Regarding 1992, you referred to an aspect of the Quebec act. You said that residents who arrived six months before the referendum was held did not have access to the vote, which is a technicality, to use the word you used right at the beginning. I don't know whether this was raised in Quebec in relation to the application of that act, but historically, what the Bourassa-Mulroney agreement did, and I would like to hear your thoughts on this, was to put referendum structures in place throughout Canada, ultimately, so that each province could adapt it as it chose. In fact, Canada is an immense country where there are significant differences from one end of the country to the other. So when referendum legislation can be enacted that people can more easily make sense of, it very probably allows for the objectives to be achieved. The 1992 referendum is an example.
Consider the 1995 referendum. You referred to finances and the stringency of the Quebec act, particularly the financial aspect, as compared to the federal Referendum Act, which is less stringent. Certainly this was felt in the 1995 referendum, when everyone loved us and all the advertising posters were reserved on all the highways. You said that money did not play an important role; I'm not sure that was the case in 1995. Yes, money played an important role.
I would like to go back to my questions about the development of referendum legislation in Canada as a whole. This has brought a new and important aspect to how each community, each province, is able to make its voice heard.