|
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
|
