Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Bill C-20
Issue 7 - Evidence (Afternoon sitting)
OTTAWA, Monday, June 19, 2000
The Special Senate Committee on Bill C-20, to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, met this day at 1:34 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senator, I see a quorum. The eleventh meeting of the Special Senate Committee on Bill C-20 is now in session. I would like to welcome all of you, including our television audience, to this hearing.
We continue our consideration of Bill C-20, to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.
[Translation]
The bill was passed by the House of Commons on March 15, 2000 and had first reading in the Senate on March 21. Second reading was on May 18, which means that the Senate approved the bill in principle. The bill was then referred to a special committee for an in-depth examination.
[English]
Our work continues this afternoon with the appearance, for the second time, of the Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and minister responsible for Bill C-20.
[Translation]
The Minister has already appeared before us, on May 29, and we are pleased to welcome him back today. Later this afternoon, we will proceed to the clause-by-clause study of the bill. The committee will then report its decisions to the Senate for its consideration.
[English]
Mr. Dion, we do thank you for appearing before us again today. We look forward to your presentation.
[Translation]
The Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: Madam Chair, along with the same colleagues, my deputy minister Mr. George Anderson, the Associate Deputy Minister for Justice, Ms Mary Dawson and my legislative counsel, Mr. Geoffroi Montpetit, I am honoured to appear before you as the last witness after having been your first witness, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity.
I am of course aware of what was said by the 20 other witnesses that you have listened to with an admirable regularity since last we saw each other. Using as inspiration the evidence given by other experts who appeared before you, I prepared the six-page text which you have received, and which may be of some use in orienting our discussions. You might wish to read it at a quieter time, after our meeting. I do not have time to read it to you now, since you asked me to simply say a few introductory words. I will summarize the text for you.
The document deals with the fundamental reason for introducing this bill. Basically, the government of Canada must not, under any circumstance, undertake to negotiate secession of a province from Canada unless the voters in that province have clearly expressed their willingness to no longer belong to Canada in order to become an independent country. This bill gives Canadians this essential guarantee that the unity of their country will never be lost in confusion. Honourable senators, you have an opportunity to give this guarantee to Canadians by supporting the bill. That is the basic reason.
[English]
When you start from there, you see two basic principles identified very clearly by the Supreme Court of Canada that explain the way this bill has been shaped. These are clarity, section 1 and section 2, and legality, section 3 of this very short bill.
Let us start with clarity.
[Translation]
All of your witnesses, with the exception of Professor Lachapelle, recognized that the government of Canada has the right to not undertake negotiations of secession in the absence of clarity, without a clear support for secession. That is an obvious statement that everyone supported.
Let us take the case of Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan in no way challenges the right of Canadian federal institutions to reserve their response and to not negotiate in the absence of clarity. He fully recognizes that the right exists. His problem lies elsewhere: he feels that the government of Canada should not, through legislation, try to reach a resolution on the clarity of the question before the result of the referendum is made public. He feels that such a statement by the House of Commons, such a resolution, if it were known before the voters had had an opportunity to vote, would represent interference in a provincial referendum, which is against the spirit of federalism.
I believe that the opposite is true. I believe that in no federation in the world would it be judged unacceptable for elected members of a federal Parliament to determine whether or not a referendum question, which might affect the unity of the country, is clear. This problem would not be considered a problem elsewhere. It would not be expressed in the terms used by Mr. Ryan.
Of course, a referendum on secession held by the government of a province is provincial. However, as soon as the referendum concerns the abolition of all federal jurisdictions in the province, indeed the abolition of the country itself, in relation to the province, then of course the federal Parliament must become involved.
Let us suppose a somewhat opposite situation. Let us imagine that the government of Canada decides to hold a referendum throughout the country with the following question: Do you agree to the abolition of the provinces following an offer of political and economic partnership? Would someone, somewhere, contest the right of the provincial legislative assemblies to express themselves immediately through resolution, including on the clarity of the question, before the voters decide? Would someone say: "Oh no, we must not do that, because the provinces would be interfering in a federal referendum"? Of course not, because the referendum involves provincial jurisdictions. The same would apply if the opposite were true with a referendum on secession that would abolish the country, where the country is removed from the province, including all of the constitutional responsibilities that its citizens enjoy as part of the country and the duties that the government owes the citizens.
The House of Commons has every right to express itself on the clarity of the question before a referendum is held, and at a political level that represents an advantage. The voters would be entitled to that information. If the question were clear, the citizens of Quebec, and I am as convinced as you are of that fact, would vote in favour of Canadian unity. If the question were unclear there would be an unequivocal ruling by the House of Commons. As Professor Pinard explained, this would greatly help the citizens in deciding to defeat the referendum.
[English]
About legality now, I think we all agree that this Supreme Court reference about Quebec secession is binding. All the legal experts have told you that it is binding.
It is more than binding. It is an incredible victory for Canadian unity and for democracy. For the first time it has been said by the Supreme Court of Canada that the claim that the separatist government had, that it may remove itself from Canadian law by international law after a "Yes" vote in a referendum, is a myth. There is no paragraph, no sentence, no comma in international law that gives to a separatist government the right to say that it is now the government of an independent state. This decision cannot be made unilaterally. There is no support for it.
This being said, the court did not rule on the extremely complex mechanism for such difficult and uncertain negotiations. Nor did the court determine the constitutional amending procedure that would apply to secession. Let us look at that.
[Translation]
Who would negotiate? The Court named the political actors that would have an obligation to negotiate if a clear will to secede were expressed, namely the federal government and the governments of the provinces. Other political actors might participate but were not identified by the Court, which only identified those for whom there would be an obligation to do so.
[English]
Only the Government of Canada and the provinces have the obligation to negotiate if it is clear, and that is why the clarity bill identified only them, but the clarity bill said "at least" them, so others may come.
[Translation]
Representatives of linguistic minorities might participate, but there would be no obligation for them to do so. With respect to Aboriginal peoples, I already explained that clause 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides for a constitutional conference with representatives of the aboriginal peoples on any constitutional amendment affecting the constitutional provisions dealing specifically with Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
How would each party establish its negotiating position? Each government, each political actor, would have to determine for itself how it would proceed in consulting its population or its members. No federal bill can determine that. Voters could be consulted at any stage of the process; anything would be possible. However, it would be unprecedented for a government of Canada to hold a national referendum before entering into constitutional negotiations in the way that Professor Howse suggested.
[English]
I just note that no other legal expert supported this point of Professor Howse that there is a legal obligation to have a national referendum before entering legal negotiations. Only one suggested that, and, indeed, it is not supported by the Supreme Court reference, nor by Canadian historical practice.
[Translation]
In the case where a constitutional amendment procedure would apply, the Court, in paragraph 105, stated that it could not rule on the constitutional amendment that would allow a secession without a specific context. This is what the court said:
Each option would require us to assume the existence of facts that at this stage are unknown.
[English]
As to this issue, I am in agreement with what Professor Monahan told you about the fact that the real difficulty would not be in identifying the constitutional amending formula. What would be difficult would be to negotiate an agreement of separation. This agreement of separation would be a huge mess to negotiate, something very complicated. It would be the first time we would have tried to do such a thing. Once you have this agreement of separation supported by the participants of the negotiations, if there is a strong consensus, then the problem of which amending formula would apply would follow. The real difficulty is not to choose the amending formula; it would be to negotiate such a thing while respecting the rights of everyone.
As to the role of the Senate, 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 a government from entering into constitutional negotiations or interrupt such negotiations. Since the Senate does not have this power, it would be inappropriate for the clarity bill to grant it. This argument has been repeated in various ways by different legal experts you have met: Dean Hogg, Professor Monahan, Professor Magnet and today Professor McEvoy.
To conclude, Canada is not indivisible from a legal standpoint. Its divisibility, however, would be very difficult to implement -- not because of ill will or because of a desire to keep the population of a province in Canada against its clearly expressed will. There is no support in Canada for that. As Professor Gibbins told you, there is no support among Western Canadians for that. If Quebecers would want to get out of Canada, on a clear question, and a clear majority -- no ambiguity -- then we have the idea that we must enter into negotiations.
[Translation]
The main difficulty is the very nature of the exercise which involves choosing among fellow citizens. Who will stay and who will become foreign? How can we accomplish that while respecting everyone's rights? That is what would be so difficult, even if everyone acted with good will. And of course it would be a precedent in the history of well-established democracies. Generally, that is not done in a democracy. Everyone stays and there is no attempt made to pick and choose one's fellow citizens.
That is what is difficult and that is what we must explain to all our citizens, rather than inventing legal obstacles that do not exist. The great strength of the Clarity Bill is that it does not invent anything. It simply brings to light the difficulties that we would face if we attempted to pick and choose from among our fellow citizens, while respecting the rights of all.
The requirement for clarity as established by the Supreme Court, and to which Bill 20 gives effect, highlights our willingness to remain together in Canada. We all know, including those seeking independence, that in answer to a clear question, Quebecers would express their willingness to remain in Canada.
[English]
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Minister, when you came before us at the end of May, you termed this bill an "excellent" bill. I notice that you did not use that term today. I wonder, after analyzing the testimony of witnesses, if that adjective still holds because, while many of the witnesses support the concept of the bill, very few support its details.
In addition, the Assembly of First Nations is not satisfied with its role being limited to that of a consultant. You will recall that, because you replied that Cree have threatened to challenge this bill's constitutionality if it is passed in its present form, a group representing French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec want a say in the process.
No less an authority than former Supreme Court of Canada justice Mr. Estey last week declared the bill as unconstitutional in his opinion, which must be respected. Other witnesses shared that opinion here. Mr. Estey even questioned the Supreme Court opinion by saying, in a general way, "I do not like the judgment much."
Beyond all that, it should trouble us all that those key personalities in the Quebec who in the past were called on to fight the referendum on the No side, are prepared today to reject the bill. When Mr. Ryan was before us, he was asked: If a Bill C-20 had been proposed in 1980, what would your reaction have been? I will quote his answer.
[Translation]
If Mr. Trudeau had introduced a similar bill in the House of Commons, I would have told him publicly that I did not want it, that we did not need it. I think he knew that.
[English]
That is the Mr. Ryan who led the No forces in 1980.
Mr. Charest, if he is still Leader of the Opposition, would have that same role in the event of a referendum. He wrote a letter to the committee dated May 30, 2000. I quote:
[Translation]
When this bill was introduced, in December 1999, the Liberal Party of Quebec said that it was a useless and untimely initiative.
[English]
He ends his letter by commenting on Bill 99, to which he is opposed. He states:
[Translation]
...particularly since the referral to the courts of a debate that is essentially political in nature is undesirable, even risky. This also applies to Bill C-20.
[English]
We cannot ignore the adamant opposition to this bill from those who in the past were leaders of the No forces. These people include the one person in the past who successfully led the No forces. Another is the person who, in 1995, was key to the marginal success that the No forces attained, if not the key person. That same person, under present conditions would be the one responsible to assume the role Mr. Ryan played.
In addition, Bill C-20 has divided all federalist political parties, including your own. It has divided mine. It has divided the NDP. It has even divided the Alliance, as some of their leadership candidates have spoken out against it. The only so-called "federalist" parties or party in the House of Commons that remained united on this bill is the Bloc Québécois. The other parties in the House are divided.
This is so important that I will take the time I need. I will not exaggerate.
Faced with this overwhelming opposition, would it not be best to withdraw this bill before this committee reports? Should we not take into consideration during the summer all the testimony given and return in the fall with new legislation?
I sense, and I share this with many colleagues on both sides, that it would not take very much to rally the support such legislation should have. After all, we are talking about the possible break-up of this country. Bill C-20 does not have that kind of support.
There is no referendum in sight. There is no urgency to rush this bill through. Certainly, to allow a few months to table more acceptable legislation is not only highly desirable, but essential. I repeat, Bill C-20 has seriously divided the federalist, and brought joy to separatists and ultra-nationalists. Bill C-20 should be faulted on this alone, and withdrawn. I hope that you agree.
Mr. Dion: Obviously, you know that I disagree. It is an excellent bill for every Canadian. It protects our rights and gives us an essential guarantee. It is perceived as fair. All attempts to create a backlash about it have failed because, especially in my province, Quebecers agree with the content of the bill. The idea that you need a clear question is strongly supported. The question of 1995 was not clear. That is strongly supported. You do not break up a country by a razor thin majority of 50 per cent plus one. That is clearly supported. You do not pretend that a country is divisible, and a province is not. That is strongly supported. You must act within the legal framework, while respecting the rights of everyone. That is strongly supported.
We will go ahead with this bill. We hope that we will have the support of Senate for the sake of all Canadians.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You will not have our support because we believe that the federal forces should fight the next referendum together, and that this bill divides them. Why do you want to push this bill through without amendment?
Mr. Dion: I do not believe the content of the bill is divisive. It is in the interests of everyone. I am very proud that my own party voted for it unanimously in the House, and that we had the support of almost all the NDP members. We had the support of the Reform members and some of the Tory members, despite the opposition of their leader. I expect that we will also have bipartisan support in the Senate.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: My point is that the federalist leaders are opposed to this bill. Does this not enter into your assessment of the impact it will have on the next referendum in Quebec?
Mr. Dion: As I said, according to Mr. Charest, the bill is not necessary. I have never heard him say that the bill is dangerous or against Quebec. He said that it was not necessary. He thinks that, with the Supreme Court reference, we have all that we need.
I would agree that it is not necessary, if Mr. Charest were the premier of Quebec. However, since in Quebec we have a premier who will never commit himself to respecting the Supreme Court reference in its entirety, challenging the rights of Quebecers to be as Canadian as Canadians of the other provinces -- giving the sense that Quebecers could lose Canada in the confusion -- in order for Canadians to see that the unity of their country is at stake, then the government of Canada felt that it had the responsibility to clarify and to ensure separation would not be negotiated and that there is a clear accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada finding. We need this bill because Mr. Charest is not the premier of Quebec.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Does that mean that you would withdraw the bill as soon as he became premier?
Mr. Dion: No.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Once a federal force gets in power, you would withdraw the bill?
Mr. Dion: When Premier Bouchard said that he could not accept the Supreme Court reference in its entirety, we needed this bill.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: Your opening comments show that you have closely followed the presentations and answers given by our numerous witnesses.
On numerous occasions, witnesses asked us why the Minister had chosen to identify only the members of the House of Commons as political actors in Bill C-20. Can you remind us of your answer to this question?
Mr. Dion: The government is accountable to the House of Commons. Only the House of Commons can prevent or interrupt a constitutional negotiation. The Senate does not, nor should it have, this right. That is why the House of Commons should determine if the question and the majority are clear, while taking into account any official statement coming from the Senate.
Senator Poulin: Mr. Dion, the role that the Senate is playing today in the examination of Bill C-20, according to some witnesses that we have heard, involves establishing a management process and not a legislative process, that is, stages that would be managed by the government of the day, if ever one of the provinces wanted to hold a referendum on secession. Would you agree, or have you any comments to make on that position?
Mr. Dion: As most of the legal experts who appeared before you have said, we must agree that the Senate's constitutional powers will in no way be affected by the bill. The Senate, if ever, unfortunately, we were put in a situation where a separation agreement were to become a constitutional amendment, would still have its six-month suspensive veto.
In the meantime, the Senate maintains its capacity to influence the process of negotiations through resolutions and through the role that the senators play in their respective caucuses. In the next few weeks, the Senate will have an opportunity to examine the bill and to follow the usual process in adopting it. Its role is being respected. What the clarity legislation does change, is the fact that while the government is under no obligation to consult the Senate in the absence of the bill, the House of Commons will be obliged to do so once the bill becomes law.
Senator Poulin: Mr. Dion, we are very much aware of the fact that, for example, for people in Northern Ontario -- the region that I represent in the Senate -- and for French Canadians living in the nine other provinces, it is obvious that we feel that we are well-represented in the House of Commons when we see how many French-Canadian members are not from Quebec.
That being said, many witnesses told us that, for example, if, in five years, British Columbia decided to put a similar question to its citizens, Bill C-20 would give a province other than Quebec the opportunity to separate from Canada. Have you any comments to make on that?
Mr. Dion: I have more faith in my country than do the people who expressed those concerns. I might note that Professor Gibbons, who has been studying western alienation since the beginning of the 1970s -- he is one of the specialists in this area -- has completely discarded this possibility and has said that, since he began studying this issue, he has never seen a significant separatist movement in Western Canada.
I have heard people discuss it. I heard one of your colleagues, a senator, say that British Columbia should consider separating because we could not agree on the salmon issue. I have heard this kind of talk. I know that Western Canadians feel strongly attached to Canada. I know that the biggest Canadian flags can be seen in British Columbia. There is one separatist movement in Canada, and that is quite enough.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Dion, I wrote you a letter in May. I received your answer last Friday. I distributed it to the committee members so that they might read it.
I am disappointed that you speak of negotiation when I speak of consultation. That is what you say in your letter. You say, and you repeated it today, that representatives of linguistic minorities might take part in the negotiations. That is not what I am talking about. I was talking about consultation, about the right to give an opinion on something as important as the secession of my country.
When we talk about minorities, we might also be speaking about groups other than official language linguistic minorities. We might be talking about women, or disabled persons, we might be talking about homosexuals or a whole host of groups that are not considered to be minorities. That is not what I am talking about.
All that I asked you to do in my letter and in my questions, when you appeared before us the last time, is: do you intend to add to Bill C-20 -- since you did it for the Aboriginal peoples in clause 35, would it be possible for you to be fair -- official language groups, the anglophones in Quebec and the francophones outside Quebec, since they will be greatly affected by this process and will probably also be traumatized?
You know as well as I do that there will be a backlash. It will not be against handicapped people such as myself, or against the minorities that I mentioned, but against French-speaking Canadians living in the province. Seventy municipalities in Ontario have declared that they are unilingual English following Quebec's decision to adopt the bilingual sign law. I worry about this type of reaction.
As a Franco-Ontarian senator, I would like to know whether you have rejected the possibility of including the official language minorities? In the reference on secession, the Supreme Court stated clearly that all clauses in the Constitution, all the provisions in Canada's Constitution are equal. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Dion: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: If it is good for the aboriginal peoples, why is it not so for official language minorities, in clauses 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 or 23, under the same conditions?
Mr. Dion: You are absolutely right in saying that secession will have dramatic consequences for the minorities in this country. The last thing you and I, as francophones, want to see is an international border separating Quebec francophones from Ontario francophones. That would be a deplorable situation. That is an argument against separation that we must put forward.
As to determining the clarity of the question or of the majority, the fact that one is francophone or anglophone is not particularly relevant and should not affect our judgment. Professor Hogg expressed that point of view, which I share. This is a political evaluation which must be undertaken fairly. It is obvious that the government of Canada will take into account the opinions of all the political actors. For us, that is a given.
I would like to quote Mr. Gino LeBlanc, from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne.
The fact that we are not included in Bill C-20 will not prevent us from expressing our opinion. I do not think that the Federation will suddenly decide that since we are not included in Bill C-20, we cannot express ourselves.
I both agree and disagree with him. The bill does not provide for consultation or for the possibility to express one's opinion. This would exist in any case. The clarity bill, and this in no way excludes it, stipulates that the government will have its decision determined by the House of Commons, which will take into account the points of view of a large number of political actors, including, obviously, the Senate, but in no way is it stated that it will not take into account the opinions expressed by francophones outside Quebec. This point of view would be expressed in all of the decisions that Parliamentarians would have to consider.
[English]
Senator Grafstein: Minister, as your evidence concludes, you have read the testimony before this hearing with great care, as we have. You will understand, obviously, that some honourable senators have deeply held convictions, principles and visions of the country, through the prism of the Constitution.
I will not argue with you, today, about your preamble concerning an example of the equality of rights between a province and Parliament. I do not accept what you said -- if the question were reversed -- as an analogy, because I never felt that a province's power was equal to the federal power.
I will not argue with you, but I will disagree with you that the opinion is that the advisory answered two clear questions and the rest was not necessarily binding. However, every witness, save yourself, agrees that there is no constitutional inhibition to the Senate participating in this bill. There was a decision taken to exclude the Senate. Some witnesses, and one in particular, told us that by excluding the Senate the bill itself may be a nullity. However, I will not debate that with you.
I would refer to one sentence of your conclusion which, again, is fundamentally different from mine. You say on page 6:
If Canada is not indivisible from a legal standpoint...
You start the sentence with a double negative. To use a positive and a negative, in fact, you say that Canada is divisible from a legal standpoint.
Sir John A. Macdonald said in 1865 that the overwhelming desire was to form one people under one government. If they had not done that, we would never have succeeded. As to severance, he said that we could not, in effect, incorporate severance because, having divided the powers between the federal and provincial governments, there was no such thing as severance.
There are two constitutional precedents about which I should like you to speak. One is Nova Scotia where, on a clear question, with a clear majority, the Province of Nova Scotia agreed to secede. When that matter came forward, the federal government said that it could not deal with it. In effect, a decision was taken by the Privy Council, which was then the Supreme Court of our land, that the federal government had no power to allow secession.
A more recent example is from Australia. In 1933, Western Australia voted with an 85 per cent majority, on a clear question, to separate from the Australian federation, which federation is very similar to ours in terms of the division of powers.
At that time, they were given the legal opinion that they could not even entertain a petition to seek to start negotiations of any kind without, as the court said, all of the people of Australia expressing their view; that is, without a total and complete mandate.
I look at these two legal precedents, one in Canada and one in Australia, with similar constitutional orders which both suggest that the federal government and even one House of Parliament has no power to enter into or trigger negotiations without the voice of all of Canada.
Minister, if it is your conclusion that it has, based on a clear question with a clear majority of one province, I must humbly disagree.
Mr. Dion: Thank you for the historical examples. In the cases of Nova Scotia and Western Australia, Ottawa and Canberra were against secession. Had they supported secession, I am sure the reaction in London would have been different.
That is the key point. You cannot have unilateral secession, as these cases show. The Supreme Court Canada, in the Quebec case, used the Nova Scotia example in this way. There is no right to secession in a democracy like Australia or Canada. In Canada, there is an obligation to enter into negotiations only if the support is clear.
Senator Grafstein: The House of Lords decision says that the only way in which this could be started was to give effect to the voice of the people of Australia, not the voice of any one state or any states, and it was outside the competence of the federal power there to even negotiate without that voice.
I leave that with you, Chairman.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Canada is a sovereign country. To whom does the sovereignty of Canada belong?
Mr. Dion: To Canadians.
Senator Joyal: How is Canada's sovereignty expressed?
Mr. Dion: In various ways, but certainly through citizenship.
Senator Joyal: And where does this citizenship come from?
Mr. Dion: From law.
Senator Joyal: And where is this law expressed?
Mr. Dion: In the Constitution.
Senator Joyal: What is the Canadian government's responsibility as regards the Constitution?
Mr. Dion: To ensure that it is respected.
Senator Joyal: What does that mean exactly?
Mr. Dion: That means to ensure that the constitutional rights of Canadians as recognized in the Constitution of Canada will be respected.
Senator Joyal: You mean their rights as citizens as they are recognized in the Constitution of Canada?
Mr. Dion: Precisely.
Senator Joyal: When you maintain that the government of Canada can, at this time, enter into a discussion under the law as it exists today without having to consult with anyone, and enter into a discussion or a negotiation to divide the territory called Canada, on what do you base this privilege or prerogative that the Canadian government has if its fundamental responsibility is to maintain Canada's constitutional order as well as the territorial integrity of Canada, as we know it today?
Mr. Dion: The Supreme Court opinion clarifies all that.
Senator Joyal: The Supreme Court opinion did not take away the government of Canada's responsibility to maintain constitutional order, to maintain the respect of our territorial integrity and to ensure that all Canadians, wherever they live, might benefit from the protection of the law. The Supreme Court never said that the government of Canada was relieved of this responsibility. To my knowledge, I do not see in what paragraph the Supreme Court might have told the government of Canada: "Your first prerogative is to stop maintaining Canada's constitutional order and begin dividing the country with some other party."
Mr. Dion: That is why, is ever we were to find ourselves in a situation where we must undertake the negotiation of a secession, Canada's legal order would prevail. The government of Canada would have the responsibility, during these negotiations, to ensure that the complete constitutional rights of Canadians are respected in the province in question throughout Canada and throughout the world.
Senator Joyal: The government of Canada has no other prerogative but to maintain the constitutional order and the continuity of the law as it exists in Canada. Where can the Canadian government suddenly find the constitutional capability to no longer respect this fundamental obligation?
Mr. Dion: The government respects it, because throughout the negotiations, the citizens of the province are citizens of Canada with the same rights as other Canadians. It would only be once we had agreed on a separation and that this agreement, based upon a yet-to-be determined procedure, became recognized in the Constitution that these citizens would have lost their right to be Canadians.
Senator Joyal: That logic is faulty. You maintain that 10 or 12 per cent of Canada's population, about 3.5 million Quebecers, can decide that the rights of 26.5 million Canadians living elsewhere in Canada will be extinguished because only they can decide that this legal situation in the country must end. That is what I do not understand in your reasoning. How can 12 per cent of the shareholders in a corporation demand that the CEO or the board wind up the company while two thirds of the majority of shareholders have had nothing to say about it? If it is good for corporate law why is it not good for democratic law? That is where your reasoning falls short.
Mr. Dion: It is not mine, but the Supreme Court's, senator. You have a problem with the Supreme Court decision and not with the clarity bill, or at least your problem with the clarity bill stems from the fact that you disagree with the Supreme Court of this country.
It is obvious that when we negotiate secession, all Canadians remain Canadian. All of their rights must be respected. The government of the province in no way has the right to take from them the slightest parcel of their rights to be Canadian. It is also obvious that there is no right to secession. If we undertake to negotiate, the government of the province remains the government of a province. Any unilateral declaration that it might make would not be legal. And it is only once an agreement to separate has been concluded and this agreement is given effect through a constitutional amendment, that the citizens of that province will have lost their rights as Canadians.
Senator Joyal: But that does not change fundamentally.
[English]
Senator Taylor: I think Senator Joyal was going down an interesting road. If we lose Quebec, I feel we will lose many rights as Canadians.
I note your initial comment that you did not think there was any separatism sentiment in the west and that this bill really applies to Quebec. I think it applies across the board. I hope you would never think of asking Albertans a nice clear question like: "Do you prefer separation or living with gun control?" That might blow up in our faces.
One of your basic reasons for leaving out the Senate is based on the fact that the House of Commons can, by a vote of non-confidence, bring down a government. We do not have anything called a non-confidence vote in the Senate, but we do have a veto, which amounts to the same thing.
Over the years, we have sent bills back to the House of Commons. We applied our power with the GST debate. There was a long debate on that, although it was not that successful. On the free trade debate, the Senate prompted a call for a general election on the whole question. The public voted for the House of Commons or the administration side.
Lately, we have had the Pearson airport issue. That showed a lack of confidence in the government of the day and some things were caused to change.
To say that the Senate does not have a non-confidence vote is just playing with words. When we use our veto to force an election, it shows non-confidence. Do you have a comment?
Mr. Dion: When the Senate expresses disagreement with a bill and the bill is not enacted, there is no obligation for the government to do anything. The government may respect the decision of the Senate. If the government does not respect that decision, it can introduce another bill.
Senator Taylor: Or it can call an election.
Mr. Dion: If a majority of Commons members vote non-confidence, then only two situations are possible. An election is called or another party is invited to become the government. This is what we call the responsible chamber. It is a tradition in Canada that the responsible chamber is the elected chamber.
Senator Cools: It is not tradition. Madam Chairman, please, I am not on the list but you cannot sit there as chair and allow these erroneous statements to be made time after time.
The Chairman: Senator Cools, you are out of order.
Senator Cools: I suggest, Madam Chairman, that you use the same power on the minister which you are using on members. Madam Chair, you have a responsibility to keep order in the place. Order includes --
The Chairman: Yes, I do, and I am asking you to wait your turn.
Senator Cools: Order includes, Madam Chair, clarification when the witness is making such dramatic errors.
The Chairman: Continue please, Minister.
Mr. Dion: I think it is a well-accepted fact that there is a convention that the responsible chamber is the House of Commons. I do not think there is discussion about that.
Because of that, only the House of Commons has the capacity, the veto power, to enter into constitutional negotiations.
Senator Taylor: You have said enough about that whole new argument, but I think I made my point. The Senate's lack of confidence is as effective or more so than the House of Commons' lack of confidence which is often ignored. The executive of the day knows how to go around that lack of confidence.
The last time you were here I asked if there were any precedents for leaving out the Senate. You very kindly submitted, very recently, the list of 14 acts where you say the Senate is left out. I put my researchers to work. They are competent, I believe, as competent as yours, so I will file and circulate my own document.
Of the 14 acts which you named, not one delegated any power from the Senate to the House of Commons. In a couple of these bills, the House of Commons appears to be favoured, but that is really just a delegation from the Parliament to the minister. In other words, I do not how your researchers began, but is it possible to put our researchers together until they come up with findings in common? Right now, mine say that yours are whistling in the dark.
Regarding regulations, a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons is responsible for overseeing all regulations.
My last question is very simple and quick. Mr. Justice Estey, for whom I have a great deal of respect, said that Bill C-20 is simply out to lunch and it should be challenged. There is no way, he says, that the bicameral system can be bypassed. We may sound selfish if we just defend the Senate, but this bicameral system cannot be bypassed.
Will the end result not be worse if we pass this bill and it is challenged in the courts? What if the Supreme Court comes down on the side of Mr. Justice Estey? Would it not be wise to get that opinion before you march ahead?
Mr. Dion: You have spoken of several different things. I will try not to forget them. First, you asked for examples where a role has been given to the House and not to the Senate. Your second question relates to Mr. Justice Estey's comment, and your third question is whether the bill can be challenged in court.
The first point is not my main argument at all. Some of you asked whether it would be creating a precedent to assign a role to the House and not to the Senate. It is not a precedent. For other issues -- and I agree these are much less important than the one we are discussing here -- it has been done. Section 6(2) of the Canada Elections Act provides that a vacancy in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer shall be filled by a resolution of the House of Commons. Section 6 of the Ministries and Ministers of State Act calls for a resolution of the House of Commons for the approval of an Order in Council for the establishment of a ministry of state or to change the name of a minister of state. There are examples, so it is not a precedent which is being set.
Senator Taylor: Those are really Mickey Mouse examples, but go ahead.
Mr. Dion: You have examples like that, so it is not a precedent. However, that is not the argument. The argument is that only the House of Commons has the capacity to stop a constitutional negotiation, to veto a constitutional negotiation. The House has this role because it would not be proper to give a new power to the Senate which the Senate does not have. We are not removing a power from the Senate. We are not giving to the Senate the power that it does not now have. That is not something we should do. We must play by the book and respect the law, especially when we are dealing with something as dramatic, as difficult and as painful as secession.
Justice Estey said many things, as you know. About the constitutionality of Bill C-20, he said no, basically that it is not ultra vires. He said that, undoubtedly, the bill reflects the court's finding. He stated:
...the government can harness any element of the government to do anything, except where it is unfair and expensive. If they want to hire the House of Commons, on an isolated basis, to do something not legislative, there is no reason they cannot do that. What you cannot do is give away your legislative power to another body, but that is not what is going on here.
You asked if the bill could be challenged in court. Yes, it could be, but we are very confident it would resist any challenge.
One of the reasons we decided to have a bill and not a resolution was to show that we are not afraid. We are very confident that we are fully respecting the law of the land, the Constitution of Canada, and the Supreme Court.
Senator Finestone: Mr. Minister, I am not here to defend or explain the role of the Senate. That is not my interest. My interest is the constituency from which I come, and that is the English-speaking minorities of Quebec. They are very nervous and concerned, with good right, about the situation. They remember the painful nightmare when the future of their country was on the line because this government had not determined whether 50 plus one would say "goodbye" to their country or not.
Here we have what I hope you wanted to accomplish and the goal and objective that you set, which is good. The recipe could be good, but you have made mistakes in drawing it up. I would like to see you address some of those errors.
There is no problem with this politically, probably because the people out there in the world -- not the world that I live in -- who think this bill is as clear as can be and that it has full clarity. When they go to vote in a referendum in Quebec they will take some comfort in this because they will believe that they will never have to worry about 50 plus one again. It will be as clear as can be. They will never worry whether it is 7-50 or unanimous. Those are the little holes in this present bill.
I want this bill, but I want this bill to have clarity, not "unclarity," "inclarity," no clarity, or confused and clouded clarity. First, I want to know how many votes are needed -- what the goal is when I go to the polls. If 98 per cent of the electorate do not want it, or 97 or 98.5 per cent do not want it, will that be good enough next time, or is the requirement that there be 100 per cent against? Do not tell me this should be decided after the fact. By then it will be too late. I want to know what the numbers have to be, because I do not want to see again the nervous anxiety I witnessed before. I do not want to see excitable people closing their bank accounts and sending their kids away because of an unstable situation.
Second, what is the ratification process? Why do you not believe it is important and that every single word that Mary Dawson helped you write is perfect? It is not perfect, and why can we not fix it? You must be responsible to the people. As it is right now, it is unfair.
Mr. Dion: Thank you, senator. You give me an opportunity to further my answer to the question asked by Senator Gauthier. Minorities would be deeply affected by secession, as they are today by a prospect of secession. When we speak about the English-speaking minority of Quebec, we are speaking about the sole minority around the well-established democratic world that has been under threat of losing its country for more than three decades now, a country that almost unanimously it wants to keep. Usually this would be a very difficult issue. That is precisely why, for minorities, yours and Senator Gauthier's, the court decided, as one of the basic principles, that we would need to negotiate, and any negotiations should take into account minority rights. It is explicitly mentioned in many places in the Supreme Court reference, and that is why, in the clarity bill --
Senator Finestone: I know about the clarity of those numbers, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Dion: I will come back to that. It says that no minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed in its negotiations the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the protection of minority rights.
Senator Finestone: Before or after, Mr. Minister? I want this to go through, but I want to know the rules of road before it starts.
Mr. Dion: Here I will talk about the majority threshold. I will start by reminding everyone that we must respect the Supreme Court reference. That is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of all of the legal experts you have heard.
[Translation]
Mr. Dion: I have with me a brochure from the Government of Quebec published in November 1999. As it happens, I am in agreement with my provincial government. This is a very recent brochure. I have it in French and in English. The title is: "Justice en bref" in French and "Your rights at a glance" in English.
[English]
Senator Finestone: According to whom?
[Translation]
Mr. Dion: I will quote from this brochure.
The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution of Canada, determine the constitutionality of an Act....It can also examine certain matters affecting the powers of Canada's Parliament and the provincial governments when such questions are referred by the Governor General in Council. In other words, the Supreme Court examines matters of national interest.
And this is interesting:
No lower court can go against any decision made by the Supreme Court.
I hope that Mr. Bouchard reads the brochures that his government distributes.
[English]
No court can go against any decision of the Supreme Court when rendering its own judgment.
[Translation]
This is the opinion that we must respect. As to the threshold for a majority, the court constantly repeats the necessity for a clear majority.
[English]
As to the necessity of a clear majority, the ideal of setting the threshold before the fact has not been supported by the court. The court has said that it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes a clear majority on a clear question in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken.
I must add that we have always done that. For instance, when Newfoundland entered Canada, never did the Government of Canada at that time say that 50 per cent plus 1 would be a binding decision. The government of the time said, "We will look at the results and assess, given the circumstances, if we will welcome Newfoundland," and they decided under the circumstances that it was a precedent for another decision. It is something they did in that specific context.
In federal law, as in Quebec law, a referendum is not binding. Whether it is 50 per cent plus one or any other threshold, it cannot be binding. You need to assess the result. It would be a tremendously dangerous decision to make, an irreversible one, especially painful for minorities who would have to take into account the clarity of the majority, and Government of Canada would do that.
Senator Cools: I would like to begin by thanking the minister for coming before us and to reiterate my profound disagreement, in case there is any misunderstanding.
Minister, I do not know where you are getting your knowledge of the constitutional history of this country, but it is not the same constitutional history that I have been reading. I would also like to say to you, minister, that your knowledge of the Senate is most incomplete. The Senate can do a lot of things that you do not seem to know about. The Senate has removed Lieutenant Governors and brought many governments to their knees, and I submit the Senate will bring many more governments to their knees.
I see you want to respond, but I have not yet asked my question. If you say something, I do not want it to count in my allotted time.
Mr. Dion: The Senate plays an important role in our political system, but it does not have the power to veto the beginning or the process of negotiation about a constitutional change. It has a suspensive veto at the end of the negotiations.
Senator Cools: Minister, with all due respect, you are talking rubbish.
The Chairman: You said you had questions. I would like to hear them.
Senator Cools: That is quite in order. I would like Mr. Dion to answer my question, though.
Mr. Dion: I would like to ask about your comment. Can you explain your point of view?
Senator Cools: Why it is rubbish?
Mr. Dion: Yes.
Senator Cools: As I said before, it was said by the Fathers of Confederation when they configured the Senate that the Senate would last as long as the country -- that is, Canada -- would last. The Senate was given greater powers than the House of Lords for particular reasons. If you do not know those, minister, perhaps we can offer you a course because there are senators like Senators Joyal and Grafstein who have been studying this subject for years.
I will tell you, minister, that were a resolution or an address to pass the Senate asking that the Governor General remove a minister of the Crown, that would cause a bit of a flutter.
My questions are quite straightforward and simple. Again and again, you have cited as your authorities Professor Hogg and Professor Monahan. I cannot help but observe that you can cite none of the great Liberal prime ministers who were constitutional authorities, like Laurier or Mr. Trudeau. I would also submit that you cannot cite any of the great Conservative prime ministers of this country who were, again, great constitutional authorities, like R.B. Bennett, because not one of them would have supported you. There is more fuel and more truth to be found in the former prime ministers of this country, who knew something about governing Canada.
As you know, section 91 speaks to the whole question of peace, order and good government. Peace, in this instance, has a sound history and a sound political and constitutional meaning. It is to be found literally in every Constitution in the Commonwealth. It speaks of the Queen's peace, Her Majesty's peace. As you know, every prosecution in this country is prosecuted on this title. In addition, the preamble of the Constitution uses words, to wit, that the three provinces, Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, have expressed their desire to be federally united into one -- not two or three, but one dominion under the Crown.
Minister, it is a very well-known fact that Senator Joyal has repeated time and time again that the first and most important and general object of all political unions is to produce and to preserve a state of things, the state of things in which its citizens may carry on their various pursuits of life without interruption. I believe this is where the term "state" comes from, for example, "the state of things." In other words, to preserve stability and to keep the peace.
My question to you, minister, is the following: As a minister of the Crown, what duty of the allegiance do you owe to the one Dominion of Canada and to the Queen's peace and to the Queen in and of Canada?
Mr. Dion: I will start from your first comments and proceed to the end.
First, in order to show you how much respect I have for senators, I will quote from one of your former colleagues, the great late senator Eugene Forsey, who said: "Under our system of responsible government, cabinet, the ministers, are responsible and cerebral and accountable to the House of Commons."
Senator Cools: I could quote you 10 more like that. From what are you quoting? Let the minister tell us from what document he is quoting.
Mr. Dion: I think it is well accepted that the government is responsible to the House. You may disagree, but it is an original --
The Chairman: Senator Cools, you asked the minister to answer. He is answering. Please allow him to answer.
Senator Cools: I would like my question about the allegiance to the one Dominion of Canada answered.
Mr. Dion: Yes. I will answer all your questions and comments. I will tell you --
Senator Cools: You have not answered any yet, minister. When I spoke --
The Chairman: Order!
Senator Cools: I am sorry, but he came here at a previous meeting and he cited Senator Joyal and many people. I gave two speeches on the floor of the chamber and I have not heard a single response yet from the minister. However, I am hopeful because I am an eternal optimist.
Mr. Dion: It will be easier for me to answer if you will let me speak.
First, the House is the responsible chamber. This is well accepted.
Second, the Senate has many powers but not to make dead people speak. I do not know what Wilfrid Laurier would say about the clarity bill.
Third, Canada has been created as one dominion. If it were two dominions, we would know. It was one dominion under the Crown. That does not mean that Canada is indivisible. That was not written anywhere. Where are the words "indivisible under the Crown?" The British Crown, as you know, has lost Ireland since then. The notion of indivisibility cannot proceed from the fact that Canada is one.
Can any senator show me where the Senate has the power to block the government from entering into constitutional negotiations?
Senator Cools: The Senate has all manner of powers. My question to you, minister, was about your duty as a minister, your duty of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and to the one Dominion of Canada. That was my question. What is your duty of allegiance?
Mr. Dion: My duty of allegiance is to the values in which I believe, to the country to which I belong, and to the people of Canada. I think I have shown that. I am surprised that you are questioning me about that.
Senator Cools: I am talking about an oath of allegiance, Madam Chairman. I would think that you should be ready to uphold that. You swore it, too.
The Chairman: You have asked the question and the minister has given his answer to it. The minister must leave at the time at which this committee announced that it would adjourn, namely, at three o'clock.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: Minister, I have for some weeks now heard talk about a vote of non-confidence in Canada. However, Bill C-20 in no way changes a vote of confidence. The vote of confidence is one of our great constitutional and conventional traditions. It exists. We do not need to talk about it, it will remain as long as our great country exists.
When we say that we cannot give the same power to the Senate that we give to the House of Commons, because only the House of Commons can have a vote of non-confidence, it is true that the House of Commons is the only place where such a vote can be held. However, that has nothing to do with Bill C-20. That has nothing to do with the legislation. If we did not have Bill C-20, and if a referendum were held, the federal government would negotiate, as would the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The House of Commons could have a vote of confidence or non-confidence. No one is challenging that. The vote of confidence exists, it is not granted through Bill C-20.
If Bill C-20 gives the House of Commons a power that is not conferred upon the Senate, that would have no effect on the vote of confidence. In my opinion, it would, however, go against the principle of bicameralism that has been part of the Constitution of Canada since 1867 at least. Bill C-20 is a bill and both Chambers must be treated equally. Either we must make a constitutional amendment, perhaps to section 44 -- there can be no other -- or the 7-50 formula applies, but no one has raised this possibility. I think it is very debatable because when section 44 talks about amendments to the Senate, to the House of Commons and the Constitution in general, it concerns minor amendments.
So it is legislation. If you give one of the Houses a power that you do not give to the other, then you are obviously treating them differently. Different treatment of the two Houses goes against the principle of bicameralism entrenched in our Constitution. I will not go any farther than that.
The experts who have appeared, although very interesting, have never spoken about the equality of the two Houses from the legislative point of view. As far as the Constitution goes, we have only a suspensive veto, as you know, but legislatively speaking, our veto is absolute because if we do not pass Bill C-20, it does not go through.
Why this different treatment for the two Houses? I realize it may be a bit more complicated but a clarification might be useful. I may not convince anyone but that is what I think.
Mr. Dion: We have to be clear about the decision we are talking about. We are discussing the decision that would determine whether the question on secession is clear and whether the majority is clear.
The court said that it is up to the political actors to make this determination. If the government of Canada found itself in a situation where the voters of a province had given clear and unambiguous expression to this will to separate from Canada, there would be a requirement to begin negotiations on the matter. They would therefore be constitutional negotiations.
Senator Beaudoin: In the form of legislation.
Mr. Dion: Yes. But we are not taking anything away from the Senate when we say that the only House that can prevent these constitutional negotiations from taking place is the House of Commons. The clarity bill does not take anything away from the Senate and if it does make any change, it requires the House of Commons to take into account any opinion of the Senate. In what way does this decrease the power of the Senate? It has no such effect. As various experts have noted, the Senate's prerogatives are fully respected.
Senator Beaudoin: Experts say that one House may give its powers to the other House.
Mr. Dion: That is not the case here.
Senator Beaudoin: That is what the experts say but in all fairness, I have to ask on what they based this view. If they say that this was past practice, it may be possible. It is not because there is a precedent somewhere for unequal treatment of the two Houses that this practice should not be discontinued.
Mr. Dion: If we did what you are asking for, we would be giving the Senate a power it does not have and would not have in any other circumstance. For any other constitutional amendment, the Senate would not have the power to block the decision to begin negotiations but it would have such a power for this amendment. That would be difficult to justify.
[English]
Senator Milne: Minister Dion, my question is very basic and perhaps timely. Why do you believe that this bill is right for the future of Canada?
Mr. Dion: I strongly believe that. I believe that, as a Quebecer and a Canadian, I have a right to my country, Canada; and that this right cannot be taken from me unless a clear majority of the population of Quebec wishes to cease being a part of Canada.
If we all agreed on this principle, we would still disagree on the pertinency to secede or not. However, we will agree that you do not do that on the basis of razor-thin majority results from a confused question. If we were in agreement with that, there would be no need for a clarity bill.
In a democracy, when there is a disagreement on a substantive issue and on the process for resolution, then one goes to the court to determine who is right about the process. The Supreme Court of Canada did not say whether it was good or bad to secede. The court said, in order to have an obligation to negotiate such an important matter, one must have a clear majority on a clear question and negotiate within the constitutional framework. I want that to be guaranteed. It is my right as a citizen of this country, and your right as well.
Senator Murray: Minister, am I correct in my understanding from your presentation today that the government will support no amendments to this bill, that you will urge Liberal senators to defeat any amendments that are proposed, and that if any amendments should be sent to the House of Commons, you will deploy your majority in that place to reject them?
Mr. Dion: The government cannot be in the situation where it would have to say to Canadians, "Amendments are not welcome; they are not a good idea, and we have accepted that." We cannot say, "Even though we are not sure we have an excellent bill, we will proceed with this bill." Governments cannot be in this situation.
To give the Senate a role that the Senate does not have today, or to pretend that Canada is indivisible when it is not is not something that the Canadian government may present to Canadians as an acceptable bill.
Senator Murray: The answer to my question is affirmative on all three points.
Mr. Dion: We cannot accept these two amendments.
Senator Murray: The government will not accept amendments?
Mr. Dion: No.
Senator Murray: You will urge Liberal senators to vote against any such amendments?
Mr. Dion: These two amendments, yes.
Senator Murray: You will deploy your majority in the House of Commons to defeat any amendments that are sent there by the Senate; is that correct?
Mr. Dion: The Prime Minister has said that we need the clarity bill. These two amendments would not be a good idea.
Senator Murray: Are there other amendments that would be more acceptable?
Mr. Dion: We are here to discuss that. However, up to now I have not heard an amendment that the government thinks would improve the bill.
Senator Cools: Madam Chairman --
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Murray. Our next questioner is Senator Kinsella, followed by Senator Nolin.
Senator Cools: Madam Chairman, I will not be ignored.
The Chairman: Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: Madam Chair, your duty is to clarify the record as it moves along. Perhaps you should clarify for all of us here exactly what kind of amendment the Senate could make that Minister Dion would consider to be a good amendment.
The Chairman: I thought Minister Dion was quite clear in his response. He said that he had not yet heard of any amendments, whether formally or not, that he thought would improve the bill.
Is that a correct summary of your position, minister?
Mr. Dion: Yes.
Senator Cools: But it would be difficult, Chairman --
The Chairman: Not everybody around the table may agree.
Senator Cools: Madam Chairman, no amendments have been made, so it would be quite difficult.
The Chairman: Senator Cools --
Senator Cools: Chairman, the minister has anticipated amendments and the minister has said he has not anticipated any good ones.
The Chairman: Senator Murray asked about specific amendments.
Senator Cools: I would like to know what the minister would consider to be a good amendment.
The Chairman: If the next senator on the list wishes to ask that question, I am sure he is free to do so.
Our next questioner is Senator Kinsella, followed by Senator Nolin.
Senator Kinsella: Minister, Premier Binns of Prince Edward Island has told this committee that, from the point of view of the proper functioning of the Senate, he shares the concerns of those who see the implementation and functioning of Bill C-20 as a realistic threat.
He said that until other arrangements are in place, Prince Edward Island should be true to its historic position. It was his statement that the Senate is important in defending the island's representation in both Houses of Parliament. He expressed his belief that, to the extent that Bill C-20, either directly or indirectly, undermines the validity and functioning of the Senate, a province like Prince Edward Island must register concern.
As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, did you discuss this matter with Premier Binns or other premiers across Canada?
Mr. Dion: The answer is "yes." If you allow me, senator, I will quote a resolution signed by the Honourable Pat Binns and the Honourable Mitch Murphy in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island on December 14, 1999.
AND THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Assembly supports the adoption by the House of Commons of legislation to give effect to the requirement for clarity as stated in the Supreme Court of Canada Quebec Secession Reference so as to ensure that the Government of Canada would not enter into negotiations in respect to the secession of a province from Canada unless such negotiations follow a referendum in which there is clarity both in terms of the question asked and the support it achieves.
Senator Kinsella: As a committee, we contacted all the provincial and territorial governments, all of which declined to appear before this committee. What would you read into that in terms of their level of interest in this bill?
Mr. Dion: The support for this bill throughout Canada has been very strong. In my province of Quebec, despite the aggressive opposition of the premier, the public did not respond to his invitation to react with emotion against this bill.
This resolution made in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island was specifically about the clarity bill. It states, in part:
AND WHEREAS "An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference has been introduced in the House of Commons":
I understand Premier Binns still supports the bill. He has said that he supports the overall objective of the bill, which is the requirement for clarity. He expressed two concerns. The first was about the danger that this bill may contribute to the sense of alienation of many Quebecers. The second was about the Senate. I would be pleased to discuss with him these two concerns that I do not share. Is think Quebecers understand that the bill is to protect their rights and that the Senate is invited to play fully its proper role in our political system.
Senator Kinsella: What do you think about the concern of a premier of a maritime province with regard to the exclusion of the Senate from a determinative role in this process, that being given exclusively to members of the House of Commons? At present, the House of Commons has 301 members, 103 of whom represent the province of Ontario. There are but four members of Parliament who represent Prince Edward Island. Throughout the maritime provinces there are but 24. In the Senate, 24 senators represent the maritime division. The same number of senators represent the province of Ontario.
Do you think, perhaps, that the Fathers of Confederation were on to something good here in terms of protecting minority interests, in particular minority interests in the regional sense?
Mr. Dion: Premier Binns supports the majority of the provisions in the clarity bill. He said, for example, that 50 per cent plus one is not enough and that we need rules. Premiers throughout Canada are supportive of the bill. The support of the provinces is there.
There may be an argument as to which House, either the Senate or the House of Commons, is the most representative House in Canada. However, the fact is that the Senate does not have the power to veto the entering into of constitutional negotiations. Thus, we cannot give a power to the Senate that it does not have.
I could quote from many of the experts who appeared before this committee, including Dean Hogg, who said:
If only one body is to be chosen, surely the choice should fall on the body that is directly elected and that determines the composition of the government that will have the responsibility of conducting the constitutional negotiations.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Can the House of Commons block the government from entering into constitutional negotiations?
Mr. Dion: Yes, by a vote of non-confidence.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Come out of the classroom.
Mr. Dion: The House may censure the government.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Dion, as you know, Senator Nolin does have another question to put to you. There is another senator who would also like to ask questions and has not yet had the opportunity to do so. If you do have the time, I will add the senator's name to that of Senator Nolin before bringing the meeting to a close.
Mr. Dion: I am quite willing to take whatever time is required.
Senator Nolin: In your absence, I referred to you as a professor. This was quite unintentional and I apologize to you.
My first question relates to the opinion of Western Canadians. Mr. Gibbins testified before our committee and we must recognize that he does have credibility in the matter. He pointed out to us that in the West, this bill is seen as having qualities that it does not actually possess. I suppose you have read the testimony. Do you have any comments to make on Mr. Gibbons' statement?
Mr. Dion: All I can say is that the government has said the same thing in French and in English throughout the country, namely that if it is clear, we will negotiate, and if it is not clear, we will not.
Senator Nolin: It was not the expression of your opinion that struck him as important but rather the perception of the curative qualities of this bill, more particularly the need for clarity that no one is challenging.
Mr. Dion: I believe that our fellow citizens in the other provinces have been taken for granted for a very long time. The PQ government implied that partnership would be a matter of course. We gave them an opportunity to say "That is not how it works" and they feel all the better for it. We must not take them for granted. If Quebecers stop being Canadians, then they must not assume that they will remain attached to Canada by the back door.
Senator Nolin: According to Mr. Gibbins, whatever happens, once we are over the threshold of 50 per cent, and he did not specify what type of question, once we are beyond this 50 per cent threshold, we will find ourselves, to use an expression you do not like, in a black hole and everything will be negotiable. I would like to hear your opinion on this.
Mr. Dion: The 50 per cent rule is absurd in such circumstances. Mr. Gibbins underestimates the difficulties we would be facing if we began negotiations without any certainty that it is indeed the will of the province concerned, in this particular case, Quebec. The great difficulty would be taking away Canada from people who wish to remain in Canada and the more such people there are, the greater the difficulty and the greater the solidarity of Western Canadians. To minimize this problem, it would be necessary to have a clear and determined majority who wish to cease to belong to Canada. This majority must be committed and not disappear as soon as the first difficulties arise. As for 50 per cent plus one, I cannot say much about Bill 99 that is under discussion in another Parliament, the National Assembly. All I can say is that I find it too hypocritical. In one of the elements of their bill, they say: "if the people of Quebec are called upon to vote on their future as a people, the rule will be 50 per cent plus one." In other words, in all other cases, the Government of Quebec does not recognize the 50 per cent plus one rule. The Quebec referendum legislation does not provide a threshold for a majority -- which is a good thing and leaves it up to the government to assess the result. The only time when such a vote will be able to determine the result is when the question is whether we shall cut ourselves off from Canada. I hope it will be pointed out to Ms Harel that at time when all sorts of very clear majorities against proposed municipal amalgamations are being refused, how is it possible to accept that 50 per cent plus one is enough to break up a country? That only shows how absurd and unacceptable such a rule is for this type of grave and irreversible decision.
Senator Nolin: You are confirming Mr. Ryan's statement when he said and I quote:
The bill is based on an almost visceral distrust of the good faith of a party and a government that, to the best of my knowledge, have always acted in accordance with constitutional rules and legality.
Mr. Dion: I do not impute motives, my position is based on facts. I would not be there if Mr. Bouchard were to tell us today that of course he would not precipitate a referendum without being sure of a clear win. If he obtained the necessary information to that effect, so that the referendum became an opportunity, not to poll people and pull together a majority on the basis of a question developed in the bunker through consulting different focus groups, but rather a clear understanding that Quebecers no longer wish to be Canadians, I would not be here. If the referendum were merely an official confirmation of this position, then I would not be here before you defending the Clarity Act.
That however is not what he says because he says that 50 per cent plus one will be the rule and as soon as it is obtained, it will remain valid for ever and even if he does not obtain it, he will make another try. They tried it once and they tried it a second time. On both occasions, not only the Prime Minister of Canada but the leader of the Yes side also said that the questions were fraudulent ones. In 1980, Mr. Ryan was the leader and this is what he had to say about the 1980 question:
...an example of outright fraud...deceiving and dishonest...camouflage aimed at providing the largest possible number of supporters for the Yes.
With respect to 50 per cent plus one, Mr. Ryan said, two days before the vote in 1980:
If 52 per cent of Quebecers voted Yes on Tuesday evening, we would not be able to say what that would mean because there would be no negotiations and we would find ourselves faced with a second referendum within six months or a year.
Today we are told that all it requires is 50 per cent plus one of the registered voters rather than only 50 per cent of the votes actually cast. Mr. Ryan also says:
Canada cannot be lost on a question that is an example of outright fraud as well as misleading and dishonest.
I am not imputing motives to anyone, my judgment is based on the facts. We have a country called Canada and this country will not be lost by any Canadian as the result of confusion. It is a fundamental question of law and I hope that you, Senators, will give this guarantee to Canadians by voting, both Conservatives and Liberals, in favour of this clarity bill.
[English]
Senator Murray: You had indicated that you would turn to Senator Prud'homme and then you would thank the minister. I do not have any further questions or comments. I will be silent, but if there are other senators who have questions or comments to make, why on earth do we need to end the meeting so abruptly at three o'clock? I know that the schedule called for the presence of the minister from 1:30 until three o'clock, but this is an important matter. If there are senators who have questions to ask, surely the minister will be willing to stay longer.
The Chairman: The minister has indicated that he will be able to stay for some more time, if it is the will of the committee members to continue.
Mr. Dion: I am available for my colleagues.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: I feel left out by the Minister -- I say this without malice -- when he says that he hopes that all my colleagues both Liberal and Conservative will vote in favour of Bill C-20.
Mr. Dion: Excuse me.
Senator Prud'homme: Minister, in your defence, I can say that you are not the only one who forgets independent senators. It is a fact that after so many years we still have not yet resolved the role of independents in the Senate, so I do not feel slighted. I know that it was not meant personally. I must also say that nothing is more pleasant for me than to see you engaged in such brilliant debate and clearly coming off as the winner in your debates with Minister Facal. It is very pleasant for a federalist like me. I have been passionately involved, and here I feel obliged to hold myself back because it seems that I get everyone worked up because I am too passionate. That is what my colleagues have told me.
[English]
When I talk about Canada, I have passion. Is that clear? When I talk about Canada, yes, I have passion. Canadians must understand that Canada is about specificity. I have in this country my own specificity. My very good friend Senator Chalifoux is luckier than I because as soon as she asks something, they tend to say "yes" right away. She has her own specificity. That is what makes Canada so glorious.
[Translation]
I am a politician. My colleague Senator Nolin and myself are the only two survivors of the parliamentary No committee of 1980.
[English]
You told us so many things the other day, but you forgot to tell us you were Canadian. Remember, I am the one who reminded you of that. I mean on the committee which was for a No vote.
[Translation]
There was the late Jean Marchand, Jean Chrétien and myself representing the caucus. It was not because people liked me, but I was elected by a secret vote and I did my job. Senator Nolin represented the Conservatives in the No committee. It was not easy but when we looked at the result, we were worried: 60-40 in 1980. In 1995 -- that is when you started taking part as commentator on television -- the vote was 50-50. I am not trying to make a connection between your participation and a closer vote, but I am attempting to put us back in the context and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong.
The only comment I would like to make -- I do not know where Ms Fraser has gone to, I am sorry, I hope it is not because I am getting on her nerves -- is that we politicians who will be going out on the street to continue to defend our attachment to the federal system with our fellow citizens, those who will be fighting this fight, are very disappointed to have such a bill at the present time.
[English]
It is a time bomb only during a referendum. I do not believe that there will be one, but if there were, Senator Nolin and I and a few other honourable senators will have some very difficult roles to play. Many people will say, "Do not worry, Bill C-20 is there. Ottawa will decide if it is clear." My comment is: Do you not think --
The Chairman: Did I miss your question?
Senator Prud`homme: The question is very simple. Do you not think ...
[Translation]
For the French-Canadian federalist politicians from Quebec -- I am not afraid of the words -- you are adding to our problems in convincing our fellow citizens that Canada is an indivisible country that knows how to respect distinctions and specific identities and that in the final analysis, the best thing is to stay together. Do you not see the danger? Not today, but in an election period?
Mr. Dion: I personally am convinced and certain that the clarity bill is a powerful instrument for the cause of Canadian unity because it removes from the independence leaders the weapon that they have been using for 30 years, namely "confusion." You know that just as well as I. Knowing that Quebecers wish to remain Canadians, they have always presented them with confusing questions. The last time, as the polls indicated, a great number of Quebecers went to vote, not on secession, but on the possibility of renegotiating something as part of Canada.
One of the three leaders of the Yes camp, Mr. Mario Dumont, told us this year that he never was a sovereignist.
He did not say: "I used to be one but I am no longer." He said: "I have never been a sovereignist." In other words, Canada was put in an unacceptable situation for any self-respecting citizen, where there was a pretence that we agreed on what we were voting on when the three leaders were not secessionists. I do not know any other democracies that would accept such behaviour.
[English]
If we accept that for our country, Canada, then we are saying to Quebecers that Canada is not a country full of value, that it is a country that we may break up easily in the Parizeau way. When you agree to play this game, it becomes very difficult for the No side to convince Quebecers that this country is great. The No side during the campaign must accept the rules that the Yes side has decided in order to win, not in order to be clear.
You have heard what Maurice Pinard, the leading expert on Quebec public opinion, said about that and how much he supports the clarity bill because he thinks that the more we clarify the issue, the more the voters will vote No to that. Indeed, if we wanted to bring in all the polls that have been made for the past 30 years, there would not be enough room in this place. No one would show support for separation if the question is separation -- not one.
Senator Prud`homme: Then why are we so nervous?
Mr. Dion: Because we must ensure that, after a Yes vote, we will not have the chaos we had the last time, when Mr. Parizeau would have tried to separate without the clear support of his population. That would have created a lot of problems here in Ottawa, in Toronto, in Vancouver, in Halifax, in Edmonton, and in Montreal. It would have been chaos. If we Quebecers decide to go, we must be clear. If we do not want to go, we should not pretend that we will enter negotiations about that.
Senator Grafstein: My first question is really not a question, it is a reference to Mr. Estey's testimony. I should like to put the following exchange on the record:
Senator Grafstein: Even if I chose to delegate my power as a senator to the House of Commons, could I do so?
Mr. Estey: No.
Senator Grafstein: What if we proceed with this bill, unamended? You have said it will fall to the ground unless the Senate is included. You use that term, "fall to the ground." Does that mean that it becomes a nullity without the Senate being included?
He concluded that I cannot delegate.
I do not want to debate this in the dying moments of this session, but to me it seemed clear that the bill without the Senate is a nullity.
I want to go back to my original thesis, and the interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision as obligating the federal government to vote on a clear question and a clear majority without further reference to the voice of the people.
Let me put this example to you. Nunavut has 12,114 voters. Under the bill, Nunavut would be treated in the same way as a province, because although it is a territory, under the Interpretation Act, "province" includes a territory. Let us put the word "Nunavut" in here. If there were a clear question, "Should Nunavut separate from Canada?" and a clear vote, say 66 and two-thirds per cent, are you suggesting that, under the court reference, 6,000 or 7,000 voters could force the federal government to negotiate secession for 20 per cent of the land mass of Canada?
Mr. Dion: We may argue the legal meaning of the difference between a province and a territory, but this is not the point. The point is that the answer to this question has been clearly expressed by the grand chiefs who came before you. There is no support for separation among the Inuit population in Nunavut. There is no support anywhere except, unfortunately, in my province, Quebec. You have millions of human beings dreaming to be Canadian. Do not tell me that you do not believe in their will to stay Canadian, and that you think that we need to invent things which do not exist in our law to keep Canadians together. I am confident in the unity of my country, strongly confident.
Senator Grafstein: So am I, but I am trying to test the legal thesis.
Mr. Dion: I will not speculate about the will to secede that does not exist at all outside Quebec. As a Quebecer in Quebec, I am as Canadian as any other Canadian. I will not lose this country unless there is a clear will to separate in my province.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: I would like to quickly emphasize three points. First of all, we might ask ourselves what Sir Wilfrid Laurier would think of the statement. Let me read you an excerpt from the 1890 Declaration.
I may be asked what the future of Canada will be. Canada's destiny is to be British.
[English]
One dominion under the Crown.
[Translation]
I do not share the dreams or illusions of a small number of my fellow citizens of French origin who talk about creating a French nation along the St. Lawrence.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier understood quite correctly that his mandate as Prime Minister was not to start negotiations to dismember the country.
That being said, I would like to specify something for the benefit of everyone. The Senate does have a fundamental role to play in constitutional discussions in the country even after the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Under section 46, the Senate has the same powers to initiate a constitutional resolution as the House of Commons. I quote section 46.(1):
The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province.
In my opinion, it must be understood that a constitutional resolution may be initiated in the Senate.
Second, if the Senate refuses to ratify a constitutional resolution, a time period of 180 days or six months automatically elapses before the House of Commons cancels the Senate's veto. So it is not an insignificant role. We debated this bill for three months. Imagine debating it for six months. That is the responsibility conferred by the Constitution of Canada on the Senate in a process of constitutional negotiation. I think we have to stop creating the impression that the Senate is a...
[English]
Second class, laid back, just wait and see, and we will tell you what to do. This is not what I think is the law of the land.
[Translation]
Minister, how can you reconcile your statement that the government of Canada can, at all times, initiate under the present legal system negotiations or discussions to dismember the country when an Act adopted by the Parliament of Canada states:
[English]
The safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government.
[Translation]
The safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of this State are fundamental obligations of government. That is an Act adopted by the House of Commons in 1988. How can you now say that the government of Canada could begin negotiations to dismember the country without anyone being able to prevent it? In my opinion, it would be failing in its fundamental obligation that it adopted less than 12 years ago. I cannot agree with your position that there is no obligation to consult the House of Commons or the Senate to be relieved of this obligation. This is a legal obligation.
Mr. Dion: Senator Joyal, I do not know why you gave this quote of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Everyone knows that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was against separation. And everyone knows that Stéphane Dion and Jean Chrétien are also against separation. To be in favour of separation you have to be a separatist.
Senator Prud'homme: Not only Dion and Chrétien.
Mr. Dion: As far as I know, there are no separatists in the Senate. Second, concerning the duty to protect the rights of Canadians, I already answered that question. Until secession actually takes place, Canadians are Canadians. And the government of Canada has the duty to protect their constitutional rights.
Senator Joyal: It may not embark upon negotiations.
Mr. Dion: That, in my opinion, is where you are making a mistake. It may enter into negotiations, but during the negotiations all citizens' rights are fully and completely protected.
The provincial government or the government of an independent State do not have the power to make a self-proclamation. It may not remove from the citizens of the province their full rights as Canadians in the negotiations. Nothing guarantees that the eventual result will be secession. It is quite possible that this will not be the result, not merely because of bad faith but because the difficulties would be huge. Breaking up a country like Canada would be a gigantic undertaking. In paragraph 151 the court sets out why Canada may enter into negotiations:
Negotiations...would bear upon the potential act of secession and its possible conditions were it to take place.
That is what it would be our duty to discuss. In paragraph 97, I quote:
Negotiators would have to contemplate the possibility of secession...
There is no right to secession, therefore there is no guarantee that such a result would be achieved but it is our duty to contemplate this possibility. We cannot say that we do not wish to consider it.
I will quote section 88, which is perhaps the most important:
The federalism principle, in conjunction with the democratic principle, dictates that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression -- the word "clear" comes up time and time again in the Supreme Court opinion -- of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province would give rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to Confederation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire.
We are not negotiating just anything, we are negotiating to respond to that desire. It does not say that we will succeed, but that is our obligation.
That is what the court says in at least three sections. I could quote other sections if I had time. The Supreme Court took the time to spell that out. If it had deemed it necessary for a national referendum to be held before entering into these negotiations, do you not think it would have said so?
Senator Joyal: The Supreme Court said that the political actors can seek authorization from the majority of Canadians. It is the responsibility the Canadian government has, if it is to be relieved of its fundamental obligation to maintain the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Canada.
Mr. Dion: Governments can consult their people at any time, including by way of a referendum, nothing prevents them from doing so. However, the opinion on the reference on the secession of Quebec does not contain a legal obligation, you are inventing it.
Senator Joyal: The Supreme Court has said that both the Quebec and the Canadian majorities must be reconciled. The majority in Quebec does not have the right to force the other majority to abandon its rights. That is what we fundamentally disagree on.
Mr. Dion: You and the Supreme Court?
Senator Joyal: Not at all, it is on the fundamental nature of the Canadian government's constitutional responsibility to maintain the territorial integrity, the sovereignty of Canada and the rights and freedoms of all citizens in this country. That is the responsibility of the government of Canada; it cannot abandon it. And even when it negotiates, if it wants to be relieved of this responsibility, in a democracy, it will have to go to the Canadian people and say: "There has been a referendum in Quebec! The question was clear. The majority was clear. The Parliament of Canada has spoken, now it is up to you, as Canadians, to authorize me to sit down at the table and come up with some type of agreement."
That is what we do not agree on. You are by-passing national sovereignty when it comes to dismantling Canada. I cannot find any fundamental reference to this in the debate.
Mr. Dion: Professor Howse was the only one who supported that position, none of the other legal experts supported it. In this context, if we look at the negotiations that took place in Charlottetown, before negotiating, you would have had to have held a national referendum to ask Canadians for the authorization to negotiate. That is what Senator Joyal is talking about. It is quite exceptional. I do not know how many democracies require their governments to obtain the right to negotiate by way of a referendum. The Supreme Court would have addressed that.
On the contrary, it said that the governments could enter into negotiations on anything they wanted, including secession and that they could consult the population via different means, including the referendum. Neither the Supreme Court opinion nor our practices contain the idea that we would be legally required to hold a national referendum before undertaking such negotiations.
Senator Joyal: It corresponds to the democratic tradition in our country with respect to the only decision on which Canadians will never be consulted, that is, the dismantling of the country. You say that it is unprecedented!
Of course it is, since we would be negotiating the end of Canada, the end of everyone's rights, not just Quebecers, but the end of rights for citizens from New Brunswick, for example, minorities outside Quebec, provinces in the West and everyone. That is obviously unprecedented.
Mr. Dion: In no way does the notion that the two majorities must be reconciled preclude any negotiations, since the objective of the negotiations would be to reconcile the two majorities. The Supreme Court has spelled out the way in which we will have to reconcile the two majorities, by honouring the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and minority rights.
Senator Joyal: Quebecers do not have more democratic rights over Canada than Canadians themselves. We live in a democracy or we do not. If Canadians continue to have the right to their territorial integrity, their sovereignty, the protection of their rights and freedoms without interruption by any successive government, and we say that Quebecers can decide how all of that could be set aside once they have so decided, how do you reconcile the two democratic principles? One majority is in the hands of the other and that is what cannot fundamentally exist in a democracy. I told you that earlier on, I used the example of the co-operation that would dissolve. We are talking about dissolving Canada, not simply allowing a province to secede, but cutting the country in two. This is not an ordinary constitutional amendment, we are putting an end to constitutional order in Canada, to the rights and responsibilities of all levels of government. That is what it is all about. How can you say, in democratic terms, that once 3.5 million Quebecers have decided that it is the end, it is the end for 26.5 million Canadians? In a democracy, I cannot accept one minority dictating its democratic will to the other. That is what we do not agree on.
Mr. Dion: I never said that. It is entering the negotiations, it is not the end. The difficulty of these negotiations is something we cannot even begin to imagine today. The rights of Quebecers like those of Canadians will have to be respected if unfortunately we were to enter such negotiations.
[English]
Senator Cools: I have a question that relates to Mr. Claude Ryan's testimony. However, before I go into that question, I should like to say to the minister that not only does the Government of Canada have no legal obligation or authority to negotiate or enter into any secession talks, but I would also say that the Government of Quebec has no constitutional authority under our current framework to promote secession. Perhaps if some of these positions had been taken with more force some years ago, we might not be in the situation we are in now.
In addition, in response to your previous remarks, minister, there are some of us who also feel that this is their country.
My question arises out of Mr. Ryan's testimony. Mr. Ryan raised a very important point, to which you have not responded and it seems to elude many. However, I thought it was a profound point.
Mr. Ryan said that Bill C-20 would undermine the federalist position in Quebec. He also said it adds fuel to the separatist position, which is a serious thing for Mr. Ryan to say. I think it is a terrible misfortune that we are not supporting Mr. Charest, as well.
Mr. Ryan said that Bill C-20 has a "visceral distrust" of the National Assembly and of the Government of Quebec. That is a very important fact. Mr. Ryan says that Bill C-20 has a natural suspicion -- let us call a spade a spade -- of Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Bouchard's government.
There is a whole tradition around the principles of drafting, and traditionally a bill could not move on a supposition or an assumption that the king or a government would act improperly. You have departed from that principle. It is not the first that you have departed from, but you have departed from that principle.
If you believe, and if the Government of Canada really believes, that Mr. Bouchard and the Government of Quebec will be so dishonourable, so dishonest, so deceitful as to put an improper question before the population of Quebec, I would call that kind of behaviour treasonous on the part of a government. I do not mean to shock you, but my reading tells me that that kind of deception around the question of the composition of the integrity of a nation state is treasonous. That is a word some people do not like to hear, but I have done much reading on the subject.
I am saying to you that, if you believe, and if the Government of Canada believes, that Mr. Bouchard is treasonous, or potentially so, why is it that the government has not taken or does not propose to take the proper parliamentary action that corrects such action and behaviour in deviant or devious ministers? Why has the government brought us Bill C-20 to ask us to participate in that kind of deception?
Mr. Dion: I have some difficulty to reconcile both statements. The first one is to say that the very idea of promoting separation is treason, or something that you do not have any constitutional right to do in Canada.
Senator Cools: I said that there is no constitutional authority to promote secession.
Mr. Dion: I would like to go ahead without being interrupted.
The second is the idea that the clarity bill is showing an unfair distrust of the Government of Quebec. I have much difficulty reconciling those two points, but I will give my own answer.
First, in my country, Canada, you have the right to promote any idea you want except racial hatred. It is something very important for me. That is the sole exception. Otherwise you may promote all the ideas you want. You have the right to do that. I will fight for this right even though I will fight against separation with all the democratic means that I have.
Second, if we are facing the situation where clearly in my province, or in another province, a population wants to leave, this population does not have the right to leave. It has the right to invite the other partners of the federation to come to the table because they have the obligation to do so. I will quote from the court, paragraph 87 of the Quebec Secession Reference.
Our political institutions are premised on the democratic principle, and so an expression of the democratic will of the people of a province carries weight, in that it would confer legitimacy on the efforts of the Government of Quebec to initiate the Constitution's amendment process in order to secede by constitutional means.
Everything must be respected in this statement, not only what Mr. Bouchard wants to hear but also what others want to hear. All of us must respect what that means. That means we must be frank today because Mr. Bouchard is not respecting the full meaning of this statement. He said, "Yes, we will have the obligation to negotiate," and he stops there. The full sentence is "...if there is clear support and within the constitutional framework." Since he is stopping the sentence in the middle, we have the clarity bill.
The Chairman: Thank you Minister Dion.
Honourable senators, that concludes our session with this not inconsiderable witness. Mr. Dion, we are extremely grateful for the extra time. This session has been important for us, and your evidence will be very helpful for our consideration.
That concludes the list of witnesses that we will be hearing. Senators, I would just like to say for the record that we have also received briefs or substantive letters from the following persons or groups: Premier Binns of Prince Edward Island; Mr. Facal, Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs Minister of the Province of Quebec; Alliance Quebec; Atikamek c.p.; Makivik Corporation, Yves-Marie Morrissette, Michel Simard, Patrice Fortin, and David Gussow.
Senators, we reconvene at five o'clock in this room for clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-20.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: I would like to raise a point of order. You say that you have received a lot of correspondence.
[English]
Many people have sent briefs. To your knowledge they have just arrived. I do not have a right to vote on this committee, but how can you go immediately to clause by clause and do justice to all the people who have sent in briefs that have just been put in our hands now? They have not been read.
The Chairman: Senator Prud'homme, the answer to that question is that the vast majority of them have in fact been in our hands for a long time now. For example, this material from Alliance Quebec, Michel Simard and Mr. Facal has been available for some time now. We have had, I believe, two or maybe three today, one of those being the letter from Premier Binns which has been substantially discussed at this hearing.
The committee adjourned.