Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the speech by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.
It is both a duty and a pleasure for me to support the proposals by the member for Broadview-Greenwood, modifying the federal government motion to change term 17 of the agreement which brought about Newfoundland and Labrador's joining with Canada in 1949.
At that time, the Constitution had been modified to enable Newfoundland and Labrador to join Canada under certain conditions. Term 17 gave Newfoundland the right to have denominational schools.
Canada is made up of minorities, religious minorities, linguistic minorities, racial minorities. The Constitution protects the rights acquired by those minorities, and those acquired rights must not be changed without the minorities affected consenting to the constitutional changes, I repeat, they must not be changed without minority consent.
In the early 20th century in Ontario, we had an example of regulation 17 preventing French-language education. Such a thing should never be allowed to happen again. Acquired rights are acquired rights, and the federal government has a duty to defend the rights and freedoms of individuals and communities when those rights and freedoms come under attack by the provinces.
It is true that a referendum was held in Newfoundland; 50 per cent of the voters turned out. Just over 50 per cent of the number
that voted were in favour, which represents just barely over 25 per cent of the population who voted to change minority rights.
Referendums are a dangerous thing. They make it possible for majorities to crush minorities. We saw that when the province of Quebec wanted to separate, or at least certain Quebec politicians wanted to separate Quebec from Canada, and a referendum was held.
The members of the Reform Party would like to see a referendum held to abolish bilingualism and break the country apart. They have not yet, fortunately, succeeded in getting that referendum.
The minority denominations in Newfoundland are not in favour of the federal government motion, but they would be, if it were modified as proposed by the Senate on November 27, 1996.
My colleague has read the Senate proposals, and I am in agreement with them. I appreciate the fact that the federal government saw fit to allow a free vote on the first, second and third readings of this bill the first time around.
Now that the bill has come back to us from the Senate, I trust that the government will do the same again, and I feel obliged to say that I will, once again, vote against this proposal.