Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is because of section 43 of the 1982 Constitution that it is even possible to make such an amendment bilaterally. Second, I am in complete agreement with the statement made by my counterpart, Mr. Brassard, last February 12, and I quote: "The unanimity of the National Assembly in itself is not proof of consensus, but it is certainly of more than passing interest".

Linguistic School Boards  Because, Mr. Speaker, it happens that we too are elected representatives of Quebec, because all elected representatives in this House consider Quebec part of their country, and because this is therefore a matter of concern to all Canadians and to all Quebecers. I believe I am defending a value of great importance to Quebecers when I say that there should be no constitutional amendment until we can be sure that there is a consensus that includes the minority concerned, when the amendment concerns the minority in question.

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have said this, but we are not giving a veto to any group. I have already asked the hon. member this question: Do she and her party consider Quebec's anglophone community part of Quebec?

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, I never mentioned a constitutional guarantee. I asked for guarantees that, in a democratic society, can take other forms. They can be guarantees of a legal or regulatory nature, or moral commitments. As things stand now, the Government of Quebec has included a number of "whereas" clauses.

The Constitution  If so, what is required is a consensus that includes Quebec's anglophone community. What we are asking for is a consensus, reasonable support. We are not asking for unanimity.

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, the government has said the same thing since the outset in this. First, a bilateral amendment is possible between the National Assembly and the Parliament of Canada. Second, a consensus is required and must, obviously, include the linguistic minority in the province.

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, on those specific points, I am saying the same thing as my counterpart, Mr. Brassard, the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs. He said, on February 13: "I think we consider that the consensus includes the English community. I think it is obvious that the English community must be a part of a consensus on a change of this nature".

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, the Quebec premier, Mr. Bouchard, felt on February 21 that the official opposition would oppose his plan and asked us to act even if the official opposition did not agree, because, as he put it, when they vote like that, it does not preclude a consensus. So all that is missing now is the consensus.

Tobacco Act  moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-71, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 2 with the following: "ing tobacco leaves and any extract of tobacco leaves. It includes" Motion No. 3 That Bill C-71, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 4 with the following: "less than the prescribed quantities or portions of the" Motion No. 8 That Bill C-71, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 30 on page 7 with the following: "tics, health effects or health hazards of the" Motion No. 26 That Bill C-71, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 39 on page 15 with the following: "Minister within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner."

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition made another suggestion that may well reduce the likelihood of a court challenge. It is up to the Quebec government to determine whether this is the best solution and to discuss the matter with the leader of the official opposition.

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat the three basic points made from the very beginning by the Government of Canada in this matter. First, on the face of it, what the Government of Quebec is proposing appears to be feasible, bilaterally, under section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982 amending formula.

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, under section 43 of the amending formula of the Constitution Act, 1982, we can confirm without hesitation.

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the Government of Canada to comment on the proposals that will be made by the various groups in the debate that has just started on the modernization of the Quebec school system.

Constitution  Mr. Speaker, I have said this several times but I will say it again, because the Leader of the Official Opposition may be somewhat hard of hearing. As I said time and again, I did not give a veto to any organization whatsoever. The question that must be asked is this: Is the official opposition saying that even if Quebec's anglophone community, which has more than one voice, had strong reservations about the government's proposal, it would be necessary to proceed regardless?

Constitution  Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something in reference to yesterday. We know there is probably a consensus in Quebec at this time for language based school boards. The issue is to find a way to proceed that will ensure that all components of Quebec society can do this in confidence.