Madam Speaker, this is a debate on a complex issue for those of us who have not had the benefit of 30 years of debate in Quebec. I must admit that for the first time since my election in 1993, I am at a point in the debate, this close to a vote, and I really do not know yet whether I am in the yea or nay position.
I would just like to clarify an impression that has been coming from the last few speakers, that the Reform Party is opposed to this. That is not actually correct. The decision has been made by our caucus that we will be voting the way we determine to be the best option. As a consequence, this has become one of the most interesting debates in the House in the last four years.
I have paid a lot of attention to the speakers today and there are a lot of reasons for my indecision. I would just like to go through them. The first speaker today for Reform actually presented a very good argument in favour of the change and made it quite clear that he would be voting for this. Later in the day there were some very good arguments against that from other colleagues in the Reform Party.
However, for me there are several key issues here. The first one is the issue of provincial responsibility. The text of section 93 begins: “In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education”. When I look at Reform policy on this issue, it is very clear. Reform policy states clearly that we believe that the provinces should have more powers and we support very strongly the idea that education should be a domain of the province.
To me that is a point that is very much in favour of supporting this amendment because I have no business as a federal legislator interfering in the business of the province. It is my feeling that if there are problems at the provincial level which need addressing, it is up to the people of the province to deal with that with their own government, to have marches in the streets, to have the protests, to take the court challenges. As my colleague has mentioned, there is already a court challenge under way. That is the responsibility of the people to challenge the government closest to them. To me that is a very powerful argument in favour.
Second is one against. Reform policy says that for changes that affect the fabric of our society, things that are major changes, we truly believe they should be subjected to the democratic process of referendum. Members may know that I am the direct democracy critic for the Reform Party and I therefore take a lot of interest in these issues and study the direct democracy questions. I am a firm believer in this. I would feel a lot more comfortable if the situation had been, indeed, submitted to a referendum.
However, I spoke with the member for Portneuf for a short time and had an interesting discussion with him about this whole situation. He mentioned something that I had not realized. It is that section 93 really applies only to Montreal and Quebec City. This answered a question that I had as to why I was not receiving any letters from people in Quebec. If there was this tremendous objection to what was going on, why was I not being bombarded with letters such as I got from Newfoundland about the situation there? I was really puzzled by this. It was clarified for me by the member for Portneuf because he explained that the people outside of Montreal and Quebec City are covered under the provincial legislation and do very well, thank you. In fact, in his riding which is predominantly Catholic, very close to 100%, there is still a Protestant school there which is protected by provincial legislation.
Even my colleague from Edmonton East conceded that perhaps the provincial legislation is a better model but his concern is that is not entrenched in a constitutional form and therefore is subject to possible change.
The member for Portneuf in my discussion with him says that this has been around since 1867, so we have to have some faith that it will be there. Again, that brings us back full circle again to this argument about provincial involvement and whether or not the people of the province should have to deal with that issue with their own provincial government and that we should not be interfering in that aspect of it.
As I mentioned, I appreciated the eloquent arguments from members of my own side. The member for Calgary Southeast made wonderfully eloquent arguments, but I have also appreciated the eloquence from some members of the Bloc on this issue. I could hear the frustration also in their voices as they were frustrated to hear that some Reform members were speaking in opposition to this.
I hope that what I am saying is helping to clarify why some are against and some are for without getting too emotionally involved in this.
As I mentioned, my colleague from Edmonton East revealed that there is a court challenge already under way for what is happening here and I am very supportive of that. As I said, the people of the province should be involved in dealing with this if they feel they have been wronged. At the moment the evidence to me as a member of Parliament is that the majority do not feel they have been wronged. I have the confidence that if it were to go to a referendum it would pass handily based on the information I have gathered this afternoon.
A member from the NDP made the point that this change is affecting the minorities. I think that seems to be what is happening here and the larger part of the minority if we can call it that is actually quite happy with the changes that are being proposed. It is kind of ironic in a way, though, that we find ourselves in this position that the Reform Party is doing all the arguments in favour of minorities when we have always been labelled as this anti-minority party and we are the only ones who are arguing that way in this debate, which is quite interesting.
Notwithstanding that fact I think that may be the wrong approach. I have said over and over that at the provincial level that should be resolved, not in this place.
My tendency is to lean toward voting for this amendment but I will listen to the remaining debates before we actually get to the vote.
The only other point that I did want to mention here is that in the minister's speech in October on this issue he mentioned that he felt there was good consensus. Actually I was a bit disturbed by his words because it was not very firm. It was more that he feels that there is probably consensus. I do not have his exact words in front of me. That disturbed me a bit at the time. But in light of other discussions that I have had today, as I mentioned, I think it probably would pass in a referendum. I look forward to having that clarified perhaps by subsequent speakers who come from the Quebec area.
I guess that is all I have to say on the issue. I will listen with interest to the rest of the debate and hopefully will have made up my mind by tomorrow. I certainly never abstained from a vote in this House and I hate to think that I would be put in that position by the time the vote comes tomorrow afternoon.