BILBAO, SPAIN, November 25, 2003 – Speaking to the Fundación para la Libertad, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, underlined the ethical foundations of the opinion of the Supreme Court on the Reference Re Secession of Quebec and the Clarity Act which gave it effect.

To begin, however, the Minister expressed the solidarity of all Canadians with the victims of the political violence raging in the Basque Country and he condemned these terrorist acts: “We in Canada, who take for granted this basic right to express political views without fear for our lives, salute you for your courage and for your determination to build a peaceful society in this part of Spain and Europe.”

But rather than violent nationalisms, the Minister dealt with peaceful nationalism. He endeavoured to answer the following question: how should a democracy react to a perfectly peaceful secessionist claim?

This is a question for which an answer must be found, whether one wants secession or not, the Minister declared, while adding that if he does not want it for Quebec and Canada, and that he would see in it a terrible mistake, he would nevertheless accept it insofar as the secession were effected according to democracy and the rule of law.

Mr. Dion said he understood the reasons that even though, the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Clarity Act which gives it effect, only have the force of law in Canada, these two legal texts are the subject of discussions in Spain, and indeed in other democracies.

The Minister also said he understood the reasons for which Spain, as many other democracies, declares itself to be indivisible: “That very principle is evoked in article 2 of your Constitution: solidarity, which binds together all citizens and all regions of a country.” Nevertheless, the Minister emphasized that in a democracy circumstances can arise that make negotiating a secession the least harmful of foreseeable solutions. “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.”

Mr. Dion 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 noted 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-