|
APPEARING BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE CLARITY
BILL, MINISTER DION STATES THAT A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY SUCH AS CANADA MUST ENSURE
THAT A UNILATERAL SECESSION WOULD NOT OCCUR
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, May 29, 2000 – Appearing before the special senate
committee on Bill C-20, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the
Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, pointed out that this
Bill, which is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's opinion in the Reference
re Quebec Secession rendered on August 20, 1998, aims at protecting the
rights of all Canadians and respects the roles of both Chambers of the
Parliament of Canada in our parliamentary traditions.
The Minister first addressed the question of Canada's divisibility. "I
understand the deep attachment to our country that makes us hope it will never
have to be divided. I share it as well. But the fact is that Canada is not
indivisible from a legal standpoint. The Supreme Court has confirmed that."
He stipulated that, in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion, Canada's
divisibility would be acceptable only under conditions of clarity and could be
effected only through a constitutional amendment.
The Minister noted that none of the major political parties in Canada
advocates that Quebec should continue to be part of Canada against the clearly
expressed will of Quebecers And he specified that: "If we Canadians
acknowledge that our country is divisible, it is not because we feel that our
citizenship carries with it any fewer values than that of other countries. On
the contrary, we value the fact that we belong to Canada so highly that we find
it inconceivable that our belonging could be based on anything other than
voluntary adherence."
The Minister then responded to the argument that the Government of Canada
would not be bound to respect the opinion. He cited the views of the Supreme
Court and that of the most esteemed Canadian experts in constitutional law,
concluding that: "in practice, an advisory opinion rendered by the
Supreme Court of Canada in a reference has the same legal import as any judgment
of that Court. A decision of a government that ran counter to such an opinion
would almost certainly be successfully challenged in the courts." He
added that the opinion applies to all constitutional actors in Canada, including
the Government of Quebec.
The Minister then stated that: "C-20 will apply in practice, while a
unilateral declaration of independence would not." He noted that,
while the Court cannot rule out a priori the possibility that a
separatist government could be so irresponsible as to proceed with an attempt at
unilateral secession, it pointed out that such an attempt would not be
"under colour of a legal right". "So we need to ask
Mr. Bouchard's government how, in the absence of a legal right, it could
unilaterally take Canada away from millions of Quebecers who would want to keep
it and would be entitled to keep it? How could that government obtain respect
for its own authority if it had placed itself outside the law?" he
asked.
Mr Dion then pointed out the international community's extreme reluctance to
recognize unilateral secessions. And the Court has taken that reluctance into
consideration in making a very prudent assessment of the role of the
international community: "And so our fellow citizens who opt for
Quebec's secession ought not to count on international recognition exercised
against the will of the Canadian state. [...] They should count on the
values of tolerance that we all share in Canada, and which would be more
necessary than ever if we had to conduct those painful and difficult
negotiations," the Minister noted.
He stated that the Clarity Bill fully respects the role of the Senate within
our parliamentary system. "It is totally appropriate that the Clarity
Bill not confer on the Senate the same role it confers on the House of Commons.
[...] In assigning different roles to the Senate and the House of Commons,
the Clarity Bill in no way creates a precedent. At times the two Chambers do not
have the same role to play, and for excellent reasons," he added.
The Minister explained that if the House of Commons objects to the
Government's entering into constitutional negotiations on any constitutional
matter, it can defeat the government through a vote of non-confidence. The
Senate does not have that power. Mr Dion specified that the Bill recognizes
the serious impact of a decision to enter into negotiations on secession and,
for that reason, it requires the Government of Canada to ensure, prior to
entering such negotiations, that it has the confidence of the House of Commons.
The Minister pointed out that the Clarity Bill creates however an obligation
for the House of Commons to take into account any formal statements or
resolutions by the Senate with respect to the clarity of the question and
majority. He pointed out that giving the Senate a decisive role in assessing
clarity would bestow on it an additional power to veto a constitutional
amendment, "a power that it does not currently possess under our
Parliamentary system."
Mr Dion concluded by reiterating his profound conviction that clarity is the
ally of Canadian unity, that ambiguity is not; that with a clear question,
Quebecers will always answer that they want to stay Canadian; and that a
democratic country such as Canada has the right, the duty and the peaceful means
to ensure that a unilateral secession would not occur. He then called on the
senators to vote in favour of the Clarity Bill, and thus help to strengthen the
unity of our country.
-30-
For information:
André Lamarre
Special Assistant
Phone: (613) 943-1838
Fax: (613) 943-5553
|
