Ref. Re Secession of Quebec (1998), 228 N.R. 203 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [1998] N.R. TBEd. AU.016
In The Matter Of Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26;
And In The Matter Of a Reference by the Governor In Council Concerning Certain Questions Relating to the Secession of Quebec from Canada, as set out in Order In Council P.C. 1996-1497, dated September 30, 1996.
(25506)
Indexed As: Reference Re Secession of Quebec
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé,
Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci,
Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
August 20, 1998.
Summary:
Pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497, the Governor in Council referred three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act, namely: “(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?”.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that Quebec did not have a “unilateral” right to secession. Secession by constitutional means required a “clear” majority in a “clear” referendum, which would legally obligate the federal government and the provinces to negotiate a constitutional amendment. Respecting the second question, the population of Quebec had no right recognized by international law to unilaterally secede. The right to external self-determination was inapplicable to the circumstances of the people of Quebec. Lastly, since there was no conflict between domestic law and international law respecting the right to unilateral secession, the third question need not be answered.
Constitutional Law – Topic 265
Provinces – Secession – Constitutional validity – The Supreme Court of Canada held that pursuant to the Constitution of Canada, the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec could not effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally – Secession required an amendment to the Constitution, which required the federal government and other provinces to negotiate – Secession by constitutional means required a “clear” majority – The court stated that the “results of a referendum have no direct role or legal effect in our constitutional scheme”, although democracy would demand that considerable weight be given to a “clear expression” by the people of Quebec of a will to secede – Any referendum “must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves” – The court stated that “the federalism principle, in conjunction with the democratic principle, dictates that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province would give rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to Confederation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire” – There would be no legal obligation on the provinces and federal government “to accede to the secession of a province, subject only to negotiation of the logistical details of secession” – However, “the negotiation process precipitated by a decision of a clear majority of the population of Quebec on a clear question to pursue secession would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by the representatives of two legitimate majorities, namely, the clear majority of the population of Quebec, and the clear majority of Canada as a whole” – The court discussed the effect of a refusal of a party to negotiate in accord with underlying constitutional principles – See paragraphs 32 to 105.
Constitutional Law – Topic 267
Provinces – Secession – International right of self-determination – At issue was whether international law gave the population of Quebec a right of self-determination entitling Quebec to secede from Canada unilaterally – The Supreme Court of Canada held that international law did not specifically grant or deny component parts of a sovereign state the legal right to secede unilaterally from their “parent” state – International law did recognize the right of a “people” to self-determination – However, “the international law right to self-determination only generates, at best, a right to external self-determination in situations of former colonies; where a people is oppressed, as for example under foreign military occupation; or where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development. In all three situations, the people in question are entitled to a right to external self-determination because they have been denied the ability to exert internally their right to self-determination. Such exceptional circumstances are manifestly inapplicable to Quebec under existing conditions.” – See paragraphs 108 to 146.
Constitutional Law – Topic 268
Provinces – Secession – Conflict between domestic and international law – Pursuant to s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act the following question was referred to the court: “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?” – The Supreme Court of Canada held that “there is no conflict between domestic and international law to be addressed in the context of this Reference” – See paragraph 147.
Courts – Topic 2022
Jurisdiction – Conditions precedent – Requirement of justiciable issue – Pursuant to s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act, three questions concerning the secession of Quebec were referred to the Supreme Court of Canada – A party submitted that assuming the court had jurisdiction, the questions referred were not justiciable because they were (1) too theoretical or speculative, (2) political in nature and (3) the questions were not yet ripe for judicial consideration – The Supreme Court of Canada, in rejecting the non-justiciability claim, stated that “the circumstances in which the court may decline to answer a reference question on the basis of ‘non-justiciability’ include: (i) if to do so would take the court beyond its own assessment of its proper role in the constitutional framework of our democratic form of government or (ii) if the court could not give an answer that lies within its area of expertise: the interpretation of the law” – The court stated that “the instances where the court has exercised its discretion to refuse to answer a reference question that is otherwise justiciable can be broadly divided into two categories: First where the question is too imprecise or ambiguous to permit a complete or accurate answer. … Second, where the parties had not provided sufficient information to allow the court to provide a complete or accurate answer.” – See paragraphs 24 to 31.
Courts – Topic 3044
Supreme Court of Canada – Jurisdiction – General – References – Section 53(1) of the Supreme Court Act provided, in part, that “the Governor in Council may refer to the court for hearing and consideration important questions of law or fact concerning (a) the interpretation of the Constitution Acts; … (d) the powers of the Parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the provinces, or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised” – A party respecting a reference respecting Quebec’s right to secession submitted that s. 53 was not constitutionally valid – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislative grant of reference jurisdiction found in s. 53 was constitutionally valid, where the Supreme Court, as a “general Court of Appeal”, could properly exercise an original jurisdiction and could properly undertake other legal functions such as rendering advisory opinions – See paragraphs 6 to 15.
Courts – Topic 3044
Supreme Court of Canada – Jurisdiction – General – References – Section 53(1) of the Supreme Court Act provided, in part, that “the Governor in Council may refer to the court for hearing and consideration important questions of law or fact concerning (a) the interpretation of the Constitution Acts; … (d) the powers of the Parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the provinces, or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised” – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the scope of the court’s jurisdiction on a reference under s. 53 – See paragraphs 16 to 23.
Courts – Topic 3044
Supreme Court of Canada – Jurisdiction – General – References – [See
Courts – Topic 2022
].
International Law – Topic 2005
Sovereignty – General – Right of self-determination – [See
Constitutional Law – Topic 267
].
Cases Noticed:
Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 1].
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) (1910), 43 S.C.R. 536, affd. [1912] A.C. 571 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 6].
Re References by Governor General in Council – see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General).
Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Incan Ships Ltd. v. Quebec North Shore Paper Co. and Quebec and Ontario Transportation Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054; 9 N.R. 471, refd to. [para. 7].
De Demko v. Home Secretary, [1959] A.C. 654 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].
Forest v. Registrar of Court of Appeal (Man.) (1977), 77 D.L.R.(3d) 445 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1947] A.C. 127 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 11].
Muskrat v. United States of America (1911), 219 U.S. 346 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].
Reference Re Powers of Ottawa (City) and Rockcliffe Park (Municipality) to Levy Rates on Foreign Legations and High Commissioners’ Residences, [1943] S.C.R. 208, refd to. [para. 22].
Reference Re Ownership of Offshore Mineral Rights (B.C.), [1967] S.C.R. 792, refd to. [para. 22].
Reference Re Newfoundland Continental Shelf (1984), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 86; 51 N.R. 362, refd to. [para. 22].
Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 26].
Court of Unified Criminal Jurisdiction, Re, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 704; 48 N.R. 228; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 219; 121 A.P.R. 219, refd to. [para. 30].
McEvoy v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) – see Court of Unified Criminal Jurisdiction, Re.
Reference Re Waters and Water-Powers, [1929] S.C.R. 200, refd to. [para. 30].
Reference Re Goods and Services Tax, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 445; 138 N.R. 247; 127 A.R. 161; 20 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].
Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 30].
Hirsch v. Montreal Protestant School Board, [1926] S.C.R. 246, refd to. [para. 30].
Reference Re Certain Questions Relative to the Educational System of the Island of Montreal – see Hirsch v. Montreal Protestant School Board.
Reference Re The British North America Act and the Federal Senate, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54; 30 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 30].
Senate Reference – see Reference Re The British North America Act and the Federal Senate.
Reference Re Authority of Parliament in Relation to the Upper House – see Reference Re The British North America Act and the Federal Senate.
Constitutional Amendment References (1981)(Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753; 39 N.R. 1; 11 Man.R.(2d) 1; 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 95 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 31].
Patriation Reference – see Constitutional Amendment References (1981)(Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec).
Quebec Constitutional Amendment Reference (No. 2), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793; 45 N.R. 317, refd to. [para. 32].
Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 2; 77 N.R. 321; 23 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 50].
Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 52].
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319; 146 N.R. 161; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 327 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 52].
Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455; 63 N.R. 161; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 122, refd to. [para. 53].
Maritime Bank of Canada (Liquidators) v. New Brunswick (Receiver General), [1892] A.C. 437 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 56].
Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. et al. v. Communication Workers of Canada et al. and Canada Labour Relations Board et al. (No. 2), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 733; 48 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 56].
Initiative and Referendum Act (Manitoba), Re, [1919] A.C. 935 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 58].
Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 16 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81; 77 C.R.(3d) 273; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 115; 49 C.R.R. 79, refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. S.S. – see R. v. Sheldon S.
Switman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 62].
Saumur v. Quebec (City), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 62].
Boucher v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 62].
Reference Re Alberta Accurate News and Information Act, [1938] S.C.R. 100; [1938] 2 D.L.R. 81, affd. [1938] 3 W.W.R. 337; [1939] A.C. 117; [1938] 4 D.L.R. 433; 108 L.J.P.C. 1; 159 L.T. 609; 55 T.L.R. 65, refd to. [para. 62].
Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; 127 N.R. 1; 94 Sask.R. 161; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 16, refd to. [para. 63].
Carter v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General) – see Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.).
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 64].
Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876; 201 N.R. 1; 178 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 454 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 65].
Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 70].
Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 13 C.R.R. 287; 12 Admin. L.R. 16, refd to. [para. 72].
Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148; 77 N.R. 241; 22 O.A.C. 321; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 18, refd to. [para. 79].
Education Act Amendment Act (Ont.), Reference Re – see Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding.
Reference Re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.) – see Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding.
Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l’instruction publique, L.Q. 1988, c. 84, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 511; 154 N.R. 1; 56 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 79].
Reference Re Education Act (Que.) – see Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l’instruction publique, L.Q. 1988, c. 84.
Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal v. Quebec (Procureur général) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 377; 92 N.R. 327; 20 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 79].
Alder et al. v. Ontario et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609; 204 N.R. 81; 95 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 79].
Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. et al. v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 and Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 79].
Reference Re Public Schools Act (Man.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 839; 149 N.R. 241; 83 Man.R.(2d) 241; 36 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 80].
Mahe v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 80].
R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 263; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 82].
Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 99].
Statutes Noticed:
Charter of the United Nations, Can. T.S. 1945, No. 7, art. 1(2) [para. 115].
European Community Declaration on the Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, 31 I.L.M. 1485 (1992), p. 1487 [para. 143].
Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, 14 I.L.M. 1292 (1975), Part 7 [para. 121].
Helsinki Final Act – see Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, art. 1 [para. 118].
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 1 [para. 118].
Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 53(1)(a), sect. 53(1)(d), sect. 53(2), sect. 53(3) [para. 16].
United Nations Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, GA Res. 50/6, Nov. 9, 1995, art. 1 [para. 120].
United Nations Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GA Res. 2625 (XXV), Oct. 24, 1970, generally [para. 119].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Cassesse, A., Self-determination of peoples: A legal reappraisal (1995), pp. 171, 172 [para. 114]; 334 [para. 131].
Clarke, D.S., Comparative and Private International Law: Essays in Honor of John Henry Merryman on His Seventieth Birthday (1990), p. 113 [para. 14].
de Smith, S.A., Constitutional Lawyers in Revolutionary Situations (1968), 7 West. Ont. L. Rev. 93, p. 96 [para. 144].
Doehring, K., Self-Determination, in The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (1994), pp. 60 [para. 117]; 70 [para. 114].
Favoreu, L., American and European Models of Constitutional Justice, in Comparative and Private International Law: Essays in Honor of John Henry Merryman on His Seventieth Birthday (1990), p. 113 [para. 14].
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997), p. 120 [para. 55].
Jennings, R.Y., The Acquisition of Territory in International Law (1963), pp. 8, 9 [para. 112].
MacLauchlan, H. Wade, Accounting for Democracy and the Rule of Law in the Quebec Secession Reference (1997), 76 Can. Bar Rev. 155, p. 168 [para. 42].
Pope, J., Confederation: Being a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Documents Bearing on the British North America Act (1895), p. 52 [para. 39].
Simma, B., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (1994), pp. 60 [para. 117]; 70 [para. 114].
Wade, H.W.R., The Basis of Legal Sovereignty, [1955] Camb. L.J. 172, p. 196 [para. 142].
Wheare, K.C., Federal Government (4th Ed. 1963), pp. 18 to 20 [para. 55].
Counsel:
L. Yves Fortier, Q.C., Pierre Bienvenu, Warren J. Newman, Jean-Marc Aubry, Q.C., and Mary Dawson, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Canada;
André Joli-Coeur, Michel Paradis, Louis Masson, André Binette, Clément Samson, Martin Bédard and Martin St-Amant, for the amicus curiae;
Donna J. Miller, Q.C., and Deborah L. Carlson, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Manitoba;
Graeme G. Mitchell and John D. Whyte, Q.C., for the intervenor, Attorney General for Saskatchewan;
Bernard W. Funston, for the intervenor, Minister of Justice of the Northwest Territories;
Stuart J. Whitley, Q.C., and Howard L. Kushner, for the intervenor, Minister of Justice for the Government of the Yukon Territory;
Agnès Laporte and Richard Gaudreau, for the intervenor, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg;
Claude-Armand Sheppard, Paul Joffe and Andrew Orkin, for the intervenor, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Estchee);
Peter W. Hutchins and Carol Hilling, for the intervenor, Makivik Corp.;
Michael Sherry, for the intervenor, Chiefs of Ontario;
Raj Anand and M. Kate Stephenson, for the intervenor, Minority Advocacy and Rights Council;
Mary Eberts and Anne Bayefsky, for the intervenor, Ad Hoc Committee of Canadian Women on the Constitution;
Guy Bertrand and Patrick Monahan, for the intervenor, Guy Bertrand;
Stephen A. Scott, for the intervenors, Roopnarine Singh, Keith Owen Henderson, Claude Leclerc, Kenneth O’Donnell and Van Hoven Petteway;
Vincent Pouliot, intervenor, on his own behalf.
Solicitors of Record:
George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney General of Canada;
Joli-Coeur Lacasse Lemieux Simard St-Pierre, Saint Foy, Quebec, for the amicus curiae;
Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Manitoba;
W. Brent Cotter, Regina, Saskatchewan for the intervenor, Attorney General for Saskatchewan;
Bernard W. Funston, Gloucester, Ontario, for the intervenor, Minister of Justice of the Northwest Territories;
Stuart J. Whitley, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, for the intervenor, Minister of Justice for the Government of the Yukon Territory;
Agnès Laporte, Hull, Quebec, for the intervenor, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg;
Robinson, Sheppard, Shapiro, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Estchee);
Hutchins, Soroka & Dionne, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Makivik Corp.;
Michael Sherry, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Chiefs of Ontario;
Scott & Aylen, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Minority and Advocacy Rights Council;
Eberts Symes Street & Corbett, Toronto, Ontario, and Centre for Refugee Studies, North York, Ontario, for the intervenor, Ad Hoc Committee of Canadian Women on the Constitution;
Guy Bertrand & Associés, Quebec City, Quebec, and Patrick Monahan, North York, Ontario, for the intervenor, Guy Bertrand;
Stephen A. Scott, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenors, Roopnarine Singh, Keith Owen Henderson, Claude Leclerc, Kenneth O’Donnell and Van Hoven Petteway;
Paquette & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Vincent Pouliot.
This reference was heard on February 16-19, 1998, before Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On August 20, 1998, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages by the Court.
