Searching for a "Clear Majority"

[FiveParadox]

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has proposed a bill that would repeal the Clarity Act and substitute for it new rules for how a referendum on the secession of Québec would be determined to be clear, valid, and a mandate for secession. Mr. Craig Scott M.P. (Toronto—Danforth), the Critic for Democratic and Parliamentary Reform, introduced the bill in the House of Commons on January 28, 2013, for first reading, and it has met with mixed reviews even within the New Democratic Party.

The bill would set out that a referendum on secession would be deemed to be a valid catalyst for provincial separation at a simple majority (i.e., 50% + 1). This new language would replace the requirement of the Clarity Act that a referendum succeed by a "clear majority," which was not defined in the Act, and the meaning of which was never clearly defined by legislators.

To make matters more interesting, recent polling data indicates that most Canadians do not think that a simple majority is an adequate threshold to initiate negotiations on the secession of a province. According to a telephone poll conducted by The Canadian Press, it seems that 73% of Canadians think that the threshold should be higher than the simple majority proposed by the Official Opposition. In fact, 29% of Canadians in the poll wanted to see a threshold of 70% or more before a referendum could initiate secession discussions. Even in Québec, a majority of citizens would want to see the threshold at 60% or more.

The bill would also require that Her Majesty's Government for Québec consult with Her Majesty's Government for Canada when determining whether a draft referendum question is clear enough to be binding on both Canada and Québec. The bill would also give the Government of Canada the authority to refer a referendum question, if it does not believe it to be clear enough, to the Court of Appeal for Québec for its opinion. (Presumably, if the Québec Court of Appeal deemed the referendum question to be unclear, it would have no force or effect.)

What do you think? What constitutes an appropriate majority to initiate the negotiation of Québec's secession? What constitutes a "clear majority?"

(Source: here)

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I think 2/3 would be clear (I voted 70% since it was closest). Also, question should be clear as well. Last one was ambiguous. Implying sovereignty association or some conditions which would not be guaranteed (and hopefully Canada would not agree to those terms).

 

[El Barto]

It should be a clear majority..... 50% +1 is not, to me that isn't even democracy .

 

[Colpy]

Yeah...I think a 2/3 majority would certainly be more than enough to initiate negotiations on secession....whether they succeed or not is another matter. In fact, 60% is probably a "clear majority".

50% + one is NOT.

 

[Goober]

2/3rds to begin negotiations- then a further vote in all provinces on the final deal.
Then consider that all provinces and the Fed have to agree on the final negotiated deal for separation - that is if I recall correctly.
And they leave with the land borders they had when joining Confederation- First Nations in the new and much smaller country of Quebec would also have to agree if and FN lands are left inside those tiny borders.

Basically- You do not come to a buffet- fill your pockets and decide to leave. The ROC would not tolerate such a deal.

 

[El Barto]

I would like to add tho , before we agree to what would create a winning referendum maybe if we had a clear outline to what would be on the table for negotiation if it even comes to that. I am sure the issues , topics and what is due laid out many would think twice of voting yes. never trust backing a politician for something he has no plan or outline for !

 

[Goober]

I would like to add tho , before we agree to what would create a winning referendum maybe if we had a clear outline to what would be on the table for negotiation if it even comes to that. I am sure the issues , topics and what is due laid out many would think twice of voting yes. never trust backing a politician for something he has no plan or outline for !

Perhaps the Feds laying out what is not negotiable first. There would be a number of these.

 

[El Barto]

Perhaps the Feds laying out what is not negotiable first. There would be a number of these.

Yup , but they don't have the balls to. I am not singling out any party here. But if the PQ party had real brains and seriousness they would have laid out something...... they don't have a plan , none that i know of. My cynisim tells me , that is exactly the way they want it , some one is profiting from it, leave em in the dark that way they can screw you better.

 

[Goober]

Yup , but they don't have the balls to. I am not singling out any party here. But if the PQ party had real brains and seriousness they would have laid out something...... they don't have a plan , none that i know of. My cynisim tells me , that is exactly the way they want it , some one is profiting from it, leave em in the dark that way they can screw you better.

Look at Quebec's debt ratio to GDP- Taxes- Then look at what some countries in the EU pay for bonds. Quebec bonds would demand a high rate. Presently the Feds backstop the low rates with financial polices so all Provs. can borrow at a lower rate then if they were on their own.

 

[El Barto]

Look at Quebec's debt ratio to GDP- Taxes- Then look at what some countries in the EU pay for bonds. Quebec bonds would demand a high rate. Presently the Feds backstop the low rates with financial polices so all Provs. can borrow at a lower rate then if they were on their own.

That too is just the thing.... when you are expecting to leave , you tend to want to pay your debt .... and when the PQ were in power they should of worked hard at that.... just that would of been a winning topic for them to actually winning a referendum. It is not blaming that wins reason

 

[Goober]

That too is just the thing.... when you are expecting to leave , you tend to want to pay your debt .... and when the PQ were in power they should of worked hard at that.... just that would of been a winning topic for them to actually winning a referendum. It is not blaming that wins reason

How many years has Quebec received equalization payments?

 

[El Barto]

How many years has Quebec received equalization payments?

Google it , I am in no way an encyclopedia of Quebec affairs. I am just a pissed off citizen lol

 

[SLM]

Google it , I am in no way an encyclopedia of Quebec affairs. I am just a pissed off citizen lol

We're all just pissed off citizens.

Anger is what unites us as a nation. Well that and bitching about the weather, lol.

 

[Goober]

Google it , I am in no way an encyclopedia of Quebec affairs. I am just a pissed off citizen lol

I did.
Quebec proves that not all is equal in Canada's equalization payment program | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
3. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, there may be paid to a province a fiscal equalization payment not exceeding the amounts determined under this Part for each fiscal year in the period beginning on April 1, 2007 and ending on March 31, 2014.

R.S., 1985, c. F-8, s. 3;
R.S., 1985, c. 11 (3rd Supp.), s. 2;
1992, c. 10, s. 2;
1994, c. 2, s. 1;
1999, c. 11, s. 1;
2004, c. 4, s. 1, c. 22, s. 2;
2005, c. 7, s. 1;
2006, c. 4, s. 182;
2007, c. 29, s. 62.

Previous Version
Marginal note:Fiscal year 2007-2008

3.1 The fiscal equalization payment that may be paid to a province for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2007 is equal to,

(a) for Ontario, $0;

(b) for Quebec, $7,160,352,000;

(c) for Nova Scotia, $1,307,982,000;

(d) for New Brunswick, $1,476,523,000;

(e) for Manitoba, $1,825,796,000;

(f) for British Columbia, $0;

(g) for Prince Edward Island, $293,958,000;

(h) for Saskatchewan, $226,146,000;

(i) for Alberta, $0; and

(j) for Newfoundland and Labrador, $477,374,000.

2007, c. 29, s. 62.

Marginal note:Fiscal year 2009–2010

3.11 Subject to subsection 3.7(3), the fiscal equalization payment that may be paid to a province for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2009 is equal to,

(a) for Ontario, $347,029,000;

(b) for Quebec, $8,354,501,000;

(c) for Nova Scotia, $1,390,747,000;

(d) for New Brunswick, $1,689,410,000;

(e) for Manitoba, $2,063,394,000;

(f) for British Columbia, $0;

(g) for Prince Edward Island, $339,919,000;

(h) for Saskatchewan, $0;

(i) for Alberta, $0; and

(j) for Newfoundland and Labrador, $0.

2009, c. 2, s. 383.

Marginal note:Additional fiscal equalization payment

3.12 (1) An additional fiscal equalization payment may be paid for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2010 equal to,

(a) for Nova Scotia, $250,405,000;

(b) for New Brunswick, $80,300,000;

(c) for Manitoba, $175,494,000; and

(d) for Prince Edward Island, $3,304,000.
Marginal note:Additional fiscal equalization payment — 2011-2012 fiscal year

(2) An additional fiscal equalization payment may be paid for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2011 equal to,

(a) for Quebec, $368,932,000;

(b) for Nova Scotia, $157,591,000;

(c) for New Brunswick, $149,776,000; and

(d) for Manitoba, $275,808,000.
Marginal note:Additional fiscal equalization payment — 2012-2013 fiscal year

(3) An additional fiscal equalization payment may be paid for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2012 equal to,

(a) for Quebec, $362,127,000;

(b) for Nova Scotia, $13,471,000;

(c) for New Brunswick, $102,767,000; and

(d) for Manitoba, $201,295,000.

2010, c. 12, s. 1646;
2011, c. 15, s. 27;
2012, c. 19, s. 390

 

[El Barto]

I did.
Quebec proves that not all is equal in Canada's equalization payment program | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
3. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, there may be paid to a province a fiscal equalization payment not exceeding the amounts determined under this Part for each fiscal year in the period beginning on April 1, 2007 and ending on March 31, 2014.

R.S., 1985, c. F-8, s. 3;
R.S., 1985, c. 11 (3rd Supp.), s. 2;
1992, c. 10, s. 2;
1994, c. 2, s. 1;
1999, c. 11, s. 1;
2004, c. 4, s. 1, c. 22, s. 2;
2005, c. 7, s. 1;
2006, c. 4, s. 182;
2007, c. 29, s. 62.

Previous Version
Marginal note:Fiscal year 2007-2008

3.1 The fiscal equalization payment that may be paid to a province for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2007 is equal to,

(a) for Ontario, $0;

(b) for Quebec, $7,160,352,000;

(c) for Nova Scotia, $1,307,982,000;

(d) for New Brunswick, $1,476,523,000;

(e) for Manitoba, $1,825,796,000;

(f) for British Columbia, $0;

(g) for Prince Edward Island, $293,958,000;

(h) for Saskatchewan, $226,146,000;

(i) for Alberta, $0; and

(j) for Newfoundland and Labrador, $477,374,000.

2007, c. 29, s. 62.

Marginal note:Fiscal year 2009–2010

3.11 Subject to subsection 3.7(3), the fiscal equalization payment that may be paid to a province for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2009 is equal to,

(a) for Ontario, $347,029,000;

(b) for Quebec, $8,354,501,000;

(c) for Nova Scotia, $1,390,747,000;

(d) for New Brunswick, $1,689,410,000;

(e) for Manitoba, $2,063,394,000;

(f) for British Columbia, $0;

(g) for Prince Edward Island, $339,919,000;

(h) for Saskatchewan, $0;

(i) for Alberta, $0; and

(j) for Newfoundland and Labrador, $0.

2009, c. 2, s. 383.

Marginal note:Additional fiscal equalization payment

3.12 (1) An additional fiscal equalization payment may be paid for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2010 equal to,

(a) for Nova Scotia, $250,405,000;

(b) for New Brunswick, $80,300,000;

(c) for Manitoba, $175,494,000; and

(d) for Prince Edward Island, $3,304,000.
Marginal note:Additional fiscal equalization payment — 2011-2012 fiscal year

(2) An additional fiscal equalization payment may be paid for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2011 equal to,

(a) for Quebec, $368,932,000;

(b) for Nova Scotia, $157,591,000;

(c) for New Brunswick, $149,776,000; and

(d) for Manitoba, $275,808,000.
Marginal note:Additional fiscal equalization payment — 2012-2013 fiscal year

(3) An additional fiscal equalization payment may be paid for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2012 equal to,

(a) for Quebec, $362,127,000;

(b) for Nova Scotia, $13,471,000;

(c) for New Brunswick, $102,767,000; and

(d) for Manitoba, $201,295,000.

2010, c. 12, s. 1646;
2011, c. 15, s. 27;
2012, c. 19, s. 390

The sad part is the Federal doesn't say a word and the Provincial keeps crying ... I am still scratching my head on that one

We're all just pissed off citizens.

Anger is what unites us as a nation. Well that and bitching about the weather, lol.

yeah I can see by your avatar you are not a happy camper

 

[FiveParadox]

That too is just the thing.... when you are expecting to leave , you tend to want to pay your debt .... and when the PQ were in power they should of worked hard at that.... just that would of been a winning topic for them to actually winning a referendum. It is not blaming that wins reason

This is where the discussion around secession gets really interesting.

If the Parti Québécois believes in the "territorial integrity" of the province in the event of secession (i.e., that the province can insist on taking its current borders as they are now to create this new and independent state), then they should also be required to repay the portion of the federal debt for which the provincial population is responsible.

Based on the Debt Management Report 2011-2012, and if we are to assess to a seceding Québec that portion of the federal debt that corresponds to its proportion of the Canadian population at the time, then Québec would be liable for somewhere in the area of $140.5 billion. This is ignoring what I would assume follows in negotiations for how Québec might square up Canada's liabilities for pensions and insurance payments, etc., due to Québec residents and citizens.

How Her Majesty's Government for Québec thinks it can sustain this kind of obligation to the federal debt, while somehow also emerging as a new and independent state with its own starting debt of over $250 billion (its existing provincial debt, for which I would assume the federal government would bear no responsibility), is beyond me.

How many years has Quebec received equalization payments?

Québec has received equalisation payments every year since 1957; this year, about $7.8 billion.

I should note, though, that I do not think that equalisation payments should factor into negotiations about secession or a subsequent economic relationship, if any. Equalisation payments are a federal program that is undertaken to ensure adequate public services for Québec residents as citizens of Canada first, and they have a right to be ensured a certain level of services, as Canadians. Obviously it is better if a larger province can manage its finances so as to avoid a dependency on these payments, but we should not keep an accounting of and hold equalisation payments against a province (even upon secession); that is not the intention or the purpose of the program.

 

[Goober]

This is where the discussion around secession gets really interesting.

If the Parti Québécois believes in the "territorial integrity" of the province in the event of secession (i.e., that the province can insist on taking its current borders as they are now to create this new and independent state), then they should also be required to repay the portion of the federal debt for which the provincial population is responsible.

Based on the Debt Management Report 2011-2012, and if we are to assess to a seceding Québec that portion of the federal debt that corresponds to its proportion of the Canadian population at the time, then Québec would be liable for somewhere in the area of $140.5 billion. This is ignoring what I would assume follows in negotiations for how Québec might square up Canada's liabilities for pensions and insurance payments, etc., due to Québec residents and citizens.

How Her Majesty's Government for Québec thinks it can sustain this kind of obligation to the federal debt, while somehow also emerging as a new and independent state with its own starting debt of over $250 billion (its existing provincial debt, for which I would assume the federal government would bear no responsibility), is beyond me.



Québec has received equalisation payments every year since 1957; this year, about $7.8 billion.

I should note, though, that I do not think that equalisation payments should factor into negotiations about secession or a subsequent economic relationship, if any. Equalisation payments are a federal program that is undertaken to ensure adequate public services for Québec residents as citizens of Canada first, and they have a right to be ensured a certain level of services, as Canadians. Obviously it is better if a larger province can manage its finances so as to avoid a dependency on these payments, but we should not keep an accounting of and hold equalisation payments against a province (even upon secession); that is not the intention or the purpose of the program.

These are some points that I believe are the factors in separation- And the ROC will not allow Quebec to separate with their present borders and they as I recall have to agree- My buffet point answers that.

Then consider that all provinces and the Fed have to agree on the final negotiated deal for separation - that is if I recall correctly.
And they leave with the land borders they had when joining Confederation- First Nations in the new and much smaller country of Quebec would also have to agree if and FN lands are left inside those tiny borders.

Basically- You do not come to a buffet- fill your pockets and decide to leave. The ROC would not tolerate such a deal.