Does a PQ win mean a referendum on sovereignty?

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina
Does a PQ win mean a referendum on sovereignty?

Since the Quebec election's been called people have been saying a Marios win means a referundum on sogeriegnty. Do you think this is likely and if so how do see it playing out? At the federal level who do you see playing the part of Captain Canada on behalf of the ROC and federalist Quebecers?

[thread title edited and thread moved to Quebec forum]

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

An immense waste of money and time...Support for sovereignty has been shrinking at break neck speed.

Cue Trudeau,Mulcair and Harpo fighting for official Captain Canada status.

Québec has been recognized as a nation within Canada..If the PQ had one working brain cell in their pinholed heads,they'd govern as such and spare the public of another failed referendum.

DaveW

very unlikely

Brachina

 I don't think Harper will fight for Captain Canada status, so its between Justin and Mulcair and Justin just doesn't have the Quebec Machine to take the role, nor does he have th experience or talent. 

 

 So at he end of the day that leaves Mulcair.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

 So at he end of the day that leaves Mulcair.

I nominate Mulcair for Captain Canada!

Is that higher or lower than PM?

 

Matthieu

If Mulcair wants to play Captain Canada, be ready to see the NDP wiped off the map in Québec. Remember, there's a very large proportion of sovereignists voters who voted for the NDP, while the federalists stayed with the Liberals. 

Not to mention that there are several elected members of the NDP that are sovereignists as well: they took anyone they could find and the left wing in Québec is massively sovereignist (just like the right wing is federalist). If there is a referendum (which there won't be as long as Marois is the leader of the PQ, she just doesn't have the charisma) and the NDP tries to look like the liberals, the party risks breaking apart.

Trudeau will be Captain Canada, if only for his name and his hair.

Unionist

Matthieu wrote:

Trudeau will be Captain Canada, if only for his name and his hair.

Except that Trudeau said something which (if he stuck to it) would resonate with vast numbers of Quebecers:

Justin T. wrote:
"I always say that if I ever believed Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper and we were going against abortion and going against gay marriage, and we were going backward in 10,000 different ways, maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country."

Mulcair would never say anything so traitorous as that. Which is why I'm sticking with my nomination. Go Cap'n Tom!!

cco

For the Bloc to make a decent comeback, they'd need a leader people might recognize if they fell over him in the street.

Maybe Parizeau can be lured out of retirement. He's certainly engaged enough to keep poking at every subsequent PQ leader.

(Really, I'd love to see Vivian Barbot take the job.)

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

The "children of Duplessis" in rural Quebec who are new backbone of the PQ/BQ would be very unenthusiastic black woman.

 

Matthieu

Again with that myth: people expect that there is a region/Montreal duality like those present in Ontario or BC. It's simply not true in Québec, the break is between Francophone and Anglophone. Except for the city of Québec (which is far more right-wing), francophones, whether in Montréal or in the regions, are very close on most social issues. 

Unionist

Matthieu - please don't debate with this provocateur. He's been spewing shit like this for years, especially about Québec. I've flagged his post as offensive.

Stockholm

Parizeau is 86 years old and slowing wayyy down so that's out of the question and Vivian Barbot is in her 70s and may be a very bad fit for the BQ now that the "new BQ/PQ" is all about appealing to xenophobic ethnic nationalism in rural Quebec. The "children of Duplessis" in rural Quebec who are new backbone of the PQ/BQ would be very unenthusiastic about voting for a black woman.

Stockholm

People who support Marois's anti-hijab and kippa law - are not going to want to vote for anyone who doesn't "look" (sic.) like a Quebecer...and for pur et dur nationalists - to look like a Quebecer you have to be white and have a last name like Tremblay or Morin.

ygtbk

Unionist wrote:

Matthieu wrote:

Trudeau will be Captain Canada, if only for his name and his hair.

Except that Trudeau said something which (if he stuck to it) would resonate with vast numbers of Quebecers:

Justin T. wrote:
"I always say that if I ever believed Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper and we were going against abortion and going against gay marriage, and we were going backward in 10,000 different ways, maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country."

Mulcair would never say anything so traitorous as that. Which is why I'm sticking with my nomination. Go Cap'n Tom!!

Ground Control to Major Tom, perhaps?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

What's the point of independance if Québec will continue to govern identically with Canada?

If we're not going to be a progressive country,I vote NO!

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Oh ffs. Stockholm just stay out of this thread. Thanks.

Bluegreenblogger

I don`t know about `Captain Canada`, but I would lay heavy odds that Trudeau will be campaigning hard if it should come to another referendum. But I doubt that we will see another referendum anytime soon. This election is about getting a majority, not seccession.

swallow swallow's picture

Matthieu wrote:

Again with that myth: people expect that there is a region/Montreal duality like those present in Ontario or BC. It's simply not true in Québec, the break is between Francophone and Anglophone. Except for the city of Québec (which is far more right-wing), francophones, whether in Montréal or in the regions, are very close on most social issues. 

In my experience (I live in Estrie), people are all pretty close on social issues,* regardless of langauge. I sure don't think anglophones in "the regions" are more right-wing. 

A referendum seems very unlikely, not a lot of people want one.

* the secular charter aside...

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
Since the Quebec election's been called people have been saying a Marios win means a referundum on sogeriegnty. Do you think this is likely and if so how do see it playing out? At the federal level who do you see playing the part of Captain Canada on behalf of the ROC and federalist Quebecers?

I think this worry is over-blown. Let's remember how unpopular the Charest government was throughout its whole mandate, and the difficulty the Parti Quebecois had in defeating this government. What was it that Charest held that made it difficult for the PQ? My sense is that the fact that Charest was not going to call a referendum played into this. And even last go around, with the social unrest and the corruption scandals and the fact that the 2 sovereigntist parties that campaigned in the last election were onside with Quebec public opinion on most issues and Marois (who had some social capital thanks to her daycare program) downplayed the issue, they still failed to win a majority coalition. Why? My sense again is that the referendum issue hindered the sovereigntist parties. And this was before, when Marois was taking down an unpopular government. Now she has some political baggage of her own, notably the Secular Charter. I can also remember in the 1994 there had been considerable open talk about Quebec's frustration within Canada, talk that seems now notably absent, save for the chatter among the media classes of this country who are playing off the ignorance in English Canada but who are also unaware as to how the ground has shifted.

So what should Mulcair do? I think his use of the word "tragic" to describe a hypothetical PQ majority was very ill-advised. The best he can do would be to stay out of the direct fray, but to continue to advocate for Quebec's interests where it concerns federal jurisdiction, for example Canada Post or infrastructure. And juding by the fact that the NDP won Quebec, I think there is a healthy appetite within Quebec from people across the spectrum to have a healthy, constructive relationship between the federal and provincial governments.

Brachina

http://democraticvotingcanada.blogspot.ca/2014/03/mulcair-backs-federali...

 

 The liberals are out smearing Tom on his neutrality on the Quebec election.

janfromthebruce

Brachina wrote:

http://democraticvotingcanada.blogspot.ca/2014/03/mulcair-backs-federali...

 

 The liberals are out smearing Tom on his neutrality on the Quebec election.

  Liberals are just resorting to what they too best: nasty; and how they act: entitled.

CanadaOrangeCat

I just moved to Montreal. I generally support the Quebec National Project, however it may be compatible within a united Canada. The concept of Quebec nationality is a good contrast to the schizoid Anglosphere and complete lack of a distinctive English Canadian culture, Twittering each other as they do about Sarah Palin and Miley Cyrus.

Unless Marois specifically says she is running on a referendum during this election I cannot see how she can spring one on the electorate during this term. That would be political toxic waste, and the PQ would be out of it for 20 years. I can't see how her husband and their friends would let her do that. Quebec Inc. is boasting good growth numbers and healthy profits. The deal seems to be that she is running on the secular charter. On the other hand, she may want to play coy on the referendum to keep the strong pequistes on board.

The other thing is that Marois has provided a reasonably competent government, and is still not seen as being as corrupt as the provincial Liberals. In addition, she seems to have a more empathetic personality than the two guys who are running the Liberals and whatever that other party thing is. They seem to be non-entities. In the recent Marois budget they had 3250 social housing units. When was the last time they did that in Ontario, a place with practically double the economy?

There is always this hysteria in English Canada about Quebec. All they can whine is "please don't go" like little children. It cannot "go". It is a land mass weighing trillions of tonnes. The reactions I have seen from Anglos on the comments sections of Canadian newspapers say it all. Who can blame Quebec for wanting to leave people like that. If they do, I'm down with it. Its not like Canada would do anything anyway. "Oh you can keep your Canadian passport and file your Canadian taxes", I am sure they will mewl. They let people keep passports from places like Israel and Uganda, so why not Quebec?

lagatta

Indeed, there are many other possible "national" or constitutional arrangements.

I feel NO appetite for a referendum now. By the way, there are three sovereignist parties (unless I'm forgetting some marginal one), though Union nationale hasn't won any seats, and I doubt they will this time.

One interesting thing I've been reading lately is that the Parti vert du Québec have moved left and now declare themselves "ecosocialist". They used to have a far from socailly-progressive platform, but I'm interested in reading about any progressive turn, if it is earnest.

I don't know if I'd call Dr Barrette, who looks like some kind of child of Rob Ford and Boris Johnson, a "non-entity" but both he and Dr Coullard have supported types of privatisation and two-tier medicine - bad doctors!

3250 social housing units is better than nothing, but it is ridiculously under the number needed, even in Villeray or Petite-Patrie alone. Condo conversions are making it harder and harder for people with limited incomes to secure decent housing. The latest was the conversion of the former School for the Deaf into les condos Le Castelnau. Not only were no social housing units built there, there are also many, many parking spaces, although it is right across the street from the Castelnau métro station and very short walking distance from Jean-Talon Market, Jarry Park and the big Loblaws.

DaveW

Stockholm wrote:

People who support Marois's anti-hijab and kippa law - are not going to want to vote for anyone who doesn't "look" (sic.) like a Quebecer...and for pur et dur nationalists - to look like a Quebecer you have to be white and have a last name like Tremblay or Morin.

while I am totally against the charter thing, you are quite wrong on the above; sounds like you rely on The Gazette for your QC news

ethnic and first-generation  sovereignists, like current PQ culture minister Maka Kotto, who is very popular among pequistes (and loudly supports the charter), and  central Montreal, Latino unionists , say,  find  no barrier to entry in the party...

I remember long talks with PQ cultural communities minister Gerald Godin in the '80s, who taught himself Greek in order to better communicate with his central-city electors, about the possibilities for a  coalition among progressive and ethnic voters; there is broad part of the urban party that strongly supports that, so using your  broad brush as you do does not negate that reality

 

lagatta

Yes, and there is a definite faction among Maghrebi and Middle-Eastern Québécois who are hardline secularists and very much don't want to see people in hijabs, crosses, turbans or any other religious garb. These are not all warriors for imperialism against the benighted global South like some prominent ex-Muslims in the RoC, the Netherlands and other places. Many if not most are on various shades of the left. This attitude is pariticularly strong among Algerians who define themselves as Berbers or Kabyles - remember, more than a few of such people have fled massacres committed both by the Muslim fundamentalists and the military.

I have a friend who lost much of his family there in the 1990s, but we don't ask him about the details. He has come around to the idea that people should be able to wear what they want, and that not every woman with a scarf on her head is a Salafist who wishes his wife or sister dead because they are secular. But there are reasons for such attitudes that come out of experience even harsher than what "pure-laine" Catholic Québécoises endured at the hands of a reactionary and domineering Church - the film Philomena, like the earlier Magdalen Laudries, both set in Ireland, give a taste of those times.

Yes, there were definitely Greek Workers Association members and other "lefty ethnics" who supported Godin; I remember the same among the Italian FILEF, up here. Remember that the first PQ government passed some very important progressive legislation, in favour of women and LGBT people, about ethics in politics and limits on campaign spending, and protection of farmland from speculation.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Also the PQ brought in the very first anti-scab law on the continent.

Unionist

Turns out Mulcair wasn't alone in having a secret meeting with Harper about how to interfere in the Québec election:

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03/07/harper-mulcair-quebec-election-p... Not The Only Leader Harper Consulted On Quebec Election[/url]

Quote:

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair wasn't the only person Prime Minister Stephen Harper reached out to in the last week to talk about the Quebec election and possibility of a third referendum that could split the country apart.

The Huffington Post Canada has learned that Harper telephoned provincial premiers from coast to coast and sat down with the two main opposition leaders in Ottawa. [...]

Mulcair's spokesman George Smith would not comment on the leak or the criticism. He told HuffPost the meeting was "a private conversation" and the purpose was to discuss the situation in Ukraine.

Mulcair and Harper are on the same Ukrainian wave length. Must be why Harper felt he could trust Mulcair on the Québec problem.

 

Ward
Ward
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

WTF was that?

Ward

Yeah. so like quebec wants to make its own secret sauce....whats the big deal?

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
Mulcair and Harper are on the same Ukrainian wave length. Must be why Harper felt he could trust Mulcair on the Québec problem.

Believe it or not, the First Ministers often consult the leaders of Opposition Parties for advice on particular situations (whether or not they listen is another matter). Very rarely does it make the news, unless it's a pressing issue, for example minority government negotiations, or a major news item dominating the media cycle, such as Ukraine or the Quebec election. And I don't get where your contention that Mulcair is advising Harper how to "interfere" with the Quebec election comes from. Mulcair explicitly stated on Power and Politics that he was going to stay neutral even though Solomon was clearly goading him. If a referendum is called, that's another matter, but right now, the Quebec provincial election will play itself out as it will.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Mulcair and Harper are on the same Ukrainian wave length. Must be why Harper felt he could trust Mulcair on the Québec problem.

Believe it or not, the First Ministers often consult the leaders of Opposition Parties for advice on particular situations (whether or not they listen is another matter). Very rarely does it make the news, unless it's a pressing issue, for example minority government negotiations, or a major news item dominating the media cycle, such as Ukraine or the Quebec election. And I don't get where your contention that Mulcair is advising Harper how to "interfere" with the Quebec election comes from. Mulcair explicitly stated on Power and Politics that he was going to stay neutral even though Solomon was clearly goading him. If a referendum is called, that's another matter, but right now, the Quebec provincial election will play itself out as it will.

1. You didn't explain why Mulcair would keep such a discussion secret. Please explain it to me. State security? Doesn't trust the mob with sensitive information? Why would he agree to have such a conversation on condition of secrecy?

2. Mulcair said he was going to stay "neutral"? Really. He stayed neutral in 2012, when the students were being attacked daily by police and the Charest government and municipalities were passing draconian legislation against freedom of assembly. He not only stayed neutral, he muzzled every member of his caucus, who should have been in the streets with the rest of us - and who obviously wanted to be.

But what happened to Mulcair's pledge to finance court challenges to the PQ's charter? Was that just for Québec audiences? Was it "neutrality"? Or is it ok because the writ hadn't been dropped yet, and now he can just forget about what he said till the election's over?

Mulcair should tell the Canadian people exactly what he said to Harper during their secret meeting. Or, he should explain exactly why he can't or won't. It's not rocket science.

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist, I don't know what you are going on about. Harper and Mulcair have had several such "secret meetings" on a number of issues. Is it really necessary to provide specific details about each one? And in any case, what else is there for federal politicians to do than stand back, let the election play itself out, and then proceed from there?

Did you also miss my post where I said that the use of the word "tragic" was ill-advised by Mulcair?

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Unionist, I don't know what you are going on about.

You know exactly what I'm going on about. Who mandated Mulcair to have a confidential conversation with Harper about Québec? For what conceivable purpose would it be confidential?

Quote:
Harper and Mulcair have had several such "secret meetings" on a number of issues. Is it really necessary to provide specific details about each one?

Oh, so there's been several, so that makes it better. No, it's not "necessary" I guess to offer details about everything. But when it's leaked, and the questions are asked, why not answer? Is there something unclear about the point I'm raising?

Quote:
And in any case, what else is there for federal politicians to do than stand back, let the election play itself out, and then proceed from there?

You didn't answer my question about Mulcair's public, even flamboyant, pledge that the federal NDP would finance court challenges to the PQ's Charter (if it ever passes). What do you call that? And how do you square that with his silence on Charest's Bill 78 and the continuing fight against draconian city bylaws that are actually facing court challenges?

Quote:
Did you also miss my post where I said that the use of the word "tragic" was ill-advised by Mulcair?

No, I saw that. What I didn't understand is why you regretted the adjective he used, rather than simply stating that he has no right whatsoever to comment publicly on the Québec election - not as long as he's leader of the NDP, and not unless his party (idiotically) mandates him to interfere.

Do you understand now what I meant when I said "interfere"? Would you prefer if I said "influence"? All right, I'm fine with that.

 

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
Quote:
Did you also miss my post where I said that the use of the word "tragic" was ill-advised by Mulcair?

No, I saw that. What I didn't understand is why you regretted the adjective he used, rather than simply stating that he has no right whatsoever to comment publicly on the Québec election - not as long as he's leader of the NDP, and not unless his party (idiotically) mandates him to interfere.

Now you're just arguing semantics. On this particular point, I don't think you and I are nearly as far apart as you seem to be suggesting.

 

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

Mulcair and Harper are on the same Ukrainian wave length. Must be why Harper felt he could trust Mulcair on the Québec problem. 

 

ooooh Sounds like some deep dark conspiracy.

 

Unionist

Actually, jjuares, it was something known as "irony" - a literary device. I'm not good at that stuff, which is why it probably fell flat.

ETA: Good to see you back - it's been a while!

Brachina

 Your sounding paraniod Unionist. Its as simply as not wanting to show Marios his cards and the fact that privacy in these sorts of conversations especially about the details is expected and a matter of trust.

 Still I don't see it as some dark conspiracy, Harper probably wanted to know about the major players and to make sure Justin Trudeau's childish baiting would cause a NDP/Federalist Liberal fued to spill over into the Quebec election. There is some fears that the Justin Trudeau will do something egotastical and foolish and try to act like captain canada and try to force his way into the centre of attention during the Quebec election and doing huge damage to federalism in the process. This just my hypothesis.

 The consus is the fed parties shouldn't get invovled.

janfromthebruce

See that "The federal Liberals back their provincial counterparts." Which by extension means that if there was a referendum, they support a voting outcome of 50% plus 1.

DaveW

Pardon my indifference, but the most likely outome of the QC vote is another minority Govt., I think, hence much of the chat above would be beside the point with that outcome

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

See that "The federal Liberals back their provincial counterparts." Which by extension means that if there was a referendum, they support a voting outcome of 50% plus 1.

It's disappointing that LPC is backing PLQ but what do you expect?...They're not going to back any of the parties...I wish they'd be neutral.

But supporting 50% plus 1 is not a bad thing...It's a majority...Not supporting that fact would be undemocratic.

DaveW

Liberals might well get a QC minority, which would affect Justin

janfromthebruce

alan smithee wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

See that "The federal Liberals back their provincial counterparts." Which by extension means that if there was a referendum, they support a voting outcome of 50% plus 1.

It's disappointing that LPC is backing PLQ but what do you expect?...They're not going to back any of the parties...I wish they'd be neutral.

But supporting 50% plus 1 is not a bad thing...It's a majority...Not supporting that fact would be undemocratic.

I don't think of it as a bad thing at all. And it would be undemocratic to not support it.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

See that "The federal Liberals back their provincial counterparts." Which by extension means that if there was a referendum, they support a voting outcome of 50% plus 1.

It's disappointing that LPC is backing PLQ but what do you expect?...They're not going to back any of the parties...I wish they'd be neutral.

But supporting 50% plus 1 is not a bad thing...It's a majority...Not supporting that fact would be undemocratic.

I don't think of it as a bad thing at all. And it would be undemocratic to not support it.

Sorry,jan... I misunderstood you.

Brachina

 I believe she was refering to the fact that the Quebec Liberal Party supports 50% +1 while the Federal Liberals oppose and try to sell Canadians on thier fairy tail, the Clarity Act.

PrairieDemocrat15

Matthieu wrote:

If Mulcair wants to play Captain Canada, be ready to see the NDP wiped off the map in Québec. Remember, there's a very large proportion of sovereignists voters who voted for the NDP, while the federalists stayed with the Liberals. 

Not to mention that there are several elected members of the NDP that are sovereignists as well: they took anyone they could find and the left wing in Québec is massively sovereignist (just like the right wing is federalist). If there is a referendum (which there won't be as long as Marois is the leader of the PQ, she just doesn't have the charisma) and the NDP tries to look like the liberals, the party risks breaking apart.

Trudeau will be Captain Canada, if only for his name and his hair.

So only 14.2% of Quebecers are federalists? I guess Marois will be calling a referendum after all.

janfromthebruce

Brachina wrote:

 I believe she was refering to the fact that the Quebec Liberal Party supports 50% +1 while the Federal Liberals oppose and try to sell Canadians on thier fairy tail, the Clarity Act.

It was tongue and cheek. Federal Liberals and their supporters don't mention that their provincial counterparts support 50 plus 1 if a referendum was called. So I see the humour in it. Sorry for the confusion.

DaveW

the most recent polls call it 61-39 for any hypothetical No vote in the referendum;

will never occur, Liberals most likely elected now, given PKP fiasco among other things

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Dave...you're very optimistic...I wish I could share in that.

cco

The idea of the Liberals returning to power is not one I would call optimistic.

Pages