Partition

[Edward Campbell]

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
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Mar. 18 2014

In 1996, Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his unity minister, Stéphane Dion, put forward the view that if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec. It was an endorsement of the principle of partitioning the province after a separatist referendum victory. If regions of Quebec such as the north, the Outaouais and parts of Montreal voted to remain in Canada, Ottawa would support them.

Where do the Liberals stand today? In an e-mail exchange, Mr. Dion, now serving under Justin Trudeau, reaffirmed the position. “I, of course, continue to maintain the same view, even more that the Supreme Court has confirmed it.”

He quoted 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.”

Mr. Dion said the Liberal Party of today, while wishing to “avoid incendiary language” about partition, “agrees with the full content” of this decision relating to the secession of Quebec.

Where does Prime Minister Stephen Harper stand?

In a 1995 House of Commons debate, as a Reform Party MP, Mr. Harper said that “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.”

In a private member’s bill the following year, Mr. Harper advocated that on a referendum ballot, there should also be a second question. “If Quebec separates from Canada, should my community separate from Quebec and remain a part of Canada?”

Asked whether Mr. Harper still holds to these views, his communications director declined to respond. The PM has let it be known he doesn’t wish to be drawn into the Quebec election campaign.

As for New Democratic Party Leader Thomas Mulcair, he said through a spokesperson that he favours a constructive, optimistic approach but didn’t specify whether he would support a partition process after a referendum.

It is a highly sensitive and polarizing issue. Laying out the partition consequence can work negatively for Ottawa, triggering separatists’ ire and mobilizing them. But it can also serve as a great deterrent to the contemplation of secession. A partition of northern Quebec, where the Cree and Inuit particularly oppose being forced to separate from Canada, could result in a loss of two-thirds of the province’s land mass.

In addition to the Supreme Court ruling, further complicating matters is the Conservatives’ own 2006 Commons resolution saying that “the Québécois” form a “nation” within Canada. Given Mr. Harper’s definition of “Québécois” as pure laine francophones, how does this affect the question of territorial integrity? Would it enhance the case for partition in areas where a majority of anglophones and allophones reside?

It was Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre, who famously uttered the incendiary remark that “if Canada is divisible, Quebec must also be divisible.” He said it shortly before Quebec’s 1980 referendum.

Sovereigntists hold to the view that international law guarantees Quebec’s territorial integrity. At the Bélanger-Campeau Commission in 1992, a panel of international law experts commissioned by the Quebec government lent credence to this view.

But developments since that time have created a thicket of ambiguity on a question that could come to be critical for the federation. Partition is the elephant in the room – the leaders of the federal parties don’t want to talk about it during the Quebec election campaign, lest they ignite sovereigntist passions.

But in the event the Péquistes win a majority, the case for partition would be sure to confront them.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Remius]

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]

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]

Crantor

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

 

[Remius]

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]

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]

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.

- 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]

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]

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.

In the event of a successful vote for Quebec to secede, aboriginal leaders across the province say they simply won’t recognize the newly formed country’s authority over them. Which raises a rather complicated question: what if the province’s 100,000 aboriginals refuse to belong to a sovereign Quebec?

During the 1995 referendum, as just under half of Quebecers voted to break away from Canada, the province’s First Nations almost unanimously opposed separation.

In fact, the Cree, Innu and Inuit held their own referendums at the time, with over 95 per cent of voters agreeing to keep their territories within Canada should Quebec become an independent country.

Now that sovereignty has been thrust to the centre of this year’s election, First Nations leaders are once again warning the Parti Québécois to expect significant opposition to the party’s bid for nationhood.

“We absolutely will not recognize the authority of a Quebec nation,” Kahnawake Mohawk Chief Mike Delisle said in an interview with The Gazette Wednesday. “We don’t normally weigh in on provincial or federal politics, but the prospect of a referendum is disturbing to us. It undermines our historic claims to nationhood.”

Delisle’s comments came the day after Mike Mitchell, grand chief of the Akwesasne Mohawks, said he’d consider holding a referendum within the Mohawk reserve in the event of another vote on Quebec sovereignty. Akwesasne’s territory lies in Quebec, but stretches into Ontario and upstate New York as well.

“Quebec can decide what it wants in terms of its culture, its identity and its development,” Ghislain Picard, chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, said in a statement released Tuesday. “But it cannot claim sovereignty over a territory which is still, fundamentally, First Nation.”

Legal scholars disagree on whether First Nations would have the right to break away from Quebec should the province ever form a nation.

In 1991, the National Assembly’s committee on sovereignty enlisted the help of five international law experts from the United States and Europe. The experts concluded that, under the Canadian Constitution and international law, aboriginal people would retain rights as an ethnic minority, but no right to secession. They also argued that the James Bay Cree and Inuit surrendered much of their land to Quebec in the 1975 James Bay Agreement — a land claim settlement in which the federal and provincial government granted the aboriginal people certain territorial rights and millions in cash for use of their territory.

The experts’ opinion has been widely disputed within the legal community. York University law professor Patrick J. Monahan argues that if aboriginals don’t have the right to secede, then neither does Quebec. Given that First Nations have their own culture, language, traditional territory and historic land claims, it’s difficult to prevent them from making the same case for sovereignty as Quebec itself has made, according to Monahan.

“Possibly, the only way to assert Quebec’s authority over First Nations territory would be to impose it and God only knows what that means,” said Sébastien Grammond, a University of Ottawa professor specializing in aboriginal legal issues. “Governments have generally tried to avoid any kind of armed conflicts (with First Nations) because they know that public opinion here and abroad does not view it favourably, and would side with the indigenous peoples. And there’s the looming possibility of the international community weighing in.”

Grammond insists that’s an entirely hypothetical scenario, one he’s uncomfortable speculating about. But he said that, in a sovereign Quebec, the newly formed government could inherit the billions in treaty agreements, disputed land claims and fiduciary obligations that linger between Ottawa and the province’s First Nations.

The Aboriginal Affairs Minister funds most social services, education, and health care programs and half of policing costs on the province’s 37 aboriginal communities. Most of these reserves, especially in Quebec’s north, are impoverished and face a housing crisis that is forcing aboriginals to abandon their ancestral homes and move into the city. About 73 per cent of Quebec’s aboriginal people no longer live on reserves, according to 2011 census data.

Most of the aboriginal land claims within Quebec remain unresolved and cover a swath of land that occupies roughly two thirds of the province. And with much of the province’s massive hydroelectric dams and mining resting on land within Cree, Innu and Inuit territory, it gives the First Nations major leverage in any negotiations with Quebec.

“Currently, (aboriginals) have a lot of clout in Quebec,” Grammond said. “That influence is enshrined in the treaties and documents signed between the First Nations, Canada, Quebec and some going all the way to Queen of England. ... There’s a fear that an independent Quebec could develop a constitution that waters down that clout and chips away at certain obligations the state has towards First Nations.”

As a testament to the tension within certain communities, Delisle says some Mohawks are considering voting in a provincial election for the first time in their lives. He isn’t encouraging the practice, as the Mohawk nation has a policy of not participating in outside politics. The South Shore reserve sits in the Marguerite-D’Youville riding, currently held by Liberal MNA Pierre Moreau.

“People are concerned and I’m hearing they’re willing to act on it,” Delisle said. “Our relationship with Canada is complicated and difficult enough without the threat of the Parti-Québécois-led government leading this region down a path of institutionalized intolerance that we will see with the proposed Quebec Charter of Values.”

The PQ’s electoral platform doesn’t elaborate on the aboriginal question except to say that it will pursue the dialogue with First Nations. Traditionally, the party’s stance has been to maintain whatever fudiciary obligations Ottawa has with the province’s First Nations.

There’s no real legal precedent for how the responsibilities between governments and First Nations would be transferred. During the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, the National Indian Brotherhood was, after a series of legal battles, granted access to constitutional negotiations.

“That sets a legal precedent,” Grammond said. “First Nations would almost certainly have to be included in any negotiations over the secession of Quebec. Who knows where that would lead, but they’d definitely have a place at the negotiating table.”

ccurtis@montrealgazette.com
Twitter: @titocurtis

 

[a_majoor]

- 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]

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]

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.