SPEAKING NOTES - PRESS CONFERENCE BY
THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE DION
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRIDAY DECEMBER 10, 1999
Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, the draft Clarity Act, which I presented in the House of Commons today, will give all Canadians, but most particularly my fellow Quebecers, assurance that they will never have to see the break-up of Canada in confusion.
The break-up of an advanced democracy such as Canada would be exceptionally grave and without precedent. Even the act of entering into negotiations on such a subject would carry the heaviest consequences, whatever the result.
Rather than introducing such a bill today, the Government of Canada would have preferred that the Premier of Quebec commit himself to not holding a referendum before the end of his current mandate, as the Prime Minister of Canada proposed to him. Under the circumstances imposed by the Premier of Quebec and by his government, the interest of this draft bill, its advantage for everyone, is that it stipulates the circumstances of clarity without which the Government of Canada would not enter into negotiations on the separation of a province of Canada.
In the absence of such clear support for secession, the Government of Canada has the moral obligation not to negotiate the break-up of Canada and the end of belonging to Canada for the citizens of the province concerned. This is a reasonable position and I am sure everyone understands that.
In addition to being reasonable, this position also has a solid legal foundation. The Supreme Court confirmed that on August 20, 1998.
Indeed, the Supreme Court opinion has provided important guidance to Canadians on how to deal with the difficult issue of secession.
First, the Court found that there is no basis in law for a unilateral secession.
Second, the Court recognized that, if ever the population of Quebec or another province clearly indicated a will to secede from Canada, the other constitutional actors in Canada would have an obligation to enter into negotiations on the possibility of secession.
This is the reasonable position that the Government of Canada has defended in the past: if these things are clear, we negotiate, but if there is no clarity, there are no negotiations.
The Court's emphasis on clarity was striking. It made no fewer than 38 uses of the words "clear" and "clarity", not to mention other references to the need for a lack of ambiguity. Its requirement for clarity was double: a clear question on secession and a clear majority on a clear question on secession.
The interpretation of whether such a clear will for secession exists is, the Court tells us, a decision for political actors, meaning our governments and our elected representatives.
Finally, the Court underlined that any negotiations would need to deal with a number of extremely complex and difficult issues, that none of these could be excluded, and that the outcome of such negotiations would be uncertain.
The Government of Canada respects this decision in its entirety. Fundamentally, the draft Clarity Act essentially sets out the principles and the procedures that will determine how the Government of Canada and the House of Commons will proceed if ever they need to judge clarity in relation to a will to secede in the future.
So, this draft bill does not set rules for a referendum. It sets rules for the Government of Canada. It obliges the Government of Canada to negotiate if things are clear and not to negotiate if they are not.
The draft Clarity Act is itself brief and straightforward.
It requires the House of Commons to pronounce on the clarity of any proposed referendum question with a secessionist aim within thirty days of its being released by a provincial government. This ensures that the population of the province and the whole of the Canadian population will have early notice of whether the House of Commons finds the question clear on the issue of secession.
Questions that mixed other options, like partnership, or that focussed merely on a mandate to negotiate, would not be considered clear because they would not ask the population directly whether it wished to leave Canada or not. There could be no negotiations without such clarity.
You negotiate because you want secession. You don't negotiate to find out if by chance that might be what you want. Entering into such negotiations would have such serious consequences for all Canadians that only the clear will to effect secession could justify such negotiations. Indeed, the Court refers specifically to, and I quote, the expression by the population "that they no longer wish to remain in Canada."
If, after a referendum on a clear question, the government of the province sought negotiations on secession, the House of Commons would need to determine if there had been a clear majority with a clear will to secede. There could be no negotiations without such clarity.
In making this determination, the House of Commons would not only examine the question and the actual vote, but it would consider other views such as those of the opposition parties in the province concerned and those of other provincial governments and legislatures, on whether clarity existed.
Finally, the draft Clarity Act reaffirms that the secession of a province would require a constitutional amendment, which would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all the provinces and the Government of Canada. No such amendment could be proposed to the House of Commons unless the negotiations had addressed a series of secession terms identified by the Supreme Court: the division of assets and liabilities, any border changes, the rights, interests and territorial claims of aboriginal peoples and the protection of minority rights.
Once again, given the continued objective of the Quebec government to hold yet another referendum and its refusal to indicate that it will respect the opinion of the Supreme Court, our only responsible course is to proceed with the draft Clarity Act.
The Court's opinion has been viewed as a model for how to deal with an attempted secession in a democracy. The draft Clarity Act is in the same vein. It will strengthen our democracy. Of course, our hope is that it is never needed.
This law should never be used. Let us hope that it convinces the Government of Quebec to stop looking for its so-called winning conditions in an atmosphere of confusion.
Respecting Quebecers means avoiding the referendary uncertainty that they don't want, and guaranteeing that they will never lose Canada unless they have clearly renounced it and secession has been duly negotiated with a sincere concern for justice for all.
The purpose of this draft Clarity Act is to respect Quebecers and all Canadians.
Thank you.
Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&page=consfile&sub=clarityact&doc=pressconference_e.htm