Stéphane Dion

[Calgary Declaration, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if we are to have quality debates in this House, members would do well not to distort what has been said. The Prime Minister never said that it was a huge step forward on which we could pin all our hopes.

[Calgary Declaration, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, premiers will choose the appropriate means to consult the public.

[Calgary Declaration, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the premiers will use the means they deem appropriate to consult the public about the seven principles set out in the Calgary declaration, which the government of Canada fully supports.

[Calgary Declaration, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is of course no connection. I believe the hon. member is saying that the procedure relating to a referendum on secession should only be determined by the secessionist government. This is probably what the member has in mind, but he certainly cannot name one country in the world which would accept such a thing.

The hon. member must realize that the consultation process carried out by the premier of Newfoundland has to do with a policy statement which has no constitutional impact and which only involves that particular province, for the time being. In the case of a secession, the territory of Quebec would be excluded from the Canadian legal order and from Canadian federal institutions, something which cannot be achieved through such a procedure.

[Throne Speech, September 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canada happens to be one of the most decentralized federations in the world, and together we have built a federation that has provided us with the best quality of life of any country. And we managed to do this because both levels of government, federal and provincial, are learning to work together and to concentrate on the areas for which they are responsible.

In the health sector, the federal government's responsibilities are those that are recognized in the Constitution. There is nothing unconstitutional about having five moral principles that are accepted throughout Canada, including Quebec, and as a result can be applied anywhere in Canada, both in the wealthiest and the less wealthy provinces.

I may remind the hon. member that the province that benefits the most per capita from the Canada Social Transfer happens to be Quebec.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has said it was very happy to sponsor the proposal submitted to us by the National Assembly and thus to help modernize the school system.

We are going to do this with full respect for the democratic values of Quebecers and of other Canadians. The official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, keeps droning on about Alliance Quebec and The Gazette for reasons I explained earlier, but everyone disagrees with the Bloc on this issue.

Let me give a few examples. Agnès Gruda of La Presse had this to say: ``In the end, Ottawa is right. Pushing for a vote on the constitutional amendment before the federal election is completely artificial. It has taken Quebec City two years to come up with its request, which it forwarded to Ottawa only two weeks before the election call. There is no national emergency that requires us to move full steam ahead in an emotional climate that can only be detrimental to the debate''.

Michel C. Auger, of the Journal de Montréal wrote: ``It is very difficult to ask the federal government to hurry up when we know it took the Government of Quebec several months to decide on the wording of a constitutional amendment and another three weeks to put it to the National Assembly''.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government's objective is of course to help Quebec society modernize its school system. That has been our objective from the beginning.

The Bloc Quebecois has given vent to all sorts of insults and accusations since this issue first came up. The question is why, and the answer is crystal clear: from the beginning, the Bloc has tried to create antagonism between anglophones and francophones with respect to the school issue, because the Bloc wants to make the Liberals out to be a pro-English, anti-French party.

The Bloc is wasting its time, because the Liberal Party of Canada includes all sectors of Quebec and Canadian society.

[Montfort Hospital, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is that linguistic minorities all across Canada should not only be entitled to basic services in their own language but should also have the right to control as many institutions as possible which are essential to any community, such as schools, colleges, hospitals, co-operatives.

Like some of my colleagues, I informed the Government of Ontario of my position on the proposed closure of Montfort Hospital the very first day it was announced. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I will keep asking the Government of Ontario to take into consideration the serious consequences for the Franco-Ontarian community of the closure of the only French language hospital in Ottawa.

Premier Harris has proven to be a great Canadian by giving francophones of Ontario control over their schools. I do hope that he will be guided by the same principles in the case of Montfort, the only French language teaching hospital in Ontario.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if there is an election, even the opposition will be dissolved. And we hope it will be dissolved for a long time, and that includes when Parliament returns after the election.

However, speaking of books on parliamentary procedure, the Canadian Constitution makes it quite clear it is not up to the Senate to decide. The House of Commons, not the Senate, will make the decision.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if an election is called, we will pick up the process after the election and the constitutional amendment will be taken care of by a re-elected Liberal government.

Meanwhile, the various political parties would be well advised to say whether they are for or against the amendment. The Liberal Party of Canada will support the amendment. This information will be useful for the voters. We will have to say where we stand.

The official opposition may prefer us to say we are against the resolution, but we support it. We agree with the National Assembly.