Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member of the Reform Party that I never spoke of unanimity; we are talking about consensus. In fact, that is the problem we encountered in committee, where consensus was sometimes understood to mean unanimous consent.
There are certainly people who are not pleased with these decisions, but the vast majority, or 88% of those who participated in a public poll, and those who have young children in particular, said they were in favour of greater freedom, especially in Montreal. Such rights were granted on very different bases in Montreal and in Quebec City. For other regions, it was a matter of dissent.
We know full well that children from several denominations already study in this kind of system. Witnesses have explained the situation and how this would not be a problem. On the contrary, this is a proposal to open up structures, so that, in Montreal, where a sort of rigidity has been observed, the debate can focus on school structures, either denominational or linguistic, instead of on what place religion should occupy in schools.
With all due respect, I never said, and far be it from me not to want religious education to continue in schools, quite the contrary, and this is a debate that we will be having in Quebec. I would point out that this matter will be debated in Quebec, and the proposed amendment is designed to satisfy Quebec's wishes. So, if the same kind of debate were held in other parts of Canada, in other provinces, perhaps you could examine a variety of possible amendments, that you would approve or dismiss as the case may be. In Quebec, however, there is consensus on this matter.