Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief comments and then a question for the member.
In the debate a number of issues have been raised, one about educational reform being necessary in Newfoundland and that it could be achieved only through constitutional amendment. The quality of education has not been a question here. In fact, Newfoundland has done as well or better than Ontario in a recent national survey on science and math.
The fact that there was a royal commission and that the framework agreement covered 90 per cent of the recommendations seems to indicate that there was a possibility that the province could do this.
On the issue that Parliament alone must accede to the provincial will, I guess the rhetorical question is why is it in the Constitution in the first place, if the provinces can just say do it. It really does beg the question.
There is the issue that there was a referendum. We all know the turnout was low and the plurality was also very low. When we are talking about a right that was given as part of the terms of union, it is clear that it is those who will be reliquishing their right who must have the primary say in whether that right is going to be relinquished.
The last point was that minorities had their chance because there was a process they went through. There is no question that the process was procedurally fair. But I am wondering, considering the debate in the House and in the Senate, whether today Newfoundlanders would say that they really understood the consequences of what was being dealt with.
My question has to do with the proposed amendment with regard to "where numbers warrant". Many members have already said that this was a phrase which was incorporated in the debate in this place, even by the justice minister in his speech on May 31, that the change to the Constitution would provide uni-denominational education "where numbers warrant". But that phrase was not specifically included in the legislation and, indeed, the amendment in the Senate was not passed for that. That was called for even by Cardinal Carter.
I would ask the member, with regard to the issue of "where numbers warrant", would the member not concede that this would be a reasonable amendment to the proposal now before the House?