Heh. You’ve got me. I did it totally subconsciously. I’m going to blame it on Grey for spelling it that way in his post. 
The idea is that if 50% + 1 in favour of seperation, then seperation should occur. No other referendum* in this country has ever been limited in this way, including the one on changing the Constitution.
Perhaps I should have more properly phrased it, “make a Quebec nationalist’s vote somehow less valuable than anyone else’s.” After all, the last referendum was pretty damn close to 50% + 1 in favour of federalism, and many seperatists (including many soft seperatists, who could be swayed to federalism) feel that the Clarity Act is saying that there’s a different set of rules for nationalists and federalists, if the nationalists need a larger number of votes to win than the federalists do.
In any event, if even 50% + 1 voted in favour of seperation, the PQ would seperate, and there’s not a lot the rest of the country could do to stop it.
*(Yes, I realize there’s no such thing as a true referendum in this country, only a plebiscite. But they always get called “referendums” outside of PoliSci classes, so I’m using that here)
No other referendum would destroy the country, either.
Well, yeah. The government is very rightly going to set severe conditions around its own dissolution and having eight million citizens lose their rights and citizenship.
[QUPTE]In any event, if even 50% + 1 voted in favour of seperation, the PQ would seperate, and there’s not a lot the rest of the country could do to stop it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, Canada could just refuse to recognize it. There’s no legal right to unilateral separation, as the Supreme Court sees it. Ottawa could continue to collect taxes, enforce the law, and do everything it’s doing today.
Of course, you realize the concern, and the entire point to the legislation, is that 50% + 1 would vote for something OTHER than separation - neither the 1980 nor the 1995 referendum asked a question about unilateral separation - and that the government of Quebec would then, as it planned to do in 1995, pull a bait and switch and attempt to separate without even having directly asked the question. Hence “Clarity Act.”
But if keeping the country together meant forcing part of it here against the will of that part’s majority…?
But if the majority of those citizens want to reject that citizenship and those rights, is it fair to stop them?
Nobody’s disputing that Quebec doesn’t have a legal right to seperate. The question is whether it has moral right to do so, and could pull it off in reality.
I have to say yes, it does and it could. Your scenario of the federal government cheerily collecting taxes and the RCMP catching crooks in a Republic of Quebec is a little farfetched. If Quebec splits, suddenly all that federal infrastructure is part of an occupying power, and it’s not going to be allowed to operate. Either the provincial or the federal government would have to back down, and my money’s on the federal government backing off first. It’s hardly going to risk a civil war.
Yup. I’ve read the legislation.
But firstly, that isn’t how it’s perceived in Quebec, and yes that does matter.
And secondly, it’s a rather silly piece of legislation, because it attempts to regulate the conditions of something that the government considers illegal anyway, which makes about as much sense as taxing cocaine.
Besides, it wouldn’t produce any real effect. The provincial government would ignore it as it would ignore the illegality of seperation, with a simple, “Your laws don’t apply to us anymore.”
On the other hand, the act played right into the hands of the PQ, and gave a boost to a failing, flailing political movement that would just die a quiet death if the rest of the country would just shut up about it.
I’m an anglo, I’m a Quebecker, and I’m a federalist, and this act does not make me feel safe. Quite the contrary.
But that’s the point, Hamish. The entire point of the Clarity Act is to say in law that the federal government won’t allow a province to secede WITHOUT a majority of the populace wanting to secede, which is the ugly possibility we faced in 1995.
The entire focus of the law, if you’ll review it, is that the government retains the right to determine if, in fact, a majority DOES want to secede. They wrote the law because the absolute fact of the matter is that the Parti Quebecois was trying to hoodwink the populace into getting a 50%-plus-one vote on a question that did NOT ask for separation, with the intent of them carrying on as if it had.
It just makes sense that the federal government should not blindly go along with a UDI based on a question that didn’t even ask for permission for a UDI… doesn’t it? I mean, 1995 was not that long ago. You do remember the “question” it asked, right? And you do rememeber M. Parizeau admitting he planned to forego all the niceties of actually doing anything the question had asked and just plunge ahead with a declaration of independence he’d never asked for?
Setting your bar at “50% plus one” without even asking “Fifty percent plus one of what?” is absurd. If a separatist government ever has the guts to pose a referendum question like this:
…then we won’t need a Clarity Act. The Clarity Act is a response to the fact that separatists DON’T ask questions like that in referendums. They ask questions like this:
or
The 1995 question is deliberately misleading - which fit right into the Yes campaign - and was going to be ignored anyway; the 1980 question is sheer bullshit.
Well, yes, it very well may be. If a majority of citizens want to strip Jews of rights, it would be quite right and fair to ignore their wishes. If a majority of citizens want to make blacks work as slaves it would be just for a government to ignore the majority. If the majority wanted to make homosexuality a crime, it would be the correct course of action to do nothing of the sort.
It is the job of the Government of Canada to protect the rights of its citizens, even if other citizens want to take them away, and I for one am glad the government’s planning on erring on the side of caution. This is not just another vote.
That is simply false, Hamish. The government does NOT consider separation referendums as “illegal” and never has, and so far as I know has never even claimed separation is necessarily illegal. Unilateral separation is obviously illegal - it’s almost treasonous, actually. But the Clarity Act sets out the conditions for the federal government to negotiate separation. That’s not illegal.
You must be kidding.
Since the Clarity Act passed, who won the Quebec provincial election?
Since the Clarity Act passed, how have the polls on separation gone in Quebec?
Separatism has clearly been on the downswing. The backlash we were told to expect against the Clarity Act never happened. Don’t blame the Bloc’s high standing in today’s polls on the Clarity Act. That’s Sponsorgate all the way, as well as a degree of sheer fatigue with the Liberals.
Without inflaming Quebec nationalist passions more than they already are, I’d like to point out that if “But if keeping the country together meant forcing part of it here against the will of that part’s majority…?” is a relevant question for Canada re: Quebec, then it certainly ought to be a relevant question for an independent Quebec re: parts of Quebec, such as, say, the James Bay Cree. One will note that the PQ has never been consistent in this regard, insisting that Quebec borders are inviolable whilst Canadian borders are not. This, frankly, pisses me off. If you’re going to demand that we let you leave peacably, you’d damn well better let people who want to leave you leave peacably as well. The fact that all your electricity comes from the region has no moral relevance.
the “clarity act” is nothing but paternalistic horseshit,
perhaps sounds good at first reading, but it does not actually define “a clear majority” or ‘add clarity’ to any constitutional issues (which have already been addressed by the supreme court in any case.)
the law gives the federal government the right to arbitralily decide (ex post facto) that, for instance, 66% voting yes, with a turnout of 83% eligible voters in a hypothetical referendum is not a clear majority, on the basis of any argument the government decides to make.
(never mind the fact that the same government who passed this bill was elected to a “clear majority” of the house with ~40% of the ballots cast and only ~62% of eligible voters participating.)
at any rate, the very idea that any province attempting to unilaterally declare independence would even care what a federal government (by declaring independence it refuses to recognize the authority of) has to say about the matter is absurd – as is the idea that the federal government would act differently towards a udi from any province whether or not the clarity act is in place.
the act is by it’s nature useless, and by it’s context provocative.
Well, no, I’ll have to continue to disagree. It clearly was NOT “provocative” - the separatist’s favourite word, along with “humiliation” - since it didn’t provoke an outpouring of separatist backlash.
And frankly, in context, it was obviously very useful indeed. Again, I have to go back nine years; what people seem, to my amazement, to already be forgetting is that the government of Quebec at the time ran a referendum in which they asked one question and planned to act as if they had asked a different question. This stupefying affront to the concept of participative democracy has apparently been forgotten by some.
What’s also being forgotten is that the federal government, in an ongoing effort to not be “provocative,” had allowed a provincial government to act, for twenty years, as if they could just leave anytime they wanted to based on getting a Yes answer to any question at all, even if the question didn’t actually say anything about unilateral separation.
Remember that the Clarity Act was not whipped up out of a vacuum. It was a direct response to a Supreme Court ruling that said that
- Provincial governments cannot unilaterally secede, but
- The feds would have a responsibility to negotiate if a clear majority said they wanted to leave.
The question that had to be answered - and that some had been asking for an answer for for YEARS, by the way - is, what constitutes a clear majority? If you allow the government of Quebec to define that, they will define it as being “50% plus one answer Yes to any question we put on the ballot, no matter what it says, and even if the ballots are counted kinda funny, even if it’s obvious that the majority of Quebecers do not actually want full-blown separation and would vote No if we had the balls to ask them that.” That’s why the PQ never actually talks about separation in those terms. It’s always been couched in malarkey like “sovereignty-association” and promises that people won’t lose their citizenship and that Quebec will still have a say in monetary policy and all that happy nonsense. The Clarity Act, to use the old Reform Party drone, was the start of Plan B. Separatists want to pretend there is no Plan B.
Until 2000, nothing would stop a separatist government from printing up another 100-word question and then simply interpret a Yes vote as if it had been Yes to a completely different question. The purpose of the Clarity Act is to prevent the sort of potentially catastrophic bullshit Parizeau was planning in 1995.
So the federal government simply put in law that they get to call that shot. And quite frankly, I don’t see what the problem is with that. This is a country, not a softball team; the idea of breaking up a nation-state based on one vote more than 50% of vote cast in one public opinion poll with a deliberately vague question is so obviously idiotic that I can’t believe anyone thinks it’s a good idea. We don’t allow the Constitution to be amended in any other way by such an absurdly easy vote; why allow it to be amended in this way?
Gorsnak, those are valid points but kind of one step away from the election issue (the Clarity Act) which is why I won’t address them. But they’re good points.
I missed the debate tonight - did anyone see it? Were there any clear winners or losers?
I tried to watch, but to be honest the translation was so atrocious I turned it off in disgust a few times. I kept falling behind and missing detail listening to a straight French broadcast, but on Newsworld the translation was… well, it was as if they’d decided to hire translators who didn’t speak English. Or French. I know it’s a hard job, but they did a better job last time.
From what I saw, Layton was strong and was killing Harper in direct examination; Harper seemed unwilling to actually challenge Layton’s base assumptions and just couldn’t get started. He is very lucky the English debate is second, because frankly that’s the only one that matters to either of them and now he knows what’s coming. Layton was irritating and wouldn’t stop interrupting, which might not play well with a lot of voters, but he kept controlling the direction of discussion, so he wins. No surprise there; he’s very slick.
Martin was, as I expected, absolutely dreadful. He looked kind of tired and scared and didn’ seem to really have a central point, which of course mirrors his campaign. Duceppe was strong, as he was last time, and Martin gave nobody in Quebec any reason to switch their vote from BQ to Liberal. Kicker is, Harper didn’t give anyone any reason to switch from BQ to Conservative.
But this is all based on only a short sampling.
I followed the French debate.
Duceppe won the debate – not surprising, being a first-language francophone and the only one with previous leaders’ debate experience. He got in several zingers; the one about the Privy Council was unforgettable. Martin withered under his questions, I felt. One real twanger was when he asked Martin whether the health care system was better now than in 1993; Martin said, “In some areas yes, in others, no,” which left him wide, wide open for the inevitable “And whose fault was that?”
Layton did rather well. Of the four leaders his French is weakest, although he’s a damn sight better than McDonough was, and I think people will appreciate the effort rather than cringe at the mistakes. (Harper’s French is somewhat more fluent but also more schoolish.) He seemed a bit stiff and smiley, but I think he’ll loosen up in the English debate when he doesn’t have to count so much on the language. He didn’t really come to blows with Duceppe, and highlighted several social areas where the NDP is ready to make common cause with Quebec progressives. This is kind of nice for us because it could attract votes for lefty federalists who would otherwise hold their noses and vote Bloc, and soft nationalists for whom progressivism is more important than sovereignty. I wish he had been a little more snappish with Harper when it came to same-sex marriage and abortion; he could have taken him to pieces.
Poor old Paul didn’t answer a question the whole debate, it seemed like. There was a really pathetic (for him) point at the end of the debate, where Duceppe was asking him again and again how much money was in the employment insurance fund. He kept rabbiting on about god knows what, and Duceppe just kept going, “Combien y a-t-il? Combien y a-t-il? Combien y a-t-il?” Finally he was just left sputtering, allowing Duceppe to triumphantly crow “Zéro, M. Martin!” He talked way too much about his record as prime minister, both ignoring the elephant in the room (his term as finance minister) and showing rather poor salesmanship when Jack and Gilles were tearing into the cuts he made.
Stephen Harper? Eh. I don’t think I’m very qualified to judge his performance, but he really didn’t seem to respond to any of his competitors’ points whose effect was to show his concerns aren’t those of French-Canadians. I don’t think he cared very much about this debate, which kind of puts the lie to his technicolour visions of winning half the seats in Quebec. Duceppe really zinged him by saying that he wasn’t interested in having Quebecers in Parliament if they’d vote against the interests of Quebec.
but the clarity act does not define a “clear majority” (other than to say the federal government can arbitralily decide if one was reached after a referendum was held)
it is pretty obvious that a province seceding would require changes to the constitution; we don’t need the clarity act for this.
then why did the federal government not write the law so as to require a “two thirds majority yes, equalling more than half of the eligible voters in the province, on yes/no question of secession,” for example? that would be clarity.
and anyway - the feds sent in the army during the flq crisis, you think they wouldn’t after a udi? the clarity act does not make a difference to that scenario.
and on the debate:
i didn’t catch all of it, a little more than half. but based on that:
neither martin nor harper had a straightforward, honest sounding answer to any question posed to them. even when using notes. (horrible. it’s a debate, not an essay contest.)
layton seemed to be holding back from a few opportunities to really stand out, though he still performed well. offering martin a copy of the ndp platform while pm waved his arms and blathered on about how the ndp will tax everyone to death was good.
duceppe clearly won. after martin said something like “you’ll never form the government anyway” – duceppe replies “i think you won’t form the government.” classic.
I missed that one, could you repeat it?
I just was amazed at how bad Martin looked. He’s got John Turner written all over him.
As best I can remember, Martin was mentioning a case in which he offered Privy Council membership to each of the opposition leaders, which would have entailed access to certain restricted documents and Duceppe didn’t accept, preferring to ask questions about the documents in the house. Martin insinuated that Duceppe wanted to play petty politics that would keep Quebec isolated. He asked why Duceppe refused.
His answer went something like: “I remember when you offered that to me. I asked you what it would involve, and whether I could ask questions and get them answered. You said you’d get back to me. The next day you sent two people to my office. I asked them if I could ask questions and get them answered. They said I might get answers to my questions, maybe, maybe not, but I’d get the letters PC after my name, and I’d get to call myself ‘The Honourable,’ and the Canadian flag would be flown at half-mast when I died!”
That’s a bit too long to be a “zinger.” It’s a good comeback though, and it burns Martin and the Liberals on multiple levels. I think the BQ will get 60 seats or better.
Now, did Duceppe or Harper get off the “And whose fault was that, sir?” line? Every newspaper here says it was Harper, not Duceppe.
Isn’t this all a moot point? Of course Duceppe wins, the BQ always wins, it’s the French debate in the French Province. If the debate were held in Alberta with the candidates dressed up like cowboys, Harper would win without uttering a word. So the debate is there for Duceppe to lose.
With that said, the issue is not “did” Duceppe win, but how well did the other candidate do in comparison? I tried to watch but as Rickjay pointed out the translation made it impossible.
What needs to be discussed is what message the people of Quebec were left with. There’s no question that the BQ has gained support over the Liberals, but the Conservative and NDP still have less than 8% support. One point that Martin actually got out was what will happen with a minority government, and more specifically, what will a Conservative government mean to Quebec? Will this be enough to scare Quebecers into voting Liberal? Will the people of Quebec realize that a vote for the Bloc is a vote for Harper?
<sigh>
I’m one of those “undecided” voters and I hoped reading this thread would help give me some insight. Sadly, I’m now even more “undecided”.
Perhaps if I just lob the pencil at the ballot and go with whichever candidate the pencil hits the closest to…
I’m watching the English debate right now. So far, the big loser is Paul Martin. He’s getting hammered by everyone, and his answers have been wholly unconvincing.
Frankly, so far I think the winner is Stephen Harper, and it’s not just because I lean that way politically. I think he’s winning because he has the lowest bar to get over - the biggest liability of the conservatives and Harper in particular is that he’s representing a new party merged out of the remnants of two parties that self-destructed. To ‘win’, he simply needs to allay fears that he’s a fringe guy with wacky ideas. He’s done that. He came across as sober, intelligent, and well versed on the issues.
When the election is more about lashing out at Liberals than anything else, the opposition parties just have to show that they are serious and up to the job of governing.
Layton disappointed me. He comes across as a loudmouth. He kept interrupting everyone, and he’s got that used car salesman vibe about him.
I think the bloc and the Conservatives will get a boost out of this. The Liberals will lose some support.
How does the Bloc get a boost out of an English language deabte? Are we expecting them to pick up votes in the Sault? :dubious:
I missed everything. Bath time for the boys. Anything dramatic happen?