Are the 4 constitutional principles (federalism, constitutionalism/ the rule of law, democracy and respect for minority rights) relied on by the court consistent with a city separating from a province? I will not discuss the principle concerning respect for minority rights as I do not believe that principle has a strong bearing on these issues.

Federalism Principle

The federalism principle holds that political power is shared by two levels of government: the federal government and the provincial governments. Each has their respective spheres of influence.

The court in Secession Reference described federalism as a political and legal response to underlying social and political realities. [See Note 6 below] This is important because significant social, political, economic, demographic and cultural changes have occurred in Canada since Ontario’s role in Confederation was established in 1867. If federalism was intended to be responsive to the social and political realities then there must be a means by which the federal structure of Canada can change when the social and political realities change.

Further, the court in Secession Reference found that federalism facilitates democratic participation by distributing power to the government thought to be most suited to achieving the particular societal objectives. [See Note 7 below] If the government most suited to achieving societal objectives changes then presumably there must be a means to implement a change to the federal structure.

The federalism principle provides great power to the provinces. It was set up this way because it made the most sense based on the way Canada was in 1867. But the federalism principle holds that if Canada changes significantly then the division of power amongst the governments must reflect those changes.

Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law

Constitutionalism provides that our Constitution is the supreme law in Canada. The rule of law provides that the law is supreme over both state and individual. All public power must find as its ultimate source in a legal rule. The rule of law requires the creation and maintenance of a set of laws. The rule of law is designed to furnish our citizens with a stable, predictable and ordered society in which to conduct their affairs. It is to protect against arbitrary state action. [See Note 8 below]

It is these twin principles which would bind the federal government and the province (s) to negotiate with a city such as Toronto that had clearly expressed its desire to separate. It would be these twin principles which would prevent a sitting prime minister and/ or premier (s) from stonewalling a legitimate movement for a Province of Toronto. These twin principles say that the ultimate authority in Canada is not the prime minister and it is not the premier. It is the constitution.

Democratic Principle

The court in Secession Reference describes the Canadian tradition as being "one of evolutionary democracy moving in uneven steps toward a goal of universal suffrage and more effective representation". Clearly the court is contemplating further future changes to our institutions which will provide for even more effective representation. The court discussed the evolution of our democratic traditions from the Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights of 1689 to the emergence of representative political institutions in the colonial era to the development of responsible government in the 19th century and finally to Confederation itself. [See Note 9 below] The court does not attempt to limit what these future changes might be and how they might be initiated. If anything by listing such diverse examples of democracy’s evolution the court is suggesting that there are many different means by which more effective representation may come to Canada.

The court goes on to say:

"Finally, we highlight that a functioning democracy requires a continuous process of discussion. The Constitution mandates government by democratic legislatures, and an executive accountable to them, resting ultimately on public opinion reached by discussion and the interplay of ideas" (Saumer v. City of Quebec, supra, at p. 330). At both the federal and provincial level, by its very nature, the need to build majorities necessitates compromise, negotiation, and deliberation. No one has a monopoly on truth, and our system is predicated on the faith that in the marketplace of ideas, the best solutions to public problems will rise to the top. Inevitably, there will be dissenting voices. A democratic system of government is committed to considering those dissenting voices, and seeking to acknowledge and address those voices in the laws by which all in the community must live." [See Note 10 below]

The court is saying that if elevating a city’s status to province makes sense (socially, politically, economically, demographically, and culturally) and the support for doing so has been clearly expressed then the means to do so is there.