Duceppe says it's up to NFLD whether it wants to leave Canada

[Colpy]

Quebec independence referendum, 1995 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

".....This culminated in the federal government's 2000 Clarity Act which stated that any future referendum would have to be on a "clear question" and that it would have to represent a "clear majority" for the federal Parliament to recognize its validity. The meaning of both a "clear question" and a "clear majority" is left unspecified in the act, which was criticized by some."

^ That's real nice.... a "Clear Question" and "Clear Majority" explanation that's.... not "Clear" on what either is.

Since it's left up to interpretation on which either is, %-wise, this act is pointless as any means of justification.

And as far as I'm concerned, 51% is a Clear Majority unless one can't count or is blind.... hence the term "Majority Rules" which more often then not in democratic decisions, means 51% or greater.

It's funny how people will talk about what happened in the Quebec Referendum as the right thing, which is that the NO's won by 50.58%, was the right decision, since majority ruled and it benefits the rest of those who didn't want them to leave, who live outside of Quebec.

But if say that 50.58% was for the YES's to separate, suddenly it's have to be a "clear majority", whatever the heck that imaginary number is, if it's not 50.58%.

^ So in the above case, if the YES's got the majority, and their democratic rights rejected, what then?

The NO's win regardless.... so what's the point in putting it to a vote and call it democracy when one side of the vote has a clear advantage from the start and stands very little chance in losing?

Even still, let's say the YES's got 60%+ and was a very clear majority?

People would start moaning about the 40%- "Canadian Citizens" being pulled away from their country and jump through every legal bureaucratic pile of crap one could think of to try and reject the final vote.... once again, possibly leading to violent actions ensuing.

The concept of constitutional change often requires a majority well past the "50% + 1" ideal..........in the USA a 2/3 majority is required, in Canada, unanimity in some cases, 70% of the provinces making up 50% plus of the population in others.....

Yes, the "no" side won by 50.58%.....in the face of alleged massive fraud by the "Yes" side (specifically, the mass rejection of NO votes by ballot counters)....one of the reasons 50% + 1 doesn't cut it.....

In addition, even the "clear majority" does not delinate borders......Ungava was not part of Quebec until the 1920s, and certainly the native populations of that area and others would not wish to be dragged out of the Canadian federation and left at the tender mercies of the Pure Laine........

There are so many areas with shared responsibility......what about Canadian military bases and equipment? The St. Lawrence Seaway........and on and on.

Simply put, a 50% + 1 vote followed by a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (as planned by Parizeau) inenvitably will lead to the unthinkable.....Civil War.

And it NEEDS to be said, discussed, it is the elephant in the room,.......

War often starts when one side or the other does not understand where the lines in the sand are......

 

[SirJosephPorter]

''I'm leaving you. I don't love you anymore''

''But you CAN'T leave me! We're married, and you swore allegiance to me!''

''Whatever. I'm leaving you.''

That is how I also feel, I wouldn’t want to force a province to stay if the majority wishes to leave. It doesn’t matter what the constitution says. At the same time, I support the clarity act, there must be a clear, concise question and a clear majority (in my opinion, at least 60%).

 

[El Barto]

The concept of constitutional change often requires a majority well past the "50% + 1" ideal..........in the USA a 2/3 majority is required, in Canada, unanimity in some cases, 70% of the provinces making up 50% plus of the population in others.....

Yes, the "no" side won by 50.58%.....in the face of alleged massive fraud by the "Yes" side (specifically, the mass rejection of NO votes by ballot counters)....one of the reasons 50% + 1 doesn't cut it.....

In addition, even the "clear majority" does not delinate borders......Ungava was not part of Quebec until the 1920s, and certainly the native populations of that area and others would not wish to be dragged out of the Canadian federation and left at the tender mercies of the Pure Laine........

There are so many areas with shared responsibility......what about Canadian military bases and equipment? The St. Lawrence Seaway........and on and on.

Simply put, a 50% + 1 vote followed by a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (as planned by Parizeau) inenvitably will lead to the unthinkable.....Civil War.

And it NEEDS to be said, discussed, it is the elephant in the room,.......

War often starts when one side or the other does not understand where the lines in the sand are......

Yeah Imagine,if they would of won. During the 95 referendum it was discovered that the dead voted for the referendum. That would of really created a civil war

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The NO's win regardless.... so what's the point in putting it to a vote and call it democracy when one side of the vote has a clear advantage from the start and stands very little chance in losing?

Indeed that is how it must be. When it comes to separation, the status quo side must have a big advantage. The decision to separate from a country (or to join a country) must not be taken lightly.

A 50%+1 vote does not tell us anything, it could be influenced by many factors other than peoples’ wish to separate. They may be particularly mad at Ottawa for some reason and may wish to send the PM a message, the propaganda by separation movement may be misleading, there may be a blizzard in an anti-separation region which may depress no vote, there are several possibilities.

That is why a clear majority is needed to delineate the will of the people. So yes, when it comes to separation, the no side starts with a big advantage.

In fact, I would go one step further. What they should do is hold a referendum. If that passes with a clear majority for separation, then hold another referendum in five years’ time. That will get rid of any temporary factors affecting the outcome. If it again passes with a clear majority, then separation could take place.

Separation is not deciding which party gets elected. It is a profound decision which will affect the future of the two counties for centuries to come and the decision must not be taken lightly. We must make doubly sure that that is indeed what people want.

 

[Colpy]

Indeed that is how it must be. When it comes to separation, the status quo side must have a big advantage. The decision to separate from a country (or to join a country) must not be taken lightly.

A 50%+1 vote does not tell us anything, it could be influenced by many factors other than peoples’ wish to separate. They may be particularly mad at Ottawa for some reason and may wish to send the PM a message, the propaganda by separation movement may be misleading, there may be a blizzard in an anti-separation region which may depress no vote, there are several possibilities.

That is why a clear majority is needed to delineate the will of the people. So yes, when it comes to separation, the no side starts with a big advantage.

In fact, I would go one step further. What they should do is hold a referendum. If that passes with a clear majority for separation, then hold another referendum in five years’ time. That will get rid of any temporary factors affecting the outcome. If it again passes with a clear majority, then separation could take place.

Separation is not deciding which party gets elected. It is a profound decision which will affect the future of the two counties for centuries to come and the decision must not be taken lightly. We must make doubly sure that that is indeed what people want.

Well, there is indeed ice skating in Hell....I agree with SJP.........except (thank God! ) for the 5 year plan......I would however insist on a 2/3 majority....once.

 

[Machjo]

War often starts when one side or the other does not understand where the lines in the sand are......

Very good point. If I understand you correctly, if both sides communicate and establish mutually agreed upon rules, that is likely to avoid war. In that sense, Chretien did the right thing to bring this to the Supreme Court since it allowed the Court to define the rules of separation. Without clearly defined rules, neither side really knows where to draw the line, risking either side accusing the other of having crossed the line, and thus encouraging the risk of civil war.

Certainly it would be reasonable for both sides to abide by international laws and international rules of engagement, and that Quebec continue to abide by federal laws until separation. If either of these rules are violated, then yes civil war may be appropriate.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees me the right to travel and to pass freely between the Provinces of Canada unhindered; this means that Québec is just as much my home, and just as much the home of every other Canadian, as is my own province of primary residence. Québec is a part of Canada, and a part of my home, and therefore I (and every other Canadian) should as sure as Hell have a say in what happens to a part of our home.

Besides, sovereigntist forces in Québec are waning because they no longer have a concrete cause. French is an Official Language of Canada, Québec has been recognised as a distinct society by the Parliament of Canada, and the federal Government has even allowed Québec’s use of the notwithstanding clause to go ahead without veto (as the federal Government is entitled to veto provincial legislation through advice to the Governor General). Québec has a pretty good arrangement going on right now.

And besides, in the case of an attempted separation, First Nations lands in Québec remain the property of The Crown of Canada, that territory is not owned by Québec — and what of the Canadians who want to remain Canadian? Surely Québec (hypocritically) would oppose measures to partition the province — one part to remain Canadian, and one to become mistakenly sovereign?

 

[Machjo]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees me the right to travel and to pass freely between the Provinces of Canada unhindered; this means that Québec is just as much my home, and just as much the home of every other Canadian, as is my own province of primary residence. Québec is a part of Canada, and a part of my home, and therefore I (and every other Canadian) should as sure as Hell have a say in what happens to a part of our home.

Besides, sovereigntist forces in Québec are waning because they no longer have a concrete cause. French is an Official Language of Canada, Québec has been recognised as a distinct society by the Parliament of Canada, and the federal Government has even allowed Québec’s use of the notwithstanding clause to go ahead without veto (as the federal Government is entitled to veto provincial legislation through advice to the Governor General). Québec has a pretty good arrangement going on right now.

And besides, in the case of an attempted separation, First Nations lands in Québec remain the property of The Crown of Canada, that territory is not owned by Québec — and what of the Canadians who want to remain Canadian? Surely Québec (hypocritically) would oppose measures to partition the province — one part to remain Canadian, and one to become mistakenly sovereign?

Your emotional choice of wording aside, I do agree with this post overall. If Quebec can separate from Canada, then so can the First Nations and Inuit from Quebec.

What I oppose though is one-sidedness on either side of the issue. Some English Canadians simply state flat out that if Quebec separates, no matter what the circumstances, they want war. That is too extreme in my opinion. Inversely, sovereigntists who want to separate but say the First Nations and Inuit can't, are fooling themselves.

I should point out though that many in Quebec (and I'd lived in a 'pure laine' town for awhile) do see their history as that of a conquered people and they don't necessarily have much respect for federal laws, so your ramble about your rights as set by the federal government are a little simplistic.

As for my view on that, I'd say that though it is true that New France was conquered territory, let's not forget that it was also built on conquered native land. Owing to the complexity of the situation, it would be best to respect international standards on this, and the international community recognizes Quebec as part of Canada and so as long as that's the case, Quebec is a part of Canada. Canada should of course conform to international standards when it comes to the right of a state to secede, and so should Quebec. We must remember too though that if the international community should defend Quebec's right to secede, it's likely to defend the right of Quebec's First Nations and Inuit to secede from Quebec too.

But to say that because the Canadian government grants you a right that you have it and that's that ignores much of the history and cultural issues at play too, along with potential international repercussions of our actions.

 

[wulfie68]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees me the right to travel and to pass freely between the Provinces of Canada unhindered; this means that Québec is just as much my home, and just as much the home of every other Canadian, as is my own province of primary residence. Québec is a part of Canada, and a part of my home, and therefore I (and every other Canadian) should as sure as Hell have a say in what happens to a part of our home.

You're being disingenuous. If Quebec votes to leave confederation, they will no longer be a part of Canada, thus your rights under the Charter will no longer be applicable, save for those the new Quebec national body chooses to adopt. Further to that, we all have residences, places where we pay municipal property taxes, provincial taxes, etc. that give us the right to a deeper say in what goes on in those areas. If you truly desire to stop seperatists from pulling out of the country, then the only real option you have is to move and take up residence in the area in question and vote as your heart/conscience dictates whenever the question faces a vote.

Besides, sovereigntist forces in Québec are waning because they no longer have a concrete cause. French is an Official Language of Canada, Québec has been recognised as a distinct society by the Parliament of Canada, and the federal Government has even allowed Québec’s use of the notwithstanding clause to go ahead without veto (as the federal Government is entitled to veto provincial legislation through advice to the Governor General). Québec has a pretty good arrangement going on right now.

I won't make any judgement about Quebec's seperatists waning influence: the polls show it goes up and down, depending on a number of factors. I will say that I have never really understood the world the sovereigntists of Quebec live in: Ottawa has given in to Francophone Quebec on almost every demand its made for the past 30 years. They DO have a sweet deal, and I don't know why they'd want to change things (which might be why they haven't voted to seperate, yet keep electing seperatists to the House of Commons and as their provincial gov't to keep the heat up).

And besides, in the case of an attempted separation, First Nations lands in Québec remain the property of The Crown of Canada, that territory is not owned by Québec — and what of the Canadians who want to remain Canadian? Surely Québec (hypocritically) would oppose measures to partition the province — one part to remain Canadian, and one to become mistakenly sovereign?

That is one of the (many) sticking points that would have to be negotiated to everyone's satisfaction should Quebecers every vote for seperation...

 

[Machjo]

5P, I've noticed one thing about you that I do respect: a respect for the law. You do seem to quote it often. And certainly any discussion of separation ought to take both national and international laws into account.

However, in your last post, you do seem to have mixed in a lot of emotionalism into it, which seems to have caused you to overlook other cultural factors that have contributed to the sovereignty movement.

 

[lone wolf]

How much Quebec will actually be left when all the separation dust settles? I've heard twenty miles around Quebec City and another bubble around Ottawa-Gatineau.

 

[VanIsle]

Duceppe wants to use the notwithstanding clause:

MONTREAL - Quebec sovereigntists are demanding the provincial government invoke the notwithstanding clause to override a recent language ruling by Canada's top court.
Last October, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a Quebec law which limited immigrants' access to English-language schools in the province, calling Bill 104 unconstitutional.
On Sunday, sovereigntist organizations, backed by politicians, artists and union leaders, held a rally in support of Bill 104 and read a declaration demanding stricter enforcement of the provincial language charter.
"I don't see a possible solution without using the notwithstanding clause," Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe told The Canadian Press on Sunday.
"It puts the French language in Quebec in a very weak position if we can't apply such a law."
Societe St-Jean Baptiste president Mario Beaulieu said it was time for Premier Jean Charest's government to take a stand and override the ruling.
"The Supreme Court decision brings us back to the point where people with means can skirt the law and send their children to non-subsidized private schools before moving them into the English system," he said.
"We say no to the Supreme Court's decision and we say no to sluggish politicians who hide their head in the sand. We say yes to a new offensive to strengthen the French-language charter."
Quebec law states that children can only attend English public school if a parent was educated in that language somewhere in Canada.
Prior to Bill 104, many immigrant families escaped the law.
The loophole re-opened by the Supreme Court allows parents to send their children to English-language private schools for a period before transferring them into the public system.
Some two dozen families had taken the Quebec government to court over Bill 104, arguing it was violating immigrants' constitutional rights by denying them access to English-language schools.
The Supreme Court gave the Liberal government one year come up with an acceptable compromise to the law.
Jean-Paul Perreault, president of a French-language advocacy group, said Canada's top court has no business in Quebec's affairs.
"The Supreme Court came out with a decision but we all know the Supreme Court is a political organism mostly directed by the federal government," he said.
"A gathering like this one today is a demonstration that in Quebec, people don't accept that kind of unacceptable imposition to the Quebec society, to the Quebec nation."
After the assembly, some 800 protesters marched through the streets of Old Montreal calling for an independent and French Quebec.

 

[El Barto]

I quietly piss them off when I right my checks in english ....funny they never sent any back tho lol. In your face Hydro Quebec hahahaha

 

[jwmcq625]

Much to the frustration of Duceppe and his separation morons, Alberta is the one provinve that can afford to separate and be successful, whereas if Quebec separated they would be bankrupt overnight. The reality is that without transfer payments from Alberta, Quebec would have been bankrupt a very long time ago, but Duceppe just does not have the grey-matter to realize that he has to have English Canada's dollars to survive.

Maybe we should have a referendum and throw these welfare bums out of Canada, right after they pay their share of the national debt!

 

[El Barto]

Much to the frustration of Duceppe and his separation morons, Alberta is the one provinve that can afford to separate and be successful, whereas if Quebec separated they would be bankrupt overnight. The reality is that without transfer payments from Alberta, Quebec would have been bankrupt a very long time ago, but Duceppe just does not have the grey-matter to realize that he has to have English Canada's dollars to survive.

Maybe we should have a referendum and throw these welfare bums out of Canada, right after they pay their share of the national debt!

No that's bull****...they would be forced to manage with the money they have which if they did so in the first place that would of been a winning condition they so desperately are looking for. What is keeping them alive (seperatists) is the failures and ineptitude of the federalist. If it wasn't for that to have something to point at they would have nothing as they offer nothing new or seem to have a guide line to follow. They are going at it blind and have no direction.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Much to the frustration of Duceppe and his separation morons, Alberta is the one provinve that can afford to separate and be successful, whereas if Quebec separated they would be bankrupt overnight. The reality is that without transfer payments from Alberta, Quebec would have been bankrupt a very long time ago, but Duceppe just does not have the grey-matter to realize that he has to have English Canada's dollars to survive.

Maybe we should have a referendum and throw these welfare bums out of Canada, right after they pay their share of the national debt!

Are you kidding? The same problems that are present in Quebec separation are also present in Alberta separation. There is the national debt; there is the question of what the Métis decide. If the Métis hold a separate referendum and vote to remain in Canada, Alberta will be lucky to walk out with Southern Alberta.

There are many treaties with Indians still pending; they will have to be resolved in the case of separation. Alberta separation will be fully as messy and as complicated as Quebec separation.

And with Alberta there is another complicating factor. If Quebec separates, USA would have no interest whatever in gobbling up Quebec. Quebec will be more trouble than it is worth.

However, as soon as Alberta becomes independent, USA will start eying it greedily. A few years after independence, USA will make Alberta an offer it can’t refuse. There will be a referendum and Albertans will inevitably vote to join USA. They will have to; there will be plenty of inducements and threats by USA.

I give an independent (Christian?) Republic of Alberta five years before it is swallowed up by USA.

 

[Colpy]

Are you kidding? The same problems that are present in Quebec separation are also present in Alberta separation. There is the national debt; there is the question of what the Métis decide. If the Métis hold a separate referendum and vote to remain in Canada, Alberta will be lucky to walk out with Southern Alberta.

There are many treaties with Indians still pending; they will have to be resolved in the case of separation. Alberta separation will be fully as messy and as complicated as Quebec separation.

And with Alberta there is another complicating factor. If Quebec separates, USA would have no interest whatever in gobbling up Quebec. Quebec will be more trouble than it is worth.

However, as soon as Alberta becomes independent, USA will start eying it greedily. A few years after independence, USA will make Alberta an offer it can’t refuse. There will be a referendum and Albertans will inevitably vote to join USA. They will have to; there will be plenty of inducements and threats by USA.

I give an independent (Christian?) Republic of Alberta five years before it is swallowed up by USA.

Ah, Thank You, SJP......for reaffirming my faith...

Alberta has been paying much more than its own way in Canada for decades......unlike Quebec.

The Metis control no land, have no reservations, no territorial foundation on which to hold a separate vote.....they would not, indeed could not, vote as a separate entity from the rest of the province...........

Indians do have land claims and a territorial foundation.....but Alberta has the resources to negotiate an equitable deal with them........unlike Quebec, where natives control a major portion of the land mass.

Are you insinuating that the USA would take Alberta by force??? That is, of course, ludicrous.....as the people of the USA would not stand for an attack on an area with common language, culture, ideals..........it is simply outside of the realm of common sense to consider such a thing possible. Ask nicely??? Perhaps, but joining the USA would be a democratic choice for an independent Alberta.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

As usual.

 

[Praxius]

..... In my opinion, at least 60% majority should be needed with a clear question (e.g. do you want to separate from Canada and form an independent country?). Anything short of that Canada should not recognize the results. At least that much majority is needed to break up a country.

But see, that's the real problem... % based on opinions.

You may say it's not fair to confirm a decision based on a 51% win, but a 60+% is.... yet another person will complain that 40% of the people still want to remain, thus in order to protect that minority, the 60+%'s decision could be disqualified just as easily as your 51% and then set it to something like 85%..... or maybe 90%.... or 95%.....

Because of this, it should remain at the 50% balance and anything above 50% is the decision.

The fairest thing I can think of is that if a province votes 51% to leave Canada, then allow that province to do so..... the other 49% should be allowed to leave the province and move to another province if they so wish, while the others who refuse to move can suck it up and live in their new country.

Trying to make this more technical then it needs to be doesn't help anybody.

51% should be the balance of win in a democracy and playing around with that makes democracy a mockery.

Sure separating is a serious issue, but the price of giving people the freedom to choose is that sometimes people will make the wrong choice.

If Quebec wants to separate.... I have no issue.... let them. It's either that, or we put up with decades more of them moaning and complaining about separating.

 

[Praxius]

.... Simply put, a 50% + 1 vote followed by a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (as planned by Parizeau) inenvitably will lead to the unthinkable.....Civil War.

And continually forcing a 51% or more majority of a population to do what the minority wants all the time can lead to the exact same conclusion.

Just look at the government today. In one point of view, the Conservatives have the majority of votes compared to the other parties, yet in another point of view, a very clear majority of Canadians didn't vote Conservative... but the Conservatives still get to run this minority government against a clear majority of voter's wishes of having another party other then Conservative.

And now we're having fewer and fewer people come out to vote because, besides the continual political finger pointing and nothing ever really being done, many see the system broke.

Historical Voter Turnout in Canadian Federal Elections - 1867-2008

The 2008 election only had a total of 58.8% of registered voters turn out to vote.

What happens when that number drops below 50%?

And what happens when a fraction of that less then 50% votes in a government to oversee all?

People can talk about legalities and such towards what majority is legitimate or not, but when it comes to the human being and them seeing that over half of the total legit population sees things contrary to what a minority are dictating.... you may not be able to escape civil war in either case.

Sure the numbers and the law makes sense to those who actually pay attention to that stuff, but you and I know most people in our country are not well educated in the technicalities of it all and only know "Majority Rules."

And when those people believe "Majority Rules" and the minority are dictating to them something else to hold their position, whether you think the majority are right or wrong in their views, they will think they're right and may take drastic actions they feel are justified because they feel they're being jipped.

 

[Praxius]

A 50%+1 vote does not tell us anything, it could be influenced by many factors other than peoples’ wish to separate. They may be particularly mad at Ottawa for some reason and may wish to send the PM a message, the propaganda by separation movement may be misleading, there may be a blizzard in an anti-separation region which may depress no vote, there are several possibilities.

Several possibilities that can apply to the other side of the argument in equal fashion.

That is why a clear majority is needed to delineate the will of the people. So yes, when it comes to separation, the no side starts with a big advantage.

In fact, I would go one step further. What they should do is hold a referendum. If that passes with a clear majority for separation, then hold another referendum in five years’ time. That will get rid of any temporary factors affecting the outcome. If it again passes with a clear majority, then separation could take place.

So you have a clear majority of say 60+% who want to separate, so you put their decision on hold for 5 years while they're bombarded by continual propaganda to sway their decision for the next vote?

Sounds to me like more bureaucratic mumbo jumbo to make it virtually impossible to make any decision other then to keep everything the way it currently is, as is.

What's the point? You're basically applying elementary school mentality to the situation.... ie: Spelling Pre-Test and then the Spelling Real-Test, where the first one doesn't count for jack except give the opposition of the majority a clear view on how much more propaganda they have to dish out and waste further tax dollars on.

Separation is not deciding which party gets elected. It is a profound decision which will affect the future of the two counties for centuries to come and the decision must not be taken lightly. We must make doubly sure that that is indeed what people want.

Democracy is Democracy, regardless of what is at question. The people who are voting are grown adults and regardless of how mental someone may think they are because of a decision they made, the law states their vote should count and shouldn't have to go through some circus trick to ensure they voted the way they wanted to vote.

I didn't vote Conservative three times in a row and looking back today, I still stand by my decisions to not vote for them.

If I was asked if I wanted my province to separate from Canada and I said Yes, I know full well what that Yes means, and I know it's not going to be a simple situation that will work over night..... to treat voters as people who may have temporary delusions or misgivings in such a way to disqualify their votes because you didn't agree with them is beyond wrong.... it's kinda sickening.

Whatever I choose to vote on, I think it through, make my decision and I accept the consequences of my actions, even if those consequences are difficult ones. Maybe not everybody does that or sees it that way.... but that's not for you or anybody to determine.

An individuals' reasons for voting a certain way are irrelevant.... all that matters is their vote. If people are going to continually find ways to disqualify or invalidate someone's legit vote, then not only are you rubbing the face of democracy in a pile of cow sh*t, but you're only making more people become disenchanted in the democratic process.... which eventually leads to people taking other actions other then democratic.