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]

Tuesday, November 25, 1997

• 1538

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, thank you very much for again assembling here for the ninth meeting of the Special Joint Committee on the Amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland—and, I might point out, Labrador.

We have a very special afternoon planned for today. This is a process that several members of this committee have long awaited with much anticipation. We're joined using the advantages of teleconference communications and videoconferencing technology.

Before we begin, I will just put down a few suggestions for members. With respect to the technology that we're employing here, what I want members to do is treat this television camera that we see in front of us as a person. In other words, every time you speak to the witnesses, ask questions and hear responses, maintain a focus on the television set. The reason is that it's the image they're seeing. By focusing in on the television set, you're looking directly at the witnesses. If you look at me, the witnesses are looking at the back of your heads. A couple of other things: you don't have to articulate too much, but if you could, please speak slowly and clearly and, on the other line, they will be able to pick up everything we have to say.

You have a quick question?

Ms Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Do we have working translation for these people as well?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That's a very good question. They will be picking up the translation from our end.

With that said, we are broadcasting to and from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. We have with us Mr. John Whelan, a student from Brother Rice High School; Mr. Eugene Vaters from Pentecostal Collegiate High School—

• 1540

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): No? I'm sorry about that.

Ms Robyn Lamswood (Student, Eugene Vaters Pentecostal Collegiate High School): I'm Robyn Lamswood from Eugene Vaters.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Yes, Robyn Lamswood, a student from Eugene Vaters Pentecostal Collegiate High School. I apologize for that. I didn't attend that school.

From Booth Memorial we have Jennifer Bragg, Erin Riche, and Tara Snelgrove, who are students at Booth.

I just want to give you all a very personal welcome and to say thank you very much for taking the time to be with us. I know it's a little later there than it is here in Ottawa; it's your supper hour right now.

Members of the committee, we're going to take this opportunity to have these five young people give us, in a succinct presentation—they do not have a written brief—some of their views about the amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland as it relates to denominational rights.

This is a very open process, members. As you are aware, we won't be hearing from witnesses who have particular expertise in the subject from legal or constitutional points of view. We want to hear from young people.

In other words, we want to hear from you, young men and women. We'll turn the microphone and the camera over to you. If you've delegated a starter, you may proceed. We're all ears and we're all eyes.

Mr. John Whelan (Vice-president, Student Council, Brother Rice High School): Thank you very much. Good evening to the committee. I'd like to keep my points brief, if I can. It's a very important issue to me.

The first thing I'd like to say is that the voter turnout for the referendum was not acceptable for causing a change in the constitution of Newfoundland and Labrador. If I could, I would now like to read out some of the percentages of voter turnout. These are a few numbers selected at random from the voter turnout: 45%, 47%, 49%, 41%, 38%, 30%, 58% and 52%. And the overall voter turnout was 53%. This is not acceptable.

I hate to say it and I hate to sound like a stick in the mud and everything like that, but in order to propose such a change to the constitution of Newfoundland and Labrador, our agreement that we made in 1949, this is not acceptable. Just a little over half of the population turned out to vote. How can we possibly base an amendment to our constitution on a vote by a little over half of the people?

Another main issue in this is choice. It's a choice for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a choice for the parents and to a certain extent a choice for the students as to whether or not they go to a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or non-denominational school. It's up to them. That is a choice.

Another point is one that some people brought up during the referendum. Some people said their sons or daughters don't like to be away from their friends when they're at school. But I have several friends...and for some of you this might go right past your heads. I live on Whiteway Street, which is far away from Cowan Heights, let's say. If I have a friend in Cowan Heights, then there's no way in heck I'm going to be able to go to school with my friend from Cowan Heights simply because....

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We'll try again.

• 1543

• 1544

Senator William C. Doody (Harbour Main-Bell Island, PC): ...the committee was communicating with Ottawa.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Actually, Senator, I was about to say that I've always difficulty communicating with St. John's.

Senator William Doody: That's right. It's just an extension of the same problem.

A voice: We apologize. We've lost the phone line to Newfoundland. We're trying to re-establish it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay. Oh, here we go. We had a brief interruption in the transmission. We may get a brief interruption again.

Mr. Whelan.

Mr. John Whelan: Okay. I didn't touch any buttons.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Whelan: As I was saying before, if a person lives away from me in town, wherever it may be, then I'm not going to be able go to school with them. It's for geographical and socio-economic reasons that people are changed from school to school. Religion is just one of those reasons. It's a choice for the parents and for the students as to whether or not they want to go to a Catholic school.

• 1545

I do go to a Catholic school, a very Catholic school, and I love the teachers, and I'd like to take some time to explain why I believe denominational education is good for the people of our province.

We learn about history, we learn about our culture, and we learn everything about that from such courses as cultural heritage 2201—or something, I don't know what. We learn everything like that, but what are we shown? We're shown that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador—and this is one thing I've learned through that time—are a very strongly religious people. We might not go to church every Sunday, we might not pray on our knees every night, we might not be extremely God-fearing people, but we do have faith in God and we do have everything like that.

I might sound like the minister up on Sundays, but it's true, and we have to learn about these things, because if we don't, there's one simple word that can describe us: ignorant. We're being ignorant about our people, we're being ignorant about our past, and to a certain degree we're being ignorant about our future by bringing on such a quick change, such a rash change, which is brought about by—I don't want to mention any names, now, but we all know who was in power a few years ago—by a person who, frankly, I believe did not have the students, the future, the children of the future....

We're the future. Sitting at this table now here in St. John's, we are the future of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does not have us in mind. All they care about is the dollars they can save going through this, how much money they can save and maybe throw into a pension fund, because a lot of people in the government are very fond of pensions.

I'd like to clew up by saying that the voter turnout for this referendum, for this amendment to the constitution, was nowhere nearly as acceptable as it should have been. If 53% of my friends said let's go to A&W for lunch, I would not go to A&W for lunch, because 53% is not enough to bring around drastic change.

Another point is that it's the choice of the people. When I have kids, it's my choice whether or not I want to send my kid to a Catholic school or to a public school, and the choice should remain mine. Whether or not that choice is mine depends on this today, depends on your committee. Whether or not this choice is ours or whether or not our students are forced, forced to go into a school where they don't learn about their ancestry, their religion, is drastic and it's.... I'm sorry, I just lost my train of thought.

So I would like to clew up by saying that this is unacceptable and in no way should this pass in the House of Commons. It sounded like a good idea at first. It sounded like a good idea when Clyde Wells brought it up, but now it just sounds like a whole load of something, Gerry, and we can all figure out what that load is. Unless this is stopped right now in the House, unless you put a stop to this, I fear what will happen to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I fear it drastically. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much, John. I want to remind you that my name is Gerry Byrne, not Gerry Boyle, and if you can mark an X you are my kind of people.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, John. You have obviously internalized this particular issue.

What we'll do is move on to some of your colleagues who are sitting around the table. We'll return to a question-and-answer period in a few minutes. But if we could hear from Ms Lamswood, we'll let Ms Lamswood have a few words.

Ms Robyn Lamswood: I don't have a prepared speech.

Mr. John Whelan: I didn't have a prepared speech either.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The microphone is yours. If you don't feel comfortable, if you'd rather engage in a question-and-answer period, that's perfectly acceptable. But this is an opportunity, if you have a few things you'd like to say. There's absolutely no pressure here. We're just here to listen, and you say whatever you feel like saying.

Ms Robyn Lamswood: Thank you, sir.

I have to disagree with you. This is a very, very pressing issue and I'm glad to have the opportunity to share my feelings with you this evening and the feelings of my school.

I did prepare a little talk, we'll say, as to what needs to be said, and I'm going to let it go from there.

• 1550

I have to agree with my friend about the 53% to bring about such a change. This type of change dealing with such intimate issues of our lives isn't just going to lead to a change in education; it's going to lead to a change in lifestyle and a change in society.

I think that both sides of this debate want the same thing—as a youth I hope this—and that is to have the best possible education system for this province. So only one question remains: does this best educational system mean the termination of denominational schools? It doesn't have to.

We all know that money is something we don't have enough of, especially not enough to waste, and in the recent past the revamp of the education system has been a very prominent issue in our government and in our media.

Both the government and the churches of the province have made proposals, and I must point out that these financial proposals have been nearly identical. Changing the constitution is not going to save us money. It is going to mean the loss of financial support from our churches, and who needs the loss of financial support? Certainly not the province of Newfoundland.

On buses, school boards and teachers the churches are open to negotiation in terms of cost-efficiency. So let's move on and talk about quality education. Does it become more attainable in a non-denominational system? Certainly not! Actually, my school, Eugene Vaters Pentecostal Collegiate, is known for its high academics. The students of Newfoundland can compete with the rest of Canada. It was only a little while back that Education Minister Chris Decker revealed the results of the Canadian test of basic skills taken by all Newfoundland grade 7 students, and these results exceeded the national number in both mathematics and study skills. How well Newfoundland students are doing is not being thought of enough. People are only seeing the negative.

Education reform is necessary in some means, but that doesn't mean trampling on the rights of minority groups. Students in Newfoundland need to learn not only math and science, English and social studies, but also moral and spiritual growth. This is the aspect of education that can be better fulfilled by a denominational school system.

I don't know if you guys remember how much time you spent in school, but youth spend 13 years of their childhood, 13 years of their lives, in school, and while they're there they spend up to six hours a day in school. I spend probably 10 hours a day in school because of all the things I'm part of, but it's up to six hours a day in school. That changes them from a child to an adolescent and from a teenager to a young adult. It's a lot of time and that's a lot of changes, and when they leave they are then expected to be responsible social and, most importantly, moral individuals. Who in an non-denominational system is expected to instil this morality?

The denominational school system is going to provide students with academic, social, and spiritual growth. I have to ask you, how is this a bad thing?

Of course, the larger issue above all of this is the issue of minority rights. The government wanted to first revamp bussing. Fine. Then it was to reduce school boards. Good idea. All these money-saving issues are wonderful because it means that when I get out of school I'm going to have, hopefully, a better economy to back me up.

But these practical changes didn't seem to be enough. Now they want complete control. It is as though the churches and the people of this province are irrelevant, and to go to the issue of the referendum of September 1997 it was, to put it very lightly and in the words of Hugh Segal from the Financial Post,“liberalism at its worst”. And at its worst it indeed was. Each uncast vote considered a vote for a non-denominational system—what's with that?

That's not democracy, and I think we can all see through what that was. If we take the rights away now of Pentecostals and Roman Catholics, what is going to be next? Is it going to be natives, homosexuals or Hindu? In five years, am I going to look at this country and think, well, the rights of all these groups and their individuality are now extinct?

• 1555

If we all preserve the rights of our minority groups today, the mosaic of Canada is going to be gone. That is why it is so important. We don't need to change Term 17. It's fine the way it is. The way it is, it's preserving our rights and preserving what Canada is.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. Always good to hear a quote from Hugh Segal.

We'll move now to Jennifer Bragg.

If you don't have a prepared brief, that's perfectly acceptable. As I said, we're here to listen. We're here to hear your ideas, your thoughts, and your views about this particular amendment which Parliament is now reviewing. Jennifer, you have the floor.

Ms Jennifer Bragg (Student, Booth Memorial): I would like to bring my greetings to the committee on behalf of myself and my school, Booth Memorial. I didn't come with a prepared brief. Neither did my colleagues from the school. I came to express my opinion through a question-and-answer period. If any of my colleagues has something they would like to say otherwise, and if that would be okay with you, I would like to move into a question-and-answer period.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That's perfectly acceptable. Do the other two, Erin and Tara, want to proceed with questions, or do they want to take a few minutes to say a few words?

Ms Jennifer Bragg: Tara would like to say a few words, and so would Erin. It's not that I don't have anything to say, trust me.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): You have the floor.

Ms Tara Snelgrove (Student, Booth Memorial): I go to Booth Memorial. As my friend said, we didn't have.... I found out about this at about 9 a.m., so I don't really have anything prepared.

I just wanted to say I think a non-denominational school system would be better. I don't think religion should decide which school you go to.

There are four high schools within a block of each other, and who goes where depends on what religion they are. I don't think that's really fair. It's basically discriminating: you can't go there because you're not Catholic, or you can't go there because you are Catholic. I don't think that's fair.

I do think courses in religious studies should be available. Perhaps they could count as a graduation credit. You have to do two world studies credits in issues or economy or something like that, but you could also have an optional, not mandatory, course in religious studies that could count toward your graduation. If you're interested in it and you feel you have some background or think you will do well in the course, you can take it and benefit from it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Very good, Tara. That's fine. You mentioned that Erin had a few words she wanted to say.

Ms Erin Riche (Student, Booth Memorial): I just wanted to say I don't believe religion should have any place in school except where, as Tara said, it would speak of the many religions the world over. The students could then have an understanding of the world rather than just the religion their parents or their school want to teach them about.

I think having separate denominational schools is a form of segregation that is not good in any form. Once we get out of school we are going to be working with people who are Catholic, who are Pentecostal, who are Jewish, who are Jehovah's Witnesses. I think it's very important to be able to work with these people and to understand their religion and their beliefs while we're in high school together.

It's ridiculous to keep separated. The most important thing here is that we all get an equal, good education.

• 1600

That's pretty much it. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Very good. That's perfectly fine.

We're going to start in with the question-and-answer period. That's where members of either the House of Commons or the Senate will direct a specific question to one of the individuals or we'll just ask a general question and give you an opportunity to respond.

One of the things I would ask is that you try to keep your answers as brief as possible, without restricting your ability to answer the question. As you can imagine, we are relatively pressed for time, but we do want to hear from everybody and try to get as many questions answered as possible.

First, I just want to hear what you think. Is this videoconferencing idea working? Do you feel comfortable with this? I ask that generally in the room.

Ms Erin Riche: I think it is, because you're not actually in front of a big group of people. It's kind of intimidating when everybody is there, but talking to a TV screen is a lot easier, I must say.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): This is probably the shot we'll use for questions and answers, because we see all five of you and we can hear all five of you, I presume.

So I'll now open the floor to questions and answers. We'll start with Mr. Rompkey, please.

Senator William H. Rompkey (North West River, Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being with us and thank you for speaking to us. I have a couple of questions. The first one is with regard to the voter turnout, the 53%. I just wanted to remind all of us that in the referendum that brought Newfoundland into Confederation, the vote—not the turnout, but the vote itself—was about 52%. In the last federal election also, the voter turnout was about 52% or 53% in the province—around the same percentage.

I wonder if you want to comment about that. You seemed to indicate you thought that was a low turnout for such an important decision, and it is, but I wanted to point out that other decisions have been taken with the same sorts of figures.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Would anyone like to comment on that particular point?

Ms Robyn Lamswood: I would love to comment on that point, actually. I was just thinking to myself, yes, if the turnout had been 53% and the votes were counted as is—one vote for yes, one vote for no—then that's one issue. But then when you get all the uncast votes being put a certain way, obviously the vote is no longer fair, to put it quite simply.

In an instance like that, some people who may have wanted to or would have voted yes for the non-denominational school system may have just not gone out to vote, because they knew if they didn't go, their vote would be turned for that side anyway. There are too many people who just don't care about what happens; they could go either way. Does that mean for those people who don't care, those people who do care and those people who have a specific stand...one side gets a huge advantage?

Mr. John Whelan: As a comment to what the last speaker from Ottawa said, 53% is our usual voter turnout. I'm not saying that's a good thing; it's a bad thing. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a bad thing with votes. We don't like to go out and vote. We don't like to have our opinions heard.

However, there's a big difference—and I hate to sound like a hypocrite, and I know this sounds very bad—between electing the federal government and changing the constitution of our province. It is unacceptable to go ahead and make a constitutional change—not just voting someone in for four years, but a constitutional change, an almost permanent change to our constitution—with a 53% voter turnout.

A voice: Exactly.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you.

Ms Erin Riche: That's the reason the vote was so low: Newfoundlanders don't like change. I'm sure we can all admit to that, can't we, in some way?

• 1605

My grandparents live with me. My father told my grandmother that today was the day to vote on the Term 17 amendments for the non-denominational school system, on whether we want it or whether we don't. She looked at my father and said, “Why change it? Why vote? You know it's not going to change anyway. It's going to stay the same way. Why change it?”

Ms Tara Snelgrove: But that's not the point; it's the turnout. The people who showed up are the people who care about it. Those who don't show up, it's too bad for them. If they don't have an opinion, then they don't have an opinion, so they don't vote. If they wanted to vote, or if they thought it was important for them to vote, they would have.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That's a good first round. One of the things I will note is that we have a good discussion going on in that room there, and I think that's a very good thing. But just so that we can try to get in as many questions as possible, if members will agree—and it's a good way to proceed if you want to jump in one after the other—all I ask is that you respect each other's opinions. Let's have a good, open discussion. We sometimes cut each other off in this Parliament, but you probably know better.

Ms Folco.

[Translation]

Ms Raymonde Folco: I would like to thank everyone for being with us today. There are a number of comments I would like to make, and I will do so in English because I think that will help to communicate my message more easily.

[English]

First of all, somebody asked, what is democracy? You felt that the fact that 53% of the population of Newfoundland voted was not a sufficient sign of democracy. My answer to that—and I'd like your reaction to it—is that if 47% of the population felt they did not want to vote, or didn't go to vote for whatever reason, that also is democracy. That also is a sign of people doing what it is they want to do. There are countries that force people to vote. Canada is not one of those countries. In our type of democracy, people have a choice of whether or not they want to vote.

Now, once those people have decided not to vote, we still have to listen to those people who took the trouble to go to the voting box and put the piece of paper in.

So I would argue that this is democracy. The unfortunate thing is that for some of the reasons that you yourselves gave, people don't want to go and vote. Perhaps they don't want a change.

That brings me to my second point, which is that from what I heard from the various presentations around the table in St. John's it seems everybody is rooting for the kind of education that they have received to continue.

Mr. Whelan, from a Roman Catholic high school, from what I understand, would like the kind of division between the different types of schools to continue in the system that he knows best. Then I go to the other end and listen to two young ladies, Tara and Erin, who both come from an integrated school, say that they they would like to continue in the kind of schools they know best.

What I see here is people who understand their own system and want to continue in their own system. From what I understand, from my side of things—and I come from Quebec—a continuation is really not the best thing for Newfoundland.

The third point I'd like to make is on the role of the church. Two people brought up the fact that if religion was to be withdrawn from the schools or if the schools were not to be run along denominational lines, that would withdraw religion from the schools, on the one hand, and someone, I think Robyn Lamswood, asked who then is supposed to instil this morality if the school doesn't?

The obvious answer to me, from my side of the table, is that it seems to me that the church and the family have a great deal of responsibility in this. The fact that the school no longer does it in the way it has been done in the past doesn't mean that religion is no longer important in your lives. It means that the responsibility remains where, in my opinion, it should always have been—that is, with the church and with your families. The school itself remains a neutral ground except, as the amendment has stated, where, if the parents want, you can have some kind of religious education.

I have brought up three important points here: your own experience being the beginning and perhaps, it seems to me, the end of your own argument; the role of the church with regard to religion and morality, with morality and religion—and I don't want to go too far here—not always being exactly the same thing; and the third, what you consider to be democracy.

Thank you very much.

• 1610

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Would anybody like to respond to any of those three points? Just decide amongst yourselves who will lead off.

Mr. John Whelan: Going to a Roman Catholic school as I do, I think the major thing is that it's not as simple as taking a religion course or not taking a religion course. It's the culture, it's the feeling, it's the way the school became within itself.

I walk through the halls everyday. I'm the vice-president, and people come up to me and people are smiling in school. I'm not saying they don't smile in a non-denominational or a multidenominational school. What I'm saying is that it's the atmosphere and the beliefs and the things that are promoted within a Catholic school—justice, fairness, and everything like that—that makes the school a great place to learn. It make the school a great place to be.

I went to another Catholic school that wasn't as much a “Catholic” school. It was like you went there from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and you got out of there as quickly as you could. But I go to Brother Rice now, and I'm in this great school. It's a great Catholic school, and I love going there. I go there, and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. passes in a flash, but I'm there until 4.30 or 5 o'clock everyday, because it's just such a great place to be.

It's not just because we're a good school. It has a lot to do with the ideas and the beliefs that are promoted within the school.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay. Did somebody from the other side of the table want to throw in a few points on any of the three comments that Mrs. Folco raised?

Ms Tara Snelgrove: I would just like to say that our school is warm and loving and full of wonderful things, too. I don't think religion plays a big part in that. I think it's the feeling of your school. It's a second home. I'm sure we all feel the same way about ours.

A witness: I do too.

Ms Tara Snelgrove: I would also like to add that it's not just the students who are suffering from denominational schools. Teachers in Catholic and Pentecostal schools are hired because of their religious beliefs, not because of their qualifications or experience. My parents are both teachers. I know that even with their experience and their education, they would never, ever be hired in a Pentecostal school or a Catholic school, whereas if a Catholic or Pentecostal teacher applied for a job in an integrated school, whether or not they were hired would be dependent upon their education and experience, not their religion. It wouldn't even be looked at.

I don't think it's very fair to choose your teachers based upon religious beliefs. They could convert if they wanted to, just to get a job.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): What about the question of religion in the classroom generally speaking, which was one of the points Mrs. Folco raised? Should there be any religious instruction, if we're to move to this amendment, or should there not be? We'll just throw the question open.

Ms Robyn Lamswood: With the amount of time people spend in schools, it's just not acceptable to leave religion up to the church and up to the family. We spend too much time around our peers, around our teachers, and in our schools. We therefore have to have some kind of not only religious education but religious atmosphere, as John was saying earlier.

Not everyone who goes to my school is Pentecostal—I would say that only a little over half are Pentecostal—but those beliefs are carried over into everyday life. There are certain expectations, there are certain things you can do and you cannot do, certain things about how you treat someone and how you respect someone. I really, truly believe that comes from the base and the structure of our school being one of a Pentecostal nature.

Ms Tara Snelgrove: I respect my colleague's comment, but I think it should be optional for the students. I personally don't come from a very religious home, but some of my friends do. If some of my friends decided they wanted to do a course in religion, then it should be there for them to take it. There should also be a course set up having to do with not just Christianity but every religion around the world, global, for them to benefit from as they would like to.

I wouldn't personally take the course, not because I'm against religion or not because I don't believe in God or anything, because I do. I just don't think it should be relevant to education. If you want to get education about religion, you should be able to go to your church or from your family and your beliefs should be instilled then instead of at your school through required course lists or whatever.

• 1615

Ms Erin Riche: I come from a fairly religious background. My family goes to church as a family—the four of us, myself, my brother and my two parents—every Sunday. I don't think religion is something that should be pressed upon anybody. I've never been in the Catholic system, but being in a school that is classified by religion I honestly don't think is right, because religion is a personal thing, as I've said before.

If religion is going to be offered in the school, it should be offered in the school not as a means of getting someone to practise their religion more often but to discover and learn more about different world religions, to get a better understanding of everybody who's in the world.

The class I'm doing at school now is an ethical choices class. It's not really a religion course, but it's along the same terms. Right now we're studying the differences between Islam and Christianity and comparing Islam and Christianity. It's a fairly good course to take in order to do that kind of thing.

I think that's the kind of religion course that should be offered in schools, because most of the wars and disturbances between countries, mostly civil wars actually, are brought about on the basis of different religions. If we understand different religions, we can better understand our differences and maybe see them in a different light. Instead of seeing that one religion is different from another, we can see the similarities.

Ms Robyn Lamswood: That's a good point. In my school we have a course that's called world religions. But what if it's my choice to study Christianity? I want it to be my choice whether or not I want to go to a Catholic school or Pentecostal school, and I'm sure John wants it to be his choice whether or not he is forced to go to the school next door or if he has that choice to go to his Catholic school. I don't think that choice should be taken away from us.

I know I've said it before, and I will continue to say it: it's such a huge part of our life. If I want to choose to learn about Christianity and to learn about world religions, but be part of that school, it should be my choice. I should have that choice.

Ms Erin Riche: I think religion is religion and education is education.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I appreciate very much the comments and, quite frankly, appreciate the fact that you're having a very frank discussion amongst yourselves.

I'll now go to Mr. Doyle, who's the member of Parliament for St. John's East. He's going to offer up a question or two.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): I'm going to direct my question to John first, and then anyone who wishes to comment on it may do so. The reason I'm directing to John is that he told me he lives on Whiteway Street. I just found out I live about 200 feet away from him, on Baltimore Street.

You mentioned that a lot of people didn't get out to vote in the election. Do you believe that the people of Newfoundland were well informed on the issue before actually voting on it? I ask this because this new Term 17 was a very complicated issue and the term itself was released to the public only 16 hours before the advance polls opened. I'm wondering if you feel the people in Newfoundland and Labrador were well informed or not.

Mr. John Whelan: I personally feel that Brian Tobin and his government were in a mad rush to get Term 17 out and passed as quickly as they possibly could. On the day the referendum was voted on I was in the car with my cousin. I said, “Frankie, did you get out and vote today?” What did he say? He said, “What, the elections are today?”

• 1620

They were in this mad, mad rush to get the election done so fast that they forgot. I'm not saying it was entirely Brian Tobin's fault, because he has a government underneath him, somewhat. I'm not saying it's anyone's fault in particular. But the population in general wasn't informed enough on when and where they could vote.

As you said, Term 17 was really out 16 hours before the advance polls opened. I myself haven't even seen Term 17 yet. I've been around. I've been to all kinds of places.

Gerry, in your own jurisdiction—some of you have been to St. Mary's—only 46% of the voters turned out; and these are deeply...people. I've been there. I have roots in St. Mary's. I go out there all the time and I talk to people. They are very angry at what the government is trying to pull on them. It's trying to pull the wool over their eyes. They are saying they wish they had got out to vote, and we're asking why they didn't get out to vote.

I'm not saying because they didn't get out to vote we take Term 17 and we burn it for what it is. No, we don't do that. I'm saying that where numbers warrant and where facilities exist we should set up Catholic and Protestant and whatever other religions exist within Newfoundland and Labrador schools—where numbers warrant.

I'm not saying the government should go out and set up religious schools for places where there are only 50 religious people within a town. I'm not saying that. But I know for a fact that last year when Brother Rice High School put the question to the parents, 70% of the parents at Brother Rice High School said yes, they wanted it to remain a Catholic school. That's what you had voting in this referendum: 70% of the people, 70% of the 53%, voted yes, we want this to happen, but 70% of 100% of people in the school said yes, we want to remain a Catholic school.

In places such as this where facilities and where numbers warrant, I say let them remain Catholic schools. Let's not let this destroy a major part of our culture and our heritage.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The question was, did people understand the referendum question that was held on September 2? Do we have any other views, or similar views, on whether or not people understood the referendum question—particularly you young people, whether or not you understood exactly what the referendum question was on September 2?

Ms Erin Riche: I didn't understand it at the time, and I'm not quite sure I understand it right now. I don't think the people of Newfoundland were informed and were given enough information on what they were supposed to vote for. So I do agree with John and the statements he did make.

Ms Robyn Lamswood: Not only did people not understand the question, but many people didn't know the question existed. If you have seen Brian Tobin looking to get elected, there is no way he would come out with: “Oh, by the way, this is election day.” He would be publicizing months and months ahead: “Get out and vote, come vote Liberal, Liberal all the way.” But no, it was here one week and the next week it was gone. No one knew it was ever in place. No one ever knew the question. No one understood the question. There was not enough education and there was not enough publicity.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to move now to Mr. Goldring.

Do you have a question for these witnesses?

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to comment that the future looks pretty bright in St. John's.

John, I understand your position on democracy very clearly. I have a question for Robyn from the Pentecostal.

Robyn, maybe you could give us your opinion, since the Pentecostal received their constitutional protection for religious education most recently, in 1987. Maybe you could expand and tell us what you think of having to lose the constitutional privileges or rights that were granted to you—having to lose them not by the will of the Pentecostal community but by the will of the overall majority.

Ms Robyn Lamswood: I guess the view of most Pentecostal parents, the view of the Pentecostal community, is that it was as if someone took the rights and just blew them away. They were there for a passing period, but no, no, we're going to take them back again.

• 1625

It all goes back to the minority rights and whether or not they exist in this country, which is not a melting pot but a country where all these smaller groups have their distinctions. But do they really if you all have to go together and be the same and go to the same school and practise the same thing?

Someone said earlier that education and religion are separate, but they're not. They're not separate. The community members base their lives on this overall belief in God. You can't separate that from going to work and eating dinner. It all overlaps each other. That's why you can't just take religion out of the schools like that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment?

Ms Tara Snelgrove: I'd just like to say that I don't feel that our school, the one we go to that's integrated, makes everyone the same. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. I believe it would be more the case that Pentecostal and Catholic schools have everyone the same.

Our school, being integrated, has lots of different religions and our friends are all of different religions. That doesn't pose a problem for us. It's just accepted. It's just the way it is. We don't talk about religion at lunchtime. It's not important. We all have our own religions. We go home, we practise them and we respect each other's religion. That's just the way it is.

Ms Jennifer Bragg: The respect is there.

Ms Tara Snelgrove: Yes.

Ms Jennifer Bragg: At least in our community it is. Eventually we're going to have to go out into the workforce and we're going to have to deal with people of different religions. By being put together, we're not being asked to be the same and to all do the same thing and follow the same religion. We're just asked to respect the other people's religions and deal with them and work with them. We're looking past that. We're looking at the person rather than at what religion the person represents.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much.

Mr. John Whelan: I disagree totally with your statement. It's almost like we're back in communist Russia, where the government said, “Now listen, this is the religion you're to practise. You're going to practise this religion, and if you don't, we're going to shoot you.”

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Whelan: It's just like the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador saying, “This is our cookie cutter. We're going to punch this into you. You're going to come out exactly as we want and you are not going to learn anything about religion. It's up to your parents. The school is going to have nothing to do with it. The place we'll be sending you to learn about things is not going to teach you what you need to know.”

It's more than just math. It's more than just science. It's more than just literature. We have to have some sort of religious background so we know where we come from, where we're going and what our people did.

We're not training people to go out...it's not like you're going to Brother Rice High School and every single day for every single minute we drill it into your head to hate Protestants and to hate Jewish people.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Whelan: We're not saying that. We say that there are people in this world and you respect them. That is what Catholicism—there's a big word—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Whelan: —teaches. That's what we teach in our school. We teach respect for other people. Respect is a major thing in the Catholic faith. We don't go out and say that if they're not you, hate them. We're not teaching people to go out, as Adolf Hitler once did, to put people in these camps and kill them. No, we're not saying that.

What we're saying is, yes, you're going to learn about your Catholic faith; yes, you're going to do this; and no, you are not going to hate the other people of the world because you went to a separate school. A Catholic school, I believe—because that's where my entire family went—gives you a great perspective on the world. It gives you a great perspective on other people.

I myself am now doing religion course 1108, and it is a great course. It's teaching me all about Israel and everything like that, and Jewish people. It's teaching me respect for all their customs and everything like that, so I'm no longer ignorant about the things that I once was ignorant about.

It is these things, these things.... And Gerry's laughing at me, and so is the other guy; they're laughing at me for the way I'm talking right now.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I have to do that. We're trying to give everybody a fair chance here. But one of the things we have to strike a deal with each other on is that you have to stop pounding on the desk, because you're cutting out the microphone. Every time you pound on the desk the microphone seems to cut out. You can say whatever you want here as long as you respect the other people sitting around the table with you. The one thing I do ask of you is that you stop pounding on the desk. I very much appreciate your comments.

Mr. Pagtakhan is next, followed by Ms Caplan.

Mr. Pagtakhan, perhaps you could keep the comments brief, because we want to hear from the students.

• 1630

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Yes, indeed.

I'd just like to pose a few questions directly to all of you.

First, what religious observances do you feel are most important to you?

Next, if a course in religion not specific to a denomination were to be offered, how many of you would take the course?

The last question is: are you aware that the referendum is not a requirement for amending the constitution? It was something that was done by the legislative assembly, but it's not a requirement to change Term 17 as an amendment to the constitution.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Is there anybody who would like to respond?

Ms Tara Snelgrove: Booth Memorial High School celebrates Christmas and Easter. Don't we? Remembrance Day is not really a church event, but we celebrate it all the same in a religious way, more or less, because we go over to the Salvation Army chapel.

We celebrate Christmas not in a church sense, but we have a school assembly in which Scriptures are read on the birth of Christ, and pamphlets are given out throughout the student body. Whether or not they're read is another question. There's a lot left on the floor after the assemblies, though.

At Easter, we do relatively the same thing.

Ms Robyn Lamswood: As for which religious observances are important and which are not, I think that pretty much all of our schools observe the same holidays because we're all coming from Christian schools, even though these girls over here are going to an integrated school with the Salvation Army, United Church, and Anglican faith. That's still in a Christian form. I think that in our school our biggest and most important religious observance would be Easter.

Look at the Christian faith. I don't know if you need me to explain it to you. I don't know if you guys are Christian or not, but that is the largest—with Christmas of course—and biggest holiday that we do celebrate. I can't imagine, come Easter time, not having Good Friday off. These things could be taken away if the system were to be changed to give us spring break. Is that always going to give me Good Friday to go to church and spend that time that I need as an individual with my faith?

What was the other question about denominations?

Ms Erin Riche: Can the second and third questions be addressed again?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Would you opt to register for courses in religion not specific to a denomination?

A witness: Yes, I would.

A witness: Yes, I would too.

Ms Jennifer Bragg: If it was about all religions, not just Christianity or one particular faith, I would join it and register.

Mr. John Whelan: This brings up an interesting point. There are so many diverse religions in the world; how can you possibly have a course that teaches all about these religions?

You've seen that with Term 17 you're just trying to please one province of people. You're just trying to please them. What if we're trying to please an entire world of religious observances? You would have a book so thick that the red book would be put to shame.

Ms Robyn Lamswood: But you'd spend a week on Christianity, a week on Buddhism, and a week on Hinduism. It would be a week here and a week there just to sum up the—

Ms Erin Riche: The week you spent learning about that religion will be that much more you will know and understand.

A witness: You can do that now.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay, guys. We'll have to move on to the next question. It's always good to have a spirited debate, though.

Ms Caplan, if we could just focus in on the next question now.

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

I'm really enjoying both listening and learning a lot about how the students of Newfoundland are aware of this issue and about your views.

One of the things I wanted to pursue was the fact that there was a unanimous vote by every person in your provincial national assembly, your provincial parliament. In fact, the law permits an agreement between the federal government and the provincial government to change something in the constitution. What the federal government and the federal Parliament have to be satisfied with is that there is support for that.

• 1635

One of the things we have to look at is what is the vote? What did the provincial members, who represent everyone, have to say? While the referendum is important, the fact that 53% of the people, a majority of the population, took the time to go out and vote and that 73% of them supported the action is interesting to us.

What's really important to me is that every member of your provincial legislature, from every political party, said, we believe that this change in Term 17 will be good for Newfoundland, will be good for quality education, will be good for cost-effectiveness and will be good for our province. That's after a debate of ten years.

I'd like to know from the students why they think every provincial representative from every party in their Newfoundland parliament supported this change.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The question is open to whoever wants to jump in. Do so in an organized fashion in some respects, respecting each other, but just jump in at your leisure.

Ms Jennifer Bragg: Was the question just why we think the legislators unanimously voted for it?

I think it was just a matter of getting a better education, not based on hearsay. As my friend mentioned, teachers are hired based on their faith instead of qualifications. That could have come up.

Also, it was for an economic reason. There are four high schools about two blocks away from one another. There's one directly behind our school, and Brother Rice and Holy Heart are right next to each other.

Ms Elinor Caplan: The point I'm making is, given the controversy and the debate—and even around the table where you're sitting you don't all agree—don't you think it was astounding that you had a unanimous vote in your provincial legislature? Those members voted in support of a change to Term 17.

Ms Robyn Lamswood: I thank you for using the word “astounding”, because astounding is indeed what it was. The unanimous vote I think had not much to do with education, with the quality of education, with how prepared I'm going to be to enter the workforce, but had a lot more to do with money, with costs, with sending buses here.... I definitely admit that we have to do something about how much money is being spent on busing, how much money is being spent on having two or three schools in small communities, but that doesn't mean we have to take religion out of schools. It doesn't mean that by any stretch of the imagination.

If you ask why there was such a diversity in the two groups, the parents and the citizens against or for the government, I think that has a lot to do with the parents. The parents are concerned about the education—the quality of education, the environment—whereas it seems as if the government is much more concerned with saving their dollars and reducing the debt. It is not that this is a bad thing, but everything has to be done in balance.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Any further comments? Then we'll try to wrap it up.

Ms Jennifer Bragg: I'll be brief. I just wanted to say that probably some other factors were brought up in the debates that the government had over it that we were not made aware of before coming to this meeting. Some of the people in government are parents and they face this at a personal level as well, not just for money and for the government's economic debt and all that.

It's reasonable, because there are people who live a five-minute walk away from a school but aren't going there because they're not of the religion of that school. Instead they are being bused on a half-hour bus ride to get to another school that is of their religion. That's not reasonable with the problem we're facing with the debt.

• 1640

Mr. John Whelan: Can I say something?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We have to make it very brief, John, because unfortunately we have to go to Corner Brook.

Mr. John Whelan: I'll be very brief. I believe the provincial government was in a hurry to jump on the “get rid of denominational education” bandwagon like the rest of Canada seemed to be jumping onto left, right and centre lately.

Another thing that was brought up earlier at this table where I'm sitting is that Holy Heart and Brother Rice are right next to each other, and Booth is right behind another school. But just about the Brother Rice and Holy Heart thing, they are two completely different schools entirely. Holy Heart is a French immersion school, Brother Rice is a Roman Catholic school, and these are schools that provide two completely different—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We're going to have to call it a draw at that. It's hard to believe that an hour has passed since actually we began this conversation.

On behalf of the committee—we're assembled here as members of Parliament and as senators—we want to thank you very much for your input into this. It's been very helpful to us. You've answered a lot of questions and you've prompted a few questions on behalf of members, I'm sure.

So thank you once again. I appreciate very much your taking the time out and hope to hear from you again soon. Thank you.

We'll now immediately get set up for Corner Brook.

Ladies and gentlemen, we just had a videoconference session with some students from St. John's, Newfoundland. Now we're moving to what I consider the better coast, the west coast—right, Norm? We're joined by Jennifer Thornhill, who's a student of Regina High School, my alma mater; Erika Budgell from the Deer Lake Pentecostal School, and from Heardman Collegiate we have Andrea Hall and Stéphanie Short.

Welcome to you all and thank you very much for participating in this videoconferencing. This of course is a joint Senate and House of Commons committee that's reviewing an amendment to Term 17 of the Newfoundland Act. It's related, of course, as you are aware, to the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're delighted to have you in front of us using videoconferencing technology.

Young women, we have 45 minutes only. Unfortunately, we lost 15 minutes because we had some technical problems on the other side. So we're going to try to use our time as wisely as we possibly can. We'd appreciate it if you would keep your comments relatively brief without restricting your answers. Work amongst yourselves to make sure that you respect each other. When a question is asked, you can decide amongst yourselves in an orderly fashion what order you want to speak in. Whoever wants to speak, just go ahead and blurt it out. It's very relaxed. Don't worry about a thing.

• 1645

We'll start off in this way. If anybody would like to make a brief statement about this subject to the members of the committee assembled here, please feel free to do so. Would anybody like to start off?

Ms Jennifer Thornhill (Roman Catholic Student Representative, Regina High School): I would just like to say I appreciate being given this opportunity to voice my opinion. I'm well aware, though, that a lot of people have their minds made up about this matter. At the same time, I hope my voice is heard along with that of everybody else here.

I'm just going speak about my experiences, because I'm not exactly sure about all the legal and constitutional aspects, of this issue.

Ms Erika Budgell (Pentecostal Student Representative, Deer Lake Pentecostal School): I would like to make the same sort of comment as Jennifer made. I'm really happy that politicians actually asked the kids who are involved and the kids it's affecting about what we want and what we think about it. That's a rather important thing and I appreciate that fact, because for a long time in this issue things were just overlooked and it was adults and politicians and other people trying to make a decision. We're in the school system now. It's going to affect us and affect our friends.

Ms Andrea Hall (Student, Heardman Collegiate): I would like to agree and say it's good that you are asking students, because it is our school system. We're the ones who have to live with it.

Ms Stéphanie Short (Student, Heardman Collegiate): I have the same appreciation as the rest of these girls. Thank you for your time and thank you for letting our voices be heard. All I hear these days is that we're not old enough to vote and we're not old enough to have our voices heard. We're here tonight proving them wrong. I hope anything we say will have some sort of an impact.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much for those opening remarks. What we'll do now is move directly to questions and answers. This is a very relaxed process. Don't feel uncomfortable about just blurting out an answer, but respect each other, of course. We'll start with a question from Senator Pearson.

Senator Landon Pearson (Ontario, Lib.): It's a great privilege for us to be able to hear from you. I'm glad the technology exists. It would have been fun to have you come up here, but that might have been more complicated.

As we have been thinking about this, we have heard that one of the reasons the government brought forward the new Term 17 was to be able to improve the quality of education for you all. I'm wondering if you could think, each of you, from your different schools, what it is that is not in your schools at the moment. What would you like to see happen to improve your school situation?

Ms Erika Budgell: I would like to see the quality of education go up. I think it's pretty pathetic that there are students who sit next to me and in third-level language class and who don't know how to write an essay and don't know what the complete parts of a sentence are. The main issue about education in Newfoundland shouldn't be whether or not we're going to be separated. I don't think we should be separated in the first place. It should be what are the fundamentals of education we're being given.

Ms Jennifer Thornhill: In my opinion, we should leave the schools as they are. I don't think this is a denominational versus non-denominational issue.

Take my school, for example. This year we lost three and a half teaching units. We have half a guidance counsellor for 512 students. That's just not good enough. There are single parents. There are so many family issues. We need a guidance counsellor. We need these teachers.

Our programs have suffered. We have lost advanced placement biology, advanced writing. So much is being lost. This isn't a Catholic-Pentecostal-public issue. This is completely different. More money needs to be put back into the system. There are too many cutbacks.

Ms Stéphanie Short: I agree with the other girls. I feel completely comfortable in the school I'm in right now. To be honest with you, I don't have many setbacks at all. As between the Catholic and the Pentecostal schools, I spent some time in both schools and I was really pleased with both of them. I don't have any regrets. My 12 years of school have been wonderful. I don't have any complaints whatsoever.

Ms Andrea Hall: The only change I would like to see in the school system is more diversity in the courses. It has stayed pretty much the same for 25 or 30 years. The only things that are being updated are the methods of teaching them, and that's not enough.

• 1650

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very much. What I'll ask you to do for the next couple of questions is identify yourselves before you speak so that the members of the House of Commons and the senators who are here can put a name to a face. Before you answer, blurt out your name and we'll carry on from there.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My comments are for Erika. You're from the Deer Lake Pentecostal School. On the short-held religious rights in the Constitution—your group has possibly had them the least, since 1987—what is the mood from the students and the parents about the potential of losing these rights that were supposed to be protected in the constitution? Do you have some feeling on that, whether the process was fair, that your group was consulted on it?

Ms Erika Budgell: I think it's appalling. I don't agree with the decision that is being made right now, and from the parents', teachers' and students' point of view, religion is a very important part of our education. To think we're going to lose out on religion.... That's part of our daily life; we bring that through us 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I was talking to some of the teachers and some of the parents this week. They are talking about how devastating.... We are a minority; yes, I understand that. But as a minority, we're people too, and we have a voice, and I think it should be clearly heard.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Does anybody else have any comments they want to share?

We'll go the next question, then.

Mr. Pagtakhan, did you have a—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Chairman, could I ask something similar?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Yes, you certainly can.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

I'd like to ask a similar question of Jennifer: what is the feeling of the students and parents regarding the potential of losing your denominational education? What is the mood of the students and the parents about having this removal exercised by a majority vote when it's minority rights?

Ms Jennifer Thornhill: I think everyone feels pretty much the same. I've been a part of the Catholic system for 13 years, and it's always been an extension of my home, of my church. It has the same core values, the same traditions, the culture, the heritage; it's all the same. To lose that part of my life, dealing with all these traditions, these cultures, I think is appalling also; I would have to agree.

I think each school has its own philosophy, its own framework, and to take away the framework that my school is built on, that the Pentecostal school is built on, is terrible. Difference is healthy.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Andrea or Stéphanie?

Ms Stéphanie Short: I would like to add something to that. I don't know if I really like the way that question was phrased, about losing the religion in schools, because it kind of makes it sound as though the integrated system does not have religious values in their schools. I'm not going to say I'm offended, but that might be the only word I can think of off the top of my head. There are religious values in the schools so long as the students have them there. If the students bring them there themselves, this is what is going to be in the schools as it is.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Stéphanie, did you have anything else you want to add? Thank you.

Mr. Rompkey, did you have a question or a couple of questions?

Senator William Rompkey: Yes. Carrying on with that line of questioning, the question was asked before, I think, of the students who now attend integrated schools: if there was a course in religion that taught about a variety of religions, would you think that course was important and would you take it?

Ms Jennifer Thornhill: I would think that course was important. There is a course that's kind of like that, which I did in grade 8, I think. We learned about world religions. In grade 7 we did different Christian denominations.

• 1655

So I think it's an important course. It benefited me as a person. I wasn't quite so ignorant of other people, especially the people I'll run into after high school, at university. I think it is beneficial. There should be a broader course like that for more students to take.

Ms Andrea Hall: I believe a course that teaches about different religions is more important than a course that teaches about a single religion. As I said before, diversity is important. If we don't have diversity, we're going to become segregated.

Ms Jennifer Thornhill: I would like to add something to that. I'm in grade 12. In my school there are three courses offered: world religion, active Christian leadership, and a basic religion course. It's your choice.

But this isn't about religion courses, it's about the entire atmosphere of the school systems. When I talk about atmosphere, I talk about, again, the framework that my school is built on, that a public school is built on, that a Pentecostal school is built on. Neither one is better than the other, just different, and different is healthy.

So it's not just about the courses. We have the diversity of courses.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Erika, do you have anything to add?

Ms Erika Budgell: We're not in our own little world, either. We're open to the fact that there are other religions and that they're just as important as ours. We have a world religion course in our school as well. I took it last year. It's really broad. You get to learn a whole bunch of stuff about religions all around the world.

The difference I like, though, is that we can go to church one week and bring it into the classroom the next. We're going to church with these same people, and they believe the same things. At our assemblies in the morning we have our devotions, which are very important to me. It's my food. I need it to keep going through the day.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. Rompkey, you had a supplementary.

Senator William Rompkey: When we talked to the St. John's students some of them made the point that it was a good thing to have the school mirror the community. If you had people of all different denominations and different religions in one school, you talked to each other, got to know each other, got to appreciate each other. That mirrored the world. When you got out into the world, these students were saying, you were going to be meeting people of all different religions and faiths, working with them. It's a good thing, therefore, to have school mirror the community.

How do you feel about that?

Ms Stéphanie Short: Whoever made that comment made a good comment. Having a lot of people together gives a pretty clear picture—in my school, at least—of what it's like when you go out into the “real” world, shall we say. It reflects the community.

In school we have a Youth Alive group, a Pentecostal group. A lot of them are friends, a lot of them are together. If you're around them you can feel the Pentecostal values with them. There are different groups throughout the school that come together. Their values are within their group. They'll tell their opinions to other people, but there are just so many people you can run into. I think it does give you a broader base of what everything is like.

So I think schools should reflect the community, because the community is where we're living and the community is where we are going to live afterwards.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Does anybody else have comments?

Ms Jennifer Thornhill: I would like to mention something about that. I think there is this idea that there is perhaps a rift between students of, say, a Catholic school, a Pentecostal school, and a public school, but that is completely not so.

In my school, we are not extremists. We don't hang around with Catholics only. It's not as though I'm going to get out into the world and not listen to my employer if he or she is not Catholic. It's not like that.

Your school should mirror how you live in a community. The traditions I have picked up through my years—the heritage, the culture, the values—will be with me my whole life, and I will always use that in my dealings with the community.

Ms Stéphanie Short: I think Jennifer has made a good point. It's not as though there's a big rift between the students in the schools. We all get along. We're all friends. When we're out of school, people from Heardman will pick up their friends at Regina and go to the mall together, or something like that.

• 1700

The only time there is a rift is at, say, the city basketball games, where religious comments are sometimes made. But it's not that “Oh, we're Protestants and they're Catholics”. It's more an “Our school is better than yours” kind of thing.

Ms Jennifer Thornhill: Yes, it's not about the religion. It's just competition between schools.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay.

Mr. Pagtakhan, do you have a question?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. How do the four of you see the actual provisions in the proposed amendment, that courses in religion will be offered by the province, although not specific to a religious denomination, and also that when parents request them religions observances shall be permitted? Do you support these particular changes? Would they ensure the quality of education in your schools, and for you?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): You got the question. Could you just say your name before you answer, for the benefit of the people doing the transcription here?

Ms Jennifer Thornhill: I think I mentioned before that it's not about what religion or what denomination or non-denomination a school is. I don't think that has anything to do with improving the quality of education. I think every school is devoted to education.

I'm going back to the statement that in different schools there are different teachings and different approaches to life. I don't think that affects the quality of education. It just means that we are different. None is better than the others, just different, and that is healthy.

Ms Andrea Hall: On ensuring the quality of education and ensuring things, I don't know so much that they'd be improving the quality of education or anything like that, not with what they want to change now, but it would probably change things.

Change is not necessarily a bad thing. But it would probably just be change, which I don't see as making much of a difference to people. It's there; the parents want it there. Once religious observance is there, it's going to be there.

Even students want religious observances there. Our student representative council organizes things for Christmas and for Easter, not because they have to, not because their parents say “Oh, I think this would be good for you”, not because the teachers say “Okay, we want to do something”, but because they're the student representative councils, representing the students, and this is what the students want. So long as the students and the teachers want something in school and it's legally confirmed that yes, you have the right to do this, it's going to be there.

I think it does ensure that things will be there. I think it will just change things.

Ms Erika Budgell: I'd like to say another thing, too. You talk about “if parents want”, and I find that kind of ironic, because if you're really looking at what parents want, then minority rights would be heard, and they're not being heard.

I'm going to take my school as an example again. This year 97% of the students came back. We lost five to public school, but we gained twelve. I'm just going to end with this question: what do you think about that? Are parents' voices really being heard?

Ms Andrea Hall: I just had another comment to make—not to lose track of what Jennifer's saying—about what parents want. I won't name the school, but a friend of mine was at a Catholic school, not in Corner Brook but elsewhere in the province. One of the written rules of their school is “You will love God.” I think that's kind of an odd rule to have. You can't enforce on somebody that they will love something they may or may not believe in. I've been told that a lot of parents at the school think it's a ridiculous thing to have written, that “You will love God”. Yes, you're going to love God if you believe in God; and if you want to love God, you will do that on your own.

As for things like religious observances, if parents want it, I think it would mostly change things like that—like having “You will love God” as a written rule to a school.

• 1705

Ms Stéphanie Short: If the parents are being asked what they want their kids to learn, why aren't the students being asked? It's our religion and it's our school system, so they should not only look at what our parents want, but what we want for our own education.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): A very, very good point.

We're going to move to Senator Pearson.

Senator Landon Pearson: Actually, you just made the comment that answered the question I was going to ask, which was what opportunities do you think you have now to have some input into the way things are done in your schools?

I understand that in the integrated schools, for example, religious education courses are not compulsory. You can choose not to take one and take something else. Is it you who chooses it, or do you have to have your parent's signature?

Ms Andrea Hall: Actually, it is compulsory that you do it, but you can be written out of it. You have to have two credits in religious education to graduate, unless you have a signed note from your parents saying they do not want you to do this. But my understanding is that if you go to Regina you can be written out of it as well. I could be wrong, but I think that's it.

Ms Jennifer Thornhill: That is the case, but that's very rare. Usually students stick with the religious education, but there are a few cases where people get out of the religious courses.

Ms Erika Budgell: We don't have any specific Pentecostal religion courses directed towards the students. They're not even offered in our school, which goes to show you that we're not there forcing on a religion. We just want what we have. The two religion courses that are offered are about world religions and different world topics, and they concern the whole world and enlighten us on what we're about to go into. I don't think we're missing out on anything.

The world is made up of all kinds of different people, the unique ones and the larger groups. If we keep our schools, it's going to make the world so much more, I don't know, maybe different—as it is now; it's unique. I have nothing against the integrated schools, as well as the Catholic and the Pentecostal. I think they're all really wonderful schools. But another thing I appreciate is that our classes don't have a really large amount of people, because they're split now, so we have a lot of one-on-one with our teachers. If the schools were all put together, then it would cut back on student-teacher time, and that's really valuable.

Ms Andrea Hall: To comment on what you said about student-teacher time, it is a really valuable thing in schools that you have small numbers of students in the classrooms. For example, in my lit. heritage class, there are almost 40 students, which is absolutely appalling, because with 40 students in a class you can't teach and you can't learn. Another thing that should be looked in considering education in Newfoundland is how many students are you pumping into one school?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Why is there that difference? We have one school that says it has a small student-teacher ratio and another student who says there's a high student-teacher ratio. Any comments?

Ms Erika Budgell: It's the difference in the sizes of the places we live. Andrea lives in a city, and I'm from Deer Lake. But we have a really big integrated school in Deer Lake as well. It's Elwood Regional High School and it has a lot of students. It has a graduating class of 90 to a little over 100. If you take our classes and put them in there, then again, it's cutting back on student-teacher time.

Ms Andrea Hall: Yes, I was going to say basically the same thing. Within the community, the Pentecostals are a small group, as opposed to everyone in the integrated system, so there are fewer kids going to Pentecostal schools, which is actually beneficial to them, that they would have fewer numbers in the school.

Ms Erika Budgell: Yet it's still too many to add. We have roughly 400 people in our school, and if you add that to Elwood High and Elwood Elementary, then it's going to make a really big school. So even though we are a small school right now, it's still a lot to add to the larger schools.

• 1710

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay. Thank you very much.

Do I have any further questions for these witnesses, for these young women?

Are there any last comments that you'd like to make?

All I want to say before we conclude is that I think we've heard from four extremely intelligent, eloquent young women, who may be giving me a run for my seat in the coming years.

Senator Rompkey says he's going to vote for one of you.

Thank you all very much. If you have any closing remarks or comments that you'd like to make, we'll certainly be glad to hear them.

Ms Jennifer Thornhill: There's something I'd like to say. Actually, it's an analogy.

It's this. In community life there are different businesses, and you go to different businesses according to the service you get. You go where you want to get what you want. If we take away the Catholic schools and the Pentecostal schools, denominational schools, then there will be no choice. I don't know, but I don't think that's meeting the rights of minority groups.

I personally feel that we need choice. There need to be different schools. No school is better than the others—I know I've said that about 50 times—but I want you to know that I really feel that difference is healthy. We can't just lump every student into the same kind of school. There has to be a choice. If you take away that choice, where is that leaving us?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Andrea or Stéphanie or Erika, do you want to add something?

Ms Andrea Hall: For a closing comment I'd like to say that I would like to see this passed. I really would. I think it would be a good thing. Especially nowadays with everything about equality, we're being segregated on the basis of our denomination. It seems so petty to me—it honestly does—that people would have to sit around for hours and debate and discuss because we're separated by our denominations. There are so many other problems with our education system that people could be worrying about, but we're sitting around talking about what school you're going to go to because of what church you go to.

It just seems so trivial when the quality of education could be improved so greatly.

Friends of mine come home from university and they're saying, oh my God, I can't believe how smart the students coming from Ontario are. We're still sitting around twiddling our thumbs saying, do we go to a Pentecostal school or do we go to a Catholic school? It seems to be really ridiculous.

To me, it seems as if we're segregated. Ads come on TV saying, stop racism, hate is an old idea. The youth of today are saying the message. Yes, we're giving a message, but we're still being segregated right down to elementary schools. What kind of message is this giving to elementary kids? I live next door to my best friend, but I can't go to the same school as he because he goes to a different church than I go to.

Ms Stéphanie Short: In closing, I'd like to say I'm still against the idea of segregation and separate schools, because if we continue to go like this, we'll end up with the old Protestant-Catholic wars that were in England and Ireland at the time when our ancestors moved over here. They probably moved over here to get away from it, but here we are, starting it up again.

Ms Erika Budgell: I'd just like to thank you for your time.

Even though we're a minority group, we are people of Newfoundland and we're happy with what we have. We only want to maintain our schools where they are viable. We do not desire to force denominational education on the majority of people. We simply want our rights retained.

• 1715

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you very, very much. It's been a real joy to listen to your thoughts, to be able to actually ask questions and hear the answers. I would like to say on behalf of the committee that I think we have four very eloquent spokespersons of different ideas and different philosophies, and I congratulate you all for taking the time, the energy, and just the intellect to think through the issues and respond as well as you have. Thank you again on behalf of the committee. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

We are now officially adjourned. We will meet tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. across the hall. Thank you all very much.