Keeping it Real…

Keeping it Real… header image 2

Federal NDP Stabs Canada in the Back

January 31st, 2013 · 40 Comments

At my strata condo’s upcoming Annual General meeting, more than two dozen resolutions will be put before the owners, updating our bylaws, changing some fee structures and setting new rules to govern our future.

Under laws imposed on BC Strata Councils  by the government to ensure a clear majority if owners favour bylaw changes that affect them even in a minor way, TWO-THIRDS APPROVAL is required for any resolution before the change would take place.

And apparently similar CLEAR SUBSTANTIAL APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS govern stratas right across the country, including Quebec,  on even small changes like a 25-cent rise in the cost of using a strata’s washing machine to do a load of laundry.

But the federal NDP would allow Canada to be broken up by a simple 50-per-cent-plus one successful referendum vote!


And by the way, that wouldn’t be a 50-per-cent-plus-one vote by all Canadians … even though ALL across the centre country would be SUBSTANTIALLY affected and economically impacted on world financial markets …. but by a vote of those in just one province …to destroy Canada as we know it.

The federal NDP has tabled a Bill in the House of Commons that would make a 50 per-cent-plus-one vote sufficient to break up the country.

Did you vote for that?

I sure did not.

Current law, under Canada’s Clarity Act, requires a “clear” vote on such a substantial issue … and that’s the way it should be.

Most people in BC., and I dare say many other provinces, think that if, say, Quebec goes, the rest of us won’t be affected …and could even gain financially.

It certainly would relieve taxpayers across the country of the billions we all send to Quebec each year through our taxes in equalization grants, subsidies, grants, contracts … and just plain political graft, that awards them more power in Ottawa than their population or comparative economic strength would warrant.

But it’s not that simple: such a massive breach would likely affect Canada’s credit rating, investment stability, interest rates (got a mortgage?), the dollar and many other economic factors.

Which makes it even more incredible that the Official Opposition amateurs would so flippantly propose legislation that could have such a devastating ECONOMIC impact on all Canadians …not to mention the love many have in their hearts for this great united country itself … coast to coast.

This is just the latest pandering to Quebec nationalists and even Quebec separatists to come out of the geniuses now running the federal NDP.

And what’s even worse?

Watching BC’s lick-spittle NDP MPs continue to see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil as the people of their province … and now their country … get shafted over and over again by their “new” anti-democratic party that now clearly represents Quebec, its far left radicals, the separatists … and not the nation.

I realize many NDP supporters who read this blog will NOT like this new reality.


Tell your party; let your MP know how you feel about this betrayal of sense and responsibility; and DEMAND they start speaking out and standing up … for you and the country.

Instead of just lining their own pockets, enjoying the perks of their padded lives in Ottawa, and watching their mounting pension plan benefits mount … while turning their backs on their country.

Harv Oberfeld


Tags: British Columbia · National

40 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Gumby // Jan 31, 2013 at 11:51 am


    That stripe on your back is showing, political pandering by a political party, such a shock.

    “stabbed in the back”

    While Harper stabbed us in the back, the front, the side, he stabbed wildlife, future retirees, pensioners, healthcare users.

    And he flushed Democracy down the toilet.

    And I believe I`m correct in saying this, you stated some time ago.

    “I like Sun News and Ezra Levant”

    Somehow that doesn`t surprise me.

    (Response: Interesting how you failed to address the issue: attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the subnject matter is a tired old cliche. And by the way, I am No follower/adnmirer of Sun TV News, but sometimes I do agree with Ezra Levant and sometyimes I disagree. So? h.o)

  • 2 D. M. Johnston // Jan 31, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    I was gob-smacked when I heard this. Really, is Mulcair sane? Is Dix sane supporting this?

    I fear the NDP today is not the NDP of yesterday and even though I am a leftie by heart I just cannot vote for this lot as they really do not give a damn about the country (mind you neither do the Liberals or Conservatives), instead sell their political souls to the Quebec taxpayer.

    Anyone supporting this drivel is no lick spittle, they are Quislings, who will sell their country out for political power.

    Memo to Adrian Dix: You had better distance yourself from Mulcair and quick or you will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

    (Response: My understanding Dix does NOT support it. He has been quoted as favouring the Clarity Act…which would require a clear majority, not 50% plus one. I sure hope that’s correct. But the fact that you … who watches politics very closely …. think he supports it is bad news for the BC NDP and they’d better make it VERY CLEAR VERY SOON before it runs away from them. ..the alternative is exactly the type of think that could cost the provincial NDP the BC election! h.o)

  • 3 Diverdarren // Jan 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    I don’t see a problem of an Act that defines the ambiguity of what a “clear vote” equates to. Majority rules is a principle of our democracy, and 50%+1 has been the standard for our society. The BNA [1867] Act was a 50+1 type decision; if it’s good enough for the creation of the country it stands that it should be good enough for the dissolution of the country.

    Anyways, the Supreme Court of Canada has said it would take a constitutional amendment to permit Quebec to leave. Meaning, an amendment must have 7 of 10 provinces approval. There is your “super-majority” safeguard that you ask for.

    The question is, would the rest of the country have any ethical platform to dictate the lives of Quebecois if they made the decision to leave the Confederation?

    That type of oppression of the free will of a minority leads to rebellion.

    (Response: While I reslly would like our country to remaqin united, I believe that if 60% or more Quebecouis voted to go, it would not be fair of other provinces to prevent them from doing so. h.o)

  • 4 dan // Jan 31, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    I highly doubt Quebec is going anywhere. More of the same nonsense to extract more from the ROC.

    This will not assist the federal NDP with their numbers. It does reveal though the long standing complaint that federal political parties concern themselves only with upper/ lower Canada.

    If they do decide to separate the US will not tolerate any instability along that part of the border.

    This is also a move to reposition power back to those provinces after harper has taken the balance of power to a western province.

    (Response: I agree the vast majority of Quebeckers themselves have shown no interest at all lately in ther topic. Which makes Mulcair and the federal NDP’s stupidity in now raising the issue of making it EASIER for them to go even more ridiculous, foolhardy and dangerous. All the front page news it garnered will only awake and spur on the radical separatists. What fools the new breed of federal NDP are! They’re sure no friends of Canada. h.o)

  • 5 Gumby // Jan 31, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    The issue means nothing to me.

    Quebec can do what they like.

    BC should separate, especially if Harper continues with his domestic terrorism.

    I didn`t attack the messenger, there are so many REAL issues to worry about, not a private members bill going nowhere.

    FIPA is one

    Environment is another

    Many many more.

    (Response: Quebec’s leaving may mean nothing to a lot of people from an emotional sense..BUT we’d all better understand, despite the money we’d save in the endless giveaways to Quebec, it WILL impact the entire country in a much more costly way, as I said, on world investments markets (they run away from instability …unless oil is involved), municipal borrowing costs and thus local taxes, the value of dollar, mortgage rates etc. etc. so I’d bet you’ll care then! h.o)

  • 6 Henri // Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Enlighten me please, explain what is the difference between a 50-per-cent-plus one referendum vote! and Canada’s Clarity Act, which requires a “clear” vote on such a substantial issue. I have always assumed the clarity act was 50% +1 .
    Additionally when Quebec became part of Confederation ,did the citizens of Quebec have a referendum into its entry into confederation?

    I enjoy Sun TV News, and Ezra Levant and some times I also may disagree.
    The more news carriers there is ,the better and greater broad base news coverage for all of us.

    (Response: The Clarity Act does not specify a specific number…but states the result must show clear majority support. And 50% plus one vote sure doesn’t meet that criteria. Personally, I believe it should have to be 60% at least …still much lower than what is required to pass many other bylaw changes under our laws. h.o)

  • 7 Islander // Jan 31, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    Great post Harvey, and welcome back…

    I wonder if it is finally time to let them go? As far back as I can remember (six-ish decades), we have lurched from one crises to another, as Quebec has tried every trick in the book to secede from Canada and the Commonwealth.

    It doesn’t matter what they are offered in the future, neither their provincial governments nor most of their sitting MP’s, will ever be satisfied. Year after year, they have been bribed by the PM with a disproportionate percentage of our annual tax dollars. It has been money wasted.

    So many Canadians are so jaded with the whole sordid mess, they would likely be happy to see it over — like lancing an inflamed boil. If or when it happens, sure, it will hurt the country. But we already have a festering wound with them here. The breakup would be ugly and expensive — for both sides. Hopefully our PM at the time would ‘grow a set’ and see that they pay dearly, for breaking up our country.

    Just think — no more federal brown-nosing to Quebec. No more french on our cornflakes. No more french ‘double’ announcements on our airlines. No more bleeding of our tax dollars to Quebec. It would be short-term pain for long-term gain.

    Pretty cynical, huh? A lifetime of listening to Quebec politicians will do that….

    (Response: Anyone who reads this blog knows I have never shied away from kicking at Quebec’s racism, selfishness etc. BUT I think they are a very important part of the Canadian family; I support bilingualism; and I beleive we swhould everything reaqsonable to make francophones at home everywhere. And this country is the best place in the world to live … we should NEVER let it be torn apart without doing almost everything possible to keep it united. And a single 50% plus one vote is simply not good enough. h.o)

  • 8 paisley // Jan 31, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    Say Harv wasn’t the last 1995 separation referendum based on a simple majority?

    (Response: Yes.. put forward that way by the SEPARATIST government (would you expect THEM to set the margin of victory even one vote higher?)…and they even tried it with a twisted, deceitful question that didn’t even use the word “separate”. Surely we should expect more from a party that supposedly has the “national” interest at heart? h.o)

  • 9 harry lawson // Jan 31, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    great post,

    what we are seeing is a knee jerk reaction to the liberal leadership race.

    pandering to the former quebecois and ex liberals is playing russian roullette.
    i believe that this motion could be enough of an issue that harper could call a snap election.

    then lets see what happens to both the liberal and ndp in the standings.

    (Response: Making it all worse, it was not the people of Quebec who brought separatsim back to the forefront and the front pages of all Quebec newspapers: it was the FEDERAL NDP who lit that fuse! What imbeciles they are! h.o)

  • 10 Crankypants // Jan 31, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    Quebec has had two previous referendums. What were the number of votes required for the “yes” side to get their way?

    (Response: The Parti Quebecois .. in an attempt to secure victory … twisted and watered down the question. Instead of asking Quebeckers if they wanted separate, they asked if they would approve “sovereignty-assocation”. Huh? Kind of like getting a divorce, but still having sex whenever you want it! And of course, no surprise, the separatist government said that 50% plus one would be enough for victory. That’s why the Clarity Act was adopted in Parliament in Ottawa ..requiring a CLEAR question and CLEAR decision …no fuzzy wuzzy ambiguous questions. Ism’t is amazing that the FEDERAL NDP would now be satisfied by the same voting stance as the duplicitous, deceitful separatists???? Where are BC’s NDP MPs on this?????? h.o)

  • 11 morry // Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    I would not worry about Quebec any longer. they have been out flanked. They are a corrupt society and we in the rest of canada will no longer be blackmailed buy them. And the overwhelming majority of Quebeckers know this. They have it too by remaining in the dominion. As we are richer for it when they are our equal partners.

  • 12 Scotty on Denman // Jan 31, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    Oh, Jeez, Harvey…your anti-Quebec bias is showing and your NDP conspiracy theory is preposterous.

    NDP: those pocket-lining, traitorous, far-left, separatist panderers, those spittle-licking back-stabbers out to (just in case we don’t fully get your antipathy) “destroy Canada.” Holy cow!,

    And to think these “amateurs” would “allow” Quebec to secede if a majority want to! Why, they should have to run it by Harvey’s strata council first!


    It is permissible, if erroneous, to make out like Quebecois don’t also pay their taxes (Quebec is actually heavily taxed) for which the rest of us would be relieved to not have to cover. It is however completely fallacious to then argue the rest of Canada would be impoverished should a majority of Quebecois vote to secede. But that shouldn’t get in the way of a good rant, eh Harvey?

    It’s pretty clear by your consistent and regular Quebec bashing that you’re not exactly enamoured by our compatriots in La Belle Provence (well, at least 50% plus one of ‘em ; ) It’s a wonder you don’t encourage them to go if they’re so “evil.” What’s less clear, though, is your misunderstanding of the Clarity Act which you erroneously interpret as setting the margin of majority required for Quebecois to mandate their government to secede—the federal Act actually provides for the clarity of the referendum question, not the margin of majority, a threshold set by the provincial sovereignty.

    I can’t think of a better way of fomenting antipathy between Quebec and the rest of Canada than to symbolically impose a super-majority threshold on any secession referendum (and no, an endorsement from Harvey’s strata council wouldn’t help.) Besides, despite the fact that Quebec is already sovereign and has full authority to legislate any referendum threshold and to assume any mandate its voters give it, actually separating involves Constitutional laws to which Quebec is subject by way of BNA 1867, the Royal Proclamation 1763 part alone, because it requires treaty with First Nations (which most Quebec FNs as yet do not have) certainly means years of exceedingly complex court decisions and potential division of Quebec’s current territory since many Quebec FNs have proclaimed with clarity their intention to remain subjects of the Crown. The Clarity Act, referendum wording and the NDP’s bill are all rendered moot in this respect.

    Your bile explosions are often justified, Harvey, but in this case, I think, are misplaced, overblown and alarmist. You have unfairly singled Quebec out merely for subscribing to simple-majority democratic principle that every other province enjoys, tarred all Quebecois with the same separatist brush when it’s been shown time and again most are federalists and further denigrated our compatriots by insinuating they are freeloaders parasitizing the rest of Canada, an insult to the millions of hard-working, tax-paying citizens living in La Belle Provence. You also said some not-nice things about the Official Opposition, calling them all kinds of names that are completely unwarranted, something we’ve become accustomed to from Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

    Is that helpful? Is that “keeping it real”?

    (Response: Wow! Where to begin? My exposee of what the federal NDP is not because of any dislike of Quebec: to the contrary, it’s because I DO want them to stay part of the Canadian family. As for an NDP conspiracy theory…you said that: I did not. An actual Bill introduced in the House of Commons is REAL, not a conspiracy or even a theory. And no one …expcet you …have remotely suggested Quebec’s future should pass scrutiny of a strata council. Your comprehension clearly missed the point … that if any GOVERNMENTS’ LAWS require resolutions that can affect others require a 75% approval, why should such a major question, like the breakup of the country need only 50% plus one? Ridiculous. And frankly, I’m surprised that you don’t get that! h.o)

  • 13 e.a.f. // Jan 31, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    mulcair made the wrong move. 50% plus one gets you a civil war in many parts of the world. Something closer to 60% would be much more agreeable. It would then be a clear majority.

    Of course I don’t see Quebec leaving any time soon. They would have to be delusional to think things would improve in Quebec if they left Canada. Now there maybe some who believe in their decisions so much they are willing to take a lower standard of living but the rest, not so much.

    Then of course there would be the small problem of the exodous from Quebec. Many who live there, live in Canada. They might not be interested in living in a new Country based on a language.

    Those Quebecors who want to leave may vote so but what actually belongs to them and what belongs to the First Nations are two different things. It well be the First Nations people do not want to be part of a new country called quebec. I do not know how much of Quebec actually is traditional territory of the First Nations but it could be that quebec could leave, just not with a whole lot of land.

    (Response: Moves are already underway by the new separatist government to make it uncomfortable once more for anglopohnes and ethnics to live there as fully equal citizens. The goal is to get more to leave, so that if another vote does take place a few years down the road, the odds for the separatists will be improved. h.o)

  • 14 Islander // Jan 31, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Maybe it is time to let the people of Canada answer the question in a national referendum. The question should be simple:

    “Should Quebec be permitted to secede from Canada?”

    As with your strata corporation example, the majority should be 66.6% or greater ‘Yes’ vote required, to pass.

    I’ll bet that the vote would approximately 50% ‘Yes’.

    (Response: I don’t think anyone should vote on what “others” can legally do and I would support their right to separate if their vote waas clear. But I believe we owe it to our country to fight that possibility in every democratic way possible. h.o)

  • 15 chuckstraight // Jan 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    I might not like it- but that is what a majority is.
    39.8% isn`t a majority- but Harper sure acts as if he has 50+1.

  • 16 Ed Seedhouse // Jan 31, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    Name calling doesn’t strengthen your argument, Harv, it weakens it.

    Strip the names and the bile and the outrage away from your language and what are we left with. You disagree with long standing N.D.P. policy.

    With a large Quebec caucus it’s hardly surprising that such a resolution would come forward in parliament. They have the votes in Caucus to bring it forward.

    Now, we happen to disagree with the threshold. I think 50% plus one should be enough for the government of Canada to negotiate a dissolution agreement, you think it should be higher. What actual reasoned argument can you make to support your viewpoint? You don’t seem to me to have made one in your post.

    As for “betrayal”, what betrayal. This is long standing N.D.P. policy. The resolution ain’t going anywhere in a Conservative majority, and the public, if they think it important, can use this as a reason to vote for someone else in the next election, if it’s that important to them.

    If anything you should be hapy that the N.D.P. is not hiding their beliefs under a rock, but making it plain where they stand before the next election. That is surely a service to the democratic process.

    In my opinion.

    (Response: You’re right…I should not call them idiots, imbeciles etc. Let me correct that … their “actions” are idiotic and imbecilic etc.! There, that’s better. And they think Canadians will elect them to national power. What i*****! Ooops, sorry. h.o)

  • 17 Gini // Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    Quebec wants to separate from Canada; Maine wants to separate from the US. Why don’t we just make a trade?

    I know, I know…….I should stop being flippant, but I’m just so darn tired of this whole Quebec separatist crap. They’re not going anywhere, so why don’t we simply ignore them. Maybe they’ll get tired of threatening us if they think we don’t give a damn anymore.

    (Response: We’re ALL tired of it: most Quebeckers included. Which makes it really ridiculous that the federal NDP deliverately decided to stir it all up again! And of course, it’s now front page again in Quebec. Idio …oops, not supposed to call them names. h.o)

  • 18 Larry Bennett // Jan 31, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    I tend to agree with Islander, in most of this. I have no respect for either bi-lingualism or bi-culturalism or multiculturalism. The country has a majority English speaking population,and the majority should win this little argument with a simple majority. Quebec lost that war, and we act like we owe them something. We owe them nothing! If I do not want to live in a polyglot country, I have a right to oppose doing so.
    But it is all hooey anyway, because Quebec isn’t about to give up all the benefits they get presently, though I think it is time to remove these benefits and I hope that Mr. Harper just might be the man to do it; after all, he would no longer need to pander for their votes! But I agree with Harvey on the possibility that the NDP may have a suicide compex.

    (Response: Good analogy: suicide complex. How could they possibly think such a bill will help them gain popularity (and power) with most Canadians? Or even most Quebeckers, who also had no interest in the separatist agenda and likely weren’t even thinking of it until the federal NDP rocketed it onto front page again. h.o)

  • 19 Kim // Jan 31, 2013 at 8:34 pm

    I agree with scotty, chuckstraight and Ed above.

    Full disclosure, I am of Native, French, and English descent. The French Canadian population tends towards social democracy. As do many in BC.

    When I hear tired old arguements from privledged white guys, the racism all starts to bleed together into a culture of hatred and division.

    Please stop promoting hatred.

    Too bad our referendum in BC on Electoral reform wasn’t satisfied with 50 + 1. Too bad 37% is a majority in Ottawa.

    (Response: The ones stirring up the emotions again are not those of us discussing WHAT the federal NDP did: it’s the federal NDP who introduced proposed legislation, when NO ONE except Quebec separatists they are once more catering to … something they will no doubt pay for dearly among most Canadian voters. h.o)

  • 20 Crankypants // Jan 31, 2013 at 9:34 pm

    If the provincial government of Quebec decides to hold another separation referendum, it will be they who decide the margin required. The feds can pass any rules they wish regarding such a vote but there is no way they can enforce them.

    That being said, I would prefer that the 50% + 1 should be based on the number of eligible voters, not the number of actual voters.

  • 21 Johns Aghast // Jan 31, 2013 at 10:20 pm

    Oh Harvey, give it up. This is as bad as your pro-pipelines/Enbridge rant.

  • 22 E. Forest // Feb 1, 2013 at 4:50 am

    I cannot understand why Mulcair did this— It seems as if he still thinks that he is a Quebec Liberal, defending primarily Quebec’s interests. Does he intend to turn the NDP into BLOC-lite?

    I do not make this comment as person opposed or favouring Quebec’s independence… I just cannot fathom what goes through Mulcair’s brain if he truly intends to be Prime Minister of Canada.

    If Mulcair wanted to please the Quebec soft nationalists, he could simply put himself where Harper puts himself. That and his leftist side, should have been enough to rally Quebec, perhaps even some Anglo ridings.

    But now? What game is he playing? I guess too subtle for my intellect….

    (Response: I agree completely. For an Opposition leader who aspires to win enough votes across the coubtry to become Prime Minister, it was a truly IDIOTIC move. As Larry wrote: “suicidal”. But why? How could the caucus support this and not stop it behind closed doors? Where are BC’s MPs????? Where are the party strategists? And now, where are the voices of NDP supporters who should be speaking out LOUDLY demanding this Bill’s withdrawal, instead of just going along in silence. Pathetic. h.o)

  • 23 D. M. Johnston // Feb 1, 2013 at 9:05 am

    Oh woe, woe is me, Harv has decided to take on Mulcair and the socialist hordes are aghast.

    As I said before, I am decidedly on the left side of politics and I find the NDP a party of wannabe’s.

    In my book, the NDP are no different than the Liberals and the Conservatives, the only difference is a different set of cronies and insiders to reward once elected.

    Federally, all three political parties prostrate themselves to Quebec, which enables the province to act as a spoiled child. Wa, wa, we want this or we will separate, is the order of the day in Canada and Mulcair is pandering to the spoiled child.

    If I were Dix, I would not be seen dead next to Mulcair or, as I have said before, may snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.

    I find it sad that Dix and other NDP types have such sort memories, like losing all but two seats in an election and the wrath of the BC taxpayer over the HST; a wrath so great it got rid of a much hated premier.

    And now a message to the NDP brethren, chill out dudes and don’t shoot the messenger, if you do, you might miss and shoot yourselves in the foot.

    (Response: I’d bet the BC Liberals are hoping Mulcair comes out here and campaigns beside Dix. But then again, do you think the local media will really go after them HARD on this? By April, I’m sure the national media will have forgotten all about it … and most of those from Quebec are so left wing and separatist sympathetic, they’ll deliberately ignore it. h.o)

  • 24 Gary T // Feb 1, 2013 at 9:21 am

    The federal NDPs power base is in Quebec, so this is to be expected. Too bad for them that they will lose MPs from the rest of Canada and once again become a minor noise in Parliament.

    (Response: I think you’re right in both assessing their present status and current future prospects. But surely they can’t be that out of touch with the rest of Canada? And again, where are BC’s NDP MPs??? h.o)

  • 25 Laura // Feb 1, 2013 at 11:11 am

    As Chantel Hebert said in the Star this morning, the NDP’s position is not much different than Harper’s.

    It also sets a clear number instead of being murky. Ask the other parties what their number is, they’ll say they don’t know. Obviously calling it a “clarity act” is nonsense.

    And lastly, good luck keeping Quebec in Canada if 65% vote for separation and someone tells them they need 66% or some other silly number someone dreamed up. Quebec should decide its own future.

    Try and keep it real in future Harv, because on this one you’re in fantasy-land.

    (Response: Hey, keep it real! It is NOT Haroer’s position thatv 50% plus one is good enough. I’m not a fan of his on many topics, but at least let’s not attribute positions to him he has NOT taken. Where is he quoted as saying 50% plus one would be good enough? Seems like you’re the one in fantasy land. As for the 65%, we agree: it would be foolish for the feds or other provinces to try to block secession of any province that voted so strongly to leave. h.o)

  • 26 Ed Seedhouse // Feb 1, 2013 at 11:18 am

    (Response: You’re right…I should not call them idiots, imbeciles etc. Let me correct that … their “actions” are idiotic and imbecilic etc.! There, that’s better. )

    Not much. You are still using names to “strengthen” your argument (or so you seem to think – we’ll have to agree to disagree about that). Calling actions names is hardly any better than calling the person who takes them names. Name calling is name calling no matter to whom or what it is applied.

    Either way you are using emotionally loaded language to give (or try to give) your point of view greater weight.

    I still see no actual argument behind your position. I am comfortable with you having your position and me having mine. But if you want me to change mine you’ll have to give me a reasoned argument as to why your position is the better one.

  • 27 G.J.W. // Feb 1, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    This country is rotten to the core with corruption. BC and Quebec are in a, non-stop competition for the top spot of, the most corrupt province in Canada. In this country, corrupt thieving Politicians, are rewarded for their dastardly deeds. Gordon Campbell twice lied and cheated to win his electios too.

    Canadians don’t own the resources, nor the resource jobs. My son is an Engineer. I told he and his University chums, to apply for work overseas, to a country that really needs technology.

    At one time the thought of Canada splitting, was a disaster to me. For some reason, this thought no longer bothers me. Any province that really doesn’t want to stay in Canada, should leave. Otherwise, there is always a bone of contention.

    Canada is no longer Canada, to me anymore. Six members of my family, served in WW11. This is not the Canada, they fought for. I have just stopped caring.

    (Response: But that’s just it: we must NOT stop caring or speaking out. That’s what those who will destroy everything that has taken a hundred years to build want. Yes, Canada has its problems and its strife..but anyone who travels the world always comes home understanding we still have much better than almost anywhere else. So even if we don;t like some things we swee, we have to keep standing up and speaking out…and take the heat …because for every naysayer who will put you down for that, tens of thousands can share your views and be motivated to stand up/speak out too. AND THEN politicians and governments DO listen. h.o)

  • 28 Laura // Feb 1, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Harv, you said 65% would be enough for you even though that’s less than your strata council requires. And you say 50% + 1 is not enough. but you don’t seem to want to say what number would work for you.

    As for Harper, perhaps you know what number he has said works for him? Because no one else in Canada seems to have heard him say it.

    Clarity? Not so much.

    (Response: For me, personally, I’d say minimum 55% voting Yes on a CLEAR question of full SEPARATION… not some fuzzy wuzzy sovereignty-association …should trigger the process of a) trying to negotiate a new deal which would satisfy both sides or b) respecting a province’s decision to go, subject to an agreement on debt load, assets and other financial obligations/dealings. h.o)

  • 29 Laura // Feb 1, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Okay, so 55% is keeping it real and 50%+1 is the stuff of idiocy.

    And if Quebecers voted 54% for separation the government of Canada should say no.

    I don’t buy either one but its your blog.

    (Response: When you have almost six million potential voters, there can be a huge difference in numbers between 55% approval and 50% plus a single vote … in correctly assessing any CLEAR result (along with counting mistakes, spoiled ballots, recounts etc.). h.o)

  • 30 13 // Feb 1, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    Harvey, to paint Mulcair as sleazy would be letting him off the hook. I wonder what he would have done for BC if we had given him official opposition status? Maybe a bridge to Vancouver Island. No price to high as long as he gets to be a somebody.

    (Response: I don’t think I called him “sleazy” on this one: but he, his caucus (where are our BC NDP MPs???) and their strategists have made a terrible political mistake that I suspect will hurt the NDP nationally …and they will have no one to blame but themselves. h.o)

  • 31 Crankypants // Feb 1, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    You keep on asking where are the BC NDP MPs. I would suggest in the same place asa the BC Conservative MPs regarding the Kits Coast Guard Station. Obeying their respective leaders by imitating fenceposts. What’s worse is that BC will get to send 6 more fenceposts to Ottawa come next federal election.

    Our governance is nothing but a joke.

    (Response: Sad, but true. I don’t know why it is but when I worked on Parl Hill, it was always EASY to find Ontario, Quebec, Martime MPs who spoke out LOUDLY for their provinces, defending their rights and interests, even if their party was in government. BC MPs were great, fighting publicly for BC’s interests when in Oppostion … but then falling oh so silent once part of the governing party, whether Libs or Tories. The NDP BC MPs are something quite different …even in Opposition, they have FAILED to speak out or stand up for BC (Wrong? Show me the quotes!!!) … whether on this latest rollover to the separatists, on protecting BC’s right to equality in qualifying for Supreme Court appointments or even giving us our basic fair number of seats in the Commons proportional to our population. Total sellouts in my view, lining their pockets while caving in and silently giving away BC’s basic rights. h.o)

  • 32 Larry Bennett // Feb 2, 2013 at 7:09 am

    Someone once said: There be three silent things – the falling snow … the hour just before dawn … and the mouth of one just dead! — oh yes, and Adrian Dix in full campaign rhetoric!

  • 33 E. Forest // Feb 2, 2013 at 7:39 pm

    My own personal take is that there are no more true separatist party in Quebec: all parties are part of a good cop and bad cop routine whose purpose is to play a kind of North Korean game with the ROC—equalization has turn Quebeckers into expert leeches. As a Quebecker, I am quite depressed by this but I see it when I talk to relatives— most federalists and separatists alike only vote according to Quebec’s interest when they consider a federal MP. It is no surprise that true separatists like the late Bourgeault, dropped out of politics when the PQ took over….

    Mulcair seems as if he wants to elevate this game to the federal level: BLOC bad, NDP good— so better give us what we want…

    Additionally, talking to Laura, if a clear majority is 50%+1 to a yet unknown and probably twisted question, what is an unclear majority for Mr. Mulcair? 50%+1 of the pure laine only? Or 55% but pure laine votes count for 100%, Old Anglo Loyalists 80% and the rest vote in your country of origin???

  • 34 Laura // Feb 3, 2013 at 1:01 am

    E. Forest, what is an “unclear majority”?

    50% + 1 is a majority in anything.

    And once you decide that a minority should decide Quebec’s future you’ve got a problem.

    Telling a 52% or 53% that voted for separation that a majority isn’t enough is not going to happen. Try that at home, have a vote to see what channel you watch where the minority rule. Tell me how it turns out.

  • 35 13 // Feb 3, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Numbers? How about these for a seperate Quebec.
    0 equalization payments
    4new boarders
    0 moneys to pay for first nations
    100% of your very own medical sevices
    100% of your very own defense budget
    o leverage to extort Canadians
    Any number of official languages they please
    One new president. Mulcair

    (Response: Actually, the first nations may have something to say about the question or whether they would allow ANY of their lands to be included in a new separate Quebec! What if they wanted to stay in Canada…or even have THEIR own state! Surely Qubec nationalists would have to understand and grant THEM independence too. LOL! h.o)

  • 36 Scotty on Denman // Feb 3, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Many of the comments remind me of the vote recount in Etobicoke because their notions of what is exactly a majority seem almost statistical. Recall that vote counting, no matter what threshold needs to be met, is precisely that: counting, not sampling. I would have thought it common knowledge that the vote count is an exact number, not an estimate nor average based on some number or size of samples, replete with statistical deviations and margins of error. There are no half-voters and therefore no half votes; if a referendum was to turn on the count of one vote, regardless of the threshold, it is exactly that number that made the difference. That’s the beauty of our hand-counted, publicly scrutinized paper ballot voting system: all ballots are accounted for because a paper trail exists and recounts are possible. Registration at the voting place also verifies the if the voter is eligible or has already voted, none of which is possible with mail-in or online voting (and why these latter systems are fraught with veracity problems.)

    One would think therefore that recounts would decisively confirm the results of any election by arriving at an exact number yet, as the Etobicoke dispute showed, the discrepancy, which had to be legally forced by court order, was settled statistically. Shameful as that is (in light of the concurrent “robocall” issue, elections Canada should have shown extra vigilance, not intransigence), the most disturbing aspect was the use of statistical methods to settle the matter instead of an actual recount (as I recall a sample of 10% of polling stations generated the decisive number–in this case the Conservative MP retained his seat.)

    I don’t know why this complete abrogation of our tried and trusted voting rules didn’t foment the kind of emotional reaction as the 50%+1 ruckus because if the Etobicoke case sets a precedent and we get election results that are statistically derived, every election will be as suspect. Don’t forget: statistics (the “art” of) is like a bikini: what it reveals is very interesting; what it conceals, vital.

  • 37 CGHZD // Feb 5, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    The rest of Canada should be voting to see if we want to keep Quebec in confederation. If they left tomorrow the sun would still rise in the east and set in the west and all of Canada would be better off without them.
    We have the most diabolical asshole in our history running Canada that got in with 39 % of the vote from those that bothered to vote and your worried about the jerks in Quebec leaving with a 51% mandate…… what BS. what would you say if 50% showed up to vote in a referendum and the vote showed 75% to leave, would that be OK with you?

    (Response: Yes…if only half voted and well over 50% decided to go, too bad for those who couldn’t bother to vote. As for compsaring the rule to Harper’s 39%, that’s a totally ridiculous red herring. In an election, there can be several parties, so getting over 50% of everyone that votes is almost impossible these days, except in very rare situation or unless you bring in a runoff system. But a Yes or No vote is very different…and I can’t help you if you don’t understand why. h.o.)

  • 38 Seven // Feb 6, 2013 at 1:09 am

    Dix respectfully disagrees with Mulcair:

    (Response: Yes…that was my interpretation too of his stance..but I think HE and the BC NDP should make that MUCH clearer to BC voters. h.o)

  • 39 kootcoot // Feb 7, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    Harvey, I wonder if you boycotted your classes in arithmetic and mathematics. I regret to inform you of the fact, but 50% + 1 of a number of objects (in this case votes) is a clear, actual majority. Frankly, a clear majority could be 50% + <1 (or less than one, since you may have missed that use of < while missing the definition of a majority) as if we had an odd number of objects the majority would be less than 50% + 1.

    ie. if you had 11 objects, 6 would be a majority

    yet 50% is 5 1/2, therefore 50% + 1/2 would yield a majority.

    As a journalist (which in your time was a type of writer, who should be educated in the use of words, if not math) you should realize what you are talking about, with sixty percent, two thirds, whatever, is a SUPER MAJORITY. A super majority is what enables the absentee filibuster in the US Senate and thus allows gridlock even though the dems have at least a 55% majority there. It also doomed the STV vote to defeat a few years back in BC.

    Actually as some above pointed out, the Clarity Act was more about clear wording of the question (unlike Craig James' wording of the HST question, though the voters of BC weren't as dumb as the BC Libs hoped) that trying to re-define mathematical terms.

    And as Chuck Straight above mentioned, I'm much more disgusted by Stephen Harper's definition of less than forty percent as a real majority mandate. That is more important than NDP or Quebec bashing, by far!

    I vote for Kim above for most intelligent comment on this thread and find the following worthy of repetition!

    “When I hear tired old arguements from privledged white guys, the racism all starts to bleed together into a culture of hatred and division.

    Please stop promoting hatred.

    Too bad our referendum in BC on Electoral reform wasn’t satisfied with 50 + 1. Too bad 37% is a majority in Ottawa.”

    (Response: It’s not the mathematics …it’s the principles involved. Talk is cheap, especially in the blogosphere, but I like to think the extremely serious and precarious matter of breaking up this country should require a LARGER percentage approval than 50% plus one vote … especially when the law now requires a 75% approval to change a strata condo bylaw to raise the price of doing coin wash laundry by 25 cents. h.o)

  • 40 teririch // Feb 8, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    I can’t believe that there are commentors on this site actually supporting this idiocy.

    Take 2 seconds and try to consider the long term implications – what it would do to Canada as a whole.

    (Response: I agree. But as I’ve said before talk is cheap on the blogosphere: people can say/oppose/support all kinds of things without ever having to really pay the price for what they say. Fortunately, though, there are more than enough moderates on all sides in Canada to save us from the others. h.o)