Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to assure my hon. colleague and friend that there is nothing personal in our differences. It is really a question of collective perception of what the future should be, what should be best for our two collectivities, what kind of political structures would achieve in the best way the welfare and development of Quebec and the rest of Canada. Therefore, it is nothing personal but just personal consideration.
If it were possible to bridge our differences through personal appreciation, through friendship, I am sure it would already have been done. However even though we have all those good feelings and respective consideration for each other, it was not possible when it came time to table collective and concrete proposals to satisfy Quebec's aspirations. It is collective and it is the political dynamics of the country that has conducted us where we are.
Coming back to the specific deal, the hon. member said there were conditions attached to the 1989 transaction. There might be but we do not know. How come there was a very extensive contract? I suppose it exists. That is why we asked for it. There was a very extensive and comprehensive written contract as there always is when there is a transaction where all the conditions were stated and clearly expressed. How can we explain that one of the main conditions of the contract, one of the main considerations of the contract was taken out of the document? How can we explain that? It never happens.
I practised law for 22 years. I was involved in these kinds of deals. It never happened in my life that someone took the liberty of contracting a verbal agreement which was not couched in the contract. It is very dangerous too because chances are that the court would not sanction the commitment. That is why I do not believe for one moment that the legal advice is binding on the government. It is quite possible if the government hired good lawyers, and they have lots of good Liberal lawyers, it could go to court and fight for Canada and fight for the cultural interests of Canada.
Why does the government not do that? It did it for a $6 billion contract when it cancelled the helicopter deal in Quebec. It did it for the Pearson International Airport with a $1.6 billion contract which will be brought to court now. We read in the papers that the government will be sued for close to $200 million, but it did it anyway because it thought it was in the interest of the people.
Why does the government not do that with something which amounts to about $10 million, which is not a very big amount of money for a government, but so huge, so symbolic and with cultural interest?