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.