One of the major attractions of Dawson City (of which there are many) is Diamond Tooth Gerties gambling hall (1). I was thrilled to find it, as I’d heard all about it from my best high school buddy Jason Campbell. His mother, Gillian Campbell (2), was, and still is, a well-known entertainer who plays Klondike Kate”?back then in the Yukon, and since then all over the world. One afternoon I found myself playing Blackjack while listening to the tunes of old-time piano; dancing girls plying their trade on the raised stage before the crowds. At that time, Diamond Tooth Gerties was one of the only gambling halls in Canada that was licensed to serve alcohol to clients while they sat at the tables, and I took great advantage of the service. I was soon plastered beyond my ability to see the cards clearly, but I continued playing well into the night. At some point I cashed in my chips and staggered toward my motel room along the dusty road that was lit by the midnight sun. My pockets bulged with $250 more than I’d arrived with. The next day I thought to myself: “If I can win $250 when I’m totally intoxicated, just imaging how much I can win if I stay sober!” Back to the gambling hall I went, but this time I vowed not to drink a drop of alcohol. I kept my bargain with myself and left the hall late that night. I was stone-sober and had $850 less than I’d arrived with (damn debit cards). In 1986 $850 represented two weeks wages for me, but I was a single twenty-one year old and relatively care-free. I’m pretty sure I’ll recover emotionally from that loss any year now.

I’ve learned over the decades that the lure of quick riches is almost always illusory; shiny bars of gold most often turn out to be electro-plated lead. Even so, there is something about glittery things that ignites a passion in the belly of most people, including me. Many of the permanent Yukon residents that I met were infected with gold fever. Over and over I heard people talking about their gold claims: “if I can just raise enough money to work my claim, I’ll be rich.” It was the favorite mantra of the bulldozer operators who worked the project-fire that we would eventually be assigned to. After returning to BC from the Yukon, Bruce Martin and I bought gold-pans and trekked up the Goat River in search of placer gold. We had no luck panning gold, but the trip was a lot of fun.

These days, I still have an interest in Gold, but from the perspective of an investor. I see gold as the only stable currency in today’s volatile economy”?one wracked with the uncertainty of war & terrorism; one where the world’s countries have long abandoned the stability of national currencies grounded in the gold standard; one where national debts of formerly wealthy countries are in the trillions of dollars (3); one where consumers collectively owe more than their net worth; one where governments, such as the United States, intentionally try to undermine their own currencies by printing billions of (worthless) paper dollars so as to gain a trade advantage under globalization; one where governmental monetarist policies no longer work to stimulate economic growth. Unfortunately, many pundits feel as though a major world depression is unavoidable now, and that it will happen sooner than later. US Member of Congress Ron Paul wrote a paper that clearly explains the situation facing the US and the world (4). Should that eventuality come to pass, conventional stock-based investments will be no safer than they were in 1929 & gold may be a safe monetary haven. However, not all gold-related investments are safe. Those who experienced the wild ride of the Bre-X Fraud can attest to that (5). I recommend that those who wish to invest in gold do so through well-diversified and established precious-metals funds (6).

While I’m a far more conservative investor than I was at Diamond Tooth Gerties gambling hall all those years ago, my eye still wanders to the speculative glitter once in a while. When the first reports surfaced regarding the discovery of diamonds in Canada’s Arctic, I was intrigued but not convinced that the reports were bona fide. I often wonder what an investment of a few thousand dollars in pre-production Canadian diamond mines would be worth today. Now Canada has a well-established and well respected Diamond mining sector that is obviously stable and long-term (7).

On August 25, 1998 Canada’s first emerald discovery was made by a geologist of Expatriate Resources in the Yukon Territory. November 22, 2002 a 100% option agreement for the discovery at Regal Ridge was completed between True North Gems Inc. (10) and Expatriate, giving complete ownership of the Regal Ridge emeralds to the former. True North Gems closed its IPO and on November 25, 2002 began trading under the symbol TGX on the TSX Venture Exchange. In addition to the emeralds, in 2003 True North Gems discovered a new variety of aquamarine unique to Canada which it has named the “True Blue” Beryl (8). When first traded publicly, the stock came out at $1.30; it traded at $0.80 on the day of writing this article.

Do these discoveries amount to the nascence of a prosperous new emerald, “True Blue” mining industry in Canada? Or, will it turn out to be another Bre-X style disappointment. I’m not yet convinced either way, but it is an intriguing addition to the ongoing lore of Canadian gold and gems.

Table of pictures
1) Wayne Benedict (left) & Bruce Martin posing before of the Yukon River.
2) Diamond Tooth Gerties gambling hall in Dawson City, Yukon.

References
1) http://www.tourdawsoncity.com/Attractions/diamond.htm
2) http://www.gilliancampbellshow.com
3) http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock
4) http://goldinfo.net/ronpaul1.html
5) http://www.businessweek.com/1997/15/b352267.htm
6) http://globefunddb.theglobeandmail.com/gishome/plsql/gis.process_fr?fr_param1=precious&fr_mode=FUNDNAME&pi_universe=PUBLIC_FUND
7) http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa101599-2.htm
8) http://www.truenorthgems.com/s/Home.asp
9) http://www.truenorthgems.com/s/photos_trueblue.asp

Wayne E. Benedict has a varied career history and strong links to the Canadian labour movement. He is working part-time toward his Bachelor of Human Resources and Labour Relations at AU. He is a fulltime first-year student of the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. For a more detailed writer bio, see The Voice writers’ feature page under ‘About The Voice’. If you would like to send article-feedback to Wayne, he can be reached at wayneben@sasktel.net

Distributed-weighting of course credit evaluation is not a luxury enjoyed by students of law. Many law schools require the writing of final exams weighted 100% of the course”?the mark you get on your final is the one you are stuck with for the entire course. As readers will recall, in addition to my part-time studies through AU, I am a fulltime law student at the University of Saskatchewan. I can assure you that I am looking at April in an entirely different light this year; the mere word is enough to send stress-related tremors twitching across my face.

Before law school I used to wonder what exams would be like in different disciplines”?law, medicine, master’s programs, etc. My other undergraduate studies largely entail a process of memorization and exam-time regurgitation of the recalled material. The learning and evaluation process of law is far removed from my other post-secondary experiences, or any of my prior life experiences for that matter. What follows is a condensed version of my first-year experiences learning the law over the past seven months.

From the very first day of classes, we were assigned copious amounts of readings in each of five courses. One course (Constitutional Law: Division of Powers) was a single-term 3-credit course, while the four others (Property Law, Contracts Law, Tort Law, & Criminal Law) were full-year 6-credit courses. The readings mainly consisted of hundreds of court decisions (cases); some dating from as far back as the 1600s, and arising from various English common law-based jurisdictions”?Canada, USA, Australia, etc. From these cases we were to extract certain “legal rules”. The students were given this task without any practical instruction on how this was supposed to be accomplished”?sink or swim, basically. In addition to this momentous task, additional mandatory pass/fail requirements were integrated into the program: a legal research & writing program requiring successful completion of four assignments (writing of a closed memo, an open memo and a factum, plus the delivery of an oral argument before a moot court); an alternate dispute resolution program (class-integrated components plus participation in a mock criminal sentencing circle). Our class of 110 students lost 6 during the first term.

In December we were given our first evaluations consisting of a 100% final exam in Constitutional Law: Division of Powers and 20% mid-term exams in three of the four 6-credit courses (the legal research & writing program was integrated into one of the 6-credit courses amounting to 40% of the final mark in that course). In order to write law exams, students are expected to make study-notes from the hundreds of cases that they read and take them into the exam-room. The exam consists of a fictitious fact scenario and the student must apply the legal rules from their study notes (hoping that the correct rules were extracted from the cases) to the facts given and arrive at the likely legal result if the case were to go before a judge. The exam is strictly timed and the students rush to spew forth as much law as possible in the time allotted”?many, if not most, run out of time. The answers are much like: “If this, then that. But if that, then this. So it is most likely that bla bla bla: Maybe that:”

The results of the exams largely determine ones level of success in law school and the stress they impose is immense. There are rumors of law students falling ill or fainting during exams. I can certainly imagine the stories to be true, as I have suffered stress like never before over the last seven months”?nightmares, insomnia, fatigue, panic attacks, non-clinical depression, etc. In less than two weeks my final law exams begin. Over a period of 15 days, I will write three 80% finals, one 60% final, and a 100% final in Constitutional Law: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s safe to say that April 2004 and the weeks leading up to it will be the most stressful period that I’ve ever faced in my life (and that is saying a lot). I am very much looking forward to taking a few AU courses over the summer. After this experience, I’m pretty sure they will seem a bit of a rest.

To view law exams from previous years see: http://www.usask.ca/law/files/index.php?id=160

Wayne E. Benedict has a varied career history and strong links to the Canadian labour movement. He is working part-time toward his Bachelor of Human Resources and Labour Relations at AU. He is a fulltime first-year student of the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. For a more detailed writer bio, see The Voice writers’ feature page under ‘About The Voice’. If you would like to send article-feedback to Wayne, he can be reached at wayneben@sasktel.net

I’ve often read and heard about the supposed damage that “broken” homes impart upon the children of divorce. Although I know many offspring of divorced parents, I do not purport to speak for others; however, I believe that my personal experience contradicts mainstream opinion on this subject. My father and I settled in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, while my mother and siblings remained in its interior. From the time I was eight years old and thereafter, my sisters and I would spend a month in the summer with my mother and her new husband; and a month in Vancouver with our father. I suggest that every person can point to more than one example of dissatisfaction with their childhood and upbringing (childhood and pubertal angst is part of the human condition) and I am no exception. But when I compare the childhood that I did have with the one that I likely would have had if my parents had remained married, I shudder to imagine what all of our lives would have been like.

Some people are simply too dissimilar to be able to co-relate amicably; others are polarized so that the question is raised as to how they ever came to be together in the first place. My parents fall squarely into the latter category. Proponents of “marriage until death do us part” would have had my parents stay together “for the good of the family and children”. I cannot disagree more strenuously with such a simplistic, and arguably religion-based view. While there were admitted difficulties related to growing up in a single-parent family, I suggest that growing up in the midst of World War Three would have been far more damaging to my developing psyche. Personally, I am very happy that my parents chose to divorce rather that stay together and subject themselves and their children to a life of dissatisfaction, resentment, and discord; all in the name of the institution of “marriage”.

I am certainly not advocating divorce. To the contrary, I believe that parents should do all that is reasonably possible to make marriage work; both for each other, as well as for their children. But in some cases, I suggest, the damage of remaining together far outweighs the damage of moving apart”?for all concerned. In my case, my parent’s divorce was the right choice for them and me (I won’t speak for my siblings); and it imparted an added benefit to me. When my mother remarried, I gained a wonderful second father, and now my children have another grandfather. I consider myself one of the fortunate progeny of divorce.

Wayne E. Benedict has a varied career history and strong links to the Canadian labour movement. He is working part-time toward his Bachelor of Human Resources and Labour Relations at AU. He is a fulltime first-year student of the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. For a more detailed writer bio, see The Voice writers’ feature page under ‘About The Voice’. If you would like to send article-feedback to Wayne, he can be reached at wayneben@sasktel.net

In 1948 my father was hired onto the Canadian Pacific Railway and trained as a telegrapher. Shortly thereafter he took his skills to the Canadian National Railway and worked there as a telegrapher and station agent for over twenty years. In order to hear the tapping of the telegraph over the bustling noise of a mid-twentieth century railway station, the company would mount a wooden box on the wall beside the telegrapher’s desk. The receiver was mounted within the box and the operator would place his ear against an opening in the box while receiving telegraphs. The practice was notoriously hard on the ears of telegraphers as the clacking was concentrated and amplified mere inches from the ear. Dad had many other jobs that contributed to the cumulative damage of his hearing, which has left him more than a little hard of it today (and for the last few decades, if the truth be told).

Last Christmas I listened from another room as my father and my son attempted to carry on a conversation. It was almost humorous as the two simultaneously conversed about absolutely nothing in common. It was a perfect imitation of the stereotypical hearing-impaired skit: “Grandpa, do you like Christmas?”: “Yes, I am making breakfast”: I am hardly one to talk, however, as I also quit school early in order to enter the workforce. Among a few of my very loud jobs were: relief-operator in a bottle factory; construction worker; chainsaw operator; helicopter-attack forest fire-fighter; and locomotive engineer. Although I always wore hearing protection while working, the noise levels were so intense and ever-present that my hearing was permanently damaged; although not nearly as badly as my father’s. Still, my wife and I have suffered miscommunications as she “speaks loudly” knowing it necessary to be heard, while I receive the message as her “yelling” at me again:

Just before I severed my employment relationship with BC Rail last fall, I opened a hearing loss claim with the British Columbia Worker’s Compensation Board. Ultimately, my claim was accepted and I received my bilateral hearing aids on Friday March 5, 2004. These are not your grandfather’s hearing aids; they are state-of-the-art hi-tech wonders that are barely visible due to their small size and chameleon-like colour (I chose to pay a sizeable deductible in order to procure this model). They are digital and programmed by computer to exactly match the loss that I have suffered in each decibel-range of each individual ear. There is no volume control, as they are pre-set to bring my hearing as close as possible to normal in every range. In the event of a loud noise, there is an automatic internal switch that shuts them off before the noise reaches my ear-drums. I had no idea what to expect from hearing aids, but after only two days of wearing them I am ecstatic. I noticed the difference immediately and while walking across the audiologist’s parking lot to my vehicle, I found that I could hear sounds that I didn’t know I was missing: the change rattling in my pocket; the rustle of my coat; the squeaking of my shoes: Yesterday I wore them all day at a conference and I wasn’t cupping my hands around my ears in order to gather the sound of the speaker, as was previously my habit.
I have convinced my father to submit his own claim for work-related hearing loss (which he has done) because I know that the quality of his every-day life will be improved more than he can realize by using hearing aids. I also encourage readers who think they may have hearing loss to be tested, whether work-related or not. I am 38 years old and I am very happy to have my hearing aids now, as opposed to suffering for decades before feeling it socially “appropriate” to get them”?one is never too young to have the help one needs (and deserves).

Below are the web sites for various provincial Workers’ Compensation Boards. If you, or someone you know, has suffered work-related hearing loss, I encourage you, or them, to submit a claim. Anyone who has suffered a loss while in the service of an employer, or employers, is entitled to be compensated under the applicable Workers’ Compensation legislation.

Alberta: http://www.wcb.ab.ca/home
British Columbia: http://www.worksafebc.com
Saskatchewan: http://www.wcbsask.com
Manitoba: http://www.wcb.mb.ca
Ontario: http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite.nsf/public/home_e
Quebec: http://sbinfocanada.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csst.qc.ca%2F
Nova Scotia: http://www.wcb.ns.ca
New Brunswick: http://www.whscc.nb.ca/index_e.asp
Newfoundland & Labrador: http://www.whscc.nf.ca/
Prince Edward Island: http://www.wcb.pe.ca
Northwest Territories and Nunavut: http://www.wcb.nt.ca/default.asp
Yukon: http://wcb.yk.ca/

Wayne E. Benedict has a varied career history and strong links to the Canadian labour movement. He is working part-time toward his Bachelor of Human Resources and Labour Relations at AU. He is a fulltime first-year student of the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. For a more detailed writer bio, see The Voice writers’ feature page under ‘About The Voice’. If you would like to send article-feedback to Wayne, he can be reached at wayneben@sasktel.net

Unfortunately, one of the scheduled speakers on Friday was unable to attend the conference due to strike-related commitments elsewhere. Andrew Jackson (4), Senior Economist with the Canadian Labour Congress, was scheduled to speak on the topic: Regulating National Labour Markets: Canada in a Comparative Context. His absence meant that speaker Richard Chaykowski (5), Professor in the School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, had to carry the weight of the opening-evening with his presentation on The Changing Structure of the Labour Market: Employment and Labour Policy Challenges.

Dr. Chaykowski spoke about how the so-called “New Economy” is becoming an old idea now. He talked about the main transformational pressures of competitive market pressures (economic globalization; rise of markets); technological change (transformation of productive systems, work arrangements, and employment relations); and changing skills and educational requirements of the labour force. His presentation included discussions on governmental policy shifts and the main drivers of change: globalization and technology. According to Dr. Chaykowski, the Human Resource Management paradigm has taken a stronger hold in the US than it has in Canada where the Labour Relations model remains paramount. Challenges facing those who wish to raise labour market standards include: ensuring the reach of labour and employment standards; ensuring balance in policy composition; mitigating economic insecurity; rethinking the broader policy architecture (how labour policy can be redesigned in order to integrate with general government policy); and ensuring equality.

The first speaker on Saturday was Rosemary Amelia Venne (6), Professor in the College of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan. Dr. Venne’s presentation was entitled A Half Century of Work: Women in the Labour Force. Filling out the pre-coffee-break segment themed Challenging Workplace Norms, was Judith Martin (7), Executive Director of the Work and Family Unit of the Saskatchewan Department of Labour. Her presentation was entitled “Workplace Flexibility”: Conditions and Considerations for Shaping Flexibility as an Effective Component of a Family-Friendly Workplace.

The after-coffee segment was dedicated to “Equity in the Workplace” and the first speaker was Beth Bilson (8), Professor in the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan. She spoke on The Ravages of Time: The Federal Pay Equity Task Force and Section 11 of the Canada Human Rights Act. Dr. Bilson is the Chair of the federal Pay Equity Task Force (9) which is due to release its report in the near future. Dr. Bilson was followed by John Hill (10), Commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, speaking on Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: Employment Equity in Saskatchewan. Following Commissioner Hill’s enlightening discussion, the conference broke for lunch.

The first post-lunch segment was dedicated to Labour Policies for New Employment Norms. First to speak was Dave Broad (11), Professor in the School of Social Work, University of Regina. Dr. Broad spoke to Flexibility and Security: Employment Standards for Part-time Workers. He was followed by Karen Hughes (12), Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Sociology, University of Alberta. Dr. Hughes discussed the topic of Rethinking Policy for the “New Economy”: The Case of Self-Employed Women. The final speaker of this segment was John Godard (13), Professor in the Asper School of Management, University of Manitoba. Dr. Godard’s presentation was entitled Towards an Alternative Labour Policy Regime? The Case of the Minimum Wage. I was especially interested in Dr. Godard’s presentation because I have studied some of his earlier work while undertaking industrial relations studies through Athabasca University (he was kind enough to sign one of my books that he authored).

The second post-lunch segment was dedicated to International Norms. Peter J. Barnacle LL.B., Legal Representative of the Saskatchewan branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, presented on Promoting Labour Rights in International Financial Institutions and Trade Organizations. Mr. Barnacle was followed by Ken Norman (14), Professor in the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, who presented an excellent paper entitled Promises to Keep: ILO Freedom of Association Principles. After five speakers in a row, both audience and presenters were ready for the final coffee-break, after which came the finale of the conference — A Debate on the Future of Labour Law and Policy in Saskatchewan. The debaters were Larry Hubich (15), President of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and Jason Clemens (16), Director of Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute. The audience did not appear to be as receptive to the arguments of the latter speaker as to those of the former.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Employment & Labour Law & Policy for the New Millennium: Promises & Paradoxes conference and it cost me absolutely nothing to attend. I previously wrote a Voice article entitled Lectures & Events (17) in which I tried to encourage AU distance students to take advantage of events in their area. With this, I reaffirm my recommendation. There is nothing, I suggest, quite like experiencing cutting-edge ideas and theories expressed by the brightest and best in the field — whatever field is of interest to you.

(1) http://www.lcc.gc.ca/en/themes/er/tvw/fudge/biography.asp
(2) http://www.usask.ca/law/foundation.shtml
(3) http://www.usask.ca/law/history.shtml
(4) http://www.ccsd.ca/cswp/2003/papers/abstracts/jackson-sanger.htm
(5) http://www.qsilver.queensu.ca/irl/chaykowski/bio.html
(6) http://www.commerce.usask.ca/faculty/venne
(7) http://labour.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/worklife/interview05-en.cfm;
http://www.cbsc.org/sask/sbis/search/display.cfm?Code=5995&coll=SK_PROVBIS_E
(8) http://www.usask.ca/law/chairs.shtml#bilson
(9) http://www.payequityreview.gc.ca/index-e.html
(10) http://www.gov.sk.ca/shrc
(11) http://www.uregina.ca/spr/associates/broadd.html
(12) http://www.ualberta.ca/~khughes
(13) http://www.umanitoba.ca/management/faculty_bios/drjohn_godard.htm
(14) http://www.usask.ca/law/chairs.shtml#norman
(15) http://www.sfl.sk.ca/public_html
(16) http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/about/staff.asp
(17) http://www.ausu.org/voice/search/searchdisplay.php?ART=2210

Wayne E. Benedict has a varied career history and strong links to the Canadian labour movement. He is working part-time toward his Bachelor of Human Resources and Labour Relations at AU. He is a fulltime first-year student of the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. For a more detailed writer bio, see The Voice writers’ feature page under ‘About The Voice’. If you would like to send article-feedback to Wayne, he can be reached at wayneben@sasktel.net

Several groups and political parties have been founded in the west whose mandate is to lead western provinces, individually or severally, out of the Canadian federation. Examples include: the Alberta Independence Party(2); the Separation Party of Alberta(3); the Republic of Alberta(4); the Western Canada Concept(5); the BC Independence Party(6); the Unity Party of British Columbia(7); the Western Independence Party of BC(8); One Ten West(9); BC Home Rule(10); Home Rule for Western Canada(11); and more.

Issues of western discontent that I have heard uttered include under-representation of western citizens in the federal parliament, eastern-politico arrogance and dismissive attitudes toward the west, tax equalization inequity amongst the provinces, and the notoriously controversial federal gun control legislation(12). My personal opinions on these issues are immaterial to the focus of this article and I decline to express them. My goal is to explore whether the express objective of these groups, viz. unilateral secession from the Canadian federation, is even possible. By possible, I mean legally possible, as anything is theoretically possible, but I doubt these groups or their followers have provincial independence garnered through civil war in mind.

Some of the claims made about what these groups will achieve, given enough electoral support, are entirely ridiculous in my mind. For example, the Unity Party of British Columbia claims that under its rule “:the BC Constitution would form the basis of all law in BC by giving the people control of government, and would assert British Columbia’s independence within Canada.”(13) This statement is a legal oxymoron; for as long as a province remains “within” the Canadian federation, the Constitution of Canada is paramount and any conflicting provision within a provincial law, i.e. constitution, would be of no force or effect(14).

Most of these groups purport that if a majority of residents of the province(s) that the group aspires to represent elects the separatist party, then it could effect unilateral secession of that geographical area from the Canadian federation. In other words, they profess that they could, once elected, withdraw the province(s) from Canada, forming an independent state with, or without, the concurrence of the federal government and the rest of Canada’s provinces. The claim, and the plan, sounds very familiar to me. In fact, it has been attempted in Quebec, as many will remember.

In 1995 the separatist Parti Quebecois government led by Premier Jacques Parizeau held a sovereignty referendum which was defeated by the narrowest of margins”?50.6% no; 49.4% yes. But what if the referendum had succeeded by a narrow margin; say 51%? Would that have been enough for the then government of Quebec to effect unilateral secession? That was a question that many Canadians, including the federal government wanted answered.

On September 30, 1996 the federal government of the day referred the following three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada:

1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

In the resulting fifty-three page decision(15), the Supreme Court of Canada held that the answers to questions one and two was “no” and in light of those results, there was no need for the court to answer the third question. The court utilized four fundamental and organizing principles of the Canadian Constitution in addressing the questions: federalism; democracy; constitutionalism and the rule of law; respect for minorities. It held that a referendum resulting in a clear expression by the people of Quebec of their will to secede from Canada could not in itself bring about unilateral secession according to the law. A foritori a narrow margin of 51% could not. The court stated: “…we refer to a ‘clear’ majority as a qualitative [as opposed to quantitative] evaluation. The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.” In an attempt to clarify the law in Canada with regard to the requirement of a clear expression of democratic will as elucidated by the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal government passed the so-called Clarity Act(16) in 2000.

If a provincial sovereignty referendum were to result in a clear expression of democratic will of the provincial electorate to succeed from Canada, that result would merely give rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to Confederation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire. The secession of any province, or provinces, from Canada would require an amendment to the Canadian Constitution, which in turn would require negotiation on the part of every province and the federal government. However, there is no legal obligation on the other provinces and federal government to reach agreement with regard to the desires of a province to secede from the federation. In other words, a legal obligation to negotiate would arise, but not a legal obligation to conclude an agreement. In effect, each province and the federal government would have a veto against the secession of any other province merely by withholding agreement on the requisite Constitutional amendments.

The court also found that there is no legal right to effect unilateral secession under international law. International law recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination, but only when that right is exercised within the framework of existing sovereign states and consistently with the maintenance of the territorial integrity of those states. Only where that is not possible (part of a colonial empire, subject to alien subjugation, or denied any meaningful exercise of the right to self-determination) would the right of unilateral secession arise under international law”?a situation that is not present in Canada because there is an entrenched framework for Constitutional amendment of the Constitution of Canada(17). Although the secession of a province or provinces could only be legally achieved through Constitutional amendments that would require the agreement of every province and the federal government, it is theoretically possible for a province to succeed from the Canadian federation so international law would not interfere with that of Canada.

In short, it would be very difficult for a province to legally effect secession from Canada. It would require clear, not merely simple, majority support and the negotiated concurrence of every province and the federal government. Further, there is clearly no right in Canadian or international law for any province or provinces to unilaterally secede from the federation. I don’t find it difficult to understand why the general public would believe what separatist groups hold out that they can achieve with enough electoral support. However, I do wonder whether those groups have omitted to undertake even a cursory examination of the law regarding secession; or whether they have done so and choose to continue promises of unilateral secession or other arguably illegal goals to their followers in spite of the state of the law.

1 http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction
2 http://www.albertaindependence.com
3 http://www.separationalberta.com
4 http://www.republicofalberta.com
5 http://www.westcan.org
6 http://www.bcindependenceparty.com/policies.shtml
7 http://www.unityparty.bc.ca
8 http://www.westernindependencepartyofbc.com
9 http://www.onetenwest.org
10 http://www.bchomerule.com
11 http://www.westernhomerule.ca
12 http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol
13 http://www.unityparty.bc.ca/gm.php
14 The Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, s. 52(1): “The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”; for a copy of this statute, email the author.
15 Reference re Succession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; for a copy of this decision, email the author.
16 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, S.C. 2000, c. 26; for a copy of this statute, email the author.
17 Supra note 14 at ss. 38-49.

Wayne E. Benedict has a varied career history and strong links to the Canadian labour movement. He is working part-time toward his Bachelor of Human Resources and Labour Relations at AU. He is a fulltime first-year student of the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. For a more detailed writer bio, see The Voice writers’ feature page under ‘About The Voice’. If you would like to send article-feedback to Wayne, he can be reached at wayneben@sasktel.net

Regrettably, the abuse of the elderly in Canada does not seem to be confined to isolated incidents. A simple search of news archives will result in numerous reports of the elderly being abused and even killed at the hands of those paid to care for them. Considering the frequency of reported/discovered cases, one has to wonder the degree to which these events occur and are never brought to light. There appears to be a prima facie argument to be made that Canadian elderly suffer systematic abuse within our eldercare facilities as opposed to isolated anomalous incidents.

In examining this issue, I can’t help but compare North American culture with that of other countries and races. The former appears to discard its elders as unproductive and useless burdens on the family and society; citizens incapable of contributing to capitalism once retired from productive work and whose presence in the family home would attenuate the productive (and consumptive) capabilities of the modern double-income family-unit.

Canadian children (and I am one of them) are instilled at an early age with the desire to move out of the nest (away from the parents) and make their own way separately and individually. Each sibling, so the culture dictates, should have its own home, its own cars, and its own life, separate from those of their parents. It is not surprising that grown children are loath to disrupt their own overly busy lives to repatriate aged parents into their individual abode in order to care for them once they can’t care for themselves. Hence the wide-spread warehousing of Canada’s elderly in palliative “Nursing” or “Retirement” homes.

According to Sharleen Stewart, international Canadian vice-president of the Service Employees International Union, “Private nursing homes operate only on the basis of the profit motive:residents are just a commodity that keep the cash flowing” (3).

Contrast the typical western-cultural experience with some other examples; most notably East Indian. I don’t profess to be any sort of expert, but as an outsider looking in, it appears that the multi-generational familial dwelling in which many East Indians cohabit is far more conducive to mutual-assistance and social cohesion. It is my understanding that East Indians venerate their elders much as North American Aboriginals do. Although physically frail, the elderly have lived long lives and accumulated vast knowledge and experiences that can be passed to younger generations”?if the latter take the time to listen. There are many means in which elderly parents or grandparents can continue to contribute to the family and I suggest that they deserve to be cared for with dignity when they become in need of palliative care.

It would seem that some cultures are more likely than others to provide dignified palliative care to elderly family members. Unfortunately, mainstream North American culture does not generally fall into the former category. However, there are anomalies. My father and his siblings took turns in round-the-clock shifts for months caring for their ailing parents in the latter’s own home so that they could die with dignity and avoid the “Retirement” home. Similarly, my step-father and mother have donated months of their time in caring for his aged mother and her (now deceased) husband. They made those sacrifices to their own lives despite the fact that they were generally raised in individualist liberal North American culture.

At this time my wife is 1200 km away in Vancouver BC caring for her ailing grandfather. She has been there since February 9, 2004 and we have no idea how long she will be there. I am now juggling the care of my two children in addition law school studies. These sacrifices are very onerous for our family but I wouldn’t have it any other way. I am very proud of my wife; that she would, at great self-sacrifice, separate herself from her immediate family so as to provide her grandfather with a dignified death in his own home. I suggest that not many contemporary mainstream North Americans would do as she is doing; but she is so giving that it hasn’t surprised me in the least.

(1) Help Me: Elder Abuse in Canada. CTV.ca. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1076082613040_71491813/

(2) Elder abuse case to be reinvestigated: Police. CTV.ca
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1076294771056_71703971

(3) McCarten, James (February 12, 2004). Union calls for inquiry into nursing home abuse. C-Health. Online at: http://chealth.canoe.ca/health_news_detail.asp?channel_id=53&news_id=9727

Wayne E. Benedict has a varied career history and strong links to the Canadian labour movement. He is working part-time toward his Bachelor of Human Resources and Labour Relations at AU. He is a fulltime first-year student of the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. For a more detailed writer bio, see The Voice writers’ feature page under ‘About The Voice’. If you would like to send article-feedback to Wayne, he can be reached at wayneben@sasktel.net