The NDP and Quebec's Self-Determination

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I am usually just a lurker, and very rarely post, but in this case, I am very interested in exploring the opinions of those in this thread who find Quebec's right to secede from Canada self evident. How far does this right to self determination go? Could the inhabitants of Montreal decide to secede from an independent Quebec? If not, why not? What is the distinction? Do you think that my neighbourhood in Hamilton has the right to secede from the City, Ontario, and Canada if we get together and hold a referendum? Once again, if not, why not? What are the rules that apply to make these decisions?

This is not intended as a troll, but a sincere attempt to understand how you arrive at your position.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Moriarity:
[b]Could the inhabitants of Montreal decide to secede from an independent Quebec? If not, why not?[/b]

It wouldn't be the first time: back in the 1820s some Montreal leaders wanted to secede from Quebec and join Ontario. Not on then or now.

But a more practical question, which I have never seen addressed, might be: if Prescott and North Glengarry wanted to leave Canada and join the newly independent Quebec, what process should be followed? And what about Acadian areas in New Brunswick? Perhaps that's a mischievous question until someone in those areas asks it. But perhaps they have already, in a francophone medium that I never saw?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]A resolution was introduced annually at conventions after the 1944 victory demanding that all deputy ministers who were not CCF members be fired, on the theory that they were sabotaging the government's programme. [/b]

My problem was, and is, with Ministers who [i]are[/i] members, not with bureaucrats who are not. If the Ministers upheld the program, that would be an unbelievably amazing step forward.

quote:

[b]... just how bound caucus should be by convention decisions. I think they gave up. I have no easy answer either.[/b]

Neither do I. But I was very young, and I believed that the party leadership should listen to its members - and if it didn't like what it heard, it should try to convince the members that it needed a different mandate.

I'm no longer young, but I still believe that.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Wilf, thank you for replying to my question about Montreal, but "Not on then or now" isn't really responsive. My question is "Why not? What is the difference in principle between Quebec and Montreal?" Does anyone have an answer?

It's Me D

quote:


Does anyone have an answer?

Well I am not Quebecois, or even a Quebecker, I'm just a Maritimer, barely even a Canadian, but I'll answer your question: I don't think the number of people or breadth of territory seeking self-determination is relevant to their right to do so, it is however typically relevant to their ability.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

RonaldReagan

Hey Unionist, the Quebecois already had a right to determine their own destiny, and denied it in a referendum...over and over and over again.

Now if you do want to seperate, and don't like the "Clear Question" that the Clarity Law stipulates, why don't we solve this like we would in the old country? A good old fashioned civil war. To the victor goes the spoils.

Unionist

Where the hell is that can of Raid when you need it?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Maybe you should think about why you might be attracting flies....

Unionist

It's as if Quйbec is a kind of free field of discussion, where certain people can say all the things they would never dare say about women, Aboriginals, equal marriage, persons of colour, Afghanistan...

And then, after unburdening themselves of all their chauvinist and colonialist sentiments, they walk around in a daze, saying:

"What the hell more could these malcontents want? They've got it all - thanks to us!"

It makes it tough for federalists, like me, to argue that we should stick around. Thanks for all the support. Time for another Unity Rally.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Since unionist has posted twice since I asked my question, but not addressed it, I can only surmise that he considers it too stupid, or too insulting, or too something else to deserve a reply. I promise that I am not trying to goad him, a la Ronald Reagan, I really am interested in how he philosophically defines the "right of self determination", and what groups of people can claim it.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Moriarity:
[b]I really am interested in how he philosophically defines the "right of self determination"[/b]

The right to decide on the form of government, and whether to freely secede from or join any federation, without outside compulsion.

quote:

[b]and what groups of people can claim it.[/b]

Nations.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Please define "nation".

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Where the hell is that can of Raid when you need it?[/b]

[img]http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/f3/2b/hmgdLawn_and_GardenPest_Contro...

Glad to be of service, but perhaps get back to me, on the whole oppression of PQ, when it is actually equivalent to those you recount, as it is being being equivalent to. As a woman, I find your comments that the marginalization and abuse of francophones and Quebec is equivalent to the plight of women, offensive.

Can't remember the last time I saw a headline reading francophone killed at the hands of a anglophone. Or francophone attacked by a mob of anglophones and beaten. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]I'm not disputing your perception. I would, however, like to know:

- when in the 1970s the NDP denied, in your view, Quebec's right of self-determination.[/b]


Wilf, does your recollection conflict with mine or that of the article which I linked to earlier?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]As a woman, I find your comments that the marginalization and abuse of francophones and Quebec is equivalent, offensive. [/b]

"Equivalent"? Pardon me? Are you hearing voices, or what?

ETA: Oh and by the way, who said anything about "francophones"??? More voices??? I'm talking about the people of Quйbec. That includes me and the rest of my anglophone (though bilingual) family.

Stop feeling offended and listen more carefully, please.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Actually, it seemed to me that you were hearing voices, as no one said anything like this:

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]It's as if Quйbec is a kind of free field of discussion, where certain people can say all the things they would never dare say about women, Aboriginals, equal marriage, persons of colour, Afghanistan...

And then, after unburdening themselves of all their chauvinist and colonialist sentiments, they walk around in a daze, saying:

"What the hell more could these malcontents want? They've got it all - thanks to us!"

It makes it tough for federalists, like me, to argue that we should stick around. Thanks for all the support. Time for another Unity Rally.[/b]


The only slightly off-beat comment was the one by RR about a civil war. It made a nice bookend to your threat that anyone who opposed you should stock up on life insurance.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]It made a nice bookend to your threat that anyone who opposed you should stock up on life insurance.[/b]

Your appreciation of metaphor and irony is truly profound. How about some dental insurance?

Now why not answer a simple question:

Can Ottawa veto a decision by the National Assembly, following a referendum vote (which Ottawa has not vetted), to declare independence?

Or is this a trick question, way too "complex"?

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]"Equivalent"? Pardon me? Are you hearing voices, or what?[/b]

Well, that is the second gratuitous personal bash from you today, kinda makes all those times you get right nasty with others for doing such a thing, appear to be a bit hyprocritical. I would suggest you stop, lest you discredit yourself further.

quote:

[b]ETA: Oh and by the way, who said anything about "francophones"??? More voices??? I'm talking about the people of Quйbec. That includes me and the rest of my anglophone (though bilingual) family.[/b]

Well, I guess I do not see anglophones in PQ, as any more of a distinct society/culture, than what BC is, or even Alberta is.

quote:

[b]Stop feeling offended and listen more carefully, please.[/b]

na, if it is okay with you, I will remain that way, as your comments of:

quote:

It's as if Quйbec is a kind of free field of discussion, where certain people can say all the things they would never dare say about women, Aboriginals, equal marriage, persons of colour, Afghanistan...
And then, after unburdening themselves of all their chauvinist and colonialist sentiments, they walk around in a daze, saying:

"What the hell more could these malcontents want? They've got it all - thanks to us!"


say exactly that, when distilled down to their essence.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Unionist has declined my request to define what a nation is for the purposes of the right of self determination. So, I looked it up in my Concise Oxford Dictionary, and I find the following:

"A large number of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usually inhabiting a territory bounded by defined limits and forming a society under one government."

Assuming that is what unionist meant to convey, I look forward to his affirmation that the Cree, Mohawk, and other aboriginal nations have a right to secede from Quebec no less compelling than Quebec's right to secede from Canada.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Your appreciation of metaphor and irony is truly profound. How about some dental insurance?

Now why not answer a simple question:

Can Ottawa veto a decision by the National Assembly, following a referendum vote (which Ottawa has not vetted), to declare independence?

Or is this a trick question, way too "complex"?[/b]


It is not tricky or complex, it is hypothetical. And a proper answer to a hypothetical question requires the major factors to be considered. Why was the question not vetted? Is the question biased or vague? Perhaps the actual wording would help here...

Are there circumstances where it would be correct for the federal government to challenge the results of a referendum?

Yes, such circumstances are possible but, I hope, unlikely.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Moriarity:
[b]Assuming that is what unionist meant to convey, I look forward to his affirmation that the Cree, Mohawk, and other aboriginal nations have a right to secede from Quebec no less compelling than Quebec's right to secede from Canada.[/b]

Well of course they do. What do you think they are - slaves? Inferior beings? Their nationhood is lesser than Quйbec's? I certainly hope not. Of course, it's difficult to tell, because you only ask innocent questions, you don't give opinions.

I have a strong strong feeling that you don't respect the rights of any of these nations. I have a strong strong feeling that you think "nationalism" is an embarrassing anachronism. This is a view commonly held by members of nations that oppress or imprison others.

My feeling may be wrong, but maybe you can set me straight.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Moriarity:
[b]Assuming that is what unionist meant to convey, I look forward to his affirmation that the Cree, Mohawk, and other aboriginal nations have a right to secede from Quebec no less compelling than Quebec's right to secede from Canada.[/b]

That argument has been for many years, and I have encountered more than a few who state that that is why and PQ separation could not come about. As all the areas that are up for land claims under treaty rights would have to remain in Canada, and could not leave Canada with the rest of PQ.

Many years back I saw a map that that delineated what would be left of the province should it become a country. Not much was left, including the hydro electric projects that sit on Huron land.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b] That argument has been for many years, and I have encountered more than a few who state that that is why and PQ separation could not come about. [/b]

Isn't that comforting.

remind remind's picture

Do you find it so?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I do not consider myself a part of any nation, in the sense I defined above. I have no particular attachment to Canada, or any other nation state. I was born here, 61 years and some days ago, and I think that was a lucky break for me. My personal philosophy is closer to anarchism. I consider nationalism to be similar to religion, in that it serves mainly to divide people and engender conflict.

I asked about the right of self determination as regards first nations because it is denied by the government of Canada, and would also be denied by any government of an independent Quebec. The fact that you support this right is consistent and honourable, but I would wager it is extremely uncommon amongst Quebec nationalists (as amongst federalists).

Thank you for your answers. They are interesting and clearly sincere.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Is the question biased or vague? Perhaps the actual wording would help here...[/b]

Question 1:

"Le gouvernement du Quйbec a fait connaоtre sa proposition d’en arriver, avec le reste du Canada, а une nouvelle entente fondйe sur le principe de l’йgalitй des peuples ; cette entente permettrait au Quйbec d’acquйrir le pouvoir exclusif de faire ses lois, de percevoir ses impфts et d’йtablir ses relations extйrieures, ce qui est la souverainetй et, en mкme temps, de maintenir avec le Canada une association йconomique comportant l’utilisation de la mкme monnaie ; aucun changement de statut politique rйsultant de ces nйgociations ne sera rйalisй sans l’accord de la population lors d’un autre rйfйrendum ; en consйquence, accordez-vous au gouvernement du Quйbec le mandat de nйgocier l’entente proposйe entre le Quйbec et le Canada ?"

Question 2:

"Acceptez-vous que le Quйbec devienne souverain, aprиs avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat йconomique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l’avenir du Quйbec et de l’entente du 12 juin?"

Neither question was formulated with the input of Canada.

I look forward to your reply.

ETA: Actually, why not a third one to consider:

Question 3:

"Do you agree that Quйbec should split from the rest of Canada immediately, thus losing everything you've worked your whole life to build for yourself and your family, causing civil strife, and crushing the aspirations of anglophones, Aboriginals, and immigrants?"

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

lagatta

I not only support the right of Aboriginal nations to self-determination but was a member of a committee to that effect in 1995. We wanted to ensure Aboriginals did not become whipping boys/girls in the event of either a Yes or No victory.

And what on earth makes you think unionist is a nationalist?

There were many anarchists who fought for the national rights of the Basque and Catalan peoples against the Spanish state.

Unionist

The Quйbec convention of the NDP in September 2006 overwhelmingly adopted the Sherbrooke Declaration - recognizing, for the first time, the unfettered right of Quйbec to self-determination up to secession, without threat or use of outside compulsion, based on a 50% + 1 vote of Quebeckers on a question drafted solely by the Assemblй nationale.

Unfortunately, in the best NDP tradition, this document is virtually impossible to find, except in "summarized" form. Fortunately, a copy is still available on [url=http://www.pierreducasse.ca/IMG/pdf/Declaration_Sherbrooke_ENG_V2.pdf]Pi... Ducasse's website[/url].

The NDP convention's position on this issue is essentially the same as I have expressed above. Because Jack Layton and other caucus members do not support it, however, it leaves the field open for anti-Quйbec sentiments to flourish.

Popularization of the Sherbrooke Declaration would do much to reassure progressive forces in Quйbec that the NDP has changed its old neo-colonial ways.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

lagatta wrote: "what on earth makes you think unionist is a nationalist?"

I don't think that. I was stating my opinion that those who would form the power structure of a new, independent Quebec, after asserting their own right of self determination, would deny the equally valid right of first nations on the territory of the Province of Quebec. If this is incorrect, I would appreciate any citations of statements by prominent separatists to the contrary. My recollection is that Parizeau, Bouchard and others promised an enlightened policy towards the first nations on Quebec soil, without allowing them to choose independence, much as Canadian politicians do towards the Quebec nation.

lagatta wrote: "There were many anarchists who fought for the national rights of the Basque and Catalan peoples against the Spanish state."

I am not a scholar of the Spanish civil war, but it seems to me that anarchists would have been fighting for the rights of individuals against a repressive state. The fact that those individuals happened to be members of minority nations is irrelevant.

lagatta

Anarchists did not only fight for the rights of individuals (though they have always had a commendable and irreductible commitment to freedom) but for communities, self-chosen communes, and yes, the rights of peoples.

One can find something similar among the Jewish Bund. They were not calling for a Jewish State, but for the defence of the social and cultural rights of the Jewish People.

I have nothing to to with the PQ or the BQ (though actually I know several current and former Bloc MPs, because they were trade union and/or social movmeent activists), but I can assure you that Quйbec Solidaire is committed to the respect of the rights of the Aboriginal peoples.

As for what prevails, that depends on the course of the struggle, no? As always in history.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Moriarity:
[b]
I am not a scholar of the Spanish civil war, but it seems to me that anarchists would have been fighting for the rights of individuals against a repressive state. The fact that those individuals happened to be members of minority nations is irrelevant.[/b]

Actually the north american anarchists went to those regions because that was where the people had begun to organize themselves into syndicalist cooperatives. It was the emerging new economic model that the people in those regions were attempting to put into place that inspired the anarchists I have read about. The fact that it occurred in a minority nation is consistent with much of the history of societal change. People in dominant cultures are often complacent and do not try to break away from the central power structures to set up a competing economic system. Small communities are innately communitarian.

jrootham

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Can Ottawa veto a decision by the National Assembly, following a referendum vote (which Ottawa has not vetted), to declare independence?

[/b]


According to the Supreme Court of Canada, yes.

If you think they don't have jurisdiction, appeal to the International Court.

I'm not sure if this is right, but it is what is legal.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

My thanks to both lagatta and kropotkin1951 for their comments. They add to my understanding, and I find nothing to disagree with.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, yes.

If you think they don't have jurisdiction, appeal to the International Court.

I'm not sure if this is right, but it is what is legal.[/b]


No it's not. You must be aware that Quйbec refused to participate in that court reference, because we don't recognize the court's jurisdiction to decide the rights of the Quйbec nation. You might as well say that the Afghan people should stop their insurgency and hire a lawyer.

Your statement is a denial of Quйbec's inalienable right to self-determination. The NDP convention has gone far beyond that. Posters on this board have a few decades of catching up to do.

jrootham

What is the legal significance of refusing to participate in a court's decision? In general, none. The Supreme Court belongs to Quebec too, if you think they don't have jurisdiction, ask the Quebec Supreme Court or the International Court for a ruling.

The right to self determination does not, under the law as it stands, equal the right to immediate secession under conditions set solely by the seceding nation.

Given a yes answer to a referendum vote in Quebec the Canadian government is required to negotiate terms for separation. How the people of Quebec respond to those negotiations almost certainly depends on whether or not they see the Feds as being recalcitrant or not.

From both a theoretical and practical political standpoint the people of Quebec are the major players in the resolution of the issue. From a legal and mechanical standpoint there are other players.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]What is the legal significance of refusing to participate in a court's decision? In general, none. The Supreme Court belongs to Quebec too, if you think they don't have jurisdiction, ask the Quebec Supreme Court or the International Court for a ruling.[/b]

No ruling is required. If and when the people of Quйbec decide to exercise their sovereignty by creating their own independent state, they may very well do so absent any agreement by Canada. What will Canada do then? Send in the troops? That is the only question worth answering here.

No one says Canada would be obliged to recognize a Quйbec that declared independence unilaterally. No one can predict what negotiations would then take place, nor their outcome. The fact, however, is that Quйbec would then be sovereign (as it is now). No Court can remove that right, which precedes the Court's very existence, without the express consent of the people concerned. And that ain't happening any time soon.

quote:

[b]The right to self determination does not, under the law as it stands, equal the right to immediate secession under conditions set solely by the seceding nation.[/b]

Self-determination which does not allow "immediate secession" is not self-determination at all. It is the right to beg. You're talking about the law of Canada "as it stands". That law - like so many others around the world - conflicts irrevocably with the sovereign rights of the people. In the contest between the two, all progressive people must choose their side.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Wilf, does your recollection conflict with mine or that of the article which I linked to earlier?[/b]

Yes, at the federal convention in Ottawa in 1971 when David Lewis won the leadership, the Quebec delegation wanted to obtain recognition for Quebec's right to self-determination. The resolution was rejected by a vote of 2 to 1, probably because support from the Waffle was the kiss of death. I was there, but I don't recall the debate. I was likely too busy with Ed Broadbent's leadership campaign, although I was cheering for Jean-Paul too. Sorry.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000715]We discussed this before.[/url] To recap, six years later, in 1977, the NDP affirmed that the people of Quebec had a right to make their choice without constraint. The Quebec wing interpreted the vote as a recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination. So did most or many delegates from the rest of Canada, including me. It recognized Quebec’s right to “make their choice without coercion” while declaring that “we strongly support a federal Canada and are confident that the majority of Quebecers will decide to remain within Canada.” Sounds like a recognition that Quebecers had the right to decide, which no serious New Democrat ever really doubted, 1971 notwithstanding.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000715]We discussed this before.[/url] [/b]

I never noticed your post - I was gone from the thread by then.

quote:

[b]To recap, six years later, in 1977, the NDP affirmed that the people of Quebec had a right to make their choice without constraint.[/b]

When you say "the NDP affirmed", you're obviously referring to a convention resolution of some kind which remained a dead letter in terms of party policy. Still, I would prefer to see the actual wording of the resolution, because I personally recall no such clear affirmation (i.e., right to self-determination [b]up to secession[/b] with no outside interference). Please provide the full text if you have it.

quote:

[b]The Quebec wing interpreted the vote as a recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination. So did most or many delegates from the rest of Canada, including me.[/b]

Well, unfortunately, that's a good example of not having a clue what Quebeckers think. That includes the Quйbec wing in those days. They got a little more sensitive to the reality on the ground in recent years - hence the Sherbrooke Declaration.

quote:

[b]Sounds like a recognition that Quebecers had the right to decide, which no serious New Democrat ever really doubted, 1971 notwithstanding.[/b]

I'm not sure how you can say that. Evidence:

1) Read the comments of "serious New Democrats" on this very board - unless they don't meet your definition of serious. They certainly don't believe Quйbec can unilaterally run a referendum and secede, do they? Or are we reading the same threads?

2) The Clarity Act and the NDP's vocal support for it. Jack got off the line for a while, then returned very publicly in December 2005. He's still there.

If you believe the Clarity Act is consistent with the right to self-determination [i]as Quebeckers see it[/i], then please come visit some time and make your case. Take lots of holiday time.

ETA: Ok, I obviously wasn't there in 1977, but here's Sarra-Bournet's take on what happened:

quote:

In 1977, resolutions from a number of local and provincial NDP groups in different parts of Canada recommended that Quebec's right to self-determination be recognized, but [b]the resolution was defeated at the convention[/b]. Instead, another resolution was passed affirming that the people of Quebec had a right to make their choice without constraint. Ed Broadbent asserted that this did not mean that Quebec could be sole judge of the terms of its independence. The Quebec wing interpreted the vote as a recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination. Despite this ambiguous resolution, the federal Party worked for the "No" committee during the referendum campaign, and its caucus, with two exceptions, supported passage of the Constitution Act, 1982, even without Quebec's assent.

[url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/Infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=118&art=681]Sourc...

To repeat - show me the resolution that was passed.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

jrootham

You are leaving out the mechanics.

It is not true that Quebec would be independent the morning after a referendum vote (which I assume is what you mean by deciding to exercise their sovereignty).

I don't see how asserting that there would be a transition period where things get negotiated denies self determination. I mean, self determination needs to be determined enough to get through such periods.

The open question is what happens on a knife edge result. In particular, if it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that 50%+1 was achieved. I am pretty sure things will be very confused in Quebec in that case.

ETA Going outside the law may be necessary at some times, but it is always costly.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

This was very informative for me but gave me pause for thought and apologies for thread drift.

I just need to make the observation that there seems to be more interest here than the state of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Weird.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]It is not true that Quebec would be independent the morning after a referendum vote (which I assume is what you mean by deciding to exercise their sovereignty).[/b]

I never said any such thing. Quйbec would be independent the same morning on which it declared independence. A positive referendum vote might or might not be followed by such a declaration.

quote:

[b]I don't see how asserting that there would be a transition period where things get negotiated denies self determination.[/b]

It's an issue of intent and principle. Say Quйbec declares independence the morning after the vote. Say it sends ambassadors to Washington and Paris on that same day, bars any Quebeckers from serving in the Canadian Forces, renounces NATO, and decrees that Quebeckers must immediately cease any dealings with federal government representatives or offices except with the express permission of the Quйbec government.

Will Canada use force to change this situation? More importantly, will it declare today that it will [b]not use force[/b]? That's what self-determination means. That's what Wilf Day thinks the NDP adopted in 1977 (it didn't, but so be it).

quote:

[b]The open question is what happens on a knife edge result. In particular, if it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that 50%+1 was achieved. I am pretty sure things will be very confused in Quebec in that case.[/b]

Maybe - but it must be [b]Quebeckers and Quebeckers only[/b] that sort out that confusion. That's what self-determination means.

quote:

[b]ETA Going outside the law may be necessary at some times, but it is always costly.[/b]

Maybe. But the choice of which way to go (inside, outside, or up or down) is not yours. It is mine.

montrealais

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Will Canada use force to change this situation? More importantly, will it declare today that it will not use force? That's what self-determination means. That's what Wilf Day thinks the NDP adopted in 1977 (it didn't, but so be it).[/b]

Just for the record, the Sherbrooke Declaration unequivocally states:

quote:

Conformйment а ses valeurs, le NPD rejette йgalement tout usage – ou menace de l’usage – de la force face au Quйbec, а toute йtape. Notre vision en est une de confiance dans la dйmocratie, la bonne foi et les valeurs pacifiques.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: montrealais ]

Unionist

Well, that's right montrealais, that's why I've been praising it on this board for the last two years - it's the first such recognition in the history of CCF/NDP. I do believe I've been saying that very thing throughout. Thanks for confirming, though.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I would prefer to see the actual wording of the resolution, because I personally recall no such clear affirmation (i.e., right to self-determination up to secession with no outside interference).[/b]

[url=http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2004/cooke.pdf]Here's the best I can find:[/url]

quote:

With the election of the Parti Quйbйcois in 1976, the sense of crisis within the country deepened and according to NDP stalwart Desmond Morton, “As in most Quebec-Canada crises, the NDP seemed impotent, irrelevant, and slightly foolish.” In the circumstances, the NDP’s outreach to Quebec seemed even less viable in the rest of Canada. Still, in 1977, the party passed what it termed “The Positive Option,” or what might today be called ‘Plan A.’ There was little however, that genuinely reflected the demands of Quebec nationalism. It promised a strategy for economic growth, full employment and funding for social programmes. “We believe it essential for the federal Parliament to maintain sufficient power for effective national economic policies to build a fairer, freer Canada.” The plan did recognize Quebec’s right to “make their choice without coercion” while declaring that “we strongly support a federal Canada and are confident that the majority of Quebecers will decide to remain within Canada.” The party recognized some understanding of the importance of the language issue when it recognized that “the existence of a bilingual Canada depends on the presence of a Quebec where the language of work is French.” However, the party was silent on how this was to be achieved or maintained.

Quebec’s right to “make their choice without coercion” pretty clearly rules out sending in the troops, as delegates noted at the time if I recall correctly.

Unionist

Sorry Wilf, that doesn't square with the fact that the same convention [b]rejected[/b] another resolution recognizing Quйbec's right to self-determination.

I also see no other reference to these words in a Google search. It's a sentence fragment. I left the NDP over something real, and that something is only in the process of being resolved now, 30 years later.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Sorry Wilf, that doesn't square with the fact that the same convention [b]rejected[/b] another resolution recognizing Quйbec's right to self-determination.[/b]

You left in 1971 for reasons that I understand.

However, I definitely recall the 1977 debate. The delegates who argued against the Quebec section's resolution took the line "we don't dispute the right of self-determination, but this resolution is too negative, it doesn't make our positive option clear. The federal council's resolution goes further, by noting Quebec's right to decide while stating what we plan to do to make that choice unnecessary" and so on.

Which the Quebec delegation, after their resolution was defeated, then said they accepted.

[ 23 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

jrootham

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

I never said any such thing. Quйbec would be independent the same morning on which it declared independence. A positive referendum vote might or might not be followed by such a declaration.[/b]


Just to be clear, that would be the Quebec provincial government making that declaration?

I actually don't think we would disagree much on what would actually happen given a vote for independence. I would expect that Quebec courts would do any judicial recounting and that the Supremes would support their jurisdiction in doing so.

I'm just a little annoyed in this conversation by responses to legal and mechanical questions being responded to with meaningless (in a mechanics context) phrases like "the people asserting their sovereignty".

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]Just to be clear, that would be the Quebec provincial government making that declaration?[/b]

Of course.

quote:

[b]I'm just a little annoyed in this conversation by responses to legal and mechanical questions being responded to with meaningless (in a mechanics context) phrases like "the people asserting their sovereignty".[/b]

Sorry about that. I thought everyone - NDP, courts, every single Quйbec political party, even maybe Harper - now understood that phrase to mean an act of the Assemblйe nationale du Quйbec pursuant to a referendum of the people of Quйbec conducted according to Quйbec law.

Please read my "phrase" as shorthand for what I just wrote.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Question 1:

"Le gouvernement du Quйbec a fait connaоtre sa proposition d’en arriver, avec le reste du Canada, а une nouvelle entente fondйe sur le principe de l’йgalitй des peuples ; cette entente permettrait au Quйbec d’acquйrir le pouvoir exclusif de faire ses lois, de percevoir ses impфts et d’йtablir ses relations extйrieures, ce qui est la souverainetй et, en mкme temps, de maintenir avec le Canada une association йconomique comportant l’utilisation de la mкme monnaie ; aucun changement de statut politique rйsultant de ces nйgociations ne sera rйalisй sans l’accord de la population lors d’un autre rйfйrendum ; en consйquence, accordez-vous au gouvernement du Quйbec le mandat de nйgocier l’entente proposйe entre le Quйbec et le Canada ?"

Question 2:

"Acceptez-vous que le Quйbec devienne souverain, aprиs avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat йconomique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l’avenir du Quйbec et de l’entente du 12 juin?"

Neither question was formulated with the input of Canada.[/b]


My opinion?

Q1: unacceptable.
A mealymouthed demand for a carte blanche, based on 6 layers of qualifications.

Q2: conditionally acceptable.
Only if the aforementioned offer to Canada is concrete and available for consideration and critique when the referendum is called.

brookmere

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]
I've waited a lifetime for an answer![/b]

The answer was given by Yvon Deschamps decades ago: [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

"The real Quйbйcois knows what he's after, and that's an independent Quebec in a strong Canada" ([...] le vrai Quйbйcois sait qu'est-ce qu'y veut. Pis qu'est-ce qu'y veut, c't'un Quйbec indйpendant, dans un Canada fort), La fiertй d'кtre Quйbйcois

Pages

Topic locked