SJQS Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 21, 1997

• 1535

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.)): Colleagues, we will now resume the hearing we suspended this morning. This afternoon, we have three groups with us. The first two will be heard at the same time. They are the Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes du Québec, represented by John Picard and Jocelyn Aubut, and the Franco-protestants de la province de Québec, represented by Daniel Desjardins and Manon Savard-Martin. Welcome.

The two groups will share about ten minutes to make their presentation, after which we will hear questions from the members of Parliament and senators who are members of this committee.

I will now give the floor to our witnesses from the Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes, John Picard and Jocelyn Aubut.

Mr. John Picard (Chairman, Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes du Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chair. My name is John Picard and I am Chairman of the Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes du Québec. My colleague, Jocelyn Aubut is Vice-Chairman.

The purpose of our brief is to show that the request to amend section 93 as it is currently written infringes on our rights and privileges that are guaranteed by that section. We will also explain how linguistic school boards can be established without amending section 93.

The Canadian government's proposal to amend the section assumes there is consensus on this in Quebec. We will prove to you that no such consensus exists, it is only a semblance of consensus. So there are three misconceptions in the proposal Mr. Dion presented this morning.

The first misconception is that section 93 must be amended to implement linguistic school boards. However, under Bill 109, which amends the Education Act, linguistic school boards can be introduced with or without section 93.

This morning Mr. Dion spoke about the multiplication and superimposition of structures, saying that the most important thing was to simplify the system. Let me remind you that there is nothing more effective than a good dictatorship, but we all know the pitfalls of such a regime. Most acts and provisions whose purpose is to protect the rights of minorities and to promote them are somewhat complicated to administer. The problems we are dealing with today are negligible compared to the rights and assurances that are at stake.

[English]

What the Quebec government is suggesting here is that we exchange a constitutional guarantee for a legislative whim.

[Translation]

There is no need to take out section 93 as suggested. If it must be amended, there are several options that are not as radical or unconditional. A right to dissent applies to about 2% of the population and translates into a cost of approximately $500,000, which is 0.1% of $9 billion dollars' worth of administrative costs.

The second misconception is about the consensus. There is one and we agree on implementing linguistic school boards; this is critical and in keeping with social reality. The misconception is that there is a consensus on amending section 93 and the consequences thereof.

First of all, the consensus has been reached at the political level and is not a consensus reached by the people, especially parents. We are the effective minority and are the ones being stripped of our rights. This week, you will notice that there is also increasing opposition from majority groups.

• 1540

Obviously, the so-called consensus is based on another misconception, that of protecting a parent's right to chose a denominational school.

Mr. Dion said this morning that there is a consensus because such rights are protected and guaranteed by law. Every group that supported the implementation of linguistic school boards and the amendment to section 93 did so because they thought parents' rights would be protected. Their support is always conditional on that; Catholic and Protestant parents must have the right to chose denominational schools for their children if they so desire.

Whichever way you look at it, most parents want denominational schools within linguistic school boards.

But according to all the legal opinions, and Mr. Proulx and his colleagues confirmed this, as soon as section 93 no longer applies in Quebec, the right to denominational schools becomes extremely tenuous. In fact, it then depends on the enforcement of the notwithstanding clause, a clause that is renewed every five years and that was last passed by the Liberal Party in 1994, when the Parti Québécois voted unanimously against its renewal.

[English]

Ladies and gentlemen, let us make no bones about it. The modification of section 93 as proposed by the Quebec government will lead to the elimination of confessional rights, confessional schools, religion courses, and pastoral and religious animation—entirely in line with the wishes of Monsieur Proulx and his colleagues this morning, but entirely against the hopes and aspirations of the vast majority of parents, both Protestant and Catholic, in the province of Quebec.

[Translation]

I now give the floor to my colleague.

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut (vice-chairman, Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes du Québec): There is no consensus on section 93 among the affected minority. This morning, Mr. Dion was asked the following question: if there were a bilateral amendment agreed to between Quebec and the federal government to take out minority rights, how would that affect the other provinces? Mr. Dion answered as follows: if anyone had wanted to take away the rights in Ontario, they would have asked the Catholics in Ontario what they thought of it. Well, in this case, we are the affected minorities.

Mr. Dion is not the affected minority, nor is Mr. Proulx. Their children are not the ones being educated, but mine are. All I'm asking for is the choice to educate my children according to my convictions. I cannot force anything on anyone else. We, the Franco-Protestants, do not agree with those rights being taken away. There is no consensus among the affected minority. It is not true that our rights will be protected in Quebec without section 93.

In Ontario, the schools that are not protected by section 93 are neutral. The only schools that are denominational are those protected under section 93. We are being asked to eliminate the entire section 93 in Quebec. Well, that means there will no longer be any denominational schools. We are being told that Bill 109 protects denominational schools, but later on, we will be told that Bill 109 is discriminatory. The only reason we can have Bill 109 is because of the notwithstanding clause.

As my colleague said, the PQ does not want to renew them; they voted against that. The Parti Québécois is in power right now and will vote against that again. Ideally, the PQ would like to see non-denominational schools, the CEQ, one school and non- denominational teachers. But we are not talking about their children here.

All we are asking for is the right to choose. If everybody is put on an equal footing because of non-denominational schools, similar to Ontario's schools which are not covered by section 93, there will no longer be any choice. I do not mind others having neutral schools if that's what the parents want. Even Catholics will no longer be entitled to denominational schools. All we are asking for is the power to educate our children in denominational schools. If we no longer have that right, who is to blame? It will be the federal institutions.

When this matter goes to court, because of sections 2 and 15 of the Charter, the blame will be on the federal institutions because they will have taken away the protection under section 93.

Thank you.

• 1545

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. Now, Mr. Desjardins and Ms. Savard-Martin.

Ms. Manon Savard-Martin (parent, Franco-protestants de la province de Québec): I am not an expert in legal or constitutional matters. I am merely a parent of three children who is representative of many other parents. I am here because it is the parents who are directly affected by this. It is our children who are in the schools and, contrary to what Mr. Dion said this morning, we are not here to get more rights and privileges, but just to keep those we already have.

In our documents, you will see it very clearly: if we set aside section 93, there will be no more denominational schools nor even the possibility of a choice between moral instruction and religious instruction in schools. Thus, we'll be crossing out God and all things related to Him. I still think that my children and all other children have room for spiritual things, for things regarding God in their hearts. When a child goes to school, he doesn't go there merely to stuff his brain with academic concepts. Children are not computers; they are human beings who need to express themselves and to have values. The values they learn at home should also be taught in their schools.

With reforms implemented by Ms. Marois, our children go to school at an increasingly early age. Soon, school will be compulsory at the age of four. The values they are given at home should also be taught in school, because school becomes an extension of home.

We're here today because on one hand, in Quebec, we were never really consulted, and when we wanted to have our word to say, we were not listened to. I trust the system and that is why we are here and we are telling you that it is not true that there is a consensus. There has been a consensus among politicians, but not among parents. Parents tried to make their voice heard in every way, through the federation or various associations. There was a majority of over 80% and it's as if nothing at all had been said.

That's all. I will now give the floor to my colleague.

Mr. Daniel Desjardins (parent, Franco-protestants de la province de Québec): Thank you. As for me, I'll talk more about legal matters. I am not a lawyer. My wife is one, but as she will soon be giving birth, I'll speak on her behalf of all the things that we have worked on over these past months. As it was just said, our children are very dear to us and stakes are high. If I am here today, it is because I believe in democracy and I believe, as a French-Canadian, that our rights must be preserved, as our national anthem says, in French: "protégera nos foyers et nos droits" (here, our homes and our rights will be protected).

Therefore it is clear that if article 93 were to be amended as requested by the National Assembly, our situation as a school and as a minority will be very precarious; we will perhaps even be in an illegal position. We will not even be able to sing a Christmas carol or our national anthem in our schools because it has a Christian connotation.

First of all I'd like to bring briefly to your mind the intent of article 93 according to Lord Carnarvon, who sponsored the Constitutional Act of 1867 and who said:

Article 93 constituted a guarantee of equality: the intent of this provision is to ensure for the religious minority of any province the same protection and the same rights and privileges as those that are enjoyed by the religious minority of any other province.

Moreover, Sir Charles Tupper, prime minister of Canada in 1896, stated:

If we had not consented to include in the Confederation Act a provision protecting minority rights of both Catholics and Protestants in this country, there would never have been any Confederation.

The article we're amending is not an article of minor importance, ladies and gentlemen. This is the supreme article of the Constitution Act. If in a few weeks we just brush it away, without the support of the people concerned, what will happen to the other articles of the Constitution and to the future of Canada? That is the first question.

Article 93 has been drafted based on the principles of tolerance and respect for diversity. That is what was at the heart of the compromise for the respect of Franco-Protestants who were here already in 1867. We must remember that the first ones to arrive in Quebec, Samuel de Champlain and his group, were all Franco-Protestants, all Huguenots. I think that Ms. Lavoie-Roux will agree. Franco-Protestants were even the first to arrive in Quebec.

• 1550

Already in 1800, the Feller Institute and the Pointe-aux- Trembles Institute were Franco-Protestant schools of great renown. Even today, our schools are among the best in the province of Quebec, and we have no drop-out problems. We respect government standards and we even surpass them.

In 1982, the Minister of Justice—who is our current prime minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien—implemented the Constitution Act of 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'd like to remind you of the intent of the Canadian Charter. First, it aims to protect minorities. We must also emphasize that the Charter, as opposed to what was said this morning, does not exist solely for the protection of basic individual rights, but also to protect collective rights.

Three sections in the Charter protect collective rights: these are sections 23, 25 and 29. Section 23 is aimed at protecting language, which is not a fundamental right. Section 25 is aimed at protecting Aboriginal people; they are a community, not a basic right. Section 29 concerns Catholics and Protestants. If you decide to eliminate sections 29 and 93 because they do not concern a purely fundamental right according to the Charter, then you are creating a precedent to remove sections 23 and 25. I'm not sure that everyone will be happy with that. We have to be careful.

By maintaining section 93, we will be reaffirming our desire to maintain all that inspired Canada since its very creation, namely democracy and support for a pluralistic society. In order to explain this point of view on tolerance and respect within a pluralistic society, I'd like to quote for you the conclusion of the Adler decision, that Mr. Proulx cited here this morning, but of which we missed the end. In this case which had been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, Protestants, Jews, Sikhs and others had grouped together to try to obtain the same rights as Catholics in Ontario. They were not opposing the rights of Catholics; on the contrary, this opened the door for them to claim their own rights. In the Adler case, they were demanding the same treatment.

To conclude, the Adler decision did not say that some had privileges that others did not have the right to have. It said that the government of Ontario had full power to legislate notwithstanding clauses for other minorities such as Jews, Muslims, etc., or for the majority. It is fully empowered to do so.

But because of the federation pact and because it was a fundamental right for the creation of Canada, in her decision on Bill 30, in 1987, Madam Justice Wilson stated that if we tampered with section 93, we'd be undermining the federation agreement and making its application illusory, not only for Quebec, but for other provinces because of international law.

I'll read out for you two excerpts of the Adler decision which concern among other things the minorities in Ontario and which apply to us, in Quebec, in our present situation.

Regarding these interests, the infringement in this case affects the members of a discrete and insular religious minority living within another minority. And moreover, this infringement has an impact on a right which, as the trial courts and appeal courts accepted, is an essential one for the survival of communities and of group practices.

In the conclusion of the Adler decision it was also stated:

I agree with the Court of Appeal that free public instruction and encouragement for tolerance are clearly urgent and real objectives in a democratic society.

You must speak out and advise the government and your colleagues either to maintain section 93 and to reaffirm the rights of minorities in Quebec and in Canada, or then to abolish all the rights of Quebeckers.

If you decide to amend section 93 as requested by the government of Quebec, then what is the point of our Canadian Charter of Rights and what is the point of our Canadian Charter of Rights and what is the point of our Constitution?

• 1555

In order to answer this question, Pierre Carignan, our late constitutional expert, quoted Lord Bryce, with respect to international law and what is embodied by a constitution. I will read you the quotation as a conclusion to my remarks.

A Constitution embodies [...] the principle of self-control. The nation has resolved to establish certain rules out of the reach of temporary impulses that come from sudden passions or mood changes, and to adopt these rules as the well-thought-out expression of its opinion and intentions. It is to implicitly recognize that as majorities are not always right, and need to be protected against themselves in moments of overexcitement or feverish haste, we force them to call upon maxims adopted by them after long hours of cold- headed reflection.

Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much for your presentations, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to start by reminding you how we work here.

I would ask those with cell phones to turn them off so that they do not ring during the hearings.

I would also like to point out that we will begin with questions from the Reform Party, followed by a question from the Senate, then a question from the Conservative Party. Then we will proceed according to the requests for the floor we receive. I see some people already raising their hand. I would ask that you ensure that the co-chair, Senator Pépin, sees you and takes down your names so that we can proceed as early as possible.

I would ask my colleagues to limit their comments to about two minutes so that our guests have time to respond. I think Senator Pépin is making a list of the names of committee members who would like to ask questions.

However, with your permission, we will start by giving the floor to

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring, from the Reform Party.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): My question would be for John Picard, I believe. On this application to extinguish section 93 from the Constitution, I'd like your comments on the consensus mentioned in the application, but first I want to refer to this quote. It's stated: “This is why we are prepared to amend such constitutional guarantees only when there is a clear consensus”—referring to a referendum. This was made by the Liberals in the Newfoundland case.

What I would like to know from you is, number one, your opinion of the consensus that was taken in Quebec? Are you satisfied with the consensus statement that was taken in Quebec?

[Translation]

Mr. John Picard: I said in my presentation that we're clearly not satisfied. Moreover, we do not think that there really is a consensus. There is a consensus, but it is not regarding linguistic school boards.

There are really some misconceptions around. We see in the newspapers, in the

[English]

headlines, and this is one I read in the Gazette, that the mixed committee is preparing to modify section 93 to allow for the implementation of linguistic school boards. That's false. It's not necessary.

Bill 109 prepares linguistic school boards. We can go straight ahead, and it's happening already. If section 93 stays exactly as it is, we'll have linguistic school boards. There will be a little bit of administrative difficulty, because, my goodness, we'll have a little bit of diversity in our educational system. I think the price to pay for some diversity, for the choice of parents to have the kinds of schools their children want, is going to be a little bit of multiplication, a little bit of administrative difficulty. It's not a big price to pay.

Where there is no consensus is that people are starting to realize

[Translation]

to what extent, and this was explained clearly this morning by the three constitutional experts, Bill 109, which allows for denominational schools, will run counter to the Charter without section 93. In five years' time, there will no longer be any denominational schools, unless the government continually resorts to the notwithstanding clause. That amounts to very fragile protection.

• 1600

Mr. Beaudoin does not seem to agree.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I disagree, because the notwithstanding clause does not apply in this case.

Mr. John Picard: That's why I think there is no consensus. People agree with eliminating denominational school boards, but not denominational schools.

[English]

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

Mr. Peter Goldring: To make it very clear, it is possible to have the linguistic school boards as proposed without extinguishing section 93 from the Constitution.

Mr. John Picard: It's very possible. It's right within the law—Bill 109.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. The next person on the list is Senator Lynch-Staunton.

First, however, there is a clarification.

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: You will find proof of all that in the press release dated March 6, 1997, which is on page 4 of the appendix to our text. It is worth reading this press release. It was put out by educational, community and denominational groups who were insisting that the Quebec government apply Bill 107.

The final paragraph reads as follows:

It is clear that the implementation of Bill 107 in accordance with the Supreme Court decision can be achieved quickly and without recourse to changes to the Canadian Constitution as proposed recently by the Quebec government.

The preceding paragraph deals with the matter of consensus and reads as follows:

It is important to recall that this solution was the overwhelming choice of various groups and associations consulted by the Minister of Education in May 1996. In our view, the broad consensus expressed last year continues to exist and should serve as the basis for the government to act immediately.

This press release was issued by the Quebec School Board Association, Alliance Quebec, the English-Speaking Catholic Council, the Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers, the Association of Directors General of Protestant School Boards of Quebec—in other words all of the 400,000 Protestants—the Fédération des comités de parents de la province and the Protestant Partnership on Religious Animation. We, the francophone Protestants did not even sign the press release.

This week or next, you will see that we are part of a group of over one million Quebeckers who oppose what is being done. Since there was never a public consultation in Quebec, and since we never had an opportunity to speak, we are going to do so this week, not only here, but elsewhere as well.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): With your permission, we are going to move to our next speaker, Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator Lynch-Staunton (Grandville, PC): In order to give us a better understanding of the position you support so eloquently and that you are trying to protect, could you each explain for us what a francophone Protestant school is like? What would be taken away from you if such schools were abolished? Is there a minister in the school? Are there courses in religion? Are courses taught in francophone Protestant schools that are not offered in neutral schools? What exactly are you trying to safeguard?

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: I will give you a concrete example of a school located close to Ms. Christiane Gagnon's riding in Quebec City. I would even invite you to come and see schools such as L'Eau-Vive, Renaissance or Nouvelle-Vie which are located in your area.

Our school is located on the outskirts of Quebec City, around Sainte-Foy, l'Ancienne-Lorette and other communities. We come under five school boards. Our students would be scattered around: 80 here and 20 there. I think the QSBA will be appearing before you this week.

Further more, under Bill 109, all our francophone Protestant teachers have no protection whatsoever and will also be scattered about throughout the whole province. It has been impossible for the people we serve to all locate in the same area, so they will no longer be able to manage their own transportation system. As a result, we are destined, even as trustees... For example, I could be one trustee among 24. There will be bills put forward to impose budget cuts and abolish schools. They will be voted on, and I...

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I think I may have phrased my question poorly. What I want to know is what your schools have at the moment that you fear you would lose if the situation you describe were to happen in Quebec, once section 93 is repealed.

[English]

What is the religious content of a franco-Protestant school in Quebec right now? What would be removed if your fear is that section 93 is no longer applicable to Quebec?

• 1605

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: They call them

[Translation]

"schools with integrated Protestant values". That means the teachers in the schools respect our values, which are based on the Bible. It also means that subjects are thought from a biblical point of view, in the context of our values. Teachers respect our values. The entire school context and the administration respect our values. That makes a big difference.

[English]

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: So it's not just the teaching of religion, it's the whole atmosphere. As Madame Martin said, it's the extension of the home that you want to keep in the curriculum. The teaching staff and administration, the whole atmosphere, have a Christian, Protestant—

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: I feel you're raising a very important point. The Quebec conception of a confessional school is a school where mainly there are confessional services: pastoral animation and religious education. However, the constitutional conception of confessional schools, as we find them—for example, in Ontario, there are the Catholic confessional schools—is much more. It's also the teachers and the whole context of the life of the school. This is what has also been confirmed by Supreme Court judgments.

These are rights attached to section 93, and these rights would be withdrawn. Our schools would close. A lot of parents have their kids travel for an hour because they value the school. They will not have their kids travel for an hour if the teachers do not share these values and cannot communicate them along with the home. The church will send them to their local schools. Our schools would close if you amend section 93.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. I will now give the floor to Ms. Christiane Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): You say you're showing tolerance and openness in the position you are defending. I respect what you are trying to defend, but I think your position is rather a closed one, because some experts think that the repeal of section 93 would allow for more openness to other religions, depending on the demand. I think your position runs counter to the attitude of openness that you claim to have.

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: May I answer, Mr. Chairman?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Yes, Mr. Aubut.

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: Do I understand your question correctly? You are saying that amending section 93 would not lead to greater openness?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, it would lead to greater openness. You say you are open and tolerant. But section 93 recognized the denominational rights of the majorities, including the Protestant majority, and circumstances at the time were different from what they are today.

Amending section 93 would make it possible to improve the integration of other religions into a given school, as well as the integration of children from elsewhere. You say you are tolerant and open, but I say that your approach may contradict the aims of the plan, tolerance and greater openness.

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: Section 93 was not instituted to protect majorities, but to protect the rights of minorities, such as the right to dissent, stipulated in subsection 93(2). Now, we are recognizing the fact that it discriminates in favour of Protestants and Catholics. The three constitutional experts who appeared before us considered section 93 discriminatory and felt it should be got rid of—in their terms—in order to establish a neutral system that levels out the privileges of everyone and corresponds to a unique vision of life, not to our own vision of life; this system would be imposed on everyone, and we would no longer have to choose between Catholic, Protestant or neutral schools.

I would say there is some discrimination. The Constitution gives certain rights to Catholics and Protestants. I see that as an open door for other groups. If this exception were not made for Catholics and Protestants, how could a Muslim or Jew ask for denominational services, if even the majority had none? So the door is open to some minority groups, to Protestants and to Catholics.

As Adler said, provincial legislation can institute similar rights for other groups. We are not against this principle. We are not opposed to establishing neutral schools for those who want them. In that respect, we are very tolerant. I think it's the other side that isn't. The other side wants to level the entire playing field. You are told that these are your children, but that they must be educated in a neutral fashion.

• 1610

For example, they want your children's education to be neutral with regard to abortion, to homosexuality, to other sexual orientations, to evolution, and to everything else. That is not neutral.

I have respect for other groups, but there should be respect for us as well. That is the more tolerant approach. If we maintain section 93, the precedent remains, an open door for other groups in provincial, not constitutional, legislation. I understand that these groups were not even there when the Constitution was established.

If we remove such protection from the Constitution, how can we hope to find it in provincial legislation? Is putting everyone on exactly the same level and prohibiting any diversity a more tolerant approach? Is that tolerance?

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

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that I'm finding this more and more difficult. The issue of minority rights is a very big responsibility for the federal government. The protection of minority rights is our responsibility. I think you made an observation about how the majority can sometimes make a mistake or can sometimes impose where they shouldn't be imposing.

I'm concerned about the protection of minority rights. I'm concerned about the protection not only of Protestants and Catholics, but of other groups in our society. You mentioned Muslim and Jewish groups. That includes Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox groups. It includes a large range in this new country of ours, which is an incredible experiment on the world stage, and which is very multicultural and multi-religious in many ways. So my dilemma is, where do you find the fair balance?

One thing disturbed me the most in listening to your presentation, and it has made me start to think in a broader term. If the parents' committees are under Bill 109, where the majority view will hold sway, then once again minority rights will be impinged upon.

It means that French-speaking Protestants who are in French-language schools, where the majority of the children are of Catholic persuasion, both those French Protestants and, for that matter, French-speaking Jews, who form a very large percentage of the Jewish community in Quebec, will not find themselves able to have anything other than a Catholic environment, which I don't think is a healthy environment in a unique and majoritarian way.

I want to ensure that minority rights have a place. The same thing goes for the English system. I know; I grew up in that English system. I know what it is to have to say prayers and to be present or to absent myself because I was of a minority group.

I don't want that in the future. That's not what I think Quebec wants. But I think there's something wrong with the way the majority of parents will decide the nature of that school. You're going to have either the Protestant ethic or the Catholic ethic predominating. So there's something that's bothering and troubling me, and I don't know how to answer it, quite frankly.

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: You're raising a very interesting point. Because this thing is so rushed, it's incredible that we cannot enter into the details.

Mrs. Finestone is raising the point that with the present Bill 109, the confessional status of a school will be decided by a majority of parents. This is a systematic encroachment of the rights of the minority by the majority. This is the total opposite of what section 93 was meant for.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's why I want to make very sure that I did understand this was your concern. That's what raised its head in my concern. Whether we remove section 93 or not.... I am in agreement that we need linguistic boards, but when Madame Marois decided to divide up the west end of Montreal, going toward the border of Ontario, in the way she did, she already divided the English-speaking community in a very unproductive and unconstructive way, and children are going to have to travel hours to go back and forth to school in the English-language system. Already, the goal has been contravened.

My question basically is, if we want language schools, English-language and French-language schools—which I want—how do we then, under that system, protect the minority? I thought removing or keeping section 93 didn't make any difference. I felt it was vital for paragraph 23(1)(a) to be part and parcel of an absolutely defined obligation, because the Province of Quebec refuses to recognize the 1982 Constitution.

• 1615

My question is, have you looked at it from that point of view? In what way, in allowing for linguistic boards, can we ensure that minority rights are protected so that not just the majority of the parents have the final say? Because that is not what we want.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Desjardins, or Mr. Picard.

Mr. John Picard: I can answer that. It comes back to the second point we made right at the beginning, that within Bill 109 there are a number of provisions assuming that section 93 is not modified. Those are all kind of shaded within the law, shaded because they will be removed in the year following the modification of section 93. All those shaded provisions provide for minority rights. They provide for confessional councils where parents decide that they want a confessional school.

I think it's important to realize that there's a respect for democracy here that has to be looked at. There have been in the last five years 210 Catholic schools built in Quebec. They're no longer assumed to be confessional. Parents vote whether they want a confessional school or a neutral school. In 95% of those cases they voted to have a confessional school.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: A Catholic school.

Mr. John Picard: Yes. It's clear that they want to keep confessional schools, but it's also clear, if I understand the jurisprudence and the constitutional advice we've gotten, that the minute section 93 goes, all Quebec laws are subject to the Charter of Rights. Without the clause dérogatoire, they will be subject to the Charter of Rights and subject to challenges that will be forthcoming immediately. There are all kinds of parties interested in eliminating any aspect of confessionality.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Excuse me, Mr. Picard. Are you referring to the fact that both section 2, the freedoms expression, and section 15, the non-discrimination clause, would come into effect and would challenge the fact that these are Catholic schools?

Mr. John Picard: Exactly.

[Translation]

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I think we should go back to 1867. At the time, there were Catholics and Protestants in Quebec, but not many representatives of other religions. The same held for Ontario. Cartier protected the Catholics, who were in the majority, and that is why I tend to talk about denominational rights rather than minority rights, because the notion of minority rights is much more vague and much more general.

Cartier said: We will protect the Catholics because people want denominational schools. Galt, who was from Sherbrooke, said: We will protect the Protestants—who were in the minority, that's true—because they want Protestant schools.

We did the same thing in Ontario. People said that the Irish Catholics would have separate Catholic schools and that the others would have Protestant schools. History shows that the Protestants, over the years, accepted a school which was a little bit more neutral than the Protestant school. This movement took place in Ontario and in Quebec. However, it was Catholic and Protestant all the same.

You're saying that you want to keep this system. I respect your opinion. This is your most sacred right. You're saying that you're happy with this system and that it must be maintained. However, people are telling us that Quebec has become more pluralistic and that we are now in a society where there are other religions. There was the matter of the Jewish schools, and the Privy Council stated that we could set up Jewish schools. There was another famous case, and we were told that we could set up neutral schools. Now the government of Quebec has presented us with a National Assembly resolution requesting that we remove constitutional guarantees; it is not throwing section 93 out the window, because it will remain. However, the denominational guarantees have been removed. This is true. Listen, we have to state the truth.

Consequently, I'm wondering what to do in a modern, pluralist world. What do we do? Perhaps it is a matter of consensus. What is a consensus? Do we have a strong enough consensus to change a system which has been in effect for 130 years? The way I see it, that is the real question.

If you were to tell me that we could have set up French and English schools with denominational schools within the language schools, that would be true. In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled that this was possible.

• 1620

For one reason or another, the government said that it wants to have a pluralistic system. Religion will continue to be taught in accordance with Quebec's Charter of Rights. That is section 41. So, there are people in Quebec who are saying that the schools should be neutral and that the cultural system should be neutral, but of course, the teaching of religion will continue under the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a defensible opinion.

You, on the other hand, wish to maintain the status quo and defend your rights. I have a great deal of respect for your opinion.

My question is very simple. Given the situation, do I understand you correctly when I say that you do not want to see any change?

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

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: We will begin by responding to your question and to the various viewpoints you raised. I think that you all need some clarifications.

First of all, we do not want to maintain the status quo. We are in favour of setting up language school boards and neutral schools, however, we are also in favour of giving the parents the choice. In their brief of September 11 presented to the National Assembly, the bishops of Quebec stated that Quebeckers were unanimous in wanting denominational schools. Catholics and even Protestants want denominational schools, and according to them, this is recognized by everyone.

Then, they go on to say that if this could remain in a federal law, we would have the best of both worlds. You have this quote in the appendices. Mgr Blais said that. The bishops said that it would be good to have this as part of a federal act.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The federal government does not have jurisdiction over education.

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: No, but under section 93, it has jurisdiction over the maintenance of these rights.

You're asking me whether or not we are against the status quo. No, quite the opposite. We are open-minded. I know that there is a problem for the majority in Quebec, but we should not dismiss everything because of the majority and because of the fact that the other provinces don't have these particular rights.

Tomorrow night, the teachers and directors of the Franco- Protestant schools will be making a presentation on the proposals endorsed by the Quebec Liberal Party that said the only reasonable solution was to at least protect Quebec's Protestant minorities and, amongst other things, that it had to be done bilaterally and not trilaterally. At the legal level, this morning, there were provinces...

Getting back to the statistics quickly, Statistics Canada, according to Mr. Carignan's analysis, a renowned constitutionalist...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I've always held Carignan in high esteem, but I never thought he wanted denominational schools.

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: That's not what I said.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: That's not my impression.

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: He wrote that, according to Statistics Canada, in 1867, 4% of the population was other than Catholic or Protestant and that it's 8% today. Over 92% of the population of Quebec is either Catholic or Protestant. So the situation has not changed much. In light of section 41, I think that's very important.

I have appended the documents of the association. It's only one page because I didn't want to introduce here the whole brief of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, which, through Mr. Claude Filion, its chairman, tabled it last May 22 in the National Assembly. I'll just read the conclusion it came to concerning the application of section 41 if 93 were to be abolished:

The Commission is of the opinion that the structural reform undertaken by Bill 109 will remain incomplete as long as schools, where education is concretely delivered, are not exempt from their confessional status. In this sense, in accordance with the provisions expressed here in the past, we recommend the repeal of the provisions of the legislation on public education which provide for granting denominational status to schools.

A bit further on, concerning sections 15 and 2, which is section 41, it says that all religions and schools of thought must be taught if we don't want to stigmatize those children following a different path.

• 1625

As for the 1988 and 1990 Zylberberg decision, in Ontario, it was on that basis that that they came to the conclusion that religious teaching should be banned. We don't know if it's going to stigmatize or marginalize a child holding a belief different from that being offered to all through the curriculum.

With section 41, the only thing you could have would be a course on all religious teachings. You'd try to cover them all, otherwise you could be sued. That's what the application of section 41 means and it's the Quebec Human Rights Commission that says so.

Finally, in the Adler decision, what was said about minorities was that you can't have any constitutional change if, in the province, there exists legislation allowing the government to attain its objectives. In this case, the government's objective is to reform the structures of the school boards. The government can, as has been shown, attain these objectives at minimal costs while respecting the minority rights.

According to the Adler decision as well as the law of the principle of the minimum, that even Mr. Beaudoin must know, that would frustrate the Charter's objective. In that case, the rule of law would not be respected. That is what the Supreme Court justices pointed out last November.

If our rights are taken away from us, the Adler decision is being reversed. The province of Ontario is directly involved and the Catholics run the risk of losing their rights at a bilateral level. We can actually seek legal remedy up to and including the international level.

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

Mr. Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I'd like to say three things. First, are there any copies of the book on constitutions that the officials had this morning? Maybe it would be useful to have it because there are references to many articles of many documents in there.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): For your information, I asked the clerk to get us each a copy.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: We're going to be just about learning it by heart.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In practice, in day-to-day life, I'd like to know how parents are going to be making their choice within a linguistic school board. I understand the parents are going to be asked to do that, but how will it be done in practice? Will all parents be summoned? How will they be summoned? I'd like us to discuss that a little first.

Second, in your brief, you mention a community that is growing in numbers. If possible, I'd like to get a handle on that Franco- Protestant community. In terms of numbers, how many people are we talking about?

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

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: How will parents go about choosing the denominational status of a school in a linguistic school board? That is the question?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: How is that going to be done, not in theory, but in practice.

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: It has not yet been done because, to date, we have not had a linguistic school board. Just to give you a reference point, I can tell you that the government did ask the 2,500 schools in the province to review their denominational choice. How was it done? In 80% or 90% of those cases, it was done within a review committee made up of the school committee and the orientation committee. The parents were a majority both within the school committee and the orientation committee and there were some representatives from teaching and non-teaching staff and so forth. So the parents made up the majority. Does that answer your question?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Then are people asked to vote on that?

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And the majority has it.

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: That's it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: A simple majority of those present.

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: Yes. That's what was done in the past. However, as to what is going to happen... Now that they want establishment boards, structures are going to change somewhat, but it will probably stay the same. No one has gone through that to date.

As for your second question, the growth of the Franco- Protestant population, we had one Franco-Protestant school 18 years ago. There are some 15 now, with several projects in the making. What is difficult on the south shore of Montreal, for example, is that most of the Protestant school boards are mainly neutral. They're first of all anglophone and protestant with a small p.

• 1630

As Protestants, first and foremost for religious reasons, on the south shore of Montreal, we would have liked to have a francophone Protestant school with integrated values, in other words really Protestant and not neutral. But that ground has already been occupied by people who feel they are Protestant but who in reality are neutral and consider they don't need a Protestant francophone school because they have one. Yes, but it is neutral. They say that there is one. It's qualified as being Protestant and we can't have another one. That has limited us a lot. Otherwise, we would have more.

What we had hoped, what we would like to see for ourselves, is to have linguistic school boards. The neutralists could join, as they wished, non-denominational language-based school boards. The real Protestants, just like the real Anglo-Catholics, for religious reasons, could exercise their right to dissent.

I find what Mr. Dion said to be very misleading. He told us that of one million students in Quebec, there were only 2,300 in dissentient school boards. We can't have dissentient schools anymore. The government legislated this so that there would be denominational school boards all across the province. As Protestants, we want to be dissentient. But we can't be dissentient. We were told to go to the Protestant school board instead. The Protestant school board was not needed in that case. It was imposed. You cannot choose to become dissentient, at this point. The Gonthier decision says that our right to be dissentient is without any effect presently, but that this does not mean it is inactive. it could become active when linguistic school boards are set up. That's why we want them. We're told that it's fine and to go ahead.

I'd like to wind up with a conclusion. If section 93 is all that bad, if it is evil, as some have said, do away with it for us and for the rest of Canada at the same time. If it's not good for us, then it's not good for Ontario either. Try to take it away from Ontario and you'll see what happens. The minority is a bit bigger there. We're just a small group and they are trying to crush us. That's not right.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Could I ask our guests to shorten up on their remarks? We still have five members of the committee who would like to be heard.

We'll go directly to our next member, Madam Senator Lavoie- Roux.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux (Québec, PC): First of all, thank you for your presentation.

It might be interesting to very briefly—but I won't do it because I couldn't do it faithfully—present the history of the creation of the French Protestant schools that preceded the slightly rapid development of the PSBGM with its Protestant francophone sector, while still remaining a rather neutral kind of school. I remember the Feller Institute. That was a discovery for me, because I was young in those days. When a child was Protestant and francophone, it was a real problem. You sent that child to the Feller Institute. At that time, Protestant francophones had to pay to go there, either to board the child or whatever, because there was nothing else. So the development you've talked about isn't recent, but it wasn't easy for you to set up this network of French Protestant schools.

That said, some say that section 93 protects rights by setting up linguistic school boards and it seems to me the minister said, at the time, that parents could still continue having denominational schools if that was their wish. Am I wrong?

In that context, would it still be possible for a francophone Protestant majority on the south shore, for example, to vote to have a French Protestant school with all that entails from the denominational point of view and so on?

• 1635

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

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: The Franco-Protestants are very much a minority in Quebec. How can we hope that Protestants, who are such a small minority, will ever make up a majority for a given school? Our schools are regional schools. We cover a whole region and that represents four or five school boards, even the big ones that have just been set up. We can't afford neighbourhood schools because we're such a small minority.

If you're talking about setting up a new school in a neighbourhood, we'll never have a majority there, by definition.

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: Once more, that will be anti- constitutional. Based on legal opinions and the application of section 41 of the Quebec Charter, they're asking for the repeal of denominational status. In the appendix of Mr. Claude Filion's brief, who's the president of the Commission, it says: "[...] we recommend the repeal of the provisions of the Public Education Act providing for the granting of denominational status to schools." So it would be impossible to have denominational schools under section 41.

I went to meet Ms. Marois' officials and Mr. Plante did point out to me that the disappearance of denominational schools had been confirmed by the office and that there would not be any notwithstanding clauses. There will be nothing.

So we have no guarantees. In the appended documents, you also have a release from the newspaper Le Devoir specifying that Mr. Brassard said it was useless to use notwithstanding clauses to set up linguistic school boards, that there would be no further need for them, that they would arrive at their ends otherwise. So there will be no more denominational schools. There won't even be a choice in the matter, Ms. lavoie-Roux. We will have neutral schools.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: I'd like to add something in response to the references made by Senator Beaudoin to Mr. Carignan. I have in front of me the specific report made by commissioner Pierre Carignan on the fundamental principles of school restructuring on the Island of Montreal. I'd like to read an excerpt, if you don't mind:

[...] the system advocated for common schools is, at the first level, a denominational one and not an absolutely neutral one that avoids any reference to religion. The second level is an openly neutral or multi-denominational system. In a society such as ours, where the various layers are marked by religious sentiment, there should be no formula put in place that neglects as important an aspect as religion in the education of young people.

And so he believed in the denominational character of schools. What I would like to have is reassurance that Quebec will not change its mind tomorrow morning. This may be a gratuitous point, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize in advance, but I know that they have been under pressure for generations, practically, to set up a neutral system across Quebec.

I am therefore sympathetic to your representations and I know that it is the fruit of considerable effort with the resources available to parents. At the moment, they are afraid of losing what they have built. I think that this should be taken into consideration. You do not see anything else that could protect that?

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: There are Canadian constitutionalists such as Lauwers and Brown that make exactly that point. There are no legal opinions, even from the federal Department of Justice, to the contrary. Ask Mr. Dion and the federal Department of Justice to give you an opinion to the contrary. You will not get it.

If section 93 is abrogated, you will not have guarantees that denominational schools will be preserved. You will never have them. There is no constitutionalist who... It is impossible.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Desjardins, we are moving to the next speaker, Mr. Clifford Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): What concerns me in particular about this issue, which has interested me for quite a long time, is the question of acquired rights.

I think that I'm going to speak along the same lines as Senator Beaudoin. There are always minorities and majorities, and a minority in one circumstance can become a majority in another.

• 1640

A number of people have contacted me and I have spoken at length with them. I found that there were quite different opinions in what I believe to be this lack of consensus. It is clear that there is no consensus. Within this consensus, there is your position, the position of the Anglo-Catholics who insist that religion be part of education, and the position of Anglo- Protestants for whom it is a linguistic issue. Anglophone Protestant schools are not schools that teach Protestant religion; they are linguistic schools.

Anglophone Protestant minorities would therefore feel more at ease in linguistic school boards if paragraph 23(1)(a) were applied in Quebec to bolster the system, because they are very much afraid of the question of guaranteed rights "where numbers warrant." For Anglo-Catholics, it is strictly an issue of religion.

I am coming to the point that section 23 is spoken of as an acquired right. Rightly or wrongly, it was the way we protected minorities when this section was written in 1867.

What concerns me particularly, is that this is the second time we have a constitutional amendment. There were acquired rights in Newfoundland, and now they are gone.

Today in Quebec people say there are acquired rights, but society has evolved and new realities have to be taken into account.

According to the same principle, there are now two official languages that reflect the reality of the founding peoples. But tomorrow or the day after, there could be a majority that speaks Hindi or some other language. Chinese, for example, could be the majority language in Canada; it is very possible. Will we say at that point that constitutional protection of the two languages is no longer warranted because it does not reflect society?

If tomorrow morning Hispanic Americans became the majority in the United States, would Spanish become the official language because it reflects the majority? These are fundamental questions.

I believe that acquired rights are essential rights that must be preserved. We can change things as society evolves, but before playing with acquired rights, we should take certain precautions.

My question is as follows: what do you think of our role as federal parliamentarians in this question? Do you see it as a central role? Do you believe that we have a voice equal to that of the Quebec government, which did not hold hearings? How do you see our role in all that?

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

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: I think that your role is to show yourselves to be democrats, to apply democracy and acquired rights according to Canada's history and to respect those rights.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Dalia Wood.

[English]

Senator Dalia Wood (Montarville, Lib.): The Government of Quebec states that the denominational character of schools will be protected. They do not want to see religion taken out of the schools; they simply want to reorganize the boards along linguistic lines. Would your organization be satisfied with the implementation of linguistic school boards if we could replace the constitutional guarantees found in section 93 with equal protection for those aspects of the rights you hold dear, which are the denominational aspect of schools and the course curriculum, and would you accept a political undertaking in place of a constitutional guarantee?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: I am going to make a quick comment that we will elaborate on later. Legally speaking, we must remember that section 93, according to a 1993 decision of the Supreme Court, does not guarantee the structures of school boards, but schools. The guarantee is at the level of the schools but not at the level of the structures.

A voice: Everything must be changed.

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: The provincial government has full powers to change the structures.

[English]

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

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: It's the same answer. We do currently have that legislation. There's no point in replacing it. The legislation is for schools, and they can provide whatever structures they want as long as they give us, the minorities, the control and management of our schools.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much. We will now go to Marlene Jennings.

• 1645

[English]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Good afternoon. I have listened with some interest to your presentations. I would like to say that as with my colleague, Madame Finestone, there are certain elements that really perturbed me. We are on the verge of the 21st century. Canada—and Quebec—is becoming more and more a multicultural, pluralistic society, especially in terms of religious beliefs.

I personally have a very difficult time with the fact that we have the vestiges of section 93, which provides privileges to a certain sector of our religious community and which we do not find in any other religious groups. I am originally a franco-Protestant who, as a result of the denominational school boards that existed in Quebec in the 1950s, became an anglophone. In my family we cover every major religion in the world except for Islam, and we would welcome members of Islam into our family.

So I have a very hard time dealing with the fact that you are talking about continuing a privilege for Catholics and Protestants in this country, in Quebec, where the other religious groups do not have the same privilege. Can you answer that?

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: I did mention some points in that regard. We feel these discriminatory privileges given to Protestants and Catholics in the Constitution a long time ago presently open the door for the same rights for other groups at a provincial level. Would you say a neutral system that forbids a choice would be more tolerant?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: May I answer that?

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

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I do not believe linguistic school boards are neutral. I think the fundamental values that we find in our country are entrenched in our Constitution. I think linguistic school boards have the obligation—as does any other school board—to transmit the values of this country that are entrenched in our charter.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): With your permission, we will now go to Senator Prud'homme. Can it be short, Senator Prud'homme?

Senator Marcel Prud'homme (La Salle, Ind.): Yes, I will try.

I would first like to thank the committee and the House. We tried to do the same thing for Newfoundland. We did not succeed. It was the Senate that was able to. I personally emphasized the fact that it was important to hold hearings to listen to people and also to go to Newfoundland. We were finally able to do so thanks to a debate in the Senate.

I very much regret that we were not able to hold hearings in Quebec. I presented a motion in the Senate that was not adopted, but at least we are holding hearings. So at least the battle was half won.

I will not hide the fact that I am a traditionalist, a French- Canadian, and a Catholic. That makes me no worse or no better than anyone else.

If I understood correctly, you see the school as an entity that delivers a set of values to our children and not only instruction of a half-hour or an hour of religion. Do you agree or disagree?

If you agree, I understand the apprehensions of Ms. Jennings, who is wondering how people are going to adjust to all the changes that are disrupting our institutions, especially in the area of costs, I realize, while preserving the acquired rights.

There are schools in Quebec... I will say it in English for those listening to us.

[English]

In case you do not know, Quebec has no lesson to receive from anybody, and I will fight for them. In Quebec schools that are partially paid for by my taxes, they teach religion in my Greek school, which does not exist elsewhere in Canada. My Armenian school does not exist elsewhere in Canada. And my Jewish school does not exist anywhere else in the world. I intend to fight for them.

• 1650

I'm afraid we're ultimately getting there: first the de-Christianization of the system in Newfoundland, and then Quebec, in order to get the big apple that is Ontario. Do you know that in public schools in Ontario, a teacher cannot say “Merry Christmas” because it is not accepted? Nobody knows that.

[Translation]

We no longer have the right to say Merry Christmas in a public school in Ontario when Christmas time comes because it is not considered neutral. You did not know that.

Senator Gerald Beaudoin: There is no decision from the Supreme Court on that.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: That is because nobody went to court yet, sir.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Merry Christmas.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: They will lose. I say that it is a set of values that we want to preserve. Although I do not like compromises, I think we must preserve acquired rights and understand how Canada is evolving. We have to change with society and preserve acquired rights.

[English]

I believe what he said was “Rights are rights are rights.”

[Translation]

I will conclude by asking you to tell us clearly and simply how we can preserve acquired rights while accommodating those who want a public school where there is no religion.

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

Mr. Daniel Desjardins: It's a matter of choice for the parents. Parents can choose a non-denominational or a denominational school for their children. Nevertheless, if section 93 is amended, this will no longer be the case.

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

Mr. Jocelyn Aubut: About Newfoundland, Quebec and perhaps soon Ontario, you spoke of the loss of acquired rights and of de- Christianization. I would say that if section 93 is amended for Canada, we will be giving special rights to Quebec since we will be abolishing constraints in its case that will be maintained in section 93 for all other provinces.

I don't know if this is a fair bilateral amendment since Ontario will still have its hands tied and will continue to conform to the limits of section 93 while Quebec will be completely free of these limits. Really, we know that Quebec wants to rid itself not only of section 93 but also of the Constitution in its entirety. Is that what you wish to support?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Aubut, ladies and gentlemen, we thank you for this afternoon's presentation. Thank you for appearing before us. We will now take a five-minute break before hearing the following group. We will resume at 5 P.M.

• 1653

• 1655

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Before we begin, I would like to discuss a logistics problem. Our clerk prepared a list of groups wishing to appear which we studied together yesterday. You all have until 5 P.M. today to complete this list of groups, associations and individuals wishing to appear before the committee and to hand it in.

• 1700

I would like to suggest that we begin Wednesday afternoon, that is tomorrow afternoon, according to the list presented by the clerk. That would mean that tomorrow afternoon, we would hear representatives from the Equality Party, the Châteauguay Valley English-Speaking People's Association, the Eau-Vive school and in the evening, from the Federation of Parents' Committees and Citizens for School Rights.

This was the schedule planned for Wednesday, it would allow us to make some headway and to submit another schedule with the other names that have been suggested. Would this be agreeable?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Tomorrow's schedule would remain the same.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Tomorrow's schedule would remain the same. For Thursday, we must receive before 5 P.M. today the names of the groups or associations wishing to appear as was agreed at the organizational meeting.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: This entails some planning.

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

Senator Gérard Beaudoin: Witnesses have been summoned and are ready to appear. I think they should be heard tomorrow. If they are in a hurry, that's fine.

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

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Some groups will get a 30 or 40-minute hearing, I am not sure. It's up to you to divide up the time in a fair manner. This afternoon's group had an hour and a half which is most discriminatory when you consider that other groups will only have 20 or 25 minutes.

I know we heard two groups this afternoon, but this morning, we had three experts on a very important question where we require guidance and they were only given ten minutes.

Personally, I would like us to stick to what was decided, even if a group is represented by three speakers. We know its position, essentially, after the second speaker. We know that they are against something and that they want a hearing. I would like us to stick to the time allowed, even if there is time left over. We could use that time to go and read the documents and form an opinion on what the witnesses have told us.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): If I understand you correctly, Ms. Gagnon, you're asking me to enforce stricter rules at each round of the hearings regarding the 45-minutes time limit.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: When you say 10 minutes for a presentation, I can assure you that it isn't very long.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I would like to let our witnesses know that we are not, for the time being, using up their time.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Ten minutes for a presentation is much too short, to my mind, unless anyone specifies that he or she will make it short. Otherwise, I think the witnesses need at least 20 to 25 minutes for their presentation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you for your comments. Tomorrow, we will start at 3:30, p.m. in accordance with the draft's schedule that has been submitted to you for tomorrow's hearing. Tomorrow, you will also be given a new table for subsequent hearings.

We have the pleasure of welcoming the Association des comités de parents Québec/Chaudière/Appalaches, represented by Anne Bureau, Gilles Gagnon and Detlev Otto. Welcome to all of you. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr. Gilles Gagnon (President, Association des comités de parents Québec/Chaudière/Appalaches): Good afternoon, Senator Pépin, Mr. Paradis, and members of the Joint House and Senate Committee. Thank you for hearing us.

My name is Gilles Gagnon and I am the president of our association which is made up of 22 parents' committees, two of which are directly concerned by section 93 and by the proposed amendment to the British North America Act. Those two parents' committee are the CECQ, whose first vice-president is Ms. Bureau, and the Greater Quebec Scool Board, represented here by Mr. Otto. Mr. Otto is also the vice-president of our association. As you can see, there is room within our association for the English-speaking minority.

The roles of our association are mainly to bring together, train, inform, support and represent all parents within the Quebec/Chaudière/Appalaches region.

To represent our members, it was evident to us that we had to submit a brief to the joint committee in order to describe our regional situation. We managed to prepare a brief in the short time we were given. We are all parents and we all work, and preparing a brief is harder for us than for people who work within the different educational environments.

Within ACP 03-12, we believe that designated schools should be removed from school boards so that the boards can become more efficient and start respecting the freedom of choice of parents and their right to dissent. We recommend that the community take control.

• 1705

It is up to the community to decide what are its needs, expectations, goals and objectives, within the school and within the bodies referred to earlier, that is the orientation council or the new school council which is proposed.

The Charter, whether we talk about the Quebec Charter or the Canadian Charter, states that no discrimination must be made on religious grounds, whether we talk about Catholics or Protestants or even about other religions, since there are other religions in Quebec. The Quebec society is becoming a multidenominational society.

After this short preamble, I will now give the floor to Ms. Bureau who will make our presentation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Bureau.

Ms. Anne Bureau (First Vice-President, Association des comités de parents Québec/Chaudière/Appalaches): May I first say that contrary to the witnesses who preceded us, we represent a majority. The CSCQ which is the denominational school board of Quebec City, represents the Catholic majority. My colleague, who is vice- president of anglophone affairs for the association represents Greater Quebec and the English-speaking protestant majority.

Our association also represents those minorities, since I represent within CSCQ the anglo-catholics, while Mr. Otto represents within Greater Quebec all franco-protestants. Our association is proud to include all constituencies.

We wanted to speak for the majority. We are not lawyers and we do not have the legislation and the Charter memorized, we have not studied these instruments. As Mr. Gagnon was saying, we're volunteer parents and we are more interested in the practical side of things.

I will dwell upon one part of our brief and Mr. Otto will do the rest.

In our brief, we ask that section 93 be amended, we do not ask that it be abolished or rescinded. What we want is an amendment, knowing full well that an amendment means a change. As my colleague was saying, we want parents to keep their freedom of choice. What we do not want, is for the amendment or the non amendment to section 93 to introduce the solution proposed by the Kenniff report concerning the CSCQ. I cannot speak for the CECM, but I can tell you what the Kenniff report solution would mean form Greater Quebec and the CSCQ. It would be akin to having a council of commissioners within a school board. We would have Catholic and Protestant committees within a linguistic school board. They would be wearing different hats. It would put us, parents, in a very difficult situation, and we already have trouble figuring out the present structure. The more duplication there is, the more cumbersome the system becomes, and the more complicated it becomes, the more you lose track of the essentials.

I will now yield to my colleague, Mr. Otto, who is our association's Vice-Chairman for anglophone affairs.

[English]

Mr. Detlev Otto (Vice-President, Anglophone Affairs, Association des Comités de Parents): As the anglophone rep for region 0312, we are in accord with what was said by Gilles Gagnon and Anne Bureau in French. What the parents want is to have religious instruction in school and it should be left up to the parents to decide what the religious instruction should be. The confessional status of the schools should also be decided by the communities. In other words, we the parents would like to see section 93 of the British North America Act amended to have only linguistic school boards, with the right to keep religious and moral instruction in our schools, as decided by the parents.

Also, the confessional status of the schools should be decided by the community. What we mean by “the community” is the governing boards in each school, which will be implemented in 1998. As an example, one school could have the Catholic religion, the Protestant religion, or moral instruction taught as requested by the parents.

That's what the parents in our region want.

This was very, very short. There's not much to say on it. I will now pass you to Gilles Gagnon to continue.

• 1710

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Gagnon: The only thing I would add, is that duplicate management is never a healthy situation in any administration or organization.

We do not want section 93 abolished. It should be amended, or rather improved. It would greatly facilitate everyone's task and alleviate the fears that we have heard about. We understand these fears, and particularly those of the minorities who are afraid they will be lost in the crowd, their rights completely forgotten. This is not what we want or hope for, but rather the opposite.

What we want is for the amendment to provide more efficient structures. We want to train our children to be good citizens respectful of differences, whether cultural or religious. What we want, is for those differences to be respected.

We want to dedicate all our energies to what matters, namely teaching our children to be good citizens. This is our aim.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much. The first questioner is Rahim Jaffer.

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): I've heard different arguments today that it's not necessarily important to amend section 93 in order to implement linguistic school boards. What I'm curious to find out specifically is if you can answer, in your own opinion, the question of how you can make the switch to linguistic school boards and still respect the choice of parents' minority rights, as you spoke about them, but without amending section 93. In your eyes, is that possible?

Mr. Detlev Otto: I can answer. I'm not a politician. I'm not a lawyer.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You're a lucky man.

Mr. Detlev Otto: I don't know how to amend the laws or whatever, but that's what we're asking. We just want to make sure that the students or that our children have the right to religious language instruction in our schools, and if the parents don't want the religious instruction in our schools, well then, they have the moral instruction. That's all we want.

I can't tell you how to do it. I don't know.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: If I could clarify, what I'm hearing on one side is that you don't necessarily have to amend section 93 in order to respect minority rights and the freedom of choice. This is what I'm understanding. How does that in effect help your point of view if the Quebec government actually went ahead and amended section 93? What I would like to know specifically is how deleting it helps your cause. That's what I don't understand.

Mr. Detlev Otto: Well, if section 93 is removed, then what is left is that the Quebec government can change the laws if they want, and then if they want to remove religious instruction from schools, we're out, there will be no more religious instruction for the parents and the students. That's what we're looking at here.

We want a protection so we can have religious instruction in our schools. That's if the parents want it. If at that school nobody wants any religious instruction, well then, they won't have any. That's it.

[Translation]

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

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Your brief is based on the Kenniff Report. Unless my memory does not serve me right, I thought the Kenniff Report had been shelved because it had met with a lot of opposition from the CEQ, from the parents, and so on. The parents might not be as familiar with the report, but there are parents, like yourself, who think that it would lead to a very cumbersome situation, that would complicate things, and so on.

You say that section 93 should not be abolished but instead it should be amended. Do you have any suggestions as to how?

Ms. Anne Bureau: I can answer your question in part. You are right, the Kenniff report was put aside a few years ago because the proposal it contained was too unyielding. Nevertheless, what the Quebec Minister for Education is proposing in his draft bill, is to set up a denominational catholic and protestant committee for each of the linguistic school boards throughout the Quebec City and Montreal sectors.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: She's going back to it.

Ms. Anne Bureau: She's going back to the Kenniff solution as suggested at that time. The parents didn't want it at that particular time. Nobody wanted it. She's going back today. We certainly don't want to see it re-implemented.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Have you a suggestion to make about an amendment?

• 1715

Mr. Gilles Gagnon: With everything that will result from the bill, which seeks to modify the school boards and institutions and establish a school committee, perhaps it is the community which will take charge. Every community could decide its school's complexion. We will have to decide what hue to give to the educational reform project. Will it be catholic? Will it be protestant? Indeed, in any sectors, the clientele wants at least one of these two religions. The CECQ exists, for instance.

With the educational reform project, we have to at least maintain the two denominations or at least have an opportunity to choose that another religion be taught instead of morals.

Indeed, more flexibility must be given to the schools, because this is where academic life takes place, and not at the school board or at the provincial government. It really takes place in each community. The requirements and problems of the Portneuf region, which we represent, or of the Charlevoix region, which we also represent, are different from those of Quebec City, the Greater Quebec or another school board.

Consequently, if we focus on the school rather than on the school boards, we believe that we will be able to develop our children as we should, namely, we will produce well-adapted citizens who participate in their community.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Réal Ménard will be the next to speak.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I find it a bit difficult to understand your point of view. I find your opinion interesting and I thank you for coming here to appear, because I know that you wear many hats. However, it seems to me that what you are so ardently seeking is about to materialize with two guarantees.

You're saying that we have to be open to a certain degree of plurality. Quebec in the year 2000 will not be shared by Protestants and Catholics. The situation is more complex than that and you are quite right in saying so. You also said that real community life can be found in the schools and that the schools should reflect the will of the parents acting on behalf of their children. And you want these schools to guarantee religious education in accordance with freedom of choice.

Nevertheless, the way I see it, this has nothing to do with section 93, because what you hold so dear to your heart can already be achieved under section 41 of Quebec's Human Rights bill as well as under sections 5, 225 and 228 of Bill 107.

I am not saying this because I'm intelligent or because I'm a lawyer, which by the way I am not but which I may become one day. I'm telling you this because I had your concerns and I asked someone to point out which sections provided the guarantees that you are seeking so ardently.

Would I be correct if I were to summarize your brief by saying that you are for the implementation of language school boards, that you want to see greater pluralism in tomorrow's Quebec and that you want these things to happen at the local level. For things to happen at the local level, you have two types of guarantees, the Charter of Rights and Bill 107.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Bureau.

Ms. Anne Bureau: Yes, you have summarized it very well.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I didn't come here for nothing.

Ms. Anne Bureau: However I must admit that if we ask for an amendment to section 93, it is because the parents' association that we represent—I personally represent the CECQ—catholic parents want to keep their right to a denominational school. They fear that if section 93 is abrogated, and I mean repealed, that is abolished—this will no longer be possible. That is their concern. That is why we do not want the government do away with section 93, but to amend it so as to allow schools to be more open to Quebec's community of the year 2000.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You know that is not possible; senator Lavoie-Roux is right when she says that we either have a situation where the two types of structures coexist—which is why the Kenniff report was rejected—or we have protestant and catholic school boards with a right to dissent which could mean four types of school boards. That would of course lead to greater costs. Nobody wants this, except the authors of the report and, at one point, Mr. Ouimet who has since changed his mind.

Don't you think that it would be simpler to guarantee the rights that you want through non constitutional legislation by establishing linguistic school boards?

• 1720

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Provided that all parents are virtuous and get along with each other.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The question was for Ms. Bureau.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We should always listen to Ms. Lavoie-Roux. I like her spontaneity. All parents are virtuous. So...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Bureau, a comment?

Ms. Anne Bureau: Perhaps Mr. Gagnon...

Mr. Gilles Gagnon: I would like to add a comment. What we want, and Mr. Lincoln said so during the last presentation, is to keep the rights that Catholics and Protestants already have. But we also want to be a more open community.

We believe that we should focus on the schools not on the school boards. We could end up with a beast with two, three or four heads trying to go into four directions at once. We could end up, with what we have now, with catholic school boards, protestant school boards, anglophone school boards and francophone school boards. Who knows where it would end.

Let's act at the school level because in one community, parents might prefer a catholic school whereas in another community, they might prefer a protestant school. And in another community, they might want a hybrid school, whether it is catholic and protestant or catholic with another religion.

What we want is to keep what we have. We are not legal experts and do not pretend to know the legislation inside out. If, right now, there are guarantees allowing that this type of openness without amending section 93, all the better, but I don't think there is. In that case, section 93 should be amended and improved, not abolished.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Gagnon. Our next questioner is Mr. Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I think I would like to go a little further.

I have a problem; I can assure you I still haven't made up my mind as to how I will vote on this amendment. I can honestly tell you that I am here to listen attentively to the witnesses. I apologize for leaving for a while this afternoon, but I had other commitments in the House.

What concerns me the most when we talk about religion in schools is this, and I will try to explain it to you and perhaps you could alleviate my fears. The Constitution is supposed to protect groups and minorities. I wonder what will happen in small regions.

Today, in 1997, other religions have developed, for example, among francophones. A lot of francophones have joined various christian religions, whether it be Jehovah's Witnesses or others. My problem is what happens to a small community that cannot afford a school where its religion will be taught. What happens to the children who have to go to school in the morning?

The case of these children causes me a problem. Upon arriving at school at 9 a.m., the teacher would tell them not to enter the classroom because during the next half hour, God will be mentioned and their parents do not want them in the classroom being of a different religion.

Isn't religious education the responsibility of parents and the clergy?

That is my main concern. For example, I am from New Brunswick and in our small community, we now have people of various denominations. I find it terrible, close to being inhumane, that a young child of five or six years old be requested to leave the classroom because God will be mentioned.

I find it hard to swallow. This is the reason why I say that in 1997, there is a problem in our schools and we have to find a solution to it. All I am doing is voicing my concerns to you. And how do you react to my concerns?

Mr. Gilles Gagnon: I have to point out that currently, in the Quebec situation, the child leaves the classroom but he has a choice between attending a religion class or a moral standards class.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Or he can go to the gym.

Mr. Gilles Gagnon: In most of the schools we visited, we heard that the morals classes were very suitable.

Of course, if instead of attending an ethics class, that child who has to leave the classroom, would have the possibility of getting religious instruction in his own religion—and I won't name any of the numerous different religions for fear of frustrating the others—he would not feel left out because he would then be taken in charge by his religious community.

I would add that the charters, in most cases, include the wording "where numbers warrant". In fact, we have a similar wording.

But, currently in the schools, the child has the choice between moral or religious teaching.

• 1725

I do not know if Anne wants to add something. It is obvious that if there were a third religion, it could be taught to the child. The decision would have been made by the community in the course of the planning of the curriculum.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like to make two statements. What has been referred to us is the amendment requested by the province of Quebec, namely that subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 93 be eliminated. Section 93 would remain because it says that education is a provincial matter. However, the constitutional guarantees would no longer exist.

You say you do not object to that but you would want parents to retain the right to denominational schools. But I would like to be clear on that. Would you like that right to remain in an amended section 93, as section 93 currently reads, or do you wish that it be included in the Quebec Education Act, once the constitutional amendment is passed? A decision has to be made at some point. You cannot refer to anything and everything at the same time. That is an impossibility.

If you wish those guarantees to be included in the education Act, you can come up with a very nice piece of legislation to that effect. You can say that parents will have the right to chose, that parents have the right to ask that religion be taught in the schools. But that would be a different matter and that is what is important. This is the reason why I would like to know exactly what you wish.

If the four subsections in section 93 are amended but you maintain that the right to denominational schools must remain, it does not make the slightest difference. In the end, I suppose that it somewhat depends on the wording.

If that right is included in the Education Act, that is very well but then you cannot count on a constitutional guarantee. The legislative assembly can change its mind a month later and amend the Act.

There is no doubt that if we replace the denominational system with a secular system, lay government will have to pass legislation about public education. Legislation will have to be passed and guarantees provided that religion will be taught in the schools. But that is where the fundamental choice comes into play.

I don't know what you want. Do you want to amend section 93 and replace it with something else, or do you want to set aside the constitutional guarantees and rely on the Quebec Charter of Rights and an Education Act that would guarantee the right to religious education?

Ms. Anne Bureau: It is already in the Education Act. It was not amended by Ms. Marois' draft bill. So it does exist. However, as you say, legislation can be changed easily. I don't want the government to start messing around with our schools in Quebec and telling us one minute that we are entitled to denominational schools, and the next that we are not. I would like to avoid that.

If there are constitutional guarantees, at least we are sure that the government cannot play that kind of game with us. Neither Catholics nor Protestants may be the only minorities in some areas. In Montreal for example, which I do not represent, some schools are located more in a Jewish community, while others are more in a Muslim community. Are these not the minority communities nowadays? Should we not be redefining the term "minority"? I don't know. As we said, we are not legal experts or lawyers, but we do want a constitutional guarantee that our schools will remain denominational. An ordinary piece of legislation will make us into yo-yos.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: So you want schools to remain denominational.

Ms. Anne Bureau: Yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Fine.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Depending on the wishes of the parents.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Depending on the wishes of the parents.

Thus, if you do not like the four subsections of section 93, you would like to suggest different ones that would state that the right to denominational schools is guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution. For we should not forget that what we are talking about here is the Constitution of Canada. It is true that we are talking about it as it relates to a province, but nevertheless we are discussing the Canadian Constitution.

So what you want is an amendment to the resolution before us, if I understand you correctly. In other words, if we were to set aside the four subsections, section 93 should nevertheless provide for something. Section 93 states that education comes under provincial jurisdiction. No one wants to change that. That will remain. What the resolution sets aside are the constitutional guarantees.

• 1730

You say you want to keep the right to denominational schools. In that case, we need to find a wording that would maintain the right to denominational schools. That is what you want, I assume?

Ms. Anne Bureau: Yes, yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Very good, thank you. I will now give the floor to Mr. Clifford Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to go along with what Senator Beaudoin was saying. If I read your brief correctly, in your conclusion, you say the following about linguistic minorities on school boards:

They are afraid they will be submerged by the majority and will not see their rights recognized. As we have said above, these rights are recognized by the Education Act of Quebec and thus will be able to be enforced.

That, however, is not really what you mean from what you said, if I understood you correctly. The Education Act is one thing, but you want constitutional guarantees to be maintained to ensure you can choose to have denominational schools, if you wish. Is that correct?

Here, I take into account the comments made by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Ménard, who spoke about section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights.

In fact, when I was in government myself, I experienced a suspension of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. So it can be done. Indeed, who is to say that a Liberal or a PQ government will not ever amend the Quebec Charter. It doesn't mean anything. It all depends on the politics at the time.

If I understand you, you would like something that matches section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, to be enshrined in the Constitution. You don't have a draft wording? You feel it's up to us to do it. Am I right?

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

Mr. Gilles Gagnon: I could give you a final answer. As we said, we are not lawyers and we find legal wording hard to interpret. In court, many people have problems.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: You are telling us to do our job. You are quite right.

Mr. Gilles Gagnon: We are telling you what we want and we feel it's up to politicians to draft the legal wording accordingly.

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: That's right.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Gagnon. I will now give the floor to Mr. Peter Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's my understanding, then—correct me if I'm wrong—that you do not wish to extinguish, in other words remove forever, section 93 from the Constitution; rather, it's your wish to modify and to improve the 93 section that is there now. So in effect you have great concerns about this motion that is to remove this section, because by amending it and making Quebec not subject to this section, you are in effect extinguishing it for Quebec. Just to be very clear, you are against extinguishing this section, but you would like to see it improved, much as New Brunswick has improved on its. Is that correct?

Mr. Detlev Otto: That's right. We want to keep section 93 but have an amendment in there to guarantee the religious rights in the schools. As we were saying, the government can come along at any time and change article 41 of the Chartre des droits du Québec and it does not exist and here we are with nothing any more to guarantee our rights.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a supplemental question. Do I understand, then, that you have concerns? Do you have concerns about the notation on the application that makes reference to the 1982 constitution but also disclaims recognition of it? Is this one of your concerns too?

Mr. Detlev Otto: That is right, yes.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, then. This completes today's session. Would you like to add something?

Mr. Gilles Gagnon: We would like to thank the members of Parliament for welcoming us. We just came in from Quebec City and we are not familiar with the procedure. We hope to have given you a fair account of the views of parents in ACP 03-12 regarding the proposed amendment to section 93 of the British North America Act. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): On behalf of committee members, we also thank you.

Members are advised that we are adjourned until tomorrow, 3:30 p.m., when proceedings resume. Be aware that we will have a light supper here in order to conclude by 8:30 p.m. with the draft list that we have. We will provide you with a new draft of upcoming hearings.

Thank you very much to all.

• 1735

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Martine Bresson): In Room 253-D.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The meeting will be held tomorrow in Room 253-D, across the hall, the Railway Room.

The meeting is adjourned.