English Canada must deal with the BQ

[August1991]

The simple fact is that people in Quebec will continue to send about 40 or 50 BQ members to Ottawa for the foreseeable future. (I once thought that the Conservatives were the only other federal party which could take seats from the Bloc but I think that is no longer possible.) The BQ is now a federal fixture.

What to do?

The federal Tories seem to think that a change in the electoral law will decrease the importance of federal parliamentary members from eastern Canada, and dilute Quebec MPs. I think that this is a serious mistake. Canadian history is not based on majority vote - it is based on respect for minorities.

----

The Bloc has existed for about 20 years. The Canadian federal parliament has yet to understand the consequences of this party. From now on, Canada is destined to have unstable, minority governments - until a federal politician/party is willing to compromise.

Are minority governments bad?

Edited April 28, 2010 by August1991

[Shwa]

English Canada must deal with the BQ

This is a somewhat confusing OP. How is "English Canada" supposed to "deal" with the BQ outside of the normal, legal channels? It seems that the BQ are being dealt with just fine as it is. They have a right to seats in Parliament as determined by the constituents in QC. The 35th, 36th and 37th Parliaments were Liberal majorities and the Bloc held seats then. So what's the problem?

[Keepitsimple]

The issue is not the existance of the BLOC - but the fact that for 20 years they have procured enough votes to get the 50 or 60 seats that disrupts Canada's history of mainly majority governments. 20 years is not a long time and things can change rapidly. There are several things that are currently bubbling that have the potential to reduce the popularity of the BLOC:

1) Gilles Duceppe is nearing retirement and no capable replacement is in sight. He's been a wily politician who carries the flag from the old sovereignist movement and bridges it to the modern "show me the money" Quebec approach. It will be very difficult to find a new BLOC leader who can maintain a hold on "old stock" sovereignists and yet appeal to a younger generation.

2) I visit Montreal 3 or 4 times a year and this year is the first time that I have seen articles that in a clear way, express that Quebec's social programs are unsustainable and are somewhat dependent on transfers from Ottawa (read: other provinces). The cat is out of the bag - Quebecers are taking the blinders off. It's been helpful that Maxime Bernier has been stirring the pot with a supporting narrative - but make bo mistake, the critique is coming from within Quebec.

3) The age factor: much of the sovereignist movement are older Quebecers......the passing of time will dilute the movement.

4) Immigration: the double-edged sword. Quebec needs French-speaking immigrants to bolster the population.....but they do not have the same allegiance to a sovereignist movement - if they have any at all.

5) Reality: younger quebecers are not naive. A soveriegn Quebec would create a french-speaking "country" within an ocean of English North America - without the protection of it's language by the Canadian government, without transfer payments, and the inheritance of a large portion of Canada's debt. It's young quebecers who better understand the realities - they are educated and have internet access to varying opinions.

6) MP's who cannot influence the government from the inside. A BLOC MP will never be a cabinet minister.

In summary, there are many factors that indicate the the BLOC may very well run it's course......one can only hope that it will be sooner rather than later.

[Dave_ON]

The issue is not the existance of the BLOC - but the fact that for 20 years they have procured enough votes to get the 50 or 60 seats that disrupts Canada's history of mainly majority governments. 20 years is not a long time and things can change rapidly. There are several things that are currently bubbling that have the potential to reduce the popularity of the BLOC:

1) Gilles Duceppe is nearing retirement and no capable replacement is in sight. He's been a wily politician who carries the flag from the old sovereignist movement and bridges it to the modern "show me the money" Quebec approach. It will be very difficult to find a new BLOC leader who can maintain a hold on "old stock" sovereignists and yet appeal to a younger generation.

This is probably the largest issue facing the BLOC at this juncture. It is also highly likely that in the absence of a suitable replacement many of the members would drift over to the NDP and a few to the LPC.

It never ceases to amaze me how the BLOC always seems to come back, do in no small part to Mr. Duceppe's leadership and ability to campaign effectively. He's actually managed to garner the respect of many English speaking Canadians; while they may not agree with his Quebec first philosophy, I think many people secretly wish they had a leader that was looking out for their interests as much as Mr. Duceppe does for Quebec.

[wyly]

It never ceases to amaze me how the BLOC always seems to come back, do in no small part to Mr. Duceppe's leadership and ability to campaign effectively. He's actually managed to garner the respect of many English speaking Canadians; while they may not agree with his Quebec first philosophy, I think many people secretly wish they had a leader that was looking out for their interests as much as Mr. Duceppe does for Quebec.

oh hell, I'd vote for Duceppe if the Bloc went federal...best leader in the house IMO...

[segnosaur]

The Bloc has existed for about 20 years. The Canadian federal parliament has yet to understand the consequences of this party. From now on, Canada is destined to have unstable, minority governments - until a federal politician/party is willing to compromise.

It is true that the existence of the Bloc has made obtaining a majority difficult. But that's not the only reason... remember that in the recent past we also seem to have a split between western prairie provinces (strongly supporting the conservatives) and Ontario (strongly supporting the Liberals). That did change in the last election with Liberal support in Ontario dropping, but under Chretien and Martin the Liberals seemed able to almost sweep Ontario ridings on a regular basis.

All you would really need for any party to gain a majority is to have a charismatic conservative who can win just a few more seats in Ontario, or a charismatic liberal able to appeal more to western voters. (I do feel like the former is a little more likely, but either is possible.)

Are minority governments bad?

They're both good and bad...

They're good in that it forces a certain amount of cooperation and provides a stronger voice for people who voted for the opposition parties.

They're bad in that it causes instability, makes long-term planning difficult, and may give more weight to "fringe" parties than they otherwise deserve.

Edited April 28, 2010 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

The issue is not the existance of the BLOC - but the fact that for 20 years they have procured enough votes to get the 50 or 60 seats that disrupts Canada's history of mainly majority governments. 20 years is not a long time and things can change rapidly. There are several things that are currently bubbling that have the potential to reduce the popularity of the BLOC:

1) Gilles Duceppe is nearing retirement and no capable replacement is in sight. He's been a wily politician who carries the flag from the old sovereignist movement and bridges it to the modern "show me the money" Quebec approach. It will be very difficult to find a new BLOC leader who can maintain a hold on "old stock" sovereignists and yet appeal to a younger generation.

Perhaps. Although it always seems like Quebecers find someone popular/charismatic enough to lead the independence movemen... Levesque, Bouchard, Duceppe.

3) The age factor: much of the sovereignist movement are older Quebecers......the passing of time will dilute the movement.

Of course, keep in mind that a lot of people thought the same thing prior to the 1995 referendum... The thought was that the population had changed since the first referendum, but the 'Yes' vote almost got the win.

5) Reality: younger quebecers are not naive. A soveriegn Quebec would create a french-speaking "country" within an ocean of English North America - without the protection of it's language by the Canadian government, without transfer payments, and the inheritance of a large portion of Canada's debt. It's young quebecers who better understand the realities - they are educated and have internet access to varying opinions.

Since when did facts enter into things?

Just remember these three words: People are idiots. (That goes for people outside Quebec too, so don't assume I'm just picking on them.)

The issue of things like transfer payments, debt, etc. had been discussed in the previous referendum too, so its not like Quebecers were ignorant of these issues. All they need is for someone charismatic enough to convince them "don't worry about the debt... don't worry about transfer payments".

Edited April 28, 2010 by segnosaur

[ToadBrother]

The Bloc has existed for about 20 years. The Canadian federal parliament has yet to understand the consequences of this party. From now on, Canada is destined to have unstable, minority governments - until a federal politician/party is willing to compromise.

Are minority governments bad?

I tend to agree here. While we had two regional parties, it at least allowed the Liberals to dance up the middle. The reunification of the Conservatives basically killed that loophole that had allowed Chretien to form majority after majority (who knows, maybe that wily ol' bugger new the jig was up and skipped down before he went down to defeat or went into a minority situation).

As to whether minorities are bad or not, it's a tough call. Strictly speaking, the Westminster system has evolved with the underlying concept of a two-party system. While most Westminster countries have some sort of third party, or multiple parties that occupy that position, their support has always tended to be in the 15-20% range, meaning they could still act as a spoiler at times, but only rarely could deprive one of the two leading parties of a majority.

Technically speaking, our constitution really has no problem with it. The government is selected by Parliament, and we could have formal coalitions, informal coalitions or vote-by-vote coalitions. Practically, we can see very clearly now that while some degree of stability can be achieved by a minority government, it greatly increases the antagonism, as well as tempting the governing party to undermine Parliament as a way of overcoming the inherent handicaps involved in trying to govern from a minority position.

I think reducing Quebec's fraction of the seat count could lead to an outright disaster. I can understand the longstanding dislike, particularly in the West, of the seat allotment system which basically undervalues the West while propping up the older Confederation partners. But this seems to me to be about as sensible as poking a sleeping viper with a stick. Since the failed 1995 referendum, separatism in Quebec has taken a back seat to more pressing problems. I think a lot of votes for the Bloc are not so much votes for separation as they are votes to assure Quebec has a powerful voice in Ottawa. However, if the Government starts basically trying to minimize Quebec, we're in for a world of hurt. It could reignite serious sovereigntist fires and end us back up in the hot seat we were in from the time of Mulroney's constitutional contortions until 1995.

[Topaz]

There is one thing to think about as it was point out on Tom Clark's show, if we go to electing senators, what happens when Quebec has the Bloc elected as sentors. The way it is now they don't even believe in Canada, only Quebec. I still think Harper made a big mistake as saying Quebec was a NATION within a Nation.

[Shwa]

TB says,

I think a lot of votes for the Bloc are not so much votes for separation as they are votes to assure Quebec has a powerful voice in Ottawa...

And I think this point tends to be lost in the emotional brouhaha over the Bloc having seats in Parliament. Obviously they can play both sides of the fence and push the federal side of their agenda perfectly well. For QC's unique position in the country, it is a good compromise even if some of that 'powerful voice' is more bark than bite.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Imagine what would happen if Ontario spawned their own federal party!

[Argus]

The federal Tories seem to think that a change in the electoral law will decrease the importance of federal parliamentary members from eastern Canada, and dilute Quebec MPs. I think that this is a serious mistake. Canadian history is not based on majority vote - it is based on respect for minorities.

Respect is a two-edged street. And no one deserves to be respected when they show no respect for others.

As for your snivelling about the new ridings out west and in Ontario - that is not a plot by the evil anglos to lower Quebec's power. It is a result of a growth in population based on immigration - which Quebec disdains - and making babies - which Quebec also disdains. You expect to have a quarter the seats in the house even as your percentage of the population continues to fall lower each year? Forget it.

Go ahead, separate. Become North America's Greece. Maybe the Americans will bail you out but I wouldn't count on it.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

The simple fact is that people in Quebec will continue to send about 40 or 50 BQ members to Ottawa for the foreseeable future. (I once thought that the Conservatives were the only other federal party which could take seats from the Bloc but I think that is no longer possible.) The BQ is now a federal fixture.

What to do?

The federal Tories seem to think that a change in the electoral law will decrease the importance of federal parliamentary members from eastern Canada, and dilute Quebec MPs. I think that this is a serious mistake. Canadian history is not based on majority vote - it is based on respect for minorities.

----

The Bloc has existed for about 20 years. The Canadian federal parliament has yet to understand the consequences of this party. From now on, Canada is destined to have unstable, minority governments - until a federal politician/party is willing to compromise.

Compromise what? The existence of the country?

[bloodyminded]

Go ahead, separate. Become North America's Greece. Maybe the Americans will bail you out but I wouldn't count on it.

If anything--if it were ever to come down to a choice--I think the Americans would side with the Canadians over the Quebeqcois anyway. Makes better business sense.

[g_bambino]

Compromise what? The existence of the country?

Huh? The existence of the country doesn't rely on the presence or absence of Quebec.

[Bonam]

Obviously the Bloc will continue to exist. Having a federal party representing the exclusive interests of Quebec has been hugely beneficial for Quebec, so why would they stop? If I was living in Quebec I'd probably vote for the Bloc, so that my province could keep getting more benefits, even though I'd have no interest in separation.

In the future I think it is quite possible that other provinces or groups of provinces will spawn their own federal parties. Seeing how hugely beneficial it has been for Quebec, the people of other areas of Canada will eventually realize how much they can benefit themselves from such a strategy.

[kimmy]

The Bloc has existed for about 20 years. The Canadian federal parliament has yet to understand the consequences of this party. From now on, Canada is destined to have unstable, minority governments - until a federal politician/party is willing to compromise.

What "compromise" is being offered? Is there some suggestion that Quebecers will go back to the old-line parties if the old-line parties will agree to ... something? And what would that something be?

And even if that offer were available, why should the rest of Canada be all that excited to see federal parties engage in any sort of barter to make the BQ go away?

A federal party might be putting itself in considerable peril if it were to pursue some "compromise" with Quebec if that compromise were perceived poorly in the rest of Canada.

Are minority governments bad?

We've had one for 4 years and people don't seem to mind at all...

In the future I think it is quite possible that other provinces or groups of provinces will spawn their own federal parties. Seeing how hugely beneficial it has been for Quebec, the people of other areas of Canada will eventually realize how much they can benefit themselves from such a strategy.

The only other province with the numbers to make a provincial party anything more than a curiosity is Ontario, and I doubt they'd actually go for it. Ontarians seem to identify first as Canadians, moreso than anywhere else in the country. The concept of regionalism is difficult for them to fathom.

-k

[Wild Bill]

So far support for the BQ seems shaky and no strong successor for Duceppe is in sight. Quebecers seem like anybody else these days. They're voting against some party rather than having a clear favourite.

Aging and demographics are also real factors. It's possible we are heading for a situation where the BQ fades to a weak rump but the PQ wins a solid majority, in the wake of disgust for scandal in the Charest government.

Once again I am struck by August's perspective on this issue. He's obviously a well read and logical man but he seems to have the universal Quebec lack of perspective on English Canada. Quebecers tend to think of the English provinces as one amorphous mass that all thinks the same way. This is dead wrong! Because of this blind spot, they seem to think that their only need is to negotiate with Ottawa, at a federal level. They never seem to understand that for whatever political party is running the country at the time of any separation agreement the very idea would be political suicide! English Canadadians would be angry and emotional. They would not be in the mood for any deal for Quebec, despite Bouchard claiming we would be forced to act in our own best interests.

So Quebecers seem to think that they could pressure a deal with Ottawa, even though that would cost the ruling party so many Anglo votes that they would fall from power. What's more, there would be no compensating increase in Quebec seats, because Quebec would be gone! It's ridiculous. After separation, Quebec would be just another foreign country to TROC. A foreign country that many of us held a grudge against, at that. She would have no more to offer a TROC ruling party than Bangladesh.

[Shwa]

The only other province with the numbers to make a provincial party anything more than a curiosity is Ontario, and I doubt they'd actually go for it. Ontarians seem to identify first as Canadians, moreso than anywhere else in the country. The concept of regionalism is difficult for them to fathom.

That is an interesting thought and partially true. I think Ontarioans see "the West," "the Maritimes" and "the North" as distinct regions within Canada, but see themselves (and QC & sometimes BC) in terms of provinces. This is why they might identify first as Canadians.

[bloodyminded]

That is an interesting thought and partially true. I think Ontarioans see "the West," "the Maritimes" and "the North" as distinct regions within Canada, but see themselves (and QC & sometimes BC) in terms of provinces. This is why they might identify first as Canadians.

That's interesting. If you're right, it's a bit of a blind spot in a way. I can't speak for the Maritimes as a whole (since we're not an amorphous mass), but having lived in NB my entire life, there's not even the faintest question that NB'ers see themselves as Canadian, not as distinctly "New Brunswickers."

[Smallc]

I woulds say that's also almost universally true for Manitobans...especially Winnipeggers.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Smallc

[bloodyminded]

I woulds say that's also almost universally true for Manitobans...especially Winnipegers.

I'm sure you're right. In fact, it appears to me that only Quebecers and Albertans tend towards a self-styled unique and special status, and hold an unreasoning resentment towards eveybody else. (Newfoundland is in a separate category, I think; they certainly don't come across as so self-righteous.)

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Bloc was a provincial response to Mulroney. They simply didn't like the right wing agenda, likely because they are more European in their political views. Perhaps more cosmopolitan is a better description. Unfortunately for the rest of the nation, that is an expensive decision, and fortunately for Quebec the entire nation gets to foot the bill for it. I am more of pay as you go kinda guy, if you can't pay for it then don't borrow to buy it. I know that is kinda backward but especially in political terms within the current financial environment it makes sense to me.

I will label the cause of our current financial problems on the Regeanomics of the 80's. Planning to finance debt through growth is fine for business, but it is not exactly functional when using the peoples money for a government. That would represent gambling in my view which is not where you want a government to go. Quebec has gambled and won, so my argument doesn't have much credibility, even so I think it is still valid. Quebec is a real problem spot within confederation, yet it should not be. When you read about how the system was designed to work you really begin to wonder how we got to the here and now of things. We are supposed to be equal partners in confederation, yet the way the system applies itself through Parliament that is proven very wrong. Numbers do the talking and democracy rules! We have not and never will be equals within confederation. The only cure for that problem is to empower the provinces to a much greater degree. Let the provinces determine their own fate, yet at the same time the entire concept of equalization looms over our heads.

The Bloc works for Quebecers because it puts them ahead of all other Canadians. Quebec first. They are not anti-Canadian but they view themselves as French-Canadians. They are different in their eyes, and they want to preserve that view, hence the support of the Bloc. No fools these folks.

Canada needs to change. It needs to embrace the political reality of Quebec. It is a nation within a nation, you simply can't tell them what to do. I order to deal with Quebec you need to keep in mind the First Ministers role in our society because that is where confederation really lives. It is where Quebec has only one voice and it is where all provinces are truly equal. The fed role in that situation is very limited, outnumbered as they are by the provinces. This is the flaw of Canadian federalism and it is why the federal government doesn't exactly embrace the process because the know they are vulnerable there. The provinces are really in control of things, and I think that is a good thing. So much so that I think it is the real answer to Quebec or even my own province of Alberta.

The Government of Canada has about as much power as we allow them to from all that I have read. The provinces are indeed limited in the areas they can control, but they can get together and force the issues if they want. Thaqt is what I hope eventually happens, its time to marginalize the feds.

[Argus]

The Bloc was a provincial response to Mulroney. They simply didn't like the right wing agenda,

Mulroney didn't HAVE a right wing agenda. It is highly doubtful you could have even called his government right wing. It had as many, if not more Left wingers in it than Right wingers. And its policies were middle of the road and often designed more to placate and suck up to Quebec than anything else.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Mulroney didn't HAVE a right wing agenda. It is highly doubtful you could have even called his government right wing. It had as many, if not more Left wingers in it than Right wingers. And its policies were middle of the road and often designed more to placate and suck up to Quebec than anything else.

Well said! In the end that was in fact proven out when they were soundly defeated. However, during their time they brought in the GST and NAFTA which were decidedly right wing in the implementation of those systems. Which may or may not have played into their demise.

They were determined to be too far to the right for the Quebec caucus which abandoned ship and formed the Bloc. I suppose it is a matter of perception.