Ambiguity of referendum question The motivation behind the 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 small margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Controversy surrounded the ambiguity and wording of the ballot question. In French, the question on the ballot asked: In English, the question on the ballot asked: Trilingual ballots were issued in communities in which Indigenous languages were commonly used.
Stéphane Dion and the three letters Prime Minister Chrétien advised the governor general to appoint political scientist
Stéphane Dion (first elected as
Member of Parliament for the
riding of
Saint-Laurent–Cartierville in
Montreal in 1996) as
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in 1996. Dion would challenge
Quebec sovereigntist 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 does not belong to constituent entities of a democratic country such as Canada." On 20 August 1998, the Supreme Court answered, concluding that Quebec cannot secede unilaterally under Canadian or international law. However, the Government of Canada would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebecers expressed a clear will to secede. It confirmed that the Parliament of Canada had the power to determine whether or not a referendum question was clear enough to trigger such negotiations. The
Constitution of Canada would remain in effect until terms of secession were agreed to by all parties involved, through an amendment to the Constitution, which needs the consent of the federal Parliament and every province. The court did not define what a clear majority means, and left that definition to politicians. Any negotiations would need to consider "many issues of great complexity and difficulty", such as economics, debt, minorities, Aboriginals, and boundaries. The court stated that: : 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 could not legally separate unilaterally from Canada, and that the Government of Canada would have a legal obligation to enter into separation negotiations with Quebec in the event that a clear majority of its populace were to vote in favour of independence.
Bill Clinton and the First International Conference on Federalism Stéphane Dion organized and hosted the First International Conference on Federalism in
Mont Tremblant in October 1999 to foster international support for the cause of
federalism in Canada. Quebec sovereigntist leaders were granted a prominent role in the conference and used their floor time to denounce
Canadian federalism before an international audience to the great annoyance of their federalist host. But the
Clarity Act got a big boost during the closing speech by United States President
Bill Clinton. While looking directly at Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard 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 laid to rest any doubts about the U.S. position on the 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 13 December 1999. The legislation was supported by the NDP, and
the Alliance, It was also opposed by the
Bloc Québécois, Following its adoption by the
Parliament of Canada, an open letter supporting Quebec's right to
self-determination was published and signed by numerous intellectuals from Quebec and other parts of Canada.
Reform Party MP
Grant Hill called the act too vague.
William Johnson, leader of Quebec's largest Anglophone rights group,
Alliance Quebec said the act would prevent the promulgation of misinformation by separatists. Former Prime Minister Chrétien has often stated that the act was among his proudest achievements in federal politics. In an interview with
CTV News aired on 15 May 2005, separatist former premier of Quebec,
Jacques Parizeau said that the act "meant nothing" and would be ignored. On 7 December 2005, in the midst of a federal election,
New Democratic Party leader
Jack Layton too announced that he backed the act. This was in contrast to comments made in the
2004 election where he said that Canada should recognize a declaration of Quebec independence if sovereigntists win a referendum. ==Key points==