|
Open Letter
to Le Figaro in response to Ms Louise Beaudoin's opinion piece (C-20)
(April 1st, 2000)
In an opinion piece that ran in Le Figaro on March 21, Quebec's Minister of
International Relations, Ms Louise Beaudoin, gave her own interpretation of the contents
of a bill that I have the honour of sponsoring in the Canadian Parliament. This bill
(C-20) sets out the circumstances under
which the Government of Canada could undertake to negotiate the secession of one of
Canada's provinces.
This debate, which is taking place much more calmly than the Minister's article might
suggest, concerns Quebecers and all Canadians. But there is also a universal dimension to
it, because the peaceful cohabitation of populations of different languages, cultures or
religions is one of the greatest challenges facing the international community at the dawn
of the new century. One question to which the international community is seeking an answer
is under what circumstances and what terms could the establishment of new international
borders between populations become a just and fair solution.
Unlike many democratic states which declare themselves to be indivisible in their
Constitution, we believe in Canada that our country has no meaning unless it is based on
mutual consent. But we also believe that no Canadians should have their belonging to
Canada challenged unless the voters of their province have clearly signified their will to
cease to be part of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the legal validity of this viewpoint in an
opinion issued on August 20, 1998, which received very broad support throughout the
country, including among Quebecers. The Court found that the government of a Canadian
province does not have the right, either under international law or under Canadian law, to
effect secession unilaterally. Secession would therefore have to be negotiated within the
Canadian constitutional framework, respecting the fundamental principles of democracy, the
rule of law, federalism and respect for minorities. According to the Court, the obligation
to negotiate secession exists only if a clear majority of a province's population has
expressed its will to cease to be part of Canada, in response to a clear question on
secession.
The Court indicated that such negotiations on secession would raise a large number of
issues that would be very difficult to resolve, including the division of the debt and
assets, the rights of minorities and Aboriginal peoples, and the issue of territorial
borders.
The Court assigned to the political actors the responsibility of assessing the clarity
of the question and the majority in the context of a referendum. Bill C-20
gives effect to this obligation
for clarity established by the Supreme Court. It confirms that the Government would
undertake to negotiate a province's secession from Canada only if a clear majority of that
province's voters expressed themselves in favour of secession, in response to a clear
question, meaning a question that would enable voters to say unequivocally whether they
wanted their province to become an independent country, separate from Canada.
Canada thus becomes the first major democratic state to admit its own divisibility
through legislative means. In so doing, it insists on the obligation for clarity and for
the legality of the process. Quebec's separatist government has already lost two referenda
on its option. On both occasions, in 1980 and 1995, the Prime Minister of Canada stated
that the question was lacking in clarity and refused to commit to negotiate secession
under such circumstances.
To act otherwise, to negotiate secession in the absence of clear support, would be
irresponsible and unfair to citizens. We Quebecers have a full and unqualified right to
Canada, which we have built together with our fellow Canadians. Moreover, secession would
have serious consequences not only for us Quebecers, but for all other Canadians as well,
including French-Canadians in the other provinces.
It is my conviction that the vast majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadian, and
that Bill C-20 will never have to be
used. But should that not be the case, this law guarantees that the Government of Canada
would undertake to negotiate secession only in legality and clarity. Is there a parliament
of a democratic country anywhere in the world which would agree to negotiate the
abdication of its constitutional responsibilities toward a part of its population without
the assurance that this was clearly what that population wanted ?
Paradoxically, this Canadian approach, which contemplates the possibility of secession
but only under conditions of clarity and justice, is itself an excellent argument against
secession. For by always demonstrating a concern for fairness and respect toward citizens,
a country can build its unity on voluntary adherence. I am sure that it is this example of
unity that we Quebecers, together with our fellow Canadians, will set for the world.
Stéphane Dion
|
