Stéphane Dion

[Linguistic School Boards, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the case of New Brunswick, the Government of New Brunswick had the decency to establish a parliamentary commission in that province in 1990.

Quebecers greatly respect democracy. They must not be very proud of the way their provincial government has handled the school board matter.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is suggesting is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of Canada. The two parliaments, provincial and federal, must decide on this amendment. Both have to make up their minds.

The Canadian Parliament is also the Parliament of Quebecers. The elected representatives of Quebec also sit in the House of Commons. Canada in its entirety belongs to the people of Quebec.

Moreover, the federal government has specific responsibilities toward minorities. This does not mean that the provinces are not concerned about them, but it is our responsibility. Because we have required a consensus, which the opposition did not want to seek, we have protected minorities everywhere in the country. A government proposing a constitutional amendment under section 43 which affects its minority requires the support of that minority if it wants to get that amendment from the Parliament of Canada.

[Youth, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, keeping Canada united is certainly an essential part of the future of our youth. It depends very much on them to carry out this duty. The solution cannot only come from governments.

We have a huge country. It is the second largest country in the world. We have a population that is dispersed from east to west. For obvious reasons the incentive to spend holidays in the south is very high.

Because of the language barrier, the Government of Canada is committed to improving programs to help youth to travel.

And the purpose of all this is to show our young people the wonderful diversity and great solidarity that exist in this country.

Recently we added to our youth exchange programs a Canada student exchange project. We intend to stress these projects in the future because we are convinced that learning to know Canada will make us even more united.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when a constitutional amendment is being contemplated that clearly concerns a minority, I think everyone will agree that two fundamental questions must be asked.

First: Is the objective a valid one? As the century comes to a close, the Government of Canada has said that, yes, linguistic school boards are entirely valid.

Second: Is there sufficient support in the society in question, including within the community? That is what must be determined, and it is up to the Government of Quebec to do so because this is its plan and its jurisdiction and it is the one in a position to make amendments and provide assurances that will make it possible, in effect, to modernize Quebec's school system. That is everyone's objective.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat what my counterpart, Mr. Brassard, said about the consensus having to include Quebec's anglophone community.

With a bit of good will on both sides, if the Government of Quebec made a few conciliatory gestures toward the anglophone community, a consensus could undoubtedly be arrived at, and in very short order this amendment could be supported, so that Quebecers could organize their school system. That is the objective of this government.

[Constitution, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, did I understand correctly? Would Quebecers draft a constitutional amendment affecting a minority on such serious

issues as language, religion and schools without the support of that minority? They would not.

It is very sad to see the Bloc Quebecois make such statements on behalf of Quebecers. Quebecers are tolerant. They will never go along with this.

[Constitution, April 9th, 1997]

In the case of New Brunswick, it was very obviously an amendment that would expand the rights of the minority. All parties in the provincial legislature were in favour: the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP. The only party not in favour was the COR, a party created especially to fight bilingualism. It is a sorry sight to see the Leader of the Official Opposition rise in the House as he did yesterday, and again today, to use COR as an argument in this debate.

[Constitution, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be ashamed to rise in this House.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 9th, 1997]

Because, Mr. Speaker, it happens that we too are elected representatives of Quebec, because all elected representatives in this House consider Quebec part of their country, and because this is therefore a matter of concern to all Canadians and to all Quebecers.

I believe I am defending a value of great importance to Quebecers when I say that there should be no constitutional amendment until we can be sure that there is a consensus that includes the minority concerned, when the amendment concerns the minority in question.

[Linguistic School Boards, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is because of section 43 of the 1982 Constitution that it is even possible to make such an amendment bilaterally.

Second, I am in complete agreement with the statement made by my counterpart, Mr. Brassard, last February 12, and I quote: "The unanimity of the National Assembly in itself is not proof of consensus, but it is certainly of more than passing interest".

And he added: "Consensus does not mean unanimity, I agree, but it is obvious that the consensus must include the anglophone community".