|
THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE DION STATES THAT THE CLARITY BILL IS
REASONABLE, PRO-QUEBEC, PRO-DEMOCRACY, AND IN THE INTEREST OF ALL CANADIANS
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, February 16, 2000 – Appearing before the House
Legislative Committee on the clarity bill, the Honourable Stéphane Dion,
President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and
the sponsor of the bill, stated today that the bill is reasonable, pro-Quebec,
pro-democracy, and in the interest of all Canadians.
Mr. Dion said that he is proud as a Quebecer to be the sponsor of the bill,
because "an attempt at secession would create serious problems between
Quebec and the rest of Canada, but first and foremost it would divide Quebecers
among themselves. [...] The prospect of such division is worrying enough,
without contemplating its being created in confusion, outside the legal
framework, rather than in clarity and respecting the rule of law, as confirmed
by the Supreme Court of Canada." He added that the bill establishes the
responsibilities of the House of Commons and of the Government of Canada,
without impinging on the responsibilities and prerogatives of the other
political actors. "In fact, the bill recognizes that Quebec’s Government
and the National Assembly, like any government and legislative assembly in
Canada, has every right to put any referendum question to its voters that it
sees fit," the Minister noted.
He stressed that it is reasonable that the Government of Canada not negotiate
the breakup of the country unless a clear question on secession has been asked.
Citing the Supreme Court, which referred to a clear expression by people
"that they no longer wish to remain in Canada," he specified that
"obviously, clarity cannot come from a question that addresses something
other than secession, or that mixes in other considerations."
With respect to the majority, he stated that here again the bill gives effect
to the Supreme Court’s opinion and is reasonable. "No one can seriously
claim that the Court placed such emphasis on the notion of a clear majority only
to invite the House of Commons to accept, without further review, a majority of
50% + 1." Refuting the argument that 50% + 1 is an ironclad rule of
democracy, the Minister cited many examples, in Quebec and elsewhere, where that
majority is insufficient, and pointed out that the Quebec’s Referendum Act
makes no mention of 50% + 1. "Equality of voters means that each voice is
worth one unit when the votes are counted. But once the results are known, it is
up to the political authorities to determine what action to take on the basis of
the vote. In our democratic tradition, referenda are consultative," the
Minister noted. He added that "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 the possibility of effecting such a
change."
The Minister reiterated the Court’s opinion that negotiations on secession
would have to take place "within the existing constitutional
framework" and would have to respect four principles: federalism,
democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of
minorities. One consequence of this, he noted, is that the Government of Quebec
could not determine on its own what would be negotiable and what wouldn’t, nor
could it purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of
a proposed secession to the other parties. He added that the negotiations would
have to address the interests "of the federal government, of Quebec and the
other provinces, and other participants, as well as the rights of all
Canadians," on all matters, including division of the debt and the issue of
borders.
The Minister then addressed three positions that challenge the bill, which he
believes are unreasonable: the first is not to negotiate even if there were
clear support; the second is to negotiate secession even in the absence of clear
support; and the third calls on the secessionist government to break off
negotiations through a unilateral declaration of independence.
Mr Dion stressed that refusing to negotiate secession if there is clarity is
contrary to our law and our political culture: "there is no major political
party that suggests that a province be held in Canada against the clearly
expressed will of its population. [...] We realize that our Canadian identity is
too precious to be based on anything other than voluntary adhesion." He
noted that those who adopt this position know that Canada would in fact
negotiate its breakup in the event of clear support for secession, but maintain
that this must not be admitted, in order "to frighten the voters." He
added that this position is cynical and that "Canada would not deserve to
be what it is if it were based on fear and deception, rather than on voluntary
adhesion."
Responding to those who believe that the bill is a padlock to secession and
that the Government of Canada should negotiate secession even in the absence of
clear support, the Minister stated that by doing so, " they are asking the
House of Commons and the Government of Canada to abdicate their
responsibilities," which constitutes disrespect to Canada, to all
Canadians, and above all, to the citizens of the province in question. "To
respect our rights as citizens, our right over Canada, the House of Commons
should call on the Government of Canada to negotiate secession only if the
province’s voters clearly supported that," Mr Dion added.
He asserted that the third position, which advocates breaking off
negotiations through a unilateral declaration of independence, is irresponsible
and unrealistic, noting that it would have no basis either in international law
or under Canada’s Constitution. "The Government of Quebec could not take
away their full belonging to Canada from millions of Quebecers who would want
and would be entitled to keep it. What would it do to have its own authority
respected if it had placed itself outside the law?"
The Minister stated that the Government of Quebec "would do far better
to commit themselves unequivocally to always acting in clarity and legality, in
other words, to never attempting secession without respecting the rights of
Quebecers."
Mr Dion concluded by stating that "the bill is in the interest of all
because it provides the only answer to the problem of secession that is in
keeping with our culture and our law, the answer of a free country whose unity
is based on legality, clarity and mutual consent."
-30-
For information:
André Lamarre
Special Assistant
(613) 943-1838
|
