Thomas Mulcair’s potentially costly Quebec mistake

November 19, 2013

Published in the Toronto Star on Monday, November 18, 2013

In a recent video, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair falsely interprets the Supreme Court of Canada on an issue that is both unsettling and important for all Canadians: how could a province lawfully secede from our country?

Mulcair took all of his cues from the flawed Bill C-470, a bill introduced into Parliament by Toronto NDP Member of Parliament Craig Scott. This bill would scrap the Clarity Act and change our laws so that secession could occur from just a single-vote difference between the Yes and the No sides in a referendum. So while the NDP’s own constitution requires a two-thirds majority to be changed, the party considers a single vote as sufficient to break up Canada.

This NDP bill contradicts the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling that a negotiation on secession would require a vote of “a clear majority on a clear question.” The test of a “clear majority” is important as the more a decision impacts on citizen rights and binds future generations, the more stringent democracy must be regarding the procedures required for such a decision to be adopted. Secession is a hugely consequential and probably irreversible action, one that affects future generations and has serious consequences for all Canadians.

Mulcair’s stance marks a shift within the NDP. In 2000, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent intervened in favour of the Clarity Act stating: “It’s now widely understood by ordinary citizens as well as experts that democracy entails much more than accepting 50 per cent plus one.” NDP politicians Roy Romanow, Bill Blaikie, Pat Martin and Gary Doer also strongly supported the Clarity Act.

In the video, Mulcair says Liberals should not be allowed to debate this issue unless we provide a number required for secession. He is once again misinterpreting the Supreme Court. The Court does not encourage us to try to set the threshold of a clear majority in advance: “it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes ‘a clear majority on a clear question’ in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken.”

This is very wise advice. There is a qualitative dimension to assessing clarity, which begs for a political assessment to be done in full understanding of the actual circumstances. Furthermore, setting any kind of threshold in advance would expose us to the risk of leaving such a serious decision as the choice of a country to the results of a judicial recount or the examination of rejected ballots. That would put us all in a very difficult, even senseless position.

To limit the chances of disagreement over the clarity of a majority, a secessionist government only has to avoid holding a referendum until it is reasonably assured that it will win it clearly. Unfortunately, Mulcair is encouraging them to do the opposite: to hold a referendum against the odds.

On November 25 voters from Brandon, Steinbach, Bourassa and Toronto Centre will have an opportunity: they can send a message that misrepresenting the Supreme Court of Canada for political opportunism is not acceptable. Every single NDP candidate must answer whether they agree with Mulcair that 50 per cent plus one is a reasonable threshold to break up Canada. And if 50 per cent plus one does represent a clear majority, then can they please explain what would be an unclear majority?

Stéphane Dion

MP, Saint-Laurent–Cartierville
Liberal critic responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs