Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for North Vancouver. He is probably the most tenacious and articulate advocate of direct democracy in this place.
I share much of his commitment to direct democracy. I share the view, to paraphrase William F. Buckley Junior, that I would rather be governed by the first thousand people listed in the St. John's phone book than by the faculty of Memorial University.
Having said that, I do think on matters which affect rights, acquired rights and constitutional rights, a higher threshold is sometimes required.
I like to comment on a couple of the member's remarks. As somewhat of a student of direct democracy and its uses throughout the world, I find it peculiar the hon. member suggested it was not necessary for the legal text to be associated with the question in so far as the referendum was on the question.
The point is that the amendment is before the House. Virtually every direct democracy statute in the world requires that a bill or a legal text be put to the people along with the question, and that was not the case here.
Furthermore, the hon. member spoke quite rightly against public funding for particular sides in a referendum. I do not believe the no side should have had funding in this case. I believe the yes side should have been left to its own resources and not to have had privileged access to the public purse.
Does the hon. member think he is doing his defence of direct democracy any good by defending what I would submit were questionable practices in terms of this referendum?