Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, thank you for contributing to the work of the committee.
To use a common expression, I would say that your words, especially Mr. Gibson’s, are like music to my ears. My colleagues must have recognized some of my questions and comments in your remarks. Legitimacy is the basis for legality. Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral. We have seen this during the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. The judges of the Supreme Court considered it legal, but illegitimate.
Actually, if we want to change the democratic rules of Canadian society and the Canadian parliamentary system, we have to clarify which Canada we are talking about. Are we talking about the Canada of 1867 or the one after 1982? We cannot strictly reduce the Quebec nation to a geographic region or an ethno-linguistic minority.
That said, I think the deadlines we have to meet are not realistic. I also think that by calling a referendum, the goal is not to hinder the desire for change. In Quebec, as the official opposition critic for democratic institutions, I followed closely British Columbia's approach to the reform. I think the problem was the 60% formula. In my view, the 50% plus one formula needs to be the rule in democracy, even for changes of this nature. So we must figure out which process leads to this change. However, it seemed to me that British Columbia was a shining example.
Could you comment on that?