Stéphane Dion

[The Constitution, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, under section 43 of the amending formula of the Constitution Act, 1982, we can confirm without hesitation.

[Constitution, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have said this several times but I will say it again, because the Leader of the Official Opposition may be somewhat hard of hearing. As I said time and again, I did not give a veto to any organization whatsoever.

The question that must be asked is this: Is the official opposition saying that even if Quebec's anglophone community, which has more than one voice, had strong reservations about the government's proposal, it would be necessary to proceed regardless? That is a question the opposition should answer.

I have a second question for the opposition, and I will close on this: Does the opposition consider the anglophone community as a pawn, as incapable of making up its own mind? Does it really believe the anglophone community would let itself be guided by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that it cannot make up its own mind?

[Constitution, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something in reference to yesterday. We know there is probably a consensus in Quebec at this time for language based school boards. The issue is to find a way to proceed that will ensure that all components of Quebec society can do this in confidence.

Is the Government of Quebec's proposal, the one that is on the table, the way to go? The Government of Canada has no intention of commenting on proposals advanced by this or that group, and is not granting a veto to any group whatsoever.

The Government of Canada is simply saying that, if the Government of Quebec builds a consensus on its proposal, it is highly probable that the Parliament of Canada will be in a position to proceed promptly with modernization of the Quebec school system.

[Constitution, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I had to give the hon. member a short course on the Constitution. I must say that the Government of Canada is not giving a right of veto to Alliance Quebec or to any other group in Quebec. That is not the issue.

The hon. member must understand that the concessions also exist in order to protect minority rights, that not all democratic decisions are taken with 50 per cent plus one, and if she believes that Quebec's anglophone community is not part of Quebec, let her say so.

[Constitution, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago, when the Liberal Party of Quebec was kicked out of office, Quebec's anglophone and francophone communities trusted each other. Relations were good.

I want to say that in English. The legal framework regarding language laws was acceptable for both communities. They were not in love with it but they found that it was an acceptable compromise.

Since then, separatist ideology has created a division between the two communities. The Government of Quebec thought it wise to tell its anglophone minority that there was legislation that it was not to use or it would be taken away. That was what was done to a minority.

The compromises made regarding access to health care have since been questioned, or at least that is what people are being given to understand. That is the situation facing us. We are beginning a difficult debate with respect to education, language, religion and the Constitution. I call on everyone to approach this calmly and with trust. Both communities want a good linguistic system. They must get together and find a solution that is acceptable to both communities.

[Distinct Society Concept, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity provided by the opposition to get to the crux of the debate?

In Quebec, polls show that 80 per cent of the population regard themselves as Canadians. Outside Quebec, more than 50 per cent of the population are prepared to recognize Quebec as an essential part of Canada. Our role is to help these populations come to terms, in spite of the official opposition's divisive philosophy.

[Distinct Society, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear. This government has said that we do not want to make a change in the Constitution if it is not supported by Canadians.

So we will try to convince Canadians that in order to reconcile Quebecers and other Canadians it would be a fair and good thing to recognize that in this anglophone North America there is a province of Canada that is francophone and this is an asset for Canada.

If it were the province of the hon. member that was francophone we would recognize this province without any problem and we would be proud of it.

[Distinct Society, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today the support for the distinct society clause is about 40 per cent in polls. It is lower in this poll because it was connected with a kind of question that looks like a threat: "If you don't recognize Quebec, then Quebec may leave". Instead of increasing support, it decreased it.

I urge the hon. member to look at the recognition of Quebec on its own merit, why it is good, why it is bad. I think it is good. It is good for our country. It is good for Canadian values. It would not endanger the charter of rights and freedoms. It would not endanger equality between citizens. It would be a great thing to recognize Quebec distinctiveness as a fundamental characteristic of our country.

[Quebec, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, those who have nothing left to offer and who, in fact, never had anything to offer are the members of the secessionist bloc who sit across the floor.

Theirs is a party which, day after day in this House, cultivates jealousy, behaves like it is besieged and thinks it is a victim of discrimination. And who are the tormentors? I imagine it is the bad anglos, but the Bloc cannot support its contentions.

Quebecers have had enough of this narrow vision. More and more of them are distancing themselves from it and are preparing to enter the new century along with the other Canadians.

[Quebec, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minority vision is the vision of separation, which is rejected by the vast majority of Quebecers when the question is put to them clearly. The vast majority of Quebecers want to keep on being Canadian. They want to celebrate their Quebec and Canadian identities as a strength, as a formidable complementarity that they will never give up if the question is put to them in a clear and honest manner.