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