Stéphane Dion

[The Constitution, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think I already answered all those questions.

I will have to repeat what I said, but I realize that it is impossible to find out from the Bloc Quebecois exactly what it is they do not like in the Constitution Act, 1982.

[The Constitution, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it would indeed be desirable to reach an agreement that would enable a Quebec government that believed in Canada to return to the constitutional fold. There is no disagreement on that point.

The disagreement is as follows: Do we judge Canada and its blessings solely on a dispute over certain aspects of the Constitution? In my opinion, this would be a serious mistake. Instead, we should look at what Quebecers and Canadians have accomplished together, at how the country we built together is the envy of billions of people, and ask ourselves how we got here. We should look especially at what giving up the solidarity uniting them in a great federation means to Quebecers and Canadians.

[The Constitution, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, they are demonizing the Constitution. They are incapable of discussing this calmly to see what exactly is so appalling. If we showed it to the UN, would they say: "Good heavens, this Constitution is unacceptable from the human rights point of view".

Of course not. They could not do that, nor could they say that the province of Quebec does not have very broad responsibilities, compared with what we see in other federations. They could never say the federation has not been decentralized since 1982. It has been decentralized in several areas and we are clarifying the roles of the various levels of government. Only yesterday, in the case of British Columbia, we signed an agreement clarifyibg the roles of governments in fisheries.

Good federalism is clarifying roles with respect to manpower, the environment and social housing. But of course the opposition is not interested in such a debate. They only want to demonize what has been done by the present Prime Minister.

[The Constitution, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think the sarcastic remarks we just heard are irresponsible. I will simply say that we owe this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Minister of Justice at the time.

I may also recall that, at that time, Quebecers were more inclined to support the Prime Minister of Canada, as was borne out by the polls. There has been a lot of mythologizing in this respect. I think that some day we should have a substantive debate on the Constitution Act, 1982, and the ensuing benefits for Canada, including Quebec. I wish they would stop demonizing the current Prime Minister and that some day we could have an intelligent debate on the future of Quebec within Canada. It is very difficult to have one now, considering what was said by the Leader of the Opposition.

[The Constitution, April 17th, 1997]

-it has enshrined equalization, nearly half of which goes to Quebec, and has also provided for a bilateral amending process, when necessary, involving the Parliament of Canada and a provincial legislature.

That is not bad. Of course there is room for improvement. For instance, we could have a better amending formula, better recognition of Quebec. There is always room for improvement, but on the whole, it is quite an achievement.

[The Constitution, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since the Constitution Act, 1982 has been in effect for 15 years, we can now judge the tree by its fruits.

This Constitution brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is popular throughout Canada, including Quebec. It has reinforced the control of provinces over their natural resources; it has strengthened the position of French across Canada in its rights and freedoms-

[Linguistic School Boards, April 16th, 1997]

They have always said: "If Alliance Quebec is against it, Dion will not support it". I have always said that I would not give any group a veto. Alliance Quebec is opposed and Dion is in favour.

However, Dion, or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, since we are in the House, would like to see Alliance Quebec support it. There will be a parliamentary committee to listen to their views and to see what can be done to include them in the consensus.

The opposition should be happy that there is a parliamentary committee. The opposition will have an opportunity to express its point of view, to hear from different groups according to a procedure that is well established in democracy.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition can accuse me of many things, but fear is not one of them. When have you seen Stéphane Dion intimidated by anything? Get serious.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The proof is that we support the measure. This is very good news. First of all, the official opposition should congratulate the Canadian government, which has just supported a measure that will be good for Quebecers.

Second, is should congratulate the Canadian government and say: "We will get the chance to have a parliamentary committee because we, as the opposition, believe that parliamentary committees are a good thing, and we stand behind the official opposition in the National Assembly, which also called for a parliamentary committee".

That is what they should be saying, if they were not blinded by their separatist ideology.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 16th, 1997]

Absolutely. It is scandalous that groups were not even given the opportunity to express themselves. The Parliament of Canada will give them that opportunity, knowing that Quebecers greatly respect democracy.