Madam Speaker, I was almost angered by what the hon. member for Edmonton East had to say despite the fact that he has been on the joint committee with us for two full weeks. I was surprised, because I finally understood why the Reform Party is not comfortable with the amendment. It still confuses minority language rights with the amendment to clause 93 of the Constitution on which we will vote tomorrow and which concerns only denominational rights.
Reformers seem to give much weight to a petition signed by 235,000 people. I even asked in committee how many persons on that petition were from Quebec. I could not get an answer. Nonetheless they exclude all alternative measures.
The fact that there has been a debate going on for 30 years in Quebec does not strike them. The fact that Anglican and Catholic bishops supported the resolution has no effect on them. Even the fact that there was a unanimous vote at the National Assembly, where we find democratically elected members, does not trouble them. Since they seem so difficult to convince, I will try one last time to remind the Reform Party members what we will be asked to vote on tomorrow.
They must know that clause 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 does not in any way protect school board structures as such. Clause 93 does not protect language rights either. It protects access to denominational schools. Minority language rights are not protected under clause 93. They are protected by other sections in the Constitution, more particularly section 23. Section 93 does not protect the right of minorities to manage their schools and school boards, religion education in schools, or even Protestant and Catholic schools. Is that clear enough now?
The right to levy taxes through school boards on Montreal Island, for example, or to have a say on the curriculum is not protected either.
Section 93 guarantees only two things: the right of dissent for the Catholic or Protestant minority and certain rights for Protestant and Catholic minorities, as the previous speaker clearly explained, not on Montreal Island, but in the city of Montreal and in Quebec City.
Reform members are suggesting that, if a referendum had been held, they may have been able to go along. But their support now depends on a petition signed by 235,000 people.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question concerning the holding of a referendum on this issue.
How would that help him as a member of Parliament to better determine whether there is a consensus? What would he use? Would it be like his leader during the 1995 referendum with 50% plus 1? What factor is he going to use? The debate here is not on trying to establish that 78% of the people are in favour. The debate here is to ensure the majority of the minority affected is well represented and has given its consent. I think that has been demonstrated time and time again. How will the holding of a referendum notwithstanding its costs help to ensure the member's making his decision?