Tories and Quebec Sovereignty


Jersay
#1
Now as i was sitting in the Lounge of my local DND unit, waiting to do some paperwork I read the Globe and Mail and about Conservative federalism.

Now, they are prepared to give some power to the provinces. However, with regards to Quebec they are nt even planning to run a defence against the seperatists. They believe it is a provincial matter.

It gets better, and if the seperatists win the referendum, even by a majority the Conservatives will not abide by it because, they didn't take part in the referendum.

They will then allow the court process to work, where they believe the Supreme Court will side with the seperatists forcing the government to start negotiations with the seperatists.

And get this, the COnservatives will get into negotiations with the seperatists, as long as sovereignty is off the table.

And if the seperatists unilaterally seperate, the rebuilt Canadian forces, will be sent in and civil-war at the worst.

That is the plan, look it up on Wednesday's Globe and Mail.

I couldn't believe it.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#2
Unbelievable!

The Conservative Party of Canada needs to rethink such a strategy, in my opinion; war is not an acceptable option.
 
Toro
#3
Link?

Harper is willing to devolve power to Quebec, and there is nothing wrong with that.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#4
A devolution of power and failing to prevent secession are two entirely different things.
 
Toro
#5
They sure are.

But Quebec is less likely to separate if power is devolved from Ottawa IMHO.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#6
That, or it could give them the power to do it.

Double-edged sword, but I understand your point, Toro.
 
the caracal kid
#7
Harper's plan is going to fail. He is playing right into separation in his interests of giving more powers to his buddy ralphy-boy.

take a look at www.bloc-harper.com (external - login to view) for the general idea of what happens when power is handed over without the proper counter-balance to maintain stability.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

Unbelievable!

The Conservative Party of Canada needs to rethink such a strategy, in my opinion; war is not an acceptable option.

Wrong.

A unilateral declaration of independence, without negotiation of borders on the basis of the vote, is a declaration of war.

No nation would allow a huge chunk of its territory to be torn from them, nor should they.

I'm all for self-determination, and would allow a territory called Quebec to leave after a strong majority on a clear question, and after negotiation to create new borders on the basis of the wishes of the people that live there.

But I would not allow the nation to be torn apart on anything less.

War is the practise of diplomacy by other means. In this case, to defend Canadian citizens that do NOT want to be Quebecois.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#9
I wasn't saying that Canada should honour a unilateral declaration of independence; to separate from Canada, the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate are required, in addition to the consent of at least seven Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, representing at least a majority of the population of Canada in those Provinces; in addition, the consent of the Governor General of Canada is required — also, technically speaking, the Queen of Canada would have the authority to veto an Act to Separate within two years of its passage. It's not an easy task to secede from Canada.

A referendum, in particular one issued by a Government of a Province rather than the Government of Canada is not a binding instrument for independence — the Supreme Court of Canada has told us so.
 
sanch
#10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ery=federalism

Quote:


...and what he'll do
By JOHN IBBITSON

Wednesday, January 25,


Those who believe Quebeckers must be coaxed, not coerced, into staying inside Confederation, will warn that such an extreme position could deliver a Yes vote in the next referendum, followed by a unilateral declaration of independence. Carried to its extreme, they warn, Mr. Harper's obduracy could lead to civil war.

The article seems to be saying that the one of the outcomes of the policy may be civil war according to a certain group. It does not even imply that Harper intends to send troops into Quebec if they decide to seperate.

Quebec has its own immigration department so it has already been given quite a bit of autonomy. They have two parts to their immigration program. One is they want to attract French speakers or those who are willing to learn French. The other is aimed at resolving their demographic and skills crisis. They have zero population growth and so are relying on immigration. Interestingly enough there is no stipulation that prevents anyone who immigrates to Quebec from immediately heading out to another province. My interpretation of this is Canada remains a draw for Quebec immigration and that even with losses to other provinces Quebec still comes out ahead. Remove Canada and what happens to Quebec immigration? I don’t think it is to their advantage to separate. Of course politics is not that rational sometimes.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

I wasn't saying that Canada should honour a unilateral declaration of independence; to separate from Canada, the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate are required, in addition to the consent of at least seven Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, representing at least a majority of the population of Canada in those Provinces; in addition, the consent of the Governor General of Canada is required — also, technically speaking, the Queen of Canada would have the authority to veto an Act to Separate within two years of its passage. It's not an easy task to secede from Canada.

A referendum, in particular one issued by a Government of a Province rather than the Government of Canada is not a binding instrument for independence — the Supreme Court of Canada has told us so.

I agree whole-heartedly.

But what happens if the Quebec governmen does make a UDI? Which they would probably do, it is what they planned in 1995 with 50% + 1.

I'm not quite the war-monger I sound. The world slipped into war twice this last century because one side, or both, didn't understand where the lines in the sand were. And there has to be lines.

My point is, let's make the lines very clear.
 
the caracal kid
#12
i agre colpy, the "lines" need to be clear.

however, if a "province" such as quebec, which began as upper canada could vote to join, it can also vote to leave. No "federal" government can stop that.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#13
No, no federal Government can stop that.

Unless you abide by the law, the Constitution, and silly things like that.
 
The Gunslinger
#14
If Quebec does decide to secede then what happens? Do you think the Liberal stronghold of Montreal will want to secede? Or the natives of the north? What about the half the country that doesn't want to secede, what happens to them (I'm assuming the 50%+1)? Or the federal property in Qubec? There are dozens of issues that will crop up. A Quebec secession will take a long time to sort out.
 
Toro
#15
Its all open to negotiation.
 
Numure
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy


Wrong.

A unilateral declaration of independence, without negotiation of borders on the basis of the vote, is a declaration of war.

Correct, and lets hope it doesnt come to that. But if we get 50%+1, and the federal government refuses to negotiate on the basis of the Clarity Act, expect a UDI to be an option.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

No nation would allow a huge chunk of its territory to be torn from them, nor should they.

Exactly why the Québec Nation wont allow partition in the event of Seperation. And not one single Québécois Fédéralist Politician supports partition in the event of Souvrainté. Not Jean Charest, or anyone of significance in his party.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

I'm all for self-determination, and would allow a territory called Quebec to leave after a strong majority on a clear question, and after negotiation to create new borders on the basis of the wishes of the people that live there.

Democracy is 50%+1. It won't change because Ottawa said so. This was imposed by Ottawa. Provincial Fédéralist don't agree with it, either. And the end, wether you agree with it or not, its a Provincial matter.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

But I would not allow the nation to be torn apart on anything less.

War is the practise of diplomacy by other means. In this case, to defend Canadian citizens that do NOT want to be Quebecois.

And they are a minority, actually mostly Anglophones. Québec leaves as is, with its territory in full, minus the small native communities in the north. And the land they own isnt all the north, just small spots of it here and there.
 
Numure
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

i agre colpy, the "lines" need to be clear.

however, if a "province" such as quebec, which began as upper canada could vote to join, it can also vote to leave. No "federal" government can stop that.

Nail on the head.
 
Numure
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

I agree whole-heartedly.

But what happens if the Quebec governmen does make a UDI? Which they would probably do, it is what they planned in 1995 with 50% + 1.

And everyone in the National Assembly agreed to a UDI in the event of the Federal government refusing to negotiate. Including the Liberals and ADQ(They we're in the Yes camp anyways). I remember one liberal MP resigning over that issue.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

I'm not quite the war-monger I sound. The world slipped into war twice this last century because one side, or both, didn't understand where the lines in the sand were. And there has to be lines.

My point is, let's make the lines very clear.

The lines won't be clear as long as Ottawa imposes.

Good thing is, Conservatives are in town now. And their view of Confederation is more in lined with what Nationalists (Hint not per say Seperatists), believe.
 
MMMike
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Numure

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

No nation would allow a huge chunk of its territory to be torn from them, nor should they.

Exactly why the Québec Nation wont allow partition in the event of Seperation. And not one single Québécois Fédéralist Politician supports partition in the event of Souvrainté. Not Jean Charest, or anyone of significance in his party.

The same rationel that is used to justify Quebec separation can be used to justify separation of parts of Quebec. If Canada is divisible; Quebec is divisible.
 
Numure
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by MMMike

Quote: Originally Posted by Numure

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

No nation would allow a huge chunk of its territory to be torn from them, nor should they.

Exactly why the Québec Nation wont allow partition in the event of Seperation. And not one single Québécois Fédéralist Politician supports partition in the event of Souvrainté. Not Jean Charest, or anyone of significance in his party.

The same rationel that is used to justify Quebec separation can be used to justify separation of parts of Quebec. If Canada is divisible; Quebec is divisible.

Then Québec can be divisable after the establishement of Québec as a country, its Québec Tradition and you won't find support, other then from anglophones to do it other wise. Not before or during negotiations. You cannot impose partition.

Canada is divisable as a Country. Québec is divisable as a Country, too.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#21
You imply that each and every francophone in Québec is a sovereigntist — that, simply put, is not the case. Not each and every French Canadian is a sovereigntist, and not each and every English Canadian is a federalist.

One must recognize the right of a citizen to make up their own mind, rather than implying that, as a French Quebecker, one must hold one opinion over another — as if it is some kind of "duty."

As for the issue of partitioning Québec in the event of separation, why not? The area that is Québec is the legal property, solely, of the Queen in right of Canada. If the people of Québec see fit to revoke their citizenship in Canada, then so be it — however, they can't expect the Government of Canada to "play nice" in response to tearing out a part of ourselves.
 
the caracal kid
#22
indeed five, and if a territory votes to join a country on a majority, then territories can also vote to leave said country on a majority.

the rest of canada needs to present its case and proposals to quebec for quebec to choose to remain a part of canada, but beyond that, the decision is that of Quwbecers only and the rest of canada has to understand it needs to keep its nose out of Quebec's decision process, and respect whatever decision is made.

Weasley federalists can't expect good results from trying to undermine Quebec's decision process with talk of splitting up Quebec herself.
 
Jersay
#23
Numere seems to have it against Anglo-phones?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#24
The lines won't be clear as long as Ottawa imposes.

Ah, excuse me, but the ONLY way the lines will be clear is if Ottawa imposes.

A clear majority (not 50%+1) in answer to a clear question (approved in advance by Ottawa) would be enough to begin territorial and debt repayment negotiations.

The separatists must be made to understand that any deviation from the path to sovereignty set out by Ottawa will be met by the exercise of executive power in Quebec.

Some Quebecois feel a need for their own country. Fair enough, but I don't think many are willing to fight for it on a battlefield. Especially if that battlefield is the streets of Montreal, Quebec City, and Baie Comeau.

So, the setting of clear, tough rules in advance by Ottawa avoids covil war in two ways:

1. It discourages casual votes for independence.

2. It prevents the sovereignists, if they get 50%+1, from making the stupid mistake of a UDI, which is what they planned in 1995.

We came to within 50,000 votes of Civil War.
 
the caracal kid
#25
the future of a province is up to a province, and not the feds, period.

the feds need to understand it is not their business to interfere with a province choosing to go its own way. If a province votes to go its own way, the feds need to respect that, and not play games.
 
Martin Le Acadien
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Numere seems to have it against Anglo-phones?

In defense (En defence) of Numere, he is not Anglophobic. Numere is merely stating that the Country or Province of Quebec is divisable but only after the main question is settled, vis, Can Quebec form its own country?

As a Bi-phone living in the States, OUr French Heritage and customs as well as laws have come under attack in Louisiana and we look to Canada and as well as Quebec for the most part to supply us with our "Heritage Needs" as it has been ever since the Grand Derangement in 1755. Quebcois Priests say mass in our churches, quebecoise' schoolteachers revive our language and qubecois TV is played down here for our "French" Fix.

Acadiens do not forget the help Quebec gave to our renaissance Francais en Louisiane nor how they went to bat to protect the Acadien French in the maritimes!

to accuse Namure of hatred is wrong, he is just taking up for Francophone Population which has just recently been able to sit at the table in Canada and the US!

Do we hat e the English, Non mon amis, pere preserve nos liguistic, eh?

Let us preserve our language, nos fierons de parler francais.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

The lines won't be clear as long as Ottawa imposes.

Ah, excuse me, but the ONLY way the lines will be clear is if Ottawa imposes.

A clear majority (not 50%+1) in answer to a clear question (approved in advance by Ottawa) would be enough to begin territorial and debt repayment negotiations.

The separatists must be made to understand that any deviation from the path to sovereignty set out by Ottawa will be met by the exercise of executive power in Quebec.

Some Quebecois feel a need for their own country. Fair enough, but I don't think many are willing to fight for it on a battlefield. Especially if that battlefield is the streets of Montreal, Quebec City, and Baie Comeau.

So, the setting of clear, tough rules in advance by Ottawa avoids covil war in two ways:

1. It discourages casual votes for independence.

2. It prevents the sovereignists, if they get 50%+1, from making the stupid mistake of a UDI, which is what they planned in 1995.

We came to within 50,000 votes of Civil War.


If it ever came


to a UDI, the first thing that would happen is that France would jump in and recognise them. If that happened, one of the first things that Canada should do is annex Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
 
Jersay
#28
Quote:

In defense (En defence) of Numere, he is not Anglophobic. Numere is merely stating that the Country or Province of Quebec is divisable but only after the main question is settled, vis, Can Quebec form its own country?

As a Bi-phone living in the States, OUr French Heritage and customs as well as laws have come under attack in Louisiana and we look to Canada and as well as Quebec for the most part to supply us with our "Heritage Needs" as it has been ever since the Grand Derangement in 1755. Quebcois Priests say mass in our churches, quebecoise' schoolteachers revive our language and qubecois TV is played down here for our "French" Fix.

Acadiens do not forget the help Quebec gave to our renaissance Francais en Louisiane nor how they went to bat to protect the Acadien French in the maritimes!

to accuse Namure of hatred is wrong, he is just taking up for Francophone Population which has just recently been able to sit at the table in Canada and the US!

Do we hat e the English, Non mon amis, pere preserve nos liguistic, eh?

Let us preserve our language, nos fierons de parler francais.

I don't think that Numere is Anglophobic, but i think he is putting the Anglo and Allophone polulation at a smaller portion then they actually are.

The French Population in Quebec ranges from 50%-65% of the overall Quebec population. While the Enlgish population, at the most is 40% of the Quebec population, while the Allophone population is 3% to 5%.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#29
If Québec were to receive sovereignty, I have no doubt that we would see a large amount of conflict between les québecois et québecoises français and les québecois et québecoises anglais as we had experienced in our earlier Canadian history — the partitioning of Québec could become inevitable in the event of separation from Canada.

If Québec were to refuse English Quebeckers the "right" to separate from Québec and create their own nation, as a "distinct" society, would that not be entirely and grossly hypocritical? I have a sneaking suspicion that, were Québec to become a sovereign nation, the rights of its citizens to be served in English would be obliterated.
 
Jersay
#30
Quote:

If Québec were to receive sovereignty, I have no doubt that we would see a large amount of conflict between les québecois et québecoises français and les québecois et québecoises anglais as we had experienced in our earlier Canadian history — the partitioning of Québec could become inevitable in the event of separation from Canada.

If Québec were to refuse English Quebeckers the "right" to separate from Québec and create their own nation, as a "distinct" society, would that not be entirely and grossly hypocritical? I have a sneaking suspicion that, were Québec to become a sovereign nation, the rights of its citizens to be served in English would be obliterated.

Got the same feeling as you.
 

Similar Threads

1
Iraqi Sovereignty ...
by Rick van Opbergen | Dec 12th, 2004
no new posts