Following the failure of both of these to pass, there was a widespread sense in the mid-1990s that the Constitution of Canada was not fully legitimate because it had not yet received the formal approval of Quebec.

In reaction to Bouchard's stated plans, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien initiated a reference on the legality of a unilateral declaration of independence by a Canadian province.

In its place the Court appointed André Jolicoeur as an amicus curiae to present the argument Quebec may have made, had they participated.

Second, it focused on the second question, claiming that the Supreme Court of Canada had no jurisdiction over interpreting international law.

However, should a referendum decide in favour of independence, the rest of Canada "would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession."

Those four interrelated and equally important principles or values are: They held that these pieces cannot be viewed independently but all interact as part of the Constitutional framework of Canada.

The court held that: The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states.and that A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity.The court stated in its opinion that, under international law, the right to secede was meant for peoples under a colonial rule or foreign occupation.

During the 8 years prior to June 1997, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons were both Quebecers.

[c 6] The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole.

[2] The decision has been regarded as a model discussion in international law for questions of separation between national political entities, particularly in relation to the results of a referendum.

Premier Bouchard stated publicly that the court had validated the referendum strategy that the sovereigntists had adopted with René Lévesque.

It also liked the fact that the Supreme Court made it clear that the government of Canada and that of the other provinces would have to negotiate after a winning referendum on secession.

[citation needed] The Supreme Court had made it clear that Quebec could not declare independence unilaterally.

Any obligation of Canada to negotiate with Quebec was conditional on the sovereigntists' asking a clear question within the context of a referendum.