Hon. Stéphane Dion, now serving as Diplomat in Residence, Université de Montréal/U de M

This piece is part of our Forum of Federations Series on National Unity and Canadian Federalism.

By Stéphane Dion

September 7, 2026

Having had the honour of sponsoring the Clarity Act in Parliament under the leadership of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, I can assure it is a law whose authors hoped it would never have to be used.

It is the law of the land; made so just in case another attempt at secession were to occur in Canada.

The purpose of this law, which received royal assent on June 29th, 2000, is well-described by its full title: ‘An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference’.

In this 1998 opinion, the Supreme Court confirmed that a provincial government does not have the right to unilaterally secede. A constitutional amendment would need to be properly negotiated for secession to be legal. The duty to enter into this negotiation can only arise from a clear majority in response to a clear question on secession, said the Court.

That’s exactly what I had been arguing from the moment I entered politics in 1996, starting with my first statement as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, reported by the Canadian Press on January 27, 1996: “If a strong majority of Quebecers unfortunately voted in favour of secession in response to a clear question, I believe that the rest of Canada has the moral obligation to negotiate the division of the territory.”

The Clarity Act is made up of only three succinct sections. The two first ones outline the requirements for the House of Commons to authorize the Canadian government to negotiate a province’s secession. It would be necessary for the House of Commons to conclude the following:

1. That the referendum question is clearly about secession.
2. That the referendum result shows a clear majority for secession.

The third section states that “an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada”.

Let’s consider these three requirements: a clear question, a clear majority, and a properly completed constitutional negotiation.

A Clear Question

In Canada, the government of a province can ask whatever question it wants in a referendum, on any possible topic. If the subject only concerns an issue under strict provincial authority – for example, the merging or splitting of municipalities – then the federal government is not involved. But in the case of secession, it means breaking up the country and, in practical terms, transferring all federal jurisdictions to the secessionist government of the province.

The federal government is asked to relinquish its constitutional responsibilities toward the Canadian citizens of that province. So of course, the duty of the federal government is to make sure that this is really what they want: to no longer be part of Canada. Such assurance can only be given if the question of secession is clearly posed to that population. The only way to know if people want to separate is to ask them clearly, both to avoid voter confusion and so that the result is viewed as legitimate.

The Clarity Act states that the question needs to clearly focus only on the will of the population to “cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state”.

During the Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995, ambiguous questions were asked, which had the effect of artificially inflating support for the Yes vote. The leaders of the No side, Claude Ryan in 1980 and Daniel Johnson in 1995, had denounced these questions as fraudulent.

That’s why the Clarity Act specifies that a question can’t be considered clear if it “merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada,” as was the case in the 1980 Quebec referendum.

Nor can a referendum question be considered clear if it “envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada,” as was the case in 1995.

If the provincial government goes ahead with a referendum based on a question that the House of Commons – after all the appropriate consultations required – has deemed unclear, the result of this referendum cannot lead to secession since the federal government won’t have the mandate to negotiate it.

It’s in everyone’s interest that the question asked is clear and accurately measures the will to secede.

A Clear Majority

The Supreme Court doesn’t suggest setting a majority threshold in advance as was the case in several self-determination referendums: Iceland: ¾ of votes cast; Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia: majority of eligible voters; Montenegro: 55% of votes cast; Nevis: 2/3 of votes cast. Rather, the Supreme Court recommends that the clarity of the majority should be assessed qualitatively in the actual circumstances of a referendum.

If, based on a question recognized by the House of Commons as clear, the referendum results in more Yes votes than No votes, the first to assess whether this majority is clear enough to lead to opening negotiations on secession is the government of the province in question.

It will need to consider whether this majority justifies such a serious and irreversible decision as secession and whether it is strong enough to hold throughout negotiations that will inevitably be long and very difficult. Indeed, nothing would be more uncomfortable for negotiators than finding themselves in a situation where the population had changed its mind, switching to a majority against secession.

We can assume that nobody with common sense would propose undertaking such a serious and difficult negotiation based on a judicial recount.

If the secessionist government believes it holds a clear majority, the House of Commons will make its own assessment, taking into account the size of the majority, voter turnout, and any other relevant considerations in the circumstances (foreign interference for example).

The Clarity Act requires the House of Commons to conduct an extensive consultation, which Members of Parliament will certainly take into account, including with “all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.”

A Constitutional Amendment

In the case of a clear majority in response to a clear question on secession, negotiations would be carried out to make the constitutional changes needed for the province’s secession to be legal.

These negotiations would be governed according to the principles identified by the Supreme Court: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities. Multiple issues raised by secession would have to be negotiated, including “the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.”

In short, in a world where almost all states, including democratic federations, see themselves as indivisible, Canada appears as one of the very few democracies that legally recognize their potential divisibility. But even in these few democratic states, secession isn’t seen as a unilateral right, but as a possibility that needs to be negotiated properly within the constitutional framework, resulting in an amendment to the Constitution.

Through the Clarity Act, legal secession is possible in Canada if the population of a province clearly wants to stop being part of the country. This presents separatists with their biggest challenge: convincing the people of their province that they would be happier if they stopped being Canadian. Quite a challenge, indeed!

Hon. Stéphane Dion is former Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and former Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He is currently Diplomat in Residence, Faculty of Arts and Science, Université de Montréal.