{"id":125,"date":"2024-12-07T03:21:35","date_gmt":"2024-12-07T03:21:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/?page_id=125"},"modified":"2024-12-07T03:21:41","modified_gmt":"2024-12-07T03:21:41","slug":"henderson-v-attorney-general-of-quebec-18-april-2018-qccs-1586-canlii-paragraphs-501-604","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/henderson-v-attorney-general-of-quebec-18-april-2018-qccs-1586-canlii-paragraphs-501-604\/","title":{"rendered":"Henderson v. Attorney General of Quebec, 18 April 2018 QCCS 1586 (CanLII) \u2014 Paragraphs 501-604"},"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 501-604<\/b><\/p>\n

PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS 401-500<\/a><\/p>\n

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

\n

\n

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

\n<\/td>\n		\n

\n

\n

THE HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE,
\nJ.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<\/td>\n		\n

\n

\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 74<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 74<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

un autre n’est pas un proc\u00e9d\u00e9 unique au Qu\u00e9bec; il existe dans d’autres provinces : la Colombie-Britannique, l’Alberta et Terre-Neuve.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

another is not a process unique to Quebec; it exists in other provinces:  British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[501]<\/b>  En Colombie-Britannique, l’article 4 du Referendum Act<\/i>168<\/sup><\/span>, \u00e9dicte que \u00abIf more than 50% of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on a question stated, that result is binding on the government that initiated the referendum\u00bb.  Il en va de m\u00eame pour l’article 4(1) du Constitutional referendum act<\/i>169<\/sup><\/span>, en Alberta, qui pr\u00e9voit que : \u00abIf a majority of the ballots validly cast [sic] a referendum vote the same way on a question stated, the result is binding, within the meaning of subsection (2), on the government that initiated the referendum<\/i>\u00bb.  Cette loi pr\u00e9voit m\u00eame que le gouvernement qui initie le r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum doit ensuite prendre les mesures qui s’imposent pour mettre en \u0153uvre le r\u00e9sultat obtenu \u00e0 l’issue du vote.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[501]<\/b>  In British Columbia, Section 4 of the Referendum Act<\/i>168<\/sup><\/span>, enacts that \u201cIf more than 50% of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on a question stated, that result is binding on the government that initiated the referendum\u201d.  The same applies to Section 4 (1) of the Constitutional Referendum Act<\/i>169<\/sup><\/span>, in Alberta, which provides that:  \u201cIf a majority of the ballots validly cast [in] a referendum vote the same way a question stated, the result is binding, within the meaning of subsection (2), on the government that initiated the referendum<\/i>\u201d.  This law even provides that the government that initiates the referendum must then take the necessary measures to implement the result obtained after the vote.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[502]<\/b>  La m\u00eame fa\u00e7on de faire se retrouve \u00e0 l’article 3 du R\u00e9f\u00e9rendum act (de) de [sic] la province de Terre-Neuve170<\/sup><\/span>, qui \u00e9dicte ceci:  \u00abthe wish of the people as to the future form of government shall be expressed by vote in favour thereof of the majority of electors qualified to vote in accordance with the provisions of this Act whose votes have been cast in accordance with the provisions of this act and any regulations and others made thereunder at a poll held in accordance with the provisions of this act.<\/i>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[502]<\/b>  The same procedure is found in Section 3 of the Referendum Act of the Province of Newfoundland,170<\/sup><\/span> which enacts as follows: \u201cthe wish of the people as to the future form of government shall be expressed by vote in favour thereof of the majority of electors qualified to vote in accordance with the provisions of this Act whose votes have been cast in accordance with the provisions of this act and any regulations and others made thereunder at a poll held in accordance with the provisions of this act.<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[503]<\/b>  Aucune de ces dispositions l\u00e9gislatives n’a \u00e9t\u00e9 jug\u00e9e inconstitutionnelle.  Au contraire, en 1949, invit\u00e9e \u00e0 se pencher sur ce sujet, la Cour d’appel de Terre-Neuve a d\u00e9cid\u00e9 qu’une loi pr\u00e9voyant que le peuple d’une province a le droit de s’exprimer sur des changements souhait\u00e9s \u00e0 la Constitution<\/i> est conforme \u00e0 cette derni\u00e8re, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que le r\u00e9sultat de ce vote n’a pas pour effet de modifier des lois existantes171<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[503]<\/b>  None of these legislative provisions were found to be unconstitutional.  On the contrary, in 1949, invited to consider the subject, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal decided that a law providing that the people of a province have the right to express themselves on changes desired to the Constitution<\/i> is consistent with the latter, given that the result of this vote does not have the effect of modifying existing laws.171<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[504]<\/b>  M\u00eame si la constitution ne pr\u00e9voit pas express\u00e9ment le recours \u00e0 un r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum172<\/sup><\/span>, personne ne nie qu’il s’agisse l\u00e0 d’une mani\u00e8re valable et l\u00e9gale de recueillir l’opinion de diff\u00e9rentes populations r\u00e9sidant sur le territoire du Canada, et qu’il n’y a rien d’inconstitutionnel dans le fait d’adopter une loi provinciale \u00e0 cet effet, \u00abpour consulter comme bon leur semble\u00bb \u00ableurs propres \u00e9lecteurs\u00bb173<\/sup>, dans la mesure o\u00f9 l’utilisation de telles lois ne vise qu’\u00e0 effectuer une consultation populaire et non \u00e0 remettre le pouvoir d\u00e9cisionnel entre les mains du peuple, puisque ce sont les parlementaires qui d\u00e9tiennent ce pouvoir dans l’hypoth\u00e8se d’un mandat en faveur d’une modification \u00e0 la participation d’une province dans la Constitution<\/i>174<\/sup>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[504]<\/b>  Even if the constitution does not expressly provide for the use of a referendum,172<\/sup><\/span> no one denies that this is a valid and lawful way to collect the opinion of different populations residing on the territory of Canada, and there is nothing unconstitutional in the fact of adopting a provincial law to this effect, \u201cto consult their own electors as they see fit\u201d173<\/sup><\/span>, to the extent that the use of such laws only aims to conduct a popular consultation and not to put decision-making power into the hands of the people, since it is the parliamentarians who hold this power assuming a mandate in favor of an amendment to the participation of a province in the Constitution<\/i>.174<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[505]<\/b>  Que la Loi 99<\/i> r\u00e9affirme ou affirme, peu importe, des principes d\u00e9mocratiques ou des droits existants auparavant et qui n’ont jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 remis en cause n’emp\u00eache pas le gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral et les autres provinces de tenir tous les r\u00e9f\u00e9rendums qu’ils<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[505]<\/b>  Whether or not Bill 99<\/i> reaffirms or affirms democratic principles or pre-existing rights never before called into question, does not preclude the federal government and the other provinces from holding all the referendums they<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n168.<\/b> RSBC 1996, c. 400<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

169.<\/b> RSA 2000, c. C-25<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

170.<\/b> Adopt\u00e9 en 1948<\/span><\/p>\n

171.<\/b> Currie<\/em> c. Macdonald<\/em>, [1949] 29 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 294<\/u><\/a>, p. 307.<\/span><\/p>\n

172.<\/b> Voir paragraphe 87 du Renvoi<\/em><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

173.<\/b> Haig<\/em> c. Canada<\/em> (Directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des \u00e9lections<\/em>), [1993] 2 R.C.S. 995<\/u><\/a>, p. 1006<\/span><\/p>\n

174.<\/b> Id.<\/em>, p. 1032.<\/span><\/td>\n

\n168.<\/b> RSBC 1996, c. 400<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

169.<\/b> RSA 2000, c. C-25<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

170.<\/b> Adopted in 1948<\/span><\/p>\n

171.<\/b> Currie<\/em> v. Macdonald<\/em>, [1949] 29 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 294<\/u><\/a>, p. 307.<\/span><\/p>\n

175.<\/b> See paragraph 87 of the Reference<\/i><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

173.<\/b> Haig<\/i> v. Canada<\/i> (Chief Electoral Officer<\/i>), 1993 CanLII 58 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 995<\/u><\/a>, p. 1000<\/span><\/p>\n

174.<\/b> Id.<\/em>, p. 1032.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

veulent, tant qu’ils ne s’immiscent pas dans ceux conduits par le Qu\u00e9bec, pour le b\u00e9n\u00e9fice de la population qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise175<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

want, as long as they do not interfere with those conducted by Quebec for the benefit of the Quebec population.175<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[506]<\/b>  Selon nous, la consultation populaire \u00e0 laquelle r\u00e9f\u00e8re l’article 4 de la Loi 99<\/i> ne peut rationnellement mener \u00e0 la conclusion que le l\u00e9gislateur recherchait un moyen direct ou m\u00eame d\u00e9tourn\u00e9 de d\u00e9clarer une s\u00e9cession unilat\u00e9rale lui permettant de violer les pr\u00e9ceptes \u00e9nonc\u00e9s par la Cour supr\u00eame sur toute cette question de clart\u00e9 r\u00e9f\u00e9rendaire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[506]<\/b>  In our view, the popular consultation referred to in Section 4 of Bill 99<\/i> cannot rationally lead to the conclusion that the legislator sought a direct or even indirect means of declaring a unilateral secession, permitting it to violate the precepts announced by the Supreme Court on this whole question of referendum clarity.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[507]<\/b>  Dans l’arr\u00eat Alliance Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> c. Directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des \u00e9lections du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i>176<\/sup><\/span>, la Cour d’appel r\u00e9it\u00e8re qu’en d\u00e9mocratie, chaque citoyen qui se qualifie doit pouvoir prendre part au d\u00e9bat et voter, notamment dans le cadre d’un r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[507]<\/b>  In Alliance Quebec<\/i> v. Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec<\/i>176<\/sup><\/span>, the Court of Appeal reiterated that in a democracy, every citizen who qualifies must be able to take part in the debate and vote, including in a referendum.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[508]<\/b>  La Cour ajoute que les r\u00e8gles constitutionnelles font en sorte que le r\u00e9sultat d’un r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum n’est que consultatif, le v\u00e9ritable pouvoir d\u00e9cisionnel demeurant l’apanage des parlementaires.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[508]<\/b>  The Court adds that the constitutional rules ensure that the result of a referendum is only advisory, the real decision-making power remaining the preserve of parliamentarians.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[509]<\/b>  Elle pr\u00e9cise qu’\u00e0 la limite, l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale pourrait d\u00e9cider de ne pas donner suite au r\u00e9sultat obtenu \u00e0 la suite d’un tel r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum, si elle ne consid\u00e9rait pas opportun de le faire, tout en devant ensuite g\u00e9rer l’impact de sa d\u00e9cision, sur le plan moral.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[509]<\/b>  It stipulated that at the limit, the National Assembly could decide not to accede to the result obtained from such a referendum if it did not think it opportune to do so, while having to manage the impact of its decision on the moral plane.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[510]<\/b>  En citant L’Avis consultatif<\/i> de 1998, la Cour d’appel r\u00e9it\u00e8re qu’advenant un oui<\/i> \u00e0 la suite d’un r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum tenu en vertu de la Loi sur la consultation populaire<\/i>, le gouvernement du Qu\u00e9bec devra alors entreprendre des n\u00e9gociations avec le reste du Canada sur les modifications \u00e0 apporter \u00e0 la Constitution<\/i>, afin de donner effet \u00e0 la volont\u00e9 populaire, si cette direction est toujours celle dans laquelle elle d\u00e9sire aller.  Ce qu’elle ajoute ensuite n’est pas banal :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[510]<\/b>  Citing the Advisory Opinion<\/i> of 1998, the Court of Appeal repeats that in the event of a yes<\/i> in a referendum pursuant to the Referendum Act<\/i>, the Government of Quebec must then negotiate with the rest of Canada on the amendments to the Constitution<\/i>, to give effect to the popular will, if that direction is still the way it wishes to go.  What it adds next is not trivial:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[…] Ce n’est que si cette n\u00e9gociation est infructueuse que le Parlement du Qu\u00e9bec pourra choisir de faire une d\u00e9claration unilat\u00e9rale d’ind\u00e9pendance valide au sens de la Constitution et qui lierait, par voie de cons\u00e9quence, les institutions politiques du reste du Canada (Renvoi relatif \u00e0 la s\u00e9cession<\/u><\/a>)177<\/sup><\/span>.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[…] Only if this negotiation is unsuccessful will the Quebec Parliament be able to choose to make a valid unilateral declaration of independence within the meaning of the Constitution, which then would bind the political institutions of the rest of Canada.  (Secession Reference<\/i><\/u><\/a>).177<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[511]<\/b>  Selon les propos tenus par la Cour supr\u00eame dans une autre affaire178<\/sup><\/span>, la preuve extrins\u00e8que inclut la jurisprudence sur un sujet similaire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[511]<\/b>  According to statements of the Supreme Court in another case,178<\/sup><\/span> extrinsic evidence includes jurisprudence on a similar subject.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[512]<\/b>  Ainsi, pour terminer notre interpr\u00e9tation de l’article 4, nous ne pouvons donc ignorer les propos de la Cour d’appel dans l’arr\u00eat Alliance Qu\u00e9bec<\/i>179<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[512]<\/b>  Thus, to conclude our interpretation of Section 4, we cannot ignore the words of the Court of Appeal in the Alliance Quebec<\/i> decision.179<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n175.<\/b> Voir paragraphe 88 du Renvoi<\/em><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

176.<\/b> 2006 QCCA 651<\/u><\/a>, paras. 26-29<\/span><\/p>\n

177.<\/b> Alliance Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> c. Directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des \u00e9lections du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em>, 2006 QCCA 651<\/u><\/a>, par. 29.<\/span><\/p>\n

178.<\/b> Lyons<\/i> c. La Reine<\/i>, [1984] 2 R.C.S. 633<\/u><\/a>, p. 684.<\/span><\/p>\n

179.<\/b> Alliance Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> c. Directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des \u00e9lections du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em>, 2006 QCCA 651<\/u><\/a>, par. 26-29.<\/span><\/td>\n

175.<\/b> See paragraph 88 of the Reference<\/i><\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

176.<\/b> 2006 QCCA 651<\/u><\/a>, paras. 26-29<\/span><\/p>\n

177.<\/b> Alliance Quebec<\/i> v. Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec<\/i>, 2006 QCCA 651 (CanLII)<\/u><\/a>, para. 29.<\/span><\/p>\n

178.<\/b> Lyons<\/i> v. The Queen<\/i>, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

179.<\/b> Alliance Quebec<\/i> v. Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec<\/i>, 2006 QCCA 651 (CanLII)<\/u><\/a>, paras. 26-29.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[513]<\/b>  L’article 4 de la Loi 99<\/i> n’est donc pas inconstitutionnel.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[513]<\/b>  Section 4 of Bill 99<\/i> is therefore not unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.3.7<\/b> Article 5<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.7<\/b> Section 5<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[514]<\/b>  Tout comme nous l’avons pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 auparavant, le deuxi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a de l’article 5 ne fait plus l’objet de la contestation initi\u00e9e par le requ\u00e9rant.  Nous ne le discuterons donc pas.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[514]<\/b>  As we clarified above, the second paragraph of Section 5 is no longer the object of the challenge initiated by the applicant.  We will not discuss it.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[515]<\/b>  Celui que conteste le requ\u00e9rant est le premier alin\u00e9a, puisqu’il contient une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation \u00abL’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec\u00bb et une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence au fait que cet \u00c9tat tient sa l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de la volont\u00e9 du \u00abpeuple qui habite le territoire\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[515]<\/b>  The one the applicant contests is the first paragraph, since it contains a reference to the designation \u201cThe Qu\u00e9bec State\u201d and a reference to the fact that the State derives its legitimacy from the will of the \u201cpeople inhabiting its territory\u201c.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[516]<\/b>  Quant au 3e<\/sup> alin\u00e9a, \u00e0 notre avis, il ne reprend que ce qui existe d\u00e9j\u00e0 dans la d\u00e9mocratie qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise et il n’a rien de condamnable sur le plan constitutionnel : la population qui habite le Qu\u00e9bec vote pour \u00e9lire des d\u00e9put\u00e9s qui si\u00e8gent \u00e0 l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale pour la repr\u00e9senter; fin des \u00e9missions.  Cet alin\u00e9a n’expose que ce que la Loi \u00e9lectorale<\/i><\/u><\/a> et la Loi sur la consultation populaire<\/i><\/u><\/a> pr\u00e9voient d\u00e9j\u00e0 depuis longtemps.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[516]<\/b>  As for the third paragraph, in our opinion, it only reiterates what already exists in Quebec\u2019s democracy and there is nothing reprehensible about it, constitutionally speaking: the population inhabiting Quebec votes to elect Members who sit in the National Assembly to represent it; end of broadcast.  This paragraph sets out only what the Election Act<\/i><\/u><\/a> and the Referendum Act<\/i><\/u><\/a> have already long provided.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[517]<\/b>  Rien dans ceux-ci n’ouvre directement la porte \u00e0 une s\u00e9cession unilat\u00e9rale du Qu\u00e9bec suite \u00e0 une consultation populaire et ce, que l’on parle du peuple qui habite le territoire du Qu\u00e9bec ou de l’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec, ce qui est du pareil au m\u00eame, selon nous, pour les motifs que nous avons formul\u00e9s dans la section sur le \u00abpeuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois\u00bb180<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[517]<\/b>  Nothing in the above directly opens the door to a unilateral secession of Quebec after a popular consultation, whether we are talking about the people who inhabit the territory of Quebec or the Qu\u00e9bec State, which is six of one, half a dozen of the other in our opinion, for the reasons we formulated in the section on the \u201cQu\u00e9bec people\u201d.180<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.3.8<\/b> Articles 6 \u00e0 12<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.8<\/b> Sections 6 \u00e0 12<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[518]<\/b>  Ces articles ne sont pas vis\u00e9s par la contestation du requ\u00e9rant, mais il ne faut pas les oublier aux fins de l’analyse, vu la r\u00e8gle sugg\u00e9rant d’interpr\u00e9ter les dispositions d’une loi les unes par les autres.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[518]<\/b>  These sections are not objects of the applicant\u2019s challenge, but they must not be forgotten for the purposes of the analysis, given the rule suggesting that provisions of a law be interpreted by one another.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[519]<\/b>  L’article 6 fournit des indices int\u00e9ressants sur les limites dans lesquelles s’inscrivent les autres articles contest\u00e9s de la Loi 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[519]<\/b>  Section 6 provides some interesting clues about the limits in which the other contested sections of Bill 99<\/i> operate.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[520]<\/b>  \u00c0 notre avis, il est rassurant quant \u00e0 la port\u00e9e des dispositions contest\u00e9es, car il limite la souverainet\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec \u00e0 ce qui rel\u00e8ve de ses domaines de comp\u00e9tence.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[520]<\/b>  In our view, it is reassuring as to the scope of the impugned provisions because it limits the sovereignty of Quebec to what falls within its areas of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[521]<\/b>  Le l\u00e9gislateur ajoute m\u00eame les mots suivants, magiques en l’occurrence, soit \u00abdans le cadre des lois et des conventions de nature constitutionnelle\u00bb, et il le fait deux fois plut\u00f4t qu’une.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[521]<\/b>  The Legislator even adds the following words, magical in this case, i.e.:  \u201cwithin the scope of constitutional laws and conventions,\u201d and it does so twice rather than once.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[522]<\/b>  Le fait d’\u00e9crire que l’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec d\u00e9tient des droits \u00ab\u00e9tablis \u00e0 son avantage en vertu d’une convention ou d’une obligation constitutionnelle\u00bb au nom du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, ne laisse planer aucune ambig\u00f9it\u00e9 quant \u00e0 la port\u00e9e de l’ensemble de la Loi 99<\/i> comme \u00e9tant une loi de r\u00e9gie interne, une forme de charte ou de constitution interne relevant<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[522]<\/b>  The fact that The Qu\u00e9bec State possesses rights \u201cestablished to its advantage by virtue of an agreement or a constitutional obligation\u201d in the name of the Qu\u00e9bec people leaves no room for ambiguity as to the scope of Bill 99<\/i> as a law of internal management, a form of charter or an internal constitution within<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n180.<\/b> Voir section 5.3.2 du pr\u00e9sent jugement intitul\u00e9e Pr\u00e9ambule<\/em> (les consid\u00e9rants<\/em>), p. 57.<\/span><\/td>\n\n180.<\/b> See section 5.3.2 of the present judgment entitled Preamble<\/em> (the recitals), p. 57.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

des pouvoirs que l’article 45 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<\/i> ou l’article 92(1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867<\/i>, pour les plus frileux, conf\u00e8rent au Qu\u00e9bec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

powers that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982<\/i> or Section 92(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867<\/i>, for the more cautious, confer upon Quebec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[523]<\/b>  Le ministre Facal explique comme suit ce que le gouvernement entend par les obligations constitutionnelles auxquelles l’article 6 r\u00e9f\u00e8re :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[523]<\/b>  Minister Facal explains as follows what the Government means by the constitutional obligations to which section 6 refers:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

On pourrait voir ici une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l’obligation de n\u00e9gocier telle que d\u00e9gag\u00e9e par la Cour supr\u00eame dans l’avis consultatif.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

\n

We might see here a reference to the duty to negotiate as identified by the Supreme Court in the advisory opinion.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[524]<\/b>  Plus les d\u00e9bats parlementaires avancent sur l’\u00e9tude du projet de Loi 99<\/i>, plus l’intention sur le caract\u00e8re limitatif des param\u00e8tres qui y sont inclus est claire :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[524]<\/b>  The more the parliamentary debate advances on the study of Bill 99, the clearer the intention as to the restrictive nature of the parameters included in it:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

L’avis de la Cour supr\u00eame pr\u00e9cise en outre que le rejet clairement exprim\u00e9 par le peuple du Qu\u00e9bec de l’ordre constitutionnel existant conf\u00e9rerait l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 aux revendications souverainistes et imposerait au reste du Canada l’obligation de prendre en consid\u00e9ration et de respecter cette expression de la volont\u00e9 d\u00e9mocratique en engageant des n\u00e9gociations que la Cour con\u00e7oit comme devant se d\u00e9rouler d’\u00e9gal \u00e0 \u00e9gal entre deux majorit\u00e9(s) l\u00e9gitimes, l’une ne pouvant l’emporter sur l’autre. (…)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

\n

The Supreme Court Advisory further specifies that the clear rejection expressed by the people of Quebec of the existing constitutional order would confer legitimacy on the sovereignist claims and impose on the rest of Canada the duty to take into consideration and to respect this expression of the democratic will by engaging in negotiations that the Court sees as being conducted by equals between two legitimate majorities, one of which cannot prevail over the other (…)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

Comble de d\u00e9pit pour le gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral, la Cour supr\u00eame d\u00e9finit en outre la s\u00e9cession unilat\u00e9rale comme une s\u00e9cession effectu\u00e9e sans n\u00e9gociations pr\u00e9alables, confirmant ainsi la position du gouvernement du Qu\u00e9bec qui n’a jamais propos\u00e9 autre chose qu’une accession \u00e0 la souverainet\u00e9 r\u00e9alis\u00e9e \u00e0 la suite de n\u00e9gociations men\u00e9es d’\u00e9gal \u00e0 \u00e9gal avec le reste du Canada et suivies d’une p\u00e9riode de transition<\/b><\/u>181<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n

\n

(Nos soulignements et notre emphase<\/i>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

\n

The height of disappointment for the federal government, the Supreme Court also defines unilateral secession as a secession without prior negotiations, confirming the position of the Quebec government, which has never proposed anything other than an accession to sovereignty achieved as a result of negotiations conducted on an equal footing with the rest of Canada and followed by a transitional period<\/b><\/u>.<\/b>181<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(Our underlining and our emphasis<\/i>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[525]<\/b>  Le discours de Lucien Bouchard, le jour de l’adoption de la Loi 99<\/i>, est limpide :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[525]<\/b>  The speech of Lucien Bouchard, the day of the adoption of Bill 99<\/i>, is clear:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

Mais ce qui fait le plus mal aux chantres de la ligne dure, c’est la position de la Cour supr\u00eame sur la cons\u00e9quence logique de la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 du projet souverainiste, \u00e0 savoir l’obligation de n\u00e9gocier de bonne foi.  Non seulement la Cour affirme qu’une victoire souverainiste oblige le reste du canada \u00e0 n\u00e9gocier, mais elle fait de la tenue de ces n\u00e9gociations une obligation constitutionnelle182<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

\n

But what hurts the hard-line choristers the most is the position of the Supreme Court on the logical consequence of the legitimacy of the sovereignist project, namely the duty to negotiate in good faith.  Not only does the Court affirm that a sovereignist victory obliges the rest of Canada to negotiate, but it makes the conduct of these negotiations a constitutional duty.182<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[526]<\/b>  Dans cet extrait, rien dans l’enthousiasme que l’on d\u00e9c\u00e8le au sujet des \u00e9nonc\u00e9s du Premier ministre Bouchard ne nous justifie de conclure que le gouvernement cherche \u00e0 \u00e9viter des n\u00e9gociations constitutionnelles.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[526]<\/b>  In this extract, nothing in the enthusiasm we sense in relation to the statements of Premier Bouchard justifies our concluding that the government is seeking to avoid constitutional negotiations.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[527]<\/b>  \u00c0 l’article 7, le l\u00e9gislateur r\u00e9f\u00e8re express\u00e9ment \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence constitutionnelle \u00abde l’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec\u00bb.  Il le fait m\u00eame trois fois plut\u00f4t qu’une.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[527]<\/b>  In Section 7, the Legislator expressly refers to the constitutional jurisdiction of the \u201cThe Qu\u00e9bec State\u201d.  It even does so three times rather than just once.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n181.<\/b> Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/em> du 21 novembre 2000, pages 7988 et 7989.<\/span><\/p>\n

182.<\/b> Voir aussi Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/em> du 25 mai 2000, page 6171, les propos similaires du ministre Facal, qui soutient que C-20 est n\u00e9 \u00abdu fait qu\u2019avec l\u2019avis de la Cour supr\u00eame le gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral a, bien malgr\u00e9 lui, r\u00e9colt\u00e9 quatre missiles qu\u2019il n\u2019avait pas vu venir.\u00bb<\/span><\/td>\n

\n181.<\/b> Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i>, November 21, 2000, pages 7988 and 7989.<\/span><\/p>\n

182.<\/b> See also Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/i>, May 25th, 2000, page 6171, for similar comments by Minister Facal, who argues that C-20<\/i> was born \u201cbecause, with the Supreme Court’s opinion, the federal government has, quite in spite of itself, reaped four missiles it had not seen coming.\u201d<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[528]<\/b>  Il est difficile de conclure que les termes qu’il utilise ailleurs dans les articles contest\u00e9s, et qui chatouillent le requ\u00e9rant, d\u00e9montrent que le l\u00e9gislateur a l\u00e9gif\u00e9r\u00e9 ou a souhait\u00e9 l\u00e9gif\u00e9rer \u00e0 l’ext\u00e9rieur de ses comp\u00e9tences en mettant de c\u00f4t\u00e9 la Constitution<\/i> lorsqu’il r\u00e9it\u00e8re certains des droits, privil\u00e8ges et principes fondamentaux du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/i> et de ses institutions.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[528]<\/b>  It is hard to conclude that the terms it utilizes elsewhere in the contested sections, and which unnerve the applicant, demonstrate that the Legislator has legislated or has wished to legislate outside its powers, setting the Constitution aside, when it reiterates certain of the fundamental rights, privileges and principles of the Qu\u00e9bec people and its institutions.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[529]<\/b>  Les articles 9 et 10 portent sur le territoire qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[529]<\/b>  Sections 9 and 10 relate to the territory of Quebec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[530]<\/b>  L’article 9 r\u00e9affirme, lui aussi, quelque chose qui a toujours exist\u00e9 : l’int\u00e9grit\u00e9 du territoire qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[530]<\/b>  Section 9, too, reaffirms something that has always existed:  the integrity of the territory of Quebec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[531]<\/b>  Le ministre Facal juge m\u00eame \u00e0 propos de pr\u00e9ciser que cet article \u00abaffirme un principe de droit constitutionnel canadien en r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l’article 43 de la Loi de 1982<\/i> et \u00e0 l’article 3 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867<\/i>.\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[531]<\/b>  Minister Facal even deems it appropriate to stipulate that this Section \u201caffirms a principle of Canadian constitutional law by reference to section 43 of the 1982 Act<\/i> and Section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1867<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[532]<\/b>  Difficile de conclure qu’il agit comme \u00c9tat ind\u00e9pendant ou en voie de le devenir par l’utilisation de la Loi 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[532]<\/b>  It is difficult to conclude that it is acting like an independent State or is in the process of becoming one via Bill 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[533]<\/b>  L’article 10 pourrait se r\u00e9sumer par le slogan \u00abMa\u00eetres chez nous<\/i>\u00bb, en ce sens qu’il r\u00e9it\u00e8re que l’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec exerce les pouvoirs reli\u00e9s \u00e0 sa comp\u00e9tence<\/u> et au domaine public qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois sur son territoire<\/u>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[533]<\/b>  Section 10 could be summed up by the slogan \u201cMa\u00eetres chez nous<\/i>\u201d, in the sense that it reiterates that the Qu\u00e9bec State exercises the powers bound to its jurisdiction<\/u> and to Quebec’s public domain on its territory.<\/u><\/p>\n


\n<\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[534]<\/b>  Le fait de r\u00e9f\u00e9rer \u00e0 sa comp\u00e9tence ne peut exclure en toute logique et en pure s\u00e9mantique, celle des autres : cela y r\u00e9f\u00e8re par implication n\u00e9cessaire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[534]<\/b>  The fact of referring to one\u2019s jurisdiction cannot exclude, in all logic and in pure semantics, that of others: it refers to it by necessary implication.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[535]<\/b>  Que le gouvernement prenne la peine de circonscrire cette comp\u00e9tence \u00e0 son territoire ne t\u00e9moigne pas d’une intention de vouloir exercer celle des autres, ni d’exercer la sienne ailleurs qu’au Qu\u00e9bec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[535]<\/b>  That the government takes the trouble to circumscribe this jurisdiction to its territory does not reflect an intention to want to exercise that of others, nor to exercise its own elsewhere than in Quebec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[536]<\/b>  Les indices provenant de cette preuve intrins\u00e8que sont loin d’\u00eatre sans incidence sur l’interpr\u00e9tation des autres articles que le requ\u00e9rant conteste.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[536]<\/b>  The clues emerging from this intrinsic proof are far from irrelevant to the interpretation of the other sections that the applicant contests.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[537]<\/b>  Et \u00e0 ce sujet, lorsque nous avons termin\u00e9 l’\u00e9tude de l’article 3 en r\u00e9f\u00e9rant \u00e0 la m\u00e9thode d’interpr\u00e9tation att\u00e9nu\u00e9e, avec le reste de notre \u00e9tude des autres articles, l’on voit bien qu’il n’est m\u00eame plus n\u00e9cessaire d’y recourir, les r\u00e8gles g\u00e9n\u00e9rales d’interpr\u00e9tation \u00e9tant suffisantes pour disposer de la question soumise au sujet de la l\u00e9galit\u00e9 de cet article 3.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[537]<\/b>  And in this regard, when we have ended the study of Section 3 by referring to the \u201creading down\u201d method of interpretation, along with the rest of our study of the other sections, it is apparent that resort to it is no longer even necessary, the general rules of interpretation being sufficient to dispose of the question submitted as to the legality of the said Section 3.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[538]<\/b>  L’article 13 \u00e9tant le dernier de la s\u00e9rie contest\u00e9e, voyons enfin ce qu’il r\u00e9v\u00e8le.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[538]<\/b>  Section 13 being the last of the contested series, let us finally see what it reveals.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.3.8<\/b> Article 13<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.8<\/b> Section 13<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[539]<\/b>  L’article 13 cl\u00f4t la Loi 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[539]<\/b>  Section 13 closes Bill 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 79<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 79<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[540]<\/b>  Le ministre Facal pr\u00e9cise que les droits et principes qui en ressortent sont de deux ordres \u00abfondamentaux et intemporels\u00bb183<\/sup><\/span>: l’int\u00e9grit\u00e9 des pouvoirs de l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale et le principe de l’autod\u00e9termination du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[540]<\/b>  Minister Facal specifies that the rights and principles that emerge are of two orders:  \u201cfundamental and timeless\u201d:183<\/sup><\/span>  the integrity of the powers of the National Assembly and the principle of self-determination of the Quebec people<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[541]<\/b>  Pour tous les motifs exprim\u00e9s auparavant sur ces deux sujets, les id\u00e9es \u00e9nonc\u00e9es \u00e0 l’article 13 constituent une redite, une forme de conclusion, laquelle tire un trait d\u00e9finitif sur l’intention du l\u00e9gislateur de r\u00e9affirmer les concepts fondamentaux sur lesquels nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9labor\u00e9 pour conclure qu’ils n’avaient rien d’inconstitutionnel.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[541]<\/b>  For all the reasons expressed above on these two subjects, the ideas articulated in Section 13 constitute a repetition, a form of conclusion, which draws a definitive line under the intention of the Legislator to reaffirm the fundamental concepts on which we have already elaborated to conclude that they were not unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[542]<\/b>  Le l\u00e9gislateur n’\u00e9tant pas cens\u00e9 parler pour ne rien dire, pourquoi alors r\u00e9p\u00e9ter les m\u00eames choses, si ce n’est pas pour accomplir un autre objectif?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[542]<\/b>  The Legislator\u2019s being deemed not to speak for nothing, why then repeat the same things, if not to accomplish another objective?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[543]<\/b>  Selon nous, il r\u00e9it\u00e8re tout cela simplement parce qu’il a \u00e9t\u00e9 tr\u00e8s heurt\u00e9 par l’essence de ce qui se trouve dans la Loi C-20<\/i> et qu’il a jug\u00e9 important d’ajouter des bretelles \u00e0 la ceinture, histoire de bien faire passer son message.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[543]<\/b>  In our view, it restates all of this simply because it was quite shocked by the essence of the content of Bill C-20<\/i> and it deemed it important to add suspenders to its belt to get its message across.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[544]<\/b>  Mais une chose est certaine, il s’agit l\u00e0 de l\u2019une des belles illustrations de l’expression populaire Trop fort casse pas<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[544]<\/b>  But one thing is certain, this is a fine illustration of the popular expression \u201cit can’t be over-emphasized\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[545]<\/b>  Il est vrai que lorsque l’on lit cet article seul, il peut faire peur, et les craintes manifest\u00e9es par le requ\u00e9rant n’\u00e9taient pas sans fondement apparent.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[545]<\/b>  It is true that when reading this section by itself, it can be frightening, and the fears expressed by the applicant were not without apparent foundation.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[546]<\/b>  Mais \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re de tout ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 dit sur les id\u00e9es composant cet article, qui se retrouvent d\u00e9j\u00e0 ailleurs dans l’analyse de ces autres articles, et en faisant une interpr\u00e9tation du contenu sp\u00e9cifique de l’article 13 \u00e0 l’aide des r\u00e8gles d’interpr\u00e9tation des lois, en tenant compte de celles applicables en mati\u00e8re constitutionnelle et en se concentrant sur les comp\u00e9tences d\u00e9volues au Qu\u00e9bec dans la Constitution<\/i>, les craintes s’envolent, \u00e0 la fin de cet exercice.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[546]<\/b>  But in light of all that has been said on the ideas com-prised in this Section, which are already found else-where in the analysis of these other sections, and by interpreting the specific content of Section 13 with the help of rules of statutory interpretation, while taking account of those applicable in constitutional matters and focusing on the powers devolved upon Quebec in the Constitution<\/i>, the fears vanish at the end of this exercise.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[547]<\/b>  \u00c0 notre humble avis, la Loi 99<\/i>, incluant tous les articles que le requ\u00e9rant conteste, est tout \u00e0 fait constitutionnelle.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[547]<\/b>  In our humble opinion, Bill 99<\/i>, including all the Sections the applicant contests, is entirely constitutional.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[548]<\/b>  Comme l\u2019a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 le ministre qui l’a parrain\u00e9e, \u00e0 qui il revient de donner le mot de la fin, cette Loi 99<\/i>:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[548]<\/b>  As stated by the minister who sponsored it, who had the final word on it, this Bill 99<\/i>:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

[…] r\u00e9it\u00e8re les principes politiques et juridiques qui constituent les assises de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et de la d\u00e9mocratie qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise184<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

[…] restates the political and legal principles that form the foundations of Quebec society and democracy.184<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

[…] Il n’y a rien l\u00e0 qui n’ait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 dit et r\u00e9it\u00e9r\u00e9 \u00e0 sati\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 de multiples reprises par tous les gouvernements du Qu\u00e9bec avant nous (les p\u00e9quistes), y compris, donc, des gouvernements qui n’\u00e9taient pas d’ob\u00e9dience souverainiste.  Ces droits, pr\u00e9rogatives, sont ceux qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 dans le pass\u00e9, qui sont actuellement et qui seront bien s\u00fbr dans le futur exerc\u00e9s par le peuple et par l’\u00c9tat qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

[…] There is nothing in it that has not been said and repeatedly and copiously restated by all Quebec governments before us (the P\u00e9quistes), thus including governments that were not sovereignist in obedience.  These rights [and] prerogatives are those which have been in the past, are now, and will certainly be exercised in the future by the people and by the Qu\u00e9bec State.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n183.<\/b> Id.<\/em>, page 40 sur 53.<\/span><\/p>\n

184.<\/b> Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/em> du 25 mai 2000, page 6167<\/span><\/td>\n

\n183.<\/b> Id.<\/em>, page 40 of 53.<\/span><\/p>\n

184.<\/b> Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/em> of May 25th, 2000, page 6167<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

[…] Ce qu’il y a de nouveau dans 99<\/i> et de diff\u00e9rent, c’est simplement que, pour la premi\u00e8re fois, ils se retrouvent r\u00e9unis et formellement \u00e9nonc\u00e9s dans un texte l\u00e9gislatif de l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale.  L’\u00e9num\u00e9ration de ces droits n’est pas exhaustive, mais les principaux y sont185<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

[…] What is new in 99<\/i> and different, is simply that, for the first time, they are found consolidated and formally stated in a legislative text of the National Assembly.  The enumeration of these rights is not exhaustive, but the principles are.185<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6. LES CONCLUSIONS G\u00c9N\u00c9RALES<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[549]<\/b>  Bien que la Loi 99<\/i> ne b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie pas comme tel du statut de loi supra-l\u00e9gislative, contrairement au choix effectu\u00e9 par le l\u00e9gislateur qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois lorsqu’il a adopt\u00e9 la Charte des droits et libert\u00e9s de la personne<\/i>, nous sommes d’opinion que la mati\u00e8re qu’elle contient porte sur des principes fondamentaux se situant au c\u0153ur du syst\u00e8me d\u00e9mocratique qui a toujours pr\u00e9valu au Qu\u00e9bec, que ce soit avant et depuis l’av\u00e8nement de la Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[549]<\/b>  Although Bill 99<\/i> does not enjoy the status of supralegislative law as such, contrary to the choice made by the Quebec Legislator when it adopted the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms<\/i>, we are of the view that the matter it contains concerns fundamental principles that lie at the heart of the democratic system that has always prevailed in Quebec, before and since the advent of Confederation.<\/i><\/p>\n


\n<\/i><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[550]<\/b>  M\u00eame si la Loi 99<\/i> n’est en fait qu’une loi ordinaire<\/i>, en langage juridique, elle ne rev\u00eat toutefois ce qualificatif que par souci de pr\u00e9cision et cela ne lui fait pas perdre le caract\u00e8re de loi fondamentale qui doit lui \u00eatre d\u00e9cern\u00e9 \u00e0 la fin de cet exercice d’interpr\u00e9tation.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[550]<\/b>  Even though Bill 99<\/i> is in fact but an ordinary<\/i> law, in legal language, it does, however, have this qualifier only for the sake of precision and this does not cause it to lose the character of fundamental law which must be adjudged to it at the end of this interpretation exercise.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[551]<\/b>  Son titre, Loi sur l’exercice des droits fondamentaux et des pr\u00e9rogatives du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois et de l’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i>, est l’indice le plus important pour confirmer l’intention du l\u00e9gislateur d’en faire une loi particuli\u00e8re et fondamentale.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[551]<\/b>  Its title, Act Respecting the Exercise of the Fundamental Rights and Prerogatives of the Quebec People and the Quebec State<\/em>, is the most important clue to confirm the intention of the Legislator to make of it a special and fundamental law.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[552]<\/b>  Ce que l’on y retrouve est si profond, par rapport au fonctionnement interne du Qu\u00e9bec, que l’on s’attendrait \u00e0 retrouver la mati\u00e8re sur laquelle elle porte dans un document juridique formel portant le titre de Constitution interne ou de Constitution intra-\u00e9tatique, pour \u00e9viter toute ambigu\u00eft\u00e9, puisqu’elle ne r\u00e9git que l’un des membres de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration canadienne, cette derni\u00e8re \u00e9tant pour sa part r\u00e9gie par la Constitution<\/i> et la Charte<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[552]<\/b>  What we find in it is so profound, in relation to the internal functioning of Quebec, that one would expect to find the subject matter to which it relates in a formal legal document bearing the title of internal Constitution or intrastate Constitution, to avoid ambiguity, since it governs only one member of the Canadian federation, in turn governed by the Constitution<\/em> and the Charter<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[553]<\/b>  Ce type de l\u00e9gislation et de dispositions se retrouvent ailleurs, dans d’autres \u00e9tats membres de f\u00e9d\u00e9rations.  Toutes les expertises produites confirment cette r\u00e9alit\u00e9 ainsi qu’une telle mani\u00e8re de faire.  Il n’y a donc rien de compl\u00e8tement inusit\u00e9 dans le fait d’avoir choisi de se doter de la Loi 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[553]<\/b>  This type of legislation and provisions can be found elsewhere in other member states of federations.  All the expert reports produced confirm this reality as well as this way of doing things.  So there is nothing completely unusual in having chosen to equip oneself with Bill 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[554]<\/b>  Mais si la mati\u00e8re vis\u00e9e dans la Loi 99<\/i> est si fondamentale, pourquoi n’a-t-elle \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9e qu’en d\u00e9cembre 2000, alors que le Qu\u00e9bec b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie du statut de province depuis 1867?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[554]<\/b>  But if the subject matter of Bill 99<\/i> is so fundamental, why was it only adopted in December 2000, when Quebec has been a province since 1867?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[555]<\/b>  Voil\u00e0 une bonne question, \u00e0 laquelle le contexte historique et politique dont nous avons largement fait \u00e9tat dans la premi\u00e8re section du jugement, ainsi qu’\u00e0 divers autres endroits jug\u00e9s opportuns au cours de l’\u00e9tude des dispositions de la Loi<\/i>, apportent des r\u00e9ponses pertinentes.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[555]<\/b>  That’s a good question, to which the historical and political context we broadly referred to in the first section of this judgment, as well as in various other places deemed opportune in the course of studying the provisions of the Law<\/i>, provide relevant answers.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n185.<\/b> Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/em> du 21 novembre 2000, page 7990.<\/span><\/td>\n\n185.<\/b> Journal des d\u00e9bats<\/em> du 21 novembre 2000, page 7990.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[556]<\/b>  Apr\u00e8s avoir analys\u00e9 et d\u00e9crit en d\u00e9tail tout ce mat\u00e9riel extrins\u00e8que, la conclusion qui s’impose est qu’\u00e0 ce moment pr\u00e9cis de l’histoire, le dossier relatif \u00e0 l’avenir du Qu\u00e9bec dans la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration canadienne avait atteint un point culminant par l’effet combin\u00e9 des r\u00e9ponses fournies par la Cour supr\u00eame aux questions pos\u00e9es par le gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral sur la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 du projet souverainiste du Qu\u00e9bec et de la r\u00e9action l\u00e9gislative quasi imm\u00e9diate du f\u00e9d\u00e9ral qui a suivi ces \u00e9nonc\u00e9s.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[556]<\/b>  Having analyzed and described in detail all of this extrinsic material, the conclusion that must be drawn is that, at this precise moment in history, the record concerning Quebec\u2019s future in the Canadian federation had reached a climax by the combined effect of the Supreme Court\u2019s answers to the questions posed by the federal government on the legitimacy of Quebec\u2019s sovereignty project, and the federal government\u2019s almost immediate legislative reaction to these statements.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[557]<\/b>  Cette r\u00e9action s’est traduite par l’adoption de la Loi C-20<\/i>, car il y avait lieu de remettre les pendules \u00e0 l’heure sur ce que le f\u00e9d\u00e9ral semblait avoir retenu des propos de la Cour supr\u00eame, afin de lui faire comprendre que cette interpr\u00e9tation de L\u2019Avis consultatif<\/i> ne trouvait aucun \u00e9cho favorable au sein du gouvernement provincial.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[557]<\/b>  This reaction was translated by the adoption of Bill C-20<\/i>, because it was necessary to re-set the clock with regard to what the federal government seemed to have taken from the words of the Supreme Court, in order to make it understand that this interpretation of the Advisory Opinion<\/i> found no favorable echo in the provincial government.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[558]<\/b>  Les conclusions de la Cour supr\u00eame sur l’impact qu’aurait un \u00e9ventuel vote qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois en faveur de la s\u00e9cession sur le reste du Canada, en ce que tous les membres de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration devraient alors s’assoir pour n\u00e9gocier et, qu’\u00e0 d\u00e9faut de le faire s\u00e9rieusement, la communaut\u00e9 internationale puisse alors tirer ses propres conclusions avec les cons\u00e9quences que cela pourrait g\u00e9n\u00e9rer sur la reconnaissance du Qu\u00e9bec comme \u00c9tat ind\u00e9pendant \u00e0 travers le monde, dans le cas o\u00f9 le f\u00e9d\u00e9ral ou les provinces soient jug\u00e9s de mauvaise foi, a provoqu\u00e9 des r\u00e9actions \u00e0 tous les paliers gouvernementaux.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[558]<\/b>  The Supreme Court’s conclusions as to the impact upon the rest of Canada of an eventual Quebec vote in favor of secession\u2014in that all members of the federation would have to sit down to negotiate and, that, unless it were done seriously, the international community could then draw its own conclusions, with the consequences this could generate for the recognition of Quebec as an independent state around the world, in the event the federal or provincial governments were deemed in bad faith\u2014provoked reactions at all levels of government.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[559]<\/b>  Si l’on se fie aux propos mis en preuve, le gouvernement qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois s’est r\u00e9joui de cet Avis consultatif<\/i>, alors que le gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral a tout de suite voulu faire conna\u00eetre ses vues sur la fa\u00e7on de g\u00e9rer une \u00e9ventuelle d\u00e9marche r\u00e9f\u00e9rendaire, en se dotant de la Loi C-20<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[559]<\/b>  If the statements put in evidence are credible, the Quebec government was delighted with this Advisory Opinion, whereas the federal government immediately wanted its views made known on how to manage a future referendum effort, by equipping itself with Bill C-20<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[560]<\/b>  Le contenu de cette Loi<\/i> a fait bondir les parlementaires qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, qui y ont tout de suite vu une tentative ill\u00e9gale d’intervention dans la gestion interne des affaires propres \u00e0 la population du Qu\u00e9bec, et une action forte s’imposait afin de remettre le f\u00e9d\u00e9ral \u00e0 sa place.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[560]<\/b>  The content of this Act made Quebec parliamentarians leap up, who immediately saw in it an illegal at-tempt to intervene in the internal management of the affairs of the Quebec people, and strong action was needed to put the federal government back in its place.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[561]<\/b>  Cela passait par lui rappeler, noir sur blanc, dans une loi, que le r\u00f4le de chacun des acteurs de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration est bien d\u00e9fini, qu’il doit tenir pour acquis que la population qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise pourra toujours initier une d\u00e9marche s\u00e9cessionniste, si elle le souhaite, et qu’advenant qu’elle le fasse, qu’elle est assez grande pour le faire seule, sans se faire dicter comment par lui, sous r\u00e9serve que les institutions qui la repr\u00e9sentent agissent conform\u00e9ment aux obligations constitutionnelles qui lient le Qu\u00e9bec, comme toute autres province, telles que r\u00e9it\u00e9r\u00e9es par la Cour supr\u00eame.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[561]<\/b>  That was done by reminding it, in black and white, in a law, that the role of each of the actors in the federation is well defined, that it must take for granted that the Quebec population can always initiate a secessionist step, if it wishes, and that if it does, it is grown-up enough to do it by itself, without its being dictated to, provided that the institutions representing it act in accordance with constitutional obligations binding Quebec, like any other province, as reiterated by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[562]<\/b>  Ce que l’on retrouve dans les articles que le requ\u00e9rant conteste est tr\u00e8s bien r\u00e9sum\u00e9 dans la note explicative qui accompagne la Loi 99<\/i>, les titres de ses chapitres l’annoncent assez clairement, le contenu des quinze consid\u00e9rants campe tr\u00e8s bien le contexte qui y donne naissance, et le choix des mots consacre le tout de mani\u00e8re non \u00e9quivoque.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[562]<\/b>  What one finds in the sections contested by the applicant is quite well summarized in the explanatory note which accompanies Bill 99<\/i>; its chapter titles state it quite clearly, the content of the fifteen recitals accords very well with the context that gives rise to it, and the choice of words enshrines the whole, unequivocally.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[563]<\/b>  Selon ce qui ressort des d\u00e9bats de l’\u00e9poque, les parlementaires croient donc que le temps est venu d’ajuster le tir et d’envoyer un coup de semonce pour faire battre le f\u00e9d\u00e9ral en retraite en ralentissant ses ardeurs, l’arme pr\u00e9destin\u00e9e pour accomplir ce dessein ayant finalement pris la forme d’une loi, la Loi 99<\/i>, plut\u00f4t que celle d’une d\u00e9claration solennelle.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[563]<\/b>  According to what emerges from debates of the day, the parliamentarians believe the time has come to adjust their aim and to send a warning shot to force a federal retreat while cooling the latter\u2019s ardors, the weapon predestined to accomplish this purpose at last taking the form of a law, Bill 99<\/i>, rather than a solemn declaration.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[564]<\/b>  Il \u00e9tait donc jug\u00e9 imp\u00e9ratif de remettre les pendules \u00e0 l’heure au sujet des droits, privil\u00e8ges, principes fondamentaux du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/i> et de ses institutions, ainsi qu’en ce qui a trait au r\u00f4le de chacun au sein de la province tout comme membre autonome et \u00e9gal de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration, la Cour supr\u00eame ayant reconnu \u00e0 chacun des participants \u00e0 cette f\u00e9d\u00e9ration un statut \u00e9gal, de sorte que le f\u00e9d\u00e9ral pouvait dor\u00e9navant s’abstenir de jouer au grand fr\u00e8re avec le Qu\u00e9bec.186<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[564]<\/b>  It was therefore deemed imperative to reset the clock as to rights, privileges, fundamental principles of the Quebec people and its institutions, and the role of each within the province as an autonomous and equal member of the federation, the Supreme Court having recognized to each of the participants in this federation equal status, so that the federal government could henceforth abstain from playing big brother with Quebec. 186<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[565]<\/b>  Cette loi visait donc \u00e0 r\u00e9it\u00e9rer des principes d\u00e9j\u00e0 existants, se trouvant dans diverses lois qu\u00e9b\u00e9coises, pour certains, et, pour d’autres, au c\u0153ur m\u00eame du syst\u00e8me politique qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois et canadien, lesquels reposent sur le principe d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9mocratique, et elle visait aussi \u00e0 regrouper ces droits et principes au sein d’un seul instrument unique et fort dont le but ultime \u00e9tait de transmettre le message que nous paraphrasons par le slogan \u00abMa\u00eetres chez nous\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[565]<\/b>  This law thus intended to restate existing principles, some of which are found in various Quebec laws, and others at the very heart of the Quebec and Canadian political system, the latter based on the principle of a democratic society, and it also intended to consolidate these rights and principles within a single and robust instrument whose ultimate objective was to transmit the message that we paraphrase with the slogan \u201cMasters in our own house\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[566]<\/b>  Rien dans toute cette preuve extrins\u00e8que ne modifie la conclusion \u00e0 laquelle le Tribunal en arrive apr\u00e8s avoir fait l’\u00e9tude d\u00e9taill\u00e9e de la preuve intrins\u00e8que, laquelle, rappelons-le, ne nous a pas permis de faire dire aux mots utilis\u00e9s dans la Loi 99<\/i> autre chose que ce que leur sens ordinaire indique.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[566]<\/b>  Nothing in all this extrinsic evidence alters the conclusion arrived at by the Court after a detailed study of the intrinsic proof, which, as we recall, did not allow us to give to the words used in Bill 99<\/i> other than what their ordinary meaning indicates.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[567]<\/b>  Il est vrai que les expressions \u00abpeuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois\u00bb \u00ab\u00c9tat qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois\u00bb \u00ab\u00c9tat national\u00bb sont fortes et qu’elles pourraient \u00e0 la limite pointer vers une \u00e9ventuelle s\u00e9cession, mais ce n’est pas ce que la Loi 99<\/i> leur fait dire \u00e0 aucun endroit dans les articles contest\u00e9s, ni ailleurs dans le reste de la Loi<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[567]<\/b>  It is true that the expressions \u201cQu\u00e9bec people,\u201d \u201cQu\u00e9bec State,\u201d \u201cNational State,\u201d are potent and could ultimately point to a future secession, but that is not what Bill 99<\/i> makes them say, anywhere in the disputed Sections, or elsewhere in the rest of the Act<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[568]<\/b>  Le fait que le l\u00e9gislateur n’ait pas inclus les mots dramatiques \u00abs\u00e9cession\u00bb, \u00abunilat\u00e9rale\u00bb, \u00absans n\u00e9gociations pr\u00e9alables\u00bb n’est pas un oubli insignifiant, au contraire, car il sait tout \u00e0 fait ce dont il parle et qu’il conna\u00eet le sens des mots mieux que quiconque.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[568]<\/b>  The fact the Legislator did not include the dramatic words \u201csecession,\u201d \u201cunilateral,\u201d \u201cwithout prior negotiations,\u201d is not a mere oversight; on the contrary, for it knows exactly what it is talking about and it knows the meaning of words better than anyone.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[569]<\/b>  S’il a choisi de ne pas utiliser les mots cl\u00e9s qui auraient permis au requ\u00e9rant d’avoir gain de cause, il faut en tirer une inf\u00e9rence.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[569]<\/b>  If it chose not to utilize the key words which would have allowed the applicant to win his case, an inference must be drawn.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[570]<\/b>  Cela g\u00e9n\u00e8re des effets sur les conclusions g\u00e9n\u00e9rales que nous retenons de tout cet exercice.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[570]<\/b>  This generates effects on the general conclusions that we draw from this whole exercise.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n186.<\/b>  Dans le Renvoi sur la r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat<\/i><\/u><\/a>, en 2014, aux paragraphes 46-47, la Cour supr\u00eame \u00e9crit que \u00abLe parlement et les provinces sont des acteurs \u00e9gaux dans la structure constitutionnelle canadienne. Aucun des ordres de gouvernement, agissant seul, ne peut modifier les nature et r\u00f4le fondamentaux des institutions cr\u00e9\u00e9es par la Constitution\u00bb.<\/span><\/td>\n\n186.<\/b> In Reference re Senate Reform<\/i><\/u><\/a>, in 2014, at paragraphs 46-47, the Supreme Court wrote that \u201cParliament and the provinces are equal players in the Canadian constitutional structure. None of the levels of government, acting alone, can change the fundamental nature and role of the institutions created by the Constitution.\u201d<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 83<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 83<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[571]<\/b>  Nous ne retrouvons \u00e9galement rien dans la Loi 99<\/i> qui aille \u00e0 l’encontre des \u00e9nonc\u00e9s contenus dans L\u2019Avis consultatif<\/i>  de la Cour supr\u00eame sur la S\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec, rendu en 1998, pouvant laisser entendre que le Qu\u00e9bec n’entend pas n\u00e9gocier sa sortie si un vote favorable intervient en faveur de la s\u00e9cession.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[571]<\/b>  We also find nothing in Bill 99<\/i> that runs counter to the statements contained in the Supreme Court\u2019s Advisory Opinion<\/i>  on the Secession of Quebec, rendered in 1998, capable of letting it be understood that Quebec has no intention of negotiating its exit if a vote intervenes in favor of secession.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[572]<\/b>  \u00c9galement, nous ne voyons rien dans la Loi 99<\/i> qui puisse mener \u00e0 l’anarchie ni \u00e0 la r\u00e9volution, comme le craint le requ\u00e9rant, qui se dit fatigu\u00e9 de cette menace qui plane depuis trop longtemps sur l’avenir du Qu\u00e9bec187<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[572]<\/b>  Also, we see nothing in Bill 99 that could lead to anarchy nor to revolution as the applicant fears, who says he is tired of this threat that has lingered too long over the future of Quebec.187<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[573]<\/b>  En adoptant la Loi 99<\/i>, le l\u00e9gislateur souhaitait-il clarifier une quelconque ambigu\u00eft\u00e9188<\/sup><\/span> sur le r\u00f4le jou\u00e9 par tous les acteurs vis\u00e9s par le contenu de cette Loi<\/i>?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[573]<\/b>  By enacting Bill 99<\/i>, did the Legislator wish to clarify some ambiguity188<\/sup><\/span> as to the role played by all the actors pointed to by the content of this Act<\/i>?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[574]<\/b>  Nous sommes d’avis que non.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[574]<\/b>  In our opinion, no.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[575]<\/b>  Selon nous, le r\u00f4le jou\u00e9 par chacun dans l’histoire de la f\u00e9d\u00e9ration canadienne n’a jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 source d’ambigu\u00eft\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[575]<\/b>  In our view, the role played by each in the history of the Canadian federation has never been a source of ambiguity.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[576]<\/b>  Personne n’a mis en doute que la population qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise a toujours \u00e9lu ses repr\u00e9sentants, que lesdits repr\u00e9sentants tiennent leur l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 du fait que la population remet le pouvoir entre leurs mains, que les \u00e9lus sont ceux qui font avancer les affaires de la province et qu’ils repr\u00e9sentent l’autorit\u00e9 l\u00e9gitime pour toutes les causes que la population leur demande de d\u00e9fendre.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[576]<\/b>  No one has put in doubt that the Quebec population has always elected its representatives, that these representatives take their legitimacy from the fact that the people put the power in their hands, that the elected are those who advance the affairs of the province and represent legitimate authority for all causes that the population asks them to defend.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[577]<\/b>  \u00c9tait-ce alors dans un but prospectif, en vue d’une \u00e9ventuelle d\u00e9marche portant sur la d\u00e9termination de l’avenir du Qu\u00e9bec?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[577]<\/b>  Was it then for a future purpose, with a view to an eventual step toward determining the future of Quebec?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[578]<\/b>  Nous ne le croyons pas.  Et ce qui est essentiel, pour disposer du litige, c’est que l’Assembl\u00e9e nationale d\u00e9tenait la comp\u00e9tence constitutionnelle requise pour adopter tous les articles de la Loi 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[578]<\/b>  We do not believe it.  And what is essential to dispose of this litigation is that the National Assembly had the constitutional jurisdiction required to adopt all the Sections of Bill 99<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[579]<\/b>  Apr\u00e8s ce long exercice, le caract\u00e8re v\u00e9ritable de la Loi 99<\/i>, c’est-\u00e0-dire le ou les objectifs qu’elle cherche \u00e0 accomplir, ne r\u00e9v\u00e8le rien de tordu, de cach\u00e9, de malsain, ni d’ill\u00e9gal, de sorte qu’aucune intervention de la Cour sup\u00e9rieure du Qu\u00e9bec n’est requise.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[579]<\/b>  Following this long exercise, the true character of Bill 99<\/i>, meaning the object or the objectives it seeks to achieve, reveals nothing twisted, hidden, unhealthy or illegal, so that no intervention by Quebec Superior Court is required.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[580]<\/b>  Au contraire, d\u00e8s la premi\u00e8re occasion, les parlementaires jouent visi\u00e8re lev\u00e9e et expriment sans ambages ce qu’ils cherchent \u00e0 accomplir en adoptant cette Loi<\/i>.  Ce qu’ils d\u00e9clarent tout au long du processus est coh\u00e9rent et non contradictoire, et ce qu’ils r\u00e9alisent en adoptant cette Loi<\/i>, le 7 d\u00e9cembre 2000, ne t\u00e9moigne que d’une manifestation de la souverainet\u00e9 interne du Qu\u00e9bec, conforme \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence d\u00e9volue \u00e0 ce dernier dans la Constitution<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[580]<\/b>  On the contrary, at the first opportunity, the parliamentarians went into action, visor raised, and clearly expressed what they sought to accomplish by passing this Law<\/i>.  What they declare throughout the whole process is coherent and not contradictory, and what they achieved by adopting this Act<\/i>, on December 7, 2000, only testifies to a clear expression of the internal sovereignty of Quebec, consistent with the jurisdiction devolved upon the latter in the Constitution<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[581]<\/b>  Aucune atteinte \u00e0 la Charte<\/i> n’a \u00e9t\u00e9 commise.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[581]<\/b>  No infringement of the Charter<\/i> has been committed.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n187.<\/b> Loi instituant la Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em>, L.Q. 1990, c. 34<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

188.<\/b> [1988] B.C.J. No.1718, 53 D.L.R. (4th) 435, p. 442 (B.C.C.A).<\/span><\/td>\n

\n187.<\/b> An Act to establish the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec, SQ 1990<\/i>, c. 34<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

188.<\/b> [1988] B.C.J. No.1718, 53 D.L.R. (4th) 435, p. 442 (B.C.C.A).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[582]<\/b>  Advenant que le gouvernement qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois s’impatiente et que les n\u00e9gociations se retrouvent dans un cul de sac lors de la tentative visant \u00e0 mettre en \u0153uvre un vote favorable \u00e0 la s\u00e9cession, se pourrait-il que les effets directs ou indirects des articles contest\u00e9s de la Loi 99<\/i> puissent servir de tremplin pour l\u00e9gitimer les s\u00e9paratistes de r\u00e9aliser de sombres desseins pouvant donner lieu \u00e0 une d\u00e9claration d’ind\u00e9pendance unilat\u00e9rale entra\u00eenant le chaos, comme le craint le requ\u00e9rant, un peu comme semblait le laisser entendre le projet de Loi sur l’avenir du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i>, mort au feuilleton, que la Cour sup\u00e9rieure a jadis consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme constituant une \u00ab menace grave \u00bb pour les droits de citoyens qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[582]<\/b>  In the event the Quebec government becomes impatient and the negotiations end in a cul de sac<\/i> during the attempt to implement a vote in favor of secession, might the direct or indirect effects of the contested sections of Bill 99<\/i> be a springboard to legitimize the separatists\u2019 carrying out dark designs leading to a unilateral declaration of independence entailing chaos, as the applicant fears, a bit as implied in Bill 1 entitled An Act respecting the future of Quebec<\/i>, dead on the order paper, which Quebec Superior Court once deemed a \u201cserious threat\u201d to the rights of Quebec citizens?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[583]<\/b>  Nous sommes d’avis que la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette question est non.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[583]<\/b>  In our view, the answer to this question is no.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[584]<\/b>  Il est vrai qu’il faut regarder \u00e0 la fois les effets juridiques et pratiques d’une loi en d\u00e9butant l’\u00e9tude par ses effets directs et en terminant par ceux qui sont secondaires189<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[584]<\/b>  It is true that one must look at both the legal and practical effects of a law, commencing the study with its direct effects and ending with those which are secondary.189<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[585]<\/b>  Mais en l’esp\u00e8ce, rien dans les effets directs ou secondaires, juridiques ou pratiques de la Loi 99<\/i> ne permet de conclure que les articles contest\u00e9s violent ou permettraient de violer la Constitution<\/i> ou la Charte<\/i> si le sombre sc\u00e9nario all\u00e9gu\u00e9 devait se produire.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[585]<\/b>  But in this case, nothing in the direct or secondary, legal or practical effects of Bill 99<\/i> leads to the conclusion that the impugned sections violate or allow the violation of the Constitution<\/i> or the Charter<\/i>, if the alleged bleak scenario were to occur.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[586]<\/b>  Dans un tel cas, ce n’est pas par les effets non souhait\u00e9s de la Loi 99<\/i> qu’une r\u00e9ponse serait apport\u00e9e, mais au moyen de ce que la Cour supr\u00eame \u00e9nonce au paragraphe 153 du Renvoi<\/i>, qu’il nous faut de nouveau reproduire :<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[586]<\/b>  In that case, it is not by the unintended effects of Bill 99<\/i> that a response would be made, but by means of what the Supreme Court articulates at paragraph 153 of the Reference<\/i>, that we must quote again:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

153.  La t\u00e2che de la Cour \u00e9tait de clarifier le cadre juridique dans lequel des d\u00e9cisions politiques doivent \u00eatre prises \u00aben vertu de la Constitution\u00bb, et non d’usurper les pr\u00e9rogatives des forces politiques qui agissent \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur de ce cadre.   Les obligations que nous avons d\u00e9gag\u00e9es sont des obligations imp\u00e9ratives en vertu de la Constitution du Canada. Toutefois, il reviendra aux acteurs politiques de d\u00e9terminer en quoi consiste \u00abune majorit\u00e9 claire en r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 une question claire\u00bb, suivant les circonstances dans lesquelles un futur r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum pourrait \u00eatre tenu. <\/u> De m\u00eame, si un appui majoritaire \u00e9tait exprim\u00e9 en faveur de la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec, il incomberait aux acteurs politiques de d\u00e9terminer le contenu des n\u00e9gociations et le processus \u00e0 suivre<\/u>. La conciliation des divers int\u00e9r\u00eats constitutionnels l\u00e9gitimes rel\u00e8ve n\u00e9cessairement du domaine politique plut\u00f4t que du domaine judiciaire, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment parce que cette conciliation ne peut \u00eatre r\u00e9alis\u00e9e que par le jeu des concessions r\u00e9ciproques qui caract\u00e9rise les n\u00e9gociations politiques.  Dans la mesure o\u00f9 les questions abord\u00e9es au cours des n\u00e9gociations seraient politiques, les tribunaux, conscients du r\u00f4le qui leur revient dans le r\u00e9gime constitutionnel, n’auraient aucun r\u00f4le de surveillance \u00e0 jouer<\/b>190<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n

\n

(Nos soulignements et notre emphase<\/i>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

\n

153. The task of the Court has been to clarify the legal framework within which political decisions are to be taken \u201cunder the Constitution\u201d, not to usurp the prerogatives of the political forces that operate within that framework.  The obligations we have identified are binding obligations under the Constitution of Canada. However, it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes \u201ca clear majority on a clear question\u201d in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken.<\/u> Equally, in the event of demonstrated majority support for Quebec secession, the content and process of the negotiations will be for the political actors to settle.<\/u> The reconciliation of the various legitimate constitutional interests is necessarily committed to the political rather than the judicial realm precisely because that reconciliation can only be achieved through the give and take of political negotiations.  To the extent issues addressed in the course of negotiation are political, the courts, appreciating their proper role in the constitutional scheme, would have no supervisory role.<\/b>190<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(Our underlining and our emphasis<\/i>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n189.<\/b> F\u00e9d\u00e9ration des producteurs de volailles du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> c. Pelland<\/em> [2005] 1 RCS 292<\/u><\/a>, par. 19-20<\/span><\/p>\n

190.<\/b> Voir aussi les paragraphes 100-102 de l\u2019Avis consultatif<\/em> de 1998<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/td>\n

189.<\/b> F\u00e9d\u00e9ration des producteurs de volailles du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> v. Pelland<\/i> [2005] 1 SCR 292<\/u><\/a> paras. 19-20.<\/span><\/p>\n

190.<\/b> See also paragraphs 100-102 of the Advisory Opinion<\/em> of 1998<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 85<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 85<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[587]<\/b>  Il ne nous revient donc pas d’aller plus loin sur les sp\u00e9culations ayant comme pr\u00e9misse l’\u00e9chec de n\u00e9gociations entreprises \u00e0 l’issue d’un r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum favorable \u00e0 la s\u00e9cession du Qu\u00e9bec.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[587]<\/b>  It therefore is not up to us to pursue speculations premised on the failure of negotiations undertaken after a referendum outcome favorable to Quebec secession.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[588]<\/b>  Et suivant les r\u00e8gles \u00e9nonc\u00e9es pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment sur les limites de l’intervention judiciaire dans un tel cas, nous concluons qu’il est inappropri\u00e9 de discuter de tout ce qui concerne la clart\u00e9 de la question et les modalit\u00e9s du vote requis pour enclencher une nouvelle ronde de d\u00e9marches s\u00e9cessionnistes.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[588]<\/b>  And according to the rules set out above on the limits of judicial intervention in such a case, we conclude that it is inappropriate to discuss anything concerning the clarity of the question and the criteria of the vote required to trigger a new round of secessionist steps.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[589]<\/b>  En effet, il n’est pas n\u00e9cessaire de nous livrer \u00e0 cette analyse pour disposer du litige qui nous est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[589]<\/b>  Indeed, it is unnecessary to engage in this analysis to dispose of the litigation before us.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[590]<\/b>  \u00c9tant donn\u00e9 que la Cour supr\u00eame consid\u00e8re ces questions comme faisant partie de la comp\u00e9tence r\u00e9serv\u00e9e aux acteurs politiques, nous resterons donc loin de ces sujets d\u00e9licats.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[590]<\/b>  Given that the Supreme Court considers these questions as being part of the jurisdiction reserved to the political actors, we will distance ourselves from these delicate issues.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[591]<\/b>  La Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montr\u00e9al est probablement d\u00e9\u00e7ue que nous n’abordions pas ce sujet, ainsi que sa demande de jugement d\u00e9claratoire visant \u00e0 mettre fin \u00e0 l’ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 qui pourrait exister concernant l’existence, ou non, d’un peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/i> et, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant, de le d\u00e9finir, afin de faire avancer une cause qu’elle affectionne tout particuli\u00e8rement.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[591]<\/b>  The Saint-Jean-Baptiste<\/i> Society of Montreal is likely disappointed that we are not addressing this issue, or its request for a declaratory judgment to bring an end to any ambiguity that might subsist as to the existence or not of a Qu\u00e9bec people<\/i>, and at such time define it, in order to advance a cause particularly dear to it.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[592]<\/b>  Mais comme nous l’avons expos\u00e9 dans le corps du jugement, sur cette question, nous croyons que l’argument pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 pour nous inciter \u00e0 trancher ce sujet, qui repose sur la mani\u00e8re dont le requ\u00e9rant a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 les all\u00e9gations de sa requ\u00eate, est insuffisant pour intervenir.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[592]<\/b>  But as we stated on this question in the body of this judgment, we believe the argument presented to impel us to decide this subject, and which is based on the way in which the applicant has drafted the allegations in his motion, is insufficient to intervene.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[593]<\/b>  Ce n’est pas parce que le requ\u00e9rant nie l’existence d’un peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois pour soutenir sa th\u00e8se relative \u00e0 l’inconstitutionnalit\u00e9 de certains articles de la Loi 99<\/i> qui font sp\u00e9cifiquement r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 cette notion de peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/i>, que cela suffit \u00e0 ouvrir toute grande la porte pour entrer dans ce sujet passionnant et d\u00e9clarer ensuite le droit sur celui-ci.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[593]<\/b>  It is not because the applicant denies the existence of a Quebec people in order to support his theory of the unconstitutionality of some sections of Bill 99<\/i> which make specific reference to this notion of a Quebec people<\/i>, that this would suffice to open wide the door to enter onto this exciting subject and then declare the law concerning it.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[594]<\/b>  Si la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada a d\u00e9montr\u00e9 beaucoup de sagesse en d\u00e9cidant qu’il n’\u00e9tait pas n\u00e9cessaire de se prononcer sur ce sujet pour disposer des trois questions qui lui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pos\u00e9es, avec l’ampleur du dossier qui lui a \u00e9t\u00e9 confi\u00e9, nous ne voyons pas en quoi la Cour sup\u00e9rieure devrait se sentir plus justifi\u00e9e de le faire du simple fait que le requ\u00e9rant plaide qu’un tel peuple n’existe pas pour justifier les conclusions de son recours.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[594]<\/b>  If the Supreme Court of Canada has shown a great deal of wisdom in deciding that it was not necessary to pronounce on this subject in order to dispose of the three questions put to it, with the breadth of the record entrusted to it, we do not see how the Superior Court should feel more justified in doing so simply because the applicant argues that such a people does not exist so as to justify the conclusions of his recourse.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[595]<\/b>  Pour disposer des deux conclusions recherch\u00e9es par le requ\u00e9rant, il n’est pas n\u00e9cessaire de nous rendre jusque-l\u00e0.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[595]<\/b>  To dispose of the two conclusions sought by the applicant, it is unnecessary for us to go that far.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[596]<\/b>  Nous ajoutons que s’il fallait que les tribunaux succombent \u00e0 ce genre de tentation du simple fait qu’on les aborde par la bande, alors qu’ils ne sont pas<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[596]<\/b>  We add that if the courts were to succumb to this kind of temptation simply because they are approached from an outside lane, when it is not<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

absolument n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la r\u00e9solution du litige, ils n’en finiraient plus de se prononcer sur une foule de sujets tous plus int\u00e9ressants les uns que les autres.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

absolutely necessary to resolve the litigation, they would never finish pronouncing on a host of subjects, each more interesting than the others.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[597]<\/b>  Comme l’a \u00e0 juste titre soulign\u00e9 la Cour supr\u00eame, succomber \u00e0 une telle tentation pourrait faire plaisir \u00e0 certains, mais risquerait de nuire \u00e0 d’autres d\u00e9bats au cours desquels la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’aborder et de r\u00e9gler ces sujets serait criante.  Les obiters<\/i> que nous pourrions r\u00e9diger n’auraient alors aucun b\u00e9n\u00e9fice sur ces autres causes, voire, pourraient compromettre la s\u00e9r\u00e9nit\u00e9 des d\u00e9bats les entourant191<\/sup><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[597]<\/b>  As the Supreme Court has rightly pointed out, succumbing to such a temptation may be pleasing to some, but would risk prejudicing other debates in which the need to address and resolve these issues might be glaring.  The obiters<\/i> we might write would then be of no benefit to these other causes, and might even compromise the serenity of the debates surrounding them.191<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[598]<\/b>  Suivant ainsi les conseils de la Cour en semblable mati\u00e8re, nous n’avons d’autre alternative que de passer notre tour en ce qui concerne les r\u00e9ponses aux questions pos\u00e9es par la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montr\u00e9al sur ces diff\u00e9rents sujets, et ce, afin de laisser le champ libre au prochain juge appel\u00e9 \u00e0 intervenir pour r\u00e9gler une question justiciable \u00e0 leur \u00e9gard.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[598]<\/b>  Pursuant to the advice of the Court in similar matters, we have no alternative but to take a pass regarding answers to the questions posed by the Saint-Jean-Baptiste<\/i> Society of Montreal on these different subjects, in order to leave the field open to the next judge called to intervene to settle a justiciable question concerning them.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[599]<\/b>  \u00c0 la fin de cet exercice d’interpr\u00e9tation, la r\u00e9paration que le requ\u00e9rant cherche en vertu de l’article 52 de la Loi constitutionnelle<\/i> de 1982 n’a donc pas d’assise valable pour lui \u00eatre accord\u00e9e, puisque les dispositions de la Loi 99<\/i> qu’il conteste ne sont pas inconstitutionnelles, la Loi 99<\/i>, dans son ensemble, \u00e9tant tout \u00e0 fait conforme.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[599]<\/b>  At the end of this exercise of interpretation, the remedy sought by the applicant under section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982<\/i>  is therefore not founded, as the provisions of Bill 99<\/i>  that he contests are not unconstitutional, Bill 99<\/i>, as a whole, being entirely in conformity.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[600]<\/b>  Quant au rem\u00e8de demand\u00e9 pour une violation de la Charte canadienne<\/i>, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que le requ\u00e9rant ne s’est pas d\u00e9charg\u00e9 du fardeau de d\u00e9montrer en quoi l’une ou l’autre des dispositions contest\u00e9es de la Loi 99<\/i> avait enfreint l’un ou l’autre des articles de cette Charte<\/i>, sa r\u00e9clamation est \u00e9galement rejet\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[600]<\/b>  As to the remedy sought for a violation of the Canadian Charter<\/i>, given that the applicant did not discharge the burden of demonstrating how any of the impugned provisions of Bill 99<\/i> had violated one or more sections of this Charter<\/i>, his claim is also dismissed.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[601]<\/b>  Les ressources judiciaires \u00e9tant limit\u00e9es, il nous faut passer \u00e0 autre chose maintenant que le d\u00e9bat est tranch\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[601]<\/b>  Judicial resources being limited, we need to move on now that the debate is settled.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL :<\/b><\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n		\n

\n

\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:<\/b><\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

[602]<\/b>  REJETTE<\/b> les conclusions de la requ\u00eate pour jugement d\u00e9claratoire, telles que r\u00e9dig\u00e9es;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[602]<\/b>  DISMISSES<\/b> the conclusions of the motion for a declaratory judgment, as framed;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[603]<\/b>  ET PAR SOUCI DE PRECISION, DECLARE<\/b> que les articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, et 13 de la Loi sur l’exercice des pr\u00e9rogatives du peuple qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois et de l’\u00c9tat du Qu\u00e9bec<\/i> que le requ\u00e9rant conteste, respectent la Constitution<\/i> ainsi que la Charte des droits et libert\u00e9s<\/i>;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[603]<\/b>  AND, TO BE CLEAR, DECLARES<\/b> that sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 13 of the Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Quebec people and the Quebec State<\/i> that the applicant contests, respect the Constitution<\/i> as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/i>;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[604]<\/b>  Chaque partie payant ses frais, y compris les frais d’experts, vu la nature du d\u00e9bat.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[604]<\/b>  Each party pays its costs, including fees of experts, given the nature of the debate.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

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

\n

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

\n191.<\/b> Phillips<\/em> c. Nouvelle-\u00c9cosse<\/em> (Commission d\u2019enqu\u00eate sur la trag\u00e9die de la mine Westray<\/em>), [1995] 2 R.C.S. 97<\/u<\/u><\/a>>, par. 6 et 9.<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/u><\/td>\n

\n191.<\/b> Phillips<\/em> v. Nova Scotia<\/em> (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy<\/em>), 1995 CanLII 86 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 97<\/u><\/a>, at paras. 6 and 9.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 87<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 87<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\n

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

\n

\n

\n

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

\n

Me Stephen A. Scott<\/b>
\nME STEPHEN A. SCOTT
\nMe Charles O’Brien<\/b>
\nME CHARLES O’BRIEN
\nAvocats-conseils du requ\u00e9rant<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ma\u00eetre Stephen A. Scott<\/b>
\nMA\u00ceTRE STEPHEN A. SCOTT
\nMa\u00eetre Charles O\u2019Brien<\/b>
\nMA\u00ceTRE CHARLES O\u2019BRIEN
\nCounsel for the Applicant<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Me Brent Davies Tyler<\/b>
\nME BRENT DAVIES TYLER<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ma\u00eetre Brent Davies Tyler<\/b>
\nMA\u00ceTRE BRENT DAVIES TYLER<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Me Jean-Yves Bernard, Ad. E.<\/b>
\nDirection g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des affaires juridiques et l\u00e9gislatives
\nBERNARD, ROY (JUSTICE-QUEBEC)<\/p>\n

Ma\u00eetre R\u00e9al A. Forest<\/b>
\nBLAKE CASSELS & GRAYDON S.E.N.C.R.L.
\nAvocats de l’intim\u00e9<\/td>\n

\n

Ma\u00eetre Jean-Yves Bernard, Ad. E.<\/b>
\nGeneral Directorate of Legal and Legislative Affairs
\nBERNARD, ROY (JUSTICE-QUEBEC)<\/p>\n

Ma\u00eetre R\u00e9al A. Forest<\/b>
\nBLAKE CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP
\nCounsel for the Respondent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Me Claude Joyal, Ad. E.<\/b>
\nMe Warren Newman, Ad. E.<\/b>
\nMe lan Demers<\/b>
\nMINIST\u00c8RE DE LA JUSTICE DU CANADA
\nAvocats du mis en cause<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ma\u00eetre Claude Joyal, Ad. E.<\/b>
\nMa\u00eetre Warren Newman, Ad. E.<\/b>
\nMa\u00eetre Ian Demers<\/b>
\nDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA
\nCounsel for the mis en cause<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Me Marc Michaud<\/b>
\nME MARC MICHAUD
\nMa\u00eetre Maxime St-Laurent Laporte<\/b>
\nMICHAUD SANTORIELLO LAWYERS
\nAvocats de l’intervenante<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ma\u00eetre Marc Michaud<\/b>
\nMA\u00ceTRE MARC MICHAUD
\nMa\u00eetre Maxime St-Laurent Laporte<\/b>
\nMICHAUD SANTORIELLO LAWYERS
\nCounsel for the Intervener<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Dates d’audience :  Les 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 et 28 mars 2017<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hearing dates: : March 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28, 2017<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

500-05-065031-013<\/b>         PAGE 88<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

ANNEX A<\/u><\/h3>\n
\n

Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Quebec people and the Quebec State, CQLR c E-20.2<\/b><\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> the Quebec people, in the majority French-speaking, possesses specific characteristics and a deep-rooted historical continuity in a territory over which it exercises its rights through a modern national state, having a government, a national assembly and impartial and independent courts of justice;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> the constitutional foundation of the Quebec State has been enriched over the years by the passage of fundamental laws and the creation of democratic institutions specific to Quebec;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> Quebec entered the Canadian federation in 1867;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> Quebec is firmly committed to respecting human rights and freedoms;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> the Abenaki, Algonquin, Attikamek, Cree, Huron, Innu, Malecite, Micmac, Mohawk, Naskapi and Inuit Nations exist within Quebec, and whereas the principles associated with that recognition were set out in the resolution adopted by the National Assembly on 20 March 1985, in particular their right to autonomy within Quebec;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> there exists a Quebec English-speaking community that enjoys long-established rights;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> Quebec recognizes the contribution made by Quebecers of all origins to its development;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> the National Assembly is composed of Members elected by universal suffrage by the Quebec people and derives its legitimacy from the Quebec people in that it is the only legislative body exclusively representing the Quebec people;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> it is incumbent upon the National Assembly, as the guardian of the historical and inalienable rights and powers of the Quebec people, to defend the Quebec people against any attempt to despoil it of those rights or powers or to undermine them;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> the National Assembly has never adhered to the Constitution Act, 1982<\/u>, which was enacted despite its opposition;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> Quebec is facing a policy of the federal government designed to call into question the legitimacy, integrity and efficient operation of its national democratic institutions, notably by the passage and proclamation of the Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference<\/u> (Statutes of Canada, 2000, chapter 26);<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013          PAGE 89<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

WHEREAS<\/b> it is necessary to reaffirm the fundamental principle that the Quebec people is free to take charge of its own destiny, determine its political status and pursue its economic, social and cultural development;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> this principle has applied on several occasions in the past, notably in the referendums held in 1980, 1992 and 1995;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> the Supreme Court of Canada rendered an advisory opinion on 20 August 1998, and considering the recognition by the Government of Quebec of its political importance;<\/p>\n

WHEREAS<\/b> it is necessary to reaffirm the collective attainments of the Quebec people, the responsibilities of the Quebec State and the rights and prerogatives of the National Assembly with respect to all matters affecting the future of the Quebec people;<\/p>\n

THE PARLIAMENT OF QUEBEC ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:<\/b>2000, c. 46.<\/p>\n

CHAPTER I<\/b>
\nTHE QUEBEC PEOPLE
\n2000, c. 46, s. 1.<\/p>\n

1.<\/b> The right of the Quebec people to self-determination is founded in fact and in law. The Quebec people is the holder of rights that are universally recognized under the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 1.<\/p>\n

2.<\/b> The Quebec people has the inalienable right to freely decide the political regime and legal status of Quebec.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 2.<\/p>\n

3.<\/b> The Quebec people, acting through its own political institutions, shall determine alone the mode of exercise of its right to choose the political regime and legal status of Quebec.<\/p>\n

No condition or mode of exercise of that right, in particular the consultation of the Quebec people by way of a referendum, shall have effect unless determined in accordance with the first paragraph.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 3.<\/p>\n

4.<\/b> When the Quebec people is consulted by way of a referendum under the Referendum Act (chapter C-64.1)<\/u>, the winning option is the option that obtains a majority of the valid votes cast, namely 50% of the valid votes cast plus one.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 4.<\/p>\n

CHAPTER II<\/b><\/p>\n

THE QUEBEC NATIONAL STATE
\n2000, c.46, s. 5.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013          PAGE 90<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.<\/b> The Quebec State derives its legitimacy from the will of the people inhabiting its territory.<\/p>\n

The will of the people is expressed through the election of Members to the National Assembly by universal suffrage, by secret ballot under the one person, one vote system pursuant to the Election Act (chapter E-3.3)<\/u>, and through referendums held pursuant to the Referendum Act (chapter C-64.1)<\/u>.<\/p>\n

Qualification as an elector is governed by the provisions of the Election Act<\/u>.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 5.<\/p>\n

6.<\/b> The Quebec State is sovereign in the areas assigned to its jurisdiction within the scope of constitutional laws and conventions.<\/p>\n

The Quebec State also holds, on behalf of the Quebec people, any right established to its advantage pursuant to a constitutional convention or obligation.<\/p>\n

It is the duty of the Government to uphold the exercise and defend the integrity of those prerogatives, at all times and in all places, including on the international scene.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 6.<\/p>\n

7.<\/b> The Quebec State is free to consent to be bound by any treaty, convention or international agreement in matters under its constitutional jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

No treaty, convention or agreement in the areas under its jurisdiction may be binding on the Quebec State unless the consent of the Quebec State to be bound has been formally expressed by the National Assembly or the Government, subject to the applicable legislative provisions.<\/p>\n

The Quebec State may, in the areas under its jurisdiction, establish and maintain relations with foreign States and international organizations and ensure its representation outside Quebec.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 7.<\/p>\n

8.<\/b> The French language is the official language of Quebec.<\/p>\n

The duties and obligations relating to or arising from the status of the French language are established by the Charter of the French language (chapter C-11)<\/u>.<\/p>\n

The Quebec State must promote the quality and influence of the French language. It shall pursue those objectives in a spirit of fairness and open-mindedness, respectful of the long-established rights of Quebec’s English-speaking community.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 8.<\/p>\n

CHAPTER III<\/b>
\nTHE TERRITORY OF QUEBEC
\n2000, c. 46, s. 9.<\/p>\n

9.<\/b> The territory of Quebec and its boundaries cannot be altered except with the consent of the National Assembly.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

500-05-065031-013          PAGE 91<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

The Government must ensure that the territorial integrity of Quebec is maintained and respected.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 9.<\/p>\n

10.<\/b> The Quebec State exercises, throughout the territory of Quebec and on behalf of the Quebec people, all the powers relating to its jurisdiction and to the Quebec public domain.<\/p>\n

The State may develop and administer the territory of Quebec and, more specifically, delegate authority to administer the territory to local or regional mandated entities, as provided by law. The State shall encourage local and regional communities to take responsibility for their development.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 10.<\/p>\n

CHAPTER IV<\/b>
\nTHE ABORIGINAL NATIONS OF QUEBEC
\n2000, c.46, s. 11.<\/p>\n

11.<\/b> In exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, the Quebec State recognizes the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal nations of Quebec.
\n2000, c.46, s. 11.<\/p>\n

12.<\/b> The Government undertakes to promote the establishment and maintenance of harmonious relations with the aboriginal nations, and to foster their development and an improvement in their economic, social and cultural conditions.
\n2000, c. 46, s. 12.<\/p>\n

CHAPTER V<\/b>
\nFINAL PROVISIONS
\n2000, c.46, s. 13.<\/p>\n

13.<\/b> No other parliament or government may reduce the powers, authority, sovereignty or legitimacy of the National Assembly, or impose constraint on the democratic will of the Quebec people to determine its own future.
\n2000, c.46, s. 13.<\/p>\n

14.<\/b> (Omitted).
\n2000, c.46, s. 14.<\/p>\n

REPEAL SCHEDULE<\/b>
\nIn accordance with section 9<\/u> of the Act respecting the consolidation of the statutes and regulations<\/u> (chapter R-3), chapter 46 of the statutes of 2000, in force on 1 April 2001, is repealed, except section 14<\/u>, effective from the coming into force of chapter E-20.2 of the Revised Statutes.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

ANNEX B
\nTABLE OF CONTENTS<\/sup><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

1.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Overview<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Contextualization<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

What Gave Rise to Bill 99<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.2<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Chronology of the Action Brought<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Questions<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Position of the Parties<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Position of Applicant Henderson<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.2<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Position of the Attorney General of Quebec<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Position of the Attorney General of Canada<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Position of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste<\/i> Society of Montreal<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Analysis<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Procedural Issues<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.2<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Principles Applicable in Constitutional Matters<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.2.1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Burden of Proof, Presumption of Constitutionality and Available Remedies<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.2.2<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Rules of Interpretation<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.2.3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Provincial Legislative Competencies<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Study of Bill 99<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

General presentation and structure<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.2<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Preamble (The Recitals)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cThe Qu\u00e9bec People\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cThe Qu\u00e9bec State\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Section 1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Section 2<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.5<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Section 3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.6<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Section 4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.7<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Section 5<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.8<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sections 6 to 12<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.3.9<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Section 13<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

General Conclusions<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\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 501-604 PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS 401-500 L’HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE, J.C.S. THE HONORABLE CLAUDE DALLAIRE, J.S.C. FRENCH ORIGINAL NON-OFFICIAL ENGLISH 500-05-065031-013        …<\/p>\n

Read More “Henderson v. Attorney General of Quebec, 18 April 2018 QCCS 1586 (CanLII) \u2014 Paragraphs 501-604”<\/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\/125"}],"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=125"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/125\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":126,"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/125\/revisions\/126"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/habeascorpuscanada.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}