IS THE CLARITY ACT GOOD FOR CANADA

Glossary[1]

Clarity Act (Bill C-20; Federal Clarity Bill) – an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the supreme court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference[2]

Canadian Constitution – a composition of the established principles in which Canada is organized (with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

Democracy – comes from Greek; demos (the people), kratus (power), meaning the people’s power

Federal Government – the government of Canada, where provinces and territories unite under its central authority, but remain independent in their internal affairs

Federalism/ Federalists – being federal, or favouring a federal system

Jurisdiction – official power exercised in a certain area of activity; an extent or territory over which legal or other power extends

Legislation – the process of making a law by the government

Legislature – an assembly, which makes laws

MP (Members of Parliament) – one who represents the people of its province to the federal gov’t/parliament

National Assembly – group, which represents a part of the population to the government

Parliament – an assembly that makes the laws of a country; federal gov’t

Question – the statement released prior to the actual referendum, to which the people must vote either “yes” or “no”

Referendum – refers to a question to the people of a country for a direct decision via mass vote

Secession – to withdraw from the membership of a society/country

Separatists – those people wishing to separate from Canada (generally referring to Quebec separatists

Sovereigntist – one who believes in sovereignty

Sovereignty – one who believes in the supreme possession of power; independent sovereign states

Is the Clarity Act Good for Canada?

NO: Claude Ryan

Background:

Quebec has a significant separatist population, and a referendum was called in 1995 to vote; Canada (both gov’t and people) did not know how to respond to its occurrence
Supreme Court of Canada made a decision in 1998 about secession
The Clarity Act is based upon this decision; making it completely legal
Very controversial issue (for a variety of reasons), and still is very sensitive, especially in Quebec

Ryan’s View:

Strong belief in using “peaceful” time to improve relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada, and not stir up new conflicts
The bill could have been written better

- The bill itself could have been limited to simply affirming that Parliament would examine the situation, should a “yes” vote occur; this would show that Parliament was willing and able to represent the feelings of the entire country

- Parliament itself has the power to decide upon the clarity of the question released to the people; if it’s not “clear”, the federal gov’t is released from its responsibility to negotiate if there was a separatist victory; this doesn’t allow all Canadians to have their say and to give both Quebec and the rest of Canada the opportunity to seek out a resolution

He feels the bill contradicts itself by giving the federal gov’t the opportunity to mediate if they do not like what is exactly being brought to the people

- Federal gov’t is outside of their jurisdiction; the Quebec National Assembly has the right to ask its people to participate in a referendum without the interference of another legislature, including federal gov’t

· Parliament can be forbidden to negotiate is a sovereign vote is cast, if Quebec MPs feel the question acceptable, but MPs outside Quebec feel it is unacceptable (trying to begin negotiations)

- This could have adverse affects on the entire country and possible new sovereign Quebec

· The bill gives federal gov’t a great deal of freedom to determine if a “clear” majority is evident: 3 deciding factors

- The majority of votes cast

- Percentage of eligible voters, who voted

- And “any other matter or circumstances it considers to be relevant”

- The last piece of criteria is very open to interpretation, and could become a very dangerous place

- But truly: what isn’t clear about a majority vote? > 50% is a majority

· There can potentially be a denial of democracy, since federal gov’t decides if the vote is truly clear or not

- if gov’t feels the majority isn’t a “clear” representation of the people, it can veto outcome of the vote (probably used solely if it is a sovereign majority)

· Federal gov’t may be able to negotiate with province about its decision, however, without early involvement, it could end up being too late for both parties to reach an agreement

· He feels it is not unreasonable to think the simple majority would make the best conclusion and would make decisions simpler for all levels of government

Questions:

1. Do you remember the 1998 referendum? What did you think about it?

2. Do you think Quebec should separate from Canada?

3. Why do you think some Quebecers want to separate?

4. Do you think that provincial separation from Canada is of national interest?

5. How can we unify Quebec and the rest of Canada? Or is it even possible?

6. Do you know of any other country(ies), which give their provinces/states the option of leaving/separating from their country?

7. Should any province/territory have the choice to stay as a part of our country? And should we give that option to our provinces/territories?

8. If a province/territory was to separate from Canada, would your opinion of that province/territory change? What about your view of Canada as a whole?

Reflection

Before reading either of the articles, I didn’t know anything about what the Clarity Act was, or how it affected Canada; as a whole, and as individual Canadians. After reading the “No” article, I saw many flaws in the act on a whole. Claude Ryan, who wrote the no-article, felt that the act was anti-democratic, and the act gave “Parliament the power to pronounce on the validity of a vote in favour of sovereignty”. Personally, I don’t believe Quebec should separate, however, since a referendum was introduced about separation, the least the federal government can do is to truly listen to their answer, and not to use a “veto” over it. This causes almost all possible situations to allow Parliament and the Quebec government to negotiate over circumstances, decisions, and resolution(s). Also, as Canadians, we pride ourselves for being respectful towards the opinions and positions of others, however, as a nation, we ourselves are not truly reflecting the respectfulness toward the opinion of Quebec (in the Clarity Act), should there be a vote in favour of sovereignty. Ryan also suggested that the intervention of Parliament in a referendum is taking its power and abusing it, since “this process lies within the jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly”. Isn’t this also out of character for Canadians; not to intrude in a situation to help find a solution, but to offer help when needed, and only act when asked? Perhaps it’s all in one’s interpretation. That’s what I feel it all comes down to: interpretation. Parliament has full reign to interpret the results of the referendum in any way they feel is right, as long as they can justify it by three facts: “the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option”, “the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum”, and “any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant”; very open-ended. How can it be good for Canada, if:

a) in reality, there is nothing clear about the Clarity Act, and

b) it is out of character for Canadians as a whole?

These were my initial thoughts after reading the no-article.

After being very sure of my opinions (very biased opinions, mind you), I went into the tutorial itself with a mind-set that “I am right, and there’s no other way about it”! However, by the end of the class, after discussing with my own table and finding out their opinions, and especially after discussing with the entire class, I found that my opinion had completely changed in the opposite direction! These things, which I found to be “un-Canadian” or a violation of democracy, were actually not what I thought they were, but were in fact protecting Canada as a whole from a very dangerous situation. Although it may appear to be very anti-democratic, by giving Parliament a lot of power making decisions about a referendum, it gives many people the chance to decide upon a very important issue. Not only would the potential split affect Quebec, it would also affect the rest of Canada, as a nation. It would affect our economy, and it would also hurt our national unity to have one of the original Canadian provinces secede. As a nation, we voted the federal government into power, meaning we trust them to make appropriate decisions on our behalf, for the overall good of the country. If Parliament feels that the separation is good for Canada, they will act in the appropriate manner; however, if they feel it is not, they will ensure that they act accordingly. Ryan also saw that in the case there was a majority vote for sovereignty, Parliament could use a veto-like stance. This isn’t simply a case of childish “I’m not listening”, but Parliament realises the people have a voice, and they respect it by giving the provincial government to give them a referendum. What it all boils down to is interpretation, and the beauty of the Clarity act is that it isn’t clear at all! Contradictory? Perhaps, but there is always reasoning behind the madness.

The Clarity act gives Parliament the opportunity to act according to what they feel is best for the country, on behalf of the country. This is very democratic; we, the people, put the federal government in power to make decisions for us, so this gives them another chance to do that; decide what is best for the country. Since this act was put into place, they obviously felt it was best for the country. And so do I.

[1] Definitions taken from: Oxford Large Print Dictionary. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1991