Keith Henderson, Chairman of the Special Committee for Canadian Unity, Stephen Scott, Professor emeritus of Constitutional Law, McGill (retired)


Monday, March 20th at 9:30 a.m.


Quebec Superior Court, Montreal, 10 St. Antoine St. E., Montreal, QC

Special Committee Chairman Keith Henderson’s case against Bill 99, which in effect pits the federal government’s Clarity Act against the separatist inspired Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State, will be heard in Quebec Superior Court (Montreal) starting March 20th. Hearings are scheduled for seven days. Mr. Henderson’s case will be argued by Stephen Scott, Professor emeritus of constitutional law at McGill (retired), with the aid of lawyer Charles O’Brien.
The government of Canada has chosen to intervene in the case on the side of Mr. Henderson. The lawyer of record is Mtr. Claude Joyal. The government of Canada’s intervention, the Factum of Special Committee Chairman Keith Henderson, and the arguments of the Quebec government are all available on the Special Committee web site at www.thespecialcommittee.com/casesSCCU.html
Observers will recall that when the Federal government announced its intervention, the ruling Parti Québécois government of the day reconvened the National Assembly for an extraordinary Sunday session where all parties combined in unanimous condemnation of the Government of Canada.
“Despite Supreme Court of Canada decisions to the contrary, various nationalist governments of Quebec, including the Liberals, have for years accepted the notion that Quebec alone could decide its legal and political status in the country, without reference to other Canadians or to the provisions of Canada’s constitution. We believe that notion is false and when cast into law, illegal,” Mr. Henderson stated. “When Bill 99 was first adopted Liberals warned the PQ government that it would face constitutional challenge and the law risked being declared null and void. One of the first things Liberals ought to have done after returning to power was to amend the Bill’s most egregious provisions. Now they’re in court defending a law they voted against.”