Madam Speaker, we have had a motion before us I would like to reread to be sure that I understand its terms and that there is no confusion.
That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebeckers to decide freely their own future.
I have some reservations I would like to express. Despite these reservations, I was almost prepared to support the motion. Some would consider my reservations fundamental. Often it is simply a matter of semantics. Are Quebeckers a people, when the definition in the principle of the founding peoples included much more than Quebec? In spite of this potentially contentious difference, this was not reason enough for me not to support the motion.
It mentions a consensus. The word consensus has become a buzz word. It is being used, abused and interpreted. Is there really a consensus in Quebec? This too is contentious, and I am far from convinced there is one. In spite of this I might have supported the motion.
We moved an amendment. It said “while respecting the rule of law and the principle of democracy for all”. This amendment was not accepted. So I have to say no. Democratic values are being promoted abroad. In Quebec, inclusively—