Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Saint-Léonard for participating in the current debate taking place in Quebec, this in spite of his views. He is acting like a true politician, as well as a solid and honest man, and I commend him for that.
However, I find that the hon. member is too easily outraged. I guess customs change with the times. Government members have been using the word democracy all day.
But remember the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. That was not the work of angels. It was done in 1982, by the Liberals opposite. Back then, they were proud of their democracy. The current Prime Minister, who is from Quebec, was the one behind that dirty job on Quebecers. What happened? It is very simple. They did not try to shaft Quebec. With his typical smile, which has become his trademark, he said: But we still got them, did we not? Just like a kid who did something bad.
The Liberals were not scandalized back in 1981. I remember Mr. Lévesque saying to these people, the day after the night of the long knives, that their rejoicing at Quebec's expense would end some day. Indeed, that rejoicing just might end very soon.
We mentioned the patriation of the Constitution. It goes without saying that this was not Canadian federalism's finest hour. René Lévesque was not impressed; he was no more impressed than the hon. member for Saint-Léonard is now when he talks about being forced to move.
At the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, the Bloquistes and the separatists did not have the upper hand. Yet, you were not upset by the undemocratic structure of that commission. You remained very quiet. Who took part in the 1982 coup, the unilateral patriation? At the time, you had relegated democracy to some dark place where the sun does not shine.
Madam Speaker, such a figure of speech is not unparliamentary.
Quebecers, including the hon. member for Saint-Léonard, are invited to a sort of summit. They are asked to give their views on the issue. Anything can be amended in this draft bill, which contains 17 clauses.
The preamble will be decided by Quebecers. I do not remember being consulted on the preamble of the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982. Democracy works only if you agree with the Liberal Party. Then it is democracy at play and the Liberals can have anything done to Quebec, usually by a Quebecer, because it does not look quite as bad. In fact, we know who their hatchet man is; he is not here today, but we know who he is.
It is now up to Quebecers to speak up and even draft the preamble of this historic draft bill.
Maybe he did not realize it, but the hon. member for Saint-Léonard just scored a point for the federalists. I congratulate him on it, but I wish he would not say that the process is undemocratic. I think the members on the other side of the House should be the last ones to talk about democracy.
Look what they did to democracy in the famous Bill C-22 on Pearson Airport; look what they do to democracy in Bill C-62 which was introduced so innocuously and which the government will use to give away huge chunks of federal operations to its friends, probably the same people who were involved in the
Pearson Airport deal. Since the government can no longer subsidize its friends, it gives away chunks of government operations. Democracy? I say to the hon. member for Saint-Léonard that this has nothing to do with democracy.
I want to know something. You know that democracy also includes the right not to get involved. Some communities may decide not to take my advice, not to get involved, and not to contribute to the process. If they choose not to take part, it will not make me cry. I will respect their right, because it is their most basic right not to get involved.
But I still want to stress that they are welcome to participate in this debate, if they live in Quebec, of course. I hope that members opposite will have the magnanimity to respect their cultural communities, especially French-speaking communities outside Quebec, which will not be included in the debate either.
To conclude, I just want to say that I am deeply offended to hear our process being called undemocratic, especially by some of the big names in the Liberal Party who were here in 1982.