Quebec referendum report due to drop political bomb

[scribblet]

Wonder what the outcome of this will be....

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/20...ort-070529.html

Quebec referendum report due to drop political bomb

A retired Quebec judge will table a report on Tuesday afternoon that will reveal whether millions of federal dollars went illegally to the "No" campaign during the 1995 referendum — a revelation that could prove explosive amid the ongoing political crisis in Quebec.

Judge Bernard Grenier's long-awaited report looks into allegations that $3.5 million was funnelled from Ottawa to bolster the federalist side during the 1995 referendum on Quebec's sovereignty via a group called Option Canada.

The Montreal-based lobby group was created to promote "linguistic duality" and was not supposed to be directly involved in the referendum campaign.

However, the allegations are that the organization broke electoral rules and channelled $3.5 million to the "No" side's budget, which was limited to $5 million.

[August1991]

The pequistes have been saying this for so long that this is, all things considered, non-news. The federalists will just say "so what".

The report will only attract broader attention if some of the $3.5 million showed up as kickbacks or paid for Florida condos.

[August1991]

Talk about a wet firecracker...

In his report, Grenier concludes that Option Canada and the Canadian Unity Council (CUC) illegally spent about $539,000 during the referendum campaign, and that altogether both groups spent about $11 million before and during the 1995 referendum period.

CBC

$539,000? Wow! What a scandal!

[geoffrey]

$539,000 could easily have swung such a close ballot. The rules were there, breaking them destroyed Quebec's democratic chance at sovereignty.

[Riverwind]

$539,000 could easily have swung such a close ballot. The rules were there, breaking them destroyed Quebec's democratic chance at sovereignty.

Give me a break. If the result was so close that 500K would swing the vote then the status quo should prevail. Major social upheavals should never be permitted unless there is a overwhelming social consensus. 50%+1 is simply not enough.

[August1991]

Give me a break. If the result was so close that 500K would swing the vote then the status quo should prevail. Major social upheavals should never be permitted unless there is a overwhelming social consensus. 50%+1 is simply not enough.

Newfoundland joined Canada after a referendum of 52.2%. How do you define overwhelming?

$539,000 could easily have swung such a close ballot. The rules were there, breaking them destroyed Quebec's democratic chance at sovereignty.

The pequistes now argue that the enquiry ignored all the federal civil servants sent to Montreal for rallies whose time was not counted.

OTOH, everyone in Quebec understands that it's naive to believe that the electoral law can forbid the federal government spending what it wants.

IMO, this debate has been going on for decades. Most people have heard all the arguments ad nauseum and made up their minds. A couple of million here or there is not going to make a big difference.

Far more relevant in my mind is the fact that the pequistes only managed to get about 50% support with a question that still contained association with ROC. In 1995, Parizeau had to water down his initial proposal. Many French Quebecers have a strong attachment to Canada and the latest evidence is the 2006 federal election and the 2007 Quebec election.

[M.Dancer]

No one has scrutinized the pequiste ledger I take it? Considering voter fraud for them comes as naturally as treasonous perfidy and welcoming murderous terrorists into theoir fold, it would make a forensic account get a woody......

[capricorn]

"(Jean) Charest called the report a "wet firecracker" after its release."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...7c21092&k=82272

I agree. This will not go anywhere.

[Riverwind]

Give me a break. If the result was so close that 500K would swing the vote then the status quo should prevail. Major social upheavals should never be permitted unless there is a overwhelming social consensus. 50%+1 is simply not enough.

Newfoundland joined Canada after a referendum of 52.2%. How do you define overwhelming?

The Newfoundland example included two referendums and the question was unambiguous. Even then 52% was a bit low -> 55% to 60% is a more suitable benchmark especially in a society like Quebec which is divided across ethnic lines.

[geoffrey]

The Newfoundland example included two referendums and the question was unambiguous. Even then 52% was a bit low -> 55% to 60% is a more suitable benchmark especially in a society like Quebec which is divided across ethnic lines.

Look at that in reverse. Can 49.9% of the population hold the other 50.1% hostage in a vote?

[Riverwind]

The Newfoundland example included two referendums and the question was unambiguous. Even then 52% was a bit low -> 55% to 60% is a more suitable benchmark especially in a society like Quebec which is divided across ethnic lines.

Look at that in reverse. Can 49.9% of the population hold the other 50.1% hostage in a vote?

Held hostage? Hardly. Many people are not 100% on one side or another. A vote that close probably could have easily gone the other way if it was held on a different day or if the weather was different. Major social upheavals should not be triggered by such a small margin. The status quo is always an acceptable fall back position when a society is split down the middle on a critical issue.