Sherbrooke Declaration vs. Clarity Act

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Sherbrooke Declaration vs. Clarity Act

doofy

I am also not a lawyer, but based on what Unionist posted, I don't think that the NDP would have to repeal the clarity act if it wanted to keep to the Sherbrooke Declaration.

1) "deciding freelly" does mean "deciding unilateraly". Quebecers could freely vote , but they could not accede to independence without prior negocations with Canada.  I believe the Supreme Court stated that the federal gov't would have an obligation to negociate if QCers expressed a wish to separate.

2) the CA does not explicitly say that 50% +1 is not a clear majority. However, I assume that if the # of rejected ballots was greater than the spread b/w the two camps and there was dispute about whether the rejected ballots ought to have been valid (i.e. similar scenario to 1995), 50% +1 would not be a clear majority. An NDP gov't, respectful of the SD and the CA, could maintain such a policy.

3) Nothing in the CA stops a future NDP gov't from considering the question devised by the National Assembly and accepting it as submitted.

3) the CA does not call for the use of force.

***

In any case, I think this wole debate about the CA is very academic. Following any YES vote, the PQ gov't's first step would be to pass a unanimous or near unanimous motion in QC National Assembly calling on the federal gov't to negociate independence.  No federal gov't--Calrity Act or no--would refuse to abide by the unanimous will of the National Assembly.

KenS

Great table Unionist.

Its true but meaningless that the Clarity Act would not need to be repealed. Any government of Canada is free to treat it as not binding in the least.

It is the political realities that matter.

The Clarity Act was a nasty but effective wedge hatched by the Liberal Party. Because of its effectiveness, it was widely popular in the rest of Canada. And the further you get from Quebec, the more 'geo-cultural distance'- the more nearly unanimous the support for the Calrity Act. Such that you had the entire Prarie Caucus on the NDP- then the bulk of the MPs- falling into line, Bill Blakie included. There were the pro-forma murmurings that it was a bit draconian, but not a whisper of refusing to go along with the jingoist blackmail.

The Clarity Act is just as popular today. I readily understand why... jingoism aside, it corresponds with the simplistic notions most people [including intellectuals just as much] have about nation and loyalty. Self determination is a forein concept about which people understand vitually nothing about the underlying principle.

You see the same thing operating around First Nations treaty rights. It is not by any means just racism [or anti-Quebec sentiments]. Think of racism [anti-Quebec jingoism] as one 'circle'. Then you have another circle that comprises a dislike/false understanding of self-detremination. Those two 'circles' overlap. But they are not the same. And the dislike or hostility to the principles of self determination are rooted in bourgois notions of the individual, rights, and nation. They are so pervasive that outside left circles- people like my mainstream neighbours- I probably know more small 'c' conservatives that intuitively understand self-determination than I know liberals who get it. 

So that runs through our whole culture. And on top of that we have everything from full blown anti-Quebec sentiments to the much more pervasive resentments of what Quebec wants and is perceived to get. [Which 'we'- whoever that is- never get.]

Into that fertile [ROC] ground the Clarity Act took root. You never hear about it any more because the questions behind it have gone dormant. But people are going to feel the same if they are reminded about it. And most people in the ROC have never heard anyone except the Bloc argue against what the Clarity Act stands for- they assume, not without rational basis, that only separatists would do they. Its us against them isnt it?

KenS

In principle, the Clarity Act in the ROC could have gone on endlessly in peaceful repose. It has for going on 10 years at least. 

It has never been in any government/party's interest to bring it back into general circulation.

But the NDP changed that.

Now we have 58 seats in Quebec. The Cons have what, 5? 5 very expendable seats... and no real interest in getting more. And there are a TON of seats in the ROC inplay between the Cons and the NDP.

It is only a matter of time before they stoke this. They'll probably at least do some stoking right after the new Leader comes in- get em tagged when they're fresh.

KenS

Notable though that going off about the political implications is cart before the horse. There is obviously still some question about whether the two documents are in essential opposition.

doofy wrote:

2) the CA does not explicitly say that 50% +1 is not a clear majority.

This is an extreme bit of [possibly] true but utterly meaningless.

We all know what the Calrity Act was meant for, and we know that it is an attempt to make sure it cannot be a simple majority. Everyone understands this is what it is about. [That and the question.]

janfromthebruce

great chart Unionist - easy to understand and I like that for comparative purposes.

KenS

It would be nice if someone would take a sustained shot at what looks to me like an understanding that the Clarity Act is sort of harmless and does not say, or imply, anything that contradicts the SD '50% + 1' and on the referendum question.

I mentioned in the other thread that I have heard this before- I think from an NDP spokesperson [maybe Jack].... but I'm having difficulty grasping what it is about.

It is not good enough to take a narrowly lawerly or scholarly view that one can compare the language of the two documents and find a way that they do not necessarily contradict. If you are going to be legalistic about it- the relevant approach is the way the courts look at the crafting of legislation and interpret the intent of legislators. 

Unionist

The Clarity Act is colonial and paternalistic. It is based on the notion that Quebecers will elect a government that tries to trick them into separating from Canada, and that the House of Commons must save them from this fate.

Example:

Quote:
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3), a clear expression of the will of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada could not result from

(a) a referendum question that merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada; or

(b) a referendum question that envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada, that obscure a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.

Combined with:

Quote:
(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that a referendum question is not clear and, for that reason, would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.

Translation: In 1980 and 1995, even if the "Yes" side had won, the Clarity Act (which wasn't yet in force) would have prohibited Canada from even sitting down to negotiate with Québec.

Is that consistent with the Sherbrooke Declaration? If so, then the NDP has pulled a giant fraud over on the Québec people. But I don't believe that cynical analysis.

Glenl

Is it a bad thing to require a clear question for such an important issue? I agree that any province can choose to go their own way, but it is important to what was Canada. I don't think a clear question is too much to ask.

Unionist

Glenl wrote:
Is it a bad thing to require a clear question for such an important issue? I agree that any province can choose to go their own way, but it is important to what was Canada. I don't think a clear question is too much to ask.

Québec is a nation. It makes its own decisions. We don't need some outside geniuses telling us that we don't understand what we're voting on. That's called colonialism. And that's what the Sherbrooke Declaration was drafted to oppose.

So yes, Glenl, it's a very bad thing to stick one's nose in other people's business. Unless one places a low value on noses.

 

 

Glenl

Is Alberta a nation as well? Until a province chooses to separate they are part of my nation while asking the question. I consider it my business until they vote yes to separate. Just my opinion, but it has not been changed by the colonial straw man argument.

Eta to add not been changed

Gaian

Now that's the nationalist spirit one has to admire, U. Enough of this "global village" stuff.

Leaves the good guys on the outside with their short ones hanging out, but what the hell, it's a majority decision, screw the remainder (unless the charter can be somehow applied to the minority).

Or, whatever principle works for you in 2012. :)

Unionist

I'm not interested in arguing with anti-Québec elements like Glenl in this thread. We take for granted here that Québec's right to self-determination is inalienable. The discussion is simply whether the Sherbrooke Declaration is consistent with the Clarity Act. If you want to go convince someone that Québec is like Alberta, or that Québec is part of "your" nation (whatever that may be), this is definitely the wrong place for that. And I agree with you that colonialists are straw men. They burn real easy and bright.

And George, much as I feel affection for you, you have to struggle hard to comprehend what "democracy" means. If a majority of Quebecers don't want to be part of Canada any more, will Ottawa send in the troops because Québec hasn't followed the Supreme Court decision? Or the Clarity Act? Or will it say, "look, we're not happy about this, but there's nothing we can do about it but try to negotiate the consequences of Québec's sovereign decision". I realize that for some the guns may look more attractive, but hopefully we're beyond that here.

 

Glenl

I was a Quebec resident. My father died a Quebec resident. Consider me anti anything you want, it doesn't change the fact that separating should not be based on some ambiguous question, if it takes a genius to understand the question then it's not very democratic is it?

Unionist

Yes Glenl, it should be a clear question. But the point you're missing is that the people of Québec should formulate the question. Not Stephen Harper, not Obama, not Kim Jong-Un. And the Sherbrooke Declaration, to which all NDP candidates pay lip service, recognizes that reality. I hope you do too.

 

Glenl

I believe a significant difference between the CA and the SD is the former applies across Canada, the latter is specific to a province. Maybe that should be added to the table.

CanadaApple

That's a nice chart Unionist. good job. :)

Debater

Unionist wrote:

The Clarity Act is colonial and paternalistic. It is based on the notion that Quebecers will elect a government that tries to trick them into separating from Canada, and that the House of Commons must save them from this fate.

Example:

Quote:
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3), a clear expression of the will of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada could not result from

(a) a referendum question that merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada; or

(b) a referendum question that envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada, that obscure a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.

Combined with:

Quote:
(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that a referendum question is not clear and, for that reason, would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.

Translation: In 1980 and 1995, even if the "Yes" side had won, the Clarity Act (which wasn't yet in force) would have prohibited Canada from even sitting down to negotiate with Québec.

Is that consistent with the Sherbrooke Declaration? If so, then the NDP has pulled a giant fraud over on the Québec people. But I don't believe that cynical analysis.

Unionist, the Clarity Act is not anti-Quebec.  And there's no evidence that Quebecers have a problem with it since they have Jean Chrétien and INCREASED mandate in November 2000 in the years after the Clarity Act was passed.

The Clarity Act simply does what many legal contracts and rules do - it states that decisions cannot be made based on ambiguous, misleading language.  Cases go all the way up to the Supreme Court every day because of confusing or contradictory language in contracts, legislation, etc.  

It doesn't even bind the National Assembly anyway - it merely restricts what the Federal Parliament can do.

KenS

@ Debater:

First paragraph is just Liberal bait that will deflect if not ignored.

The rest adds nothing that has not been said.

Like I said, it would be nice if someone would take a crack at a sustained substantive case that the CA and SD are not essentially in conflict.

Or for that matter, given the lack of them, any opinion on that substance other than how people feel about seperation, how easy it should be, how clear the question should be, etc.

Gaian

U: "And George, much as I feel affection for you, you have to struggle hard to comprehend what "democracy" means. If a majority of Quebecers don't want to be part of Canada any more, will Ottawa send in the troops because Québec hasn't followed the Supreme Court decision? Or the Clarity Act? Or will it say, "look, we're not happy about this, but there's nothing we can do about it but try to negotiate the consequences of Québec's sovereign decision". I realize that for some the guns may look more attractive, but hopefully we're beyond that here."

Most of the time, the feeling is mutual, U. :) But democracy is NOT just goddam numbers (i.e.50 plus 1) And for the same HUMAN consideratins, of course guns are not attractive here.In fact, some folk fail to understand that in going from minority opinion to majority they are not just adopting the other's hat.

Try to understand the difference between your average francophobe in ROC and the Canuck who says his/her Canada includes Quebec and who blesses the creation of Sherbrooke Declarations.Enough of the generalized, dramatic (who mentioned "guns" for Chrisake?) stage material, please.

KenS

Also interested if there is any contrary opinions on my contention in post#4 about the broad popularity of the Clarity Act in the ROC. I've always known that at least the spirit of the CA enjoys no small support in the NDP- it could even be as much as a majority of the membership supporting the spirit of the CA to some degree or another- and we have evidence of that in this thread.

[And no- feeling that the referendum question should be clear is not in itself supporting the principles of the Act... though many want to go along with the Liberals in reducing it to that. On that front, the Clarity Act sets out who will decide what is a clear question, so if you support the spirit of the CA you are supporting what it says on that.]

 

In the opposite direction so to speak, there is this:

KenS wrote:

Here is a relatively straightforward question that could be put to all the candidates.

It has been suggested that the Sherbrooke Declaration contradicts the Clarity Act. Do you think this is true? We know that Canadians outside of Quebec know very little about the Sherbrooke Declaration and its implications. How will you approach this?

.....

The easy way out is to say there is no contradiction. But let alone what many members and supporters in Quebec think, it would come as a surprise to some of our MPs.

I know little about the inclinations of our MPs from Quebec.

What I do know about where some of them are coming from tells me that they must see a strong and basic contradiction between the Clarity Act. A number of Quebec activists here have talked about how essential the SD was in bringing many of their family and friends to supporting the NDP. Everybody in the NDP should know how repugnant the Clarity Act is in Quebec, and how the NDPs de facto support/association kept people from voting NDP. As well as comparing the documents themselves, that is the logical basis for the understanding that the perceived essential contradiction between the Clarity Act and the Sherbrooke Declaration played a central role in the level of NDP support achieved in Quebec.... and by extension, to continuing that support.

At any rate- I would be interested to hear from people in Quebec more aware of the MP's personal inclinations, whether they think it is true that to some of them it would come as a shock if a leadership candidate or an NDP spokesperson were to say there is no contradiction between the Clarity Act and the SD.

 

Unionist

KenS wrote:

[And no- feeling that the referendum question should be clear is not in itself supporting the principles of the Act... though many want to go along with the Liberals in reducing it to that. On that front, the Clarity Act sets out who will decide what is a clear question, so if you support the spirit of the CA you are supporting what it says on that.]

Bingo - thank you, Ken.

Gaian wrote:
Enough of the generalized, dramatic (who mentioned "guns" for Chrisake?) stage material, please.

1. Trudeau, abetted by Bourassa and Drapeau, in 1970 - in response, not to terrorism or crime, but "apprehended insurrection".

2. The NDP, the Sherbrooke Declaration (see my chart), promising not to use or threaten force.

3. Everyone who answers, "how will you treat a unilateral declaration of independence" with either, "that's illegal", or silence. Force lurks behind, and force means guns, in case you didn't know.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I sincerely hope that an NDP federal govt will rescind this piece of crap called the Clarity Act.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

All these discussions over the years on CA, SD, separation, sovereignty, give me a headache. Maybe we should just separate already and be done with it.

Gaian

You're not really advocating a Saruman, Boomer! We Baggins and Underhills must protest. :)

KenS

Whether or not the Clarity Act is formaly rescinded, or has to be recinded, is a distraction- even if raising it is not intended to be.

The Government of Canda is free to ignore the Clarity Act when and if the time comes in which it is relevant: it simply does not put the language of the Act into practice. This is the prerogative of all governments where the legislation does not specify what the Government of Canada MUST do.

The Clarity Act does not do that.

Explictly repealing the CA would be asking for trouble.

The real battle, and the pressing need, is to advance and defend the Sherborooke Declaration.... which is going to be enough of a challenge.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

Unionist

KenS wrote:

The Government of Canda is free to ignore the Clarity Act when and if the time comes in which it is relevant: it simply does not put the language of the Act into practice. This is the prerogative of all governments where the legislation does not specify what the Government of Canada MUST do.

The Clarity Act does not do that.

I agree that repealing the Clarity Act would bring no comfort to Quebecers and create confusion at best to others. But what you said above isn't quite right. The Clarity Act directs not only the government, but primarily the House, in very military terms. Examples:

Quote:
1. (1) The House of Commons shall, within thirty days after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear.

Quote:
(3) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall consider whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state.

Quote:
No negotiations if question not clear
(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that a referendum question is not clear and, for that reason, would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.

Quote:
Limitation
(2) No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.

Actually, I'm unaware of any law which purports to tie the hands of the House to such an extent.

Now of course, a wannabe fascist-style government like Harper's could (in Wheat Board style) simply ignore the parts that dictate to Ministers and dare anyone to come after him. But I think the parts that dictate to the House would be outside his purview. The House would need to amend or repeal almost the entire Act in order not to be bound by it. Not saying that wouldn't or couldn't happen. But no one should underestimate the heavy-handed weapon that is the Clarity Act.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

If we went ahead and separated, then the question becomes moot, no? Smile

Unionist

Not really, Boom Boom. The Clarity Act claims that unilateral separation is unlawful both under Canadian and international law. The NDP has promised not to use force in such a situation, but no one else has. Remember what happened in our neighbour to the south, last time someone "went ahead and separated"? It's best to argue these issues and get some "clarity" in advance, I think.

 

Gaian

Perhaps people have more positive things to do than wallow in the columnist's excrement.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unionist wrote:

Not really, Boom Boom. The Clarity Act claims that unilateral separation is unlawful both under Canadian and international law. The NDP has promised not to use force in such a situation, but no one else has. Remember what happened in our neighbour to the south, last time someone "went ahead and separated"? It's best to argue these issues and get some "clarity" in advance, I think.

I thought the National Assembly rejects the Clarity Act, and reserves the right to sovereignty unimpeded by Canadian law.

Unionist

Yes, that's right. But the issue that we're focusing on (hopefully) is the NDP view of the matter. They're a federal party.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yes, I got side-tracked. Sorry! Embarassed

KenS

It's like pulling teeth getting people to engage on this question. This thread has only been around overnight. But the general question has been raised since before the weekend.

There are a number of Quebec activists who have made clear the importance of the SD, who have not weighed in. They support or lean to a few different candidates, or have not even indicated their preferences... so reservations because of implications for a favoured candidate cannot be the reason.

And for activists in the ROC- is this a new idea the argument that there is an essential conflict betwwn the Clarity Act and the Sherbrooke Declaration, and that poses steep political challenges and risks for the NDP? Or what?

If people are waiting for someone to offer some kind of solution to the conundrum posed, I know that isnt coming from me.

 

It strikes me as more 'natural' or orderly [?] for discussion purposes that we look first at whether there is or is not an essential contradiction between the CA and the SD. But that doesnt seem to be gaining any traction.

So if shock value about the implications is needed to loosen tongues, we have:

On a key issue of national unity, folly from the NDP

...which I opened the earlier thread with.

 

The first separatist Prime Minister of Canada?

A full out nasty preview of what lies ahead. For the purposes of this discussion it isnt relevant that Mulcair in particular is the target of this piece. Take out the extra kicks at Mulcair, and the attack on the NDP stands on its own. No doubt, Google would turn up similar lovelies. And maybe there will be more of it than I guessed before the leadership is over and the Conservatives enter full on. It doesnt require orchestration to get this muck pumping. We provide the opportunity, and the media does the rest. [Actual orchestration will make it worse and nastier.]

Don't be just passing this off as only the predictable frothing of the Right. I doubt anyone except some political junkies is paying attention now, but there is fertile ground for this among the NDP's supporter universe.

 

bekayne

Unionist wrote:

The NDP has promised not to use force in such a situation, but no one else has. 

"Everyone, governments first and foremost, must renounce force or the threat of the use of force."

[edited by moderator for formatting]

 

Unionist

Excellent! M. Dion has nailed one of the important principles in relations between nations. Now if only his party would proclaim that principle. Somehow, it got left out of the Clarity Act. Must be a clarical error...

 

Debater

KenS wrote:

@ Debater:

First paragraph is just Liberal bait that will deflect if not ignored.

What does this mean?

Debater

Boom Boom wrote:

I sincerely hope that an NDP federal govt will rescind this piece of crap called the Clarity Act.

Go ahead then.

KenS

Its a secret handshake D.

Unionist

Ok, despite Ken's valiant efforts, I'm abandoning this thread. It obviously isn't sexy enough. Nothing about the candidates' fascinating personalities, their life story, some sound bite they made 20 years ago while digesting their food, whether they look good in glasses, or whether they have big enough balls and enough testerone to kick the shit out of Harper in a man-to-man fight. Obviously not of much interest. Fuck it.

 

Unionist

I've emailed the mods and asked to close this thread. What a waste of time.

 

MegB

Sorry, one person's perspective on what is a waste of time doesn't close a thread.  Length (to accommodate those who don't have highspeed access) is.  

Doug

It's odd to be debating this at a time when separation looks the least likely it has in forty years. For the purposes of the immediate future, it's like worrying about what party policy regarding the zombie apocalypse should be. Quebec seems to be pretty turned off to the idea of a referendum anytime soon so the important question is how to keep things that way.

Unionist

Right on, Doug - that's two persons' perspective now - waste of time. Hey Rebecca, how many persons' perspectives do we need to close this thread?

 

MegB

Unionist wrote:

Right on, Doug - that's two persons' perspective now - waste of time. Hey Rebecca, how many persons' perspectives do we need to close this thread?

You know, when you fling out crap at moderators - without attention to what's being posted - it just supports the shortcomings in the content of any dissention on your part.  Why do you bother?

 

Summer

I thought this thread was started because some people are predicting that the NDP is going to be given a hard time about the Sherbrooke Declaration by the Cons at some point.  Even if separatism is not really on the radar now, the Cons will bring it up if it's politically beneficial.  I'd barely heard of the SD before and appreciate the thread and the chart. Does the NDP have an official position on the Clarity Act?  What about on the Supreme Court's decision in the Secession (sp?) Reference?

Unionist

Rebecca West wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Right on, Doug - that's two persons' perspective now - waste of time. Hey Rebecca, how many persons' perspectives do we need to close this thread?

You know, Fidel, when you fling out crap at moderators - without attention to what's being posted - it just supports the shortcomings in the content of any dissention on your part.  Why do you bother?

 

Excellent question.

 

Unionist

Summer wrote:

 Does the NDP have an official position on the Clarity Act?

In 2004, Jack Layton said an NDP government would [url=http://regina.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20040529/layton_quebec_040... repeal the federal Clarity Act and recognize a declaration of Quebec independence if sovereigntists win a referendum. [/url]

However, on December 7, 2005, during the next election campaign, [url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051207/]he reversed himself[/url]:

Quote:

Layton said he changed his mind because of the Supreme Court decision and the consensus that has emerged over the years. Even former sovereigntist leader Lucien Bouchard accepted the law as set out by the Supreme Court, he said.

"The Supreme Court has laid out the principles that should be followed," Layton said.

"The Clarity Act falls from that. It has been accepted quite broadly from Mr. Bouchard right on through. We think it can be a basis."

Meanwhile, the party convention in 2006 adopted the Sherbrooke Declaration, which clearly (I think) opposes the Clarity Act.

Part of the problem is the "dictatorship of the leader", which JKR has pointed to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-79#comment-1310... this other thread[/url]. That's what makes it difficult to determine the NDP's position, or whether it has one.

Hope that helps.

 

 

Unionist

Wilf Day expressed the view that the Sherbrooke Declaration does not contradict the Clarity Act. I disagreed. KenS asked for details of my analysis. Please see above.

Apologies:

1. I'm no lawyer, so this is just based on reading the words in their plain sense.

2. Sorry for the fuzzy image. I couldn't figure out how to do a simple text table here, so I created a pdf file, exported it to jpeg, and uploaded it to tinypic.com (a remarkably appropriate name for an NDP leadership race, no?). If anyone has problems deciphering, or expert assistance in reproducing this better, let me know.

3. As babblers add, subtract, or make corrections, I'll amend the chart accordingly (if we have consensus, of course - otherwise, it's MY CHART Laughing).

ETA: Oh yeah, here are the documents in question:

[url=http://www.pierreducasse.ca/IMG/pdf/Declaration_Sherbrooke_ENG_V2.pdf]Sh... Declaration[/url]

[url=http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-31.8/FullText.html]Clarity Act[/url]

[url=http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/documents/pdf/loi_consul_populaire_fr.p... sur la consultation populaire - Version spéciale de la Loi électorale pour la tenue d'un référendum[/url]

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

We're getting a taste of Harper as a dictator - that could fuel the debate all over again.

Pages