Déposition de Kai Nielsen
devant la Commission de l'Assemblée Nationale sur le projet de loi 99

Minister, Deputies : I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you on Bill 99. I shall make three points.

1. Bill 99 should be passed at least roughly as it stands. It firmly reaffirms in the face of Bill C-20 (the Federal clarity bill) that Quebeckers are a people -- a nation -- with the right of self-determination without interference from outside. This means that, no matter what the Federal Government thinks, we Quebeckers have a right to become a sovereign state should a majority of us so vote in a referendum. What counts as a majority here is the standard one, namely a vote of 50% plus one. This fits with previous referenda in Quebec (the rules of which were unchallenged by the Federal government) and with widespread practice in the world where referenda on secession have been held. There would only be a case for a greater majority if there were genuine worries that with a Quebec Sovereign State the civil rights of minorities within Quebec would be in jeopardy. But there are absolutely no grounds for thinking that would be so.

Given the threat posed by Bill C-20 to our fundamental right to self-determination, it is imperative that Bill 99 be passed and that vigorous efforts be made to call its attention to the people of Quebec and, as well, to English-speaking Canada. Using all means of presentation to the public the Government can command, the core content and rationale of Bill 99 should be made plain and it should be contrasted with Bill C-20 so as to make clear how undemocratic and authoritarian Bill C-20 is since it denies the fundamental right of self-determination of a people. It has this character because it gives the Federal Government alone the authority to determine what constitutes a clear referendum question and to determine what constitutes a clear majority. Not only it has no authority alone to determine the answer to these questions, it has no authority in determining the answer to these questions at all. It is instead up to the Quebec Government and ultimately the Quebec people to determine what constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority. The Federal Government, like anyone else, can, of course, comment on what we are deciding to do and to try (though surely not by threats) to influence what we decide to do, but that is very different from having the authority to determine what is and what isn't clarity here and what as a result we must do or not do. Bill C-20 should be forcefully declared by the Quebec Government to have no authority over us: that is we members of the Quebec nation. This should be asserted by the Government and more broadly in the civil society.

We should, of course, have a clear question, but it should be up to the people of Quebec to determine what the question is and whether it is clear. If the Quebec Government ín its framing of the question is thought not to be clear then that should be subject to vigorous public debate with finally Quebeckers themselves determining whether the question is sufficiently clear by the way they vote. Unless we want elites running the show we must let the matter rest there. That is an essential ingredient in what it is to believe in democracy.

2. It is essential that the Government of Quebec provide a draft constitution: a proposal for a constitution to be put before the national assembly for debate and for possible amendment and finally for vote after Quebec becomes a Sovereign State. Before that it should just remain a proposal. But it would before a referendum give the people of Quebec a clear sense of what sort of society on the rights and institutions side the government envisages a sovereign Quebec would be. It would give us a clear sense of what are thought to be its constitutional essentials. It hopefully would do something to put to rest the rather paranoid fears of a not inconsiderable number of anglophone and allophone Quebeckers (as well as some people outside Quebec) that a sovereign Quebec would embody a racist ethnocentric or ethnic nationalism. There is, given the laws obtaining in Quebec and the past practices of sovereigntist governments, no basis for that fear at all. But it persists. Such a draft Constitution would make it even more evident that a Sovereign Quebec would be a liberal cosmopolitan society where the rights of minorities in Quebec would be fully respected.

3. The present Government was elected by the votes of sovereigntist with a mandate to go for sovereignty. The government should use its powers to the full to promote sovereignty as something desirable for the people of Quebec and as something which is possible. There is disinformation in the media and vicious attacks on the sovereigntist movement by the Federal Government. Recall, for example, that recently the prime Minister of that government likened the sovereigntist movement to a sick dog. The government should fight back with dignity and accuracy (and sometimes with humour) to bring vividly before its citizens the vital importance of sovereignty in protecting our culture and helping it to flourish and in enhancing our democratic control over our lives.

Kai Nielsen
Professor Emeritus the University of Calgary
And Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada