Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on this good question. He addresses the dilemma that exists at the present time surrounding that question.
As I just said, I find that our Constitution is a document that evolves from day to day. It is not a document that is intended as a bottleneck, or a straight jacket. It is a document that is intended to offer limited and minimal protection to the interests and the proposals made at the time the document was signed.
The courts have played a very strong role in balancing competing rights and interests. We know that the history of this argument, of this whole episode, is one that is fraught with what appears to be governments hell bent on imposing their will, notwithstanding the fact that within the province of Newfoundland there is ample room if not ample evidence of an agreement.
We also acknowledge that perhaps a 52 per cent vote in favour of a question may not be enough for questions where people's rights are involved.
Fifty-two per cent voting on the rights of minorities who are themselves minorities without their consent is certainly a recipe for tyranny of the majority. The dilemma of a constitutional requirement of protection versus the democratic will of a certain number of people are two competing theories within the terms of our federalism. Yet at the end of the day the rule of law must prevail. The rights of minorities must prevail. The right to free speech must prevail. We know these as sacred values within our system.
While the question is an excellent one, the resolution cannot be found by simply adopting one side and saying: "To heck with the Constitution. It means nothing. What we are interested in doing here is achieving 1996 fiscal expediency".