The Imperative of a Referendum /

The first asked if the amendment to the BNA Act proposed by Ottawa would af- fect the rapport between the national government and the provinces as well as the very powers enjoyed by their governments. [...] The second ques- tion probed the issue of constitutional understanding: was it not a matter of constitutional convention that any change to the relationships between the federal government and the provinces—or indeed their very powers— could not be made without the agreement of the provinces? [...] It asked: “Could the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada be amended directly or indirectly… without the consent of the Government, Legislature or a majority of the people in the Province of Newfoundland voting in a referendum?” (SCC Re: Resolu- tion to amend the Constitution: 763). [...] In SCC Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution, the Court unanimous- ly ruled that it agreed with the responses of the Manitoba and Quebec Courts of Appeal to the first questions. [...] The Court also examined the two other questions: the issue of the le- gality of Ottawa’s plans, and the issue of whether a convention existed.