Notes for a Statement by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in Response to the Supreme Court Ruling in the Reference on a Unilateral Secession

The ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court of Canada is of extraordinary importance. It is not a victory for governments or politicians. It is a victory for all Canadians. It protects the legal and democratic rights of citizens of our country for the future.

It establishes the legal framework in which democratic decisions are to be taken. It sets out clearly the principles under which Canada has grown and flourished: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities.

There has been a lot of comment in the last twenty-four hours about yesterday's Supreme Court decision. Let me summarize briefly the most important elements of the decision:

1. The unilateral declaration of independence which the current Quebec government had in its back pocket before the last referendum is contrary to Canadian law and to the fundamental principles of democracy.

2. Such a unilateral declaration of independence is not supported by international law. So much then for one of the principal myths the advocates of separation have tried to create over the years.

3. Secession is as much a legal act as a political act.

4. The legal framework in which democratic decisions are to be taken includes the rights and obligations of Canadians who live outside the Province of Quebec as well as those who live within Quebec. In particular, the rights of other provinces and specifically the rights of minorities.

5. This is very important. And I quote: "The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity, both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it generates."

6. This means that the days of the "astuces" of Mr. Parizeau and the "winning questions" of Mr. Bouchard are over. For a referendum to have any legitimacy, the question must be clear. And by clear, the Supreme Court does not refer to a question on some vague notion of partnership like the "winning" question of 1995. The Court refers specifically to the need for a question that provides, and I quote: "the clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada."

7. The Supreme Court of Canada speaks of the need for an "enhanced majority" in order to alter the fundamental balances of political power. In other words, the secession of a province is so fundamental that it requires more than a simple majority for the results of a referendum question on secession to have any legitimacy. According to the court, there must be no ambiguity in the result.

8. The Court also tells us that democracy requires a good-faith negotiation where a clear majority of Quebecers clearly express that they no longer want to be part of Canada. Not being part of Canada is not a sovereignty-partnership. It is not a sovereignty-association. It is secession. I quote, again, from the Court: "A clear majority on a clear question in favour of secession." That is the position which was advocated by the lawyers for the federal government before the Supreme Court of Canada.

9. In such a case, the Court indicates the complexity and difficulty of the negotiations and suggests that everything would be on the table. This includes the division of the national debt, boundaries, the protection of linguistic and cultural minorities, the rights of aboriginal people amongst others.

10. Accordingly, the Court says that: "Nobody seriously suggests that our national existence, seamless in so many aspects, could be effortlessly separated along the now provincial boundaries of Quebec."

What the Court has done is to confirm just how difficult it would be to break up one of the most successful countries in the world.

We now know the legal and democratic framework. We know that Canada is not a prison, as Lucien Bouchard once suggested. But we also know that Quebecers will never lose their Canadian citizenship, and all that goes with it, as a result of confusion and ambiguity.

We believed that it was our obligation and our duty to the people of Canada to seek the answer from the Supreme Court of Canada at this time, not in the heat of a referendum campaign.

But our objective is not to spend our time talking about how this country could break up.

Our objective is to continue to build a strong, united country, respectful of the rights and obligations, the hopes and dreams of all its citizens.

A country that is economically prosperous and socially just.

A country that respects minorities.

A country of two official languages.

A country with a thriving French culture, centred in Quebec.

A country which welcomes citizens from all over the world.

Twice in less than a generation, despite ambiguous questions, the people of Quebec have chosen to be part of all of Canada.

And Canadians outside of Quebec have expressed in countless ways their desire for the Quebec society, with its unique character, to remain an essential part of Canada.

As we go forward, our task is to ensure that there be no more referendums on dismantling Canada.

Rather, we must devote all our energies to building Canada in a way that Quebecers can focus on the wonderful opportunities of being full participants in Canada.