Article content continued

Just like the Bloc, the NDP argues that a majority of 50%-plus-one is the only valid rule in a democracy. Yet even the NDP requires a two-thirds majority to amend its own constitution.

Just like the Bloc, the NDP argues that in a referendum based on a question selected by a secessionist government, a majority of a single vote would be enough to trigger Quebec’s secession, however unclear the question or uncertain the majority. This runs directly against the 1998 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the secession reference, and The Clarity Act, which the NDP once supported.

Just like the Bloc, the NDP argues that accepting such a lack of clarity is a mark of openness toward Quebeckers. Sorry, but considering it acceptable to expose us Quebeckers to a confused and confusing attempt at secession is anything but a mark of openness toward us. On the contrary, defending our rights means guaranteeing that we will never lose Canada unless we clearly want to. We were guaranteed this “right to Canada” by the Supreme Court. Demagogic politicians cannot take that right away from us. Ed Broadbent understood that very well.

Against all logic, the NDP argues that its position is in keeping with the Supreme Court opinion. The only NDP MP to denounce that argument as absurd is Roméo Saganash, who represents the Quebec riding of Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou. If the Court thought that “50% plus one” would be good enough to trigger secession negotiations, why did it mention the words “clear majority” at least 13 times in its opinion? Why did it also refer to “the strength of a majority”? If 50%-plus-one is a clear majority, what constitutes an unclear majority?