Advertisement

Legality, Legitimacy, Decisionism and Federalism: An Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Reasoning in Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998

  • Jean LeclairEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its now world famous decision concerning certain questions relating to the secession of Quebec from Canada. The nine justices unanimously held that a clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative, and that the other participants would then be duty bound to engage in discussions to address this attempt to radically change the constitutional order. This decision was held up as a success by both the separatists and those opposed to secession. However, as this paper attempts to demonstrate, at the end of the day, politicians were, in some fashion, the losers, for the true winners were the members of the population of both Quebec and Canada.

The wisdom of the Court lies in its refusal to endorse empirically false depictions of Quebec as a homogeneous and unanimous “nation” or “people”, thus allowing for a new understanding of the manner in which, in the context of a federation, a citizen’s sense of identification develops. By the same token, it repudiated the positivist account of the Constitution offered by the Attorney General of Canada, one that equated legitimacy with conformity to the strict letter of Canada’s fundamental law. In other words, the Court succeeded in drawing a nuanced path of solution, because it purposely refused to mobilize monistic understandings of both identity and constitutional law.

Keywords

Constitutional law Identity Monism Nationalism and methodological nationalism Pluralism 

References

  1. Blake Brown R (2009) One version of history: The Supreme Court of Canada’s use of history in the Quebec secession reference. In: Bryden P, Anastakis D (eds) Framing federalism for the twenty-first century: historical essays in honour of John T. Saywell. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 15–50Google Scholar
  2. Bloc Québécois (2010) Plan d’action 2010, adopted by the party’s Conseil général on 20th March 2010Google Scholar
  3. Choudhry S, Howse R (2000) Constitutional theory and the Quebec secession reference. Can J Law Jurisprud XIII(2):143–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Schutter H (2011) Federalism as Fairness. J Polit Philos 19(2):167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dyzenhaus D (1996) The legitimacy of legality. Univ Toronto Law J 46:129–180Google Scholar
  6. Fuller LL [1969] (2001a) Human interaction and the law. In: Winston KI (ed) The principles of social order: selected essays of Lon L Fuller, Revised edn. Hart Publishing, Portland, pp 231–266Google Scholar
  7. Fuller LL [1978] (2001b) Forms and limits of adjudication. In: Winston KI (ed) The principles of social order: selected essays of Lon L Fuller, Revised edn. Hart, Portland, pp 101–139Google Scholar
  8. Grégoire J-F (2014).Beyond the liberal route to federalism republican freedom. Theoria 138:18–36Google Scholar
  9. Guibernau M (2014) Prospects for an independent Catalonia. Int J Polit Cult Soc 27(1):5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keating M (1997) Stateless nation-building: Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland in the changing state system. Nations Natl 3(4):689–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kymlicka W (2001) Politics in the vernacular: nationalism, multiculturalism and citizenship. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 392 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Kymlicka W (2011) Multicultural citizenship within multination states. Ethnicities 11(3):281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leclair J (1998) Impoverishment of the law by the law: a critique of the Attorney general’s vision of the rule of law and the federal principle. Constitutional Forum/Forum constitutionnel 10:1–8. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1923135
  14. Leclair J (2014a) El terressaire, l’argila i el poble: Reflexions critiques sobre el paper de la llei i del poder en el procés d’independència del Quebec. In: Solano X (dir) Fòrum sobre el dret a decidir (I) Dret comparat i context internacional. Institut d'Estudis Autonòmics, Barcelona, Spain, pp 183–201Google Scholar
  15. Leclair J (2014b) Le rôle de la loi et du pouvoir dans le processus d’accession du Québec à l’indépendance. Revue de droit parlementaire et politique 8:557–565Google Scholar
  16. Leclair J (2016) Le potier, l’argile et le peuple: le rôle de la loi et du pouvoir dans le processus d’accession du Québec à l’indépendance. In: Brouillet E, Taillon P, Binette O (dir) Un regard québécois sur le droit constitutionnel. Mélanges en l’honneur d’Henri Brun et de Guy Tremblay. Éditions Yvon Blais, Cowansville, Canada, pp 833–853Google Scholar
  17. Leclair J (2017) Constitutional principles in the secession reference. In: Des Rosiers N, Macklem P, Oliver P (eds) The Oxford handbook of the Canadian constitution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1009–1029Google Scholar
  18. Leclair J (2018) Federalism as rejection of nationalist Monisms. In: Karmis D, Rocher F. (eds) The Trust/Distrust dynamic in multinational democracies: Canada in comparative perspective. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston, pp 210–247. This paper was initially published in French: Le fédéralisme comme refus des monismes nationalistes. In: Karmis D, Rocher F (dir.) La dynamique confiance-méfiance dans les démocraties multinationales: Le Canada sous l'angle comparatif. Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec, Canada, 2012, pp 209–243Google Scholar
  19. Macdonald RA (1991) …Meech Lake to the contrary notwithstanding (Part I). Osgoode Hall Law J 29:253–328Google Scholar
  20. Medrano JD, Gutiérrez P (2001) Nested identities: national and European identity in Spain. Ethnic Racial Stud 24(5):753–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mendelsohn M (2002) Measuring national identity and patterns of attachment: Quebec and nationalist mobilization. Nationalism Ethnic Polit 8:72–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montpetit E, Lachapelle E, Kiss S (2017) Does Canadian Federalism Amplify Policy Disagreements? Values, Regions and Policy Preferences. IRPP Studies No 65: 1–27; online: http://irpp.org/research-studies/study-no65/
  23. Parizeau J (1998) Lettre ouverte aux juges de la Cour suprême. Le Devoir September 3, 1998:9Google Scholar
  24. Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC). Available at: http://canlii.ca/t/1fqr3
  25. Schmitt C [1934] (2005) Political theology: four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 116 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Sunstein CR (1999) One case at a time. Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 285 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Torcal M, Mota F (2014) The role of political parties in shaping citizens’ political preferences for the territorial organization of the state: the Spanish case. Eur Polit Sci Rev 6(3):477–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Venne M (1998) Bouchard promet une question plus claire. Le Devoir August 28, 1998:A1Google Scholar
  29. Webber J (1996) The rule of law reconceived. In: Kulcsár K, Szabo D (eds) Dual images: multiculturalism on two sides of the Atlantic. Royal Society of Canada and Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary, pp 197–207Google Scholar
  30. Weinstock D (1999) National partiality: confronting the intuitions. Monist 82:516–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Montréal, Faculté de droitMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations