Press Room

MADRID, SPAIN, November 21, 2003 – The Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, stated today, during a conference organized by the Spanish Senate on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the country’s Constitution, that the harmonious cohabitation of different populations within the same state will be one of the major undertakings of this century.

The Minister pointed out that this issue is certainly relevant for Spain and Canada, two democracies both characterised by pluralism and collective identities, but that many other states are in the same situation: “Humanity has no choice: either have the planet break into a scattering of ethnic groupings, or learn to live together within pluralist states.”

Mr. Dion described as “terribly wrong” the belief that every population with its own specific characteristics has to have its own state. “It is not only impractical, it is wrong from a moral standpoint, because it rejects the fact that the cohabitation of cultures within a single state helps human beings to become better citizens by enabling them to live the experience of tolerance.”

But how can this be done, how do we ensure that populations that differ in terms of language, religion or culture can live in trust and harmony with a sense of common belonging to the same democratic state? He answered by proposing that liberal democracies be founded on individual rights, and not on collective loyalties, whether they are called peoples, nations or otherwise.

The quest for an effective balance between centralization and decentralization of public powers has to be geared to individual happiness, the Minister indicated. He specified, however, that individuals are social beings who develop affinities pertaining to language, culture or religion. Those collective identities have to be taken into account, the Minister asserted, not to deny individual rights, but to enable citizens to develop and flourish as best they can.

The Minister illustrated his viewpoint by using the example of Quebec within Canada. Should Quebec have more autonomy within Canada? The answer, according to Mr. Dion, lies in taking account of the needs of Quebec citizens and the specific society they form within Canada. But that is not the reasoning of some Quebec nationalists, who put their conception of the nation ahead of the interests of citizens, which the Minister finds regrettable.

The Minister also addressed the issue of secession. What should be done if a population clearly expressed its will to separate in a democratic and peaceful manner, he asked.

He noted that Spain, like many other democracies, declares itself to be indivisible in its Constitution, in accordance with the principle that the citizens and regions of a country are bound by a duty of solidarity.

But at the same time, Mr. Dion remarked, one cannot rule out the possibility of circumstances arising in a democracy that make negotiating a secession the least harmful of foreseeable solutions. In other words, secession is not a right in democracy, but it remains a possibility to which the existing state may agree in the face of a clearly affirmed will for separation, the Minister maintained.

He explained that that is the position the Supreme Court of Canada took in its opinion of August 20, 1998, when it confirmed that the Government of Quebec does not have the right to effect secession unilaterally. The Minister summarized the main elements of the Court’s opinion: the obligation to undertake negotiations on secession would exist only in the presence of clear support for secession, expressed through a clear majority in response to a clear question; the Government of Quebec would still not have a right to unilaterally effect secession even after negotiations proved fruitless in its opinion. The Minister cited the Court: “Under the Constitution, secession requires that an amendment be negotiated.”

The Minister then explained that the Clarity Act, passed on June 29, 2000, prohibits the Government of Canada from undertaking negotiations on the secession of a province unless the House of Commons has determined that the referendum question clearly pertained to secession and that a clear majority had been expressed in favour of secession. The Minister was of the opinion that no democratic state could cease to honour its responsibilities toward one part of its population in the absence of clear support for secession.

The Minister added that the Clarity Act stipulates that 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 lead to contemplating the divisibility of Quebec’s territory with the same spirit of openness which led to accepting the divisibility of Canada’s territory.

The Minister added that, in Canada’s case, this exercise of clarification has had a beneficial effect on national unity, for the vast majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadian and do not want to break the ties of loyalty that bind them to their fellow citizens in other parts of Canada. They have no wish to be forced to choose between their Quebec identity and their Canadian identity. They reject the exclusive definitions of the words “people” or “nation” and want to belong to both the Quebec people and the Canadian people, in this global world where concurrent identities will more than ever be an asset for opening oneself to others, Mr. Dion concluded.

-30-