Harper Assisting in Sovereignty: Duceppe

[FiveParadox]

Gilles Duceppe, M.P., the Member for Laurient—Sainte-Marie and Leader of the Bloc Québécois, says that the positions of the current Government of Canada are assisting sovereigntists in Québec to prepare for their transformation into an independent nation in the future, through measures such as moving to give Québec a seat independent from Canada at institutions such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (more commonly known as UNESCO).

Canadian Press[/i])]Gilles Duceppe says sovereigntists are pleased with the prime minister's promise last week to work out a role for Quebec at UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. "If he delivers and Quebec has a voice at UNESCO, that would be good for a sovereign Quebec in the future," Duceppe said outside a caucus meeting Wednesday.

Click here to read the entire article (exclusive in English).

However, the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P., the Member for Pontiac and Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, says that the opposite is, in fact, true; Minister Cannon says that "Quebecers will always choose Canada when Canada promotes, as the Conservative party is promoting, open federalism."

:arrow: Sources
Click here for the Web site of canada.com.

 

[Jersay]

Good old Duceppe. I think he is just trying to rally seperatist support after they took a hit after the election but you never know.

 

[Machjo]

Hmmm... Duceppe is disillusionned here. I'm actually surprised by Harper's move, but he obviously has his finger on the pulse of Quebec. While Quebec was fighting for its language and culture, the liberals threw a bunch of money at it never fully realising why Quebec was never happy.

If a kid is hungry, you can give him all the juice you can afford, but he'll still be hungry. If he's thirsty, you can give him all the food you can afford, but he'll still be thirsty. But if you give the thirsty kid a drink, and the hungry kid some food, you kill both thirst and hunger, and at minimal cost.

So in like manner, if Quebec wants its culture, and the liberals give it money, well obviously they're not tackling the problem at hand! The Quebecois never asked for money, silly liberals!

The Quebecois asked for culture, and so Harper gives them culture. Smart move, and just as food kills hunger, juice kills thirst, and money kills poverty, so cultural sovereignty will kill the desire for political sovereignty.

 

[Finder]

Well the Ukraine had a seat in the UN while being a republic inside the Soviet Union. If I remember well there are a handfull of other nations inside nations which have had seats at the UN. Though it is rare there is a presidance. I'm not sure if this would legitimize a independant Quebec, but I do not think ill of Harper if he does push for this. As it is the democratic right of French Canadians to decide if they wish to stay in Canada or not. I do not think Anglo-Nationalism will help the issue on this one.

 

[FiveParadox]

Finder; it is the democratic right of the citizens of Québec to resolve, in a referendum or referenda, that they wish to leave Canada; however, as the Supreme Court of Canada has determined, in order to remove a province from the nation, the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, the Governor General of Canada and at least seven out of ten Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, representing at least one-half of the population of Canada (excluding the population in the territories) must provide their consent.

 

[Machjo]

Well the Ukraine had a seat in the UN while being a republic inside the Soviet Union. If I remember well there are a handfull of other nations inside nations which have had seats at the UN. Though it is rare there is a presidance. I'm not sure if this would legitimize a independant Quebec, but I do not think ill of Harper if he does push for this. As it is the democratic right of French Canadians to decide if they wish to stay in Canada or not. I do not think Anglo-Nationalism will help the issue on this one.

Where does the article say that Harper would prohibit Quebec from separating? Giving Quebec cultural sovereignty might very well weaken support for political sovereignty tremendously, not because Harper would suppress political sovereignty, but rather because he should have given Quebec what it had always wanted in the first place, thus causing many soft sovereignists to turn, of their own volition, to either indifference or soft federalism.

Where's the harm in that?

 

[Finder]

Finder; it is the democratic right of the citizens of Québec to resolve, in a referendum or referenda, that they wish to leave Canada; however, as the Supreme Court of Canada has determined, in order to remove a province from the nation, the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, the Governor General of Canada and at least seven out of ten Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, representing at least one-half of the population of Canada (excluding the population in the territories) must provide their consent.

In which I do not think is in accordance with International law here. Ok so your telling me, if during the late 80's the soviet union had said if the Ukraine wished to leave the Union they would have to get the PM of of the soviet union, the supreme soviet, Duma and 8 other soviet Republics would have to agree after they had a referendum. hmmmmm, you know the Ukraine left the soviet union as an act of government alone, and well, what you are saying is the soviet union was a hell of a lot more democratic then Canada is. I respect the court but when they make a dession like that I think making so many unrealistic hoops for Quebec to jump threw is a joke. If the magority of Quebecors voted to leave and the government declared Quebec to be a Republic, what could we honestly do. The UN would never back us on this and an occupation of Quebec would tarnish Canada much like it did Serbia/Yugoslavia. Honestly do you actually believe the circus of laws the Sup-court put forward would matter, on this issue of Quebecs independance?


edit: Machjo, never said Harper does or doesn't support Quebecs independance. What I am trying to say is a seat on a international board I think is not saying he supports or doesn't support independance.

 

[FiveParadox]

Finder, the reason that the Supreme Court of Canada made such a decision was one based on the Constitution Act, 1982[/b] — it was by no means forcing Québec to "jump through hoops." The Court decided that a decision to remove a province from the nation would require the passage of an amendment via Section 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 — therefore, if Québec were to attempt to remove itself through a referendum, it would not be constitutional.

I am not saying yeay or nay, only how the law provides for separation today.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Harper Assisting in Sovereignty: Duceppe

Finder, the reason that the Supreme Court of Canada made such a decision was one based on the Constitution Act, 1982[/b] — it was by no means forcing Québec to "jump through hoops." The Court decided that a decision to remove a province from the nation would require the passage of an amendment via Section 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 — therefore, if Québec were to attempt to remove itself through a referendum, it would not be constitutional.

I am not saying yeay or nay, only how the law provides for separation today.

If Quebec as a people decided to leave, I do not think they would care what the governments of Ontario, the representative of the Queen and a undemocratic senate, would think. I generally think by international standerds that Quebec would feel as if they fullfilled there need democratically and would just leave. I highly doubt that nation would see such a move by Quebec as being wrong. Look at almost every single republic from the USSR and how they became indepent, or Kosovos seeking of internal help in the name of nationhood, checkoslovakia, and many more. I don't think the court made this realistic and there decision is so out of touch with democratic principals I doubt this helped the federalist cause at all in Quebec.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Court did not make this up; it was in the Constitution, and they simply used the Constitution as their source when they were confronted with the case. The Supreme Court cannot "ignore" the Constitution and come up with something that they deem to be more "practical" — they ruled as they had to, which was according to Canadian law. Any decision other than that would have been negligent of the Court — they would have been throwing our Constitution out the window, and any Supreme Court who would do so deserves no more than complete and unabridged dismissal.

 

[Finder]

Before the ruling they made, what was the law on seperation then?

Edit:
No disrespect Paradox as I respect the constitution. But when it comes to unity issues like this in any nation, such laws can not be enforced without consideration to the inhabitants. I think we have a lession to learn from the British. They forced the Irish, Americans and Indians (eastern) to be part of there empire, and it only caused death and destruction. Allowing people to go free if they so wish to is not only morally the right thing to do but economically as these wars were not economically worth it for the British.

Also take into consideration that once the Provincial Government of Quebec or a Provisional government after a referendum declares independance, nothing will stop other nations from recognizing Quebec as a nation. As I am sure, France which is considered a magor power would legitimize such a move within a heart beat of the anouncment.

 

[FiveParadox]

Framework Governing Separation

Finder, the legislative framework surrounding the separation of provinces from the Federation had been extremely clear since the passage of the Constitution Act, 1982. For any province to remove itself from the nation:

1. the House of Commons must resolve to pass an amendment to the Act;
2. the Senate must resolve to pass an amendment to the Act in the same manner as the House of Commons (however, if the Senate refuses to resolve to do so within one hundred eighty days of the same resolution of the Commons, then the Senate's consent is deemed to be ignored);
3. at least seven of the Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces must resolve to concur in the amendment set forth by the House of Commons, and those Legislative Assemblies must represent no less than one-half of the population of Canada, excluding the population in the territories;
4. the Governor General of Canada must assent to the amendment.

It should be noted that, while it is an odd provision, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada can, on the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (although such advice would likely come exclusively from the Prime Minister of Canada) veto the amendment, and the "separated nation" would again be deemed, according to law, to become and remain a province of Canada (so long as the veto occurs within two years of the passage of the amendment).

I must make it clear, that I am not saying that this is how it should be — but rather, I am saying how the law requires that the separation of a province takes place. However, I see merit in the concept of the amendment process; if a referendum in Québec passed with, say, 52 % in favour of separation, I do not think that it would be fair to force 48 % of that province to become citizens of a new "nation", Québec — rather, a separation should only take place where there is an overwhelming demand for removal, and in such case the removal amendment process would likely succeed, anyway.

It should also be noted, perhaps, that some constitutional experts have suggested that Her Honour the Honourable Lise Thibeau, the Lieutenant Governor of Québec would have a constitutional obligation to refuse to concur with any decision of the National Assembly of Québec to unilaterally separate from Canada — however, this opinion is controversial, and has not been proven.

:!: Revision : Resolved a formatting error.

 

[Finder]

Then how can you not see that this is an undemocratic law, which is not intouch with the international norm for declaring a nation independent. A referendum is pretty nice and the PQ were extremly democratic in trying to get independence, as they had formed the provincial government as a magority non the less as a seperatist party and the norm in todays world is an act of parliment of that territory, and not of the other sections of the nation. Your not going to ask your perceived "oppressors" to just let you go and then let a horde of there governmental bodies deciede for you if you should be independent.

That would be like you living at home as a 10 year old asking your parents (the Senate and the house of commons) if you can go out alone and get your own place, and then your parents turning around and saying only if your sisters, brothers, grandmother and your father and I agree.

Though I may not agree with the Bloq or the PQ they have had the chance while controling the provincial government and even being the offical opposition in the federal government to just make this an act of provincial parliment in which most of the world would regonize this right, yet they didn't and they did use a referendum.

 

[FiveParadox]

Your Point?

I don't see what you're getting at.

Again ...

I am not saying that this is how the law should be. I am explaining what the law is. The process I have described above is, as of now, the process that Québec would be required to undergo were they to press for separation, if they wished to do so legally. I am not on some anti-Québec cruisade here, Finder — I am only explaning the situation from a legal standpoint.

 

[Kreskin]

I wish there was an either/or question on a Quebec referendum. Instead of having a referendum every 5 to 10 years ask a question like this:

Select one of the following:

[] Quebec to secede
[] Quebec to sign the Canadian Constitution

 

[Finder]

Paradox well you appear to support this as you stated above, you do not believe the current law requires to jump threw hoops. You have already listed a long list of hoops they will have to jump threw if they chose to follow Canadian law to achieve their goal. I can not possibly see this law as anything else then that. Well that and totally unrealistic and possibly impossible to achieve that democratic goal of a people.

That is my point and pretty much the only big one I'm trying to make.

 

[FiveParadox]

I didn't say I didn't think the law was jumping through hoops, lol; it just so happens to be how one must separate a province from the country at this point. Even if Québec decided to unilaterally separate from Canada, the remainder of the nation would still need to complete the amendment process to make the separation official. Québec cannot be removed from the Constitution, nor the administration of the country, unless the amendment is made in the method given above. That's just the way it is. I don't know what would happen if Québec separates via referendum — maybe that would be fair. But to make the separation official, would you deny that the Constitution Act, 1982 (or its previous incarnations) would have to be amended?

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Harper Assisting in Sovereignty: Duceppe

I didn't say I didn't think the law was jumping through hoops, lol; it just so happens to be how one must separate a province from the country at this point. Even if Québec decided to unilaterally separate from Canada, the remainder of the nation would still need to complete the amendment process to make the separation official. Québec cannot be removed from the Constitution, nor the administration of the country, unless the amendment is made in the method given above. That's just the way it is. I don't know what would happen if Québec separates via referendum — maybe that would be fair. But to make the separation official, would you deny that the Constitution Act, 1982 (or its previous incarnations) would have to be amended?

I'm sure if Quebec did up and leave and Canada didn't try to use force by means of Quebec breaking Canadian law which they would not see as legit by this point. Canada would be forced into a constitutional crisis, but one I'm sure we'd be able to fix with a simple amendment to remove Quebec from confederation. Though I hope that day never happens.

 

[FiveParadox]

While I despise the Conservative Party of Canada, if they can stay competitive in Québec, and if the Liberal Party of Canada recovers from its recent disasters and also returns to the competition in Québec, then I think that the threat of sovereignty could be somewhat softened.

 

[Finder]

I don't have that much faith that the Conservative party is a federalist party. I mean there are PC factions inside the party which are, but the old reform guard often do not see Canada as we do. With the FPTP system anything can happen in Quebec.