/ Source

House of Commons Debates, 36th Parliament, 2nd Session, Sitting No. 60

House of Commons Hansard record from the parliamentary debates on Bill C-20.

Last evidence check means this project’s automated public-repository check; it is not a government audit, regulator audit, external audit, or assurance engagement.

House of Commons of CanadaofficialLast evidence check 2026-05-06Accessed 2026-05-06Open original Back to source library

Source statusHouse of Commons of Canada source record checked 2026-05-06

Review trailSource usage is tied to public topics and claim records in the repository.

Source typeofficial

Topics using source3

Claims referenced1

Why this source matters

Parliamentary context for how elected federal actors debated clarity, question wording, majority, and negotiation duties. This record currently supports 3 topics and 1 claim in the public repository.

Evidence details

This source row records the publisher, source type, reliability label, access date, original URL, and any archive copy available to this project.

Used by topics

001Does the Clarity Act give Ottawa a veto over Alberta independence?The Clarity Act sets federal conditions before Canada enters secession negotiations, but Alberta-specific effects require careful legal sourcing.

002What would legally need to happen for Alberta to become independent?A clear Alberta vote could create democratic force and a duty to negotiate, but it would not by itself create independence; the hard legal fight is clarity, negotiation, treaty rights, and implementation.

003Who decides whether Alberta’s referendum question and result are clear enough?The meaning of a clear question and clear majority is politically and legally consequential, not a simple fixed percentage in the current sparse record.

Referenced claims

001clarity-actParliamentary records for Bill C-20 support treating the Clarity Act as Parliament's statutory response to the Secession Reference, not as an Alberta-specific rule.