THE FOLLOWING MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THE REFERENCE CONCERNING THE SECESSION OF QUEBEC EFFICIENTLY SETS OUT MY ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA MOTION TO INTERVENE AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT POULIOT I, Vincent Pouliot, of the City of Verdun, in the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am barrister and solicitor and a member in good standing of the Quebec Bar Association. Most of my life has been spent creating my own business but my passion is understanding the fundamental social physiology of our human nature. I am Leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada. 2. The remainder of my application sets out the basis for my application to intervene in the matter of the reference by the Governor General in Council to this Honorable Court regarding the secession of Quebec. (A) Reasons for seeking leave to Intervene 3. The Applicant considers this reference to be a unique opportunity in which the very foundation of our federation can be reviewed from the perspective of the benefit to the people of Canada that confederation was to provide. 4. The Applicant believes that this reference empowers this Honorable Court with the opportunity to determine and to establish the mechanism of checks and balance of powers that was conceived in our constitution to maintain its primary objective: "to protect the diversified interests of the several provinces and secure the efficiency, harmony and permanency of the union" as stated in both the Quebec and the London resolutions. 5. Chief Justice Rinfret in the Lord Nelson Hotel case1 states that "the constitution of Canada does not belong to either the Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled." 6. The Lord Nelson Hotel objected to what today would have been an administrative agreement between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia permitting Nova Scotia to impose an indirect tax (a sales tax) on their residents in return for permitting the federal government to make laws in relation to matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Legislature of Nova Scotia. 7. Had it not been for the Lord Nelson Hotel in this case, the limits imposed by our constitution on our federal and provincial governments would then have been overcome. 8. The Applicant submits, based on the forgoing, that neither the federal nor the provincial governments represent this fundamental interest of the people: to maintain the constitutional limits imposed on the exercise of their authority so as to ensure the protection of the rights to which the people are entitled. 9. Due to the absence of this interest, the original design of the constitution conceived to maintain the protection of the rights to which the people are entitled has subsequently never been represented nor uncovered. 10. The Applicant respectfully requests leave to represent this interest. 11. The Applicant is a Canadian citizen residing in the Province of Quebec. 12. The Applicant ardently desires, for himself and for his loved ones, the benefit of this protection and of this security. 1 A.G. of N.S. v. A.G. of Canada (1951) S.C.R. 33 at p. 34 (B) The Position to be taken by the Applicant For the reasons and under the circumstances described below, the Applicant submits that: Any Province could effect its secession from Canada unilaterally; International law would give them the right to do so; and, International law would take precedence over domestic law. (i) This position founded on the principles of self-determination, popular will, democratic rights and fundamental freedoms 13. The people, through their elected representatives, mandated their provincial government to federate under the constitution of Canada under false pretenses. 14. The people of the Provinces agreed to this federation based on the representation that the design of our constitution would ensure the protection of the rights to which we are entitled, notably: - that the Provinces would continue to be exclusively responsible for establishing the rules governing their own civil society, that is, all those rules required to maintain justice in our voluntary relations with our fellow citizens -- i.e. our civil rights, including the rules governing: . the delimitation of our right to fully enjoy, invest and freely dispose of our property; . responsibility in our social and commercial activities. - that the people would enjoy the benefits of a common market and the freedom to move our persons, our capital and our enterprise unrestricted throughout Canada; - that the provincial governments would be limited to direct taxation in its quest for revenues. 15. First and foremost, the right to which the people were entitled was the right to be governed, and for justice to be maintained in their voluntary social, civil and commercial relations (hereinafter "the social system") according to those rules most in harmony with the particular values of the local population. 16. A second right to which the people were entitled was the right to benefit from the efficiencies of the competition that would be a natural consequence of provincial government attempting to provide the best social system for their residents in a common market. 17. A third right to which the people were entitled was the right to be entirely and solely responsible for the law and for the consequences and the expense of the law founding the social system enacted by their provincial government. 18. This right of the people of each Province to be governed by their own particular civil law was established by Great Britain in 1774 and was given to each Province so as to better ensure their viability and the colonization of British North America. At the same time, the moral values underlying criminal law required to repress involuntary relations, that is, aggression in society, was maintained to be universally applicable to all Provinces. 19. This fundamental division of powers was represented to the people to be protected under the constitution of Canada in that the Provinces would participate in the legislative process of the federal government2. 20. The Provinces would have the power to limit federal expenditure and regulation to those jurisdictions exclusively assigned to the federal government and to those jurisdictions which they determine to be law for "the peace, order and good government" of all of Canada through a majority vote of their representatives in the Senate. 2 See 24 supra 21. The process of interpretation of ss 91 and 92 of our constitution would ensure a flexible federation based on a balanced agreement of the federal and provincial governments, subject to the interpretation of the courts so as to maintain the primary objective of our union and the rights to which the people are entitled, as follows: (a) the Provinces, by a majority vote of their representatives in the Senate could agree, that a law should apply equally to all the Provinces for the "peace, order and good government of Canada". (b) but not over a strenuous objection by any Province brought to the courts that this would intrude on their exclusive jurisdiction over civil law; (c) unless the courts decided that this power fell within the jurisdictions exclusively assigned to the federal government; (d) and vice versa, the Provinces, through a majority vote of the Senate, could not decentralize the government of our federation to the point of raising a strenuous objection by the federal government that such decentralization would infringe upon their exclusive jurisdictions, if such objection is maintained by the Supreme Court of Canada. 18. The keystone in this design was the Senate, which was to protect the legislative authority of the Provinces and to represent the interests of the Provinces in the government of our federation. 19. However, the Governor-in-Council was given the authority to appoint the Senators; and, the Governor-in-Council acts on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada. This has proven to be an anomaly which has prevented the implementation of the system of checks and balances that was designed to ensure the protection of the rights to which the people are entitled because it is the constant human interest of the federal executive to appoint the Senators to further their own ambitions rather than to limit them. 20. Thus, the federal government's intrusion and expenditure in provincial jurisdictions has gone unchecked since the inception of the union; the efficiency of the union is no more; and the permanency of the union must now be maintained by force. 21. The people agreed to mandate their respective Provinces to adhere to the Canadian federation based on the representation that there was a system of checks and balances that would ensure them the benefit of the primary objective and of the protection of the rights to which they are entitled. In fact, this was not true. 22. Thus the people of the Provinces are entitled to revoke their mandate. (ii) This Position founded on the Rule of Law 23. Under the constitution of Canada, the federal and the Provincial governments are equally subject to the rule of law. 24. In 1980, this Honorable Court in the Reference concerning the Senate3 confirmed that: "The power to enact federal legislation was given to the Queen by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons. Thus, the body which had been created as a means of protecting sectional and provincial interests was made a participant in this legislative process." 3 (1980) 1 S.C.R. 54 If the Applicant be permitted to paraphrase the Supreme Court in stronger terms, he would say that the Provinces reserved for themselves a role in the government of our federation which was, simply put, to determine through a majority vote of their representatives in the Senate, what constitutes law "for the peace, order and good government" of all of Canada. 25. The federal government did not implement the decision of this Honorable Court which since 1980 is part and parcel of the rule of law under the constitution of Canada and which is and has been, the underlying assumption of every law enacted by the parliament of Canada since confederation. 26. It is and was entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal government to restructure itself so as to implement this decision and thereby, finally establish the intent of confederation. 27. The Senate was unlawfully constituted in 1982 when it agreed to request the patriation of the Canadian constitution. 28. The intent of the patriation of the Canadian constitution did not include changing the nature of Canada from a federation of Provinces to a unitary State; that is, the Provinces did not renounce the intent of confederation that they be represented in the Senate so as to limit federal expenditure and regulation in those jurisdictions exclusively assigned to the legislatures of the Provinces. 29. Since the patriation of the Canadian constitution, Her Majesty the Queen can no longer be held responsible for the consequences of the law, nor enact the law of Canada. The offices of Governor General, of the Governor General in Council and of the Lieutenant Governor are spent. Neither the Prime Minister of Canada nor the federal executive has the authority to act on behalf of Her Majesty, nor are they imbued with the responsibility that was Hers to ensure that the intent of Confederation, and thus that justice under the Constitution of Canada, be maintained. 30. Yet these offices are maintained essentially to permit the Prime Minister of Canada, the federal executive and the federal government to act unlimited by the rule of law under the Constitution of Canada. 31. Civilization, civilized association, is based on the moral rule underlying justice that all parties of the association be equally subject to its rules. When the law is divorced from this foundation, justice no longer prevails. Enforcement of the law becomes aggression. 32. If the government of this federation is not subject to the rule of the law under the constitution of Canada then neither are the Provinces. Conclusion Under the circumstances, the people of the Provinces can unilaterally revoke the mandate given to their provincial representatives to federate under the constitution of Canada; or, mandate their Provincial government to refuse to obey the rule of law under the constitution of Canada so as to begin the process of secession. "To secede" means " to withdraw formally from an association"4. The formality requires that the prescribed customs or rules regarding withdrawal be observed. But if the people of any Province democratically express their will that they equally no longer be subject to the rule of law under the constitution of Canada, then the formal rules under the constitution of Canada can no longer be legitimately enforced. And if the people of any Province request of an internationally recognized independent arbitrator that it be confirmed that the federal government acts unlimited by the rule of law under the constitution of Canada such that the people of Canada no longer have rights but only privileges; 4 Webster's New World Dictionary And if the federal government of Canada refuses to submit the legitimacy of its rule to the decision of this international court of law; And if the people of any Province authorize their government to submit for adjudication by an internationally recognized independent arbitrator, an offer to settle their obligations under the constitution of Canada; And if the federal government refuses to discuss this offer; And if the Province gives sufficient guarantees that the obligations under this offer would be respected; And if that Province be Quebec, then the answers to Questions: 1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the seccession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? is yes; 2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that woud give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? is yes; 3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada? is international law. For all of the reasons above, the Applicant respectfully requests leave to intervene on the within reference and to make written and oral submissions. The Applicant seeks permission to file a factum no longer than 40 pages and to make oral submissions no longer than 15 minutes in duration.