Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 21 - Evidence - Afternoon Session
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 25, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 1:30 p.m. to continue its consideration of the resolution to amend the Constitution of Canada, Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have with us this afternoon witnesses from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
Please proceed.
Mr. Bruce Clemenger, Director of National Affairs, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada: I should note, before beginning, that Glenn Smith is chair of our Task Force on Education as well as past-chair of the Protestant Committee of the Quebec Superior Council of Education.
We appreciate this committee's facilitation of a public discussion of the ramifications of the resolution to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland and Canada and for allowing the parties most directly affected to address this issue and express their concerns.
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is a national association of Protestant evangelicals. Our membership consists of 28 denominations as well as individual churches, para-church organizations and individuals. It is estimated there are some 2.7 million evangelicals in Canada.
We want to highlight two principles which guide us in our approach to education. First, parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children and therefore a corresponding right to choose the type of education they desire for their children. Second, education is shaped by a framework of belief and values, sometimes called a world view, by which we make sense of our lives and the world around us.
Religion, the ultimate commitment which provides personal and communal direction to life, is an integral part of a world view. Education, because it deals with questions of ultimate importance, is inherently religious and, at a foundational level, is faith-based.
Our concern with the proposed amendment to Term 17 is that, while it is said to be required for economic reasons, in effect it will impair the ability of denominations to provide a faith-based education and will thereby diminish the right of parents to choose the type of education they desire for their children.
When Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, the continued right of parents, through religious communities, to educate their children was considered an essential element of any formal union. Under the proposed new system, the role of the denominations will be severely limited and confined to the provision of religious education classes, activities and observances.
EFC has three primary concerns with the proposed resolution. First, it facilitates a restructuring which causes a paradigm shift in the philosophy of education from a faith-based approach to a secularist one. Second, it severely restricts the ability of parents to shape the education of children according to their religious beliefs and will severely limit the role that religion plays in the education of children. Third, the resolution was submitted to Parliament in the face of strong opposition from the very groups which will be most directly affected by it.
Ms Danielle Shaw, Policy Coordinator, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada: With respect to the shift in philosophy of education from a faith-based approach to a secularist one, we would like to define what we mean by "faith-based" and "secular" and also to highlight three types of religious education.
The phrase "religious education" is often used to refer to three different activities. First, it can mean education about religion, which often takes the form of a world religions course. Second, it can refer to religious instruction, where one particular religion is given primacy. Third, it can refer to the understanding that all education is shaped by a world view and thus is faith-based. It is this latter form of religious education which has characterized education in Newfoundland and was the reason a denominational system was established.
Section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 and Term 17 in Newfoundland were fashioned out of an understanding that one's world view and religion are of paramount importance in the education of children. It deliberately protected the rights of parents to choose an education for their children that was consistent with their own world view. The proposed new system marks a departure from the religious-based philosophy of education to a secularist one.
The faith-based approach to education maintains that the education of children is an integrally religious enterprise and that one's world- and life-view shape the way that information is received and processed, which, in turn, shapes the way that that information is passed on to children. By contrast, the secularist approach maintains that it is possible to separate the religious from the non-religious aspects of life such that it is possible to educate children from a religiously neutral or value-free perspective, although a limited form of religious education will be allowed.
This philosophical and structural shift is, in our opinion, at the core of the debate surrounding the restructuring of the Newfoundland education system. Where it is currently possible in the Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist and Pentecostal schools to provide an hour-by-hour, subject-by-subject infusion of Christian principles, thought, perceptions and interpretation, the proposed interdenominational system will make this very difficult, if not impossible. Rather than being able to shape the whole of the curriculum, denominations will be restricted to providing religious education classes and religious observances.
Restricting the period during which parents are legally entitled to have their children subject to the influence of denominational or religious-based control and instruction to a mere portion of the curriculum will prejudicially affect the rights and privileges which were granted to the classes of persons comprising the protected denominations, contrary to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
The increasingly pluralized nature of Canadian society, especially as it is manifested along religious and cultural lines, demands an approach to education that will respect the differences rather than extinguish them.
[Translation]
Mr. Glenn Smith, president, Taskforce on Education: Our second concern with the proposed amendment is that it severely restricts the ability of parents to shape the education of their children according to their religious beliefs and will severely limit the role that religion plays in the education of children.
While the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada recognizes that provincial governments have a legitimate role to play in education, we also agree with the principles contained in section 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, stating that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education received by their children.
We are concerned that the amendment to Term 17 and the ensuing educational reform may erode the ability of parents to shape the education for their children. Although the nomenclature used in the amending legislation suggests that Newfoundland schools will continue to be denominationally based, the amendment will result in the inability of schools to continue, except in unusual circumstances, to give an education based on the religious vision of parents.
To remove from the educational system the rights of various faith groups to actively engage in the formulation of curriculum and the teaching of children is to deny parents the right to have their children educated out of a world view consistent with their own and implicitly inconsistent with the commitment of the Canadian government to clause 23 of the UN declaration.
There are an increasing number of families in the province who would not be members of the traditional Roman Catholic or Protestant faith groups. The rights of such parents to educate their children according to their own vision are just as important, and we think this amendment puts these rights in jeopardy. Any amendment to Term 17 should respect the diversity of religious convictions of Newfoundlanders. Amendments should not marginalize religion and exclude it from the general curriculum.
[English]
Mr. Clemenger: A third concern is that the resolution to amend Term 17 has been submitted to Parliament in the face of strong opposition from the groups which will be most directly and adversely affected.
The protection of minority religious rights is consistent with both Canadian and international human rights law. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and to express those beliefs in teaching and in practice. This recognition of religious freedom is reflected in Term 17, which was enacted in lieu of section 93 of the Constitution.
Peter Hogg, in his book entitled Constitutional Law in Canada stated:
...s. 93 amounts to a small bill of rights for the protection of minority religious groups...the phrase "any class of persons" means a class of persons "determined according to religious belief, and not according to race or language".
Several bundles of rights were granted to variety of religious minorities at different times in the history of the province. To take away these rights in the name of administrative efficiency is to violate the very philosophy of minority rights protection in Canada and to renege on an agreement that was a core element of the union of Newfoundland with the rest of Canada.
Without constitutional protection for religious groups, the ability to maintain a denominational or interdenominational system will be severely undermined. If there are disenfranchised groups who wish to be accommodated within the system, this can be accomplished without eroding the constitutional protection which other minority religious groups currently enjoy.
In conclusion, one of the distinguishing features of Canada's Constitution is the protection of religious minorities' education rights, which ensures the ability of parents to educate their children out of their religious vision of life. The proposed amendment does not further the accommodation or diversity but, rather, marks the erosion of a uniquely Canadian solution to the aspirations of minorities. We would urge Parliament and the Senate not to take away the constitutional protection that religious minorities currently enjoy. Any amendment which impinges on the current constitutional protections should be negotiated and undertaken only with the consent of the minorities most directly affected.
Senator Gigantès: What is your attitude about teaching creationism in schools?
Mr. Smith: The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada takes no position on that question whatsoever, and the Task Force on Education believes that all theories about the beginning of the created order or the cosmic order are open. We understand that these are theories and must be taught. On the Task Force on Education and within the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada there is not one position, there are many positions. In a publicly funded system, all those theories and all those positions should be taught, with philosophical and scientific integrity and rigour.
Senator Gigantès: With philosophical and scientific integrity and rigour. Thank you.
Senator Beaudoin: We discussed this morning the question of the vote or the opinions of the Catholics. What is your view on this? We are not sure whether the majority of that class of person in Newfoundland is in favour of this resolution or against it.
Mr. Clemenger: I was here for only part of the morning. Could you please explain that question?
Senator Beaudoin: I mean in Newfoundland, not in the whole of Canada. That is important. Various groups have made the argument that we must respect the rights of minorities. I prefer in this matter to refer to the denominational rights of classes of persons because this is what it is about legally speaking, but I should like to know if there is a majority of that class of persons for or against this resolution.
Mr. Clemenger: Unfortunately, because of the way the referendum was conducted in Newfoundland, the result is ambiguous. The referendum was not targeted to specific classes of persons, it was targeted to the province in general. Our concern is that, as a result of a referendum which was quite narrow, there will be a constitutional amendment which will restrict rights that were previously enjoyed by certain minority groups. We recognize that a number of those groups within the integrated system are in favour of the change and do not object to the amendment. Our concern, then, involves the other groups that still want to protect the form of education that we refer to as faith-based education, a right which, until this point, they have enjoyed. Our concern is that their right and ability to continue to enjoy that protection should be respected, whether or not the other minority groups decide to redesign their system to accept changes.
Senator Beaudoin: The referendum in our system is purely consultative; it is not part of the formula of amendment. Set aside the referendum for a moment and look at the resolution as it is constructed. You say that you would still be against it. Is that because you believe we cannot remove a right from a minority? What are you saying?
Mr. Clemenger: I heard that part of the discussion this morning. Within the Canadian constitutional system, the majority can indeed remove minority rights. We have amending formulas and we can alter the Charter. It would be difficult, but we could do that. We have the power to do that and, under the Constitution, we have the authority to do that. The question I would pose is: Is it legitimate exercise of that power and authority to do it in this way?
Senator Beaudoin: Your argument is political, not juridical.
Mr. Clemenger: At this point, let us talk about the philosophical point.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes.
Mr. Clemenger: We could reconstruct the Constitution and make it more difficult or easier, but at the root of that is this issue of legitimacy. Canada has approached the issues of minority rights, and protection for those rights under in the Charter, by recognizing that there are group rights as well as individual rights and by trying to strike a balance. We are concerned that what is behind section 93 and the new Term 17 is the promotion of a certain way of doing education. A number of groups and people within the province of Newfoundland and across Canada want to alter the way education is done. We are suggesting that the groups that presently have those rights be able to continue to practise education the way they choose. It is their right, as parents, to shape their children's education.
Senator Beaudoin: For the purpose of the record, I wish to say clearly that this is not a conflict between denominational rights and the Charter of Rights. Section 29 of the Charter of Rights states that denominational rights are not affected by the Charter of Rights. Let us forget about the Charter of Rights. This is not a conflict between individual rights and collective rights. As far as I can see, a majority of Catholics are against the resolution.
Senator Doody: There have been analyses done on that referendum and we will hear about them in St. John's. People will demonstrate why they believe that a majority of Catholics or a majority of Pentecostals voted against the resolution. Others will disagree with those analyses, but that is the way this world works.
Senator Beaudoin: That is an argument based on the majority and minority, obviously. However, here we are faced with a question of philosophy or history. There is no doubt that in 1867 Quebec, Ontario and the two maritime provinces were strongly in favour of the denominational system, although we learned later that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had no denominational schools. That was part of the pact at that time. In 1949, as we know, the pact between Newfoundland and Canada included the denominational system. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
We may do anything with the Canadian Constitution, according to the formula of amendment. In my opinion, it is a political, philosophical and historical debate rather than a purely legal problem.
Mr. Clemenger: I agree. That is why I raise the issue of whether this is a legitimate way to proceed in this matter. There are groups which were given the constitutional right to educate their children in a certain way. The proposed amendment will severely affect their ability to do that. Part of the argument in favour of that amendment is that we need to accommodate other ways of providing education. We think there is a way to accommodate both sides.
Why not continue to allow the Catholics, the Pentecostals, the Seventh Day Adventists and any other group in Newfoundland which wishes to educate their children out of their own vision of life, a vision which shapes the whole of the curriculum, to do so? If other groups say they no longer need the denominational protection and believe in, for example, the Mormon secularist model, then allow them to provide education in that way as well.
This amendment does not do that. This amendment tries to change the entire system from a faith-based system to a secularist one. We say that is not fair to those who want to educate their children under the faith-based system.
The Chair: Just to add to the confusion a little bit, I was born and raised in Halifax where I went to a Catholic school which was publicly supported. Although Nova Scotia did not have a so-called denominational school system, the city of Halifax, the capital city, did have a denominational system.
Senator Pearson: I am interested in some of the things you said in your brief. You talk about the shift from a faith-based to a secularist approach to education. You go on to say that one's vision of life will colour the way information is processed.
I lived for a few years in the former Soviet Union and experienced firsthand what a total faith-based system was like. If you define faith-based as the way in which you receive and process knowledge and information, you must recognize that ideology falls into that category. I am not sure that the comparison between faith-based and secularist is entirely fair. The secular schools with which I have been associated are full of values. The secular system is not a valueless system by any means.
My question relates more to parental rights. At what age do you think children should be allowed to exercise their rights to freedom of information and freedom of conscience?
Mr. Smith: From my experience with the Ministry of Education in the province of Quebec, I can tell you that once a student reaches secondary four or secondary five in that province, which is the equivalent of grade 10 or 11 in Ontario, by law the student has the right to choose the program he or she wants to follow, particularly with regard to moral and religious education. I have defended that right before parliamentary commissions in the province of Quebec.
With regard to your first comment, in the brief we are saying that all education has a value basis. To call certain schools neutral is philosophical nonsense because, as you have already said, all schools have values. We are pleading for an implicit recognition that all education has a religious and ideological or a value base, and that one of the primary rights of parents is to choose the curriculum which their children will be taught, to contribute to their socialization within Canadian society.
Senator Gigantès: Because we have Muslims in this country, should we therefore have schools based on the Mohammedan faith, which allows for four wives, which Canadian law does not? France recognized the right of four wives for Muslims and their social security system is crumbling in consequence because they have a growing population of men with four wives and five children per wife living on the children's allowance.
With regard to faith-based schools, is there some faith you would exclude from this?
Mr. Clemenger: In Ontario, the Evangelical Fellowship is part of the Multi-Faith Coalition for Equity in Education. The coalition includes Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and Evangelicals who are seeking to persuade the Ontario government to allow faith-based education in Ontario as an alternative to the public system, which we do not see as neutral but as secular.
Our rule of thumb is to ask what is a bona fide religion. Our approach to a faith-based education is that it will shape the ethos of the curriculum, with the Ministry of Education determining the standards in terms what must be taught by a certain age.
As far as I am aware, no school in this country marries people so I am not sure that the problem of four wives is an educational issue. Even though there certainly would be instruction in Islamic law in a Muslim school, which would include those dictates, it would not facilitate the marriages.
Senator Gigantès: They would include those dictates, which happen to be illegal in Canada.
Mr. Clemenger: In any education program across Canada which teaches a world religions class, whether it is in a secular system or not, when dealing with Islam one would also deal with the dictates of Islamic law. The instruction would still be there.
Senator Gigantès: You do not reassure me.
Senator Prud'homme: In 1949, there was a referendum with respect to whether Newfoundland would join Canada or not. On the first ballot, to join Canada came second, not first. There was a second ballot and an agreement. What is the meaning of an agreement if it does not mean that you, in return for giving me protection for my school, may vote differently than I if you do not agree? As someone said, it may be a better question to ask in Newfoundland; but that was certainly a fundamental issue in the debate that took place in 1949. Rights were not given to everyone.
I will put a question which may be embarrassing for some people to hear. I have always been a strong, passionate defender of multiculturalism, if it is well understood. However, this country has a history. It came together under certain conditions and protections.
How do we cope with that in light of those who like to see Canada changing, those who are so hot on the word "inclusion"? Without touching the fundamental rights of those who created the country or who joined the country under certain agreements, because we think others have rights, they may go to a public school. Do you see anything in what the government is doing that deprives others from having their own school system? Are they being deprived from having a public school system? Are they being deprived from having a school of Jewish faith? I receive letters in which they talk about every religion. Very strangely, I am amazed that five letters look alike. They talk more about Muslims. Nobody has asked that there be a school for Muslims. They talk about Buddhists. I did not know there were that many in your province, sir. Nobody mentioned people of the Jewish faith. It is strange that in their request to us no one mentioned a school of the Jewish faith in Newfoundland. It was an interesting coincidence that I found.
I was in Newfoundland during the referendum. My interest goes back a long time. In your view, is there anything that deprives any group from organizing themselves to have their own school? I do not mean in a village but, perhaps, in St. John's. Do we have to go through the pain of destroying a system in order to accommodate a few?
Ms Shaw: In the current constitutional provision I do not think there is anything that impedes or prevents the government from giving that benefit to other groups. What exists is a prohibition against adversely affecting the protected groups.
Senator Prud'homme: Is it enough for you to have the assurance that there will be a period or two per week of religious teaching allowed, or are you here to defend a set of values, a vision, that you find in a religious school versus an open school where you are given some possibilities? This morning I mentioned what happened 100 years ago today. Laurier was elected in 1896. We all know our history. In 1896, the Liberals were elected partly because of the school question in Manitoba. In Manitoba, rights were stampeded and disappeared. Is that clear enough?
Mr. Smith: Because of the historical guarantees they have had in Newfoundland, the classes of persons who would be part of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada are concerned not to see religion marginalized in the curriculum. There are many ways that religion can be marginalized in a curriculum. In some provinces that means they do not teach any "religion". Therefore, the values, the ideology, the world view of the teacher is what gets taught.
In Newfoundland, these classes of persons, who have a history of schools where they have been able to see their world view and their beliefs evidenced throughout the curriculum, see this proposal as a change not only in the school system but in terms of their rights as parents. That is a big concern that they have.
Senator Gigantès: Ms Shaw, you said that you see no impediment which would prevent the Government of Newfoundland from allowing the establishment of schools of different denominations. If that is so, why did they have to go through the constitutional process in 1987 to add the Pentecostals?
Mr. Smith: It is my understanding, and perhaps Senator Doody could correct me, that the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland had their own schools back in the 1930s. In 1954, they started to receive public funding for their schools. It was only in 1987 that they became constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is a precedent whereby a group which previously did not have minority educational rights protected constitutionally was enabled by the government to maintain their own schools.
The point we are making is that that in itself is a precedent. We see nothing in the current regulations in Newfoundland to prohibit other groups from being added as well.
We do not object to adding other groups or facilitating the aspirations of other parents or groups within Newfoundland. What we object to is the proposal for a wholesale change which would derogate from the rights that some minority groups have already.
Senator Gigantès: You say, yes, the Pentecostals were allowed; but you made the point earlier that constitutional protection is important to you. From 1954 to 1987 the Pentecostals did not have it.
Senator Doody: They did not ask for it, senator, until 1982.
Senator Gigantès: They did not have these constitutional protections. If more denominations are added without constitutional protection, then they would be a second class type of denomination. There would be those with constitutional protection and those without.
The Chair: As I understand it, from 1954 to 1987, the Pentecostals did not have constitutional protection but still received funding from the provincial government. Is that not correct, Senator Doody?
Senator Doody: That is precisely correct.
Senator Prud'homme: Therefore, people who have no religion could use the Pentecostal approach and obtain money.
Senator Rompkey: On the same point, I assume that if you want the rights of the present churches in Newfoundland to be maintained as they are, then you would support the inclusion of other churches with those same rights, which includes the right to tax dollars. Is that the case?
Mr. Clemenger: Yes.
Senator Rompkey: That could easily be done. Have you thought through the financial implications of that? There are seven denominations which have rights under the Constitution, as you know. One of those is the Seventh Day Adventists, and there are 710 of them in the province. There are 1,300 Baptists who do not have constitutional rights. There are 2,400 Jehovah's Witnesses who do not have constitutional rights. There are 2,400 Moravians who do not have constitutional rights. There are 15 Quakers who do not have constitutional rights.
I assume you are saying that each of those denominations would have the right to schools funded by taxpayers' dollars. Is that correct?
Mr. Clemenger: Dare I say it? Where numbers warrant.
Senator Rompkey: What does that mean? We are talking about principles, not numbers. I assume you are talking on principle.
Mr. Clemenger: Yes.
Senator Rompkey: Let me read to you from the 1946 amendment to the 1927 Education Act in Newfoundland. This is essentially what was entrenched in 1949. Section 76(3) reads:
Moneys provided by the Commission of Government for Colleges, for assistance to pupil teachers, for Board contingencies, for industrial education, and for the erection and equipment of schools shall be apportioned among the several religious denominations according to their respective populations and may be expended for such purposes upon the recommendation of the proper Executive Officer and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of regulations made thereunder.
Would you agree that these other denominations should have the same right? Senator Doody is quite right that only the Pentecostals have asked for constitutional entrenchment, even though they received the funds without constitutional entrenchment. Are other churches entitled to the funds, and are they also entitled to constitutional entrenchment, in your opinion? Do you know what effect that would have on the education budget in Newfoundland?
Mr. Smith: I will answer in the affirmative. I would go even beyond the Christian faith. Where those of other religious groups would want to teach the curriculum as prescribed by the Ministry of Education in Newfoundland out of their ideology, their world view, that is a distinct right that they have as parents and to which this country has agreed because of the declaration of rights.
Senator Rompkey: The Newfoundland act agrees to a draw on the provincial treasury.
Mr. Smith: Then we come to public funding. I will draw a parallel. My daughters are in the publicly funded school system in the city of Montreal. They are violinists. There is a school in downtown Montreal which allows for people like my children to learn how to play the violin and be part of a violin orchestra within the publicly funded school system. In grade nine, there are 10 students who do that. The Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal has been able to agree to find funding for that within the publicly funded system for 10 students.
I believe there are ways that moneys within the provincial public treasury can be allotted for parental choices in education, which we have not so far explored creatively enough. I happen to have a world view that includes music as an essential part of education, and the Ministry of Education in my province has said, "Because you are a parent and you so choose, we will make that available." Violins are not protected constitutionally in this country, and religion is, so therefore there should be rights for parents to teach out of that world view. That would be the point that we would want to make as a fellowship.
Senator Gigantès: The Greek Orthodox Church persecuted small Christian minorities for years in the Byzantine empire. The violinists have persecuted nobody.
The Chair: There are some people with extremely sensitive ears who might disagree.
Mr. Smith: I am violin-challenged. I feel persecuted all the time by my daughters.
Senator Beaudoin: My colleague Senator Prud'homme referred to the Laurier precedent, but I do not think it is a precedent in this case at all. In 1896, the Conservative Party was in power, and they were dealing with a remedial bill for the Manitoba schools. The bishops, I think, were on the side of the government. The Parliament lasted until the fifth year. Then there was an election and Laurier won. Laurier made a compromise. As far as I remember, Laurier said, "We will settle this claim by negotiation, and we will not intervene by passing a remedial bill in the Parliament of Canada." Since that time, subsections 3 and 4 of section 93 are no longer applied, but they are still alive. The Supreme Court said they are still alive, but they have never been implemented.
I think this is a very different case. This time it is a bilateral amendment aimed at changing the situation as it was in 1949 for Newfoundland, with some consequences for the other provinces. In that sense, I think it is completely different. What is your reaction to that?
Mr. Smith: I do not think I have a reaction.
The Chair: We will hear from Professor Carney specifically on that. Thank you, witnesses, for your presentation. I would now ask Dr. Robert Carney, who is with the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Alberta, to join the table.
I also thought it might be interesting to give the senators a few statistics. Some have been quoted by Senator Rompkey, but there are a few others in which you might be interested. In the 1991 census in Newfoundland, there were 563,935 people, of whom 208,900 were Catholic, 147,520 were Anglican, 1,360 were Baptist, 2,415 were Jehovah Witnesses, 2,430 were Moravian, 40,125 were Pentecostals, 2,155 were Presbyterian, 44,490 were Salvation Army, 97,395 were United Church, 305 were Islam, 205 were Greek Orthodox, 125 were Jewish, and 9,275 who had no religious affiliation.
Senator Beaudoin: That is interesting.
Dr. Robert Carney, Department of Educational Policy Studies, University of Alberta: I thank the Chair and the members of the committee for the opportunity to give my views on the issue of the change to Term 17 or the Terms of Union of Newfoundland and Canada. I hope that my comments will be helpful.
The cover sheet on my brief outlines four items.
I will speak to those four items, and hopefully they will come together as a story. I am trying to link them together as part of a process of the development of public and denominational education in our country. It is the story, then, behind the resolution.
I will attempt to link these items, first, in terms of the Manitoba school question of the 1890s; second, in respect to what I see as steps in Newfoundland since 1949 towards interdenominational schooling; and, third, in respect to the amendment to Term 17, the rationale of that amendment and the federal response to it, which I see as a step towards non-denominational schooling, not interdenominational schooling. I will close with some comments on the confessional nature of Pentecostal and Roman Catholic schooling and some of the outcomes of that type of schooling.
I will begin my remarks on the Manitoba school question by stating that in the discussion surrounding this resolution, I have not heard anything about that issue. I have not seen anything. I have read the two days of debate in the House of Commons. I have read statements from the Newfoundland government in a statement called "Backgrounder". I have read a document called "Towards a Modern System" issued by the Government of Canada. Nothing in any of those sessions or sources mentioned the Manitoba school question -- that is, until today.
Senator Prud'homme has taken most of my text on that issue, and very well indeed. I thought there might be something left that I could say about it, but Senator Beaudoin took my last point. I am very pleased that this issue has been covered so eloquently and so well by this committee.
Between 1870 and 1890 in the province of Manitoba, there was a move from a dual system, or two completely separate systems, to a single, public system. What was the rationale behind that move? The first reason was to save money. We are not sure whether that happened at all. The second was to improve the quality of schooling in Manitoba. Again, we are not too sure, relatively speaking, whether that occurred. Finally, and most importantly, it was clearly an expression of the will of the majority in Manitoba.
If there had been a referendum in Manitoba in 1890, or between 1890 and 1896, there is no question how that referendum would have gone. There is no question, in terms of the members of the legislature in Manitoba, that those who opposed the change were very much in the minority.
What was the response to this in Manitoba? Three successive prime ministers supported that aggrieved minority with funds so that they could take their case to the courts. The final decisions were made by the Privy Council in England. Without going into the details, the first ruling of the Privy Council was that no right had been taken away. That is very reminiscent of what is occurring in the Newfoundland debate today. However, the second resolution, as Senator Beaudoin pointed out, was that there was a well-founded grievance. The then Conservative government attempted to change Manitoba's mind by first issuing an order and then a bill. As the senator pointed out, the term of the legislature ran out. There was an election, and the Liberals won the victory and became the Government of Canada.
A compromise was arranged by Prime Minister Laurier and Premier Greenway of Manitoba which provided time for religious education and the hiring of teachers in proportion to the religious denomination of the pupils. Those were the two essential aspects of the compromise. Those two arrangements are replicated, essentially, in the present proposal of the Newfoundland government for an interdenominational system of education.
The Laurier-Greenway compromise did not satisfy Manitoba's Catholic minority. Moreover, what happened in Manitoba led to fears among religious and linguistic communities that the federal government could not be counted upon to protect their educational and language rights.
That is very much part of Canadian history; that is very much part of the Canadian mentality. It underlies all discussions on the question of denominational schooling ever since. The Newfoundland amendment raises many of the same fears or reinforces the fears that for a long time have been latent.
The Chair: I think it is important to place on the record that the Laurier-Greenway compromise was then removed by the province of Manitoba in 1916.
Mr. Carney: Quite so. Of course, what you see between 1896 and 1916 are a number of tentative steps and the erosion of those rights, particularly the erosion of the linguistic rights in 1916. That has very much to do with the Canadian mentality and the francophone presence in Canada west. It has not been the best, but it is certainly part of our heritage.
When Newfoundland took the step of passing or including Term 17 in the Act of Union, to my mind, there was a very clear promise that nothing would be done subsequently, or that the legislature would not have the power subsequently, to affect prejudicially any right with respect to denominational schools. I think we know the history or the development of five Protestant denominations and the Catholic church. The understanding was that those commitments or those rights and privileges could not be abrogated without the individual consent of each of those groups.
One of the problems in Canada is that we have a variety of schooling models. We do not have the American model: We do not have separation of church and state. Some provinces in Canada have developed a single system. Other provinces have the model of a public-separate system. Newfoundland is different, but I do not think the commitments or the restrictions on the Newfoundland government are, to any extent, significantly different.
What happened following 1949, slowly and gradually, to my mind, is that these small schools that were coming together, primarily from the Protestant denominations, were joined by more Protestant denominations -- for example, the Presbyterians and later the Moravians. When the province's first royal commission, the Warren Commission, took place in 1967 we could see that the idea of integrated schooling was under way. Integrated schooling brought together children of different faiths, primarily of the Protestant community, into a single school.
There was nothing unique about that. The development of the first public school system in Upper Canada or Canada west has been another major trend in Canadian educational history from the time of the 1840s. The idea was to bring all Christians together into a school where there would be a Christian atmosphere. However, even at that time there was an allowance for dissentient groups, Catholics and Protestants, to have their own schools.
In 1967 and before, one of the minorities in Newfoundland expressed concern, through three Catholic commissioners on the Warren Commission, that the movement in Newfoundland would open the door for completely secular education, but there was intensive pressure from then on to have both the Pentecostal Church and the Roman Catholic Church become part of this integrated system.
The principal conclusion of the province's second royal commission on education, by Dr. L. Williams, who I understand will be speaking to the committee later, was based on a public opinion poll sampling 1,000 people. That report stated:
...by a majority approaching consensus the Newfoundland public favoured a unified, non-sectarian system, but not one which would be wholly secular.
This interpretation of the public will apparently led the commission to recommend that the province adopt a unified, interdenominational schooling model. As was pointed out this morning, another part of the Williams report indicated that three-quarters of the over 1,000 submitted briefs "supported the existing system (Integrated, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic)."
Notwithstanding such differences in the data, the recommendations of the Williams Commission have been one of the mainstays of Newfoundland's argument to amend Term 17. It is clear, however, that the Williams report and other data used by the province to support its case are frequently either inconclusive or incomplete.
My third point deals with steps to what I would consider to be non-denominational schooling, rather than interdenominational schooling. After moving the resolution to amend Term 17 in the Commons on May 31, the Honourable Allan Rock said that the government had come to the conclusion that Parliament should act by resolution to effect the proposed constitutional change. The minister stated the government's decision was based upon its considerations of "factual arguments" and "the manner by which this resolution emanated from the assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador" and also based upon the federal government's opinion that the resolution was "not an instance in which minority rights" were "being adversely affected by majority rule".
The minister also referred to the ramifications the government decision to amend Term 17 might have on minority language and aboriginal rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is insufficient time to discuss his assurances with respect to these concerns other than to note that his remarks on aboriginal and language rights are much more convincing than what he said about denominational rights in Newfoundland and elsewhere in the country.
The lack of real consultation here is also rather remarkable. If we go back to the Manitoba school issue, there were intensive discussions between the parties affected by the Manitoba legislation, including members of the various religious communities. I am not saying there was agreement, but at least there was consultation. Although many oral and written presentations have been made on the proposed amendment to members of Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice saw no need to meet with groups opposing the resolution, such as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Moreover, most factual arguments against the resolution's adoption have been all but excluded from an undated federal government document entitled, "Term 17: Towards A Modern School System for the Children of Newfoundland and Labrador."
Regarding the position of those who are dissenting from the resolution, which has been partly given here today, none of that is included in the federal paper distributed a day or two prior to the debate in the House of Commons. In fact, if you put the federal document alongside the Newfoundland document, it would appear that the federal government's position is almost word for word the same as that which is in the Newfoundland document. The substance, the line of argument, and the question-and-answer format are all highly similar.
As to the facts of the issue, neither the provincial nor federal paper presents the views of the two educational minority groups in Newfoundland, the Pentecostals and Roman Catholics, who oppose the proposed amendment; nor do these documents provide an objective account of the magnitude of the changes proposed to the 1949 denominational school guarantees.
We know that the Act of Union of 1949 prevents Newfoundland from passing legislation which would prejudicially affect any denominational education right legally held by any group of the union. In its place, the 1996 amendment will essentially limit the rights of dissenting educational groups, such as the Pentecostals, to two things. First, it is limited to a vague reference to religious education. What does "religious education" mean? It apparently means half an hour per day or some other very limited period of time during the week. How will this be carried out? Who will be paid to give it? What religions will be discussed?
It is my opinion, given the results of similar strategies in other parts of the country, that we will end up with a collapse of all religious education in those contexts. That has happened within the public system. We must remember that when the public system was established in the 1840s, there was time for religious education of a confessional nature. That has virtually disappeared from the public system throughout the country. It has been replaced by teaching about religion.
What is not included, in such studies as the Williams Commission on education, is an assessment of the effectiveness of religious education in the integrated system. There is much documentation on other areas but very little on that.
There are other omissions in the federal paper. No mention is made of the positive aspects of recent negotiation between the churches and the Newfoundland government. It would have been very helpful for the general public to have some idea, in greater detail, why a possible arrangement has not been reached. Nor is any mention made in the federal paper, or in other documents, of the many steps taken by the dissenting churches to cooperate in many areas, to allow for common schools, to make accommodations. In fact, the federal paper uses, in regard to a system which previously had been lauded by many, terms such as "costly inefficiencies" and "substantial duplication".
What does the Minister of Justice have to say about the confessional nature of the present system? He stated it is "antiquated and reflects an age long past."
It is clear that the referendum reveals that a significant number of Newfoundlanders do not equate "modernity", a term which is frequently used in the federal paper, with interdenominational schooling.
We know the many reasons why the minister in the house went on to list the various things that have happened in Newfoundland to express the will of the majority. Those are not debatable. The minister also said that these events did not mean that the federal government would automatically amend Term 17. A central aspect of Parliament's decision was "whether the proposed change would adversely affect or would extinguish minority rights in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador." The minister's opinion was that the amendment did neither of these things.
I cannot understand the minister's position. In passing the resolution to amend Term 17, the majority in the House of Assembly has not only adversely affected, but has also effectively extinguished, the educational rights and privileges of certain religious minorities in the province without their consent.
The Honourable Allan Rock's argument that there is no majority but only minorities is not even right on the surface. Rather, it is the case that the majority in Newfoundland and Labrador is trying to alter or rather extinguish the rights of two minorities, the Pentecostals and Roman Catholics, without their consent.
Had all the classes in Newfoundland protected by Term 17 agreed to have their schooling rights altered, there would be, at least in principle, reasonable justification for the amendment to be approved. However, neither the House of Assembly nor the referendum recognized the principle that only the holder of a right can agree to give it up.
The Newfoundland government's arguments about the possession of educational rights by a very small denominational group, or the extension of educational rights to denominations presently not included in Term 17, are not in issue at this time. At issue is that two minority groups have not agreed to give up the rights they hold under Term 17.
Finally, I want to make a few comments about the schooling orientation of the Pentecostal and Roman Catholic churches. The previous witnesses outlined that for you in terms of the Pentecostal assemblies. I will talk briefly about both.
One of the major problems of publicly funded denominational schools in Canada has been a lack of knowledge among many people of the objectives and practices of these schools. The public needs reminding from time to time that many denominational schools are government-supported. We all know that. It has been referred to many times during these hearings that half of our provinces and the two territories have both protective legislation and a denominational-oriented system. We also know that these systems are enshrined in the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For some denominations -- and this is not a criticism -- the objectives of school-based religious education can be wholly met and at times set aside for this purpose. Insofar as Newfoundland is concerned, this arrangement is generally favoured by such churches as the Anglican, United and Presbyterian. That orientation goes right back to the 1840s. The mainstay of the development of the public system in our country has come primarily from those churches. If two other major religious minorities in the province, the Pentecostal and Roman Catholic, were prepared to accede to religious education of this type, the Newfoundland government's plans to achieve a largely, if not exclusively, interdenominational school system might be feasible, but this is not what these groups want. They are not prepared to give up the autonomy they now have for a highly centralized governance arrangement. The Pentecostal and Roman Catholic communities see religious education as occurring throughout the school day in all aspects of the curriculum and in the school's extra-curricular activities.
I am reminded of this because of my work in the Northwest Territories, particularly among the Inuit people. They see education occurring all the time -- through modelling, through watching, through experiencing, through doing. That is the essence of particular types of confessional education in schools.
I have already quoted the Minister of Justice who said that this kind of thinking is a reflection of an age long past. According to the premier of the province of Newfoundland, it is little more than an attempt to maintain the status quo. Such statements are not new. One finds, for example, Egerton Ryerson, superintendent of schools for Canada West, warning the Archbishop of Toronto in 1852 that if Catholics persisted in having their own schools they were dooming themselves "to hopeless inferiority in comparison with other classes of children".
To my knowledge, none of the studies of the cognitive and attitudinal outcomes of Catholic schooling in Canada support Ryerson's prediction. One must look elsewhere, such as to the extensive literature on Catholic schooling in the United States, to find in-depth, large-sample studies on the outcomes of a denominationally oriented school system.
I will point out some of the recent research by American educators who are looking for answers to resolve many of the very basic problems in the public school system in that country. As Professor Anthony Bryk of Harvard has pointed out, studies by J.R. Coleman, recognized as the leading researcher of school achievement in the United States, conclude that Catholic high schools, as compared to public and private schools "produced higher cognitive achievement; that they were less racially segregated; and that variation across students in patterns of achievement were much less dependent on family background."
Andrew Greeley, director of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, likewise affirms that minority students in Catholic schools had higher achievement levels than those in public schools. He found that "these differences were greatest for the most disadvantaged youths -- students from poor families, those whose parents had limited formal education."
These are but some of the outcomes described in the literature. If time were available, many other positive outcomes of Catholic schooling could be described.
I suggest that since the theory and many of the practices of Catholic schooling in the United States and Canada are much the same, one could postulate that similar outcomes would prevail or would at least be possible in places like Newfoundland where the autonomy of denominational schools is greater than elsewhere.
In conclusion, the central argument of this brief is that the resolution to amend Term 17 is ill-conceived and unconstitutional in nature. One of the prime purposes of the Constitution of Canada is to protect minority rights and to prevent the majority from abrogating the rights of those minorities protected by the Constitution. I suggest that the resolution before the Senate violates both these principles.
I respectfully submit that the Senate should defeat the resolution and that the Government of Canada should refer it back to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for further discussion and agreement among all parties.
Senator Doody: Thank you, sir, for your very interesting and helpful presentation.
With reference to the last paragraph on page 5 of your brief, I and others have been told by members of the present administration in Newfoundland, and by other supporters of this resolution, that the changes that will be brought about by the adoption of the new Term 17 are minimal and will not adversely affect the rights of the minorities who are so concerned about it. In your paper, you talk about the magnitude of the changes proposed. Could you elaborate on the magnitude of those changes?
Mr. Carney: There are many, and I am sure that you will be apprised of them during your hearings in St. John's. One is the development of the 10 boards which will be comprised of representatives from various denominations as well as government appointees and so on.
One of the basic problems with such an arrangement is that it is much more difficult to reach consensus, or it is much more likely that people will concede what they consider to be extremely important, for the common good, whatever that may be.
My own studies of those kinds of accommodation show that there is inevitably a move toward those who have power, or to the current opinion. Because denominational or confessional matters are problematic, there is a tendency to underplay them or to resolve them in some way.
When I was in the Northwest Territories in the 1960s, there was a major change from religious-based education to a state system. That whole process consisted of one concession after another, with the outcome of a virtually secular system without any religious education at all. That is one of the problems.
I think that administration would be a nightmare. I understand that there is a principle that a child may not be bussed beyond the nearest school. That would certainly restrict choice. In the city of Edmonton there is a public and a separate system. If this busing rule were invoked there, there would not be two systems. All children would attend the nearest school.
The matter of religious education would be problematic because the intent of the present proposal, as I understand it, is that religious education would be confessional in nature. That is very difficult. Whom do you get for those half hours per day? What do you pay them? How do you prepare them? I do not know anywhere in our country where this has been tried and where it has worked.
What seems to work is that you get a specialist religious education teacher who is trained at Memorial University in a program that studies world religions -- which in itself is perfectly commendable and should be part of the curriculum. However, they are not trained for confessional instruction.
If you look at the current calendar of Memorial University, you will see there is not a confessional orientation to that training program. It is really a multicultural, multireligion instructional program. On the face of it, that is not what the government says will occur in the schools.
Nor has the government, in any of its studies or pronouncements on this matter, indicated the assessment of the current state of religious education in the integrated schools. This is anecdote, but I have been told that it is the least popular subject, that it is difficult to staff and, yet, that is the orientation in which the government is going.
Senator Doody: I have been told that the changes to the minority rights in the province would be merely minor changes and not of great import in the total picture. I notice at the top of page 7 of your brief you quote the minister as saying that a central aspect of the decision by Parliament was "whether the proposed change would adversely affect or would extinguish minority rights in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador."
"Extinguish" is a pretty devastating word in terms of minority rights. If that is so, then we really have a major problem. Could you elaborate on that, please?
Mr. Carney: I would use as an analogy what Senator Carstairs pointed out, that is, the analogy of Manitoba in which there was to be religious instruction and these other kinds of arrangements. Administratively, it is difficult and there is tremendous pressure on administrators.
Even though there was a promise that the Christian orientation of religious instruction would carry on, it virtually disappeared in the public schools in Manitoba. I do not think that is the intent of the Newfoundland government; but the process elsewhere has been in that direction.
Other extinguishments may arise, of course, from the tentative nature of many of the arrangements. How many children do you need? All of this adds to a great deal of anxiety and concern that the system may not be around or that people's employment may not be around. I find students at the university often say, "What can I do to get a job? I will take any course there is." Some say, "I understand Catholics are hiring. How does one become a Catholic?" Or, "How do I study and prepare myself so I can get a job?" That is an aspect which will lead to a lot of turmoil.
In a number of ways, the integrated system, if you look at the public school model, has great potential. I do not think it will realize that potential on an interdenominational/confessional part orientation.
Senator Gigantès: In what I read in the resolution, it seems that there will be Catholic schools and Pentecostal schools and that the Catholics and the Pentecostals will have the right to direct and determine the education in those schools. They will have the right to hire and fire whom they want. You seem to say that is not enough. I am impressed by the fact that the legislators of Newfoundland voted unanimously in favour of this resolution. These are people who want to be re-elected. They must have some feeling as to what their electorate wishes -- the parents, the Catholics, the Pentecostals and all others. How do you explain the unanimity in the House of Assembly unless by the fact that they were all convinced that the rights of their electors were protected?
Mr. Carney: With respect to any major change in a system, initially, there is a lot of hope and promise that the new system will resolve some of the traditional problems. When it comes to matters of confessional schools or religious education, there is a concern among most people that while they may feel strongly about it, it is hard to sit down and discuss these matters.
There is also strong pressure on groups to conform, to reach a consensus. This is particularly so in small communities.
I am quite sure there also is a tradition in our country where people want to have strong educational systems and overcome some of the problems they see in the existing educational system. People will finally come together and say, "This issue has gone on for so long. We must get ahead. There are many other items to discuss." This leads to a consensus. Those who are closely involved in a confessional system are aware of the problems, and they repeat those problems. People will say, "Surely, you can work those things out."
One of the sad aspects of this issue has been that the recent tentative agreement between the government and the various churches was not realized. For that reason, I recommend not that the federal government get involved, but that the people and the groups affected be asked to sit down once more to see if they cannot conclude that proposed agreement.
As I understand it, in the minds of many, that proposed agreement was almost in place. The battle was over. It would be resolved and addressed.
Quite frankly, I think that many people are very surprised that there has been so much controversy over this issue.
Senator Gigantès: You said that those most closely involved see problems. The implication was that others may not see them. Those most closely involved are also those who run these schools and who will lose part of their turf. It is a natural human reaction to defend one's turf. We see it every day in the public service. We see it in government. We see it in every human activity. They will exaggerate the dangers. It impresses me that the legislators, who really want to get re-elected, do not agree with you. Yet, there are Catholics and Pentecostals among them. They are not suicidal, politically.
Mr. Carney: There are problems with sterotypes about churches. One of the stereotypes about the Roman Catholic Church is that it is controlled by the bishops. When we talk about the church, we are not talking about lay people who are actively involved in the system but about a bishop, and that is wrong.
Senator Gigantès: I was talking about Catholic school administrators.
Mr. Carney: Some kind of reassurance is needed. Any time you are consolidating or changing a system, you must tell those people who have given good service that they have a part to play in the new system. They will have some choices. They are wanted. The existing situation is such that there are a great number of questions. Will my school close? Will I get a position somewhere else? That can lead to some of the opposition.
People who work with children on a day-to-day basis in teaching situations see that if you have a school ethos in which, at least theoretically and often practically, people have a central vision, that institution will probably function better than one which has no central vision.
I am not criticizing here, but you have many different points of view. In my paper, I mention some of the studies which have been done in the United States. I am not saying that Catholicism is in any way better, but it seems that in some school situations it brings together elements which are very strong and sustaining.
Senator Jessiman: The central argument of this paper is that the resolution to amend Term 17 is ill-conceived and unconstitutional in nature. Would you go so far as to say that if either the Catholic Church or the Pentecostal Church made an application to the Supreme Court, it would be held to be unconstitutional if this were passed?
Mr. Carney: I am sorry to return to the Manitoba school question, but any time I have thought about that particular event, which I consider a seminal event in Canadian history, I have had a great deal of difficulty trying to explain why the Privy Council found that the big change in Manitoba did not abrogate or extinguish a law in effect in 1870. I still do not understand that. I do not know.
I am not sure what the courts will do. However, I am sure that if the legislation is adopted, there will be litigation, it will continue the controversy, there may be injunctions, and so on and, 100 years after Manitoba, we will have somewhat of the same controversy.
Senator Jessiman: The Supreme Court is not necessarily bound by the decisions of the Privy Council now.
Mr. Carney: No, it would not be. It is a different area.
Senator Jessiman: It is a different argument.
Mr. Carney: Yes.
The Chair: To add to what Senator Jessiman asked, did not the Supreme Court of Canada actually uphold the Constitution, and the Privy Council overruled it?
Senator Beaudoin: That is right.
The Chair: Of course, the Privy Council was not in Canada then, but in Great Britain.
Mr. Carney: That is right.
Senator Beaudoin: I wish to come back to the question raised by Senator Jessiman. If this resolution is adopted, I cannot see how the Supreme Court can say that it is unconstitutional. Obviously, if it is adopted under section 43 bilaterally, that is the end of it. We may like it or not, but it is certainly legal.
To return to the Manitoba case, I think you are correct that the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Catholics and Anglicans. It is the Privy Council which said that the Greenway bill was constitutional. However, that was a bill, not an amendment to the constitution. You can always amend the Constitution, but you must comply with the Constitution. A bill may be unconstitutional, but a Constitution is never unconstitutional. The Constitution is there. Quebec is pleading that in the Superior Court, but I can tell you right now that they will not win. How can you make something unconstitutional if you make a constitutional amendment that respects the Constitution? There is no problem with that.
Senator Jessiman: That is correct, unless the courts decided that there were certain inherent rights that these people were given that the government cannot take away. This is what the professor is suggesting. He has an argument, I would think. However, whether or not it would be successful is another matter.
Senator Beaudoin: This is the Mercure case again. If you follow the amending formula, it is legal. There is no doubt in my mind. It may be an amendment which is not desirable -- and I do not contest that -- but if you follow the formula of amendment strictly, of course it is legal.
My question is different. Suppose this resolution is adopted as it is. I am sure that it is legal, but I am not sure of the second point. Is the denominational right still strong enough? I understand that you say "no". That is your thesis, is it not? You say that if it is adopted as it is, the right to denominational school will decline and perhaps will mean nothing in the future. You may be right.
Obviously, it will be before the courts one day. It may not be the day after it is accepted, but some day it will be tested in court. The entire Constitution is before the court from time to time. Ultimately, the court will have to decide.
You say in advance that the right to denominational school is not very strong in that amendment. I have great respect for such a prediction, but on what basis is that comment made?
Mr. Carney: For example, the legislation in Alberta regarding separate schools applies predominantly to Roman Catholics, although there are always concerns between majorities and minorities. In Alberta, the denominations are treated very fairly. If you read the latest Education Act, the Government of Alberta talks about a public education system that has two dimensions or co-equal parts of the public education system -- that is, the public and the separate system. In that context, there is a recognition of equality, not that "separate" is less than or that it is partial. It is an integral part of the education system in Alberta.
It is clear that the government of Newfoundland -- for various reasons, and many of them worthwhile, I am sure -- would prefer and has indicated in a number of ways that the ultimate goal is an interdenominational system.
Senator Beaudoin: What does that mean? Interdenominational in practice?
We have seven classes of persons. If I am not mistaken, two object and five agree with an interdenominational system. First, is the right to denominational school duly protected? Second, what does interdenominational school mean? Does it mean a nearly secular school?
Mr. Rompkey: May I answer that?
The Chair: We will ask Professor Carney to give his interpretation first. You are next on the list, Senator Rompkey.
Mr. Carney: I do not know why.
Senator Beaudoin: You have already answered the first part of my question. My second question was: What does an interdenominational school system mean? We do not have that in Quebec.
Mr. Carney: It is in the process of formation. There was an integrated system in Newfoundland where various churches got together, worked out arrangements at the local level in many cases, and responded to certain denominations and brought in other children. Many of the integrated schools have children of all faiths.
Senator Beaudoin: They are all together?
Mr. Carney: Yes, they are all together.
Senator Beaudoin: The Catholic church does not agree with that, of course.
Mr. Carney: I would think the Catholic church would say, "In terms of the schooling of people who belong to our particular denomination, there is a better way, another way, and a traditional way has been around for a long time and seems to work very well in certain environments, provided the state provides sufficient resources for that to be realized and does not impinge upon the rights of parents or do things which would limit the funding and operation of those schools."
Senator Beaudoin: Let us shed some light on this issue. It is your opinion that denominational schools may decline and continue to decline whereas the interdenominational school system is moving in the direction of a secular school system in the long term. Is that your thesis?
Mr. Carney: Absolutely. In terms of religious observance, what is happening in the public school system today is because of the variety of belief systems within the community. One must continually restrict certain practices, observations, and so forth. Public school boards are faced with the dilemma of when to allow for religious holidays, for what groups, and what particular ceremonies might be held in a school. This is not necessarily offensive, but it could be upsetting to children of other faiths. Increasingly, one must exclude those phenomena.
Let us say that one wishes to talk about religious observances in a school at a time of day that would interfere with the regular curriculum. There is a fundamental administrative problem, namely, what does one do with the other children? There is a tendency, then, to exclude those things because of their problematic nature.
If one looks at the history of public schooling and reads public school text books from the 1840s onwards, one sees gradually more and more religious orientation being excluded until today, when there is virtually none other than a study of the phenomenon of religion, which is not instruction in religion.
Mr. Rompkey: I wish to begin by answering Senator Beaudoin's question. The integrated system was the amalgamation of essentially three denominations: The Anglican Church, the United Church and the Salvation Army church. The Moravians attached themselves to that, as did the Presbyterians. Those three churches had rights under the Constitution. They became known as the integrated system. It did not mean they were public schools. None of those churches gave up their rights under the Constitution.
I may be a bit out of date because that occurred approximately 25 years ago, and I am sure things have changed since then. However, I worked for an integrated board. The chairman of that board was an Anglican priest. He is now the Bishop in Saint John's, and we will be hearing from him when we travel to Newfoundland. He was my boss. All members of the board in those days were elected by the denominations. Each denomination had representation on the board and will have representation on the board in the future. As I understand it, two-thirds of the membership of the boards will be elected by the denomination. That was the nature of the school system. I will not say what sort of marriage it was, but it was a marriage of these three denominations that decided there was strength in unity. However, they did not give up any inherent rights.
As a superintendent at that time, I did not see any indication that the children in those schools were any less faithful, or devoted, or lacking in citizenship or moral values or ethics in any way, but that is a personal observation. Nor is there evidence that that is the situation in Newfoundland. Newfoundlanders still give twice the Canadian average to charity and still have the lowest divorce rate and crime rate in the country, as well as being the most impoverished. What is the evidence for those kinds of schools?
We have not developed a line of questioning with respect to aboriginal schools. I mention aboriginal schools because Mr. Carney has spent some time in the Northwest Territories. Do you think it would be easier for the Inuit and the Innu in Newfoundland and Labrador to have their own school boards and schools and to administer their own school system under the new Term 17 as opposed to the old Term 17? Perhaps you can tell us about your experience with regard to the conduct of aboriginal schools in the Northwest Territories.
Across the country, there is a land claims process, part of which will mean more control over peoples' lives, including the dimension of education. However, if the aboriginal people in our province want to have their own schools, it is not absolutely impossible to do so now under the present Term 17, but would it be easier under the new Term 17?
Mr. Carney: That would depend on the concept of status and non-status.
Mr. Rompkey: We do not have any native peoples with status.
Mr. Carney: Many people within the native community have Christian affiliations and others have either returned to or have maintained various aboriginal belief systems.
Many native people are anxious to work together in terms of the schools in their communities and to have significant control over those schools. For various reasons, they have often felt that they are outsiders in the mainstream system and that they are not principal players in the mainstream system.
It so happens in the Northwest Territories that because native people are in the majority, they have gained significant control over their own schools. While changes in schooling are never really that dramatic, there are indications that the system is working much better and that the old arrangement where someone else was primarily responsible for what happened to their children is changing. They are taking that responsibility. Term 17 has some positive aspects in that perhaps it could be expanded to take into account groups such as those, to facilitate and to give them rights they presently do not have.
Mr. Rompkey: The new Term 17?
Mr. Carney: Yes, the new Term 17.
There would be a number of choices. For example, some people would want to carry on with the integrated system if they found it very satisfactory; others might wish to stay with the Catholic system; and others in certain communities might want to have control. The only school in that community would be an aboriginal school, for example.
In the Northwest Territories, the aboriginal majority in some communities runs and conducts the schools through elections, and so on, and non-aboriginals attend the same school. So that there is a community aspect, but the non-aboriginal encounters much of the culture of the aboriginal society.
It has been turned around and it has worked quite well. It would be conceptually interesting to broaden that idea of choice and opportunity.
Senator Rompkey: We will hear what it is they want, but the situation now is that most of the Inuit in our province are Moravian; all the Innu in Labrador are Roman Catholic. We will hear about their desire for the future, but if they do want to have their own schools and to operate their own schools, would it be easier under the new Term 17 than under the old Term 17? Is your answer to that "yes"?
Mr. Carney: Yes. That would be a recognition, then, of a variety of religious belief systems among the aboriginal community, including traditional religion. They would try to bring those traditions together, in some cases in a common school. In that case, whether we categorize groups as being primarily Moravian or Roman Catholic, it may turn out that it would have much more of a linguistic and cultural orientation than a religious orientation.
Senator Prud'homme: First, after listening to you, I wish to express how deeply sorry I was that the House of Commons saw fit to rush through such an important question. As I said in the Senate, I attended the debate. In my experience as an elected person for 30 years, I remember that everything that was put to the house on a Friday had something behind it. That always alerted me to pay close attention. As I said in the house, there was not a quorum the whole day on that Friday.
Second, I regret that the House of Commons did not see fit to give people such as yourself, and others, a chance to be heard, whatever the outcome at the end of the day. As I keep saying, I may vote for it or I may not.
How do you come to terms with this great decision? It is by conducting hearings and listening to people who are interested. The first people who are interested are certainly the people of Newfoundland. I want to be on record in case someone says, "Why are these senators speaking up? They are not from Newfoundland." I am a Canadian senator. We have a duty to do. It is as a Canadian senator that I am interested in this question. However, I will listen to people from Newfoundland, even though I am not a member of this committee. I will do my work because this debate is bound to come back to the House of Commons one way or the other. This brief should be before them.
With these documents that are circulating, does it seem to you that some people have no interest other than a great interest in educational teaching? I pay homage to them for what they have done in the past. If you go down the list provided to us by Senator Rompkey, you have all the Protestant churches, such as the Adventist Church, the Anglicans, the Baptists, the Salvation Army, the United Church, and so on. It would seem to me that these people are not as interested in continuing with what was their constitutional right. If I have a constitutional right and I want to give it back, that is all right -- that is, if I am not pushed to do so. It seems to me that we are now faced with two groups of people who are highly determined to keep their constitutional rights, and another group, who are interdenominational, who seem to be less interested.
Would that not be the new public system developing before our eyes, while the others keep what is theirs? We will then have two competing systems for all these poor souls in whom so many here seem to be interested. As I said, some people seem to be more interested in defending the rights of 385, or 445, or 1,225, or 125 people, even though rights are rights. They can go to this new "public school". That is what I am hearing all about.
The Chair: Senator Prud'homme, your question, please?
Senator Prud'homme: You told us that no one is deprived from going to a school in Newfoundland. If so, no one would be deprived if there was that new kind of public system developing while, as in Ontario, the Catholics keep their system.
It is strange that after 400 years, we are back to square one -- not on the French/English issue, but on the Catholic/Protestant issue. My father always said that I should be careful and attentive to the history of this country whenever this issue is involved. That is, not the French/English issue -- and, I never believed that the division was located there -- but the religious issue.
Mr. Carney: If you look at the development of the public school system, particularly in places like British Columbia and Ontario, the major forces behind that development were Protestant churches, particularly the Methodists and some of the other groups that have since become part of the United Church. You have remarkable people like Mr. Ryerson and many of the early school promoters who worked extremely hard to develop a strong public system of education. That public system of education was knit together by Christian ideas. If you look at the textbooks and even look at pictures of schools, in the mid-nineteenth century, you see many symbols which reflect biblical and other ideas in the public school system. That public school system served a very significant majority group within the community well. That orientation has finally come to Newfoundland.
I notice, for example, in the House of Commons Debates, that someone quotes the United Church in Newfoundland as being very much in favour of the amendment. Well, that would be Egerton Ryerson speaking 140 years ago. That is exactly what he believed. He was a Methodist clergyman who believed in the value of the public school system. He and others were pioneers of a very positive system. We can be very proud of that development in Canada. At the same time, although he thought groups like the Roman Catholics were misinformed, he did not try to do away with their system. In fact, he thought that in time they would gain the same kinds of ideas held by other groups.
The reality is that that has not happened, and the reality in Newfoundland is that that has not happened in Newfoundland among a significant number of Roman Catholics.
I am reminded of James Joyce's description of the Catholic Church: "Here comes everybody." You have a variety of opinions. You must be careful about anecdotal information where you say, "I was talking to someone yesterday and they said there should be one system." I think there is a consensus among the majority of Catholics in Newfoundland to maintain their system. I am quite sure that is the case. There are also a great many Roman Catholics who are either not in agreement or want to move, for various reasons, into the multidenominational system.
I would agree with you. Our country has a strong tradition in the development of the public school system. It comes from a different orientation and has a different ethos. It is facing problems today and attempting to deal with them. In Alberta, one attempt involves charter schools. Mainline Christian groups in the community are being told that they can have their own schools within the public school system where Christian values can be taught, or where a particular methodology or way of teaching can be used.
Another need that can be addressed is that of special vocational or fine arts training schools. Those kinds of changes can begin to flourish within the public school system.
Our country is more about diversity than is our neighbour to the south.
The Chair: I was surprised that you used the American Catholic system as an example. As an educator, I have read some of those studies as well. One of the identified strengths of the American Catholic school system is that it is not tax-supported. The parents must make a financial contribution, limited though it might be, and is one of the reasons why they take such a specific interest in their children.
We know there is a strong correlation between the interest that parents take in their child's education and the success of that child's education. Is that not a reflection of what some of these studies have said?
Mr. Carney: Yes, but what is unique about the studies arises when we talk about disadvantaged parents -- that is, those who simply cannot support the system financially. The Greeley studies, for example, find that, among disadvantaged youth or those whose parents have very low levels of education, the parochial school system in the United States has done remarkable things which are directly attributable to the school experience.
Anthony Bryk of Harvard calls these schools "schools for the common good". He says that this model can thrive in various environments, including public environments. There are certain attributes of a school which seem to make a good school. The ethos and orientation are fairly identifiable and of significant consequence so that the people who participate in that group have an affiliation to it and they are infused by those things.
However, your point is well taken. There are some characteristics, namely, the greater the level of local control, the greater the possibility of that happening in Canada.
The Chair: There have been some recent evaluations done in your province of Alberta. We have heard a variety of testimony and arguments that somehow or another one school system is better than another. I think those claims have very little to do with reality. I was in Alberta when the test results came out and it seemed to me that it bounced between Calgary separate and Edmonton public and then between Calgary public and Edmonton separate, or whatever. That indecisiveness seemed to prove that it did not particularly matter, on those particular standards, whether you went to a public or a separate school, which, for all intents and purposes in Alberta, is a Catholic school.
Mr. Carney: Not much work has been done. We have not made comparisons between different school systems in our country; we also have not often publicly discussed what goes on in our schools. In Alberta, there is much opposition to any test results being published or released to the public.
Also, one must be careful who is being evaluated and what age is being evaluated. In Calgary, for example, a study was done on student attitudes towards religion among those aged approximately 18. Of all the groups surveyed, they found that Roman Catholics had the highest level of commitment to their religion at around age 16; they also had the lowest level of commitment to their religion at age 18 or 19. That was an interesting finding, though somewhat disturbing to the Catholic school trustees.
However, the same test found that Roman Catholics, around age 18, have the highest sense of belonging to a church. To summarize, they felt happy to belong but they did not take it too seriously.
Good studies should be longitudinal in nature to show later changes, too. That is the danger of opinions from youth or from anyone in a specific age coordinate.
The Chair: As an educator, I am not necessarily in favour of a lot of standardized tests; however, I do remember one anecdotal story from Calgary. Some inner-city schools there drew attention by doing extremely well on this testing. It came to light that the teachers had kept the tests from the previous year and, to save money, the government had issued exactly the same test. That is why the students at those schools did as well as they did.
Thank you, Dr. Carney.
Next, we will hear witnesses from the Ottawa Board of Education. Please proceed.
Ms Linda Hunter, Chairperson, Ottawa Board of Education: Honourable senators, on behalf of educators across Canada, thank you for allowing us to address the nation's Senate on such a subject so essential to Canada's well-being -- education.
I applaud each of member of this Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for taking the time to comprehensively understand Newfoundland's crossroads in education. In my comments today, I will ask that you consider the global trends, as well as some national ones, so that you may present sound counsel to the Senate itself when filing your report next month.
I am here not to debate constitutional parameters, but to offer front-line insights gleaned from my role as an educator. I am chairperson of one of Ontario's largest boards of education, a trustee for over 8 years, a parent and an active community member. I should like today to share with you the experiences that come from being so very involved with the school system.
For the question and answer period, which I understand will follow my remarks, I invite you also to address my colleague Carolla Lane, director of education at the OBE. Her effectiveness in leading the OBE is partly due to her previous experiences progressively through the Ontario schooling system as elementary and secondary teacher, principal, superintendent, director of education in Peterborough County, and eventually to Queen's Park, where she held assistant deputy minister portfolios in both the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education and Training.
We both see the OBE as an important part of Canada's educational system. As such, our board has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of that system. Being invited here today is, by extension, a welcomed opportunity to focus national attention on a subject that is mandated to provincial authority but, by its very nature, is a national issue.
There are three key messages upon which I will expand during my remarks. First, working towards a minimal number of administrative groups or boards of education helps to ensure that maximum financial resources are routed directly into classrooms and not into duplicated administrative services.
Second, particularly in today's economy, it is important to target resources to the learners, not to the administration or the politics of an education system. The OBE is just one example of a common education system successfully embracing diversity in religion, race and education potential within its learner populations.
Third, education is no different from health care, economy or labour in light of the current rapid-fire debates and paradigm shifts in delivering services to Canadians. This is consistent with world-wide trends that find more turbulence and uncertainty than has been witnessed since the two world wars.
With those messages in mind, I must also briefly explain two points of reference for you. Public education is mandated with a social and legal responsibility to offer education to all who seek it, regardless of age, religion, racial-ethnocultural backgrounds or scholastic ability. These learners are, after all, the decision makers of tomorrow and they deserve equal opportunity. Therefore, I want to impress upon you today our most important responsibility: ensuring the delivery of quality education to all students.
As Newfoundland, with its complex and unique education system, contemplates restructuring, we must remain focused on our key role in shaping the learners who will become our community leaders in the not too distant future.
I suggest to you that your acceptance or rejection of a new era for Newfoundland's education system will have a profound impact on the province's ability to re-engineer itself as it strives to take a stronger place in both Canadian and world markets.
As the people of Newfoundland and Ontario know, the problems of poverty, unemployment and social dependency do not recognize the artificial boundaries established when people are grouped by religion, race or socio-economic status.
With these opening comments, I should now like to address my first point for your consideration, that of the new economy that is a daily concern for Canadians coast to coast.
I see an increasing requirement for boards of education everywhere to economize as never before. The existence of several types of boards in any given municipality, region or province permits fewer taxpayer dollars to reach the classroom as multiple administrative systems, directors of education and trustees are hired, trained, paid and retired.
Economies within the OBE have been possible thanks to tremendous efforts by our staff, trustees and ratepayers during the past several years. We streamlined out-of-classroom expenses significantly by dropping from 20 to 7 senior administration positions. As well, we reduced the number of elected trustees from 18 to 10 during the last two years.
These changes have not come without sacrifice or inner conflict, but the changes allowed us to continue the best possible service to our diverse population of 33,000 learners. Like many other Ontario school districts, we are facing new realities of delivering education in today's world as the population we serve continues to change drastically every few years. Harsh new realities for the OBE include details that do not necessarily come to mind when one thinks of the Peace Tower or Ottawa's tulip festival.
Approximately one out of every seven children in the Ottawa-Carleton area lives in poverty. That equates to 24,000 children who must daily battle the blight of being the underdog. Nearly 15,000 of those young people reside within the boundaries served by the Ottawa Board of Education.
A cooperative effort recently spearheaded by the OBE has received accolades from Queen's Park. We would like to reference that at this time as one way that we have found to take the best advantage of our scarce resources.
The Honourable John Snobelen, Minister of Education and Training in Ontario, recently announced the ONE World/UNE Monde project. That is a computer network to facilitate cooperative efforts among teachers, students and administrative staffs. The project is a joint effort by the six local school boards -- public and separate, English and French -- plus the Keewaytinkook Okimakanak, the First Nations Education Authority in Northern Ontario -- as well as several local businesses.
I suggest that this committee query the existence of similar collaborative efforts during its upcoming visit to Newfoundland to assist their educators in developing the best possible system, be that with or without Royal Assent of the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
While high tech links and Queen's Park policies may appear unrelated to the Newfoundland issue, I assure honourable senators that not only the new economic realities of today but also the diverse population groups served by provincial school systems provide ample common ground for discussion.
My own education took place in a New Brunswick school that served learners from the early years until we were ready for post-secondary options. Besides being aware of current educational issues in Ontario, I know firsthand the unique culture that comes with smaller, primarily rural communities. I also understand the trepidation with which people venture forth from a small community into a larger, less familiar one.
I would like to draw your attention to a South African delegation of educators which I was privileged to address before Mandela's ascent to elected power while that group was visiting Canada. These South African educators questioned Ontario's move to divide learners by religion at a time when South Africa was taking monumental steps to break down the very same walls of division and prejudice. I confess to not having been able to justify the wisdom behind an educational system that segregates learners on this basis. My belief in a common education system is even stronger now, given our current economy.
Closer to home than South Africa, the OBE is already realizing successful arrangements with other school boards to maximize budgets and benefits. We are cooperating with other boards, municipalities and corporations in areas of purchasing, transportation, energy conservation, media services and education services for developmentally delayed children.
In our own backyards, the OBE is also dealing with a new reality that requires constant consideration if we are to deliver the best education system possible. Diverse populations can learn together as they prepare to become contributing members of our society, regardless of whether the diversity is based on religion, culture or educational potential.
The one proviso I would add is that the leadership, the management of the system, must be committed to its success if the learners are to follow suit.
Permit me to identify a couple of our programs, some of which have been copied across the country.
In the Ottawa Board of Education's Children Learning for Living project, a mental health worker teaches young children to resolve conflicts and to deal with their day-to-day personal problems. As educators, we know that we can no longer assume that children arrive at school nourished with food, love, family security or a sense of spirituality ready to absorb the days' lessons.
A second very successful program deals with economic differences as well as racial or ethnocultural ones. Some of the learners coming to us have no education at all and require a very basic service known as English Skills Development programs. This service was essential to successfully integrate these learners into Ontario.
Necessity was also the mother of invention for the OBE when we established our Family Welcome Centres. This program addresses the education and social needs of newly arrived students and their immediate families and identifies appropriate services and resources for them. We also have a partnership with the Ottawa-Carleton Immigration Services Organization to provide multicultural liaison officers for our schools.
The reality of our new learner population became quite clear last week when I saw a 1995 mural by students in one of our high schools that depicted their family tree. What struck me was that the student artists used 52 flags from the countries of origin to illustrate the demographics of their classmates.
With these illustrations, I hope you can see that other Canadian communities are moving toward a collective style of delivering education, a format in which there is room to acknowledge differences and build on the potential of each child instead of focusing on their differences.
My third point for your consideration in guiding the future of Newfoundland's education system is that of a confederated school system. Based on my first two points, those of the new economy and of global trends, I recommend that school boards be encouraged to share common strengths that still allow for diversity without focusing on segregation.
As I have explained, the OBE has become a stronger provider of education thanks to its cooperative relationships with other local school boards, public and separate, English and French. If efforts can be made to streamline administrative functions and to share common expenditures such as transportation, purchasing, buildings and new technology, I believe that a greater proportion of education dollars would find their way into Canada's classrooms.
The community education authority model suggests that individual needs, such as religion, culture, and education potential can be recognized in sectors within a common system. What draws me to the common system model is that concept of giving learners the best from each board. Maximizing the system's potential to maximize the potential of its learners just makes sense.
Should the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs counsel the Senate to reject Newfoundland's request to fully govern its educational system, and should that have a ripple effect in Canada in the ensuing years, I foresee a move to private schools whose population will be pulled from the public school system. This demographic shift will keep the poor, immigrant and special needs learners in a public education system while the middle class and bright will migrate toward private school options. This notion of ghettoization of our school system is not an aspect of the U.S. scholastic system model that I want to encourage in our country.
As the chairperson of a large board of education, I see the proposed amendment to Newfoundland's education system not as a threat but, rather, an opportunity to instill hope and growth in a province that I think will welcome both. I believe that education is the responsibility of the state and that religions can and do play a role in reminding all of us, regardless of country of origin, religion or age, that spirituality is as important today as it was before formal schooling was available to anyone besides royalty and the rich.
This amendment is about equality and openness that we all seek. There is no doubt that the changes being sought by the Newfoundland government, if this amendment passes, will involve a period of transition. Having participated in numerous restructuring exercises, I realize that any transition phase is one that does end and that, inevitably, the outcome is for the better.
In addition to the Senate's role in the evolution of our Constitution, you have a responsibility, as wise counsel to the people of Canada, to rise above the tug of war between various sides of this debate and to consider what is best for the children. How can we support and encourage the people of Newfoundland to do likewise as participants in a global village that, frankly, can no longer afford to waste any financial or education resources?
My wish is that my comments today might assist this standing Senate committee in guiding Newfoundland in what, for that province, is unchartered water. Having been raised on the East Coast, I sincerely want to believe that there can be a day when the Government of Newfoundland can call ministers, priests, rabbis and spiritual leaders of the First Nations to the management table as equals so that they may plan collectively a brighter future for their learners. If those leaders pool their resources and insights, and if they are truly committed to the province's children, then this journey in 1996 will have been well worth the effort.
The government, corporate world and citizenry must be behind the new era of education in Newfoundland if this constitutional process is truly a catalyst to better position that province for the future. If the next steps for our most eastern province can be made with continuing care, consultation and wisdom, with a focus on building a cooperative society, then I believe that tomorrow's leaders of the Newfoundland society will also be positioned to take a leadership role in the global village.
What counts is the children in our system and the hope they bring to Canada's future, be they here in the nation's capital or on one of our three costs. We must do right by our next generation of leaders.
Senator Doody: Thank you for your comprehensive presentation.
I was struck by the fact that at one point you mentioned that there are six local school boards in this area. This is a relatively small geographical area with splendid communications. Every time I drive down one of these roads, I start thinking of Newfoundland. When I look at the facilities for recreation, entertainment and so on, it is quite remarkable.
Despite all this, we still see the need for six separate and different school boards to operate the system. Why do you suppose that we have these separate school boards? There must be a rationale. Is it possible, or indeed probable, that the Roman Catholic people who live in this area feel that their children will be better served in terms of the ethic that they are used to, the values, morals, et cetera, in a Roman Catholic school system? Is it not possible that the Francophone people in this area also feel that their children will be better served by a system that teaches them in their own language, with their own history, culture and traditions? That is exactly what the people of Newfoundland are asking for today. They want the right to educate their children in the values with which they were brought up, values which were passed on from their parents and grandparents over the years.
I could not agree more with your comment that at this point in our economic development as a country we cannot afford to waste financial resources. I think you would find that the majority of the Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, and people generally in Newfoundland, feel that the kind of morality that is taught in the system in our province is not a waste of financial resources. As Senator Rompkey pointed out earlier today, you only have to look at the difference in the crime rate, the rate of juvenile delinquency and the fact that we have the only police force in Canada that does not wear guns. It is a different ethic, a different ethos, and one that has come to serve us well.
I realize you are offering us your very best wishes with great sincerity and, obviously, with a lot of thought. However, I really think that you are approaching it from a somewhat different angle than the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal population of Newfoundland.
There is a vast gulf between the thinking process. That is not to say that what you say does not make a lot of sense. It is very logical. There are some things that defy logic in terms of history, tradition, culture, and so on.
Ms Hunter: As you are aware, senator, the reason we have French and English and public and separate school boards in this area is because that was decided by Ontario under constitutional rights. I am suggesting that we take the best of those boards and that we use the resources in the classrooms. What we combine or what we take away is not necessarily language or religious rights but we must ensure what we put together are the things that cross the boundaries.
For example, I refer to transportation in our area. I realize this is different because we are talking about a relatively small area in comparison. However, there are things that we have in common. We work very well with our coterminous separate Catholic school board. We are sharing transportation. I am suggesting there is no reason why that kind of thing cannot be expanded. It is happening here. It is not the answer to everyone's questions, but I think it will save some scarce resources.
We need to recognize spirituality and differences. I also believe there are ways to take some of the resources and spend them on the things that we have in common. That is my suggestion.
Senator Doody: I agree precisely with what you have just said. Newfoundland has gone a tremendous way toward realizing that. That happy situation has been suggested in a framework agreement which the various classes of people involved arrived at wherein a common school bus system, non-denominational, will be put in place, and a construction board, non-denominational, would distribute the funds by need rather than on a per capita basis, which we have now. The number of school boards is to be reduced from 27 to 10 in the province, and so on.
This is all agreed to, but it begs the question: Why must we take the constitutional route to do this? I know you do not want to get into the constitutional side of it, and I appreciate that. There are other people who have opinions on that. However, there is no argument with your objectives in terms of cooperation and economies, and so on. The problem is the distrust and the fear of the two minorities in Newfoundland who see an entrenched right being taken away from them. They are wondering what will happen tomorrow and the day after tomorrow when they do not have that kind of protection any more. That is where some of us are coming from, without in any way saying that your objectives are not laudable.
Ms Hunter: I do appreciate your consideration that I am not here as either a legal or a constitutional expert.
Senator Doody: Neither am I.
Senator Pearson: Thank you for your presentation. It is a useful contribution to our discussion. I believe that you must put the children first and work from them as to which and what will be in their best interest in many dimensions.
I am also thankful that, because of the eloquence of your presentation, you reminded the rest of us that a public system is not without values. It is also a reminder of the common task that all of us in a province or the state -- in this case, we are saying the province -- must educate all children. In the decisions that we make on what we do with this particular term, we must keep in mind our common responsibility and not just the responsibility of certain groups. We must ensure that all the children will benefit by whatever decision we ultimately reach.
I did not realize that you come from New Brunswick and had that experience of a smaller area. That is helpful as well. The Ottawa area has six school boards and a considerably larger population than the entire province of Newfoundland. It is not surprising that we have six school boards.
We are looking forward to our trip to Newfoundland to learn how they have been cooperating with each other. We still have that ahead of us, those of us who are not from Newfoundland.
In the process of the democratic consultation, which we feel is behind the question of the justification of this amendment, how would you propose consulting with young people?
Ms Hunter: It would be important to talk to young people from two ends of the spectrum. You should consult some who are already in the system and who are current students, not just high school students. The insights that young children can give are surprising as to what their classroom and school is like. I would also suggest that we talk to some university students recently out of high school, perhaps some who have had experience in other school systems and may be able to do a comparison for you.
It would be completely worthwhile to ensure that you talk to students. We recently had a process at our board of looking at our mission in focus and goals, and we talked to all of our stakeholder groups. The most interesting and the best results were from the group of high school students to whom we talked. It was wonderful not only for their insight, but also that they like what they are getting in their education system. They care about their community and what is going on in the world. When you listen to them, you realize the education system in our country is not really broken. We need to keep up-to-date, but it is not broken. You will get some fascinating insights from talking to people.
I am not sure in Newfoundland if they have a provincial association of students. We do in Ontario, and we might be able to see if that exists there. That certainly would be a way to talk to students who represent the province as a whole. If not, there may be some of the local school boards that have student associations, as we do, which would give you an insight into exactly how you would find the students to speak to regarding this matter.
Senator Pearson: We have a panel set up for us. That is why I was interested in the kinds of questions. That is helpful.
Senator Forest: I, too, thank you for your presentation. I come from much the same background, chairing a large school board in Alberta. To put you in context, I am a former Manitoban. I went to school there in the public schools because we did not have Catholic schools, and I taught in those schools. It is a very fine system. In the days when I was there, there was still a great deal of bitterness among the people whose rights had been denied, both on linguistic and educational grounds.
In Alberta, where there are two publicly funded school systems -- again, two fine school systems -- I chaired a separate school system, but we worked very cooperatively with the public school system. I found the different attitudes there simply amazing with respect to people, one group versus the other, and the feeling of cooperation. We sometimes had our battles over certain things, but I felt that it was a system of very healthy cooperation between the two groups. There was not at all the feeling of bitterness that I found in Manitoba. Mind you, I left many years ago; perhaps it is changed by now.
You mentioned charting the future. You say that if the amendment is not passed, you foresee a rampant move to private schools whose population will be pulled from the public school system. Why do you feel that would happen?
Ms Hunter: My thought was concerned if this were not passed and some of the results were to spread across the country. I am basically spreading that into Ontario and in the national capital area, which is the area that I know best.
My concern -- and, we have seen the move in our community -- is that many people will leave a publicly funded institution for many different reasons. One of the reasons is the large, diverse population that people serve. Many of them want dollars spent on their particular student that perhaps we are not able to offer. They want a segregated kind of education system, for whatever reason. We find that in our system, a public system, we educate all students, all learners, of whatever background, of whatever need. Our average cost per student, for example, is $7,600; but we educate students in a particular special education program where the average cost per student is over $10,000. We have some special needs students in our system where the cost to educate them individually is over $40,000. Some parents look at that difference in the dollars that are spent as something that they do not particularly feel they want to accept and they look for a different, more segregated kind of setting for their particular students where they specifically know the population of students that are attending that school. I was taking the possibility that this could be extended. I am concerned about that.
We live together in society. I believe that somehow we need to work together in the education system.
Senator Forest: I quite agree with your contention that these children need to be taught and perhaps have a larger degree of the financial resources directed to them. Again, going back to the Alberta experience, that is an area in which we in the separate and public school system have worked together so that we do pool our resources for those students. That might be another way that it could be achieved.
Ms Hunter: Yes. That is wonderful. I am glad that the system is doing that. I commend the boards for doing that.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: First of all, I would like us to understand each other clearly, because I have more difficulties at the end of the day.
[English]
At the end of the day, I find it hard to be more precise. I do not apologize for that.
[Translation]
I will feel more comfortable. First of all, let me tell Senator Pearson and all other senators that I would like to make things quite clear. Nobody here would disagree that our primary concern here should be the future of children. We can have our disagreements, but it would be a tragedy if we were divided between those who share your views and care for the future of children and those who harbour doubts, just like I do, about rights that may be detrimental to the future of children.
I can say you are a really dedicated person, because I have been in Ottawa for 35 years. I know how the system is working in Ottawa. We see now an ever increasing level of cooperation between the Catholic, French, English, Protestant and public school boards. Such is life. I think we should encourage people to work hand in hand and have more and more services shared by all boards. We should encourage Newfoundlanders to do the same thing.
There are certainly stubborn people in the Catholic hierarchy, and there are certainly lots of people who are in bad faith in the Protestant hierarchy also, and among those who are still dreaming about a glorious past which is over or is gradually disappearing.
You have worked all your life in the public school system and you certainly believe it is a superior system. That seems obvious when we read your comments. I am one of the fervent believers in competition between the two systems, provided they manage to share common services. I have been in Newfoundland, and what I have seen there seems quite unreal. What was in existence years ago seems to be disappearing. Maybe the debate we are having now will help accelerate the movement towards cooperation between both systems. If they feel the threat, maybe those who are not willing to share services will change their mind. Let us take the example of school buses. Can you imagine something more absurd than that? It does not change anything in the children's education. The reduction of school boards from 20 to 10 is another example. This has been done in the past.
I have read very carefully your submission, which is quite clear, and I have listened to your remarks. Are we not trying to turn Newfoundland into a scapegoat or a Trojan horse for everything that will eventually happen everywhere else? Maybe that is why we have seen a lot of encouragement coming from outside Newfoundland. We try to tell them to modernize their system, because it is lagging behind that of Ontario.
Do you not see that concept emerging? When you say Ontario would like to do this and that, are you not wishing that we will do the hard work in Newfoundland by telling Newfoundlanders to go ahead, and others will follow suit? I can see this happening in Ontario, certainly. I was not born yesterday.
[English]
I see this rapid movement developing in Ontario. If they could only do it in Newfoundland, then everything would be open.
If you had the choice between the two systems or only one, where would you stand?
I want now to turn to the question of globalization. I come from a background of world interests, but I am afraid of this word "globalization". They will talk about it at the G-7 summit. I call it the "globalization of poverty" -- it is for the benefit of a very few. I do not want to fall into the same trap with respect to education. I do know that when we have competition, things are vibrant. I just hope that the powers that be are not stupid enough to duplicate services.
In the future, do you see one public system, or do you see two systems which are obliged to cooperate much more, as you are doing here in Ottawa? One must understand that the population of Ottawa region is the population of Newfoundland. We must have that in the back of our minds as well. It is more difficult over there.
Ms Hunter: My preference is for a public system that allows for the recognition of differences. That is why I suggested the model that would allow working together at the top level. That does not require cooperation, but it is cooperation with respect to the things we have in common. Within that system, we allow for differences. I believe that is possible. I believe it would not take away anyone's rights. It would allow people to operate successfully for the children.
There is some fear that that model will take away rights and choice, but I do not think it has to do that. I believe it is possible to implement a system that pulls together what we have in common while allowing for differences. I believe in that strongly.
"Globalization" is one of the new buzz words. In raising it, I wanted to recognize that things are changing very rapidly.
Cooperation, cooperative ventures and working together in this age of technology does not mean that school boards must be side by side. If you want to share transportation, that is how it works. However, if you want to share curriculum and ideas, we can share with Newfoundland and we can share with B.C. We need to do more of that.
The idea of globalization and economy is such that we are all part of the same world. I think that we can do that better. We all need to open or minds and thoughts in that regard. That is one of the reasons why I was so positive about the venture in technology that I introduced to you. We have worked with not only the local boards, but the First Nations and several businesses as well. We are looking to expand that. Perhaps the concept of globalization, of working together and of being part of the Ontario economy can be expanded so that the entire country and the world come into play. I think it is important to start that in the school system, not just because we save resources, but because it introduces our children to the idea of working together with people across the street, in the text town or on the other coast. I want to do everything I can to foster that notion.
Competition is an interesting concept. I am not sure that I believe that education systems should compete with each other, per se. I believe that the educational needs of children are first and foremost. Competing for students is competing for the scarce dollars we must share. That would be my one reservation. I want to ensure that dollars are maximized in the classroom for the children. Sometimes competition between education systems takes those dollars that should go into a classroom and puts them in a place where perhaps they should not be spent. My focus is the children.
I appreciate the fact that you raised that issue, senator. I recognize the fact that you are all here because you care about students, education and children. I came here today because I felt it was important to share that message.
Senator Prud'homme: When you say that it allows the difference within the system, you understand by my name that I have no inferiority complex because I am in a minority. I have always said that. I hope I do not have a superiority complex, either. I am a French-Canadian. We are all searching an ideal society in Canada where everyone will be bilingual and will probably speak Chinese and Japanese in Western Canada, but by going too fast in our dream, we are awakening what I call les vieux démons qui dorment.
[Translation]
I am quite sure. I am convinced of that when I look at you. We are asking people to be what they do not want to be for the sake of the so-called globalization. I am convinced we are opening a Pandora's box with this constitutional amendment. I am waiting for arguments to convince me this is not the case.
I would like to be convinced that I should be supporting this amendment with Senator Rompkey and other senators, but I am not. We could get the same results through different means.
[English]
Do you not think that in Newfoundland we could achieve the same thing by proceeding other than with a constitutional amendment that will frustrate, for a long time, people who are in a minority or who perceive themselves as being a minority that is being attacked by a majority? That is the point.
Ms Hunter: I can only give you my personal feelings on this at this point. First, I am not here to comment on the constitutional issues and I am not making the decision. In fact, I am glad that I do not have to do so. I think that if we all agree on the goal -- and, I believe that you and I were saying that this is the way to go -- we must take some steps. Saying that the steps will be easier next year is a difficult comment to make because next year it is never any easier. At some point, we must start. We must take the first steps.
As I mentioned in my presentation, it will be difficult. Change is never easy, especially when you have something that is near and dear to peoples' hearts, such as the education of their own children. It will not be easy. However, in order to achieve the end, we must start somewhere. We must take the first steps. We cannot say that it will be easier tomorrow because, I believe, it will not be easier tomorrow. Making change is never easy.
The Chair: I come from a province with somewhat over 1 million people. We have 57 public school boards, 13 of which are located in the city of Winnipeg alone. There has been a report which says we should reduce that number to 23. I applauded that report and I am somewhat dismayed that the Minister of Education of the province announced yesterday that she would not decrease the number of schools boards in my province from 57 to 23.
If school boards are not to be reduced, where are the other major sources of money for funding to be found?
Ms Hunter: An education system is a service industry. Approximately 80 to 85 per cent of our budget goes to pay salaries and benefits because that is the nature of the business. I do not want to see an impact in the classrooms. I think the students come first. Good staff is very important; in fact, it is essential to learning. The way to save money is on the administrative end. Amalgamation is not always a means to saving money. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it is not the only way or the best way.
However, there are ways for boards to put things together. For example, you mentioned the number of boards in Winnipeg. There would be reason for them to consider creating what I describe as an education service authority to put together the common elements. You do not need to handle payroll at two different offices. We have put a purchasing consortium together with all our local boards. It is staffed by the number of people that we each had, and it is saving us money. We are looking at expanding that into municipalities and working with hospitals and other local governments.
There are ways to save money. My focus is on the administrative end of the dollars and cents as opposed to the classroom. We must look there first. That becomes very difficult in today's economy. We are constantly reviewing what we are doing and how we are doing it, in terms of delivery systems, to see if there are ways to save money. However, there is nothing more difficult than to sit in a board room and vote for a budget cut that you know will result in more students in the classroom next year. That is very tough. It is hands-on politics and it is tough, but there are ways to find some cost savings by looking at the administrative end and working together. It can be mandated. It can be encouraged through positive and negative means, if by nothing more than a public reporting of how boards are working together, which is what has been suggested in our province. There are ways of finding savings.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.