Liberals trample minority school rights.

Like lightning from a blue sky, it was over in an instant. Two days, and 150 years of Newfoundland school history were wiped out. The Globe & Mail fully approved. So did various political commentators, though the Toronto Star did not.

Why did the Liberals do it? Ostensibly in fulfilment of a promise made to former Newfoundland premier Clyde Wells. But why the promise?

In accommodation to an ever more secular society, a party of pragmatism, not principles, must seek to remain popular. The presupposition is that religion is pretty well on the rocks. As Jean Chretien states in his autobiography, in Quebec the Church has been vanquished and now only exists on the margins of society, of little interest or consequence to state and public policy. The same, he thinks, will be true for the rest of Canada. Is he right in this prognosis? More importantly, was his government correct in acting as they did? We say: absolutely not.

As in the case of sexual orientation earlier in the month (see C.I., June '96, pp. 12-13), the Chretien-Rock team ignored objections and rammed through legislation altering the Canadian constitution. This time they did it in all of two days: hearings on Friday afternoon, May 31, and speeches plus vote on Monday June 3. The outcome: approval by 170 against 46, of whom 35 were Liberals.

As mentioned in the June issue, the purpose of the unconscionable haste was, again, to get the issue over with before the 1996 summer recess in the confidence that nobody, including Catholics, will remember it by election time in 1997. The media complied, dropping sexual orientation and schools from their news reports immediately after the votes. Yet all may not be smooth sailing for Jean Chretien. The school issue has gone to the Senate, which decided to hold hearings in Ottawa as well as in Newfoundland creating a delay which may even last six months. Meanwhile, same-sex considerations returned to the front page because of a June 13 ruling by an Ottawa Human Rights Tribunal; and, on that score surely, there is more to come.

The same scenario

The same elements at play with Bill C-33 were at work here: a phony "free" vote, under which 60 Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are ordered to vote in favour while opponents are put on a blacklist; a disdainful dismissal of a core of Liberal MPs opposed to the move; an even more contemptuous rejection of arguments brought forward by Catholic authorities and representatives with the Prime Minister insultingly refusing five times to meet with them by not even answering their letters over a six months period; a Justice Minister's arrogance in dismissing out-of-hand the idea that there might be other aspects or consequences; the cynical use of the Bloc Quebecois as an ally to undermine the social fabric outside Quebec; and finally, the leading role of anti-family, pro-abortion Catholics in launching the attack on Christian foundations. In summary, what looks in many respects like a benign and ordinary government has, on points of Christian rights and freedoms, become, a calculating antagonist.

Cardinal Carter writes the Prime Minister

The best way to clarify what is at stake is to read the full text of Cardinal Carter's letter to the Prime Minister. Dated May 21, when for practical purposes it was already too late, the letter is nevertheless the clearest exposition of what was and is wrong with the actions of both the Newfoundland and federal governments. Not printed anywhere in Canada, and not even mentioned by "national" media such as the Globe & Mail, the letter will be just a historical document--that is, unless the Senate takes it to heart.

The text is as follows; subheadings have been added:

Dear Prime Minister:

Re: Newfoundland Denominational Schools

I know that you have received many letters expressing concern at the prospect that the federal government might support the request of the Province of Newfoundland to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union and cut back on denominational rights in education. You and your colleague, the Minister of Justice, have been urged to encourage Newfoundlanders to reach a satisfactory solution without the need for a constitutional amendment.

Reform of education

When I received the news that an agreement for the reform of the system of education in Newfoundland had been reached between Premier Tobin's government and the leaders of the denominational school system, I was pleased, especially upon learning that the changes do not require an amendment to Term 17 and would avoid the setting of a precedent dangerous to minority rights across Canada.

I now understand that Premier Tobin insists on the amendment to Term 17 despite the agreement and that you are prepared to oblige him. I am disappointed, like many Canadians, because I took you at your word that the Liberal Party is a party of principle and a champion of minority rights. The precedent that would be set on this issue would have far-reaching political consequences for our nation.

The Constitution of Canada recognizes and protects certain minority rights such as the language of debate in Parliament and in the courts of Canada, Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick. There is also protection for minority language education rights, denominational education rights and aboriginal rights. Even the commitment in the Constitution to the principle of equalization payments from richer provinces to poorer provinces is a form of constitutional protection for minorities.

Reason for protection

The reason why minority rights are protected in constitutions is so that they cannot easily be removed by majorities, who can sometimes behave in ways that are profoundly undemocratic. Would French-language rights survive outside of Quebec if they were subject to a referendum? Consider the debate over bilingual road signs in Ontario in the past. Would English-language rights in Quebec survive? What about aboriginal rights? Would the Roman Catholic minority in Ontario at about thirty per cent of the population retain Catholic schools?

In difficult economic times would the obligation to provide equalization payments survive a referendum? Consider the resentment in Western Canada over the GST harmonization deal for Newfoundland.

There is a natural reality that occurs because of population imbalances. And that is why minority rights are protected in the Constitution. That is why the federal government is expected not to simply be the rubber stamp for changes to minority rights sought by provinces, but is expected to be the guardian of those rights.

A flawed referendum

The government of Newfoundland and representatives of your government have pointed to the September referendum result as moral justification for the amendment to Term 17.

The referendum was fundamentally flawed. You and your colleagues were especially critical of the question in the Quebec referendum. The same criticism applies to the question in the Newfoundland referendum. The question was:

"Do you support revising Term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational education system? Yes or No."

Is it a simple question? Is it a clear question? Is it a fair question?

The question was carefully crafted to imply falsely that amendment of the Constitution was necessary in order for reform to occur at all as a matter of law. That was an incorrect proposition.

And who could be against reform? Who thinks that education in the province of Newfoundland or elsewhere the country is not ripe for reform? The question pitted this desire for reform and effective education for children against a constitutional right--a conflict which does not exist in law at all.

The second problem with the referendum question was that in order to understand the government's intentions, a voter would have to read and understand a considerable amount of additional written material. As you have learned from the Quebec situation, referenda may be democratic in theory, but they are demagogic in reality when questions are abused. Consider the precedent.

Consider also the result of this referendum. About fifty-two per cent of the eligible voters in Newfoundland voted. Fifty-four per cent of them supported the amendment that the government proposed to Term 17. The result was a constitutional amendment that has the active support of only twenty-eight per cent of the voters in Newfoundland. It is important to note that a majority of Roman Catholics voted against the proposal. A majority of Pentecostals also voted against the proposal.

How can this result justify the removal of the minority right? Consider the precedent.

Minorities did not surrender their rights

If each of the denominational classes of persons protected by Term 17 had voted to give up their own rights, no one could seriously object to the proposed amendment on the basis of principle. But that is not what happened. Roman Catholics did not vote to give up their rights. Nor did Pentecostals. The referendum vote was nothing more than a simple case of the majority voting to take away the rights of two minorities in Newfoundland. Is it any different in principle than the English voting to take away the rights of the French? Consider the precedent.

The amendment process under the Constitution requires your government to play the role of guardian of minority rights. If your government rubber stamps an amended Term 17, how can it in principle resist similar requests from voting majorities in Alberta, Quebec and Ontario? Worse yet, the approach taken to this question is a denial of the ideals of tolerance and pluralism on which this country was founded.

A threat to others

It has been said by supporters of the Newfoundland amendment that it does not form a precedent. I disagree, along with many others including members of your caucus and your party. Asked to comment on this point, Professor Patrick Monahan, Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School, said:

"I agree that a constitutional amendment to Term 17 that is not supported by all the classes of persons protected by that guarantee could be seen as a precedent that would permit other provinces to seek similar changes . . . There is . . . no basis in principle for the proposition that a person who chooses to give up his or her own denominational rights as a member of a class of persons should be permitted to adversely affect the rights of other individuals who are members of another class of persons altogether. . . . The amendment to Term 17 would create a risk to denominational school guarantees in other provinces that did not hitherto exist."

I call upon you as Prime Minister and as the leader of the federal government to take seriously your role as guardian of minority rights. I call upon you to uphold the tradition of the Liberal Party that you lead. Do not accede to the request of the government of Newfoundland to amend Term 17.

Devotedly yours,

Emmett Cardinal Carter

Archbishop emeritus of Toronto

Conclusion

The Cardinal sets forth the issue clearly: reform of education can be done--indeed has already been achieved--without constitutional change. The constitution protects minorities. Through a flawed, even falsely crafted referendum question, this protection is now to be removed on request of 28 per cent of the population. The suppression of Newfoundland parental rights is unjust. And yes, it will set a precedent for attacking minority rights in other provinces.

The Cardinal's estimation of the Liberal Party as the bearer of noble traditions is, of course, entirely his own. Other Catholics, including this writer, have doubted such a view of the Party ever since it launched the permissive society with the legalization of contraceptives, divorce, homosexuality and, above all, abortion, in the late Sixties. Jean Chretien, Allan Rock, Brian Tobin are Liberals and Catholics of this kind: approving moral permissiveness, they oppose the Church, belittle her teachings and circumscribe her influence.

In Newfoundland blatant anti-Catholicism has already reared its ugly head over the last year, to the point of forcing Catholics to organize their own anti-defamation league. Regular attacks on them appear in the St. John's Evening-Telegram and other media.

In May of this year it came to a war of words when Archbishop James MacDonald had to refute Premier Tobin's falsehoods on CBC radio that the Catholic Church was only interested in maintaining its bureaucratic power structure and that the Church had socked away $6 million of taxpayers' money in interest-bearing accounts used for non-school purposes.

Former Premier Clyde Wells had done his work well. Coming from a long anti-Catholic tradition, he bided his time, then struck. He has sown the wind. The province and the country will reap the whirlwind, unless the Senate steps in and votes the constitutional amendment down. If you know a Senator, please write him or her.