Mr. Speaker, we had unanimous consent from the political elites in this country on the Charlottetown accord and we all know what happened when that went to the vote of the people. It was rejected.
I suggest to my friend across the way that we have a similar situation. If there was that kind of support that he talks about in the province of Quebec for this change, why is it that consent from the people was not sought by the legislature in Quebec? Why is it that the legislature in Quebec cannot demonstrate quite clearly that there is broad based support for this issue?
At the same time as it does that, why can the legislature of Quebec not guarantee that the minority which will be affected by the elimination of this right is in agreement with this principle? If we do not protect the rights of the minority, if we cannot demonstrate that we have a clear consensus from the minority in favour of this legislation, then we should not move ahead. If we do move ahead, what guarantee is there for any of us in our constitution? There is simply none. The constitution is not worth the paper it is written on if it will not protect the rights of the minority.
We should not be flippantly changing the constitution just to meet the whim of the day. The constitution certainly is a living, breathing document but it must guarantee rights for all times and not just when it meets with our pleasure.