The “Three Questions” Relating To Secession – Origins


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


“Three Trick Questions”

Chart prepared by Kathleen Moore Pageot for Habeas Corpus Canada

Order in Council
P.C. 1996-1497
Judge Robert Pidgeon *
30 August 1996
Advisory Opinion On
Unilateral Secession **

1.  Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

[2]  Le Québec peut-il unilatéralement faire sécession du Canada ?

TRANSLATION:
[2] Can Quebec unilaterally
secede from Canada?

1.  Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
[1998 CarswellNat 1299]

2.  Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?  In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

[3]  Le processus d’accession du Québec àla souverainetétrouve-t-il sanction dans le droit international?

TRANSLATION:
[3] Is the process of accession to sovereigntyby Quebec sanctioned by international law?

2.  Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
[1998 CarswellNat 1299]

3.  In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

[4] Le droit international a-t-il préséance sur le droit interne ?

TRANSLATION:
[4]  Does international law take precedence over internal law?

3.  In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?
[1998 CarswellNat 1299]

-n/a-

This first question (at right-center) formulated by Judge Pidgeon was not submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Governor-in-Council during the Secession Reference.

[1]  Le droit àl’autodétermination est-il synonyme de droit àla sécession ?

TRANSLATION:
[1]  Is the right to self-determination synonymous with a right to secession?

However, the Supreme Court arrogated to itself a power to answer it, responding implicitly with a big “YES”, as follows:
     • “… A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession.”  The Court excused itself at its paragraphs 123, 124 and 125 from indicating who is a “Québécois” for purposes of such a plebiscite, therefore leaving to Stephen Harper the task of “defining” (actually, of unilaterally designating) on November 27th, 2006*** who or more precisely what is a “Québécois”:  which is to say the whole population of Quebec, thus indirectly indicating the territory in the interior of its borders as the beneficiary of the right of “peoples” to self-determination.

That obviously makes it easier for the other Provinces (of Canada as elsewhere) to claim the same “right” of “peoples” “to secede” in order to be integrated into the new international structure for which the European Union is the model, and whose ultimate fate is intended to be complete decentralization into multi-ethnic city-states in a Marxist World State.

*  The questions as composed above-center are drawn from the judgment of Judge Robert Pidgeon dated August 30th, 1996 [1996 CarswellQue 893], No C.S. Quebec 200-05-002117-955 and translated into English by the Applicant herein.  See the French version of this Chart for the original French judgment with Judge Pidgeon’s questions.
**  Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998 CarswellNat 1299
***  “Pursuant to Standing Order 61(2), the House proceeded to the putting of the question on the motion of Mr. Harper (Prime Minister), seconded by Mr. Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform), — That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.  (Government Business No. 11)”.  The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:  (Division No. 72 –Vote no 72) YEAS:  265, NAYS:  16.  Journals, No. 87, Monday, November 27, 2006, 11:00 a.m., 39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION, HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA.
And in French:  “Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation au sein d’un Canada uni.  (Affaires émanant du gouvernement no 11)”