BQ pushing for repeal of the Clarity Act

328 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

Mulcair knows what he's doing, he's got instints for this sort of thing. Just as he was with Dutch Disease and all that. He doesn't move rashly.

Still just like with that, it will cause worry and doubt, but it will turn out okay in the end.

The media has already attacked 50% +1 throughout the last election. It didn't stop the,Oragne wave then, and it won't now.

Why? Because most of the Electorate outside Quebec will either trust the party that dealt a huge blow to the Bloc or doesn't give a shit to begin with. Inside Quebec the NDP's position is,old news.

6079_Smith_W

@ Centrist

No need to delicately stick-handle. Those are fair points. We'll see if anything comes of this. I hope not.

socialdemocrati...

The Bloc has the right to push for it. But seeing as the NDP is the only major party with seats outside Quebec to criticize the Clarity Act, it puts them in a tough spot. If they vote against the Bloc bill, they're hypocrites and the Sherbrooke Declaration is meaningless. But if they vote for it, it puts them "onside" with the Bloc and pretty much nobody else, which isn't a good look.

The "Unity Act" seems like a necessary response, to stand firm by the Sherbrooke Declaration and still stand up for Federalism. To not be the Liberals, but to not be the Bloc either.

It's a messy issue.

My position on this is that I believe Canada includes Quebec, and that Quebec can't be included at gunpoint.

That's pretty much the NDP position: leave the door wide open, but invite them to live with you in an amorous embrace.

The position of the other parties: shit all over Quebec, then lock the door so they can't leave.

It's sort of a recurring theme for the other parties in our dysfunctional democracy. Scandals are okay, but inquiries into the scandal are mean. If people start asking tough questions, prorogue. Eliminate the right to protest, at least until the protest is over. Stack the senate. Limit voter choice.

You would think that "I may disagree with you, but I support your right to say it" would be one of those inalienable principles in Canada.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
The "Unity Act" seems like a necessary response, to stand firm by the Sherbrooke Declaration and still stand up for Federalism. To not be the Liberals, but to not be the Bloc either.

That's ridiculous. The NDP didn't have to do anything at all, as the BQ bill would have died all by its lonesome.

Unionist

I agree with 99% of SDM's post above - except with the view that the Unity Act is a necessary response. The Sherbrooke Declaration respects the right of the National Assembly to determine the question and of Quebecers to freely determine their future. The Unity Act unfortunately says that Quebecers cannot be trusted to do so, because they might be fooled with a tricky question by their own elected representatives. Yeah, anyone can be tricked, but that's not for Ottawa to challenge nor for any body to decide, except one designated by the people of Québec themselves.

Having said that, how will the NDP vote on the Bloc's bill, if and when there's a vote - given that it comes up ahead of the "Unity" Act?

ETA: Whoops - cross-posted with Boom Boom, with whom I agree - except it still leaves the question of how the NDP will vote.

Brachina

Kropokin, perhaps you should email your thoughts on a possible amendment to the Unity Bill to Mulcair.

My thought on tweeking it was to offer Quebec the power to appoint Court of Quebec,judges, so one no can accuse the Federal Government of undue influence.

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The trigger for a review by Quebec's highest court is the only sticking point for me.  A process that would require a formal complaint from within Quebec and could not be triggered from anyone not from Quebec would be a proper federal response since it ensures a fair question on the issue of Quebec's federal status. 

Is that true? Would it be impossible for any non-resident to initiate a court challenge? 

On the other hand, if there is not one person in the province willing to do that, that in itself would seem to settle the matter.

That technicality aside, I do get your point, k. Speaking generally,  I don't think it is such an affront to self-determination to expect a clear question on an issue which affects all of us, nor do I think it is a road block to sovereignty if that is truly what the people of Quebec wish.

There are enough examples of people voting for things not understanding what they would really mean. Just look at all the legislators who voted for prohibition, assuming that the government would never go so far as to ban beer and wine.

pookie

Brachina wrote:
Kropokin, perhaps you should email your thoughts on a possible amendment to the Unity Bill to Mulcair. My thought on tweeking it was to offer Quebec the power to appoint Court of Quebec,judges, so one no can accuse the Federal Government of undue influence.

Not sure what you mean by this, but Quebec could not appoint any more/different judges without amending the Constitution.  If you mean that the review of any question should occur by judges appointed by the Quebec govt, they sit on inferior courts and it would be problematic to give them that kind of responsibility.

("Inferior court" is a legal term and not a slag by the way. Wink)

socialdemocrati...

I think the "phrasing requirement" is a matter of discussion, and not a retreat from the principle that Quebeckers should be able to draft the question.

Yes, they should be able to draft their own question.

No, it doesn't mean that any and all questions are created equally.

The phrasing requirement is soft here. It offers several ways to get to a good question, only one of which is to negotiate it with the Federal Government. Most of all, the final mechanism for enforcing the clarity requirement isn't the Federal Government, but the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Like I said before, it's a messy file. To think, the Liberals are arguing with the NDP about whether the Clarity Act or the Unity Act is better, and even among progressives there are reasonable arguments about whether the Unity Act is enough of an improvement.

Unionist

Blah blah.

The simple question is this: If Québec declares independence, will Canada send in troops?

If (as the Sherbrooke Declaration clearly states) the answer is "no", then keep your Clarity Act, your Unity Act, whatever you like.

But until Canada clearly and publicly declares that the answer is "no", then the recognition of self-determination is non-existent. And by allowing Ottawa to intervene when it doesn't like the question, the NDP is backtracking from the Sherbrooke Declaration - i.e. from the very first time in history when the CCF/NDP finally, graciously, recognized the right of Québec to determine its own future without outside interference. It would be a shame if that recognition didn't last even seven years.

 

ReeferMadness

Unionist wrote:

The simple question is this: If Québec declares independence, will Canada send in troops?

Yes, a simple question.  Or is it?

Quebec is 8 million people.  Does your question imply that all of them declared independence?  Or just some of them?  Or just some politician in Quebec City?  

And do they all have to actually declare independence?  Or just cast a ballot for independence?  If it's just casting a ballot, should the question be clearly worded (unlike the 1995 referendum question)?

And if Quebec has the right to self-determination, how does that apply to areas within Quebec that didn't want to go?  Surely, if you're in favour of self-determination, it can't stop at the level of a province?  What about the First Nations - would they and their territory be forced to go?

Wouldn't it be great if there were some sort of law that clarified these rules?  Some sort of clarity act?

Maybe not such a simple question after all.

ReeferMadness

Parsing the Unity Bill

 

Yet the NDP’s stance, to put it as diplomatically as possible, is highly problematic. First, the party is actively, egregiously misrepresenting what the Supreme Court decided on this matter. Second, and more importantly, the NDP is defending a position that the Canadian Constitution could legitimately be torn asunder by an ephemeral simple majority of a single province. The party ignores basic supermajority requirements for constitutional amendment (except, it appears, for the party’s own constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority).

 

Self-serving hypocrites playing with the future of Canada.

 

ReeferMadness

Parsing the Unity Bill

 

Yet the NDP’s stance, to put it as diplomatically as possible, is highly problematic. First, the party is actively, egregiously misrepresenting what the Supreme Court decided on this matter. Second, and more importantly, the NDP is defending a position that the Canadian Constitution could legitimately be torn asunder by an ephemeral simple majority of a single province. The party ignores basic supermajority requirements for constitutional amendment (except, it appears, for the party’s own constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority).

 

Self-serving hypocrites playing with the future of Canada.

 

Fidel

And what is Quebec Solidaire's position on AQI Mali? Should we be helping Al CIA'da oppress Malians or what?

Aristotleded24

There are a couple of factors here. The main issue of soveriegnty itself is not as much of an issue in Quebec as the English language media is making it out to be. In the 1994 Quebec election, sovereignty was a major issue, yet last year the PQ tried to downplay it and focus on Liberal corruption, to the point that former PQ Premier Jacques Parizeau actively campaigned against the PQ for that reason. Even so, the sovereigntist parties do not have control of the legislature in Quebec, so they cannot actively pursue that agenda. I would speculate that the Bloc Quebecois is grasping at straws trying to find a way to be relevant. I wouldn't worry about a sovereignty campaign taking off in Quebec any time soon, so on that front, the issue is moot. I am puzzled by Mulcair's response. I agree with unionist that a response along the lines of "we respect Quebec's right to self-determination, but we are working to build a federation within which Quebec will choose to stay, and we are continuing to fight for the interests of Canadians inside and outside of Quebec and build bridges, instead of building walls which the other parties are doing" would have been far more appropriate.

6079_Smith_W

Actually I have a question... is demanding Canada deny our plan to invade Quebec supposed to help make the BQ motion fade away, or distract from it by giving everyone something even bigger to focus on? Or it this a test to see if Mulcair will put his name to something even more embarrassing than he has already?

Actually, I can't tell if you're joking or not U, I just have a hard time believing that you are serious.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, Mulcair/Scott's was a kneejerk response to the BQ. They should just have shut the hell up.

ETA: By the way, I believe this acually dates back to October, which is how the NDP cobbled together a bill in response to the BQ. They knew this was coming.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

The simple question is this: If Québec declares independence, will Canada send in troops?

Sorry Unionist, but I think the question, like the expectation of any answer to it, is absurd. I might have considered assurances about seizing assets, or that your deal for Newfoundland power still stands, but invasion?

Are you serious, and not just pointing fingers at the ghost of P.E.T.?

If we want to talk blah blah, any government which would do such a thing is going to do it whether there is a piece of paper to the contrary or not.

And besides, we already have an agreement with our neighbours to the south that their forces can cross our borders in the interest of their security, so if we are amping things up to endgame scenarios, forget Ottawa. You might want to ring up Washington to get assurances from them. Don't be surprised if they send back some tinfoil hats as a sign of their goodwill.

Centrist

Boom Boom wrote:

Yeah, Mulcair/Scott's was a kneejerk response to the BQ. They should just have shut the hell up.

I totally agree. Now today I read this from the sponsor of the bill:

Quote:
Scott said it would be the basis for legislation tabled by the NDP if it formed a government in future.

http://www.canada.com/Postmedia+Interview+Craig+Scott+wants+reopen+national+unity+debate/7906164/story.html

That's future potential political dynamite. Esp. in the west. The Cons will have a field day during the next federal election running ads about this matter in the west and here in BC. Again, why didn't Tom just ignore the BQ's bait? Seriously... a very bad judgment call.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Sigh. This will just lead to another Harper majority in 2015. I'm beginning to suspect Mulcair really doesn't want to be PM, maybe he's too comfortable in Stornoway.Frown

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually I have a question... is demanding Canada deny our plan to invade Quebec supposed to help make the BQ motion fade away, or distract from it by giving everyone something even bigger to focus on? Or it this a test to see if Mulcair will put his name to something even more embarrassing than he has already?

Actually, I can't tell if you're joking or not U, I just have a hard time believing that you are serious.

 

The simple test of recognizing a nation's right to self-determination is whether or not force will be used to prevent secession.

That's why the Sherbrooke Declaration - which is official NDP policy - renounced the use or the threat of force at any stage of Québec's quest to assert its future, freely.

Had you bothered to read it - or the table which I reprinted above - you'd know that. Instead of creating a frenzy over it. Same goes for Reefer Madness.

The Unity Bill, however, appears to give Ottawa the right to question UDI, based on the "clarity" of the question, and to refer that to some court. My simple question is - does the Unity Bill reiterate the guarantees of the Sherbrooke Declaration with regard to the use or threat of force, or not?

If you think it's a trick question, take it up with the NDP. It's in their official policy. Or was.

 

6079_Smith_W

Yes Unionist, I read the table.

If the NDP want to go that extra kilometre for the team, just to show how magnanamous and fair-minded they are, fine.

Frankly I think it is just window dressing, and I am a bit suspicious of making pronouncements like that regarding serious matters that have not and may not ever come to pass.

Why? Because no one can say what conditions and what parties will be in a situation like that, and as I said, a statement of principle like that has absolutely  no real weight whatsoever, certainly nothing to any government that would consider using force.

Is this about them not using force, or the implication that other parties would? Really it is on par with Lyndon Johnson's "make him deny it" strategy. You are asking just such a question right now, because they have put that on the table.

You might also consider that one document is a policy statement from a political party; the other, federal legislation.

I may not agree with everything that is in The Clarity Act, but I don't see the non-inclusion of a speculative point like that to be of any significance at all. Quite th econtrary; what would be the point of raising the issue of force in legislation? I also don't need it spelled out that they won't be butchering babies in the street, or impounding stray dogs and cats that happen to wander over the border.

Because frankly, we don't want to start making plans for that kind of end game.

(edit)

Come to think of it, the Liberals also did something similar in 2006:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMsqEph7a8I

And yes, they were making it up.

 

Unionist

The NDP should just STFU. They adopted the Sherbrooke Declaration. Good enough. When I read what you say, I can conclude that you don't really believe Québec has the right to self-determination. So - for the sake of our friendship, I'll stop reading what you say.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

When I read what you say, I can conclude that you don't really believe Québec has the right to self-determination.

Oh Bollocks.I have said nothing of the sort.

I'm just not interested in needlessly inflaming a situation that calls for reason with a bunch of inflamatory crap, whether it be the BQ's desparate attempt to seem relevant, or raising the spectre of the British, the Dutch and the Austrians armed to the teeth at the border, waiting to crush the people's dream of self-determination.

You want this to fade away? Please forgive me if I am scratching my head a bit at your way of going about it.

(edit)

And since you nention it, I'd say the  simple test of recognizing a nation's right to self-determination is not whether or not force will be used to prevent secession, but whether they get their own shit together and do it.

But I agree the force thing does play a role... as a scapegoat, anyway.

.

 

Unionist

The NDP should keep its mouth shut. So should the rest of Canada. Don't you really understand that? Pity.

ReeferMadness

Boom Boom wrote:

Sigh. This will just lead to another Harper majority in 2015. I'm beginning to suspect Mulcair really doesn't want to be PM, maybe he's too comfortable in Stornoway.Frown

Mulcair is a lightweight. 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

The NDP should keep its mouth shut. So should the rest of Canada.

Where did that come from?

First you're demanding a denial of something no major party has proposed, and now everybody is supposed to STFU?

And half the NDP caucus are Quebeckers, including its leader.

You know, no disrespect, but you might be surprised that many in the rest of Canada - at least here where I live -  understand that Quebec is going to decide its own future, and it's not something we spend every waking hour chewing our nails over. Who in hell would want to pick up a gun over the issue?

And it is certainly not the number one issue that is going to determine the fortunes of any political party out here.

@ k

Exactly, except that to hear some talk sovereignty is way on the back burner. Is it just that the rest of us aren't paying enough attention to the fact that it's on the back burner?

 

Wilf Day

Centrist wrote:
The Cons will have a field day during the next federal election running ads about this matter in the west and here in BC.

Which they would have done anyway, based on the Sherbrooke Declaration alone. As would the Liberals.

The choice was to stick your head in the sand and pretend this wasn't going to happen, or take the opportunity to clarify the issue. Right choice, in the long run. Mulcair doesn't play to tomorrow's headline.

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

Centrist wrote:
The Cons will have a field day during the next federal election running ads about this matter in the west and here in BC.

Which they would have done anyway, based on the Sherbrooke Declaration alone. As would the Liberals.

I see. They didn't have enough money to run those ads in the 2008 and 2011 campaigns? Or what?

Quote:
The choice was to stick your head in the sand and pretend this wasn't going to happen, or take the opportunity to clarify the issue. Right choice, in the long run. Mulcair doesn't play to tomorrow's headline.

I'm sure that means something. Just not sure what.

 

ReeferMadness

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You know, no disrespect, but you might be surprised that many in the rest of Canada - at least here where I live -  understand that Quebec is going to decide its own future, and it's not something we spend every waking hour chewing our nails over. Who in hell would want to pick up a gun over the issue

That's putting it very mildly.  I'd say most people outside of Quebec are sick to death of the whole question. Seriously, the Quebec intelligentsia takes itself way too seriously.  If you can really bamboozle a solid majority to vote to secede on a clear question, then GTFO.

Also, most people outside of Quebec understand that the whole sovereignty issue is nothing but a tool of self-serving politicians who use it as a wedge issue.   Why people inside Quebec haven't managed to figure that out yet is a total mystery.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

The NDP should keep its mouth shut. So should the rest of Canada.

Where did that come from?

First you're demanding a denial of something no major party has proposed, and now everybody is supposed to STFU?

No, I'm not demanding a denial of anything. You have extreme extreme difficulty listening. The NDP has already renounced the use of force. Seven years ago. That's more than enough. Now they should shut up - otherwise, they revive the spectre of Ottawa having to approve Québec's choice.

Is there actually an acoustic problem in this room? I know some folks who can put up decent drywall at union rates.

 

6079_Smith_W

Wilf Day wrote:

Centrist wrote:
The Cons will have a field day during the next federal election running ads about this matter in the west and here in BC.

Which they would have done anyway, based on the Sherbrooke Declaration alone. As would the Liberals.

See that's the thing. I can't claim to know BC, but I don't see that it is that big an issue - certainly not here. And really, why should it be?

Unionist

ReeferMadness wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You know, no disrespect, but you might be surprised that many in the rest of Canada - at least here where I live -  understand that Quebec is going to decide its own future, and it's not something we spend every waking hour chewing our nails over. Who in hell would want to pick up a gun over the issue

That's putting it very mildly.  I'd say most people outside of Quebec are sick to death of the whole question. Seriously, the Quebec intelligentsia takes itself way too seriously.  If you can really bamboozle a solid majority to vote to secede on a clear question, then GTFO.

Also, most people outside of Quebec understand that the whole sovereignty issue is nothing but a tool of self-serving politicians who use it as a wedge issue.   Why people inside Quebec haven't managed to figure that out yet is a total mystery.

I've flagged your anti-Québec xenophobic and colonial shit as offensive. Just so there's no "total mystery" about the matter.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist, I am just going by this comment of yours at #67. I think I have explained pretty clearly why I have problems with it.

Unionist wrote:

But until Canada clearly and publicly declares that the answer is "no", then the recognition of self-determination is non-existent.

So it's not just the NDP making a policy to that effect, which I think is politically asinine and opportunistic; you have made a number of other comments framing this in terms of Canada attacking Quebec militarily, even though that is sheer speculation.

Unionist

Yeah, good for you, keep it up, you're doing just great. Really intelligent.

 

6079_Smith_W

Sorry if you think I'm off base. I just find it odd that one minute we're talking about Mulcair getting sucked into an inflammatory issue that was only raised out of desparation by the BQ, and should better be left to fade away, and suddenly the most important thing is for Canada to deny that it has any plans to attack Quebec.

There are enough valid criticisms of the Clarity Act. The notion that it should have included any denial like that, or that you can read anything at all into it,  is not one of them.

I mean really. Quebec has every right to self-determination, and that issue needs to be approached with reason, and hopefully some good will. But we cannot ignore the fact that if dissolution should come we are talking about two parties who will be sitting across a negotiating table from each other. No, I don't think a military solution would ever be appropriate, but I find the notion of a federalist party raising the question - with the obvious implication that some Canadian government MIGHT find it appropriate - to be both a bad political move, and an insult to our country.

(edit)

I expect you have a bit more experience negotiating that I do, Unionist. Would you play a hand like that, before you have even sat down at the table?

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sorry if you think I'm off base. I just find it odd that one minute we're talking about Mulcair getting sucked into an inflammatory issue that was only raised out of desparation by the BQ, and should better be left to fade away, and suddenly the most important thing is for Canada to deny that it has any plans to attack Quebec.

Do you think repeating that canard 1000 times will make it true?

The most important thing for Canada is NOT to legislate in the sphere of Québec's expression of its sovereignty. Did you hear me yet? No? How about repeating something from post #67? Again? C'mon, keep it up!

Quote:
There are enough valid criticisms of the Clarity Act. The notion that it should have included any denial like that, or that you can read anything at all into it,  is not one of them.

That's right. There should be no Clarity Act. It's an attack on Québec's right to self-determination. No Clarity Act. No Unity Act. No declarations about force, lack of force, soldiers. None of it. Nada. Not sure if that's clear yet, or if you need some clarity.

Quote:
I mean really. Quebec has every right to self-determination, and that issue needs to be approached with reason, and hopefully some good will. But we cannot ignore the fact that if dissolution should come we are talking about two parties who will be sitting across a negotiating table from each other. No, I don't think a military solution would ever be appropriate, but I find the notion of a federalist party raising the question - with the obvious implication that some Canadian government MIGHT find it appropriate - to be an insult to our country.

 

Oh, your poor insulted country. Which has never used armed force, ever, against First Nations or Métis or Quebecers. Ever. What a grotesque thought, that someone should insult your Glorious Country by suggesting that it might send troops from Alberta into the streets of Montréal. That never happened! It's myth! An urban legend!

And yet, notwithstanding that, I'm recommending that the NDP, and you, say NOTHING about Québec's decision-making process in polling its population. You know why? Because when Canada speaks to that issue, all I can smell is the stench of gunpowder. My bad. It's a nasal problem. I'm having it looked at.

 

6079_Smith_W

Holy doodle, Unionist.

If you're actually trying bring up the War Measures Act let's not forget who demanded those troops. And no, that does not absolve Canada at all. But let's not kid ourselves, please.

And no need to tell me about invasions. The house which served as the field hospital is just a few blocks from my home. Of course it was "your" Canadians, not mine, in my hometown in 1870 and here in 1885.

But this isn't 40 years ago any more than it is 130, and the circumstances are far from the same.

(edit)

... and as for the NDP shutting up you might have to talk to your fellow Quebeckers about that - you elected a good number of them, and they represent your people . If that's the rule then the BQ should shut up as well, seeing as they are federal politicians, no?

 

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Again Quebec voters elect politicians and then when those Quebec politicians turn out to be assholes you want to blame people in other parts of Canada.  In my voting lifetime Quebec voters have given us Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin.  The first invaded Quebec, the second teamed up with Alberta to give us free trade and the last two dismantled the safety net built in the 50's, 60's and 70's.  People in your province keep electing people to the highest office in this land and then when they do bad things for the country the people of Quebec say is anglo oppression.  In BC we never get to elect Prime Ministers from our province because we don't have the political clout.

I get what you're saying, but techincally, Chretien won his majorities basically by sweeping Ontario, and in all but one election won fewer seats in Quebec than the Bloc. Martin's first election saw the Bloc rise back to its 1993 high.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Quebec may have a right to self-determination, but Canada has an obligation to its citizens within that province to determine whether a majority of them, however defined, have clearly chosen to secede from the federation. Let the House vote on the BQ's resolution.

Centrist

[DP]

Centrist

Unionist wrote:

The most important thing for Canada is NOT to legislate in the sphere of Québec's expression of its sovereignty. There should be no Clarity Act. It's an attack on Québec's right to self-determination.

Well. I will repeat again. Last September's Ipsos poll of QUEBECERS had this finding:

Quebec voters believe that a "clear" majority on separation is:

1. 55% of Quebecers believe that a "clear" majority is over 2/3 or 66% supporting the referendum;

2. 70% of Quebecers believe that a "clear" majority is over 60% supporting the referendum;

Accordingly, I believe that it's fair to assume that you are a part of the minority 30% of Quebecers that believe otherwise... I can also tell you that at least a similar minority of ~30% in western Canada would also want to boot Quebec out of Confederation due to its $8 BILLION equalization payment to Quebec this year alone out of their tax dollars. Why don't you join forces with these western Canadian folk since you seem to both have the same goal???????

As for military intervention if Quebec secedes... WTF? Nobody will care anymore. With 70% of Quebecers agreeing that a 60% majority is required to secede... Quebec secession will NEVER happen. Live with it and deal with it. C'est la vie.

 

jjuares

Centrist wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 

Well. I will repeat again. Last September's Ipsos poll of QUEBECERS had this finding:

Quebec voters believe that a "clear" majority on separation is:

1. 55% of Quebecers believe that a "clear" majority is over 2/3 or 66% supporting the referendum;

2. 70% of Quebecers believe that a "clear" majority is over 60% supporting the referendum;

 With 70% of Quebecers agreeing that a 60% majority is required to secede... Quebec secession will NEVER happen. Live with it and deal with it. C'est la vie. 

You seem to be badly  misinterpreting this poll. Asking people to define what a "clear majority" is not the same as asking them if 60% (or whatever arbritary number they select) is needed to separate. Indeed if I had been asked to speculate as to what a clear majority is I would have said 60%. (Many in the media have speculated about this number as being what the clarity act means.) However I believe that  simple majority is required. You may be right that a large number of Quebecers believe a super majority is required. Hoever, this poll is not proof of that assertion.

Unionist

I am not demanding anything from Canada, krop,

In case you missed the entire conversation, the NDP written policy since 2006 has ruled out the use or threat of force. I repeat, patiently, that that is good enough. Nothing more is needed.

Unionist

Unionist wrote:

Having said that, how will the NDP vote on the Bloc's bill, if and when there's a vote - given that it comes up ahead of the "Unity" Act?

I haven't heard any replies to this yet.

Thoughts?

Ghislaine

Unionist, I hear everything you are saying and fully respect Quebec's right to self-determination. If Quebec votes to leave, that is fine.I have no problem and think the Sherbrooke declaration should be followed.

My main concerns (and perhaps someone can point to the declaration to see if this is covered) are First Nations. What if the majority of First Nations vote no, while majority white Quebecois vote yes? Unionist, you are also forgetting that Quebec is on STOLEN LAND too. Your right to self-determination that you keep mentioning is based on your settler ancersters stealing First Nations land. Quebec is a nation in the same way that Canada became a nation. No one is mentioning this in this thread. I have never heard the BQ or PQ adequately discuss the implications of seccession for First Nations. The Indian Act would be moot for these bands, no? 

My other concerns would be monetary - Quebec transfer payments, use of our currency, etc., etc. would end (as well as their responsibilities vis-a-vis federal income tax, etc.). 

And, as a Maritimer, I would worry about the implications of being but off from the rest of the country geographically. 

kropotkin is being a little harsh in his language, but honestly most people in my area are only concerned about the above. If Quebec wants to go, Canada should not try and stop them in any way but philosophically (ie with words). No army, no bribes, etc., etc.

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

My main concerns (and perhaps someone can point to the declaration to see if this is covered) are First Nations. What if the majority of First Nations vote no, while majority white Quebecois vote yes?

That's an entirely separate issue. Indigenous peoples have inherent rights which must be respected, and Québec, like Canada, must deal with them on a nation-to-nation basis respecting the principles of equality and justice. It is up to Indigenous peoples to make those determinations.

What I find amazing is that many anti-Québec advocates always raise this issue in the context of Québec sovereignty, but never in the context of the current federalist status quo. Actually, it's not amazing at all. The presumption is that Indigenous peoples just love living in Canada, and omigod what would happen if Québec were independent... I don't subscribe to that hypothetical horrible.

Quote:
I have never heard the BQ or PQ adequately discuss the implications of seccession for First Nations. The Indian Act would be moot for these bands, no?

Why do you care what the BQ or PQ have to say - any more than Québec solidaire or the Parti Vert or unaffiliated nonpartisan Quebecers or Liberals or whoever?

Why not ask what the federal Liberals and Conservatives and NDP and Greens have to say about the implications of continued federation for First Nations? Of course, they have little or nothing to say which addresses the demands and interests of Indigenous peoples. Does that mean we wind up the federation and return to square one? No, I didn't think so.

So, let me tackle your question head on: The implications of secession for First Nations - and all Indigenous peoples - are first and foremost the business of those peoples. They have the right to proclaim their interests, their demands, their sovereign entitlements. The BQ and PQ and QS and whoever else must recognize those sovereign rights and respect them, and listen closely to what people want.

Just as the NDP should do with the nation of Québec. And I must say, to its honour, the Sherbrooke Declaration took them light years closer to that goal than they had ever been before. They must not step back into the abyss where the CCF/NDP lived for 70 years before.

Quote:
My other concerns would be monetary - Quebec transfer payments, use of our currency, etc., etc. would end (as well as their responsibilities vis-a-vis federal income tax, etc.).

Negotiations.

Quote:
And, as a Maritimer, I would worry about the implications of being but off from the rest of the country geographically.

Then make Canada a warm and welcoming place for the nation of Québec - indeed, for all peoples. That's what I want.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Then make Canada a warm and welcoming place for the nation of Québec - indeed, for all peoples. That's what I want.

Yes, let's make it warm and welcoming, but shut the fuck up.

And if that's the line we are hearing now, even with respect to a party which is half comprised of Quebec representatives, I'm curious as to what we will be told to do if it ever comes to sitting down and negotiating truly difficult matters like dissolution.

That's the thing about this war bullshit. the way to avoid conflict like that is not to make empty promises and tacit admissions about things that don't exist, but to talk about difficult points before they become far more difficult.

And the excesses of the Clarity Act notwithstanding, I don't see those honest concerns many people have as such an affront to sovereignty. To say that a question should be clear (and I do say that) does not in any way step on your toes or your right to set that question all by yourself.

And since it was mentioned, I am fine with the 50%. Hopefully my presumption of consent is not overstepping my place too.

 

 

 

Unionist

So, I didn't quite catch your answer. There's a BQ bill coming up.

1. How will the NDP vote?

2. How should the NDP vote?

6079_Smith_W

Dunno Unionist.

My guess is that if they have their own legislation planned then they would prefer to see it gone.

Will they abstain so as not to be seen to support the BQ? That would be the politically smart thing to do.

But then, I'm not assuming anything, and seeing as it is not going to pass, this really is just theatre.

(edit)

Though I suspect you know better than I do that many of them will, or would want to vote in favour.

Pages