Stéphane Dion

In his responsibilities as Intergovernmental Affairs minister in the Jean Chrétien government, Dion was tasked with challenging the arguments of the Quebec sovereignty movement much more vigorously than in the pre-referendum period. The people of Quebec voted against the sovereignty option by a razor-thin margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Many federalists in Ottawa were caught off-guard by the results and believed that the referendum results would have no legal standing under Canadian law. The strongest complaints were on the presumed ambiguity of the 1995 question and that Quebec had tabled a law reserving the right for the National Assembly to declare independence unilaterally if constitutional negotiations with the Government of Canada failed.

On 30 September 1996, Dion submitted three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada constituting the Supreme Court Reference re Secession of Quebec:

1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

As soon as these questions were made public, both parties of the National Assembly, the Bloc Québécois and numerous federalists denounced Ottawa's gesture. An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State was passed in the National Assembly of Quebec by the Parti Québécois government two days after the Clarity Act had been introduced in the Canadian House of Commons.

On 20 August 1998, the Supreme Court answered, concluding that Quebec does not have the right to secede unilaterally under Canadian or international law. However, the federal government would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebecers expressed a clear will to secede. It confirmed that the Canadian Parliament had the power to determine whether or not a referendum question was clear enough to trigger such negotiations. The Canadian constitution would remain in effect until terms of secession were agreed to by all parties involved, and these terms would have to respect principles of democracy, minority and individual rights as outlined in the Canadian constitution.[14]

Both the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada publicly stated that they were very pleased with the opinion of the Supreme Court, which stated both that Quebec could not legally separate unilaterally from Canada and that the Parliament of Canada would have a 'political obligation' to enter into separation negotiations with Quebec in the event that a clear majority of its populace were to vote in favour of independence.

The Supreme Court reference launched a public debate between Dion and members of the Parti Québécois government in open letters published in the press.[15][16][17] Following Lucien Bouchard's open letter to the Premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, in 1997 defending the legality of a unilateral secession, Dion wrote the first of three open letters to leaders in the sovereignty movement. Dion challenged three assertions that Bouchard had made: that a unilateral declaration of independence is supported by international law; that a majority of "50% plus one" was a sufficient threshold for secession; and that international law would protect the territorial integrity of Quebec following a secession. Against the first assertion, Dion argued that the vast majority of international law experts "believe that the right to declare secession unilaterally does not belong to constituent entities of a democratic country such as Canada."[15] In regard to the simple majority argument, Dion argued that due to the momentous changes to Quebecers' lives that would result from secession, a simple majority that could disappear in the face of difficulties would be insufficient to ensure the political legitimacy of the sovereigntist project. In regard to the territorial integrity of Quebec, Dion retorts that "there is neither a paragraph nor a line in international law that protects Quebec's territory but not Canada's. International experience demonstrates that the borders of the entity seeking independence can be called into question, sometimes for reasons based on democracy."[15]

Dion's second open letter, to Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister Jacques Brassard, came on 19 November 1997. Dion expanded upon his earlier arguments against the territorial integrity of Quebec following secession by highlighting the inconsistency in the argument that Canada is divisible but Quebec is not. Secondly, Dion underscored that without recognition by the Government of Canada and when opposed by a strong minority of citizens, a unilateral declaration of independence faces much difficulty in gaining international recognition.[16]

In Dion's third open letter to Premier Lucien Bouchard came on 25 August 1998, shortly after the Supreme Court ruling on Secession had been handed down. He criticized the Quebec premier for accepting some aspects of the ruling (such as the political obligation for the Government of Canada to negotiate secession following a clear expression of will from the people of Quebec) and not other sections of the ruling (such as the need for a clear majority on a clear question and the unconstitutionality of a unilateral declaration of independence). In regard to the ruling, Dion makes three claims: that the federal government has a role in the selection of the question and the level of support required for it to pass, that secession can only be achieved through negotiation rather than a "unilateral declaration of independence", and that the terms of negotiation could not be decided solely by the Government of Quebec.[17]

Dion organized and hosted the First International Conference on Federalism in Mont Tremblant in October 1999 to foster international support for the cause of federalism in Canada. Quebec sovereigntist leaders were granted a prominent role in the conference and used their floor time to denounce Canadian federalism to an international audience to the great annoyance of their federalist host. But Dion's views got a big boost during the closing speech by United States President Bill Clinton. Clinton appeared to echo the Supreme Court Reference, warning that "when a people thinks it should be independent in order to have a meaningful political existence, serious questions should be asked.... Are minority rights as well as majority rights respected? How are we going to co-operate with our neighbours?". Clinton argued that federalism allows peoples seeking recognition of their identity a way to do so without isolating themselves in a nation-state. The speech laid to rest any doubts about the U.S. position on the legality and desirability of unilateral secession in Quebec.[18]

The Supreme Court reference and three letters formed the basis for the Clarity Act (Bill C-20) presented by Dion to the House of Commons on 13 December 1999.[19] The legislation established the conditions under which the Government of Canada would enter into negotiations that might lead to secession following a vote by one of the provinces. It stipulated that in order to lead to separation negotiations, a referendum on independence in a given province would have to have "clearly" (according to the judgement of the House of Commons of Canada) framed its question to voters in terms of independence, and that the result would have to be a "clear majority" in favour, rather than a "50% plus one" majority. It was passed by the House on 15 March 2000

"No, Mr Dion, it's not paranoia, people really do hate you!" (cartoon by Serge Chapleau, 1997)

The Clarity Act was supported by the Liberals and Reform Party in Parliament. Most in the New Democratic Party (NDP) supported it. The Progressive Conservative Party, led by Joe Clark, opposed the Act. The Act was more bitterly denounced by all provincial parties in the Quebec National Assembly, the Bloc Québécois, and many Quebec federalists. Following its adoption by Parliament, an open letter supporting Quebec's right to self-determination was published and signed by numerous intellectuals from Quebec and other parts of Canada. William Johnson, leader of Quebec's largest anglophone rights group, Alliance Quebec, said the Act would prevent misinformation by sovereigntists on the topic of secession.[20]

Dion's vigorous opposition to Quebec sovereigntist claims appears to have had the desired effect: support for sovereignty-association plummeted to 24% in October 1999 after the Supreme Court reference.[21] Jean Chrétien cites the act as one of his greatest achievements as Prime Minister. Attacks on the Act also were aimed at Dion personally in Quebec under the perception that he had undermined fundamental democratic rights to self-determination. Serge Chapleau, the caricaturist for La Presse, began portraying Dion as a rat, while Parti Québécois leader Bernard Landry called Dion "the most hated politician in the history of Quebec" ("le politicien le plus détesté de l'histoire du Québec").[22]

Dion has often been described in Quebec as a Trudeau centralist due to his strong defence of Canadian federalism and forceful arguments against Quebec sovereigntists. However, his position on federalism is far more nuanced. It would be most accurate to describe him as a federal autonomist. While Dion supports cooperation, flexibility, and interdependence in the Canadian federation, he unequivocally argues against jurisdictional intrusion, stating

[T]he Constitution must be respected. We must do away with the all-too-convenient excuse that a given governmental initiative responds to a need that is too urgent to be stymied by issues of "jurisdiction". Infringement of jurisdiction creates confusion which damages the quality of public policy.

Dion's position on provincial rights is not only the result of respect for the Constitution of Canada, but also a strategy to prevent the "joint decision trap" in which the capacity of a government's ability to act is restricted by the need for approval from the other constituent governments.

Dion has contested the political concentration on the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, arguing that:

[I]dentity, rather than the division of powers, that is at the source of our unity problem. Francophone Quebecers want the assurance that their language and culture can flourish with the support of other Canadians. They want to feel that their language and culture are seen by other Canadians as an important asset, rather than a burden. They want the assurance that they can be both Quebecers and Canadians, and that they don't have to choose between Quebec and Canada.[23]

In the same vein, Dion was the planner of the 1999 Social Union Framework Agreement, which, according to rabble.ca journalist Duncan Cameron, limited the national spending jurisdiction. Dion has described Quebec's Bill 101 as "a great law".[24]

Stéphane Dion addresses a crowd during the 2008 Canadian Federal Election.

On 1 February, Dion tabled a motion challenging the Conservatives to reaffirm Canada's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, attempting to capitalize on a 2002 letter in which Prime Minister Harper described the Accord as a "socialist scheme" that is based on "tentative and contradictory scientific evidence" and designed to suck money out of rich countries.[64] Tory environment minister John Baird responded by blaming the Liberals for what he described as a "shameful record over 13 years of inaction on the environment,"[64] while Stephen Harper said that his government would "stabilize emissions."[65] Dion's non-binding motion passed on 5 February.[66]

On 27 February, Dion's Liberals, together with Bloc Québécois and NDP members of Parliament, voted down a Harper government proposal to extend two controversial provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act for another three years. Dion argued that the measures — which allowed police to arrest and detain terror suspects for three days without a warrant and which allowed judges to force witnesses to testify in terror cases — "have done nothing to fight against terrorism" and "have not been helpful and have continued to create some risk for civil liberties."[67]

On 12 April 2007, Dion announced that the Liberals would not run a candidate against Green Party leader Elizabeth May in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova (then represented by Conservative Peter MacKay) in return for the Green Party leader's agreement not to run a Green candidate in Dion's riding of Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.[68] The deal was criticized by the Conservatives and the NDP (Jack Layton had rejected earlier attempts by May to cut a "backroom" deal with his party[69][70]), and also by some within the Liberal Party.[71] Dion later gave reassurance that the controversial deal was "an exceptional circumstance where Liberal voters are invited to help her [May] to win against Peter MacKay."[72]

On 8 November 2007, Dion released a policy plan, that he compared to the United Kingdom's Labour Party under former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Dion mentioned that his party will tackle poverty in Canada in order to create a "greener", "richer" and "fairer" Canada. He set up targets to reduce general poverty by 30 percent and child poverty by 50 percent as well as helping working families with work rewards as well as increasing the Canada Child Tax benefit, increasing guaranteed revenues for seniors.[73] In an editorial in the National Post, economist Alex MacMillan notes that the poverty targets Dion has set are based on a Statistics Canada measure that the statistical agency has stated is not a poverty measure (LICO), and that by using what is in effect a relative income measure rather than an absolute poverty measure, Dion is essentially aiming to flatten the income distribution of Canadians.[74] However, there is no official poverty rate for Canada that Dion could otherwise use, and some other political parties also quote LICO figures as poverty rates.[75]

The first federal by-elections contested by the Liberals under Dion's leadership took place on 18 September 2007, in three Quebec ridings: Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, Outremont and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The party's candidates were defeated by large margins in all three races. The Outremont by-election was deemed a crucial test for Dion's leadership by some pundits, as it had been held by the Liberals almost uninterruptedly since 1935.[76] Others said it was a "poor measure of where the parties really stand."[77] Dion's handpicked candidate Jocelyn Coulon, who was selected over Justin Trudeau,[78] was defeated by the NDP's Thomas Mulcair. A Dion aide blamed the Outremont by-election on several factors, including poor organization, lack of communications, and lack of a clear policy on Quebec, while former MP Jean Lapierre suggested that it was due to Dion's 14% approval rating in the province.[79] In addition, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald reported that unidentified "Dion loyalists" were accusing Michael Ignatieff supporters of undermining by-election efforts. Though Ignatieff phoned up Dion to deny the allegations, The Globe and Mail suggested that the report had a negative impact on the Liberals' morale, citing the NDP's widening lead after the article's release.[80][81][82] Undaunted, Dion declared: "From this defeat, we can learn something and work together as a united party."[83]

On 23 September 2007, Liberal Party national director Jamie Carroll sparked controversy when, during discussions about whether francophone Quebecers should be hired in order to appeal to francophone voters, he commented: "Do we also have to hire people from the Chinese community to represent the Chinese community?" Carroll argued that the comment was taken out of context, but it nevertheless raised the hackles of many Liberals in Quebec, prompting calls from MPs Pablo Rodriguez and Liza Frulla for Carroll to be fired. Stéphane Dion stood by Carroll's version of events and rejected calls for Carroll's dismissal.[84] On 10 October, a Liberal press release announced Carroll's resignation and commended him for his "loyalty to our leader and to our party".[85]

Marcel Proulx resigned as Dion's Quebec lieutenant hours before the Harper government's throne speech, taking the fall for the three by-election losses. Dion first approached Montreal MPs Denis Coderre and Pablo Rodriguez to succeed Proulx, but they declined. That evening he named Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette to the vacant post.[86] While the Party was divided on whether or not the government should be toppled on a confidence vote regarding the Throne Speech, Dion mentioned in a statement in the House of Commons on 17 October that the Liberals will support the Throne Speech but with major amendments including the Kyoto Protocol and the end of mission in Afghanistan by 2009 and had criticized the government on several aspects including the economy, seniors and child poverty, the crime policy, the Senate reform. The latter amendment proposal was rejected by the New Democratic Party who are favouring an immediate end to the mission. Dion explained the decision as that Canadians are not willing to have a third election in just over three years.[87] All Liberal members abstained from voting on the Throne Speech on 24 October 2007, which passed 126–79.[88]

Marc Garneau initially stated that he was not part of Dion's vision after being passed over for a riding nomination. Since then, Dion and Garneau have reconciled, and Garneau ran to succeed outgoing longtime MP Lucienne Robillard in Westmount—Ville-Marie.[89][90]

The Liberal Party won three of four by-elections held on 17 March 2008, as Dion's former leadership rivals Bob Rae and Martha Hall Findlay won convincing victories in Toronto Centre and Willowdale and Joyce Murray was narrowly returned for Vancouver Quadra. The Conservatives won a fourth contest in the northern Saskatchewan riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, which the Liberals had narrowly taken in the previous election. Dion declared the results a victory for his party, while also noting that some Liberal support was siphoned off to the Green Party.[91] Some journalists described the outcome as a mixed result for both the Liberal Party and Dion's leadership.[92][93]

In January 2008, Dion and Ignatieff went to Kandahar, Afghanistan to visit a provincial reconstruction team. The visit was supposed to be secret, but was leaked to the public by Conservative junior minister Helena Guergis. After his return, Dion angrily criticized Guergis' action, saying that she put him at risk for being attacked by the Taliban. In a letter to Harper, Dion demanded Guergis' resignation or firing, saying that Guergis committed a "gross breach of Canadian security" that raised doubts about her fitness for Cabinet.[94]

Dion makes a speech on 10 October 2008, in Brampton West. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, seen here standing behind Dion, was among notable Liberals at this rally.

In 2008, as part of a measure for cutting greenhouse emissions, Dion called for a carbon price. He also praised a similar measure introduced and approved by the British Columbia government in the 2008 provincial budget as well as the province of Quebec that introduced a carbon-based tax which revenues will be used for green technologies.[95] Critics from other parties as well as some Liberal MPs said that the concept would be "too confusing, expensive and politically risky".[96] Environmontal Minister John Baird stated that the plan was "made on Bay Street and is actually supported by big business and polluters". The plan received support from David Suzuki who added on CTV's Question Period that: "To oppose the carbon tax plan, it's just nonsense. It's certainly the way we got to go".[97]

In June 2008, Dion unveiled the new policy called The Green Shift (le Tournant vert) and explained that this tax shift would create an ecotax on carbon while reducing personal and corporate income taxes. He stated that the taxation on carbon would generate up to $15 billion per year in revenues to offset the reduction in income tax revenue.

The plan was immediately criticized by Prime Minister Harper, who described it as a tax grab and compared it to the National Energy Program that the federal Liberal government adopted in the 1980s.[98][99] On 11 September 2008, NDP leader Jack Layton also criticized the Green Shift, saying that it would hurt consumers, would be nothing more than a nuisance for energy producers, and evaluates emission equally across all sectors instead of maximizing reductions where the cost is lowest. Layton further noted that Dion's proposal does not set a target for reducing emissions.[100]

Green Shift Inc., a Toronto-based consulting firm, filed an $8.5 million lawsuit against the Liberal Party on 9 July 2008, citing trademark infringement. The company also sought a court injunction against the Liberal Party to stop using the name. Dion responded that the lawsuit was "deplorable" and added that the Liberals are not a commercial company and did not see any legal problems for using the term "Green Shift".[101]

Near the end of the campaign, Dion had an interview with CTV Halifax's anchor Steve Murphy, where Dion asked the host three times to restart the interview because he didn't understand the mixed tense and timing of a question about the economy: "If you were Prime Minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?" Murphy initially agreed not to air it but network executives decided to release it, generating controversy. On election night, Dion angrily refused to speak to the CTV reporters scrumming around him, saying "The last one I want to speak first [sic] is CTV - you understand that?".[102]

Dion's wife Janine Krieber also drew some controversy in the 2008 campaign. She complained that she was being muzzled by the Liberals, though party officials denied it. Reportedly, insiders had concerns that the outspoken Krieber would not stick to the party line and take the focus away from Dion. Krieber also refused at last minute to introduce Dion at a women's event because she felt that the brief speech prepared for her by campaign headquarters was undignified.[103]

The Liberals lost support on 14 October federal election, being reduced to 77 seats, down from 103 won in the 2006 election. They captured only 26.2 per cent of the popular vote — two points lower than the disastrous showing in 1984 under John Turner and only four points ahead of the party's worst ever result in 1867. Dion became the first Liberal Opposition Leader to fail to make a net gain in seats at his first election since Lester B. Pearson in 1958. Dion said that the party lost because he did not get the Liberal message out, and took responsibility saying "If people are asking why, it's because I failed."[104] Dion added that he never had a chance to establish his personal image with voters because of the Conservative ads depicting him as a "dithering egghead". Liberal veterans described Dion as a "lone wolf" who dismissed suggestions from his senior advisers to avoid using the Green Shift as an election platform. A party insider also said that Dion was reluctant to emphasize the Liberal team because he felt that he was being overshadowed by leadership rival Bob Rae.[105][106]

The Liberals and NDP reached a deal to topple the current government and form a minority coalition government, with support from the Bloc Québécois.[107] In the agreement, Dion would have been the Prime Minister (and Liberal leader) until May, when the Liberal Party would elect his successor.[108] Dion sent a letter of the plan to Governor General Michaëlle Jean, and the opposition had scheduled a non-confidence motion for 8 December 2008. To draw public support, Prime Minister Harper and Dion both addressed the nation on 3 December 2008. Dion's Liberal rebuttal, however, was considered poor in production quality and delivered late to the networks, and some believed that this had undermined support for the coalition.[109][110] On 4 December 2008, the Governor General granted Prime Minister Harper's request to suspend parliament until January 2009, thereby delaying a scheduled non-confidence vote and the likely defeat of the Conservative government.[111]

Shortly afterwards, Dion came under increasing pressure from the party to immediately step down as Liberal leader.[112] On 8 December, Dion announced that he would resign the leadership as soon as his successor was chosen amongst the members of the party. His resignation took effect on 10 December 2008, upon the selection of Michael Ignatieff as interim leader. This makes Dion the second permanent Liberal leader in Canadian history not to become Prime Minister, after Edward Blake in 1887.[113][114] On his retirement, Dion became the shortest serving non-interim leader of the Liberal Party since Confederation—serving for approximately four months less time (740 days to 855 days) of the next shortest serving leader, Paul Martin (2003–2006). Dion delivered a farewell speech on 2 May 2009, at the Liberal Party leadership convention.[115]

The Liberal Party fell to third place on 2 May 2011, in a federal election for the first time in Canadian history.[123] The party won just 19 per cent of the popular vote, down from the 26 per cent the party won under Dion, and elected only 34 MPs. The New Democratic Party formed the Official Opposition, mainly as a result of a surge in support in Quebec. Dion was one of just seven Liberal MPs re-elected in his home province, he won 43.43 per cent of the popular in his riding which was the highest vote share for a Liberal in Quebec.[124]

Following his re-election in May 2011, Dion had a much more prominent role within the Liberal caucus than he had after his resignation as leader in 2008. Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae appointed Dion as the Liberals Critic for Intergovernmental Affairs and spokesman for la Francophonie.[117] A month after the election Dion attended the NDP's federal convention as the observer for the Liberal Party, at that time he called on NDP leader not to appease separatists as a way to maintain his party's support in Quebec. He also criticized the NDPs policy that 50-per-cent-plus-one in a referendum would justify Quebec separating from Canada.[125]

Dion campaigned outside his riding for much of the 2015 federal election, visiting areas such as Sudbury, Ontario to support local candidates and attack the Conservative government's record on the environment and healthcare.[126] The 2015 election was a resounding victory for Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party, and Dion was comfortably re-elected to an eighth term representing the newly reformulated Saint-Laurent riding.[127]