{"id":106,"date":"2024-12-07T03:12:52","date_gmt":"2024-12-07T03:12:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/?page_id=106"},"modified":"2024-12-07T03:25:47","modified_gmt":"2024-12-07T03:25:47","slug":"henderson-v-attorney-general-of-quebec-18-april-2018-qccs-1586-canlii-paragraphs-201-299","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/henderson-v-attorney-general-of-quebec-18-april-2018-qccs-1586-canlii-paragraphs-201-299\/","title":{"rendered":"Henderson v. Attorney General of Quebec, 18 April 2018 QCCS 1586 (CanLII) \u2014 Paragraphs 201-299"},"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

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

\n
\n

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

PARAGRAPHS 201-299<\/b><\/p>\n

PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS 103-200<\/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

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

\n

THE HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE,
J.S.C.<\/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

\n

\n[201]<\/b>  De plus, en d\u00e9but d’audience, le PGQ a de nouveau pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 un moyen pr\u00e9liminaire d’irrecevabilit\u00e9 pour contester le choix du recours entrepris par le requ\u00e9rant, plaidant que le recours pour jugement d\u00e9claratoire n’est pas appropri\u00e9, puisqu’il repose sur des faits hypoth\u00e9tiques.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n		\n

\n

\n[201]<\/b>  In addition, at the beginning of the hearing, the Que-bec Attorney General once again presented a prelimi-nary plea of inadmissibility challenging the appli-cant\u2019s choice of remedy, arguing that the recourse for a declaratory judgment is not appropriate since it is based on hypothetical facts.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

[202]<\/b>  Il consid\u00e8re que la crainte que le Qu\u00e9bec s’autoproclame \u00c9tat ind\u00e9pendant d\u00e8s l’obtention du r\u00e9sultat d’un r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum favorable \u00e0 la s\u00e9cession n’est qu’hypoth\u00e9tique et qu’il n’y a donc pas lieu d’intervenir au moyen d’un jugement d\u00e9claratoire en pr\u00e9vision d’un tel sc\u00e9nario, jugement qui n’aurait que pour effet d’apaiser les angoisses du requ\u00e9rant, ce qui n’est pas le r\u00f4le du Tribunal.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[202]<\/b>  He believes that the fear Quebec will proclaim itself an independent State as soon as a referendum result is obtained favorable to secession is only hypothetical and there is thus no need to intervene by way of a declaratory judgment anticipating such a scenario, a judgment whose only effect would be to alleviate the applicant\u2019s anxieties, which is not the role of the Tribunal.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[203]<\/b>  En pr\u00e9sentant ce moyen pr\u00e9liminaire, le PGQ semble avoir oubli\u00e9 l’effet de l’arr\u00eat que la Cour d’appel a rendu sur cette objection pr\u00e9liminaire, en ao\u00fbt 2007, lorsqu’elle s’est prononc\u00e9e sur la recevabilit\u00e9 du recours ainsi que sur le caract\u00e8re justiciable des questions soumises94<\/sup><\/span>.  Ce nouveau moyen semble faire abstraction d’une partie de ce<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[203]<\/b>  In presenting this preliminary objection, the Quebec Attorney General appears to have forgotten the effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal on this preliminary measure in August 2007 when it ruled on the admissibility of the appeal as well as on the justiciability of the questions submitted.94<\/sup><\/span>  This new plea seems to disregard a part of this<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

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

93.<\/b>  Paragraphe 109 de leur proc\u00e9dure du 9 mars 2017.<\/span><\/p>\n

94.<\/b>  \u00c0 ce sujet, les paragraphes 29, 30, 73, 77, 81, 83 et 84 du jugement semblent vider la question, la Cour ayant conclu que la recherche d’une d\u00e9claration judiciaire d’invalidit\u00e9 de dispositions d’une loi<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\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<\/i> in 1867.<\/span><\/p>\n

93.<\/b>  Paragraph 109 of their procedure of March 9, 2017.<\/span><\/p>\n

94.<\/b>  In this regard, paragraphs 29, 30, 73, 77, 81, 83 and 84 of the judgment appear to dispose of the question, the Court having concluded that the search for a judicial declaration of invalidity of provisions of a statute <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 34<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 34<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

jugement qui l\u2019a d\u00e9j\u00e0 tranch\u00e9 lorsque la Cour d’appel a refus\u00e9 que 4 des 6 conclusions du requ\u00e9rant fassent partie du d\u00e9bat au motif qu’elles relevaient de la p\u00e9tition de principe.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

judgment that had already ruled when the Court of Appeal dismissed four of the applicant\u2019s six conclusions from the debate on the ground that they begged the question.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[204]<\/b>  Comme il y a chose jug\u00e9e, cela dispose de l’argument, puisqu’il serait mal venu de nous prononcer une nouvelle fois sur une question d\u00e9j\u00e0 r\u00e9gl\u00e9e qui b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie de la protection accord\u00e9e par le principe de la chose jug\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[204]<\/b>  As there is res judicata<\/i>, that disposes of the argument, and it would be inappropriate for us to rule again on an already settled question which benefits from the protection afforded by the principle of chose jug\u00e9e<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[205]<\/b>  Le citoyen Henderson pr\u00e9sentant une demande relevant du pouvoir de surveillance de la Cour sup\u00e9rieure, il y a lieu d’y donner suite et d’analyser les arguments pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s de part et d’autre pour disposer du m\u00e9rite de la demande de jugement d\u00e9claratoire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[205]<\/b>  Citizen Henderson\u2019s submitting an application subject to the supervisory power of the Superior Court, it should be reviewed and the arguments presented analyzed by both sides to dispose of the application for a declaratory judgment, on the merits.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[206]<\/b>  Le PGQ s’est aussi oppos\u00e9 au d\u00e9p\u00f4t en preuve de 18 des 25 pi\u00e8ces all\u00e9gu\u00e9es au soutien de la requ\u00eate, et a demand\u00e9 la radiation des all\u00e9gations qui les introduisaient, au motif qu’elles n’\u00e9taient pas davantage pertinentes \u00e0 la d\u00e9cision que nous devons rendre \u00e0 la suite du jugement de la Cour d’appel d’ao\u00fbt 200795<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[206]<\/b>  The Quebec Attorney General also objects to the filing of 18 of the 25 alleged exhibits in support of the motion, and requested that the allegations introducing them be set aside on the ground that they were not relevant to the decision we must render after the judgment of the Court of Appeal in August 2007.95<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[207]<\/b>  Ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve et ces all\u00e9gations concernent des contestations log\u00e9es par le requ\u00e9rant \u00e0 l\u2019encontre de lois ant\u00e9rieures96<\/sup><\/span>, de diff\u00e9rents documents et m\u00e9moires pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par le PGC \u00e0 la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada lors du Renvoi<\/i> ayant men\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019Avis consultatif<\/i> de 1998, des copies de programmes politiques du Parti qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, et une r\u00e9solution de l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale d’octobre 2013, apr\u00e8s que le PGC soit intervenu au dossier judiciaire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[207]<\/b>  This evidence and these allegations relate to the applicant’s challenges to previous statutes,96<\/sup><\/span> and to various documents and briefs submitted by the Attorney General of Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Reference leading to the Advisory Opinion of 1998, to copies of Parti Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/i> political programs, and a resolution of the National Assembly of October 2013, after the Attorney General of Canada intervened in the judicial file.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[208]<\/b>  Le 20 mars 2017, en d\u00e9but d’audition, nous avons rejet\u00e9 cette objection \u00e0 la preuve, et la demande de radiation des paragraphes qui introduisaient les pi\u00e8ces contest\u00e9es97<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[208]<\/b>  On March 20th, 2017, at the outset of the hearing, we dismissed this objection to the evidence, and the request to strike out those paragraphs introducing the disputed exhibits.97<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[209]<\/b>  Toutefois, dans le pr\u00e9sent jugement, nous devons revenir plus en d\u00e9tail sur le poids que nous accordons \u00e0 ces divers \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve extrins\u00e8que, puisqu’ils sont utiles pour nous aider \u00e0 interpr\u00e9ter la Loi 99<\/i>98<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[209]<\/b>  Nevertheless, in the present judgment, we must return in more detail to the weight we attach to these various elements of extrinsic proof, since they are useful in helping us to interpret Bill 99<\/i>.98<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[210]<\/b>  D’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0, nous pouvons conclure que les \u00e9l\u00e9ments portant sur des lois qui retournent aussi loin qu’en 197899<\/sup><\/span> et que la r\u00e9solution adopt\u00e9e par l’Assembl\u00e9e<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[210]<\/b>  We can already conclude that the elements relating to laws as far back as 197899<\/sup><\/span> and that the resolution adopted by the National Assembly <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

\u00e9tait une question justiciable et que le fait que la requ\u00eate soit pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e dans la perspective d’un r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum \u00e9loign\u00e9 n’\u00e9tait pas un facteur d\u00e9terminant, en l’esp\u00e8ce.  Elle a alors consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que toutes les conditions pour qu’un juge dispose des deux seules conclusions autoris\u00e9es et reformul\u00e9es \u00e9taient satisfaites pour aller de l’avant avec le recours, apr\u00e8s avoir mis de c\u00f4t\u00e9 les conclusions qui ne se qualifiaient pas pour alimenter le pr\u00e9sent d\u00e9bat judiciaire.<\/span><\/p>\n

95.<\/b>  Voir proc\u00e8s-verbal d’audience du 20 mars 2017, 12h09 et 14h28.<\/span><\/p>\n

96.<\/b>  Entre autres concernant le projet de loi 150.<\/span><\/p>\n

97.<\/b>  Voir proc\u00e8s-verbal d’audience du 20 mars 2017, 12h09 et 14h28.<\/span><\/p>\n

98.<\/b>  Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la Loi sur les armes \u00e0 feu<\/em> (Can.), [2000] 1 R.C.S. 783<\/u><\/a>, pages 796-799; Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la Loi sur les valeurs mobili\u00e8res<\/em><\/a>, [2011] 3 R.C.S. 837<\/u>, par. 64.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

was a justiciable issue and that the fact the motion was made in view of a remote referendum was not a determining factor in this case.  It then considered that all the conditions for a judge to dispose of the only two authorized and reformulated conclusions were satisfied in order to proceed with the recourse, after setting aside those conclusions that did not qualify to fuel the present judicial debate.<\/span><\/p>\n

95.<\/b>  See Minutes of Proceedings of March 20, 2017, 12:09 pm and 2:28 pm.<\/span><\/p>\n

96.<\/b>  Among others, concerning Bill 150.<\/span><\/p>\n

97.<\/b>  See Minutes of Proceedings of March 20, 2017, 2:28 pm<\/span><\/p>\n

98.<\/b> Reference re Firearms Act<\/em> (Can.), 2000 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 783<\/u><\/a>, pages 796-799; Reference to the Securities Act<\/em>, 2011 SCC 66 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 837<\/u><\/a>, at para. 64.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

nationale le 23 octobre 2013100<\/sup> <\/span> ont moins d’impact que toute la preuve concomitante \u00e0 l’adoption de la Loi<\/i>, cette derni\u00e8re \u00e9tant \u00ab n\u00e9cessaire \u00bb aux fins de l’exercice que nous devons accomplir, tel que nous en avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait \u00e9tat dans le chapitre portant sur la mise en contexte.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

on October 23rd, 2013100<\/sup><\/span>  have less impact than all the evidence accompanying the passage of the Act<\/i>, the latter being \u201cnecessary\u201d for the purposes of the exercise we are to perform, as we have already mentioned in the section on contextualization.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[211]<\/b>  Mais comme la preuve pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e porte sur des mati\u00e8res connexes, voire similaires, la mani\u00e8re dont le sujet qui nous int\u00e9resse a \u00e9t\u00e9 trait\u00e9 ant\u00e9rieurement ou post\u00e9rieurement \u00e0 la Loi 99<\/i> est utile, et nous consid\u00e9rons qu’il ne serait pas avis\u00e9 de mettre cette preuve de c\u00f4t\u00e9 dans le cadre de l’exercice destin\u00e9 \u00e0 d\u00e9terminer l’objet et le but recherch\u00e9s par le l\u00e9gislateur lorsqu’il a adopt\u00e9 les dispositions contest\u00e9es de cette fameuse Loi<\/i>101<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[211]<\/b>  But as the evidence presented bears on related or similar matters, the manner in which the subject in question was treated prior to or subsequent to Bill 99<\/i>  is useful, and we consider that it would not be wise to put this evidence aside in the framework of the exercise to determine the object and purpose sought by the legislature when it adopted the contested provisions of this famous Law.101<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[212]<\/b>  Quant aux \u00e9l\u00e9ments portant sur la position que le PGC a pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s \u00e0 la Cour supr\u00eame lors du Renvoi<\/i> d\u00e9pos\u00e9 en 1996, \u00e9l\u00e9ments que nous pourrions qualifier de \u00ab making of<\/i> \u00bb du dossier102<\/sup>, nous ne les avons pas utilis\u00e9s, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que nous b\u00e9n\u00e9ficions maintenant du produit final, c’est-\u00e0-dire l\u2019Avis consultatif<\/i> \u00e9mis en 1998, et qu’il ne nous revient pas de refaire le droit sur ce sujet103<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[212]<\/b>  As for those elements bearing on the position that the Attorney General of Canada presented to the Supreme Court at the 1996 Reference<\/i>, which we might call the \u201cmaking of<\/i>\u201d the record,102<\/sup> we have not used them given that we now have the final product, the Advisory Opinion<\/i> issued in 1998, and it does not belong to us to remake the law on this subject.103<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[213]<\/b>  Ainsi, pour davantage de pr\u00e9cision sur la preuve admise au dossier et utilis\u00e9e pour disposer de la requ\u00eate pour jugement d\u00e9claratoire, les \u00e9l\u00e9ments suivants ont \u00e9t\u00e9 consid\u00e9r\u00e9s :   les pi\u00e8ces R-1 \u00e0 R-25, PGQ-1 \u00e0 3 et PGC-1, 1a) et 2104<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[213]<\/b>  Thus, to further clarify the evidence admitted in the record and used to dispose of the motion for a declaratory judgment, the following elements were considered:  Exhibits R-1 to R-25, PGQ-1 to 3 and PGC-1, 1a) and 2104<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[214]<\/b>  Outre ce que nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9, ces pi\u00e8ces incluent quatre rapports d’experts portant sur le pouvoir accord\u00e9 au peuple<\/i> dans d’autres \u00e9tats f\u00e9d\u00e9r\u00e9s, comme les \u00c9tats-Unis d’Am\u00e9rique et l’Allemagne, sur la validit\u00e9 de dispositions similaires \u00e0 celles contest\u00e9es, qui existent dans les \u00ab constitutions intra-\u00e9tatiques \u00bb de d’autres \u00e9tats f\u00e9d\u00e9r\u00e9s105<\/sup><\/span>, ainsi que sur la limite de leur port\u00e9e, lorsqu’elles entrent en conflit avec la Constitution f\u00e9d\u00e9rale<\/i> de ces \u00e9tats.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[214]<\/b>  Other than what we have already listed, these exhibits include four experts’ reports on the power granted to the people<\/i> in other federated states, such as the United States of America and Germany, as to the validity of provisions similar to those contested, which exist in the \u201cintrastate constitutions\u201d of other federated states,105<\/sup><\/span> as well as on the limits of their scope when they come into conflict with the federal constitution<\/i> of these states.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[215]<\/b>  Toutes ces expertises concordent sur le fait que des \u00e9nonc\u00e9s de la nature de ceux que l’on retrouve dans les dispositions l\u00e9gislatives contest\u00e9es par le requ\u00e9rant<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[215]<\/b>  All of these expert opinions concur on the fact that statements of the nature of those found in the legislative provisions challenged by the applicant<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

99.<\/b> R-19 \u00e0 R-24, au sujet des projets de loi 194 (1978) et 191 (1985) sur la reconnaissance du droit \u00e0 la libre disposition du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois.<\/span><\/p>\n

100.<\/b>  R-25.  La preuve extrins\u00e8que post\u00e9rieure peut s’av\u00e9rer pertinente dans certains cas.<\/span><\/p>\n

101.<\/b>  R.<\/em> c. Morgentaler<\/em>, [1993] 3 R.C.S. 463<\/u><\/a>, page 483.<\/span><\/p>\n

102.<\/b>  Voir pi\u00e8ce R-11.<\/span><\/p>\n

103.<\/b>  L’arr\u00eat R.<\/em> c. Big M Drug Mart<\/em>, [1985] 1 R.C.S. 295<\/em><\/u><\/a>, pr\u00e9cise \u00e0 la page 335 que \u00ab L’objet d’une loi est fonction de l’intention de ceux qui l’ont r\u00e9dig\u00e9e et adopt\u00e9e \u00e0 l’\u00c9poque, et non pas d’un facteur variable quelconque \u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n

104.<\/b>  Voir proc\u00e8s-verbal d’audience du 20 mars 2017.<\/span><\/p>\n

105.<\/b>  Expression utilis\u00e9e par le Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Canada pour traduire ce que les expertises du Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Qu\u00e9bec d\u00e9montrent (page 14 de son m\u00e9moire).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

99.<\/b>  R-19 to R-24, concerning Bills 194 (1978) and 191 (1985) on the recognition of the right to self-determination of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois people.<\/span><\/p>\n

100.<\/b>  R-25.  Subsequent extrinsic evidence may be relevant in some cases.<\/span><\/p>\n

101.<\/b>  R<\/i>. v. Morgentaler<\/i>, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463<\/u><\/a>, at page 483.<\/span><\/p>\n

102.<\/b>  See Exhibit R-11.<\/span><\/p>\n

103.<\/b>  R.<\/i> v. Big M Drug Mart<\/i>, 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 295<\/u><\/a>, states at page 335 [par. 91] that \u201cPurpose is a function of the intent of those who drafted and enacted the legislation at the time, and not of any shifting variable\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

104.<\/b>  See the minutes of the hearing of March 20, 2017.<\/span><\/p>\n

105.<\/b>  Expression used by the Attorney General of Canada to reflect what the experts\u2019 opinions of the Attorney General of Quebec demonstrate (page 14 of its factum).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

sont valides tant et aussi longtemps qu’ils n’affectent pas la relation d’un \u00e9tat particulier avec l’\u00c9tat f\u00e9d\u00e9ral106<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

are valid as long as they do not affect the relationship of a particular state with the Federal State.106<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[216]<\/b>  Quant aux pi\u00e8ces IN-1 \u00e0 IN-32, \u00e0 la suite des objections formul\u00e9es par le PGC, la SSJBM a finalement d\u00e9cid\u00e9 de ne pas les produire107<\/sup><\/span>, mais elle nous a sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 de les consid\u00e9rer comme des autorit\u00e9s, pour celles auxquelles ce concept s’applique.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[216]<\/b>  As for exhibits IN-1 to IN-32, after objections by the Attorney General of Canada, the SSJBM finally decided not to produce them,107<\/sup><\/span> but suggested that we consider them as authorities, for those to which this concept applies.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[217]<\/b>  Voil\u00e0 pour la preuve.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[217]<\/b>  So much for the proof.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[218]<\/b>  Dans un autre ordre d’id\u00e9es, \u00e0 la fin de l’audition, par d\u00e9licatesse pour le requ\u00e9rant et son avocat, qui \u00e9taient plus \u00e0 l’aise dans la langue anglaise, nous avons avis\u00e9 les parties qu’\u00e9tant donn\u00e9 la nature de la cause, notre jugement serait rendu en fran\u00e7ais, ce qui a re\u00e7u l’aval de toutes les parties.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[218]<\/b>  On another matter, at the end of the hearing, out of delicacy for the applicant and his counsel, who were more comfortable in the English language, we advised the parties that given the nature of the cause, our judgment would be rendered in French, which was approved by all parties.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[219]<\/b>  Vu l’importance de la cause et le temps requis pour nous livrer \u00e0 une r\u00e9flexion appropri\u00e9e \u00e0 la hauteur de l’int\u00e9r\u00eat que suscite le sujet au c\u0153ur de ce jugement, les parties ont aussi \u00e9t\u00e9 avis\u00e9es que le jugement serait d\u00e9pos\u00e9 plus tard qu’anticip\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[219]<\/b>  Given the importance of the case and the time required to engage in appropriate reflection commensurate with the interest aroused by the subject at the core of this judgment, the parties were also advised that judgment would be handed down later than anticipated.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[220]<\/b>  Ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments pr\u00e9liminaires \u00e9tant \u00e9vacu\u00e9s, abordons maintenant les principes \u00e0 partir desquels nous devons effectuer notre analyse pour disposer des questions soulev\u00e9es par la demande de jugement d\u00e9claratoire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[220]<\/b>  These preliminary elements having been covered, we now turn to the principles upon which we must conduct our analysis to dispose of the issues raised by the application for a declaratory judgment.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.2<\/b>  PRINCIPES APPLICABLES EN MATIERE CONSTITUTIONNELLE<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.2<\/b>  PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.2.1<\/b>  Fardeau de la preuve, pr\u00e9somption de constitutionnalit\u00e9 et r\u00e9parations disponibles<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.2.1<\/b>  Burden of proof, presumption of constitutionality and available remedies<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[221]<\/b>  Dans un premier temps, il importe de rappeler que le fardeau de d\u00e9montrer l\u2019\u00efnconstitutionnalit\u00e9 des dispositions contest\u00e9es revient au requ\u00e9rant108<\/sup>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[221]<\/b>  As a first step, it is important to recall that the burden of proving the unconstitutionality of the impugned provisions rests with the applicant.108<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[222]<\/b>  En l’esp\u00e8ce, il faut se rappeler que la requ\u00eate initiale du requ\u00e9rant a subi une purge par laquelle 4 des 6 conclusions initiales ont \u00e9t\u00e9 ray\u00e9es du dossier.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[222]<\/b>  In the present case, it must be remembered that the Applicant\u2019s initial motion underwent a purge by which 4 of the 6 original conclusions sought were stricken from the record.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[223]<\/b>  Par ses deux conclusions restantes, le requ\u00e9rant recherche deux d\u00e9clarations d\u00efnconstitutionnalit\u00e9:  la premi\u00e8re, que les articles 1 \u00e0 5 et 13 de la Loi 99<\/i> sont ultra vires<\/i> des pouvoirs de l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale, donc non conformes \u00e0 la Constitution canadienne<\/i>, et la deuxi\u00e8me, que dans l’hypoth\u00e8se o\u00f9 ces articles autorisent le Qu\u00e9bec \u00e0 s’autoproclamer comme \u00c9tat ind\u00e9pendant ou lui permettent de modifier son r\u00e9gime<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[223]<\/b>  Via his two remaining conclusions, the complainant seeks two declarations of unconstitutionality: the first, that sections 1 to 5 and 13 of Bill 99<\/i> are ultra vires<\/i> the powers of the National Assembly, therefore not in conformity with the Canadian Constitution<\/i>, and the second, that in the event these sections authorize Quebec to proclaim itself an independent State or allow it to change its political<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

106.<\/b>  Expertises d\u00e9pos\u00e9es de consentement par les deux procureurs g\u00e9n\u00e9raux. Voir les expertises du professeur Robert F Williams (page 9) et du Dr Matthias Niedobiteck (page 3) pour le PGQ, et les expertises du Dr Dirk Hanschel (pages 4, 18) et du Dr Richard Steven Kay (pages 15, 16, 18, 19, 23) pour le PGC.<\/span><\/p>\n

107.<\/b>  Voir proc\u00e8s-verbal d’audience du 20 mars 2017, 11h37.<\/span><\/p>\n

108.<\/b>  Canada<\/i> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/i>) et Dupond<\/i> c. Ville de Montr\u00e9al<\/i>, [1978] 2 R.C.S. 770<\/u><\/a>, pages 792-793.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

106.<\/b>  Expert reports filed with the consent of the two attorneys general.  See the expertises of Professor Robert F. Williams (page 9) and Dr. Matthias Niedobiteck (page 3) for the Quebec Attorney General, and the expertise of Dr. Dirk Hanschel (pages 4, 18) and Dr. Richard Steven Kay (pages 15, 16, 18, 19, 23) for the Attorney General of Canada.<\/span><\/p>\n

107.<\/b>  See Minutes of Hearing of March 20, 2017, 11:37 am.<\/span><\/p>\n

108.<\/b>  Dupond<\/i> v. City of Montreal et al.<\/i>, [1978] 2 SCR 770, 1978 CanLII 201 (SCC)<\/u><\/a>, pages 792-793.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

politique et son statut l\u00e9gal de province canadienne pour un autre, sans passer par la proc\u00e9dure prescrite dans la Constitution<\/i>, ils violent alors les droits prot\u00e9g\u00e9s par la Charte canadienne des droits et libert\u00e9s<\/i>, de sorte qu’ils doivent \u00eatre d\u00e9clar\u00e9s nuls.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

regime and its legal status as a Canadian province for another, without going through the procedure prescribed in the Constitution<\/i>, they violate the rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/i>, so they must be declared null and void.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[224]<\/b>  C’est \u00e0 cela que la Cour d’appel a circonscrit la cause d’action du requ\u00e9rant, dans son jugement de 2007109<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[224]<\/b>  It is to this that the Court of Appeal circumscribed the applicant\u2019s cause of action, in its 2007 judgment.109<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[225]<\/b>  Si nous sommes d’avis que les dispositions contest\u00e9es sont conformes \u00e0 la Constitution<\/i> et \u00e0 la Charte<\/i>, il nous faut \u00e9viter toute d\u00e9claration portant sur des conduites \u00e9ventuelles qui pourraient survenir en prenant appui sur les dispositions attaqu\u00e9es.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[225]<\/b>  If we are of the view that the challenged provisions are in accordance with the Constitution<\/i> and the Charter<\/i>, we must avoid any statement bearing on future conduct that might be based on the impugned provisions.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[226]<\/b>  Pour r\u00e9ussir, le requ\u00e9rant doit donc d\u00e9montrer que les articles 1 \u00e0 5(1) et 13 de la Loi 99<\/i> autorisent express\u00e9ment le Qu\u00e9bec, ou par implication n\u00e9cessaire, \u00e0 faire s\u00e9cession unilat\u00e9rale du Canada sans respecter au pr\u00e9alable les obligations constitutionnelles qui lui imposent de n\u00e9gocier une telle s\u00e9cession avec les autres membres de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration canadienne, de la mani\u00e8re dont elle est r\u00e9dig\u00e9e, ainsi que par le but qu’elle recherche, et qu’elle permet de violer la Charte<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[226]<\/b>  To succeed, the applicant must therefore demonstrate that sections 1 to 5 (1) and 13 of Bill 99<\/i>, as drafted, expressly, or by necessary implication, as well as by the goal they seek, authorize Quebec to secede unilaterally from Canada without first complying with the constitutional obligations that impose upon it a duty to negotiate secession with the other members of the Canadian federation, and which, due to the end sought, allow the Charter<\/i> to be violated.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[227]<\/b>  Par contre, lorsque c’est la conduite d’un repr\u00e9sentant de l’\u00c9tat qui est attaqu\u00e9e, c’est-\u00e0-dire lorsqu’un fonctionnaire applique une loi par ailleurs constitutionnelle, mais de mani\u00e8re inconstitutionnelle, une telle conduite a pour effet de violer la Charte<\/i> et il faut comprendre que ce n’est pas la constitutionnalit\u00e9 de la loi qui est en cause.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[227]<\/b>  On the other hand, when the conduct of a State official is attacked, i.e., when an official applies an otherwise constitutional law, but in an unconstitutional manner, such conduct has the effect of violating the Charter<\/i> and it must be understood that it is not the constitutionality of the law that is in question.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[228]<\/b>  Le rem\u00e8de disponible ne peut alors viser le texte de la loi sur lequel s’appuie le fonctionnaire pour commettre son geste inconstitutionnel.  En semblable cas, le rem\u00e8de ne trouve pas sa source dans l’article 52 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<\/i>, mais dans l’article 24(1) de la Charte<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[228]<\/b>  The remedy available cannot then target the text of the law on which the official relies to commit his unconstitutional act.  In such a case, the remedy is not found in section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982<\/i>, but in section 24(1) of the Charter<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[229]<\/b>  Il est donc essentiel de bien saisir la diff\u00e9rence entre les diff\u00e9rents objets de revendication du requ\u00e9rant, afin de disposer ad\u00e9quatement du litige.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[229]<\/b>  It is therefore essential to clearly understand the difference between the different objects of the applicant\u2019s claim in order to properly dispose of the dispute.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[230]<\/b>  D\u00e8s le d\u00e9but de son p\u00e9riple, le requ\u00e9rant affronte un obstacle important qui n’est pas de nature \u00e0 faciliter son travail:  la pr\u00e9somption de constitutionnalit\u00e9 des lois.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[230]<\/b>  From the outset of his journey, the applicant faces a major obstacle that is not likely to facilitate his work:  the presumption of the constitutionality of laws.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[231]<\/b>  Cette pr\u00e9somption s’articule autour du principe voulant que l’on pr\u00eate g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement au Parlement et aux l\u00e9gislatures provinciales l’intention d’agir dans les limites des comp\u00e9tences l\u00e9gislatives qui leur sont attribu\u00e9es dans la Constitution, bref, de conna\u00eetre ce dont ils peuvent s’occuper ainsi que les limites \u00e0 ne pas franchir. C’est un peu comme conna\u00eetre sa description de t\u00e2ches et de pr\u00e9sumer que personne n’en fera plus.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[231]<\/b>  This presumption is based on the principle that Parliament and the provincial legislatures generally intend to act within the limits of the legislative powers conferred on them in the Constitution<\/i>, in short, that they know how far they can go and thus the limits they cannot exceed.  It’s a bit like knowing one\u2019s job description and presuming that no one will overstep.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

109.<\/b>  Aux paragraphes 85 et 86.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

109.<\/b>  At paragraphs 85 and 86.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[232]<\/b>  Cela signifie que les lois sont pr\u00e9sum\u00e9es avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9es de mani\u00e8re conforme \u00e0 la Constitution<\/i> et dans le but d’accomplir un objet compatible \u00e0 cette derni\u00e8re.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[232]<\/b>  This means that laws are presumed to have been adopted in a manner consistent with the Constitution<\/i> and for the purpose of accomplishing an object consistent with it.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[233]<\/b>  Cette pr\u00e9somption s’\u00e9tend aussi au fait que les autorit\u00e9s constituantes puissent tenir pour acquis que les lois qu’elles adoptent seront ensuite appliqu\u00e9es par les fonctionnaires d’une mani\u00e8re conforme \u00e0 la Constitution<\/i>.110<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[233]<\/b>  This presumption also extends to the fact that the constituent authorities may take for granted that the laws they adopt will then be applied by functionaries in a manner consistent with the Constitution<\/i>.110<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[234]<\/b>  \u00c0 cela, la Cour supr\u00eame ajoute que \u00ab Lorsqu’une interpr\u00e9tation plausible d’une disposition (l\u00e9gislative) permet d’en reconna\u00eetre la validit\u00e9 constitutionnelle, cette interpr\u00e9tation doit \u00eatre pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9e \u00e0 toute autre qui n’accomplirait pas le but recherch\u00e9 par le l\u00e9gislateur. \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[234]<\/b>  To this, the Supreme Court adds that “Where a plausible interpretation of a (statutory) provision permits its constitutional validity to be recognized, that interpretation must be preferred to any other which does not fulfill the purpose sought by the legislator.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[235]<\/b>  En ce qui concerne plus sp\u00e9cifi­que­ment la Charte<\/i>, la Cour supr\u00eame a sp\u00e9cifi\u00e9 que \u00ab (…) dans les cas o\u00f9 il y a deux interpr\u00e9tations possibles d’une disposition l\u00e9gislative, l’une incorporant les valeurs de la Charte et l’autre non, il convient d’adopter la premi\u00e8re.  \u00bb111<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[235]<\/b>  With respect to the Charter<\/i> specifically, the Supreme Court specified that \u201c(…) where there are two possible interpretations of a statutory provision, one incorporating the values of the Charter and the other not, it is necessary to adopt the former\u201d.111<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[236]<\/b>  Dans le jugement que le juge Michel C\u00f4t\u00e9112<\/sup><\/span> a rendu sur la demande d’irrecevabilit\u00e9 du PGQ \u00e0 l\u2019encontre de la demande originale du requ\u00e9rant en jugement d\u00e9claratoire, en 2002, qui rejette le recours dont nous d\u00e9cidons finalement, de mani\u00e8re interlocutoire, le juge reprend les principes auxquels nous venons de faire r\u00e9f\u00e9rence et il conclut qu’il lui est \u00ab impossible d’interpr\u00e9ter une disposition l\u00e9gislative formul\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement comme permettant de violer la Constitution \u00bb.113<\/sup><\/span>  Il expose un autre aspect de cette pr\u00e9somption de constitutionnalit\u00e9 en lien avec le caract\u00e8re g\u00e9n\u00e9ral d’une loi.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[236]<\/b>  In the judgment delivered by Judge Michel C\u00f4t\u00e9112<\/sup><\/span> on the Quebec Attorney General\u2019s motion for inadmissibility in opposition to the applicant\u2019s original demand for a declaratory judgment in 2002, and which by way of interlocutory dismissed the recourse we are finally deciding, the judge restated the principles to which we have just referred, and he concluded that it was \u201cimpossible\u201d for him \u201cto interpret a legislative provision formulated in general terms as violating the Constitution\u201d.113<\/sup><\/span>  He set out another aspect of this presumption of constitutionality in connection with the general character of a law.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[237]<\/b>  Il est pertinent de pr\u00e9ciser que lorsque le juge C\u00f4t\u00e9 \u00e9crit sur ce sujet, il consid\u00e8re que les articles de la Loi 99<\/i> que le requ\u00e9rant conteste toujours ont un caract\u00e8re universel114<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[237]<\/b>  It is relevant to point out that, when writing on this subject, Judge C\u00f4t\u00e9 considers the sections of Bill 99<\/i> that the applicant still is challenging, as universal in nature.114<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[238]<\/b>  Si la loi contest\u00e9e para\u00eet \u00e0 premi\u00e8re vue ambigu\u00eb, c’est-\u00e0-dire lorsqu’elle peut \u00e0 la fois \u00eatre interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e comme respectant les pouvoirs de l’autorit\u00e9 qui l’a adopt\u00e9e et \u00e0 la fois comme les exc\u00e9dant, arrive alors au renfort la technique de l’interpr\u00e9tation<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[238]<\/b>  If the impugned law seems prima facie<\/i> ambiguous, meaning that it can be interpreted both as respecting and exceeding the powers of the authority that adopted it, then the technique of reading down is called in aid,<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

110.<\/b>  R<\/i>. c. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society<\/i>, [1992] 2 R.C.S. 606<\/u><\/a>, p. 660; R. c. G. (B.), [1999] 2 R.C.S. 475, p. 499; Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> (Procureure g\u00e9n\u00e9rale<\/i>) c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse<\/i>, [2002] R.J.Q. 588 (C.A.); Renvoi relatif sur les armes \u00e0 feu<\/i> (Can<\/i>.), [2000] 1 R.C.S. 783<\/u><\/a>, par. 25; Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium<\/i> c. Canada<\/i> (Ministre de la Justice<\/i>), [2000] 2 R.C.S. 1120<\/u><\/a>, par. 71, 73, 134.<\/span><\/p>\n

111.<\/b>  R.<\/em> c. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society<\/em>, [1992] 2 R.C.S. 606<\/u><\/a>, p. 660; Hills<\/em> c. Canada<\/em>, (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/em>), [1988] 1 R.C.S. 513<\/u><\/a>; Castillo<\/em> c. Castillo<\/em>, [2005] 3 R.C.S. 870<\/u><\/a>, par. 30; Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> (Procureure g\u00e9n\u00e9rale<\/em>) c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse<\/em>, [2002] R.J.Q. 588 (C.A.), par. 38.<\/span><\/p>\n

112.<\/b>  De notre Cour.<\/span><\/p>\n

113.<\/b>  Voir Henderson<\/em> c. Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em>, 2002 CanLII 527 (QC CS)<\/u><\/a>, page 19 o\u00f9 il r\u00e9f\u00e8re plus sp\u00e9cifiquement aux arr\u00eats Slaight Communications Inc.<\/em> c. Davidson<\/em>, [1989] 1 R.C.S. 1038<\/u><\/a>, p. 1078-1079, Eaton<\/em> c. Conseil scolaire du comt\u00e9 de Brant<\/em>, [1997] 1 R.C.S. 241<\/u><\/a>, par. 3, R.<\/em> c. Ruzic<\/em>, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 687<\/u><\/a>, par. 26 et Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium<\/em> c. Canada<\/em> (Ministre de la Justice<\/em>), [2000] 2 R.C.S. 1120<\/u><\/a>, par. 134.<\/span><\/p>\n

114.<\/b>  Voir son jugement sur le sujet : Henderson<\/i> c. Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i>, 2002 CanLII 527 (QC CS)<\/u><\/a>, p. 19-20.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

110.<\/b>  R.<\/em> v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society<\/em>, [1992] 2 SCR 606<\/a>, 1992 CanLII 72 (SCC)<\/u>, p. 660; R.<\/em> v. G. (B.)<\/em>, [1999] 2 SCR 475<\/a>, 1999 CanLII 690 (SCC)<\/u>, p. 499; Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> (Procureure g\u00e9n\u00e9rale<\/i>) c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse<\/i>, [2002] R.J.Q. 588 (C.A.); Reference re Firearms Act<\/i> (Can.<\/i>), [2000] 1 SCR 783, 2000 SCC 31<\/u><\/a>, par. 25; Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium<\/i> c. Canada<\/i> (Ministre de la Justice<\/i>), [2000] 2 R.C.S. 1120<\/u><\/a>, par. 71, 73, 134.<\/span><\/p>\n

111.<\/b>  R.<\/em> v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society<\/em>, [1992] 2 SCR 606<\/a>, 1992 CanLII 72 (SCC)<\/u>, p. 660; Hills<\/em> c. Canada<\/em>, (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/em>), [1988] 1 R.C.S. 513<\/u><\/a>; Castillo<\/em> c. Castillo<\/em>, [2005] 3 R.C.S. 870<\/u><\/a>, par. 30; Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> (Procureure g\u00e9n\u00e9rale<\/em>) c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse<\/em>, [2002] R.J.Q. 588 (C.A.), par. 38.<\/span><\/p>\n

112.<\/b>  Of this Court.<\/span><\/p>\n

113.<\/b>  See Henderson<\/i> c. Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i>, 2002 CanLII 527 (QC CS)<\/u><\/a><\/u><\/a>, page 19 where he refers more specifically to Slaight Communications Inc<\/i>. v. Davidson<\/i>,1989 CanLII 92 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1038<\/u><\/a>, p. 1078-1079, Eaton<\/i> v. Brant County School Board<\/i>, 1997 CanLII 366 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 241<\/u><\/a>, at para. 3; R<\/i>. v. Ruzic<\/i>,2001 SCC 24 (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 687<\/u><\/a>, at para. 26 and Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium<\/i> v. Canada<\/i> (Minister of Justice<\/i>), 2000 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2000] 2 SCR 1120<\/u><\/a> at para. 134.<\/span><\/p>\n

114.<\/b>  See his judgment on the subject: Henderson<\/i> v. Attorney General of Quebec<\/i>, 2002 CanLII 527 (QC CS)<\/u><\/a>, p. 19-20.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

att\u00e9nu\u00e9e, pour tenter de r\u00e9chapper les dispositions qui causent probl\u00e8me, de mani\u00e8re \u00e0 ce qu’elles continuent de produire leurs effets et g\u00e9rer les mati\u00e8res sur lesquelles cette autorit\u00e9 avait a priori<\/i> le droit de l\u00e9gif\u00e9rer.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

in an attempt to rework the provisions that cause problems, so that they continue to produce their effects and deal with matters over which this authority had a priori<\/i> the right to legislate.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[239]<\/b>  Cette m\u00e9thode permet de circonscrire la port\u00e9e des effets de ces dispositions \u00e0 ce qui demeure dans les comp\u00e9tences de l’autorit\u00e9 constituante. Autrement dit, le l\u00e9gislateur ne perd pas tout et ne gagne pas de terrain qui ne lui appartiendrait pas autrement.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[239]<\/b>  This method allows the scope of the effects of these provisions to be limited to that which is within the jurisdiction of the constituent authority.  In other words, all is not lost by the legislator, and who gains no ground that would not otherwise belong to him.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[240]<\/b>  Lorsqu’une loi est attaqu\u00e9e, comme c’est le cas en l’esp\u00e8ce, et que le Tribunal conclut que la loi enti\u00e8re ou que certaines de ses dispositions sont inconstitutionnelles, le rem\u00e8de se trouve dans l’article 52 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<\/i>; il y a alors lieu de prononcer une d\u00e9claration d’invalidit\u00e9, d’inconstitutionnalit\u00e9 ou, dans certains cas, d’inapplicabilit\u00e9 \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard des dispositions qui n’ont pu \u00eatre rescap\u00e9es par les r\u00e8gles d’interpr\u00e9tation utilis\u00e9es115<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[240]<\/b>  When a law is challenged, as is the case here, and the Tribunal finds that the entire law or some of its provisions are unconstitutional, the remedy is found in section 52 of the Constitution Act. 1982<\/i>; there are then grounds to pronounce a declaration of invalidity, unconstitutionality or, in certain cases, of inapplicability with regard to provisions which could not be rescued by the rules of interpretation utilized.115<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[241]<\/b>  Pour se prononcer sur la constitutionnalit\u00e9 de dispositions l\u00e9gislatives, qualifier la nature de la loi, identifier la mati\u00e8re vis\u00e9e par les dispositions contest\u00e9es et le but recherch\u00e9, ainsi que pour identifier les effets de ces dispositions, les principes d’interpr\u00e9tation constitutionnelle nous indiquent qu’il faut d’abord \u00e9tablir l’objet de la loi et ses effets, afin de cerner son \u00ab caract\u00e8re v\u00e9ritable \u00bb116<\/sup><\/span> ou, si l’on pr\u00e9f\u00e8re, le \u00ab mal \u00bb qu’elle cherche vraiment \u00e0 curer117<\/sup>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[241]<\/b>  In order to rule on the constitutionality of statutory provisions, to characterize the nature of the law, to identify the subject matter of the impugned provisions and the purpose pursued, as well as to identify the effects of these provisions, the principles of constitutional interpretation indicate to us that it is necessary first to establish the object of the law and its effects, in order to define its \u201ctrue character\u201d116<\/sup><\/span> or, if one prefers, the \u201cevil\u201d it in fact seeks to cure.117<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[242]<\/b>  La Cour supr\u00eame utilise l’expression \u00ab caract\u00e8re v\u00e9ritable \u00bb, car parfois, il arrive que derri\u00e8re des mots inoffensifs et l’enonc\u00e9 de principes g\u00e9n\u00e9raux en apparence tout \u00e0 fait nobles et conformes aux pr\u00e9rogatives du l\u00e9gislateur dont le travail est r\u00e9vis\u00e9, se cachent d’autres intentions, qui elles, peuvent d\u00e9passer les param\u00e8tres sp\u00e9cifiques de sa comp\u00e9tence l\u00e9gislative, c’est-\u00e0-dire, que la mati\u00e8re sur laquelle il intervient ne se trouve pas dans son carr\u00e9 de sable.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[242]<\/b>  The Supreme Court uses the term \u201cpith and substance\u201d, because sometimes it happens that behind inoffensive words and the statement of general principles that are apparently noble and consistent with the prerogatives of the legislator whose work is being revised, other intentions are hiding, which may go beyond the specific parameters of its legislative competence, meaning that the matter on which it intervenes is not in its sandbox.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[243]<\/b>  Il faut donc s’assurer que celui ou celle qui est appel\u00e9 \u00e0 interpr\u00e9ter un texte de loi pour en extraire la substantifique moelle118<\/sup><\/span> n’arr\u00eate pas l’exercice en se fiant uniquement au sens des mots, lorsque ceux-ci ne pointent pas n\u00e9cessairement vers une ill\u00e9galit\u00e9.  Il se peut qu’il se cache quelque chose, derri\u00e8re ces mots.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[243]<\/b>  It must therefore be ensured that whoever is called upon to interpret a text of law to extract the substantive marrow118<\/sup><\/span> does not finish the exercise by relying solely on the meaning of words when these do not necessarily point toward illegality.  Something may be hidden behind these words.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[244]<\/b>  Par contre, si les mots pointent clairement vers une ill\u00e9galit\u00e9, comme par exemple si le l\u00e9gislateur n’a le droit de g\u00e9rer que les objets rouges et qu’il l\u00e9gif\u00e8re sur<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[244]<\/b>  On the other hand, if the words clearly point to illegality, for example if the legislator has the right to deal only with red objects and he legislates on<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

115.<\/b>  Ce n’est pas la derni\u00e8re option que recherche le requ\u00e9rant.<\/span><\/p>\n

116.<\/b>   Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la Loi sur les armes \u00e0 feu<\/i> (Can<\/i>), [2000] 1 R.C.S. 783<\/u><\/a>, par. 15, 16; Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la Loi sur les valeurs mobili\u00e8res<\/i>, [2011] 3 R.C.S. 837<\/u><\/a>, par. 63.<\/span><\/p>\n

117.<\/b>  Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la Loi sur les armes \u00e0 feu<\/i> (Can<\/i>.), [2000] 1 R.C.S. 783<\/u><\/a>, par. 15, 16; R<\/i>. c. Morgentaler<\/i>, [1993] 3 R.C.S. 463<\/u><\/a>, p. 684.<\/span><\/p>\n

118.<\/b>  Expression utilis\u00e9e par l’auteur Donald B\u00e9chard, dans plusieurs de ses pr\u00e9sentations sur la preuve et la proc\u00e9dure civile.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

115.<\/b>  This is not the last option sought by the applicant.<\/span><\/p>\n

116.<\/b>  Reference re Firearms Act<\/i> (Can<\/i>), 2000 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 783<\/u><\/a> at para. 15, 16; Reference re Securities Act<\/i>, 2011 SCC 66 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 837<\/u><\/a>, at para. 63.<\/span><\/p>\n

117.<\/b>  Reference re Firearms Act<\/i> (Can<\/i>.), 2000 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 783<\/u><\/a>, at para. 15, 16; R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463<\/u><\/a>, at p.684.<\/span><\/p>\n

118.<\/b>  Expression used by author Donald B\u00e9chard in several of his presentations on evidence and civil procedure.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

les bleus, l’exercice est termin\u00e9 et la d\u00e9claration d’inconstitutionnalit\u00e9 peut \u00eatre prononc\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

the blues, the exercise is over and the declaration of unconstitutionality can be pronounced.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[245]<\/b>  Lorsque les mots ne semblent pas a priori<\/i> pointer vers des buts d\u00e9tourn\u00e9s mais que les choses ne sont pas si claires que cela, il faut alors pousser plus loin l’exercice.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[245]<\/b>  When the words do not seem a priori<\/i> to point to devious goals, but things are not quite so clear as that, we must then broaden the exercise.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[246]<\/b>  \u00c0 ce stade, il importe de pr\u00e9ciser que notre r\u00f4le n’est pas similaire \u00e0 celui de la Cour supr\u00eame et de la Cour d’appel lorsque ces tribunaux disposent d’une proc\u00e9dure de renvoi, puisque cette proc\u00e9dure particuli\u00e8re leur permet de donner leur opinion \u00e0 tous ceux qui ont le droit de la demander sur les questions soumises, comme ce fut le cas, en 1998, ce qui implique un exercice et une r\u00e9daction diff\u00e9rents de ce que le juge d’instance est appel\u00e9 \u00e0 trancher un diff\u00e9rend relatif \u00e0 l’interpr\u00e9tation d’une loi119<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[246]<\/b>  At this stage, it is important to clarify that our role is not similar to that of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal when these courts are seized of a reference procedure, because this particular procedure allows them to give their opinion, to all who have the right to request it on the questions submitted, as was the case in 1998, which implies a different exercise and different drafting than when the judge of the court is called to settle a dispute over the interpretation of a law.119<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[247]<\/b>  Le r\u00f4le de la Cour sup\u00e9rieure si\u00e9geant en vertu de son pouvoir de surveillance consiste \u00e0 s’assurer que l’entit\u00e9 qui a adopt\u00e9 la loi en cause avait le pouvoir de faire ce qu’elle a fait en vertu des comp\u00e9tences qui lui sont accord\u00e9es dans la Constitution<\/i>, que l’objectif recherch\u00e9 par le contenu de la loi est valable et respecte les limites de cette comp\u00e9tence et que le libell\u00e9 du texte utilis\u00e9 pour mettre en \u0153uvre cet objectif n’ouvre pas toute grande la porte \u00e0 la commission d’ill\u00e9galit\u00e9s120<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[247]<\/b>  The role of the Superior Court sitting under its supervisory power is to ensure that the entity that enacted the law in question has the power to do what it has done in virtue of the powers given to it in the Constitution<\/i>, that the objective sought by the content of the law is valid and respects the limits of this competence and that the wording of the text used to implement this objective does not open wide the door to the commission of illegalities.120<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[248]<\/b>  Pour ex\u00e9cuter notre mission, la preuve intrins\u00e8que et la preuve extrins\u00e8que sont essentielles \u00e0 la d\u00e9termination du caract\u00e8re v\u00e9ritable d’une loi121<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[248]<\/b>  To carry out our mission, intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence are essential to determining the pith and substance of a law.121<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[249]<\/b>  La preuve intrins\u00e8que est celle que l\u2019on retrouve dans la loi elle-m\u00eame.  \u00c0 titre d’exemple, le but de la loi est parfois indiqu\u00e9 dans son titre; la Loi 99<\/i> et la Loi C-20<\/i> en sont des exemples \u00e9loquents.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[249]<\/b>  The intrinsic proof is that found in the law itself.  For example, the purpose of the law is sometimes indicated in its title; Bill 99<\/i> and Bill C-20<\/i> are eloquent examples.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[250]<\/b>  Il arrive aussi que l’objet de la loi se retrouve expos\u00e9 de mani\u00e8re sp\u00e9cifique dans un article coiff\u00e9 du titre \u00ab objet \u00bb.  Lorsque tel n’est pas le cas, il est possible de trouver ce but dans la note explicative qui r\u00e9sume la loi au d\u00e9but de celle-ci, dans sa structure, c’est-\u00e0-dire en regardant le titre des chapitres qui la composent, dans son pr\u00e9ambule, ainsi que dans les \u00e9nonc\u00e9s contenus dans ses articles. \u00c9videmment, le vocabulaire sp\u00e9cifique utilis\u00e9 pour \u00e9noncer ce contenu est capital, car le l\u00e9gislateur conna\u00eet mieux que quiconque le sens et la port\u00e9e des mots pour v\u00e9hiculer des id\u00e9es.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[250]<\/b>  It also happens that the object of the law is found specifically set out in a section with the heading \u201cpurpose\u201d.  When this is not the case, it is possible to find this goal in the explanatory note which summarizes the law at the beginning of it, in its structure, meaning by looking at the titles of the sections comprising it, in its preamble, as well as in the statements contained in its sections.  Obviously, the specific vocabulary used to enunciate this content is crucial, because the legislator knows better than anyone the meaning and scope of words to convey ideas.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[251]<\/b>  Le but peut aussi se retrouver ailleurs, tout particuli\u00e8rement dans ce que le l\u00e9gislateur a pu dire au sujet de cette loi lors des d\u00e9bats tenus \u00e0 son sujet.122<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[251]<\/b>  The purpose can also be found elsewhere, particularly in what the legislator might say about this law during the debates held concerning it.122<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

119.<\/b>  Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i>, [1998] 2 R.C.S. 217<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

120.<\/b>  F\u00e9d\u00e9ration des producteurs de volailles du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> c. Pelland<\/i>, [2005] 1 R.C.S. 292<\/u><\/a>, par. 1920.<\/span><\/p>\n

121.<\/b>  Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la Loi sur les valeurs mobili\u00e8res<\/i>, [2011] 3 R.C.S. 837<\/u><\/a>, par. 64; voir aussi Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> (<\/i>Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/i>) c. Lacombe<\/i>, [2010] 2 R.C.S. 453<\/u><\/a>, par. 20 et Qu\u00e9bec (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/i>) c. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association<\/i>, [2010] 2 R.C.S. 536<\/u><\/a>, par. 18.<\/span><\/p>\n

122.<\/b>  R<\/i>. c. Morgentaler<\/i>, [1993] 3 R.C.S. 463<\/u><\/a>, p. 483.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

119.<\/b>  Reference re Secession of Quebec<\/i>, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC), [1998] 2 SCR 217<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

120.<\/b>  Federation of Poultry Producers of Quebec<\/i> v. Pelland<\/i>, 2005 SCC 20 (CanLII), [2005] 1 SCR 292<\/u><\/a>, at paras. 19-20.<\/span><\/p>\n

121.<\/b>  Reference re Securities Act<\/i>, 2011 SCC 66 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 837<\/u><\/a>, at para. 64; see also Quebec<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>) v. Lacombe<\/i>, 2010 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 453<\/u><\/a>, at para. 20 and Quebec<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association<\/i>, 2010 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 536<\/u><\/a>, at para. 18.<\/span><\/p>\n

122.<\/b>  R<\/i>. v. Morgentaler<\/i>, 1993 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1993] 3 SCR 463<\/u><\/a>, at p. 483.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[252]<\/b>  Il est aussi possible d’inf\u00e9rer ce but, a contrario<\/i>, ou par association, \u00e0 partir d’autres textes de lois et de mat\u00e9riel collat\u00e9ral susceptibles d’expliquer pourquoi le l\u00e9gislateur a eu besoin d’adopter une loi sp\u00e9cifique pour l\u00e9gif\u00e9rer sur la mati\u00e8re qui y est vis\u00e9e, pourquoi il ne l’a pas fait auparavant ou qu’il l’a fait, mais diff\u00e9remment, et ce qui s’est alors produit; en a-t-il tir\u00e9 des le\u00e7ons si cela n’a pas fonctionn\u00e9?123<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[252]<\/b>  It is also possible to infer this purpose, a contrario<\/em>, or by association, from other texts of laws and collateral material likely to explain why the legislator needed to adopt a specific law to legislate on the subject matter targeted, why it had not done so before or that it had done so, but differently, and what happened then; if that did not work, did it learn from it?123<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[253]<\/b>  Ces indices ne se trouvant pas dans la loi elle-m\u00eame, mais ailleurs, nous parlons alors de preuve extrins\u00e8que124<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[253]<\/b>  These clues are not in the law itself, but elsewhere, we are thus talking about extrinsic evidence.124<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[254]<\/b>  Maintenant que nous comprenons mieux la d\u00e9marche, quoi chercher, comment et o\u00f9 poser nos yeux, il ne faut pas oublier les r\u00e8gles pour interpr\u00e9ter tout ce mat\u00e9riel.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[254]<\/b>  Now that we have a better grasp of the undertaking, what to look for, how and where to look, we must not forget the rules for interpreting all this material.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[255]<\/b>  \u00c0 cet effet, ces r\u00e8gles s\u2019ajoutent aux principes dont nous venons de faire \u00e9tat et il faut les r\u00e9sumer pour comprendre l\u2019exercice que nous devons entreprendre.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[255]<\/b>  To this end, these rules are added to the principles we have just mentioned and they must be summed up to understand the exercise we have to undertake.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.2.2<\/b>  R\u00e8gles d’interpr\u00e9tation<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.2.2<\/b>  Rules of Interpretation<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[256]<\/b>  Le requ\u00e9rant reproche aux articles contest\u00e9s de la Loi 99<\/i> d’avoir une trop grande port\u00e9e, du fait de leur caract\u00e8re g\u00e9n\u00e9ral.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[256]<\/b>  The applicant charges that the disputed sections of Bill 99<\/i> are overbroad due to their general nature.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[257]<\/b>  Il faut savoir que selon la nature de certaines lois et le type de mati\u00e8re qu’elles couvrent, le l\u00e9gislateur est parfois contraint d’utiliser des termes plus g\u00e9n\u00e9raux s’il ne veut pas modifier les lois \u00e0 tout moment, ce qui ne serait pas tr\u00e8s productif.  Il r\u00e9dige alors dans un langage plus large.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[257]<\/b>  It should be known that depending on the nature of certain laws and the subject matter they cover, the legislator is sometimes forced to use more general terms if it does not want to change the laws at any time, which would not be very productive.  It then writes in broader language.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[258]<\/b>  Cela ne signifie donc pas qu’il cherche ainsi \u00e0 permettre aux fonctionnaires de faire n’importe quoi et encore moins qu’il leur accorde carte blanche pour violer la Constitution<\/i>, comme nous l’avons vu lorsque nous avons \u00e9labor\u00e9 sur la pr\u00e9somption de constitutionnalit\u00e9 des lois.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[258]<\/b>  This does not consequently mean that it seeks in this way to allow officials to do anything at all, let alone give them carte blanche<\/i> to violate the Constitution<\/i>, as we saw when we expounded on the presumption of the constitutionality of laws.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[259]<\/b>  Cette fa\u00e7on de faire vise plut\u00f4t \u00e0 ce qu’une loi puisse \u00e9voluer plus souplement dans le temps, afin de s’adapter aux nouvelles r\u00e9alit\u00e9s.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[259]<\/b>  This approach aims rather to allow a law to evolve more flexibly over time in order to adapt itself to new realities.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[260]<\/b>  Lorsque la mati\u00e8re vis\u00e9e par la loi porte sur des droits fondamentaux, un peu comme c’est le cas avec les chartes des droits et libert\u00e9s, ou qu’elle conf\u00e8re des droits politiques ou sociaux, il n’est pas rare de voir des formulations l\u00e9gislatives plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rales.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[260]<\/b>  When the subject matter targeted by the law bears on fundamental rights, a bit as in the case with charters of rights and freedoms, or when it confers political or social rights, it is not rare to see more general legislative expressions.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[261]<\/b>  Cela est acceptable puisqu’il serait inopportun d’enfermer de tels droits dans des carcans trop serr\u00e9s qui les emp\u00eacheraient de suivre la parade de l’\u00e9volution sociale.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[261]<\/b>  This is acceptable since it would be inappropriate to lock such rights into too-tight shackles that would prevent them from following the parade of social evolution.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

123.<\/b>  Voir \u00e0 ce sujet la comparaison qu’il faut faire entre la Loi sur l’avenir du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i><\/u><\/a> dont le contenu a \u00e9t\u00e9 jug\u00e9 non conforme, et la Loi 99<\/i><\/u><\/a>, qui reprend certains des sujets couverts dans la loi pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente, sensiblement sur le m\u00eame sujet, mais de mani\u00e8re moins forte.<\/span><\/p>\n

124.<\/b>  Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la Loi sur les valeurs mobili\u00e8res<\/i><\/u><\/a>, pr\u00e9cit\u00e9, par. 64.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

123.<\/b>  See on this subject the comparison to be made between the Act respecting the future of Quebec<\/i><\/u><\/a>, the content of which was deemed non-compliant, and Bill 99<\/i><\/u><\/a>, which incorporates some of the subjects covered in the previous Act, substantially on the same subject, but in a less potent manner.<\/span><\/p>\n

124.<\/b>  Reference re Securities Act<\/i><\/u><\/a>, supra<\/i>, at para. 64.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[262]<\/b>  Dans le cas o\u00f9 les lois de cette nature sont r\u00e9dig\u00e9es ainsi, la Cour supr\u00eame nous incite \u00e0 ne pas les interpr\u00e9ter comme leur permettant de violer la Constitution<\/i> ou la Charte<\/i>125<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[262]<\/b>  In cases where laws of this nature are written this way, the Supreme Court urges us not to interpret them as allowing them to violate the Constitution<\/i> or the Charter<\/i>.125<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[263]<\/b>  Ce n\u2019est que lorsque ces g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9s accordent un pouvoir expr\u00e8s de passer outre \u00e0 la Constitution<\/em> ou \u00e0 la Charte<\/em> ou que l\u2019on peut d\u00e9duire des mots utilis\u00e9s que le pouvoir conf\u00e9r\u00e9 permet une telle violation par implication n\u00e9cessaire que le texte pourra \u00eatre d\u00e9clar\u00e9 inconstitutionnel. <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[263]<\/b>  Only when these generalities grant an express power to override the Constitution<\/i> or the Charter<\/i>, or it can be inferred from words utilized that the power conferred allows such a violation by necessary implication, may the text be declared unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[264]<\/b>  En principe, les indices pour arriver \u00e0 une telle conclusion ne devraient pas avoir besoin d’\u00eatre cherch\u00e9s comme on le ferait pour une aiguille dans une botte de foin.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[264]<\/b>  In principle, the clues to arrive at such a conclusion should not have to be looked for as one would do for a needle in a haystack.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[265]<\/b>  Le l\u00e9gislateur peut aussi choisir d’adopter une loi pour d\u00e9clarer des droits qui existent d\u00e9j\u00e0, mais qui n’ont jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 formellement reconnus auparavant dans un texte l\u00e9gislatif.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[265]<\/b>  The legislator can also choose to adopt a law to declare rights that already exist, but have never been formally recognized before in the text of a law.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[266]<\/b>  Il peut aussi le faire pour clarifier une situation, ou simplement se limiter \u00e0 les \u00e9noncer, de mani\u00e8re plus formelle, pour faire \u00e9tat du droit existant, un peu comme s’il faisait le m\u00e9nage et classait tout ce qui concerne un sujet dans un m\u00eame tiroir, plut\u00f4t que de devoir fouiller \u00e0 gauche et \u00e0 droite pour en trouver tous les morceaux126<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[266]<\/b>  It can also do this to clarify a situation, or simply limit itself to setting them out more formally to reflect existing law, a bit as though it were doing housework and filing everything in relation to a subject in the same drawer, rather than having to search left and right for all the pieces.126<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[267]<\/b>  Parmi les r\u00e8gles d’interpr\u00e9tation pertinentes au litige, la premi\u00e8re se r\u00e9sume \u00e0 ceci :  le l\u00e9gislateur ne parle pas pour ne rien dire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[267]<\/b>  Among the rules of interpretation relevant to this dispute, the first can be summarized as follows:  the legislator does not speak for nothing.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[268]<\/b>  En langage plus savant, cette r\u00e8gle est codifi\u00e9e \u00e0 l’article 41 de la Loi d’interpr\u00e9tation<\/i> du Qu\u00e9bec127<\/sup><\/span>, qui \u00e9dicte que les articles d’une loi sont \u00ab r\u00e9put\u00e9(s) avoir pour objet de reconna\u00eetre des droits, d’imposer des obligations ou de favoriser l’exercice des droits, ou encore rem\u00e9dier \u00e0 quelque abus ou de procurer quelque avantage.  \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[268]<\/b>  In more scholarly language, this rule is codified at section 41 of the Quebec Interpretation Act<\/em>,127<\/sup><\/span> which states that the sections of a law are \u201cdeemed to be enacted for the recognition of rights, the imposition of obligations or the furtherance of the exercise of rights, or for the remedying of some injustice or the securing of some benefit.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[269]<\/b>  Le principe \u00e9nonc\u00e9 \u00e0 l’article 41 fait en sorte que celui ou celle qui est appel\u00e9 \u00e0 interpr\u00e9ter cette loi doit rechercher ce qui a motive le l\u00e9gislateur \u00e0 ench\u00e2sser ces principes ou ces droits pr\u00e9existants dans une loi, plut\u00f4t que de simplement continuer de les respecter et les appliquer comme il le faisait auparavant.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[269]<\/b>  The principle set out in section 41 is that the person who is called upon to interpret this law must look for what motivated the legislator to enshrine these pre-existing principles or rights in a statute, rather than simply continuing to respect them and apply them as done previously.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[270]<\/b>  La question qui se pose alors est la suivante :   qu’est-ce qui a chang\u00e9 dans l’histoire pour justifier ce soudain d\u00e9sir de formalisme et besoin d’apporter de l’ordre sur le plan l\u00e9gislatif?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[270]<\/b>  The question then is this:  what has changed in the story to justify this sudden desire for formalism and the need to bring order into the law?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[271]<\/b>  C’est l\u00e0 qu’entre en sc\u00e8ne la preuve extrins\u00e8que.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[271]<\/b>  This is where the extrinsic evidence comes in.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

125.<\/b>  Slaight Communications Inc.<\/i> c. Davidson<\/i>, [1989] 1 R.C.S. 1038<\/u><\/a>, p. 1078-1079; Eaton<\/i> c. Conseil scolaire du comt\u00e9 de Brant<\/i>, [1997] 1 R.C.S. 241<\/u><\/a>, par. 3; R.<\/em> c. Ruzic<\/em>, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 687<\/u><\/a>, par. 26. <\/span><\/p>\n

126.<\/b>  Pierre-Andr\u00e9 C\u00d4T\u00c9, Interpr\u00e9tation des lois<\/i>, 4e<\/sup> \u00e9d., Montr\u00e9al, Th\u00e9mis, 2009, p. 597; R\u00e9gie des rentes du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> c. Canadian Bread Company Ltd.<\/i>, 2013 CSC, 46<\/u><\/a>, par. 26.<\/span><\/p>\n

127.<\/b>  Loi d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation<\/i>, L.R.Q., c. 1-16<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

125.<\/b>  Slaight Communications Inc.<\/i>, c. Davidson<\/i>, 1989 CanLII 92 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1038<\/u><\/a>, pp. 1078-1079; Eaton<\/i> v. Brant County School Board<\/i>, 1997 CanLII 366 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 241<\/u>, at para. 3; R<\/i>. v. Ruzic<\/i>,2001 SCC 24 (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 687<\/u><\/a>, at para. 26.<\/span><\/p>\n

126.<\/b>  Pierre-Andr\u00e9 C\u00d4T\u00c9, Interpretation of Laws<\/i>, 4th ed., Montreal, Th\u00e9mis, 2009, p. 597; R\u00e9gie des rentes du Qu\u00e9bec v. Canada Bread Company Ltd. [2013] 3 SCR 125<\/u><\/a>, para. 26.<\/span><\/p>\n

127.<\/b>  Interpretation Act<\/i>, RSQ, c. I-16<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 43<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 43<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[272]<\/b>  Vient ensuite la r\u00e8gle \u00e9nonc\u00e9e \u00e0 l’article 40 de la Loi d’interpr\u00e9tation<\/i>, qui \u00e9dicte que les dispositions d’une loi s’interpr\u00e8tent les unes par les autres.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[272]<\/b>  Next comes the rule enunciated at section 40 of the Interpretation Act<\/i>, which enacts that the provisions of a law are interpreted by one another.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[273]<\/b>  Cette r\u00e8gle suffit \u00e0 disposer de l’objection du PGQ \u00e0 ce que nous analysions plusieurs all\u00e9gations de la requ\u00eate r\u00e9-amend\u00e9e du requ\u00e9rant qui portent sur des dispositions de la Loi 99<\/i> qu’il ne conteste pas, sans toutefois en reconna\u00eetre la validit\u00e9.  L’on comprend pourquoi ces all\u00e9gations sont pertinentes pour appr\u00e9cier les arguments soulev\u00e9s, puisqu’il existe n\u00e9cessairement une logique sous-jacente \u00e0 la composition d’une loi et qu’elle entra\u00eene des liens d’interd\u00e9pendance entre une disposition et une autre, l’une pouvant ainsi expliquer ou mettre en contexte les tenants et aboutissants d’une autre.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[273]<\/b>  This rule suffices to dispose of the objection of the Quebec Attorney General to our analyzing a number of allegations in the applicant\u2019s re-amended motion concerning provisions of Bill 99<\/i> that he does not contest, without, however, recognizing their validity.  It is understandable why these allegations are relevant to an appreciation of the arguments raised, since there is necessarily a logic underlying the composition of a statute and it entails interdependencies between one provision and another, so that one explains or puts into context the nuts and bolts of another.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[274]<\/b>  Enfin, l’article 41.1 de la Loi d’interpr\u00e9tation<\/i> \u00e9dicte que le pr\u00e9ambule d’une loi est pertinent pour en extraire le but et \u00e9tablir le contexte dans lequel une loi a \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[274]<\/b>  Finally, section 41.1 of the Interpretation Act<\/i> enacts that the preamble of a statute is relevant to extract the purpose and to establish the context in which a law was passed.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[275]<\/b>  Comme la Loi 99<\/i> comporte 15 consid\u00e9rants et 14 articles, le moins que l\u2019on puisse dire est qu’elle poss\u00e8de un tr\u00e8s long pr\u00e9ambule.  Voil\u00e0 pourquoi la r\u00e8gle de l’article 41.1 est pertinente \u00e0 notre \u00e9tude.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[275]<\/b>  Since Bill 99<\/i> contains 15 recitals and 14 sections, the least that can be said is that it has a very long preamble.  That is why the rule at section 41.1 is relevant to our study.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[276]<\/b>  Ce n’est que lorsqu’il subsiste un doute apr\u00e8s avoir revu et appliqu\u00e9 tous ces principes et ces r\u00e8gles d’interpr\u00e9tation que le Tribunal doit alors analyser le texte de loi au moyen de la m\u00e9thode de l’interpr\u00e9tation att\u00e9nu\u00e9e, ou commun\u00e9ment appel\u00e9e \u00ab reading down<\/em> \u00bb, comme nous en avons fait \u00e9tat auparavant.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[276]<\/b>  It is only when a doubt remains after reviewing and applying all these principles and rules of interpretation that the Tribunal must analyze the text of the law by the method of attenuated interpretation, commonly called \u201creading down\u201d, as we mentioned above.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[277]<\/b>  La traduction anglaise de cette m\u00e9thode est significative, puisque tout est alors tent\u00e9 pour ramener, ou comme disent certains, rabaisser la loi \u00e0 des objectifs plus modestes que les ambitions qu’elle pouvait viser de mani\u00e8re intentionnelle ou par accident, afin de lever toute ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 \u00e0 son sujet et lui permettre de survivre m\u00eame si ce n’est qu’en la circonscrivant en partie.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[277]<\/b>  The English translation of this method is significant, since all is then tried to reduce, or as some say, to \u201cread down\u201d the law to objectives more modest than the ambitions it might target intentionally or by accident, in order to remove all ambiguity with regard to it and allow it to survive even if only by partially circumscribing it.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[278]<\/b>  C’est la m\u00e9thode que le PGC sugg\u00e8re pour soutenir la validit\u00e9 de toutes les dispositions contest\u00e9es de la Loi 99<\/i> et ainsi \u00e9viter la peine capitale consistant en une d\u00e9claration d\u2019\u00efnconstitutionnalit\u00e9, alors que le PGQ propose de ne recourir \u00e0 cette m\u00e9thode qu’en dernier lieu, c’est-\u00e0-dire si notre \u00e9tude au moyen des r\u00e8gles \u00ab ordinaires \u00bb d’interpr\u00e9tation ne nous permettent pas de nous faire une id\u00e9e \u00e0 savoir si les dispositions de la Loi 99<\/i> respectent ou non les comp\u00e9tences constitutionnelles relevant de la province de Qu\u00e9bec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[278]<\/b>  This is the approach suggested by the Attorney General of Canada so as to uphold the validity of all the contested provisions of Bill 99<\/i> and thus avoid the death penalty of a declaration of unconstitutionality, whereas the Quebec Attorney General proposes to resort to this method only when expedient, meaning, if our study using \u201cordinary\u201d rules of interpretation does not allow us to have an idea of whether or not the provisions of Bill 99<\/i> comply with the constitutional jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[279]<\/b>  Il faut aussi rappeler que lors de l’exercice d’interpr\u00e9tation d’une loi dont la constitutionnalit\u00e9 est attaqu\u00e9e, une autre r\u00e8gle s’ajoute \u00e0 la fin de l’exercice : celle portant sur la r\u00e9serve judiciaire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[279]<\/b>  It must also be recalled that when interpreting a law whose constitutionality is contested, another rule is added at the end of the exercise:  that of judicial restraint.\n<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[280]<\/b>  Elle implique que nous ne nous prononcions que sur ce qui est \u00ab carr\u00e9ment n\u00e9cessaire \u00bb pour motiver notre d\u00e9cision, pour ne pas porter pr\u00e9judice \u00e0 d’autres affaires en cours, ou \u00e0 venir, par l’expos\u00e9 d\u2019obiters inutiles et potentiellement dommageables.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[280]<\/b>  Which implies that we only pronounce upon what is \u201cplainly necessary\u201d to motivate our decision, so as not to prejudice other ongoing or future cases by expounding futile and potentially harmful obiters.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[281]<\/b>  La r\u00e8gle est si importante que la Cour supr\u00eame la rappelle r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement aux juges d’instance128<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[281]<\/b>  The rule is so important that the Supreme Court regularly restates it to the trial judges.128<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[282]<\/b>  Comme le requ\u00e9rant invoque des violations \u00e0 la Charte<\/i>, il faut rappeler qu’en l’absence d’all\u00e9gations ou de preuve d’une conduite violant l’un ou l’autre des droits prot\u00e9g\u00e9s par cette Charte<\/i>, seuls les cas d\u00e9montrant un \u00ab risque r\u00e9el et important \u00bb, un \u00ab haut degr\u00e9 de probabilit\u00e9 \u00bb, voire une \u00ab quasi-certitude \u00bb, justifient une intervention judiciaire par laquelle la victime pourra se voir accorder une r\u00e9paration129<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[282]<\/b>  Since the applicant is alleging Charter<\/i> violations, it must be recalled that in the absence of allegations or evidence of conduct that violates any of the rights protected by this Charter<\/i>, only cases demonstrating \u201creal and significant risk,\u201d a \u201chigh degree of probability\u201d, or even \u201cnear-certainty\u201d, justify judicial intervention by which the victim may be granted reparation.129<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.2.3<\/b>  Comp\u00e9tences l\u00e9gislatives des provinces<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.2.3<\/b>  Provincial Legislative Competencies<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[283]<\/b>  On aura compris que lorsqu’il est question de d\u00e9claration d’inconstitu­tion­nalit\u00e9, tout est question de comp\u00e9tence et de mati\u00e8re sur lesquelles le f\u00e9d\u00e9ral et les provinces peuvent ou non l\u00e9gif\u00e9rer.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[283]<\/b>  It will be understood that when it comes to a declaration of unconstitutionality, all is a question of jurisdiction and of the subject matters on which the federal and provincial governments can or cannot legislate.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[284]<\/b>  Au plus simple nous pourrions imag[in]er cette question de partage de comp\u00e9tence par qui peut jouer avec quoi dans quel carr\u00e9 de sable<\/i>.  Nous y retrouvons l’identit\u00e9 de celui qui l\u00e9gif\u00e8re, sur quelle mati\u00e8re il le fait et l’\u00e9tendue de sa pr\u00e9rogative.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[284]<\/b>  Most simply, we could imagine this question of the division of powers as being who can play with what in which sandbox<\/i>.  Here we find the identity of the legislator, the subject matters on which he legislates, and the extent of his prerogative.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[285]<\/b>  Nous savons que l’identit\u00e9 de celui qui l\u00e9gif\u00e8re et dont le travail est mis sous la loupe du Tribunal est le gouvernement du Qu\u00e9bec.  Reste maintenant \u00e0 d\u00e9terminer la mati\u00e8re \u00e0 laquelle il a droit de toucher lorsqu’il adopte une loi, afin de d\u00e9terminer si ce qui est vis\u00e9 par Loi 99<\/i> rel\u00e8ve de ses pouvoirs ou s’il usurpe des pouvoirs qui ne lui ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 conf\u00e9r\u00e9s ou exerce ceux qui le sont, mais de mani\u00e8re conforme aux r\u00e8gles du jeu.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[285]<\/b>  We know that the identity of the Legislator whose work is placed under the scrutiny of the Tribunal is the Government of Quebec.  It now remains to determine the subject matter it is entitled to affect when adopting a law in order to determine whether what is targeted by Bill 99<\/i> falls within its powers or it is usurping powers not conferred upon it, or is exercising those which are in a manner consistent with the game rules.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[286]<\/b>  Les mati\u00e8res qui rel\u00e8vent de la comp\u00e9tence provinciale se retrouvent dans les articles 92, 92A, 93 et 95 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867<\/i> (la Constitution<\/i>).  La majorit\u00e9 de celles-ci sont d\u00e9crites \u00e0 l’article 92, et sont regroup\u00e9es en 16 cat\u00e9gories.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[286]<\/b>  The matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction are found in sections 92 , 92A , 93 and 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867<\/i> (the Constitution<\/i>).  The majority of these are described in section 92, and are grouped into 16 categories.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[287]<\/b>  Le l\u00e9gislateur de chaque province est pr\u00e9sum\u00e9 bien conna\u00eetre ces mati\u00e8res, car ce qu’il redoute le plus est de se faire taper sur les doigts s’il sort du carr\u00e9 de sable qui lui a \u00e9t\u00e9 attribu\u00e9 lorsque la Constitution<\/i> a \u00e9t\u00e9 sign\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[287]<\/b>  The legislator of each province is deemed to be well acquainted with these subject matters, for what it fears the most is to be smacked on the fingers if it exits the sandbox attributed to it when the Constitution<\/em> was signed.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[288]<\/b>  De plus, il a int\u00e9r\u00eat \u00e0 bien conna\u00eetre non seulement les limites de ses propres comp\u00e9tences, mais aussi celles des autres membres de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration, s’il veut contr\u00f4ler de possibles ing\u00e9rences de la part d’un autre palier gouvernemental, comme l’explique la Cour supr\u00eame :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[288]<\/b>  Moreover, it has an interest in knowing quite well not only the limits of its own powers, but also those of the other members of the federation, if it wants to control possible interference from another level of government, as the Supreme Court explains:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

128.<\/b>  Moysa<\/em> c. Alberta<\/em> (Labour Relations Board<\/em>), [1989] 1 R.C.S. 1572, p. 1580; Danson<\/em> c. Ontario<\/em> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/em>), [1990] 2 R.C.S. 1086, p. 1099; Hy and Zel’s Inc.<\/em> c. Ontario<\/em> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/em>); [1993] 3 R.C.S. 675, Paul Magder Furs Ltd.<\/em> c. Ontario<\/em> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/em>), [1993] 3 R.C.S. 675, p. 694; Phillips<\/em> c. Nouvelle-Ecosse<\/em> (Commission d’enqu\u00eate sur la trag\u00e9die de la mine Westray<\/em>), [1995] 2 R.C.S. 97, par. 6 et 9; MacDonald<\/em> c. Montr\u00e9al<\/em> (Ville de<\/em>), [1986] 1 R.C.S. 460, page 496.<\/span><\/p>\n

129.<\/b>  Mackay<\/i> c. Manitoba<\/i>, [1989] 2 R.C.S. 357, p. 359-362; Danson<\/i> c. Ontario<\/i> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/i>), [1990] 2 R.C.S. 1086, p. 1099.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

128.<\/b>  Moysa<\/i> v. Alberta<\/i> (Labor Relations Board<\/i>), 1989 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1572, at p. 1580; Danson<\/i> v. Ontario<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>), 1990 CanLII 93 (SCC),[1990] 2 SCR 1086, at p. 1099; Hy and Zel’s Inc.<\/i> v. Ontario<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>); 1993 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1993] 3 SCR 675, Paul Magder Furs Ltd.<\/i> c. Ontario<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>), [1993] 3 SCR 675, at p. 694; Phillips<\/i> v. Nova Scotia<\/i> (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy<\/i>), 1995 CanLII 86 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 97, at paras. 6 and 9; MacDonald<\/i> v. Montreal<\/i> (City of<\/i>), 1986 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 460, p. 496.<\/span><\/p>\n

129.<\/b>  Mackay<\/i> v. Manitoba<\/i>, 1989 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, at p. 359-362; Danson<\/i> v. Ontario<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>), 1990 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 1086, at p. 1099.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\u201c(…) l’adoption de l’AANB cr\u00e9e une constitution f\u00e9d\u00e9rale pour le Canada qui confie l’ensemble de la souverainet\u00e9 canadienne au parlement du Canada et aux l\u00e9gislatures provinciales, chacun \u00e9tant souverain dans sa propre sph\u00e8re ainsi d\u00e9finie.  On peut donc dire \u00e0 bon droit que le principe dominant du droit constitutionnel canadien est le f\u00e9d\u00e9ralisme, et les implications de ce principe sont claires.  On ne devrait permettre \u00e0 aucun ordre de gouvernement d’empi\u00e9ter sur l’autre, que ce soit directement ou indirectement.  Le compromis politique atteint par suite des conf\u00e9rences de Qu\u00e9bec et de Londres avant l’adoption de l’AANB dispara\u00eetrait \u00e0 moins qu’il y ait des limites efficaces et formelles \u00e0 une action inconstitutionnelle.\u201d *<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

\u201c(…) the enactment of the B.N.A. Act created a federal constitution of Canada which confided the whole area of self-gov\u00adernment within Canada to the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures each being supreme within its own defined sphere and area.  It can fairly be said, therefore, that the dominant principle of Canadian constitutional law is federalism.  The implications of that principle are clear. Each level of government should not be permitted to encroach on the other, either directly or indirectly.  The political compromise achieved as a result of the Quebec and London Conferences preceding the passage of the B.N.A. Act would be dissolved unless there were substantive and effec\u00adtive limits on unconstitutional action.\u201d *<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

* Note du traductrice:  Madame la juge Dallaire n’a pas not\u00e9 cette citation.  Cela vient du soi-disant \u00abappel\u00bb du rapatriement, un avis de la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada sur trois avis provinciaux.  L’extrait fran\u00e7ais provient de Renvoi : R\u00e9solution pour modifier la Constitution<\/u><\/a>, en haut de la page 821; et la version anglaise cit\u00e9e ci-dessus provient de Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution<\/i>, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753<\/u><\/a>, page 821.  Il convient de noter que la citation choisie est une conclusion tir\u00e9e par la CSC dans son avis non contraignant fond\u00e9 sur de nombreux extraits s\u00e9lectionn\u00e9s d’autres avis (et jugements) de la CSC et du Comit\u00e9 judiciaire du Conseil priv\u00e9.  En d’autres termes, ils essaient de marteler une constellation d’opinions non contraignantes afin de cr\u00e9er l’apparence de “loi” et de “pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent” et les utiliser comme tels.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

* Translator’s note:  Madam Justice Dallaire did not footnote this quote.  It comes from the so-called patriation \u201cappeal,\u201d a Supreme Court of Canada advisory on three provincial advisories.  The French extract is from Renvoi : R\u00e9solution pour modifier la Constitution, [1981] 1 R.C.S. 753<\/em><\/u><\/a>, from the top of page 821; and the English version quoted above is from Re:  Resolution to amend the Constitution<\/em>, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753<\/u><\/a>, also page 821.  It should be noted that the chosen quote is a conclusion drawn by the SCC in its non-binding advisory based on numerous selected extracts from other advisories (and judgments) of the SCC and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.  In other words, they are trying to hammer a constellation of non-binding opinions into the look of “law” and “precedent” and make use of them as such.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[289]<\/b>  Pour la gestion de leurs affaires internes, les provinces ont aussi le droit d’adopter des lois et entre autres une constitution dite interne, ou intra-\u00e9tatique130<\/sup><\/span>, pour la distinguer de la Constitution f\u00e9d\u00e9rale, qui elle, lie tous les membres de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[289]<\/b>  For the management of their internal affairs, the provinces also have the right to adopt laws and, inter alia<\/i>, a so-called internal or intra-State constitution,130<\/sup><\/span> to distinguish it from the federal Constitution, the latter binding all members of the federation.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[290]<\/b>  Ces lois, constitution ou charte provinciale, ont pour vocation de r\u00e9gir les institutions qui gouvernement la province, leur mode de fonctionnement131<\/sup><\/span>, les principes fondamentaux qui s’appliquent sur le territoire, et ce, pour la gestion des affaires dites \u00ab internes \u00bb de la province.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[290]<\/b>  These laws, this constitution or provincial charter, are intended to regulate the institutions which govern the province, their mode of operation,131<\/sup><\/span> the fundamental principles which apply on the territory, all for the management of the so-called \u201cinternal affairs\u201d of the province.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[291]<\/b>  L’article 45 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<\/i> a repris les r\u00e8gles pr\u00e9vues dans la Constitution<\/i> de 1867 en ce qui a trait \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence exclusive des l\u00e9gislatures provinciales pour adopter et modifier leur constitution interne.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[291]<\/b>  Section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982<\/i> incorporated the rules provided in the 1867 Constitution<\/i> with respect to the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial legislatures to adopt and amend their internal constitution.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[292]<\/b>  Mais pour \u00eatre valide, une telle loi ne doit pas modifier l\u2019une ou l’autre des conditions fondamentales de l’union form\u00e9e en 1867132<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[292]<\/b>  But to be valid, such a law must not modify one or the other of the fundamental conditions of the union formed in 1867.132<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[293]<\/b>  Si la loi, par son but ou ses effets, modifie ou peut servir \u00e0 modifier les dispositions \u00ab essentielles \u00e0 la mise en \u0153uvre du principe f\u00e9d\u00e9ral \u00bb, ou qu’elle a pour but ou effet de provoquer des \u00ab bouleversements constitutionnels profonds par l’introduction d’institutions politiques \u00e9trang\u00e8res et incompatibles avec le syst\u00e8me canadien \u00bb133<\/sup><\/span>, elle ne passera pas le test de la constitutionnalit\u00e9134<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[293]<\/b>  If the law, through its purpose or effect, modifies or can serve to modify provisions \u201cessential to the implementation of the federal principle\u201d, or has the purpose or effect of causing \u201cprofound constitutional upheavals by the introduction of foreign political institutions that are incompatible with the Canadian system,\u201d133<\/sup><\/span> it will not pass the test of constitutionality134<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[294]<\/b>  Sous r\u00e9serve de cela, dans sa propre sph\u00e8re de comp\u00e9tence, chaque membre de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration est souverain et n’a pas \u00e0 subir l’ing\u00e9rence des autres135<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[294]<\/b>  Subject to this, in its own sphere of competence, each member of the federation is sovereign and does not have to suffer the interference of others.135<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n

130.<\/b>  Voir l’article 92(1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867<\/i>><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

131.<\/b>  Proc. G\u00e9n. du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> c. Blaikie et autres<\/i>, [1979] 2 R.C.S. 1016<\/u><\/a>, 1024; S.E.F.P.O.<\/i> c. Ontario<\/i> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/i>), [1987] 2 R.C.S. 2<\/u><\/a>, par. 39.<\/span><\/p>\n

132.<\/b>  S.E.F.P.O.<\/i> c. Ontario<\/i> (Procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/i>), [1987] 2 R.C.S. 2<\/u><\/a>, par. 40.<\/span><\/p>\n

133.<\/b>  Id.<\/i>, par. 47.<\/span><\/p>\n

134.<\/b>  Id.<\/i>, par. 39, 40, 47; Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat<\/i>, [2014] 1 R.C.S. 704<\/u><\/a>, par. 46-47.<\/p>\n

135.<\/b>  Renvoi:  R\u00e9solution pour modifier la Constitution<\/i> (Renvoi<\/i>), [1981] 1 R.C.S. 753<\/u><\/a>, 821.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

130.<\/b>  See section 92(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867<\/i><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

131.<\/b>  Atty. Gen. of Quebec<\/i> v. Blaikie et al.<\/i>, 1979 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1979] 2 SCR 1016<\/u><\/a>, 1024; OPSEU <\/i> v. Ontario<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>), 1987 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 2<\/u><\/a>, at para. 39.<\/span><\/p>\n

132.<\/b>  OPSEU<\/i> v. Ontario<\/i> (Attorney General<\/i>), 1987 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 2<\/u><\/a>, at para. 40.<\/span><\/p>\n

133.<\/b>  Id.<\/i>, para.<\/i> 47.<\/span><\/p>\n

134.<\/b>  Id.<\/i>, paras.<\/i> 39, 40, 47; Reference re Senate Reform<\/i>, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 704<\/u><\/a>, at paras. 46-47.<\/span><\/p>\n

135.<\/b>  Reference:  Resolution to Amend the Constitution<\/i> (Reference<\/i>), 1981 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1981] 1 SCR 753<\/u><\/a>, 821. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[295]<\/b>  C’est probablement ce grand principe qui explique que la perception de la Loi C-20<\/i> a autant fait r\u00e9agir le gouvernement qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, qui a eu l’impression que le f\u00e9d\u00e9ral avait enfil\u00e9 ses bottes pour venir pi\u00e9tiner ses plates-bandes.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[295]<\/b>  It is probably this great principle which explains how the perception of Bill C-20<\/i> had so caused the Quebec government to react as it did, under the impression that the federal government had slipped on its boots to come and trample on its flower beds.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[296]<\/b>  Pour effectuer des changements \u00e0 l’ordre constitutionnel existant, il faut passer par la partie V de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<\/i>, qui pr\u00e9voit, en r\u00e9sum\u00e9, que l’initiative peut bien provenir d’une province mais qu’il existe une mani\u00e8re pr\u00e9cise de faire les choses et qu’elle n’inclut pas celle de le faire de mani\u00e8re unilat\u00e9rale en mettant les autres devant le fait accompli.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[296]<\/b>  To make changes to the existing constitutional order, Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982<\/i> must be used, which, in summary, provides that the initiative may well originate with one province, but that a specific way of doing things exists and it does not include doing it unilaterally by confronting the others with a fait accompli<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[297]<\/b>  Parmi les 16 sujets pr\u00e9vus \u00e0 l’article 92(1), trois sont a priori<\/i> pertinents \u00e0 ce que semblent couvrir les articles contest\u00e9s de la Loi 99<\/i> : 1) l’amendement \u00e0 la constitution interne du Qu\u00e9bec, 13) les droits civils dans la province et 16) toutes les mati\u00e8res d’une nature purement locale ou priv\u00e9e propres au Qu\u00e9bec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[297]<\/b>  Of the 16 subject matters at Section 92(1), three are a priori<\/i> relevant to what seems to be covered by the contested sections of Bill 99<\/i>:  1) amendment of the internal constitution of Quebec, 13) civil rights in the province, and 16) all matters of a purely local or private nature specific to Quebec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[298]<\/b>  En ce qui a trait au pouvoir des provinces de modifier leur constitution interne, la Cour supr\u00eame a confirm\u00e9 que l’article 45 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<\/i> jouait essentiellement le m\u00eame r\u00f4le que l’article 92(1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867<\/i>, \u00ab \u00e0 condition que les modifications ne mettent pas en cause les int\u00e9r\u00eats des autres ordres du gouvernement \u00bb136<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[298]<\/b>  With respect to the power of the provinces to amend their internal constitution, the Supreme Court confirmed that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982<\/i>, played essentially the same role as section 92(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867<\/i>, \u201cProvided that the amendments not call into question the interests of other levels of government\u201d.136<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[299]<\/b>  Forts de tous ces principes, nous pouvons aborder l’\u00e9tude des dispositions attaqu\u00e9es.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[299]<\/b>  Fortified by all these principles, we can begin to study the contested provisions.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

 
\nCONTINUED:  PARAGRAPHS 300-400<\/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 201-299 PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS 103-200 L’HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE,J.C.S. THE HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE,J.S.C. FRENCH ORIGINAL NON-OFFICIAL ENGLISH [201]  De plus,…<\/p>\n

Read More “Henderson v. Attorney General of Quebec, 18 April 2018 QCCS 1586 (CanLII) \u2014 Paragraphs 201-299”<\/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\/106"}],"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=106"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/106\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":107,"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/106\/revisions\/107"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}