Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks and diligent participation in committee. He is undoubtedly sincere.
I have a couple of questions for him. He and his minister both mentioned a number of groups in favour of the amendment that appeared before the joint committee. I notice, however, that neither he nor his minister mentioned the several groups against the amendment that appeared before the committee. I am afraid this rather unbalanced presentation of the committee's hearings may mislead some members of the House with respect to the lack of consensus in committee. Could he elucidate for his colleagues some of the groups against the amendment that appeared before the committee?
He said there had been a 30 year debate about the question in Quebec society, an assertion repeated by several speakers this morning. The hon. member knows that the debate over the past three decades in Quebec society has dealt with the establishment of linguistic school boards and not with the extinguishment of confessional school guarantees provided for in section 93.
He will know that this matter was not dealt with seriously in the report of the estates general a couple of years ago. He will know that this is a relatively recent proposal, one which passed through the Quebec National Assembly without public hearings.
Will he admit that there has not in fact been 30 years of debate about the amendment to section 93 before us today but that the debate pertained to the establishment of linguistic school boards?
My final question relates to the position of the Quebec Catholic bishops. The hon. member said, as did his minister, that the Quebec bishops were not opposed to the amendment. Will the hon. member admit the bishops have made very clear that they oppose any changes that would remove provisions for confessional schooling in Quebec? Will he not admit that is the actual position of the bishops? Will he not put it in its full nuance on the record of this debate?