Docstoc

Motion to intervene

Document Sample
Motion to intervene Powered By Docstoc
					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.

				
DOCUMENT INFO