In the wake of the 1995 Quebec referendum on independence, the federal government sent a reference case to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking the court to rule on whether — according to Canadian or international law — Quebec could unilaterally declare independence from Canada..In the Secession Reference decision of 1998, the court ruled that no, Quebec could not unilaterally declare independence..But — and this is a very big but — if Quebec held a referendum on independence with a clear question, and a clear majority of people voted in favour, then the federal government would be obliged to negotiate with Quebec over that province’s independence..In other words, according to the Supreme Court, Canada’s constitutional law includes a legal and peaceful pathway for a province to separate, as long as the right process is followed..The court provided the basic constitutional principles, but left it to Parliament to spell out the details of the process. Therefore in 2000, Parliament passed the Clarity Act to clearly explain those details..Nevertheless, some people claim even if Alberta followed the proper legal process and fulfilled the terms necessary to pursue independence, the federal government would not allow Alberta to leave because Alberta is such a major source of its revenue..However, such a view ignores political and constitutional reality..According to the Supreme Court, the federal government would have no legal or constitutional justification to deny a province the right to pursue secession if a clear majority of the province’s citizens voted for independence. As it explained in the Secession Reference decision, “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.”.One of the key factors in the success of secession would be international recognition. If other countries recognize a political community as independent, it will be treated as a legitimate entity in world affairs. Were the federal government to ignore a clear referendum result, the international community would frown on such a violation of Canada’s own constitutional law. As a result, the province trying to secede would likely receive sympathy and support from the international community..As the court put it, any political actor “that does not act in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles puts at risk the legitimacy of its exercise of its rights, and the ultimate acceptance of the result by the international community.” At the same time, “compliance by the seceding province with such legitimate obligations would weigh in favour of international recognition.”.In short, then, the “ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of secession having regard to, amongst other facts, the conduct of Quebec and Canada, in determining whether to grant or withhold recognition.”.Essentially, that means if the federal government did not conduct itself in accordance with Canada’s constitutional law and arbitrarily denied a province its right to pursue secession in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the international community would likely side with the seceding province. Independence would then be achieved as a result of international support. Democracy would prevail..As mentioned, the Supreme Court denied the validity of a unilateral declaration of independence, but put in place a constitutional process for a province to achieve independence. If the federal government denies the validity of the latter, it has in effect denied the validity of the former as well. One way or another, the federal government will be forced to accept the legitimate democratic will of a province that wants to secede..There’s also another significant factor in Alberta’s favour. In 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. Soon afterwards, Canada recognized Kosovo as an independent country. In other words, Canada officially accepted the legitimacy of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence..According to constitutional lawyer Milan Markovic in a column for the Globe and Mail, this puts the Canadian government in a conundrum. On the one hand, it won’t recognize a unilateral declaration of independence from Quebec, but it will accept such a declaration from other jurisdictions. As Markovic puts it, “Canada must somehow reconcile its acceptance of Kosovo’s secession based on such a declaration with its claim that a similar action by Quebec would be contrary to international law.”.By supporting a unilateral declaration of independence from a European entity, Canada has weakened its credibility in opposing secession movements at home in the eyes of the international community..Additionally, in 2010 the World Court ruled Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence did not violate international law. Markovic writes, “After the court’s Kosovo decision, it is naive to believe that the Clarity Act will prevent Quebec from unilaterally declaring its independence from Canada.”.The bottom line is that Alberta’s future is in the hands of its citizens. If Albertans want to remain in Canada, its political status will stay the same. But if they vote in a clearly-worded referendum for independence, negotiations for such an outcome will begin..Were the federal government to ignore Canada’s constitutional law in such a case, that would only make the need for independence even clearer: Who would want to stay in a country that was ruled by such a lawless, anti-democratic government?
In the wake of the 1995 Quebec referendum on independence, the federal government sent a reference case to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking the court to rule on whether — according to Canadian or international law — Quebec could unilaterally declare independence from Canada..In the Secession Reference decision of 1998, the court ruled that no, Quebec could not unilaterally declare independence..But — and this is a very big but — if Quebec held a referendum on independence with a clear question, and a clear majority of people voted in favour, then the federal government would be obliged to negotiate with Quebec over that province’s independence..In other words, according to the Supreme Court, Canada’s constitutional law includes a legal and peaceful pathway for a province to separate, as long as the right process is followed..The court provided the basic constitutional principles, but left it to Parliament to spell out the details of the process. Therefore in 2000, Parliament passed the Clarity Act to clearly explain those details..Nevertheless, some people claim even if Alberta followed the proper legal process and fulfilled the terms necessary to pursue independence, the federal government would not allow Alberta to leave because Alberta is such a major source of its revenue..However, such a view ignores political and constitutional reality..According to the Supreme Court, the federal government would have no legal or constitutional justification to deny a province the right to pursue secession if a clear majority of the province’s citizens voted for independence. As it explained in the Secession Reference decision, “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.”.One of the key factors in the success of secession would be international recognition. If other countries recognize a political community as independent, it will be treated as a legitimate entity in world affairs. Were the federal government to ignore a clear referendum result, the international community would frown on such a violation of Canada’s own constitutional law. As a result, the province trying to secede would likely receive sympathy and support from the international community..As the court put it, any political actor “that does not act in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles puts at risk the legitimacy of its exercise of its rights, and the ultimate acceptance of the result by the international community.” At the same time, “compliance by the seceding province with such legitimate obligations would weigh in favour of international recognition.”.In short, then, the “ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of secession having regard to, amongst other facts, the conduct of Quebec and Canada, in determining whether to grant or withhold recognition.”.Essentially, that means if the federal government did not conduct itself in accordance with Canada’s constitutional law and arbitrarily denied a province its right to pursue secession in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the international community would likely side with the seceding province. Independence would then be achieved as a result of international support. Democracy would prevail..As mentioned, the Supreme Court denied the validity of a unilateral declaration of independence, but put in place a constitutional process for a province to achieve independence. If the federal government denies the validity of the latter, it has in effect denied the validity of the former as well. One way or another, the federal government will be forced to accept the legitimate democratic will of a province that wants to secede..There’s also another significant factor in Alberta’s favour. In 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. Soon afterwards, Canada recognized Kosovo as an independent country. In other words, Canada officially accepted the legitimacy of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence..According to constitutional lawyer Milan Markovic in a column for the Globe and Mail, this puts the Canadian government in a conundrum. On the one hand, it won’t recognize a unilateral declaration of independence from Quebec, but it will accept such a declaration from other jurisdictions. As Markovic puts it, “Canada must somehow reconcile its acceptance of Kosovo’s secession based on such a declaration with its claim that a similar action by Quebec would be contrary to international law.”.By supporting a unilateral declaration of independence from a European entity, Canada has weakened its credibility in opposing secession movements at home in the eyes of the international community..Additionally, in 2010 the World Court ruled Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence did not violate international law. Markovic writes, “After the court’s Kosovo decision, it is naive to believe that the Clarity Act will prevent Quebec from unilaterally declaring its independence from Canada.”.The bottom line is that Alberta’s future is in the hands of its citizens. If Albertans want to remain in Canada, its political status will stay the same. But if they vote in a clearly-worded referendum for independence, negotiations for such an outcome will begin..Were the federal government to ignore Canada’s constitutional law in such a case, that would only make the need for independence even clearer: Who would want to stay in a country that was ruled by such a lawless, anti-democratic government?
