Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party emphasizes impressions. He wants to leave the impression that the British Columbia perspective is not reflected in these proposals, but the reality is quite different.
The hon. member should know, if he does not, that the constitutional amending formula already in the Constitution Act, 1982, requires unanimous consent of the provinces to any change falling within section 41 of the Constitution, an important list of changes.
British Columbia has a veto over any such change. British Columbia, with the other provinces, has a veto over any proposed change in section 43 of the Constitution, involving the interests of British Columbia or any adjacent province.
British Columbia can opt out, like any other province, of any change approved under section 38. The veto we will introduce this week will make it possible for British Columbia and any other western province to veto any other proposed constitutional change.
In that context how can the leader of the third party possibly suggest the western and the British Columbia perspective is not reflected in the Constitution?