Mulcair cannot change Party Policy over night.
One that will cost the Party dearly in the ROC is their opposition to the Clarity Act - Upheld by the SCOC
Link to some Party Policy
NDP Platform: Practical First Steps
Clarity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Question asked in the 95 Referendum - Is this a clear question?
The motivation behind the Clarity Act was largely based on the near separation vote of the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which the people of Quebec voted against the sovereignty option by a small margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Controversy surrounded the ambiguity and wording of the ballot question. In French, the question on the ballot asked:
"Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?"
In English, the question on the ballot asked:
"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 June 12, 1995?"
Stéphane Dion and the three lettersPrime Minister Chrétien appointed political scientist Stéphane Dion (first elected as Member of Parliament for the riding of Saint-Laurent–Cartierville in Montreal in 1996) as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in 1996. Dion would challenge Quebec sovereignist assertions about the legal validity of the 1995 Quebec referendum question in three open letters to Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard and Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Jacques Brassard.[2][3][4]
In the first open letter, Dion challenged three assertions that Bouchard had made: that a unilateral declaration of independence is supported by international law, that a majority of "50% plus one" was a sufficient threshold for secession, and that international law would protect the territorial integrity of Quebec following a secession. Against the first assertion, Dion argued that the vast majority of international law experts "believe that the right to declare secession unilaterally does not belong to constituent entities of a democratic country such as Canada."[2] In regard to the simple majority argument, Dion argues that due to the momentous changes to Quebecers' lives that would result from secession, a simple majority that could disappear in the face of difficulties would be insufficient to ensure the political legitimacy of the sovereignist project. In regard to the territorial integrity of Quebec, Dion retorts that "there is neither a paragraph nor a line in international law that protects Quebec's territory but not Canada's. International experience demonstrates that the borders of the entity seeking independence can be called into question, sometimes for reasons based on democracy."[2]
In Dion's second open letter to Jacques Brassard, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Dion expands upon his earlier arguments against the territorial integrity of Quebec following secession by highlighting the inconsistency in the argument that Canada is divisible but Quebec is not. Secondly, Dion underscores that without recognition by the Government of Canada and when opposed by a strong minority of citizens, a unilateral declaration of independence faces much difficulty in gaining international recognition.[3]
In Dion's third open letter to Lucien Bouchard, he criticizes the Quebec premier for accepting some aspects of the Supreme Court ruling on Secession (such as the political obligation for the Government of Canada to negotiate secession following a clear expression of will from the people of Quebec) and not other sections of the ruling (such as the need for a clear majority on a clear question and the unconstitutionality of a unilateral declaration of independence). In regard to the ruling, Dion makes three claims: that the federal government has a role in the selection of the question and the level of support required for it to pass, that secession can only be achieved through negotiation rather than a "unilateral declaration of independence", and that the terms of negotiation could not be decided solely by the Government of Quebec.[4]
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...o-western-public-opinion-there-will-be-blood/
What has the NDP wrought with the election of Thomas Mulcair as the party’s new leader? There was likely great wailing and gnashing of teeth among Bloquistes on his elevation, so we can assume that this is good news for the re-election of federalists in Quebec.
But what of the rest of the country? An article Mr. Mulcair wrote for Policy Option magazine, entitled Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of the Country, suggests that the new NDP leader is an irresistible force about to crash into the immovable object of Western public opinion. And there will be blood.
In his inaugural press conference as leader on Sunday, Mr. Mulcair softened his language — referring to the “oil sands,” rather than the pejorative “tar sands” that has been his normal shorthand. But did not back away from his commitment to “internalize” environmental costs to help cure the “Dutch disease” that has, in his view, driven up the value of the Canadian dollar and destabilized the balanced economy of East and West.
One that will cost the Party dearly in the ROC is their opposition to the Clarity Act - Upheld by the SCOC
Link to some Party Policy
NDP Platform: Practical First Steps
Clarity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Question asked in the 95 Referendum - Is this a clear question?
The motivation behind the Clarity Act was largely based on the near separation vote of the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which the people of Quebec voted against the sovereignty option by a small margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Controversy surrounded the ambiguity and wording of the ballot question. In French, the question on the ballot asked:
"Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?"
In English, the question on the ballot asked:
"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 June 12, 1995?"
Stéphane Dion and the three lettersPrime Minister Chrétien appointed political scientist Stéphane Dion (first elected as Member of Parliament for the riding of Saint-Laurent–Cartierville in Montreal in 1996) as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in 1996. Dion would challenge Quebec sovereignist assertions about the legal validity of the 1995 Quebec referendum question in three open letters to Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard and Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Jacques Brassard.[2][3][4]
In the first open letter, Dion challenged three assertions that Bouchard had made: that a unilateral declaration of independence is supported by international law, that a majority of "50% plus one" was a sufficient threshold for secession, and that international law would protect the territorial integrity of Quebec following a secession. Against the first assertion, Dion argued that the vast majority of international law experts "believe that the right to declare secession unilaterally does not belong to constituent entities of a democratic country such as Canada."[2] In regard to the simple majority argument, Dion argues that due to the momentous changes to Quebecers' lives that would result from secession, a simple majority that could disappear in the face of difficulties would be insufficient to ensure the political legitimacy of the sovereignist project. In regard to the territorial integrity of Quebec, Dion retorts that "there is neither a paragraph nor a line in international law that protects Quebec's territory but not Canada's. International experience demonstrates that the borders of the entity seeking independence can be called into question, sometimes for reasons based on democracy."[2]
In Dion's second open letter to Jacques Brassard, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Dion expands upon his earlier arguments against the territorial integrity of Quebec following secession by highlighting the inconsistency in the argument that Canada is divisible but Quebec is not. Secondly, Dion underscores that without recognition by the Government of Canada and when opposed by a strong minority of citizens, a unilateral declaration of independence faces much difficulty in gaining international recognition.[3]
In Dion's third open letter to Lucien Bouchard, he criticizes the Quebec premier for accepting some aspects of the Supreme Court ruling on Secession (such as the political obligation for the Government of Canada to negotiate secession following a clear expression of will from the people of Quebec) and not other sections of the ruling (such as the need for a clear majority on a clear question and the unconstitutionality of a unilateral declaration of independence). In regard to the ruling, Dion makes three claims: that the federal government has a role in the selection of the question and the level of support required for it to pass, that secession can only be achieved through negotiation rather than a "unilateral declaration of independence", and that the terms of negotiation could not be decided solely by the Government of Quebec.[4]
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...o-western-public-opinion-there-will-be-blood/
What has the NDP wrought with the election of Thomas Mulcair as the party’s new leader? There was likely great wailing and gnashing of teeth among Bloquistes on his elevation, so we can assume that this is good news for the re-election of federalists in Quebec.
But what of the rest of the country? An article Mr. Mulcair wrote for Policy Option magazine, entitled Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of the Country, suggests that the new NDP leader is an irresistible force about to crash into the immovable object of Western public opinion. And there will be blood.
In his inaugural press conference as leader on Sunday, Mr. Mulcair softened his language — referring to the “oil sands,” rather than the pejorative “tar sands” that has been his normal shorthand. But did not back away from his commitment to “internalize” environmental costs to help cure the “Dutch disease” that has, in his view, driven up the value of the Canadian dollar and destabilized the balanced economy of East and West.
