Before the members of the Senate Committee, Minister Stéphane Dion reaffirms the relevance and the legality of the Clarity Bill

BEFORE THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE, MINISTER STÉPHANE DION REAFFIRMS THE RELEVANCE AND THE LEGALITY OF THE CLARITY BILL

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, June 19, 2000 – In his testimony before the Special Senate Committee on Bill C-20, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, stated that the Clarity Bill guarantees to Canadians that their federal government will never enter into negotiations on the secession of a province in the absence of clear support for secession by the voters of that province. Canadians have a right to that essential guarantee, the Minister stated, calling on the senators to give Canadians that guarantee by supporting the bill.

Mr. Dion emphasized that the House of Commons has the right to express itself by resolution on the clarity of the question, after taking into consideration the viewpoints that would be expressed by the Senate and other political actors, but before voters of the province concerned go to the polls. "The voters would be entitled to that information," he added.

He noted that the statements of the legal scholars who have testified before the Committee have made it possible to conclude that the Supreme Court's opinion in the Quebec Secession Reference, to which the bill gives effect, must be respected. He then pointed out that the opinion stipulates that, "to effect a secession legally in Canada, an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary (par. 97), 'which perforce requires negotiation' (par. 84), 'principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework' (par. 149)."

The Minister stressed that, in its opinion, "the Court did not rule on the extremely complex mechanism for such difficult and uncertain negotiations." So the bill that gives effect to that opinion, he noted, does not determine who would negotiate secession, nor how each government or political actor would establish its own negotiating positions, nor which constitutional amending procedure would apply in the event of an agreement on secession.

The Clarity Bill explicitly mentions only the participants that would, according to the Court, have an obligation to negotiate in the event of clear support for secession, namely the governments of all of the provinces and of Canada, Mr. Dion pointed out. "Other political actors, such as representatives of linguistic minorities, might participate, but there would be no obligation for them to do so." Furthermore, he explained, subsection 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that a constitutional conference be held with the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples on any constitutional amendment that would affect any of the provisions of the Constitution that relate specifically to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

The Minister noted that, with one exception, all of the experts have stated that no legal obligation exists to hold a national referendum in order to obtain a mandate to enter into negotiations on secession. Nevertheless, he pointed out, it would be open to constitutional actors to consult voters at any stage of the process to ascertain their views.

With regard to the constitutional amending procedure, Mr. Dion expressed his conviction that the main difficulty would not be to determine which procedure would apply, but rather to negotiate an agreement on secession, while being fair to all. "The negotiation of the break-up of a modern democratic state such as Canada, while respecting the rights of all, would be an unprecedented and mammoth undertaking fraught with pitfalls, the scope of which we cannot measure," the Minister emphasized.

He reiterated that assigning to the House of Commons the power to express itself by resolution on the clarity of the question and of the majority is completely constitutional and appropriate. "The attribution of a different role to the House of Commons is based on the fact that only the House of Commons can, by a vote of non-confidence, prevent the government from entering into constitutional negotiations or interrupt such constitutional negotiations. Since the Senate does not have this power, it would be inappropriate for the Clarity Bill to grant it," he noted.

The Minister pointed out that the break-up of Canada would be very difficult to achieve, not because of ill will of the parties or some desire to keep a province against the clearly expressed will of its population. "No, the fundamental difficulty would stem from the very nature of the exercise itself, which would consist of picking and choosing from among one's fellow citizens, deciding whom one wanted to keep and whom one wanted to turn into foreigners, and all this while respecting the rights of all." And he concluded by expressing his conviction that: "[...] all of us, including the separatist leaders, know that with a clear question, Quebecers would express their desire to stay in Canada."

-30-

For information:

André Lamarre
Special Assistant
Phone: (613) 943-1838
Fax: (613) 943-5553

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&page=pressroom&sub=pressrelease&doc=20000619_e.htm