The Quebec Contingency Act

[Keepitsimple]

Arguably, the only thing of substance that Stephane Dion has on his record is The Clarity Act. What many people are not aware of is that Stephen Harper hounded the Liberals for years to create something like the Clarity Act. In fact - he was arguing for it before the first referendum in 1995. He felt it was unconscionable that the Liberals could allow the 1995 Quebec referendum without having "the rules" in place. Chretien ignored him and we almost lost the country. As leader of the Reform Party, Harper introduced The Quebec Contingency Act - Bill c-341 in 1996....with a Liberal majority, it never got past First Reading. It wasn't until 2000 that the Liberals woke up. You can use your own judgement as to how much credit Dion should get for addressing something that was ignored for so long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-341

What's interesting about Dion right now is that several media pundits - James Travers of The Star being the most obvious - have retreated to what may be Dion's last bastion of "competence" - that he is a man of great intelligence and "great integrity". Having intelligence should not be confused with having wisdom. Wisdom requires the mixing of intelligence with good judgement. It appears that Dion is wanting in that regard. With regards to "great integrity"....we'll see. Dion has until now, never been in the spotlight and never really been under the unrelenting pressure of leadership. A person's integrity can never truly be tested until they are put in positions that require them to be firm in their convictions and principles......so I think the jury is still out.

[geoffrey]

I'm firmly against the Clarity Act. It gives unjustified powers to Ottawa to accept or reject the democratic voice of Quebec (or any other province). Simple majority on a clear question. That's all there should be. But Dion went far further.

The Clarity Act is one of the most undemocratic pieces of legislation in Canada.

[August1991]

I will, try for the moment, to put you into the mindset of many people in Quebec. And I'll do that using an example.

Imagine if the US government were to pass a law establishing terms for the use of North America's territory and energy resources, including of course Canada's. Many Englsih-Canadians would object to such a law. They would argue that Canada is a sovereign country and the US has no jurisdiction over it.

Well, many people in Quebec feel the same way about Quebec and Canada. They view this federal law as an illegal intrusion into Quebec's sovereignty.

An English-Canadian might argue that Quebec is a province of Canada and the federal government has jurisdiction in Quebec. But it is precisely this jurisdiction that is contested. If the Quebec government is sovereign, then federal law has no validity.

Many Quebecers would argue that independance must be governed by international practice or convention, just as the relations between the US and Canada are governed. Many English-Canadians would object if the US government arbitrarily wrote the terms of the relationship between Canada and the US.

For myself, I feel that the history of northern North America is several centuries long and convoluted. The remarkable aspect of this history is peace. We negotiate, compromise and manage. This has been largely true for over 400 years and it still goes on in different languages and despite people living thousands of kilometers apart.

I view the Clarity Act as another part of this negotiation. As the negotiation goes, I must say however that I'm a little more intrigued by a Protestant anglophone leader who speaks French. I think the last one was Lord Elgin.

In short, Canada's great strength is that it has been and still is a civilized country. We resolve our differences peacefully, like civilized human beings.

[Riverwind]

Simple majority on a clear question. That's all there should be.

Why? If Quebec separates potentially millions of Canadians will lose their citizenship. This is not a simple law or an election. Every democracy in the world recognizes the need for a super majority to justify fundamental changes. I see no justification for letting Quebec make such a fundemental change with a simple majority.

Futhermore, you seem to forget that Quebec has no right to unilaterally set the terms of seperation whether we are talking about borders, debt or citizenship. If something cannot be negotiated then the status quo should be the fallback - a UDI is an act of war and a recipe for violance.

[Wilber]

I'm firmly against the Clarity Act. It gives unjustified powers to Ottawa to accept or reject the democratic voice of Quebec (or any other province). Simple majority on a clear question. That's all there should be. But Dion went far further.

The Clarity Act is one of the most undemocratic pieces of legislation in Canada.

Anything less than a clear majority on something as major as secession is a recipe for a whole lot of bad stuff. If 49% are passionate about not dismembering their country it is a recipe for violence if not civil war. There are dozens of historical lessons to that effect. As August has said we like to think and act like reasonable people but there are limits to everything.

[geoffrey]

Say 55% vote for seperation and Quebec (or Alberta, or Newfoundland) declares independance. Can you really say that the wishes of the 55% outweigh those of the 45% just because the 55% want to change things?

You should then apply the same burden to selection of public officals, definitely not true in Canada.

40% of the vote in Canada can make us into a communist, fascist or banana republic state in a few years. Asking for more than 50% to determine the sovereignty of a group of people that want to live in a peaceful democratic society is unreasonable in that context.

[Riverwind]

Say 55% vote for separation and Quebec (or Alberta, or Newfoundland) declares independence. Can you really say that the wishes of the 55% outweigh those of the 45% just because the 55% want to change things?

What happens if Quebec gets that 55% and then claims it has zero obligation to assume any part of the Canadian debt? Are we obligated to accept the 'will of the people' even if they are trying screw everyone else in the country?

That is why it is impossible for Canada to make an absolute promise to authorize the secession of a province because the terms offered by the seceding province may be completely unacceptable. If that happens then the will of the democratic majority in the entire country if more important than will of the minority of people who voted to separate.

Obviously, Canada could not refuse to enter into good faith negotiations after a 55% vote. However, it is ridiculous to suggest that Canada must unconditionally accept the result of a referendum. Secession after a negotiated constiutional change is the civilized way to handle these things - UDIs are the banana republic way.

[geoffrey]

Obviously, Canada could not refuse to enter into good faith negotiations after a 55% vote. However, it is ridiculous to suggest that Canada must unconditionally accept the result of a referendum. Secession after a negotiated constiutional change is the civilized way to handle these things - UDIs are the banana republic way.

Definitely agreed. Their obligations to Canada isn't a matter of Quebec interest. Their sovereignty is their 50+1 decision, but what they owe us is largely up to us, in good faith. The Clarity Act doesn't suggest this though. It gives the Parliament of Canada the absolute right to crush any democratic vote in Quebec or elsewhere on the sovereignty question.

[August1991]

What happens if Quebec gets that 55% and then claims it has zero obligation to assume any part of the Canadian debt? Are we obligated to accept the 'will of the people' even if they are trying screw everyone else in the country?

If Quebec tried that, it would meet with stony faced international lenders at its first bond auction.

The inetrenational lending community would ensure that the federal debt would be shared in a manner that keeps the reputation of both the Canadian and Quebec governments.

----

This thread is timely however. The question of partition is particularly critical. I don't think I've ever seen or heard public discussions about independance that are as refreshingly open and serious as during this campaign. Something seems to be happening and it may become clearer as the campaign goes on.

I am hearing and reading in French many of the kinds of arguments you make Riverwind: Quebec's borders cannot be guaranteed, it is hard to predict the reaction of English Canada, a country cannot be broken up with a small majority, the Cree may decide to go their own way.

The PQ is being criticized precisely for being idealist and utopic. They refuse to look at or even consider the reality of negotiating Quebec's independance.

Andre Pratte, editorialist for La Presse, had two good columns in today's paper that could Riverwind could have written:

...si jamais les nations autochtones ou les Québécois de l’Outaouais voulaient rester avec le Canada dans l’éventualité de l’indépendance, appelle-t-on ça la souveraineté? Non, c’est la partition. Et il est interdit d’en parler.

Et c’est ainsi que se fait le débat sur la question nationale au Québec, avec l’aval de la grande majorité des commentateurs et journalistes. D’un côté, il y a la souveraineté, avec les lunettes roses et la ouate. De l’autre, il y a ceux qui se demandent si, avant de plonger, on ne devrait pas envisager la possibilité qu’il n’y ait pas d’eau dans la piscine. Mais non, campagne de peur. Alors plongeons!

Link