[(Douze heures cinquante-neuf minutes)]

[M. INWOOD: Messieurs, mesdames, avant de commencer, je vais seulement vous prévenir que
le directeur du journal des Débats m’a promis de faire la transcription
de cette conférence
de presse prioritairement. M. le premier]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Je m’excuse, d’abord, d’arriver plus tard que prévu, mais on avait des choses en retard et des votes à prendre, un vote en tout cas. Je ne vois pas ce que ça donnerait d’ajouter quoi que ce soit pour l’instant,comme grande déclaration.. Je pense que la décision essentielle qu’on avait à prendre en fonction d’une promesse que j’avais faite à l’Assemblée nationale, il y a quelques temps déjà, c’était d’indiquer la saison qui nous paraissait préférable pour tenir le référendum au Québec, conformément aux engagements qu’on avait pris en 1976, que ce référendum aurait lieu pendant la durée du mandat du gouvernement.
Après avoir pesé je ne sais pas combien d’opinions, dont le moins que je puisse dire est qu’elles étaient presque à 50-50 contradictoires, les uns tenant pour un rérérendum crescendo, rapide, avant la fin de 1979, et les autres évaluant que c’était mieux, surtout si on voulait concilier le travail du gouvernement et le travail législatif avec cette consultation, c’était mieux d’attendre au début, enfin pas trop tard en 1980, au printemps comme j’ai dit.
J’ai été obligé de m’en aller dans mon coin et de peser ça le mieux possible. Les raisons qui m’ont fait opter pour le printemps, je les ai données à l’Assemblée nationale.
Je pense qu’elles tiennent essentiellement à ceci, c’est qu’il nous semble vraiment important – ça ne passera pas souvent, cette occasion – que les Québécois aient tout sur
la table. Pas seulement notre option qui, je crois, est maintenant passablement clarifiée, qu’on. clarifiera davantage surtout en rencontrant le plus de citoyens possibles dans les mois qui vont passer, mais qu’on clarifiera également davantage, sous la forme d’un livre
blanc, d’une position officielle, appelons ça un livre blanc pour employer le jargon courant, à l’automne, c’est-à-dire au plus tard à la rentrée du Parlement à l’automne.
Il y a aussi des fédéralistes qui promettent d’être nos adversaires, il n’y a rien de précis.
Il faut que les gens se branchent. Depuis le temps qu’on joue dans le vague, qu’on joue dans le flou, s’ils veulent avoir un choix qui est vraiment un choix historique sur l’avenir
du Québec, il faut que toutes les cartes soient sur la table, qu’elles ne soient pas dans les
la poches de vestes ou qu’elles ne soient pas cachées dans les manches mais que tout le monde ait la franchise et le courage de se définir, une fois pour toutes.

Si on veut une sorte de fédéralisme renouvelé à proposer aux Québécois, qu’on le définisse. Et qu’on laisse aussi le reste du Canada avoir ses réactions. De la même façon
qu’on ne s’est pas gêné pour entretenir au maximum et faire multiplier les réactions préliminaires à ce que nous, nous proposons. C’est une chose.

La deuxième chose, c’est qu’on ne peut pas arrêter les problèmes, on ne peut pas arrêter non plus l’évolution de la société et des questions qui se posent, et auxquelles, je crois, un gouvernement responsable doit essayer de répondre, dans le contexte de son mandat actuel. Cela veut dire que la législation importante qui doit revenir au mois d’août, comme vous le savez, soit sous forme de commissions parlementaires ou de mémoires.. Il y a des choses aussi importantes que le logement comme vous le savez, c’est encore une autre année, mais on espère que ce sera une loi permanente – qui doit être réglé avant le 31 décembre 1979. La même chose s’applique à la réforme de la fiscalité municipale qui est garantie pour le premier janvier 1980, mais pourvu que l’Assemblée nationale ait eu le temps d’approuver les textes législatifs nécessaires. Cela a l’air secondaire, mais il y a également un engagement qu’on avait pris que l’uniformisation obligatoire des tarifs d’électricité serait faite, au plus tard, le premier janvier 1980..

I1 y a tout le problème de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, sans compter, des législations qui doivent venir. Je ne vous apprendrai pas grand chose en vous disant, par exemple, que SIDBEC, qui représente l’énorme investissement de plusieurs centaines de millions que nous connaissons à Contrecoeur, à Montréal et sur la Côte-Nord, avec SIDBEC-Normines, devra absolument avoir de l’Assemblée nationale, avant la fin de l’année, probablement assez tôt à l’automne, à la suite de commissions parlementaires, il s’agit d’une société d’Etat, une nouvelle injection de capital, en vue de la remise en marche, sous la forme d’un plan quinquennal qui est proposé, mais de boucher les trous et de faire les additions qui sont absolument indispensables.
Tout cela fait que la responsabilité, on ne peut pas l’escamoter. Mais il va falloir qu’avant la fin de l’année, quand même, pas mal de législation ait eu la chance de passer.
Et en même temps, nous espérons de tout notre coeur – on va y mettre tout notre coeur et tout [(passsage illisible)]
conclues, de façon satisfaisante, dans le secteur public et le secteur parapublic. Il
me semble qu’on est beauccup plus avancés en ce qui concerne les éléments, les groupes qui représentent le front commun de la dernière négociation, dont le contrat expire d’ici quelques jours, à la fin de juin. Mais, comme on est pas mal plus avancés, ce qui ne veut pas dire qu’on est plus proche d’une solution, on n’aura pas ces espèces de suspense de
trois mois, quatre mois, six mois, qu’on a déjà vues, pour savoir quelles sont les offres, etc.
Les offres initiales sont sur la table. Les discussions sont engagées. Il nous semble que ce ne serait pas responsable de notre part de s’imaginer qu’on puisse combiner ce qui sera nécessairement des points chauds au point de nos négociation avec le climat qu’on espère pouvoir assurer au moment où les décisions se prendront sur un référendum. Tout cela fait que… Avec le jugement que j’ai, je ne peux pas en trouver davantage, mais après avoir consulté tous les autres jugements qui étaient disponibles, la décision a été prise que le référendum aurait lieu pendant la saison du printemps 1980.

Dès l’automne – et je l’ai dit – on va avoir une position du gouvernement en espérant
que les tenants du « non » éventuel auront la leur aussi de façon que les citoyens puissent examiner tout cela. La question, telle que nous la proposerions, la substance sera dans cette position que nous annoncerons à l’automne. La formulation que nous proposerons sera devant l’Assemblée nationale avant les Fêtes. Le débat, normalement, devrait pouvoir se faire tôt en 1980 et, là, la campagne prévue par la loi 92 pourrait se dérouler.

[M. ~NW00D: Merci, M. le premier ministre. M. Picard, du Devoir.

M. PICARD: Relativement au livre blanc, est ce que vous prévoyez,â partir de son dépôt, cet automne, è l’Assemblée nationale, tenir ce qu’on pourrait appeler une commission parlementaire itinérante ou une commission parlementaire ici, bref… C’est qu’il y a l’idée qui a circulé, semble t il,dans votre Conseil des ministres, de partir avec ce document et de tenir des débats dans la population sous une forme ou sous une autre?]

[M. LEVESQUE:] C’est très possible, mais une commission parlementaire classique, si vous imaginer même à partir de la rédaction initiale à la déclaration que je faisais ce matin, je ne crois pas que cela avancerait beaucoup le débat à ce moment là. Le débat en Chambre, je pense que l’essentiel aura lieu aumoment où on discutera de la question. Comme cela doit durer 35 heures, ce qui, en pratique, veut dire quelque chose comme trois semaines, cela devrait suffire, en ce qui concerne, si vous voulez, ce moment central qu’il ne s’agit pas d’émousser d’avance qui est le lancement vérirable de la campagne
référendaire. Entre temps, nous sommes tout le monde en précampagne. Que chacun fasse son travail pour mettre au point ses idées. Ceux qui ne l’ont pas fait encore… Qu’ils aillent voir les citoyens au maximum pendant les mois qui viennent de façon que l’opinion publique puisse nourrir cette décision là qui, encore une fois, ne passera pas tous les jours, ni chaque année.

[M. PICARD: Vous n’excluez pas la possibilité de ce qu’on appelle – on a connu cela dans
voulez, avec tout ce que
cela peut représenter au point de vue multipartisan, ce qu’on peut]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Non seulement je ne l’exclus pas, mais on va se mobiliser et se contraindre à faire un maximum de présence physique dans toutes les régions du Québec, mes collègues et moi et le plus grand nombre possible de députés, pendant l’intersession, c’est sûr, et pendant les weekends qu’on aura par la suite.

[M. PICARD:] Si vous me permettez une courte sous-question, parceque je veux vous
faire préciser cela. Ne craignez vous pas que,si cela se fait à l’extérieur de ce qu’on appellerait une commission parlementaire oû tous les partis politiques sont présents et que cela se fait dans le cadre d’une tournée ministérielle comme celle qu’on a connue dans le passé, vous soyez très rapidement accusés par les partis d flapposition de vous servir des fonds du gouvernement, bref de l’argent du gouvernement pour faire, à partir de votre position de ministre ou de premier ministre, des tournées sur ce document en question?]

[M.Lévesque] Sauf dans les cas où ce serait très évident que cela coïncide – je n’ai pas eu le temps de vous consulter là-dessus, mais je vous le dis tout de suite, spontanément avec les engagements qu’on doit prendre au niveau officiel, on les fera à nos frais.

[ M. INWOOD: M. Lépine, de Radio-Canada.
M. LEPINE: Vous avez dit, M. Lévesque, que le printemps, c’était au fond une décision qui permettait à chacun de mettre toutes les cartes sur la table. Est ce que cela veut dire que vous pensiez, avant de prendre votre décision, entre autres, que les forces libérales n’auraient pas eu le temps de mettre les cartes sur laiable dans l’hypothèse d’un référendum à l’automne?]

[M, LEVESQUE:] Je pense qu’ils n’auraient pas eu le temps de mettre les cartes sur la table. Vous avez vu le soulagement, malgré les critiques marginales qu’il a pu formuler, assez évident du chef de l’Opposition qui est bien content d’avoir un ou deux mois pour essayer de « rapailler » ses idées, et surtout de « rapailler » autour de ses idées les gens qu’ils doivent essayer de réunir. Je crois que ce qui aurait pu arriver, cet automne, du côté des fédéralistes, cela aurait été une espèce de petit coup de la Brink’s qui est toujours dangereux, c’est-à-dire qu’on aurait fait au moins une unité de surface, de façon à en mettre plein les yeux des citoyens avant même que cela puisse être évalué et analysé comme il faut, s’il s’agit de quelque chose de sérieux. On n’aurait même pas eu le temps de s’en rendre compte.

[M. INWOOD: M. Cowan, Southam News.
M. COWAN: Tout en tenant compte des délais que la loi prévoit dans le débat, vous avez parlé du printemps, je sais que vous ne pouvez pas nous donner une date, mais est ce que vous voyez cela plutôt tard au printemps ou au début du printemps?]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Je vois cela au printemps. Je regrette… Après Pâques,: c’est tout ce je pourrais vous dire.

[M. COWAN: Après Pâques, oui. D’accord.]

[.M, LEVESQUE:] Forcément, après le budget. Il faut tout de même qu’il y ait un budget dans le paysage normalement, entre l’année financière au gouvernement doit commencer, après le 31 mars.

[M. INWOOD: M. L’Archevêque, de Radio-Canada.
M, L’ARCHEVEQUE: M. Lévesque, est ce que l’argument des cartes sur table pour tous a joué davantage ou moins que les négociations avec le front commun, quand on tient compte du]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Oui, mais je pense que l’Union Nationale va peut-être trouver utile de l’approfondir davantage, maintenant que les délais sont connus.

[M. L’ARCHEVEQUE: …]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Je serais absolument incapable de vous répondre, même avec une balance balance, au milligramme, vous dire comment dans les plateaux de la balance j’ai essayé de peser de mon mieux, pendant les dernières 48 heures, l’état ou le climat social des négociations, c’est-à-dire l’intensité probable des échanges à l’automne, et, en même temps, en parallèle, cette nécessité, je crois, pour les tenants d’une autre option de se préciser et de mettre les cartes sur la table et non pas de se dérober devant cette responsabilité. Je ne suis pas capable de vous dire que l’un a pesé plus que l’autre, je croyais que les deux… Les deux me sautaient aux yeux, en tout cas.

[M. L’ARCHEVEQUE: Une sous question, M. Lévesque. Pourquoi après le budget? ]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Pourquoi?

[M. L’ARCHEVEQUE: Pourquoi après le budget?]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Non, mais c’est parcequ’on va continuer à vivre une vie normale au point de vue administratif. L’année financière expire le 31 mars. Il est évident qu’il faudra un budget, c’est tout. Qu’est ce que vous voulez?

[M. INWOOD: M. Mackey, Canadian Press.

M. MACKEY: M. Lévesque, samedi soir dernier, a bord de l’avion, en revenant de Matane…]

[ M. LEVESQUE:] Qu’est ce que j’ai fait encore?

[M. MACKEY: . . vous avez posé une énigme en disant que le facteur principal dans la décision, la clé, c’était la pénurie d’énergie, Joe Clark et l’Ouganda. Je me demande ce que ça veut dire aujourd’hui. Je ne trouve toujours pas ce que c’est, la signification de ces trois éléments.]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Bon. Écoutez, pénurie d’énergie: Pensez à la pompe à essence qui
sert assez, qui revient assez souvent dans la propagande fédérale qui voudrait faire croire que le Québec serait incapable de survivre dans un monde de problème universel d’énergie. L’Ouganda, pensez à la campagne dans Jean-Talon où on faisait peur aux vieilles religieuses chaque fois qu’on pouvait mettre la main dessus en leur disant: Vous avez vu ce qui se passe en Afrique. Sans le moindre scrupule, on essayait de nous faire passer pour des Idi Amin Dada.
Pour ce qui est de M. Clark, je l’ai dit tout à l’heure, je crois qu’il serait normal pour un nouveau gouvernement qui s’était étiré le cou, en tout cas, en ce qui concerne ses possibles souplesses éventuelles, de faire savoir ses réactions, soit aux positions des fédéralistes québécois ou à ses propres propositions et d’avoir le temps, là aussi, de les évaluer.
Pour ce qui est des autres trucs,ce sont les peurs, les peurs de pompes à essence et les peurs d’Ouganda et toutes sortes de propagandes invraisemblables qui essaient littéralement d’écraser les Québécois sous des images invraisemblables contre lesquelles, je crois, on a du travail à faire. C’est aussi simple que ça et ce travail là demande un certain temps. On s’en est rendu compte récemment.

[M. MACKEY- Al S d r est-re no ra vnulait• dira una o nâno A1nll;nnna cn+na nno]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Ne vous inquiétez pas. Une bonne partie des tenants du statu quo, sous quelque forme que ce soit, sont évidemment comme des larrons en foire. C’est vrai pour la fondation Pro Canada et les libéraux. M. Ryan n’a peut-être pas répondu à ce que je disais.
C’est lui qui disait, au mois de février – ce n’est pas d’hier – que le Pro-Canada,
avec tout l’argent qu’il avait, parceque ça suppléerait aux fonds de son parti, ne devait pas se gêner pour inonder les ondes, etc., pourvu qu’il le fasse en bonne coordination avec les groupements intéressés. Je cite textuellement.
Les groupements intéressés, le premier de tous, c’est le Parti libéral provincial et peut-être le Parti libéral fédéral avec Me Michel Robert, libéral bien connu, homme clé de l’organisation libérale, comme, également, homme clé du Pro-Canada.

[M INWOOD: M. Thomas, MacLean Magazine.

M. THOMAS: M. le premier ministre, vous avez dit que vous voulez laisser le temps

â M. Clark et son nouveau gouvernement de préparer ses cordes.
pas eu]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Oui, il faut voir si une ouverture d’esprit va se manifester. Il n’y en a
beaucoup pendant la campagne électorale, sauf de façon très vague et aussi, à un moment donné, très négative parcequ’il s’agissait d’aller chercher des votes et, à ce moment là, c’est comme d’autres interventions électorales, je pense qu’il faut considérer celles là
pas très bien en quoi ça pouvait titre justifiable, le droit à l’autodétermination du peuple québécois. Je pense qu’on aura le temps de s’expliquer la-dessus.

[M. THOMAS: Est ce que vous avez l’intention de participer à la conférence constitutionnelle prévue pour l’automne et est ce que votre gouvernement est prêt à négocier quelques changements, si minimes soient ils?]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Il est fort probable que, s’il y a une conférence constitutionnelle à l’automne on y sera. Avec quelles positions? Cela reste à établir et vous le saurez en temps et lieu.

[M. INWOOD: M. Block, Montreal Star.
M. BLOCK: M. Lévesque, comptez vous faire campagne personnellement pour l’indépendance du Québec pendant les élections partielles qui sont prévues pour l’automne, comme vous l’avez dit?]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Je vais faire ma part pendant ces campagnes partielles. Une fois qu’on aura évalué la façon de les tenir, autrement dit quelle sorte d’organisation et quelle sorte de présence sont requises, mais c’est sûr que, normalement, je devrais en faire partie, parcequ’il ne faut pas oublier que ces élections partielles auront inévitablement un caractère préréférendaire, c’est une des leçons flagrantes des élections partielles qui ont eu lieu récemment où on avait des raisons de ne pas ouvrir le débat référendaire, mais maintenant, il n’y a plus de raisons, il est ouvert, le débat référendaire.

[ M. INWOOD: M. Picard.
M. PICARD: C’est sur un autre sujet. Les gen.; ont encore des questions à poser sur la déclaration de M. Lévesque… Je peux peut-être y aller tout de suite, de toute façon, je pense que la réponse ne sera pas longue. Est ce que vous pouvez nous dire au
avec un serleux relatif, mais, enfin, quand il a dit par exemple, qu’il ne comprenait
une conférence constitutionnelle
jourd’hui, M. Lévesque, – êtes vous en mesure de nous dire aujourd’hui – si oui ou non vous comptez faire un remaniement ministériel avant la reprise de la session de l’automne?
pas en mesure de parler de ce sujet là d’aucune façon aujourd’hui. Demain… À chaque jour suffit sa peine.
M. INWOOD: Y a t il d’autres questions en français? M. MacKay.
M. MACKAY: J’aurais une question sur un autre sujet complètement. Je remarque que vous avez une blessure au sourcil.]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Vous n’avez pas vu en dedans… En fait, c’est un accident idiot, parce
que je suis mal pris quand vient la belle saison. Que ce soit dans le Vieux Québec ou le Vieux Montréal, c’est très bruyant, alors, vers une heure et demie ou deux heures du matin, il y a une couple de jours, il y avait des cris de mort… Je me suis réveillé d’un saut et j’ai décidé d’aller voir. C’était à moitié par curiosité et à moitié par sympathie. Normalement, il y a une fenêtre ouverte, mais j’ai pris à droite et c’est la gauche qui était ouverte… Alors,..
[M. LEVESQUE:] Non, je ne suis pas en mesure de vous le dire aujourd’hui.
Je ne suis

[M. INWOOD: M. Cowan.
M, COWAN: Cela va, je crois que j’ai la réponse.]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Est ce qu’il y a d’autres problèmes majeurs?

[M. INWOOD: M. Lepine.
M. LEPINE: Je ne veux pas faire de lien avec cela, M. Lévesque, mais est ce que vous avez rencontré M. Burns dernièrement%]

[M. LEVESQUE:] En tout cas,je ne lui ai pas touché. Écoutez , on se rencontre sans arrêt, vous avez vu que c’était conforme à ce qu’on avait dit, après une entente qu’on avait prise entre nous, que M. Burns suivrait ses dossiers jusqu’à la fin de la session. Il a deposé aujourd’hui, après les avoir passées à travers le laminoir des comités internes et du Conseil des ministres, la réforme de la loi électorale et ce qu’on appelle le projet de loi sur la représentation électorale, c’est-à-dire la réforme qui, je le crois, était nécessaire en ce qui concerne la commission de révision et sa façon de procéder.

Evidemment, on continue à essayer d’explorer – comme on l’avait dit aussi il y a quelques mois, avec M. Burns, en première ligne, la question du mode de scrutin, parcequ’il va falloir quand même se brancher là-dessus assez vite. Ses intentions, autant que je sache, n’ont pas changé, mais on espère pouvoir profiter des talents et de l’expérience accumulée dans ce secteur, en particulier, de Robert autant qu’on pourra. Je pense bien qu’autant que je sache qu’il n’a pas changé de décision, il n’a pas changé d’avis.

[M. INWOOD: Y a t il d’autres questions? M. Gagné.

M. GAGNE: Compte tenu du fait que vous venez de dire
de loi que vous voulez absolument qui soient adoptés avant les Fêtes…]

[M. LEVESQUE:
M. GAGNE: … est ce qu’on peut prévoir u e reprise rapide de la session?]

[M. LEVESQUE’:] Pardon?

[M. GAGNE: …]

[M. LEVESQUE:] Bien rapide, relativement, mais tenant compte des élections partielles et du travail maximum, en tenant compte de nos responsabilités aussi, qu’on doit faire en
ce qui concerne notre présence, le plus possible, dans la population, on n’a pas fixé la date encore pour la reprise on va le faire avant la fin de la journée, mais je dirais que ce serait probablement quelque part au début d’octobre.

[M. INWOOD: En anglais, maintenant. Avant de commencer, Mr Lévesque could you perhaps outline in English briefly the principal factors behind your decision to not hold the referendum this fall?

M. LEVESQUE: Well, I think it is no great secret that we have been consulting all
over the place, for days and days, in fact for a few weeks and I got very very diversifield in fact practically fifty, fifty contradictory opinions, some pressing for a sort of quick crecendo towards a fall referendum and others are saying that the more responsible would be an attitude saying that taking into account, the fact that we have to be a government, the National Assembly has to be a working Parliament on some urgent and many important things, while at the same time, we go towards a referendum.
15
That was, I think, one of the first basic perceptions I had to take into account. There are many pieces of important legislation, some that have to be – whatever happens – adopted, before the end of December. For instance, anything that has to do with rent control, as you all know, things that have to do with a commitment which is now in the works, but has to be legislated on, in other words, the reform or the revision – a very deep revision – of the municipal fiscality, the municipal tax base, on account of the elimination of the school tax, then, the additional revenues that are opened now into municipalities which have been waiting for a long time.
I could add quite a few, but just to illustrate – these examples, I think, are sufficient to illustrate the fact that we cannot stop everything and say: We are going out to mend the fences and work exclusively on the referendum; we have to try and dovetail the two. The second thing is that – it is no mystery, I think; I’m not hiding anythinv about that – we think the warm moments of the negotiations in the public and semi- public f:’el1 Lnat’the whole thing is probably going to come to a head in late summer and during the fall, before the end of the year.
If we put all that we have as resources and energy and good faith on both sides and work like hell to try and solve it, I think we can make it before the end of the year. I am pretty sure we cculd not make it with a ~ , referendum some time in the fall. There would be a very great danger of utter confusion and I think that apart from the bad climate, this would be for a referendum consultatior, apart from that, thousands of people in the public and semi public sectors are just as entitled as everybody else not to be caii-ht in the turmoil of hard
negotiations and make a decision about the national future whict-.they are involved as well as everybody else, to make that at the same time.
Apart from the fact – I will finish on that – that our option, politically, constitutionally, because it is a constitutional option, our option has been made clearer over the last
weeks, including our party covention, and we are committed to give the_ last – and we hope defini*i’ve precision – early in the fall, so that in this sort of white_ book form, so that it can be spread ‘ around and be discussed on merit.
But the same thing has not been made ready by ‘:he federalist side, especially by the provincial Liberal party which Mr. Ryan said was very glad to have a month or two months more
think it is absolutely essential, because it is no time for’ hiding and having something in your vest pocket and trying to fin#g1e any kind of a mandate, especially a negative mandate, like
few
to try and get their ideas together and get people
around those ideas to fight for them. We
16
did not show very much during the election campaign, but after all, now it is a government, it is not an Opposition party.
We have to let some time go. For all those reasons, we take the decision that the season – as I promised in the House, I would announce the season for the referendum should be spring of 1980.
M. INWOOD: When you say, Sir, that it would be a good idea to wait and see what constitutional proposals, or proposals for a renewed federalism Mr Ryan and Mr Clark come
up with, does that imply that if they should come up with something that might be acceptable to you, that you would drop the whole kit and kaboodle?
14, LEVESQUE: No, if they keep on being unconditional federalists, no, we will not find it acceptable, and we think that our option, after something like 12 years work on it, and 12 years of preaching it – except for the last two years when we had government duties that kept us mostly from doing it, that we are going to do it with a vengeance now with as much time as we have available. We think that facing that option, the unconditional federalists would not bring forth anything acceptable to us. We think that the citizens of Quebec are entitled to have something which is a clear federalist position, as Mr Ryan said, I think, this morning in the House, with fundamental changes proposed. And see also the reaction of the rest of Canada. I think I understood him to say that he wanted even to try and pre-negociate acceptance of his ideas in the rest of Canada before coming to the Quebecers and telling them what he stands for.
Well, even that is going to take some time, I think, even though I also think it is
a bit disappointing as an attitude. It is a bit like a poker player who says: I will go and see the opponent or the interlocutor who says, I have got two pairs, now: do you think I should bet that much, a little more or a little less? And if he gets permission,
he bets. It is not a very inspiring attitude. On one side, we think we should get a mandate or an option and then negociate, not negociate before hand like a sort of house union that goes to he boss and says: Well, this is what I am going to propose to the members. Will you accept? If he gets acceptance, he goes to the members and announces his demands. I do not like that. All of that should be made clear.
M INWOOD: Mr Vermette, CFCF.
M. VERMETTE: Mr Levesque, I would like to pursue this somewhat generous attitude on your part in giving Mr Clark this particular time to come up with his constitutional proposals.
M. LEVESQUE: It is not just generosity, because we do not think he will come up
with anvthinc Arrant h 1. 11 , o thin4 +h t ‘ . • 1 4 A f tU + n — . • ia — U-
17
the Liberal Party is a champion on that, and the Conservatives are close second. You know, we will see, eventually, this is a sort of theoretical posture and all that. They should commit themselves, put their cards on the table. So, at least, there would be some advantage for Quebec, whatever happens, that they be forced to define something which has some substance, or else they will be laughed out of court.
M. VERI4ETTE: Precisely, giving the Conservatives time to elaborate their constitutional option, is it not a little bit surprising?
M. LEVESQUE: Everybody has had a lot of time, and we are giving additional months contrary to what people are expecting when they were talking about the fall. For years and years, the problem has been there. Some people are a bit nervous, worried about our railroading a referendum.
But, after all those years of discussing it from the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission to the Pépin-Robarts Report, recently, including the Conservatives who are new at power
but not new in politics, everybody should have time to make their ideas or their proposals, if any, clear and Quebecers a choice. If they cannot do it in a credible way, it is too bad for them.
18
M. VERMETTE: The question is,why you are so interested when you said so often in the past you are not interested in patched up federalism.
M. LEVESQUE: I am not interested in patched ip Federalism at all and neither are my
very imprecise, so called, last chance of federalism,whatever they call the last while
chance, they should put on the table,/Quebecers are going to be meditating and discussing

their future.
j•
M. VERMETTE: Do you feel that/Mr Clark comes up with a viable proposal – my
question – that it will weaken your position?
M. LEVESQUE: If it does, the citizens will judge. I am not prejudging what they are going to say. I am saying that any kind of patched-up federalism we think is obsolete and passé as far as Quebec’s future is concerned it is not up to us to vote, we are going to fight like mad to get a yes vote on our option,but, we want the people
as possible whatever alternative they are supposed to be proposing so that the people can assess the chances of that alternative.

M. INWOOD: Mr Moscovitz, CBC.

M. MOSCOVITZ: Sir, a couple of questions.First as far as the fall is concernedto put the question in another way, was it not extremely tempting ‘thento perhaps go this fall…

M. LEVESQUE: For many people yes.

M. MOSCOVITZ: …show that you are very aggresive,out to win it and perhaps

get your opponent; when the, opponent is not quite ready. How big a temptation *as.it? It was not just generosity in the end.

M. LEVESQUE: No. It was a big temptation in the sense that a quick sort of

taking the initiative and trying to hold it all the ways, a sort of’quick crescendo over a bare

,few months is always tempting. Especially when for years and years you have people After
iwho have been working in that direction and saying,anbther wait! / all I have heard all of
that during the consultations I made. I do not think it would be quite the responsible attitude we should take and also I will tell you one thing that lay behind my mind, was

the sort of intellectual or constitutional Brink’s operation which could have faced us late
some time, let us sav./in October or early November. where auvs in Ottawa -or in Quebec
colleagues or people that have been working with us for years and years.
the point. The point is that,to get away from any kind of illusion about some
That is not further
last
who will be negative and say: no, do not do that, to at least explain and make as
clear
19
:,r both would have a sort of very artificial quickie common front, trying
to depict
without depicting and without giving time to anyone to assess it, A sort of

new opening towards some sort of third option which nobody would know too much about. M. MOSCOVITZ: That is the one big reason.

M. LEVESQUE: That is something we want to keep away from and we are going to keep hammering,especially at the official opposition, the provincial Liberal Party, and others,who pretend to have brilliant ideas,to put them on the table and not play around with the people.

M. MOSCOVITZ: One last question, please. You used the expression « railroading »

before which some people could have accused you of- this spring. Last week, you were as
quoted/saying it was that in the fall, it was also tiring people and making people
perhaps fed-up with the whole thing by leaving it to next spring. M. LEVESQUE: I was quoted?
M. MOSCOVITZ: Yes. I think it was on the plane to Matane, that in leaving it too long.
there was a danger
20
M. LEVESQUE: I said there is something like two extremes, or two danger, if you like, that we have to assess, because they are both potential dangers according to all the advice I got from all over the place. On the one hand, this railroading danger, plus the danger I just…
M. MOSCOVITZ: Recognizing there is a danger, how are you going…
people to a point where they would be fed up.,. I even heard people say: Why don’t you wait

until the fall of 1980, because for some people,psychologically, fall is better with vitamins playing picked up during the summer. But let us stop./around with that Our decision, finally, is

the one I announced, for the basic reasons, plus many factors that you cannot get away from, but they are mostly feelings.

M. MOSCOVITZ: Recognizing the fed up aspect as a danger,to use your own words, how do you plan to overcome it as a problem?

M. LEVESQUE: We will see along the way. I cannot: give you our whole plan of action, it is not quite finished yet. The only thing is that we think, we have at least the good
the other, One is being the administration, being the governement leading the legislative
the
work in the house; the second, the responsibility we have towards our option and/thousands
who out
of people/believe in it, who work their hearts/: to bring it to the point where Quebecers

can decide upon it, which means a lot of tours, a lot of presence and,as much as possible, a good chance of establishing better than ever a « rapport » with the majority of Quebecers. M. INWOOD: A supplementary, Mr Thomas.
M.-THOMAS: …and the white paper in the fall, is it going to be a quite summer, in the referendum front or are you going to begin your campaign immediately and carry it on through the summer?

M. LEVESQUE: It is going to be, let us say,_ you know, here, there for a while, at least for a few weeks, while we try to organize all the basic requirements of the campaign, because all we have been doing up to now was assessing things and trying to get the feeling.
.
.,n the party, which is normal. Because it is not/ »péquis,ce »referendum, we hope, but on the
other hand, it is obvious that the Parti québécois is going to be the main political mover and animator, let us say, of the campaign, at grass roots level and all over the place.
There are others that we have to reach, we are in contact, we have to get together with us in the what we call the Pro-Quebec committee, when the referendum comes and quite’
M. LEVESQUE: … which would be too quick.
On the other hand, the danger of getting
perspective for combining two responsibilities which we cannot get away from
either one or
a
21
campaigning is done is going to be mostly a semi-accidental basis, but as of August, I think we will be on the road.

M. INWOOD: Mr Saint-Laurent.

M. SAINT-LAURENT: I have a number of questions, I would like to deal with the white paper, the travelling tours. But first of all, besides the traditional- political propa

ganda arguments, what do you foresee as your main obstacles to winning the referendum?
am
M. LEVESQUE: I think the main possible obstacle, but I/ pretty confident we will win

it, but the main obstacle we will have to face would be the sort of sombre dedication of the status quo people with the fears,they are going to hit as much as they can below the belt, in the area which I think is powerful recourse in any national context of the same comparable to ours. They: are going to hit us much as they can below the belt, at people’s

nerves and this combination between anxiety and economic fears, the stomach, that is one thing. We will have to deal with that as best as we can, without following them around and saying: No, it is not that, it is something else, but a part of that will have to be done too.
22
And a second obstacle that I see, which, I think we can also deal with if we work like mad facing it, is the fact that we .have this sort of aggregation of big interests, official or hidden, plus whatever combination comes out of the Federal establishment, plus the local or provincial disciples here. And we have a lot of money, and a lot of people, all over the place, dedicated to saving their careers, saving the regime, some sincere, some purely and simply careerists, but that is certainly an obstacle.
M, SAINT-LAURENT: On something as fundamental as sovereignty-association or renewed federalism and your Government proposal in the white paper that you are going to make public in the Fall, why not a parliamentary committee to deal with that issue? Are you not afraid of being accused, in your travelling tours, in fact of using Government money to promote your option?
M. LEVESQUE: I said in French that apart from indisputable official occasions that sometimes dovetail with political meetings, where we have to attend one way or the other,
the rest will not be on public funds, we will move around on our own with whatever we can find apart from official duties.
As far as a parliamentary committee is concerned, I have grave doubts about its usefulness. With the positions already there, let us not joke with a thing like that. Parliament has enough chances to look silly sometimes, without giving additional occasion for that, there will be one, that is for sure, very important debate, and I hope it will be at a reasonable level, when the question is proposed, because there are 35 hours of debate that are forecasted, foreseen by bill 92. This means something like three weeks steady, with a priority for that motion. That should be enough, as far as parliamentary interventions, in the whole thing.
If the climate should call, with some possible fruitfulness, for a parliamentary committee, it is not a final answer saying: Never, never and never. It is not impossible, but I have, I repeat, my very grave doubts about the usefulness of the process.
M. INWOOP: Mr. MacDonald.
,M. MacDONALD: Is this now written in stone, in other words, there was a suggestion
dude in some paper, I am not sure whether it was in English or French, that the possibility éxisted that if the Civil Service negotiations dragged into an all-out confrontation, inthrough the Cb.ristmas Holidays and into the New Year, that you might be forced to go back to the people for a mandate against the Common front of unions?
14. LEVESQUE: No, it is not a possibility and I will also answer our new federal friend,
measure
23
believe the referendum would be held, well, he has got another thing coming. It is going to be held in the season I announced today, and it is going to be held come hellLor high water..
where you had sometimes five or six months lag between the expiration of conventions, or e contracts, and even the offers…
We are confident that eight months from now,
at the latest, the thing will be solved, don’t
forget as far as the public sector is
concerned, contraty to other face-offs in that field,
24
M, LEVESQUE: Atnd even offers are on the table which does not mean that the whole thing is solved, but we can start concretely as soon as we are ready on both sides.
few weeks, the last few days anyway. Some meetings, I think half a dozen or so that have at least defined or described the format that is going to be followed by three or four of the most. major points. So then, we are ready to go. And I do not see. any possibility of the people being, you know, still looking for a solution eight months

I am no prophet, it can always happen, but to take the least possible risk

on that, because that would not have been responsible,. one of the reasons I spelled out

a while ago that we thought Spring a better season.

M. INWOOD. A supplementory, M. Daigneault.

M. DAIGNEAULT: Are you excluding the possibility of a referendum election? M. LEVESQUE: Of a what?

M, DAIGNEAULT: Are you excluding the possibility of a referendum coinciding with ai, election?

M. LEVESQUE: Something will have to literally come crashing down from heaven which would change everything because we are committèd and we are going to respect that commitment not to mix up the referendum with a general election.

M. INWOOD: M. Volpe, CBC.

M. VOLPE: Two brief questions, Mr Premier. No 1 Did you have any consultations about your timetable with the new Clark government prior to your announcement of the timetable today?

M. LEVESQUE: No.
M. VALPE: The second question is: Would it be a waste of time for the Clark government or any provincial government to try and to call any conferences for the renego dations or restructuring of powers within the existing Canadian state until you have your referendum out of thè way?
M. LEVESQUE: It would be a waste of time as far as we are concerned,, if you mean not
charging our minds about our basic option. It would /necessarily be a waste of timer it
if anything, the Clark government has to propose in a way of a constitutional reform of open minds and to see how this dovetails or, not with whatever ‘_t: provincial federal’
There have been some very good meeting at that, so called. central table over the
last
from now
is no use repeating what I said before r in fact, it could be very useful to find out
what,
25
a cosmetic job or, if it is something, which they should get their teeth in, hut, they are, I think, entitled to know about that.
M, .VALPE: What role, Sir, do you have to play in any federal provincial conference until after your referendum is over? Are you :going to say nb?
M, LEVESQUE: If it comes, we will attend, probably, except for unforeseeable circumstances and whatever position we will have to explain then,, well, I cannot give it to you today, because, after all, we are not going to telegraph whatever position we are going to üake before we get some indication of what is going on over there.
M. INWOOD: Supplementary, Mr Moscovitz.
M~ MOSCOVITZ: No, but I have a very very short question that I wanted to ask before.
reach the decision yourself? Was it yesterday? A feeling you woke:up w.thlitoday? When was .rthe final decision made in your own mind?

M. LEVESQUE: The day before yesterday, rather late in the evening.

I can tell you I refused myself… I have got my feelings like everybody else., and a lot of this is feeling, then you have to add concrete factors to. . a judgment.. But if you work

just from your feeling, it is no good. I tried to forget it specially during the evenipg o11
after/the consultatiors,the day – before yesterday, and 1 spent.hours.,.locking it over

and looking it over, »trying to assess things and’ came up with what I ithink what judgment God gave me. I used.
There is a lot of talk about this decision and when it was going to happen.
When did you
26
M. INWOOD: Is that when you hit you head on the window frame, sir.
M. LEVESQUE: No, that was a few hours later.
M. SAINT-LAURENT: Have you checked when Easter is next year?
M. LEVESQUE: And do not tell me there is a cause and effect relationship between the
two. Pardon me?
M. SAINT-LAURENT: Have you checked when Easter is next year? M. LEVESQUE: Not yet; probably sometime in April, I guess. M. INWOOD; Mr Roger, Globe and Mail.
M. LEVESQUE: Did you know, Easter is the real beginning of spring; we can always talk about March 21, but since we are a northern clime, and we have our northern instincts; spring and the end of snowstorms and this sort of cooped-up feeling of winter, is usually something after Faster.
M. SAINT-LAURENT: What if Joe Clark calls a Federal election? M. LEVESQUE: Pardon?
M. SAINT-LAURENT: What if Joe Clark calls a Federal election in the spring next year? M. LEVESQUE: Look, the decision made today signifies the end of any kind of waiting on
merit of whatever decision is taken affecting the federal elections and, if a decision should come, which would look like a sort of potential roadblock, it is going to be a boomerang. From now on, we have a decision to make in Québec; we waited, as we promised we would, until that bloody federal election, hanging fire for so long, was over with. That is it.

M. INWOOD: Mr Roger.

M. ROGER: Mr Premier, I am a bit at a loss about the white paper in the fall. A couple of weeks ago, you had a convention and told us everything from monitary union to national guard. What are the issues that you feel considerable explanation is still required?

M. LEVESQUE: There are many things that have to be, let us say, tied together. You are talking about our project platform. It is not up to the party to decide the final presentation, the perspective in which it should be set, nor, obviously, the wording of the essential aspects,

including the « Question » of the referendum. So, it is up to us, as a government, to – after t
all, with great respect, because we were very happy about the results of the convention –

pick up our own final responsibility and define,in as clear and concise a way as we can, the way we are going to present our option finally to the population. There will not be major distortions, that is- obvious, but the way to, say, wrap it up into something as concrete and
federal decisions.
I think that if they moved into the field, they would be judged on the
2 7
Canada; that is our job.
M. ROGER: There are no particular element that you could mention? M. LEVESQUE: Nc essential elements have changed, that is for sure. M. INWOOD: Mr Block.
M. BLOCK; Sir, a number of Québec firms; this is another subject, have suggested their concern about the possible repercussions of the proposed planned move of the Canadian Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; I think they have expressed their concern in one form or another. I was wondering how you feel about the question?
M. LEVESQUE: Like Mr Morin said, we were a bit flabbergasted that no consultation,
previous study, apparently, of possible fall-out, seemed to have been made by a brand new govern
no
ment diving into that
That, I think was, to
One thing we are
Québec families that, the Arab countries or
kind of a pool,without even checking if say the least, very amateurish.
finding out – I cannot give you chapter
there is water in the bottom.
apparently, the
par or thae
/fall-out, would
brunt
and verse about it – that, quite
of whatever fall-out would be taken, in great part, if not the majority
be taken by Québec and Québec enterprises and
Québec engineering firms and
on rather medium or long term projects, are scattered in quite a few of Islamic countries. To say the least,- that is as far I would go today,
because we have not assessed everything – I repeat what Mr Morin told Mrs MacDonald that we would sure like to know what kind of evaluation was made before that kind of decision was announced.
11
28
also
We would/like to know also what kind of decision is going to be made about the

implementation,if there is no retreat; and third, to say the least, it was not exactly a masterpiece of diplomatic opportunity, because it would tend to complicate things and polarize people, as we say in French « braquer les gens », in other words, to stiff an attitude at both extremes, whilb, in fact, that subject is . part of a very complicated international file where,I think, we look a bit like the elephant in a china shop.

M. BLOCK: Just a sib question, would you have any suggestion to make as how the Canadian government could perhaps get out of the delimit that you think to get?

M. LEVESQUE: Do not get me into what we will become very conversant with, after negociations and the sovereignty is established. But I cannot: help saying at least that, because I think it is e. glaring thing, not as much as I say.

M. INWOOD! Mr Ruimy.

M, RUIMY: Can you say when you are going to be in a position to give a more precise date on when the referendum would be held? What date it would be?

M. LEVESQUE: No, honestly the precise date., it looks like an election, when you get to that, it could happen before, but the precise date, the only commitment I can make is that
M. RUIMY: Not before that?

M. LEVESQUE: Well, it could happen before that, there is no reason why we should pull around with dates, but do not forget that; in bill 92, which I think has its logic, first there is that debate about that question and then there is a period of a minimum of 20 days. But a

minimum of 20 days is, to say the least, not very long, because it is the official setting up it is
of the « yes » and « no » committees,/also the organization of deeply essential – at least that,

by time ,I hope they will be deeply respected – of deeply respected controls on orgies of money

propaganda all over the place, and things like that. Things like that are not necessarily organized from riding level to the director of political financing. All of that, inside of 20 days, could be impossible on both sides. So, we have to keep a leeway there.
when the briefs
are published, then the date will be fixed, which is, I think…
and
29
M. INWOOD: Mr. Quinn.
M. QUINN: Mr Prime Minister, two short questions.
poll of Mr Morin play in reaching the decision, if any?
M. LEVESQUE: Absolutely no role. There have not been results, as far as I know. It is
sort of in depth survey of reactions in people’s minds and, from what I have heard… God knows I did not want to induce the Argenteuil Member into any kind of error when I had my credits and he was facing me. I reread the whole thing and what I said was-because his

questions were insistant on that- what I said was, no… because the questions were on that. the
As far as/executive level is concerned, le Conseil Exécutif, there have been no polls that -I

can remember of any kind and we do not intend to have any, and that darn decision made about one survey of constitutional attitudes in February, just blew out of my mind, because it was just a series of little hammering questions about what we are doing at my level.

M. QUINN: One other question…
O. K.
M. LEVESQUE: /But we haven’t got the result. I think it is barely initiated.

M. QUINN: In answer to Mr Saint-Laurent’s question on obstacles, you said that there were big business interests, some official and some hidden.

M, LEVESQUE: Well, you have seen that in your own headlines, I think… M. QUINN: Yes.

M. LEVESQUE: … in both languages, over the last couple of weeks.

M. QUINN: I am wondering if you mean by that perhaps,included in others, American business interests reacting to the Asbestos expropriation or the bill.

M. LEVESQUE: No., I cannot speak for American business circles, especially those that thing
are present, two subsidiaries or otherwise in Canada, but the one:/that we have assessed is

that in spite of the lobby which had its day in Court to some Senators in Washington and Earth
in spite of the mcv ng of Heaven and /that General Dynamics tried all over the place, the

reaction is not negative. Because,there is now an understanding which, I think, has filtered ‘through that we are trying, and we will try, but not indefinitely,for a few weeks at the most. Now that we have the tool of expropriation, tô get t’ a concerted action as far as the purchase of the controlling shares are concerned. If we do. not get that, it is very clear in the bill and it is going to be circulated to whoever is interested,in the States as elsewhere, now it is law, that there is arbitration, that it will be completely, you know, arms’
First of all, what role did the
not a poll in the sense of a telephone poll, no phone calls.
It is supposed to be, I think, a
30
your own resources. That, I will not buy.
M. INWOOD: Mr Mackenzie.
M. MACKENZIE: Mr Lévesque, you sound very sceptical that Mr Ryan is going to be able to get any kind of promise even out of the rest of Canada of even a set of minimum… M. LEVESQUE: I did not say I was…
M. MACKENZIE: My question, no, O.K., sorry.
31
M. LEVESQUE: I would suggest you correct, if you don’t mind, your preamble, because
I did not say I was sceptical about his getting some sort of agreement. What I thought was really pitiful was this idea that you are going to pre-negotiate, practically ask permission for any kind of changes and then come back, in other words go down on your knees somewhere else and come back and stand up to Quebecers once you have got the permission. That, I do not like. What I mean is sceptical that something can come out of it? Yes, I am very deeply sceptical, but I am no expert on the federalist feel for last few years, it is up to them to figure out their own credibility.
M. McKENZIE: My question was: You are sceptical, you say that he will be able to… M. LEVESQUE; Yes I am.
M. McKENZIE: Well, how are you going to persuade people that you… I mean these are the same people that you are going to try to persuade if you get a yes in the referendum. How are you going to convince Quebecers that you are going to do better?
M. LEVESQUE: There is one hell of a difference between going, begging for a permission practically and then finding out of that permission a sort of mandate, and what we intend to do getting a mandate on something as concrete as an option and then saying: Will we negotiate? We won’t go beating around the bush and trying to figure out if
this little bit or that little bit is going to be accepted in advance. I know that normally, what would be accepted in advance until such time as Quebec makes its decision is going to be piddling things. Now, if it is different basically, then Quebecers will… But that’s what I think is necessary to get a chance to evaluate what is substantial, what is piddling and what is just smoke screens.
M. INWOOD: Supplementary, Mr Cowan?
M. COWAN: Yes, just picking up on …
M. INWOOD: Do you mind if we finish on that one?
M. COWAN: Oh, sorry, I thought you…
M. INW00D: Have you had lunch?
M. COWAN: Not yet.
M. LEVESQUE: I do not breakfast either, so…
M. COWAN: I will make it quick. Following up on what Bob says, obviously you are not going to be touring Canada looking for English-Canadian support for sovereignty-association right now, but once the referendum is wons you have two things to… You will have to negotiate with Ottawa and I guess with the provinces…
M Trvrentrr. AT’. T …r…1
32
there will be, a certain number of ministers and members of our party are going to be present, at least when they are invited or accepted in some parts of Canada, that does not include yours truly, at least occasionnaly.
M. COWAN: What I was going to ask you is if the referendum is won, would it be… then for a certain period afterwards to go and explain sovereignty-association in English Canada before moving towards negotiations.
33
M. LEVESQUE: It is not necessarily excluded, but I repeat that we are going to try and attend to that as best we can with whatever welcome we can expect before the referendum. M. INWOOD: Very briefly, Mr. Thompson.

M. LEVESQUE: I just read this morning that, additional to a few others, Peter Lougheed thinks of coming – we are going to be together in August, normally, at the premiers’ counsel – when he expects to come, I do not know – I did not read this small bit of news, but it seemed

to indicate an intention to come and preach the truth, as published, for an interview in Québec it
occasionally. So,if /is sauce for the goose, it is sauce for the gander.

M. THOMPSON: What,is a mandate? Is it a certain percentage of the popular

vote?

M. LEVESQUE: It is obvious that it is something that has to be somewhere around 50% plus one. That is basic, the more -you go beyond 50%, the stronger the mandate. What else can I tell you? In any democratic context, a majority is a majority, and the bigger the majority, the better the mandate.

M. THOMPSON: You are saying’that a simple majority, one way or the other would do it for
A
you?

M. LEVESQUE On account – I will not go into details – of the makeup of the whole Québec population,which will be called upon democratically to vote – everyone who is 18 years

old and more – but on account of the makeup of our population and the national character of even
the problem which lies essentially in French-speaking Québec, I think/50% would be rather elo
quent.
M. DAIGNEAULT: A very short question on another subject. You were talking about Asbestos Corporation. Has the government set a date or a deadline on when it will proceed with expropriations, should it be known they would negotiate an agreement?

M. IFVESQUE: No, except that it is a question of weeks, which can run into months, but. not very much, probably a month.

M. DAIGNAULT: In other words, the government has set itself a deadline that it…

M. LEVESQUE: Yes, but it is not a fixed day.. .by such a day in July and that is it?.. But in a question of at the most, a few weeks, either we come to an agreement or the expropriation propriation process is set into motion.

M. QUINN: That means that negotiations Are going very badly, if at all?
what
M. LEVESQUE: ti No, it means that they could, in fact, be accelerated, from -/, reports

I got, when we got through the second reading or thereabouts. But. they are not to the point]

[QLévsq19790621]