# Partition



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2014)

Mods: I am starting a separate topic because I don't think separation (and partition) are central to the Quebec election, but the topic will not die and it may well be important after the election if, and it's a big IF, the PQ wins a majority. But I will not  :crybaby: if you decide to merge it with the existing Quebec election tread.

*------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​
Every so often Lawrence Martin gets things right, especially when he deals with the political process in Ottawa; he does that in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/would-quebecs-partitiongo-back-on-the-table/article17528694/#dashboard/follows/


> *SOVEREIGNTY REFERENDUM*
> Would Quebec’s partition go back on the table?
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> ...




I agree, fully, with:

     "The Supreme Court’s 1997 decision on Quebec secession, which said that it cannot be carried out unless the government of Canada has addressed relevant circumstances, “including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to
      the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.”" and

     Prime Minister Harper when he said, "“obviously, given the ethnic and socio-cultural makeup of modern Quebec society, only the _pure laine_ Québécois could arguably be considered a people.” He added that “if the Québécois _pure laine_ are
     a people and they have a right to secede, they could not claim the right to territorial integrity.”

I think the focus on a referendum and sovereginty, within Quebec, hurts the PQ in the current election campaign, but I think those same discussions outside Quebec are, indeed, likely to inflame _nationalist_ passions and may make some Quebecers more sympathetic to the PQ; so it's a double edged sword.

And I will repeat myself from the Quebec Election thread: "a newly independent Québec will face: a weak, failing economy; a large national debt; [and] several separatist movements [within the new state]."


----------



## Remius (18 Mar 2014)

I have mentioned in that other thread that a post referendum situation would lead Canada to having no choice in some circumstances but to negociate certain things that the RoC would have a hard time stomaching but within that same framework I believe that a newly declared Quebec nation would have no choice but to compromise on something like partition if it truly wanted independance.  

Someone once mentioned that Quebecers would rather have a large province than having a small country.  Partition (along with the economy) may be the ace in the hole that prevents Quebec from ever going its own way.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2014)

My _understanding_, and I'm happy yo be corrected, is that the United Nations, through e.g. Resolution 1514 would, likely, recognize and support a declaration of independence made by the aboriginal peoples of the Ungava region.






I believe that Canada would be obliged to support the peoples of the Ungava region if, as I fully expect they would, they decided that they wanted to secede from the newly independent nation-state of Quebec. My _sense_ is that the Ungava peoples would be able to choose full independence or reintegration into Canada on some basis or another (a fourth territory? part of Ontario? part of Newfoundland and Labrador? something else?).

It is not clear to me that _1514_ applies to e.g. the _Outaouais_ (including the _Pontiac_) just across the river from Ottawa and Petawawa) but it is very likely, in my opinion, that the people of that region would want to separate from Quebec and join Canada. Once again I think Canada would be obliged to both support them and to accept them back into Canada. I think the same applies to any regions of Quebec that vote, clearly (50%+1)* freely and openly to leave Quebec.






Equally, however, I think that Canada would be obliged to hold referenda in any predominately French regions that publicly manifested a desire to join the new nation-state of Quebec. (I _suspect_ that some (maybe even quite a few) French speaking Canadians in some regions _might_ want to threaten to join Quebec as a tactic in their campaign ~ which I think would be very necessary ~ to preserve existing French language rights in Canada _sans Québec_.)

_____
* Which I believe is also the "clear majority" required for Quebec, too. 50+1 is the standard for votes almost everywhere, except within certain legislatures.


----------



## Remius (18 Mar 2014)

I happen to agree with most of that.

Quebec would be hard pressed to deny Ungava's claim.  As well, in a back and forth a newly formed Quebec would likely (although grudgingly accept) that a chunk of West Quebec remain Canadian.  It would be a compromise to avoid any claims on Montreal.  

I could also forsee several people from Montreal, once they have secured their citizenship moving to areas like Cornwall but still working in Montreal.  It would be a partial exodus from that region. 

The need for francophone communities to threaten any type of action would likely be the result iof denying their education in the language of their choice and maybe some services.  I would bet that even if the federal OL act were repealed or changed there would likely still be regional billingualism out of necessity that would still be in place.  I doubt we would see a return to the dark days of Regulation 17.  

Remember that there would also be an influx of Quebec ex pats, both French and English, and while percentage wise it may differ, the number of Francos leaving Quebec may actually exceed the number of Anglos leaving Quebec.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2014)

Hmn, this article on ICI radio canada (french CBC) is an interesting look at the municipal/provincial relationship in Quebec.

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/sujet/elections-quebec-2014/2014/03/19/003-municipalites-coderre-labeaume-trent-roy-redefinir-grandes-villes.shtml

Basically, to sum up, the mayors of Quebec City and Montreal are lamenting the current relationship with the province and their ability to run those cities.  They explain that they are both akin to city states but without to ability to maintain and manage both cities' unique characters.  Both are looking for special statuses within the province.

While not particularly linked to partition, you can see the frustration of some regions in dealing with the province.  Montreal in particualr does not want the values charter applied to them for example.


----------



## Loachman (19 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> still working in Montreal



That presumes that their employers remain in Quebec. Many left years ago, and many more likely would given the state of the Quebec economy post-separation.


----------



## GreenMarine (19 Mar 2014)

As I've talked to political scientist, they seem very muched agreed that a independent Quebec Nation would be entitled to no more than the original territory when they joined confederation in 1867.

This said and I saw someone else mention that due to current treaties and issues, the St. Lawrence Sea way would be Canadian/US (international waters), the island of Montreal may stay Canadian, as well as any major highway to link the Maritimes with the rest of Canada.

I must say that my main source is a Western Block Party Member so he'll be all to happy Quebec go.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2014)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That presumes that their employers remain in Quebec. Many left years ago, and many more likely would given the state of the Quebec economy post-separation.



Of course.  But we are already seeing property bought up near and around Cornwall by doctors, lawyers etc, that commute to Montreal for work.  I could easily envision an expansion on that in a partitioned Quebec.


----------



## Loachman (19 Mar 2014)

Perhaps they see their commute as an interim measure, in anticipation of their patients eventually following.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2014)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Perhaps they see their commute as an interim measure, in anticipation of their patients eventually following.



I think it has to do more with cheaper river front real estate more than anything else at this time.  Plus they pay less taxes.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2014)

GreenMarine said:
			
		

> As I've talked to political scientist, they seem very muched agreed that a independent Quebec Nation would be entitled to no more than the original territory when they joined confederation in 1867.
> 
> This said and I saw someone else mention that due to current treaties and issues, the St. Lawrence Sea way would be Canadian/US (international waters), the island of Montreal may stay Canadian, as well as any major highway to link the Maritimes with the rest of Canada.
> 
> I must say that my main source is a Western Block Party Member so he'll be all to happy Quebec go.



Your political scientist friend should read the Belanger-Campeau Commission findings as far as the integrity of Quebec's borders are concerned.  It's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo but it asserts that by international and Canadian law, that at the the time leading up to and at the moment of independance, Quebec's territorial integrity is inviolate.  However what happens after is a whole other ball of wax.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Mar 2014)

Crantor

Now you are assuming that in the end they will follow to the letter any such findings in these Commissions.   >


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Crantor
> 
> Now you are assuming that in the end they will follow to the letter any such findings in these Commissions.   >



Oh absolutely.  Nothing is binding at all about that commission.  And I'm not informed or educated enough to really agree or disagree with their findings.  However it did have an impressive (or seemingly so) amount of experts that seem to have the credentials to come to that conclusion.

My biggest beef with their findings is that it really does not address the fact that Quebec is not really truly a state or was one prior to confederation.   I think the comission relates mostly to arrangements bewteen federated states if Quebec were considered as such.   By the logic of the commission, Quebec could not violate Canada's territorial integrity anymore than say the Cree or citizens of West Quebec.  

Thus why I firmly believe that any seperation would be negociated, not be unilateral and certainly not immediate following a referendum.   Partition would be part of the equation wether Quebec likes it or not.  But it would als not automatically be pre-1867 borders or have no claim to the St Lawrence.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2014)

I'm kind of reminded of the Ontario Liberals after the release of the Drummond report. Despite the crap economic conditions of the province, they chose to ignore it (with the predictable result that things have not gotten any better). Does anyone think the Quebec Liberal Party has the will to make and impose the hard choices needed to turn things around in Quebec?

Since the economy seems to be their weapon of choice, a lot of the ability of the Liberals to win the election and govern will rest of the real and perceived ability of the party to make and enact these choices. (note this isn't _all_ that is needed to win the election. The Ontario Liberal Party also had considerable help from the Public Sector Unions to win their election...)


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hmn, this article on ICI radio canada (french CBC) is an interesting look at the municipal/provincial relationship in Quebec.
> 
> http://ici.radio-canada.ca/sujet/elections-quebec-2014/2014/03/19/003-municipalites-coderre-labeaume-trent-roy-redefinir-grandes-villes.shtml
> 
> ...



- Every major city in Canada has the same complaint - they are mandated by the provinces to provide certain services but are not funded to the extent necessary to do so (or so they would claim.)
- Having to teach English as a Second Language to thousands of school age immigrants has a tendency to impinge on education as well.


----------



## devil39 (19 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Of course.  But we are already seeing property bought up near and around Cornwall by doctors, lawyers etc, that commute to Montreal for work.  I could easily envision an expansion on that in a partitioned Quebec.



Cornwall always benefits financially from increased talk of Quebec separation and increased cigarette taxes...


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Mar 2014)

This, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provision (29) of the Copyright Act, without comment, to add some info to the discussion:


> *First Nations warn they will oppose a bid for sovereignty*
> By Christopher Curtis, THE GAZETTE March 19, 2014
> 
> MONTREAL — If a re-elected Parti Québécois government decides to make another push for sovereignty, they willl face strong opposition from the province’s First Nations.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2014)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Every major city in Canada has the same complaint - they are mandated by the provinces to provide certain services but are not funded to the extent necessary to do so (or so they would claim.)
> - Having to teach English as a Second Language to thousands of school age immigrants has a tendency to impinge on education as well.



Consider that while London ON has a budget of @ $1 billion/year city council only votes to spend @ $7 million/year for infrastructure maintainence (while the City Engineer claims he needs @ $30 million/year just to do basic maintainence). So, no, the problem isn't lack of funding, but misallocated spending.

Education_ is _ a provincial responsibility, however.


----------



## Loachman (21 Mar 2014)

There is, as they say, only one taxpayer.

Shifting money from the federal government to the provincial government to the municipal government is foolish and dishonest - like "partnerships" wherein each level kicks in one-third of the funding.

Each level has its responsibilities. It should fund those things within it, and only those things. Taxpayers in BC orsmall-town Ontario should not be funding subways in Toronto - or cheap daycares in Quebec.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Mar 2014)

Municipalities have (or would have) enough resources if they focused on municipal responsibilities and didn't roll over for every demand or suffer from weak attention spans.  "GoGo" at the municipal level is about basic infrastructure and service provision at the lowest possible cost.  Cities get into trouble when the people running them create projects more interesting than sewer maintenance for themselves or subordinate budget management to political and ideological fashion statements.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Municipalities have (or would have) enough resources if they focused on municipal responsibilities and didn't roll over for every demand or suffer from weak attention spans.  "GoGo" at the municipal level is about basic infrastructure and service provision at the lowest possible cost.  Cities get into trouble when the people running them create projects more interesting than sewer maintenance for themselves or subordinate budget management to political and ideological fashion statements.



 :goodpost:

Exactly right. Municipal engineers, by providing clean water and collecting sewage and garbage, do more for public health than does _Health Canada_. The city streets and sidewalks are the _arteries_ of the socio-economic body: just like the arteries of the human body they need to be kept open and in good order. Police, fire, some parks and recreation facilities ~ to promote good health and social contentment ~ and that's about it for a city's _Priority 1_ tasks.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Mar 2014)

I would add maintaining the streets and sidewalks and snow removal to the list.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2014)

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, is full of numbers and dollars so it will not surprise you that I like it, but it is related to _partition_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Kelly+Egan+Quebec+relies+Ontario+fill+Outaouais+health+care/9670258/story.html


> Quebec relies on Ontario to fill Outaouais’s health-care gaps
> 
> BY KELLY EGAN, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




The _partition_ message is in the numbers. _Gatineau_ is NOT part of Quebec, it, including the Pontiac ~ across the river from Petawawa, is _economically_ and _socially_ and even culturally Part of the _National Capital Region_ which makes, it, by default, _Canadian_ rather than _Québécois_, and I will expect it to secede, along with e.g. Akwasasne and Ungava, very early on during the independence negotiations. And I expect that Quebec _nationalists_ will be happy to be rid of it, geography or not.


----------



## Remius (28 Mar 2014)

Along that line, I am a proponent that the NCR should be a designated regional district (like Washington DC) and should have the NCC along with area municipal governments merge to govern.

As well it should be noted that the Ottawa Hospital charges Quebecers up front since that province takes forever to transfer funds.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2014)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ looks at the post Scottish referendum blues that infects the Quebec sovereignty movement ... for now:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parizeau-says-sovereigntists-stand-before-a-field-of-ruin/article20712452/#dashboard/follows/


> Parizeau says Quebec sovereigntists ‘stand before a field of ruin’
> 
> LES PERREAUX
> MONTREAL — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I _suspect_ that part of the Quebec sovereigntists' problem is that the core of their grievance is cultural and, especially, linguistic. They are facing (while trying to ignore) the fact that French is, most probably, doomed in North America. British author/journalist/published (and white supremacist?) Arthur Kemp coined the phrase "demographics is destiny." These data show us, pretty conclusively, that there is a direct correlation between GNP and birth rates: a higher GNP ≈ a lower birthrate. Canada, with, in 2011, a _national_ birthrate of 1.61 is below the "replacement" rate which is, generally, held to be 2.1. Thus Canada, like every G7 nation requires immigration to grow its population. Quebec's birthrate is 1.69, slightly above the national average, but, and it's a Big BUT, Quebec's _share_ of immigrants is too low and, therefore, Quebec's share of Canada's population will continue to shrink and since Quebec is the *only* place in the Americas, including French possessions, where French is reasonably strong, the continued existence of French in the Americas is in real doubt.

Because language, which is central to culture in Quebec, is the key issue, the _"cause"_ is far more emotional than it was in Scotland. The Scottish "Yes" side had some economic arguments for separation - they were all poor argument, in my opin ion, but they had some. Quebec sovereigntists generally ignore economics because *a)* it's not what their 'cause' is all about, and *b)* economic issues tend to frighten "soft nationalist" Quebecers away from sovereignty.

I do not believe the sovereignty dream is dead in Quebec, but I do believe that the fires are damped, largely as a result of the _Great Recession_ that began in 2008 and still lingers.


Edited to add:

More on Jacques Parizeau and the sovereignty issue in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Montreal Gazette_ via _canada.com_:

http://www.canada.com/news/Macpherson+Jacques+Parizeau+incoherent+advice+sovereignists/10218705/story.html


> Jacques Parizeau’s incoherent advice to sovereignists
> 
> BY DON MACPHERSON, THE GAZETTE
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2014)

I _believe_ there will be another Quebec referendum, not soon, but I _suspect_ that a third defeat, and by something more like 55/45 than the 51/49 fiasco we had in 1995, will be needed before the separatists can, honestly, move on to other things, like constitutional changes. This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the (British) _conservativehome_ website suggests that Scotland offers us some good lessons:

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/09/matthew-elliott-ten-lessons-from-the-scottish-referendum-for-people-involved-in-the-eu-debate.html


> Ten lessons from the Scottish Referendum for people involved in the EU debate
> 
> By Matthew Elliott
> 
> ...




Change "EU" in the above article to QC and I _believe_ the lessons still stand. I also _think_ that the Scots have made the case for 50%+1 ... that's a blow to Canadian federalists but, I _suspect_, it is a hard argument to refute unless we can get the _Supremes_ to say that a "Yes" victory requires 50%+1 of those on the voters' list (the eligible voters). We had a 93% turnout n 1995, the Scots had 85% so, maybe, 50%+1 of the eligible voters is an acceptable level, but my _guess_ is that 50%+1 of the votes of those who turn out is, now, the only politically acceptable standard for a liberal democracy where a simple plurality is the normal test.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2014)

I find it interesting that we would accept a 50 + 1% vote to breakup the nation; yet it takes a minimum of a 2/3 vote to reform the Senate.  

Are our priorities ever screwed up.


----------



## Privateer (22 Sep 2014)

When the Supreme Court of Canada considered what would be necessary for a province to separate from Canada, in _Reference re Secession of Quebec_, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, the court, in my reading, took pains to state that 50%+1 was not a magic number that could be taken as an automatic number for a "win" for secession in every context.  Here are a few excerpts from the decision:



> 63     Democracy is commonly understood as being a political system of majority rule. It is essential to be clear what this means. The evolution of our democratic tradition can be traced back to the Magna Carta (1215) and before, through the long struggle for Parliamentary supremacy which culminated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the emergence of representative political institutions in the colonial era, the development of responsible government in the 19th century, and eventually, the achievement of Confederation itself in 1867. "[T]he Canadian tradition", the majority of this Court held in Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, at p. 186, is "one of evolutionary democracy moving in uneven steps toward the goal of universal suffrage and more effective representation". Since Confederation, efforts to extend the franchise to those unjustly excluded from participation in our political system - such as women, minorities, and aboriginal peoples - have continued, with some success, to the present day.
> 
> 64     Democracy is not simply concerned with the process of government. On the contrary, as suggested in Switzman v. Elbling, supra, at p. 306, democracy is fundamentally connected to substantive goals, most importantly, the promotion of self-government. Democracy accommodates cultural and group identities: Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries, at p. 188. Put another way, a sovereign people exercises its right to self-government through the democratic process. In considering the scope and purpose of the Charter, the Court in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, articulated some of the values inherent in the notion of democracy (at p. 136):
> 
> ...



and



> 87     Although the Constitution does not itself address the use of a referendum procedure, and the results of a referendum have no direct role or legal effect in our constitutional scheme, a referendum undoubtedly may provide a democratic method of ascertaining the views of the electorate on important political questions on a particular occasion. The democratic principle identified above would demand that considerable weight be given to a clear expression by the people of Quebec of their will to secede from Canada, even though a referendum, in itself and without more, has no direct legal effect, and could not in itself bring about unilateral secession. Our political institutions are premised on the democratic principle, and so an expression of the democratic will of the people of a province carries weight, in that it would confer legitimacy on the efforts of the government of Quebec to initiate the Constitution's amendment process in order to secede by constitutional means. In this context, we refer to a "clear" majority as a qualitative evaluation. The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2014)

It is the second quote from the _Supremes_ that has always led me towards 50%+1 of the eligible voters. It's a steeper test, if you get, say, a 92% turnout - doable in Quebec, I _think_ - then you need to get 54.4% of the vote to achieve 50%+1 of the eligible voters. But, of course, that also means that the "No," side wins with only 45.6% ... is that _fair_?


----------



## cryco (22 Sep 2014)

It will take a long time for the sovereignty dream to fizzle out here. 
At first I thought it was the uninformed (mistakenly) and the hard core non-Montreal metropolitan Quebecers that wanted this due to various fears (immigration, language etc..); but once I started working where I'm at (engineering company) and saw that among our greatest talents here there are some discreet hard core separatists, I realized that the dream won't die anytime soon. This generation is in their late 30s, so there's a ways to go before they become obsolete.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Sep 2014)

You can be sure that no independence movement in Quebec or Scotland wants to define in real terms what independence is going to be like. Because it's not going to be pretty for the average person.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2014)

cryco said:
			
		

> It will take a long time for the sovereignty dream to fizzle out here.
> At first I thought it was the uninformed (mistakenly) and the hard core non-Montreal metropolitan Quebecers that wanted this due to various fears (immigration, language etc..); but once I started working where I'm at (engineering company) and saw that among our greatest talents here there are some discreet hard core separatists, I realized that the dream won't die anytime soon. This generation is in their late 30s, so there's a ways to go before they become obsolete.



Many of the "grievances" they carry date back to the 1700's. In Bosnia I was regaled by the Serbs with tales of the Battle of Kosovo Polje that sounded like it happened in the 1990 civil wars; it took place in _1389_. Some people will never let history go, and pass their hopes, fears and hates to their children...


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> A little bit from those other guys.
> 
> If 50 percent plus 1 one good enough to break up the county it's good enough for leader to stay on I suppose.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-mulcair-sets-the-ndp-leadership-bar-well-below-the-norm





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is the second quote from the _Supremes_ that has always led me towards 50%+1 of the eligible voters. It's a steeper test, if you get, say, a 92% turnout - doable in Quebec, I _think_ - then you need to get 54.4% of the vote to achieve 50%+1 of the eligible voters. But, of course, that also means that the "No," side wins with only 45.6% ... is that _fair_?



The Supremes have said that 50%+1 is not enough ... but what is?

Is it 50%+1 of eligible voters?
Is it 60% or 66.66666 ...? Of what: those who show up to vote, eligible voters, all Quebecers?

50%+1 is good enough for most things in most democracies ... it almost cost us our country back when Jean Chrétien was minding the store, but I'm not convinced it's a bad test.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Supremes have said that 50%+1 is not enough ... but what is?
> 
> Is it 50%+1 of eligible voters?
> Is it 60% or 66.66666 ...? Of what: those who show up to vote, eligible voters, all Quebecers?
> ...


It's best to negotiate this if it come up again, rather than have a fixed target for separatists to aim for.

Because this partition thing is a one shot deal if the separatists win, there won't be any referendums about rejoining canada, so make it as tough as reasonably possible.


----------

