The Clarity Legislation is a part of a 40 year struggle between Canada and Québec.

The Clarity Legislation is a part of a 40 year struggle between Canada and Québec. It is another step in the debate of Québec’s political status, a battle that has been going on for much too long. But that is the price that has to be paid for an issue of such importance to be settled democratically (Beaudoin 8). The Clarity Legislation aims “ to create a referendum framework for Québec, should Québec express the desire for total sovereignty” (Beaudoin, 8). Therefore, if Québec decides to hold a referendum on sovereignty the Clarity Legislation will mean that Québec’s self-determination will lie in unsupportive hands.

The Clarity Legislation, also referred to as Bill C-20, means that

In the event of any future referendum on sovereignty, the proposed act would give the House of Commons the final right to determine whether or not a “clear question” had been asked, and a “clear majority” achieved, before agreeing to negotiate Québec’s secession from Canada (Cariou 1).

The issue of Québec’s separation has been an issue for far too long, the simple reason is that it is extremely important for the future of Canada as well as Québec. There are many people, including Minister of International Relations Louise Beaudoin, who believe that if Québec separates it has the essential tools needed for positive development. On the other hand, there is also a large number of people who believe that Québec should remain a part of Canada, but that some type of reform ought to be made in order to better respond to Québecers’ aspirations (Beaudoin 8).

Both groups agree that Québec is a distinct character (Beaudoin 8). The first group believes that a sovereign country must be established, “one that is recognized by the entire world and an economic partner with Canada” (Beaudoin 8). “The second believes that Québec must be considered a distinct partner, representing one of the Canadian federation’s founding cultures (Beaudoin 8).

In order to better understand the situation one must understand that Québec has never given its assent to the Canadian Constitution.

After having patriated the Constitution in 1982 without Québec’s consent – and in the face of opposition from all of its political parties in the National Assembly- the rest of Canada was incapable of formulating a proposal that is even minimally acceptable to those Québecers who still believe in Canada (Beaudoin 9).

Individuals against Québec’s separation from Canada argue that Québec had its opportunity to vote on its future (the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord in 1992) and the votes clearly showed that Québec did not want to separate from Canada. But what many fail to remember is that “Quebec rejected this pact because it did not meet its minimal legitimate aspirations, while the rest of Canada rejected it because they believed it gave Québecers too much” (Beaudoin 9). Then in 1995 during Québec’s referendum on sovereignty campaign, Prime Minister Chrétien promised to accommodate Québec within the Canadian constitutional framework, however to this day the Canadian government has not conceded anything significant whatsoever on Québec’s constitutional claims (Beaudoin 9). “Canada has never wanted to recognize the Québec society’s distinct character in the Constitution” (Beaudoin 9) and that is why it is not surprising that the government is trying to enact Bill C-20 in its belief that it will guarantee Canada’s unity.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In its attempt to culminate Québec’s self-determination, on December 10, 2000 the government tabled legislation in the House of Commons that gave the right to decide, and even impose, the wording of the referendum question to the Canadian Parliament - three-quarters of whose elected members come from outside Québec (Beaudoin 11). It is clear that the distribution of elected members in parliament shows a high potential for bias. Also “the federal plan purports to confer on Canada’s Parliament the right to declare the referendum question inadmissible, even as the Québec National Assembly is in the process of debating it” simply put, “Ottawa wants to be able to censure the question even before the referendum is held” (Beaudoin 11). This means that the Québec Government would not be able to offer the people of Québec, through a referendum, a new political or economic arrangement based on sovereignty and political equality (Beaudoin 11).

Despite the governments attempt to cover up its real intentions with respect to Bill C-20, it is clear that the bill provides the federal government with the final say on whether the format and result of any future referendum are sufficient to spark negotiations to break up the country (Dossier 1). The Clarity Bill neither guarantees that the separatist ideology will disappear nor does it guarantee unity. The only thing it can guarantee is that the country will not break up in confusion (Dossier 2).

Québec represents one of the founding cultures of this country. It represents a historical tie to a country that so many people once thought would never succeed. The bond that Québec shares with Canada will remain as an integral part of both societies. However, Québec’s distinct society is causing havoc throughout Canada. This is evident in the two aforementioned groups. If some sort of conclusion is not reached this will continue to be a burdensome issue for many. Whether or not Québec is successful in its self-determinism, the history that it shares with Canada will forever be alive in the two societies. The Canadian government has done all it can to ensure that Québec does not separate. It believes that if Québec separates it will lessen Canada’s strength and obviously land size. Which, the government fears, will lead to future problems. However, this distress between Québec and Canada has been causing problems for their people from day one. On the one hand Québecers believe that they do not share any similarities in the Canadian culture and that their religion, language and culture will disappear if they continue to stay as a part of Canada. Many non-Québecers feel that Québec has been given more attention, more rights and more freedom than the rest of Canada. They often feel that it is quite unfair that all provinces must learn French as a second language as well as ensure that all labels and signs are written in both languages. Whereas in Québec laws of this nature cease to exist. Therefore if Québec is successful in its separation from Canada, the two societies may eventually learn to accept one another because the aforementioned problems will no longer exist.

The Clarity Legislation is not a positive step for Québec, despite the attempts of the Chrétien government to make it seem so. One of the most significant gestures of the federal government towards Québec occurred when the government asked the Supreme Court of Canada “to rule on the legality of a unilateral declaration of independence by Québec” (Montreal Gazette 6/23/2000). In the Canadian system, unlike the system in the United States, it is possible to ask The Supreme Courts opinion in a hypothetical situation.

That is why a great number of people also think that, by formulating the questions in a way that would ensure it received the answers it sought, the Canadian government attempted to use its Supreme Court to give the impression that the Québec referendum process was illegal. At the end of this exercise, the Supreme Court found that, in the event of a referendum win by Québec sovereignists, the rest of Canada would have a constitutional obligation to negotiate Québec’s sovereignty (Beaudoin 9-10).

In a CNEWS interview, Joe Clark spoke on his views on the Clarity Legislation. First of all he stated that Prime Minister Chrétien is wrong in the timing of this Legislation because there are more important issues such as, the current brain drain and the crisis of the health care system, to worry about (Canoe 1). He believes that Mr. Chrétien should not be conserned with the Constitution when more pressing matters need attention (Canoe 1). Also Mr. Clark states that he believes the proposed bill itself is fundamentally wrong in that, “it gives a fast track to breaking up the country instead of building up the country” (Canoe 1).

The Canadian government has tricked its citizens into believing that the Clarity Legislation stands to ensure that after a future referendum from Québec, the House of Commons will have a final say on whether a clear question was asked and whether a clear majority achieved (Cariou 1). From this statement the Bill seems to be very democratic and acceptable, no wonder many Canadians agree with it. What many of them may not realize, however, is that with this sort of power in the hands of the House of Commons, which does not support the separation, a majority vote reached in Québec may not result in the actual separation of Québec because the ultimate answer lies in the non-supportive House. This infringes on the rights of Québecers because they receive a false sense of democracy. In a democratic country when a vote is taken on any issue, the majority of the votes determine what the final outcome shall be. The same type of principal stands for a referendum, however, in a referendum the people of a given area vote on a question proposed by their government. Usually the government then acts according the majority vote. But in the Bill C-20 situation, the Government has decided that the final say lies with the House of Commons. The House of Commons then has the opportunity to go against the majority vote, basically making the referendum null and void. Also this can and probably will lead to Québecers losing their sense of legitimacy and their confidence in the Chrétien Government. The reason countries become democratic is so that fairness and equality can be supreme and the rights of all individuals within that country are protected. How can a government that boasts about its unsurpassed democracy expect to get away with such a dictatorial attitude. This kind of behavior is tolerated and almost expected in countries where dictatorships or communism rule, but not in a free, democratic country.

For Canada the Clarity Legislation means that it will have the upper hand after Québec holds its referendum. It means that Canada may, once again, be victorious in the crude battle to keep Québec from separating. It also means that democracy means nothing to many Canadians, because if it did, they would notice that Chrétien is acting against the Constitution. Not only is Chrétien and his Government blatantly misleading the people of Canada but he is also employing “dirty tactics”. He is doing so by asking the Supreme Court for its opinion on the matter at hand, so that prior to any big steps being taken towards the Clarity Legislation, Chrétien knows that he has the backing of the Supreme Court.

For Québec the Clarity Legislation means only this, whether or not a majority vote in favor of separation is reached, Québec will not be the final decision maker. The House of Commons will have the final say on whether the referendum question was clear and whether a clear majority was achieved (Cairou 1). The fact that the House of Commons has the final say on whether or not clarity was obtained is not as horrible as the House,

Circumventing Québec’s democratic expression by giving the Canadian Parliament – three quarters of whose elected members come from outside of Québec-the right to decide, and even impose, the wording of the referendum question (Beaudoin 10-11).

CPC leader Miguel Figueroa says, “This is a crude attempt-just like its earlier use

of the Supreme Court- to resort to legal and administrative means to bully the people of

Québec into submission and to snuff out the pro-independence movement once and for

all” (People’s Voice 1). Mr. Figueroa goes into further detail about what he believes the

outcome of the Clarity Legislation will be.

But this aggressive and confrontational tactic, a continuation of the Liberals’ Plan B get –tough approach, is doomed to backfire. It will only stir up indignation in Québec, feed the fires of both narrow nationalism and Québec and big-nation chauvinism in the rest of the country, and deepen the long festering crisis of Confederation. This move by the Chrétien government is not so surprising, given its determination to maintain the current constitutional status quo by all possible means (People’s Voice 1).

For those who believe that Québec does not have what it takes to become it own country, here is some information on the actual economic state of Québec. According to the OECD studies Québec ranks seventeenth among the world’s economies, which shows that it is a viable State. It also “expresses its modernity fully integrate with its French character, and despite the average size of its population, it is very competitive” (Beaudoin 12). Also Québec is a democratic society. The National Assembly has provided the framework for the debates about Québec’s future and the people have made their voices heard through referendums. The Government has respected the people’s decision every time and acted on their mandate (Beaudoin 12). The Clarity Legislation is a tactic used by the Canadian Government to try and maintain the upper hand in the continuous battle for Québec’s separation. It is an infringement on the democratic rights of Québecers. It is a Bill designed to make separation almost impossible for Québec.

Through the manipulation of the system, including the hypothetical questioning of the Supreme Court as well as the distribution of members in Parlaiment, the Canadian Government has been able to more or less guarantee its victory against the pro-independent movements. Therefore, if Québec decides to hold a referendum on sovereignty the Clarity Legislation will mean that Québec’s self-determination will lie in unsupportive hands.

Bibliography

Beaudoin, Louise. “Globalization and Cultural Diversity: What Does Québec Want?” Released 7 Feb. 2000. Online: America On-Line. 16 Nov. 2002.

Cairou, Kimball. “CPC OPPOSES LIBERAL “CLARITY” LEGISLATION”. A People’s Voice Article. Released between 1-15 Jan. 2000. Online: America On-Line. 16 Nov. 2002.

Central Executive Committee, Communist Party of Canada. “Bill C-20 Denies Rights of Quebec”. A People’s Voice Article. Released 10 Jan. 2000. Online: America On-Line. 16 Nov. 2002.

Gatehouse, Jonathon and Lehmann, John. “Liberals Brace for the Third Referendum on Sovereignty”. The National Post. Released 26 Jan. 2000. Online: America On-Line. 18 Nov. 2002.

Joyal, Serge. “Clarity in the Senate”. The Montreal Gazette. Released 23 June 2000. Online: America On-Line. 18 Nov. 2002.

Nikopoulos, Nick B. “Joe Clark Chat”. CNEWS Newsmakers. Released 2002. Online: America On-Line. 16 Nov. 2002.