Canada's Democratic Deficit

[August1991]

What about the (post-referendum) meetings at which government officials discussed getting the largest number of Liberals elected in Quebec? Isn't that kind of icky and partisan? Chrétien will have none of it: "Not having a national federalist party with a real presence in Quebec was a real problem." For him, the partisan game and the unity game in Quebec were indissociable. I might as well say this: I couldn't agree more. It is rather romantic to believe that Tories or Reformers were going to get elected in Quebec in 1997 and 2000 if Liberals didn't. No: the alternative to Liberals was Bloquistes. And every Bloquiste elected was counted as a winning condition by the people who were eagerly counting winning conditions in the late 1990s.

Paul Wells 8 Feb 2005

This issue has been debated on a different thread and I thought it worth transferring here.

Wells' quote above puts the finger on the problem in Canada.

In Quebec, there is only one federalist party and that party is the Liberal Party. As a result, voters in Ontario will only seriously consider voting Liberal.

This is the source of Canada's one-party, non-democratic federal government.

If so, then isn't about time the Consevatives and other opposition parties brought their thinking closer to that of the majority of Canadians so that they can be effective. Don't blame the Liberals for their failure to get support from the public for their platform.

The Conservatives managed to get seats in Quebec under Mulroney. With the demise of Meech Lake, that option is now gone.

The appointment process - for the SCC - has proved to be an alomost unqualified success. It is not merely Prime Ministerial appointments that man it. Appointments are made only after consultation with Attorneys General and the Law Societies of Provinces. There is no example in Canadian history of a political appointment.

There are few examples of decisions renedered on the basis of political will or expedience. In fact, I hink the only ones that may fall into that category are those I have complained of: those relating to language laws. There, I prefer to think of those as inaccurate interpretations rather than political.

eureka, you just don't get it. The appointment process can be as good as you want. The problem is that it's the same gang doing the appointing.

I said before that the true opposition to the federal Liberal Party comes the provinces. In fact, in true one-party state fashion, the opposition seems to come from scissions within the Liberal Party itself.

Let's be upfront about this. Le mal québécois has infected federal politics and the result is that the Liberal Party is now the only party capable of forming a federal government.

At the federal level, Canada is a one-party state.

[caesar]

The Conservatives managed to get seats in Quebec under Mulroney

Yeah, well Mulroney made a lot of the country swear off of the Conservatives. long term not just Quebec.

[Guest eureka]

It is not the "same gang" that appoints judges. It is the Prime Minister with the advice of many who will have conflicting political aims and principles.The appointment process in Canada, as in the country that gave us democratic institutions, has a long and successful history. I believe that only twice in Canadian history have judges been removed from the bench: that is at all levels.

Compare that to those countries that have a Presidential appointment system.

[August1991]

The appointment process in Canada, as in the country that gave us democratic institutions, has a long and successful history.

Take the UK. There is not only the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), there is also the House of Lords and the Sovereign. The PM in addition faces an independent cabinet, very independent bureaucracy, and a Labour caucus with members publicly in opposition to Blair. More pertinently, there is an opposition party that will eventually get elected.

In Canada, the PMO and the PCO reign supreme. This gives great powers to the party in power. And for the foreseeable future, that means the "same gang", the Liberals.

Why? For regional reasons that stem from Quebec, no federal party other than Liberals can now form a government. The BQ are here to stay. The Tories under any leader will never win seats in Quebec. That means the Tories will never be acceptable to Ontario.

Perhaps I'm exaggerating and being extreme but I can't read it any other way. (Maybe a new personality would change things but I don't see how. At the same time, it would take a small event like the Air Traffic Controllers' strike to really throw a wrench in the works.)

The sole counterweights now in Canada to the federal Liberal Party are the provincial governments.

The Conservatives managed to get seats in Quebec under Mulroney

Yeah, well Mulroney made a lot of the country swear off of the Conservatives. long term not just Quebec.

The collapse of Meech Lake lead directly to the rise of the BQ. That is why Lucien Bouchard left the Mulroney cabinet.

I suppose from the Western perspective, that's when the Reform Party began to grow.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I'm not sure that any party that refuses to alter its ideology in order to become acceptable to more than 1 region ought to be elected in the first place. I don't think the problem is as deep as you make out, though. Had the conservative party abandoned social conservatism and focused more on right wing economic and political issues, I believe that they would have stood a good chance of winning a minority government in the last federal election. The people of Ontario were, as the election results show, looking for an alternative to the Liberals. No other party stepped up to offer them a palatable alternative.

[caesar]

The collapse of Meech Lake lead directly to the rise of the BQ. That is why Lucien Bouchard left the Mulroney cabinet.

The Quebec separtists were around in full strength long before; called the FLQ and much more militant than the BQ.

As for the heading insinuating that Canada does not have a true democracy; according to the USA congress we are TOO democratic and have too many rights. Wish I still had the reports.

[fellowtraveller]

It is not the "same gang" that appoints judges. It is the Prime Minister with the advice of many who will have conflicting political aims and principles.The appointment process in Canada, as in the country that gave us democratic institutions, has a long and successful history.

Laugh ...out....loud....

How brainwashed or naive can you be?

The last two appointees to our Supreme Court were done partly for their judicial acumen, and partly for their adherence to Liberal values, both small and large 'L'.

At the time, Cotler freely admitted that, and made no apologies for it. With the samesex and pot law and many other Charter issues upcoming, he said he was proud to appoint these women, who he was confident would support the govts agenda.

Can't be a plainer statement of bias than that from a Cabinet Minister.

At least the US process has a review and confirmation element.

[Lemming]

Yes, makes about as much sense as an ethics commissioner who is appointed by the PM and reports only to the PM. The appointments are great. Allows the government to make vague, ill-conceived laws, and let the lap dog supreme court do the dirty work. No blame, no fuss, no muss. Of course no democracy but hey, that's too much work. Just like the senate. Another useless institution (in its current form) that serves the ruling party, not the people.

Don't worry, be happy.

[The Terrible Sweal]

...In Quebec, there is only one federalist party and that party is the Liberal Party. As a result, voters in Ontario will only seriously consider voting Liberal.

This is the source of Canada's one-party, non-democratic federal government.

Please try to be serious. You're saying that Canada is undemocratic because the voters consistently elect the party of their choice. Wow, what a tyranny!

eureka, you just don't get it.  The appointment process can be as good as you want.  The problem is that it's the same gang doing the appointing.

You mean, again, the governments duly elected by the voters, right?

[August1991]

Please try to be serious. You're saying that Canada is undemocratic because the voters consistently elect the party of their choice. Wow, what a tyranny!

In a previous life, you were an apologist for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, right? "Comrades have choice. Comrades choose us. Democratic proletariat party."

TS, what I meant was that a democratic choice exists in Quebec but it is between a federalist party and a sovereigntist party. This is true both in federal and provincial elections in Quebec.

Quebec's divide has now spilled over to Canadian federal politics. One consequence is that many Ontario voters will choose the group with federalist support in Quebec.

Quebec society is locked into a severe, democratic tug-of-war and the consequence for Canada is a one-party state.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Please try to be serious. You're saying that Canada is undemocratic because the voters consistently elect the party of their choice. Wow, what a tyranny!

In a previous life, you were an apologist for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, right? "Comrades have choice. Comrades choose us. Democratic proletariat party."

TS, what I meant was that a democratic choice exists in Quebec but it is between a federalist party and a sovereigntist party. This is true both in federal and provincial elections in Quebec.

Quebec's divide has now spilled over to Canadian federal politics. One consequence is that many Ontario voters will choose the group with federalist support in Quebec.

Quebec society is locked into a severe, democratic tug-of-war and the consequence for Canada is a one-party state.

The consequence for Canada is that the voters choose, in election after election, the party they deem most able to meet their perceived needs.

[Bakunin]

mt

[Bakunin]

The problem reside in the fact that its very hard to accomodate the population with their believe because its too much fragmented.

I think the path to democracy come with accomodation, this mean we must decentralize the power so that the west can live their conservative life like they want, ontario can live their liberal life and quebecers their social democrats life. This would be a true democracy...

Right now we are all stuck with an ontarian style government because of their high population and with a couple of extremist federalist quebec minister wich took control of the liberal party in the 60's and you can see that extremist group in the gomery commissions.

The best way to make evryone happy is to become a confederation instead of a federation.

In about 4 years, their will be another referendum in Quebec. When it happend, i hope the canadian will understand its better to have a confederation than a broken country.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The best way to make evryone happy is to become a confederation instead of a federation.

Leaving aside that the words you use have no real practical distinction, making our federation looser would certainly not please everyone. Me for example.

I think the problem with confederation is that the provinces have too much power now. The larger provinces should be broken up into smaller ones. Three for BC, two for Alberta, four for Ontario, three for Quebec. And maybe the maritime provinces should be combined into one.

[Guest eureka]

Terrible Sweal, I thought I was almost alone in that thinking. But, Quebec also in about three!

[ticker]

The larger provinces should be broken up into smaller ones. Three for BC, two for Alberta, four for Ontario, three for Quebec. And maybe the maritime provinces should be combined into one.

I can see your point about Alberta being split into two southern Alberta and northern Alberta with redmonton

[Bro]

A true democracy does not allow the minority to dictate all functions of the government ,as we have now with the Liberals obeying the demands of quebec in order to secure their ever declining support from that province.

When liberal politicians finally realize that quebec seperation is a done deal,then they will try to salvage what is left of the rest of Canada,and hopefully english Canada will have wisdom enough to see that for so many years the liberals only concern was to placate quebec and that the the interests of all of Canada were seriously neglected.

[Bakunin]

you can split quebec in 3 and alberta in 3 but they will still be social democrate and conservative.

the problem will not be solved.

Either you give the power to the federal government or you give it to the province. Right now its just not clear...

[Bro]

Either you give the power to the federal government or you give it to the province. Right now its just not clear...

Say what?

It is not clear to you that quebec dictates most decisions by the liberal party,which therefore allows quebec to control the rest of Canada.Canada has never in it's history looked so bad on the world stage as it does now,mostly by quebec influence,which does not relate to the wishes or desires of the rest of Canada.

[August1991]

A true democracy does not allow the minority to dictate all functions of the government ,as we have now with the Liberals obeying the demands of quebec in order to secure their ever declining support from that province.

Most people in Quebec did not vote for the Liberals.

The idea of splitting the provinces is silly.

[Bro]

you are exactly right,and that is the reason why the liberal party is so desparate to give into any demand the province of quebec puts forth,it is all about votes from quebec which has always kept them in power,but quebec

ceases to want to be a part of Canada,something the liberals have not yet grasped.So in the meantime,the province of quebec is more than willing to take liberal dollars,paid for by Canadian tax payers who think we still have good governance,and quebec laughs at the rest of Canada for having the backbone of a jellyfish.

Anything wrong in Canada can be traced back to the liberal party or quebec,in their constant wrangling for power,while the interests of all other Canadians takes a back seat or is relagated as racism towards quebec or just silliness on the part of the rest of Canada.

[Bakunin]

Say what?

It is not clear to you that quebec dictates most decisions by the liberal party,which therefore allows quebec to control the rest of Canada.

you are exactly right,and that is the reason why the liberal party is so desparate to give into any demand the province of quebec puts forth,it is all about votes from quebec which has always kept them in power,but quebec

Many people fail to understand that the quebecers in the liberal party are not popular at all in quebec. Not only because they are often die hard federalist but also because they are constantly involved in scandals or face ethics problem.

The majority of quebecers actually want to get rid of the liberal but at the same time they are not conservative fan so they vote for the bloc.

If we take the sponsoship scandals, it totally destroyed the liberal party in quebec while in other provinces, people don't seems to care that much.

Ontarian are the one that make sure this party win whatever the rest of the country vote for.

Also many people doesnt understand what is the fiscal imbalance quebeckers fight for. It means that the federal government receive too much money for its job and the province doesnt get enough. Thats why the province are in the red (except alberta) while the federal government have billions in surplus. Another thing is that we really doesn't like is when the federal government jump into the province jurdicition, so thats why we will never accept that a federal government decide where the quebec province has to spend its money, thats also why we will always fight to have more money one way or another... because the federal government have too much money for the job he is suppose to deliver..

Canada has never in it's history looked so bad on the world stage as it does now,mostly by quebec influence,which does not relate to the wishes or desires of the rest of Canada.

And thats excacly why i think a confederation would be way better... Because quebeckers, ontarian and the west all have different wishes and trying to govern them all at the same time will end up as a big mess and 3 provinces fighting with each others.

[Bro]

Also many people doesnt understand what is the fiscal imbalance quebeckers fight for. It means that the federal government receive too much money for its job and the province doesnt get enough.

I think that it is quebec that does understand that without the lions share of federal money they receive now ,they would be in a very fine financial mess.

So this imbalance they are fighting for,does it mean they only want their fair share,which would be considerably

less than they get now?

[August1991]

Reading back through this thread, I'm astonished by comments. Canada is on the verge of major changes but no one seems to notice.

Every generation or so, an issue is thrown our way and Canada falls into turmoil. Conscription, Air Traffic Controllers, F-18s, Riel, NEP. The really big issues concern the relations between English and French speaking Canadians.

Chretien stickhandled around the easy one: an Iraq war. In a few years, there will be another one. Then what?

The Berlin Wall fell, Iraq had an election, Czechoslovakia exists no more, Poland joined the EU, Syrians will leave Lebanon, Mexico has a two-party state, Ukraine has its own president, Japanese don't save, Korea is rich.

Why not the end of Canada as we know it?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the monopolist Liberals seek renewal through Michael Ignatieff (il faut le faire !):

“Our party has never regarded Quebec as the problem,” he declared, “because we know Quebeckers have always been part of the solution.”

NON a la division nationale

NON au chantage nationaliste, aux jeux mesquins du Bloc Québécois

NON aux fausses utopies indépendantistes

NON au séparatisme

A JAMAIS NON.

Read the full speech here.

Does this guy wanna do a Trudeau? (Note à Bakunin : C'est une lutte à finir. Négo corsée. Mais on peut vivre avec. Fair play and all that.)

----

I think the problem with confederation is that the provinces have too much power now. The larger provinces should be broken up into smaller ones. Three for BC, two for Alberta, four for Ontario, three for Quebec. And maybe the maritime provinces should be combined into one.

This is an interesting question. Without Quebec, how would Canada be organized? What if Ontario were broken into North and South? Or better, what about a Triple-E Senate? I think Canada would choose to centralize more powers but keep these in check by provincial checks.

I think the path to democracy come with accomodation, this mean we must decentralize the power so that the west can live their conservative life like they want, ontario can live their liberal life and quebecers their social democrats life. This would be a true democracy...

In my opinion, Bakunin, two errors. First, there is no magic solution. After all, Quebec must pronounce itself. It must decide. A negotiated deal was possible 20 years ago. No more. Second, Quebec suffers from the Quebec disease. This is an endless debate between federalists and sovereigntists. God knows now if Quebecers are social democrats or not.

I think that it is quebec that does understand that without the lions share of federal money they receive now ,they would be in a very fine financial mess.

You sound like an American who says: "Without us, Canada would be a backwater banana republic."

Many people fail to understand that the quebecers in the liberal party are not popular at all in quebec. Not only because they are often die hard federalist but also because they are constantly involved in scandals or face ethics problem.

Bien d'accord, Bakunin. Mais les fédéralistes québécois vont les appuyer pareil. Au fédéral, pour qui Charest va voter ?

[fellowtraveller]

Either you give the power to the federal government or you give it to the province. Right now its just not clear...

Actually, the division of powers - really areas of responsibility - is made quite clear in our Constitution.

What has goe awry is the constant and inconsistent meddling by the federal govt in areas that are clearly a provincial mandate. The only province that has insisted on control of their affairs is Quebec, but the rumblings are loud and getting louder from every side now.

I would welcome a major change in governance i this country, our 17th century parliamentary system simply is ot serving any of us well.