Is the Clarity Act Good for Canada??

x No

“Consequences of the Quebec Secession Reference: The Clarity Bill and Beyond”

By Claude Ryan; Tutorial by Megan Raschig

Ò In August of 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that Quebec could not unilaterally separate from Canada. However, if a referendum is voted upon and there is a clear majority, the federal government of Canada is obligated to negotiate the terms of secession.

Ò The Clarity Act was instated in December of 1999.

Ò The federal government means well with the Clarity Act, but certain aspects of it clearly challenge fundamentally Canadian principles of federalism and democracy.

§ If Quebec decides to hold a referendum, they must draft a question of sovereignty and have it approved in terms of clarity and content by the federal government of Canada along with every other provincial government. If the question is deemed unclear or in violation of any aspects of the Act itself, Quebec’s application to hold a referendum is revoked. If the question is approved and a referendum is held, a clear majority must vote in favour of it. The Supreme Court will later decide what defines a clear majority based on:

· The size of the majority of valid votes

· The percentage of eligible voters

· Any other relevant matters or circumstances

Both the federal and the provincial governments have a say in whether or not negotiations will begin for a provincial secession after this step.

Ò The federal government is accused with being too intrusive in a provincial matter

§ Each level of government is deemed sovereign within its jurisdiction; thus, the federal government has no business interfering with a secession process while it is still in the developmental stages in Quebec. They should be allowed to formulate their campaign on their own.

Ò By allowing such an early stage of intervention by other governments, there is a chance that the people of Quebec will not even have a chance to vote on their referendum. This is ridiculously undemocratic. It is verging on censorship. The federal government should not force its views on a decision that is entirely up to Quebecois and their provincial government.

Ò From a federal point of view, it may even be dangerous to have criteria as to how to deal with an issue of secession, because each instance is completely different and must be dealt with accordingly

Ò Article 2 of the clarity bill allows Parliament to determine a clear majority of votes through “any other material or circumstances deemed relevant.” This is a blatant loophole! They have no lawful basis as to what is considered relevant, and so they can pick pretty much any factor and say it applies.

Ò Essentially, the bill is saying that 50% plus one of votes cast is not a sufficient majority to allow for secession negotiations (bear in mind a referendum is not for immediate secession, but to enter negotiations for secession.) If you are familiar with the first-past-the-post system utilized in elections, you will know that a candidate does not need the majority to win; he/she simply needs more votes than anyone else. These two situations are examples of how the rule of equality of voters is suffering. They are contradictory to the most basic principle of democracy, majority rule, as they do not necessarily reflect the general will.

Ò Propaganda of “evil separatists” is rampant and it influences federalists in provinces other than Quebec. Federalists should be united no matter their provincial government; the Clarity Act must be questioned.

Ò Former premier of Quebec Lucien Bouchard proposed Bill 99, a counter-legislation to the Clarity Act, but went about it the wrong way: not only was it rushed, but he neglected to mention Quebec’s participation in the Canadian federal system. He should have simply rebutted the federal law with an affirmation of freedom of initiative (referring to Quebec’s right to draft its own referendums within its own jurisdiction without federal intervention.)

Ò Perhaps instead of finding ways to deal with referendums and secession, Canada should go straight to the source and find out why Quebec wants to separate. If we learn to understand the reasoning behind this movement, we can develop new, more effective solutions to the issue at hand.

Ò It is ironic that an Act that is based on the definition of clarity is really not clear at all about secession criteria.

Discussion Questions

ANSWER SHEET

1. List two ways the Clarity Act can be viewed as undemocratic.

§ The federal government can interfere at the provincial level before the general population is even consulted about a referendum.

§ Parliament is given the power to determine a clear majority based on virtually any factor. This undermines the voice of the people.

2. Do you believe that the other provinces of Canada should have an influence as to whether or not Quebec is allowed to enter secession negotiations? Why or why not?

§ Answers will vary.

3. Do you believe that the Clarity Act should be amended to include a more accurate idea of what a clear majority might be? How would you change it?

§ Answers will vary.

4. Would Canada be better off without the Clarity Act? Explain.

§ Answers will vary.

5. Which two fundamentally Canadian principles does the Clarity Act challenge?

§ Federalism and democracy

6. Can you think of an alternative to the Clarity Act?

§ Answers will vary.

7. Why do you think Quebec wants to separate? Are there any viable solutions?

§ Answers will vary.

8. How is the Clarity Act dangerous from a federal perspective?

§ Each situation involving a possible referendum will be completely different, so certain details in the fixed criteria may be unnecessary and unlawful.

9. How does the Supreme Court define a clear majority? Give three factors.

§ The size of the majority of votes

§ The percentage of eligible voters

§ Any other relevant materials or circumstances

Key Terms

Ò Secession: a formal withdrawal from an organization. In this case, the separation of Quebec from Canada.

Ò Sovereignty: autonomy, independence, or control

Ò Jurisdiction: the limits or territory within authority may be exercised.

Ò Mandate: an authorization to act given to a representative

Ò First-Past-The-Post: an electoral system whereby the candidate that receives the most votes, not necessarily the majority of votes, is the winner.

Ò Referendum: submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative.

Ò Untenable: undefendable, weak, unstable

Ò Byzantine: of, relating to, or characterized by a devious and usually secretive manner of operation.

Ò Federalism: the distribution of power in a government between a central authority (federal government) and the constituent units (provincial governments.)

Ò A Posteriori: Latin phrase for relating to or derived by reasoning from observed facts.