NDP Leader Tom Mulcair likes to portray himself as a smart politician fully in tune with what issues are at the top of mind for Canadians.
But Mulcair may be outsmarting himself if he thinks voters outside of Quebec no longer worry much about the possibility of Quebec separation.
How else can you explain Mulcair’s crass pandering recently to Quebec nationalist voters by reiterating his support for a controversial NDP policy that backs an easy path for Quebec to split from the rest of Canada?
Clearly believing Canadians outside of the province don’t care or wouldn’t notice, Mulcair said in Quebec City on the eve of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on June 24 that he would reject the federal Clarity Act if the NDP forms the next government.
That act, passed by Parliament in 2000, declared that Quebec or any other province can begin to separate only if a “clear majority” of voters in the province vote for secession.
The NDP policy, known as the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration, would allow a province to break away if just 50 per cent of voters plus one cast ballots to separate. Mulcair says he is “proud” of that policy.
Stunningly, it’s actually harder to change the NDP’s own constitution than it would be to split up the country under the NDP. Article 16 of the NDP constitution, effective April 2013, states its “constitution may be amended by a two-thirds majority vote of all delegates present and voting at any Convention.”
How does Mulcair justify making it more difficult to win approval to rewrite the NDP constitution than for Quebecers to vote to break up Canada?
With polls suggesting the NDP is on a roll and that Mulcair could be our next prime minister, such questions are completely valid.
Voters who may be giving Mulcair and the NDP a second look after the surprise NDP victory in the Alberta election in May have a right to know where the NDP leader stands on all issues affecting Canada’s future.
What they will find on Quebec may surprise them.
In the wake of the 1995 Quebec referendum, which the federalist side won by the thinnest of margins, the Supreme Court of Canada said in 1998 that a “clear majority” voting in favour of secession on a “clear question” should be sufficient to start negotiations. But the court did not rule on how to define “majority.”
In 2000, Parliament passed the Clarity Act, which declared separation talks could begin after a “clear majority” of Quebecers voted to separate. Again, “clear majority” wasn’t spelled out.
Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have defined “clear majority,” but they have indicated it would be much more than a simple majority, possibly 60 per cent or maybe even two-thirds.
Mulcair’s support for the 50-per-cent-plus-one formula for Quebec separation goes too far toward appeasing separatists. What happens if a single Quebec voter woke up the morning after a referendum and said they made a mistake in voting to separate? It would be too late — Canada as we know it would be gone.
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, speaking to the Toronto Star’s editorial board 10 days ago, called Mulcair’s comments “pandering” to Quebec separatist voters, demonstrating a kind of “divisiveness that is irresponsible for a prime minister.”
In the past, Mulcair has vowed he would “wipe the floor” with Trudeau in a debate about Quebec sovereignty.
Obviously, the Quebec question is not a major issue at this moment for many Canadians, given that polls within Quebec indicate support for sovereignty is at a lower level than in past years.
But Mulcair’s odd decision to raise the sovereignty issue at this time suggests he may be unsure of just how strong the NDP support is within Quebec and that he needs to shore up the party fortunes by playing to the nationalists who voted NDP in the 2011 election. Is he willing to raise and debate this issue outside of Quebec?
In the rest of Canada, Mulcair’s move to entice Quebec nationalists should be seen for what it really is — nakedly self-serving.
Is this what voters are looking for when they assess which leader would stand up for Canada in such a crisis?
Mulcair’s crass play for Quebec votes: Hepburn | Toronto Star
But Mulcair may be outsmarting himself if he thinks voters outside of Quebec no longer worry much about the possibility of Quebec separation.
How else can you explain Mulcair’s crass pandering recently to Quebec nationalist voters by reiterating his support for a controversial NDP policy that backs an easy path for Quebec to split from the rest of Canada?
Clearly believing Canadians outside of the province don’t care or wouldn’t notice, Mulcair said in Quebec City on the eve of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on June 24 that he would reject the federal Clarity Act if the NDP forms the next government.
That act, passed by Parliament in 2000, declared that Quebec or any other province can begin to separate only if a “clear majority” of voters in the province vote for secession.
The NDP policy, known as the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration, would allow a province to break away if just 50 per cent of voters plus one cast ballots to separate. Mulcair says he is “proud” of that policy.
Stunningly, it’s actually harder to change the NDP’s own constitution than it would be to split up the country under the NDP. Article 16 of the NDP constitution, effective April 2013, states its “constitution may be amended by a two-thirds majority vote of all delegates present and voting at any Convention.”
How does Mulcair justify making it more difficult to win approval to rewrite the NDP constitution than for Quebecers to vote to break up Canada?
With polls suggesting the NDP is on a roll and that Mulcair could be our next prime minister, such questions are completely valid.
Voters who may be giving Mulcair and the NDP a second look after the surprise NDP victory in the Alberta election in May have a right to know where the NDP leader stands on all issues affecting Canada’s future.
What they will find on Quebec may surprise them.
In the wake of the 1995 Quebec referendum, which the federalist side won by the thinnest of margins, the Supreme Court of Canada said in 1998 that a “clear majority” voting in favour of secession on a “clear question” should be sufficient to start negotiations. But the court did not rule on how to define “majority.”
In 2000, Parliament passed the Clarity Act, which declared separation talks could begin after a “clear majority” of Quebecers voted to separate. Again, “clear majority” wasn’t spelled out.
Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have defined “clear majority,” but they have indicated it would be much more than a simple majority, possibly 60 per cent or maybe even two-thirds.
Mulcair’s support for the 50-per-cent-plus-one formula for Quebec separation goes too far toward appeasing separatists. What happens if a single Quebec voter woke up the morning after a referendum and said they made a mistake in voting to separate? It would be too late — Canada as we know it would be gone.
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, speaking to the Toronto Star’s editorial board 10 days ago, called Mulcair’s comments “pandering” to Quebec separatist voters, demonstrating a kind of “divisiveness that is irresponsible for a prime minister.”
In the past, Mulcair has vowed he would “wipe the floor” with Trudeau in a debate about Quebec sovereignty.
Obviously, the Quebec question is not a major issue at this moment for many Canadians, given that polls within Quebec indicate support for sovereignty is at a lower level than in past years.
But Mulcair’s odd decision to raise the sovereignty issue at this time suggests he may be unsure of just how strong the NDP support is within Quebec and that he needs to shore up the party fortunes by playing to the nationalists who voted NDP in the 2011 election. Is he willing to raise and debate this issue outside of Quebec?
In the rest of Canada, Mulcair’s move to entice Quebec nationalists should be seen for what it really is — nakedly self-serving.
Is this what voters are looking for when they assess which leader would stand up for Canada in such a crisis?
Mulcair’s crass play for Quebec votes: Hepburn | Toronto Star
