Has Quebec become irrelevant to the mainstream parties?

[Smallc]

Some of us have noted a change in the last 20 years in regionalism.

It is definitely greater now than ever, everybody sees the only way to get a nice slice of the pie is to fight hard for their share and more.

I didn't realize that Canada was only 20 years old. I don't know if you realize this, but regionalism was a giant issue when Canada was originally formed. I've been reading several of David E Smith's books, and that becomes abundantly clear.

[BubberMiley]

For God's sake, why are they called "Cree"?

Uh... because in Algonquian, they were called Kiristino. Sounded too Italian to some, I guess, so they shortened it to Cree.

[Smallc]

What possible reason would there be then for the grotesque imbalance in transfer payments to Quebec? No votes, no seats and billions going to a region not required for a majority... there would be little reason to keep paying them off.

So you think we'll kick them out? Over money? Only someone from Alberta....

The Constitution and various laws make necessary most of the things that you're talking about in terms of transfers. Also, Quebec gets LESS per capita than almost any other have not province, yet they are not the most well off of the have not (Manitoba is, yet we receive almost twice as much equalization) so this disproportionate stuff just isn't reality.

Quebec is a province, and it will continue to be treated as such.

[August1991]

Mulroney spoke better French than most Quebecers. He grew up in Quebec, understood them, and was as perfectly fluent as Trudeau was in English.

True.

Separatism is on the backburner for now, yet Quebec still elects plenty of Bloc MPs because they have done their job in getting a disproportionate chunk of federal resources to the province.

Your call.

Surely Quebec is not irrelevant to the mainstream political parties. They could all use 20 or 30 extra seats besides that they get in the rest of Canada, and they all make attempts at getting exposure in the francophone media, in staffing high profile Quebecers in key positions ect. Witness George Laracque last week! Or the conservatives appointing Jacques Demers to the senate a few months back.

True.

The bigger problem is that it's becoming harder to re-concile the interests and desires of Canada's regions.

I sort of disagree Edited August 17, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

Crois-tu que je n'ai rien à offrir sur le sujet? Restez assurer qu'il n'y a pas d'ésprit puritain ici.

Are you contesting that Québec is collectivist?

Comme les autres, tu peux bien poster ce que tu veux.

Mais les Québécois, collectivistes de nature ? Tu poses une bien bonne question. French Collectivists - is that an artistic style, according to Americans? Dunno.

Yet Americans speak of des Moines and d'étroit? What individualists discovered this new continent? WASPs?

-----

I have been wrongly flippant in this thread.

The Bloc has had a large effect on Canadan federal poltics. IMHO, the BQ is like the Italian Communist Party and Canadian federal politics are now like cold war Italian politics.

No, Quebec is not irrelevant to Canada.

Edited August 17, 2010 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

Comme les autres, tu peux bien poster ce que tu veux.

Mais les Québécois, collectivistes de nature ? Tu poses une bien bonne question. French Collectivists - is that an artistic style, according to Americans? Dunno.

Yet Americans speak of des Moines and d'étroit? What individualists discovered this new continent? WASPs?

-----

I have been wrongly flippant in this thread.

The Bloc has had a large effect on Canadan federal poltics. IMHO, the BQ is like the Italian Communist Party and Canadian federal politics are now like cold war Italian politics.

No, Quebec is not irrelevant to Canada.

Ah August, in my OP I wasn't asking if Quebec was relevant in an historical or emotional way to Canada. I asked if it was worth the money and resources to campaign aggressively for Quebec seats, considering how many are REALLY up for grabs! It appears that there is a hard, dedicated core of Bloc seats that they win every election. When the Liberal party fell into disfavour because of Adscam and such, their lost support seems to have gone to the Bloc rather than the CPC. Realistically, how many seats could Harper actually win? How many could Ignatieff?

Hence my question: Is it worth it?

Parties do not have infinite amounts of money. They always claim that they campaign hard in every riding because you need to cheer loudly if you are going to motivate your troops. However, when the back room boys start passing out the money for election signs and supplies it's only common sense that if a riding has been overwhelmingly won by your opponent for several elections you are not likely to have a chance! You do check to see if there has been some change that improves the odds, like an incumbent dying or having been involved in a big scandal but in a normal situation you just can't afford to throw money down a rat hole! So they find some "newbie" to be a placeholder candidate and they scrape up barely enough money to make an honourable showing but that's about it.

I was hoping to see some input from you August but I'm not really interested in an opinion from the heart. Rather, I'd like to hear your opinion on how many seats are truly available for a mainstream party to have a realistic chance of winning.That would tell us if Quebec truly represents a chance for a majority or if it's a carrot on a stick tied to a donkey's back, a carrot the donkey can never actually eat!

Edited August 17, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

Is the Globe reading Mapleleafweb?

The key impediment to a majority is the Bloc’s strength in Quebec. Gilles Duceppe just celebrated 20 years as an MP and, were an election held today, would likely lead his party to a majority of seats in the province for the seventh straight time.

Should Tories, Liberals and NDP give up on Quebec?

[Guy M]

Ah August, in my OP I wasn't asking if Quebec was relevant in an historical or emotional way to Canada. I asked if it was worth the money and resources to campaign aggressively for Quebec seats, considering how many are REALLY up for grabs! It appears that there is a hard, dedicated core of Bloc seats that they win every election. When the Liberal party fell into disfavour because of Adscam and such, their lost support seems to have gone to the Bloc rather than the CPC. Realistically, how many seats could Harper actually win? How many could Ignatieff?

Hence my question: Is it worth it?

Parties do not have infinite amounts of money. They always claim that they campaign hard in every riding because you need to cheer loudly if you are going to motivate your troops. However, when the back room boys start passing out the money for election signs and supplies it's only common sense that if a riding has been overwhelmingly won by your opponent for several elections you are not likely to have a chance! You do check to see if there has been some change that improves the odds, like an incumbent dying or having been involved in a big scandal but in a normal situation you just can't afford to throw money down a rat hole! So they find some "newbie" to be a placeholder candidate and they scrape up barely enough money to make an honourable showing but that's about it.

I was hoping to see some input from you August but I'm not really interested in an opinion from the heart. Rather, I'd like to hear your opinion on how many seats are truly available for a mainstream party to have a realistic chance of winning.That would tell us if Quebec truly represents a chance for a majority or if it's a carrot on a stick tied to a donkey's back, a carrot the donkey can never actually eat!

Are the major federal parties really campaigning harder in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada, and exhausting more money and effort than they would otherwise in the process? I haven't noticed this.

I don't think any seats held by the Bloc is out of reach by the other parties. Lucien Bouchard's old riding is now held by a conservative for example. But otherwise I think people in the rest of Canada have a false impression that there is a common will, or common conscience amongst Quebec francophone ridings. There isn't, and there is no more consensus on big political issues in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

Is the Globe reading Mapleleafweb?

Who cares ? Let's start the rumour that they are, and eventually they'll report it.

I can't read newspapers anymore after coming here anyway. There's no 'Oleg' in the Globe either, and if there were it would likely be a cartoon strip. A crazy off-colour cartoon strip.

[August1991]

It appears that there is a hard, dedicated core of Bloc seats that they win every election. When the Liberal party fell into disfavour because of Adscam and such, their lost support seems to have gone to the Bloc rather than the CPC. Realistically, how many seats could Harper actually win? How many could Ignatieff?

I had a discussion recently with a colleague about who would win the most seats: Trudeau or Duceppe? (We were having an Arnold Palmer v. Tiger Woods discussion.)

We both agreed that most Quebecers would choose Trudeau in a federal election.

----

IMHO, Harper has missed a golden opportunity - and if Ignatieff were smart, he would take it. Quebec voters are desperate for a respectable way to avoid this National Question. As Tony Blair and Mario Dumont put it, they want a Third Way.

[August1991]

I can't read newspapers anymore after coming here anyway. There's no 'Oleg' in the Globe either, and if there were it would likely be a cartoon strip. A crazy off-colour cartoon strip.

I usually flip to the comments - the New York Daily News comments are priceless. Indeed, I hate reading a physical newspaper now because there are no comments at the end of articles.

IME, the comments often provide more information/context than the original article.

Years ago, a British friend declared that the "letters to the editor" page was the best measure of a newspaper. (BTW, it's WASP tradition, popular in Quebec.) I stopped reading The Economist when they reduced their letters to the editor to one page, and placed it after their leaders.

Uh... because in Algonquian, they were called Kiristino. Sounded too Italian to some, I guess, so they shortened it to Cree.

Their name in French, Cri, is a more likely origin.

My point? The first Europeans to explore most of North America were French speaking, discovered as individuals. Collectivist? Quebecers are inveterate members of La Fronde.

Edited August 18, 2010 by August1991

[Visionseeker]

Comme les autres, tu peux bien poster ce que tu veux.

Mais les Québécois, collectivistes de nature ? Tu poses une bien bonne question. French Collectivists - is that an artistic style, according to Americans? Dunno.

Yet Americans speak of des Moines and d'étroit? What individualists discovered this new continent? WASPs?

-----

I have been wrongly flippant in this thread.

The Bloc has had a large effect on Canadan federal poltics. IMHO, the BQ is like the Italian Communist Party and Canadian federal politics are now like cold war Italian politics.

No, Quebec is not irrelevant to Canada.

The terminology I'm using is obviously ill-defined or certainly open to misinterpretation. The distinction I wished to make was that Québec's distinctive political culture is derived not from its "leftist" orientation (though it is arguably the most leftist/progressive province on the whole), but rather its openness to state intervention beyond a socialist/capitalist axis. Restrictive language laws and commissions on "reasonable accommodation" are not entirely compatible with liberal democratic principles. There are less inflammatory examples I could refer too, but as these don't get much coverage in media outside Québec so I'd have to offer some lengthy explanations for the benefit of the forum's wider audience (assuming anyone else cares about our little exchange).

There are a host of reasons why Québec is "different": language, religion, history (especially the Quiet Revolution), geography and, most importantly (in my opinion), legal tradition. Civil code and common law traditions can (and mostly do) accomplish equivalent results, but the way each institution achieves its ends creates differing impulses among legal practitioners which consequently influences how the polity at large views both the law and the state. I'm tempted to go on at length on this point, but I'll pull my comment back to your point above.

Québec is neither irrelevant to, nor incompatible with Canada. My offered corrections and challenges to the original poster should not be construed as my agreeing with him or his ideas, but rather an attempt to secure some agreement on the variables in play to have an intelligent discussion. Namely, that Québec's legal institutions necessarily favour collective rights and that while this isn't the predominant influence in common law, it too makes allowance for collective aims (e.g. affirmative action) as does our Constitution in its federalist composition and the rights enshrined under the Charter for religions, women, aboriginals and linguistic minorities.

Québec is not only compatible with and relevant to Canada, it is a strong and enduring influence on who were are and what we are to become.

Lastly, I'd like to express my utter frustration with your comparison of the BQ to the Italian Communist Party during the cold war as I now have to acquaint myself with the subject in order to understand/agree/disagree with the analogy. Where the HELL am I going to find the time?

Cheers

Edited August 19, 2010 by Visionseeker

[Jack Weber]

Speaking for Canada?

No, just offering a scenario that is certainly possible- a party attaining a majority with little or no seats in Quebec.

What possible reason would there be then for the grotesque imbalance in transfer payments to Quebec? No votes, no seats and billions going to a region not required for a majority... there would be little reason to keep paying them off.

The next question would b for Quebec-what reason would there be for the Bloc to Quebec voters. The reason they are popular is not their separatist base, it is that they bring home the bacon to the province and always have.

I respect the pragmatism of Quebec voters, they have done what worked for them and will again.

Correct assessment...

The BQ are the bagmen for the province...It's no longer about seperatism,it's about what they can get from Ottawa for Quebec,and on the surface,it seems it gets alot of money fom Ottawa...

[Visionseeker]

Their name in French, Cri, is a more likely origin.

My point? The first Europeans to explore most of North America were French speaking, discovered as individuals. Collectivist? Quebecers are inveterate members of La Fronde.

Ah, now it all becomes clear...

My labeling of Québec as collectivist addresses the current state of affairs with respect to the current state engaged in affairs. It does not deny that French history in North America is replete with examples of daring individualism (or that examples of such daring cannot be found in Québec today). I'm not the type to suggest that we French don't have a word for entrepreneur.

But then as much as now, equivalent feats of daring are rare in every culture.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Visionseeker

[Visionseeker]

Correct assessment...

The BQ are the bagmen for the province...It's no longer about seperatism,it's about what they can get from Ottawa for Quebec,and on the surface,it seems it gets alot of money fom Ottawa...

Me thinks you over-estimate the relative influence of an MP with respect to spending. For instance, when the Government of Canada has funds available for upgrading airports, they spend the money on eligible airports as determined by specific criterion. MPs have little to no influence should the airport in their riding not make the cut.

The money bags scenario does occur in Canada, but only when the MP in questions is a member of the governing party and either highly influential or occupying a highly important and competitive riding. It occurs in the form of the placing of a federal office in the riding (see Veterans Affairs in Elliot Lake Ontario as well as Veterans Affairs and Canada Revenue Agency in PEI. Or Public Works Superannuation, HRDC's Social Insurance Registry and the Firearms Centre in New Brunswick)

Québec has its examples (Taxation Centre Shawinigan, Cheques cutting in Matane), but none have spawned in BQ ridings since the BQ came to be.

Probably the biggest political weakness for the BQ is the fact that their presence all but rules out federal largess in the region.

[Jack Weber]

Me thinks you over-estimate the relative influence of an MP with respect to spending. For instance, when the Government of Canada has funds available for upgrading airports, they spend the money on eligible airports as determined by specific criterion. MPs have little to no influence should the airport in their riding not make the cut.

The money bags scenario does occur in Canada, but only when the MP in questions is a member of the governing party and either highly influential or occupying a highly important and competitive riding. It occurs in the form of the placing of a federal office in the riding (see Veterans Affairs in Elliot Lake Ontario as well as Veterans Affairs and Canada Revenue Agency in PEI. Or Public Works Superannuation, HRDC's Social Insurance Registry and the Firearms Centre in New Brunswick)

Québec has its examples (Taxation Centre Shawinigan, Cheques cutting in Matane), but none have spawned in BQ ridings since the BQ came to be.

Probably the biggest political weakness for the BQ is the fact that their presence all but rules out federal largess in the region.

Uh..Yeah...

1/3 of all the tranfer payment funds go to one province...

I'll give you 1 guess which one that is?

[Smallc]

Uh..Yeah...

1/3 of all the tranfer payment funds go to one province...

I'll give you 1 guess which one that is?

That's deceiving though. They get higher transfer payments than Ontario because they are far more have not....but they actually get less per capita than any other have not province other than Ontario. It's simply a function of their population and their lower per capita GDP that they get more money.

[Visionseeker]

Uh..Yeah...

1/3 of all the tranfer payment funds go to one province...

I'll give you 1 guess which one that is?

Did you make that figure up?

Yes, you did!

But beyond that, please explain how BQ MPs have a determining influence on transfer payments or equalization?

I'll save you the bother, they have none. Equalization payments are based on a formula that calculates the difference between the per capita revenue that a province would obtain using average tax rates and the national average per capita revenue at average tax rates. MPs have ZERO influence on this calculation.

[Wild Bill]

The distinction I wished to make was that Québec's distinctive political culture is derived not from its "leftist" orientation (though it is arguably the most leftist/progressive province on the whole),

PLEASE Mr. Visionseeker, don't support the use of that word - "progressive" in association with 'leftist'!

The 'new' definition of 'progressive' really bothers me. The left has deliberately chosen the word to describe themselves and their political philosophy. The problem is that it is not truly a definition but merely an opinion. It implies that 'their way' is 'progressive' so therefore views contrary to their own must, again by a (false) definition, be 'regressive'!

It only confirms everything George Orwell said about the Left, when he described in his book, 1984, how the Party had set out to control language in order to control the very thoughts of the population! We must use words to formulate thoughts so if the definitions we are taught only allow one point of view then thoughts 'heretical' to the ruling orthodoxy actually become impossible to conceive! That may be a bit of an exaggeration but only in degree. The thought behind the move is definitely the very same!

Doubleplusungood!

[bloodyminded]

Ah, now it all becomes clear...

My labeling of Québec as collectivist addresses the current state of affairs with respect to the current state engaged in affairs. It does not deny that French history in North America is replete with examples of daring individualism (or that examples of such daring cannot be found in Québec today). I'm not the type to suggest that we French don't have a word for entrepreneur.

But then as much as now, equivalent feats of daring are rare in every culture.

Very nice, VS.

[bloodyminded]

PLEASE Mr. Visionseeker, don't support the use of that word - "progressive" in association with 'leftist'!

The 'new' definition of 'progressive' really bothers me. The left has deliberately chosen the word to describe themselves and their political philosophy. The problem is that it is not truly a definition but merely an opinion. It implies that 'their way' is 'progressive' so therefore views contrary to their own must, again by a (false) definition, be 'regressive'!

It only confirms everything George Orwell said about the Left, when he described in his book, 1984, how the Party had set out to control language in order to control the very thoughts of the population! We must use words to formulate thoughts so if the definitions we are taught only allow one point of view then thoughts 'heretical' to the ruling orthodoxy actually become impossible to conceive! That may be a bit of an exaggeration but only in degree. The thought behind the move is definitely the very same!

Doubleplusungood!

There is some truth in what you say about "progressive" perhaps implying its opposite, much as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" can do.

But by the same token, we can argue endlessly about the self-indulgence inherent to words like "conservative," if we wish, since statist reactionaries (and there's another one!) always call themselves "conservative."

As for Orwell...he wasn't only talking about "the left." By most measures, he was himself a leftist, actually, though subject to the same (often good and fruitful) contradictions that besets everyone. While 1984 was based most obviously as a sort of caricature of the Stalinist SU, much of the novel's subject matter applied--and was meant to apply--to us as well.

For example, you can come across numerous examples of "doublethink" from self-styled freedom-loving Westerners...every day. Just by reading the news, or looking at what posters on MLW say. ("Doublethink" is actually a literal phenomenon, not a metaphorical caricature.)

Edited August 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Ah, now it all becomes clear...

My labeling of Québec as collectivist addresses the current state of affairs with respect to the current state engaged in affairs. It does not deny that French history in North America is replete with examples of daring individualism (or that examples of such daring cannot be found in Québec today). I'm not the type to suggest that we French don't have a word for entrepreneur.

But then as much as now, equivalent feats of daring are rare in every culture.

No I think your collectivist and statist labels are pretty right on and are indeed (mostly) off the left-right axis, which (in appearance) is why and how the BLOC operate, and have have been operating with, since their inception. It could be that the BLOC started out as a narrow purpose expression of an ideal which has either embraced to become - or was craftily shifted towards - more of a collectivist view with regard to federal issues.

In other words, Quebec, being a collectivist or statist polity, would naturally (or logically) lean toward federal representation that reflects that ethic when it failed to be expressed in the mainstream parties. If so, then relevancy is not the question, but inevitability is.

The interesting thing - and why Quebec is certainly not (and never will be) irrelevant to mainstream politics - is this ethic can be easily extended into other regions because Canada was born from the concept of collectivist or statist ideals in the first place. I believe those core beliefs are still there and transcend the petty politics of left/right, this-or-that region, liberal/conservative, etc. Perhaps we are now far enough removed from 'confederation' to require a review of it and it's meaning in relation to how federal politics operates and what we mean when we smugly say that our politics is all somewhat 'centrist.'

Maybe one day there will be a BLOC Canada party.

[bloodyminded]

No I think your collectivist and statist labels are pretty right on and are indeed (mostly) off the left-right axis, which (in appearance) is why and how the BLOC operate, and have have been operating with, since their inception. It could be that the BLOC started out as a narrow purpose expression of an ideal which has either embraced to become - or was craftily shifted towards - more of a collectivist view with regard to federal issues.

In other words, Quebec, being a collectivist or statist polity, would naturally (or logically) lean toward federal representation that reflects that ethic when it failed to be expressed in the mainstream parties. If so, then relevancy is not the question, but inevitability is.

The interesting thing - and why Quebec is certainly not (and never will be) irrelevant to mainstream politics - is this ethic can be easily extended into other regions because Canada was born from the concept of collectivist or statist ideals in the first place. I believe those core beliefs are still there and transcend the petty politics of left/right, this-or-that region, liberal/conservative, etc. Perhaps we are now far enough removed from 'confederation' to require a review of it and it's meaning in relation to how federal politics operates and what we mean when we smugly say that our politics is all somewhat 'centrist.'

Maybe one day there will be a BLOC Canada party.

This is very interesting.

And along a related line...were not "tories" and "whigs" at one time insults of a sort? (Maybe I should look it up myself........but I have heard this. )

[Shwa]

This is very interesting.

And along a related line...were not "tories" and "whigs" at one time insults of a sort? (Maybe I should look it up myself........but I have heard this. )

Do you mean being called a Bloc head? Or a tête carré? LOL, been there, been called that! Until I had a frank discussion with my accuser.

Otherwise, if a political party is a no-go, could we have a Canada Block Party? Maybe turn July 1st into something fun and neighbourly and at the same time collectivist...