Making Sense of Quebec and Canada’s Ocean of Confusion: the Clarity Act
In 2000, the federal government made an attempt to respond to the matter of confusion in referendums dealing with the secession of a province from Canada through the Clarity Act, in response to previous events in Quebec. The aim of this paper is to further explore the Clarity Act and examine its influence over potential upcoming referendums in Quebec over the matter of secession. In order to do so, this essay will first draw attention on the origins of the Clarity Act; next, it will consider the purpose and goal of the act; furthermore, this paper will deliberate on the reactions obtained in response to the Clarity Act of 2000.
Origins
The accumulation of prior events in Quebec dealing with the sovereignty movement and the responses from the federal eventually led to the creation of the Clarity Act in 2000. The outcome of the 1995 referendum in Quebec concerning the issue of sovereignty demonstrated a split in view from Quebec’s population. Indeed, the margin of difference between the two options was slim to nearly none by just over one percent (Toope, 1999, p.520). For years, the idea of Quebec’s sovereignty was left at that, simply an idea; the two referendums of 1980 and 1995 would transform the notion of sovereignty into an increasingly conceivable possibility. Thus, the federal government had to address the sovereignty matter in Quebec.
In result of this situation, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien raised hypothetical questions to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 concerning the constitutional legitimacy of a unilateral declaration of independence in Quebec (Malcolmson & Myers, 2009, p.32). The first one questioned the legality of a unilateral secession of...
... middle of paper ...
...ce on clarity has paid off. Literary Review of Canada, 15(3), 7-9. Retrieved from http://proxy4.vaniercollege.qc.ca:2096/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA161077223&v=2.1&u=vaniercol&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w
Dion, S., et al. (2000). The Clarity Act debate in the House of Commons. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 23(2), 20-30. Retrieved from http://proxy4.vaniercollege.qc.ca:2096/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA30049448&v=2.1&u=vaniercol&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w
Malcolmson, P., & Myers, R. (2009). The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Toope, S. J. (1999). Re Reference by Governor in Council concerning certain questions relating to secession of Quebec from Canada. 161 D.L.R. (4th) 385. The American Journal of International Law, 93(2), 519-525. Retrieved from http://proxy4.vaniercollege.qc.ca:2118/stable/2998007
Although, Quebec’s population share many similar characteristics amongst one another it is not essential to decide “the people” (Heard, 2013). To be considered a state you must represent all the people in it. Quebec prefers independences for the reason of a commonality
This essay will analyze the entire case R. v. Morin and evaluate the facts, issues, positions of the Crown and accused. The decisions made during this case and reasons that ultimately lead to the final verdict by the Ontario Court of appeal. This essay will evaluate the decision of whether the delay of the R. v. Morin and the cases that it set precedent for were valid decisions made by the court. This evaluation will describe the arguments made on both sides during these trials. It will discuss how the decision made by the court to decide the trial delay being reasonable were the correct decisions and that section 11(b) of the Charter was not violated. The essay will also discuss the court cases R. v. Godin...
Dougherty, Kevin. "Marois Ready to Use Notwithstanding Clause to Protect Charter." www.montrealgazette.com. Montreal Gazette. 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 02 Apr. 2014.
To decide what to do after Quebec separates, First Ministers and the ROC, must first look at why it happened. Perhaps Quebec's profound nationalism and unique national identity conflicted with citizens in the ROC; in order to gain understanding of their decision the ROC must look at Quebec's past. Quebec was not always treated fairly nor where they given many rights in regards t...
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
On February 21 and 22 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule whether th...
Quebec has considered and has gone as far to hold referendums over Separatism (Surette,2014). Separatism is when the province of Quebec separates from the rest of Canada to form its own country. Which would have immense effects on Quebec but also the rest of Canada (Martin, 2014). This report will focus on the root causes and origins of Quebec Separatism, the current state of Quebec Separatism and finally how we as a society can act towards Quebec Separatism. Root Causes and Origin
Frist, federalism is the division of power between the provinces and the federal government (Cutler 2010, 3). As well, Federal systems tend to be made up of multiple parts, which do not necessarily work together (Brock 2008, 3). There has been an increase on the study of federalism in recent years, which has created a more in-depth look at how federalism impacts the government. (Farfard Rocher 2009, 294). There are two aspects of federalism and both of them put limitations on the influence of the prime minister. The first is called political asymmetry; this encompasses the various attitudes of the different provinces such as the culture, economic, social and political conditions and how it shapes the relationship between the provincial and federal governments (Brock 2008, 4). This can create a problem for the federal government because it means that they may ha...
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
...ereignty. As mentioned Quebec does not have complete sovereignty and it shares its powers with the federal government (Johnson). Strong words like Johnson's found in the mass media are very significant to issues such as this. As elected representatives the government will not act against the wishes of the majority of citizens. Therefore if the Canadian citizens claim that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty than it will not.
...e to power in Quebec. This indicates that Quebecers supported non-violent methods in order to achieve independence for Quebec, rather than the violent methods of the FLQ, also indicating that the efforts of the FLQ would have been subdued by the Parti Quebecois. The death of Pierre Laporte was another unfortunate occurrence as a result of the War Measures Act which could have been avoided, yet some still believe his death is not related to the invocation of the War Measures Act. Justification is required for all actions which spark debate, and in events where the justification is provided under false pretences, someone must be held responsible. In this case it remains the Trudeau government. Trudeau may have had an admirable political career in which he made many wise decisions, however, the invocation of the War Measures Act in October 1970 was not one of them.
The British North America Act went into effect July 1st, 1867 creating a union known as the Dominion of Canada, but this did not complete the debate on the Confederation issue. Many Nova Scotians continued their opposition to the idea and it would take considerable time before all Nova Scotians would accept the fact of Confederation. “These Nova Scotians, disgruntled at their treatment by Great Britain, found that their loyalty had markedly diminished. The more they considered taking over the responsibility for their own affairs from England, however, the greater trust they had to place in Confederation.”25 Confederation struck a balance between the rights of English and French speaking Canadians. Nevertheless, many divisions, conflicts, and debates would occur not only in Quebec but also in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick over this balance. Economic disparities between the Maritimes and the rest of Canada would also create many problems for the years following 1867. As a result, Confederation can be viewed as a beginning and not an end.
L. J. 433 (1979-1980) White, G. (2002). Treaty Federalism in Northern Canada: Aboriginal Government Land Claims Board. Publius Vol. 32, No. 2 -. 3, pp.
A century ago, Canada was under control by the British Empire. The battles we fought the treaties we signed and the disputes we solved all helped us gain independence from our mother country “Britain”. Canadians fought a long battle protecting others, and from these battles we gained our peaceful reputation and our independence from Britain. Canada became a nation on July, 1st 1867. Although we were an independent country, our affairs and treaties were all still signed by Britain. In the next years Canada would establish its own government, and lead its own affairs. Many important events led to Canada’s independence, one of the earliest signals that Canada wanted to establish autonomy was the Chanak affair of 1921. In addition the battle of Normandy, which occurred on June 6 1944, contributed to the autonomy of Canada. The Suez Canal Crisis, which took place in the year 1956, earned Canada a place in the media spotlight, displaying Canada as a peaceful country that deserves the right to be independent. One of the final steps that aided with Canada’s independence from Britain was the Canada Act of 1982. Independence from Britain steadily increased throughout the 20th century because of political decisions made in Canada.
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.