LETTER TO MR. BERNARD LANDRY

Translation

August 26, 1997

Mr. Bernard Landry
Deputy Premier and
Minister of State for the Economy
and Finance
12 Saint Louis Street, 1st floor
Quebec City, Quebec
G1R 5L3

Dear Deputy Premier:

The citizens who have elected us are entitled to have us discuss the procedures of secession frankly and thoroughly. I was therefore delighted that you wrote on behalf of your government in response to my own letter of August 11. I hope that this beginning of a dialogue between us marks the end of your government’s regrettable attitude of seeking to discredit your critics so as to avoid a debate of substance.

Now that both our letters have been the subject of widespread media coverage, and many of our fellow citizens have had time to familiarize themselves with their contents, permit me to go a little further.

For my part, I am not accusing you of being a poor democrat. I am simply reproaching you for not adequately considering your arguments. Above all, I note that you have not responded to my three objections regarding the process you plan to follow to make Quebec an independent State. I shall review those three objections in the order in which you raised them in your letter : majority rule, the question of territory and the consequences of a unilateral declaration of independence.

First, I noted that in all cases of secession where a referendum has been held, it has always been to confirm the existence of a clear consensus. You have not denied that fact. Rather, you have maintained that a simple majority in a referendum in Quebec would be sufficient to declare independence, citing the processes that resulted in the creation of the Canadian federation and in Newfoundland’s entry into Confederation. You conclude that it would be absurd if it were more difficult to leave Canada than to enter it. It is in no way absurd.

Human societies consistently ensure that more care is exercised in dissolving than in creating an association. Democracies do this at all levels of social life. For example, the laws are drafted in such a way that it is easier to get married than to get divorced, and to create corporations in law than to dissolve them. The United States Congress is considering passing legislation that would offer statehood to Puerto Rico on the basis of a referendum result of "50% plus one", on the condition that it clearly be a definitive, irreversible entry into a federal union that proclaims itself to be "indestructible".

Democracies set more stringent requirements for separation than for union because the risks of injustice are much greater in the case of separation. In effect, a just way needs to be found to break the ties of solidarity and allegiance forged over time, while dividing up the assets that have been jointly acquired. It is better to ensure that populations truly wish to break up before embarking on such a step.

Today, all of Canada belongs to Quebecers and to other Canadians. Quebecers are entitled to the assurance that they will not lose Canada unless they have very clearly renounced it. Our governments would be acting irresponsibly if they tried to negotiate a break-up without solid confirmation that this is truly what Quebecers want.

Second, I pointed out the absence of any legal basis on which Quebec’s borders would be inviolable while Canada’s borders would not be. There again, you did not contradict me.

Instead, you are asking that any possibility of modifying Quebec’s borders in the event of negotiations on secession be excluded a priori. The Government of Canada is against partitioning Canadian territory, and is thus against partitioning Quebec territory. It may be, however, that in the difficult circumstances of negotiating secession, an agreement on modifying borders would become the least unfavourable solution. Our fellow citizens must be aware that such things can happen.

Third, I noted the absence of any legal principle, international or otherwise, that would create a right to a unilateral declaration of independence in a democratic country such as Canada. According to almost all the experts consulted, there is no legal foundation of this type. It would appear that you have not been able to find one either. We have referred this precise question to the Supreme Court because it is important to have the opinion of the highest court in the country. We believe that the position we are defending before the Court is in accordance not only with international law, but also with international practice.

You point out that Canada and the international community have recognized the emergence of many new States since the Second World War. You ask why the Government of Canada does not state that it is prepared in the same way to recognize a unilateral declaration of independence contemplated by your government in the event of a breakdown in negotiations whose framework you had established alone. The answer is that no government in Canada can commit itself to recognizing a secession in advance, in the abstract, without knowing its concrete conditions. This position seems to us to be the only reasonable one and is in accordance with normal international practice, under which no constituent entity of a state should be recognized as independent against the will of that state. Since 1945, no state created by secession has been admitted to the United Nations without the approval of the government of the predecessor state.

Without the support of the Canadian government, a declaration of independence by your government would not be recognized by the international community. Other countries would regard your attempted secession as a Canadian matter to be dealt within accordance with our democratic and legal traditions. You well understand that Mr. Parizeau’s "great game" of diplomacy last time would not have changed this.

The international community’s dislike of unilateral declarations of independence is not legal quibbling. It is a condition of the system of legal and orderly government without which our societies could not function. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if your government unilaterally told Quebecers that they must ignore the courts, the Constitution, the federal government and the international community, and henceforth recognize only your authority, your laws, your regulations and your taxes. Your unilateral declaration of independence would divide Quebec society in an utterly irresponsible manner. It would be a complete departure from the democratic traditions of our society. It is very dangerous in a democracy for a government to place itself above the law but nevertheless require the obedience of its citizens.

We must avoid such a situation at all costs. You desire the independence of Quebec. I want to preserve the unity of Canada. I am convinced, however, that we are both concerned that our disagreement be resolved in a peaceful and orderly manner, respecting human rights.

Mr. Deputy Premier, you think that being a Canadian prevents you from fully being a Quebecer. I think that being both a Quebecer and a Canadian is one of the most fortunate things that life has given me. You want to choose between Quebec and Canada and to force me to choose, although I have no wish to do so. At the very least, I am entitled to insist on a process that is clear, legal and fair not only to me, but also to the seven million human beings who are both Quebecers and Canadians, and to the other twenty-two million human beings who enjoy the good fortune of having Quebec as part of their country.

If we are all to agree on such a procedure, we must discuss it calmly and in a level-headed manner, as our fellow citizens wish us to do.

Yours sincerely,

Stéphane Dion