This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
I fleshed out this article and removed the stub designator. My source for all the changes I made was
the text of the SCC decision. In particular I tried to clarify that the Quebec Veto Reference was entirely about the existence of a constitutional convention, as opposed to a legal question. To put it another way, even if the opinion in this case had gone the other way, and the SCC had agreed with the Quebec Attorney General regarding a Quebec Veto, it wouldn't have affected the legal status of the Constitution Act, 1982. In essence, the case raised an issue about the "legitimacy" of the Canada Act 1982, not its "legality". When I have some time I will revise the article on the
Patriation Reference. --
Mathew500002:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
I fleshed out this article and removed the stub designator. My source for all the changes I made was
the text of the SCC decision. In particular I tried to clarify that the Quebec Veto Reference was entirely about the existence of a constitutional convention, as opposed to a legal question. To put it another way, even if the opinion in this case had gone the other way, and the SCC had agreed with the Quebec Attorney General regarding a Quebec Veto, it wouldn't have affected the legal status of the Constitution Act, 1982. In essence, the case raised an issue about the "legitimacy" of the Canada Act 1982, not its "legality". When I have some time I will revise the article on the
Patriation Reference. --
Mathew500002:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)reply