 
|
|
|
|
York University Scholars Assess Repercussions for Canadian Nation State as Parliament Returns Feb. 7 to Debate Clarity Act Governing Quebec Referendums
The Clarity Act, Bill C-20, seeks to clarify the legal framework for any future referendum on secession in Quebec. It follows the 1998 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that obliges the federal government to enter into sovereignty negotiations with the Quebec government in the event that a "clear" majority of Quebecers vote in favour of a "clear" question on secession. Parliamentary debate on the Clarity Act thus far has splintered the right, paralysed the left and cast a further pall on federal relations with the ruling party in Quebec.
Opponents of the bill say it has only served to fuel sovereigntist sentiment in Quebec. Indeed, the Parti QuČbČcois is expected to adopt a new sovereignty referendum action plan this weekend, using opposition to the Clarity Act as a rallying point. Supporters of the bill say the federal government has been handed a responsibility by the Supreme Court to clarify the terms of future discussions about Quebec sovereignty, and should pass the Clarity Act as quickly as possible, with some amendments. The bill is in second reading in the House of Commons and scheduled to move to a House committee on February 15 for clause-by-clause debate and amendment.
The following professors at York University can comment from a variety of perspectives on the terms and significance of the legislation:
Barbara Cameron is a professor of Political Science at York's Atkinson College. She is currently editing a book on The Supreme Court, Democracy and Quebec Secession. She characterizes the Clarity Act as "demagogy wrapped in the rule of law" and believes it will increase tensions between Quebecers and other Canadians, and undermine respect for the Supreme Court, especially in Quebec. She can be reached at (416) 650-8194, or at home (416) 657-6187.
Jamie Cameron, professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School specializing in constitutional matters, says in constitutional terms the Clarity Act is an unassailable response to the Supreme Court of Canada's Secession Reference ruling. She says the Supreme Court "invented" the duty to negotiate as a kind of compromise to Quebec, and the federal government has found a way to use that duty to its advantage. Cameron can be reached at (416) 736-5033, or at home (416) 759-5951.
Daniel Drache, professor of Political Science and director of the Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies at York, has written extensively on Quebec secession. He says the Clarity Act may have support outside Quebec, but is the source of a new political storm brewing in Quebec that ultimately will be counterproductive to resolving the sovereignty issue. He can be reached at (416) 736-5415, or at home (416) 921-3332.
Ian Greene, professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Arts, has published extensively on judicial behaviour and ethical politics in Canada, and can comment on the government's action in tabling the Clarity Act in relation to the Supreme Court decision obliging the government to negotiate secession. He can be reached at (416) 736-5260, or at home (416) 763-0766.
Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional lawyers, is Dean at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School. He says the Clarity Act is a wise attempt to lay down ground rules for a future referendum on Quebec separation. Dean Hogg can be reached at (416) 736-5035.
Marcel Martel, professor of History in the Faculty of Arts, specializes in the role of Quebec in Confederation and the relationship of Quebecers with Francophones outside of Quebec. He says the Clarity Act adds nothing positive to the debate about Quebec secession and merely diverts public attention away from more important issues in Canada, such as employment, social services cutbacks and child poverty. He can be reached at (416) 736-2100, ext. 30429, or at home (416) 588-0622.
Kenneth McRoberts, professor of Political Science and Principal of Glendon College, has written extensively about Quebec politics and "national unity" issues. He can comment on the extent to which the Clarity Act achieves its stated objective of "clarity" and upon its likely long-term effects in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. He is author of Quebec: Social Change and Political Crisis, now in its third edition with McClelland & Stewart and in French translation with Les ditions BorČal. He has co-edited with Patrick Monahan The Charlottetown Accord, the Referendum and the Future of Canada, and edited Beyond Quebec: Taking Stock of Canada. He can be reached at (416) 487-6727, or at home (416) 483-0842.
Patrick Monahan, professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School and frequent commentator on constitutional issues, wrote the first, and definitive, report on Quebec secession rules with Toronto lawyer Michael Bryant in June 1996, for the Toronto-based economic think tank, the C.D. Howe Institute. That report included a recommendation to refer questions on secession to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on constitutionality, which the government subsequently did. Monahan has authored a follow-up report in which he states that the Clarity Act is in the public interest of all Canadians, federalists and sovereigntists alike, but needs some amendment. The report, entitled: Doing the Rules: An Assessment of the Federal Clarity Act in Light of the Quebec Secession Reference, will be released by the C.D. Howe Institute on Tuesday, Feb. 8. Monahan can be reached at (416) 736-5568.
Roberto Perin, professor of History at Atkinson College, has written extensively on the history of French-English relations, the constitution and multiculturalism in Canada and Quebec. He speaks English, French and Italian and can be reached at (416) 736-2100, ext. 22476, or on Wednesday's only at ext. 88255, or at home (416) 536-3376.
Radha Persaud, professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Arts and at Atkinson College, has written extensively on the nature and role of judicial advisory opinions in Canadian politics. He notes that while a Supreme Court advisory opinion is technically non-binding, it has all the weight and force of a Court decision, but the nature of the advice may be problematic for intergovernmental conflict resolution or accommodation. He can comment on the nature of the Supreme Court's advice on the Quebec secession reference and its implications for federal-provincial relations as embodied in the Clarity Act. He has recently authored The political and legal uses of reference cases in Canadian federalism and constitutionalism, which is a chapter in the upcoming book, The Supreme Court, Democracy and Quebec Secession, edited by Barbara Cameron. He can be reached at (416) 736-2100, ext. 77110, or (416) 736-5128, or at home (416) 492-9687.
Arthur Siegel, professor of Social Science in the Faculty of Arts, is currently examining the Quebec referendum experiences of 1980 and 1995 in the context of the issues raised in the Supreme Court ruling on secession. He says that while the referendum, or self-determination plebiscite, has links to democratic principles dating to the French Revolution, in practice generally it has not been a democratic tool. Siegel appeared as an expert witness on this subject before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs 20 years ago. He is author of Politics and the Media in Canada (McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1996) which contains a chapter analysing the two Quebec referendums. He can be reached at (416) 736-2100, ext. 33430, or at home, (416) 495-0190.
Reg Whitaker, professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Arts, has written extensively on Quebec sovereignty and Canadian constitutional issues, and on federal national unity policy. He believes the Clarity bill offers a reasonable response to the sovereigntists' challenge, which recognizes the possibility of a negotiated secession while at the same time setting guidelines for such negotiations. He can be reached at (416) 736-2100, ext. 88833 or at home, (416) 484-7366.
Bernie Wolf, professor of Economics at York's Schulich School of Business, can comment on the economic implications of the debate and the effect that Clarity legislation might have on investor sentiment. He can be reached at (416) 736-2100, ext. 77933, or 736-5068, or at home, (416) 223-2794.
For further information, please contact:
Susan Bigelow |
|
| | Welcome to York University | Latest Release | Release Archives | |
![[to York's Home Page]](../../images/yorklogos.gif)
|
|
 |