Government of Lucien Bouchard

QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001 GOVERNMENT OF the popular vote each time expressed LUCIEN BOUCHARD and that, each time, our democracy (JANUARY 29, 1996 TO MARCH 8, 2001) has grown in strength, our right to choose become that much stronger. [...] There is nothing more sacred in the democratic life of a people than its capacity to dispose of its own destiny. This is the very essence of their liberty.400 379.As a reaction to federal intervention in the Bertrand case, the Québec National Assembly adopted the following resolution: “That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Daniel Lessard Québec are free to take charge of their own destiny, to define without ••• Status of Québec interference their political status and 377.In North America, Québec is the only to ensure their economic, social and society with a French-Speaking major- cultural development.”401 ity, a well-defined territorial base, and political institutions it controls. The 380.The only judge and jury on the future people of Québec possess all the tra- of Québec happens to be the people of ditional characteristics of a nation. Québec. No judge can stand in the [...] The Québec people subscribe to way of a people’s democratic expres- the democratic concept of a French- sion. The government of Québec will Speaking nation, pluralist in its culture, not go before the Supreme Court of and open to international immigration Canada regarding the federal govern- [...].399 ment’s Reference concerning the future of the Québec people. This is a purely 378.[In the Bertrand case], the federal political and not legal issue.402 government took the serious decision to go before a court to assert that the 381.That the National Assembly demand future of Quebecers does not belong that the men and women politicians to them. [...] To those who would have of Québec recognize the will, demo- forgotten, to those who would deny it, cratically expressed by Quebecers in to those who fear the strength of the referendum of 30 October 1995 Québec, but mainly to us, who must held in compliance with the Refer- state loud and clear that we are enti- endum Act, thus acknowledging the tled to dispose of our own destiny, fundamental right of Quebecers to that we have set the most democratic determine their future pursuant to rules of all, that we have respected this Act.403 399. Briefing notes for a speech by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, delivered at the “Forum des Fédérations” held in Mont-Tremblant, October 6, 1999, p. 3 (quotation). 400. Speech by Lucien Bouchard at a debate on a motion proposing to reassert the liberty of Québec to determine its political status, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, May 22, 1996, p. 1244, 1245 and 1247 (quotation) [Translation]. 401. Resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated May 22, 1996 (quotation; see part 3: document no. 32). 402. Press conference by Paul Bégin, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, September 26, 1996. 403. Unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated May 21, 1997 (quotation; see part 3: document no. 35). 96 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001 382.While the decision of the Supreme and federal parliament as well as Court of Canada, in the case of the to that of the other provinces. It is federal government’s reference to the the responsibility of any democrat, Supreme Court of Canada on Québec’s and especially that of the govern- accession to sovereignty, to appoint an ment of Québec, to recall today at amicus curiae is a part of its powers, the beginning of this hearing, where the person so appointed shall not have the court has been proposed with either the authority or the legitimacy the mandate to substitute itself in to speak on behalf of the people or the the rights of a people, these inalien- government of Québec. The appoint- able rights without which democracy ment of an amicus curiae does not in cannot exist.405 any way modify the position of the gov- 384.The opinion handed down by the Su- ernment of Québec by which Québec’s preme Court of Canada constitutes an accession to sovereignty is a political important political event. The govern- issue that is not a question to be decid- ment of Québec, steadfast in its respon- ed by legal proceedings, but by the sibility, has refused to participate in 404 people of Québec. this episode of the federal political 383.The federal government and the rest of strategy and has firmly reiterated the Canada must [...] understand, regard- right of Quebecers to choose their less of any Reference: future. The Canadian government has • that the people of Québec have failed in its attempt to have the core always possessed, now possess elements of its anti-sovereignty offen- and will continue to possess the sive validated. The opinion of the Court fundamental and inalienable right recognizes that a winning referendum to freely, democratically and with- would not only have democratic legiti- out interference dispose of their macy, but that Canada would be obliged political future; to recognize this legitimacy and could not deny the right of Québec to seek • that this fundamental right of the going through with such sovereignty. people of Québec is exercised within The opinion confirms that following a the framework of democratic insti- Yes, Canada would be obliged to nego- tutions that belong to them and tiate with Québec. These negotiations that are of a remarkable vitality; would involve sovereignty and not a • that these same institutions, includ- renewal of federalism. On the nature ing the democratic decision that of the negotiations, the Court imposes the people of Québec will make obligations on the federalists to which during the next referendum must sovereigntists have already adhered be respected; and, for some time. In the event of dead- • that the future and destiny of the locked negotiations, the Court does not people of Québec may not be subju- dare give specific instructions but in gated to the will of the government broaching this subject, it does not in 404. Press conference by Paul Bégin, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Sainte-Foy, May 9, 1997; position reiterated upon the designation of the amicus curiae (See the press release by Paul Bégin dated July 14, 1997). 405. Declaration by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the beginning of hear- ings on the case of the Supreme Court Reference, February 16, 1998 (quotation) [Translation]. 97 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001 any case evoke the hypothesis that federal ministers and politicians who Quebecers should resign themselves present the dismemberment of Québec to remain in Canada and renounce their as both a possibility and a defendable democratic decision. On the contrary, demand and who thus offer a moral the Court only evokes one possibility, endorsement to those who propound it is that to break a deadlock Québec these arguments. All democrats, feder- should alone declare its sovereignty and alists, and sovereigntists should clearly call upon international recognition. disassociate themselves from such By evoking a recognition facilitated talk. Québec’s territorial integrity is in the case of intransigence towards guaranteed before the accession to Québec, the Court provides a supple- sovereignty under the rules of the mentary condition to the success of Canadian Constitution and, after sov- the negotiations. Finally, the Court does ereignty by the well-established and not in any way put in doubt the right imperative principles of general inter- of the Québec National Assembly to national law. The Québec government decide, alone, what the wording of the thus condemns all attempts and invi- question and the majority threshold tations to deny or deform this reality will be.406 for the purpose of creating polarization, 385.Before, during and after [the episode sowing discord, and encouraging a of the federal reference to the Supreme degradation of relations between the Court of Canada] the government of various components of Québec society. Québec has always maintained that Québec’s borders are geographical accession to sovereignty is an essen- and historical. Never will the govern- tially political issue. Affirming this ment agree to their being redrawn on does not in any way mean putting the basis of linguistic, racial, or ethnic 408 oneself above the law. It is refusing to considerations. let Québec be subject to the interpre- Territorial Limits and Bill C-20: See paragraphs 397-398. tation that the federal government wishes to make of the role played by 387.Does the document [Calgary Decla- the Supreme Court of Canada and the ration] recognize the existence of the rulings that it has made.407 Québec people? In my view, here we touch upon one of the saddest facets The federal Reference and Bill C-20: See paragraphs 393, 395 and 398. of the history of relations between Quebecers and Canadians. When ob- 386.The Québec government denounces servers wonder a few years from now the irresponsibility of people who why these two peoples were unable resort to this partitionist rhetoric and, to continue to live under the same even more so, the irresponsibility of federal regime, the answer will be, 406. Briefing notes for a preliminary statement by Lucien Bouchard following the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the federal government's Reference, August 21, 1998 (See part 2 of this document). 407. Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, “Droit, démocratie et souveraineté: Joseph Facal répond à Stéphane Dion,” La Presse, November 17, 1999, p.

Load more