William Johnson: Lysiane Gagnon stands as witness to Quebec's two referendums

Gagnon also denounced those who insisted that secession must abide by the Constitution. She said they “caused a debate that is essentially political to be diverted to the sterile ground of abstract legality.” In her last column before the 1995 referendum, she advised: “Both options are equally honourable.”

“Je ne me souviens pas” might be Canada’s motto. Thomas Mulcair repeats that, for the 1980 and 1995 referendums, 50 per cent plus one for Oui was the threshold for Quebec’s secession. “Those were the rules in 1980 and 1995,” he said in Friday’s debate. False, but it’s still widely believed by many Quebecers, including some people who should know better ...

Her 52-page essay, followed by a collection of her columns from the 1995 referendum cycle, demonstrates that Quebec is caught in a cultural and political bind. Its intelligentsia largely subscribes to Quebec’s independence, but most Québécois, while easily roused to fury at perceived contempt from les Anglais, remain attached to Canada ...

Whatever was said by some Quebec politicians, the law governing both referendums set no standard for a victory. The white paper announcing that law repudiated any such standard. The impact of a referendum, it said, was “the political value of the referendum process.” Because a referendum had no executive effect on laws or the Constitution, it was pointless to specify a threshold of victory: “This consultative character of referendums means it would serve no purpose to include in the law special clauses with respect to the majority required or to the required level of participation.”

William Johnson: Statesmanship at last

Statesmanship at last

 ... the news filtered out that the federal government had, Wednesday, intervened in a court challenge launched by private citizens against Bill 99, passed by former premier Lucien Bouchard, decreeing that Quebec can secede at will, its present territory intact, with just 50 per cent of the votes plus one, in a referendum where Quebec alone sets the rules. 

As Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells revealed, the federal government argues in a submission to Quebec Superior Court that Bill 99 is unconstitutional. As the news spread, all of Quebec’s political party leaders circled the wagons, indignantly defending the indefensible ... 

As premier, Charest defended Bill 99 before Quebec Superior Court when it was challenged by former Equality Party leader Keith Henderson, McGill law professor Stephen Scott and lawyer Brent Tyler. Bill 99 manifestly repudiated the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling, in the secession reference, that Quebec could only secede legally via an amendment to the Constitution, itself requiring the consent of Parliament and at least seven provinces ...

William Johnson: Independence referendum? Scotland has it right

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/independence-referendum-scotland-has-it-right/article4898591/

The referendum on independence to be held by Scotland in 2014 differs dramatically from the two referendums Quebec held in 1980 and 1995. The issue in Scotland will be clear: independence. Equally clear will be the referendum question, just 10 words long: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”

In 1980, Quebec asked a question that ran to 109 words, but still left the outcome uncertain and confused. The question began: “The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations.” Who could object to such an agreement? There followed many words on sovereignty and association. Then the question concluded on this promise: “No change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?”

 

The 1995 referendum question would be shorter – 43 words, but still tendentious. It stressed “partnership” and “agreement,” not secession or independence: “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”

Bloc makes life awkward for NDP

http://www.macleans.ca/general/bloc-plans-to-provoke-clarity-act-debate/

The Bloc Quebecois is trying to put its New Democratic Party rivals on the hot seat.

The Bloc, which was decimated by the NDP in Quebec in the last federal election, apparently plans to use an attack on the Clarity Act to create tensions within the NDP.
Bloc Leader Daniel Paille won't say what's in the proposed legislation, which will be tabled Friday, but insists Ottawa has no business making any decisions affecting Quebec's future.


 

 

Mulcair Grilled On Quebec Secession Days Before French Debate

Mulcair Grilled On Quebec Secession Days Before French Debate


The NDP's policy on Quebec secession is "in absolute defiance of the terms of the Constitution of Canada," said committee member Stephen Scott, a retired constitutional law professor.

OTTAWA — The man who launched a legal challenge to Quebec's law on
unilateral secession is posing some questions for Tom Mulcair that could
prove awkward for the NDP leader.

Keith Henderson wants to know
if an NDP government would continue to intervene in support of his court
challenge to Bill 99, a 1999 provincial law which asserts that
Quebecers alone have the right to democratically determine their own
future, without interference from the rest of Canada.

He's also
asking Mulcair to clarify if he believes aboriginal people and other
"loyal Canadians" could separate from Quebec if the province were to
secede from Canada and whether he believes an independent Quebec would
have to pay for its share of the federal debt and compensation for
federal assets in the province.

Boilerplate Bilingual Signage Submission Letter

Dear Sir or Madam,

It is known that people are complaining about your disrespect for non-Francophone clientele, particularly at your XXX store in XXX Montreal as well as at your XXX store. Non-Francophones are being ignored and treated as second-class customers.

As you are aware, you have the legal right (according to the Quebec Charter of the French Language) to have English signage in your stores, as long as French is predominant.   You should respect the Charter and all your clientele as well. You have acquiesced to the Office Québécois de la Langue Française (and previously to the Office de la Langue Française) for close to 40 years; it is time for a change.

It would make good business sense to have your signage visible in both French and English.  Those who find bilingual signage an 'irritant' are hardline national-sovereignists, a great minority in Quebec.

You may also wish to tell your staff that they do not have to give the Anglophone/Allophone community a lesson in geography. We know we live in Quebec, so having some of your staff tell customers that <> is really not necessary nor welcome.

Respectfully yours,
XXX XXX

XXX, QC
 

William Johnson: Parties continue to play politics with unity | National Post

William Johnson: Parties continue to play politics with unity | National Post

'[Mulcair] said: “Cette offre politique demeure au cœur de notre
approche auprès des Québécois,” this political offer remains at the
heart of our approach to Quebecers. So clearly the NDP’s doctrine on
secession is not obsolete or merely marginal. It is at the heart of the
Faustian bargain that Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair proposed to
Quebecers: vote for us instead of the Bloc Québécois and we will deliver
in return a guarantee that Quebecers can secede unconditionally if that
is what they want.'

Service in English is not a legal right in Quebec.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/english-complaints-to-language-police-okay-ombudsman

Michael Bergman, a lawyer who specializes in Quebec language laws, confirmed service in English is not a legal right.“Contrary to what I think many anglophone Quebecers believe, they have no right at all to receive a response in English. It is strictly a courtesy,” he said.
The language charter specifies if a citizen communicates to the government in a language other than French, it “may respond in that other language. But it doesn’t say that they must,” Bergman said.
“There is no constitutionally protected right for an anglophone to receive communications from the Quebec government or its bureaucracy,” he said.
The only areas where the right to speak English is constitutionally enshrined are the National Assembly and the courts, Bergman said.

SEPARATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE:

 Peter McKenna of The Chronicle Herald writes: “On the issue of any unilateral declaration of independence, the law is succinct: ‘Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.’  It goes on to state categorically: ‘Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that, in Canada, the secession of a province, to be lawful, would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, that such an amendment would perforce require negotiations in relation to secession involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the government of Canada.’ … Since provincial consent for a constitutional amendment codifying Quebec’s right to secession is highly unlikely, any future PQ government could only secede unilaterally by, in effect, breaking the law or through unconstitutional means.”

William Johnson: A return to Meech Lake’s constitutional fairy tales

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/william-johnson-a-return-to-meech-lakes-constitutional-fairy-tales

So Quebec provincial Liberal Leader Philippe Couillard wants to lead us back to the bogs and quicksands of Meech Lake. Non merci.
Couillard, like Robert Bourassa before him, thinks blackmail will serve Quebec’s ends. On Saturday, in concluding a party meeting, Couillard promised: “A [Quebec] government that I lead would not participate in a conference dealing with Senate reform until that agenda contains explicitly the recognition and the discussion of the five historic conditions of Quebec.”
The five constitutional amendments of the 1987 Meech Lake accord included the recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society,” with that distinctiveness to be promoted by the Quebec government. It offered Quebec new powers over the selection of immigrants and appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, allowed Quebec to withdraw with compensation from federally-initiated shared-cost programs, and gave Quebec a veto over constitutional change to major institutions, such as reforming or abolishing the Senate.