Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell too much on the past. However, I find it rather strange to hear about clarity in procedure and respect for the rules coming from a member who very recently altered a bill after a number of members in this House had signed it. It is a bit strange. This is not what I call very democratic.
When people say the 1995 question was not clear, they are dead wrong. The concept of Quebec's independence, in its modern form, started in 1960 with the RIN. The Parti Quebecois was created in 1968. I was born in 1970. Quebec's sovereignty was being debated well before my time. And people believe that Quebecers, whether they voted yes or not, do not know what we are talking about. This shows a lack of respect. This shows arrogance towards all Quebecers, the 93% who voted in the 1995 referendum, whether they voted yes or no.
My question is very simple. Does the member, who knows how things works and who knows full well that Liberal backbenchers have no power, not believe that giving the federal parliament, this House, the authority to determine what is clear and what is not means that parliament will decide? In other words, the Liberal majority will decide.
If it is the Liberal majority, it means the Liberal government. If it is the Liberal government, it means the Prime Minister's inner circle. If it is the inner circle, it means the Prime Minister himself.
Does he not believe that it means leaving a majority decision by Quebecers at the mercy of the whims of one man, the Prime Minister? Is this not the reverse of democracy?