Could we please not debate on this board whether or not Québec has the right to self-determination - no matter what new pompous character shows up to strut his stuff? Next we'll be discussing which races are intellectually superior.
Thanks.
Is NDP a regional (Quebec) party?
Fri, 2011-05-27 22:12
#102
Fri, 2011-05-27 22:12
#103
knownothing
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.
Aww, but I was having fun
Fri, 2011-05-27 22:17
#104
I'll answer the 50% plus 1 question perhaps a different way.
No I don't think 50% plus 1 is necessarily a clear majority to separate because that requires a clear question and properly managed and fair election. I do not agree that the National Assembly ruled by one political party should have the only say. I also do not agree that Canada, itself with a conflict of interest, should presume to decide the issue for Quebec. I do agree there should have been some sort of clarity act, however.
This is in my view how it should have gone and the type of clarity act I was in favour of then and still am today:
Quebec is indeed a sovereign nation and is capable of establishing if the question is clear and the process fair. Canada could have stated that we would begin negotiating with an independent Quebec following a clear majority on a clear question based on the judgement of the Quebec Superior Court. This is the body that is charged with establishing the law in Quebec, it is capable of deciding under rule of law rather than political whim if the question were legal and the process fair. The Clarity Act should simply have required the Quebec Courts to make a determination. It went wrong when it presumed that determination ought to be made outside of Quebec. However, the principle of requiring a clear majority to a clear question is reasonable-- and 50% plus 1 ought to be right but might not be if people were unfairly denied the right to vote or other irregularities or if the question was not a representation of the intent of the answer.
If we want to return to the Clarity Act and fix what went wrong we can go there-- rely on rule of law rather than politicians and accept that Quebec can produce a political answer and then test it with a legal question in its own courts. It is fair that we ask for that and outrageous that we ask for more.
So for me a clear majority is 50% plus 1 plus the Quebec Superior Court agreeing the process was fair and the question clear. The parliament of Canada should not decide any more than the National Assembly on the legality of that but in my view it has every right-- even a responsibility to ask for that much. I admit that I have been annoyed watching this debate for years careen away from rule of law for what is clearly a question that should be decided in a Quebec Court.
When you think about it, this is a little more complicated than a simple 50% plus one vote but a heck of a lot simpler than asking outsiders, biased people and non experts to decide on a question of Quebec law.
Fri, 2011-05-27 22:19
#105
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.
Okee Dookie. I really have no idea how to respond to this far reaching statement.
I don't think I've said anything that could cause any malice. I just stated my personal oppinions based on this matter. I live in Quebec and I love being here and part of Canada. I will argue to my last breath to keep things as they are. This will be my last posting on this site, not because I'm a Liberal, or Conservative, or Green or Rhino supporter, but because it is impossible to have a normal arguement without being called names.
Its time to grow up David, because in the "democratic process" it is normal to hear differing points of view. But apparently, that is not what is wanted here.
Take care everyone and keep well. I hold no malice against anyone on this forum.
Fri, 2011-05-27 22:23
#106
Gee wiz!
Looks like someone who likes to give it can't take it.
Fri, 2011-05-27 22:23
#107
And my post was designed to satisfy those who have legitimate concerns about a close vote not those who want to tilt the playing field against the will of the people. Those wanting the clarity act included both those who likely could be satisfied but what I am proposing (and there is already a process in Quebec as elsewhere to contest a problematic election -- all this would do is require that process to be completed) and those wanting to fix the process their way-- the latter group I can't help or support.
I do not accept numerical super majorities nor the idea that we make presumptions about those who do not vote as Stockholm does. What works for me is a Quebec Court determination that it was free, clear and fair.
Practically and legally this ought not to be necessary but politically it would underline to the people of Canada and Quebec that only a fair and clear result will be acted on. What more could the people of Quebec, or Canada, for that matter want?
Fri, 2011-05-27 23:15
#108
So for me a clear majority is 50% plus 1 plus the Quebec Superior Court agreeing the process was fair and the question clear. The parliament of Canada should not decide any more than the National Assembly on the legality of that but in my view it has every right-- even a responsibility to ask for that much. I admit that I have been annoyed watching this debate for years careen away from rule of law for what is clearly a question that should be decided in a Quebec Court.
Quebec Superior Court judges are still appointed by the federal government so if you are trying to exclude the federal government from the process of determining the legality of the referendum your proposed standard does not really work. In any case Quebec is still currently part of a broader federation in which it has substantial representation both in the federal parliament and on the Supreme Court. The potential withdrawal of any component part from the federation is going to raise constitutional questions that the institutions of the broader federation are going to have to address through their ordinary legal and political processes. Quebec clearly has the right to self determination and I think the Supreme Court got it right when they held that if Quebecers choose to exercise that right by voting to separate from Canada and form an independent country, that the other parties to the federation acknowledge that expression and sit down to negotiate in good faith. If I recall correctly, there were a number of sovereigntist leaders in Quebec who were quite pleased about that part of the decision when it came down.
Fri, 2011-05-27 23:23
#109
Sean - sorry - you lost it there. We are no longer in any kind of agreement whatsoever.
The people of Québec have the right to self-determination. It's not subject to any court (including their own). It's a sovereign act of the people, whether expressed through their elected representatives, or otherwise if they so choose. Canada has no business whatsoever in it.
Of course, if some scoundrel comes along, declares "independence" for Québec, and appears in the eyes of some outsiders to have no democratic or popular legitimacy whatsoever, Canada has recourse - it can refuse to recognize that declaration. What it [b]cannot[/b] do is unilaterally seek to exercise authority over Québec. That's up to the people of Québec and their elected representatives to sort out, for better or for worse.
And robbie_dee, your point about the feds appointing Québec judges is well taken. But on your point about sovereignists being pleased about the general recognition by the Supreme Court that Québec has some kind of unilateral right to secede - you're right about that too. Every democratic person should be pleased about that, because it shows a willingness and a commitment never to use force against an act of secession.
The fact remains, however, that no significant political force in Québec society recognized the [b]right[/b] of the Supreme Court to pronounce on this issue. That's why Québec did not even appear before the court to argue its case.
Fri, 2011-05-27 23:27
#110
Boom Boom
Quebec clearly has the right to self determination and I think the Supreme Court got it right when they held that if Quebecers choose to exercise that right by voting to separate from Canada and form an independent country, that the other parties to the federation acknowledge that expression and sit down to negotiate in good faith. If I recall correctly, there were a number of sovereigntist leaders in Quebec who were quite pleased about that part of the decision when it came down.
Now, why can't everyone be as calm and reasonable as this?
Sat, 2011-05-28 00:13
#111
Unionist, I acknowledge your position (and that of many others in Quebec) rejecting the authority of the Supreme Court. But I don't agree with it and I don't think its well founded. I think that Quebec is part of the federation now and ipso facto federal institutions including the Supreme Court have a part to play in resolving the questions that necessarily flow from a secession vote. I'm not saying they should be the exclusive arbitrator of whether separation is "allowed" (this is fundamentally a political question anyways), I'm just saying their contribution to interpreting the constitutional ramifications should be given some weight.
Further, I don't think the Supreme Court actually recognized a unilateral right to secede. I understood the Court to find a right to self-determination and a duty to negotiate in good faith over the results of Quebecers expression in that regard. I think of it as analogous, perhaps to the duty to bargain in good faith in labour negotiations? The analogy gets a little stretched here, but a Unilateral Declaration of Independence would be kind of like a strike, allowable in some circumstances such as if negotiations fail, but still contingent and subject to other obligations.
Boom Boom, thank you, I know we won't all agree but I think it would be great if more Canadians could be adults and try to be reasonable with each other about this issue.
Sat, 2011-05-28 00:20
#112
Boom Boom
Quebec will decide how it is going to procede, regardless of what the Supreme Court of Canada has to say on the matter. After all, the SCC will have no jurisdiction in an independent Quebec.
Sat, 2011-05-28 00:24
#113
Unionist it is not the right to secede that is subject to the Court but a determination that an election or referendum has been fair and in this case the question as well.
This court is the competent court to render that decision and it must do so based on law and precedent not whim.
Any election or referendum in dispute is decided there-- I am not sure why you feel this would be a problem. I do not accept the idea that is propagated mostly by Conservatives that the Courts have no value in shaping law or informing public policy. Indeed the politicians initiate the policy and the court tests it. I don't believe the Quebec Court (Civil division) has authority which is why I suggested the Quebec Superior Court. It is reasonable that the test on whether the referendum is fair and the question clear should be determined by a court rather than a political body. That is in fact the practice should someone challenge it. The only thing I am adding is that it render judgement prior to further action on the result.
The Federal government may indeed make the appointments but they do so from a list of people who have all been appointed by the Quebec government. It is not a Federal institution per se.
The will of the people of Quebec must be followed -- it is reasonable to have an authority determine that the expression is the will of the people and countries like ours based on the rule of law have that determined by a court based on precedent and law and rules of procedure. That is the place -- not a super majority, not a body of politicians. And no a court cannot overturn a decision they can only determine if it has been made according to law. Again I don't understand the objection -- I trust you understand the legal mandate of the court.
A legal authority is not outrageous, it must be a Quebec legal authority based on Quebec law-- what else could it be? Certainly not the House of Commons as the Clarity Act provides and not nobody-- someone has to determine if the referendum answer is the same as the proposed action.
If I remember carefully Levesque himself sought the advice of the same court on his question and acquired the legitimacy of the question that way. The legitimacy of the question must be determined-- who else than the Quebec judiciary?
Sat, 2011-05-28 00:27
#114
By the way we are speaking of the Quebec Superior Court not the Supreme Court of Canada--
Let's face it we ought to have rule of law for something so critical-- you may not like the legal system but it is better than the alternative
Sat, 2011-05-28 00:36
#115
Boom Boom
I faintly recall about three years ago posting the framework for an independent Quebec where all these questions were addressed. Possibly that thread has been archived, but I'll have a look. If anyone else remembers the thread, please post the name or even link to it. Thanks!
Sat, 2011-05-28 00:37
#116
Let me know which court should decide whether Gaddafi is the legitimate leader of Libya. The whole world is weighing in on that issue.
Which court do you think should decide whether a pregnant woman has gone through a clear decision-making process prior to having an abortion?
Which court should decide whether Kanewake should have race-based residency requirements?
Which court do you think should decide whether workers have properly arrived at a decision to withdraw their labour power?
Canadians - including too many who style themselves left or progressive - do not yet viscerally recognize that nations - like Québec - have an inalienable right to self-determination. That's why they get all conflicted about whether we should "help" the Libyans and the Afghans and god knows who else.
But that needn't be a problem in the immediate sense. It's a "problem" concocted by the MSM, in collaboration with some right-wing nationalists here, to try to discredit the NDP in the wake of its victory. I've already suggested how Jack Layton should respond to this question. If he follows your advice (Sean, robbie_dee...) and starts talking about courts, then it's all over.
Personally, I'm not prepared to continue any discussion about Québec sovereignty that gives any rights to any body whatsoever to determine whether an act of secession is valid or not - unless that body has been chosen and mandated with such a decision by the Québec people themselves.
Sat, 2011-05-28 00:38
#117
Of course, if some scoundrel comes along, declares "independence" for Québec, and appears in the eyes of some outsiders to have no democratic or popular legitimacy whatsoever, Canada has recourse - it can refuse to recognize that declaration.
Yeah but once you go there wouldn't Canada then need to define some process by which to evaluate the declaration?
I'm really appreciating the healthy tones in this thread.
Sat, 2011-05-28 00:51
#118
Of course, if some scoundrel comes along, declares "independence" for Québec, and appears in the eyes of some outsiders to have no democratic or popular legitimacy whatsoever, Canada has recourse - it can refuse to recognize that declaration.
Yeah but once you go there wouldn't Canada then need to define some process by which to evaluate the declaration?
I'm really appreciating the healthy tones in this thread.
Yes, Canada can define any process it likes - hopefully based on the facts and on international law. But whether Canada finally recognizes or not changes nothing in terms of Québec's secession from the federation. It just may make negotiation of residual commercial and such issues more difficult. That's not what the challenge being thrown at Layton is, though. If the NDP ever dares to set different standards for a successful referendum than what Quebeckers set through the National Assembly, or a constitutional convention, or similar instrument, then the NDP will deservedly be back in the toilet where it languished since the birth of the CCF. And Canadian progressives will be left acting out the caricature of: "What [i]does[/i] Québec want, anyway?"
Jack can avoid this whole thing if he acts skillfully and in a principled way. And this thread is about the NDP. It's not a debate about how Québec can exercise its sovereignty. Non-Quebeckers have no say in that debate, with the greatest of respect.
Sat, 2011-05-28 00:58
#119
Boom Boom
Non-Quebeckers have no say in that debate, with the greatest of respect.
*loud applause*
Sat, 2011-05-28 01:02
#120
Sat, 2011-05-28 01:06
#121
Jack can avoid this whole thing if he acts skillfully and in a principled way.
Agreed.
Sat, 2011-05-28 01:27
#122
Boom Boom
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/jack-of-hearts-stakes-his-b...
Good article. With regard to Layton's desire to bring in a more civil QP, he can glare all he wants at his new MPs responding to heckling from the Conservatives - almost a certainty - but what else can he do? The party Whip can give them a talking-to, but whoever the Whip is will get tired of doing this after a while. It's not as if Layton's going to bounce them out of caucus.
Sat, 2011-05-28 02:25
#123
Personally, I'm not prepared to continue any discussion about Québec sovereignty that gives any rights to any body whatsoever to determine whether an act of secession is valid or not - unless that body has been chosen and mandated with such a decision by the Québec people themselves.
Although I'm in general agreement with you, this statement makes me wonder.
Supposing, hypothetically, that the Quebec government elected in 1998 while Lucien Bouchard was still leader had promptly replaced him with Bernard Landry and decided on a unilateral declaration of independence with no referendum. It had a strong majority of 76 seats out of 124; if a few had quailed, they needed only 63. The fact that they had been elected with only 42.87% of the vote in a "wrong-winner" election, in which the Liberals got 27,000 more votes than the PQ, would not have mattered? The only recourse would have been to wait until the next election, and see if voters wanted to vote for the Liberals on a platform of rejoining Canada or at least holding a referendum on the issue? But the PQ always gets a seat bonus due to the Liberal votes piling up "wasted" in their strongholds. What if the PQ had once again won the subsequent election with, again, fewer votes than the Liberals. Who can say "wait a minute, here?"
Sat, 2011-05-28 03:12
#124
Non-Quebeckers have no say in that debate, with the greatest of respect.*loud applause*
Non Quebecers have every right to make the case for Quebec to stay in Canada and Quebecers are free to accept or reject that case. If there was another referendum - I would expect Jack layton and other federalist leaders to go on a campaign tour and speak to rallies for the NO side. They have right to campaign like anyone else.
Non-Quebecers also have a say in what relationship they want TROC to have with Quebec - in any divorce BOTH parties have rights. If TROC decides that it will not negotiate any "arrangement" with Quebec and that a Yes vote will lead to a complete severing of ties and a separate currency etc...then so be it.
Sat, 2011-05-28 05:42
#125
There is something being overlooked here.
I think that a very big reason why people who have no problem with a clear right of self-determination try to see some role for some court is the very realistic what if...
What if the PQ puts out a referendum question that even in Quebec is widely seen to be designed with amiguity, and then gets a bare majority.
IF that should ever happen, it is certain that there will be a hue and cry from within Quebec about proceeding to independence on that basis. And despite what Jacques Parizeau seems to think, there is no practical way to navigate to independence on such a deeply divided basis. Without solid credibility and legitimacy in the whole process, a Yes vote will be a pyrrhic victory for indepentistes.
Sat, 2011-05-28 07:42
#126
Supposing, hypothetically, that the Quebec government elected in 1998 while Lucien Bouchard was still leader had promptly replaced him with Bernard Landry and decided on a unilateral declaration of independence with no referendum. It had a strong majority of 76 seats out of 124; if a few had quailed, they needed only 63. The fact that they had been elected with only 42.87% of the vote in a "wrong-winner" election, in which the Liberals got 27,000 more votes than the PQ, would not have mattered? The only recourse would have been to wait until the next election, and see if voters wanted to vote for the Liberals on a platform of rejoining Canada or at least holding a referendum on the issue? But the PQ always gets a seat bonus due to the Liberal votes piling up "wasted" in their strongholds. What if the PQ had once again won the subsequent election with, again, fewer votes than the Liberals. Who can say "wait a minute, here?"
Sigh. Who can say "wait a minute, here"?? The people of Québec. Who else, Wilf? The U.N. Security Council? The Privy Council in Ottawa? The Supreme Court? Or let's say some random judge of the Québec Superior Court says, "hey, I've found some jurisprudence, this is flawed"? Either the people of Québec will accept this unjust outcome (as you've set it out), or they won't.
The key thing is not "who can say wait a minute". The key thing is, [b]you can't[/b] - not can anyone else, except the Québec nation and bodies in which it places its confidence.
Is there something about "self-determination" which appears oxymoronic here? The fatal flaw in your presentation is the phrase "the only recourse". You must always ask - "whose recourse"? Quebeckers have recourse, though it may be difficult to identify and implement, depending on how hard the government resists. Canada has no recourse, nor right to any. Except the War Measures Act. Wanna go there? I thought not.
Sat, 2011-05-28 07:49
#127
What if the PQ puts out a referendum question that even in Quebec is widely seen to be designed with amiguity, and then gets a bare majority.
IF that should ever happen, it is certain that there will be a hue and cry from within Quebec about proceeding to independence on that basis. And despite what Jacques Parizeau seems to think, there is no practical way to navigate to independence on such a deeply divided basis. Without solid credibility and legitimacy in the whole process, a Yes vote will be a pyrrhic victory for indepentistes.
Yes, Ken, you're stating the obvious. If someone tries to trick the Québec people into voting "yes", it won't be very nice. People won't like it.
But what will you do about it? What right do you have to do anything about it? What makes you think Canada is so much smarter that it can adopt preventive measures now to ensure that those poor stupid Quebeckers won't be taken for dupes?
That's the Clarity Act, you see - paternalistic colonialist bullshit, of the same kind that sends soldiers to kill Afghans until they get smart enough to send their girls to school. Do you perhaps understand why such interference is hated by anyone with an ounce of pride?
Or what - the Québec Superior Court? Yeah, the stupid Quebeckers will all vote "yes" on a deceptive question, then the Court will convene and cite a precedent from 1793, and Quebeckers will say: "Aha! It was phony! Now I see it! We've been had!!!"
Sovereignty is a big deal. It's a tough decision and a historic action. If people are stupid, inferior, infantile, suckers, well, we'll just have to live with the consequences of our stubborn refusal to listen to the wise men of Ottawa and our well-meaning "progressive" allies who just want what's best for us.
Let me conclude this rant this way: Non-Quebeckers have no role in our exercise of sovereignty. And yes, Stockholm, they can join the debate all they want, no matter how much you like to wrench one of my sentences out of context to make some provocative point. They just can't [b]DO[/b] anything about the outcome.
Is there something about this basic principle of international human rights and democracy which eludes some folks here?
Sat, 2011-05-28 08:22
#128
You are misunderstanding my intent Unionist.
I'm very clear that me that I, and Canada, dont need to do anything... let alone have any right.
I'm addressing what I perceive to be some of the reservations out there, even among people who think Canada's only affair is to negotiate should the need arise.
FWIW, I dont think anyone here supports the Clarity Act. Where it gets fuzzy is that I think some people think there needs to be 'something'- not imposed by Canada, but 'something'. I think they need to follow that through- and I think they'll find dead ends when they do.
And keep in mind that people you dont support, Stepahne Dion being the most prominent, get away with murder holding out that 'someting more is required' BS. That is a thin veil for the iron fist.
"How much more than a simple majority is required Mr. Dion?"
"We'll leave that question until after the referendum."
Right.
Sat, 2011-05-28 08:28
#129
FWIW-
Even practically speaking, I think that the Clarity Act only has relevance in the ROC. [Except that in Quebec it makes a nice punching bag and motivater for indepentistes.]
It is a made in ROC threat to Quebec, cloaked in the language of reason that, along with the vceral dislike of sovereingty in the ROC, gives the Clarity Act widespread support in the ROC. Thats part of the threat- a future rallying point among the people of Canada against soverignty.
Sat, 2011-05-28 12:28
#130
It boggles the mind that there would be an objection to such an important issue being decided by Quebec law in the hands of a Quebec court.
The distraction of the list of decisions a court does not make are just that, distractions.
This is not an attempt to impose on Quebec the rule of law -- it already has that. The court already has that jurisdiction.
The only thing I added here was the order of events-- to let the court speak first -- once the democratic process has been complete and declared legal based on laws passed in Quebec by the democratic process then it is in place-- if there are any outstanding complaints to be decided -- they go first before action on separation. This is hardly a scandal. It certainly is not some invasion of Quebec sovereignty to request that any legal process that could come out of the referendum be completed, that the Court that already has jurisdiction would sign off.
Frankly Unionist, I think your approach to this is simplistic. You are not allowing for an unclear result-- such a result is not an insult to Quebec-- this is what happens when votes are close-- you get recounts court challenges etc. And, the right court to decide those is a Quebec court under Quebec law not the parliament of Canada. I am rather shocked that you think that is not required, somehow offensive. I would have thought that Quebec people would also want protection of the court and rule of law. In fact I think they would want this even if you do not.
Unionist I think you are looking for enemies under the bed here.
Sat, 2011-05-28 12:31
#131
Supposing, hypothetically, that the Quebec government elected in 1998 while Lucien Bouchard was still leader had promptly replaced him with Bernard Landry and decided on a unilateral declaration of independence with no referendum. It had a strong majority of 76 seats out of 124; if a few had quailed, they needed only 63. The fact that they had been elected with only 42.87% of the vote in a "wrong-winner" election, in which the Liberals got 27,000 more votes than the PQ, would not have mattered? The only recourse would have been to wait until the next election, and see if voters wanted to vote for the Liberals on a platform of rejoining Canada or at least holding a referendum on the issue? But the PQ always gets a seat bonus due to the Liberal votes piling up "wasted" in their strongholds. What if the PQ had once again won the subsequent election with, again, fewer votes than the Liberals. Who can say "wait a minute, here?"Sigh. Who can say "wait a minute, here"?? The people of Québec. Who else, Wilf? The U.N. Security Council? The Privy Council in Ottawa? The Supreme Court? Or let's say some random judge of the Québec Superior Court says, "hey, I've found some jurisprudence, this is flawed"? Either the people of Québec will accept this unjust outcome (as you've set it out), or they won't.
The key thing is not "who can say wait a minute". The key thing is, [b]you can't[/b] - not can anyone else, except the Québec nation and bodies in which it places its confidence.
Is there something about "self-determination" which appears oxymoronic here? The fatal flaw in your presentation is the phrase "the only recourse". You must always ask - "whose recourse"? Quebeckers have recourse, though it may be difficult to identify and implement, depending on how hard the government resists. Canada has no recourse, nor right to any. Except the War Measures Act. Wanna go there? I thought not.
I'm not defending the Clarity Act, which gives a role to the entire Parliament of Canada in determining whether the referendum was fair.
I'm asking a different question: what recourse do Quebecois have in my hypothetical situation? It raises an uncomfortable point: Quebecois have elected both MNAs and MPs. They have elected the National Assembly to deal with matters within its jurisdiction, and federal MPs to deal with federal issues. They have never placed confidence in the National Assembly to be some kind of constituent assembly to determine the issue of sovereignty or to write a constitution for Quebec. If the National Assembly were to attempt to go beyond its jurisdiction -- which on this issue it never has -- and many Quebecois asked their federal MPs to provide some recourse, what should they do? Their mandate is equal to the mandate given to the National Assembly, isn't it? If the answer is a negotiated solution acceptable to both sides, how do you avoid giving the Parliament of Canada some limited role as a vehicle for Quebec's MPs?
Sat, 2011-05-28 13:39
#132
If the National Assembly were to attempt to go beyond its jurisdiction -- which on this issue it never has -- and many Quebecois asked their federal MPs to provide some recourse, what should they do?
You tell me. What should the federal MPs do? How about the War Measures Act? That's a federal power, isn't it?
Their mandate is equal to the mandate given to the National Assembly, isn't it?
Excuse me? The National Assembly has the power to call a referendum (really a misnamed plebiscite). Under your new (to me anyway) theses of "equal mandates", maybe Parliament could also convene a Québec referendum? Why not? Or maybe the Union of Municipalities - it's composed of Québec-elected representatives as well? Or the school boards...
If the answer is a negotiated solution acceptable to both sides, how do you avoid giving the Parliament of Canada some limited role as a vehicle for Quebec's MPs?
The answer? To what question? You actually think Quebeckers elected MPs to sit on the opposite side of the bargaining table if and when Quebeckers vote yes in a referendum? Perhaps you share Pat Martin's view, that MPs should be required to swear an oath of allegiance to Canada before taking their seats (a bill which mercifully has never passed, despite his pushing it for years)? I've got news for you. Quebeckers sent MPs to Ottawa to defend Québec's interests. Before, it was the Bloc. Now, it's the NDP. Only the colour has changed.
Québec sovereignty in no way depends upon "a negotiated solution acceptable to both sides". And inevitably, when negotiations do take place to tie up loose ends, they will be between two governments - not two legislative assemblies. How each ratifies the results thereof will be the sovereign choice of each.
Sat, 2011-05-28 13:46
#133
Boom Boom
I've got news for you. Quebeckers sent MPs to Ottawa to defend Québec's interests. Before, it was the Bloc. Now, it's the NDP. Only the colour has changed.
Québec sovereignty in no way depends upon "a negotiated solution acceptable to both sides". And inevitably, when negotiations do take place to tie up loose ends, they will be between two governments - not two legislative assemblies. How each ratifies the results thereof will be the sovereign choice of each.
*loud, deafening applause*
Sat, 2011-05-28 13:47
#134
It boggles the mind that there would be an objection to such an important issue being decided by Quebec law in the hands of a Quebec court.
I don't object to that. I object to your proposing it. If some Quebeckers decide that a question is really deceptive or tricky, nothing stops them from asking the courts for an injunction or a declaration. We've had two referenda in Québec, and no serious move has ever been made to challenge or test, in advance, the "clarity" of the question. Quebeckers are not stupid idiots, you know. They know what they're voting for or against.
This is not an attempt to impose on Quebec the rule of law -- it already has that. The court already has that jurisdiction.
Yes it does. You must be really concerned about the previous referendum questions - why else would you be raising this concern in advance?
The only thing I added here was the order of events-- to let the court speak first -- once the democratic process has been complete and declared legal based on laws passed in Quebec by the democratic process then it is in place-- if there are any outstanding complaints to be decided -- they go first before action on separation.
Oh, maybe I misunderstood. You're ok with the referendum. But then, once the vote is (say) 57% in favour, we should go to court to decide: (a) if that's enough; or (b) if yes, whether we should separate or just start negotiations with Her Majesty in Right of Canada? Which is it?
It certainly is not some invasion of Quebec sovereignty to request that any legal process that could come out of the referendum be completed, that the Court that already has jurisdiction would sign off.
Ah, and if the court doesn't "sign off", then we tell the people: "Nice try, but the 1793 case law wasn't satisfied, so you're still in Canada!"
Frankly Unionist, I think your approach to this is simplistic. You are not allowing for an unclear result-- such a result is not an insult to Quebec-- this is what happens when votes are close-- you get recounts court challenges etc. And, the right court to decide those is a Quebec court under Quebec law not the parliament of Canada. I am rather shocked that you think that is not required, somehow offensive. I would have thought that Quebec people would also want protection of the court and rule of law. In fact I think they would want this even if you do not.
You are inventing a position for me that I never adopted. Of course there could be disputes or unclarity about the results. But the same is true of elections to the National Assembly. Processes are in place to handle all that juridically. What business is that of yours??
Unionist I think you are looking for enemies under the bed here.
No, Sean - Jack Layton, in the middle of the 2005-6 election campaign, changed gears and said he supported the Clarity Act - translation - he supported the right of Ottawa to decide if and how Québec could secede. He had flipflopped before, and now he has (maybe) flipflopped again. I don't need to look under the bed. They're lying right on top, with outstretched and inviting arms. The issue needs to be put to bed. Self-determination means self-determination - not being told by superior democratic cultures how to work it all out.
Sat, 2011-05-28 13:57
#135
Quebeckers sent MPs to Ottawa to defend Québec's interests. Before, it was the Bloc. Now, it's the NDP. Only the colour has changed.
I don't agree with that at all. Quebecers sent MPs to Ottawa with the idea that they would be sensitive to Quebec's interests - but apart from the people who elected the measly 4 BQ MPs, the other 71 Quebec MPs are members of the NDP, the Liberal or the Conservative parties - and people who voted to elect those MPs did so know that that those MPs were members of national federal parties that also include MPs who are sensitive to the interests of people from other parts of the country. There was one party and one party only that based its campaign on "vote for us because we will EXCLUSIVELY fight for more money and more power for Quebec and the rest of Canada is a foreign country than can go to hell" - that was the Bloc Quebecois. They were destroyed. There was another party that campaigned on "notre region au pouvoir" (loose translation - elect us to parliament and we will make sure that the gravy train and federal government pork barrelling will come to your riding and you will get all kinds of cash for crap like skidoo trails - while those sucks who don't elect MPs on the government side will get NOTHING) - that was the Conservative party - they crashed frm 12 seats (counting their ally Andre Arthur) to 5 seats.
Quebecers rejected the two parties that blatantly appealed to parochial small minded sentiments of "gimme, gimme" and rewarded the party that promised to find common ground between what Quebecers want and what many people in the rest of Canada want. No one expected that the NDP with MPs from coast to coast was suddenly going to side with the Quebec government on every single solitary issue regardless of the impact in other parts of the country. The NDP is a national federalist party - its policies happen to match the opinions of large numbers of Quebecers because its a left of centre party. It will never be there for no other reason than to give more $$ to Quebec and less to everyone else. People are not idiots - they know that.
WE should also not forget that for all the attention paid to the shift of soft-nationalist votes from the BQ to the NDP - the NDP also raked in a ton of federalist votes from people who previously voted Liberal or Conservative. There are now NDP MPs representing some hard-core federalist ridings with large anglo-a and allophone populations as well.
Sat, 2011-05-28 14:12
#136
Sat, 2011-05-28 14:25
#137
Getting long. Why don't I just settle this by saying no it isn't, by modatorial fiat.
Or if for some reason that's not good enough, feel free to continue.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3