Nycole Turmel and the NDP's Achilles Heel

NDP interim leader's history comes back to haunt her

With NDP leader Jack Layton's health having taken another turn for the worse, many Canadians are wishing him a speedy recovery and return to the political battlefield.

But certainly almost none more than his followers in the NDP. Now more than ever.

Although the NDP made a decision not to diclose interim leader Nycole Turmel's memberships in the Bloc Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire -- both separatist parties -- to the public, it turns out that the Globe and Mail found out anyway. What has emerged since are numerous questions about Turmel's loyalties.

With whom do her loyalties lie?

Turmel says she is not a separatist. Despite her membership in two separate separatist parties, that is enough for this author. As it turns out, there are many reasons than just her flirtations with separatist political parties to doubt her loyalties.

In 2006, while Turmel was National President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC endorsed a number of Bloc Quebecois candidates in the election.

“Bloc candidates are better prepared and more willing to cooperate with PSAC in furthering our causes,” PSAC declared during the 2006 election.

In the eyes of some, the detail that Turmel's and PSAC's endorsement of these BQ candidates was extended based on labour policy, not based on separatism, should allay any concerns about that endorsement. But those people are wrong.

That detail rather illuminates the detail that the organizations with which Turmel is involved -- whether by her hand or otherwise -- tend to develop a tendency to put their own agendas ahead of the interests of the country. That is a very disturbing thought. Unsurprising, but disturbing.

In the case of the Bloc, it's obvious: they put their agenda of separating Quebec from Canada ahead of Canada's interests. They also put Quebec's parochial interests ahead of Canada's on all issues. Turmel and the other so-called "soft separatists" who join the BQ know this full well.

In the case of PSAC, it's a matter of putting the interests of the union ahead of the country. It's bad enough that public service unions are permitted to make endorsements during election time in Canada -- effectively campaigning on who they think their bosses should be. It's that much worse that PSAC's position relating to these BQ candidates is that their bosses should be separatists. It casts a serious shadow over what PSAC has become.

Now, Nycole Turmel has -- however temporarily (one hopes) -- succeeded Jack Layton as the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. And whether it's considering her separatist dabblings or the bizarre activities of PSAC under her watch, there are too many reasons to doubt her ultimate loyalty, and not enough reasons to invest faith in her.

And the NDP knows it. That is the reason for their fuming, raging response to the Turmel revelation. The NDP response has ranged from comical attempts to portray Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a separatist to equally-comical description of the reporting of Turmel's history as "harassment".

(That the left -- including countless NDP-affiliated individuals and organizations -- went through Harper's history with a fine-tooth comb in search of anything they could misrepresent in order to fan the flames of fear is a detail they themselves now choose to omit. Turnabout is fair play. Remember that.)

Once the NDP has gotten over their rage and fury, the first thing they need to do is set about picking a new interim leader. Unless Turmel can come up with a good explaination as to why it is that she maintained her Quebec Solidare membership so long after cancelling her BQ membership, and even after becoming interim opposition leader, she needs to resign post-haste and let a responsible MP take over the job.

This time around the NDP should disclose, not conceal, the history of their interim leader. While they're at it, perhaps they can disclose precisely how many of their MPs have been, or are now, separatists.

Then they should take the appropriate action with the lot of them, and cast them out.

The NDP is, after all, supposed to be a federalist party. It's high time they started acting like one. Otherwise, they can't simply content themselves with getting angry at the people who choose to fire some metaphorical arrows at their exposed Achilles' Heel.

The NDP in Quebec: Jacques' Bloc

NDP revisiting their Bill 101 backstabbing bill

Even a week after an election that delivered a Conservative majority government -- as opposed to a Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois coalition -- the NDP is continuing to send Canadians further signs that the country very narrowly averted a catastrophe in 2008.

Canadians remember it well: Liberal leader Stephane Dion, having been firmly rebuked by the Canadian electorate, teamed up with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe in a desperate bid to save their per-vote subsidy.

They've still never told Canadians precisely what were the terms of their deal with the Bloc Quebecois -- who was not to be formally a part of the coalition, but still signed onto the formal agreement that would have birthed it.

But there is one thing we do know, courtesy of Liberal Party lead negotiator Marlene Jennings. It's been mentioned on this blog many times before, but in light of recent news, warrants being mentioned again.

The Bloc Quebecois had demanded that Bill 101 -- the infamous French-only sign law -- be applied to federally-regulated industries. The Liberal Party said no.

What Jennings seemingly never accounted for was that the NDP had already said yes. She already knew as much. She knew it before the Liberals and NDP ever came together to form that coalition.

Now, through the promised reintroduction of a private member's bill that would apply "elements of Bill 101" to federally-regulated industries in Quebec. The bill was up prior to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of the 2011 election. Jack Layton promises it will be back.

“It’s a very, very important law,” Layton declared.

The Bill, which originated with Thomas Mulcair, is allegedly meant to protect the right of workers in federally-regulated industries to communicate in French, without denying Anglophone employees the right to communicate in English.

The problem with all of this is that such a bill hasn't been necessary since the 1970s.

In reality, the bill is about something different: about the NDP supplanting the routed Bloc Quebecois as the voice of Quebecois nationalism.

“It’s obviously a political play to appeal to nationalists,” said associate director of the University of Ottawa Graduate School of Public and International Affairs Robert Asselin. “But in terms of feasibility, it’s a very irresponsible promise.”

“The country has moved forward on linguistic issues,” Asselin said. “It is not as confrontational as it used to be.”

But to Jack Layton, this detail may come second to the reality that, for the NDP, defeating the Bloc Quebecois may not be enough. Now that the NDP has seized control of the electoral coaliton that had previously sustained the Bloc Quebecois, it seems the NDP wants to render it permanent.

It isn't enough that the NDP defeated the Bloc Quebecois. It seemingly wants to become the Bloc Quebecois. With one seeming separatist MP (Pierre-Luc Dusseault) in the mix, this may be more than idle speculation: it may be only a matter of time.

One Last Thing Before You Go, Marlene...

...Jennings leaving office with coalition-related secrets intact

On May 2, Liberal Marlene Jennings, then the incumbent MP for Notre Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine, was defeated by NDP candidate Isabelle Morin.

Following her defeat, Jennings said all the right things that defeated incumbents usually say. Humble comments, and all.

"The voters made a change," she said. "I hope the change will meet their expectations."

"The heart is still there, the soul is still there," she said of her party, which has clearly lost its connection with Canadians. "I think our party has to let the dust settle, let peoples' emotions calm and then meet and see what message we should take from this and how we should rebuild the party."

There is, unfortuantely, one thing Jennings still isn't saying: she still isn't telling Canadians what she, her party, and the NDP gave up to the Bloc Quebecois to make the 2008 coalition agreement -- to which all three parties were party.

We know what the Liberals and NDP said "no" to. Jennings revealled in January 2009 that they had said "no" to extending Bill 101's authority to federally-regulated industries in Quebec. That was a laudable act.

However, we still have yet to hear Jennings -- the Liberal Party's lead negotiator on the coalition deal -- tell us what they agreed to. They're still keeping it secret.

Marlene Jennings has little left to lose politically. It's far past time she did the right thing, and tell Canadians just how much she and her party were prepared to give up to the Bloc in order to get power back.

NDP's Hidden Agenda Nestled in Their Hidden Constitution

Jack Layton should be kept the hell away from Canadian Constitution

When NDP leader Jack Layton recognizes the problems the Canadian Constitution poses for Canadian unity, he should be commended for his presence of thought.

That doesn't mean he should be allowed anywhere near the Constitution itself.

First, there's the question of how much Layton would give up to please Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Quebecois, and the rest of the Quebec separatist movement. Considering that Layton was the organizational force behind the 2008 coalition government, it hardly seems unfair to speculate.

For his own part, Duceppe would very much like to know precisely what it is they might be talking about.

"When there's a problem, usually you have a solution," Duceppe remarked. "So where is the solution then?"

"I said that I would judge every proposal from wherever it comes from the New Democrats or the Liberals," he continued. "I see nothing being proposed at the moment, except to say, well, we'll have to settle that issue."

Layton has pretty much dodged any questions he's been asked about this issue. And there may be a good reason why: it seems the NDP doesn't do well with Constitutions, particularly its own.

As Terence Corcoran explains in a column in the Financial Post, the NDP Constitution is essentially a secret document. It's not typically made available to be viewed by the general public, although it is available to party members.

However, through the investigative work of CBC's Leslie MacKinnon, the "core principles of democratic socialism", as outlined in the document, has become public knoweldge:

"*That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit;

*To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership….

*The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty."

To anyone who's paid so much as passing attention to Canadian politics, this is no surprise. It was more of a public secret -- one widely known by the general public, slthough not publicly acknowledged.

It presents an image of a party that is far, far more ambitious than it ever lets on; a party that would fundamentally re-shape Canadian society if ever given the opportunity. It's an image of a party that is about far more than improving health care for Canadians; it's about transforming Canada into a far-left utopia.

It seems unwise to assume that if Layton were ever to lay his pen to the Constitution he wouldn't do everything in his power to entrench intrusive big-state socialism upon Canadians on a permanent basis.

Whether or not Layton could actually get the job done -- by getting the Provinces to agree -- is another matter entirely. Layton would have to be delicate in order to avoid encroaching upon Provincial jurisdiction, or at least to make it seem like he isn't.

Most importantly, Jack Layton should be kept as far away from the Constitution as possible.

The True Face of the Coalition

Sometimes a concerned citizen says it better than a partisan spokesman ever can.

In a letter to the editor of the Montreal Gazette, Craig McPherson sends a reminder to voters in Outremont: while the Bloc Quebecois was technically not a full member of the Socialist/Separatist coalition, they were more than content to help the Bloc satisfy its demands:

"Now is the time to remind Quebec's often-overlooked anglo community that the New Democratic Party as a whole, and Outremont incumbent Thomas Mulcair in particular, in April of 2008 voted in support of a Bloc Québécois bill that, had it not been defeated by the Conservatives and Liberals, would have seen Bill 101's language restrictions applied to workers in federally regulated industries in Quebec.

It would have effectively meant that English would no longer be required for bank employees, airport workers and telecommunications companies. Of course, the NDP and Mulcair tried, at the time, to spin this as a defence of an employee's right to work in French, but the net result would have been yet further diminishment of employment opportunities for Quebec anglophones and a continued erosion of our already feeble linguistic rights."

It may be fair to wonder precisely how Marlene Jennings, the Liberal Party's lead negotiator with their coalition partners, must have felt about this. In December of 2008 Jennings let one little nugget slip out of the veil of secrecy drawn around the coalition agreement.

That nugget was that the BQ had demanded that Quebec's notoriously-discriminatory language law, Bill 101, be applied to federally-regulated industries in Quebec.

“I said no," Jennings bragged. "Never. Not while I have a breath in my body.”

“I was able to [say no] because I knew that for people in my riding, and English-speaking communities, and the Jewish community, and other communities, Bill 101 is anathema… for a variety of reasons,” Jennings added.

Jennings' stand on Bill 101 is admirable. But what is not admirable is the secrecy surrounding the 2008 coalition agreement. They still won't tell Canadians what they sacrificed to secure the cooperation of the Bloc Quebecois.

Even less admirable is the NDP -- including its sole Quebec MP, Thomas Mulcair -- running around behind the Liberals' back, giving them support on issues that the Liberals had declared entirely off-the-table.

Maybe that's just the kind of relationship the Liberal/NDP coalition had with its coalition partner: if the Liberals told the Bloc "no", the Bloc would just ask mom.

Same Old, Same Old Bloc Quebecois

Racism just keeps bubbling to the surface

Try as they might, it seems that the Bloc Quebecois just can't keep that familiar theme hidden: the inherent racism of the Quebec separatist movement.

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe was busy on the campaign trail yesterday doing damage control after a BQ MP suggested that voters in his riding would not vote for NDP candidate Romeo Saganash because he is Cree.

Yvon Levesque currently represents Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou, Quebec's largest riding, but it may be fair to wonder for how much longer.

While Levesque won the riding by nearly 10% of the vote in 2008, it may be fair to wonder how many votes he has driven to either Saganash, or to the local Conservative candidate (the Tories came second in 2008).

Levesque quickly jumped forward with an apology, but the damage may already be done. The last thing he needed to do was remind any aboriginal constituents about what the real attitude of the Bloc Quebecois is toward them.

“My words were totally inappropriate and I retract them,” Lévesque wrote. “I hope that my unfortunate declaration will not harm the important advances of aboriginal communities that the Bloc Québécois has fought for, for years."

But even in the context of his apology, many aboriginals should quickly realize that it's not quite fully genuine.

After all, it seems that whenever a key issue related to aboriginal affairs in this country comes up, the BQ votes against them. For example, in 2007 the Bloc voted with the Liberals and NDP to kill a Conservative party bill that would have made the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applicable in aboriginal communities.

Yvon Levesque was one of the MPs who opposed human rights in aboriginal communities, then actually had the temerity to applaud himself for it.

Unbelievable.

So it makes it a little more unbelievable that Levesque, who voted to keep aboriginals across Canada living under the thumb of Chiefs who are far-too-often entirely corrupt, would pretend to be an ally of aboriginal people.

For his own part, Gilles Duceppe won't remove Yvon levesque as a Bloc Quebecois candidate, even if he does send a stark reminder to all Canadians -- in Quebec and elsewhere -- about what that party is really all about.

It's clear that they're counting on Quebec voters to simply look the other way. Maybe this is a smart ploy. After all, they so often have.

An Alternative Reform of Campaign Finance

Harper plans to cut per-vote subsidies

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper continually reminding Canadians about the ill-fated socialist/separatist coalition then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion cobbled together in the wake of the 2008 election, no one needed a reminder.

But Harper sent just such a reminder today, when he announced that he would eliminate the per-vote subsidy political parties receive in the wake of an election.

"Taxpayers shouldn't have to support political parties that they don't support," Harper declared. "[It's] this enormous check that keeps piling into political parties every month, whether they've raised any money or not, that means we're constantly having campaigns. The war chests are always full."

Harper says that he plans to end the continuous threat of an election by cutting those funds off, leaving parties to fundraise on their own.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff responded with a blatant fear-mongering attack.

"We have a democratic system at the right price -- it's economical, it creates a level playing field," Ignatieff declared. "If he wants to attack it he will face the resistance of all parties."

"Do you defend Canadian democracy or do you want to import American-style democracy into this country?" Ignatieff asked. "I don't think so, because you get big money, you get corruption, you get all the problems that bedevil American democracy."

If only it were so. Harper's bid to eliminate the per-vote subsidy does not, on its own, re-open the door for corporate or union money to reenter Canadian partisan politics, even if Elizabeth May -- far from a renowned constitutional scholar -- seems to think that it should.

If Ignatieff were wise, he would offer some kind of alternative reform to keep the per-vote subsidy alive.

He would begin by proposing that any party wishing to receive the per-vote subsidy must run candidates in a minimum of 75% or 80% of Canada's ridings. Right now, there is only one major party that doesn't do this: the Bloc Quebecois.

Frankly, federalist Canadians are offended that the Bloc Quebecois, a country that wants to break Canada apart, gets to make their pitch to do so on the taxpayer dime. Ignatieff would not only win the approval of Canadians by cutting the Bloc out, he would also restore his party's tarnished image as a stalwart of federalism.

Ignatieff would further propose that any party that wants to receive the per-vote subsidy elect their leaders through a primary election process.

As respected a Canadian journalist as John Ibbitson proposed this very idea in Open & Shut. While many adherents of Canada's opposition parties would likely denounce this kind of reform as "too American", it would actually make Canada's electoral politics far more democratic and responsive than they are today.

As Ibbitson himself notes, without the primary process, Barack Obama could have never been nominated for President, let alone could he have won. (Although the results of Obama's tenure cast doubt on whether this was actually for the best.)

It would be a simple choice for Canadian political parties: they could choose to be open and democratic, and be rewarded with public support, or they could choose to be insular and parochial -- and receive no such reward.

But Canadian voters should expect Michael Ignatieff to make no such proposal. He's too busy fear-mongering in the current election while accusing Stephen Harper of doing it.

So far as campaign finance reform goes, such an implicitly democratic reform is just a sweet, sweet dream.

The Utter Cluelessness of Jack Layton & the NDP

Conservatives can't work with NDP on long-gun registry

When it appeared that Candice Hoeppner's private members bill would find enough support from the NDP to pass, NDP leader Jack Layton went to work to find enough votes to keep the registry alive.

He didn't whip the vote, as many advocates of the long-gun regsitry insisted he should, but he seems to have found the votes.

Yet, as it turns out, Layton's fantasies don't end with the alleged necessity of maintaining the registry. Layton continues to fantasize that the Conservative Party would be able to work with him to "fix" the registry.

"I said to the Prime Minister today as well as in a conversation last week, ‘Why don't we work together here? You haven't got the numbers now to simply eliminate it,'" Layton said. "'So let's work to try to fix it and address some of those legitimate issues that are being raised by people who are law-abiding gun owners and hunters and farmers.'"

What Layton clearly doesn't understand is that, as pertains to gun control and the long-gun registry, there's nothing to talk about. There is simply no way that the Conservative Party -- who acknowledge reality as it relates to the long-gun registry -- could work wirh the NDP on the matter, who do not.

It's as simple as that.

Particularly, the Conservatives cannot be expected to work with people who won't debate the matter in good faith.

Layton and the other supporters of the long-gun registry have long realized that there are no facts that support maintaining the registry: not a single, solitary, one.

They can't afford to publicly admit that the long-gun registry has never prevented a single crime, and has never saved a single life. Not one.

Instead, proponents of the long-gun registry have relied on fear mongering, emotional blackmail, and smear tactics in order to make their case.


Consider the following exchanges from the very same meeting of the Public Safety Committee in which Dr Gary Mauser utterly demolished defenses of the long-gun registry.

The first is between Dr Mauser and Marlene Jennings:

"Jennings - ...Have you received funding from the NRA for any of your studies or research work?

Dr Mauser - Yes, I have. When I first began researching--

Jennings - Thank you.

Dr Mauser - I got $400.

Jennings - Have you contributed to the Conservative Party of Canada, or its predecessor the Canadian Alliance, or its predecessor the Reform Party of Canada?

Dr Mauser - I have contributed to the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the NDP, and the Liberals."

Jennings attempts a rather blatant guilt-by-association argument. She knows her base well, and must imagine that a donation to the Reform Party, and the receipt of a donation from the NRA would be rather damning for Dr Mauser.

Unfortunately for Jennings, what she uncovered was a donation scarcely sufficient to keep the lights on for a major research project, and a former Reform Party donor who had also given to her own party.

In the midst of a debate that is supposed to be contested based on facts, this is far from a significant bombshell.

But Jennings' buffoonery nothing compared to that of Bloc Quebecois MP Maria Mourani:

"Mourani - Mr Mauser, I would like short answers please. Is this in fact you in this photograph, with a handgun?

Dr Mauser - That's me and that's my handgun.

Mourani - What kind of gun is it?

Dr Mauser - It is a Smith & Wesson revolver.

Mourani - Is it registered?

Dr Mauser - Well, of course.

Mourani - How many weapons do you own?

Dr Mauser - I'm not sure. It varies.

Mourani - You do not remember how many guns you own? How many long guns do you own?

Dr Mauser - I don't remember. It varies.

Mourani - All right, you own firearms, but you do not remember how many you have?

Dr Mauser - I'm getting old.

Mourani - You are not, however, too old to carry such a gun.

Dr Mauser - That would be a few more years from now.

Mourani - Where was this photograph taken?

Dr Mauser - About 20 years ago.

Mourani - But where?

Dr Mauser - You can see that I'm a lot younger there.

Mourani - Yes, but where? Was it at home? It looks like it was at home, not at a firing range or at a shooting school. Am I right? It is at your house.

Dr Mauser - That's my house.

Mourani - Excellent. And what were you shooting at? What were you having fun shooting at? Who were you putting on this show for?

The Chair - Mrs Mourani, you have to relate this to the long-gun registry.

Mourani - I apologize, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I will explain why.

Dr Mauser - You will notice, first of all, that I'm not firing. Secondly, the finger is not in the trigger guard. Thirdly, the photographer asked me to pose like this and I resisted, but obviously I should have resisted harder.

Mourani - You did put up a struggle, my dear sir. But, you are the expert advisor as far as firearms are concerned. I must admit to you that I am scared."

In all fairness, Maria Mourani does seem like the sensitive type: sensitive enough to be frightened by a 20-year-old photograph. That, seeing as how she introduced it into committee, one could presume she herself dug up for that purpose.

And evidently sensitive enough to stoop to ad hominem attacks on an expert at whose assessment of the facts she seems to despair.

Which reminds one what this is allegedly supposed to be about: it's supposed to be about the facts. Mark Holland insists that the Conservatives simply don't care about them.

Yet when a doctor of criminology shows up to the Public Safety Committee and lays out facts that are extremely inconvenient for proponents of the long-gun registry, the facts seem to be the last thing Holland, Jennings, Mourani et al are concerned with:

Their language becomes not that of a factual debate, but that of vindictive personal attack, vicious character assasination, and shameless melodrama.

There is a reason for this: the facts simply do not favour their cause. It doesn't prevent gun crime. It doesn't save lives. It's a cosmetic gun control measure that demonstrably doesn't protect Canadians.

Truthfully speaking, the long gun registry has become the cause celibre of far-left demagogues who can't bring themselves to get tough on crime, so instead opt to get tough on the law-abiding.

Jack Layton has, unsurprisingly, decided to throw in with that lot. The Conservatives couldn't work with him on this issue, even if they wanted to.

Lord Gilles the Iron-Fisted

Duceppe's overbearing nature often overlooked

One of the Canadian media's favourite portrayals of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is as a control freak.

But as Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe celebrates his 20th anniversary as an elected Member of Parliament, Thomas Mulcair, the NDP's MP for Outremont, notes that Mulcair is much more demanding with his own MPs.

“For all those who say that Harper is a control freak, they don’t know Gilles Duceppe," Mulcair explained. "He is iron-fisted with them.”

Harper was, indeed, renowned for imposing a much greater degree of internal discipline on his MPs and party staff. The Conservative Party, as had the Canadian Alliance, had been troubled by breakdowns in discipline, largely in terms of party messaging.

Harper's discipline has had the effect of containing some of the more extreme elements within the Conservative Party from attempting to wildcat on party policy. This degree of party discipline has even driven out some of the more extreme right-wingers the party may have otherwise been saddled with.

This particular detail leads one to wonder if there's something Duceppe needs to keep under wraps within his party. If so, one wonders precisely what it is.

After all, it isn't as if the Quebec separatist movement -- or even the Bloc Quebecois itself -- hasn't frequently been a haven for racist individuals within Quebec's population. As a political arm of Quebec separatism, the Bloc Quebecois is founded on a racial ideology that doubtlessly attracts such individuals.

Duceppe himself isn't immune to the kind of gaffes that point to a vision of a sovereign Quebec in which pure laine Quebeckers are Quebeckers and everyone else is scared.

Moreover, Gilles Duceppe won't be around forever. One day, he will have to retire as leader of the Bloc. In the course of the leadership campaign to replace him, Canadians inside and outside of Quebec will likely be introduced to the very ugly face of Quebec separatism.

It will only be a matter of time before all Canadians -- even the so-called "progressives" who enjoy making excuses for it -- won't be able to deny Quebec separatism for what it is.

Extreme Agendas = Favouring Abolition of the Senate

BQ, NDP both favour abolishing Senate

Speaking at a recent panel discussion on the topic of Senate Reform, Bloc Quebecois MP Nicole Demers, NDP MP David Christopherson, Liberal Senator James Cowan and Conservative Senator Hugh Segal all discussed the topic of Senate reform.

Two of those individuals -- Demers and Christopherson -- weren't interesting in talking about Senate reform at all. Rather, they were more interested in talking about Senate abolition.

"My party is against senate reform, my party is for the abolition of the senate," Demers insisted. "There is no way the senate can be reformed unless you reopen the constitution and to do that, you need the goodwill of 10 provinces. We know you won't get the goodwill of 10 provinces so it just makes no sense."

Demers knows full well that if she had her way, no consitutional talks could attract the good will of Quebec.

Pierre Trudeau learned the hard way about the folly of attempting to have good faith constitutional discussions with a separatist. Rene Levesque learned the hard way that wasn't going to fly indefinitely.

Christopherson echoed Demers preference for abolition.

"It's a holdback from another era and its time to eliminate it," he added. "The government is bringing in legislation that's just nibbling at the edges and is probably going to do more harm than good."

He insisted that piecemeal Senate reform would make the ill effects of Senate reform entrenched.

It actually wouldn't. Rather, if particular Senate reform bills really did more harm than good, Parliament would be able to repeal the legislation. Unlike a constitutional amendment -- the repeal of which would require another constitutional amendment.

Funny how that escaped Christopherson's notice.

But, then again, it should be no surprise that parties with extreme ideological agendas would oppose a house of sober, second thought that would derail their agendas.

For the Bloc Quebecois, abolishing the Senate means there would be one less house of government that would have to approve of any negotiated agreement on Quebec separation, should they ever manage to win a referendum.

(The odds continue to remain against it.)

For the NDP, the Senate would merely be another source of opposition to a far-left waffle-driven hidden agenda. It would make it remarkably easy for minority governments -- which the NDP would certainly have to settle for, if it ever managed to govern federally at all -- to hammer their legislation through a weak opposition, should such a government be so fortunate.

Cowan made his objection to senate reform a little more transparent. He argues that legislative means of Senate reform are unconstitutional.

"It can't be done by act of parliament because we have the constitution and you can't change it without consent from the provinces," he insisted. "We know Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia ... are not in favour of an elected senate and they are ambivalent about the proposal for a limited term."

But clearly Cowan has misunderstood the nature of Canada's Constitution. Canada's Constitution is a British-style Constitution with written and unwritten elements -- and that the written elements of Canada's Constitution are not limited to the British North America Act.

(For example, many Canadians don't know that the Magna Carta is part of the written body of work that makes up Canada's Constitution.)

Segal hit paydirt on this particular detail when he noted the number of public institutions that aren't covered by the Constitution at all.

"Many of the things we have in our system, cabinet ministers, political parties, they aren't mentioned in the constitution," Segal explained. In fact, some of the basic parts of Canada's political institutions -- like the office of Prime Minister -- aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

Rather, many of these things have come about as Constitutional convention -- part of the unwritten element of Canada's Constitution.

In fact, the current Senator selection process -- under which both Cowan and Segal were appointed -- is a matter of convention. Under the Constitution, Senators are to be appointed by the Governor General, acting on behalf of the Queen.

At a purely ceremonial level, this continues to be the case. But constitional convention has since defined the right of selection to belong to the Prime Minister.

That convention could be expanded to require that the Prime Minister appoint Senators chosen by their constituents via an election.

Canadian democracy is badly in need of Senate reform. Although individuals like James Cowan may insist on standing in the way, it remains the only means of ensuring that parties with extreme agendas don't manage to seize control of the country.

Abolishing the Senate would make the advancement of such single-minded extreme agendas easier. It's one of the best reasons why anyone who favours abolishing the Senate should be viewed with suspicion.

My, But How Quick the "Progressives" Are to Swallow Regression

"Progessive" approves of Duceppe's extremism out of anti-Conservative fervour

Despite the extraordinary measures taken to evade criticism by the most dedicated of the Chickenwankers, it isn't all that difficult to keep tabs on what that particular lunatic is up to.

In the most recent amusing dispatch from Sister Sage's Musings, CK blogs that recent remarks by Gilles Duceppe comparing Quebec separatists to the Free French of World War II are absolutely fantastic -- mostly because conservatives don't like it, and even accusing Stephen Harper of being a separatist:

"'Squabble and Divisiveness'? Really? He’s attempting to unite Quebecers. As for squabble and divisiveness that you refer to; well, where’s the problem? Afraid that perhaps Gilles might play it better than Steve? Oh, like Steve never made any anti-Quebec statements in his career.

This is classic Steve calling the kettle black here; not only because of his games of divide and conquer against the opposition parties and with Canadians in general, but, what many seem to forget is that ol’ Stevie himself attempted to engineer the break-up of Canada. I seem to remember a letter written by Stevie to Ralph Klein in 2001, all about creating a firewall around Alberta. I suggest you click on the link and read this firewall letter to remind us of how much Stevie loves Canada to remain all together in love and singin’ 'Coombaya'."

Apparently, CK's standard for "anti-Quebec statements" is Stephen Harper factually pointing out that the 2008 Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition agreement represented a deal with separatists. (Some comically accused Harper of "Quebec bashing" for that.)

As for Stephen Harper's "firewall letter" being an attempt to "engineer the break-up of Canada", few claims could possibly be more comical. Among the recommendations in the famed letter were instituting a provincial police force, setting up an Albertan pension fund, and reassert provincial jurisdiction over health care policy.

Astute Canadians would recognize these recommendations very quickly. They are the same powers already asserted by Quebec and (in the case of a provincial police force) by Ontario.

The letter also recommended using the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the matter of Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate Reform onto the federal agenda. The only remotely radical proposal in the letter was for the province to collect at least the provincial portion of income tax revenue. Again, this is a power that Quebec already exercises.

Interestingly, Quebec's use of such powers has yet to precipitate the break-up of Canada -- something perfectly apparent to all Canadians, including the signatories of the firewall letter.

This is for good reason. These measures all significantly increase the level of provincial autonomy, but they stop far short of full sovereignty. In short, provincial autonomy doesn't equal provincial separation, and CK could stand to hear it if she wasn't so busy trying to evade criticism and debate.

If the firewall letter doesn't provide sufficient evidence for rampant separatism in Alberta, CK insists that many conservatives have mused about separating from Alberta. She's even heard them:

"In addition to that firewall letter, I have heard many an Albertan conservative musing about themselves pulling out of Canada as they feel the rest of Canada (mainly Quebec) are thieves. Wonder why that never makes the headlines of so-called mainstream media? Oh yeah! It’s Harpercon media. Wonder why Stevie never condemns them for their misanthropic behavior?

Oh and Stevie, Soudas and the rest of the Harpercons: I want to thank you for succeeding, yet again, in alienating Quebecers. Remember Stevie, it ain’t just separatists who endorse and vote for the Bloc."

Of course, anyone who cared to look would have serious difficulty locating a separatist party in Alberta that polls at a level even approaching political relevance in Alberta. It certainly isn't anything like in Quebec where separatists have formed the government on a number of occasions and held referendums.

Alberta separatists have largely been ignored by the media because they're marginal and irrelevant. In Alberta's political history, Albertan separatists can boast the election of one (1) single-term MLA.

Nothing at all like Quebec.

Moreover, CK once again parrots the line that criticizing the Bloc Quebecois alienates Qubeckers, noting that not all of the Bloc's voters are separatists.

Which is true enough. A portion of the Bloc's voters are individuals like CK who seem to have deluded themselves into believing that the BQ is a "progressive" political party, despite the vile, pervasive, and quite undeniable racial ideology that forms the basis of the party's political culture.

The Conservative Party could, of course, waste its energy trying to accomodate such fools. But considering the amount of mental energy they've expended ignoring what every other Canadian who has cared to look recognizes as plainly as the nose on their face, that wouldn't merely be a waste of energy, but a colossal waste of time.

Regressive Separatists, Not "Resistance Fighters"

Bloc Quebecois has very little to "resist"

Many Canadians must remember 2008's infamous coalition crisis, when then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion hatched a plot that he insisted during an election that he wouldn't -- a plot that involved, essentially, a deal with the devil himself.

When Dion concluded a coalition agreement with Jack Layton and the NDP, they included the Bloc Quebecois as a silent partner -- they wouldn't receive any cabinet seats (granting plausible deniability to the affair), but would support the government.

Many supporters of the coalition even insisted that the Boc isn't actually a separatist party.

But BQ leader Gilles Duceppe has been more vocal on the matter of separatism recently, and it should be incredibly difficult to make that argument.

Speaking to a general council meeting over the weekend, Duceppe declared that the Bloc Quebecois is a "resistance movement".

"For now, we're members of a resistance movement," Duceppe announced. "But members of today's resistance movement are tomorrow's victors. Long live a sovereign Quebec!"

Considering how much Canada has given to Quebec -- la belle province has been a net recipient of transfer payments from the other provinces -- one may wonder precisely what it is that Quebec has been "resisting".

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon certainly seems to wonder.

"It happens to be the most ludicrous and ridiculous statement I've heard a sovereigntist make in 20 years," said Cannon. "I would hope he would indeed take the first opportunity to clarify his positions."

In some other recent comments that should make any ethnic minority in Quebec significantly uncomfortable, Duceppe made it fairly clear.

"Canada can continue to impose its multicultural ideology, the old Trudeau ideology, on Quebec," Duceppe recently told the House of Commons. "Canadian federalism has nothing to offer Quebec."

There's been no question that there's a regressive racial ideology underlying the Bloc Quebecois -- Duceppe is merely the most recent to let that cat out of the bag.

Only when the Bloc was providing the Liberal Party with an easy path to party would they dare ignore Duceppe frantically trying to stuff the feline back in again -- and the next time the Bloc may help the Liberals get back to the government, they'll very likely ignore it again.

As for the rest of Canada, the racial radicalism of the Quebec separatist movement can never be ignored again.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Luke Savage - "A Possible Turning Point"

Chrystal Ocean - "Dmitri Soudas: Non-Critical Thinker"

The West Wants In

Pandering to Quebec shouldn't be done at expense of rest of Canada

In the wake of population growth in Alberta, BC and Ontario, Democratic Reform Minister of State Steven Fletcher has reportedly prepared legislation that would add up to 32 electoral ridings between those three provinces.

Most Canadians will likely view this as Canada's electoral map simply being re-drawn to reflect population growth -- something necessary in a country using representation by population.

Unfortunately, not all of Canada's political leaders seem entirely enthusiastic about these necessary changes.

"It's clear that when the population increases in a province, there must be a change in the distribution of seats, but we must also maintain a good balance with Quebec," said Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said. "We cannot play partisan games with this, because it [concerns] national unity of the country."

And indeed it does.

But it's infortunate that Ignatieff, a Liberal leader whose national unity strategy has laudably included Western Canada, doesn't seem to understand that this matter concerns Western Canada's place within confederation as it does Quebec's place.

Some individuals, such as the Bloc Quebecois' Pierre Paquette, predictably either don't understand this, or (more likely) simply doesn't care.

"I'm convinced there will be a public outcry in Quebec over the Conservative proposal," said Paquette. "For us this is a major issue, and I think it shows once again that the Conservatives have crossed out [appealing to voters in] Quebec."

Things are actually rather different. If anything, it shows that the Conservative party isn't willing to pander to voters in Quebec at the expense of other parts of the country.

The felt urgency to do this may be felt significantly less in the future.

As Brian Lee Crowley in recent analysis appearing in the Globe and Mail, Quebec may not necessarily be able to justify disproportional representation in the House of Commons based on its population.

As Crowley notes, Statistics Canada's population projections offers up six different scenarios. But in all of them two thirds of Canada's population will live in Alberta, BC and Ontario by 2031.

Even without decreases in seats in any provinces that experience a decrease in population, the political consequences are obvious.

"It is politically explosive to try to reduce the parliamentary representation of provinces that are losing population relative to the others, and especially so in the case of Quebec. So the Commons in 2031 will count 375 seats; virtually all the increase will go to this new three-province power coalition that will increasingly dominate Canadian politics. A party that could win three quarters of the seats in BC, Alberta and Ontario would have a parliamentary majority without a single seat from any other province."

Considering that the Liberal party tends to maintain strength in Ontario, the Conservative party dominates Alberta and the parties effectively split BC with the NDP, it's unlikely that many majority governments would be born in such a way -- barring, of course, any significant political changes on a province-by-province basis.

These changes may spell bad news indeed for the Bloc Quebecois, as well as posing a new challenge for the province itself.

"Quebec, the province that has driven much of this country's political agenda for the past half century, will go from belle of the political ball to wistful debutante," Crowley notes. "Its ability to win benefits for itself by consistently sending sovereigntists to Ottawa and denying any party a parliamentary majority will be severely reduced. And even if Quebeckers start voting for federalist parties in larger numbers, they will be unable reliably to deliver parliamentary majorities as they did for nearly a century."

Crowley goes on to argue that Quebec's population dilemma stems from woeful fertility, unavourable domestic migration and low international immigration. Furthermore, Crowley insists that this is an unforeseen legacy of Jean Lesage's Quiet Revolution -- the various special deals that Quebec has levied for itself have not only done nothing to maintain the fortunate position Quebec enjoyed prior to the 1950s, but it's done nothing to prevent the reversals of Quebec's fortunes.

Indeed, Crowley seems to imply, the various demands for special treatment within confederation may be responsible for these reversals.

Pandering to a province that is declining in population at the expense of provinces that are growing in population -- particularly in Western Canada -- would be seen as nothing short of a slap in the face of Western Canadians.

Disproportionately apportioning electoral ridings isn't a feasible answer to Quebec's concerns regarding its place in Canada. In the long run, it will only strain national unity. Further jilting the West will not solve such problems.

If anything, the fact that Steven Fletcher deems it necessary to add 32 additional ridings suggests that either the Conservative party plan is disproportionate to the population growth in those provinces, or new ridings aren't being created nearly often enough.

The E-Mail So Nice He Sent it Twice!

Every so often here at the Nexus, we get some mail.

Today, we recieved a hilarious bit of correspondance from yet another jilted debating partner -- Randall White of Counterweights "magazine" (which is actually little more than a blog with delusions of journalistic grandeur.

Needless to say, Mr White isn't very happy with me:

"Mr Ross:

I take it this is your email address, and I've now had a quick look at your assholery site. If I'd seen it earlier we would not have published even as many of your comments as we have.

In any case I did want to let you know that we will not be publishing any more. And I have declined to keep your last submission. No one is obliged to play host to such a rude and ignorant guest forever. It would be different if what you said made sense. But it really doesn't. And having looked at your assholery site for 30 seconds or so I think I now have a better idea of why.

Anyway, if you do send any further notes we just won't publish them. It's the least you deserve.

To me what you really lack is any kind of class at all. I certainly don`t want to live in a country that looks like your website! And rest assured I will work very hard to ensure that never happens.

Cheers
Randall White
for counterweights magazine"

Ouch.

And what, praytell, could it be that Mr White is so outraged over?

Oh, the usual.

It actually stems from a bit of online tripe in which Mr White suggests that the recent announcement by the Bloc Quebecois entails a "Conservative/Bloc alliance".

This, of course, required that I and the incomparable Bruce Stewart to step in and point out the fallacy of their rhetoric:

"In order for that 'Conservative-BQ' alliance to actually be an alliance there would have to be some kind of long-term accord between the two.

Other than that the BQ has decided that they may not necessarily want an election, there doesn’t seem to be any such accord at all — not like a signed coalition accord. But, hey. Details, right?"

At which point Stewart took it upon himself to grind the point in a little deeper:

"Do you suppose you could reconsider your choice of terms?

An alliance presupposes negotiations, agreements, etc, not merely the coincidence of Party B voting 'yea' (or, in this case, 'oui') to Party A’s motion.

I am aware that there are a number of commentators out there desperate to give life to this meme, but it’s merely making all those other authors look foolish. Perhaps you should consider what it would do to your reputations to join them in this?"

At this point, the delightful Mr White decided to respond:

"The Counterweights Editors have asked me to reply, on their behalf, to the interesting points raised by Mr Ross and Mr Stewart above.

We are answering them together, since in the first place they are raising essentially the same objection to our use of the term 'alliance' in connection with the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois.

First, note that we used the term in the headline to a February 2006 article about the early days of the Harper minority government`s first term in office. If Mr Ross and Mr Stewart care to click on the link above and take a look at the historical article in question, they will see that back then Michel Gauthier, House leader of the Bloc Québécois, told Bill Curry of the Globe and Mail that his party 'intends to keep the Conservative minority government in office for a good while,’ encouraged by the Tories’ openness toward Quebec.'

This seems to us quite in keeping with the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'alliance': eg, 'combination for a common object' (Shorter Oxford) — which does not specify any 'signed coalition accord' or even 'negotiations, agreements, etc' Mr Harper`s party made the first more informal move, by showing a special 'openness toward Quebec' (which culminated, some will remember, late in 2006 with the parliamentary resolution that the Québécois constitute a nation within a united Canada: a concept that both Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff agreed on at that point). In response to this openness, the Bloc kept Mr Harper`s government in office for some considerable time. That certainly qualifies as an alliance as far as we`re concerned — an informal rather than a formal one, no doubt, but an alliance nonetheless.

Subsequently the Tories’ openness toward Quebec faltered, for reasons Mr Ross and Mr Stewart might want to enlighten us about further. And the Liberals had to pick up the burden of ensuring that it was not necessary to hold yet another Canadian federal election every month or so. They have now said that they have carried this particular can long enough — and the burden has fallen back on the Bloc and the New Democrats.

Note, of course, that we did not use the term 'alliance' in the headline to our article here, dealing with Canadian federal politics in the middle of September 2009. That would be inappropriate for what the Bloc has chosen to do this coming Friday. And so we have just said '‘Separatists’ will keep Harper minority government alive.' Now, as far as what 'alliances' may or may not unfold, informally or otherwise, among the current collection of conservatives, 'separatists,' and perhaps 'socialists' who wind up supporting the present Harper minority government — but it is too early to speculate about that, of course."

Well, one would wonder precisely where to start with the "esteemed" Mr Randall White.

First off, one would wonder if he could really define the word "alliance" at all. After all, one could check how the dictionary does:
Hmmmm. "A close association of nations or other groups, formed to advance common interests or causes." "A formal agreement establishing such an association, especially an international treaty of friendship." Seems like not even remotely what Mr White said the dictionary definition of "alliance" is.

But even beyond that, is White's argument even defensible? Is the Conservative party's "openness to Quebec" enough to establish an alliance between the Tories and the Bloc, even without any kind of a formal agreement between the two, as White suggests?

Not when one considers that federalist political parties in Canada try at all times to remain "open to Quebec". They certainly don't try to advance the cause of national unity by being closed to Quebec.

By White's logic, the Liberal party, NDP and Conservatives would be allied with the BQ, by simple virtue of their "openness to Quebec".

But apparently, that isn't all. White also wants to argue that Stephen Harper's decentralist policies represent another link in the alliance between the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois:

"If you go back and look through the newspapers of early 2006 you will see that many observers, especially in Quebec, and especially among so-called soft nationalists in Quebec, believed the new Harper minority government was potentially offering a more decentralized view of the Canadian federal system, within which at least various degrees of Quebec’s traditional nationalist aspirations would be able to find more breathing room. Mr Harper even gave speeches in Quebec on this subject — and they were quite different from the related speeches of, eg, Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chretien or Paul Martin. I could get into many more details here, but that would take up more space than is really available in this context."

So, then, by White's logic, the Conservative party and Bloc Quebecois are allied on the strength of a mutual belief in decentralism.

But again, White would be wrong. Decentralism has been a demand not only the Bloc and Parti Quebecois, but also of the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Action Democratique du Quebec. By White's logic, that would make the Conservatives allied with all three of Quebec's provincial parties. At least on one count this would be true. It's well known that the Conservative party and the ADQ worked together to help lay the framework for a greater Conservative breakthrough in the 2008 federal election (it didn't work, as the ADQ turned out to have trouble of its own).

So not only can White not defend his argument according to the dictionary definition of the word "alliance", but he can't even defend it based on the Conservative party and Bloc Quebecois' mutual interests in decentralism and "openness to Quebec". After all, other political parties share each interest.

So what really is the source of Randall White's outrage?

What is it, specifically, that he's outraged about?

The idea that corrupt governments should be held accountable?

Noting that the Conservative party plans to win a majority in the next election?

Noting that the Wildrose Alliance won a seat in Alberta?

The idea that support of a government's fiscal agenda tends to entail confidence in that government?

The idea that post-recession planning could help end the deficit faster?

The idea that overzealous reformers should be contained?

Noting that the NDP has chosen to support the Tories EI bill?

Mocking ideologues who make bad arguments? (Come to think of it, he very clearly does object to that.)

The suggestion that destroying religions is a bad idea?

Musing over whether or not the NDP's aforementioned support for the Conservatives' EI bill means there may not be an election?

Musing that the Liberals and Green party are set to have a showdown over environmental policy in BC?

Defending religiously-motivated environmentalism?

Writing about what a fucktard Charlie Sheen is?

Writing about the dilemma Barack Obama's association with hip hop music poses for his Presidency?

Noting that a country's foreign policy past can come back to haunt it?

Suggesting that 9/11 victims were people? (Seems fairly intuitive to me.)

Noting that Barack Obama's own party won't pass his health care legislation?

It could be those things. Or maybe he just can't handle losing an argument. After all, he wouldn't be the first one.

But the hilarious thing is that Randall White was agitated enough to send that delightful e-mail twice. It's usually the hallmark of an extremely irrational individual to get quite that excitable about losing a fairly elementary debate.

Confidence

Opposition's fiscal support of Harper could paint them into a corner

Michael Ignatieff may be disappointed in a few days' time when he watches his fellow opposition parties vote on the ways and means measure being introduced by the Conservative party.

NDP leader Jack Layton has tenuously voiced his support for the motion -- although he's noted that "the problem with the Conservatives [is that] the press release comes out, but then the devil is in the details."

Now Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has followed Layton's lead and announced that he will support the bill -- the last fiscal bill the Conservatives will introduce before the Liberals' planned confidence motion at the end of this month (or early in October).

The Conservative party will remain secure in office for at least that time, pushing the time for a possible election back to mid-November or early December.

But there is one thing that even Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will have to admit when he watches the BQ and NDP prop up the government to fight another day: it undermines any credibility for Ignatieff's own promised non-confidence motion.

In Parliamentary terms, there tends to be a word reserved for the sentiments of the opposition whose fiscal bills they support:

Confidence.

It would be hard for the NDP or Bloc to jump behind a Liberal non-confidence motion when they've been helping that government advance its fiscal agenda -- in this case, extending additional Employment Insurance coverage to long-tenure workers and supplying funds to pay for the Home Renovation Tax Credit.

Regardless of whatever campaign strategy-related goals are actually motivating the Bloc and NDP -- and speculation has been all the rage for weeks -- this dilemma is particularly distressing for Michael Ignatieff.

As Margaret Wente speculates in the Globe and Mail, Ignatieff himself is facing a severe crisis of political identity.

Ignatieff needs to establish himself as a "warrior king" before he gets saddled with the wimpy label applied to his predecessor, Stephane Dion.

Ignatieff once seemed to think that being a warrior king was a lot like being a philosopher king, just with tougher words.

But, as Wente notes, "The trouble is that up till now it's been all talk. You can only bluff and bluster so many times without looking silly."

"It's not hard not to conclude that Canada is a stage set for Mr Ignatieff's fantasy life," Wente continues. "He has always been torn between being a man of letters and a man of action, pulled between the ivory tower and the battlefield. He has spent time in nasty war zones."

Wente notes that Ignatieff lacks the political instincts and the killer instinct to defeat Stephen Harper in an election.

"Stephen Harper does not deserve such luck," she concludes. "His opponent is yet another man who vastly overestimates his own abilities. Mr Ignatieff is looking more and more like Mr. Dion, without the accent."

Like Dion, Ignatieff seemingly cannot only not command the confidence of his fellow oppositon leaders, but is seemingly losing the confidence of his caucus as well.

If the opposition parties cannot muster enough confidence in Michael Ignatieff to support his non-confidence motion they'll essentially be painting themselves into a confidence corner.

If they aren't willing to pull the plug on Harper sooner by voting down his fiscal bills, it will take a matter of substantive consequence later to convince them to vote him down at all.

In the meantime, it seems that Stephen Harper may enjoy greater confidence than Michael Ignatieff does as opposition leader.

That bodes all kinds of troublesome for the would-be philosopher king.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Dan Shields - "The BQ Blinks First"

Counterweights - "'Separatists' will keep Harper minority government alive (once again, with feeling?)"

Chuckman's Choice of Words - "Ignatieff: Can You Trust This Guy?"

Stay Classy Gilles, Pauline

PQ, BQ leaders to attend reading of FLQ Manifesto

Admittedly, the Canadian attitude toward history can often seem a little peculiar.

While in most countries, being seen at an event at which terrorist literature will be recited would be political suicide, in Canada is can be A-OK. So long as you're a Quebec separatist.

The Government of Quebec recently withdrew its support for "Le Moulin a Paroles", an outdoor poetry and spoken-word reading after a recital of the Front du Liberation du Quebec Manifesto was added to the program.

“Our government doesn’t want to have anything to do with this event. At first, it was supposed to be about poetry, but now with the FLQ manifesto, we are closer to bombs and assassinations,” said Employmen Minister Sam Hamad.

“This brings us back to the October Crisis and we don’t think it’s a good idea,” Hamad added.

This isn't to say that the October Crisis should never be commemorated, but the event in question is intended to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.

“Now it’s become a political issue more than an historical event,” Hamad concluded.

The addition of the Manifesto reading is simply an attempt by Pequistes to hijack the event in favour of their political cause -- no wonder Gilles Duceppe and Pauline Marois are so eager to attend!

Sadly, their attendance at this event will likely do very to harm their political fortunes, even if it only goes further to show the rest of Canada who, precisely, these Quebec separatists truly are -- self-interested demagogues, adhering to a racial ideology and sympathizing with yesteryear's terrorists.

Duceppe Rumours Not Going Away Quietly

Nor will Gilles Duceppe

Writing in a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Adam Daifallah addresses the rumour that Gilles Duceppe may resign as leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

A meeting Duceppe has scheduled with his aides for August 13th has fuelled rumours that Duceppe may step down as BQ leader. Naturally, the BQ has denied that Duceppe is planning to resign.

Daifallah draws an interesting conclusion from these rumours: if Duceppe decides to leave the Bloc, the Conservatives could break through in Quebec in a future election.

That such a "breakthrough" would, in Daifallah's words, merely be a "respectable" showing in Quebec still speaks volumes about the current state of the Conservative party. In the wake of a backlash against Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Quebec over arts funding, a Mulroney- or Diefenbaker-style Quebec landslide is clearly out of the question.

But Daifallah is right about a great many things: the Canadian electorate's honeymoon with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff seems to be coming to a conclusion, and there may be room for the Conservatives to grow in Quebec.

Duceppe's departure from the Bloc Quebecois could only help the Tories in that regard.

As Daifallah notes, Duceppe may be for the Bloc Quebecois what Elizabeth May publicly fantasizes about being for the Green party -- it's greatest asset:

"Duceppe is the Bloc's best asset by a country mile. He's universally respected, even outside Quebec. He has now fought five elections as party leader and knows the ins and outs of campaigning. He performs well in debates and has shown a knack for pushing the right buttons at the right time. Quebecers are comfortable with him -- they know what they are getting. Predictions that his and the Bloc's support would suffer after his embarrassing botched attempt to leave Ottawa and run for the Parti Quebecois leadership proved to be utterly wrong."

Daifallah also notes that the Bloc lacks a credible successor to Duceppe:

"What's worse for the Bloc is that there is no obvious successor to Duceppe with the credibility to keep the party strong. The most likely next chief is Pierre Paquette, a socialist economist whose profile has steadily increased in the last couple of years. But Paquette has nothing close the same level of charisma as the current leader."

With the well-liked and well-respected Duceppe out of the picture, Daifallah muses, Quebecers would likely reconsider the Harper Conservatives.

But Gerry Nicholls disagrees. He notes that many had predicted the BQ's political demise after Lucien Bouchard left the party. More than ten years later, the Bloc remains as strong as ever.

Nicholls surmises that the Bloc endures simply because its supporters don't consider themselves to be Canadian, and thus have "have no emotional connection to either the Liberals or Conservatives" who, he notes, are viewed as being "led by outsiders".

For the hardened Quebec separatist, this may certainly be true. Even Stephane Dion could be viewed by such individuals as an "outsider", being allegedly tainted by his authoring of the Clarity Act (or, rather, his re-authoring of Stephen Harper's similar proposed legislation).

But Quebec's provincial political climate seems to put the lie to Nicholls' sentiments. In the 2008 federal election, the Bloc won 49 of 75 seats in the Province -- a disheartening 65% of its ridings.

Yet in the Quebec Provincial election held later that year, the Bloc's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, won only 51 of 125 seats in the National Assembly -- the 41% of ridings won is still less than encouraging, but not as bad as the federal results.

If Stephane Dion could be branded an outsider for the clarity act, Jean Charest could be viewed as every bit the outsider for his involvement with the Charlottetown Accord -- which was rejected by 56% of Quebecers. Yet Jean Charest has not only not been branded an outsider, he's been Premier of Quebec since 2003.

And even as rumours that Duceppe is preparing to resign the leadership of the Bloc Quebecois, rumours also abide that Jean Charest is planning a return to federal politics. The combination of a Duceppe departure and Charest return would certainly make for some intriguing results.

But even in the here and now, a Duceppe departure would have tremendous implications for Canadian politics. As Gerry Nicholls admitts, Adam Daifallah may be right to predict big gains for the Conservative party should such an event transpire.

But, as it remains, the rumour of Duceppe's impending departure is precisely that -- a rumour. It isn't going away quietly. Nor would Gilles Duceppe.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Far and Wide - "Duceppe Leaving?"

Chucker Canuck - "The 24-Hour Retirement of Gilles Duceppe"

You Say "Redneck" As If It's a Bad Thing

Gilles Duceppe helps rehabilitate an old slur

In the wake of Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois' recent four-point plan for Quebec sovereignty, only Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe would dare criticize opponents of Quebec sovereignty for not agreeing to stick their heads in a noose.

As some may recall, one of Marois' plan points was to accrue extra power to Quebec over language policies.

Speaking at a St Jean Baptiste day event, Duceppe decried the Grit and Tory leaders' unwillingness to do precisely that by extending the powers of Bill 101 over federally-regulated industries in Quebec.

"They acted like rednecks," Duceppe complained.

"[Ignatieff and Harper], two leaders of the most important political parties in Canada, refused to admit that French should be the working language for institutions under the federal jurisdiction," he sniffed.

Of course, nothing could factually be further from the truth. In fact, Harper and Ignatieff have actually remembered what Duceppe has forgotten: that Canada has two official languages, French and English, from coast-to-coast, and that Quebec is no exception to this.

This is a point that likely isn't lost on Duceppe, but merely one that he chooses to overlook.

"They should take the example of the political leaders in Quebec who stand up for the rights instead of playing rednecks in Ottawa like they did a few days ago," Duceppe would later add.

Although Duceppe would decline to add what he really seems to be thinking -- that the federal government should decline to stand up for the rights of Canadians in Quebec if they should just so happen to be English-speaking Canadians.

Seriously, fuck them.

If standing up for the rights of all Qubeckers, French- and English-speaking alike, makes Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff rednecks, then Duceppe clearly has a skewed image of that stereotype: not of rednecks as ignorant or racist, but as individuals who don't pick and choose whose rights they stand up for. It's a label that they can wear with pride.

The racist ideology that lays at the heart of Duceppe's party, meanwhile, is a wart that he doesn't display with much pride, even on St Jean Baptiste Day. Unshockingly, Duceppe wants that to remain one of Quebec's better-kept secrets.




Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Chucker Canuck 2.0 - "Gilles Duceppe is a Sour, Old Geezer Who Needs the Pastures"

A Newer, More Dangerous Parti Quebecois

"Incremental" separatism on PQ agenda

In its fight to cleave Quebec loose from the rest of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois have often shot themselves in the foot by relentlessly pursuing the goal of separating from Canada in one fell swoop.

Quebeckers have proven themselves on two previous occasions -- in 1980 and again in 1995 -- unwilling to opt in to abruptly leaving the country.

After years of following an all-or-nothing approach, the Parti Quebecois has finally decided to pursue an incremental sovereigntist agenda.

PQ leader Pauline Marois outlined a four-point plan to incrementally pursue Quebec sovereignty. That plan called for minimalizing the federal government's involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction -- such as education and health care -- exercising more authority over issues related to culture and language, extend the power of the French Language Charter, and continue to "encourage" immigrants to Quebec to speak French.

"It shows our resolution to take up the fight and focus on Quebec sovereignty," Marois said of the plan. "We will use all of our abilities to advance the interests of Quebec."

"There are great things we can do right now," Marois added. "And I hope this dynamism will help revive the flame of sovereignty so we can hold a referendum as soon as possible."

Portions of this plan are already in play. Some may recall that Marlene Jennings, one of the Liberal negotiators of the Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition government -- had previously spilled the beans that strengthening Bill 101 to apply to federally-regulated firms in Quebec had been rejected in the course of those negotiations.

(Canadians still don't know what Jennings and her fellow Liberals had given the BQ in exchange for their support, but that is another matter entirely.)

Yet it seems that Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has not seen fit to let that particular issue go. Duceppe has been campaigning to strengthen Bill 101 so it will apply to industries regulated by federal labour laws in Quebec, something that the Liberal party has steadfastly refused to support.

"[Michael Ignatieff] said it would impede business," Duceppe complained. "There's no justification for him saying this. The fact [the Liberals] voted against Bill 101 being applied to the Canadian Labour Code is a clear illustration that recognizing Quebec as a nation is nothing more than a symbol."

The extent to which Ignatieff is embracing Quebec nationhood -- and one should add that recognizing Quebec as a nation is not the same as recognizing it as a nation-state -- aside, one thing Ignatieff is certainly doing is something that his predecessor wouldn't when it really mattered: fight separatists.

Rather, Stephane Dion was more than willing to hatch a secret deal with the Bloc when it would deliver him a government -- and certainly saw fit not to tell Canadians what he had given the Bloc in return.

Michael Ignatieff, at least, isn't playing into the hands of the PQ and BQ on their new four-point plan on Quebec sovereignty -- one that will certainly make for a more dangerous Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois.

Quebeckers have proven unwilling to separate from Canada in a single spasm of nationalistic fervour. A slower, more deliberate process of seeking sovereignty will likely yield better results for Quebec's sovereigntist movement, and will require all Canadian federalists -- Liberal and Conservative alike -- to be much more careful in how they handle the issue of Quebec separatism.

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You

But what you can do for your democracy

One of the under-covered stories of the past week was Justin Trudeau's first bill in Parliament -- a private member's bill calling for a national policy on volunteerism.

"Young people get a bad rap, often, for being apathetic, disconnected and cynical about the world," Trudeau said after tabling his bill. "It's not because they don't care about the world. On the contrary; it's because they care so much that they're deeply frustrated that they don't have ways to make the world a better place. They don't have a voice that gets heard to shape the world that will be theirs someday, they keep getting told."

The bill would call for public hearings on the topic of volunteerism as well as a study of how governments support volunteerism in other countries.

Although his lineage makes Justin Trudeau a natural target for conservatives, Trudeau's private member's bill is actually a dream for almost any small-c conservative who is truly faithful to the philosophy.

One of the key tenets of former Progressive Conservative premier of Ontario Mike Harris' Common Sense Revolution was the idea that volunteer efforts were going to replace state activism in many key areas. This never took place because Harris' government never made any real effort to help foster a stronger infrastructure of Civil Society Organizations.

Such an effort, by its very nature, relies on citizens to stand up, determine their own interests, then contribute their efforts toward the service of those interests. Trudeau's bill exemplifies Benjamin Barber's vision of strong democracy -- one wherein citizenship is treated more like a public office than as a passive relationship with the state.

Trudeau's bill fits snugly into Barber's blueprint of a do-it-yourself democracy, one wherein individual autonomy and citizenship is enhanced by diminishing reliance on the state.

Successfully building a volunteer infrastructure in Canada could allow conservative governments to reduce and refocus spending like never before.

While the idyllic days of church-operated hospitals funded by private donations and private fundraising efforts are likely to never return -- the cost of modern healthcare is prohibitive to a pure volunteer approach and government involvement will always remain necessary -- Trudeau's bill, if properly implemented, could lead to a much healthier and stronger democracy in Canada, predicated on a model of strong citizenship.

Unfortunately there are some who don't share Trudeau's wisdom. Bloc Quebecois MP Nicolas Dufor accused Trudeau's bill of fostering "federalist propaganda".

It's unsurprising that the Bloc would oppose Trudeau's bill. Any government policy that helped the development of volunteer organizations could very easily be used by citizens who oppose separatism to organize their own, federalist organizations.

One can only wonder if separatists would enjoy similar good fortune.

If the Liberal party were wise it would adopt Trudeau's private member's bill as an opposition bill. Likewise, if the governing Conservatives were wise they would adopt Trudeau's bill as governmental policy.

Private member's bills don't often make the full transition fron introduction to being implemented, but the base wisdom of Justin Trudeau's bill is impossible to overlook.

Justin Trudeau may yet turn out to be a stronger democrat than his father ever pretended to be.