Matthew Coon-Come, grand chief of Quebec's Cree, said he interpreted the judgment to mean the court recognized the protection of native rights in the Constitution. The Canadian dollar was largely unaffected by the decision. It went up shortly after the announcement, and held steady throughout the day.
The TSE was down slightly by the end of the day. This case should also be seen in its context. Constitutional pronouncements should survive more than two decades but the Supreme Court of Canada is well known to revise its previous proclamations. Moreover, Secession Reference arose from an extremely close Quebec referendum outcome in , followed by considerable political plotting at both levels of government in the free-space of a new constitutional enigma.
This is to say — and this is readily apparent from the decision itself — that not all issues around provincial secession have been answered in the Secession Reference. Future cases will elicit more details. When the Constitution was repatriated from the United Kingdom in , the new amending formula that was incorporated did not contain any provision specifically for the withdrawal of provinces from Confederation.
In the aftermath of the referendum, lawsuits were launched questioning the legality of secession. In September , the federal government sent the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada for constitutional answers. The Court considered the legality of a unilateral secession of Quebec under both Canadian and international law.
The following three specific questions were addressed we have broadened the focus to any province. Under the Constitution of Canada, can any province secede from Canada unilaterally? WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that democracy means more than simple majority rule, that a clear majority in favour of secession would be required to create an obligation to negotiate secession, and that a qualitative evaluation is required to determine whether a clear majority in favour of secession exists in the circumstances;.
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that, in Canada, the secession of a province, to be lawful, would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, that such an amendment would perforce require negotiations in relation to secession involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada, and that those negotiations would be governed by the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities;.
WHEREAS, in light of the finding by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be for elected representatives to determine what constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum held in a province on secession, the House of Commons, as the only political institution elected to represent all Canadians, has an important role in identifying what constitutes a clear question and a clear majority sufficient for the Government of Canada to enter into negotiations in relation to the secession of a province from Canada;.
AND WHEREAS it is incumbent on the Government of Canada not to enter into negotiations that might lead to the secession of a province from Canada, and that could consequently entail the termination of citizenship and other rights that Canadian citizens resident in the province enjoy as full participants in Canada, unless the population of that province has clearly expressed its democratic will that the province secede from Canada;.
Marginal note: House of Commons to consider question.
0コメント