|
THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE
DION REITERATES THAT THE BILL ON CLARITY GUARANTEES THE RIGHTS OF QUEBECERS AND
FULLY RESPECTS THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, December 14, 1999 – In
opening the debate on second reading of the Act to give effect to the
requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada
in the Quebec Secession Reference, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of
the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, reiterated that the
House of Commons has a responsibility to assess the clarity of a referendum
question and majority, in order to determine whether the Government of Canada
has an obligation to undertake negotiations on a possible secession.
The Minister added that not a single sentence or
syllable of the bill impinges on the prerogatives of the National Assembly.
"The National Assembly can ask Quebec voters the question of its choice.
But the House of Commons (...) has a duty to make its own assessment of whether
the question and the majority indicate a clear support for secession before
concluding that the Government of Canada is bound to enter into negotiations on
the break-up of Canada," Mr. Dion stated.
The Minister pointed out that even the Bloc's
Intergovernmental Affairs critic and the leader of the Bloc recognize the
responsibility of the Government of Canada and the House of Commons, citing a
recent statement by the Bloc's critic: [TRANSLATION] "According to the
Court's opinion, if there is a justifiable role for the federal government (...)
it is after the referendum, in determining the clarity of the question and the
majority required, so as to conclude whether there is an obligation to
negotiate."
Mr. Dion emphasized that the Supreme Court also
concluded that the Government of Canada would be bound to undertake negotiations
on the secession of a province only if that province's population clearly
expressed that choice. He noted that "to negotiate where there is clarity,
and not to negotiate where there is not (...) has been the Government of
Canada's position in the past." As proof, the Minister noted that, faced
with the confusing question in the 1980 referendum, Prime Minister Trudeau had
said that if the Yes side obtained a majority, he would say to Mr Lévesque:
[TRANSLATION] "If you knock on the sovereignty-association door, there is
no negotiation possible."
It is good sense that has guided the Government
of Canada in the past, in 1980 as well as in 1995, the Minister stated. On
September 8, 1995, the Prime Minister of Canada stated in the House of Commons:
"For months and months I have asked the Government of Quebec to ask a clear
question. It is asking an ambiguous question."
The bill stipulates that, for negotiations to be
obligatory, the question would have to state clearly that the province would
cease to be part of Canada and would become an independent state. "No one
can seriously maintain that the Government of Canada would be obliged to
negotiate no matter what the question was. (...) It is only reasonable that, to
trigger negotiations on secession, you need a clear question on secession,"
the Minister stated.
The Minister noted that it is customary in
democracy to require a clear referendum majority before proceeding with a
radical change whose consequences would be virtually irreversible. "Such
negotiations [on secession] should never be undertaken on the basis of an
uncertain majority that might not hold firm in the face of the inevitable
difficulties engendered by the break-up of a country. It's not worth imposing
that risk on everyone, because the chances that such an attempt at secession
will succeed are slim to none in the absence of a clear majority." He
pointed out that separatist leaders around the world say: "Let my people
vote under fair conditions and you'll see that they want to separate."
They're not saying: "Half of my people want to separate."
Mr. Dion also noted that the consequences of
referendum votes are very different: No means not now, but Yes means forever.
"Only a Yes can give rise to an irreversible change that is binding on
future generations. There must be a clear majority before negotiations are
undertaken on effecting such a change," he maintained.
The Minister also stated that this bill is
reasonable and in everybody's interest. "None of our rights as Quebecers is
threatened by this bill on clarity, quite the contrary. No one in this country
wants to keep Quebecers in Canada against their clearly expressed will".
What the separatist leaders defend in this matter, Mr Dion concluded, is not the
right of Quebecers. "No, what the separatist leaders defend is their
capacity to maintain confusion on their project. They are upholding their
so-called right to confusion."
-30-
For information:
André Lamarre
Special Assistant
(613) 943-1838
Notes
for an address by the President of the Privy Council and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs the Honourable Stéphane Dion on the second reading of
Bill C-20
|
