End Federal Power To Judge Secession
An Act to repeal the Clarity Act
Summary
This bill repeals the Clarity Act (2000), which set out how the federal government assesses the clarity of any provincial referendum question on secession and whether a clear majority exists to trigger negotiations. Without that Act, there would be no federal statutory test for clarity or majority thresholds; guidance would rest on the Supreme Court’s 1998 Secession Reference and political judgment. The preamble affirms the Québécois as a nation and asserts Quebec’s right, under its own laws, to consult its population and set referendum wording. The effect is to remove Parliament’s formal role in judging clarity while leaving broader constitutional obligations intact.
- Repeals the Clarity Act in full.
- Eliminates Parliament’s statutory authority to determine referendum question clarity and majority thresholds.
- Affirms Quebec’s capacity to set referendum wording under provincial law.
- Leaves the Supreme Court’s Secession Reference as non-statutory guidance.
Builder Assessment
Principles Analysis
✗
Canada should aim to be the world's most prosperous country.
Repeal increases constitutional uncertainty that can dampen investment and national economic confidence, undermining broad-based prosperity.
—
Promote economic freedom, ambition, and breaking from bureaucratic inertia (reduce red tape).
Changes a constitutional referendum framework rather than business regulation; any effect on economic freedom is indirect and uncertain.
✗
Drive national productivity and global competitiveness, including removing interprovincial trade barriers and improving labour mobility (one country, one market).
Heightened political risk and potential fragmentation can deter long-term productivity-enhancing investments and talent retention.
✗
Grow exports of Canadian products and resources, and move up the value chain by processing resources domestically rather than exporting them raw.
Risks to internal market stability and supply chains could harm exporters’ planning and Canada’s trade reputation.
✗
Encourage investment, innovation, and resource development.
Legal ambiguity around secession processes raises risk premiums, discouraging capital deployment and innovation decisions.
✗
Deliver better public services at lower cost (government efficiency).
Removing statutory clarity may lead to more litigation and intergovernmental disputes, increasing costs and diverting focus from service delivery.
—
Reform taxes to incentivize work, risk-taking, and innovation.
No direct tax policy changes are proposed.
✗
Focus on large-scale prosperity, not incrementalism.
Centers on constitutional politics rather than a growth agenda, and introduces macro-level uncertainty that could hinder large-scale prosperity.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]
PartyMember of Parliament
StatusOutside the Order of Precedence
Last updatedN/A
TopicsSocial Issues, Indigenous Affairs
Parliament45