Separation Back in the News

[c9]

*sigh* 1995 was really scary. I don't want that again. But here we go!

Ottawa — The new leader of the Parti Québécois says he will not follow Ottawa's ground rules for any future referendum on separation.

In an interview with the all-news channel RDI to be air Sunday, André Boisclair says independence is up to Quebeckers only and he sees no reason to submit to the federal Clarity Act. (story)

The Clarity Act demands a clear question and a clear majority, not a fuzzy question (like in 1980 and 1995) and 50%+1. These are very good requirements, because separation is a big and tumultuous step, so it's important for everyone to be sure of how they feel.

For Boisclair to say that he doesn't have to follow the law is amusing (he didn't follow the law on cocaine either, some will point out), annoying (time to grow up, I would say), and quite unfair (imagine if several other provinces in Canada decided to gang up and try to kick Quebec out of confederation, and told Quebec that they had no reason to be involved as it only affected the rest of Canada).

But will Paul Martin be willing to say any of this? Hardly. He moves a very effective separatism fighter to Environment, and hires a founder of the Bloc Quebecois who can't remember how he voted in 1995 as his Intergovernmental Affairs MinisterQuebec Lieutenant (oops). *Christ*.

Comments

[c9.livejournal.com]

I never said he wouldn't ask a clear question. But he said he would not bother with the law, which implies that he is considering approaches that ignore one of the two main tenets of the legislation. I just read the full text of the Clarity Act (http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-31.8/whole.html) and found it quite understandable, but you're right that not all legal text is fully accessible to all. It really does only have three things in it: (1) Is the question clear? The House of Commons votes on it. (2) Is the majority big enough? The House of Commons votes on it. (3) To secede, a Constitutional amendment would be required because the Constitution has no section on secession, and to amend the Constitution every province has to be involved.

"People in Quebec are not as stupid..." I certainly hope you took no indication of that from my post. Some people certainly do think that some other people are stupid, and that goes for both sides of this particular issue. But polls have shown, both in 1980 and 1995, that some people are voting for negotiation power and greater rights *within* Canada, not actually for separation. In your own words, pleeease get over the yes/no aspect. It's really not that simple, unfortunately. :-)

I 100% agree that governments should be clearer. All governments, all questions. But sadly, when you ask clear questions you get clear results, and Mulroney was (rightly) afraid of a clear question, just like Levesque, Bouchard and Parizeau were afraid of a clear question.

You did, I think, miss my point on that last bit. Yes, the referendum would only happen in Quebec, but the aftermath and negotiation is by definition a national exercise. Quebec could not, unilaterally, walk away, under Canadian Law. Some people say that Quebec would no longer be under Canadian Law, but that argument doesn't scale to different levels. For example, I could have a vote inside my condo, and all of a sudden Stephen Harper would be a criminal. Or, 98% of aboriginal people in Quebec could vote to stay in Canada (as they did in 1995) and the government could ignore their will anyway. You have to have some common accepted law, otherwise it's anarchy.

So what I meant was that since there's no way for a province to legally separate under the Constitution, then the Constitution would have to be changed. And it would be, there's no way around that if a clear majority really did decide to go. But the rest of Canada must be involved in order to change the Constitution. Hope that makes sense.

PS 1: Stéphane Dion was willing to stand up and say stuff. Lucienne Robillard hasn't opened her mouth in months. Maybe he was considered to be stuck up, but he challenged lies propagated by the PQ and BQ, and seriously promoted the benefits of Confederation. Certainly, opinion matters, but is Robillard (or hell, Martin) even involved at all? Pretending there's no issue doesn't get us anywhere, does it? Here's a fun game, for comparison. Count the press releases (only 3, the total in all of 2004 and 2005) since Robillard became the Minister, and count the releases by Dion in any three month period while he was Minister.

PS 2: you're right, I totally misspoke. He is Transport, but he is also Martin's Quebec Lieutenant, that's what I was trying to compare to. Oops. Agreed on the total lack of credibility.

[jdhorner.livejournal.com]

US politics is horrendous, laughable, and nearly moot.
i had no idea that it was even worse in canada.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Oh sure! Delve deep enough in any country and you'll find such ungodly debates as to make you cry! This is one of those "I feel passionately about it, but I am ashamed every time I think about it and not starving children in Africa, etc" topics. :)

[c9.livejournal.com]

Re: rule of law. You're right, keeping a province in Canada just because they can't legally leave is not defensible. That's why I said that the other provinces *would* change the Constitution. If they don't, then it can never be changed again due to Quebec being missing, and the country descends into lawless decisions. It would be frustrating and challenging, and a huge debate over debt, aboriginal rights, and borders, but it would have to happen because it was demanded by a majority.

But Quebec would not be a prisoner, it would secede. A valid vote would be recognized by several countries almost immediately (another benefit of a clear question and clear majority). The challenge is that we (all of Canada) would have to negotiate how it would happen, with the knowledge that it was going to happen no matter what. Not fun.

Re: ON/NS input. Once again, I am not suggesting that other provinces should get a vote. I am telling you though that other provinces would *have* to be involved after the fact, and therefore would inevitably have a lot to say before the fact. NOT a vote. But a lot to say, whether you like it or not. That's something that cuased a lot of friction in 1995: all the "anglos bussing in."

You're right, my opinion in my condo is a different situation. Let's try another one instead: how about when all of Gatineau votes to stay in Canada? Or 98.75% of first nations bands vote to stay in Canada (and keep their land and hydro projects too)? Are those more acceptable? It's a rocky road we have to go down one of these days. :(