CLAR Committee Meeting

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-20, 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

COMITÉ LÉGISLATIF CHARGÉ D'ÉTUDIER LE PROJET DE LOI C-20, LOI DONNANT EFFET À L'EXIGENCE DE CLARTÉ FORMULÉE PAR LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA DANS SON AVIS SUR LE RENVOI SUR LA SÉCESSION DU QUÉBEC

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 16, 2000

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)): À l'ordre. We're ready to start, so perhaps the cameras can do the usual routine.

We're missing microphones at two tables. Mr. Blaikie, you're probably without, and Mr. Mills and the people at your table, you're likely without. This will be corrected in a few moments. I didn't think it was necessary to have them to get on with the minister's remarks.

I have a couple of announcements for the committee. We have no witnesses scheduled for this evening. None were available. So there will be no meeting of the committee this evening, which I know will be a disappointment to all members. We will meet tomorrow morning, and at the end of today's meeting, I'll advise all members of the time of that meeting.

[Translation]

Two researchers have been assigned to our committee, Mr. Brian O'Neal and Ms. Mollie Dunsmuir. They will be able to answer members' questions, support them in preparing amendments and help them in the committee study of this bill.

[English]

Also, we have with us today two speakers, the Speaker of the Northwest Territories and the Speaker of the Manitoba legislature, who are visiting as part of the program being run by the Speaker of this House. There are five visiting speakers in Ottawa, and two of them have come to watch the proceedings of the committee today. I'd like to welcome them on your behalf. With them are three clerks from various legislatures who are visiting with the group of speakers who are here.

I've received a notice of motion from Mr. Turp.

• 1540

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like to give notice of two motions.

First, I move that the motion regarding the number of witnesses invited to appear before the legislative committee, adopted by the committee on February 14 be rescinded.

Second, I move that the motion regarding the time allocated for clause-by-clause study, adopted by the legislative committee on February 14, 2000, be rescinded.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Today we welcome as a witness the honourable Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Stéphane Dion.

Mr. Dion, you have 30 minutes to make your presentation, which will be followed by a 30-minute question period with 10 minutes for each party. I will then allow five minutes for each member of the committee.

Mr. Dion, the floor is yours.

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President, Queen's Privy Council for Canada; Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank my colleagues for inviting me to discuss with them the bill that is under consideration by the committee.

I will begin by introducing those accompanying me: my right hand for the last four years, Deputy Minister George Anderson; my Parliamentary Assistant, Geoffroi Montpetit, who will be at your disposal throughout the work of your committee—you will find that he is a tireless worker—Ms. Canadian Constitution herself, Mary Dawson, from the Department of Justice; and Warren Newman, who also works at the Department of Justice. Warren has written a book on the Supreme Court opinion, which I recommend to the members of the committee.

Colleagues, if I had to summarize this bill in a single word, it would obviously be “clarity”. If I had to come up with a second word, it would be “reasonable”. It is entirely reasonable for a modern democratic State not to consider entering into negotiations on breaking up the country unless there has been a clear question on secession.

Secession can be negotiated only on the basis of a clear secession question. It is completely reasonable not to consider entering into such serious negotiations on the basis of a slight majority. There needs to be a clear majority. It would also be entirely reasonable to expect that these negotiations, if they were to be undertaken, would comply with the constitutional framework of the country in question. That is what the Supreme Court said, and that is what the clarity bill says. In my view, it is the characteristic of reasonableness in this bill that explains why the efforts of the Quebec government and the Bloc Québécois to try to arouse emotions and inflame the debate over this bill have failed. Quebeckers, on the whole, have found it to be reasonable and they are not afraid of clarity; in fact, they want clarity.

The prospect of dividing up the country implied in the possibility of secession is already worrisome enough without allowing for an approach that would be outside the law and that would lack clarity. It is therefore first and foremost

[English]

as a Quebecker that I am proud to be the minister sponsoring this bill, because an attempt of secession done in confusion outside the legal framework would have very negative effects in Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, and Halifax, but the consequences would be much worse in Tadoussac, Chicoutimi, Montreal, Quebec, and Trois-Rivières.

So I want to say this bill is pro-Quebec, this bill is pro-democracy, and this bill is good for all Canadians.

[Translation]

This bill is pro-democracy, pro-Quebec and in the interest of all Canadians.

One of the reasons that this bill is reasonable is that it is based on the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada. What did the Supreme Court say on August 20, 1998? It said that, in order for there to be an obligation to negotiate secession, there must be a clear majority expressed in favour of secession in response to a clear question, and once there was an obligation to negotiate secession, the negotiations must be carried out within the constitutional framework, with everything on the table and nothing decided in advance. That was the Court's opinion.

• 1545

One of the reasons that we need a bill in addition to the Supreme Court opinion, which has the weight of a ruling, is that the current Quebec government has refused to commit itself to not holding a referendum and the Premier of Quebec has refused to commit himself to abiding by the Court's opinion.

His interpretation is, of course, an incomplete one. He starts the sentence without finishing it. He says: “They are obliged to negotiate”. He does not complete the sentence, by adding “where there is a clear majority based on a clear question and within the constitutional framework”. The rest of the sentence is in the clarity bill. This concerns you as members of this House. Why, because it says “they will be obliged to negotiate”, the “they” involves you. You are included in the “they”. I am sure that everyone will agree on that.

The Court talked about political actors, participants in the federation that would have to assess the question and the majority and, if necessary, negotiate. I am sure that everyone will recognize that these actors include the House of Commons and the Government of Canada. Even my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, the Bloc Québécois Intergovernmental Affairs Critic, said in December:

If there is a role where the federal government may be justified in taking action on the basis of the Court opinion [...] it is after the referendum that it will be able to assess the clarity of the question and of the majority required in order to determine whether there is an obligation to negotiate.

The House of Commons therefore must assess whether there is an obligation to negotiate. We agree on that. Whether it is the House of Commons or the government, a federal political authority will have to make that determination.

My problem, however, is that the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry stands completely alone on this in his political movement. In the propaganda that the Quebec government and the Bloc Québécois have been disseminating widely, they claim that the federal authorities and those elected in the federal election may not in any way try to determine whether the question is clear and whether the majority is clear. Their argument is that here in the House of Commons elected representatives from Quebec are in the minority.

Two things need to be said in response to that. We Quebeckers are also Canadians and we have the same rights as other Canadians. Our federal Parliament cannot walk away from its responsibilities towards us without ensuring that that is what we want. That is what the Court told us to do, in any case, and it is what we have a moral obligation to do and what would happen in any other country. I imagine that the Parliament of a country would never agree to let one quarter of its population lose its rights in the country without ensuring that that was what those people wanted.

There is a second thing that must be said as well. Other Canadians are not strangers to us in Quebec. They are our fellow citizens. If we had an obligation to negotiate because the will to secede had been clearly expressed, the negotiations would involve dividing up their country, since Quebec is part of their country and the loss of Quebec would have serious consequences for them, in the same way that the loss of Canada would have serious consequences for us.

They therefore need to ensure that other Canadian voters, like those in Quebec, who are their fellow citizens, recognize that there is a clear desire for secession before entering into such serious negotiations.

Let us talk about clarity. This debate over clarity was not invented by the Supreme Court opinion or by the clarity bill. The debate has been going on since the beginning of this whole affair.

In 1980, there was no agreement between Mr. Lévesque and Mr. Trudeau on what the repercussions of the referendum would be. Mr. Trudeau had said to Mr. Lévesque during one of his famous speeches in the referendum campaign:

If you knock on the door of sovereignty-association, there will be no negotiation possible.

Mr. Trudeau was excluding any possibility of negotiations in 1980. One cannot talk about changing the rules of the game, since there was no agreement on the rules at that time.

In 1995, just after the referendum, when he was describing the campaign in the House, Mr. Bouchard expressed indignation at the fact that, in his opinion, Mr. Chrétien had reserved the right “to not respect a referendum decision in favour of sovereignty if the yes side won with a slim majority”.

There was no agreement in 1995. It is wrong to invent things that do not exist. There has not been any agreement and, after a yes vote, there would have been no more agreement on what that Yes meant.

Let us start with the clarity of the question. The Supreme Court tells us, in paragraph 151, that in order for a question to be clear, it must be clear that there is a will to no longer be part of Canada.

• 1550

The way to be sure of the existence of this will to no longer be part of Canada is to ask a question only on that. If you ask a question that covers other areas as well, you make it confusing.

Any book on methodology will tell you that in order to ask a clear question there must not be two aspects to the question. I will quote a sentence from a book published by two colleagues from the University of Montreal, André Blais and Claire Durand, entitled Recherche sociale:

A question is ambiguous if it deals with more than one aspect. Only one idea should be dealt with at a time.

Partnership is not the same idea as secession and should not be included in a question on secession. That is what the clarity bill says, by giving effect to the court's opinion.

The second reason that partnership should not be in the question is that, in addition to being different from secession, people don't know what this partnership is. They have had 30 years to define it.

On June 19, 1997, Mr. Bouchard threw in the towel and said that partnership was a skeleton. It is hard to believe that he did not tell us that in 1995, when he invited us to vote: "I am giving you an opportunity to vote on sovereignty with an offer of a skeleton, since, you see, I do not know what it is."

Since 1997, despite all the meetings that the Bloc Québécois has held, all of them inconclusive, they have not been able to put any flesh on the skeleton. They also threw in the towel and said that it would be decided later, during the negotiations. Quebeckers were invited to vote on something, but no one knew on what. It is easy to understand why they do not know. How can 25% of the Canadian population break up the country? They come right back and say: "Guess what, we will have a 50% share in joint institutions". But if it is not 50% in joint institutions, if it is less than 50%, the Bloc Québécois should say so. That is no longer independence. If you have a partner that always holds the majority in every decision, you are still a minority. It is therefore impossible to be in a partnership when you are an independent country, unless it is in Europe, where there is a partnership of a number of countries. But in a dual partnership, it is 50% in joint institutions. In Canada, there is no support for that idea. The Ontario premier has said that he didn't see why Ontario would count for less than Quebec in this partnership and why Canada would impose an additional level of government.

So there is no support for this, and insofar as it would be expressly stated there was no support, the approach could not be specified. It remains confusing, and in any case concerns an aspect other than secession. Thus, no question could be clearer if it included that notion.

Now let's talk about the majority. The Court said over 13 times that the clarity of any future majority would have to be assessed. It used the expression “clear majority” 13 times. So this notion is important, and not something this House could deal with lightly. The assessment would involve a very serious decision, and the Court tells us not to try to establish this clear majority in advance.

I quote paragraph 153 of the Court's opinion:

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.

This is very wise advice from the Court. Today, when Canada is united and calm, it would be very difficult to determine what would be a clear majority in other circumstances, and to put oneself in the place of politicians dealing with the disruption that would inevitably follow a Yes vote.

The bill provides that, in the event of a majority in favour of secession, the first actor that would need to assess the clarity of that majority would be the separatist government itself. The government would receive the result, determine whether it had a majority, and then it or its legislative assembly would determine whether to invite other partners in the federation to negotiate separation. The separatist government would be responsible for that assessment.

The Bloc Québécois and independence movement are already demonstrating some openness. For example, in his book, Jean-François Lisée stated that the issue of having the results hinge on a judicial recount or an examination of spoiled ballots would have to be considered with great care. Yesterday, Mr. Turp stated that the Quebec Chief Electoral Officer might have a role to play there. They're beginning to see how that assessment has to proceed.

I believe that common sense would prevail. If the result hinged on a judicial recount, the process would evidently come to a halt. One does not engage in such negotiations with a razor-thin majority.

Only after the separatist government had concluded that a clear majority existed and had invited the other participants in the federation to negotiate secession would the House of Commons proceed to make its own assessment. That is the process established by the clarity bill. No one can seriously claim that the Court placed such emphasis on the notion of a clear majority only to invite the House of Commons to accept, without further review, a majority of 50% plus one.

It would be incumbent upon us to assess clarity for ourselves, and that is not something anyone should question. I'm quite surprised at the line the Quebec government and the Bloc are taking, which is that the 50%-plus-one rule is sacred, and that to question it under any circumstances is undemocratic.

Let's take a closer look at that.

• 1555

[English]

If the Reform Party is requesting two-thirds of its voters in order to have a dissolution of its party,

[Translation]

and why Quebec Civil Code requires a three quarters majority to terminate co-ownership. It's because once a partnership is dissolved, it cannot be subsequently resurrected just by voting on it. Who would vote, since the partnership no longer exists?

The same holds true for a country. After a No vote, our separatist leaders may well say “See you soon!” or “See you next time!” after every referendum defeat, and come back with another referendum. In fact, that is exactly what they are doing—they have announced a third referendum, with no indication it would be the last.

But after a Yes vote, those who voted No could not say “See you soon” or “See you next time” if Yes led to separation. Only a Yes can give rise to an irreversible change that is binding on future generations. So for this very fundamental reason, there must be a clear majority before negotiations are undertaken on the possibility of affecting such a change, to give the action legitimacy that will hold for future generations, and to ensure that there is sufficient clarity to endure a difficult period of negotiations.

Indeed, Quebec's Referendum Act states as much. The White Paper contains the following passage:

The fact that referenda are a consultation makes it unnecessary to include provisions about a required majority or a level of voter participation.

A referendum is a consultation. After a consultation, the political authorities assess the result and make decisions accordingly. This is the law of Quebec and the federal law of Canada.

I have raised these arguments many times and I apologize to those who have already heard them. But the fact remains that neither the Bloc nor the Quebec government has ever refuted them. Instead, they have called the Government of Canada undemocratic by repeating that it made voters unequal.

Equality of voters means that each voice in worth one unit when the votes are counted. It is up to political authorities to determine what action to take on the basis of the vote. That's what Quebec's Referendum Act says. Perhaps we should ask the Bloc and the separatist government if this Act is undemocratic as well.

They say that the 50%-plus-one rule is universal. Aboriginal populations voted in 1995 to stay in Canada by majorities of over 95%. And yet the separatist leaders say they can ignore such referenda. So is the 50%-plus-one rule more universal for some people than for others?

[English]

At least the Reform Party is coherent. The Reform Party said if 50% plus one is the rule to get out of Canada, it should be the rule to stay in Canada. It's a coherent argument, but it's a completely irresponsible one. It's obvious that for such a tremendous decision, 50% plus one does not fit.

[Translation]

The Economist joined the many others in saying that secession “should be carried out only if a clear majority (well over 50%—plus one of the voters) have freely chosen it.” After all, if 50% plus one is a clear majority, what would be an unclear majority?

How can one limit the risks of disagreement on a clear majority? The government proposing secession has only to avoid holding a referendum until it is guaranteed to win it. Given the means at our disposal, that guarantee would come from various indicators, such as polls yielding clear and stable majorities in favour of secession or support for secession across the political spectrum. Indeed, this is what has happened elsewhere in the world.

• 1600

With the exception of colonial situations which lead to referenda leading to secession, referenda haven't been held to determine whether one half of the population wanted to separate. Indeed, these referenda have always yielded majorities of over 75%.

So Mr. Bouchard is quite right not to want to hold a referendum until he is guaranteed to win it. I don't blame him for that position. However, he must also acknowledge that the wording of the question ought not to be part of his arsenal of winning conditions. He must not word a question which may give him a win; the wording of a question must ascertain what the people want: “Do you want to leave Canada to live in an independent country, namely Quebec?” That is the question. That's my first point.

My second point deals with the timing of a referendum. The Premier alone may decide when to hold one; it is his prerogative. But the timing of a referendum must not be based on tactical considerations which would be based on a moment when emotions were running high in order to get a win. No. The timing of a referendum must take into account the interests of everyone involved and it must happen at a time when a clear majority would vote in favour of separation.

It would be morally wrong for a democracy to seek a permanent decision to settle a temporary situation. This is not in the public interest.

The public interest lies in knowing that the evening a referendum is held, if unfortunately there is to be another one, a Yes vote would mean one thing only, which is that Quebec should be an independent country with its own seat at the UN, as independent countries are entitled to, distinct from Canada. Anyone disagreeing with this premise must be included in the No side.

This would be the ideal situation, because if some people vote yes but don't share that view, it won't be long before the separatist movement breaks down during negotiations on secession. And if this majority were to disappear during negotiations, we would all find ourselves in a useless and dangerous impasse.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to address the third section of this short bill, which deals with the legal framework of negotiations.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that negotiations on secession would have to take place “within the existing constitutional framework” (paragraph 149), and would have to respect the principles identified by the Court (paragraph 90): federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities.

One practical consequence of this is that the Government of Quebec could not determine on its own what would be negotiable and what wouldn't. To quote the court:

It “could not purport to invoke a right of self-determination such as to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties.”

Instead, it would have to negotiate in such a manner as to address the interests ““of the federal government” of Quebec and the other provinces, and other participants, as well as the rights of all Canadians both within and outside Quebec”, and of Aboriginals, on all matters, including division of the debt and the issue of borders. Here again, the clarity bill is completely in keeping with the Court's opinion.

The Government of Quebec and the Bloc do not want borders to be included in the list of issues to be negotiated. On this point, the Court noted in section 96:

“Nobody seriously suggests that our national existence, seamless in so many aspects, could be effortlessly separated along what are now the provincial boundaries of Quebec.”

In a legal opinion commissioned by the Bloc, Professor Alain Pelet confirmed that the Supreme Court's opinion included the issue of borders among the issues that could be negotiated. But there is no certainty on that point. If nobody makes the request to do so, there would be no reason to negotiate borders. However, if there is a clear demand to do so, and if the demand is at least as clear as the demand for secession, it would be very difficult and probably immoral to ignore the request.

But there's no guarantee that this demand would be addressed. As it now stands, the Court said that nothing shall be determined in advance. What we know is that it is possible that borders may be redefined within the framework of a separation agreement. The Government of Quebec cannot hide its head in the sand; only last week, Aboriginal leaders reiterated that it would have to face up to that issue.

However, the clarity bill in line with the Court's opinion, does not reiterate the position once advanced by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry before he entered politics, to the effect that the Aboriginal peoples living in Quebec would have the right to remain integrated with Canada if they so desired. There's no guarantee of that.

• 1605

However, in 1980 and 1995, Quebec's Aboriginal populations indicated their desire to remain in Canada. We know the problem will probably crop up again. And there may be many other potential bones of contention. Negotiations on secession necessarily entail serious and real risks of disagreement, both between governments and within populations. Neither of the clarity bill nor the Court's opinion invented nor created these disagreements. They are part and parcel of any claim to secession. The clarity bill limits the potential for disagreement as much as possible by insisting on the rule of law, clarity, deliberation and consultation.

Let's not forget that this bill only applies if

[English]

for the House of Commons and the Government of Canada. We do not interfere in the responsibilities of the other political actors in this federation. It would be for the legislative assembly of the province to decide on the question. It would be up to the other political actors, including the other provincial governments and legislative assemblies, to decide the way they want to assess the majority, the question, their participation in the negotiations, and so on. We cannot decide for them.

What we are saying to them is the following. We will take seriously the question, if it's clear or not; we will take seriously the majority, if it's clear or not; we will take seriously our responsibilities to all Canadians if we have to negotiate; and we will take into account openly their points of view. It's up to them. We hope we will work with the same mind, the same respect for the legal order of Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude. In my view, the bill establishes clarity as much as possible given the circumstances. Secession remains a black hole full of uncertainty. Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to know well in advance that negotiations would be held if there was clear support for secession, but that no negotiations would take place if there was no clear support. The House of Commons and the Government of Canada are clear on that point: this is the basic principle and negotiations would respect the rule of law if they unfortunately were to take place.

The Government of Canada has chosen to clarify the situation at this point, while emotions are not running high and in the absence of a referendum campaign. This is the right of Canadians. Secession is a black hole. The clarity bill merely provides us with the best flashlight available, with the best batteries.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

In a few moments, there will be a vote in the House. Is it the desire of the committee to keep on sitting despite the vote?

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I have a question. There was no notice of a vote. Who asked for it? Which party requested a vote in the House?

The Chairman: I have no idea, but the vote is on a motion of approval for a committee report. If the committee wishes to pursue its work, we can do so.

[English]

Should we continue? Agreed? Okay.

Questions, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): I believe I have ten minutes, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the minister for appearing.

I'd like to state for the record that the official opposition supports the principles of this bill. We do have a great problem with the haste that has been displayed by the committee hearings. I don't believe that is sensible, I don't believe that is smart, I don't believe that is democratic, nor do I believe it was necessary. Let me say that to begin with.

Our second big issue with the bill is that the majority is not clear. The minister has told us what he does not favour; he said 50% plus one is not something he favours. So I'd like to ask directly, will a majority be spelled out after we have heard the experts the committee expects to hear? Will we have a majority spelled out?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The court invited us to not try in advance to decide what would be the threshold at the beginning. In fact, the court is speaking of the qualitative evaluation under the circumstances, and this qualitative evaluation would require political expertise that we would have to use. I think it's very wise to avoid that. Outside the context of a referendum, it's very difficult for us to know and to decide, in spite of the politicians of the time who would have a lot of information that we don't have.

• 1610

Mr. Grant Hill: In my view, that looks like a gift to those who might want to say that the bar is going to change no matter what the result. That's a gift to those who would also say this process is not democratic. The minister says 50% plus one was not the agreed prior standard. I disagree. I believe it was the prior standard. That was the generally accepted standard.

When the House of Commons votes on a question—and I expect we would have some discussion as to whether or not a question was clear—the result will be judged on a simple majority. The majority will be 50% plus one as to whether or not that question was clear. If it's good enough for the House of Commons to judge the question of clarity on 50% plus one, a simple majority, why would it not be the same for the referendum?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The court has requested us to assess a clear majority before negotiations. This is a decision that we would have to make. The court did not say that every decision during the process must be made at 50% plus one. In order to know if we may start negotiations, we must assess if the majority is clear. The reason why we need a clear majority is the same reason why your party cannot break up with 50% plus one. Once your party has broken up, you cannot rebuild it by a vote. Who would vote? You do not exist any more. So if the Reform Party was requesting two-thirds for its own dissolution, how come the Reform Party is requesting 50% plus one for the break-up of Canada?

Mr. Grant Hill: On the idea of a party breaking up, there's a constitution and both sides have agreed to that constitution. There is no dispute; there is no discussion. It's illogical to say we have an agreement on both sides on this issue, because we do not. We believe 50% plus one is logical because it would also mean that if Canada can be divided by 50% plus one, it would be possible to divide... the boundaries would not be sacred. That's the reason. It's a two-edged sword. This 50% plus one is a very definite, specific number.

I ask again: if the minister doesn't agree with 50% plus one, what is his number? Will he be presenting us with a number?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm quoting the court, and I'm sure you will agree that we have to respect the court:

Only the political actors would have the information and expertise to make the appropriate judgment as to the point at which, and the circumstances in which, those ambiguities are resolved one way or the other.

That's in paragraph 100.

I will respect the Supreme Court of my country. Your party is not able to consider its own dissolution at the rule of 50% plus one, so do not pretend that this is the democratic imperative for a country like Canada. You will not be able to show to me one legal text that says that anywhere. Even in the Quebec bill about consultations, about referendums, they have said in the white paper exactly the reverse. The referendum is a consultation, and you need to assess what is happening.

So you see, when you say you're ready to break up your country at 50% plus one, you cannot say this is the democratic rule that we need to respect. You are playing games in order to say to voters it's 50% plus one to get out. It would be the same to stay in. This is irresponsible. You are saying you want to create a mess on purpose. To me, this is something I want to avoid.

I'm against separation very strongly, as you know. But I want something that shows that Canada is a responsible country. What you are suggesting would be awful for my society, not democratic.

Mr. Grant Hill: Again he has said what he will not accept. I'm asking for him to say what he would accept. Professor Monahan at the U of T has said 50% plus one is not illogical, so I'm asking the minister to state a number. If he won't state it, tell me that and I'll stop this line of questioning. If the minister won't say what his number is, I'll change tacks here.

• 1615

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The court invited us to not do that before a referendum. I will respect the Supreme Court of my country.

Mr. Grant Hill: The court did say there were political actors who must decide. It's very obvious that the political actors, some of whom are here today, will have an opportunity as well. That is a negotiable issue and I think it should be negotiated in advance.

The haste that I spoke of before, in my view, is another gift to the separatists. We have had time allocation. We have a very short committee time. In my view, we're also largely excluding the provinces. The official opposition made an attempt to bring the provinces in as one of the other major political actors in this issue. That was denied to us. We then put the provinces as our witnesses, if you can imagine. We would take all other witnesses off the table, and we've sent letters to the provinces. I would like to know how important the provincial input into this very important matter is, from the minister's perspective.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The role of the other political actors will be taken into account, obviously.

Firstly, if it's a provincial referendum, this House will not set the question. The question will be decided by the legislative assembly or the government of the province.

Secondly, clause 1 says about the question that the House would have to take into account the point of view of the other participants, the point of view of the provinces, and the point of view of the parties in the legislative assembly. About assessing the clear majority, it's the same. The same House would have to take that into account.

Clause 3 recognizes the role of the other participants during the negotiations. What the bill doesn't do is decide for the other political actors the course of conduct that they would follow. It would be up to them to decide what they have to do. I would also like to point out that no provincial premier, no provincial government, has complained about that and said their role is not respected in this bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Grant Hill: That is not what I asked the Minister.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, except for one.

Mr. Grant Hill: I want to know why the provinces are not involved in this process. Why are they not being represented here by official witnesses? I just don't understand.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Ask them. All I know is that, in view of my talks with provincial government representatives, they were fairly satisfied with the bill, except for the government of Quebec of course. They can speak for themselves.

For his part, the Premier of Ontario said that he would not get involved because it was a matter of federal jurisdiction. That's his business, but he did not demand to be here today. So why are you asking the provinces to do something which they themselves did not ask for?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hill, I'm afraid your time has expired.

We'll move to the next questioner, Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by wishing you good luck during the committee's deliberations.

I would like to welcome the Minister, his team and our colleagues. On behalf of my colleagues of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to say that, despite the difficult issues which will be raised in today's debate, we will seek to maintain a dignified attitude when we agree to disagree, and I would like to assure everyone here today that this will indeed be the case.

I am tempted today to refute all the spectres of catastrophe which have been raised in the event of Quebec's secession, since this is the picture often, if not always, painted by the Minister when he refers to the very democratic project which many Quebeckers adhere to.

• 1620

I am also tempted to respond to certain objections and arguments. The Minister and I had the opportunity to match wits several weeks ago at McGill University. Mr. Minister, I am looking forward to a battle of wits with you again at the Montreal University in the coming weeks. You don't seem to be as eager for a battle of wits held at the Montreal University, but I hope we may do so before this bill is passed.

I will refrain from speaking to the important, technical and legal issues you raised, because I want to speak to the architect of plan B today, to the Canadian Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Stéphane Dion.

Plan B has two parts. The first part of plan B is the carrot, which consists of things to be given to Quebeckers to convince them, to seduce them, to tell them that Canada is the best country in the world, the best of the best. A lot of work has gone into that. Many things have been said in the House. It has been said that certain ridings, including that of the Prime Minister, have received generous grants. It also seems that the government was just as generous, for instance, during Canada Day celebrations. Under the Access to Information Act, we learned that this year, Revenue Canada will invest $5 million in Canada Day celebrations and that last year, it has invested $3.5 million, whereas the rest of Canada received $5.5 million. We also learned under the Access to Information Act that, of the people demanding that Canada Day celebrations be depoliticized in Quebec, there was a certain Serge Savard, who was in charge of organizing Canada Day celebrations last year and who, incidentally, reported to Minister Copps a few months ago.

Let me speak, Minister. I listened to you.

Mr. Savard told us in a recent letter that he had paid particular attention to Eastern Quebec, an area with very few federal MPs and known to be rather nationalistic. Serge Savard also told us that more than 12,000 people had taken part in the July 1st celebrations—which were the biggest ever organized in the town, which is supposed to be nationalistic. And what about the 14,000 people who took part in the celebrations in Chicoutimi, the sovereignist headquarters? A great deal of money is given to Quebec and Quebeckers to celebrate Canada Day. The grants are increased. Apparently they are negotiated in the Prime Minister's Office. That is the carrot. That is plan B.

But, apparently, it's not enough. This is not appealing to Quebeckers and is not really increasing the support for federalism which is not being reformed as Quebeckers would like. So what does it take? Now it takes a stick. And what form does a stick take? Bill C-20. This is the second part of plan B: the stick.

Today, Minister, you say you are the only person who wants clarity, and yet sovereignists want clarity as much as you. You are the one who is isolated here. No party in the Quebec National Assembly supports this bill. They are all opposed to it. Quebec's civil society—unions, students, women and community groups—have all spoken against this bill. When we voted on this bill at second reading in the House of Commons, a very large majority of Quebec members voted against it.

• 1625

My question is simple, Minister: why are you using the stick, if not to bludgeon Quebec democracy which was and is quite capable of giving Quebeckers a choice?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I was wondering about Professor Monahan's 50% plus one of eligible voters that he's supporting.

[Translation]

The member will not allow me to say something about the content of the bill. On the 23rd of March, Mr. Chairman, I will have the pleasure of debating the subject with my colleague at the University of Montreal. I invite everyone to come. I don't think he is very credible when he claims that I am hesitant. The proof is that he was unable to bring forward the slightest argument of substance in his long diatribe.

What is he offering? What can I reply to that? He's talking in slogans. I must say that this is preferable to the hateful propaganda sent out by him to all Quebec households, in which I am personally attacked. The pamphlet says: “Stéphane Dion will never negotiate”. What do you know about that, Daniel Turp? You are making a case against me based on assumptions, not facts, and you sent it all to all households in Quebec. I find that unworthy, because you know it is not true. If you really think that, you are working from assumptions, not facts.

There's one thing I know: this country has accepted that it is divisible, and no political force in Canada wants to keep Quebeckers in the country against their clearly expressed will. That I know. I know that this is not the case in other countries. Some quite respectable democracies say they are indivisible. Well, I am proud of my country, because our unity is based on voluntary adhesion; we know that we would not have a country without mutual consent.

Since we know that, that does not mean that our unity is worth less than that of other countries. I would say that it is worth more. That is why before we negotiate the breakup of Canada, which would be a huge decision with all the difficulties it entails, we must make sure that this is what people want. We Quebeckers are just as Canadian as other Canadians, and we are entitled to this country too. It cannot be taken away from us through a procedure that is less than clear.

It could not be taken away from us, for example, through an agreement signed by three political parties, in which those three parties agreed on sovereignty, when one of the three leaders, Mr. Dumont, wrote recently in a newspaper that he had never been a sovereignist. He did not say that he had been a sovereignist and had changed his mind. He said that he had never been a sovereignist. What kind of a situation is that? Do you think that there are many countries in the world that would agree to be broken up in circumstances like that, where one of the three leaders of the Yes side tells us that he did not want independence?

If people respect the rights of Quebeckers, and I want that to be the case, they should never even dream of taking Canada away from us without a clear majority of us indicating that we no longer want to be Canadian.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue. I have not had an answer to my question, obviously, and debate is something that we need to have here.

The Chairman: One minute. It is during the...

Mr. Daniel Turp: I will repeat my question. Despite your fine rhetoric, despite the fact that you say that this country is divisible and that you accept this divisibility and the rules laid down by the Supreme Court, Bill C-20 creates and imposes conditions which, as commentators have said, exist to prevent Quebec from achieving sovereignty, to put an end to the sovereignty threat, as you have said so often, to prevent the dreaded catastrophe.

That, in fact, is the real objective of Bill C-20. It is not to propose democratically that this country is a democratic State, more democratic than the others. It is to create conditions to prevent Quebeckers from being able to choose sovereignty one day. This kind of stick is unacceptable to Quebeckers.

The Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Minister, a very short answer, please.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I am the sponsor of this bill first and foremost as a Quebecker, because I love my society and I would not like to see it divided in confusion, without a legal framework, which would be unacceptable in democracy. If Quebeckers clearly want to cease being Canadian, well, that sad outcome will be negotiated because we are in Canada. Whereas other democracies would not want such negotiations, they would be acceptable here.

The negotiations would be difficult not because of a deemed lack of will on one side or the other. The decision would be difficult because breaking up ties built over decades of democratic life together would be an extremely delicate operation. It would certainly have to be done, at that point, within the legal framework and on the basis of clarity. That is what the Court opinion tells us, and we must all abide by it.

• 1630

The difficulty in which the Bloc Québécois and the PQ government find themselves in with their vision, which is so frustrating to them and leads them to make personal attacks, in particular against Quebeckers who do not agree with their vision, has nothing to do with the clarity bill, the Supreme Court opinion, the existing legislation or the judges. Their difficulty comes from the fact that Quebeckers want to remain Canadian.

[English]

The Chair: Next questioner, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few questions and I'll try to make them brief. If I can get brief answers, we might actually cover some territory here.

The minister referred to the fact that the court stipulated that this qualitative judgment needs to be made in terms of the referendum as to whether or not there's a clear majority. The judgment about clear question happens before; the judgment about clear majority happens after.

Part of the problem with this, and my Reform colleague alluded to this—and I don't say this in the context of 50% plus one, just in the context of making that qualitative judgment—is how do you guard against or how do you answer the fears many people have that this ex post facto, if you like, qualitative judgment that the court requires and that the bill stipulates will not be abused will not create an opening for a federal government, in the face of what might be a clear majority in other people's opinions, to be accused of or actually moving the goalpost, so to speak, after the game is over?

I wonder if the minister could suggest ways in which that fear might be addressed, possibly by amending the bill in some way. Or how does he address that particular criticism of the bill?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: We have a moral and, now with the Supreme Court, a legal obligation to negotiate when we see a clear majority. The court is saying that there is no authority for it to decide outside the context that is a clear majority. There is no capacity for us to decide it outside the context too, but we would have to do it.

I would say that if you consider that people are of bad faith, then there is no law that will protect this kind of process. If you take into account that Canadians have a political culture that will mean that if clearly a population wants to leave, then negotiations would follow, then you need to follow the Supreme Court reference and what the clarity bill is saying.

We would have an assessment. It would have to be an honest one under the circumstances. The House would not be alone. It would have to take into account the point of view of other political actors, the Canadian public in general. This would be the situation. I think in my country people are mostly of good faith. If you postulate that this is the reverse, then the scenario that will be described will be much worse than mine.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Just following up on that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to believe that this is true, but I would say to the minister that the government has not conducted itself since the beginning of this process, since the time when the Prime Minister first indicated that legislation like this would be coming through, and in the way in which the bill was introduced in the House, and the way in which this committee is conducting itself... It's hardly the kind of behaviour that would give people confidence that this is a country that operates on good faith when it comes to these kinds of issues. So if the minister's answer to my question is, don't worry about it, this is a country that operates on good faith, you could have fooled me by the way this committee has operated.

In terms of my second question, you referred to the political actors and the fact that the government would be required, pursuant to the legislation after a referendum has taken place, to take into account the views of the respective legislatures and/or territories. You referred earlier to the vote that took place in the north of Quebec and the fact that the PQ government ignored the vote of aboriginal people. You said this in a critical tone, and rightly so.

• 1635

My question to you is, why in this legislation, Bill C-20, has the federal government ignored the aboriginal people of Quebec by not listing them as one of the political actors whose views need to be taken into account in making this qualitative judgment after the referendum has taken place? This is a criticism that is made of the PQ government, and it seems that this is the one thing the PQ government and the federal Liberal government have in common, a contempt for the role of aboriginal people as political actors.

It seems we've come a long way back from Charlottetown when Ovide Mercredi was at the table. They don't even get listed as political actors whose views need to be taken into account. I wonder if you could address that matter for me.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: About the first matter, we must keep in mind that what has always happened in Canada is that we assess a majority when we see it.

In 1898, Wilfred Laurier, the Prime Minister at the time, was facing the result of a referendum requesting the prohibition of alcohol. The result was 52%. He said with that result he could succeed with this kind of thing, especially because the support for prohibition was 17% in Quebec. I guess we were already a unique society at that time in Quebec.

It has always been like that. In regard to conscription, the Prime Minister of the time, Mackenzie King, waited before implementing that because, as you know, the result was very divisive in the country.

That is our political tradition, and I think we must respect it, especially because the Supreme Court invites us to do that.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: About my questions...

Mr. Stéphane Dion: About the aboriginals—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Never mind the history lesson.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: —in the bill, as you see, we said we would have to consider their interests. That would be something the Government of Canada would have to keep in mind during the negotiations. We say also that we would have to take into account any other views it considers to be relevant.

It's true that we list some actors explicitly.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: What about the aboriginals?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The ones we are listing are the constitutional actors. Aboriginals would be very difficult to ignore. I don't see how we could. We cannot remove a people from a country to another one.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Their rights are in the Constitution.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, but they are not considered participants in any amending formula.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The Supreme Court didn't say “constitutional political actors”; it said “political actors”.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: That's true. That's right. I accept that. But we have listed the constitutional actors that would have a role to play if there is, at the end of the day, an amendment to the Constitution. We have said we would take into account any other views it considers to be relevant, and you have a good point in saying we'd have to take into account—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Territories don't have a role in amending the Constitution.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: They're listed.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: That's true.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So given that the list is not a list of constitutional actors in any event, I'm asking the government whether they would not be open, or give some consideration if they can't make a commitment at this time, to an amendment that would list aboriginal people as people whose views had to be taken into account—not just if you felt like it but had to be taken into account—pursuant to the legislation.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Territories are not listed explicitly, too; it's only the constitutional actors that would have a role to play if we have to change the Constitution.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You refer to the territories.

The Chair: Have you any other questions, Mr. Blaikie?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: If my time is up, then I've concluded my presentation.

The Chair: No, you have a minute and a half left. That's why I asked.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm kind of waiting for the minister to get his act together here. He's having a little huddle.

Anyway, I think there is a strong argument to be made in terms of constitutional convention, going back to the Charlottetown Accord and the fact that the aboriginal leadership was at the table, just using your own context of making a constitutional as opposed to a strictly political argument.

• 1640

So there are political arguments, constitutionally conventional arguments—a whole range of arguments, not to mention fair play.

These are the people who in the last referendum, clear question or not, saved the country. These are the people whose vote made the difference.

It seems to me it's an act of particular contempt on the part of a federal government that claims to be saving the country—and I believe you in that—to leave out of this analysis, the post-referendum evaluation, if you like, the very people who can be clearly, more than anyone else, credited with saving the country. I think it's pretty strong evidence of unfairness, and I would urge the minister to consider ways in which the bill might be amended to overcome that injustice.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I want to say that I was wrong; the territories are there. You're right.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I read the thing.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, I did too. But you are very good.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Other views would be considered.

In my mind, when the aboriginals saved the country is when the Americans attacked us at the beginning of the 19th century.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Some day we should recognize that and treat them with the respect they're due.

The Chair: Next question.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand, please.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Minister, good afternoon.

For the last few weeks, we have been hearing the government, especially the Prime Minister and the committee members on the government side, tell us that this is a simple bill consisting of three uncomplicated clauses, that it has nothing to do with the government's policy, etc. I am pleased to see that in your speech today, you needed 16 pages to explain what clarity is. So it may not be as clear as all that.

Mr. Minister, in your entire presentation today and in your other presentations as well, you speak of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois, you deal with the PQ, and referenda in Quebec. Why is there no mention of Quebec in the three short clauses in the bill? In the title, Quebec is mentioned. Quebec is in the preamble. The Supreme Court deals with Quebec. However, there is no mention of Quebec in the clauses. Are you telling us that another province wants to separate?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The bill does indeed apply to all provinces; it's generic. The Supreme Court gives us the power to do so in some of its...

Mr. André Bachand: Yes, the Supreme Court does allow you to do that, but if you want to be clear... When people reacted to your bill, whether they were in favour of it or not, it was because the bill was geared to Quebec. Your comments deal with Quebec. You are not being clear. Do you not think that you might have been clearer?

Would you be prepared to amend your bill? As far as I know, there are other provinces represented here. Do any other provinces wish to separate? If that is not the case, if we really want a clarity bill based on a reference, on three questions concerning Quebec and a specific reference to Quebec, because it involves peoples and because there is an attempt to adapt it to the Quebec situation, why were you afraid—it was perhaps out of fear or for a legal reason—to put the word "Quebec" in this bill? Such clarity! You have 16 pages' worth. Why not mention it in a few clauses?

A voice: It's the principle that provinces are all equal.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: First of all, I am never afraid.

Mr. André Bachand: It's just an expression, Mr. Minister, and you know it. I know that you are never afraid.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Secondly, I don't see what we would gain in doing so. You're right: there's only one separatist movement in Canada. One is enough. But what would we gain in doing that? Explain it to me. The principle applies to all of the provinces and therefore we will apply it to all of the provinces. We hope that we never have to use it for any one of the provinces.

Mr. André Bachand: That's fine, but in any case, it's an element of clarity that is conspicuous by its absence.

You said earlier in the language of Shakespeare: “I respect the Supreme Court of my country.” Why did you then interpret what was meant by those who were involved? You even assumed 100% of the responsibility for analyzing a question and analyzing a majority. You are assuming what people think. I am not saying that you aren't entitled to introduce a bill, but don't you think that usually, according to the spirit and the letter of the Supreme Court opinion, it would be up to those who are directly involved politically, especially the rightful governments—not the ones to the right because I hope that won't happen—to draft the same legislation if yours is as good as you say it is?

• 1645

Mr. Stéphane Dion: It's up to them to determine how they want to...

Mr. André Bachand: Would you like the provinces to implement the Supreme Court opinion and, like the federal government, introduce clarity legislation?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: It's up to them to decide.

Mr. André Bachand: But personally, Mr. Minister, since you have consulted the provinces, what do you think?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: All of my provincial counterparts, with one exception, agree with this bill. Ontario told us that it was our business and that it wouldn't get involved. But it didn't say that we were infringing on its prerogative. The bill says that we can take into account the opinions of those who are directly involved, but it in no way dictates...

Mr. André Bachand: No, no. That's what the bill says, but not the Supreme Court, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Let me quote paragraph 100 of the Supreme Court decision:

Only those who are politically involved would have the information and the expertise to decide when the ambiguities have been resolved in one way or another, as well as the circumstances in which that would apply.

The Court doesn't require us to be unanimous before acting. It didn't say that all of those involved would have to agree if there is no negotiation. If that is what the Conservative Party thinks, that is that the House of Commons must not allow the Canadian government to negotiate secession unless all provinces agree, then say so. But it isn't written in the Supreme Court opinion nor can it be found in the clarity bill.

Mr. André Bachand: In any case, Mr. Minister, with respect, the Supreme Court decision does not state who would be directly involved. That can be found nowhere, in none of the paragraphs.

I will move on to other questions because time is running short.

Some of your fellow constitutionalists and political scientists are wondering what mechanisms will be used to amend the Constitution. There is too great an attempt at clarity in your bill. What mechanism will be used for a constitutional amendment? Will it apply if at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population agree or only if all are unanimous? I must admit that I will need your help to interpret the Supreme Court's opinion and to determine if unanimity will be required or if we need only half the agreement of at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population. Will Quebec have to be one of them?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: First of all, I will come back to the concept of "political actors". If the Conservative Party feels that the House of Commons and the Canadian government are not political actors in this country, then you should say so.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Minister, since you ask, I will tell you that yes, the government of Canada is politically involved. However, we aren't any more open than you are. We recognize once again that this is a bicameral system and that maybe everyone should be included.

And even though we have a two-chamber government, you are taking control of everything. And you know, Mr. Minister, that Liberal senators are wandering around with a letter demanding amendments.

Having said that, I would like you to tell us about the amending formula that would apply following a clear question and a clear majority, without knowing what the question or the majority will be.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Chairman, if the member wants me to answer, he will have to give me enough time to do so.

To come back to the idea of “political actors”. The Conservative Party has led us to believe that other provinces must agree with us before we negotiate, but that we might not be a political actor. He is sure that the other provinces would be involved politically, but not necessarily the House of Commons. The Supreme Court opinion refers to participants in the federation. Even though the Conservative Party might think it possible for the House of Commons not to be a participant in the federation, I must admit that I have a great deal of difficulty in supporting that point of view.

Mr. André Bachand: Me too, even though I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. But go ahead.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I think that everyone knows where I am heading.

The Conservative Party has also warned us by saying that the Senate must play a role that is equivalent to that of the House of Commons. We are told that the other provinces must agree with us before we can negotiate. We are told that the Senate must also agree. Moreover, Mr. Clark tells us that we must not encroach upon the responsibilities of the National Assembly. I don't know how you are going to reconcile all of these different points of view.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Minister, you are very...

[Editor'sNote: Inaudible]

...today. What did you have for breakfast?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I would like to finish what I have to say, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Minister, do you agree that any constitutional amendment must not be undertaken by the House of Commons acting alone?

The Chairman: We can't hear both of you at the same time.

Mr. André Bachand: Instead of answering my questions, he is trying to score political points. I'm asking very technical questions.

The Chairman: I know full well that he often disagrees with you. If the Minister could finish his remarks, you might have an opportunity, Mr. Bachand, to make comments. Please feel free to do so.

Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, your Holiness.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Chairman, about the Senate, we will have to be careful because the Court clearly said that it is up to the elected representatives to fulfil their obligations in this matter. As far as I know, senators are not yet elected. I would like to understand the Conservative Party's point of view. Does he think that this bill sets too many conditions for negotiation or not enough? We will have to know that eventually. With respect to the constitutional amendment that would give effect to a separation agreement, the Court once again says that this cannot be determined outside the context. The Court says that.

• 1650

Mr. André Bachand: What do you yourself think about it?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Just as the Court says, I think we have to have the required circumstances before being able to determine that. As to the argument that I have just heard, according to which not everything can be clarified in advance, I would say that we can't clarify everything in advance because we can't deny the fact that an attempt to secede is fraught with uncertainty. However, the Court did specify what could be established in advance.

Mr. André Bachand: But in the end, Mr. Minister...

Mr. Stéphane Dion: We can clarify what can be clarified, but we won't try to clarify what we can't. The constitutional amendment that would result from a separation agreement is part of the unknown.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Minister, I would like to finish with a comment that will barely require five seconds of your time.

The Chairman: A very brief comment, please.

Mr. André Bachand: It will be very brief, I promise. Finally, we realize that this is a bill that is in no way clear. This is my final question or comment. It will be up to you to decide, Mr. Chairman. Is the federal government prepared to submit its bill directly to the Supreme Court for an analysis before it is implemented?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Chairman, any bill passed by Parliament can be challenged.

Mr. André Bachand: You said it, you said it.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Why would the government do that, when we have the assurance that the bill respects both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court decision?

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Minister...

Mr. Stéphane Dion: As with any bill, Mr. Chairman, this one has the consent of the Department of Justice that is represented here.

The Chairman: The Liberal Party members now have 10 minutes.

Mr. Alcock.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm kind of interested in this last little bit of questioning. Perhaps, Mr. Minister, you could tell us how you respond to the position of the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Joe Clark, that this bill is an affront to the National Assembly of Québec.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: At the same time, he said that this bill was a fast track for separation. I don't think Mr. Bouchard would consider a fast track for separation as an affront to him. It is difficult to reconcile what the Conservative Party is saying because they are saying that the bill is a fast track for separation and another thing that is an

[Translation]

affront, a declaration of war

[English]

to Quebec.

Let me tell you something I have said before. It is as a Quebecker, first and foremost, that I am facing you today, because I know that an attempt at separation done in confusion in my province, since the only separatist party in Canada is in my province, outside the legal process would be something terribly unfair for my society.

The Chair: Monsieur Patry.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Minister, a number of Quebeckers are wondering what will happen if a provincial government were to ignore a federal law such as the one that we are studying here today, as well as the Supreme Court opinion, and were to unilaterally declare its independence.

It is a timely question because the Quebec government, through its Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and its Premier, often refer to this possibility. They often say that the Canadian government would then be forced to negotiate, particularly with respect to the debt.

What would happen if the Quebec government or another province's government were to shrug off the Supreme Court of Canada's opinion and this bill which is to be passed into law?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you. Unfortunately, even though it shouldn't be, this question is relevant because the government of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois regularly bring up this scenario. The Bloc leader and the Quebec government's big guns, for example, say that if they are not satisfied with the negotiations, then they will withdraw and declare independence. They state that if the government of Canada does not want to negotiate, it will be simple, they will just stop payments on the reimbursement of the debt. That was actually said. They said they wouldn't send the cheque.

• 1655

The problem, and I am surprised that they don't see it, is that after a unilateral declaration of independence, no one would be asking them to contribute to the federal debt. No one would ask a secessionist government declaring itself independent to contribute to the reimbursement of the federal debt. They would actually be the ones asking for their share of federal taxes to be able to shoulder the responsibilities they think they must as the only government having authority over that territory from that point on.

We don't really know how they can do that. They wouldn't have the right. If millions of Quebeckers, because we are talking about Quebec, say they want to stay Canadian, how can they take them out of Canada against their will? How could they make up for the tax shortfall? How would they shoulder all those responsibilities they don't have today? Without the government of Canada's active contribution, how would they integrate those thousands and thousands of civil servants now working in Crown corporations of the federal government? The government of Canada could raise three reasons: first, because support for secession wouldn't be clear; the second, because the negotiations wouldn't have been duly done; and the third, because the government of Canada wouldn't be able to accept to be party to an illegal and anti-constitutional act. How would that be done? There's no answer to that. It's quite irresponsible for them to suggest such a thing. Secession should always be accomplished within the context of respect for the law and a search for clarity. As Mr. Bouchard said, I'm all for the rule of law and, in any case, rights must be respected. So let's respect rights and never mention such scenarios that would certainly lead to a dead end.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Minister, in the same vein, did the Supreme Court state in its opinion that the government of Canada would have to negotiate any democratic request for change? Why wouldn't it be bound to negotiate sovereignty-association if such were the wish of Quebeckers?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you. I'd like to come back briefly to your other question. Even the MPs from the Bloc Québécois would have problems in such circumstances because they'd have to come to a prior agreement concerning their pension fund, otherwise they'd have to leave without being able to collect it.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

An Hon. Member: Perhaps not a very strong argument.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Your other question had to do with other negotiation possibilities. The Conservative leader told us that in this bill we should include possibilities other than secession, in other words the possibility of improving Canada through constitutional means. That is the last thing to do. This bill is only concerned with secession because it must be clear. The first condition for clarity is that it must clear for each voter that if they vote yes in a referendum on secession, they're voting to get out of Canada and not to improve it. You can't mix the two.

This bill neither interferes with, nor deals in any way with any constitutional or other proposal to modify Canada. This bill only deals with proposals to withdraw from Canada. If a provincial government wishes to bring about constitutional change, there is a course of action. There is no need to obtain a clear majority in response to a clear question. All they have to do is propose a constitutional amendment. Governments know beforehand that the amendments that they have in mind aren't likely to be accepted by other governments, this is what is keeping them from putting forward such amendments. It's not the procedure that makes it difficult.

Those who say that we are proposing a fast track to secession do not understand how constitutional changes are brought about in our country.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I will let Mr. Drouin speak.

The Chairman: Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not sure if the Minister was as stunned as I was to hear Mr. Turp question him about democracy in Quebec in terms of the carrot, the stick and heritage. I would have expected, given that the bill contains only three sections, that he would have been able to prove that it is anti-democratic.

I'd like the Minister to explain to us how it could be that we are so anti-democratic, when unlike countries such as France and the United States, which are indivisible, we can accept that there would be a debate on this issue and we would recognize Quebec as a country if the question were clear and if there were a clear majority.

Mr. André Bachand: It's not only Quebec; it could be any other province.

Mr. Claude Drouin: I should have said “any province”. Please excuse me, André. No one is perfect, and I appreciate your correction. I would like the Minister to explain this.

• 1700

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I think that this is because of our history. Canada is a country that is built on the mutual consent of different populations, who didn't always speak the same language and who didn't all share the same culture. There were a number of difficult times, a number of dark moments, but this has created a country which, when compared internationally, has a place on or near the podium with respect to tolerance and openness as a society.

However one mustn't believe, just because we admit the possibility that Canada could be divided, that we value our country any less than countries which describe themselves as indivisible. It is precisely because of this importance that we attach to Canada that it is difficult for us to imagine that our country is based on anything other than this mutual consent.

In reply to the BQ member's comment, I regret that he hasn't brought forward any argument of substance today, that he refused to debate the substance with me, and that he's hiding behind these oft-repeated catch phrases.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: You had your chance and you missed the boat.

The Chairman: Mr. Drouin, do you have another question?

Mr. Claude Drouin: Would any other countries accept that such a bill on clarity be enacted?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Probably yes, but there aren't any cases at this time in well-established democracies. You also have to recognize that up until now, there has never been a secession in a well-established democracy. All of these new countries that have formed since the creation of the UN, and more particularly since the 1990s, stem from decolonization, or from the disintegration of former totalitarian empires. One mustn't forget that.

In my opinion, the fundamental reason why this hasn't occurred up until now—and I'm not saying that it is impossible, the proof being that we are discussing it here in Canada—is that it's difficult to reconcile secession with democracy. The difficulty in reconciling these two phenomena lies in the fact that democracy calls upon us to accept all of our fellow citizens and to stand together with each one of them, whereas secession calls upon us to choose, to determine whom we will keep and who will become a foreigner. So, reconciling these two phenomena is not easy and requires two essential ingredients: legality and clarity.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The second round.

[English]

is five minutes, so we'll go to Mr. Jaffer first.

[Translation]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Réf.): Once again my question is about the clear majority. Minister, you used the example of our party, the Reform Party, referring to the two-thirds rule to make significant changes to the Constitution. This standard was proposed by a member of our party and applies to a referendum held by our party and to one of our party's conferences.

As my colleague stated, if you are prepared to change the democratic standard, would you be prepared to ask Canadians, possibly in a Canada-wide referendum, how to modify this norm, because this would make a real change in our democracy? How will you go about establishing this new standard?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: First of all, as I said to Dr. Hill, this rule that you are talking about does not exist. There is no such rule. Nowhere is it written that Canada can be broken up based on a majority of 50 percent plus one in one of the provinces. Nowhere, neither in Quebec law nor in Canadian federal law... A referendum is a consultation, and the opinion of the Supreme Court reminds us of this. The Supreme Court calls upon us to assess the clarity of the question. Thus, a clear majority is necessary to enter into negotiations.

If the Reform Party believes that 50 percent plus one constitutes a clear majority, then the first thing they have to do is tell us what would be a majority that is not clear.

Secondly, they must explain why they don't foresee their own breakup with a 50 percent plus one vote. I believe you are right in not foreseeing your own breakup at 50 percent plus one because once the party is broken, it can't be rebuilt easily because it no longer exists. You cannot rebuild the party with one single vote.

However, you are wrong in requiring 50 percent plus one for the breakup of Canada and in saying that this is not serious because we are using a double-edged sword. I personally have no sword. I am against swords. I respect all of my fellow citizens and I favour fair and responsible rules. I don't want to use any sword. Do you understand?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes, but—

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I also wish to respect the opinion of the Court. Everyone must respect this opinion, including the Reform Party, and the Court asks us not to do this beforehand. Thus, if the Court says that it's up to the politicians to assess this in the context of a referendum, then we're certainly not asked to hold a referendum where we would ask Canadians a question that they could not answer in advance.

• 1705

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: The other question I have, Mr. Chairman, is with regard to the time of this particular bill. The clarity act is now identifying, many would argue, conditions that aren't so clear yet. But in part with that, one thing the Reform Party has always said is you have to establish some sort of points in trying to reform the federation, in order to make this whole package work.

The Bloc has identified their view of a partnership of Canada. We in the Reform Party have put forward our plan for a new Canada, yet the government has not put forward any plan to anyone when it comes to how they would improve the federation. As I've identified, and many have identified, we're still waiting for some more clarity on this bill. In what direction is the government going to go in reforming the federation to actually include some of plan A in this particular debate?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you. The first condition for clarity is to disassociate completely proposals to get out of Canada and proposals to improve Canada. If you have a bill that deals with the two issues at the same time, it's not a bill of clarity; it's a bill of confusion. So we must avoid that.

This bill is for any proposal where a province asks to get out—where the premier of a province says to the Prime Minister of Canada, “Come negotiate, I want to get out of Canada”. Then this bill would apply. Otherwise, this bill would have no application. It would not prevent any change within Canada. It would not encourage it. It would have nothing to say to any other change.

If your question is whether the Liberal Party of Canada has a way to improve Canada, obviously we think we have done that. I know you are not paid to say we have done a good job. This debate will exist within Canada between our two parties as long as your party exists. It will depend on the threshold of 60% or not. But I'm saying there is the Reform way to improve Canada, there is the NDP way to improve Canada, there is the Conservative way to improve Canada, and there is the Liberal way to improve Canada.

Now if you want to involve me in this debate, I have a whole list of all the changes we have made in the federation over the last years. But I don't think this is the debate we should have about this bill.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I agree they're two separate issues—the issue of reforming the federation and the issue of clarity. But my argument, and what our party has said in the past, is it's important that you identify some sort of vision when you're dealing with the issue of a referendum. You have to, as a government, show some leadership in offering something to Canadians, in order for them to even look at staying within a country. When I talk about that vision of a new Canada, there's nothing there.

The Chair: Okay. Your five minutes have expired.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron, you have five minutes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, the Minister said earlier that now is the time to be studying this issue calmly, while there is no referendum foreseeable in a short-term future. However, no one can help notice that the government wants to proceed calmly in great haste, given the way they are rushing the work of this committee and the debate of this bill in the House.

He made the analogy of this bill as a flashlight equipped with good batteries. That's fine, however it is my impression that his flashlight may well be equipped with good batteries, but there is no light bulb. Would the first condition for clarity not be—and you referred to this earlier—that you indicate what constitutes a clear majority and what would be a clear question?

When one reads your bill, beyond the verbiage, there is no clear precise definition of what constitutes a clear majority and what constitutes a clear question. All that we know, is that for you, 50 percent plus one is insufficient. Until there is evidence to the contrary, in a democracy, 50 percent plus one constitutes a clear majority.

You who wishes to shed light on this issue, please explain to us this clear majority and clear question.

I'd like to number all of my questions, Mr. Chairman, in order to be sure to ask all of them.

I'd like to come back to the point that our colleague Mr. Bachand brought up. The bill is called: “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”. Where in the opinion is the Minister invested with the responsibility, or the power to give effect to the requirement for clarity as formulated by the Court? Nowhere in the opinion is there any indication that it is the responsibility of the federal government to give effect to this requirement.

• 1710

In fact, the Court goes further because it says that it is up to politicians to determine what constitutes a clear majority and a clear question. Is the federal government assuming the sole role of political actor in this case?

Let's come back now to the rule of 50 percent plus one. The Minister claims that the Court said that 50 percent plus one was insufficient. What does the Court say on this issue of a majority? The Court is very careful to state that it is referring to a clear majority in the qualitative sense, and not in the quantitative sense. This is your interpretation of the Court's opinion.

Since we're talking about the Court and saying that the Court was not specific on the issue in their opinion, let's look at certain previous decisions in which the Court was sometimes quite specific. If indeed 50 percent plus one is not the rule, then that means that there are some votes that are more important than others. Here is what the Court said in a decision brought down in 1991 in another case:

Each vote must be relatively equal to all other votes [...]. Any weakening of the importance or the significance of a vote is a weakening of the democratic process.

The Court has always been consistent with this opinion, which is reflected in another judgement:

The system that unduly weakens the vote of one citizen relative to another runs the risk of providing inadequate representation for the citizen whose vote has been weakened. This person will have reduced legislative power, as well as less access to and support from their member of Parliament. The result will be an unequal and unfair representation...

You who have boasted about democracy, you who have boasted about respecting the opinion of the Court, you who have boasted about respecting the Court's judgments, how can you claim that refusing the 50 percent plus-one threshold respects the opinion and the previous judgments of the Court on this issue of 50 percent plus one?

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, you have only one minute left. I have to be fair.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Well, that's enough, but I would have had other questions. Seeing as he wants questions on the substance, I have a whole list here for him. It's too bad he has to leave so early.

The Chairman: You asked your questions very quickly. The honourable minister has only one minute to respond.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'd like to thank the member for delving more into the substance. It's too bad that this took so much time, however...

With respect to the clarity issue, the Court says, as I already mentioned, that there must be the will to cease being a part of Canada. Accordingly, any wording which reflects this would be considered as clear and any wording which strays from this notion would be considered unclear.

In any case, there will be no debate on the clarity of the question if you know that Quebeckers want to separate from Canada. This whole debate stands from the fact that you know that Quebeckers want to remain in Canada or that their support for separation is insufficient. This leads to the formulation of a question which allows the Yes side to artificially inflate their support. But, this is not possible; this isn't respecting Quebeckers.

Secondly, with respect to the clear majority, if a 50 percent plus one is considered a clear majority, what would be a majority that is not clear? The court in fact calls upon us to make a qualitative evaluation of whether or not the majority is clear, which is difficult to determine, in the absence of concrete circumstances.

With respect to the equality of votes, each vote counts for one unit. The governments or the authorities then assess how to proceed with the results. There are a number of votes that do not require 50 percent plus one of the votes cast in this country, in particular the Indian Act, specifically with the Montagnais, where it's 50 percent plus one of those registered. The last time, the Bloc critic, Mr. Turp said that it was a good referendum. Thus, the Bloc Québécois agreed with the rule of 50 percent plus one of those registered.

A voice: Mr. Chairman, that's not really that clear.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question about the court's judgment.

The Chairman: Your time has expired.

Mr. Blaikie, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Just a quick one. First of all, Mr. Chairman, just in regard to what I understood my Tory colleague to be saying earlier, it seems that he was arguing for a larger role for the Senate in this process. I just wanted to make clear our view, that is the NDP's view, that the Senate already has too large a role in this.

In fact, one of the things we find particularly ironic, offensive, objectionable, however you want to put it, is that the Senate is listed as one of the political actors that has to be consulted in determining what constitutes a clear question or a clear majority. The aboriginal leadership, who are elected, unlike any senator who ever existed, don't get to be consulted.

• 1715

My question really is this. I'm doing a bit of thinking out loud here. Part of the objection to the bill on the part of my Bloc colleagues and others, who aren't necessarily separatists, is that this bill shows a certain disrespect for the National Assembly in Quebec. I don't agree, but nevertheless, this is what they argue.

The ex post facto qualitative judgment after a referendum has to be made by the federal government. I've heard this idea floating around, and I wonder whether the minister would consider a clause in the bill that would negate that responsibility if there were unanimity in the National Assembly as to a clear majority. I'm speaking here about clear majority, not clear question.

If the National Assembly itself were unanimous, after a referendum, that the results constituted qualitatively a clear majority, would that be sufficient for the minister to say that in that circumstance the federal government need not render a judgment, that the judgment of the National Assembly would be sufficient? I wonder whether he has given any thought to that particular solution and what his view of it might be.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: As you know, with regard to the majority, the bill said the House would have to take into account the points of view of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly. This is explicitly in the bill. You are saying “But then why not say that if there is a unanimous view...”.

I would say it's impossible for this bill to discharge the House of its responsibilities. We cannot say we then don't have to assess the majority in any circumstances. It's such a huge decision to accept going into a negotiation about the separation of the country. In any circumstance we would have to assess the result.

What I may say, though, is that the political pressure to consider the majority as clear, if there is a unanimous view in the legislative assembly of the province, would be something that would exist. I would be reluctant to say that then the House doesn't have to have its own assessment.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Could you have a clause that didn't abdicate the responsibility of Parliament on this but would indicate that unanimity in the legislature of any seceding province would be decisive in the evaluation of the federal government as to whether or not there was a clear majority?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: No—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: In other words, something that would show a particular respect for the National Assembly, in this case. We pretend we're talking about other provinces, but we're really talking about Quebec here.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: We would have to take into account this political reality. This is something that is already in the bill. What I want to say about this is that if we look at 1980 and 1995, the political reality has been the reverse. The official opposition in the National Assembly was strongly against the question that was requested, and this is also information that the House would have to take into account.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, I agree. I take it you don't like the idea.

The Chair: Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is really fairly specific. We're talking about the qualitative view of whether or not it's a majority. We look at the size of majority and the valid votes cast in favour of secession. What has history shown us in terms of the voter turnout and the distribution of voters in past referendums?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: In Canada?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I would say that it's a political reality that a referendum that has a weak threshold has less legitimacy in meaning than a referendum with a high threshold. That's why you have this criterion in the bill. Many times in other countries, like Switzerland, for instance, when they have a very weak threshold, it's questionable what you do with the referendum. One of the reasons is that it would be dangerous to try to set what is a clear majority in advance. As the court has said, we have qualitative reasons and we have different criteria to take into account, and one of them is definitely the turnout.

Mrs. Karen Redman: If I can, I have one supplementary. People have talked about 50% plus one and whether or not that is something to be considered. I guess my question is 50% plus one of what? When they refer to that, are we clear what they're referring to?

• 1720

Mr. Stéphane Dion: In more than one place the court speaks about the majority of the population. You may infer that it's a majority of eligible voters, but there is no certainty about that. This bill is therefore on very thin ground from a legal point of view, so we do not imply in the bill that it's 50% plus one of eligible voters. We say only that we would have to assess the majority. And I repeat again that the first actor that would have to assess this majority would be the separatist government, if there is a majority.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for kicking off this important discussion.

I have a couple of questions. First of all, it seems that part of this debate has to do with our response to the Supreme Court decision in terms of our obligations under that decision or after that decision. It also has to do with the fact that one of the issues obviously is the clarity of the question. If part of the debate is whether or not we need to do this, I think the evidence, in terms of the clarity of previous questions, becomes very important. In other words, I think the need to respond to this circumstance is very much tied to the record, and the record on the clarity or lack thereof of previous questions. I'd like you to respond in terms of what history has shown us in the context of this particular question in the past.

The second thing about which there hasn't been a great deal of discussion, at least around this bill, is the shelf life of a clear expression of a people's will. I think it's an important consideration here, given that we've had a couple of referendums. Those referendums have expressed themselves, but someone has decided that the expression of will somehow ends at some point because we need another expression of will. How long does an expression of will last? I think it's an important question in terms of the political actors of the day, to know that part of that qualitative judgment as well. It's been my experience that we've had decisions taken as expressions of will that didn't seem to last nearly as long as I would have imagined an expression of will to last.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, you're right about the second point. This is an ordered criterion. Is it a majority that came suddenly and that may disappear as suddenly, or is it something that we know is stable for the long haul or for a reasonably long haul?

My point was that in other countries where they came to ask their populations this kind of question—“Do you want to secede?”—they came with a question about independence, not about a sovereignty partnership, except in some very specific circumstances, and they knew the support would be overwhelming. They did not try to divide their people with that. Your notion is something very important about the length of the expression of will.

On the questions of the past, when you read the 1995 question outside Canada, to foreigners, it's very difficult for them not to laugh, even though they are polite people. To think it's possible to break up a country like Canada with this kind of question doesn't make sense. This will not happen because it does not respect the country. Canadians, and especially Quebeckers, have the right to stay in this country.

To me, if the court insisted so much about clarity, we must remember that the Government of Canada was not addressing the clarity aspect of the questions to the court. We were there only on the unilateral aspect. The court by itself addressed the clarity aspect. I must say on the record, however, that I was partisan to asking about the clarity aspect. I said that to my colleagues in the Department of Justice, but their advice was to just fix on the judgment of Pigeon in the Superior Court of Quebec. That was about unilateral secession and whether it is legal or not. We asked that question to the court, and the court by itself spoke about clarity.

I must say I completely agree with that. In one of my first declarations as a minister, as reported in an excellent newspaper in Quebec City, Le Soleil, I said, and I will quote myself:

[Translation]

Unfortunately if Quebec voted with a strong majority on a clear question to secede, I believe the rest of Canada would have the moral obligation to negotiate the division of the territory.

• 1725

I said this on January 27, 1996, two and a half years before the opinion of the Supreme Court.

If the court insisted so much on this notion of clarity, it's likely because the 1980 and 1995 procedures probably weren't deemed very clear.

The Chairman: The next five minutes are for Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount-Royal, Lib.): Minister, in the debate today, it was said that Premier Bouchard didn't accept the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment. However what Mr. Bouchard said, and I agree with him, is that because of the Supreme Court reference, the federal government had the duty to negotiate secession and this duty was recognized under the Supreme Court judgement.

[English]

In other words, as Premier Bouchard has put it, the federal government has a duty to negotiate and that duty has constitutional status. But it appears that the reason it has constitutional status is only that the judgment of the Supreme Court has constitutional status. Has he accepted the judgment or has he not accepted the judgment?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: No, he is on the record as saying he has accepted the judgment. The difficulty is that he starts the sentence, but he's not completing the sentence to its end. He's starting out by saying the Government of Canada will have the obligation to negotiate, but what is the other part of the sentence? It's “if there is a clear majority on secession on a clear question and a negotiation that would be within the constitutional framework of Canada”. This is the complete sentence. It's the one that is in the bill, and it is the sole one that will respect the rule of law in this country, our political culture, the rights of every Canadian, and especially the rights of Quebeckers, who have the right to never lose Canada in confusion.

The Chair: Mr. Cotler, do you have any further questions?

Mr. Irwin Cotler: No.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand: I have a few supplementary questions. I know there is not much time, Minister.

My question is quite general. Are you open to amendments? If you're open to amendments, under what form and on what? Or do you believe, as you and the Prime Minister have said so well, that the bill is simple, clear, reasonable and comprehensive?

So, are you open to amendments? If you are, what kind of amendments would you envision, seeing as you know this bill so well, and seeing as you are the sponsor?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Look, if I didn't believe that the bill was simple, clear and everything that you said, I would have drafted it differently. If I've brought the bill forward, it's because I think it's a bill that we need to have in Canada, for Canadians and for Quebeckers.

Now, whether or not I'm open to amendments, I can tell you that I'm here to listen. I will listen to suggestions and I will take them into consideration on behalf of the government of Canada.

Mr. André Bachand: So then, you are open?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, but this isn't the time to discuss amendments.

Mr. André Bachand: I just wanted to know if you were open to these or not.

There is one issue that is not clear in the bill. The bill asks for a clear question; none is specified. The bill asks for a clear majority, but this is not specified either. There are consequences to this, and you have heard some of them. I think that you have even spoken about this; regarding the role of members and ministers from Quebec. For example, in the current context, the Prime Minister is a Quebecker from Shawinigan. Since you talk about the players in Quebec, I would like to talk about the players in Ottawa. In a similar situation, if a referendum had been held in Quebec in May, and a clear majority had been won in response to a clear question and we had to negotiate, do you see any legal, political or administrative problems with the fact that this negotiation would be done not only but almost exclusively among Quebeckers? What do you personally think of this? How would you respond to the rest of the country, either to comfort or to annoy them?

Some Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I can understand how frustrating it might seem when trying to clarify everything. But just because we can't anticipate everything that will have to be clarified in the event of a secession is no reason not to attempt to clarify something. The Supreme Court opinion tells us what can be clarified. The Court did not undertake a discussion on the mechanisms surrounding the negotiations. Therefore, the bill does not deal with that aspect.

Mr. André Bachand: But...

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Your question about the role of the Quebec members in the House of Commons if we were to negotiate the secession of Quebec is a very good question, one that is not answered in the bill and one that I hope we will never have to answer.

• 1730

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Minister, you are the champion of clarity. I must tell you that earlier, when you dealt with the amending formula, you were not clear. I am now talking about the role.

You attack, and I must say, rightly so, the government and the sovereignists, who have been pretty rough on you during your political career. I will put the question one more time: what will happen to Quebeckers, like you and me, who are federalists in a different way, if a referendum... You refuse to be clear on such an important issue, on a mechanism so crucial to the future of the country. Why would you not be clear? The Supreme Court opinion is limited, but please answer the question.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Well, thanks for your sympathy, but I'm pretty tough and they didn't hurt me. They try, but they don't succeed.

Secondly, with respect to your questions, they have all been along the same lines, since you started. Why don't you be clearer? Why don't you tell us what the question should be, for example? If we don't say what the question should be, it's because we can't do it within a provincial referendum. We have to respect the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly of the province and we are doing that fully.

However, we say that if the question lacks clarity, there will not be any negotiations. A question that includes concepts other than secession will not be clear. It would show a lack of respect for people if there was an attempt to take Canada away from them without knowing if that is really what they want. We agree on that, and that's a good thing.

With respect to the majority, we feel that we must evaluate the circumstances and that the first one to do so would be the provincial government in question. We agree on that.

Mr. André Bachand: Answer my question.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: If the Conservative Party, under the circumstances, were to say that as soon as you go beyond 50 percent plus one, then the decision is clear, then, it will vote accordingly. And if the Conservative Party were to form the government, then Canadians must know that separation would be accepted under those circumstances.

On the other matter, which is the mechanism for negotiation, you ask what role is to be played by the Quebec members. Well, there's no answer to that question. I don't have the power to...

Mr. André Bachand: You aren't being clear! You are not clear! You can't even tell Canadians who will negotiate: the House of Commons and not the Senate, the House of Commons, the Government of Canada. Yes, but if all Quebeckers amongst themselves...

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Just a minute.

Mr. André Bachand: Take it a little further.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Be careful, I answered...

A voice: This is an important element.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: May I answer, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Order, order. We've gone beyond five minutes.

Mr. Hill, please.

Mr. André Bachand: It hasn't been five minutes.

The Chairman: The five minutes are up.

Mr. Hill.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to speculate for a moment, although I know that's somewhat dangerous in the political game. Let's just say that the question was determined to be not clear, that a province decided to ask a question that was unclear. I'm interested in what would be the actions of the federal government in that event.

Might I make a suggestion—a suggestion that has come from the official opposition—that a clear question then be asked by the federal government, and that question be two-pronged? I will give you the exact wording of that question, if you will, but I'd rather hear from the minister on whether that would have any merit.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Dion: A rather incisive comment about the Conservative Party: it should ask itself its own questions. They don't know what their own answers are.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. André Bachand: —

Mr. Stéphane Dion: No, but it's true. The Conservative Party is asking the government a number of questions. We would like to know if the Conservative Party has an opinion on anything that might relate to this topic.

[English]

On your question as to what would happen if a question is unclear, there is only one certainty: negotiations are not possible. What is possible, then? You are suggesting something, and it may be something else, but I think it would be for the politicians of the day—if, unfortunately, they faced this situation—to assess what they may do.

No, we cannot say that in the bill today. It would not be responsible. It would be for the politicians of the time to assess what to do if a provincial government was irresponsible enough to suggest an unclear question for the breakup of Canada.

Mr. Grant Hill: All right.

There's one other issue. The list of issues to be discussed is relatively short—boundaries, the debt, native issues, and minorities.

• 1735

I don't think that list is an exhaustive list. In fact, I would suggest there are other things that might well have been included, such as federal assets in a province that decided to secede; monetary issues, including whether the Canadian dollar should be used; a transportation corridor if in fact the province was in the centre of the country and you had the country split into three, if you will; and the environment.

Why were some of these other issues not included in the bill?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: It's a good question, but you see, the separation of a modern state like Canada, a well-established democracy, has never been tried anywhere else. So to try to have an exhaustive list of what would be negotiable is impossible. The list would be very long.

You have suggested things that obviously may be considered, but the point is, what we have explicitly here is what has been explicitly mentioned by the court itself. It's not an exhaustive one, though, no, and we don't claim that subclause 3(2) is exhaustive.

If you read it, it says:

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—

—and including does not mean “only”—

the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.

These are the explicit events that the court has mentioned.

[Translation]

Mr. Grant Hill: But the issues are predictable. It isn't hard to see that it will be necessary to negotiate some points. It isn't an exhaustive list. Why aren't these points referred to?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The government decided to introduce a bill giving effect to the reference by the Supreme Court and it doesn't stray very far from it. We were careful enough to say, however, that the list is not exhaustive, and that other aspects would be negotiable. It would take a number of pages to list them all. Negotiations would be enormous. In terms of public administration, it would probably be the most complex administrative disruption in the history of humanity.

Some voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The best example would be the reunification of Germany. That caused enormous difficulties and is still doing so.

A voice: And it worked.

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question for the Minister.

I would like you to explain some of the statements made by the separatists, such as “this is an anti-democratic bill”, “does this bill not revoke Quebec's right to independence and does it not prohibit it from recognizing independence, no matter how clear the vote for secession might be?”

Mr. Stéphane Dion: For those who can read, the answer is no. You will agree.

There is one thing that I want to tell my colleagues. I'm convinced that in the very interest of their project, they must ensure that the voters who vote Yes would only be those who truly want Quebec to become independent. It's in their interest. Since they say that this committee is being rushed, they themselves should not be rushing things. If there's no clear majority for the independence of Quebec, let's not try to make one.

However, what did Mr. Landry, Deputy Premier of Quebec say, sometime ago, October 15, 1999?

The Chairman: Order. We mustn't waste any time.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: People will laugh even more loudly when I have finished reading what he said. On October 15, 1999, he said:

Even I am not sure if I would answer yes to a question on independence, because what I want, is sovereignty-association.

What they want is for Quebec to have a seat at the UN. If that is not the case, then Mr. Landry should say so. In order for Quebec to have a seat at the UN, according to the UN's own definition, it must be an independent State. Therefore, Mr. Landry is in favour of independence. He is in favour of independence, but he doesn't know it. And so, out of the goodness of our hearts, we have drafted a clarity bill to help him to find his way.

The Chairman: The last question goes to Mr. Turp.

• 1740

Mr. Daniel Turp: My dear colleague, you say that you don't want any politicking, but I will come back to my carrots and my sticks. Today, the Prime Minister of Canada, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, told the House of Commons that indeed, it was very important for the people in each riding in Canada to know, when there is a grant that has been given by Canada, that the money comes from Canadian taxpayers, especially in regions where some people want to leave Canada. So much for the carrots.

I will come back to the bill. You don't like it, but I will come back to it. It's a stick. It's a stick that will gum up the works for the National Assembly, a National Assembly that is being told, notwithstanding what you had to say about the preamble and the inclusion in the preamble of the right of the Assembly to choose a question, that there must not be a question on a mandate to negotiate or on a partnership, that it can't say or decide that the rule will be 50 percent plus one, that this must not be the rule. Well, I have a fundamental question to ask you, my dear colleague.

There is a bill in the National Assembly, Bill 99. You are aware of it because you have read it. It will no doubt be adopted. Unless in good conscience you withdraw your bill, which is what we hope and what a majority of Quebeckers are hoping, C-20 will be enacted.

Which law will prevail, Mr. Minister? Which law will prevail for the future of Quebec? Is it the federal law that 60 percent of Quebec members will have voted against?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you, dear colleague.

We live within a constitutional State. The rule of law answers this question. If one of the laws is legally acceptable and the other is not, then the acceptable one will apply.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us today. We greatly appreciate your time.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Point of order.

The Chairman: We can deal with that later.

We will no doubt see you again during our consideration of this bill. Thank you very much.

[English]

Before we adjourn, I should advise the committee that we will meet tomorrow at 10.15 a.m. instead of 9.30 a.m. Our first witness is not available until that time. We will have three witnesses in the morning. At the conclusion of that, at 12.30 p.m., I expect we will have the moving of a motion, which we've received notice of today. That's my expectation.

Now, currently we have no witnesses for the afternoon. That may change, but if we do have witnesses, we'll do that. I'm expecting, though, that we'll have the motion moved at 12.30 p.m. if Mr. Turp wishes to proceed with one of those motions and discuss it.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Both.

The Chair: Both? Well, we'll have to do them one at a time. We can't do everything. At any rate, we'll do our best.

That's the plan for tomorrow, just so that members know the current situation. We are, of course, continuing to work on finding other witnesses.

Mr. Turp, you have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, the Minister, during our discussion, led us to believe that the referendum amongst the Montagnais, to which he alluded in the House of Commons, provided for a majority of those who were registered.

The provisions that I was made aware of, however, stipulate that the majority would be based on the number of voters.

A voice: Oh, oh!

Mr. Daniel Turp: The Minister has misled this committee by saying that the majority, in that case, would be the majority of those who were registered, since it is the majority of those who voted.

A voice: It hurts, doesn't it?

[English]

The Chair: I don't think the member... There may be disagreements as to what evidence has been led and what statements have been made, but I think that is a matter for debate and not a question of order.

Accordingly, I declare the meeting adjourned. We'll meet tomorrow at 10.15 a.m.