Newfoundlander Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 Though I'm sure some Dippers here will disagree, Mulcair appears to be changing the Sherbrooke Declaration's perceived ideas. Supposedly 50% + 1 is not necessarily enough for Quebec to separate, which is different from what I've heard from NDP members. He then went onto say that even then it would be up to the Supreme Court of Canada on whether to start negotiating Quebec sovereignty. http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/09/17/mulcair-firms-up-ndp-policy-on-quebec-sovereignty/ Quote
punked Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 Though I'm sure some Dippers here will disagree, Mulcair appears to be changing the Sherbrooke Declaration's perceived ideas. Supposedly 50% + 1 is not necessarily enough for Quebec to separate, which is different from what I've heard from NDP members. He then went onto say that even then it would be up to the Supreme Court of Canada on whether to start negotiating Quebec sovereignty. http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/09/17/mulcair-firms-up-ndp-policy-on-quebec-sovereignty/ Respecting the law of the land in Canada and going through the courts is not changing the position the NDP has. You have been a Liberal for to long if you think any government can just declare laws and not go through the process our country has a process laid out all government decisions must go through even if Liberals and Conservatives don't care the NDP does. Quote
PIK Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 Mulcair knows has to become a harper type , if he exects to win a election. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
g_bambino Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 Respecting the law of the land in Canada and going through the courts is not changing the position the NDP has. You have been a Liberal for to long if you think any government can just declare laws and not go through the process our country has a process laid out all government decisions must go through even if Liberals and Conservatives don't care the NDP does. But was the point of the Sherbrooke Declaration not to, should the NDP ever achieve a majority in parliament, revoke the Clarity Act or amend it to remove its implication that a provincial supermajority would be required before the federal government considered it appropriate to enter into seccession negotiations with that province? Quote
Newfoundlander Posted September 17, 2012 Author Report Posted September 17, 2012 Respecting the law of the land in Canada and going through the courts is not changing the position the NDP has. You have been a Liberal for to long if you think any government can just declare laws and not go through the process our country has a process laid out all government decisions must go through even if Liberals and Conservatives don't care the NDP does. Yes hardcore Liberal! I figured you'd "social democrats"(ha) would disagree. Quote
punked Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) But was the point of the Sherbrooke Declaration not to, should the NDP ever achieve a majority in parliament, revoke the Clarity Act or amend it to remove its implication that a provincial supermajority would be required before the federal government considered it appropriate to enter into seccession negotiations with that province? The Clarity act has nothing to do with it. For Quebec to leave Canada you need to change the Canadian constitution. The Sherbrooke declaration is bang on though 50%+1 would trigger the start of separation but there are many other Canadian laws (which trump even the Clarity Act) which would have to looked at and make their way through the courts. That is all Muclair is saying. Edited September 17, 2012 by punked Quote
cybercoma Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 But was the point of the Sherbrooke Declaration not to, should the NDP ever achieve a majority in parliament, revoke the Clarity Act or amend it to remove its implication that a provincial supermajority would be required before the federal government considered it appropriate to enter into seccession negotiations with that province? Negotiations being the key word. Quote
g_bambino Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 The Clarity act has nothing to do with it. For Quebec to leave Canada you need to change the Canadian constitution. The Sherbrooke declaration is bang on though 50%+1 would trigger the start of separation but there are many other Canadian laws (which trump even the Clarity Act) which would have to looked at and make their way through the courts. That doesn't address my question. The Clarity Act makes the strong implication that a supermajority in a province would have to favour separation before the government entered into negotiations. The Sherbrooke Declaration says 51% is sufficient. What does the Sherbrooke Declaration mean to say, then, if not that an NDP majority would revoke or reword the Clarity Act? Quote
punked Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 That doesn't address my question. The Clarity Act makes the strong implication that a supermajority in a province would have to favour separation before the government entered into negotiations. The Sherbrooke Declaration says 51% is sufficient. What does the Sherbrooke Declaration mean to say, then, if not that an NDP majority would revoke or reword the Clarity Act? The courts already ruled on the Clarity Act and An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State. The court ruled "the Government of Canada would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebeckers expressed a clear will to secede". Is that number 50%+1 like the NDP thinks or is it the ambiguous "clear majority" the clarity act states? I don't know but where I come from if you have over 90% of the people voting and you get 50%+1 it is a "clear majority". I don't think people getting down on the NDP about these things actually know what the Clarity Act says or why the Sherbrooke Declaration exists. So.... Quote
g_bambino Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 The courts already ruled on the Clarity Act and An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State. The court ruled "the Government of Canada would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebeckers expressed a clear will to secede". Is that number 50%+1 like the NDP thinks or is it the ambiguous "clear majority" the clarity act states? I don't know but where I come from if you have over 90% of the people voting and you get 50%+1 it is a "clear majority". Actually, the Clarity Act leaves it to the House of Commons to decide whether or not a "clear majority" had voted in favour of separation. That's why I said the Clarity Act makes the implication that a supermajority would be needed; one would suspect that's what a federal parliament would say (in the absence of any other, superior law) was required for a party to leave the federation. But, I now see how an NDP dominated Commons could declare 51% to be a clear majority without changing the Clarity Act. I was merely wondering out loud. Quote
punked Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) Actually, the Clarity Act leaves it to the House of Commons to decide whether or not a "clear majority" had voted in favour of separation. That's why I said the Clarity Act makes the implication that a supermajority would be needed; one would suspect that's what a federal parliament would say (in the absence of any other, superior law) was required for a party to leave the federation. But, I now see how an NDP dominated Commons could declare 51% to be a clear majority without changing the Clarity Act. I was merely wondering out loud. Actually after the 1998 supreme court case a clear majority would be up to the supreme court. This is where the Liberals had no clue what they were writing when they wrote it. Which is why they asked for clarification from the court. I tend to think the court would say a majority by definition is 50%+1 unless only like 20% of the people of Quebec voted. Again this is a case where people don't know the History of the act, what it says, or what the courts have already ruled on. Glad we could talk this out because most people I talk to think the Clarity Act s some sort of Canadian trump card which is why we often here this whole NDP thing. It really isn't the court ruled on what it said and most of what the court decided the NDP just took and made part of their Sherbrooke Declaration. Which is why Muclair made the statement he did. Edited September 17, 2012 by punked Quote
g_bambino Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 Actually after the 1998 supreme court case a clear majority would be up to the supreme court. That was in 1998. Since then, the Clarity Act has given the responsibility of deciding what is a clear majority to the House of Commons. There's nothing unconstitutional about that; in fact, the constitution says nothing on the matter of popular majorities. So, there's no reason the Supreme Court would strike down that clause of the Clarity Act. Glad we could talk this out because most people I talk to think the Clarity Act s some sort of Canadian trump card... Perhaps not a trump card. But, it was certainly enough to make the sovereigntists feel they had to go and pass their unfortunately verbosely titled An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State. Quote
punked Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) That was in 1998. Since then, the Clarity Act has given the responsibility of deciding what is a clear majority to the House of Commons. There's nothing unconstitutional about that; in fact, the constitution says nothing on the matter of popular majorities. So, there's no reason the Supreme Court would strike down that clause of the Clarity Act. Perhaps not a trump card. But, it was certainly enough to make the sovereigntists feel they had to go and pass their unfortunately verbosely titled An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State. I think that the question has yet to be determined by the courts. I truly believe though the wording which states "a clear majority" might be argued at 50%+1 but at 55% and up the court would have a real case if the house said it wasn't a majority. Edited September 17, 2012 by punked Quote
wyly Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 if Quebec insists 50% + 1 is good enough and they get that there's bugger all we can do about it we're not going to war to prevent it...and the same would apply to northern quebec if they were to say "hell no we're staying in canada" when push comes to shove there's bugger all that the courts or quebec can do to force them short of using force... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
punked Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 if Quebec insists 50% + 1 is good enough and they get that there's bugger all we can do about it we're not going to war to prevent it...and the same would apply to northern quebec if they were to say "hell no we're staying in canada" when push comes to shove there's bugger all that the courts or quebec can do to force them short of using force... THIS THIS RIGHT HERE! Quote
g_bambino Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 I think that the question has yet to be determined by the courts. I truly believe though the wording which states "a clear majority" might be argued at 50%+1 but at 55% and up the court would have a real case if the house said it wasn't a majority. Yes, this is all hypothetical. However, if the question pertained to whether or not the House of Commons was right to say some percentage wasn't a clear majority, the Supreme Court would refuse to answer, since the law is clear that the Commons decides what is a clear majority, not the court. The Supreme Court would be far out of bounds if it simply overruled a law that didn't violate the constitution. Quote
g_bambino Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 if Quebec insists 50% + 1 is good enough and they get that there's bugger all we can do about it we're not going to war to prevent it... To prevent 51% of the voters from favouring independence? No; neither the courts nor any government can control that. However, any vote in favour of independence doesn't automatically grant independence. Nor would a declaration of independence by some Quebec cabinet (likely without necessary executive approval, since I doubt any lieutenant governor would grant legitimacy to such an illegal manoeuvre), even if it were predicated upon that vote. Whether or not force would become necessary in the wake of a move like that depends entirely upon the circumstances. If the rogue government of Quebec tried to take territory and/or property that was never Quebec's – all the First Nations reserves – for example. Quote
wyly Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 To prevent 51% of the voters from favouring independence? No; neither the courts nor any government can control that. However, any vote in favour of independence doesn't automatically grant independence. Nor would a declaration of independence by some Quebec cabinet (likely without necessary executive approval, since I doubt any lieutenant governor would grant legitimacy to such an illegal manoeuvre), even if it were predicated upon that vote. Whether or not force would become necessary in the wake of a move like that depends entirely upon the circumstances. If the rogue government of Quebec tried to take territory and/or property that was never Quebec's – all the First Nations reserves – for example. you can protest and wave your constitutional rule book at them, quote all the laws you want but it would be a done deal...there is nothing to be gained by attempting legal maneuvers to thwart their independence the reaction by the quebec populace to democracy denied would be immediate and ugly, note how annoyed student's got over tuition rate and what happened to the government that annoyed them...legal trickery will do nothing but create a backlash of animosity, massive civil disobedience would be ruinous to our entire economy...we'll accept the split like mature adults and get on with negotiating the divorce, better to have amicable relations with a former partner than decades of difficult relations... force is just not an option, all is lost if it gets to that point and it would only solidify the populace behind the separatists...the Czech and Slovak republics have demonstrated the way forward with a democratic separation...Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Slovenia, Macedonia demonstrate what it can look like when force is used, no one wants to go there... and what applies to Canada applies to Quebec...if the first nations of northern Quebec refuse to leave Quebec will powerless to force them and world opinion will support the first nations choice... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
PIK Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 if Quebec insists 50% + 1 is good enough and they get that there's bugger all we can do about it we're not going to war to prevent it...and the same would apply to northern quebec if they were to say "hell no we're staying in canada" when push comes to shove there's bugger all that the courts or quebec can do to force them short of using force... If I remember prince ruperts land was a gift to canada not quebec, and of course the cree will have a say. Separation will never happen and if we said go ahead and separate, most quebecers would shit thier pants. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Newfoundlander Posted September 18, 2012 Author Report Posted September 18, 2012 That doesn't address my question. The Clarity Act makes the strong implication that a supermajority in a province would have to favour separation before the government entered into negotiations. The Sherbrooke Declaration says 51% is sufficient. What does the Sherbrooke Declaration mean to say, then, if not that an NDP majority would revoke or reword the Clarity Act? Not even 51% actually. Quote
wyly Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 If I remember prince ruperts land was a gift to canada not quebec, and of course the cree will have a say. Separation will never happen and if we said go ahead and separate, most quebecers would shit thier pants. if canada is divisible so is quebec...quecbec may so not but by separating itself they've thrown any "rules" out the window so it'll come down to a democratic procedure among northerners... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Moonbox Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 Montreal would stay with Canada. That's all I'd care about. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
g_bambino Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) you can protest and wave your constitutional rule book at them, quote all the laws you want but it would be a done deal... First you say independence would be a "done deal" and then you say there'd have to be negotiations. It's either one or the other and it would likely be the latter. Any unilateral declaration of independence by some Quebec Cabinet would be entirely illegal and, since, quite contrary to what you say, laws matter, that illigitimacy would work against the rebels. The Czech and Slovak republics were created legally on 31 December 1992; the Slovak declaration of independence on 17 July of the same year didn't make the jurisdiction independent. A renegade Quebec Cabinet couldn't even benefit from any kind of subjective moral legitimacy; Quebec has voluntarily been a part of what has always been a democratic state that has a legal framework allowing for separation, unlike the Nazi and the Communist state Czechoslovakia was for the majority of its existence. [ed.: sp] Edited September 18, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
wyly Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 First you say independence would be a "done deal" and then you say there'd have to be negotiations. It's either one or the other and it would likely be the latter. that would be a first, a popular independence movement defeated by a law, sorry it'll never happen once they vote in the affirmative it's done... only the division of assets and liabilities need to be determined, being stubborn and not coming to a workable settlement hurts both parties...this is no different than a domestic divorce where the wife walks out on the husband and unilaterally declares the marriage is finished, the husband can huff and puff about rules of law but nothing is going to bring the wife home, the marriage is over...it's time to be adults and get on with dividing up the assets/debt/kids/dogs... Any unilateral declaration of independence by some Quebec Cabinet would be entirely illegal and, since, quite contrary to what you say, laws matter, that illigitimacy would work against the rebels. The Czech and Slovak republics were created legally on 31 December 1992; the Slovak declaration of independence on 17 July of the same year didn't make the jurisdiction independent. A renegade Quebec Cabinet couldn't even benefit from any kind of subjective moral legitimacy; Quebec has voluntarily been a part of what has always been a democratic state that has a legal framework allowing for separation, unlike the Nazi and the Communist state Czechoslovakia was for the majority of its existence.[ed.: sp] tell that to croatia, slovenia,bosnia,kosovo, east timor.."sorry, that's illegal you can't leave", other than using force of arms there is no way to prevent it once it's underway...I can imagine the reaction of the quebec populace when anglo forces come and arrest the "rebel" quebec cabinet ...your love of rule of law and the constitution is blinding you to the finality of the situation... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted September 18, 2012 Report Posted September 18, 2012 Montreal would stay with Canada. That's all I'd care about. ya that would bring up another issue, if democratic will is important and it is just how far does the division of territory go?...quebec taking all territory would be at one extreme the other end would be a situation where Belgium separated from the Netherlands the town of Baarle-Hertog went with Belgium even though it is located inside the netherlands...and to complicate matters even more there are neighbourhoods in Baarle-Hertog that remained with the Netherlands... http://www.futilitycloset.com/2011/05/15/an-inland-archipelago/...an awkward situation but one that has worked for a 170 years... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.