Will Canada Choose Next Que Referendum Question?

[mirror]

Now that Canada has passed the Clarity Act should Ottawa enforce it and decide the next question, if we are to have another Quebec referendum about Quebec seperating from Canada?

I suppose there are some pros and cons.

Will enough Quebecers resent the fact that Qttawa is choosing the question so that in itself could become an issue during the contest?

[Riverwind]

Now that Canada has passed the Clarity Act should Ottawa enforce it and decide the next question, if we are to have another Quebec referendum about Quebec separating from Canada?

This will be an interesting political game. Ottawa will not choose the question - that is prerogative of the Quebec legislature. However, Ottawa will have to indicate before the referendum whether it considers the question clear enough. The separatists (being unapologetic hypocrites) will try to defend their right to choose the question. However, they will have to be careful. If they refuse to recognize the clarity act and use the previous referendum question then they will likely find it difficult to get international recognition since the any objective observer would agree that the terms set by the supreme court are extremely reasonable.

My bet is the PQ will try to organize a committee of eminent Quebequers that includes selected federalists to choose the question and claim that what ever question that committee chooses is clear enough. I don't think they give the Liberal opposition MLAs a chance to veto the question because they would be afraid an honest question would not get the majority required.

[Bakunin]

The 1995 question was a "copy-paste" of the charlottown accord question. A question written by federalist...

[Riverwind]

The 1995 question was a "copy-paste" of the charlottown accord question. A question written by federalist...

The Charlottetown question was about a package of constitutional reforms - nothing would have changed much no matter which way the vote went. A referendum on sovereignty could plunge the country into political and economic chaos for quite awhile. Therefore a referendum question that makes its sound like separation is just another type of constitutional reform is blatantly dishonest and will not meet the requirement for clarity set by the supreme court.

[mirror]

Is the following question acceptable:

"Do you want to separate from Canada?" et en francais aussi.

[B. Max]

I don't believe quebec recognizes the clarity act. I don't blame them. It belongs in the constitution as an amendment. Making what would seem to be constitutional law outside the constitution seems unconstitutional.

[mirror]

Ottawa should heed echoes of '95

Ten years later, and notwithstanding the Clarity Act, there is precious little evidence that the current federal government is any more alert to the fast-changing Quebec climate or more prepared for a storm.

Yet support for sovereignty is as high today as in late October 1995, a fact that flies in the face of the thesis that Quebec was temporarily overtaken by a spell of Bouchard-mania 10 years ago.

The referendum fatigue that had so far prevented a rematch has largely faded, in no small part because of the sponsorship scandal

The Parti Québécois is in the process of choosing a new leader. All its leading candidates are committed to holding another referendum.

The federalist government of Quebec is trailing enough in the polls to suggest that the PQ's return to power could be only a provincial election away.

It is true that none of the PQ candidates is shaping up to be as charismatic as Bouchard. One can only wonder whether that is comfort enough for Prime Minister Paul Martin.

This problem of the possibility of Quebec separation from Canada reminds me of the energizer bunny ads - it just keeps coming and coming. If the US Administration was that unprepared for the clearly forecasted Hurricane Katrina, will our Canadian government be any more ready for the next Quebec referendum? Didn't some of PM Martin's cabinet ministers already suggest that the Clarity Act might not be used.?

[ndpnic]

I believe we, the Canadian people should decide the next topic for referendum.

And I think it should be the legalization of pot, and the illegalization of alcohol!

[Leader Circle]

I believe we, the Canadian people should decide the next topic for referendum.

And I think it should be the legalization of pot, and the illegalization of alcohol!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leagalization of pot is not heavy on the minds of Canadians. Neither for making alcohol illegal.

What we do need a referendum on is, something to bring Canadians back together instead of divided east & west. We need something to settle the discontent in Quebec and Alberta. Maybe a referendum isn't necessary as much as removing Paul Martin from power is!

As far as Quebec, with the Clarity act, they will not be tricked by the question posed to them, no matter who asks the queston. I think most Quebecers are federalist, although the corruption in Canadian government with respect to them has made them wary of the Liberals and turn more to the Bloc!

[Guest eureka]

I think it is more pertinent to discuss whether Quebec should be allowed to hold another referendum.

Isn't it about time to tell these people who have been a drag on Canada socially, politically and economically for 30 years now that there will be no more of this: that this country is not going to be destroyed to satisfy the ethnocentric fantasies of a small group of fanatics.

The question should be only: "should we put the leaders of the Bloc and the PQ behind bars for a long time or euthanise them."

[Leader Circle]

I think it is more pertinent to discuss whether Quebec should be allowed to hold another referendum.

Isn't it about time to tell these people who have been a drag on Canada socially, politically and economically for 30 years now that there will be no more of this: that this country is not going to be destroyed to satisfy the ethnocentric fantasies of a small group of fanatics.

The question should be only: "should we put the leaders of the Bloc and the PQ behind bars for a long time or euthanise them."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL

A sentiment shared by many, I imagine, when it comes to Quebec separation Eureka

[fellowtraveller]

Flawed Premise: that Quebec will recognize the Clarity Act.

Why would they?

[Bakunin]

I think its a false debate, if canadian only focus on clarity act as their main strategy, they won't be prepared.

A few poll tested many questions and it doesn't make such a big difference. For sample this question: " Do you want quebec to become an independant country ?" was the lowest and it was still supported by 49% of quebeckers.

But the worst is that the liberal even in a difficult situation are still hardly fighting with the quebec provincial federalist government, the allies they will need to work with in the next referendum.

There are no federalist leader with enough credibility to win the personnality or charismatic debate.

Will the sovreignist recognize the clarity act ? yes but it depend how the federalist use it, because its a vague act. First, they already said they wanted a simple question so there is no problem there. Second, the act force the federal to negociate if they lose, there is no problem there. Third, the act doesn't say what a clear result is and thats where all the problem reside, we all know Chrétiens fairplay and his tactics, he didn't want to say what a clear result before knowing the result. The sovreignist keep saying 50%+1 for legitimacy, while knowing they would have to find a compromise. Over 52%, it was clear enough for the sovreignist, under that i guess it would all be about negociation and maybe find a compromise.

[ndpnic]

Leagalization of pot is not heavy on the minds of Canadians. Neither for making alcohol illegal.

Maybe it's not on your mind....head to anyplace with people under 40 and it's on the majority of thiers!!!!

[August1991]

I think it is more pertinent to discuss whether Quebec should be allowed to hold another referendum.

Isn't it about time to tell these people who have been a drag on Canada socially, politically and economically for 30 years now that there will be no more of this: that this country is not going to be destroyed to satisfy the ethnocentric fantasies of a small group of fanatics.

The question should be only: "should we put the leaders of the Bloc and the PQ behind bars for a long time or euthanise them."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka, it is inadvised to forbid something that one person happens to consider wrong. What you forbid simply goes beneath the surface and survives. Totalitarian regimes provide ample evidence of this.

As to Quebec independence, how long did it take for abolotionists to succeed in the US? From a distance of time, change appears to have occurred instantly. Living at the time itself, that is not the perception.

A few poll tested many questions and it doesn't make such a big difference. For sample this question: " Do you want quebec to become an independant country ?" was the lowest and it was still supported by 49% of quebeckers.

I don't think that's true, Bakunin. Wording still matters, sort of. But your basic point is right. Everyone knows what this is all about now. The question itself is a detail.

There are no federalist leader with enough credibility to win the personnality or charismatic debate.

Charest is not down and out yet. He's the Canadian comeback kid. Also, we need a thread on the PQ leadership.

[Bakunin]

A few poll tested many questions and it doesn't make such a big difference. For sample this question: " Do you want quebec to become an independant country ?" was the lowest and it was still supported by 49% of quebeckers.

I don't think that's true, Bakunin. Wording still matters, sort of. But your basic point is right. Everyone knows what this is all about now. The question itself is a detail.

It represent about 5%. When sovreignty is at 45% then independance is at 40% when sovreignty is 50% its 45% and when its 54% its 49%. However i think its not a good representation because its like the poll maker is asking what do you want to be sovreignist or independantist, 5% will say sovreignist but not independantist while at a point, both mean to form a country, its just for some ppl being independantist mean pushing harder. I susspect a part of the sovreignist movement to be more independantist since the sponsorship scandal( ~3-4%). However Its highly probable that the question will be something like this: Do you want quebec to become a sovreign country.

There are no federalist leader with enough credibility to win the personnality or charismatic debate.

Charest is not down and out yet. He's the Canadian comeback kid. Also, we need a thread on the PQ leadership.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I must disagree on that one, the 60-70% insatisfaction is for charest. At one point, i would have to say that Landry lost alot credibility too but not as much according to the poll. But when you think about referendum, then its highly possible for someone like Bouchard to be involved in the negociation or even yves séguin.

When you see the federalist camp, there is chretiens wich in the mind of quebeckers = scandals, there is charest = insatisfaction, paul martin = ??

And their possible next leader, Couillard wich has the profile of a nationalist liberal.

[Guest eureka]

August:

There is no similarity to abolitionism Thatkind of racism had already been abandoned by most of the world and Britain was preventing the importation of new slaves to America. Then, it was one of the three moving ideas behind the American civil war defeated and bringing slavery to an end.

In Quebec, we have a situation where half the "slave" population, the Anglophones have been forced to leave the province. We have sedition and states rights. The three S's again. Why would there be a different response from Canada? These rabid French puritans know not what they are getting into.

Once, in explaining to Claude Ryan why I and my movement would not be chained to the umbrella of the NO committee, I put the case to him. I asked him, when he cited the fear of a Yes vote, how he thought that a vote of 51% or even more would make me say that it was a democratic vote and that I would reluctantly surrender Canadian citizenship to become a disenfranchised member of a new French state. I told him that when I was in the army, I carried a gun and not a pen like Levesque. I gave him to understand that Leesque would have to be a better shot than I am to make his vote stick.

Don't you think there are many, many thousands who would say something of the same?

Nobody is going to break up this country and any attempt will bring about the consequence and result that America suffered through.

The time has come to get tough. It works with these miserable cowards who have always used the threat of violence, "social disorder," to get their way.

[Bakunin]

August:

There is no similarity to abolitionism Thatkind of racism had already been abandoned by most of the world and Britain was preventing the importation of new slaves to America. Then, it was one of the three moving ideas behind the American civil war defeated and bringing slavery to an end.

In Quebec, we have a situation where half the "slave" population, the Anglophones have been forced to leave the province. We have sedition and states rights. The three S's again. Why would there be a different response from Canada? These rabid French puritans know not what they are getting into.

Once, in explaining to Claude Ryan why I and my movement would not be chained to the umbrella of the NO committee, I put the case to him. I asked him, when he cited the fear of a Yes vote, how he thought that a vote of 51% or even more would make me say that it was a democratic vote and that I would reluctantly surrender Canadian citizenship to become a disenfranchised member of a new French state. I told him that when I was in the army, I carried a gun and not a pen like Levesque. I gave him to understand that Leesque would have to be a better shot than I am to make his vote stick.

Don't you think there are many, many thousands who would say something of the same?

Nobody is going to break up this country and any attempt will bring about the consequence and result that America suffered through.

The time has come to get tough. It works with these miserable cowards who have always used the threat of violence, "social disorder," to get their way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

when you write those kind of post eureka, you sound like a member of some kind of Federalist FLQ movement. An extremist, or in other word, someone who suffer brain damage...

[Guest eureka]

Perhaps you should think about it a little more deeply, Bakunin. I don't think there is any other possibility.

What do you think is the real fear in political circles? Why do you think Quebec was ringed with Canadian Army tanks in 1980?

I knew of many who were itching to start the fight. We persuaded one group that was preparing for it to join us and stick to court action and political pressure.

That did not work as the Courts deliberately rendered decisions that reflected the fear of violent opposition to justice.

Perhaps I should have let the fighting start and have it over before now.

[mirror]

Now that Canada has passed the Clarity Act should Ottawa enforce it and decide the next question, if we are to have another Quebec referendum about Quebec separating from Canada?

This will be an interesting political game. Ottawa will not choose the question - that is prerogative of the Quebec legislature. However, Ottawa will have to indicate before the referendum whether it considers the question clear enough. The separatists (being unapologetic hypocrites) will try to defend their right to choose the question. However, they will have to be careful. If they refuse to recognize the clarity act and use the previous referendum question then they will likely find it difficult to get international recognition since the any objective observer would agree that the terms set by the supreme court are extremely reasonable.

My bet is the PQ will try to organize a committee of eminent Quebequers that includes selected federalists to choose the question and claim that what ever question that committee chooses is clear enough. I don't think they give the Liberal opposition MLAs a chance to veto the question because they would be afraid an honest question would not get the majority required.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quebec can propose any question they want but Ottawa will decide whether or not to accept the question so basically Ottawa has veto power. In practical terms Ottawa rules on the question. Having said that it is not clear even if we are going to have another referendum, but Ottawa certainly needs to be prepared just in case. The reason I say we may not even have another referendum is that the word is out that the current crop of PQ leadership aspirants are nothing to write home about, and that Charest will rebound and may very well get re-elected.

One of the things that has never received much publicity is that if Canada is divisible, Quebec is divisible. My understanding is that a large part of Quebec, Ungava (Northern Quebec) for instance was given to Quebec and it will be taken back by Canada should Quebec leave. These kind if discussions are needed before referendums not after them.

No negotiations if question not clear

(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that a referendum question is not clear and, for that reason, would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.No negotiations if question not clear

(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that a referendum question is not clear and, for that reason, would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.

[rbacon]

Quebec can leave without using the Clarity Act at all, they can use UDI. Seeing as no one in the Confederation of Canada voted to join the Confederation, why would they ask anyone in the Confederation if they can leave. Canada is not a Federal State, it is a Confederation of Sovereign Provinces the two are very different legally. They have a legitimate Parliament. They have a Head of State, that is equal to Ottawa's Head of State the GG. They have a Prime Minister already. They have a border, Quebec belongs to Quebecers not Canadians. I hope they just go UDI. Besides what could Ottawa or Canada do besides knash their gums like a toothless old Border Collie. Would any of you want to see Quebecers killed because they don't want to be a part of Canada. Not me.

[Riverwind]

Canada is not a Federal State, it is a Confederation of Sovereign Provinces the two are very different legally. They have a legitimate Parliament.

You know nothing about gov'ts. Every soveriegn county is an indivisible entity unless a breakup is negotiated. UDIs are acts of war and will likely result in violance. Anyone who advocates a UDI is the worst kind of criminal since they seek to make millions of people victims of political and economic chaos in order to satify their own vanity.

[Riverwind]

---

[rbacon]

And you Sparhawk don't know anything about governments or the law. Go to a legal dictionary and look up the meaning of Confederation. You will find that Confederation means a loose association of Sovereign States. Ditto. Each Province of Canada, has a Head of State just like Ottawa, each Province has a Prime Minister, or if you speak French a Premier Minister, each Province has a Parliament, each Province has a border. Since no one in Canada voted to join Canada, since Ottawa will not obey the Constitution, which no Canadian ever voted for, why would Quebec have to ask permission to leave. A UDI is not illegal anywhere in the world. If any free and sovereign people democratically decide to go their own way, that is their right. Even that socialist hell hole of corruption the UN declares that is a right of all people to self determination. Get over it.

[Riverwind]

And you Sparhawk don't know anything about governments or the law. Go to a legal dictionary and look up the meaning of Confederation. You will find that Confederation means a loose association of Sovereign States.

I frankly don`t care what your dictionary says - the supreme court has ruled on the secession and said that negotiated secession is the only legal option. A UDI is an illegal act and will not be recognized by any other country for fear of setting a precedent.

Even France with its emotional ties to Quebec has to be careful about recognizing Quebec because they could trigger an independence movement in Corsica. You could probably extend that logic to most of Europe. Russia and China certainly will not recognize the right of a UDI because of Chechnya, Tibet and Taiwan.

Furthermore, if you remember your history you will find that your argument is exactly the argument that the southern states used to justify secession. The result was a bloody civil war. Today only a complete wacko would suggest that a US state has a right to a UDI. I suspect most Americans would feel the same about a UDI from a Canadian province.

In short, Europe, Russia, China, the US and the Canadian supreme court will uphold the principle that a UDI is illegal. So stop trying to pretend it is.