Stéphane Dion

[Social Union, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is entirely legal for the Government of Canada to spend money for the benefit of Canadian citizens.

For the first time in the history of this federation, and probably of most federations, a federal government is committed to consulting the provincial governments significantly before acting, to give them prior notice and to listen to their point of view, so that it will be possible to work jointly to the benefit of Canadians. That is modern federalism.

What is not modern federalism, is pulling back and saying “What we want is to opt out tomorrow and separate the next day”.

[Social Union, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have lost my train of thought with all these insults—

[Social Union, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois is pathetic and unfair.

First, the premiers have always said that their position was one of negotiation. Only the premier of Quebec would not budge. The other provinces were ready to negotiate, but not he.

[Social Union, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, before the agreement, it was fully recognized by the courts that the federal government had the right to announce a social or health program in a budget and tell the provinces that they could have the money if they met certain national standards.

With this agreement, the federal government may no longer take such unilateral action. It must consult the provinces and territories, obtain the support of a majority, stick to objectives, not launch programs unilaterally and let provinces that have already met the objective use the money for something else.

The premier of Quebec has a choice: stay away, or work with the other—

[Social Union, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not worried about the hon. member and his party. Regardless of what happens, they will come up with a new traditional demand for Quebec.

Quebec's quiet revolution was not achieved through traditional demands: it was achieved by Quebeckers—with many of them coming from the federal government—who wanted to modernize and secularize their society, and they were quite successful in their efforts.

Therefore, the Canadian social union will not be modernized through traditional demands.

[Social Union, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, ever since I have been in politics, and before, I have always said the same thing in French and in English. Therefore, let me repeat that we would not give anything that would adversely affect the quality of the Canadian social union, which is one of the best in the world.

The social union agreement which, we hope, will be signed by all the provinces, will improve things for the federal government, for the provincial governments, but more importantly for all Canadians.

[Health, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one can always look through the wrong end of the telescope, the way the Bloc Quebecois does.

The fact remains that Canada is a modern federation and the Canadian government has weighty responsibilities in the matter of health, which are completely consistent with the Constitution and which are as follows: drug licensing, screening for epidemics, international health agreements, food inspection, health research, collection of statistics, criminal law—it is against the law to knowingly endanger someone else's health—, aboriginal health care, monitoring of immigration at border points with respect to health, public health information campaigns, military hospitals, health services—

[Health, February 1st, 1999]

We intend to work with the provinces in a spirit of respect for the Constitution as it applies to the health sector, just as a certain federal minister wanted to work with the provinces in the education sector 10 years ago.

That minister was Lucien Bouchard, and he said as follows: “We must also remember that... what we are now tackling, in co-operation with the provinces, are questions such as improved accessibility to student assistance, increased funding for university research, and funding for improved post-secondary education research and information.”

That minister had respect for the Constitution.

[Health, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as always, the Government of Canada intends to respect the Constitution fully.

[Health Care, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's mind was probably elsewhere a while ago.