|
Civil Rights in Public Education www.CRIPEweb.org |
|
Research
Note #7
Newfoundland’s school
consolidation
Before Newfoundland removed church control from its education system, there
was constitutional authority for eight selected faith groups to own and
operate their own schools. These were: Anglican, Moravian,
Pentecostal, Presbyterian,
Roman Catholic, Salvation Army, Seventh
Day Adventist, and United.
At one point there were 1266 schools, more than half of which
had only one or two rooms, administered by 270 school boards. Newfoundland,
when it joined Canada in 1949, was the time for the establishment of a
common school system. But Joey Smallwood, the Premier at the time, fearing
he would lose the referendum to join Canada, tried bribing the Roman
Catholics with Term 17, the infamous clause that cemented the churches’
rights into the Constitution for good. Smallwood needn’t have bothered.
Roman Catholics voted against Confederation in droves.
Through the late 1960s and early 1970s the United, Anglican,
Salvation Army, Presbyterian and Moravian churches established integrated
schools throughout the province which reduced the total number of schools to
531 run by 26 boards.
A Royal Commission reported in 1992 and recommended a reduction
in church control. Premier Clyde Wells spent two and a half years in
negotiation and finally proposed a slightly modified constitutional clause
(Term 17) for approval through a referendum in September of 1995. The people
voted 54.4% to support the revision of Term 17. The turnout for the vote
was 52% - many staying away because of the weakness of the compromise with
the churches. After approval by the federal government, a revised school
act was in the process of being implemented when a court case, launched by
the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches, resulted in an injunction to
stop the process.
Premier Brian Tobin was now in charge and saw this as the last
straw and called a second referendum for September 2nd, 1997 to
settle the matter once and for all.
The referendum question was: "Do you support a single school system where
all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same
schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are
provided?"
With all votes counted, almost 73 per cent agreed with the
government initiative to end control of Newfoundland's schools by churches,
a control that had existed for more than 165 years. The Newfoundland House
of Assembly voted unanimously to approve the resolution for change.
Despite efforts by church leaders, the results suggest that a
majority of Roman Catholics and Pentecostals sided with the government and
voted Yes. Roman Catholics make up about 37 per cent of Newfoundland's
population and Pentecostals about seven per cent.
Mr. Tobin called the vote a clear and
strong mandate "to end the separation of our children."
He described the size of the Yes majority as
without precedent in the history of referendum votes in Canada. By late
1997 a poll found that 82 per cent backed the overhaul.
The results were a startling contrast
to the referendum just two years earlier when the government of then Premier
Clyde Wells suggested diminished control of the school system but did not
attempt to eliminate the influence of the churches. An interesting
comparison.
A Special Joint Committee on the Amendment to Term 17 of the
Terms of Union of Newfoundland was set up to hear submissions on both sides
of the question before recommending adoption of rejection to the House of
Commons and Senate.
Mr. Jack Harris, Leader of the New Democratic Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador expressed that he felt that the time had come to
leave behind arguments about governance, control, multiple bureaucracies,
discrimination against teachers on the basis of religion, duplication of
services, wasteful school busing, and the allocation of finances to various
denominations.
The Special Joint Committee recommended that the resolution to
amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada be adopted
by the Commons and the Senate.
The vote in the Commons was 212 FOR adoption and 52 against.
The Senate vote was 45 FOR and 26 against. Both were free votes.
The text of the Newfoundland Constitutional Amendment reads as follows:
17.
(1) In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act, 1867, this
section shall apply in respect of the Province of Newfoundland.
(2) In and
for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall have exclusive
authority to make laws in relation to education, but shall provide
courses in religion that are not specific to a religious
denomination.
(3)
Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by
parents.
COMMENTS
Do we want teachers hired or fired any more on the basis of religion?
Do we want school board elections that elect school board members on the
basis of religion?
I believe it's time to allow all of our children, of
every denomination, to sit in the same classroom,
in the same schools, to ride the same bus,
to play on the same sports teams,
to live and learn together in the same community.
I believe it's time to hire our teachers because
they're competent, caring and committed to our
children , not because of their religion.
Brian Tobin, Premier of Newfoundland and of the Roman Catholic faith .
I will vote Yes in the referendum
because
although I
will always demand that God have a seat in our schools,
I will
also always demand that
He keep
His nose out of the running of those schools.
My
grandson gets his religious instruction in our faith in God's house.
He is
taught honesty, respect, in my house.
He gets
his academic education in the school house.
Is that
not the way it should be?
Tom Badcock, Conception Bay
In the case of Newfoundland, the church-based system was not a
minority protection so much as a remainder from an era when education
finance was purely a private matter. The view that something given can never
be revoked, if accepted, would make democracy impossible.
Democracy is fundamentally about majorities ruling. The
Newfoundland and Quebec church-based school systems are constitutionally
protected.
But constitutions are not written in stone.
They were democratically created and can be altered the same way, it's just
that the hurdle is higher.
From an
editorial in the Globe and Mail of September 5,1997
(Premier
Brian Tobin’s comments on the passage by Parliament of the Quebec
constitutional change for its school system.)
“The
government has an obligation to put the Quebec amendment through.
“This is
an identical amendment in essence, except there's another provisio – there's
a guarantee of religious education and religious observances.
“So if you're a member of
Parliament who says he's concerned about this issue, you'd have a hard time
explaining why you would vote for the Quebec amendment, which does not
provide for religious education, and vote against the
Newfoundland
one, which does.
“I have yet to hear Roman Catholic and Pentecostal officials express concern
about the rights of other minorities, like people of the Jewish
faith.
“I'm a Catholic. I don't feel like I'm a minority. I feel like I'm part of
the mainstream of Newfoundland society.”
Brian Tobin, Premier of Nfld.
We would
like to see as strong a Yes vote as possible, a very decisive vote that will
make it clear that this is the wish of the people.
Newfoundland Education Minister Roger Grimes, a Pentecostal
Individual
Rights Will be Enhanced by the Amendment
At the same time that the Roman Catholics and the Pentecostals
are claiming that their rights will be infringed by the proposed changes,
teachers are rejoicing that their rights to be employed regardless of their
religion, will finally be recognized.
Brendan Doyle, head of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'
Association, said teachers are relieved that if the changes are approved by
the federal government, then teachers will no longer be hired by school
boards that could make their hiring decisions based on the religion of the
applicant.
This “minority” business
The vocal "NO" side of the Newfoundland referendum on schools,
represented by the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal communities, moved to
Ottawa as opponents of the change to urge the prime minister, MPs and
senators to protect "minority rights."
An open letter printed in the Ottawa Citizen on September 3rd
"On behalf of Roman Catholic parents of Newfoundland and Labrador" stated,
in part, that "As concerned parents, we believe the government's conduct
during the referendum has compromised the democratic process. . . By
exploiting the referendum 'mandate', the provincial government plans to
subordinate the rights of religious minorities to the tyranny of the
majority.'
In response to this, political scientist Mark Graesser, in an
article printed in the Ottawa Citizen of September 4th, said that these
arguments about minority rights are "an elaborate rhetorical device"
without solid legal backing. "Given that many Catholics voted for reform,
they obviously decided this is not a justifiable privilege worthy of
maintaining when there are growing demands on the education system and
shrinking resources."
On the minority argument, Newfoundland Senator Bill Romkey
said that "All Christian churches were treated equally and they've all lost
the same rights. The real minorities are the Jews, Muslims and the
Moravians."
Roman Catholics make up 37 per cent of the population of
Newfoundland but it is obvious from the referendum results that most Roman
Catholics voted Yes. For instance, in two voting districts where the
population is more than 90 per cent Roman Catholic, Ferryland and Port au
Port, a majority voted Yes. The obvious conclusion is that the 200,000
Roman Catholics in Newfoundland actually prefer to have common schools in
which their children attend with all others.
If their "minority rights" were extinguished, they were
SELF-extinguished in an open democratic exercise.
The bishops may continue to argue that they represent their
flock, but the flock seems to have abandoned their leadership decisively.
Renton Patterson, editor
Was a Referendum Appropriate?
A referendum seeks to determine if a majority of the population
agrees with a proposed action.
In the Newfoundland case, the proposed action was the removal of
privilege for certain Christian churches with regard to education.
Our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of our
constitution, lists religion as a prohibited ground for discrimination. Is
it appropriate to have a referendum as to whether a province is to abide by
the Constitution of Canada?
NO!
Brian Tobin's government could have just passed the legislation
to remove church privilege and then presented that to the House of Commons
on the basis that the status quo violates section 15(1), the freedom of
religion clause in our Charter.
All that should be necessary is for a province to present its legislation to
remove church privilege as a measure to fully comply with what our
politicians profess to believe in: the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Would a politician sanction a referendum on whether to abide by
the other equality provisions of the Charter: that of race, national or
ethnic origin, colour, sex, age or mental or physical capacity?
Not likely.
Then why
religion?
Renton Patterson, editor
Was a Referendum Necessary?
Did premier Brian Tobin need the strong referendum result to
alter Newfoundland's school system?
No.
For changes to the Constitution of Canada that affect only the
province concerned, all that is required is a bill passed in that
provincial legislature plus the approval of both the House of Commons and
the Senate. Although the federal government has no obligation to approve the
measure, it would need good reason to defy the request of a democratically
elected government.
Having said this, the federal government also has the power of
disallowance whereby it may disallow any legislation introduced by the
province with which it does not agree.
Given the high level of emotion raised when governments choose
to remove privilege from private institutions, namely churches, Tobin needed
a strong hand.
"As a political party proposing such a fundamental change, we
require the political authority to act", he said.
To do that, he needed a negotiating chip that's tough to beat:--
a mandate.
And that's what he got.
|