What I'm saying, Chair, is that the very motion that was voted upon and approved by the majority of this committee speaks to far larger issues than merely that simple motion, because it sets a precedent on what we may experience sometime in the future.
This is the precedent that has been set right here, Chair. It's that members of the opposition, or any members, frankly, for that matter, can stifle debate, can curtail debate, can end debate, even though the member who was speaking or wished to express an opinion has the perfect right to do so.
So while I appreciate the fact that all committees are masters of their own fate, I do not believe, Chair, that it is an acceptable practice for this motion or any motion similar to this to be allowed, because in effect it says we don't care what convention has been, we don't care what parliamentary history has been, we don't care what procedures and practices are written, we don't care what the Standing Orders are; we're saying that as a committee we can tell an individual member, I'm sorry, you are not allowed to be heard. That's exactly what this motion has stated--exactly what this motion has stated.
Chair, it just perplexes me, it befuddles me, why members of this committee who propose and purport to be the saviours of democracy, in some cases, when you listen to them speak in the House, would say, on one hand, we believe in the democratic right of all of our members to express their opinion, but on the other hand say, except when we disagree with what the speaker has to say. That's what this motion has done.
This motion has gone forward and said, we want to curtail debate; in effect, we don't like what you have to say, or we don't like the way in which you're saying it, or we don't agree with your opinion, so therefore let's have a simple vote, and if a majority of opinion says yes, that's right, cut the person off, they're cut off.
Chair, that is not democracy. It's absolutely not democracy. That's why I'm speaking so intently and vociferously against the motion brought forward by Monsieur Plamondon. It just flies in the face of democratic rights. Clearly, not only I but I'm sure many others would agree with my position and speak, as I would speak, against such a motion.
Why, Chair, would anyone ever vote to restrict democratic voice? That's, in effect, what this motion has done. It has stopped debate on an issue. It doesn't matter what the issue is. We will always find, in a minority Parliament, in a minority government, that there will be huge differences of opinion. We know that to be a fact. We know that even in a majority government the opposition members, frankly, will oppose, even though they may be somewhat powerless from a legislative point of view to prevent legislation from being passed. We at least recognize the fact they have the perfect democratic right, and parliamentary right, to express their opinion, and we allow them to do that.
Let's take it a step further then, Mr. Chair. If we had a situation where there was a majority government, and this precedent was accepted, one would then, if one extended that logic in that precedent, say the majority then, at any time, could curtail debate on any subject just by a simple majority vote. They could raise a motion, vote upon it in the House, and any subject that the opposition members wanted to discuss would be unavailable to them for discussion. That's what this motion does. It basically allows a precedent to be set that could have very dangerous implications down the road.
Now, in this particular case we have a minority government, so the combined opposition are the ones who will continue to have the majority votes if they wish to vote as a bloc, no disrespect to the Bloc Québécois. But in effect, Mr. Chair, the reverse could be held true as well. If we end up, at some point in the future, in a majority government situation, then those members on the government side would have the perfect right, if this precedent is to be followed, to stifle debate by any member of the opposition. How democratic is that?
I can only imagine, Mr. Chair, if that situation occurred, the howls of protest we would get from members of the opposition, and rightfully so. They would have a perfect right to say that their voices were being squelched by the majority rule in Parliament. We can't allow that to happen, and we shouldn't. If we think that is undemocratic--and I think we all do--then how in the world can this motion--