Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, we have before us an official opposition that cannot accept a piece of good news, because any good news on the evolution of Canadian federalism carries the risk of convincing Quebec that Canada is, in fact, a country that is functioning well, developing well, serving their interests well.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, if an election is called, we will pick up the process after the election and the constitutional amendment will be taken care of by a re-elected Liberal government. Meanwhile, the various political parties would be well advised to say whether they are for or against the amendment.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if there is an election, even the opposition will be dissolved. And we hope it will be dissolved for a long time, and that includes when Parliament returns after the election. However, speaking of books on parliamentary procedure, the Canadian Constitution makes it quite clear it is not up to the Senate to decide.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to confess, and the repetition is starting to become a pain in the neck. What I have said since the beginning of this business is that, since the end of January, since the moment that the Government of Quebec began to indicate that it would be presenting a constitutional amendment, I have said that, on the one hand, there was a consensus in Quebec to have linguistic school boards and, on the other hand, that work was needed on a consensus about how the Government of Quebec wanted to proceed.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the House just how unfortunate it is that the official opposition uses the example of New Brunswick and the constitutional amendment which enabled New Brunswick to enhance bilingualism in that province. There was indeed no unanimity in the New Brunswick provincial legislature but, first, there had been a parliamentary committee on the provincial level-not the case in Quebec-and second, the amendment was very clearly aimed at expanding the rights of the linguistic minority.

Constitution  Madam Speaker, I have the honour to inform the House that, later today, I will be giving notice to bring this constitutional amendment resolution before the House and to refer it to a Special Joint Committee, which will be asked to report back to Parliament. One week ago, on April 15, 1997, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a resolution for a constitutional amendment that would end the application to Quebec of subsections (1) to (4) of section 93 (education) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to support the amendment we received from the National Assembly which will help modernize the Quebec school system in a way that has found support among all groups in Quebec society. We received this proposal barely 48 hours ago. We intend to proceed without delay, with due respect for parliamentary procedure.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, naturally, when one wants to justify something as serious as secession but really has no reason to break up a country as successful as Canada, one has to make up serious reasons, allege some conspiracy or other appalling deeds. I forget the exact words the leader of the official opposition used earlier to describe these actions.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, the hon. member is saying that we are the judges of what goes on at the national assembly. It has done what it believed it had to do in good conscience. It is now up to the Parliament of Canada to do what it believes it has to do in good conscience.

Linguistic School Boards  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I note that the official opposition is applauding the idea of voting Liberal. That is already progress. Second, what I said was that, if in fact it cannot be done before the election, people will know that if they vote for the Liberals they are voting for candidates that support the amendment.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was still good news. The Government of Canada said that it supported the proposal to amend the Constitution put forward by Quebec. We approve it and we are going to defend it. This will be done: it is still good news. What is so scandalous about having a parliamentary committee on an issue as important as this one, which involves language, religion and education?

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, they are demonizing the Constitution. They are incapable of discussing this calmly to see what exactly is so appalling. If we showed it to the UN, would they say: "Good heavens, this Constitution is unacceptable from the human rights point of view". Of course not. They could not do that, nor could they say that the province of Quebec does not have very broad responsibilities, compared with what we see in other federations.

The Constitution  We have said that we would prefer an amending formula giving a veto to all the major regions in the country and ensuring stronger recognition of Quebec in the Constitution. We are in fact trying to convince all Canadians of this. Generally speaking, however, the Constitution is a good one.

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, it would indeed be desirable to reach an agreement that would enable a Quebec government that believed in Canada to return to the constitutional fold. There is no disagreement on that point. The disagreement is as follows: Do we judge Canada and its blessings solely on a dispute over certain aspects of the Constitution?

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, I think I already answered all those questions. I will have to repeat what I said, but I realize that it is impossible to find out from the Bloc Quebecois exactly what it is they do not like in the Constitution Act, 1982.