Debates of Oct. 1st, 1997

Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I take part in this dispassionate debate on the creation of linguistic school boards. I say with “great pride”, because the constitutional amendment proposal introduced today by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, whom I will not name, is an important step in a debate which, in Quebec, lasted 30 years before a consensus could be reached. Therefore it is not with indifference that we should welcome this day but rather with a deep satisfaction.

On April 15, the National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a constitutional amendment to section 93 of the Canadian Constitution. The aim of this amendment was essentially to restructure the school system along linguistic rather than denominational lines. Our government supported this initiative and, on April 22, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs introduced a motion to that effect here in this House.

However, because an election was called, which brought us back to power on June 2, it became impossible to pursue this initiative. This government is therefore addressing the situation today.

We should not only be pleased that the debate is entering a new stage today but also that a majority of Quebeckers, francophones and anglophones, support the establishment of linguistic school boards.

A consensus has been forged, and as the intergovernmental affairs minister has noted that consensus is sufficiently broad for us to go ahead with the proposed change.

Today, in tabling the resolution for a constitutional amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Minister announced that it would be referred to a special joint committee that would report back to Parliament in the next few weeks. This is a logical initiative that should have the support of all hon. members of this House. We should certainly be glad that all stakeholders were able to achieve a consensus but, in accordance with parliamentary custom, we have to provide an opportunity for these stakeholders and others to be heard on such an important constitutional amendment.

This is so obvious that no one can object in good faith to the approach taken by our government without flouting the democratic values of Canadian society from coast to coast. I would certainly not accuse any of my colleagues of having such intentions.

Dissenting voices have the right to make themselves heard. We as members of Parliament have the right to inform them and to try to convince them of the merits of this constitutional amendment.

For those who already support it, striking the joint committee will give them the opportunity to reiterate their support. This is a democratic exercise that is not only healthy and necessary but also respectful of the opinions generated by all sides in this debate.

A minute ago I was talking about our democratic values. Quebeckers have always shared and espoused these values. In fact, if our country is so widely respected throughout the world, it is partly because of its respect for this heritage that generations of Canadians have preserved over the years. The motion before us today seems like a golden opportunity to emphasize our respect for democracy and our institutions.

There is another reason for creating this joint committee, as the minister has pointed out in the past few weeks. Some time ago, the official opposition in the National Assembly asked the Quebec government to set up a parliamentary committee on this issue. That request was rejected. All the more reason to create a committee that will allow the various groups, experts and concerned citizens to express their views.

This approach would allow us not only to comply with parliamentary procedure but also to promote a better understanding of the changes that would be effected through this constitutional amendment.

Despite the consensus forged on this issue, obviously some groups and citizens are worried about the disappearance of denominational school boards. Our government is sensitive to that aspect of the issue. Moreover, we are fully aware of the uncertainty felt by some groups and citizens in Quebec's anglophone minorities.

For example, in light of a disturbing demographic situation we are well aware of provisions that limit access to English schools. As the minister has pointed out so well, we cannot ignore the secessionist ambitions of the Government of Quebec.

In these circumstances is it too much to offer those groups and citizens a forum so they can make themselves heard? Not at all. That is why our government will go ahead with its proposal to strike a joint committee.

I now come to the main point of my comments. Certain Quebeckers are worried about this constitutional amendment. However, as the minister has said, the proposed changes do not run counter to the interests of the anglophone community.

Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees linguistic minorities the right to instruction in their own language, will continue to provide solid guarantees to Quebec's anglophones as it has in the past.

Moreover—and the minister has highlighted this reality—the Government of Quebec is not seeking to root out religion from education but rather to secularize the administrative structures.

This debate has not arisen for no reason. In recent years the repositioning of Quebec's society has been modified by the contribution of newcomers at the same time as secularization has increased. At that point the need has been felt to reorganize school structures along linguistic rather that denominational lines.

The constitutional amendment tabled by the minister takes account of that evolution.

Such debates are nothing new; it is not the first time Quebec society has felt the need to review its school system. But the evolution of Quebec society with all its characteristics has seen a consensus emerge in both the francophone and the anglophone communities. We should seize this opportunity to set up school boards along linguistic lines.

One last question, if I may, before I conclude. It concerns co-operation between both levels of government. Being used to recriminations from the Quebec government, we see in this debate a meaningful example of what we could all achieve if the secessionist rhetoric gave way to true co-operation.

Another important point deserves to be mentioned. This constitutional amendment on linguistic school boards is considered a bilateral amendment in constitutional legalese.

There is some irony here. While the 1982 Constitution is still being condemned by secessionist leaders, this same Constitution allows them to request this amendment today.

Clearly, we can achieve a consensus, change our federation and even our Constitution without tearing this country apart. I urge all my colleagues in this House to support the motion before us.

I forgot to tell you I was sharing my 20 minutes with my colleague for Broadview—Greenwood.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friends in the Bloc always get a little concerned when I speak on these issues. It is no secret to members of this Chamber that I came here almost 10 years ago from downtown Toronto because my constituents wanted somebody to make sure they had a voice that would always speak up for a strong national government.

They wanted someone who would be outspoken at the appropriate time on minority rights. When disadvantaged regions of our country needed financial support or extra support as they were going through difficult times and did not having the necessary infrastructure, they wanted advantaged regions to be there to help them.

I have always tried to be consistent on the primary reason I was elected. That was why I originally opposed the Meech Lake accord. The Meech Lake accord essentially dismantled the national government. It was essentially a process that promoted offloading on to the province's national government responsibilities. It has been like a litany of transferring of powers over the last many years.

I would like to say to the minister I applaud the fact that he is putting this motion into committee where over the next few months we can have broad based support from both sides. Members will have an opportunity to speak on the amendment. Even though the amendment is different from term 17, make no mistake. It is inextricably intertwined with what is happening in terms of the constitutional amendment process in Newfoundland.

Again I say to the minister that it is a good thing it is going to committee. I appreciate that the prime minister has also said the vote on the amendment would be a free one.

I do not have all the answers in terms of the process today. That is why we will be going into a joint committee over the next few months. In the last little while we have moved so quickly on so many offloadings and dismantling of national government responsibility that I would appeal to members of the House, as we head into a new term, to remember the Chamber is not a rubber stamp for the provinces.

The Chamber has always been the custodian of minority rights. It has been here from time to time to stand up to the provinces and say it will not agree with them on a particular program or policy thrust.

A few of us in Ontario have concerns about what the amendment will mean, could mean or might mean in terms of setting a precedent in the province of Ontario and the separate school system that exists there, which is recognized as an efficient system.

In spite of that efficiency we have a government in the province of Ontario right now that in the name of a dollar would save putting up the Ontario flag on a day. It is a very tight, cost cutting government.

Some of us are concerned this could set a precedent that could affect our educational system, especially those of us who do not believe in a total secularization of the school system.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Are you willing to cut the transfers?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

The member talks about transfers and economics. One of the reasons given by the province of Newfoundland for changing its entire separate school system was that it wanted to save $9 million to $11 million. I for one think that is a pitiful sum of money to shut down an entire system and a tradition that has always been a part of this country.

I want to repeat that it is important that Canadian who want to speak out on this issue, those who want to make representation, have an opportunity to appear before the joint committee between now and the end of November.

I have always accepted the outcome of any vote in this House but between now and then it is very important that we reflect on what is the responsibility of this Chamber. I urge members to make sure that this Chamber does not become a rubber stamp for the provinces.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today as we debate Motion No. 3 we are embarking on a debate that has a number of interesting aspects to it.

On the surface the motion is relatively straightforward. The motion calls for the creation of a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to study matters relating to the proposed resolution respecting a proposed amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 concerning the Quebec school system.

At this time I will not go into any great detail about the proposed amendment as the government will be introducing the amendment as Motion No. 4 which will be debated after the special joint committee reports.

Toward the conclusion of my speech I will briefly touch on a couple of areas of concern. I would first like to concentrate on the special joint committee itself. Reformers involve themselves with the Senate with some trepidation. One of the basic tenets of Reform Party's principles is to reform the Senate. We believe in a triple-E Senate where the Senate is equal, elected and effective. We believe that such a reformed Senate would go a long way in legitimizing the upper Chamber.

It is the fact that all the members of the Senate have been appointed by the prime minister of the day that causes Reformers such grief in dealing with the upper Chamber. The appointment of any political representative is an archaic practice that should have been forever consigned to the history of the 19th century. Yet here we are, almost on the eve of the 21st century, and the prime minister is still indulging in this patronage riddled practice.

It is not that there are not good people in the Senate. There are. I have met with a number of talented individuals from the upper Chamber, many of whom perform admirable service to the people of Canada. But since they are unelected and therefore unaccountable to no one but the prime minister who appointed them, they have no legitimacy.

Reformers are reluctant to convey any legitimacy to that unelected upper Chamber by working with them on a special joint committee. But Reformers are also pragmatists. While we will constantly strive to reform the Senate, we recognize that the reality of today is that Canadians have a Senate that is unelected, unequally distributed by any measure and whose effectiveness and legitimacy are questionable.

But the Senate does have some constitutional powers. One of those powers is that it must ratify any constitutional amendment. Since the ratification of the Senate is required under section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982, it must play a role in this exercise. The question is: Should it play a joint role with the House of Commons?

If there was not a special joint committee with members from both the House of Commons and the Senate, then the alternative would likely be that both chambers would hold committee meetings on their own. This redundancy would undoubtedly lengthen the time that it would take for the two chambers to deal with the amendment.

The other concern the Reform Party has with this motion is the amount of time that the government is providing to the committee to complete its work.

The motion states:

That the Committee be directed to consult broadly and review such information as it deems appropriate with respect to this issue;

The motion goes on to state that the committee is to make its final report no later than November 7, 1997. That is only 38 days from now.

Is it possible for the committee to consult broadly, as the motion calls for, and meet the November 7 deadline? That of course will depend on the number of people who want to address the committee.

If there is near unanimous support for the amendment in Quebec and few individuals or organizations are interested in appearing before the committee, then the deadline will not be a problem. If, on the other hand, the committee is deluged by people who wish to appear before it and the committee can only hear a small portion of them, then the short timeframe becomes a major problem, as many Quebeckers would be denied their right to express their views on a constitutional amendment.

Under different circumstances I would be horrified that the government would even suggest putting such a short timeframe on the committee. However, in this instance I acknowledge the government's desire to have a short timeframe. If the committee were to undertake a prolonged and detailed review of the amendment, then the separatist government in Quebec and the separatists here in the House would probably use this as an example of the federation being dysfunctional.

However, I would caution the members of the proposed committee to ensure that what they are doing is in the best interests of all Canadians and not just worry how their actions will be perceived in Quebec.

It is for that reason that we put forward the amendment to lengthen the timeframe for the committee until December 31, 1997, to ensure that all Quebeckers who have a desire to make a representation before the committee have the opportunity to do so.

If it becomes apparent to the committee that it can hear all the interested parties in a shorter period of time, there is nothing preventing that committee from reporting earlier.

Another reason for the extended time period is to ensure that the committee has sufficient time to consider the three tests for such a proposed constitutional amendment, as delineated earlier by the leader of the opposition.

Before I conclude my remarks I would like to repeat those tests which the committee must address.

The first obligation of the special joint committee must be to ensure that the amendments meet the test of democratic consent. Does the amendment have the consensus of the Quebec people?

When Newfoundland amended term 17, which affected its educational obligations under the Terms of Union, it held a province-wide referendum on two separate occasions. There has been no such universal consultation with the people of Quebec on this occasion. Thus, the committee must feel satisfied that there is substantive evidence to ensure that the people of Quebec are behind this amendment.

A second concern for the committee is to ensure that the amendment meets the test of the rule of law. While there are various legal aspects of this process that must be considered, I would like the committee to consider this one. Section 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, states:

Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union.

While I am not a constitutional expert, I take that to mean that although the provinces were given exclusive jurisdiction over education, they could not make laws after Confederation which would prejudicially affect any right with respect to denominational schools that a person had by law in the province at the time of union.

We must remember that at the time of union there were not four provinces, but rather only three: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the united province of Canada.

Therefore, the committee must be satisfied that Quebec can use section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, without the consent of Ontario. This could set a significant precedent because if this amendment is passed without Ontario's consent now, will Quebec separatists use this to further their argument that they can unilaterally alter the Canadian Constitution without the consent of their partners in Confederation? This is just one of the questions of law that the committee must address.

The third and final issue that the committee must address is: Does this amendment meet the test of Canadian national interest? Does this amendment give Quebec unique powers in amending the Constitution? Would it lead to Quebec gaining the power to opt out of the Canadian Constitution one clause at a time? Is there sufficient protection for minority groups not only in Quebec but across Canada if this amendment should pass? Again, these questions must be addressed by the committee.

The official opposition is endeavouring to ensure that this process is done correctly. I call on the government and all members of the House to heed our concerns.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your new responsibilities. I had absolutely no intention of participating in this debate but I think that I must set the record straight, with the benevolent and informed support of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

You know that, according to the amending formula of the Constitution Act, 1982, there are five ways to amend the Constitution. In some instances, the federal government may act alone. There is the well known 7-50 formula, that is to say that an amendment needs the support of seven provinces representing at least 50 percent of the population. Furthermore, provinces can act alone in their own areas of jurisdiction. There is also the bilateral formula and the unanimity rule, which applies to the position of lieutenant governor, the Queen's representative, and to the redrawing of some boundaries, among other things.

I think that the hon. member, who is well versed in and loves constitutional issues, cannot make a parallel and argue that a bilateral approach would create a dangerous precedent by supporting the legitimate sovereigntist option to act unilaterally.

Let us be clear: there is absolutely no doubt that, in this case, the bilateral formula applies. When Quebec decides in a democratic way to declare its independence, it will be on the basis not of Canada's legislation but of international law as the Constitution makes no provision for such a scenario.

So I would ask the hon. member to make the necessary distinctions, for these are two distinct debates with nothing in common at this time and I wish the hon. member did not really want the committee to proceed as she is suggesting.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many of us are concerned that any constitutional amendment passed under section 43 or any of the other provisions might set a precedent. We want to make sure that the Constitution is amended under the rule of law. It has yet to be determined whether this is the right amending formula to be used in this case.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the member of the Reform Party.

I listened with interest to her comments on the reform of the Senate. I wonder whether she could confirm for the House that the senator from Alberta who died a few years ago, the former Premier Ernest Charles Manning, was the father of the current leader of the Reform Party in this House?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that yes he was the father of the present leader of the official opposition.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support the motion to amend the motion to refer to a joint committee the proposed amendments to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It is also a pleasure to know that I am done with this long and complicated sentence.

The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest draws attention to three important principles on which constitutional amendments should always be based: democratic consent, the rule of law and the national interest.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those of my colleagues from Calgary Southwest and South Surrey—White Rock—Langley concerning the joint committee to which the proposed amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 will be referred.

First of all, I would like to commend the Bloc for its comments on the illegitimacy of an unelected Senate. This shows that its democratic instinct is similar to that of the Reform Party. This shows once again that the Reform Party and the Bloc both want our federal system to be changed in order to give more autonomy to the provinces in areas that directly affect their cultural and economic characteristics.

Of course, I do not have to remind the House how much the objectives of our parties differ. It is obviously possible to obtain provincial autonomy by becoming sovereign, at a very high cost to all parties concerned. We would, however, better serve the national interest by changing the way our federal system works.

I would like to point out to the House that the national interest is precisely the third criterion on which we should judge constitutional amendments. I hope that by pointing out this fact to the House we will be able to instil these principles into the collective political conscience of the House.

It is our attachment to the objective of national unity that worries us so much when a constitutional amendment is contemplated in a more or less judicious manner.

As the hon. leader of the official opposition said, using the amending formula of section 43 may not be not totally legal. It is clear that this amending formula applies to subsection 93(2) of the Constitution, but not to subsections 1, 3 and 4. The legality of this approach should be determined by the Superior Court of Quebec. If not, the federal government should ask the Supreme Court's opinion on this issue.

This having been said, our caucus continues to believe that, before amending the Constitution, the three tests referred to must be done. The test of democratic consent is the first principle we feel should be applied, under the circumstances. Do the majority of Quebeckers support the constitutional amendments proposed? The best way to answer that question is to hold a referendum, which is why my hon. colleague has recommended that the Government of Quebec hold one. If Quebeckers support the amendment, the provincial government has nothing to lose. If they reject it, this government has everything to lose. One need not be a populist to realize that it is never wise to go against the voters' wishes.

The second test is the rule of law. As my colleague from Calgary Southwest has clearly stated, section 43 may not apply here. I will go no further with this, but I would like to address the question of minority rights.

Since the political discussions on unity have essentially focussed on the decentralization of powers and the subsequently greater provincial autonomy, the question of minority rights becomes all the more important.

By giving increased powers to the province of Quebec in areas such as language, culture and education, are we not abandoning the anglophone minority of Quebec?

This is not an easy issue, but I believe it draws our attention to the very important role of the Constitution in regard to the protection of minority rights. If Quebec is not bound by section 93(1), the Superior Court of Quebec should rule that this proposal will have no adverse effect on minorities in Quebec. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this.

The third test relates to the national interest. Does the proposed amendment meet the national interest? From a certain point of view, the answer is no. The use of section 43 in this instance will allow all provincial governments to question the limits of their jurisdiction.

The Reform Party strongly believes that provinces need more autonomy. They need powers which will allow them to create institutions that are truly representative of the economic and cultural realities of the regions. However, all provinces must have the same powers. The way they will exercise those powers will depend on the will of their respective population. It is not appropriate, however, to create a precedent which would allow Quebec to be exempt from the law of the land.

Constitutional change is a necessity in this country. We must create a new balance of powers if we want the Confederation to be adapted to the needs of its provincial partners. These are the goals that our caucus hopes to reach. However, democracy is more a matter of process than result and I believe it is important to review carefully the process to amend section 93.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as some people spoke to me very highly of this new member, I cannot resist the temptation and ask him two short questions.

The notion that a referendum might be held cannot apply here for the two following reasons: first, as the hon. member will understand, what this is all about, from A to Z , on the X as well as on the Y axis, in any way one tries to look at it, involves only the education sector. We are not dealing with an amendment that is going to change the balance between communities, between francophones and anglophones.

We are dealing with an amendment that will enable the province of Quebec, the country of Quebec—I should never use the words “Quebec” and “province” in the same sentence—to modernize its school system. That is the basic and sole purpose of this amendment.

The member says there has to be equality among the provinces. I should probably take on the challenge of convincing him of the contrary before the end of the year.

If the member thinks that all the provinces are equal, therefore that Quebec is equal to Prince Edward Island, in spite of all the beauty that Prince Edward Island has to offer with its beaches and the ingenuity of its people, it essentially means that the member thinks that we are not a nation, that there is only one nation, the Canadian nation, and that he does not want things to change to recognize the fact that we speak French, that our political system is different, that our justice system is different, that we have a vernacular language, that we have a collective desire to survive and, most of all, that Quebec is the only state in the world that is controlled by 82 per cent of the population. That is what the specificity of Quebec is all about.

So, I hope that, by dint of rubbing shoulders with him in very parliamentary settings, I will convince the hon. member that we cannot in all honesty say that all provinces must be equal, for that would be denying the fact that Quebec is a nation.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a point that I would like to clarify. Despite the fact that there are differences in Canada—I mentioned that—we are all equal. That is fundamentally what we in the Reform Party are fighting for. The size of the province does not matter, whether it is Prince Edward Island, Quebec or Alberta. We are all equal, and that is what we are trying to accomplish.

With this amendment we are saying that it is still important to respect the views of the people who have elected us, even in the province of Quebec. That is why we propose holding a referendum. I think the hon. member would agree that there is no harm in doing so. There is no harm going to the people in his province and asking them what they think about this amendment. I firmly believe that we stand for that view of equality.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the motion to strike a parliamentary committee to review the proposed constitutional amendment to reorganizing Quebec's school boards along linguistic lines.

We know that the proposed amendment enjoys a reasonable degree of support from those who will be affected by it. Indeed, the reports and consultations that have taken place in Quebec show that a consensus has emerged. Quebeckers clearly feel that, while denominational school boards adequately reflected the reality of Quebec before the quiet revolution, today linguistic school boards would correspond more closely with the values and sociological realities of the province.

It is clear that Catholic and Protestant Quebeckers, anglophones and francophones alike, share this point of view. When a society reaches a clear consensus regarding the administrative structures required to educate its children, it is then up to the government to react.

Accordingly, in April of this year, the National Assembly of Quebec voted unanimously in favour of a constitutional amendment that would replace the Catholic and Protestant school boards with francophone and anglophone boards.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wasted no time presenting an identical resolution in this House on April 22. We were then prevented by the federal election from setting up a committee to examine the constitutional amendment, but we are in a position to do so now.

Some may wonder whether it is necessary to set up such a committee, given the unanimous vote in the Quebec National Assembly and the consensus that exists in Quebec in favour of this amendment. To these people I would point out the importance, in a democracy, of hearing from everyone. It is clear that, although the great majority of Quebeckers support the proposal, some people who favour linguistic school boards are less certain that a constitutional amendment is the route to go.

Democracy requires that all citizens be able to express their views on the important issues of the day. Parliamentary committees have been part of the Canadian democratic tradition precisely so that experts, groups and citizens may express their points of view and so that citizens and their elected representatives can reach a better understanding of important issues.

The official opposition in the National Assembly asked that similar hearings be held in Quebec, but its request was turned down. The decision by the Government of Quebec not to set up a parliamentary committee to discuss the switch to a non-denominational school system makes it doubly important today to vote in favour of creating such a committee.

A parliamentary committee will allow those with qualms about the proposed changes to voice them and it will give those who advocate the new system an opportunity to allay these concerns.

If a stronger consensus in favour of a constitutional amendment thus emerges it will be surely helpful to the Quebec government as it charts a new course for the educational structures in the province.

I have mentioned the concerns of those within Quebec about the proposed amendment but I should like to take a moment to address briefly the concerns of other Canadians, Canadians who wonder what implications this constitutional amendment might have for them. In particular, I think that for those Canadians in other provinces who enjoy rights to denominational schools there has been some concern expressed, for example, by certain Catholic groups in my home province of Ontario. This is another reason to support the striking of a parliamentary committee.

I am sure that in its discussions the fact that the changes proposed by the Government of Quebec have no bearing on minority educational rights in other provinces will be raised and reinforced.

It is important that we stress today very clearly that this amendment would be a bilateral one involving the governments of Canada and Quebec City. As the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs mentioned, it is a proposal that has been endorsed by the Catholic committee for the superior council of education, the federation of school boards, the federation of parents committees and teachers associations representing all the teachers of the province.

It is clear that should another province bring forward a request to replace its denominational school system or to otherwise change the constitutional guarantees of its minorities the Government of Canada would once again insist that a reasonable degree of support be demonstrated by the affected minorities.

The proposed amendment responds to the particular reality of Quebec. It is one of the strengths of our federation that it is flexible enough to accommodate the different and diverse needs of each of our provinces. What is appropriate for Quebec may not necessarily be appropriate for Alberta or Ontario or vice versa.

Our federal system allows us to rally our forces for the common good, but it is flexible enough to facilitate the full expression of regional identities.

Similarly, our Constitution is not a strait-jacket that prevents change. Rather, it is a framework that allows change to take place in an orderly and timely manner. It is an evolving reflection of who we are as Canadians.

Quebec, no less than the other provinces, flourishes within our federation and it will continue to do so in the future.

This brings me to a point mentioned earlier, but which certainly deserves to be re-examined. I am afraid that these secessionist leaders who contend that our Constitution of 1982 hinders Quebec's development will have to find other arguments. After all, this constitutional amendment, which would allow the government of Quebec to change the very foundations of its education system, was made possible by the patriation of the Constitution.

If the Constitution had not been patriated 15 years ago, this debate would be taking place in the shadow of Big Ben and not of the Peace Tower.

It all goes to show that our federation has evolved a great deal. It is still evolving. As our government stressed in the recent Speech from the Throne, we are committed to working collaboratively with our provincial partners to strengthen and modernize country. The proposed amendment clearly demonstrates that we can work side by side with the Quebec government to modernize the federation, a federation which belongs to us all.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 5

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.