![Politics with Bill Casey [wordmark]](https://billcasey.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/politics_w_bill_casey_fira.png)
Can Alberta separate? Enter The Clarity Act of June 29th, 2000
In response to the 1995 Quebec referendum vote which came very close to approving separation by Quebec voters, the Government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien tabled the Clarity Bill, C-20 on December 13, 1999.
The Clarity Act passed Parliament and became the law of the land on June 29, 2000.
The Clarity Act applies to all provinces which are considering separation from Canada. Under the Clarity Act, there are two main conditions of any separation referendum which must be approved by a vote in the Parliament of Canada if any province holds a referendum to secede from Canada.
The Clarity Act passed Parliament and became the law of the land on June 29, 2000.
The Clarity Act applies to all provinces which are considering separation from Canada. Under the Clarity Act, there are two main conditions of any separation referendum which must be approved by a vote in the Parliament of Canada if any province holds a referendum to secede from Canada.
Condition #1 of the Clarity Act: A Clear Question
Parliament is to consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear. In other words, the referendum question must be clear and cannot be interpreted in several ways. The complex Quebec referendum question could have been interpreted to have several different meanings.
The Clarity Act also stipulates that the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the provincial legislature, formal resolutions by the Senate, aboriginal peoples representatives, and any other views it considers relevant.
If the consultations with the above listed parties conclude that the referendum question did not address their concerns adequately and clearly, the House of Commons could vote to decline to consider the separation by the province.
The Clarity Act is supported the Supreme Court of Canada which in 1998 ruled that no province has a legal right to separate on its own and there is no automatic right under international law for a province to separate.
In reference to Indigenous Peoples, the Supreme Court emphasized that the rights of minorities and existing constitutional rights must be protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Clarity Act also stipulates that the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the provincial legislature, formal resolutions by the Senate, aboriginal peoples representatives, and any other views it considers relevant.
If the consultations with the above listed parties conclude that the referendum question did not address their concerns adequately and clearly, the House of Commons could vote to decline to consider the separation by the province.
The Clarity Act is supported the Supreme Court of Canada which in 1998 ruled that no province has a legal right to separate on its own and there is no automatic right under international law for a province to separate.
In reference to Indigenous Peoples, the Supreme Court emphasized that the rights of minorities and existing constitutional rights must be protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Condition #2 of the Clarity Act: A Clear Majority
The second requirement of the Clarity Act says that the House of Commons shall consider and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province to cease to be part of Canada.
The referendum vote must be passed by a clear majority of the population of the province which holds the referendum, notjust a majority of those who voted.
Theoretically, if 50% of eligible voters in the province voted, and 51% of those voted to separate, 26% of the eligible voters of one province could break up the entire country. The Clarity Act gives the House of Commons the power to reject such a separation vote.
Again, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that provinces have no legal right to secede unilaterally under the Constitution of Canada.
The Supreme Court held that if all parties listed above did agree to separation of a province, then… secession would require a constitutional amendment agreed to by Canada and the provinces…, and that a province has noapplicable international law right to unilateral secession.
Having said all of that, if all of the above conditions of the Clarity Actand the Supreme Court are met, including a constitutional amendment, and all parties including minorities have been respected, then negotiations to separate could begin.
When that happens, it would be a good time to invest in Alberta law firms as this will be drawn out in the courts for years.
Perhaps we should try determine a better solution to address the concerns of Alberta.
Thanks for reading. Thank you, Mr. Chrétien.
Bill Casey,
Former MP for Cumberland Colchester
The referendum vote must be passed by a clear majority of the population of the province which holds the referendum, notjust a majority of those who voted.
Theoretically, if 50% of eligible voters in the province voted, and 51% of those voted to separate, 26% of the eligible voters of one province could break up the entire country. The Clarity Act gives the House of Commons the power to reject such a separation vote.
Again, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that provinces have no legal right to secede unilaterally under the Constitution of Canada.
The Supreme Court held that if all parties listed above did agree to separation of a province, then… secession would require a constitutional amendment agreed to by Canada and the provinces…, and that a province has noapplicable international law right to unilateral secession.
Having said all of that, if all of the above conditions of the Clarity Actand the Supreme Court are met, including a constitutional amendment, and all parties including minorities have been respected, then negotiations to separate could begin.
When that happens, it would be a good time to invest in Alberta law firms as this will be drawn out in the courts for years.
Perhaps we should try determine a better solution to address the concerns of Alberta.
Thanks for reading. Thank you, Mr. Chrétien.
Bill Casey,
Former MP for Cumberland Colchester