Toronto Star columnist Gillian Steward wrote a critical piece on the Buffalo Declaration, mocking it as “riding the hobby horse of victimhood.” There are many responses that quickly come to mind for her run-of-the-mill, pro-centralist claims, but there’s one that needs special attention. .She writes that the four Conservative MPs who signed the Buffalo Declaration, “must have forgotten that they took an oath of loyalty to The Crown and Canada because the Buffalo Declaration warns that if the federal government doesn’t give Alberta exactly what it wants then a referendum on independence is ‘inevitable.’”.This is an accusation that has been made before: people who support Alberta independence are “disloyal.” Let’s take a closer look at that..First of all, the Oath of Allegiance every MP takes is as follows: “I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. — The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.” It’s very important to note, however, that this is not understood to be an oath to the monarch as a particular individual but as a figure representing the country, its constitution and political system. The oath is essentially a promise to uphold the constitution..The MPs who signed the Buffalo Declaration do not advocate Alberta independence, despite what Steward suggests. However, supposing she was correct, the question becomes: does an MP violate his or her Oath of Allegiance by supporting Alberta independence? Is support for Alberta independence through a referendum a violation of the Constitution? .According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the answer to that question is a clear ‘no’. So long as someone advocates the process for achieving independence outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada, he or she cannot be accurately accused of disloyalty. How can advocating Canadian constitutional law – as delineated by the Supreme Court of Canada – be disloyal to the Constitution? .The key point is this: in a 1998 ruling known as Reference Re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada laid out a legal and constitutional process whereby a province could become independent. It established certain constitutional principles that provide the foundation for the legitimacy of secession. The Court ruled on this issue because Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government had formally asked it about the legality of Quebec seceding unilaterally from Canada after that province’s 1995 independence referendum. .In its decision, the Supreme Court referred at least twice to a provincial “right” to pursue secession. In the first instance it stated, “The rights of other provinces and the federal government cannot deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others.”.Later, it essentially made the same point: “The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others.”.Ultimately, however, the key conclusion reached by the court was that, “a clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.” .That is, if a “clear majority” votes “on a clear question in favour of secession,” a province has the “democratic legitimacy” necessary to leave confederation, although the details must be negotiated with other key parties, especially the federal government..Clearly, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that there is a legitimate constitutional path to independence for Canadian provinces. Provided that someone advocates the path outlined by the Supreme Court, an accusation of “disloyalty” is false because he or she is following Canada’s established constitutional law. How could Canada’s constitutional law be considered “disloyal” to the constitution? .If advocating Alberta independence through a referendum is somehow disloyal, then the ringleader of this disloyalty is the Supreme Court of Canada. It was that court that determined and legitimized the constitutional process for pursuing independence. Federalists who consider a referendum on independence to be disloyal have a quarrel with the Supreme Court of Canada..Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard
Toronto Star columnist Gillian Steward wrote a critical piece on the Buffalo Declaration, mocking it as “riding the hobby horse of victimhood.” There are many responses that quickly come to mind for her run-of-the-mill, pro-centralist claims, but there’s one that needs special attention. .She writes that the four Conservative MPs who signed the Buffalo Declaration, “must have forgotten that they took an oath of loyalty to The Crown and Canada because the Buffalo Declaration warns that if the federal government doesn’t give Alberta exactly what it wants then a referendum on independence is ‘inevitable.’”.This is an accusation that has been made before: people who support Alberta independence are “disloyal.” Let’s take a closer look at that..First of all, the Oath of Allegiance every MP takes is as follows: “I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. — The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.” It’s very important to note, however, that this is not understood to be an oath to the monarch as a particular individual but as a figure representing the country, its constitution and political system. The oath is essentially a promise to uphold the constitution..The MPs who signed the Buffalo Declaration do not advocate Alberta independence, despite what Steward suggests. However, supposing she was correct, the question becomes: does an MP violate his or her Oath of Allegiance by supporting Alberta independence? Is support for Alberta independence through a referendum a violation of the Constitution? .According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the answer to that question is a clear ‘no’. So long as someone advocates the process for achieving independence outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada, he or she cannot be accurately accused of disloyalty. How can advocating Canadian constitutional law – as delineated by the Supreme Court of Canada – be disloyal to the Constitution? .The key point is this: in a 1998 ruling known as Reference Re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada laid out a legal and constitutional process whereby a province could become independent. It established certain constitutional principles that provide the foundation for the legitimacy of secession. The Court ruled on this issue because Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government had formally asked it about the legality of Quebec seceding unilaterally from Canada after that province’s 1995 independence referendum. .In its decision, the Supreme Court referred at least twice to a provincial “right” to pursue secession. In the first instance it stated, “The rights of other provinces and the federal government cannot deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others.”.Later, it essentially made the same point: “The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others.”.Ultimately, however, the key conclusion reached by the court was that, “a clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.” .That is, if a “clear majority” votes “on a clear question in favour of secession,” a province has the “democratic legitimacy” necessary to leave confederation, although the details must be negotiated with other key parties, especially the federal government..Clearly, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that there is a legitimate constitutional path to independence for Canadian provinces. Provided that someone advocates the path outlined by the Supreme Court, an accusation of “disloyalty” is false because he or she is following Canada’s established constitutional law. How could Canada’s constitutional law be considered “disloyal” to the constitution? .If advocating Alberta independence through a referendum is somehow disloyal, then the ringleader of this disloyalty is the Supreme Court of Canada. It was that court that determined and legitimized the constitutional process for pursuing independence. Federalists who consider a referendum on independence to be disloyal have a quarrel with the Supreme Court of Canada..Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard
