Is NDP a regional (Quebec) party?

In the last Leger Quebec Provinical polling  (April 16, 2011), almost two-thirds of PQ (64%) and sovereignists (65%) believe Pauline Marois is the right person to make Quebec a country. And the PQ in the poll lead the Liberals by 7%. Support for sovereignty remains at 43% - same as was reported by CROP.

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/its-officia..."It's official: Layton backs 50%-plus-one rule
for Quebec secession" (Globe and Mail)[/url]

Funny that no-one is asking Harper what he thinks constitutes an acceptable majority vote for secession, given that his party is in government and would actually be responsible for negotiating with Quebec after a Yes vote.

M. Spector wrote:

If the NDP wants to hold onto its Quebec seats (and MP's!) it will have to develop a clear and principled position on Quebec sovereignty that is acceptable to the Quebec left. Right now, it doesn't have that.

I think its all very simple. The NDP is a federalist party and wants Quebec to remain a part of Canada. If there is a referendum on Quebec independence and a majority of Quebecers (50% plus 1) vote to separate, we will honour that result as much as this is not the result we want. What's the alternative? To threaten civil war?

Oh, I agree 100% that we need to get some answers out of Harper regarding the Clarity Act and his previous support for partitioning Quebec in the event of sovereignty. Does he still support partitioning? And, on P&P tonight, Tom Flanagan said Harper used to support "50% + 1%" in the early 1990s - so where does he stand today - does he support the Clarity Act or "50% +1"???

Peggy Nash totally avoided the question today on P&P, and her evasiveness does not portend well - it makes her look afraid to take a stand. I expected more from a seasoned veteran.

It's totally appropriate the NDP are being asked the question because they hold a majority of the Quebec federal seats, and one would like to know why Layton said he supported the Clarity Act, then changed to support the Sherbrooke Declaration. He has to learn he, like Harper, is a prime target now that he's playing in prime time as the Opposition Leader.

It'll certainly be all of that or more likely made out to be, but I seriously doubt we need to be framing the discussion around such themes as unleash, runaway train, high stakes, and drastic.  Presumably, English corporate media would be competing over the use of those words.

Boom Boom wrote:

It's totally appropriate the NDP are being asked the question because they hold a majority of the Quebec federal seats, and one would like to know why Layton said he supported the Clarity Act, then changed to support the Sherbrooke Declaration. He has to learn he, like Harper, is a prime target now that he's playing in prime time as the Opposition Leader.

I agree it is appropriate to ask the NDP the question, they are the Official Opposition after all. I can excuse the press not asking fringe parties like the Greens or the Liberals. They are not likely to be in a position where their opinion matters, at least not any more.  But since the next Quebec election is going to occur during Harper's term (and thus the possible election of a sovereigntist government, and the possible scheduling of another referendum), it seems to me really important to find out what Harper's position is.

I also want to point out that 50%+1 is not actually inconsistent with the Clarity Act.  The Clarity Act (and the Supreme Court decision on which it is based) use the terms "clear majority" and "clear question" but don't actually define what those terms are. There's nothing "unclear" about a result where more people vote Yes than No, even in the highly unlikely event that its only by one vote.  I do think its important that the Quebec legislature put a question to the voters that reasonably explains the consequences of a "Yes" vote, i.e. whether it is just a mandate to negotiate (with or without a second vote later to ratify or reject the result) or whether it includes express authorization for action such as a unilateral declaration of independence if negotiations fail. But ultimately I don't think this is a federalist or sovereigntist issue, it's just a democracy issue.

I think it is a little more complicated than that.

When definitely; why does not need explanation-- self determination is clear.

However the how does involve negotiation in any respect where there is a partnership or arrangement. These are relationships and they ought to be respectful but to suggest that Quebec could lay down whatever terms it wants is not accurate either and makes no logical sense.

A yes vote would have to be accepted but there is a whole range of negotiations on shared assets and future relationships that would begin and these would not just include Canada-- they would involve other countries as well.

The process would be difficult and painful for some and there are many unknowns. Respect for self determination is one thing but following that relationships are bilateral and one does not dictate to the other. It is extremely unlikely that the people of Quebec and Canada would not expect an ongoing relationship to be negotiated even with outright independence. Anything less than independence would also require negotiation.

The uncomfortable reality for some is that all relationships involve more than one party and all involve some kind of negotiation. That is a reality not a threat. A yes vote sets some terms and positions but it really is a trigger for a negotiation with more than one party in it. Either party overstepping, acting arrogant or not respecting the other as an equal in the negotiation would create massive problems. Neither side should pretend anything different. There is nothing anti-Quebec or anti-Canadian in this observation.

So I do not support your statement Unionist-- I agree the decision of whether but how?  There is a process -- a divorce if you will. There are two parties in that-- bound by the will of the people of Quebec in terms of objectives but still charged with a negotiation.

The suggestion of partition is offensive and has no place in the discussion however.

Sean - you're right, of course, but your point with respect is a bit trivial - and the danger of it is that it leads into traps like the one set by Stockholm.

If Québec wants to establish an independent state, it does so - tomorrow, by whatever means it decides - no negotiation, no agreement, nothing is required.

That doesn't mean there won't be disputes over who owns which building, or how much is owed to whom by whom. Nor does it mean that Québec can unilaterally re-fashion a different kind of federation to its liking. That's obvious - bleeding obvious, if I may say.

But if Québec decides to "separate" - the ROC, the G-G, the HOC, the PMO, the USA, the CIA, nor any other acronym has any say in the matter whatsoever.

Hope that demonstrates that there is no disagreement between us, Sean. Unless I got your view wrong, and you really think Québec has to negotiate something (anything) before establishing its own state - in which case, let's re-start the conversation and see what you're talking about.

Unionist wrote:

Jack should answer all these questions as follows:

"The decision of when or whether or how the people of Québec establish an independent state is a decision which belongs to the people of Québec alone. We will respect that decision. We will, however, work all out to ensure that Canada is the most respectful, attractive, and welcoming option for all its citizens and residents - including those of Québec."

That's what Ed Broadbent and the NDP said, in my recollection, in 1980, and previously. It was only recently that the waters got a touch muddied. 

Threats and constitutional strong-arming by the Imperial Canadian government and its acolytes are only going to go so far. If Quebec wants national self-determination, we should live with that.

Like there won't be enough land in Canada for us to live in? It would still be huge.

Why is it that all the people who attack Layton for saying 50+1 is a clear majority are never asked and never say what they think constitutes a clear majority? Someone ask Bob Rae or Stephane Dion or Stephen harper or Andrew Coyne or whoever - "If you don't feel that a Yes vote of 50%+1 is a clear enough majority to set the wheels in motion for Quenbec to become independent - then what DO you think is sufficient and I demand a precise number?"

The 50+1 issue is actually a bit of a no-brainer - the question wording is a different story. Unfder international law - NO COUNTRY on the face of the earth would recognize an independent Quebec unless there was evidence of a majority vote for independence. Its true that the Quebec National Assembly has the right to ask any referendum question it wants - but you cannot have a referendum with the question "what's your favourite colour? Red or Blue" and then if 50.0001% vote "blue" expect the United nations to regard that as a legitimate vote for secession from canada.

Wilf Day wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Jack should answer all these questions as follows:

"The decision of when or whether or how the people of Québec establish an independent state is a decision which belongs to the people of Québec alone. We will respect that decision. We will, however, work all out to ensure that Canada is the most respectful, attractive, and welcoming option for all its citizens and residents - including those of Québec."

That's what Ed Broadbent and the NDP said, in my recollection, in 1980, and previously. It was only recently that the waters got a touch muddied. 

We have different recollections, Wilf. One reason I left the NDP in the 1970s was its refusal to formally recognize this statement: "Québec has the right to self-determination." The Waffle said it, the NDP wouldn't. If you can find such an unqualified recognition anywhere in any NDP document whatsoever prior to the Sherbrooke Declaration, I will stand corrected.

I have a clever idea that maintains the principle of 50% plus 1, while also ensuring that somewhat of a "super-majority". Why not say that for the Quebec government to have a true mandate from the people of Quebec to declare independence 50% plus 1 of all eligible voters must vote YES. In other words, if according to the census and Elections Quebec, there are - say 5,500,000 Quebecers who are canadian citizens over the age of 18 - then for a Yes vote to be valid there must be at least 2,750,000 Yes ballots cast? Given that in the last referedum the turn out was about 91% - it would de facto force about a 54% Yes margin - which would also be in line with international law with the precedent of the 55% required for Montenegro to secede from Serbia!

Boom Boom wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Why is 50% + 1 not enough to change the electoral system?

I believe it's 50% + 1%, actually - and it is enough. Those who say it isn't are full of it.

I was referring to this:

It would have required 60 per cent overall approval and 50 per cent approval in at least 60 per cent of the province's electoral districts in order to succeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_electoral_reform_referendum,_2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Edward_Island_electoral_reform_referendum,_2005

Ontario wouldn't apply because it wasn't a yes-no question.

Uncle John wrote:

Saying 50% + 1 of the voting population instead of THOSE VOTING is trying to outrageously rig the result against national self determination of the Quebec people. Currently we only get 60% voter turnout, and requiring 50% + 1 would mean that 86% or so of THOSE VOTING would have to say yes.

THOSE WHO VOTE determine what the outcome is. This is democracy. Love it.

When the stakes are high enough - people vote. In the 1995 Quebec referendum, the turnout was something like 94%!! I think that there is something to be said that voting Yes on something as drastic, permanent, irreversible and consequential as a declaration of independence of a province should be bsed on evidence of a broad societal consensus. If you can't get 50% of the voting age population to be feel strongly enough about sovereignty to be willing to go out and vote for it - then i don't think it passes the smell test.

In many European countries - referendums are not considered valid unless the Yes vote is x% of the electorate.

Stockholm wrote:

Uncle John wrote:

Saying 50% + 1 of the voting population instead of THOSE VOTING is trying to outrageously rig the result against national self determination of the Quebec people. Currently we only get 60% voter turnout, and requiring 50% + 1 would mean that 86% or so of THOSE VOTING would have to say yes.

THOSE WHO VOTE determine what the outcome is. This is democracy. Love it.

When the stakes are high enough - people vote. In the 1995 Quebec referendum, the turnout was something like 94%!! I think that there is something to be said that voting Yes on something as drastic, permanent, irreversible and consequential as a declaration of independence of a province should be bsed on evidence of a broad societal consensus. If you can't get 50% of the voting age population to be feel strongly enough about sovereignty to be willing to go out and vote for it - then i don't think it passes the smell test.

In many European countries - referendums are not considered valid unless the Yes vote is x% of the electorate.

Why do you think that would be? Can you provide examples. That makes no sense. Those who turn out to vote get to decide. Those who don't vote can live in the Quebec that is/isn't part of Canada in ignorance as they were before.

So what is the number for you? 60, 70, 80, 90?

What is a clear majority?

50+1 that is a clear majority.

50% plus one is not a clear majority.

"MONTREAL - It shouldn't be asking too much of Jack Layton, newly elected leader of the official Opposition in the federal Parliament, to state perfectly clearly where he stands on the Clarity ActBut given the opportunity to do so at this week's first meeting of the lately expanded New Democratic Party caucus, Layton shied away from doing so.

He continued fudging the issue, as he did during the election campaign, essentially saying sort-of-yes and no to the question of whether he and his party support the act's provisions. When asked if he agrees, as do some of his newcomer Quebec MPs, that a Yes vote of 50 per cent plus one in a Quebec sovereignty referendum would be sufficient, he said only that he agrees with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling of 1998, the precursor to the Clarity Act passed the following year, without actually mentioning the act.

That ruling stipulated that the Canadian government would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebecers expressed a clear will to secede. The Clarity Act, which the NDP supported when it came to a Commons vote, stipulates that the federal Parliament has the power to decide if the question posed in any subsequent sovereignty referendum is sufficiently clear, and to determine if any vote in favour of secession is a clear enough expression of Quebecers' will, with the strong implication that more than 50 per cent plus one would be required.

However, in an effort to overcome its longstanding liability in this province, which is that Quebecers inclined to support the NDP's social policies also tend to be of sovereignist persuasion, the party adopted something called the Sherbrooke Declaration at a convention six years ago. This clearly repudiated the Clarity Act, in that it stipulates that in the event of another referendum an NDP federal government would basically stand aside and let Quebec's National Assembly dictate what the question will be, and that it would accept 50 plus one as a clear enough endorsement of secession. Asked about that, Layton said the Sherbrooke declaration stands as party policy.

Such weaseling on such a vital matter is disturbing coming from the leader of what has become Canada's alternative governing party. The last referendum, in 1995, clearly demonstrated the need for something like the Clarity Act.

The question posed at the time was not only deliberately unclear, but decidedly misleading: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?"

To people who don't follow politics closely, probably a majority of Quebecers, the reference to an agreement might suggest there was an agreement of sorts for continued formal ties to Canada, a comforting thought to nationalist-minded Quebecers reluctant to endorse a hard break with the rest of the country. In fact, it referred to an agreement among the leaders of the Parti Québécois, the Bloc Québécois and Action démocratique du Québec to join forces for the Yes campaign.

A clear question would be something along the lines of: "Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign country separate from Canada?" In neither of the two referendums thus far has the question remotely approached such a level of clarity. (Polling support for sovereignty tends to drop proportionately to the clarity of the question put to respondents.)

Similarly, a 50-per-cent-plus-one vote for separation not only falls below international standards for such votes, but should be considered practically insufficient even by sovereignists, since that majority support could readily fade in the face of difficulties involved in enacting a unilateral secession. This would surely have been the case had the 1995 result been reversed and the PQ government attempted a hostile secession on the strength of 50.6-per-cent support. In any case, subject peoples who truly want independence tend to vote for it 90 per cent-plus if given the opportunity.

Jack Layton surely knows all this. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that his full title now is Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Repudiating the Clarity Act implies a lack of loyalty to Canada and its preservation, and makes Layton appear unworthy of his new office."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorials/time+Layton+clear+Clar...

90% +

90+ Really?

So if 89% of the voters who turnout in Quebec voted for secession that would not be good enough and you call that democracy?

No wonder we can't get rid of the Senate. How can you change anything about our system with thresholds like that?

pegasus wrote:

You asked for my opinion. Its no different than you saying 50% plus 1 is enough to break up Canada. Its not my fault you don't like it. However, if thats all you need to see as a result for Quebec to separate from Canada, it shows me just how much you care about Quebec being a part of Canada in the first place.

Wow. I am not even talking about Quebec. I am talking about a democratic process.

If there is a referendum we base the process on previous democratic processes and theories. You are saying 90+ is a majority. How do come up with that number? Why is that not the threshold for a majority of seats in the House of Commons?

knownothing wrote:

If there is a referendum we base the process on previous democratic processes and theories. You are saying 90+ is a majority. How do come up with that number? Why is that not the threshold for a majority of seats in the House of Commons?

Seats in the House of Commons are voted upon every four years. Voting for a seperate Quebec is a binding agreement...for a long time...for our lifetimes, our children's lifetimes and beyond. How could you possibly compare the two?

Ladies and gentlemen, please disregard anything and everything that pegasus puts onto a thread.

I saw entries from he/she (it?) on other threads, and they were clearly designed to cause dissent amongst the ranks of New Democrats.

We all knew that Agent Provacateurs would come from other parties now that the NDP has dared to change the cherished status quo enjoyed by the two old line parties up untill the May 2nd election.

Pegasus is amongst the first, and won't be the last.

Ignore he/she (it?).

He/she (it?) isn't worth responding to.

knownothing wrote:

 

 

Are you saying we should tailor the democratic process to the subjective importance of every issue?

I believe yes. And the Province of Quebec does too as you can read above. You don't?