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]

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. :(