Agenda Item No.: E.2.a. C
Canada Indivisible.
MOTION ON THE FLOOR
MOVED J. Taylor – R. Rosenberger (Made
at the September 1, 1998 City Council
meeting):
1. That the Council of the City of
Edmonton ask the Government of
Canada and the federal parties of
Canada to enact legislation that
would:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Ensure that the territories of
those communities in the
Province of Quebec that wish
to remain in Canada shall
remain in Canada regardless
of the result of any future
referendum in the Province of
Quebec;
Remind the Government of
Quebec and the people of
Quebec that referenda are not
legally binding, that Canada
is the democracy and
therefore all Canadians must
participate in any negotiation
to change the boundaries of
Canada;
Enable the Government of
Canada to deal with any
unlawful seizure of power by
any province, territory or
other jurisdiction in Canada;
Remind Canadians that the
Government of Canada has a
legal and moral responsibility
to protect person and
property;
Routing:
Delegation:
Written By:
September 3, 1998
File: 98COL054
Executive Committee, City Council
Simon J.E. Muller
Simon J.E. Muller
Corporate Services, Law Branch
(Page 1 of 3)
e)
Confirm, in the Parliament of
Canada, that this nation is
indivisible;
f)
Confirm, in the Parliament of
Canada, that all Canadians
will participate in any process
to change the boundaries of
Canada; and
g)
Support continued efforts to
create a better understanding
amongst all Canadians.
2. That the Mayor send a copy of this
resolution to the Prime Minister of
Canada and to Canada Indivisible.”
Recommendation:
That the motion be replaced as contained in
Attachment 1 so that it is consistent with the
recent Supreme Court Reference regarding
the unilateral secession of Quebec.
Previous Council/Committee Action
 At the September 1, 1998 City Council
meeting, the Motion on the Floor was
referred to the Administration for
analysis and a report to be brought back
to Council through the Executive
Committee regarding the consistency of
the motion with the recent Supreme
Court of Canada decision.
Report Summary
 This report was prepared to analyse the
consistency of the motion with the recent
decision from the Supreme Court of
Canada regarding the unilateral
secession of Quebec.
E
2
a
C
Canada Indivisible.
Report




On August 20, 1998 the Supreme Court
of Canada issued its decision in
Reference Re: Secession of Quebec.
The decision addressed the issue of
whether a unilateral declaration of
secession by Quebec was legal. It also
addressed the effect of a referendum in
Quebec in which a clear majority voted
in favour of secession.
The decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada conflicts with some of the
wording of the proposed motion.
Subsection (a) of the motion asks the
Government of Canada to legislate in a
manner so as to ensure that communities
within Quebec wishing to remain in
Canada could do so regardless of the
result of any referendum in the Province
of Quebec. The Supreme Court has said
that “a clear expression of the desire to
pursue secession by the population of a
Province would give rise to a reciprocal
obligation on all parties of confederation
to negotiate constitutional changes.”
These negotiations would have to be
conducted in accordance with underlying
constitutional principles and in good
faith. It is probable that any legislation
which dictates minimum terms for the
negotiation of Quebec’s secession would
be in bad faith and contravene the
constitutional duty of the Federal
Government to negotiate secession
honourably with the Government of
Quebec.
Subsection (b) suggests that referenda
are not binding and all Canadians must
participate in any negotiations to change

(Page 2 of 3)
the boundaries of Canada. However, a
successful referendum on secession will
be binding. The Supreme Court held
that all parties to confederation would be
obligated to negotiate constitutional
changes in the face of a referendum
result favouring secession. The Court
said that a clear majority of Quebecers
voting in favour of secession on a clearly
worded question would give rise to a
right of the Government of Quebec to
pursue secession. Therefore, a
referendum result of this type would
legitimize the constitutional efforts of
Quebec, and oblige the rest of Canada to
negotiate so as to give expression to the
desires of the majority of the people of
Quebec.
Subsection (c) of the motion purports to
enable the Government of Canada to
deal with “any unlawful seizure of power
by Quebec.” The Supreme Court held
that “the rights of other provinces and
the Federal Government cannot deny the
right of the Government of Quebec to
pursue secession should a clear majority
of the people of Quebec choose that goal
as long as in doing so Quebec respects
the rights of others.” It is possible that,
should the rest of Canada not negotiate
in good faith with Quebec, this may give
Quebec a right to unilaterally secede and
legitimately seize power over the
Province. However, the Court chose not
to speculate as what would transpire in
such circumstances. The underlying
danger of recommendation (c) is that it is
a tacit endorsement of the use of force
by the Government of Canada should
Canada Indivisible.






Quebec unilaterally declare
independence.
Subsection (d) is consistent with the
Court’s decision.
Subsection (e) of the motion is
inaccurate. The Supreme Court has held
that the nation is divisible if it is the
clear expression of a clear majority of
the population of a Province to secede.
However, the Court did comment that
“nobody seriously suggests that our
national existence, seamless in so many
aspects, could be effortlessly separated
along what are now the provincial
boundaries of Quebec.” Besides
commenting on the difficulties of
separation, the Court seems to suggest
that Provincial boundaries are
negotiable. This leaves open the
possibility of the partition of Quebec.
Subsection (f) asks the Federal
Government to confirm that all
Canadians would participate in changing
the boundaries of Canada. This is
inconsistent with subsection (e) which
says that Canada is indivisible.
Subsection (g) is not contentious.
By supporting this motion Council
would be asking the Government of
Canada to pass legislation that is in
direct conflict with the Supreme Court of
Canada decision. While there is nothing
inherently illegal about Council asking
the Federal Government to adopt the
recommendation in the motion, the
effectiveness of the messages conveyed
by the motion may be diminished.
The motion could be reworded so as to
be consistent with the Supreme Court
Reference. A sample of a reworded
motion is attached.
Justification of Recommendation


The motion as worded is inconsistent
with the Supreme Court of Canada’s
decision in Reference Re: Secession of
Quebec.
An inaccurate motion may be less
effective than an accurate motion.
Background Information Attached
1. Proposed Wording of Canada Indivisible
Motion so as to be Consistent with the
Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in
Reference Re: Secession of Quebec.
Background Information Available on
Request
1. Copy of the decision of the Supreme
Court of Canada in Reference Re:
Secession of Quebec dated August 20,
1998.
(Page 3 of 3)
Attachment 1
Proposed Wording of Canada Indivisible Motion so as to be Consistent with the Supreme
Court of Canada’s Decision in Reference Re: Secession of Quebec
I move that:
1.
The Council of the City of Edmonton ask the Government of Canada and the Federal
parties of Canada to enact legislation that would:
a. Require the Government of Canada to do its utmost to negotiate with the Province of
Quebec so that any community wishing to remain in Canada could do so even if a
future referendum in the Province of Quebec clearly supported secession.
b. Recognize that the interests of all Canadians must be presented and considered in any
negotiation to change the boundaries of Canada should a clear majority of Quebecers
vote in favour of secession when presented with a clear referendum question.
c. Enable the Government of Canada to prevent any unlawful seizure of power by any
province in Canada by negotiating in good faith and in accordance with constitutional
and democratic principles should there be a clear expression by a clear majority of the
population in a province of a desire to secede.
d. Reinforce that the Government of Canada has a legal and moral responsibility to
protect persons and property while operating within a constitutional and democratic
framework.
e. Confirm that any division of Canada could only be affected by arduous and lengthy
negotiations between all interested parties that recognize the rights of the minority,
democratic principles, the rule of law and the Constitution.
f. Confirm that the voices and interests of all Canadians must be heard and represented
in any process to change the boundaries of Canada.
g. Support continued efforts to create a better understanding amongst all Canadians.
Attachment 1 - Page 1 of Error! Bookmark not defined.