Madam Speaker, my answer is that we have to consult the people of Quebec, federalists as well as sovereignists, and people from outside Quebec too, I think. But we must have a real consultation process where the result is not predetermined and where all the available options are discussed. That is not the case in this process.
I would also like to talk about the repatriation of the Constitution in 1981. Someone said today that that process was undemocratic. Clearly, we do not have enough democracy in Canada today. Every day, Reformers call for direct democracy mechanisms. It is a necessity. However, under the law, the Supreme Court decided that patriation was legitimate. This question was put to the Supreme Court. Obviously, it would not have been legal or constitutional to decide to ignore all the provinces. But, in effect, a strong majority of provinces and their legislatures supported that constitutional amendment.
A government here, dominated by Quebec and the Prime Minister from Quebec decided to adopt that Constitution. Indeed, Quebec did not have a veto then, and still does not have one. And why not? We know why. It is because Mr. Lévesque, before the decision, had renounced his veto in an accord signed with the other provinces. This explains the process by which the Constitution was adopted in 1981.