Letter to Mr. Claude Ryan to respond to to his press conference on the government of Canada's reference to the supreme court

Translation

February 6, 1998

Dear Mr. Ryan:

At your press conference of February 3, you stated that the Government of Canada waswrong to go before the Supreme Court. While I do not agree with your point of view, Ibelieve that the intervention of such a respected public figure provides all of our fellowcitizens with the opportunity to deepen the understanding of a crucial issue for us all.

With this reference, the Government of Canada aims to clarify an important point: the legalaspects of a unilateral secession. We believe that Quebecers and other Canadians areentitled to this information. The decision about whether to effect secession should above allnot be made on the basis of myths and false theories.

Allow me to outline the points on which we agree. We both believe that Quebecers cannotbe held in Canada against their will. We also believe that they must not lose Canadawithout having renounced it very clearly. Indeed, you yourself have strongly criticized thereferendum procedures that the PQ government used in 1980 and 1995. You have talkedabout "dangerous ambiguity" and "tragicomic misunderstandings" (La Presse, 27-05-97).This brings to mind, for example, the referendum question, which alluded to a political andeconomic partnership that Mr. Bouchard now describes as bare bones (Le Devoir,20-06-97) and sketchy (Le Soleil, 19-12-97), or Mr. Parizeau's famous "Plan O", whichnearly cost us a part of our savings.

Are you suggesting then, Mr. Ryan, that it would be democratic for Quebecers to loseCanada in such a "dangerous ambiguity"? Surely not, because you have written that, undersuch circumstances, "the federal government will feel obliged, as, incidentally, it did in 1980and 1995, although this was not sufficiently noted, to refuse to commit itself in advance torecognizing a result obtained through an equivocal question." And you have added: "Itwould be pointless to claim to deny the federal government this power of reserving itsreaction" (La Presse, 27-05-97). You suggest that the Government of Canada be involvedin advance discussions on the content of the question and on the rules to be used ininterpreting the result, since you agree that it would be in the public interest that theseparameters be considered acceptable by both sides.

We agree on many points. The most important is our shared conviction that the country'sunity could not be maintained against the clearly expressed will of Quebecers. TheGovernment of Canada has repeated this viewpoint on several occasions, but is also of theopinion that this position is totally compatible with the view that Quebec provincialinstitutions do not have the right to proceed unilaterally with secession. On this point, wedisagree.

You state that secession is a political and democratic, rather than a legal, question.Certainly democracy is paramount, but the law is essential for democracy. The law isnecessary in order for political action to take place democratically and not in anarchy.

If the PQ government were to pull off a referendum victory through trickery and by meansof an ambiguous procedure and question, the Government of Canada believes that it wouldhave a duty not to consent to it. It would continue to use peaceful means to discharge itsresponsibilities, and thus would enable Quebecers to enjoy fully their rights as Canadians, in spite of the unilateral attempt at secession. This is what the Government of Canada would consider as its duty, insofar as it would have the right to do so. Presently, this right is denied by the Government of Quebec. Since only the Court can confirm that the Government of Quebec would have no basis in law to make an attempt at unilateral secession, it seems that our initiative before the Supreme Court is entirely logical, legitimate and honourable.

This debate goes well beyond legal niceties. Even a secession which were to take placewithin a legal framework would pose enormous problems. If it were true that unilateralsecession has no legal basis, it would raise practical difficulties that would be even harder to overcome. These can be classified into three categories.

1. Quebecers would be divided among themselves. There is currently a great deal of talkabout the Quebec consensus, without analysing its scope more closely. The "right ofQuebecers to decide their own future alone" has become a knee-jerk slogan. There iscertainly a consensus that Quebecers must be able to effect secession if that is very clearlytheir will. But there is no consensus in favour of the PQ procedure for effecting thatsecession, at least none that seems to me to include Claude Ryan.

Many Quebecers would claim the right not to lose Canada in confusion, without arecognized legal framework. The Government of Quebec would be ill positioned to requirethose citizens to respect its laws, since it would have positioned itself outside the legalframework. We Quebecers would not want to see our society plunged into such instability.

2. From a practical point of view, the active cooperation of Canadians in other provincesand of the federal government is necessary to effect secession. This would be the first timethat a modern democratic state would be undertaking a break-up after experiencing manydecades of universal suffrage. There would be countless practical problems to be resolved,such as dividing the debt, the question of territory, and transferring taxes. A common andconcerted effort would be indispensable for ironing out the numerous difficulties. Such aneffort could be obtained within the legal framework, because there is no first minister, nogovernment, no major political party in this federation that wants to keep Quebecersagainst their very clearly expressed will.

3. We believe that it is very unlikely that a unilateral declaration of independence would wininternational recognition. As you will understand, it is not possible for me to develop thispoint here, since it is part of our arguments before the Court.

In short, while Quebecers must not be kept in Canada against their will, neither must theylose Canada without having very clearly renounced it. These two considerations cannot berespected unless governments act in accordance with the Constitution and the law. After ithad been clearly established that Quebecers no longer wanted to be Canadian, secessionwould be negotiated within the legal framework. This is the only practicable scenario if onewishes to effect secession while avoiding chaos or, as you put it, "impasse".

I support the Supreme Court reference as a Quebecer who wants assurance that neither Inor my fellow citizens will lose our identity and our full rights as Canadians in confusion,without a legal framework to overcome our divisions, in a dangerous ambiguity that isunacceptable in democracy.

Yours sincerely,

Stéphane Dion