Clarity Act
The Clarity Act, officially known as Bill C-20, was enacted by the Canadian Parliament in 2000 as a response to Quebec's aspirations for independence. This legislation emerged following the Supreme Court’s Quebec Secession Reference, which addressed the legal parameters surrounding a province's right to secede from Canada. The Clarity Act stipulates that a formal constitutional amendment is required for any province to secede, and it emphasizes that a clear majority in a referendum is necessary before negotiations about separation can occur. Notably, even if a referendum passes, it does not guarantee immediate secession; instead, it opens the door for discussions regarding the terms of a potential separation agreement.
The Act has been met with a mix of support and criticism. While it is generally viewed positively outside Quebec, concerns have been raised regarding its exclusion of the Senate from decisions about secession, which some argue undermines the constitutional balance of power. Critics also highlight the Act's implications for Aboriginal rights, noting that it did not address their interests in the event of a secession. Overall, the Clarity Act stands as a significant legal framework in Canada's ongoing dialogue about national unity and the rights of its provinces.
Clarity Act
The Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-20, which is better known as the Clarity Act, in 2000. The Clarity Act was created in response to Quebec’s attempts to secede, or separate, from Canada.
The act puts into motion the Supreme Court’s requirement for clarity, as stated in the Quebec Secession Reference. Effectively, the Clarity Act requires the establishment of a constitutional amendment before a Canadian province is allowed to secede.
In the Quebec Secession Reference, the Supreme Court determined that the federal government must give political actors the right to decide issues related to secession from Canada. Among other issues, it gave politicians the right to determine what number of votes constitutes a clear majority when a referendum to secede from Canada has been initiated by a province. Even if the referendum passed by a large majority, it would not allow immediate secession. At most, it could trigger negotiations about the terms of a potential separation agreement.
Brief History
For many years, Quebec has struggled with an urge for independence. In the 1960s, a militaristic movement arose to separate Quebec from Canada and make it a separate nation. A 1970 terrorist act by separatists resulted in the kidnapping and murder of Quebec’s minister of labor and immigration.
Later, a separatist party won the 1976 Quebec election. In 1977, Quebec adopted a law that restricted education in English-language schools and made French the official language of business, laws, and public institutions. Despite the power of the separatist party, Quebec voters did not pass a 1980 referendum to make their province a country independent of Canada.
The 1982 Constitution of Canada included a provision for freedom of language in education. Quebec opposed the constitution and sought to veto constitutional change. Quebec lost its veto bid, and in 1984, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled against the schooling restrictions in Canada.
In 1987, a constitutional accord called "Meech Lake" gave new, long-reaching powers to all of the provinces and set aside Quebec as a "distinct society." Although the House of Commons ratified this accord in 1988, it did not reach fruition because the provinces of Newfoundland and Manitoba would not support it.
The Canadian Parliament again attempted to sort out the Quebec issue in 1992, with a new set of constitutional proposals that called to decentralize federal powers and to recognize Quebec as a "distinct society." In October 1992, Canadians rejected the constitutional changes in a referendum.
In 1995, Quebec held its own referendum to determine whether it would secede from Canada. Quebec voters narrowly rejected the proposal. Before the referendum took place, a Quebec lawyer named Guy Bertrand asked the court to stop the referendum because if it passed, it could threaten his rights. The court refused to stop the referendum, but after the vote, Bertrand asked the court to forbid the Quebec government to hold future referenda about secession.
Although Bertrand’s request was not fulfilled, the federal government submitted three questions to the Supreme Court about Quebec’s quest for independence. The first question was whether Quebec could simply leave Canada based on its own declaration of independence. The second was whether Quebec has the right under international law to declare independence without the approval of Canada. Last, the government asked the court whether domestic law or international law would rule if there were a conflict. The Supreme Court’s 1998 opinion was the precursor to the Clarity Act.
Overview
The Clarity Act is Canada’s response to Quebec’s attempt to separate from the country and become independent. Quebec, which occupies much of the land originally owned by France in North America, is predominantly French speaking. Beginning in the 1960s, a militant separatist group attempted to make Quebec an independent state.
Following an unsuccessful referendum to secede in 1995, the Canadian Supreme Court rendered an opinion about secession. The court’s decision responded to three questions. In regard to whether a province could unilaterally secede, the court said that negotiations with the government must come first, and then a formal constitutional amendment would be required. It also declared that a clear majority of Quebec citizens must vote for secession before negotiations would even be introduced. In other words, Quebec can open a discussion about its secession, but it may not declare independence without the approval of the Canadian government.
The court’s response to the second question was Quebec does not have the right to declare independence under international law. Therefore, the court did not have to answer the third question, regarding whether international law would rule in case of a conflict.
In 1999, the Liberal Canadian government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien introduced a bill in parliament to enact the decision of the Supreme Court. Bill C-20, or the Clarity Act, was approved on June 29, 2000.
One result of the Clarity Act is the assurance that Canada cannot be fragmented by a one-vote majority in a referendum in a province. The Clarity Act eliminates Canada’s obligation to grant secession to separatists.
Opposition to the Clarity Act
Across the country, the Clarity Act was looked upon favorably. Quebec tried to counter it with a bill of its own, but it did not gain popular support in Quebec.
One complaint about Bill C-20 is its overturning of the two chamber system. According to the bill, only the House of Commons, and not the Senate, has the power to decide whether a majority of a province’s citizens has voted for secession. Excluding the Senate seems to upend the constitution, which ensures the balance that two chambers give the government.
Additionally, critics point out that the Clarity Act makes a province’s secession difficult, but not impossible. Instead of declaring Canada’s unity, the act allows the possibility of division. The Clarity Act’s opponents say that Canada is one of the few countries across the world that formally admits it could be dissolved, and it is the only country that gives guidelines to its dissolution. In contrast, countries such as the United States and France clearly forbid attempts to dissolve them, stating that they are indivisible.
Another criticism of the Clarity Act is its treatment of the aboriginal peoples. When posing its questions about secession to the Supreme Court, the Canadian government specifically asked the court not to discuss the rights of aboriginals whose land is in Quebec in the case of secession. The government’s actions are viewed as a refusal to recognize the rights of the aboriginal peoples to participate in negotiations about the division of territories. It seemingly undermines treaty issues and ancestral rights that were previously recognized in the Canadian Constitution.
Since its passing, the Clarity Act has been the subject of countless discussions and arguments among political figures, many of whom use it as a rallying cry to gain supporters.
Bibliography
Bryden, Joan. "Mulcair Would Replace Clarity Act with 'Unity Bill' That Requires Bare Majority 'Yes' Vote to Trigger Talks on Quebec's Secession." National Post, 29 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Dec. 2015.
Chowdhry, Affan. "Chrétien, Trudeau Attack Mulcair over His Stance on Clarity Act." The Globe and Mail. 13 Sept. 2015. Web. 29 Dec. 2015.
Lalonde, Suzanne. "Quebec’s Boundaries in the Event of Secession." Macquarie Law Journal, 2003. Web. 29 Dec. 2015. <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2003/7.html>.
Marin, Michael. "What Trudeau Keeps Getting Wrong about the Clarity Act." IPolitics. 15 Aug. 2015. Web. 29 Dec. 2015.
O'Neil, Peter. "Dix and Mulcair Out of Step on Federal Clarity Act." Vancouver Sun, 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Dec. 2015.
<Http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mulcair Step Federal Clarity/7895962/story.html#ixzz3vidljNuP>.
Radan, Peter, and Jeksandar Pavkovic, eds. The Ashgate Research Companion to Secession. Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2011. Print.
Raj, Althia. "Stéphane Dion Given New Chance to Craft His Political Legacy." The Huffington Post. 4 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Dec. 2015.
Verrelli, Nadia, and Neil Cruickshank. "Exporting the Clarity Ethos: Canada and the Scottish Independence Referendum." British Journal of Canadian Studies 27.2 (2014): 195-216. Print.