The Legal Process for Secession in Canada - LawNow Magazine

Open this photo in gallery:A woman walks near a polling station as advance voting for the Alberta referendum gets underway in Calgary, Tuesday. Todd Korol/ReutersCanada is often described as a divided country, and of course it is. No country as large and diverse as ours, built on two official languages, 10 provinces, several dozen Crown-Indigenous treaties and countless ethnicities, could fail to be. But lots of other countries have similar divisions, without arriving at the fix we are now in, with not one but two provinces pondering whether to secede from the union. What factors make Canada so peculiarly fissiparous? One is our failure to develop a coherent theory of nationhood, a vision of what we have in common as Canadians compelling enough to overcome the temptations of particularism. A second related factor: Canada, all but uniquely among the democracies, has provided for its own dissolution, in its political debates and constitutional jurisprudence. Most other countries’ constitutions forbid it, explicitly or implicitly. Third, and perhaps most immediately relevant: We have an electoral system that seems almost purpose-built to divide us.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Thanksgiving message comes a week ahead of Alberta’s vote on a separatism referendum. Prime Minister Mark Carney has used his Thanksgiving message to Canadians to call for national unity, a week before the oil-rich province of Alberta is set to vote on a proposal to secede from Canada. “We can’t build big things on fault lines,” Carney said in his video message on Monday, warning that Canada faces threats to its economy, security and way of life. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemslist 1 of 3US ban on $1bn of Canadian goods takes effect in Trump’s latest retaliationlist 2 of 3Canada to fast track oil pipeline meant to diversify economy away from USlist 3 of 3Secessionist party wins Quebec election in Canadaend of list“We have to be strong, and we are stronger together.”His comments come as Albertans head to the polls on October 19 to decide whether to begin the process of seeking independence. The initial referendum is non-binding, but it proposes to hold a binding vote in the future to decide whether Alberta should secede.

On Monday, Albertans vote on whether to stay in Canada or hold another binding referendum on quitting Canada. If the vote goes as polls suggest, a majority of Albertans will mark an X to stay in Confederation, and Premier Danielle Smith has said if that’s so, she expects everyone to accept it and move on. Leaders of the independence movement contest that. And political watchers are divided about whether separation — previously a fringe sentiment — will now be a prominent, permanent feature of Alberta’s political landscape, as in Quebec. Julian Castro-Rea, a political-science professor at the University of Alberta who studies the separation debates in Quebec and Alberta, believes as long as Alberta feels alienated from the Canadian capital — feeling that Ottawa benefits from Alberta’s resource economy without giving back — the movement will have fuel. “Even if the referendum is lost, the westernization will still be around, because it’s kind of a way which, traditionally, Albertans have related to the rest of Canada,” says Castro-Rea, who believes western alienation may remain indefinitely. Story continues below advertisement

It’s no secret the long-held Canadian consensus on immigration has fractured — pulled apart by a rapid increase in new arrivals post-pandemic and growing affordability challenges. Now, that fracture is starting to show up at the ballot box. The Parti Québécois won a minority mandate in Quebec on a platform that included promises of tighter immigration controls, which the party linked to protecting French culture and easing pressure on public services and housing. And when Albertans head to the polls Monday to vote on whether to hold a future referendum on separation from Canada, they’ll also be answering five separate questions on immigration being pushed by the government of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. Those questions include:— Should the province should have more say over economic immigration?— Should provincially funded services should be restricted to citizens, permanent residents and those with “Alberta-approved” immigration status? Story continues below advertisement

Welcome to Kernel Panic, a weekly newsletter by Lily Hay Newman and Matt Burgess from inside the new world of privacy and digital security. To receive this newsletter in your inbox each week, sign up here. Oh, Canada. The Great White North is the latest country to contemplate legislation that could essentially mandate backdoors and increase data retention in encrypted services. The proposed changes have prompted the Canadian anti-censorship company Psiphon VPN—which keeps millions of Iranians online during repressive internet shutdowns—to say it will leave the country if the bill passes. And Psiphon is not the only one. Encrypted messaging app Signal has said it would exit the Canadian market because the legislation would require unacceptable changes to its open source projects. Apple and Meta have criticized the bill, and DuckDuckGo and NordVPN say they would consider pulling their services, too. But as countries around the world contemplate similar legislation, even larger questions begin to emerge about which states or regions could differentiate themselves as being safe havens for privacy services if global hostility to encryption continues to rise.