The Transformation is Nearly Complete

NDP nearly completed transition into Jacques' Bloc

Federalist NDP supporters across Canada -- especially in the rest of Canada -- should be getting nervous.

Very nervous.

Since arriving as the official opposition on the crest of the infamous orange wave sweeping through Quebec, the NDP is appearing less and less like its former self every day; and more and more like the Bloc Quebecois.

As NDP leader Jack Layton and Quebec lieutenant Thomas Mulcair addressed the Quebec wing of the party, Mulcair adopted the traditional language policy of the Bloc Quebecois: one of lingual supremacy.

This has seeped into the NDP's positions almost to the extent of the traditional BQ hostility to immigrants.

“People who choose Quebec, because an immigrant is not forced to come to Quebec, must understand that they will learn and their children will learn French over and above all,” Mulcair declared.

Mulcair justified this hostility as a means of securing federalism in Quebec.

“As federalists, we have always understood that the best way to preserve Quebec’s place in Canada is to ensure that Quebecers feel secure with their language and culture,” he added.

But securing the French language and culture in Quebec cannot realistically be accomplished by isolating it and promoting it above all others. Nor can Mulcair expect to mandate that every word an immigrant family speaks, or their children learns, be French.

It isn't in this new hostility to immigrant communities that the NDP's transformation lies. The Sherbrooke Declaration also holds that a 50% +1 vote is sufficient to secure sovereignty, and that the clarity act -- ensuring that separatists cannot attempt to win sovereignty on the back of an ambiguous or deceptive qeustion -- should be abolished.

Jack Layton calls it "treating Quebec with respect". The rest of Canada should recognize taht there is a difference between treating Quebec with respect and openly pandering to separatists.

The transformation of the NDP from a federalist party into the Bloc du jours should concern a great many Canadians.

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.

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.

Well, That's One Way to Deplete Your Political Capital

Critics right about Michael Fortier

When assessing the criticisms made of former Conservative Senator and former Conservative Parliamentary candidate Michael Fortier's suggestion that a fixed-date sovereignty referendum be held every 15 years in Quebec, the only real question is whether or not they go far enough.

Fortier recently suggested that a sovereignty referendum should be held every 15 years.

NDP MP Thomas Mulcair denounced the idea in no uncertain terms.

"I've been in politics for a very long time. This is probably the silliest idea I've ever heard in my life," Mulcair said. "It is supreme idiocy to propose a referendum with a fixed periodicity like that. It would destabilize."

To call Fortier's idea silly is a severe understatement. In fact, it may be one of the worst ideas proposed in the history of the Quebec sovereignty debate.

Fortier seemed to argue that, at least in the short term, fixed-date referendums would help define what Quebec's political debate is really about.

"If you take sovereignty out of the equation, they agree on 95 per cent of the topics, so what are we doing?" Fortier explained. "Let's just get them together, and you and I and everyone around here will benefit from their wisdom and the fact that they are all working on the same team, because they are all left-of-centre."

"As a federalist, I prefer that we never have another referendum," Fortier concluded. "But I'm a realist."

Of course what Fortier likely doesn't appreciate is that permanent, ongoing fixed-date referendums would place Quebec sovereignty permanently on the agenda in Quebec. It sends the message that Quebec sovereignty is inevitable, and that all that matters is which referendum finally delivers a "oui" vote.

It precludes the idea of Quebec separatism, as an issue, ever being laid to rest. It isn't merely a silly idea, it's lunacy.

"With ideas like that, everyone can understand why [Michael Fortier] was never elected in Quebec or elsewhere," Mulcair concluded.

And he's right. Conservatives and Canadians alike should be thankful that Michael Fortier was defeated in the 2008 election, and should be hoping against hope that he never decides to run again.

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.

The Hysterics of the Far-Left Anti-Gun Lobby

It's useless to speak logic to those who will not reciprocate

Following news that NDP leader Jack Layton will not whip his MPs to oppose a private member's bill that would abolish the long gun registry, Canada's far-left anti-gun lobby is ratcheting up the pressure on Layton.

As usual, they don't bother to offer any logical arguments -- instead, they insist on appealing to the emotions of Canadians.

At a recent event, Dawson College shooting victim Hayder Khadim, among others, spoke out in frustration.

"It makes me feel like he is playing a political game," Khadim complained. "I mean, in front of us, he is a completely strong advocate of gun control — someone who you feel would be one of the strongest to impose a party line or anything like that, to make sure the gun registry would be saved."

Khadim naturally failed to mention that the weapon Kimveer Gil used to shoot him was a registered firearm. He declined to mention this for an important reason:

Regardless of what Khadim has to say about it, the gun registry didn't prevent Kimveer Gil from planning his assault on Dawson College. It didn't prevent him from clicking the safety off, or pulling the trigger. Nor did help police prevent the shooting, because the shooting was not prevented.

One certainly remembers that the left-wing anti-gun lobby insists that the long gun registry has saved lives. Yet neither they, nor the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, can name a single incident in which the long gun registry prevented a gun crime.

Not one single, solitary case.

Front-line police officers -- who actually respond to and investigate violent crimes -- know this.

The troubling thing is that it should be surprising to find that Hayder Khadim doesn't know this either. After all, the bullet that struck him in the neck -- fired from the barrel of a registered firearm -- should have been a massive reality check for him.

Somehow, it wasn't.

Nor do these facts seemt to sink far into the head of NDP MP Thomas Mulcair.

"I know, as does Mr Layton, that to destroy the gun registry is to destroy lives, so we don't need to be convinced on this," Mulcair announced.

But the tipping point for Mulcair's argument -- and sadly, it tips away from reality -- is that if the long gun registry has never saved a life (although some other measures introduced at the same time as the registry have clearly prevented some gun crimes), then the abolition of the registry cannot be found to destroy lives.

It's merely another emotion-based argument from someone who clearly has little interest in considering this issue logically.

Much like the L'Ecole Polytechnique victims and families, who insist that the long gun registry is a monument to them and their loved ones. Canadians who are interested in discussing gun control logically, however, will offer them a deal.

Build another real monument to the L'Ecole Polytechnique victims, as well as to the Dawson College victims. It will be a real gun control that actually controls guns.

Maybe then these people will finally shut up about their precious long gun registry.

Michael Ignatieff's Quebec Problem

Denis Coderre firing up to take a shot at Liberal leadership?

For the past 20 years, the Liberal party's Quebec problem has tended to be external -- notably, the Bloc Quebecois.

But now it seems that the Liberal party may be sharing a general malaise with the Conservative party in Quebec -- internal organization problems.

The big story in Quebec right now is the brewing battle over which Liberal will run against NDP MP Thomas Mulcair in Outremont (Pierre Trudeau's old riding). A fierce conflict has emerged between Martin Cauchon, a Chretien-era Cabinet Minister and Denis Coderre, Ignatieff's appointed Quebec lieutenant.

Michael Ignatieff had previously announced that he would appoint the party's candidate for that riding, and that he would appoint a woman.

"Martin Cauchon was an excellent minister, an excellent MP, and a good Liberal. I spoke to him last night, and yes, I have made my decision," Ignateiff announced this week. "I told him that we have been soliciting female candidates and we not only intend to have women candidates, we want them where they can win."

Ignatieff has now apparently relented, allowing Cauchon to seek the party's Outremont nomination.

Despite his pledge to appoint a female candidate in Outremont, Ignatieff has caved to pressure applied, in part, by Bob Rae.

“Martin Cauchon was an outstanding minister of justice and has been a fighter for liberal values all his political life,” Rae publicly insisted. "If he wants to return to active political life, room must be found for him and his important beliefs and values."

Many -- including the National Post's Kelly McParland -- have suggested that the Cauchon decision was never really made by Ignatieff, but rather by Denis Coderre, who is looking ahead to the next Liberal leadership campaign and looking to flex some muscles now so he can improve his chances to be the next Grit leader.

Le Devoir reported that the original Cauchon decision came as everal Quebec MPs were pressured to leave politics.

Among them were Bernard Patry, Raymonde Folco, Lise Zarac and former Liberal leader Stephane Dion.

Dion, for his own part, has already announced his intention to run again in the next election.

For Coderre, nothing would say "I dominate this party" more than forcing a former party leader out of a party stronghold.

Perhaps the prospects of Coderre quietly organizing a leadership campaign behind his back is what really pushed Ignatieff to chance the Cauchon decision. (Some may recall that, in turn, Ignatieff himself was accused of planning a leadership campaign behind Dion's back.)

As McParland notes, Coderre may be looking toward the party's notion of "alternation", and thinking that it's simply his turn, as a Quebec Liberal, to take over the party should Ignatieff's leadership fail.

That could be a real problem for Ignatieff -- particularly if Coderre thinks whatever opportunity he may have to be Liberal leader is worth helping to engineer an electoral defeat.

The notion itself seems absuard -- as it should -- but far stranger things have been done by self-interested politicians.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Matt Guerin - "Iggy Should Let Democracy Do Its Thing in Outremont!"

Tattered Sleeve - "Outremont est Ouverte: Iggy, Coderre concede to Cauchon"

Peter L Whittle - "The Democratic Deficit in the Liberal Party"

Of Professional Hatemongers and Professional Whores

Kenney and Arab Groups face off over funding

In a country where people can be haouled in front of a Human Rights Commission for saying this that others believe express hatred or contempt, it only seems logical that the government would deny funding to groups that express hatred or contempt.

Interestingly enough, some individuals have a problem with such a move.

Among them is Khaled Mouammar, who accused Kenney of being a "professional whore" for Israel.

Kenney recently identified the Canadian Arab Federation, a group in which Mouammar serves as President and the Canadian Islamic Congress as groups which promote hatred for Jews.

"There are organizations in Canada, as in Britain, that receive their share of media attention and public notoriety, but who at the same time as expressing hateful sentiments, expect to be treated as respectable interlocutors in the public discourse," Kenney explained. "These and other organizations are free within the confines of our law and consistent with our traditions of freedom of expression, to speak their mind, but they should not expect to receive resources from the state, support from taxpayers or any other form of official respect from the government or the organs of our state."

"I would encourage all other governments to take a similar approach to organizations that either excuse violence against Jews or express essentially anti-Semitic sentiments," Kenney continued.

"We do see the growth of a new anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitism predicated on the notion that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland," Kenney explained. "The argument is with those whose premise is that Israel itself is an abomination, and that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland. And in that sense anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism."

Of course, what Kenney really should have said is that this particular brand of anti-Zionism is< anti-Semitism. It would be foolish to heap those who object to the conduct of the Israeli state in with those who believe that it has no right to exist in the first place.

For his own part, NDP Finance Critic Thomas Mulcair seems to agree with the principle behind the decision. "I agree that people shouldn't get money from the federal government if they say hurtful things about any group," Mulcair said.

However, one also has to keep in mind that organizations such as the Canadian Arab Federation often provide services to immigrants that aren't only valuable to themselves, but to society as a whole. In particular, Kenney's move would deny the CAF $447,297 for language training and assistance with job searches.

If the CAF is to be denied this funding, the federal government will have to take responsibility for providing those services.

But even then, the government providing such services direclty is infitely preferable to providing funding to groups that can be said to violate -- ironically groups that often seek to exploit -- Canada's hate speech laws.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Peace, Order and Good Government Eh? - "Be Nice to Jason Kenney. Or Else."

Yaya Canada - "Political Whore Kenney Won't Put Out"

Calgary Rants - "Excellent Work by MP Jason Kenney"

Mission: Gatineau

NDP determined to add to their Quebec caucus of one

The NDP's deputy leader, Thomas Mulcair, believes the party is on the cusp of a Quebec breakthrough -- perhaps eight to 12 ridings.

They believe they can do this by courting soft social democratic Bloc Quebecois votes in numerous ridings, including Gatineau.

In fact, Mulcair has looked to his own seemingly-unlikely triumph in Outremont as the measuring stick for potential success there. “Your numbers are almost identical to mine,” Mulcair recently told Francoise Boivin, the NDP's candidate there.

Boivin herself is optimistic about her prospects for victory over Bloc Quebecois incumbent Richard Nadeau, and she has her list of priorities for the riding.

“We need doctors in Gatineau, and it’s more urgent than anywhere else in Quebec. The NDP’s platform is heavy on promises to improve healthcare, and train more doctors."

“People want change,” she said. “We’re a people-oriented party. With the economy taking a turn, they need a party with people at the centre.”

“We seem to draw from every sector in the region,” she added. “It used to be easy because you would look at the map and say, ‘this part is Liberal,’ but this time, my team is having great difficulty because we have to go everywhere. It’s very, very encouraging.”

Jack Layton has also spent his own fair share of time in Gatineau -- launching his party's campaign there -- and has campaigned relentlessly in Quebec.

Layton has framed his campaign in Quebec as being not only about the future of his party, but about the future of social democracy in Quebec and across Canada.

"I have had the dream of building a New Democratic movement in Quebec for a very, very long time,” Layton has remarked. “And I guess it's because I was born not all that far from here and raised here in Montreal that I have a sense that right now people want to move beyond the old debates and Quebeckers want to participate in a movement for change right across the country.”

Which is one of the reasons why a victory in Gatineau is so pivotal for the NDP. But don't expect Richard Nadeau to concede the fight easily. The four-way split of the federalist vote in Gatineau and Nadeau's strong family ties to separatism in the riding have amassed him a healthy lead amongst decided voters.

And Layton, Mulcair and Boivin can hardly expect the Liberal party to follow Stephen Harper's Andre Arthur example and take one for the federalist team in the name of blocking a separatist candidate.

If the NDP does, indeed, achieve their Quebec breakthrough, it will prove to be a boon for Canadian unity. Gatineau is as good a place as any to start that, but the success of the NDP enterprise is far from assured.

Liberals Picking a Water Fight

With the Liberals nearly out of contention to win the 2008 federal election, they find themselves in a very precarious position: unable to form the next government, and possibly at risk of being supplanted as the Official Opposition by the NDP.

Of course it wouldn't do to look as if they're simply throwing in the towel and fighting for second place. So while the Liberal party's newest ad focuses mostly on the NDP, it also takes its obligatory shot at the Tories.

Entitled "The Choice on Canada's Water", the spot promises that a Liberal government would protect Canada's drinking water, clean up Canadian water ways and ban bulk exports of fresh water.

The party notes that Prime Minister Stephen Harper refuses to ban bulk exports of fresh water, but then actually claims that the NDP is worse yet, noting that as Quebec's Minister of the Environment Mulcair once advocated the export of Canadian water "for profit".

The ad, which features a fairly benign collection of images of running water, concludes by imploring voters to "help protect Canada's water" by voting Liberal.

The spot in question clearly has three goals: to brand the Liberal party as the party that will protect "Canada's water" -- clearly asserting its claim to environmental leadership -- counter-branding the NDP as the party that will "sell out" Canada's water supply, and counter-branding the Conservatives as the party that just plain doesn't care.

The ad asserts oer and over again that the water Thomas Mulcair would export is "Canada's water". Canadians own it, and only Canadians should enjoy the benefits of it.

However, this ad seeks to play to the ignorance of Canadian voter in terms of water and ownership issues. After all, international law actually holds that no country can actually "own" water -- they can merely own the bodies of water in which it collects and the rivers and streams through which it flows.

The ad also neglects to mention that Mulcair advocated the consideration of water exports while serving in a Liberal government -- a fact that may lead voters to question the sincerity of the Liberals' professed opposition to water exports.

This is before one even considers the fact that the Mulcair speech in question -- conveniently provided by the Liberals themselves -- make numerous references to the necessity of proper management, and insist that export of water should only be considered under favourable conditions.

The ad features one other striking difference between it and the previous Liberal spots: a new announcer. This very well could be a bid to try to distance themselves from the frantic and desperate tone the narrator of the past two English-language Liberal ads took.

But it's hard to look at the Liberals' now-solidified shift toward attacking the NDP as anything other than an attempt to stave off third-party status in the next parliament.

Canadian Leaders Courting the Next Presidential Gold Medallion

Candidates square off over who best supports Canadian Judaism, Israel, and who can best handle Iran

As the 2008 federal election campaign grinds on, it's inevitable that various candidates will make their pitch to various ethnic and religious voting blocs.

In some cases, that could serve to backfire.

But for Liberal Mount Royal MP Irwin Cotler, his recent efforts have been little more than going back to the well from which he has so often drank.

Cotler has recently been involved with a petition to have Iranian president Mahmould Ahmadinejad charged with "inciting genocide".

Speaking at the conference against state-sponsored genocide in Washington organized as a prelude to Ahmadinejad's recent address to the UN, Cotler insisted "The crime of incitement to genocide has already been committed. Iran has paved the way to genocide, and genocide has already begun in [the sense of] incitement."

Cotler insisted that the charges alone could go a long way toward legitimizing Ahmandinejad. “The very process of initiating these remedies will embolden the progressive forces in Iran," he announced.

Cotler also aptly pointed out that those who incite genocide are as bad as those who actually commit it. “[Ahmadinejad] should be treated with the opprobrium of a genocidaire,” he concluded.

Some may be eager to dismiss Cotler's advocacy on behalf of Judaism to be empty partisan pandering. But to suggest so they would have to know very little about Cotler's past.

The genocide petition against Ahmadinejad isn't merely a flavour of the week gambit for Cotler. He has proven his dedication to preventing genocide and prosecuting those who commit it throughout his entire legal career, both before and after entering his politics.

His book Justice Delayed remains the landmark work on Nazi war criminals hiding in Canada.

The plentiful political capital that Cotler enjoys in Canada's Jewish community has been richly and rightly earned.

Yet not all of Canada's leaders have supported Cotler's advocacy on behalf of Israel. Liberal leader Stephane Dion recently accused former Foreign Affairs miniser (now Minister of Defense) Peter MacKay of obstructing Cotler's efforts.

"The [Liberal party] has supported Irwin’s initiative to hold President Ahmadinejad to account before the UN Security Council or a duly constituted international tribunal for the crime of genocidal incitement as required by the 1948 genocide convention," Dion told a Jewish audience in Winnipeg. “I do not understand why Conservative MPs have attempted to block Irwin’s motion in support of this initiative that he brought forward at Parliament’s human rights subcommittee,”

"Peter MacKay, then the foreign minister, rejected this initiative as a worthless gesture because [he said] it probably won’t work," Dion continued. "I don’t know how he came to that determination, but when it comes to international law, I think I’ll trust Irwin Cotler’s opinion over Peter MacKay’s."

Of course, MacKay actually has a point to this end. The UN has never been known for its sympathies toward Israel, and has often been hijacked by various Middle Eastern regimes for denouncing Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Ironically, they've historically often done this while these very regimes treat Palestinians -- and other minorities within their domain, including Jews -- no better, and often worse.

For his own part, Cotler credits Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- a fellow recipient recipient of B'Nai Brith's Presidential Gold Medal -- for his supportive words, but suggests he has yet to act on them. “The Prime Minister has done excellent work in his statements with regard to Israel, but words are not as important as deeds,” Cotler recently told an all-party discussion panel.

Which is fair enough. While Harper has made his support of Israel widely and well known, one could hardly mistake them for action.

Yet the same is the case with Cotler's most recent initiative. Without any means to ensure that Mahmoud Ahmaedinejad appears before the International Criminal Court to face charges, Cotler's petition is, itself, little more than empty words.

Andrea Paine, the Conservative candidate in Lac St Louis, defended the government's rejection of Cotler's petition as being in line with Israel's stance on the matter.

“We were not sure what the position of the Israeli government actually would be. We were also concerned that if the bill passed, the pro-Palestinians would spin that into a victory for themselves,” she insisted. “We were being cautious and waiting to follow Israel’s lead.”

Israel, however, for its own part, supports the push to file charges against Ahmadinejad.

Also on the discussion panel was NDP Outremont MP Thomas Mulcair, who insisted that his party doesn't harbour elements hostile to Israel.

“Some do have slightly different takes on issues, but what is important is the position we take at the end of the day as a party, and I am extremely comfortable defending them today,” Mulcair insisted.

Certainly, they clearly do. Perhaps it's better left up to individuals to judge whether or not those positions are anti-Israel or not.

One thing is for certain: while virtually any issue related to Israel is bound to be controversy, Canada cannot strive to be a leader on the global stage while shying away from sticky topics -- particularly one so central to international relations as that of Israel.

It's on that note that it's actually quite comforting to see Israel treated as an issue in the 2008 federal election. At the very least, it makes the proceedings of this federal election a little less insular than they otherwise would tend to be.

In the end, the prize will be not merely a shiny bauble from B'Nai Brith, but Canada's relevance, credibility and leadership on the world stage.

Quebec at the Crossroads (?)

Conservative, NDP victories prove have intriguing implications

Liberals and their supporters all over the country must have felt a twinge of agony yesterday, as they were swept in three Quebec by-elections.

In Roberval-Lac St Jean (formerly a Bloc Quebecois stronghold) Conservative candidate Denis Lebel picked up a shiny, new seat for his party. In Outrement, NDP star candidate Thomas Mulcair won only the second seat the New Democrats have ever held in that province. In the third and final contest, the Bloc Quebecois held on to the riding of St Hyacinthe-Bagot, electing Eve-Mary Thai Thi Lac.

Clearly, the NDP’s victory in Outrement is a key one. Aside from winning its second-ever Quebec seat with Mulcair, a popular former provincial Liberal minster of the environment, the NDP may well be able to translate this victory into real inroads into a province that, as surely as it has often stood between the Conservative party and government, has also stood between the NDP and official opposition status.

Equally profound is the victory of Denis Lebel in a riding that was formerly a BQ stronghold. The Conservative victory in Roberval-Lac St Jean comes at a time when the ridings provincial equivalents (the provincial ridings of Roberval and Lac St Jean) are both held by the Parti Quebecois (held by Denis Trottier and Alexander Cloutier, respectively).

When framed against the recent Quebec provincial election, wherein Mario Dumont’s Action Democratique du Quebec (the closest thing to a Conservative party equivalent in Quebec) supplanted the PQ as the provinces official opposition, it appears that the voting coalition that has supported the Parti Quebecois is splintering.

When one remembers that the Parti Quebecois has traditionally found its support among hard-line separatists, and soft Quebecois nationalists of both conservative and social democratic political bents, it becomes unsurprising that parties like the ADQ, Conservatives and NDP are finding room to gain ground in Quebec.

In the long run, however, any objective attempt at such an analysis has to admit that the Liberals will find similar growth room under such conditions. Just because they didn’t find that room yesterday doesn’t mean they won’t do so in an upcoming election. It’s almost inevitable.

It shouldn’t be assumed that the increasing difficulties of the Parti Quebecois mean separatism is dead in Quebec. That was the mistake that Pierre Trudeau made after the 1980 referendum when Trudeau declared separatism to be dead.

He was wrong. It came back to haunt both Canada and the Liberals, and if we assume separatism has been defeated now, it is guaranteed to do so again.

On that note, these by-elections have also found Stephan Dion in the interesting position of apparently trying too hard to be a leader.“It's my responsibility to win the byelection,” Dion announced in the aftermath. “I take the responsibility for what happened and the responsibility to be sure that next time we'll be stronger.”

While a good many Liberals must be relieved to see Stephane Dion finally accepting responsibility for something (a shame he can’t do so, it should be a little less comforting that he has it, well... wrong.

It wasn’t Stephane Dion’s responsibility to win these by-elections for his party – it was the responsibility of his candidates.

Dion’s insistence that he must be responsible for ensuring the victory of his candidates only underscores the very trait that makes him unpalatable to so many Quebeckers – his great love of centralization, both within the country, and within his party. He could arguably considered unique among Liberal party leaders in that he seems to favour the centralization of responsibility as well as merely power, but that is a point for another time and place.

At the end of the day, the most interesting implication these by-elections will have will be on Quebec’s historical tendency to show a united front in federal elections. Currently, the Bloc Quebecois hold the bulk of Quebec’s parliamentary seats with 50 (as of yesterday the Liberals hold 12, the Conservatives 11, and the NDP hold a single seat, along with one indepenent MP).

If the splintering of the separatist vote continues, it’s apparent that a new party will stand as heir to the distinction of being Quebec’s primary representatives in the House of Commons. It would be foolhardy to count the Liberals out, but with so many Quebeckers having such visceral reactions to Dion, it will be all the more interesting to see where these voters splinter off to. In the wake of the ADQ’s provincial triumph and yesterday’s victory, the Conservatives shouldn’t be ruled entirely out, either. At the same time, the NDP will have a unique resonance with Quebec’s many social democrats.

Canadians may well be witnessing another historical turning point in Quebec. Only time (and further elections) will tell.