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

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=archive&Sub=openletters&Doc=20000401_e.htm