First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some remarks before dealing with the fundamental issue.
I want to thank all opposition parties for making the government understand the necessity of debating this issue, even if today marks the launching of the Liberal Party convention. I want to thank more particularly the PC members who agreed to postpone their opposition day.
I think that, in doing so, they are showing a deep respect for this institution. I cannot really say the same about the behavior of the government party so far.
Here is my second point. Some people claimed that we tried to use this motion as a tactic to delay debate on Bill C-20. This is totally ludicrous; this argument is not valid because we proposed to submit to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs two cases that, according to us, are still in contravention of the procedures of the House.
If the proposal submitted by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis had been accepted, the debate on Bill C-20 would not have been delayed, we would not be debating this matter today, and there would have been no motion. We do not want to point fingers or to make heads roll, we only want to help this Parliament work in a better way and to make all its members feel as equals, because this is what they are and because there are no members more equal than others. This is basically our position.
Let me remind you of the facts. This fight over a bill negating democratic rights in Quebec, Bill C-20, has been very emotional. There was no reason, except the Liberal convention, to ram this bill through the House. And it is because of this that the House is now in this predicament.
Not only has democracy in Quebec been under attack, but even the process has been interfered with. Fanaticism has reached new heights. The quality of debates in this institution and even the very possibility of having debates in this place are stake.
We submitted a substantial number of amendments. Many of them were ruled out, and we did not object. To our great surprise, however, two amendments we had not even submitted were ruled out of order. It is a bit surprising to get a ruling before one's case has be made. We had a hard time understanding what was going on.
This raises the issue of the basic principle of confidentiality in the dealings between members of the House and the legal counsel who are there to serve them. How can the House make a ruling, how can it have knowledge of an amendment we intended to submit but did not? But we did get a ruling. We think this is a serious matter, and that the whole situation should be looked into.
The second item is the 144 or so amendments which we brought forward. After we had tabled them, we were told by House officials: “They are not in order because they contained the word sovereignty.” According to them, this is an ill-defined concept which has nothing to do with Bill C-20, which speaks only of secession. Very well, we said, we will change “sovereignty” to “secession” in all these amendments in order to reflect the advice we have been given.
This we did, and the decision was the same. Now we are beginning to wonder. Either we were badly advised, intentionally or not, but we followed that advice, and this reflects on the quality of the services provided. Or we were properly advised and they did not think we were going to use the word “secession”, and logic had nothing to do with it.
The only logical thing to do, if it can be called logical, was to reject them. Otherwise, there was a risk that Bill C-20 would not go through this week, and what is most important for this government is not so much this bill as the convention of the Liberal Party of Canada. We are well aware that the Prime Minister wants to arrive with the bill in his pocket, not with some scandal floating around. Neither goal was achieved.
This is why we challenged these two decisions and told the Speaker that it was vital that they be reconsidered. We opened the door, as we have always done since our arrival here, because we respect this institution. We will always remember as a fundamental and historical lesson on what a parliament is this maxim used by our anglophone friends “We have to agree on how to disagree”. We totally agree with that.
We are not here—it is hopeless, even if it would be nice—to try to win people over to our side, but rather to represent those who elected us. That is our job. We must use the debate to shed some light on the situation and to see to it that even those who do not agree with us as well as the people in general better understand where we are coming from. I think it is a very democratic way to proceed.
We left a door open in suggesting that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I remind members that this would not have delayed the debate on Bill C-20 and would have corrected the situation with regard to the debate on Bill C-20, but it would have given us a way to see to it that such a situation does not occur ever again.
I still have difficulty understanding why this door was slammed shut after we had opened it. As I said when I moved this motion, I wished I did not have to do such a thing because I have learned, over the years, to work with the Speaker. We have had a good relationship so far. I hope that, despite all that has happened, it will be possible to restore this relationship because the door is still open.
This is not just about you. It is about this institution. It is about our rights. It is about the rights of all members. We cannot accept that the clerks, for example, can make a ruling because they are aware of our intentions because of the amendments we want to propose, whereas this is not the case for ministers. They have their own legislative counsel. We become aware of their amendments when they appear on the Order Paper.
There should not be a treatment for the ministers and a treatment for the other members. That, in my opinion, is fundamental. I am not saying that there was malice or not, but that there is a problem. And when there is a problem, it is our duty to deal with it, and the more so if there is an element of doubt hanging over the institution's impartiality. What we want is to improve the climate of debates.
We know that debates are tinged with emotion, but in spite of all the emotion involved, we must be sure, not at 50%, 60% or 70%, but at 100% that everyone of us here is equal. We must be 100% sure that our mechanisms are good. However, when we see that these mechanisms are not working properly, it is imperative that we correct them. That is what was proposed in the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, and in the point of order raised by my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
In both cases, we were wondering about the reasons why the Bloc members came to feel sure they had been treated differently, without suggesting that is was due to malice. That is something the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could have examined. That could have been decided as soon as Monday.
I will end my remarks on that note and let my colleague, the member for Roberval, complete our representation and explain the situation. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, in all friendship, that we have to settle that question, and that is the question that matters to us. This is what matters to us.