Talk:Stéphane Dion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Voting in Canada This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Added section on Dion's views on federalism and national unity. Will add sections on Open letters and opinions on fiscal balance. Feedback is welcome along with fact-checking.

Someone please add this news to the as liberal leader section

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/dion-france.html

Contents

[edit] Dion on Facebook

The fact that M. Dion has recently entered the realm of the online site popular online site "Facebook" should be mentioned in this article. The URL of his facebook profile is: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537315240

Jacobsethan 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Ethan Jacobs

[edit] BA, MA, PhD...?

Do we need all of Mr Dion's academic letters after his name? Is this a standard convention? Is PhD not enough? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that, at the very least, BA isn't needed. 128.54.59.10 00:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree; PhD implies also having an MA and BA. Should we tack on that he has a high school diploma while we're at it? Flakeloaf 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed and changed Stephen Job 03:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A PhD doesn't require a MA.

Right. But a PhD is an academic degree of higher standing than an MA, and thus should be the only thing listed on M Dion's page. Whether he has an MA (which he does) is irrelevant. Stephen Job 05:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He doesn't have the most experience

"Dion has the most political experience, federal or otherwise, of any of the Liberal leadership candidates."

Maurizio Bevilacqua, for example, has been a Member of Parliament since 1988. If one is to count teaching political science as political experience, then Michael Ignatieff is more experienced then Stephane Dion.

I recommend that the phrase be changed to: "Dion has the most experience in Cabinet, federal or otherwide, of any of the Liberal leadership candidates." Jtf6.undecided | Talk 01:00, 2 September 2006 (EST)

Well, Maurizio Bevilacqua dropped out of the race in August, in any case. --Saforrest 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Open Letters

I think that this section could be trimmed. While Dion's work on Federalism is notable, I think that the current reading is overly long. Gaius Octavius | Talk 19:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the truth is that its a little short. Instead of three open letters, there were more like five or six (I did not discover this until after I read the section). The three listed were by far the most important and contain a brief synopsis of their arguments. Could these be entered in a separate article? Possibly, but I find the bigger challenge is that the article (in total) is somewhat lean, but I have trouble thinking about what to add. I could go into more detail about his leadership platform, but that seems too partisan and not befitting the biographical context of the article. I could add more details on his personal life, but I feel that it would make the article too gossipy. Needless to say, I could use some suggestions of what is missing more than what needs to be deleted. If the article is filled out a little more, than discussions on reducing sections would be more appropriate. Jtf6.undecided | Talk 01:00, 2 September 2006 (EST)

I can see your point. If I knew more about him, I might expand on his writings/literary career (one of his books was short listed for the Donner Prize, according to stephanedion.ca/?q=en/Stephane-About), or his work as environment minister. But since most of his work has been related to federalism, I'm going to withdraw my previous comment. Maybe we could create a meta-section (Work as Intergovernmental Affairs Minister or similar) and include a section on the Open Letters and The Clarity Act? I think the latter deserves at least a little more mention. Gaius Octavius | Talk

I imagine his new status will bring due attention to all sections of the article and hopefully find a good balance over time. He's got an excellent shot at the PM's job, after all, so lots of people will want to know more aobut him. Radagast 05:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

At present, all the article's references are outgoing links (as opposed to footnote-style references). I've corrected the first section (and added a references section); an intrepid wikipedian might want to do the rest. Gaius Octavius | Talk 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits by "gerard kennedy"

i'd like to flag that someone with the username gerardkennedy is editing this page (see history) but since the edits occurred during the liberal leadership convention it is likely that it is one of his campaign managers. since kennedy threw his support behind dion i think there is a large conflict of interest in having him edit this page. Katerg 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that should be an issue, as long as the information is within wikipedia's guidelines. --66.222.207.118 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This has happend before on many Wikipedia articles. FellowWikipedian 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, his name is Gerard Kennedy, although he is not the Gerard Kennedy we know of. Talk page comment here. -- Zanimum 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerard Kennedy may also be of interest. FellowWikipedian 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Contact us" part colludes with his claim. -- Zanimum 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison

As an interesting side note, compare the educational background of the leaders of the separatist movement to the leaders of other major parties in Canada. The new leader of the Liberal party holds a PhD, the leader of the NDP holds a PhD, and the leader of the Conservatives holds a Master's degree (with original research). On the other hand, Duceppe holds what amounts essentially to a CEGEP diploma and Boisclair holds a one year Master's degree from a special program at Harvard that does not require candidates to hold a previous undergraduate degree (which Boisclair does not). Furthermore, unlike Harper's Master's degree, Boisclair did not contribute original research while studying. In fact, the only thing that got Boisclair into the JFK school of government was his years of service as an elected politician and $33,000 USD – hardly the exemplar of a brilliant mind.

The separatist movement in Quebec – in comparison to their opposition – is lead by unread, uneducated, populist leaders. That sums up the PQ's and the Bloc's values – populism over substance or intellect. Dion will clean the floor with these guys! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.143.98 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 3 December 2006.

Oh come on, give it up. If you are going to attack the separatist movement, think of something better to say. Stettlerj 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for God's sake. By this logic one ought to have supported the sovereignty movement in the mid-90's because Parizeau has a doctorate while Chrétien, Manning, and Charest (to my knowledge) have at most law degrees. In all but the most stupid of political questions, one can find people of intelligence and education on each side. --Saforrest 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
First Chrétien, and Charest have after-degree education - they are lawyers. Furthermore, under Parizeau's leadership the separatist movement nearly succeeded. Today, the PQ and the Bloc are led by intellectually bankrupt politicans and this may point to separatist support not only waning in general, but shifting to largely an uneducated demographic. Unlike the conditions during the last referundum, today, fewer people are alive who witnessed pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec. Put simply, the PQ and the Bloc reflect their supporters.

[edit] Religion

What is the religion of Mr. Dion? I understand that he is "secular" but that does not necessarily mean that does not have a religion, just that he is perceived to not have been as "devout" as others. I believe that most Quebecers are Roman Catholic. If not, is he atheist, agnostic, humanist? Thanks.

--Sicamous 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to know this as well. Anyone have any info on it? Sima Yi 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that he was raised in a secular household, but may still be officially a Catholic. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dion's Predecessor, Martin

The reason, I've removed Bill Graham from the Liberal Leader Succession box. All the other Liberal Leader's Succession boxes, don't list the interim-leaders. GoodDay 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So what about the infobox on Bill Graham's page? Herb Gray was leader of the opposition but he was not interim Liberal leader, unlike Graham. 74.99.80.218 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there then. Unless the box was "Interim leaders of the Liberal Party". -- Scorpion0422 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It is correct for a succession box to list interim leaders where appropriate. Paul Martin's, for example, lists Bill Graham. If other Liberal leadership succession boxes don't list an interim leader when an interim leader was the actual predecessor or successor, then the answer is to correct them, not to change this one. Bearcat 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a photo of the banners, however during the 2006 Liberal Leadership Convention, there were banners of the Past Liberal Party Leaders. There was no banners of the Interim-Leaders. What should we do? include the 'interim leaders' or not? GoodDay 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If an interim leader precedes or succedes another leader, then we do list the interim leader in the appropriate place in the succession box. They are, however, marked as interim. Convention banners don't determine Wikipedia policy. Bearcat 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then 'interims' included, it is. GoodDay 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've re-edited in interim-leader 'Daniel McKenzie' to the Wilfred Laurier & William Lyon Mackenzie King Liberal Leaders succession boxes. GoodDay 02:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leader of the Opposition

There is no such title as "Leader of the Official Oppostion." It is "Leader of the Opposition," period, per the article Leader of the Opposition (Canada). I've changed this article's infobox and that of Bill Graham's, accordingly. Fishhead64 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but doesn't he have to be sworn in before he's officially leader of the opposition? sinblox (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure on that either - he's taken over from Bill Graham as interim leader effective as of his successful election; but LotO would be a parliamentary title, correct?
If so, there would be a swearing-in ceremony later on; that would also be where he gets the keys to Stornoway and the higher salary, presumably. Radagast 05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen at least one article that seemed to think he'd be sworn in as opposition leader first thing Monday morning. I'm doubtful that it would happen that quickly, as well. Bearcat 05:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I never knew (correct me if I'm wrong), that Opposition Leader was an office to be sworn into. I just assumed since Dion was a MP, he automatically became Leader of the Opposition upon his election as the Opposition (Liberal) Party Leader. Maybe, Opposition Leader is a statutory legislative office (after all, the OL does have an official/traditional residence). Does anyone have a 'source' that can support or disprove this. GoodDay 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are sworn into the position. -- Zanimum 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Under 'As Liberal Party leader', someone added recent news headlines from a specific poll. I don't believe that recent news headlines are appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, which is geared more for the long term. Also, references to polled values from a sample do not necessarily reflect the value of the population (basic statistics). So taking a sampled poll value and marking it as though it's the value of the population would be incorrect, especially when many polls vary by up to 5%. Another point that should be noted is that it is a common trend for a political party to receive a boost in the polls after an election, in fact, other parties were expecting this and requested members for donations based on poll numbers that hadn't been announced yet. Realvek

Actually the correct title is "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition", which symbolises the fact that the opposition opposes the government of the day but remain loyal to the Canadian Crown and Constitution. --209.115.235.79 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a quote from Jack Layton

I really think this should be added to the article somewhere:

At the big NDP convention in Quebec City a few months ago, Layton was poking fun at all the Liberal leadership candidates, with the notable exception of Dion. Rattling off the list of the other candidates' flaws or foibles, the only thing Layton could say about Dion was that he was "a man of principle and conviction and therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party."

Just, wow. A generous, on-the-record endorsement from a leader of a rival party. It will be interesting to say the least to see what the NDP will do now. Esn 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Amusing. I think this is worth adding either into his leadership section or possibly a trivia section. Sima Yi 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the specific quote, but I've seen numerous allusions in the past couple of days to Layton apparently saying that he had a lot of respect for Dion and viewed him as a leader the NDP could potentially work with in a minority government situation. Of course, the article shouldn't mention this unless somebody can find an actual quote. Bearcat 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He said it during his keynote address [1]:

"And then there's a son of this city -- Stephane Dion.

A man with whom I have fundamental disagreements about how Canada should build and renew itself.

But also a man who is, if I may say so across the partisan divide, distinct from his principal opponents in being a committed Canadian and a man of principle and conviction.

And therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party." --Hamiltonian 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite so big a political gaffe, then - Layton made sure to say that he fundamentally disagreed with Dion, as a good politician should. Still, definitely an interesting quote. Esn 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sponsorship scandal

An anonymous user recently added some unsourced speculation about Dion's role in the sponsorship scandal. I've removed this as it violated wikipedia's policies about living-person pages (as it was unsourced negative speculation) and added links which indicate that he was vindicated by the Gomery report. If anyone can provide any sourced criticism of his role there, feel free to do so. Esn 12:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dion has no relation to the sponsorship scandal... period. It's likely that anything saying otherwise is just partisan vandalism. Sima Yi 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be worked up to an A-Class article

All the details about the leadership bid are fine for now... but in six months, those details will be of little interest to anyone, and those facts should probably remain in the 2006 leadership race entry or something. As things progress with elections to come, the emphasis will have to move elsewhere. --NoiZy 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

contribs) 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Your're correct, there's way too much detail in this article's section on the Liberal Leadership race. GoodDay 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've split it off into 2006 Liberal leadership bid by Stéphane Dion. Feel free to edit down the section in the main article to a better length. -- Zanimum 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Someone should update this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.141.40.131 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Exactly what updates are you expecting that aren't already being made? Bearcat 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This page has been edited alot during the past few days. Check the history and you will see what I mean. FellowWikipedian 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The pie incident

Err... what's up with the pie-in-the-face thing added in these edits? It's pretty funny, I admit, but is it really noteworthy enough to include? I think it might be more appropriate for an Uncyclopedia article... Esn 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

...which I've now, by the way, created. Esn 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It might belong in a trivia section. I wouldn't put it in the main body. CJCurrie 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok... what about the photo? I feel dubious that it should be left in, but I can't find anything about guidelines for photographs in biographical articles. Esn 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The photo should absolutely not be included. We've deleted similar material from the Stephen Harper page in the past. CJCurrie 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I decided that with living people articles, it's better safe than sorry, so I removed the image until a satisfactory reason to include it is given (I'm keeping the link to it, but I'm not sure that this should be one of the images that is immediately seen by a casual browser who just scrolls up & down the page). Although I can't find anything in any policy just now (not that I've really looked), my instinct is that including an image which is derisive to a person may not be the best idea in an encyclopedia article. I'm open on being persuaded otherwise, either on deleting the link to the picture entirely or on bringing the picture back in. Esn 07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Although it's not really a good idea to have it in this article, perhaps it wouldn't be out of place in the Entartistes article. I've put it up there, though I'm still not sure if the picture breaks any rules or not. Esn 03:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I LIKE and respect Stephane Dion, but I do think the pie photo and incident has a place lower down. It's worth preserving as a matter of interest and record. Wikipedia should be handle such stuff, unlike Encyl. Brit. Bellagio99 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photography

I'm contacting his Toronto media person, to see if we can get five minutes with him, to take a photo. While I'm likely going to find someone semi-pro on Craigslist for this, is there anyone in any major area of the country that's interested? Especially someone in the Montreal or Ottawa areas? (Of course, no guarantees we will get this, or when we'd get this.) -- Zanimum 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why this is necessary. That is not to say that it isn't necessary, but I just don't know why you're trying to arrange this. There is a decent photo of him halfway down the page.Stephen Job 13:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The one in the clarity act section? That image is only fair use, as it is copyrighten be the federal government. It's better to have Creative Commons/GFDL images, which are entirely free, rather than just "free in an editorial context, not for profit" images. There's a big push on now (that I'm not entirely in favor of) to rid Wikipedia of any fair use image that could plausibly be replaced by a free image.
Understood and thanks for explainin. Stephen Job 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Take Bob Rae as case in point. His campaign image was fair use, the usage was even endorsed by Rae's media PR manager, who seemed fully in favour. But along comes Abu Badali and Quadell, and they deleted the image. Deletion review did nothing to return it.
So, I'm trying to act proactively, before these image tyrants come in and slash and burn the content away. -- Zanimum 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If Bob Rae's campaign team allowed them to use the photo, what was the problem? I got permission from Larry O'Brien for example, and they finally left me alone. But anyways, I am in Ottawa just to let you know. ;-) I already have two photos of MPs to my credit. (Mauril Belanger and Peter Julian) -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you convinced O'Brien to make the image PD, I just asked "what image is the official campaign portrait? We want to use it on Wikipedia, is that okay?" -- Zanimum 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environment

I removed a short environment section which was added in good faith. But I believe that it was in part incorrect. It stated that emissions rose 34% while he was environment minister but I believe that was for the Liberals term in office, not his own. Also it notes that Canada's air quality fell but it does not say where from. And in any event, changes in the physical environment that occurred during his term would have been the consequences of policies of his predecessors. But if anyone can add info about his term in that ministry, it would be great. Thanks. --JGGardiner 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a section devoted to Dion's record as environment minister is a good idea, particularly in view of the prominence he gave to environmental issues as a leadership candidate.
But I was also curious about those statistics that got deleted (see: deleted environment-related phrases. The claim is that "As Environment Minister, Dion presided over a 34.6% increase in greenhouse gas emissions." Some googling quickly reveals that this figure derives from a Conservative Party website article entitled Back to the future with Stéphane Dion where it states that "he [Dion] presided over a 34.6% increase in greenhouse gas emissions along with a precipitous decline in overall air quality, with Canada dropping to 27th out of 29 nations in the OECD." But anyone who checks Environment Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory documents will quickly notice that statistics are only available up to about two years prior to the present date; in other words, we only have stats up to the end of 2004, which is only about a half a year into Dion's term as minister of the environment. Now Canada's GHG emissions certainly did not increase by 34.6% in a half a year. In fact, the highest recent yearly increases are about 4% or maybe maximum 5%.
The number was from a Conservative party website, as this was my source. I have readded the section on the Environment, using instead a quote from a CBC website. I hope this is a better insertion. At the least I hope that I have begun to address what exactly Mr. Dion's performance was as an Environment minister. The upshot is, that the Liberal party cannot claim to be the party of the Environment (whoever is the leader) if during its tenure, it did not have a good record on taking care of the environment, which is what I hope to be able to add to Mr. Dion's entry, to make it a complete history of his performance in Government. .--GlenninBerlin 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
But the number 34.6% hasn't been pulled out of a hat; it actually figures prominently in a number of reports which evaluate the latest GHG statistics. 34.6% represents the percentage increase of 758Mt (Canada's 2004 GHG emissions) over the Kyoto Baseline emissions (which is equal to 6% less than the 1990 GHG levels, or 563Mt). (see: Canadian Emission Trends 1990-2004) In other words, the claim that "Dion presided over a 34.6% increase in greenhouse gas emissions" is a blatant lie.--Eric1960 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also note, for the record, that until such time as Dion actually leads a Canadian government, we'll have no way of knowing whether any failures on the environmental front came about because Dion was himself inactive as a minister, or because Paul Martin or the cabinet as a whole refused to move sufficiently fast on things Dion actually pushed quite hard for. We simply don't know which of those is the case, and we won't until we have the opportunity to see for ourselves how strong of an environmental record a Dion-led government actually establishes for itself. Bearcat 03:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of your comments. I only said what I felt was the minimum to justify my edit which undid what I assume was a good faith edit from a new user. But it really would be great if somebody who knows about that could add a genuine section about his tenure in the environment portfolio. Since Dion himself is pushing it so much I assume that many of our readers will come looking for some information in that area. Thanks. --JGGardiner 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted paragraph on the environment. It should definitely be mentioned - but the tone of what I removed was just scurriously partisan. Since it is obviously a bone of contention, why not gather the relevant facts on the talk page first? I'll start - Dion's tenure as Env. Min. was from July 20, 2004 to February 5, 2006. --Hamiltonian 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish to see something there about the Environment. I do not vote, nor am I affiliated with a political party. I just see a very glaring omission in this history, which a casual reader would think Mr. Dion either has no environmental record, or if he did, it is not worth mentioning, which considering the facts of Canada's environmental record under the Liberal party, is worth mentioning. GlenninBerlin

Actually, Canada's environmental record under the Liberal Party isn't worth mentioning (as has been included and deleted by several editors several times). Rather, whatever goes in (and I do agree that something should), it should concentrate solely on Dion's tenure as environment minister. --Hamiltonian 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was not under Mr Dion's term as environment minister that emissions went up by 34%, he became environment minister in mid 2004 and in less than an year he presented his environment plan which was applauded by many environmental groups (including the David Suzuki Foundation )but the plan was killed by by the conservatives when the government was brought down later that year. So in effect he was environment minister for barely a year and within that time frame his Green Plan helped make 2005 canadian budget the "greenest budget" as it was proclaimed by environmental groups. Also leader of Green Party, Elizabeth May had some nice things to say about his record as environment minister http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=357f6eac-b32d-49f7-9f2d-1d4f8b94cc06&k=21805

If they (conservatives) try to smear him and say that he's somehow associated with past Liberal corruption, they're just barking up the wrong tree, said May in an interview on Wednesday. If they try to say he was anything other than a very strong environment minister, they're making it up.

It is curious how Elizabeth May has been championing Dion's environmental record. Yes, he managed to stave off the perception that Kyoto had totally given up the ghost at the Conference of Montreal, but aside from that tepid achievement, little was accomplished while he was minister. His climate change plan was roundly criticized as ineffectual, he caved to auto manufacturers on the subject of mandatory controls, and he was the one who began the 'official' backsliding on Canada's Kyoto targets (yes 2012 targets will be reached, but not the overall 2008-2012 targets). And what else could May have in mind? Prior to his tenure as minister of the environment, Dion had nothing whatsoever to do with environmental issues. As leader of the Green Party, you would think that even if May actually saw some merits to Dion's environmental record, she would focus on criticizing problem areas. Instead, she's handing her party's main issue over to the competition. Honestly, unless she's positioning herself for an eventual jump over to the Liberals, I don't get it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.83.114.137 (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC).


Re: "34.6% increase in greenhouse gas emissions" No, it is not all the fault of Mr. Dion, the Liberal Government or even any other government that we have this increase. Instead, look at our fellow Canadians! For example, when you drive down any highway in Canada - at the posted speed limit - just watch the SUVs and other cars passing you at a breakneck pace. These drivers do not care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or even about the gasoline (money) they are wasting by driving too quickly in oversized vehicles. No, governments at all levels and all Canadians must work together to deal with and find solutions for our climate change and air pollution problems. Silly finger-pointing at this guy or that gal solves nothing. Que-Can 17:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


The quote from the National Post "Everyone is saying target, target..." is a misrepresentation. In its original context Dion was saying that Canada would meet its Kyoto targets if he could implement his plan (if elected as Prime Minister) by early 2007. The misrepresentation of this quote was addressed by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez when it was alluded to in question period by Conservative MP Mark Warawa on December 7th, 2006 (http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/391/ENVI/Evidence/EV2579165/ENVIEV34-E.PDF): "Despite the ridiculous and occasionally insulting character of the current government's strategy, I would like to respond briefly. Mr. Dion has said that if this visionless, heartless government, which has no interest in the environment, stays in office for long, we definitely will not be able to meet our Kyoto targets in the coming years. However, if we replace it immediately, we will be able to. That is our intention, Mr. Chairman."

[edit] Dion's Dual (Canada/France) Citizenship

He holds French & Canadian Citizenship. Please add this somewhere. To support that: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06120401.html (unsigned comment).

A better link re Dion's dual citizenship (and the source for the info in the link above) is Question of loyalty: New Liberal leader Dion deserves citizenship scrutiny by Ezra Levant (Dec. 4, 2006 / Calgary Sun). Levant includes the following quote from Dion: "Multiple identities should be seen as an asset, not a threat. There is nothing wrong with multiple identities. The hearts of people are big enough to accept different identities. Canadian citizenship will give me my rights. Identity is the way I feel about the country." I suggest the quote be included at the end of the "As Party Leader" section (after "Stéphane Dion and his three brothers... in a French election") to clarify his position on this issue.--Eric1960 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is this the first party leader with dual citizenship? AFAIK, all leaders have either held British Commonwealth, then Canadian citizenship. -- Zanimum 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe all Canadians born in Canada before 1947 were a sort of British subject, so it does not really amount to dual citizenship, as Canada was nominally still part of the British empire and the British house of commons was the final say in Canadian law. However, that does not apply to France, at least after the defeat of France and its loss of Canadian territories. So, one needs to consider Canadian leaders AFTER 1947, and I suspect none held dual citizenship. In fact, the trend is for these leaders to renounce, not hold onto, their non-Canadian citizenship. If Dion is saying keeping his French citizenship provides some special benefit to him, such as having "more than one identity", it is hard to grasp what that benefit is. Furthermore, it appears that the hearts of Canadians are not as generous as Dion would like to believe, if the discussions at various news media internet sites are any indication. Does the quote above from Levant mean that Dion identifies himself as a Canadian and as a French citizen? Is this appropriate for a Prime Minister of Canada, let alone a Prime Minister of France? To keep one's identity as a decendent of immigrants from France is one thing, but to hold onto citizenship of one's ancestral land while leading an independent nation, as Canada is today after 1947, is quite another thing. It is completely at odds with almost every known leader of the Western world, at whatever level of Government. GlenninBerlin

There was a recent interview on The National where he gave a few more reasons: he pointed out that John Turner had dual citizenship in the 1980s and nobody had a problem with it then, and that he viewed it as a gift from his mother. He nevertheless said that he would renounce it if it proved a liability to winning against Stephen Harper. For the record, I think this whole issue is ridiculous as well. He's defended Canada as few other people have in his battles with sovereignists - why in the world is his loyalty being questioned? Esn 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Just read that Turner was born in England yesterday in the free commuter paper, but they didn't mention his dual citizenship. -- Zanimum 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


An addition comment of interest by Andrew Coyne National Post Dec 7th regarding Dion's dual citizenship-“Anyone who questions Stephan Dion’s patriotism is either a fool or a scoundrel. After the service he has done this country, after the abuse he has suffered in its name, to cast even the slightest doubt on his loyalty to Canada shames those who would try. There can be few Canadians who believe in their country more, or have done more to defend it.” This tactic that the PC's are using regarding the citizenship issue is very much a copy of the Republic book. If somewhere an article or sourced information could be found it could be of interest to add as a counterbalance.

[edit] "appointed to cabinet"

In response to this edit, all I can say is that I've never seen a Canadian publication write "appointed to the cabinet". Take a look at this article, for example. Doing a Google fight shows that "appointed to cabinet" is a grammatical variation that is used less often - perhaps it's only used in Canada, I don't know. However, since this is a Canadian article, it should use Canadian grammar. Esn 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose Esn reverts. Stephen Job 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I already did. ;) I just thought I'd explain it over here in case anyone objected. Esn 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC):
I am the bad person responsible for this. "Appointed to Cabinet" is therefore similar to "Elected to Parliament": no definite article. I offer my sincere apologies to all.Writtenright 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright

[edit] Supreme Court Ruling - Needs POV Neutralization

This statement is radically pro-federalist:

"...the Supreme Court ruling on the unilateral secession of Quebec ... which confirmed that there is no right ... to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally."

The legal reasoning itself -- and the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to claim authority to make such a decision on international law -- are both hugely controversial.

The current wording is clever because it can be argued that it means (factually), "confirmed [the Canadian government position] that there is no right" -- but its plainer interpretation, that it "confirmed [the absolute legal truth] that there is no right", is completely unacceptable from a neutral-reporting perspective.

The word confirmed should be replaced by the neutral term adjudged: "...which adjudged that there is no right...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.6.238 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Flirtation" with Sovereignty Movement -- Needs POV Neutralization

In the Early Life section, the concept of flirtation is used repeatedly to describe his involvement in the sovereignty movement.

There are two "neutral point of view" problems with this: it demeans involvement in the sovereignty movement as something that could never be a serious, lasting, commitment, and given what appears to be several years -- not a brief moment -- of sovereigntist activism, it is a "spin" re-write of his biography to serve his current political agenda.

It's also repetitively bad prose.

I'll accept the term in the statement "Dion has said that his flirtation with the sovereignty movement..." as this at least somewhat identifies the term as being Dion's personal current interpretation of events.

But the other two occurences should be changed to the neutral involvement:

FROM "As a teenager, he flirted with the sovereignty movement..."

TO "As a teenager, he was involved with the sovereignty movement..."

And especially here, where an objective reporter is actually contradicting the "flirtation" concept by claiming, contrary to Dion's current framing of the issue, that the relationship was longer and deeper:

FROM "Journalist Linda Diebel believes that his flirtation ended gradually..."

TO "Journalist Linda Diebel believes that his involvement ended gradually..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.120.87.120 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I can appreciate your second point, that describing his sovereigntist past may be a bit of revisionism, rather like Duceppe's own communist past. However, I have to disagree that describing a onetime attachement to the sovereignty movement as "flirtation" demeans the seriousness of the movement itself.
The degree of an individual's dedication to a group has no bearing on the seriousness of the group itself. One can "flirt" with very serious and legitimate movements, and this is perfectly normal for politically-engaged young people. --Saforrest 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dion must have been very serious about sovereignty and it should be reflected. stating that "he was briefly involved with the sovereignty movement", does not seem to truely reflect how Dion felt and his involvement in the movement. Maclean's Jan 22 edition, article by Benoit Aubin quotes his childhood friend Robert MacKay saying that" He [Dion] thought Rene Levesque was a moderate". It seems that this sovereignty aspect of his life needs to be a bit more detailed, especially considering we will be having an election and people will be wanting to understand (esp in Quebec) his changing beliefs. I do not think it is beyond a Wikipedia article to note this.

[edit] Internal Contradition -- Open Letters vs. Supposed Views on Federalism

The article moves from describing in detail Dion's claims that the federal government of Canada can not only override Quebec referenda, but actually (militarily) seize Quebec territory -- to claiming in glowing terms in the "Views on federalism and national unity" section that... well really... he supports provincial rights.

The problem begins with the statement: "It would be most accurate to describe him as a federal autonomist."

Why is that most accurate? What is the sourced reference for this analysis?

Then "...he unequivocally argues against jurisdictional intrusion..." -- where, and how in application to a Quebec sovereignty referendum?(??)

And "Dion's position on provincial rights..." What is the sourced referenced for his supposed position? Is there any published criticism that points out the fundamental conflict with the Open Letters which should be included as an objective counterbalance to the (inherently biased and self-promoting) claim of any politician about himself? Should it be framed as "he claims" -- "despite" his position in the Open Letters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.126.62.183 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Dion's Charisma, or lack of it

The latest edition of the Economist ran a profile of Dion, with the heading "The Geek Shall Inherit". What is missing here is a discussion of his lack of, well, people skills, or his apparent lack of charisma, the ability to connect with people. The same article also mentioned Harper's supposed lack of charisma and suggested that Canada is the only country putting boring people in leadership positions. There has been considerable discussion in the media about Dion's supposed "egghead" academic persona and whether that is something new for Canada. This is not the same as his lack of English speaking skills, but his lack of people skills or ability/inability to connect with voters in this new media age. Something needs to be added to his profile about this, as it is an issue. BTW, why has nothing been added about the Environment and Dion? After all, this was his key platform issue and yet no one seems bothered to add anything about this to his profile, which I attempted but was deleted several times.GlenninBerlin

RE the environment - It definitely should be added, but it should also definitely concentrate solely on Dion's tenure as Env. Min., (Jul 04 - Jan 06) and not on the Liberal tenure (or even further back, as some people added) as a whole. Many different editors kept adding info about decisions made before Dion was minister. --Hamiltonian 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
On the note of charisma, there was a recent poll in the Toronto Star which said that in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario and Quebec, Dion beat Harper when voters were asked "which leader understands the concerns of people like you?". That implies that, whether or not you call it "charisma", he does have the ability to connect with people. "Canada is the only country putting boring people in leadership positions" - better boring than unapologetically contemptuous of the public, eh? Who knows, maybe picking "boring but qualified" leaders is an unconscious side-effect of watching Bush Jr.'s ("interesting and unqualified") antics down there in the US. Harper has remained quite popular in Canada, despite (or because of) being boring and giving the impression that he knows what he's talking about. His level of support is consistently above that of his own party. Overall, I'm not sure that this article is the place to compare Canadians' preference in leadership traits compared to other countries'. Not unless a comprehensive study of the question was done, anyway. Esn 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unpopularity of the Parti Québécois

I remove the part in italic: This position became the cornerstone of the Clarity Act and is credited along with the growing unpopularity of the Parti Québécois government and the growing fatigue with the sovereignty debate with weakening public support in Quebec for sovereignty until the Sponsorship Scandal broke in 2004.

  • Is that an opinion or a fact? Credited by who ? If someone can add some references, he can be put back the removed part. --74.12.209.205 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is maybe not just an opinion, because the poll numbers for the PQ are lower than they were and some, but not many people credit Stephane Dion for that, but this is very much a political position. You will see more people attributing the PQ's defeat in 2003 to municipal mergers than to "sovereignty fatigue". UnHoly 08:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incident at 2006 Liberal Party Convention

On December 29/06, Hamiltonian deleted a whole section of the Dion article that had been submitted by Lance6968. Also missing is a referenced statement issued by M. Dion on December 8/06. The only explanation from Hamiltonian was a cryptic editing comment, "quite obviously not." I would like to know why the section was deleted. Perhaps Hamiltonian thought the topic was not relevant, or perhaps it was poorly worded. We have no clue why it was deleted. Que-Can 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

While it's certainly true that antisemitic comments were made against Arlene Perly Rae by some delegates at the convention, there is no verifiable proof that Dion was in any way connected to them, or that the matter was directly or even partially responsible for Dion's victory. Dion, in fact, personally condemned the antisemitic statements, so it's really reaching outside of the bounds of verifiability to try to link them to him. While it's certainly not safe to assume that nobody was swayed away from Rae because of Arlene Rae's religion, we also don't have any verifiable proof that antisemitic beliefs are the main reason that Rae didn't win. Accordingly, the appropriate place to discuss the matter is in the convention article and/or Bob and Arlene Rae's articles. Not in Dion's, and especially not under a headline that implies that Dion owes his leadership to antisemites. Bearcat 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Bearcat. These are useful comments and suggestions. Que-Can 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What Bearcat wrote is reasonable. Dion's response on the Liberal Party Web site is obviously relevant to the Dion article. Dion's response, that in my opinion was inadequate, was a short statement on the lower-left hand corner of the aforementioned Web site. Dion's reaction to what happened is clearly relevant, and should be included in his article; and it can be kept to the basic facts; i.e., it doesn't need to include my opinion that his response was inadequate.--Lance talk 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not denying that a case can be made for including Dion's reaction to the matter in Dion's article — but, for one thing, "elected on an antisemitic platform" is most certainly not the appropriate subheading for such a discussion. It's a wild and undocumentable distortion of the actual facts of the situation, which clearly violates Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies. Bearcat 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dion's article should document his reaction to this aspect of Canadian politics.--Lance talk 16:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The heading is very POV by suggesting that his (dion's) platform was somehow antisemtic, when it clearly was not. This section as it stands now violates WP:BLP and I am removing it in accordance with official policy. As there is no link to Dion and the antisemtic activity this incident may deserve a mention on the article about the convention but probably not on this one (especially under such an inflamatory heading). -- No Guru 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this whole issue, if worth mentioning at all, be better suited to Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006? There's a much more substantive connection between the subject matters. -Joshuapaquin 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add Flags to Dion's article

I added the "current" provincial and national flags to Dion's article, beside his place of birth. Usually the current national and/or state/provincial flags are included with the articles. (For example, in the United States, for someone born before Alaska and Hawaii became states, a flag with 50 stars is displayed, rather than a flag with the 48 stars that would have been used when the person was born.) An exception to this rule in Wikipedia appears for many Canadian politicians, whereby Wikipedia uses the Red Ensign, the flag of Canada for much of Canada's history before 1965, rather than today's Red Maple Leaf flag. For Dion, I elected to use the current flag since I feel it makes more sense to use today's flag. (my personal opinion!) Que-Can 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just gone through all the articles for Opposition leaders back to Joe Clark. Of these, only three had Canadian flags in their articles: Clark, Turner, and Mulroney (and these were in the Prime Ministerial infoboxes). None had provincial flags in their articles.
I also looked at the articles of each of the Governors of Hawaii and Alaska (yes, all of them, since statehood). None have either American flags or state flags.
I would submit that placing the national flag is appropriate, as Que-Can has done. But placing the provincial flag does not follow precedent. In my opinion, it's awkward to have two flags in the infobox; I also think it is sensible to give primacy to the federal flag rather than a sub-national unit.
An interesting point: Turner's infobox uses an England flag as his place of birth, even though it's part of the UK. I think an argument can be made on this basis to say that a Quebec flag should be in the template instead of a Canada flag; however, I would disagree with this argument because England's independent national status is certainly better-established in UK history than Quebec's in Canadian history. -Joshuapaquin 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeing no response, I'm going to take the liberty of removing the Quebec flag. -Joshuapaquin 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Joshuapaquin. That's fine. To me, one flag is better than none. I have a feeling that the one flag you left with the article will be gone soon .... or changed by someone to the Red Ensign! Each to his/her own, I guess. Que-Can 08:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
While I can appreciate the historical interest of using the flag in use at the time of the individual's birth, this can easily get tedious, and the right flag can be contentious or just difficult to determine. Why a St. Andrew's Cross for Sir John A, and not the Union Jack? (He was born well after the Act of Union.) Should left-wing German chancellor Gerhard Schröder have to have a Nazi swastika beside his name because he happened to be born in Germany in 1944? --Saforrest 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environment Minister section

I should probably explain why I've chosen to remove this section, which was created a few hours ago by Eric1960:

  1. Much of the information appears to be original research extrapolated from primary source documents. There is no evidence that Dion's predecessors (by which I assume is meant David Anderson) had "unrealistic" goals for the environment, nor does a single speech on a government page prove that Dion favoured stronger links with the corporate sector.
  2. While an effort has been made to ensure balance, the section is still weighted against Dion. Most of the information is critical, and a brief comment extrapolated from a John Ivison article does not seem to be a fair rebuttal.
  3. The parliamentary motion referenced in this section (Division 40) was split along party lines, with the NDP and Bloc voting in favour and the Conservatives and Liberals opposing. Singling out Dion for criticism seems highly questionable, particularly when no evidence has been provided that any reliable secondary sources directed such criticism against him.
  4. The language is more than a tad biased. (Or am I to accept the premise that describing an environmental initiative as having "gone up in smoke" due to Dion's actions is a neutral summary of events?)

This article should have a section on Dion's record as Environment Minister, but I don't believe that the previous edits made the grade. Comments welcome. CJCurrie 02:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll address CJCurrie's points one by one:
1. What I wrote was "sought a collaborative relationship with big business rather than a confrontational one." This concept plays a central role in Dion's vision for environmental policy; read his first speech before the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, or for 'secondary' sources, try the Macleans interview of Feb. 22, 2005 entitled "Rocky ride for Dion?: The environment minister still hopes he'll get agreement from automakers on his Kyoto plan" (http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20050228_95665_95665).
Note also the many comments in this article about how Dion's style contrasts with that of David Anderson ("Where Anderson tended to clash with cabinet ministers preoccupied with the economy, Dion has worked in his dogged way to make common cause with them.")
Another article, published on Oct. 12, 2004 in the Globe and Mail entitled "An Environment Minister of another colour" (http://www.sustreport.org/downloads/Dion_globe.doc - the reference is added at the main article), makes similar points:
Mr. Dion, famed for his years as intergovernmental affairs minister, handling the difficult national-unity file, is bent on transforming the environment dossier from the traditional tree-hugger's last stand into a forward-thinking economic portfolio that, he argues, must lie at the heart of Canada's future prosperity. Sources say he has already presented this to his cabinet colleagues. The new direction is so dramatic that Mr. Dion acknowledged in an interview last week in his barren office that even a name change, from Environment to the Department of Sustainable Economy, is possible.
"The department is ready for that," he said.
It's an about-face from his predecessors and a frank repudiation of the reign of former environment minister David Anderson, a fierce environmentalist who prided himself on being a purist rather than a pragmatist.... Under Mr. Anderson, environment was in constant counterpoint to big-money areas such as finance, natural resources, trade and transportation.
"I saw David arguing with everybody," [Dion] said, adding, "I had the opportunity to admire the man but also [to] see that the situation was not optimal."
My edit cites the G&M article, notes the comparison with Anderson, and draws attention to Dion's approach to the business sector. We don't need to provide the extensive detail that appeared in your version, and we certainly don't need to engage in hyperbolic extrapolations. CJCurrie 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
2. The response from environmental groups regarding the "Green Program" in late April 2005, the comments in the Gelinas report in Sept. 2005, and the report from Pollution Watch in Oct. 2005 -- all well-documented in the newly added material -- were all highly critical of the Canadian government's environmental performance. "Balance" means representing things in a way that reflects what actually happened. To remove well-documented and pertinent facts simply because they are "critical" smacks of revisionism.
My edit indicates that the Program was criticized by environmental groups, without providing unnecessary detail. CJCurrie 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Dion voted against the motion, and whether or not it was for partisan reasons, as the minister of the environment of course he was singled out for criticism. For a secondary source criticizing the way Dion caved to the auto industry on the fuel emissions file, see the Louis-Gilles Francoeur article in Le Devoir (documented in the newly added material).
I haven't looked into this matter in detail, but I see from Hansard that both the Liberals and Conservatives voted as a block against the bill. I don't believe we should include this reference unless there's some outside verification that the actual vote was a matter of importance. The Francoeur article might be acceptable, although we'll need to use it with caution if it was an opinion piece. CJCurrie 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Ok, "gone up in smoke" becomes "dashed". As for the rest, it is restored.
That's no better. CJCurrie 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I've gone to reasonable lengths to check facts so that erroneous or misleading information doesn't slip in. I don't claim to be infallible, and if you find lacunae in my documentation or incorrect data, by all means, make a revision or deletion. But a blanket erasure of the facts in the name of 'balance' is, to put it mildly, unreasonable.--Eric1960 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The sources may be accurate, but the wording was not. CJCurrie 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Once again, I'll deal with these remarks one by one.
1. With exception of the word "quixotic", I see no "hyperbole" or unwarranted "extrapolation". But I like the idea of including a citation, so your opening is incorporated (which gets rid of "quixotic") -- plus a citation for the sake of precision, which seems to be a concern for you.
2. "without providing unnecessary detail..." Why not just say: "Dion was Minister of the Environment" and leave it at that. Why include any detail at all?
3. "The Francoeur article might be acceptable, although we'll need to use it with caution if it was an opinion piece" Louis-Gilles Francoeur is THE environmental reporter in French Canada. He is the most highly respected journalist in this domain -- a Francophone version of David Suzuki, one might say -- and appears regularly on media shows when major environmental issues are debated. The article I referenced is Francoeur's retrospective on Dion's term as Minister of the Environment, and I cannot think of any source I would trust more to give an accurate and germane account. If you want to dig further, vehicle and industry emissions were a major bone of contention in early 2005 and there were numerous articles about whether Dion would give in to corporate pressure (and pressure from John Efford).
4. So "dashed" is no good either, and you don't like my wording.... Here's a suggestion: why not produce some NEW material instead of always cavilling and whittling away? You seem to think that the material I post focusses too much on the negative aspects of Dion's ministry. This suggests that you are aware of more positive aspects... why not add some material about that?--Eric1960 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Its better to tag this section instead of removing it entirely. I'll plan to examine it in further detail. GoldDragon 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm somewhat concerned about the new material myself. I'm most concerned that there is a lot of extrapolation from one or two anecdotes. I think, for example, that the Calgary speech shows a couple of ordinary, non-controversial platitudes. If somebody reads that as accomodation, that's fine. Maybe you're smarter than I am but that seems like original reaserch to me to include it here, even if it is top-notch insight. I think there is also more than a little overstatement in the last paragraph which portrays ordinary criticism, which every env. minister/government receives (i.e. from the Env. Commissioner) and environmentalists. as unusually harsh. Environmental groups are rarely happy with the government and the EC's job is to be critical. It is fine to include some criticism but I think that our characterization of it has to be rather more detached. But I am glad to see that there is a desire on everyone's part to expand the section. And thanks for your contributions Eric. I'd just like to see some tweaks for inclusion.

Well, I've added some new material to further support the most general statements (what you term 'extrapolation'). But regarding that speech, think about it: for his first public address, the minister of the environment goes to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and gives his blessing to a booming oil and gas sector. Now, tell me that isn't being "accomodating". As for "ordinary criticism, which every env. minister/government receives (i.e. from the Env. Commissioner)", I disagree: the type of comprehensive report that was issued by Gelinas in 2005 was by no means 'ordinary'. Granted, some of the other criticism I've documented is more 'typical', but so are many other details in this article (academic background, candidatures, appointments, performance in polls, etc.). I agree that we don't want reams of insignificant detail, but this is hardly insignificant. On the contrary, it is an element that is essential in constructing an accurate picture of Dion's environmental ministry. We need more detail here, not less. The whole environment section -- a crucial year and half in Dion's political career -- is about the same length as the section detailing the events of the last month!--Eric1960 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dual citizenship question

This was an issue for what... one week? If even that. Do we really need such a long sub-section on it? It's currently bigger than the rest of the section on Mr. Dion as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which is somewhat ridiculous. Would anyone object to the dual citizenship question sub-section being trimmed down a bit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sima Yi (talk • contribs) 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the content in "The dual citizenship question" section could be condensed somewhat, but I think it is too soon to write it off as an issue. In the coming year, I think we will hear a lot more in the news about the issue of Canadians with dual citizenships, e.g., possible changes to their rights and obligations. Que-Can 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this issue need not be extensively emphasized, but in looking over the section, I don't see anything obvious to cut. All the current information is useful and relevant. Instead of cutting the citizenship material, let's add more content to the section on his actions as Leader of the Opposition: perhaps his commentary on Harper's latest cabinet shuffle? --Saforrest 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The appearance of yet another article in the Calgary Sun (http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2007/01/04/3155237.html) about this issue suggests to me that the issue is going to linger on. The comment from Dion aide Jennifer Mowbray (via Dymaxion blog - http://dymaxionworld.blogspot.com/2006/12/ugh-more-on-citizenship.html) suggests that Dion's French citizenship was completely passive; i.e. he never did anything to get it or to confirm it. It does seem that the French citizenship based on 'filiation' is automatic -- but of course that is in the abstract. To take advantage of the privileges associated with citizenship (e.g. access to government services) in France, one has to confirm one's citizenship in some way (but I don't know the procedure). My guess is that Ezra Levant put two and two together: Dion lived in France for 5 odd years, so he must at some point have confirmed his citizenship. Still, that isn't proving it....

Just to provoke some thought, here is a hypothetical question: If Quebec eventually separated, how would Quebeckers feel about dual Canada-Quebec citizenship? How would the rest of Canada react to the idea? Who would be eligible for such dual-citizenship? Strange, isn't it, that no one has made any links between the dual-citizenship question and the national unity issue.... --70.83.114.137 07:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't do the research/writing ourselves, see WP:NOR but if you come across a good source who does discuss just that it might be worth including. --JGGardiner 06:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On the citizenship question, I'm not sure what is meant by the sentence that says his citizenship was conferred "honorarily at birth". It is also speculative and seems to come from a blogger who claims to have called Dion's staff to ask the question. Does anyone have a better source on that? --JGGardiner 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lapsed Catholic

When we say "lapsed' Catholic, do we mean a lapsed Christian, that is, someone who was raised Christian but has converted to, say, humanism, or do we mean someone who believes in Catholic teachings and just not go to Sunday Mass? I read the globe article and although it said he was lapsed, it did not say which way. --Sicamous 04:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it means that he's an apostate that has no business being in politics. I'd sure like to know where they found this guy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.39.175.193 (talk • contribs).

For my part, I can't help but wonder if describing him as a "lapsed Catholic" in the infobox is appropriate. The term is technically accurate, but it's not widely used and is open to some misinterpretation. Perhaps "secular Catholic" or "non-practicing Catholic" would be more suitable. CJCurrie 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why I dislike infoboxes. If you could explain things appropriately with one word questionnaire answers, you wouldn't need an encyclopedia. --JGGardiner 02:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GoldDragon

Could I please request that other contributors review GoldDragon's latest edits very carefully, and remove/restore what obviously shouldn't have been added/removed?

In particular, could I request:

  • that someone correct the wording for the Lapierre section
  • that the NPOV notice for the Environment section be restored
  • that the "Sponsorship Scandal" header be switched to something more appropriate (the previous version was "Sponsorship Scandal exoneration"; I recommended "Gomery commission")
  • that Dion's comments on the departures of Khan and Lapierre be returned

I'm making a concerted effort not to get trapped in an edit war with this contributor. Thank you, CJCurrie 06:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CJCurrie

Problems with his version.

The Gomery Comission is not the sponsorship scandal, it was rather setup to investigate it. At the same time, Paul Martin and Jean Chretien don't have a heading in their articles that says "sponsorship scandal exoneration". That is why both headers are inappropriate.

Also, it is Martin's view that only members of the Liberals were implicated in the scandal. Other Liberals and opposition parties say that the entire party is corrupt. So the latter view was more prevailent at the time of the 2004 election. It was not until after the election that blame was assigned to specific members.

We cannot indefinitely leave the NPOV in the environment section, as it has not been debated for weeks. In any event, it is significantly improved from the initial version put forth by Eric1960. GoldDragon 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't forget the Parti Quebecois' part in the scandal. They took illicit contributions too. See: [2] This aspect of the whole mess is definitely under-reported. Too me, the Dion article already has too much "Sponsorship/Scandal/Gomery" content. The topic is covered fairly well on other pages. Dion never supported the sponsorship program (and advised the PM against it, but then he wasn't the boss at the time. Flag of Canada Que-Can 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
GoldDragon: Your last edits put you over the 3RR. Please self-revert before someone reports you. CJCurrie 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My response to GoldDragon:

  1. Dion was not implicated in the Sponsorship Scandal, but testified before the Gomery Commission. The latter is the more appropriate subject header.
  2. It is neither fair nor balanced to have a header screaming "Sponsorship Scandal" in a biographical piece about someone who was not implicated in the sponsorship scandal.
  3. The "opposition parties" argued that the Liberal Party was corrupt for obvious political purposes. There was never any doubt that certain figures associated with the Liberal Party were implicated in the scandal, but no-one seriously cast blame on the party as a whole.
  4. The Environment section is improved, but still flawed.

I have a feeling that none of these arguments will make any impact. For readers who are unfamiliar his history, please note that GoldDragon has a habit of reposting the same edits over and over and over, even if no-one else agrees with him. CJCurrie 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


More mudslinging from CJCurrie...I prefer to stick with the critique of his article.

Ironically, Sponsorship Scandal Exoneration stands out as more biased than Sponsorship Scandal, as if the original author had to make it too obvious to profess innocense before the reader could even go into the text. It is also misleading to say that Gomery Inquiry is an alternate term for sponsorship scandal, when they are different things.

Martin argued that only some members of the Liberal Party were corrupt, for obvious political reasons. On the other hand, we have several unrelated parties, the Conservatives and Shiela Copps, blamed the Liberals as a whole, saying it was a culture of entitlement. And since the Gomery Inquiry was in its infancy as of the 2004 election, we can't draw conclusions. GoldDragon 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon: Could I request that you refrain from reverting the article text until such time as there is consensus support for your view on the talk page? CJCurrie 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure this argument wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, but I never suggested the the "sponsorship scandal" and the "Gomery commission" were the same thing. I suggested that the latter title was more appropriate. CJCurrie 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Harper eats babies for breakfast

This statement, while patently untrue, certainly gets your attention while looking at the edit summary, or the table of contents. Is it something that should be in the table of contents of an article? Of course not. Similarly, putting "Sponsorship Scandal" as a heading in the Stephane Dion article is surely inappropriate since he had no role in the scandal. This is an article about Dion, not about the Liberal Party or the "culture of entitlement". Ground Zero | t 06:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "Gomery Comission" is that its like just putting "Tokyo Trials" to head the section instead of "Bataan Death March". The Comission, like the Trial, is something that happened at the end. Second, "sponsorship scandal" isn't any more or less provocative than "sponsorship scandal exoneration"; indeed the latter heading professes innocense before the reader could even go into the text. GoldDragon 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The profession of i-n-n-o-c-e-n-c-e was accurate, in this case. I suppose "Gomery Inquiry" is acceptable, however. CJCurrie 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to get the reader to think that Stephane Dion may have been involved in the Sponsorship Scandal, then using using that as the heading would make sense. Since we now know that he was not, using that as the heading is misleading. We have the benefit of knowing how things turned out in writing this part of the article, so we don't have to be coy about the ending. Ground Zero | t 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete "Miscellanea" section?

Is it time to delete the Miscellanea section? It is not a standard section for political leaders, and it does include (invite?) some drivel, e.g., names of people who have a dog named Kyoto. Que-Can 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colour-blindness

In one of the January 2007 Macleans articles, they mention that Mr. Dion is colour-blind. Would this be worthy of a main article mention, or should it just be relegated to the trivia?--72.45.87.123 00:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it puts the green scarves in a new context.  ;) Seriously, I don't see the harm in including this. CJCurrie 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what type of colour blindness he has but I had thought that it was a relatively common condition. It seems pretty trivial to me. --JGGardiner 09:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll Results

This morning, having a bit of time on my hands, I consolidated the poll results that have been cited in the "As Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" section, presenting them in table form at the end of the section. This represents an attempt to resolve the problem of dealing with poll statistics that are continually being updated. In table form, the data is much more revealing, since figures can quickly be interpreted in terms of historical trends.

This table will obviously become unwieldy very rapidly if people try to include every poll result made available, something I don`t think is necessary or desireable. But regardless: if and when it does become unwieldy, it can simply be moved to its own wikipedia page (along the lines of the Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006 page).--Eric1960 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember what Diefenbaker said about polls? Had something to do with canines. GoodDay 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the biography pages of other Canadian party leaders a few moments ago, to see if their articles included poll charts akin to the one in this article. Here's what I found:

A pattern would seem to be evident. Could someone please explain the logic of including a poll chart here? CJCurrie 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... this may be the answer I was looking for: [3]. CJCurrie 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. But as I mentioned at the outset, the polling info will eventually become unwieldy, at which point the table should be moved to its own page. If that point has arrived, would someone care to suggest a name for the page (does "Opinion polling in Canadian federal politics" sound ok?) --Eric1960 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the polls should be placed in this article, maybe more in the future Canadian elections article, that would make more sense to have it there. Putting it in Dion's article looks a bit POV to me.--JForget 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pie face image

What purpose does this image serve to the article. It doesn't illustrate the subject of the article at all (almost impossible to identify Dion behind all of the whipping cream). It doesn't illustrate a significant event in his life. Note the Wikipedia:Images states that Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic).

Does the image serve some purpose that I am not aware of ? Please do not re-add it without explanation on this talk page. -- No Guru 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, No Guru. Many well-known people have been assaulted by pies, but I don't see photos of the incidents on their articles. I too wonder why some people want to give Mr. Dion this special attention (denied others) by having the pie-face photo on the Dion article. I also question why Wikipedia would feature a picture with their article on the Entartistes. Why put on display the nasty work of these criminals and their assaults? Que-Can 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
To get some critical balance in the imagery, one of Serge Chapleau's famous Dion caricatures is the natural choice. Placed in the Clarity Act section it would be of obvious relevance and notability. The question is: can a thumbnail scan of one of these drawings be deemed "fair use"?--Eric1960 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the picture should not be in the article. But I don't think that Golddragon's insertion was vandalism, as was noted in an edit summary. Incidentally, there has been a picture of Stockwell Day getting sprayed with chocolate milk in that article since October. --JGGardiner 07:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my insertion of the pieing pic would have most appropriately gone in the Intergov Ministry section, as the act was for a political reason during his time there.
Regardless, so the Day chocolate milk picture will be removed, to be consistent with the stance on Dion. GoldDragon 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sense of Perspective: Encyclopedia, not a Newspaper

I hope that at some time(s), the breathless reporting of Dion trivia (pro and con) is toned down: readers of the future don't need to know about every poll or every pie. Bellagio99 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember what Diefenbaker said about polls? Had something to do with canines. GoodDay 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On CJCurrie's Return

CJCurrie: I wondered what had happened to you. Over two weeks without any postings -- you had me worried. Anyhow, I'm glad to see you back -- even if it means having to deal with more of your less-than-endearing efforts to rehabilitate reality. So to celebrate the occasion, here's a point by point response to your latest salvo of modifications/deletions:

4:01 to 4:04 - The funds are not earmarked for a "service". You might want to reread the relevant documentation.

4:36 - More wholesale deletions? You know, an encyclopedia is supposed to help disseminate information, not suppress and censor it. The dual citizenship thing was a hotly debated issue, which was the subject of editorials right into January -- over a month after the initial disclosure. It may have receded from the spotlight for the moment, but once an election is called, count on it to be batted around some more. That said, the size of the section could be reduced... but with many other changes to address, reworking it will have to wait. For the moment, back it all goes intact!

4:45 - "it's not clear they opposed these limits in principle" CJ, we've gone over this before. You distort things, and then try to use the distorted truth as an excuse to delete. Reread the passage -- it says nothing about "in principle". It states the position that Dion and others took when the measures were put to a vote. Try ADDING facts, not censoring them!

4:46 to 4:49 - "2003"?? Please. The commissioner's report accounts for available data up to and including all of 2004, plus, in most instances, the first half of 2005 (see: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c20050900ce.html ). Also note that this report has been central to virtually every in-depth report on Dion's tenure as Environment Minister. Why would you want to suppress this info?

4:52 - "The remaining link doesn't work..." So -- you remove all the WORKING links (no justification), and leave one single NON-working link. Then you complain about that one, and remove it. Oooh... tricky!! But no dice. Working links are restored.

4:54 - "removed biased commentary" "commentary"? What you have removed/modified is connecting material that reinforces contextual and stylistic coherence. If the connecting words aren't salutory from Dion's point of view, it isn't because of "bias"; it is because of the facts which are being connected.

5:08 - "brief" tenure? Dion was environment minister for over a year and a half -- above average, I'd say. Most are shuffled within a year. Rona Ambrose, for example.

Again, good to have you back. À votre tour, M. Currie!

--Eric1960 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric,

Since you arrived on Wikipedia, you've done little other than post dubious information about Stéphane Dion. Your preferred version of this page is a POV nightmare, and reads more like a series of Conservative Party talking points than an encyclopedic biography. I'm prepared to compromise on individual points, but I'm not going remain silent while this page is systematically ruined. CJCurrie 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the parliamentary vote, I think it may be of some significance that it was an opposition motion, and that both the Liberals and Conservatives voted against it. Striking down an opposition parliamentary motion doesn't necessarily represent opposition in principle. CJCurrie 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Also problematic was Dion's inability to make significant progress" ... "the program was immediately denounced" ... "a series of damning reports" ... "Perhaps the most scathing" ... "the government's poor record".
Would anyone seriously argue that these quotes represent a neutral, balanced series of events? CJCurrie 21:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Whenever a Wikipedia contributor focuses on a single topic (to the exclusion of all others), and has one slant or point of view, it loses credibility. It becomes "spin." To me, the best contributors treat Wikipedia like an encyclopedia and not a web log (blog). I would like to see Eric1960 apply his evident genius to topics other than Stéphane Dion.Que-Can 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this: judge the facts, not the people posting them.

--Eric1960 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Eric1960. I try not to judge people. My point is, there are other subjects (besides Mr. Dion) that could use your expertise and hard work: Mr. Harper, and Mr. Layton, for example. Some people are naturally reactive (me) and some are proactive (you). You dig up a variety of news and opinion from sources and add it to the Wikipedia pages. I appreciate that you endeavour to avoid bias, which is hard when you are obviously passionate about a subject. As I mentioned, the pages of the other federal leaders need fresh perspectives, so you might want to try your hand there too. Just a friendly suggestion... Que-Can 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


CJCurrie,

I've spent most of my time ADDING documented information to this article -- not simply deleting and spinning it, which is mostly what I see you doing. Of course a lot of info I've posted reflects poorly on Dion, and this elicits cries of 'bias' from you. But if you paid closer attention, you would notice that I've also added many details that reflect positively. Curiously, we never hear a peep from you about 'bias' in those instances. So it looks like your problem is that there are a lot of facts that just don't make Dion look too great. Typically your response has been to try to censor or to delete.

I've said this before, but it's worth saying again: deletion of documented facts in the name of 'restoring balance' is unacceptable. If you want to see things 'balanced' more in Dion's favor, you'd better start looking for FACTS that back up such an orientation. But beware: that means doing some WORK, something I rarely see you doing much of. Think about it: when was the last time you actually provided a paragraph of material based on FRESH documented sources? Not your style, eh? You prefer to leave the time-consuming tasks -- the grunt work of marshalling material -- to others. You prefer to drop in periodically in order to delete, modify, and spin things to suit your view of how things ought to be. Well, I think it's time you considered changing your strategy.

Now, regarding that rhetorical question of yours -- "Would anyone seriously argue that these quotes represent a neutral, balanced series of events?" -- let's look at few of the quotes themselves.

"Also problematic was Dion's inability to make significant progress"

-A perfectly reasonable summary. Dion was committed to doing something and didn't get it done, and that is "problematic". Other adjectives could be employed, but would you like them any better than "problematic"? I doubt it. You don't really have an issue with the choice of adjective; what you have an issue with is the FACTs giving rise to the adjective.

"the program was immediately denounced"

-the program was indeed "denounced", but once again, you ostensibly don't like this choice of word. But would it really make any difference if we used "panned" or "condemned" or something else? Your real source of discomfort is the FACT that the Suzuki foundation issued a comprehensive report condemning Project Green.

"the government's poor record"

- the government's environmental performance regarding Kyoto was documented and it was well below expectations. But again, your problem is not really the choice of words... it is the FACTS that they describe.

When you claim that the page is being "systematically ruined", one wonders what it is you are worried will be "ruined". Your own unrealistic image of Stephane Dion, perhaps?

My concern is that by suppressing relevant facts -- regardless whether they reflect positively or negatively on the subject of this article -- we end up "ruining" the goal of credibly representating historical realities.

By this standard, I think it's you, CJCurrie, who is out to "systematically ruin" things.

--Eric1960 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop the nonsense, Eric. I can't seriously believe that you would protest your neutrality and objectivity, after edits like this and this.
Wikipedia policy may require editors to "assume good faith" toward other contributors, but it doesn't compel us to remain silent when we're confronted with obvious partisanship. CJCurrie 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, uhm, I think this thread is a good place to say the following: the "Environment Minister" section is pretty bad. It's not an encyclopedia entry. It's an essay. And not a very good one, either. It's an essay with NPOV problems. Huge ones. Watchsmart 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The practice of using systematic deletions to promote user-POV

The edits you point out have sound sourcing. It is regretable that the source material reflects poorly upon Dion, but that just brings us back to the comments I made earlier. If you don't like the overall impression generated by certain facts, you should be out looking for others. Rather than compulsively deleting whatever displeases, look for info supporting alternative views via search engines or print media. If you would just TRY it I'm sure your efforts would be worthwhile. There is room in Wikipedia for more than one 'take' on reality, so long as the disparate views are soundly documented. If everyone just whittled things down all the time to achieve their personal POV objectives, Wikipedia would eventually become little more than a dictionary with a lot of proper nouns. But the bottom line is: removing documented material to achieve a desired 'balance' is unacceptable. --Eric1960 13:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said before: stop the nonsense. Your "additions" to this article are selectively-sourced spin. You may want to review WP:NOR and WP:NPOV before restoring them again. CJCurrie 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many dozens of articles mentioning Stephane Dion every week; obviously no one here wants all of them referenced. A selection of the most pertinent ones is necessary. However I disagree strongly when you suggest that the selections I make constitute an artificially fabricated 'spin'. I post items that reflect both positively and negatively on the subject of this article, and if it seems that negatives outnumber the positives, it is a reflection of prevailing reports about Dion's activities and of your own presumptions. It isn't 'spin' to mention that Dion had Comuzzi kicked out the party, it is a significant fact (which some would applaud, some would condemn). It isn't 'spin' to mention that Dion has endorsed 'hard caps', it is a significant fact (which, once again, some would applaud, some would condemn). If you don't like the 'balance' of the facts, start posting material rather than expunging.--Eric1960 03:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not spin to mention that Dion oversaw Comuzzi's expulsion from the party; it is spin to write about it in these terms. It isn't spin to reference criticisms of Dion's tenure as Environment Minister; it is spin to load the first four paragraphs of the section with criticism, and throw in phrases like "failed policy" and "also condemned". I'm sorry, but your past actions seem as variance with your current spirit of compromise.
To your last point -- I've been meaning to add material to this page for some time, but I have several other things on my plate. In any event, I don't need to justify my removal of tendentious sections. CJCurrie 03:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric1960 says Curry PO

On March 24, Eric1960 did an edit and commented "Curry PO." What is this?? A new editing term? Explain please.Que-Can 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an editing term with many variations, but always the same meaning:
User fumbled onto 'enter' key before comment was completed. :o
--Eric1960 13:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Eric1960. Wikipedia editors can have healthy differences of opinion, but it's always best to avoid rude and disrespectful language (and acronyms). Cheers. Que-Can 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renouncing French citzenship

A French citizen who obtained his citizenship based on French parentage cannot renounce his citizenship except in the 12 months surrounding his 18th birthday. Dion could say that he has renounced his French citizenship, but it would have absolutely no effect. --Deregnaucourt 07:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

According to a French government website devoted to questions of nationality(http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/les-francais-etranger_1296/vos-droits-demarches_1395/nationalite-francaise_5301/index.html):
"Des cas de répudiation de la nationalité française sont prévus par le code civil, sous certaines conditions, en faveur, notamment, des enfants nés à l’étranger d’un seul parent français ou nés en France d’un seul parent né en France."
So Dion could renounce if he wished. Nevertheless, the renunciation could theoretically be refused by the French government. An instance where this would likely happen is if someone were renouncing in order to escape legal prosecution as a French citizen.--Eric1960 12:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/%C3%A9/Talk%7ESt%C3%A9phane_Dion_5d9b.html"