Go Ad Free

In response to a Bloc Québécois motion in the House of Commons to repeal the Clarity Act, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his sidekick Stéphane Dion emerged from their obscure retirements to defend the legislation. Dion didn’t stop at simply highlighting the merits of the act. In an interview with the Hill Times, he said it was nothing less than perfect. Dion said he would not change a word in the act, which he wrote in 2000.

Jean Chrétien also called the legislation “perfect,” adding that he hopes it will never be used.

With vanity and age, rose coloured glasses may make the actions of the past look beatific in one’s golden years, but it doesn’t change reality for the next generation. The Clarity Act is far from perfect.

Ironically, the worst element of the Clarity Act is its lack of clarity, particularly in setting the bar for the votes required in an independence referendum. The act calls for a “clear majority,” but what does that mean? Even if we assume it doesn’t mean 50 percent plus one will suffice, does it mean 50 percent plus two will? Does it mean 55 percent? 65 percent?

If a province holds an independence referendum and wins a positive vote of 58 percent to leave, the ill-defined bar set in the Clarity Act could lead to mass civil disorder if the federal government tried to block the initiative with the claim it wasn’t a clear majority. Any legislator creating a work of perfection should have had the confidence to set an exact bar for what constitutes a clear majority.

Canada has a bicameral legislative system, yet the Clarity Act omits any senatorial participation in the process if a province initiates the process of independence. While the Senate is of limited value at the best of times, it should be engaged when an issue is as pressing as the restructuring of the country.

If the intention of the framers of the Clarity Act was to prevent the secession of a province altogether, then it has worked as designed so far. Chretien and Dion hinted as much. It still isn’t perfect when viewed through that lens, though, as while the act creates a convoluted road to independence, the road still does exist, and a province may one day successfully navigate it.

The questions asked in the 1980 and 1995 referenda in Quebec were terribly phrased, practically word salads. They were designed to confuse the voter and perhaps entice them into a "Yes" vote without a full understanding of what they were voting for. Legislation clarifying the process was perhaps what Canada needed.

The Clarity Act lays out the requirements for provincial independence through referenda. But it is hardly a perfect piece of legislation, and it is likely going to be tested soon.