Background
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the right to take up residency in any province and also guarantees equal benefit of the law. Canada is also a divisible
federation. Following the 1998 Secession Reference of the Supreme Court, a federal role for any provincial referendum on secession
was legislated in the year 2000 with the Clarity Act.
Former Minister for Intergovernmental
Affairs Stephane Dion was, with retired Prime Minister Jean Chretien, the prime mover for the Clarity Act. He called
these developments: "Turning points in the history of the Canadian federation."
In
a divisible federation, and especially in one that guarantees
mobility rights, where one is born is important because the non-resident
population of a seceding province is potentially more severely affected than the general population.
The Clarity Act requires that the House of
Commons decide on the clarity of the result of any referendum on secession. However, at present they will only consider
the voices of those who
happen to be residents of the province at the time of a referendum on secession. This violates S.15 the Charter by not
providing equal benefit of the law to the non-resident population of Quebec, or any other province holding a referendum on
sovereignty .
The goal of
the Association for Non Resident Voters is to gain, for those born there, the right to vote in any referendum proposing the
secession of that province. No claim is made to participate in their regular elections.
Our arguments, more fully developed in this website, are based on five considerations:
1) Legitimate interests - Canadians born in a province that becomes a sovereign nation are
different from and at greater risk than those born elsewhere;
2) Identity issues - who is a Quebecer, an Albertan, a Newfoundlander for the purposes of
secession, and who should decide that question;
3) Charter issues - why must we lose the right to vote on the most important question we might
ever be asked democratically, when we exercise our constitutionally-protected right to move to and work in another province;
4) Fairness
issues - non-residency arises in various ways, including voluntary, out of practical necessity, and involuntary. It is unfair
to the non-resident population to deny them the right to vote on the secession of the province of their birth from the country
- Canada - of their birth; and
5) Public policy issues - non-resident voting rights help build a stronger nation.
Federal-provincial duality is at the heart of Canadianism. It finds expression in our political institutions, to
be sure. But it is also an important source of individual identity. How often does one not hear the expresssion "I am
proud to be a Quebecer and a Canadian too." How often does one not hear "Albertans are committed to Canada." In a divisible
federation we are born Albertan or Quebecer or Newfoundlander in the same personal sense that we are born Canadian.
In the context of the divisibility of the Canadian federation and the right of a province to secede, we believe constitutionally entrenching federal-provincial
identity at the level of each individual helps reconcile the sense of Canadian nationalism with provincial nationalism
in a way that brings us together rather than by driving us into this or that camp, weaving a stronger national fabric in
the process.
Canada's voting laws are based on residency. This may have been
an adequate, if imperfect, approach when provinces exercised only constitutionally delimited local powers, but are not
when provinces can also attain full international sovereignty.
Residentially-based restrictions for a vote on secession have not been
demonstrably justified for our free and democratic society, contrary to Section 1 of the Charter. These are rights recognized
by the United Nations for votes on secession in other countries, and which Canada supported when it was a member of the
Security Council at the time of a referendum on secession in another country.
The House of Commons violates S.15 the Charter by not providing equal benefit of the law to
the non-resident population of Quebec. Only the votes of those who happen to be resident in Quebec, or any other province,
when that province holds a referendum to secede, will be considered under the Clarity Act. However, there is no demonstrable
reason why the views of the non-resident population must be excluded from consideration by the House of Commons when it deals
with the clarity of the result on any referendum on secession. This residentially-based discrimination violates S.15 of the
Charter, and its necessity has not been demonstrably justified, which is also in violation of S.1 of the Charter.
We also believe that ensuring that the voices of the non-resident population of any province
proposing to secede are heard is good public policy that helps promote national unity. It does this by promoting a citizenry
that gains the opportunity, through the Charter guarantee in S.6 of interprovincial mobility, to learn the points of view of those who live elsewhere
in Canada. This learning fosters understanding, which helps to defeat the isolationist preferences of sovereignists. A
sense of isolationism is critical to the sovereignist cause, because it facilitates creating the "them and us" mentality
they need in order to succeed.
The present situation forces Canadians to choose between which right do they want to protect
- their mobility right to travel and live in other parts of Canada, or the right to vote on the secession of the province
of their birth. This is both unfair and unwise.
It is unfair because it makes hostages of those Canadians fighting to preserve Canada's
unity by forcing them to stay in a province whose government threatens to hold a referendum from time to time, in order to
preserve the voting balance.
It is unwise because the voting balance is precarious in the case of Quebec. The 1995 Referendum
was won those who believe in Canada by a mere 50,000 votes, less than 1% of those presently eligible to vote. Recent polls
suggest support for a referendum on sovereignty is waning. If the perception grows that the sovereignty movement has been
defeated, and enough of those "hostages" feel liberated and decide to exercise their mobility rights, the balance could
be seriously threatened, handing victory to the sovereignists on a proverbial silver platter. The reason is a provincial election
can be held at any time on short notice, and the election of a sovereignist government could be quickly followed by another
referendum. It would in practice be virtually impossible, and possibly exact an unacceptably high price, to expect
those liberated "hostages" to give up their employment in other provinces and return in order to vote. In the case of
the province of Quebec, which requires a one-year residency before being allowed to vote in any election or referendum, any
change of government and ensuing referendum could happen in less than one year. Therefore exercising their mobility rights
could result in the actual loss of their voting rights, even if they wished to return in order to vote.
Recognizing non-resident voting rights on secession questions would prevent that from happening.
That is not only fair, it is good public policy.
Our predecessor organization, the
Association for Non Resident Quebecers, introduced these and other arguments before the Legislative and Senate Special Committees
on Bill C-20, the Clarity Bill, in February and June, 2000.
To read either the Clarity Act
or our presentation to those committees, click on the appropriate link in the sidebar to the left.
Contact us at:
Association for Non Resident Voters
