Evening Star

The last debate took place before advance voting was opened.

Thanks, jbg. That helps.

Really? It would depend on the government but I can easily imagine that a federal government might not want to refuse a band's request purely out of spite, especially considering that in some cases, the feds spend quite a bit of money on FN reserves.

Hm, perhaps you're right about this. I can see why you say 60% is an arbitrary figure. Maybe I don't know enough about these situations. In any case, we should not be satisfied with a situation where 50% of Quebecers want to separate. The goal should be to keep things from ever reaching that point in the first place.

Just voted: Mulcair-Topp-Singh-Dewar

In any case, you have to acknowledge that it is false to say that Quebec "never signed on to the constitution". If that were true, it would mean that QC is a colony of Canada, which is a very different situation from the status quo.

Definitely. The only thing I dislike about the Constitution Act is the notwithstanding clause.

I actually agree that we should have waited to come up with a deal that Quebec would have signed (even if it just meant waiting until QC elected a Liberal provincial government) but, as Smallc thankfully notes, we did not get a new constitution in 1982. It was a set of reforms to the existing constitution: i.e. it only has any meaning in the first place because we are 'bound by the decisions of people who have been dead for over 100 years' (and how could any lawful society not be bound by those sorts of decisions?).

It's only the 1982 Canada Act that Quebec did not sign, right? I thought it was part of a province that requested the 1867 Constitution Act?

OK, at least you're being fair. August's point was much more one-sided: he was specifically saying that the NDP does well in urban centres because urbanites are trendier than other voters and that left-leaning politics are trendier than right-wing politics.

Seriously?? And would you say the same thing about e.g. Calgary Southwest, which votes CPC every time by even greater margins? Or many other Prairie ridings that go the same way? Is it that hard to accept that the demographic groups in this riding tends to have concerns that the NDP speaks to? Wild Bill's explanation seems far more sensible:

We actually discussed the same thing last year: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19031&hl=sudan&st=15 My position was that the number should be in line with what the criterion usually is for other major changes like this: 60% seems more reasonable to me. Your position was interesting: you argued that 50%+1 was fine as long as it's an absolute 50%+1 of all eligible voters, which might actually be a steeper requirement!

They were not a 'province' or 'state' of the UK. It's an entirely different situation. The Scottish independence movement is a better reference point for comparison.

OK, this is a perfectly valid criticism of the Clarity Act. Going by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act#Key_points I'll actually give you that it's unfair for the House to be able to decide after a referendum whether or not the majority was sufficient. The criteria should be set out ahead of time. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect more than 50% + 1 for such a fundamental issue, considering international standards. I think it is fair to let the House decide whether a question is sufficiently clear before the vote and to demand that the question refer solely to secession.

Sure, and I'm glad Newfoundland is part of the country. I just think it's weak to say that 50%+1 should be enough for a province to separate now just because 50%+1 was enough to admit a province in 1949.

Perhaps a mistake was made in 1949 but we cannot change that now. We can, however, set clear standards for decisions in the future. 50%+1 is not that clear of a majority though. As has been mentioned, the NDP itself requires more than that for a change to its constitution.

While I don't support the Sherbrooke Declaration, I also don't see it as any sort of concession to separatism. A separatist wants an independent country, not a set of constitutional reforms within Canadian federalism. Afaict, 'asymmetrical federalism' reflects one conception of Canadian federalism that is popular with some in Quebec: the idea that Canada is a partnership between English Canada and French Canada, as opposed to a federation of ten equal provinces. I do not subscribe to this view at all but it is not a separatist view in any sense.

He and Cullen are easily the best speakers of the lot imo.

You realize this has never happened even at the NDP's lowest points?

It was truly incredible. He had made a name for himself as perhaps the most prominent Canadian advocate of Republican foreign policy. Every left-of-centre person I knew dreaded him becoming Liberal leader. In Opposition, he rarely seemed to oppose the Conservatives. Everyone seemed to view him as one of the most conservative Liberal leaders in decades. Then during the campaign, out of nowhere, he started trying to sell what was, essentially, an NDP platform and started claiming that he was a Pearson/Trudeau-style Liberal.

Absolutely, in many cases. Look at the GTA.

I've already said that if Peggy Nash wins, I may turn into a Liberal voter.

Just for the sake of it? I don't see why the tradition needs to be preserved in this case, especially when the traditional electoral process for leadership is so different from the electoral process in general elections. People who are unable to vote in person in provincial or federal elections are able to mail in ballots ahead of time, by the way.

Why is it so important that people vote in real time during the convention? If anything, advance voting makes it harder for candidates to make deals during the convention, which seems like an improvement to me.

You seemed to be making the claim that the Conservatives are anti-Quebec though. I'm not really sure they are either.