NDP shows their true colours,and how they hate Canada.

DrGreenthumb · June 8, 2011

That's only 30% of eligible voters choosing the fate of the province.

Yet Conservatives seem to think that's just fine for choosing the fate of the whole country?

PIK · June 8, 2011

Harper should ignore quebec and let them see what it would be like without the backing of the ROC, see what it would be like on your own for a while without being to run to the goverment for more money.

Shwa · June 8, 2011

Sure, but is there a point at which you would decide it's not worth it to keep a province in the country against their will?

Nope. You are mistaking a province for something that it is not. The "will" of the Quebec pertains to it as a province, nothing more. No one in Canada is holding any Quebecker, Ontarioan, Manitoban, etc. "against their will." They are free to leave whenever they wish. If they want to collective leave, an exodus as it were, they can do that too. The land stays behind.

CPCFTW · June 8, 2011

Yet Conservatives seem to think that's just fine for choosing the fate of the whole country?

Yeah it's us who made the electoral rules that have governed this country since inception. Damn Stephen Harper and his secret corporate time machine!! :lol:

Edited June 8, 2011 by CPCFTW

cybercoma · June 8, 2011

None. Quebec is a province and nothing more. Their powers are limited and they have no rights to "sovereignty" other than what is given to them as a province. Period. Any - and I mean any - such rights can only be conferred by the rest of the Canadians. This isn't a Quebec-only question and never will be no matter how hard the separatiste dreamers want to dream. Quebec have 75% +1 and Canada is not obligated in the least and neither are the First Nations people in Quebec.

Evening Star raises a good point:

Sure, but is there a point at which you would decide it's not worth it to keep a province in the country against their will?

Nope. You are mistaking a province for something that it is not. The "will" of the Quebec pertains to it as a province, nothing more. No one in Canada is holding any Quebecker, Ontarioan, Manitoban, etc. "against their will." They are free to leave whenever they wish. If they want to collective leave, an exodus as it were, they can do that too. The land stays behind.

Your reply here is nonsense. Political borders are arbitrary lines drawn on a map. There is no reason they need to leave the land behind. If Quebec wants autonomy, then it is well within their right to fight for political autonomy and a redrawing of the borders.

The question is how do we determine if Quebec truly wants autonomy and when should we honour that by allowing for an amicable redrawing of the political boundaries. You say never, which means there is only one way they could gain their autonomy: usurping the military in Quebec for themselves and going to war against the rest of Canada. I hope I don't need to expand on why that's a terrible idea.

CPCFTW · June 8, 2011

Lol usurping the military. "Hey Canadian forces, can you start killing Canadians for us so we can break up the country?" The military is one of the most patriotic demographics. You guys are delusional. :lol:

If Quebecers want a socialist francophone nation with a European culture, get the hell out and move to France.

I can't believe there are actually Canadians out there who agree that a 50% + 1 threshold is enough to abandon 49.9% of your fellow Canadians to the nonsensical tyranny of francophones in and around Quebec City. Nice patriotism. :lol:

guyser · June 8, 2011

Lol usurping the military.

Somebody has a reading comprehension problem.

CPCFTW · June 8, 2011

Somebody has a reading comprehension problem.

Is it you? Or are you saying the Canadian forces based in Quebec identify more with Quebec than Canada? :lol:

You can't usurp a military just because it is within your borders. :lol:

Why didn't France just usurp the German army in WWII? "Hey guys, this base you just captured is France's, so now you are part of the French army, go kill your fellow Nazis k?" :lol:

Edited June 8, 2011 by CPCFTW

GostHacked · June 8, 2011

Sure, but is there a point at which you would decide it's not worth it to keep a province in the country against their will?

If Quebec wants to separate, Ottawa should send them the bill for all the money they got over the years.

RNG · June 8, 2011

If Quebec wants to separate, Ottawa should send them the bill for all the money they got over the years.

I sort of agree, in principle, but hell, to get rid of them and stop the bleeding would be good enough. I don't want to disincentive them.

Saipan · June 8, 2011

Quebec is a province and nothing more. Their powers are limited and they have no rights to "sovereignty" other than what is given to them as a province. Period. Any - and I mean any - such rights can only be conferred by the rest of the Canadians. This isn't a Quebec-only question and never will be no matter how hard the separatiste dreamers want to dream. Quebec have 75% +1 and Canada is not obligated in the least and neither are the First Nations people in Quebec.

So why we didn't allow the same rule in other countries and Chretien decided to rather bomb them?

guyser · June 8, 2011

Is it you?

I assure you I can read. However, you have , on upteen ocassions more than made it clear you cannot comprehend things written.

Little test, show us where anyone said that usurping the military was a good idea or advocated.

Or are you saying the Canadian forces based in Quebec identify more with Quebec than Canada?

Never said a damn thing either way now did I ?

Like to project much ? Another comprehension problem.

You can't usurp a military just because it is within your borders.

Laugh is right. No one said you can. (hint , we laugh at , not with in your case)

Why didn't France just usurp the German army in WWII? "Hey guys, this base you just captured is France's, so now you are part of the French army, go kill your fellow Nazis k?"

And this is classic case of your projections.

Talk about thick.

CPCFTW · June 8, 2011

Little test, when did I say anyone advocated it? Someone brought it up as if it was actually feasible and I called him delusional and you butted in with your nonsense. Go to bed little boy.

cybercoma · June 9, 2011

CPCFTW, what the hell are you talking about? You missed the point completely.

CPCFTW · June 9, 2011

CPCFTW, what the hell are you talking about? You missed the point completely.

I get your point.. It just postulates an impossible consequence of not honouring Quebec's decision. If Canada were to decide to not honour a vote to secede, then Quebec can't just "usurp" the Canadian military. They'd have to resort to terrorism.. Again.

Moonlight Graham · June 9, 2011

Two thirds of voters plus one vote would be sufficient, I think. Some may think that too high, but I think most people could agree at least that if it were more than that, it would very definitely be unambiguously in favour.

I like two-thirds. Half + 1% is ridiculous.

cybercoma · June 9, 2011

I think it should be 50%+1, but that 50%+1 needs to be of all eligible voters. In other words, if 100% of eligible voters cast a ballot, then 50%+1 works. However, a lower turnout would require a greater proportion of yes votes. On top of this, just to make it more complicated, there ought to be a minimum voter turnout before the results are ineligible. Just my 2 cents, but I don't think they would ever run it that way.

Edited June 9, 2011 by cybercoma

mikedavid00 · June 9, 2011

I think it should be 50%+1, but that 50%+1 needs to be of all eligible voters. In other words, if 100% of eligible voters cast a ballot, then 50%+1 works. However, a lower turnout would require a greater proportion of yes votes. On top of this, just to make it more complicated, there ought to be a minimum voter turnout before the results are ineligible. Just my 2 cents, but I don't think they would ever run it that way.

Well there's other problems too.

Suppose 90% of Rural Quebers up north want to separate? And that includes Quebec city. That is very valid and I feel if there is enough people in a single area that want to separate, they should be able to do so.. The immigrants and civil servants around Montreal do not want to separate. I get that. They don't have to if they don't want to. We should have no say if a 'native' people on their own land want to separate.

Northern Quebec doesn't belong to us (well it does cause we have to keep paying for their sorry *ss's), but Northern Quebec belongs to the people who LIVE in Northern Quebec. These aren't recent immigrants. These aren't aliens. They aren't enemies of the state. They are just Canadians that are fed up with their politicians and want freedom from big brother and the police state. That's all they want.

I am in favor of splitting up our provinces into smaller provinces, and even countries. There's many, many reasons for this. The benefits are too long to list. I just ask that they share the same currency and and allow easy travel into their country.

The country and provinces are too big and population too small for a Parliamentary system to function properly here. This is why Canada is now in a mess. We need separation all over Canada and a LOT of it. Only then will Canada 'get the message' that people don't like living in a police state and want their freedoms back.

Shwa · June 9, 2011

So why we didn't allow the same rule in other countries and Chretien decided to rather bomb them?

Because they are backward and needed a lesson in how things are run properly. Also, they had almost no gun control and look what they did to themselves. And others too, you know, the ethnic cleansing and all that nasty business.

Saipan · June 9, 2011

Who are you and what did you do with Saipan?

In my deep freezer.

Saipan · June 9, 2011

Because they are backward and needed a lesson in how things are run properly.

That's what Hitler said.

Also, they had almost no gun control and look what they did to themselves.

Very strict gun control. And look what Albanian terrorists and NATO did to them. Let me guess; Albania is in NATO.

And others too, you know, the ethnic cleansing and all that nasty business.

Yes, Albanian insurgents exterminated even all Gypsies for "collaborating" with Serbs. Imagine that - in Serbia. How dare the Gypsies refused to be terrorists!

Edited June 9, 2011 by Saipan

jbg · March 20, 2012

I'm not ever okay with it, quite frankly. There's no reason for it, and it would cause both Quebec and Atlantic Canada numerous problems.

The answer should be to ask Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee how well secession turned out south of the border Mason-Dixon Line?

WLDB · March 20, 2012

I think it should be 50%+1, but that 50%+1 needs to be of all eligible voters. In other words, if 100% of eligible voters cast a ballot, then 50%+1 works. However, a lower turnout would require a greater proportion of yes votes. On top of this, just to make it more complicated, there ought to be a minimum voter turnout before the results are ineligible. Just my 2 cents, but I don't think they would ever run it that way.

Not sure if that'd fit with the Clarity Act, but I like this idea. Whether Quebec separates or not is their decision,not mine or anyone else's outside of Quebec.

jbg · March 20, 2012

Not sure if that'd fit with the Clarity Act, but I like this idea. Whether Quebec separates or not is their decision,not mine or anyone else's outside of Quebec.

Aren't all provinces party to the Confederation? How is it the decision of one part?

g_bambino · March 20, 2012

Aren't all provinces party to the Confederation? How is it the decision of one part?

Exactlty. Confederation is a legal contract between eleven parties. One can't simply pull out without negotations with and eventual agreement of the others.