The Bloc Paradox

[Michael Hardner]

Globe Article from Lawrence Martin

The Bloc, it can be mischievously argued, has served the cause of a united Canada. Rarely over the past half-century has Canadian unity been as solid as it is today. It may well be that the Bloc, with its imposing fed-baiting presence in Ottawa, suffices for many Quebeckers as their instrument of sovereignty. It gives vent to pride, to autonomist passions. It wins concessions for the franchise.

Wonderful article here from Martin about the BQ's current rut. It appears that Quebec has its faux sovereignty already with the BQ who can steadfastly stand by Quebec and support whichever federal party kowtows to it enough.

The remaining federal parties are doomed to get along unless one of them gets popular enough to win all or most of Ontario.

Thoughts ?

[Sir Bandelot]

Gilles Duceppe is probably the best leader out of all the parties right now. Too bad most of us cannot vote for him

[eyeball]

It was the Bloc's semi-inclusion in a proposed coalition government last fall that speeded the coalition possibility to its death.

The semi-inclusion of a party that represents a constituency that regards itself as being semi-included in the country seems like a natural enough development. Its not like they're ever likely to be the leader of that coalition. As far as I'm concened and in lieu of proportional representation, Quebecers are getting the greatest amount of representation they can for their province at both the federal and provincial level. Perhaps the rest of us should take a cue and vote more along regional lines too. I think this would be a refreshing change from voting along the same old party lines.

Long live the era of minority governments I say.

[Alex Moore]

I would agree on a cultural level that the "bloc paradox" makes sense. But you cannot over look the fact that the Bloc is still a separatist party regardless of the outcome.

[Sir Bandelot]

Long live the era of minority governments I say.

I prefer a liberal majority (with a decent leader) as opposed to a conservative minority with the liberals on their knees.

Genuflecting before Harper, no less

[Keepitsimple]

I prefer a liberal majority (with a decent leader) as opposed to a conservative minority with the liberals on their knees.

Genuflecting before Harper, no less

You continue to make that very clear. Good luck.

[Sir Bandelot]

You continue to make that very clear. Good luck.

Oh really? I don't believe I've ever said that before, I am generally non-liberal.

[August1991]

I saw that column earlier today and shrugged it off. Thanks, Michael, for starting this thread.

There's a great paradox at work here, a rollout of unintended consequences. The Bloc successes have bred failure. The better the BQ does, the further it gets from its goal of sovereignty.

....

The Bloc, it can be mischievously argued, has served the cause of a united Canada. Rarely over the past half-century has Canadian unity been as solid as it is today.

...

Benefiting from the shrewd leadership of Gilles Duceppe and a smart, disciplined caucus, the Bloc has been able to address many of Quebec's grievances.

People say exactly the same about Bill 101. It killed the Quebec independance movement. IOW, Martin is saying nothing new here.

He is only saying that Canada's federal system adapts, changes and accommodates. (Rather than "survival", I have always found "compromise" as the key Canadian word.)

When the Bloc was founded, there was much internal debate about its existence. Did the revolutionaries in 1775 America send deputies to London? After Meech, I think many péquistes recalled the frustration of federal elections under Trudeau and the lack of an alternative party - other than abstaining. The Bloc was a product of the failure of Meech, and frustration with Trudeau.

Has the Bloc made Canada a stable, viable federal State? To ask the question is to see the absurdity of Martin's thesis.

But Meech? Mulroney was quoted recently as saying that we have achieved Meech by the back door.

I instead wonder: if Meech had passed in 1990, where would Canada be today? Would the Bloc exist? Or would Canada, as Trudeau predicted, have dissolved into regional fiefdoms?

----

Other random points.

Keep in mind that Lawrence Martin was the biographer of Chretien and remains a Chretien apologist.

The Bloc's success was among the factors that brought on the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

WTF? The Bloc can be credited for exposing this Liberal Party theft of taxpayer money.

The Bloc's strength can be seen in the way the rest of the country kowtows to their nationalist interests.

The Bloc started this perception in the ROC of kowtowing to Quebec? What of Trudeau and Frog Power?

The coddling of the BQ sees Canadian taxpayers subsidize the separatist party to the tune of millions of dollars to run its election campaigns.

Gimme a break. Quebec taxpayers subsidize their choice of federal party.

The Bloc is allowed to participate in the English-language debates while running no candidates outside Quebec.

I too have wondered about this. Why does English CBC invite Duceppe to the debates?

Just last week, a poll showed Canadians largely in favour of bilingualism. The Harper Conservatives might have expected to goad the Bloquistes and jack up the separatist appetite, but were intent instead on reviving the Western Canada-Quebec nationalist coalition that gave Brian Mulroney's Tories two majority governments. Their charm offensive imploded with their culture cuts in the last election.

Well, Martin and I can agree that a "Western Canada-Quebec nationalist coalition" is a viable federal power.

Heavens.