Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On August 20th the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its opinion in the Quebec Secession Reference. I will make a few comments on the legal issue and Mr. Kakfwi will speak about the national unity dimensions of this decision.
Three questions were put to the court which essentially asked:
- Under the Constitution of Canada can Quebec unilaterally separate from Canada?
- Under international law does Quebec have a right to unilaterally separate from Canada? - If the Constitution of Canada and international law conflict, which one is paramount?
The decision is about 80 pages long. But there are some points of particular interest to the people of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut which I would like to mention.
The Minister of Justice of the NWT intervened in the reference in November, 1996. Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Makivik, the Cree of Quebec, the Chiefs of Ontario and a number of other parties also intervened. The Government of Quebec refused to participate in the reference, so in July 1997, the court appointed a Quebec lawyer called an amicus curiae or friend of the court, to put forward any legal arguments that Quebec would probably have used if they had participated.
For the past 30 years there have been indications that the Parti Quebecois and other Quebec governments have wanted to expand into the marine areas and islands in Hudson Bay, James Bay, Ungava Bay and Hudson Strait. In December 1994, and again in September 1995, the Government of Quebec tabled sovereignty bills in their legislature which appeared to indicate that Quebec intended to unilaterally extend their jurisdiction into parts of the NWT and Nunavut. This was one of the reasons the GNWT intervened in this reference case. We do not believe Quebec has a valid claim to these areas, nor do we think that it was legal for Quebec to annex lands and waters in the NWT and Nunavut.
Intervenor aboriginal organizations argued that the Constitution, treaties/land claims agreements, aboriginal rights and international law required aboriginal consent before aboriginal peoples and their territories could be taken out of Canada. The federal government was evasive on the issue of protecting aboriginal rights in the event of separation. The federal government's legal arguments contended that aboriginal issues were important, but outside the scope of the three questions posed in the reference. The decision made by the Supreme Court confirms that Quebec does not have a right under the Constitution of Canada to separate unilaterally. The court said that Quebec must obey the law, which includes the amending formula in the Constitution of Canada.
Typically in complex court decisions, everyone can find some support for their own position. In this decision, the court said that if a clear majority voted yes to a clear referendum question, Canada would be obliged to negotiate with Quebec. In these negotiations, virtually everything would be on the table. For example, boundaries would be on the table. The rights of aboriginal peoples and minorities would have to be taken into account. There would be no presumption that Quebec could keep all of its present territory, and certainly there would be no presumption that Quebec could annex areas in Nunavut or Labrador. So Quebec might be diminished or expanded depending on the outcome of the negotiations. Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our assessment of the legal implications of this important decision, particularly of its relevance to aboriginal peoples and to the new territory of Nunavut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
--Applause