaps, gentlemen, we can move on.

Madam Caplan, you have the floor.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much.

I appreciate your presentation.

Over the course of these hearings, one of the issues I've questioned presenters on was the question of the clarity of the question during the time of the referendum, although a referendum was not required for the purpose of this bilateral provision to change the term. However, we have an obligation to understand whether the people knew what their legislature was doing.

I personally was very impressed with the fact that it was a unanimous vote by all parties in the Newfoundland assembly, that even those constituencies with a large predominance of Roman Catholics and those where there was a large predominance of Pentecostals and others who were supportive—maybe they weren't supportive; we don't know, because we don't know how individuals voted, but they had been engaged, I think is the correct term, in the debate—had their representatives in the House of Assembly vote in support of the requested change to Term 17.

Tonight we've heard some discussion about the timing of the release of the question and whether that was significant in the understanding and the knowledge of the people who participated in the referendum. I was reviewing a speech by your premier that was given on July 31. You remember that speech.

Mr. Joe Benoit: I have it here.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You have it in front of you.

If you will bear with me, I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from page 6. In fact, if I could, let me go to page 5, where it starts, “The question would read”, and I quote:

Do you support a single school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided?

My first question to you is how different is that question from the one that ultimately was on the referendum ballot in Newfoundland?

Mr. Joe Benoit: I can't remember word for word what was on the ballot, but I know there was not that much difference in it. Basically I think people understood what was being voted on.

You asked about the timing of the question. In all honesty, ma'am, that's politics, pure and simple. I don't think the government of the day embarked on a very active campaign this time around, as they did the first time. They let the people decide. There was no playing on the government's part, or very little. There may have been what we call “back-room politics” going on. That's normal. It was taking part in every home in the province.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: On page 6 of the premier's speech, he went on to clarify what the question would mean. I was very impressed. It says:

You will note we talk about opportunities for religious education and observances. Let's be clear about what that means. It means an opportunity for religious education for all of our students...not on a denominational basis, but on the basis of approved curriculum common to all of our students.

A couple of paragraphs down, he says:

We're proposing a single school system with a provision for religious education for our students.

What will be the constitutional rights of the churches in such a new school system? There will be no constitutional rights for churches in the new school system. What we're proposing, quite simply, is that parents, not the churches, have the ultimate right and responsibility to direct their children's education.

So I would ask you this. This was the beginning of the debate. The referendum took place on September 2. It is your view that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador understood the question that was being asked and that all members of the assembly who ultimately voted following the referendum understood what the issue was, how the people had voted, and that the question had been clear in everyone's minds.

• 1920

Mr. Joe Benoit: I firmly believe that the answer is yes. As an educator, a number of parents came to me and asked me questions about the question. I explained it laymen's terms, and as far as I'm concerned, we couldn't have put it much more clearly than this.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: This is my last question. You said you were coming today as a parent and as an educator concerned about an education system that is becoming moribund. Those were your words.

Do you believe the motivation of all those who want change is for the highest-quality, most cost-effective education for children in a place that will encourage less divisiveness than you have experienced in your province before?

Mr. Joe Benoit: Even among the people who are strong no supporters, when you ask them what they want from an educational standpoint, you find that the written part is down on the bottom somewhere. They want to find out how their children are getting to school. They want to find out what courses are being offered in school. They want to find out what technology is in the school. They want to find out what special events will be going on in the school. But the type of religion in the school is at the bottom of their list, and that is because all of what's on top is what is important to a parent.

When my daughter graduates this year, the first and foremost question in my mind is, when she leaves Cap St. Georges and goes on to university in Moncton, will she be able to hold her own as a francophone with the rest of the francophones in the province and with those from the other provinces who come to Moncton? That is my first question. My second question is whether my daughter is inclined or capable of dealing with the new world of technology.

Those two things are the most important to me. Obviously, anglophone parents wouldn't worry about going to Moncton. They would worry about going to Memorial.

The fact that as many as 30% fail university in the first term of their first year—that's important. Does it mean our system didn't do its job? They are questioning that. That's a very important element.

Members of the panel, I think those are the most fundamental questions that parents are asking now. They want to put the rest of this aside, because it has been decided. Finish the process, propose the amendment to Parliament, and then let us get on with reorganizing and refurbishing a system that is in complete chaos right now.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you.

Mr. Pagtakhan has a quick one before running for a plane, and Mr. Schmidt will have the last word.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to put on record some words that I learned from my mother: what you can achieve through peace you do not achieve through war.

I'm repeating those words because I detected a passion in you during your presentation. You went on to say that the Catholic church is not respecting the democratic process, that the Catholic church is heading to the courts as though it is not part of democracy. You indicated that it continues to be dictatorial, that it fears the loss of power.

I suggest to you—I listened and heard your prayer, which is to pass the amendment—that when we have differences of opinion, let us conceive of it in the spirit of democracy, Christianity and multi-faith, that they are honest differences of opinion. When we do that, Mr. Benoit, I think we are advancing the spirit of what we are trying to do in the nation.

I will also put on record, Madam Chair, that I believe the Province of Newfoundland must find ways to financially support, when possible—we have to be realistic; perhaps not today but in the future—denominational schools in the form seen in other provinces in Canada. I will not preclude that as a possibility. We have no control over the future, as we had no control over what happened then, but now we are changing.

I would just like to leave the committee with this. When we think this way, perhaps we can achieve our hopes and prayers with much greater success and peace and prosperity.

• 1925

I thought, Madam Chair, I should leave those few words as I head for the airport.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Mr. Pagtakhan. Have a safe trip.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Madam Chair, may I respond?

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Yes, you certainly may, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Joe Benoit: We spoke about my reaction to the church going to court.

I am a member of the Catholic church, and 62% of my membership voted and said this was what they wanted. As a leader, I had the responsibility then to take the wish of the majority and pass it on as mine.

The church hasn't done that. The church used the wish of the minority as their sounding board. In a democracy, we know that's not the right way to do it. It will not build bridges, it will destroy them.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much. Mr. Schmidt is next.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I appreciate very much your appearance before the committee. I would like to ask you one simple question and then one that's not so simple.

If the amendment is passed and Term 17 as proposed becomes law, how will your school change from what it's doing today?

Mr. Joe Benoit: Sir, that's the simplest question to answer. As for the day-to-day running of most of the schools in the province in a rural district, it won't change anything. The major change will be seen in cities and towns, where you'll have a duplication of services. You'll have two high schools because you have two or three different faiths. That's where you'll see the difference.

My community is all Catholic, and they want to observe their Catholic upbringing. The guarantee is going to be there. Say people want to have a Christmas nativity scene. If parents want it, the school will provide it. It's not a problem.

The only difference will be in the cities. And when it comes to shrinking tax dollars, I think it's high time we did that.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: If I hear you correctly, then, you're telling us that Term 17 will change nothing.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Yes, it will, sir. It will get the clergy out of administering the schools in order to leave it to the elected people who should be there.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Then I have a question of clarification. Are there not elected school boards now?

Mr. Joe Benoit: There are, sir, but the clergy are appointed automatically. As you know, when it comes to voicing opinions, the clergy is never at a loss for words. They can certainly swing votes because they are clergy.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I don't think you're at a loss for words either.

Mr. Joe Benoit: No, sir. That's one of the reasons I decided to come here. I'm vocal, and I think it's time for leaders in our community to get on the bandwagon and say enough is enough is enough. If our word as a populace cannot be upheld by any member of any government anywhere else, then democracy doesn't exist in Canada.

I put it to you that it does exist. I have faith in the system. I'm in a system in which I teach democracy and law, and I think it can work.

As a member of this committee, all you have to do is give us what we ask for, which is the recommendation for amending Term 17, and then let us do our job in our province.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Chair, I think I made my point on that issue.

I have a number of other points, but I think the issue I would like to really clarify here is this: is the issue primarily one of individual rights or class rights, or is the issue one of another group taking over power in the schools?

Mr. Joe Benoit: When we hold school board elections, let's say for example that a school board has nine members. There could be nine members elected by the people in a certain area to run things for the school, to take the administrative powers on a regional level to the schools in that district. If the clergy want to be part of that process, then they should embark on a campaign to get voted in like everybody else does. There's the fact that they will no longer be able to tell people that this is the way it's going to be done. They said it was that way because it was their school and they were in charge of it, yet they weren't elected. That's when we have danger.

Now as it stands, when you have all people elected, at least we have a better chance of respecting the decisions being made. Decisions will be made by people we have there to represent us.

I don't know if I answered your question, sir.

• 1930

Mr. Werner Schmidt: No, you haven't.

Madam Chair, he did not answer the question. The point here is very simple: there are elected school boards now.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Yes, sir.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: And there will be elected school boards in the future. The fact that there may be a stronger influence on one group than on another group is rather a different issue. We ought to be very clear that if we're going to talk about democracy, we'd better talk about democracy as it applies all the way through, not as it suits us at a particular point in time.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt.

Thank you very much, Mr. Benoit. You have certainly ended the evening on a very feisty note, and we're very grateful that you came to Ottawa to speak to us. Thank you.

Mr. Joe Benoit: Thank you very much.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. The information package that we received from the Newfoundland government and the memo that came with it indicated that this was information from through the referendum period. There is no date on the two pages of clarification questions and answers attached, but I see a date on the sheet I have, which has identical questions and answers, and it is September 4, which would be after the referendum period. So could we clarify whether or not this information was released after the referendum? The other one suggests it might have been released before the referendum.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): We will do that for you, Mr. Goldring.

May I also say before we adjourn that the documents that we all were anxious to get earlier in the day have arrived. They are here. I should tell the committee they were certainly not in any conscious way withheld. There was a human element here that didn't work. So we now have them.

We also have a commitment from Mr. Hutchings to be here first thing tomorrow morning to take questions. It was basically his document. We spoke to Senator Kinsella before he left, and it's agreeable to him. If that is agreeable, then Mr. Hutchings will make himself available tomorrow morning.

Meanwhile, we will have them distributed, and everybody else will have theirs as well.

Thank you very much. It has been a long day. I appreciate the contribution of everybody.