Madam Speaker, I really appreciated and enjoyed the speech just given by the member. I suppose the reason I appreciated it is because he expressed sentiments which I and which members of the Reform Party hold very strongly. That is the necessity to live by the rule of law and that the law should not be just slightly changed because of the whims of certain individuals.
I was very pleased that the leader of our party in talking about the motion that was before the House yesterday tried in his amendment to preserve those rights. The amendment he proposed in essence gave legs to this principle which this member has been talking about today. That is the principle that the rights of minorities in this country if they are entrenched in the Constitution ought not to be taken away without the specific consent of that minority group that is involved in that decision. I agree with this member 100 percent on that.
We need to ask that question with respect to a very broad range of issues that are now before this government, before this House, before us as members all the way from the question of Quebec separation to these issues of schools and the constitutional amendments which are being challenged by it.
I really like the clause which my leader quoted yesterday from the Manitoba Act which 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 or practice in the province at the union”. That is a very good solid principle. It is a shame that in this Parliament we are running roughshod over those very strong principles.
In view of that, my question for this member is, how is it then that he was reluctant to support the amendment that we put forward on the issue that was before us yesterday since the principle is identical? I think it is an important comparison. I am not asking him to defend his decision but I would like his views on that, please.