Everything about The Clarity Act totally explained
The
Clarity Act (known as
Bill C-20 before it became law) is legislation of
Canada's
federal parliament that established the conditions under which the Government of Canada would enter into negotiations that might lead to
secession following such a vote by one of the provinces. It stipulated that in order to lead to separation negotiations, a
referendum on independence in a given province would have to have "clearly" (according to the judgment of the
Canadian House of Commons) framed its question to voters in terms of independence, and that the result would have to be a "clear majority" in favor, rather than merely, for instance, a 50%+1 majority. The Clarity Bill (C-20) was tabled for first reading in the House of Commons on December 13, 1999. It was passed by the House on March 15, 2000, and by the Senate, in its final version, on June 29, 2000.
The Clarity Act was created in response to the
1995 Quebec referendum and ongoing
independence movement in that province. In 1996,
Reform MP Stephen Harper introduced a loosely similar
private member's bill, the
Quebec Contingency Act (working title
Bill C-341). The content of the Clarity Act was based on the
1998 secession reference to the
Supreme Court of Canada made by the federal government under
Jean Chrétien. First introduced in the
Canadian House of Commons on
December 13,
1999, it was subsequently passed by the Commons on
March 15,
2000, and by the
Senate on
June 29, 2000.
Background
Ambiguity of Referendum Question
The motivation behind the Clarity Act was largely based on the near separation vote of the
1995 Quebec referendum, in which the people of Quebec voted against the
sovereignty option by a razor-thin margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Many federalists in Ottawa were caught off-guard by the results and believed that the referendum results would have no legal standing under Canadian law.
The strongest complaints were on the presumed ambiguity of the 1995 question and the fact that Quebec had passed a law reserving the right for the National Assembly to declare independence unilaterally if constitutional negotiations with the Government of Canada failed.
See the article on the
1995 Quebec referendum for the wording of the question and the external links at the bottom of this article for the
Act Respecting the Future of Québec which contains the details on the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI).
Stéphane Dion and the Three Letters
Prime Minister
Jean Chrétien appointed political scientist
Stéphane Dion as
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Dion would challenge
Quebec sovereignist assertions about the legal validity of the
1995 Quebec referendum question in
three open letters to Quebec Premier
Lucien Bouchard and Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister
Jacques Brassard. .
In the first open letter, Dion challenged three assertions that Bouchard had made: that a unilateral declaration of independence is supported by international law, that a majority of "50% plus one" was a sufficient threshold for secession, and that international law would protect the territorial integrity of Quebec following a secession. Against the first assertion, Dion argued that the vast majority of international law experts "believe that the right to declare secession unilaterally doesn't belong to constituent entities of a democratic country such as Canada."
Both the government of Quebec and the government of Canada publicly stated that they were very pleased with the opinion of the Supreme Court, which stated both that Quebec couldn't legally separate
unilaterally from Canada and that the
Canadian Parliament would have a 'political obligation' to enter into separation negotiations with Quebec in the event that a clear majority of its populace were to vote in favor of
independence.
Bill Clinton and the First International Conference on Federalism
Stéphane Dion would go on to organize and host the First International Conference on Federalism in
Mont Tremblant in October of 1999 to foster international support for the cause of
federalism in Canada. Quebec sovereignist leaders were granted a prominent role in the conference and would use their floor time to denounce Canadian federalism to an international audience to the great annoyance of their federalist host. But the Clarity Act would get a big boost during the closing speech by United States President
Bill Clinton. While looking directly at Quebec Premier
Lucien Bouchard, who was present in the audience, Clinton appeared to echo the
Supreme Court Reference, warning that "when a people thinks it should be independent in order to have a meaningful political existence, serious questions should be asked ... Are minority rights as well as majority rights respected? How are we going to co-operate with our neighbours?". Clinton argued that federalism allows peoples seeking recognition of their identity a way to do so without isolating themselves in a nation-state. The speech would lay to rest any doubts about the U.S. position on the legality and desirability of unilateral secession in Quebec .
Passage and Reactions to Clarity Act
The Clarity Act (Bill C-20) was later drafted and presented to the House of Commons on
December 13,
1999. This was more bitterly denounced by all provincial parties in the Quebec National Assembly, the Bloc Québécois, and many federalists. The
Progressive Conservative Party, led by
Joe Clark, also opposed the Act. Following its adoption by Parliament, an open letter supporting Quebec's right to
self-determination was published and signed by numerous intellectuals from Quebec and other parts of Canada.
William Johnson, leader of Quebec's largest anglophone rights group,
Alliance Quebec said the Act would prevent the typical misinformation of separatists.
(External Link
)
Former
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has often stated that the Clarity Act was among his proudest achievements in federal politics.
In an interview with
CTV News aired on
May 15,
2005, separatist former Premier of Quebec
Jacques Parizeau said that the Clarity Act "meant nothing" and would be ignored.
On
December 7,
2005, in the midst of a federal election, NDP leader
Jack Layton too announced that he backed the Clarity Act. This was in contrast to comments made in the 2004 election where he said that the Act accentuates divisions in Canada. He attributed his new found support to understanding the constitutionality of the act.
Key points
The key points of the legislation included the following:
Giving the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear before the public vote;
Specifically stating that any question not solely referring to secession was to be considered unclear;
Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority has expressed itself in any referendum, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success;
Stating that all provinces and the First Nations were to be part of the negotiations;
Allowing the House of Commons to override a referendum decision if it felt the referendum violated any of the tenets of the Clarity Act;
The secession of a province of Canada would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.
References and Notes
Further Information
Get more info on 'Clarity Act'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://clarity_act.totallyexplained.com">Clarity Act Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
