Archives - Press Room

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM, October 15, 2003 – Speaking to members of the Constitution Unit, an independent research body devoted to constitutional questions, at the University College London, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, said that universal principles may exist that could guide democracies when they are faced with peaceful secessionist demands. He described the recent experience of Canada, which is the first major democratic state to acknowledge its divisibility through legislation, the Clarity Act, proclaimed on June 29, 2000.

The Minister described the ethical underpinnings of that Act, which, he recalled, had received broad support, but was also criticized both by the proponents of secession-on-demand and by those who, on the contrary, advocate the absolute indivisibility of the national territory.

Mr. Dion began with a critical examination of the secession-on-demand thesis as developed by the Quebec secessionist leaders. He showed that such a procedure for unilateral secession has three weaknesses that make it unacceptable: “It poses serious problems in terms of the law, fairness and clarity.”

From a legal standpoint, the fact that the unilateral secession of a province has no basis in law, neither under Canadian law nor under international law, renders this procedure not only unacceptable but also inapplicable in reality: “Why would citizens attached to a country agree to have it taken from them illegally?,” the Minister asked.

From the perspective of fairness, the Minister noted that Quebec’s separatist leaders believe that secession-on-demand is only valid for them. If populations concentrated in certain territories within Quebec asked to separate in turn, or simply to remain a part of Canada, the Quebec secessionist leaders feel they have the right to take measures to prevent them from doing so, the Minister remarked.

Finally, the third problem is that this procedure lacks clarity. It assumes that secession can be snatched from the jaws of defeat, on the basis of an uncertain and fragile majority and a question that, as seen in the 1980 and 1995 referenda, “intermingled a proposal for independence with the maintenance of some sort of possible association with Canada.”

While the theory of secession-on-demand, as advocated by the Quebec separatist leaders, is unacceptable, that does not make Canada indivisible, the Minister maintained.

Certainly, he acknowledged, “citizens of a democracy are bound by a principle of mutual loyalty regardless of considerations of race, religion or regional belonging. That is probably why so many democracies consider themselves to be indivisible.”

“But at the same time,” he continued, “one cannot rule out the possibility of circumstances arising in a democracy that make negotiating a secession the least harmful of foreseeable solutions. That might be the case in the event that one part of the population clearly expresses, peacefully but resolutely, its desire no longer to be part of the country.”

Such is the position of the Government of Canada which was incorporated in the Clarity Act, the Minister explained. “The Government of Canada would not agree to undertake any negotiations on secession except in the event that the population of a province clearly demonstrated its will to no longer be part of Canada. This clear will to secede should be expressed by a clear majority in support of a question clearly pertaining to secession, rather than on some vague proposal of political partnership.”

Negotiation on secession should be undertaken within the Canadian constitutional framework and should be guided by a genuine quest for justice for all, which could entail a change to borders, Mr. Dion indicated. He recalled that the Clarity Act itself gave effect to the requirement for clarity as stipulated by the Supreme Court’s 1998 opinion in the Reference re the Secession of Quebec.

The Minister then declared that the fundamental premise of this Canadian approach according to which a secession, while not impossible, should not be negotiated unless there is a clear will to split up, seemed to be just and of universal application. In Canada’s case, he indicated, this approach has had a beneficial effect on national unity in introducing the notion of clarity, given that the vast majority of Quebecers feel attachment to their Canadian identity.

Despite its obviously beneficial impact on Canadian unity, the President of the Privy Council said he did not doubt that the approach may appear very daring and too liberal in the face of the internationally abhorred phenomenon of secession. The Minister concluded by saying that: “The Canadian approach rejects the use of force, of any form of violence. It emphasizes clarity, legality and justice for all. While it may appear idealistic to many nations, that is precisely because this approach seeks to address in an ideal manner situations which are complex and delicate. It could contribute, in my view, to peace and enlightened state practice.”

-30-