## Facts

- Following a narrow 1995 Quebec referendum result rejecting “sovereignty,” the federal executive sought an advisory opinion on whether Quebec could lawfully secede from Canada.
- The Governor in Council referred three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada under the Supreme Court’s statutory reference jurisdiction.
- The questions asked whether Quebec could secede unilaterally under (1) the Canadian Constitution and (2) international law (including self-determination), and (3) what law would prevail if domestic and international law conflicted.
- An amicus curiae challenged the constitutionality and scope of the Court’s reference jurisdiction and argued the questions were non-justiciable political questions.
- The Court treated the matter as raising legal questions about constitutional structure and the relationship between domestic and international law.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Constitution of Canada, Quebec’s National Assembly, legislature, or government may effect Quebec’s secession unilaterally.
2. Whether international law, including any right of self-determination, grants Quebec a unilateral right to secede.
3. If domestic and international law differed on unilateral secession, which would take precedence in Canada.
4. Whether the Supreme Court’s reference jurisdiction was valid and whether the questions were within jurisdiction and justiciable.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously upheld the validity of the Supreme Court’s reference jurisdiction and held the questions were within scope and justiciable.
- The Court held Quebec has no unilateral right to secede under the Canadian Constitution.
- The Court held international law did not confer on Quebec a unilateral right to secede in the circumstances presented.
- The Court found no conflict between domestic and international law on unilateral secession and stated Canadian courts apply Canadian constitutional law.
- The Court stated that a clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favor of secession would impose a reciprocal obligation on the relevant constitutional actors to negotiate in good faith toward constitutional change, with any secession requiring a constitutional amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional interpretation includes both written provisions and underlying constitutional principles that help determine the legality of major constitutional change.
- Four foundational principles inform the constitutional framework: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and protection of minorities.
- Democracy is not simply majority rule; it operates within constitutional constraints, including legality and minority protections.
- Secession is not accomplished by referendum alone; lawful secession requires compliance with constitutional amending procedures and negotiation among affected governments.
- International law generally favors internal self-determination within existing states; external self-determination (secession) is typically limited to colonial contexts, foreign occupation, or denial of meaningful internal self-government.
- The “effectiveness” of a successful unilateral breakaway does not create a prior legal entitlement to secede.
- International law may inform domestic interpretation, but it does not override the Constitution absent domestic incorporation; here, no domestic–international conflict was found.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that Quebec could not secede unilaterally under either Canadian constitutional law or international law, but that a clear referendum majority on a clear secession question would create a constitutional obligation for the relevant parties to negotiate in good faith, with any lawful secession requiring a constitutional amendment.


Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 (Can.)