PQ - Like a Fox... or Just Crazy?

[Wilber]

Norway and Sweden may get along but they don't share much of anything. Currency, passports, Sweden is a neutral, Norway belongs to NATO. The list goes on.

[overthere]

I agree, the feds should stay out of all provincial elections, not just Quebec's. A referendum is another matter entirely.

Yep, nothing to be gained by saying much now beyond the obvious: an affirmation that the federal govt supports.... the federal govt. which includes Quebec in the federation.

It will be an interesting sideshow to watch Marois attempt to muzzle Peladeau, a man who has run his own show in obsessive detail for decades. Will he read from her script at all times?

[Keepitsimple]

I agree as well. Until the PQ win a majority - and "sovereignty" is on the agenda, a quiet, restrained approach is best......otherwise - in this very election, the PQ can point to the "bullying tactics" of the Federal government and win votes that they might not otherwise get. There will be a time and a place for the Feds to put reality on the table, but until then - the political columnists can speculate.....that in itself could act like a Chinese Water Torture because almost every issue has a negative consequence. Because I strongly believe that French language and culture would suffer without the support of the ROC - ultimately drowning in the sea of North American English - any remaining "benefits" would all seem to have negative consequences.

[overthere]

"in this very election, the PQ can point to the "bullying tactics" of the Federal government and win votes that they might not otherwise get. There will be a time and a place for the Feds to put reality on the table,"

There is always more than one version of reality, and if Quebec votes to secede I think we'll see one version from Quebec within hours of the ballot count.

They'll declare independence ASAP, which means they won't have any interest in the federal Clarity Act, since of course it won't apply in a sovereign nation. And of course the debts of Canada and the role of a former entity in that debt by the defunct Province of Quebec won't be of much interest moving forward.

I feel a bit sorry for the unions in Quebec, they must be feeling conflicting emotions about Peladeau

[g_bambino]

They'll declare independence ASAP, which means they won't have any interest in the federal Clarity Act, since of course it won't apply in a sovereign nation.

Just because you declare independence doesn't mean you're independent.

[overthere]

Just because you declare independence doesn't mean you're independent.

It will change 'negotiations' dramatically.

Saying 'I hate you', packing your stuff, leaving the house, and starting to date other people doesn't mean you're divorced, but it's a hell of a start.

[g_bambino]

[P]acking your stuff, leaving the house...

Quebec isn't mobile. Well, beyond continental drift, I guess. At best, it could say "I hate you" and then just sit there.

[TimG]

They'll declare independence ASAP, which means they won't have any interest in the federal Clarity Act, since of course it won't apply in a sovereign nation.

The trouble is Quebec can only declare a UDI if it is prepared to use force to expel the Canadian government from the territory. On top of that they would have to use force to stop parts of Quebec from declaring sovereignty from Quebec. Either tactic would remind people a lot of Putin.

In addition, the Quebec government depends on access to the Canadian financial system. It could find itself locked out if it resorts to an illegal UDI. The separatists like to think that they would be immediately recognized by the rest of the world, but a lot of countries have restless minorities and it is unlikely that they would be in a rush to support Quebec - especially since Canada has staked out the moral high ground by saying that they will negotiate in good faith after a super majority on a clear question provided the law is followed (a UDI breaks the law).

Edited March 15, 2014 by TimG

[August1991]

?

One is visiting from her home in Vegas, and the other is in a box underground.

You misquoted me. You missed the rest of my post.

I think the libs will make a comeback and either win a minority or jold the PQ to another minority. As to do with harper I would also agree with him just laying out what really will happen if quebec separates.

PIK, there is some truth to what you say.

PKP may not get a seat, and the PQ may only get a minority. And at some point, Harper may intervene in the same way that you tell neighbours to keep the noise level down.

[August1991]

Not, it was not. It was an almost totally independent country in a form of personal union with Sweden. In comparison to Quebec, it had many more of its own powers; only Norwegian foreign relations were conducted by the king in his Swedish council.

Norway and Sweden, in the 19th century shared the same monarch, the same Head of State. After 1905, they had separate States, and different Heads of State.

Surely bambino, as a monarchist, you can understand what Jacques Parizeau wants.

Edited March 15, 2014 by August1991

[waldo]

Until the PQ win a majority - and "sovereignty" is on the agenda, a quiet, restrained approach is best......otherwise - in this very election, the PQ can point to the "bullying tactics" of the Federal government and win votes that they might not otherwise get.

until a majority? Why, through their very silence, should Harper Conservatives foster an increased likelihood of that majority occurring in the first place? Strictly in the context of the separation issue, this would not be Harper Conservatives simply meddling in the internals and outcome of a provincial election. Bloody hell, we have Baird/Harper saying more about the Crimea referendum than the realities of what a (potential) Quebec referendum truly means. Show some backbone Harper Conservatives!

why should a Harper Conservative response to the over-the-top rhetoric of Marois/Peladeau be categorized as, as you say, "bullying"? Is laying out practicalities... bullying? In that vein, should one categorize the forced silence of Harper Conservatives as weak, meek, passive... submissive?

[Topaz]

IF Harper doesn't make a comment about the Quebec and what they won't get it from Canada if they separate, makes me wonder if HE would like to see Quebec go and that would allow other provinces to go like Alberta, since its the only other provinces that has said anything about leaving Canada, then Harper could become the Premier of the province or King of the country of Alberta and maybe join the USA, since HE loves it so much.

[Scotty]

Harper has made it a habit not to respond to PQ provocations. The PQ wants him to respond, want to get into a fight with him. They've been trying for years so they can portray themselves as champions of Quebec fighting the evil redneck Alberta conservative. No one plays the victim card better than the PQ.

What I do find interesting is a very union friendly party taking on a very violently anti-union, anti-worker star candidate who clearly feels he will be the successor to Marois. I agree with Bob Rae when he says public servants and union membes voting for this guy would be like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

[waldo]

What I do find interesting is a very union friendly party taking on a very violently anti-union, anti-worker star candidate who clearly feels he will be the successor to Marois. I agree with Bob Rae when he says public servants and union membes voting for this guy would be like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

which is to my earlier point that the PQ/Peladeau relationship makes no sense as reflects back upon PQ policy/platform

.

Harper has made it a habit not to respond to PQ provocations. The PQ wants him to respond, want to get into a fight with him. They've been trying for years so they can portray themselves as champions of Quebec fighting the evil redneck Alberta conservative. No one plays the victim card better than the PQ.

perhaps the Harper Conservatives 'no response' lies in the very history of Stephen Steve Harper as the national unity critic of the Reform Party... the NP just ran an article that provided a timely historical perspective (by the by, from the article's graphic associated with that Reform Party position, just when did Steve... actually become Stephen?). That NP article provides additional perspective on what was Harper's/Reform's version of federalism.

just what is the current separation referendum position of 'Steve/Stephen'? Is it his earlier '50% + 1' position that he/Reform tried to impose? Notwithstanding the presumptive vagueness of the Clarity Act's "supermajority", of course, past PQ leaders have simply scoffed at it... that they don't/wouldn't recognize it. Which brings the issue back to UDI and international law... anyone?

of course Jack Layton was strongly against '50% + 1'... but not Mulcair, who has, several times, reaffirmed his/NDP position accepting a simple '50% + 1' as the measure of "majority" for Quebec PQ/separation to realize a referendum win.

just what is the position of 'Steve/Stephen'/Harper Conservatives on (the potential) Quebec referendum?

.

[Accountability Now]

IF Harper doesn't make a comment about the Quebec and what they won't get it from Canada if they separate, makes me wonder if HE would like to see Quebec go and that would allow other provinces to go like Alberta, since its the only other provinces that has said anything about leaving Canada, then Harper could become the Premier of the province or King of the country of Alberta and maybe join the USA, since HE loves it so much.

Actually a number of people from various provinces have 'talked' about leaving Canada but that doesn't mean they are remotely close to doing it. Squid already posted about BCs intent on joining Cascadia. This wiki link has others.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessionist_movements_of_Canada

Heck...I even found one for Ontario

http://www.katewerk.com/ontario.html

[Wilber]

Cascadia, what a joke. Not only does it depend on BC leaving Confederation but Washington and Oregon leaving the Union. Fat chance.

[Topaz]

On a Sunday news program, it was said that Harper PHONE each Premier and asked then NOT to get involve or comment on the election in Quebec. Many Canadians phoning in, wanted Harper to get some gonads and tell Quebec and the rest of the country what would happen if they did vote for the PQ. Seems to me, that Harper doesn't like the sometimes nasty and very stressful situations a PM may have to deal with, such as Quebec, rather tell the provinces...SHHHHHH, don't talk, I don't need the stress!!!!

[Smallc]

If they vote for the PQ, they get a PQ government. That's no one else's business in the rest of Canada....a referendum is a different story, but, we aren't there. Talking about this would only make things worse.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Smallc

[Keepitsimple]

Stephen Harper's Private Member's Bill back in 1996 seems to capture much of the sentiment that we've seen here in this thread. Granted, it was 20 years ago - but quite interesting - because I think you get a glimpse of someone who will not be idly standing by if a referendum is held.

In addition to Harper’s stance during the 1995 referendum, he also introduced a private member’s bill in Parliament in 1996, shortly before he temporarily quit politics to join the National Citizens Coalition. Under his bill, the Quebec Contingency Act, future federal governments would not recognize a Quebec referendum with an “ambiguous or unclear question.” As well, the bill said that if the federal government wasn’t happy with Quebec’s referendum question, it would hold a “parallel referendum” in Quebec on the same day as the provincial referendum.

That federal referendum would have a simple question: “Should Quebec separate from Canada and become an independent country with no special legal ties to Canada?”

It would also include a second question: “If Quebec separates from Canada, should my community separate from Quebec and remain a part of Canada?” Harper’s bill specified that if there were no concerns about the ambiguity of either the Quebec or federal referendum questions, a “majority of the ballots cast” would be the benchmark for a successful Yes vote.

Harper’s bill, like most private members’ bills, went nowhere. But it provides a glimpse of his thinking at that time.

Link: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/15/how-harpers-reform-party-pushed-chretien-government-to-recognize-50-plus-one-in-1995-quebec-referendum/

Edited March 17, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[The_Squid]

It was a dumb bill that was not well thought out. Typical Harper, especially 20 years ago.

There is the Clarity Act, which people should read. It lays out the Federal gov't response to a referendum.

The key points of the legislation included the following:

• Giving the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear before the public vote;
• Specifically stating that any question not solely referring to secession was to be considered unclear;
• Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself following any referendum vote, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success;
• Stating that all provinces and the First Nations were to be part of the negotiations;
• Allowing the House of Commons to override a referendum decision if it felt the referendum violated any of the tenets of the Clarity Act;
• The secession of a province of Canada would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act

Also, the Supreme Court reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_re_Secession_of_Quebec

[Keepitsimple]

It was a dumb bill that was not well thought out. Typical Harper, especially 20 years ago.

There is the Clarity Act, which people should read. It lays out the Federal gov't response to a referendum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act

Also, the Supreme Court reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_re_Secession_of_Quebec

Dumb - not well thought out? It was well ahead of its time - but you can still see the strong similarities to the Clarity Act that followed 4 years later. Private Member's bills are meant to be basic to capture the attention of the public and not be bogged down in legalese. Even so, the Bill captures the issue of communities in Quebec that may wish to remain in Canada.....a messy issue, I admit.....but at least there was a stake in the ground.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[g_bambino]

Norway and Sweden, in the 19th century shared the same monarch, the same Head of State.

They shared the same person as monarch of each; it's called a personal union. That's not a synonym for colony. Unless, of course, you want to argue Great Britain/the UK was a colony of Hanover from 1714 to 1837, or England was a colony of Scotland between 1603 and 1707, or the UK is a colony of Canada now.

Perhaps a personal union with Canada is what Jacques Parizeau wants.