Sep 17 leaders debate

[ToadBrother]

Sure...you can have it on your radar but having it in the House of Commons is putting the cart in front of the horse. If Quebec wants to separate then have them elect the PQ. When they have repeatedly elected the PQ, then have another referendum. When the referendum votes yes. Now its time to act. Its not like they will separate immediately. Remember...a referendum is only asking the question.

Not in the 1995 referendum, where the Federal government tacitly agreed with the Separatists that a Yes for sovereignty was a binding vote for secession from Canada.

The referendum question has always answered with a no.

I'm not saying that the Feds can't pour time and/or effort into this issue....but do we really need a party at the Federal level to represent the issue when on a regional level they continue to say no?

I'm not sure what "do we need" means. If a group of Canadians want to form a political party that has almost purely provincial or regional concerns, and a sufficient number of voters wish to vote for them, then I'd say that rather answers the question. There is no stipulation that a Federally-registered political party must exist solely for political concerns.

[Accountability Now]

Not in the 1995 referendum, where the Federal government tacitly agreed with the Separatists that a Yes for sovereignty was a binding vote for secession from Canada.

Tacilty? The last time I checked that word is a very weak way of saying implied which is the position the federal government had to take. Parizeau on the other hand was quite intent that yes meant separation.

Of course what really mattered is what the voters thought:

After the referendum, polls showed a significant number of “yes” supporters did not think that a sovereigntist victory would have set Quebec on the course of independence.

The ambivalence as to the meaning of the “yes” vote went all the way to the top of the sovereigntist camp.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/08/29/yes_vote_in_1995_quebec_referendum_could_have_meant_sovereigntist_chaos_hbert.html

I'm not sure what "do we need" means. If a group of Canadians want to form a political party that has almost purely provincial or regional concerns, and a sufficient number of voters wish to vote for them, then I'd say that rather answers the question. There is no stipulation that a Federally-registered political party must exist solely for political concerns.

As per Elections Canada, there is no regulation as to forming a political party. Its keeping that party registered that requires regulation. So forming would be the first step. Getting registered would be step 2. I am fine with the Bloc up to that point. Its when we start talking about them at the debates or being involved in other federal election issues then I I disagree with their presence.

[ToadBrother]

Tacilty? The last time I checked that word is a very weak way of saying implied which is the position the federal government had to take. Parizeau on the other hand was quite intent that yes meant separation.

Of course what really mattered is what the voters thought:

We'll never know what the voter's would have thought of it, because it's unlikely the Clarity Act will be repealed, which means the Rest of Canada, via Parliament, will have considerable say in the nature of the question asked and how high the Yes vote will have to be to initiate negotiations over secession.

As per Elections Canada, there is no regulation as to forming a political party. Its keeping that party registered that requires regulation. So forming would be the first step. Getting registered would be step 2. I am fine with the Bloc up to that point. Its when we start talking about them at the debates or being involved in other federal election issues then I I disagree with their presence.

The debates are not some constitutional requirement. They are voluntary affairs between the participating parties and whomever is broadcasting the debate. If they decide that a regional party gets to be involved, then so be it.

[Accountability Now]

We'll never know what the voter's would have thought of it,

I guess you didn't read the quote or the article I posted:

Quote

After the referendum, polls showed a significant number of “yes” supporters did not think that a sovereigntist victory would have set Quebec on the course of independence.

The ambivalence as to the meaning of the “yes” vote went all the way to the top of the sovereigntist camp.

http://www.thestar.c...haos_hbert.html

The polls state what a 'significant number of yes' supporters thought.

The debates are not some constitutional requirement. They are voluntary affairs between the participating parties and whomever is broadcasting the debate. If they decide that a regional party gets to be involved, then so be it.

I agree with this. I'm certainly not upset by any stretch and the broadcasting group can decide on whomever they choose by their standards. Not to say that I have the same standards but then again I'm not putting on the event

[ToadBrother]

I guess you didn't read the quote or the article I posted:

Quote

The polls state what a 'significant number of yes' supporters thought.

Only in terms of the Yes side losing. We cannot say what the voters would have thought if the Yes side had won.

[Evening Star]

Not in the 1995 referendum, where the Federal government tacitly agreed with the Separatists that a Yes for sovereignty was a binding vote for secession from Canada.

Really? I'm not sure that the referendum question itself was that clear on the matter:

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?

People were voting, first, on whether to make a formal offer to the federal government for a new constitutional arrangement. It is not specified what exactly "sovereign" means, and "secession" is not what I would assume.

[ToadBrother]

Really? I'm not sure that the referendum question itself was that clear on the matter:

People were voting, first, on whether to make a formal offer to the federal government for a new constitutional arrangement. It is not specified what exactly "sovereign" means, and "secession" is not what I would assume.

And the Clarity Act fixes all of that. Unless the NDP kills it.

[Evening Star]

And the Clarity Act fixes all of that. Unless the NDP kills it.

Yeah, the requirement for a clear question seems sensible enough to me. I take some issue with the ambiguous requirement for a 'clear majority' to be left to the discretion of a federal court. I have my issues with the Sherbrooke Declaration as well, tbh: I'm not crazy about opting out with full compensation.

[Accountability Now]

Only in terms of the Yes side losing. We cannot say what the voters would have thought if the Yes side had won.

Nope...keep reading. It says "polls showed a significant number of “yes” supporters did not think that a sovereigntist victory would have set Quebec on the course of independence.

The polls say the the YES supporters did not think it would have set Quebec on the path of independence if their side had won.