Stéphane Dion

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the attorney general has made a statement to that effect.

Now, let us speak of contradictions. This week, former Parti Quebecois leader Jacques Parizeau came up with a legal theory. He stated, in legal terms, that secession had a basis in law and that the explanation of why Quebec is indivisible yet Canada is divisible was a question of narrow legalism. That is a legal theory. In our opinion, this is a wrong theory. What we need to find out is whether it is right or wrong.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, would the PQ government, which would like to unilaterally proclaim itself the government of an independent state, have the legal justification to be so considered by citizens and governments?

The Bloc says yes. We say no, there is no such right. The court will provide an opinion, which we shall respect, and which will provide information that will be useful to everyone.

[Education, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is another question. Clearly in this federation, which we have considerably improved in recent years, there is no question of creating overlap. We will always work together with the provinces, especially in areas where Canadians have to count on help from both governments.

[Education, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, education is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and the Government of Canada is not meddling in education, because we are the federal government.

However, financial aid to students has always been a shared responsibility, and I know of no federal government in the world in a developed country that is not involved in helping its people have access to educational institutions. Canadians are entitled to receive aid from their federal government.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after the sound and fury of the Bloc has died down, the arguments will still be there, and Quebeckers will hear them.

[Quebec, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader said the following, in English naturally, on January 29, 1996, and I quote:

“If separatists have the right to dissent, they cannot deny the right of dissent to others. It is far from being clear that Quebec is not divisible. I think the Crees and Inuit would have a very good case”.

My question to him is, is he speaking about the legal case, or is it only the political case of anarchy? We need to know.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday my counterpart in the Quebec government, Minister Brassard, said “Quebec's efforts to achieve sovereignty are consistent with the right of peoples to decide their own future, as recognized by the international community. They are therefore not subject to the Canadian Constitution”.

That is one legal theory. Is it right? Is it wrong? We are submitting this legal opinion to the court.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, international law may recognize innovative actions by governments when states deem them beneficial and proper.

But, in the case of unilateral declarations of independence, which have been tried on many occasions throughout the world, states have almost always replied that that was not something they would wish to encourage, and this did not enter into international law, in our opinion, outside of colonial situations.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has stated on a number of occasions that the purpose of the reference is not to hold Quebeckers in Canada against their will, and that if secession were to be negotiated, this could be done within the framework of the law.

Yesterday my counterpart, Mr. Brassard, again said that international law gave them the right to proclaim themselves the government of a state. We need to know if this is true or false. If this is a wrong theory, we will all find this out, including the Conservative leader, who will learn it is no black hole. International law does not give the right to secession within a democracy.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the threat of secession raises many very serious issues, a huge number of issues, including the aboriginal question, including the statements by my counterpart, Minister Brassard, that he would use the police to keep people within an independent Quebec against their will. These are serious matters.

The first question, the most essential one, is this: Does the PQ government have the right to proclaim itself the government of an independent state, or does it not? We believe it does not. The leader of the Conservatives describes this as a black hole, but we shall see what the court has to say.