|
LETTER TO MR. CLAUDE RYAN TO RESPOND
TO HIS PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'S REFERENCE TO THE SUPREME COURT
Translation
February 6, 1998
Dear Mr. Ryan:
At your press conference of February 3, you stated that the Government of Canada was
wrong to go before the Supreme Court. While I do not agree with your point of view, I
believe that the intervention of such a respected public figure provides all of our fellow
citizens with the opportunity to deepen the understanding of a crucial issue for us all.
With this reference, the Government of Canada aims to clarify an important point: the legal
aspects of a unilateral secession. We believe that Quebecers and other Canadians are
entitled to this information. The decision about whether to effect secession should above all
not be made on the basis of myths and false theories.
Allow me to outline the points on which we agree. We both believe that Quebecers cannot
be held in Canada against their will. We also believe that they must not lose Canada
without having renounced it very clearly. Indeed, you yourself have strongly criticized the
referendum procedures that the PQ government used in 1980 and 1995. You have talked
about "dangerous ambiguity" and "tragicomic misunderstandings" (La Presse, 27-05-97).
This brings to mind, for example, the referendum question, which alluded to a political and
economic partnership that Mr. Bouchard now describes as bare bones (Le Devoir,
20-06-97) and sketchy (Le Soleil, 19-12-97), or Mr. Parizeau's famous "Plan O", which
nearly cost us a part of our savings.
Are you suggesting then, Mr. Ryan, that it would be democratic for Quebecers to lose
Canada in such a "dangerous ambiguity"? Surely not, because you have written that, under
such circumstances, "the federal government will feel obliged, as, incidentally, it did in 1980
and 1995, although this was not sufficiently noted, to refuse to commit itself in advance to
recognizing a result obtained through an equivocal question." And you have added: "It
would be pointless to claim to deny the federal government this power of reserving its
reaction" (La Presse, 27-05-97). You suggest that the Government of Canada be involved
in advance discussions on the content of the question and on the rules to be used in
interpreting the result, since you agree that it would be in the public interest that these
parameters be considered acceptable by both sides.
We agree on many points. The most important is our shared conviction that the country's
unity could not be maintained against the clearly expressed will of Quebecers. The
Government of Canada has repeated this viewpoint on several occasions, but is also of the
opinion that this position is totally compatible with the view that Quebec provincial
institutions do not have the right to proceed unilaterally with secession. On this point, we
disagree.
You state that secession is a political and democratic, rather than a legal, question.
Certainly democracy is paramount, but the law is essential for democracy. The law is
necessary in order for political action to take place democratically and not in anarchy.
If the PQ government were to pull off a referendum victory through trickery and by means
of an ambiguous procedure and question, the Government of Canada believes that it would
have a duty not to consent to it. It would continue to use peaceful means to discharge its
responsibilities, and thus would enable Quebecers to enjoy fully their rights as Canadians, in spite of the unilateral attempt at secession. This is what the Government of Canada would consider as its duty, insofar as it would have the right to do so. Presently, this right is denied by the Government of Quebec. Since only the Court can confirm that the Government of Quebec would have no basis in law to make an attempt at unilateral secession, it seems that our initiative before the Supreme Court is entirely logical, legitimate and honourable.
This debate goes well beyond legal niceties. Even a secession which were to take place
within a legal framework would pose enormous problems. If it were true that unilateral
secession has no legal basis, it would raise practical difficulties that would be even harder to overcome. These can be classified into three categories.
1. Quebecers would be divided among themselves. There is currently a great deal of talk
about the Quebec consensus, without analysing its scope more closely. The "right of
Quebecers to decide their own future alone" has become a knee-jerk slogan. There is
certainly a consensus that Quebecers must be able to effect secession if that is very clearly
their will. But there is no consensus in favour of the PQ procedure for effecting that
secession, at least none that seems to me to include Claude Ryan.
Many Quebecers would claim the right not to lose Canada in confusion, without a
recognized legal framework. The Government of Quebec would be ill positioned to require
those citizens to respect its laws, since it would have positioned itself outside the legal
framework. We Quebecers would not want to see our society plunged into such instability.
2. From a practical point of view, the active cooperation of Canadians in other provinces
and of the federal government is necessary to effect secession. This would be the first time
that a modern democratic state would be undertaking a break-up after experiencing many
decades of universal suffrage. There would be countless practical problems to be resolved,
such as dividing the debt, the question of territory, and transferring taxes. A common and
concerted effort would be indispensable for ironing out the numerous difficulties. Such an
effort could be obtained within the legal framework, because there is no first minister, no
government, no major political party in this federation that wants to keep Quebecers
against their very clearly expressed will.
3. We believe that it is very unlikely that a unilateral declaration of independence would win
international recognition. As you will understand, it is not possible for me to develop this
point here, since it is part of our arguments before the Court.
In short, while Quebecers must not be kept in Canada against their will, neither must they
lose Canada without having very clearly renounced it. These two considerations cannot be
respected unless governments act in accordance with the Constitution and the law. After it
had been clearly established that Quebecers no longer wanted to be Canadian, secession
would be negotiated within the legal framework. This is the only practicable scenario if one
wishes to effect secession while avoiding chaos or, as you put it, "impasse".
I support the Supreme Court reference as a Quebecer who wants assurance that neither I
nor my fellow citizens will lose our identity and our full rights as Canadians in confusion,
without a legal framework to overcome our divisions, in a dangerous ambiguity that is
unacceptable in democracy.
Yours sincerely,
Stéphane Dion
|
