I recently heard that the claim that it is legal under Canadian law for a province to secede from Canada. In looking in to this claim, I confess I don’t understand. I can easily tell that this is a controversial question that has been finessed by the federal side.
As I gather, it is apparently legal for a province to hold a popular vote and if a majority of those voting are in favor of secession, the federal government is obligated to undertake negotiations. But the only way for a province to actually secede is through a constitutional amendment which requires a favorable though not unanimous vote by the entire country. So, is the answer yes? Is there any mechanism for a province to leave the national government without the rest of Canada agreeing?
I need the wisdom of our Canadian dopers to figure this one out.
Of course, if I understand the situation correctly, then this form of secession is legal in any country. All it takes is enough popular support throughout the country to change the basic law to carve out a chunk of the country.
AFAIK, there are two big things that cover this. The first was the 1998 Supreme Court of Canada Reference regarding the legality of a province separating. This isn’t legally binding as it is a reference question, not a legal case, but I’d expect it to be influential. Anyway, in that case, if I’m reading the wikipedia article correctly, a province could only unilaterally succeed from Canada if its people have not had the ability to exercise its right to self-determination within the state. Furthermore they concluded that Quebec would not qualify, as Quebecers have been able to meaningfully participate in Canadian affairs.
However, there is also the 2000 Clarity Act, in which the federal government laid out the terms under which the federal government would negotiate the succession of a province. For example, it requires that the referendum question lay out a “clear” question with explicit reference to succession.
Well, there is de facto and de jure. I do know that Jacques Parizeau was prepared to declare independence on the night of the 1995 referendum had he won. Although the actual referendum called for a year of negotiation, he was about to announce that the negotiations had already failed.
Then what? No one knows and the idea of independence seems to have faded. But I don’t think there would have been any Fort Sumters and it would have succeeded de facto whatever the law was.
Of course, it failed by 49.4 to 50.6 and Parizeau blamed the “ethnic” vote. He meant all the non-French Canadians and he was obviously right about that. Just that he considered us second class citizens who probably shouldn’t have been allowed to vote.
Not only would an Independent Quebec be a not part of the Commonwealth, it would be a republic. I know a few people who don’t speak French at all and would gladly move there to be “free” of the monarchy.
(Which is somewhat ridiculous. The monarchy has no actual impact on our day to day lives, other than being a face on our money and the terms like Royal Assent for the passage of laws. " The Crown" is our executive branch of government, but its more of a rubber stamp than the US having the President sign a law passed by Congress.)
Technically, it’s the “Commonwealth of Nations.” The term "British Commonwealth hasn’t been used in some time.
I doubt very much that Quebec would want to join, but I see no reason why it could not. If an independent Quebec became a republic; well, there are republics that are members of the Commonwealth. Wikipedia has a list of current and former members at this link.
But as I said, Quebec probably wouldn’t want to join. The Commonwealth doesn’t actually do much that the average person can see in their daily life. It’s not an economic bloc; trade treaties are negotiated between members just as they are between a member and a non-member. There is no free movement of people between Commonwealth members; passports are always necessary, and visas are required in some cases; and immigrants from other Commonwealth members get no special treatment (e.g. “head of the line” service) as far as I know. An independent Quebec would gain no advantage or influence by joining.
About the only way the Commonwealth makes itself felt to the average person, is every few years when the Commonwealth Games (like the Olympics) occur, and when overseas war graves make the news somehow (they are tended to by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission).
Seems more likely Quebec would be welcomed into the Great Mother, America, like Oregon and a number of other once separate countries the Yankees took over.
In this decision the Supreme Court also ruled that if a Canadian province voted for independence, the federal government couldn’t ignore it and it would have to lead to good-faith negotiations. Basically, the Supreme Court realized that independence of a Canadian province is a political question, not a legal one. It’s not so much that it is legal for a Canadian province to secede, but rather that if there is enough political will to do so, it will happen.
As for the OP, yes, any country can be split in several parts by changing the constitution. Singapore actually became independent against its will by being expelled from Malaysia.