{"id":103,"date":"2024-12-07T03:11:25","date_gmt":"2024-12-07T03:11:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/?page_id=103"},"modified":"2024-12-07T03:24:51","modified_gmt":"2024-12-07T03:24:51","slug":"henderson-v-attorney-general-of-quebec-18-april-2018-qccs-1586-canlii-paragraphs-103-200","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/henderson-v-attorney-general-of-quebec-18-april-2018-qccs-1586-canlii-paragraphs-103-200\/","title":{"rendered":"Henderson v. Attorney General of Quebec, 18 April 2018 QCCS 1586 (CanLII) \u2014 Paragraphs 103-200"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n <\/i> Download PDF
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

HABEAS CORPUS CANADA<\/p>\n

The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union<\/p>\n

\n

QUEBEC IS BEING USED TO DISMANTLE CANADA INTO CITY-STATES IN THE NORTH AMERICAN REGION<\/p>\n

\n

Henderson<\/em> c. Procureure g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> 2018 QCCS 1586<\/p>\n

PARAGRAPHS 103-200<\/b><\/p>\n

PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS 1-103<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

\n

L’HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE,
J.C.S.<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/td>\n		\n

\n

THE HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE,
J.C.S.<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

FRENCH ORIGINAL<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NON-OFFICIAL ENGLISH<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

puissant de combattre un jour, si le d\u00e9bat se retrouve devant les tribunaux dans le contexte o\u00f9 les Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois retournent aux urnes pour y voter sur l’avenir du Qu\u00e9bec, d’o\u00f9 l’analogie juridique faite par certains avec la Loi du Talion<\/em>:  Loi pour Loi.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

powerful way to fight one day, if the debate comes to Court in the context where the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois return to the polls to vote on the future of Quebec, hence the legal analogy made by some to the Law of Talion<\/i>*<\/sup>:  a Law for a Law.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

* Note du traducteur<\/u>:  Ce n\u2019est pas vraiment une analogie \u00abl\u00e9gale\u00bb, c\u2019est une analogie biblique de l\u2019Ancien Testament, abandonn\u00e9e par le Nouveau Testament:  la loi de la vengeance, qui signifie \u00ab\u0153il pour \u0153il, dent pour dent\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

*  Translator’s note<\/u>:  This is not really a \u201clegal\u201d analogy, it’s a Biblical analogy from the Old Testament, abandoned by the New Testament:  the law of revenge, meaning \u201can eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[104]<\/b>  Le gouvernement de l’\u00e9poque voit aussi l’opportunit\u00e9 r\u00eav\u00e9e de cr\u00e9er une sorte de constitution interne qui r\u00e9affirmera plusieurs des droits et principes fondamentaux ayant toujours r\u00e9gi le peuple et les institutions d\u00e9mocratiques qu\u00e9b\u00e9coises, regroup\u00e9s dans un seul texte de loi45<\/sup><\/span>.  Une loi de cette nature se voulait aussi une mani\u00e8re plus solide de rassurer la population, advenant un d\u00e9bat sur la l\u00e9galit\u00e9 du r\u00e9sultat d’un \u00e9ventuel r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum46<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[104]<\/b>  The government of the day also saw the dreamed-of opportunity of creating a kind of internal constitution that would reaffirm many of the fundamental rights and principles that have always governed the people and the democratic institutions of Quebec, collected in a single piece of legislation.45<\/sup><\/span> A law of this nature would also be a more secure way of reassuring the population, in the event of a debate on the legality of the outcome of an eventual referendum.46<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[105]<\/b>  Malgr\u00e9 les exhortations de l’opposition \u00e0 la prudence, la d\u00e9claration solennelle n’est pas retenue.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[105]<\/b>  Despite the calls to prudence urged by the opposition, the solemn declaration was not chosen.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[106]<\/b>  La gestation de la Loi 99<\/i> d\u00e9bute donc le [sic] \u00e0 la mi-d\u00e9cembre 1999, elle se d\u00e9veloppe jusqu’au 7 d\u00e9cembre 2000, jour de son adoption47<\/sup><\/span>, et elle est promulgu\u00e9e le 28 f\u00e9vrier 200148<\/sup><\/span>, apr\u00e8s que plus de 60 m\u00e9moires aient \u00e9t\u00e9 produits \u00e0 son sujet, l’un d’entre eux \u00e9manant du requ\u00e9rant49<\/sup><\/span>, que le projet de loi ait \u00e9t\u00e9 discut\u00e9 durant quelques jours devant l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale50<\/sup><\/span>, que des personnes int\u00e9ress\u00e9es par celui-ci aient pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 leurs observations devant la Commission permanente des institutions<\/i>51<\/sup><\/span>, dont le requ\u00e9rant et son avocat52<\/sup><\/span>, et que certains des commentaires formul\u00e9s par l’opposition et diverses autres personnes aient \u00e9t\u00e9 apport\u00e9s au projet initial, afin de l’am\u00e9liorer53<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[106]<\/b>  The gestation of Bill 99<\/em> began in mid-December 1999, developing until December 7, 2000, the day of its adoption47<\/sup><\/span>; and it was promulgated on February 28, 200148<\/sup> after more than 60 submissions concerning it, one of them from the applicant49<\/sup><\/span>, with discussion of the bill for a few days before the National Assembly50<\/sup><\/span>, with submission of their observations by those interested to the Standing Committee on Institutions<\/i>51<\/sup><\/span>, including by the applicant and his counsel52<\/sup><\/span>, and with certain comments made by the opposition and various other persons having been applied to the original draft in order to improve it53<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[107]<\/b>  Lors de son passage devant la Commission des institutions<\/em>, le requ\u00e9rant demande qu’une proc\u00e9dure de Renvoi<\/em> \u00e0 la Cour d’appel soit initi\u00e9e pour v\u00e9rifier la constitutionnalit\u00e9 du projet de Loi 99<\/em>.  Sa suggestion n’est pas retenue54<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[107]<\/b>  During his appearance before the Committee on Institutions<\/em>, the applicant requested that a Reference<\/em> to the Court of Appeal be initiated to verify the constitutionality of Bill 99<\/em>.  His suggestion was not accepted.54<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[108]<\/b>  C’est donc tout ce contexte qui a fait dire au ministre Facal, le jour o\u00f9 la Loi 99<\/em> est adopt\u00e9e :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[108]<\/b>  This whole context therefore prompted Minister Facal to say, on the day when Bill 99<\/em> was passed:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Nos droits, ils existent.  Ils n’ont rien de fictifs, ils n’ont rien d’incertains, ils sont r\u00e9els.  Et ce qu’il y a de nouveau et de diff\u00e9rent, c’est simplement que, pour la premi\u00e8re fois, ils sont r\u00e9unis et formellement \u00e9nonc\u00e9s dans un texte de notre Parlement national.  En effet, ces droits puis ces pr\u00e9rogatives sont ceux — rien de plus, mais rien de moins — qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 dans le pass\u00e9 et qui sont actuellement<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Our rights exist.  They are not imaginary, they are not uncertain, they are real.  And what is new and different is simply that, for the first time, they are consolidated and formally stated in a text of our national Parliament.  In fact, these rights and these prerogatives are those — no more, but no less — that have existed in the past and are currently<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

45.<\/b>  Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i> du 25 mai 2000.<\/span><\/p>\n

46.<\/b>  Idem<\/i>, page 6186 et Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i> du 7 d\u00e9cembre 2000, page 8578.<\/span><\/p>\n

47.<\/b>  Elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 sanctionn\u00e9e le 13 d\u00e9cembre et ses versions officielles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9es en janvier 2001.  Pi\u00e8ces R1 et R-2.<\/span><\/p>\n

48.<\/b>  R-3.<\/span><\/p>\n

49.<\/b>  M\u00e9moire du requ\u00e9rant, voir pi\u00e8ce R-12.<\/span><\/p>\n

50.<\/b>  Les 3, 25 et 30 mai, les 21 novembre et 7 d\u00e9cembre 2000.<\/span><\/p>\n

51.<\/b>  Le 29 mars 2000.<\/span><\/p>\n

52.<\/b>  Le 29 mars 2000, pi\u00e8ce R-13.<\/span><\/p>\n

53.<\/b>  Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i> du 21 novembre 2000, page 7989.<\/p>\n

54.<\/b>  R-13 en fait mention.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45.<\/b>  Journal des Debats<\/i> of May 25, 2000.<\/span><\/p>\n

46.<\/b>  Idem<\/i>, page 6186 and Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i>, December 7, 2000, page 8578.<\/span><\/p>\n

47.<\/b>  It was sanctioned on December 13 and its official versions were published in January 2001.  Exhibits R1 and R-2.<\/span><\/p>\n

48.<\/b>  R-3.<\/span><\/p>\n

49.<\/b>  Applicant’s submission, see Exhibit R-12.<\/span><\/p>\n

50.<\/b>  May 3, 25 and 30, November 21 and December 7, 2000.<\/span><\/p>\n

51.<\/b>  March 29, 2000.<\/span><\/p>\n

52.<\/b>  March 29, 2000, Exhibit R-13.<\/span><\/p>\n

53.<\/b>  Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i>, November 21, 2000, page 7989.<\/span><\/p>\n

54.<\/b>  Exhibit R-13 refers to it.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

d\u00e9j\u00e0 exerc\u00e9s par le peuple et par l’\u00c9tat qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, et d\u00e9fendus aussi par tous les gouvernements, p\u00e9quistes comme lib\u00e9raux, avant nous.\u00bb55<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

exercised by the people and by the Quebec State, and have also been defended by all governments before us, P\u00e9quistes and Liberals alike55<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[109]<\/b>  L’adoption de cette loi donne lieu \u00e0 un v\u00e9ritable raz de mar\u00e9e politique, tous y allant de leurs supputations pessimistes sur le temps requis pour qu’elle soit d\u00e9clar\u00e9e inconstitutionnelle, histoire de ralentir les ardeurs des souverainistes et de rassurer les f\u00e9d\u00e9ralistes.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[109]<\/b>  The adoption of this law gave rise to a real political tidal wave, everyone riding it with their pessimistic speculations as to how long it would take to declare it unconstitutional; a story of the likes to dampen the ardor of the sovereignists and reassure the federalists.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[110]<\/b>  Trois mois plus tard, le 9 mai 2001, le v\u0153u de certains est exauc\u00e9, car le requ\u00e9rant, un r\u00e9sidant du Qu\u00e9bec qui se trouve aussi \u00eatre alors le chef du Parti \u00e9galit\u00e956<\/sup><\/span>, de m\u00eame que le Parti \u00e9galit\u00e9, d\u00e9posent ensemble un recours en jugement d\u00e9claratoire57<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[110]<\/b>  Three months later, on May 9, 2001, some had their wish granted, because the applicant, a resident of Quebec who was also then the leader of the Equality Party,56<\/sup><\/span> as well as the Equality Party, together instituted a motion for a declaratory judgment57<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[111]<\/b>  Dans celui-ci, ils demandent \u00e0 la Cour sup\u00e9rieure d’exercer son pouvoir de surveillance en d\u00e9clarant que les articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 et 13 de la Loi 99<\/em> sont nuls et ultra vires<\/em> des pouvoirs du gouvernement qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, au motif, entre autres, qu’ils violent les Lois constitutionnelles<\/em><\/a>, ainsi que la Charte des droits et libert\u00e9s<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[111]<\/b>  In it, they ask the Superior Court to exercise its supervisory power by declaring that sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 13 of Bill 99<\/em> are void and ultra vires<\/em> the powers of the Quebec government, on the ground, among others, that they violate the Constitutional Acts<\/em><\/a> and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[112]<\/b>  En ce faisant, Henderson cherche \u00e0 prot\u00e9ger les droits qui lui sont d\u00e9volus \u00e0 titre de citoyen canadien, qu’il a peur de perdre si la Loi 99<\/em> permet aux institutions gouvernant le Qu\u00e9bec de proclamer la s\u00e9cession de mani\u00e8re unilat\u00e9rale sans passer par les proc\u00e9dures d’amendements pr\u00e9vues \u00e0 la Constitution<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[112]<\/b>  In so doing, Henderson sought to protect his rights as a Canadian citizen, which he is afraid to lose if Bill 99<\/i> allows the institutions governing Quebec to proclaim secession unilaterally without first utilizing the amending procedures provided in the Constitution<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[113]<\/b>  Le citoyen Henderson n’en \u00e9tant pas \u00e0 sa premi\u00e8re implication du genre, ayant d\u00e9but\u00e9 ses qu\u00eates constitutionnelles en 1995 dans un autre d\u00e9bat juridique portant sur le m\u00eame th\u00e8me, de m\u00eame que dans le cadre du Renvoi sur la s\u00e9cession<\/em><\/a>, en 199658<\/sup><\/span>, il \u00e9tait donc tout d\u00e9sign\u00e9 pour porter le ballon de l’inconstitutionnalit\u00e9 all\u00e9gu\u00e9e de certains des articles de la Loi 99<\/em> devant la Cour sup\u00e9rieure du Qu\u00e9bec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[113]<\/b>  This is not Citizen Henderson\u2019s first involvement of its kind, his having begun his constitutional quests in 1995 in another legal debate on the same theme, as well as in the Secession Reference<\/em><\/a> in 199658<\/sup><\/span>; he was therefore perfectly suited to carry the ball of the alleged unconstitutionality of some of the sections of Bill 99<\/em> to Quebec Superior Court.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2.2<\/b>  CHRONOLOGIE DU RECOURS
INTENTE<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.2<\/b>  CHRONOLOGY OF THE ACTION
BROUGHT<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[114]<\/b>  Si le dossier des requ\u00e9rants Henderson et du Parti \u00e9galit\u00e9 d\u00e9bute sur les chapeaux de roues, il subit un ralentissement important d’une dur\u00e9e de six ans, le temps que la Cour d’appel infirme un premier jugement rendu par notre Cour, qui a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 le recours irrecevable pour d\u00e9faut d’int\u00e9r\u00eat juridique des requ\u00e9rants de l’\u00e9poque, \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re de ce que contenait la demande originale59<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[114]<\/b>  If the file of applicants Henderson and the Equality Party got off to a flying start, it suffered a major six-year slowdown, as the Court of Appeal reversed an initial judgment of this Court, which had declared the recourse inadmissible for want of legal interest of the applicants at the time, in light of the contents of the original application59<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

55.<\/b>  Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i> du 7 d\u00e9cembre 2000, page 8582 et aussi celui du 21 novembre 2000, page 7989.<\/span><\/p>\n

56.<\/b>  Il l’a \u00e9t\u00e9 de 1992 \u00e0 2012.<\/span><\/p>\n

57.<\/b>  Sous l’ancien article 453 C.p.c.<\/span><\/p>\n

58.<\/b>  Voir entre autres les pi\u00e8ces R-10, R-11, de m\u00eame que les paragraphes 17, 20, 45-57 de l’arr\u00eat de la Cour d’appel du 30 ao\u00fbt 2007 sur le sujet 2007 QCCA 1138<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

59.<\/b>  Voir Henderson<\/i> c. Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/i>)<\/u><\/a>, pr\u00e9c., note 23, par. 58.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

55.<\/b>  Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i>, December 7, 2000, page 8582 and also November 21, 2000, page 7989.<\/span><\/p>\n

56.<\/b>  That was from 1992 to 2012.<\/span><\/p>\n

57.<\/b>  Under former Section 453, CCP.<\/span><\/p>\n

58.<\/b>  See, among others, exhibits R-10 and R-11, as well as paragraphs 17, 20, 45-57 of the Court of Appeal’s August 30, 2007 decision on the subject, 2007 QCCA 1138 (CanLII)<\/u>.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

59.<\/b>  See Henderson<\/i> v. Quebec<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>)<\/u><\/a>, supra<\/i> note 23 at para. 58.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[115]<\/b>  \u00c0 l’issue de ce premier p\u00e9riple \u00e0 la Cour d’appel, qui se termine par un jugement dat\u00e9 du 30 ao\u00fbt 2007, le Parti \u00e9galit\u00e9 est renvoy\u00e9 chez lui et le requ\u00e9rant Henderson s’en sort avec quelques \u00e9corchures.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[115]<\/b>  At the conclusion of this first trip to the Court of Appeal, which ends with a judgment dated August 30, 2007, the Equality Party was sent home and Applicant Henderson got off with a few minor scrapes.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[116]<\/b>  En effet, la Cour d’appel fait subir une purge importante aux conclusions de l’acte de proc\u00e9dure initialement d\u00e9pos\u00e960<\/sup><\/span>, apr\u00e8s avoir conclu que plusieurs tiennent \u00ab de la p\u00e9tition de principe, de la conjecture ou ont fait l’objet de d\u00e9cisions de la Cour supr\u00eame, ne serait-ce que dans le Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> (…)<\/a>\u00bb61<\/sup><\/span>.  Les six conclusions originales que recherchait Henderson sont alors r\u00e9duites \u00e0 deux, l’une d’elles \u00e9tant m\u00eame reformul\u00e9e par la Cour, afin de s’assurer que la partie non justiciable qu’elle contient soit d\u00fbment \u00e9vacu\u00e9e du dossier.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[116]<\/b>  In fact, the Court of Appeal subjected the pleadings in the original procedure to a major purge60<\/sup>, having concluded that a number of these were \u201cbegging the question, conjectural or were the subject of decisions of the Supreme Court, if only in the Reference re Secession of Quebec<\/a> (\u2026)<\/i>\u201d.61<\/sup><\/span>.  The original six conclusions sought by Henderson were thus reduced to two, one of which was even reformulated by the Court to ensure that the non-justiciable part it contained was duly removed from the record.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[117]<\/b>  Le dossier reprend donc son cours devant la Cour sup\u00e9rieure, mais uniquement avec les conclusions suivantes :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[117]<\/b>  The file therefore resumed its path before the Superior Court, but solely with the following conclusions:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(1) DECLARE that sections I, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 13 of the Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Qu\u00e9bec people and the Qu\u00e9bec State and la Loi sur l’exercice des droits fondamentaux et des pr\u00e9rogatives du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois et de l’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em>, being Bill 99 of the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Legislature of Quebec, adopted on December 7, 2000 and assented to on December 13, 2000 and being chapter 46 of the Statutes of Quebec for 2000, are ultra vires, absolutely null and void, and of no force or effect;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1) DECLARE that sections I, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 13 of the Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Qu\u00e9bec people and the Qu\u00e9bec State and la Loi sur l’exercice des droits fondamentaux et des pr\u00e9rogatives du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois et de l’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em>, being Bill 99 of the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Legislature of Quebec, adopted on December 7, 2000 and assented to on December 13, 2000 and being chapter 46 of the Statutes of Quebec for 2000, are ultra vires, absolutely null and void, and of no force or effect;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(4) DECLARE that sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 13 of the said Act purporting to confer the authority to establish Quebec as a sovereign state, or otherwise to alter the political regime and legal status of Quebec as a province of Canada, constitutes an infringement and denial of Petitioners’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is accordingly unlawful, invalid, and of no force or effect;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(4) DECLARE that sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 13 of the said Act purporting to confer the authority to establish Quebec as a sovereign state, or otherwise to alter the political regime and legal status of Quebec as a province of Canada, constitutes an infringement and denial of Petitioners’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is accordingly unlawful, invalid, and of no force or effect;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[118]<\/b>  Maintenant, il nous faut dire un mot sur les parties au litige et les raisons qui expliquent leur pr\u00e9sence au dossier.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[118]<\/b>  Now, we should say a word to say about the parties to the dispute and the reasons for their presence on the record.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[119]<\/b>  Puisqu’il conteste une loi qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise, le recours n’est intent\u00e9 que contre le Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Qu\u00e9bec62<\/sup><\/span>, ce dernier \u00e9tant la personne d\u00e9sign\u00e9e pour repr\u00e9senter l’\u00e9tat qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois lors de telles contestations.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[119]<\/b>  Since a Quebec law is under challenge, the action is brought solely against the Attorney General of Quebec62<\/sup><\/span>, the latter being the person designated to represent the Quebec State in such disputes.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[120]<\/b>  Le Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Canada est le premier \u00e0 s’inviter au d\u00e9bat, vu la nature de celui-ci et sa port\u00e9e; il le fait par le d\u00e9p\u00f4t d’une intervention volontaire, plus de 12 ans apr\u00e8s le d\u00e9p\u00f4t du recours, soit le 16 octobre 2013.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[120]<\/b>  The Attorney General of Canada63<\/sup><\/span> was the first to join the debate, which was done, given the nature and scope of the debate, by filing a voluntary intervention more than 12 years after filing of the recourse, i.e., on October 16, 2013.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

60.<\/b>  Id<\/i>., par. 74-84.<\/span><\/p>\n

61.<\/b>  Id.<\/i>, par. 85, 86, 89<\/span><\/p>\n

62.<\/b>  Ci-apr\u00e8s le \u00abPGQ\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n

63.<\/b>  Ci-apr\u00e8s le \u00abPGC\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

60.<\/b>  Ibid.<\/i>, paras. 74-84.<\/span><\/p>\n

61.<\/b>  Ibid<\/i>., paras. 85, 86, 89.<\/span><\/p>\n

62.<\/b>  Hereinafter the \u201cAGQ\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

63.<\/b>  Hereinafter the \u201cAGC\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[121]<\/b>  Cette intervention judiciaire n’est pas bien re\u00e7ue par l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale, qui y r\u00e9agit imm\u00e9diatement en votant une motion unanime reprenant les principes fondamentaux que l’on retrouve dans la Loi 99<\/em>, en guise de d\u00e9nonciation contre cette nouvelle \u00abintrusion\u00bb64<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[121]<\/b>  This legal intervention was not well received by the National Assembly, which reacted immediately by voting a unanimous motion reiterating the fundamental principles found in Bill 99<\/em>, to denounce this new \u201cintrusion\u201d.64<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[122]<\/b>  La Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montr\u00e9al65<\/sup><\/span> est la derni\u00e8re \u00e0 intervenir, trois ans plus tard, le 26 ao\u00fbt 2016, apr\u00e8s avoir demand\u00e9 la permission pour ce faire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[122]<\/b>  The Saint-Jean-Baptiste<\/em> Society of Montreal65<\/sup><\/span> was the last to intervene, three years later, on August 26, 2016, having sought permission to do so.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[123]<\/b>  Comme le Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Canada s\u2019oppose \u00e0 cette intervention, la juge Chantal Corriveau, de notre Cour, tranche le d\u00e9bat et refuse \u00e0 la SSJBM d\u2019intervenir.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[123]<\/b>  As the Attorney General of Canada objected to this intervention, Judge Chantal Corriveau of this Court decided the case and refused to allow the SSJBM to intervene.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[124]<\/b>  Cette d\u00e9cision donne lieu \u00e0 la deuxi\u00e8me visite du groupe \u00e0 la Cour d\u2019appel, \u00e0 l\u2019issue de laquelle la SSJBM est autoris\u00e9e \u00e0 intervenir, le 27 janvier 2017, mais selon des param\u00e8tres particuliers.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[124]<\/b>  This decision prompted the second visit of the group to the Court of Appeal, which resulted in authorization of the SSJBM to intervene on January 27, 2017, but within certain parameters.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[125]<\/b>  \u00c9tant donn\u00e9 que cet organisme se bat depuis des lunes pour la protection et la d\u00e9fense des int\u00e9r\u00eats du \u00ab peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois \u00bb, la Cour d\u2019appel juge qu\u2019elle a l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat requis pour apporter un \u00e9clairage compl\u00e9mentaire sur les questions d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat public qui seront d\u00e9battues devant la Cour sup\u00e9rieure, deux mois plus tard66<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[125]<\/b>  Given that this organization has fought for ages for the protection and defense of the interests of the \u201cQu\u00e9b\u00e9cois people\u201d, the Court of Appeal considered that it had the interest required to shed additional light on matters of public interest to be debated at Superior Court two months later66<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[126]<\/b>  Tout comme elle l\u2019a fait pour la requ\u00eate de M. Henderson, la Cour d\u2019appel limite les motifs sur lesquels la SSJBM est autoris\u00e9e \u00e0 intervenir aux seules questions constitutionnelles red\u00e9finies dans l\u2019arr\u00eat rendu en 200767<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[126]<\/b>  As was the case with Mr. Henderson’s motion, the Court of Appeal limited the grounds on which the SSJBM was authorized to intervene to just those constitutional questions redefined in the decision of 2007.67<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[127]<\/b>  Et puisque le droit international public ne fait pas partie du d\u00e9bat, tel que circonscrit entre les autres parties au litige, la Cour n\u2019accorde pas \u00e0 la SSJBM la permission de soulever des arguments sur ce sujet.  Elle ne l\u2019autorise \u00e9galement pas \u00e0 d\u00e9poser de la preuve nouvelle.68<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[127]<\/b>  And since public international law is not part of the debate, as circumscribed among the other parties to the dispute, the Court did not grant the SSJBM leave to raise arguments on that issue.  It also did not authorize it to introduce new evidence68<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[128]<\/b>  Ces modifications justifient le d\u00e9p\u00f4t d\u2019un nouvel acte d\u2019intervention \u00e9pur\u00e9, pour donner suite \u00e0 cette deuxi\u00e8me d\u00e9cision de la Cour d\u2019appel69<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[128]<\/b>  These modifications justified filing a new procedure tidied up to implement this second decision of the Court of Appeal.69<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[129]<\/b>  Maintenant que le tableau est bross\u00e9 quant \u00e0 de nombreux \u00e9l\u00e9ments permettant d\u2019identifier le caract\u00e8re v\u00e9ritable de la Loi 99<\/em> et que nous avons une meilleure id\u00e9e de qui fait quoi dans cette histoire, il est temps de pr\u00e9ciser \u00e0 quelles questions tout ce beau monde nous demande de r\u00e9pondre, et de pr\u00e9senter les arguments soumis par chacun pour \u00e9toffer le bien-fond\u00e9 de sa position respective, lesquels qui nous permettront ensuite de trancher le d\u00e9bat.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[129]<\/b>  Now that a picture has been painted of numerous elements permitting the true character of Bill 99<\/em> to be identified, and we have a better idea of who is doing what in this story, it is time to clarify the questions to which all these fine people seek an answer, and to present the arguments put forward by each of them to round out the merits of their respective positions, which will then allow us to decide the debate.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

64.<\/b>  Pi\u00e8ce R-25.<\/span><\/p>\n

65.<\/b>  Ci-apr\u00e8s la \u00abSSJBM&\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n

66.<\/b>  Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 St-Jean-Baptiste de Montr\u00e9al<\/i> c. Henderson<\/i>, 2017 QCCA 179<\/u><\/a>, par. 13 et 21.<\/span><\/p>\n

67.<\/b>  Henderson<\/i> c. <\/i>Qu\u00e9bec (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral)<\/i>, 2007 QCCA 1138<\/u><\/a>, par. 28.<\/span><\/p>\n

68.<\/b>  Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 St-Jean-Baptiste de Montr\u00e9al<\/i> c. Henderson<\/i>, 2017 QCCA 179<\/u><\/a>, par. 21, 22, 28 et 30.<\/span><\/p>\n

69.<\/b>  Voir requ\u00eate re-modifi\u00e9e du 9 mars 2017.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

64.<\/b>  Exhibit R-25.<\/span><\/p>\n

65.<\/b>  Hereinafter the “SSJBM”.<\/span><\/p>\n

66.<\/b>  Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 St-Jean-Baptiste de Montr\u00e9al<\/i> c. Henderson<\/i>, 2017 QCCA 179 (CanLII)<\/u><\/a>, at paras. 13 and 21.<\/span><\/p>\n

67.<\/b>  Henderson<\/i> c. Quebec<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>), 2007 QCCA 1138 (CanLII)<\/u><\/a>, at para. 28.<\/span><\/p>\n

68.<\/b>  Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 St-Jean-Baptiste de Montr\u00e9al<\/i> c. Henderson<\/i>, 2017 QCCA 179 (CanLII)<\/u><\/a>, at paras. 21, 22, 28 and 30.<\/span><\/p>\n

69.<\/b>  See re-amended motion of March 9, 2017.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3.<\/b>  LES QUESTIONS<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.<\/b>  THE QUESTIONS<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[130]<\/b>  Les questions qui se posent pour disposer des conclusions du recours en jugement d\u00e9claratoire du requ\u00e9rant se r\u00e9sument ainsi :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[130]<\/b>  The questions which arise in disposing of the conclusions to the applicant’s motion for a declaratory judgment are as follows:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1\u00b0  Les articles 1 \u00e0 5(1) et 13 de la Loi sur l’exercice des droits fondamentaux et des pr\u00e9rogatives du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois et de l’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> (Loi 99<\/em>) respectent-ils les Lois constitutionnelles<\/em> et la Charte des droits et libert\u00e9s<\/em>?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1\u00b0  Do sections 1 to 5(1) and 13 of the Act Respecting the Exercise of the Fundamental Rights and Prerogatives of the Quebec People and the State of Quebec<\/em> (Bill 99<\/em>) respect the Constitutional Acts<\/em> and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em>?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2\u00b0  Le requ\u00e9rant a-t-il le droit d’obtenir un rem\u00e8de constitutionnel de la nature d’un jugement d\u00e9claratoire confirmant que la Loi 99 n’est pas conforme aux Lois constitutionnelles et \u00e0 la Charte des droits et libert\u00e9s?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2\u00b0  Is the applicant entitled to a constitutional remedy in the nature of a declaration that Bill 99<\/em> is not in compliance with the Constitution Acts<\/em> and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[131]<\/b>  Dans son intervention amicale, la SSJBM ajoute les questions suivantes, qu’elle qualifie \u00abde droit nouveau\u00bb:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[131]<\/b>  In its friendly intervention, the SSJBM adds the following questions, which it describes as \u201cnew law\u201d:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

43.<\/b> (…):<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

43.<\/b> (…):<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

a)<\/b> en promulguant la Loi 99, notamment ses articles 1 \u00e0 3 et 13, le Qu\u00e9bec pouvait-il cristalliser en droit le statut de peuple<\/em> reconnu par la Loi et dans les faits \u00e0 la population du Qu\u00e9bec, avec les droits fondamentaux \u00e0 l’autod\u00e9termination qui s’y rattachent, y compris son droit de choisir le r\u00e9gime politique et le statut juridique du Qu\u00e9bec et de d\u00e9terminer seul, par l’interm\u00e9diaire des institutions qui lui appartiennent en propre, les modalit\u00e9s d’exercice de ce droit ?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

a)<\/b> by enacting Bill 99<\/em>, in particular sections 1 to 3 and 13 thereof, could Quebec crystallize in law the status of a people<\/em> recognized by the Law and de facto<\/i> to the population of Quebec, with the fundamental rights to self-determination attached thereto, including its right to choose the political regime and the legal status of Quebec and to determine alone, through its own institutions, the manner in which this right is exercised?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

b)<\/b> en promulguant la Loi 99<\/em>, notamment ses articles 3 et 13, le Qu\u00e9bec pouvait-il l\u00e9gif\u00e9rer sur son droit de chercher<\/em> \u00e0 r\u00e9aliser la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> ; pouvait-il ainsi d\u00e9terminer et clarifier les modalit\u00e9s d’exercice de ce droit;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

b)<\/b> by enacting Bill 99<\/em>, in particular sections 3 and 13, could Quebec legislate upon its right to seek<\/em> to achieve the secession of Quebec<\/em>; could it thus determine and clarify the conditions for the exercise of this right;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

c)<\/b> (…)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

c)<\/b> (…)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

d)<\/b> l’article 4 de la Loi 99<\/em> rel\u00e8ve-t-il de la Constitution du Qu\u00e9bec eu \u00e9gard aux pr\u00e9rogatives du Parlement du Qu\u00e9bec d\u00e9coulant du droit public de p\u00e9tition, reconnu notamment par le Bill of Rights<\/em> (1689) et pr\u00e9vu express\u00e9ment par la Charte qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise des droits et libert\u00e9s de la personne<\/em> (RLRQ, chap. C-12) ; tel droit s’\u00e9tend-il aux consultations populaires sur le statut politique du Qu\u00e9bec et le Qu\u00e9bec d\u00e9tient-il le pouvoir exclusif d’en d\u00e9terminer et clarifier les modalit\u00e9s ?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

d)<\/b> does section 4 of Bill 99<\/em> fall within the Quebec Constitution with respect to the prerogatives of the Quebec Parliament arising from the public right of petition, recognized in particular by the Bill of Rights<\/em> (1689) and expressly provided for by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms<\/em><\/a> (CQLR, chapter C-12); Does this right extend to popular consultations on Quebec’s political status, and does Quebec have the exclusive power to determine and clarify the terms and conditions?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

e)<\/b> l’article 4 de la Loi 99<\/em> donne-t-il validement effet \u00e0 l’exigence qualitative de clart\u00e9 formul\u00e9e par la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada dans son avis sur le Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> ?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

e)<\/b> does section 4 of Bill 99<\/em> validly give effect to the qualitative requirement of clarity formulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in its opinion on the Reference re (the) Secession of Quebec<\/em>?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4.<\/b>  LA POSITION DES PARTIES<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

4.<\/b>  THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

4.1<\/b>  POSITION DU REQU\u00c9RANT HENDERSON<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

4.1<\/b>  POSITION OF APPLICANT HENDERSON<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[132]<\/b>  \u00c0 l’audience, le requ\u00e9rant retire sa demande au sujet du deuxi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a de l’article 5, dont il ne conteste plus la constitutionnalit\u00e9.  Nous prenons donc note de cette demande et ne prononcerons aucun jugement d\u00e9clarant l’inconstitutionnalit\u00e9 de cet alin\u00e9a70<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[132]<\/b>  At the hearing, the applicant withdrew his claim concerning the second paragraph of section 5, whose constitutionality he no longer challenges.  We therefore take note of this and will not pronounce judgment as to the unconstitutionality of this paragraph.70<\/sup><\/span>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[133]<\/b>  Le requ\u00e9rant reconna\u00eet que la Loi 99<\/em> a \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9e en r\u00e9plique \u00e0 la Loi C-20<\/em> et que cette derni\u00e8re a suivi de pr\u00e8s l\u2019Avis consultatif<\/em> \u00e9mis par la Cour supr\u00eame, en 1998.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[133]<\/b>  The applicant acknowledged that Bill 99<\/em> was enacted in response to Bill C-20<\/em> and that Bill C-20<\/em> followed shortly after the Advisory Opinion<\/em> issued by the Supreme Court in 1998.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[134]<\/b>  Lors de sa comparution devant l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale, il reconna\u00eet que le Renvoi<\/em> de 1998 n’est pas un jugement, \u00e0 proprement parler, mais qu’il est plut\u00f4t un Avis consultatif<\/em> 71<\/sup>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[134]<\/b>  When he appeared before the National Assembly, he acknowledged that the 1998 Reference<\/em> is not a judgment, strictly speaking, but rather an Advisory Opinion<\/em>. 71<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[135]<\/b>  Pour ce qui est du m\u00e9rite de son argumentation, comme la Cour d’appel en a fait un bon r\u00e9sum\u00e9 lorsque le dossier lui a \u00e9t\u00e9 soumis, en 2007, pourquoi alors nous priver du fruit de son analyse, d’autant plus que notre jugement lui sera vraisemblablement soumis, pour la deuxi\u00e8me partie de la traditionnelle joute constitutionnelle qui en comporte trois.  Cela simplifiera donc sa t\u00e2che.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[135]<\/b>  As for the merits of his argument, since the Court of Appeal gave a good summary of it when the file was submitted to it in 2007, why deprive ourselves of the fruit of its analysis, in particular as our judgment will likely be submitted to it in part two of the traditional three-part constitutional joust.  This will therefore simplify its task.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[136]<\/b>  Pour la Cour d’appel, le requ\u00e9rant invoque :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[136]<\/b>  According to the Court of Appeal, the applicant is relying on:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

[66]<\/b>  (…) la primaut\u00e9 de la constitution canadienne (Art. 52(1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<\/em>, annexe B de la Loi de<\/em> 1982 sur le Canada (1982, R.-U., c.11<\/a>, (Loi de 1982) et, par ailleurs, l’absence de comp\u00e9tence de l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale pour modifier unilat\u00e9ralement la constitution (Art. 45 a contrario<\/em> de la m\u00eame loi).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

[66]<\/b>  (…) the supremacy of the Canadian Constitution (Section 52 (1) of the Constitution Act<\/em>, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (1982, UK, c.11<\/a>, the (1982 Act<\/em>)) and, moreover, the lack of competence of the National Assembly to unilaterally amend the Constitution (Section 45 of the same law a contrario<\/em>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

[67]<\/b>  (…) que les articles 2 et 3 de la Loi<\/em> affirment l’existence d’un pouvoir unilat\u00e9ral de s\u00e9cession du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, contredisant en cela l’article 52 de la Loi de 1982 et les formules de modification \u00e0 la Constitution canadienne. Selon lui, l’article 5 de la Loi contredit l’article 52 de la Loi de 1982 et exc\u00e8de les pouvoirs conf\u00e9r\u00e9s aux provinces en vertu de l’article 45 de la m\u00eame loi. Quant \u00e0 l’article 13 de la Loi, l’appelant le d\u00e9crit comme une limitation, voire une n\u00e9gation, des pouvoirs du gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral, exc\u00e9dant en cela l’article 45 de la Loi de 1982 et contredisant, selon lui, la partie V de la m\u00eame loi.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

[67]<\/b>  (…) that sections 2 and 3 of the Law<\/em> affirm the existence of a unilateral power of secession of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois people, contradicting in this respect section 52 of the 1982 Act and the Canadian constitutional amending formulae.  In his view, section 5 of the Law contradicts section 52 of the 1982 Act and exceeds the powers conferred on the provinces by section 45 of the same Act.  As to section 13 of the Act, the appellant describes it as a limitation, or even a negation, of the powers of the federal government, exceeding section 45 of the 1982 Act and contradicting, in his view, Part V of the same law.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

[68]<\/b>  Il propose essentiellement le m\u00eame argument concernant l’article 1 de la Loi que pour l’article 13, en situant son argument juridique en fonction de certains propos tenus par la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada dans le Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em><\/a>, pr\u00e9cit\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

[68]<\/b>  He essentially proposes the same argument for section 1 of the Act as for section 13, basing his legal argument on certain remarks made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Reference re Secession of Quebec<\/em><\/a>, supra<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

70.<\/b>  Voir proc\u00e8s-verbal d’audience du 20 mars 2017, 15 h 51.<\/span><\/p>\n

71.<\/b>  Voir R-13, pages 13 et 15, o\u00f9 il utilise \u00e0 5 reprises le mot \u00abopinion\u00bb plut\u00f4t que \u00abjugement\u00bb r\u00e9f\u00e9rant \u00e0 l\u2019Avis consultatif<\/em><\/u><\/a> de 1998.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

70.<\/b>  See Minutes of the hearing of March 20, 2017, 3:51 PM.<\/span><\/p>\n

71.<\/b>  See Exhibit R-13, pages 13 and 15, where he uses the word \u201copinion\u201d 5 times rather than \u201cjudgment\u201d in referring to the 1998 Advisory Opinion<\/em><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

[69]<\/b>  Enfin, l’appelant soutient que l’article 4 de la Loi, pris isol\u00e9ment, pourrait \u00eatre valide, mais que sa validit\u00e9 est entach\u00e9e par le fait d’\u00eatre reli\u00e9 aux autres articles contest\u00e9s de la Loi.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

[69]<\/b>  Lastly, the appellant submits that section 4 of the Act, taken in isolation, may be valid, but its validity is tainted by its connection to the other contested sections of the Act.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

[70]<\/b>  \u00c0 l’\u00e9vidence, l’essentiel de la demande tient \u00e0 la conclusion recherchant une d\u00e9claration de nullit\u00e9 et d’ill\u00e9galit\u00e9 des dispositions attaqu\u00e9es et \u00e0 celle recherchant une d\u00e9claration selon laquelle les dispositions constituent une violation des droits prot\u00e9g\u00e9s par la Charte canadienne des droits et libert\u00e9s<\/em><\/u>72<\/sup><\/span>. (….)<\/p>\n

(Notre soulignement<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

[70]<\/b>  It is clear that the essence of the claim lies in the conclusion seeking a declaration of nullity and illegality of the impugned provisions and a declaration that the provisions constitute a violation of rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em><\/u>.72<\/sup><\/span> (….)<\/p>\n

(Our underline<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[137]<\/b>  \u00c0 la suite de l’audition que nous avons pr\u00e9sid\u00e9e, nous comprenons que le requ\u00e9rant craint que le maintien des dispositions contest\u00e9es puisse un jour permette au Qu\u00e9bec de se s\u00e9parer du Canada sans respecter les modalit\u00e9s prescrites par la Cour supr\u00eame dans l’Avis consultatif<\/em><\/a> de 1998, si ce n’est pas d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait, ce qui signifie sans \u00eatre oblig\u00e9 de n\u00e9gocier au pr\u00e9alable les conditions de son retrait.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[137]<\/b>  Following the hearing at which we presided, we understand that the applicant fears that preservation of the impugned provisions might one day allow Quebec to separate from Canada without respecting the terms prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Advisory Opinion<\/i><\/a> of 1998, if this had not already happened, meaning, without first having to negotiate the conditions for its withdrawal.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[138]<\/b>  Selon lui, \u00e0 leur face m\u00eame, les mots utilis\u00e9s, l’intention verbalis\u00e9e par les parlementaires lors des d\u00e9bats, ainsi que le reste de la preuve extrins\u00e8que supportent l’hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle le gouvernement qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois pourrait un jour brandir la Loi 99<\/em> pour proclamer sa souverainet\u00e9 et se d\u00e9clarer comme \u00c9tat ind\u00e9pendant du Canada, comme cela, sans fa\u00e7on, tout simplement, et sans plus.  La population du Qu\u00e9bec et le reste du Canada risquent donc de se retrouver un jour devant le fait accompli si c’est l\u00e0 ce que permettent les articles contest\u00e9s de la Loi 99<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[138]<\/b>  In his view, on their very face, the words used, the intention verbalized by the parliamentarians during the debates, as well as the rest of the extrinsic evidence, support the hypothesis that the Quebec government could one day wave Bill 99<\/i> to proclaim its sovereignty and declare itself a State independent of Canada, just like that, free and easy, quite simply, and without further ado.  The people of Quebec and the rest of Canada therefore risk being faced with a fait accompli<\/i>, if that is what the impugned sections of Bill 99<\/i> permit.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[139]<\/b>  Pour \u00e9toffer cette th\u00e8se, il d\u00e9pose les programmes et plateformes du Parti qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, dont le contenu est des plus explicites sur les r\u00e9elles intentions du gouvernement qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, selon lui73<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[139]<\/b>  To support this thesis, he tabled the programs and platforms of the Parti Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, the content of which, in his view, is most explicit about the real intentions of the Quebec government73<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

72.<\/b>  Henderson<\/em> c. Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/em>), 2007 QCCA 1138<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

73.<\/b>  R-15. \u00c0 la page 55 de cette pi\u00e8ce, le programme de 1996, diffus\u00e9 en 1997, pr\u00e9cise que le Parti a comme objectif fondamental de r\u00e9aliser la souverainet\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec \u00abde fa\u00e7on d\u00e9mocratique\u00bb.  L’on y pr\u00e9voit aussi la mani\u00e8re dont cela se fera :  par r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum \u00abet sur le d\u00e9p\u00f4t d’une offre de partenariat avec le Canada\u00bb.  Il est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 \u00abadvenant une r\u00e9ponse favorable, l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale aura, d’une part, le mandat de proclamer la souverainet\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec et le gouvernement du Qu\u00e9bec sera tenu, d’autre part, d’offrir au Canada un nouveau partenariat \u00e9conomique et politique.  La Proclamation de la souverainet\u00e9 sera faite d\u00e8s que le trait\u00e9 de Partenariat aura \u00e9t\u00e9 approuv\u00e9 par l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale ou d\u00e8s que cette derni\u00e8re aura constat\u00e9 que les n\u00e9gociations sont infructueuses<\/u>.  Ces n\u00e9gociations ne dureront pas plus d’un an, sauf si l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale en d\u00e9cide autrement.\u00bb  Partout, il y est question d’offrir un partenariat au Canada et non de simplement battre pavillon seul apr\u00e8s un r\u00e9sultat favorable \u00e0 un r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum (page 58) dans le programme de 2001, il est mentionn\u00e9 ceci: \u00abMais l’\u00e9poque des grands coups de force et des paris constitutionnels est r\u00e9volue.  Les \u00e9checs de Meech, de Charlottetown et de Calgary d\u00e9montrent l’impossibilit\u00e9, pour le Canada anglais, de r\u00e9pondre favorablement aux attentes constitutionnelles des Qu\u00e9b\u00e9coises et des Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois.  On assiste maintenant \u00e0 une tentative de prise en charge pleine et enti\u00e8re, par Ottawa, de toute l’action sociale et \u00e9conomique du Qu\u00e9bec\u00bb.  (page 64).  Quant aux modalit\u00e9s, on lit:  \u00abpar voie de r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum, dans des conditions fix\u00e9es par l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale, le peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois sera appel\u00e9 \u00e0 se prononcer sur la souverainet\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec et sur le d\u00e9p\u00f4t d’une offre de partenariat avec le Canada.  Advenant une r\u00e9ponse favorable atteignant le seuil d\u00e9mocratique universellement<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72.<\/b>  Henderson<\/i> v. Quebec<\/em> (Attorney General<\/em>), 2007 QCCA 1138 (CanLII).<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

73.<\/b>  R-15.  At page 55 of this exhibit, the program of 1996 — released in 1997 — it is stated that the Party’s fundamental objective is to achieve the sovereignty of Quebec \u201cdemocratically\u201d.  It also provides for the manner in which this will be done:  by referendum \u201cand on tabling a partnership offer with Canada\u201d.  It states:  \u201cIn the event of a favorable response, the National Assembly will have, on the one hand, the mandate to proclaim the sovereignty of Quebec and the Government of Quebec will be obliged, on the other hand, to offer Canada a new economic and political partnership.  The Proclamation of Sovereignty will be made as soon as the Partnership Treaty has been approved by the National Assembly or once the latter has found that negotiations are unsuccessful.<\/u>  These negotiations will not last more than one year, unless the National Assembly decides otherwise.\u201d  There is talk throughout the 2001 program of offering a partnership to Canada and not just flying the flag alone after a referendum result (page 58).  It says (translation):  \u201cBut the era of power grabs and constitutional bets is over.  The failures of Meech, Charlottetown and Calgary prove that it is out of the question for English Canada to respond favorably to the constitutional expectations of Quebecers.  We are now witnessing an attempt by Ottawa to take full control over all of Quebec’s social and economic action\u201d  (page 64).  As to the mode, we read:  \u201cby referendum, under conditions determined by the National Assembly, the people of Quebec will be called upon to pronounce upon the sovereignty of Quebec and the tabling of an offer of partnership with Canada.  In the event of a favorable response achieving the universally<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[140]<\/b>  Il consid\u00e8re que la Loi 99 <\/em>contourne les principes de la constitutionnalit\u00e9, du f\u00e9d\u00e9ralisme et de la primaut\u00e9 du droit, et il nous demande de ne pas cautionner une telle ill\u00e9galit\u00e974.<\/sup>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[140]<\/b>  In his view, Bill 99<\/em> bypasses the principles of constitutionality, federalism and the rule of law, and he asks us not to condone such illegality.74.<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[141]<\/b>  R\u00e9f\u00e9rant aux paragraphes 47 et 48 du Renvoi sur le S\u00e9nat<\/em>75<\/sup><\/span>, il plaide que selon l’article 45 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<\/em><\/a>, la seule chose que l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale pouvait faire au lendemain du projet de Loi C-20<\/em>, \u00e9tait de modifier sa constitution interne, ses propres institutions et ses processus internes, point final, sans que ce qu’il d\u00e9cide de faire puisse avoir des effets \u00e0 l’ext\u00e9rieur du Qu\u00e9bec. La Loi 99 aurait une plus grande port\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[141]<\/b>  Referring to paragraphs 47 and 48 of the Senate Reference<\/em>75<\/sup><\/span>, he argued that according to section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982<\/em><\/a>, the only thing the National Assembly could do in the aftermath of Bill C-20<\/em>, was to change its internal constitution, its own institutions and its internal processes, period, without its decisions being capable of having effects outside Quebec.  Bill 99<\/em> has far greater scope.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[142]<\/strong>  L’Assembl\u00e9e nationale aurait fait davantage; la Loi 99<\/em> peut selon lui mener \u00e0 l’abrogation de la Constitution canadienne<\/em>, \u00e0 la fin des institutions f\u00e9d\u00e9rales et nie les effets juridiques de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration, ce qui peut entra\u00eener la r\u00e9volution76<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[142]<\/b>  The National Assembly would go further; in his view, Bill 99<\/em> can lead to the abrogation of the Canadian Constitution<\/em>, the end of federal institutions and denial of the legal effects of federation, resulting in revolution.76<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[143]<\/b>  Il se dit exasp\u00e9r\u00e9 des crises constitutionnelles interminables et r\u00e9p\u00e9t\u00e9es77<\/sup><\/span>, qui laissent planer une menace constante sur l’int\u00e9grit\u00e9 et la p\u00e9rennit\u00e9 de la Constitution canadienne<\/em>.  Il est convaincu que cette qu\u00eate de souverainet\u00e9 ne cessera que lorsqu’elle aura \u00e9t\u00e9 acquise, m\u00eame s’il faut que le Qu\u00e9bec passe par une d\u00e9claration<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[143]<\/b>  He says he is exasperated by the endless and repeated constitutional crises,77<\/sup><\/span> which leave a constant threat looming over the integrity and permanence of the Canadian Constitution.  He is convinced that this quest for sovereignty will not cease until it has been obtained, even if Quebec must get there by way of a unilateral<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

reconnu, de 50% plus 1, l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale aura d’une part le droit de proclamer la souverainet\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec et le gouvernement du Qu\u00e9bec sera tenu, d’autre part, d’offrir au Canada un nouveau partenariat \u00e9conomique et politique, en s’inspirant notamment du mod\u00e8le de l’Union europ\u00e9enne (page 65).  Puis en 2005, lors de son congr\u00e8s, dans un document intitul\u00e9 Un projet de pays<\/em>, il diffuse entre autres ceci :  \u00ab les Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois et Qu\u00e9b\u00e9coises sont d\u00e9\u00e7us de l’exp\u00e9rience du f\u00e9d\u00e9ralisme canadien v\u00e9cue depuis 1867.  Depuis une cinquantaine d’ann\u00e9es, des Qu\u00e9b\u00e9coises et Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois ont propos\u00e9 plusieurs modifications au fonctionnement de l’Union canadienne afin de r\u00e9pondre aux aspirations particuli\u00e8res du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois.  L’\u00c9lite politique canadienne a maintes fois exprim\u00e9 son refus de r\u00e9former l’\u00c9tat canadien pour satisfaire les besoins du Qu\u00e9bec, pire, elle a marginalis\u00e9 le Qu\u00e9bec en tentant de lui imposer la Constitution de 1982.  Les Qu\u00e9b\u00e9coises et Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois constatent aujourd’hui qu’il est impossible d’obtenir les r\u00e9formes qui leur sont n\u00e9cessaires dans le cadre constitutionnel actuel.  Le Parti Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois veut \u00e9tablir un nouveau rapport avec l’\u00c9tat canadien en sortant le Qu\u00e9bec du cadre constitutionnel actuel (page 73).  Cette d\u00e9marche se veut \u00ab pacifique et pleinement d\u00e9mocratique \u00bb<\/u> (page 77).  L’on y parle de pr\u00e9parer un projet de constitution initiale pour le Qu\u00e9bec \u00ab en prenant appui sur la loi 99 \u00bb<\/b><\/u> (page 78).  Pour le parti, le vote favorable \u00ab am\u00e8nera l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale \u00e0 d\u00e9clarer la souverainet\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec et \u00e0 donner des effets imm\u00e9diats \u00e0 celle-ci<\/b> en posant des gestes de souverainet\u00e9 nationale et internationale.  Cela se ferait \u00ab au lendemain du r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum<\/b> \u00bb et sont pour le moins explicites, telle l’adoption par l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale d’une d\u00e9claration de souverainet\u00e9 nationale, l’adoption d’une loi d\u00e9clarant que seul le gouvernement du Qu\u00e9bec peut percevoir des imp\u00f4ts et cr\u00e9er une Cour supr\u00eame, pour ne citer que ceux-l\u00e0.<\/u>  (Page 80) (Nos soulignements et notre emphase<\/em>).<\/span><\/p>\n

74.<\/b>  Voir R-13, page 11.<\/span><\/p>\n

75.<\/b>  Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat<\/em>, [2014] 1 R.C.S. 704<\/u><\/a>, par. 46-48.<\/span><\/p>\n

76.<\/b>  Par. 29 de la requ\u00eate r\u00e9-amend\u00e9e du requ\u00e9rant.<\/span><\/p>\n

77.<\/b>  L\u2019expression utilis\u00e9e par l\u2019avocat des requ\u00e9rants Henderson et le Parti \u00e9galit\u00e9 avait qualifi\u00e9 leur recours comme \u00ab the history of this saga of unilateral secession<\/em> \u00bb.  Voir Henderson<\/em> c. Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> (procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/em>), 2002 CanLII 527 (QC CS)<\/u><\/a> par. 12.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

recognized democratic threshold of 50% plus 1, the National Assembly will, on the one hand, have the right to proclaim the sovereignty of Quebec and the Government of Quebec will be required, on the other hand, to offer Canada a new economic and political partnership, inspired in particular by the model of the European Union (page 65).  Then in 2005, at its convention, in a document entitled (translation:) The project of a country<\/em>, the party announces, among other things:  \u201cQuebecers are disappointed with the experiment of Canadian federalism since 1867.  For fifty years, Quebecers have proposed a number of changes to the operation of the Canadian Union to meet the particular aspirations of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois people.  The Canadian political elite has repeatedly expressed its refusal to reform the Canadian state to meet the needs of Quebec; worse, it has marginalized Quebec by trying to impose the Constitution of 1982.  Quebecers today find it impossible to obtain the reforms they need within the current constitutional framework.  The Parti Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois wishes to establish a new relationship with the Canadian state by removing Quebec from the current constitutional framework (page 73).  This approach is meant to be<\/u> \u201cpeaceful and fully democratic<\/u>\u201d (page 77).  It speaks of the preparation of a draft initial constitution for Quebec \u201cbased on Bill 99\u201d<\/u><\/b> (page 78).  For the party, a favorable vote \u201cwill lead the National Assembly to declare the sovereignty of Quebec and to give it immediate effect<\/b> by posing national and international gestures of sovereignty.  These would \u201cfollow the referendum<\/b>\u201d and are at least explicit, such as the adoption by the National Assembly of a declaration of national sovereignty, the adoption of a law declaring that only the Government of Quebec can collect taxes and create a Supreme Court, just to name a few.<\/u>  (Page 80)  (Our underlines and our emphases<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n

74.<\/b>  See R-13, page 11.<\/span><\/p>\n

75.<\/b>  Reference re Senate Reform<\/em>, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 704<\/u><\/a>, at paras. 46-48.<\/span><\/p>\n

76.<\/b>  Para. 29 of the applicant’s re-amended application.<\/span><\/p>\n

77.<\/b>  The phrase used by counsel for the applicants Henderson and the Equality Party characterized their recourse as \u201cthe history of this saga of unilateral secession\u201d.  See Henderson<\/em> v. Quebec<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>), 2002 CanLII 527 (QC CS)<\/u><\/a> para. 12.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

unilat\u00e9rale pour y arriver, ce qui pourrait \u00e0 la limite exclure la premi\u00e8re \u00e9tape qu\u2019est la consultation populaire par voie de r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

declaration to achieve it, which could ultimately exclude the first stage, public consultation by referendum.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[144]<\/b>  Le requ\u00e9rant est convaincu que le l\u00e9gislateur qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois n\u2019a pas divulgu\u00e9 ses vraies intentions par rapport \u00e0 ce qu\u2019il cherchait \u00e0 accomplir au moyen de la Loi 99<\/em>, ce but \u00e9tant de permettre la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec sans passer par la proc\u00e9dure d\u2019amendement pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 la Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[144]<\/b>  The applicant is convinced that the Quebec legislature did not disclose its true intentions with respect to what it was trying to accomplish by means of Bill 99<\/em>, this goal being to permit the secession of Quebec without going through the amending procedure provided for in the Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[145]<\/b>  Il veut ainsi \u00e9viter que le Qu\u00e9bec en vienne un jour \u00e0 rejeter la supr\u00e9matie de la Constitution pour y substituer la supr\u00e9matie de la l\u00e9gislature du Qu\u00e9bec, ou, pire encore, celle de l\u2019\u00e9lectorat qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, qu\u2019il ne consid\u00e8re pas \u00eatre un peuple78<\/sup><\/span>, plaidant que la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada a \u00e9nonc\u00e9 que l\u2019\u00e9lectorat ne poss\u00e9dait pas un tel pouvoir d\u00e9cisionnel.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[145]<\/b>  He thus wants to prevent Quebec\u2019s one day rejecting the supremacy of the Constitution and replacing it with the supremacy of the Quebec legislature, or, even worse, that of the Quebec electorate, whom he does not consider to be a people78<\/sup><\/span>, arguing that the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the electorate has no such decision-making power.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[146]<\/b>  Autrement dit, la Loi 99<\/em> donne carte blanche aux institutions qu\u00e9b\u00e9coises ou aux \u00e9lecteurs r\u00e9sidant au Qu\u00e9bec pour modifier le statut du Qu\u00e9bec au sein de la Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration pour le changer par celui qui lui plaira, sans avoir \u00e0 subir d\u2019ing\u00e9rence ou d\u2019influence de quiconque dans ce processus, alors que les alin\u00e9as c) et e) de l\u2019article 41 de la Constitution requi\u00e8rent un consentement unanime des autres membres de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration pour ce faire. Encore une fois, il rappelle que telle est l\u00e0 la fa\u00e7on dont la Cour supr\u00eame a reconnu qu\u2019il fallait faire les choses, dans l\u2019Avis consultatif de 1998, recette qu\u2019elle a r\u00e9it\u00e9r\u00e9e dans le Renvoi sur le S\u00e9nat, en 201479.<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[146]<\/b>  Put another way, Bill 99<\/em> gives carte blanche<\/i> to Quebec institutions or voters residing in Quebec to change the status of Quebec within Confederation to whatever they like, without having to suffer interference or influence from anyone in this process, whereas sections 41(c) and (e) of the Constitution require the unanimous consent of other members of the federation to do so.  Once again, he notes that this is the way the Supreme Court has recognized that things must be done in the 1998 Advisory Opinion<\/em>, a formula it reiterated in the 2014 Senate Reference<\/em>79<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[147]<\/b>  Les articles contest\u00e9s de la Loi 99<\/em> seraient \u00e0 ce point invalides que nous ne pourrions pas les maintenir en recourant \u00e0 la technique de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation att\u00e9nu\u00e9e, sugg\u00e9r\u00e9e par le PGC, et, de mani\u00e8re subsidiaire, par le PGQ.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[147]<\/b>  The impugned sections of Bill 99<\/em> are so invalid that they could not be maintained by resorting to the technique of reading down suggested by the Attorney General of Canada and seconded by the Attorney General of Quebec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[148]<\/b>  La Cour d\u2019appel ayant d\u00e9cid\u00e9 que plusieurs des sujets soulev\u00e9s dans la requ\u00eate initiale ne devaient pas demeurer au menu du jour aux fins de notre audition, nous suivrons donc ses instructions et n\u2019irons pas plus loin dans l\u2019expos\u00e9 des pr\u00e9tentions du requ\u00e9rant.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[148]<\/b>  The Court of Appeal having decided that many of the issues raised in the original motion should not remain on the agenda for the purposes of our hearing, we will therefore follow its instructions and go no further in our exposition of the applicant’s claims.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

4.2<\/b>  POSITION DU PROCUREUR G\u00c9N\u00c9RAL DU QU\u00c9BEC<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.2<\/b>  POSITION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[149]<\/b>  Le Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Qu\u00e9bec rappelle que la Cour d\u2019appel a r\u00e9duit l\u2019ampleur du dossier, en ao\u00fbt 2007, et que le requ\u00e9rant sait tr\u00e8s bien \u00e0 quoi son recours a \u00e9t\u00e9 circonscrit, tel qu\u2019il l\u2019indique aux paragraphes 1 et 26 de sa requ\u00eate r\u00e9-amend\u00e9e de 201280<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[149]<\/b>  The Attorney General of Quebec notes that the Court of Appeal reduced the scope of the file in August 2007, and that the applicant is well aware of the limited scope of his appeal, as indicated in paragraphs 1 and 26 of his re-amended motion of 2012.80<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[150]<\/b>  Malgr\u00e9 tout, il a laiss\u00e9 de nombreux paragraphes sur ses diverses impressions sur la valeur du projet s\u00e9cessionniste, ainsi que sur ce qui pourrait se produire advenant<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[150]<\/b>  Nonetheless, he let stand numerous paragraphs on his various impressions as to the value of the secessionist project, as well as on what might happen in the event<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

78.<\/b>  Voir le paragraphe 42(2) de la requ\u00eate.<\/span><\/p>\n

79.<\/b>  Voir le paragraphe 85 du Renvoi<\/em><\/u><\/a> de 1998 et le paragraphe 48 du Renvoi du S\u00e9nat<\/em><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

80.<\/b>  Le PGQ a pris acte de cela au paragraphe 5 de sa d\u00e9fense.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

78.<\/b>  See subsection 42(2) of the motion.<\/span><\/p>\n

79.<\/b>  See paragraph 85 of the 1998 Advisory<\/em><\/u><\/a> and paragraph 48 of the Senate Reference<\/em><\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

80.<\/b>  The QMP noted this in paragraph 5 of its defense.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

tel ou tel fait, de sorte que ces paragraphes ouvrent encore la porte \u00e0 la partie du d\u00e9bat qui lui a \u00e9t\u00e9 refus\u00e9e.  Dans d\u2019autres paragraphes, le requ\u00e9rant commente des articles de la Loi 99<\/em> qu\u2019il ne conteste pas81<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

of such or such a fact, so that these paragraphs open the door again to that part of the debate which was denied him.  In other paragraphs, the applicant comments on sections of Bill 99<\/i> that he does not contest.81<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[151]<\/b>  Tout cela ne serait plus pertinent, d\u2019o\u00f9 le moyen pr\u00e9liminaire pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 par le PGQ, afin de prononcer en acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9 l\u2019irrecevabilit\u00e9 du recours, du moins quant \u00e0 ces sujets.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[151]<\/b>  All this being no longer relevant, hence the preliminary argument presented by the Quebec Attorney General to expedite the inadmissibility of the recourse, at least on these matters.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[152]<\/b>  Le PGQ plaide que tout ce qui ne porte pas exclusivement sur la question relative \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence de l\u2019Assembl\u00e9e nationale pour adopter les articles 1 \u00e0 5(1) et l\u2019article 13 de la Loi 99<\/em> est irrecevable et il s\u2019oppose \u00e0 ce que nous nous prononcions sur les sc\u00e9narios hypoth\u00e9tiques que propose le requ\u00e9rant.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[152]<\/b>  The Quebec Attorney General argues that anything not exclusively related to the question of the competency of the National Assembly to adopt sections 1 to 5(1) and section 13 of Bill 99<\/em> is inadmissible and he is opposed to our pronouncing on the hypothetical scenarios put forward by the applicant.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[153]<\/b>  Selon lui, en l\u2019absence de faits pr\u00e9cis et concrets, il n\u2019y a pas lieu de nous pencher sur ce que l\u2019Assembl\u00e9e nationale pourrait \u00e9ventuellement d\u00e9cider de faire ni comment elle pourrait le faire advenant un vote en faveur de la s\u00e9paration.  Ces sujets ne regardent pas les tribunaux, du moins, pas encore.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[153]<\/b>  In his opinion, in the absence of specific and concrete facts, there is no need to consider what the National Assembly might possibly decide to do, nor how it might do it, in the event of a vote in favor of separation. These subjects do not involve the courts, at least not yet.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[154]<\/b>  Sur le m\u00e9rite, le PGQ restreint le d\u00e9bat \u00e0 une seule question :  l\u2019Assembl\u00e9e nationale avait-elle comp\u00e9tence pour adopter les articles 1 \u00e0 5(1) et 13 de Loi 99<\/em> ?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[154]<\/b>  On the merits, the Quebec Attorney General restricts the debate to a single question:  did the National Assembly have jurisdiction to adopt sections 1 to 5(1) and 13 of Bill 99<\/em>?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[155]<\/b>  Selon lui, la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette question est affirmative.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[155]<\/b>  In his view, the answer to this question is affirmative.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[156]<\/b>  Tout d\u2019abord, il plaide que l\u2019Assembl\u00e9e nationale avait tout \u00e0 fait le droit de r\u00e9agir \u00e0 une loi f\u00e9d\u00e9rale qui venait de remettre en cause des pr\u00e9rogatives et des droits fondamentaux qui existaient pourtant depuis des d\u00e9cennies, ailleurs, dans la l\u00e9gislation du Qu\u00e9bec, et qui n\u2019ont jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 contest\u00e9s82<\/sup><\/span>. Ces dispositions n\u2019auraient entra\u00een\u00e9 aucun changement juridique notoire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[156]<\/b>  First of all, he argues that the National Assembly was fully entitled to react to a federal law that had just called into question prerogatives and fundamental rights that had existed for decades, elsewhere in Quebec legislation, and which have never been contested.82<\/sup><\/span> These provisions would not have resulted in any significant legal change.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[157]<\/b>  Il est cat\u00e9gorique sur une chose :  le gouvernement n\u2019a jamais voulu adopter une loi lui permettant de d\u00e9clarer l\u2019ind\u00e9pendance du Qu\u00e9bec sans n\u00e9gocier au pr\u00e9alable avec le reste du Canada.  Le texte ne dit pas cela, ce n\u2019est pas l\u2019intention d\u00e9clar\u00e9e, et il n\u2019y a aucun d\u00e9tournement de pouvoirs.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[157]<\/b>  He is adamant about one thing:  the government never wanted to pass legislation allowing it to declare Quebec’s independence without first negotiating with the rest of Canada.  The text does not say that, it is not the declared intention, and there is no misuse of powers.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[158]<\/b>  Il soutient que le but de la Loi 99<\/em> \u00e9tait de cr\u00e9er une sorte de constitution provinciale, ou de charte interne, si l\u2019on pr\u00e9f\u00e8re, destin\u00e9e \u00e0 r\u00e9gir les activit\u00e9s du Qu\u00e9bec.  Ce que contient la Loi 99<\/em> respecte donc en tous points le partage des comp\u00e9tences f\u00e9d\u00e9rales-provinciales.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[158]<\/b>  He argues that the purpose of Bill 99<\/i> was to create a kind of provincial constitution, or internal charter, if you prefer, to govern the activities of Quebec.  What is contained in Bill 99<\/i> therefore fully respects the division of federal-provincial jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

81.<\/b>  Les paragraphes 14, 15, 17, 27, 29, 32-55.  Aux paragraphes 1 et 26 de sa requ\u00eate amend\u00e9e du 3 d\u00e9cembre 2012, le requ\u00e9rant circonscrit son recours, apr\u00e8s le jugement de la Cour d\u2019appel.  Le PGQ prend acte de cela au paragraphe 5 de sa d\u00e9fense.  Voir aussi le paragraphe 52 de la requ\u00eate, sur la non-contestation de certains articles, auquel r\u00e9pond le PGQ, au paragraphe 24 de sa d\u00e9fense.<\/span><\/p>\n

82.<\/b>  Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/em> du 25 mai 2000, page 6168.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

81.<\/b>  Paragraphs 14, 15, 17, 27, 29, 32-55.  In paragraphs 1 and 26 of his amended Motion of 3 December 2012, the Applicant confined his recourse in keeping with the judgment of the Court of Appeal.  The Quebec Attorney General takes note of this in paragraph 5 of his defense.  See also paragraph 52 of the Motion, on the non-contestation of certain sections, to which the Quebec Attorney General responds in paragraph 24 of his defense.<\/span><\/p>\n

82.<\/b>  Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/em> (Quebec Hansard), May 25, 2000, page 6168.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[159]<\/b>  Ainsi, les articles contest\u00e9s codifient divers droits fondamentaux et principes qui ont toujours guid\u00e9 les organes de l’\u00c9tat qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois dans l’exercice de ses comp\u00e9tences, notamment lors des trois r\u00e9f\u00e9rendums de 1980, 1992 et 1995, et leur contenu ne lie que l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale et le gouvernement du Qu\u00e9bec, pour les gestes pos\u00e9s par eux, dans les limites de leur comp\u00e9tence, et prot\u00e8gent les droits ali\u00e9nables [sic] du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, dont celui \u00e0 l’autod\u00e9termination.<\/p>\n

Note du traductrice<\/u>:  “[sic]” re \u201cali\u00e9nable<\/em>\u201d — this appears to be a typing error; no doubt Dallaire meant \u201cin<\/u>ali\u00e9nable<\/em>\u201d as in indefeasible, unforfeitable, inalienable, i.e. not subject to forfeiture.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[159]<\/b>  Thus, the impugned sections codify various fundamental rights and principles that have always guided the organs of the Quebec State in the exercise of its jurisdiction, particularly in the three referendums of 1980, 1992 and 1995, and their content only binds the National Assembly and the Government of Quebec for actions they take within the limits of their jurisdiction, and protect the inalienable rights of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois people, including the right to self-determination.<\/p>\n

Translator’s note<\/u>:  “[sic]” re \u201cali\u00e9nable<\/em>\u201d — this appears to be a typing error; no doubt Dallaire meant \u201cin<\/u>ali\u00e9nable<\/em>\u201d as in indefeasible, unforfeitable, inalienable, i.e. not subject to forfeiture.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[160]<\/b>  Il plaide que ce type de l\u00e9gislation n’est pas unique et qu’il existe ailleurs au Canada, ainsi que dans d’autres \u00e9tats f\u00e9d\u00e9r\u00e9s.  Les expertises qu’il produit en faisant la preuve.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[160]<\/b>  He argues that this type of legislation is not unique and exists elsewhere in Canada, as well as in other federated states.  The expert reports he produces prove it.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[161]<\/b>  Selon lui, les dispositions contest\u00e9es de la Loi 99<\/i> devraient \u00eatre vues comme \u00e9tant analogues \u00e0 celles de la Charte des droits et libert\u00e9s de la personne<\/i><\/a>, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence pr\u00e8s qu’au lieu de porter sur des libert\u00e9s et droits civils, elles ench\u00e2ssent des droits politiques collectifs dans une loi qui fait partie de la constitution interne du Qu\u00e9bec83<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[161]<\/b>  In his view, the impugned provisions of Bill 99<\/i> should be seen as analogous to those of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms<\/i><\/a>, with the difference that instead of dealing with civil liberties and rights, they entrench collective political rights in a law that is part of Quebec’s internal constitution.83<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[162]<\/b>  Rien dans le texte, dans les d\u00e9bats parlementaires ni dans la preuve extrins\u00e8que ne supporterait la th\u00e8se voulant que le l\u00e9gislateur ait eu pour but de se doter d’un outil pour faire s\u00e9cession du reste du Canada.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[162]<\/b>  Nothing in the text, in the parliamentary debates, or in the extrinsic evidence would support the proposition that the legislature intended to provide itself with a tool to secede from the rest of Canada.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[163]<\/b>  Que ce soit le but ou les effets de cette Loi<\/i>, rien ne pointe clairement vers la possibilit\u00e9 pour le Qu\u00e9bec de violer la Constitution<\/i>, que ce soit directement, ou par implication n\u00e9cessaire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[163]<\/b>  Be it the purpose or the effects of this Law<\/i>, nothing clearly points to the possibility of Quebec\u2019s violating the Constitution<\/i>, either directly or by necessary implication.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[164]<\/b>  Quant \u00e0 ce que propose la SSJBM, soit que nous d\u00e9cidions s’il existe bel et bien un peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois depuis l’adoption de la Loi 99<\/i>, le PGQ nous met en garde de ne pas succomber \u00e0 la tentation de nous prononcer sur les tenants et aboutissants de ce sujet.  Il en est de m\u00eame en ce qui a trait \u00e0 la d\u00e9finition de ce que constituent une question claire et une majorit\u00e9 claire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[164]<\/b>  As to what the SSJBM proposes, that we decide whether there is indeed a Quebec people pursuant to the adoption of Bill 99<\/i>, the Quebec Attorney General warns us not to succumb to the temptation to rule on the ins and outs of this topic.  The same is true of the definition of what constitutes a clear question and a clear majority.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[165]<\/b>  Pour ce faire, il nous rappelle que les tribunaux ont un devoir de r\u00e9serve et que la r\u00e8gle veut que lorsqu’il n’est pas n\u00e9cessaire de se discuter d’un sujet soumis par l’une ou l’autre des parties \u00e0 un litige pour disposer du recours soumis \u00e0 leur adjudication, mieux vaut s’abstenir.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[165]<\/b>  He reminds us that the courts have a duty of reserve and that the rule is: when it is not necessary to discuss a subject submitted by one or the other party in a litigation in order to dispose of the recourse submitted to adjudication, it is better to abstain.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[166]<\/b>  Selon lui, il n’existe aucune difficult\u00e9 r\u00e9elle justifiant notre intervention sur ces sujets d\u00e9licats, lesquels rel\u00e8vent du domaine de la politique et non du domaine judiciaire, \u00e0 ce moment-ci de l’histoire du Qu\u00e9bec, comme l’a \u00e0 juste titre affirm\u00e9 la Cour supr\u00eame dans l\u2019Avis consultatif<\/i> de 1998.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[166]<\/b>  In his opinion, there exists no real difficulty that justifies our intervention on these delicate subjects, which are in the realm of politics and not the judicial domain at this point in the history of Quebec, as the Supreme Court rightly affirmed in the 1998 Advisory Opinion<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

83.<\/b>  Paragraphe 41 de la d\u00e9fense.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

83.<\/b>  Paragraph 41 of the Defense. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[167]<\/b>  Selon lui, les r\u00e8gles g\u00e9n\u00e9rales d’interpr\u00e9tation suffisent pour interpr\u00e9ter les articles contest\u00e9s et pour conclure qu’ils respectent la Constitution<\/i> et la Charte<\/i>, dans leur ensemble, et ainsi disposer du litige.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[167]<\/b>  In his view, the general rules of interpretation suffice to interpret the disputed articles and to conclude that they respect the Constitution<\/i> and the Charter<\/i> as a whole, and thus dispose of the dispute.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

4.3<\/b> POSITION DU PROCUREUR G\u00c9N\u00c9RAL DU CANADA<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.3<\/b> POSITION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[169]<\/b>  Le Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Canada est d’avis que les articles contest\u00e9s devraient \u00eatre d\u00e9clar\u00e9s constitutionnels, mais il emprunte un chemin diff\u00e9rent de celui du PGQ pour arriver \u00e0 cette conclusion.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[169]<\/b>  The Attorney General of Canada is of the view that the impugned provisions should be declared constitutional, but he takes a different route from that of the Quebec Attorney General to come to this conclusion.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[170]<\/b>  Il soutient que toutes les dispositions contest\u00e9es doivent recevoir une interpr\u00e9tation att\u00e9nu\u00e9e pour en cerner la port\u00e9e v\u00e9ritable et la limiter aux comp\u00e9tences l\u00e9gislatives que la Constitution conf\u00e8re au Qu\u00e9bec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[170]<\/b>  He submits that all of the impugned provisions must be read-down so as to understand their true scope and limit it to the legislative powers conferred on Quebec by the Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[171]<\/b>  Ainsi, ces articles, qu’il consid\u00e8re de nature purement d\u00e9claratoires, pourraient survivre et continuer de g\u00e9n\u00e9rer des effets sur des mati\u00e8res conformes \u00e0 celles sur lesquelles l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale a comp\u00e9tence, et cela les rendrait conformes \u00e0 la Constitution, un peu dans le m\u00eame esprit que ce que le constitutionnaliste Peter W. Hogg r\u00e9sume :  \u00ab(to) allow the bulk of the legislative policy to be accomplished, while trimming off those applications that are constitutionally bad<\/i>\u00bb84<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[171]<\/b>  Thus, these sections, which he regards as purely declaratory in nature, could survive and continue to produce effects on subjects conforming to those over which the National Assembly has jurisdiction, and this would make them conform to the Constitution, a little in the same spirit as constitutionalist Peter W. Hogg sums it up:  \u201c(to) allow the bulk of the legislative policy to be accomplished, while trimming off those applications that are constitutionally bad<\/i>\u201c.84<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[172]<\/b>  Le PGC consid\u00e8re que certaines des questions soulev\u00e9es par le requ\u00e9rant ont \u00e9t\u00e9 examin\u00e9es dans le Renvoi<\/i> de 1996* et qu’elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 tranch\u00e9es de mani\u00e8re d\u00e9finitive dans l\u2019Avis consultatif<\/i>.  Ce serait notamment le cas de celle voulant que le Qu\u00e9bec ne puisse faire s\u00e9cession de mani\u00e8re unilat\u00e9rale, c’est-\u00e0-dire sans n\u00e9gociations pr\u00e9alables, celle voulant que le droit international fasse une distinction entre le droit \u00e0 l\u2019autod\u00e9termination interne et externe, et celle voulant que la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec exige une modification constitutionnelle pour constituer un acte l\u00e9gal.<\/p>\n

* Note du traductrice<\/u>:  Le \u00abRenvoi sur la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec\u00bb a \u00e9t\u00e9 envoy\u00e9 au conseil consultatif f\u00e9d\u00e9ral non judiciaire de la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada par le d\u00e9cret en conseil P.C. 1996-1497, en date du 30 septembre 1996; l’avis a \u00e9t\u00e9 rendu le 20 ao\u00fbt 1998 sous le num\u00e9ro de dossier 25506<\/u><\/a>.  Par cons\u00e9quent, Dallaire le d\u00e9signe parfois comme le renvoi<\/em> de 1996 et parfois comme le renvoi<\/em> ou l’avis<\/em> de 1998<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[172]<\/b>  The Attorney General of Canada believes that some of the issues raised by the applicant were examined in the 1996* Reference<\/i> and were definitively determined in the Advisory Opinion<\/i>.  This would be the case, for example, with the idea that Quebec could not unilaterally secede, i.e., without prior negotiations, that international law makes a distinction between the right to internal and external self-determination, and that Quebec secession requires a constitutional amendment to constitute a legal act.<\/p>\n

* Translator’s Note<\/u>:  The Quebec Secession Reference<\/i> was directed to the non-judicial federal advisory bench of the Supreme Court of Canada by Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497, dated 30 September, 1996; the Opinion was issued on 20 August 1998 in file number 25506<\/u><\/a>.  This Reference<\/em> is therefore sometimes referred to by Dallaire as the Reference<\/em> of 1996, and sometimes as the Reference<\/em> or Advisory<\/em> of 1998.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[173]<\/b>  En utilisant la technique d’interpr\u00e9tation att\u00e9nu\u00e9e, nous serions en mesure de circonscrire de fa\u00e7on pr\u00e9cise et non ambigu\u00eb l’objet et la port\u00e9e limit\u00e9e des articles contest\u00e9s, ce qui mettrait ainsi un terme aux supputations de tout un chacun sur ce que<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[173]<\/b>  By using the technique of reading down, we would be able to circumscribe, in a clear and unambiguous way, the purpose and limited scope of the disputed provisions, thus putting an end to all speculation as to<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

84.<\/b>  Peter W. HOGG, Constitutional Law of Canada<\/i>, 5 \u00e9d., vol. 1, Toronto, Thomson Reuters, 2007, feuilles mobiles, \u00e0 jour en 2009, p. 15-27.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

84.<\/b>  Peter W. HOGG, Constitutional Law of Canada<\/i>, 5th ed., Vol. 1, Toronto, Thomson Reuters, 2007, loose-leaf, current in 2009, pp. 15-27.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

pourra ou non accomplir le Qu\u00e9bec au moyen de la Loi 99<\/i> lorsqu’un nouveau chapitre relatif \u00e0 l’avenir du Qu\u00e9bec s’ouvrira.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

what Quebec may or may not accomplish via Bill 99<\/i> when a new chapter on the future of Quebec is introduced.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[174]<\/b>  Pour le PGC, si nous nous limitons \u00e0 affirmer que les principes g\u00e9n\u00e9raux qui sous-tendent la Loi 99<\/i> rel\u00e8vent de la constitution interne du Qu\u00e9bec, cela ne sera pas suffisant, puisque le flou perdurera.  Il faut r\u00e9gler la situation une fois pour toutes.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[174]<\/b>  For the Attorney General of Canada, if we limit ourselves to affirming that the general principles underlying Bill 99<\/i> are part of Quebec’s internal constitution, this will not suffice, as the vagueness will continue. We must resolve the situation once and for all.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[175]<\/b>  Il nous sugg\u00e8re donc de conclure que les articles contest\u00e9s apportent des modifications valides \u00e0 la constitution interne de la province, en ce sens que leur contenu porte sur les organes qui r\u00e9gissent le gouvernement, qu’ils sont en cons\u00e9quence compatibles avec le principe du f\u00e9d\u00e9ralisme, lequel permet \u00e0 chaque province d’avoir ses principes directeurs internes, mais insiste pour que nous confirmions qu’ils ne portent pas sur des dispositions ou conditions fondamentales de l’union f\u00e9d\u00e9rale garanties par la Constitution et qu’ils ne provoquent pas ou ne peuvent servir \u00e0 provoquer de grands bouleversements.85<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[175]<\/b>  He therefore suggests that we conclude the impugned provisions make valid amendments to the internal constitution of the province, in that their content relates to the governing organs of government, that they are accordingly consistent with the principle of federalism, which allows each province to have its internal guiding principles, but insists that we confirm that they do not bear upon fundamental constitutional provisions or conditions of the federal union guaranteed by the Constitution, and that they do not provoke or cannot serve to provoke great upheavals.85<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[176]<\/b>  Et histoire d’ajouter les bretelles \u00e0 la ceinture, il propose que nous ajoutions une d\u00e9claration \u00e9tablissant que le Qu\u00e9bec a toujours le statut de province canadienne, que la Loi 99<\/i> ne peut constituer le fondement juridique d’une d\u00e9claration unilat\u00e9rale d’ind\u00e9pendance ou d’un acte de s\u00e9cession par le gouvernement du Qu\u00e9bec, l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale ou la l\u00e9gislature du Qu\u00e9bec (au sens pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 par la Cour supr\u00eame) et que certains des articles contest\u00e9s ne peuvent r\u00e9f\u00e9rer qu’au principe de l’autod\u00e9termination interne, et non externe (opposable aux tiers), en ce sens qu’ils ne pourraient \u00eatre utilis\u00e9s comme levier pour justifier une \u00e9ventuelle d\u00e9claration d’ind\u00e9pendance si les choses ne tournaient pas au go\u00fbt du Qu\u00e9bec \u00e0 l’issue de n\u00e9gociations infructueuses avec le f\u00e9d\u00e9ral et les autres provinces.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[176]<\/b>  And just to add suspenders to his belt, he proposes that we add a declaration stating that Quebec still has the status of a Canadian province, that Bill 99<\/i> cannot constitute the legal basis for a unilateral declaration of independence or an act of secession (as defined by the Supreme Court) by the Quebec government, the National Assembly or the Quebec legislature, and that some of the contested provisions can only refer to the principle of internal self-determination, and not external (attributable to third parties), in the sense that they could not be used as a lever to justify a future declaration of independence were events not to the taste of Quebec after unsuccessful negotiations with the federal government and the other provinces.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

4.4<\/b>  POSITION DE LA SOCI\u00c9T\u00c9 SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE DE MONTR\u00c9AL<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.4<\/b>  POSITION OF THE SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST SOCIETY OF MONTREAL<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[177]<\/b>  Depuis 183 ans, la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montr\u00e9al fait la promotion des int\u00e9r\u00eats du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/i>, que ce soit pour sa souverainet\u00e9, sa langue, la stimulation de sa culture ou la pr\u00e9servation de son h\u00e9ritage.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[177]<\/b>  For 183 years, the Saint-Jean-Baptiste<\/em> Society of Montreal has been promoting the interests of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois people<\/i>, whether for its sovereignty, its language, the stimulation of its culture or the preservation of its heritage.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[178]<\/b>  Ainsi, lorsque le requ\u00e9rant conteste la constitutionnalit\u00e9 des principaux articles de la Loi 99<\/i>, lesquels portent sur la protection des droits fondamentaux, les pr\u00e9rogatives et le statut politique de la population qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise, tout comme de la qualification de cette derni\u00e8re comme peuple, nation ou une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 distincte, et que le r\u00e9sultat des proc\u00e9dures est susceptible de porter un coup dur au droit \u00e0 l’autod\u00e9termination de ce peuple, la SSJBM consid\u00e8re essentiel d’intervenir, \u00e0 titre amical, pour ajouter sa voix \u00e0 toutes celles qui plaident en faveur du maintien de toutes les dispositions de la Loi 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[178]<\/b>  Thus, when the applicant challenges the constitutionality of the main sections of Bill 99<\/i>, which relate to the protection of fundamental rights, the prerogatives and the political status of the Quebec population, as well as characterization of the latter as a people, a nation or a distinct society, and the result of the procedures is likely to inflict a heavy blow on the right to self-determination of this people, the SSJBM considers it essential to intervene, amicably, to add its voice to all those who advocate maintaining all the provisions of Bill 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

85.<\/b>  S.E.F.P.O.<\/em> c. Ontario<\/em> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/em>), [1987] 2 R.C.S. 2<\/u><\/a>, p. 47.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

85.<\/b>  OPSEU<\/em> v. Ontario<\/em> (Attorney General<\/em>), 1987 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 2<\/u><\/a>, at p. 47.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[179]<\/b>  Elle souhaite aussi apporter sa touche particuli\u00e8re au d\u00e9bat, pour nous inciter \u00e0 pousser plus loin notre exercice, plut\u00f4t que de le limiter \u00e0 la simple confirmation de la constitutionnalit\u00e9 des articles attaqu\u00e9s de la Loi 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[179]<\/b>  It also wishes to add its particular touch to the debate, to encourage us to go further in our exercise, rather than limit it to simply confirming the constitutionality of the impugned sections of Bill 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[180]<\/b>  Sur la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de ce qu’est la Loi 99<\/i>, la SSJBM est d’avis que ses dispositions \u00ab sont de droit nouveau et (qu’elles) codifient le statut juridique du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois ainsi que les droits et obligations du Qu\u00e9bec et du Canada qui se rattachent \u00e0 la reconnaissance de ce statut \u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[180]<\/b>  As to the reality of what Bill 99<\/i> is, the SSJBM is of the view that its provisions \u201care new law and (they) codify the legal status of the people of Quebec and the rights and obligations of Quebec and Canada which relate to the recognition of this status\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[181]<\/b>  M\u00eame avec cette nouveaut\u00e9, elle conteste qu’il soit n\u00e9cessaire de recourir \u00e0 la m\u00e9thode de l’interpr\u00e9tation att\u00e9nu\u00e9e pour reconna\u00eetre la validit\u00e9 constitutionnelle de l’ensemble des dispositions de cette Loi<\/i>86<\/sup>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[181]<\/b>  Even with this novelty, it disputes the need to resort to the reading-down method of interpretation to recognize the constitutional validity of the whole of the provisions of this Law<\/i>.86<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[182]<\/b>  La Loi 99<\/i> n’a donc pas pour but ou pour effet d’introduire un syst\u00e8me de d\u00e9mocratie directe \u00e9tranger aux institutions du Canada ni d’\u00e9tablir une r\u00e9publique r\u00e9volutionnaire en violation de la supr\u00e9matie de la Constitution<\/i>87<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[182]<\/b>  Bill 99<\/i> thus does not have for purpose or effect the introduction of a system of direct democracy foreign to the institutions of Canada or of establishing a revolutionary republic in violation of the supremacy of the Constitution<\/i>.87<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[183]<\/b>  Au contraire, elle est convaincue que l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale \u00e9tait parfaitement au fait que la s\u00e9cession convoit\u00e9e ne peut se faire qu’\u00e0 la suite de n\u00e9gociations pr\u00e9alables, puisque la Cour supr\u00eame est tr\u00e8s claire \u00e0 ce sujet au paragraphe 57 de l\u2019Avis consultatif<\/i> que les \u00e9lus avaient \u00e9tudi\u00e9, selon ce qui ressort clairement du Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i>88<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[183]<\/b>  On the contrary, it exhibits the conviction that the National Assembly was perfectly aware that the coveted secession can only be done after negotiation, since the Supreme Court is very clear on this point at paragraph 57 of the Advisory Opinion<\/i> that the elected officials had studied, as is clear from the Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i>.88<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[184]<\/b>  Pour la SSJBM, rien, dans la Constitution canadienne<\/i>, n’interdit cette reconnaissance l\u00e9gale, dans la constitution interne du Qu\u00e9bec, puisque la mati\u00e8re vis\u00e9e par la Loi<\/i> rel\u00e8ve des droits civils de la population qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise et est de nature purement locale, ce que permet l’article 45 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<\/i> ou, si l’on pr\u00e9f\u00e8re, les articles 92(13) et (16) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[184]<\/b>  For the SSJBM, nothing in the Canadian Constitution<\/i> prohibits this legal recognition, in the internal constitution of Quebec, since the subject matter of the Act<\/i> falls under the civil rights of the Quebec population and is of a purely local nature, as allowed by section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982<\/i> or, if you prefer, sections 92 (13) and (16) of the Constitution Act, 1867<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[185]<\/b>  Tout cela est conforme aux \u00e9nonc\u00e9s de la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada, paragraphe 153 du Renvoi<\/i> de 1998.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[185]<\/b>  All of which is consistent with the affirmations of the Supreme Court of Canada at paragraph 153 of the 1998 Reference<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[186]<\/b>  Les m\u00e9thodes d’interpr\u00e9tation l\u00e9gislatives suffisent pour d\u00e9gager l’intention du l\u00e9gislateur et il n’est pas n\u00e9cessaire d’avoir recours \u00e0 la technique de l’interpr\u00e9tation att\u00e9nu\u00e9e pour confirmer la validit\u00e9 des dispositions l\u00e9gislatives contest\u00e9es.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[186]<\/b>  Methods of legislative interpretation suffice to identify the intention of the legislator and the use of the technique of reading down is not required to confirm the validity of the impugned legislation.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[187]<\/b>  \u00c0 la lumi\u00e8re des pr\u00e9c\u00e9dents historiques, nous pourrions reconna\u00eetre que la Loi 99<\/i> g\u00e9n\u00e8re des effets politiques, d\u00e9claratoires et juridiques propres au statut du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, lesquels proviennent des articles 1 \u00e0 3 et 13 de la Loi<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[187]<\/b>  In light of historical precedents, we could recognize that Bill 99<\/i> generates political, declaratory and legal effects specific to the status of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/i> people, which stem from sections 1 to 3 and 13 of the Act<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[188]<\/b>  Pour elle, il faut que nous nous prononcions sur ce sujet, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que le requ\u00e9rant conteste clairement le statut de peuple de la population qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise dans ses<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[188]<\/b>  In its view, we must decide this issue, since the applicant clearly challenges the status of the Quebec population as a people in his<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

86.<\/b>  Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 St-Jean-Baptiste de Montr\u00e9al<\/i> c. Henderson<\/i>, 2017 QCCA 179<\/u><\/a>, par. 18, 19.<\/span><\/p>\n

87.<\/b>  Paragraphes 92 et 151 du Renvoi<\/em><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

88.<\/b>  Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i>, pages 6168, 6169, 6193 et 8582.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

86.<\/b>  St-Jean-Baptiste Society of Montreal<\/i> v. Henderson<\/i>, 2017 QCCA 179 (CanLII)<\/u><\/a>, at paras. 18, 19.<\/span><\/p>\n

87.<\/b>  Paragraphs 92 and 151 of the Reference<\/i><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

88.<\/b>  Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/em>, pages 6168, 6169, 6193 and 8582.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

proc\u00e9dures.  Nous ne serions donc pas dans un contexte purement sp\u00e9culatif, contrairement \u00e0 ce que plaide le PGQ.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

procedures.  We would therefore not be in a purely speculative context, contrary to the argument of the Quebec Attorney General.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[189]<\/b>  Elle souhaite aussi que nous confirmions que l’article 4 de la Loi<\/i> donne effet \u00e0 l’exigence qualitative de clart\u00e9 formul\u00e9e par la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada dans l\u2019Avis consultatif<\/i> de 1998 et que les dispositions contest\u00e9es d\u00e9terminent valablement les modalit\u00e9s d’exercice du droit du Qu\u00e9bec de chercher \u00e0 r\u00e9aliser la s\u00e9cession89<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[189]<\/b>  It also would like us to confirm that section 4 of the Act<\/i> gives effect to the qualitative requirement of clarity articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1998 Advisory Opinion<\/i> and that the impugned provisions validly fix the terms and conditions for exercise of the right of Quebec to seek to achieve secession.89<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[190]<\/b>  Elle diverge d’avis avec le PGQ et le PGC sur l’effet des dispositions contest\u00e9es.  Selon elle, ces dispositions ne sont pas que purement d\u00e9claratoires et l’occasion est r\u00eav\u00e9e de nous prononcer sur le r\u00e9el impact de cette Loi<\/i>, ce qui mettra un terme \u00e0 l’interminable inach\u00e8vement constitutionnel sur ce sujet.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[190]<\/b>  It disagrees with the Quebec Attorney General and the Attorney General of Canada on the effect of the impugned provisions.  In its view, these provisions are not just purely declaratory and it dreams of the prospect of our pronouncing on the actual impact of this Law<\/i>, which will put an end to the endless constitutional incompleteness on this subject.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[191]<\/b>  Donner suite \u00e0 cette demande aurait pour avantage d’assurer ensuite la mise en \u0153uvre du droit \u00e0 l’autod\u00e9termination qui d\u00e9coule d’un tel statut et faciliterait la suite des choses90<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[191]<\/b>  To accede to this request would have the advantage of thereafter ensuring the implementation of the right to self-determination that arises from such status and would facilitate future events.90<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[192]<\/b>  Tout en rappelant que la Loi<\/i> contest\u00e9e b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie de la pr\u00e9somption de constitutionalit\u00e9 et en rappelant que le fardeau de d\u00e9montrer l\u2019\u00efnconstitutionnalit\u00e9 des dispositions attaqu\u00e9es repose sur les \u00e9paules du requ\u00e9rant, la SSJBM nous demande donc de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 diverses questions, que nous avons reprises dans la section particuli\u00e8re de ce jugement.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[192]<\/b>  While recalling that the impugned Law<\/i> benefits from the presumption of constitutionality and also that the burden of demonstrating the unconstitutionality of the impugned provisions rests on the applicant’s shoulders, the SSJBM asks us to answer various questions, which we have taken up in a particular section of this judgment.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[193]<\/b>  Contrairement au PGQ, la SSJBM est d’opinion que la Loi 99<\/i> n’est pas qu’un \u00abinstrument de droit mou\u00bb dont la vocation n’est que purement d\u00e9claratoire.  Ainsi, m\u00eame si cette Loi<\/i> n’a qu’un statut d’une loi ordinaire, contrairement \u00e0 la Charte des droits et libert\u00e9s de la personne<\/i><\/a>, qui elle, est supra l\u00e9gislative, ou quasi constitutionnelle, si l’on pr\u00e9f\u00e8re, elle doit tout de m\u00eame g\u00e9n\u00e9rer plus d’effets qu’une d\u00e9claration solennelle ou une simple r\u00e9solution adopt\u00e9e par l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[193]<\/b>  Unlike the Quebec Attorney General, the SSJBM is of the view that Bill 99<\/i> is not merely an \u201cinstrument of soft law\u201d whose vocation is purely declaratory.  Thus, even though this Act<\/i> only has the status of an ordinary law, unlike the (Quebec) Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms<\/i><\/a>, which is supra-legislative, or quasi-constitutional, if one prefers, it must still generate more effects than a solemn declaration or a simple resolution adopted by the National Assembly.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[194]<\/b>  Ainsi, certaines des dispositions attaqu\u00e9es cr\u00e9eraient de nouvelles normes dont les effets juridiques seraient compatibles avec la Constitution<\/i> et les \u00e9nonc\u00e9s de la Cour supr\u00eame, dans son Avis consultatif<\/i> de 1998.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[194]<\/b>  Therefore, some of the disputed provisions would create new norms whose legal effects would be consistent with the Constitution<\/i> and the Supreme Court’s statements in its 1998 Advisory Opinion<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[195]<\/b>  La SSJBM nous exhorte \u00e0 ne pas tomber dans le pi\u00e8ge qui consiste \u00e0 ne consid\u00e9rer les articles de loi contest\u00e9s que comme s’ils avaient finalement \u00e9t\u00e9 regroup\u00e9s que dans la fameuse r\u00e9solution unanime, que l’opposition voulait \u00e0 tout prix \u00e9viter.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[195]<\/b>  The SSJBM urges us not to fall into the trap of considering the contested sections of legislation solely as if they had in the end only been grouped together in the famous unanimous resolution, which the opposition wanted at all costs to avoid.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[196]<\/b>  De plus, comme la Cour supr\u00eame a r\u00e9it\u00e9r\u00e9 qu’un groupe qui souhaite revendiquer un droit \u00e0 l’autod\u00e9termination doit au pr\u00e9alable \u00eatre qualifi\u00e9 de peuple92<\/sup><\/span>,<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[196]<\/b>  Moreover, as the Supreme Court has reiterated that a group seeking to claim a right to self-determination must first be characterized as a people,92<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

__________<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

89.<\/b>  Voir para. 274 de sa proc\u00e9dure.<\/span><\/p>\n

90.<\/b>  Paragraphe 39 de la proc\u00e9dure de mars 2017.<\/span><\/p>\n

91.<\/b>  Paragraphe 123 du Renvoi<\/em><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

92.<\/b>  Voir par. 59 et 125 sur plusieurs des traits particuliers et de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 sociale et d\u00e9mographique du Qu\u00e9bec [qui] a constitu\u00e9 l\u2019une des raisons essentielles de la cr\u00e9ation d\u2019une structure f\u00e9d\u00e9rale pour l\u2019Union canadienne<\/em>, en 1867.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

89.<\/b>  See para. 274 of its procedure.<\/span><\/p>\n

90.<\/b>  Paragraph 39 of the procedure of March 2017.<\/span><\/p>\n

91.<\/b>  Paragraph 123 of the Reference<\/i><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

92.<\/b>  See paras. 59 and 125 on a number of the particular characteristics and the social and demographic reality of Quebec as an essential reason for the creation of a federal structure for the Canadian Union<\/em> in 1867.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

mais qu’elle a jug\u00e9 ne pas avoir \u00e0 se prononcer sur ce sujet dans le Renvoi<\/i>, notre intervention se justifierait encore plus, afin de lever cette ambigu\u00eft\u00e9, \u00e0 supposer qu’il y en ait une92<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

but it found that it did not have to decide on this issue in the Reference<\/i>, our intervention would be even more justified, in order to remove this ambiguity, supposing there is one92<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[197]<\/b>  Notre jugement pourrait ainsi cristalliser les droits collectifs du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois et donnerait un effet r\u00e9el aux dispositions l\u00e9gislatives contest\u00e9es de la Loi 99<\/i>, ce qui pourrait mettre en \u0153uvre \u00ables engagements formels, pass\u00e9s et futurs du Canada relatifs aux droits des peuples \u00e0 disposer d’eux-m\u00eames\u00bb \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/i>.93<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[197]<\/b>  Our judgment could thus crystallize the collective rights of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois people<\/i> and give real effect to the contested legislative provisions of Bill 99<\/i>, which could implement \u201cthe formal, past and future commitments of Canada regarding the rights of peoples to dispose of themselves\u201d with respect to the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois people<\/i>.93<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[198]<\/b>  C’est donc sur cette toile de fond que s’amorce l’analyse de la Loi<\/i> contest\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[198]<\/b>  It is thus against this backdrop that analysis of the disputed law<\/i> begins.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.<\/b>  L’ANALYSE<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.<\/b>  THE ANALYSIS<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

5.1<\/b>  QUESTIONS PROC\u00c9DURALES<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.1<\/b>  PROCEDURAL ISSUES<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[199]<\/b>  D’entr\u00e9e de jeu, malgr\u00e9 les conclusions de l’arr\u00eat de la Cour d’appel au sujet de l’acte d’intervention de la SSJBM, le PGC s’est oppos\u00e9 \u00e0 l’acte modifi\u00e9 que cette derni\u00e8re a d\u00e9pos\u00e9 \u00e0 la suite de ce jugement au motif que cet acte r\u00e9f\u00e8re encore \u00e0 des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve ainsi qu’\u00e0 des arguments de droit international.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[199]<\/b>  At the outset, despite the findings of the Court of Appeal in its judgment on the intervention of the SSJBM, the Attorney General of Canada objected to the amended procedure filed by the latter after the said judgment on the ground that it still refers to evidence and arguments from international law.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[200]<\/b>  S\u00e9ance tenante, nous avons dispos\u00e9 de ces sujets, en d\u00e9clarant que cette opposition \u00e9tait bien fond\u00e9e, du moins, sur certains de ses aspects.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[200]<\/b>  At that session, we disposed of these issues, declaring the said opposition well founded, at least in some of its aspects.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

 
\nCONTINUED:  PARAGRAPHS 201-299<\/u><\/a>.
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Download PDF HABEAS CORPUS CANADA The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union QUEBEC IS BEING USED TO DISMANTLE CANADA INTO CITY-STATES IN THE NORTH AMERICAN REGION Henderson c. Procureure g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Qu\u00e9bec 2018 QCCS 1586 PARAGRAPHS 103-200 PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS 1-103 L’HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE,J.C.S. THE HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE,J.C.S. FRENCH ORIGINAL NON-OFFICIAL ENGLISH 500-05-065031-013         PAGE 18…<\/p>\n

Read More “Henderson v. Attorney General of Quebec, 18 April 2018 QCCS 1586 (CanLII) \u2014 Paragraphs 103-200”<\/span> »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/103"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/103\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":104,"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/103\/revisions\/104"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}