Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still with respect to the alleged ''promises'', it's worth nothing that two decades later, only one has been half-followed up upon, and not by anyone who made them in 1995.
I say it's half-accomplished because it's really a meaningless recognition with no legal weight, as opposed to what is usually meant by ''distinct society'' or ''nation'' which is an entrenched recognition that actually would allow Quebec to do its own thing (on matters of language and culture anyway). Something like an interpretive clause.
Once again, is it any wonder that we get impatient when I have to counter so many categorical statements by pointing this stuff out, even to intelligent, articulate, well-intentioned people from other parts of Canada with a background in constitutional law?
Well, Acajack's comments are quite fair. I know that during the 1980 referendum, the federal government promised that a No vote would not imply maintaining the status quo, and of course it didn't even though the outcome wasn't the one Quebecers were expecting and didn't come near resolving the question. But if the federal government also promised something similar in 1995, then it's clear that they absolutely didn't follow through. (The constitutional amendment to introduce language-based school boards isn't nothing, but it also doesn't address Quebec's traditional demands.)
. (The constitutional amendment to introduce language-based school boards isn't nothing, but it also doesn't address Quebec's traditional demands.)
I was wondering if someone was going to raise it. The school boards issue isn't at all a realization of any promise made during the 1995 referendum campaign. It's not devolution or autonomy related, as education is already supposed to be a provincial responsibility under the Constitution!
And even so, education in Quebec (and who gets to go to which language schools) is still subject to Section 23 of the Constitution (which Quebec did not sign) and ensuing Supreme Court of Canada rulings after challenges related to Quebec's restrictions on who can attend English schools.
What promises did the federal government make to Quebec in 1995, especially as regards "devolution"?
The question was this:
All I see is a question that leads to constitutional negotiations that may (or may not) lead to Quebec sovereignty or independence. No offer had been made at the time of the referendum, which means that there were no promises or guarantee either way. With that question, Quebec might still end up being a province of Canada if negotiations break down.
Again, what promises?
Let's call your "50 + 1" what it is: "50% + 1" So if the score ends up being, say, 2,308,360 Yes to 2,308,359 No (i.e. Yes wins by one vote), then Quebec has a mandate to enter into negotiations?
It's one thing for an inconsequential backbencher to make it into the Commons by one vote, after numerous recounts, but there was a lot more on the line here. The Supreme Court agreed. So, "50% + 1&" is effectively dead, and you'll need more than that in the future.
Quit with the talk of "promises" because any such promises would require opening up the constitution again, involving all provinces, each of which have their own agendas, not necessarily aligned with those of Quebec. I'm sure that Quebec would not like to have to deal with all provinces again, after Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Currently, the Canadian constitution does not allow the federal government to open up the constitution to deal with one province only. All must be involved. If you believe otherwise, you have been misinformed.
The Clarity Act was put in place primarily so that Quebec or any province wishing to secede from Confederation, does not attempt deception upon its populace by couching any referendum question in terms that the populace does not understand. So, neither the 1980 question:
... or the 1995 question, as listed above, would qualify as valid questions under the Clarity Act.
Rather, the Clarity Act contemplates a question similar to that of last year's Scottish independence referendum question:
Substitute "Quebec" for "Scotland" and we've got a question that suits the Clarity Act. And that's the kind of question the next referendum question should be.
I'm not quite a separatist but if you were around back then, they made some clear promises of reforms. "Non" was NOT a vote for the status quo. It was a vote for reform within the framework of Canada.
I'm as anti-separatist as it gets in Quebec, but even I admit that the "non" win was built on bold lies. As soon as the independence rejected, all promises were reneged upon and things went back to the way they were in 1994. Basically this is where we still are. I wouldn't be surprised if these lies return with a vengeance.
You can count me in as one "non" voter who felt duped by those promises. Parizeau was wrong morally but also factually. It was not money and ethnic vote, but lies and fearmongering that led to the non victory.
I know. A speech from the website of the Office of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada is pretty flimsy evidence I guess.
Yea it is, he just made said extremely vague and brief words about the vote for "no" not being a vote for status quo.
Do you have a list of detailed promises for reform? Do you have a speech describing what exactly the reforms will be?
If not, I remain skeptical that this is another sociohistorical invention of the French Canadian underclass, a lot like the false history of Canada being created as a pact between two "nations" of people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
