Talk:Reference re Secession of Quebec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Canadian law, an attempt to co-ordinate articles on Canadian law, produce common standards and fill in the gaps. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Someone raised the following question about the paragraph which follows:

"Is is this paragraph really in the court's opinion? I will have to double-check. It seems unlikely that the court would have used such fallacious arguments in its reference."

For close to 40 of the last 50 years, the Prime Minister of Canada has been a Quebecer. During this period, Quebecers have held from time to time all the most important positions in the federal Cabinet. During the 8 years prior to June 1997, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons were both Quebecers. At present, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Chief Justice and two other members of the Court, the Chief of Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian ambassador to the United States, not to mention the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, are all Quebecers. The international achievements of Quebecers in most fields of human endeavour are too numerous to list. Since the dynamism of the Quebec people has been directed toward the business sector, it has been clearly successful in Quebec, the rest of Canada and abroad.

Yes, that is really in there (see paragraph 135)[1]

The court's argument was that there was only a right to unilateral secession if a people:

1. was under colonial rule;
2. was under foreign occupation; or
3. was denied meaningful political participation.

It is obvious that neither of the first two apply to Quebec (it is neither a colony nor occupied by foreigners) so that leaves the third one to be dealt with, which is what the court was doing in that section.

Jacob1207 02:08, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Colonial rule 2 Intro 3 POV removal 4 Legal opinions 5 Right to self-determination 5.1 Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations 5.2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 5.3 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 6 Some comments on the article

[edit] Colonial rule

Thanks Jacob. I read the part. In my opinion, that is just awful. That individuals of French-Canadian origin collaborated to the neocolonial political regime of British Canada does nothing to prove whatever it is the Supreme Court is trying to prove. In a system of indirect rule, collaboration of the "aboriginal" elite is essential. It was the same thing in so many other former British colonies. In Quebec, it started at the time of the Union regime with Lafontaine, Cartier and company.

1. Quebec is technically not under colonial rule since federal Canada is a sovereign state. London indeed does not rule over Canada anymore. However the supranational power only moved from London to Ottawa. In reality, Quebec is still not self-governing. Worst, after the "Quebec is a nation within the nation" of Lester B. Pearson, Ottawa now denies our very existence as a political nation to the face of the world. But of course international law is not concerned with such details.
2. Quebec was taken over by a foreign power in 1760. When did they leave again? Oh no wait, they made themselves at home right in our country, renamed the place and made us a minority in a political system they now control.
3. Finally, we are getting to the main course. Since some in Ottawa deny that we exist as a people, as a group, they answer no. In order to do that, they need to close their eyes on 400 years of history. Must be difficult. I know I can't do that.

Ah well, what can you do. I think the Supreme Court still did a good job under the circumstances. The best part of the whole document is the following euphemism:

" While much of the Quebec population certainly shares many of the characteristics (such as a common language and culture) that would be considered in determining whether a specific group is a "people" ".

Come on. Is it so hard to say that Quebecers are a nation in every sense of the word? Mathieugp 18:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Quoting from the article: "As expected by all jurists familiar with the subject, the Supreme court answered "No" to the first two questions"

Unless somebody asked them all, we had better change that to "many", and even that could benefit with some textual support. Blatant POV

Klanda | Talk 03:14, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV removal

User E Pluribus Anthony has removed the following paragraph stating that it was POV as it was according to him "addressed in paragraph 84 of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling" :

"It was soon pointed out by international observers that if it is true that there is no law allowing Quebec to unilaterally secede, it is also true that there is nothing specifically denying it and there is a widespread recognition of a right to self determination by groups other than nation states, such as a people. This right is found in the United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, among other places."

First, it should be pointed out that the Supreme Court of Canada did not produce a "ruling" on the matter but an "opinion". It should also be reminded that removing an entire paragraph without first discussing it in the talk page is not the recommended behaviour.

Regarding the removal on the account of a POV, I believe this is a mistake. This paragraph is in fact there to try to bring about a certain balance in the dabate. The article dealing with the opinion of the court, leaving the opinion of the court alone would be POV. However, stating the opinion of various international observers on the matter helps the reader to see the other side of the medal. Upon request, I can try to find example of opinions by various individuals who have expressed their opinion on the subject.

I suggest the paragraph be reintroduced in the article.

-- Mathieugp 05:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Quebec isn't a people, it's a province. Fishhead64 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph again after it was reinserted without providing facts to support it:

• "It was soon pointed out by international observers that if it is true that there is no law allowing Quebec to unilaterally secede, it is also true that there is nothing specifically denying it and there is a widespread recognition of a right to self determination by groups other than nation states, such as a people. This right is found in the United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, among other places."

Virtually all Court rulings state that "it is the opinion of this court", including the Superior Court of Quebec some of whose rulings can be found on their website. This is both unsubstantiated and incorrect. These alleged "internationa observers" need to be identified and their alleged assertions documented along with the other alleged statements. The UN policy was part of the Court reference, the Right to Self-determination applies to colonial possessions. A. Lafontaine 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I will search and find the international observers. I remember only one name, Alain Pellet (former President of the Internationa Law Commission at the UN), who acted as a consultant on the question of the territorial integrity of Quebec during the Belanger-Campeau commission in 1991. His opinion as a jurist was again sought for the drafting of Quebec's Bill 99. His opinion on the Clarity Act can be read (in French ) here:

http://www.vigile.net/9912/pelletclarte.html

-- Mathieugp 19:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken on the ruling vs opinion question. There is a huge difference between a court ruling on a case and a an opinion (or a reference). In Reference re Secession of Quebec, nobody is accused of anything, nor is anyone being defended or taking its own defense. The Governor in Council asked the opinion of the Supreme Court on three questions. The Government of Canada gives a good explanation of what a reference is on its website:

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2003/doc_30946.html

Quote: "What is a Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada?

A reference is a procedure by which the Government of Canada refers important legal or factual questions to the Supreme Court of Canada and asks the Court to give the Government its opinion."

-- Mathieugp 02:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legal opinions

I have found three legal opinions on the subject:

• 1. Alain Pellet => http://www.action-nationale.qc.ca/00-2/pelletclarte.html
• 2. Henri Brun => http://daniel.turp.qc.ca/meteo/actualite_politique/ap_1711.htm
• 3. Andrée Lajoie => http://www.action-nationale.qc.ca/00-1/lajoie.html

Only the first one is international, the two others being jurists from Quebec. I also read a newspaper article on an English Canadian who denounced the Clarity Act, but I do not think he produced a legal advice on the issue. Then there is the Open Letter in Support of the Democratic Right to self-determination for Quebec signed by a great number of intellectuals, but they are mostly from Canada and Quebec:

http://pages.infinit.net/mseymour/apage/ap_openletter.html

The three legal opinions were sought by the National Assembly of Quebec in order to draft Bill 99, which was an attempt by the Lucien Bouchard government to give Quebec a "Charter of collective rights".

-- Mathieugp 15:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Court judgments are opinions - and when rendered are law. A reference receives an opinion which is what the Court will declare as law if formally requested.

However, Legal opinions are minor to the matter at hand. Someone's personal opinion means nothing. I can give dozens of varying opinions. But, Wikipedia:No original research applies. What is at issue is that you (User:Mathieugp) stated:

• It was soon pointed out by international observers that if it is true that there is no law allowing Quebec to unilaterally secede, it is also true that there is nothing specifically denying it and there is a widespread recognition of a right to self determination by groups other than nation states, such as a people. This right is found in the United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, among other places.

You made the absolute claim in the article that the United Nations Charter and relative bodies says that. These are all false. However, if you disagree with my statement, please give article number and precise contents for all three UN references in order to verify your assertion. Thank you. A. Lafontaine 16:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There it is:

[edit] Right to self-determination

[edit] Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations

"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,"

The preamble makes it clear that human rights include the individual rights of men and women and that of national groups, large and small.

Chapter 1, Article 1, the purposes of the United Nations:

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"

the principal of self-determination of peoples, along with that of equal rights are made explicit in article 1.

[edit] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 1:

"

• 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

• 2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

• 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. "

[edit] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

States the exact same thing in Article 1.

-- Mathieugp 16:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This in fact has nothing to do with a Province of Canada, or a State of the United States. This is about the conduct/rights of nation states and the people within supposedly to protect citizens from the likes of Mungabe. The United Nations position on Quebec or other such parts of a nation to separate was clearly detailed in the Suprememe Court ruling. A. Lafontaine 14:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Only sovereign States can join the United Nations. Some sovereign States are federations and, like Canada, have a population which is made out of many peoples. This is precisely why point 3 mentions the case of "Non-Self-Governing territories". Canada is responsible to promote the realization of the right to self-determination of peoples within its borders. Prior to the Clarity Act, Canada was doing just that, respecting international law, since the federal state had taken no clearly illegal steps to stop Quebecers from enjoing their "right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." The Clarity Act is clearly trying to prevent Quebec from freely determining its political status, hence the existence of an Open Letter in Support of the Democratic Right to self-determination for Quebec signed by numerous university professors all accross the Canadian federation. -- Mathieugp 18:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The notion that Quebec has no self-government is a P of V that exists (as evidenced by Mathieu's comments here), but one that will be opposed vehemently by the majority of Quebecers. We must pay careful attention to neutrality when discussing this notion in the article. Indefatigable 20:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am extremely confused here. What makes you assert that 1) the notion that Quebec has no self-government is one of my opinions and 2) that the majority Quebecers will vehemently (beautiful word isn't it? ;-) oppose this?

I do not believe that we are dealing with a POV here at all. Quebec has a self-government. It has a parliamentary system through which representatives of the people of Quebec are able to draft and conduct policies, enforce laws and levy taxes. Quantity of non self-governing peoples (for example all aboriginal peoples in Canada) would not hesitate to trade places with the majority of Quebecers who have control over the state of Quebec. Yes, Quebec has a government of it own. It really seems like this should be listed as a fact. Also a fact is that Quebec does not have complete self-government. The parliament of Quebec is not sovereign. This should also be listed as a fact. I fail to see how this is a matter of opinion.

As for the majority of Quebecers vehemently opposing such an obvious fact, I sure hope you are wrong. :-)

Prior to the Clarity Act, even the federal government recognized that Quebecers could freely decide to change their political status through negociations with the rest of Canada. This is what just changed, and this is why this act is getting an article of it own unlike God knows how many other acts which obtain and deserve no special attention from the public. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I just saw where Indefatigable got that my opinion is that Quebec is "not self-governing". It is right at the top of this talk page, silly me. I should have re-read myself. :-) Although it could be argued against just for the sake or arguing, I think it is generally understood that when we are talking about self-government, we tend to think of complete self-government, just as when talking about sovereignty we usually mean complete sovereignty, not "sovereignty within certain jurisdictions". -- Mathieugp 22:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I went a bit overboard there: it's just that the idea of Canadian provinces as non-self-governing territories seems ridiculous to me. But let's not argue about it -- neither of us is going to convice the other, and it wouldn't help the article. But let me just point out two things. (1) If Quebec is not sovereign because there are some areas it can't legislate in, then neither is Canada, because there are areas Parliament can't legislate in. (2) Quebec sends a disproportionately large number of legislators to Parliament. Quebec might not control federal policy, but it certainly has a large influence on it, including the Clarity Act. Indefatigable 15:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can convince each other either. However, I can't resist replying to you again. I guess I am indéfatigable too. ;-)

(1) In the original constitution, Parliamentary sovereignty was in Great Britain. The 1867 BNAA defined 16 exclusively provincial jurisdictions, 29 exclusive federal jurisdictions, and residual powers which were to go automatically to the federal state. Over the course of history, the Parliament of Canada came to unilaterally give itself numerous powers it didn't originally have, plus the power to spend and legislate in the 16 exclusively provincial jurisdictions. In 1931, Great Britain unilaterally gave the Parliament of Canada almost complete sovereignty. In 1982, the Parliament of Canada unilaterally modified its own constitution, finally becoming sovereign. Today, Canada is definitely sovereign, and the legislative and fiscal powers of its federal state are in no way comparable to those that were once exclusively that of the provinces.

(2) Proportionality could be calculated in terms of population, tax income or others. Using any of these, Quebec's proportion of MPs in Ottawa is not more unusual than that of Ontario. Quebec, through its share of the seats in the House of Commons, does have a good power to lobby. Unfortunately, most of the lobbyists are corrupted liberals who participate to a government that is waging a political and fiscal war against Quebec. When they are not participating to the government, they are Bloc MPs, who do a good job at, well, not participating to the government. -- Mathieugp 02:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments on the article

Commenting on the current version:

• The introduction needs to be reworked. In general, I think this introduction would be confusing to someone who doesn't know anything about the topic. I think the first sentence is okay, but the second and third sentences should probably be replaced.

I agree. -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• The third sentence ("As expected by many jurists familiar with the subject, the Supreme Court answered "No" to the first two questions.") is useless because it doesn't say what the two questions are.

Yes, this is some unfinished business. I wrote that sentence. Then it was suggested it should be removed unless I could name those jurists. I started to look for my sources. What I found is in the talk page. Originally, I meant to write a little paragraph to inform people that the questions were not the kind of questions for which the govt of Canada did not know the answer. There is a political intention behind the very action of the reference. This is however very touchy as you might imagine. Maybe it is best to remove it since I don't intend to fix it. -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• The introduction should say that the case followed from the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Most logical. -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• The introduction should say that this case led to the Clarity Act.

Again, very logical. Your brain seems to work kinda like my computer. ;-) -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• The introduction really needs to be reworked to make it understandable by an international audience who might know very little about Quebec. The word "secession" should probably be defined in the introduction. As written, I think it would be very difficult for non-lawyers to understand this article unless they already know a lot about the politics of this subject.

Yes, that is a problem. Go ahead and improve whatever you like in this regard. -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• There needs to be an explanation in plain language of what the case is really about. Ideally a plain-language explanation would avoid the term "secession" (which is unfamiliar to a lot of people) and use a term like "independence". Also, the plain-language explanation should highlight the issue of legal recognition. Suppose that the majority in Quebec voted for independence, and the government of Quebec then made a declaration of independence; would that be legally valid? Would courts in Quebec and in the rest of Canada recognize this declaration of independence? Or would the courts continue to apply Canadian law as if Quebec were still a province of Canada?

Well, I agree we should write in plain-language on what the reference is about, but only that. I don't think we should go so far as to answer questions that are not in the reference. The worst thing we can do is give our own interpretation of the reference. How the Supreme Court intepreted it can be deduced from its answer. If we do that, we stay in the "fact zone". -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• With regard to the second question, there needs to be a reference to the Wikipedia article Public international law.

Sure. No objection. -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• The section "Background" is problematic. In my opinion it provides a little too much historical detail. Furthermore, the discussion of patriation is misleading. It isn't really true to say "the federal government and nine of ten provincial governments obtained patriation"; it would be more accurate to say that the constitutional changes which brought about patriation were supported by the federal government and nine of ten provincial governments.

I agree we should try to shorten the history part (which is not very well written in the first place) and fix the sentence as you suggested. -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I also don't like the terminology about Quebec not having "signed" the constititutional deal.

What terminology do you suggest to replace it? -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• In the section "Submissions", the description of the federal government's submissions is unclear.

I'd say that of the amicus curiae is also not very well explained. We might as well fix it too. -- Mathieugp 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• The writeup of the Court's opinion is not bad, but there needs to be some discussion of the duty to negotiate following a referendum. What is the legal origin of that duty?

True. The legal duty to negociate is the point of the Court's opinion which the sovereigntists were most pleased with. This was totally unexpected to them. The déclaration liminaire of Premier of Quebec Lucien Bouchard makes it very clear that the sovereigntists considered the opinion of the court to be just. They didn't really think the same of the Clarity Act which they consider to have been drafted on the basis of a dishonest interpretation of the Court's opinion. I can translate Lucien Bouchard's declaration if you ask. -- Mathieugp 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

--Mathew5000 15:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)