NDP Seeking Permanent Second-Party Position

NDP juggling demands of federalists, separatists

Speaking in Ottawa recently, NDP National Director Brad Lavigne has made the party's goal clear: they want to render their 2011 gains in Quebec permanent.

It may be even more than that. Lavigne seems to think those gains may already be permanent, having been hard-earned.

“It wasn’t a mistake, it wasn’t a fluke, it was eight years in the making,” he insisted.

Some things Lavigne said weren't especially surprising. He indicated that the NDP's strategy was to essentially build a Jack Layton personality cult, and they did precisely that.

“We made sure the brand of the party was Jack Layton,” he said. But this is not news to Canadians, after years of listening to NDP operatives refer to the party as "Jack Layton and the NDP".

Moving forward, the NDP's plan is to keep the Liberal Party and Bloc Quebecois down.

“Now that their traditional voting base has left them and many of them have come to us, we have to make sure that we kind of entrench their new home with us,” Lavigne declared. “we have to occupy the space that they traditionally occupy.”

“The four-and-a-half million voters, it’s the new voter coalition,” he added. “It’s the new voting base, we need to cement that in for the long term and make sure there’s not reason for them to go back to their previous home.”

This confronts the NDP with a serious challenge to juggle. They have to juggle the demands of federalist Liberal voters and separatist Bloc Quebecois voters on virtually every policy point: lingual policy, referendum law, even separatism itself.

This has already led to the NDP's position as a federalist party being shaken by a disturbing lack of commitment to federalism.

This is a strategy that is bound to fail. Pander too much to separatists, and the federalist vote will flee from the party -- as it should. Pay the proper attention to federalist demands, and separatists will flee back to the Bloc Quebecois.

The only way to have a chance at keeping all these balls in the air may be to simply declare that the NDP shall have no policy on separatism; that the party shall be neither separatist nor federalist.

Not that this is likely to work either. Those committed to winning sovereignty for Quebec, as those committed to keeping Canada together, are not prepared to accept anything less than a commitment.

The NDP so often brags that they aren't the party of the "squishy middle". They're a flat-out party of polarization, and they're proud of it.

Simply put, Brad Lavigne and the NDP have a choice to make: they can commit themselves to federalism and risk their separatist votes, or they can commit themselves to separatism and risk their federalist votes.

To do anything less is to not be the NDP. To do anything less is to risk having supplanted the Liberals only to ultimately become them.

If the NDP wants to permanently remain Canada's second party, they have a choice to make. Will they make the right choice for Canada? That has yet to be seen.

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.

Good Luck With That, Stephane

Stephane Dion wants his legacy back

Like Chevy Chase in Memoirs of an Invisible Man declaring "I want my molecules back!", Stephane Dion is making demands of the Canadian political class.

He wants his legacy back. His separatist-fighting legacy.

In an op-ed appearing in the Ottawa Citizen, Dion is offering a lecture to NDP leader Jack Layton about why 50% +1 is an unacceptable threshold for a separatist mandate in a sovereignty referendum.

In a nutshell, Dion's argument is that the oui majority in a seccession vote must be large enough to allow the negotiation process to move forward with certainty, and must be able to withstand periodic shifts in public opinion:

"There are two fundamental reasons why negotiations for secession should be contingent on a clear majority. The first is that serious and irreversible decisions that affect future generations should be made by consensus, not on the basis of a weak and uncertain majority, not on the basis of a result which might have been different if the vote had been held the day before or the day after. There is no doubt that secession is something serious and probably irreversible since it is nearly impossible to rebuild a country after it has been broken. Such an action affects future generations and has serious consequences for all of the citizens of the country being broken up.

The second reason is that, even with all the goodwill in the world, negotiating the separation of a modern state would inevitably be difficult and fraught with pitfalls. What must not happen is that, while negotiators are working on a separation agreement, the majority should change its mind and decide to oppose secession. That would be an untenable situation. That is why the process should only be undertaken if there is a sufficiently large majority that will last through the inevitable difficulties of negotiation."

Dion makes a very strong argument. Unfortunately, Dion still has to own up to his role in attempting to form a coalition government with the NDP that would have mortgaged the Canadian government to the Bloc Quebecois.

While the Liberals publicly boasted that the Bloc had voluntarily taken separatism off the table for 18 months, and that they had refused to give in to Bloc demands on language law.

However, the NDP had been walking the BQ line on Bill 101 all along, and are walking it still.

In 2008, the coalition's right hand ignored what the left hand had been doing. Now that the left hand no longer needs the right hand at all, it seems that all bets are off.

It's admirable that Stephane Dion is standing up to Jack Layton on his soft-on-separatism positions now. But Dion knew full well that Layton was soft on separatism before he tried to bring the NDP and Bloc together in a vain attempt (vain in every sense of the word) to snatch power away from the Tories.

That's why Dion will likely never recapture his tainted legacy as a separatist fighter. When all the political chips were on the table, he revealled to Canadians that he can be every bit as soft on separatism as Jack Layton clearly is.

In 2008, and as it pertains to the fight against separatism, Stephane Dion has made himself Canada's invisible man.

What Does the New Voice of Quebec Want to Tell Us?

NDP's soft on separatism take sends a bad message

The NDP's long-awaited Quebec breakthrough in the 2011 federal election could be said to be the fruits of Rebecca Blaikie's labour. Though she still has not captured electoral success, it was Blaikie's hard work, in large part, that led to the 2011 triumph.

But there are shadows of peril surrounding the NDP's emergence in Quebec. With one MP already openly expressing separatist views, and two others suggesting they're unsure how they'd vote in a sovereignty referendum, Canadians are being faced to wake up to the reality that the NDP may simply be supplanting the Bloc Quebecois as Quebec's federal separatist party.

Blaikie stresses the importance of the NDP adopting assymetrical federalism and a position that a 50% plus one vote in a sovereignty refrendum is good enough to allow Quebec to separate.

“As New Democrats, just as we respect the rights of First Nations, we respect the rights of Quebecers. But what we're ultimately trying to do is create a situation in which we never need to exercise those rights, because they feel like they're a part of something worth belonging to,” she said.

This way lies madness.

First, assymetrical federalism is not an acceptable proposal for Canada. Simply put, assymetrical federalism is simply not sustainable. If the NDP would be willing to grant powers such as opt out-with compensation privileges to Quebec, they owe it to the other nine provinces as well.

Secondly, Blaikie is simply incorrect that 50% plus one is sufficient for Quebec to separate from Canada. 50% plus one is sufficient to secure a mandate to negotiate seccession with Canada's nine other provinces, but on its own it's not enough to separate Quebec.

Other problems abound for the NDP -- such as Jack Layton's open opposition to the clarity act -- that lead to serious questions about the NDP's credibility as a federalist party.

So Canadians have a very simple question for the NDP, the alleged new voice of Quebec: what does the new voice of Quebec want to tell us? About federalism? About sovereignty?

The answers it's offered to the former question are exceedingly poor. The answers offered to the latter are unclear, and carry the vague prospects of a province-wide political bait-and-switch.

More NDP MPs Seem Unsure About This "Canada" Thing

Is the NDP a federalist party, or just Jacques' Bloc?

With two more NDP MPs declaring themselves to be "uncertain" about how they'd vote in a Quebec sovereignty referendum, NDP leader Jack Layton has some serious questions to answer about where his party stands on the issue.

Speaking recently, newly-elected Chicoutimi—Le Fjord MP Dany Morin seemed to indicate he'd need to check which way the wind is blowing before making his mind up on the issue.

“I’m not sovereigntist, but if there as a referendum, I don't know what I would vote,” Morin remarked. “Forty per cent of the population in Quebec is sovereigntist.”

Sainte-Hyacinthe-Bagot MP Marie-Claude Morin seemed to echo Dany Morin's sentiments.

“I think Quebec can flourish in Canada, but if Canada wants to work with Quebec," she declared. "We have to consider the fact we have a different culture, a different identity. If there was a referendum tomorrow morning, we will see. The future will tell us,”

This follows remarks by Sherbrooke MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault indicating that Quebec sovereignty is inevitable.

“Sovereignty will be done in Quebec,” Dusseault declared. “We will respect sovereignty in the NDP.”

Is the NDP a federalist party? Or merely a holding place for the Bloc Quebecois? Canadians have the right to know.

A spokesperson for Jack Layton insists that the NDP is a federalist party. But it's starting to look more and more as if the NDP isn't nearly as committed to federalism as they'd have Canadians believe.

Jack Layton has an obligation to set this issue straight within his caucus. Is the NDP really a federalist party, or is it merely Jacques' Bloc? Canadians need to know soon.

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.

Jacques Layton Has Some 'Splainin To Do...

Is the NDP a federalist party or not?

After becoming Leader of the Official Opposition, Jack Layton should be in seventh heaven.

Instead, he must feel like he's in the fifth ring of hell.

In the days since the 2011 election, his Quebec lieutenant, Thomas Mulcair, has embarrassed the party by suggesting a conspiracy is afoot beneath the reported death of Osama Bin Laden. Reports indicate that another one of his new Quebec MPs (or at least someone in her campaign) may have committed electoral fraud.

Now, it seems that one of his Quebec MPs may be a separatist. 19 year-old Pierre-Luc Dusseault -- the youngest MP in Canadian history -- declared that separatism is not dead during an interview with a Toronto radio station.

He then went on to declare that "sovereignty will be done."

"In my campaign, I said sovereignty will be done in Quebec and Quebeckers will decide if Quebec wants to be a country," Dusseault announced. "And waiting for this moment, I said, 'Why not give us a real government that is good for us?' And we will respect sovereignty in the NDP."

It's important to note that this wasn't merely Dusseault playing the soft-separatist in Quebec. This was Dusseault trumpeting what seem to be separatist views in the self-declared capital of the good ol' ROC.

Charles Adler previously spoke about Dusseault's remark, but the NDP is already trying to pull a rhetorical bait-and-switch.

"NDP spinners in Ottawa will say that Adler and other right-wingers are taking him out of context," Adler wrote. "Umm no. I am taking him at his word."

As Adler points out, this is a stark challenge to the notion that the NDP's ascension in Quebec marks a weakening of Quebec separatism.

"The politically correct interpretation of the Orange Surge was that it was about many things," Adler wrote. "But most important to Canada, we were told it was about a rejection of separatism in Quebec."

Yet we have Pierre-Luc Dusseault whom, it may seem, may simply be a Bloc Quebecois MP wrapped in orange instead of teal.

Is the NDP still actually a federalist party? Or have they been harbouring separatists within their ranks for as long as they've been pushing for this surge in Quebec?

Jack Layton, Pierre-Luc Dusseault and the NDP owe Canadians some answers. If Dusseault has truly been taken out of context -- and given his comments, it's hard to see how he could have been -- it's up to the NDP to require Dusseault to better-explain what his comments are to mean.

In the meantime, it's hard to ignore the very real possibility that Pierre-Luc Dusseault is a BQ in the NDP's clothing.

Jack Layton For Leader of the Opposition

...lined up against a Harper majority

Ever since Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the Conservative Party to power in 2006, one word has been considered scandalous if so much as uttered by a Conservative:

Majority.

This has, of course, been driven as much by Liberal panic-mongering as anything else. But now, with the 2011 federal election steadily slipping away from the Liberals, they're working as hard as they can to make a certain word scandalous if so much as uttered by the NDP:

Leader. As in, "of the Opposition".

Following what appeared to be stagnating numbers early in the campaign, the NDP surge -- particularly in Quebec -- has had tongues wagging across Canada.

Michael Ignatieff, for one, is not happy about it.

"Come on, folks, let's be serious," Ignatieff implored. "We've got to choose a government on the 2nd of May; we can't choose a bunch of Boy Scouts on this issue."

Which is actually rather ironic when you think about it: Ignatieff and his fellow opposition leaders essentially told the Canadian public that they toppled the Harper government because they weren't Boy Scouts.

According to Ignatieff, what matters is that Canadians vote for the Liberals in order to avoid returning Stephen Harper to power.

"If you vote for Mr Layton, you're going to get a Harper minority government." Ignatieff forecasted. "If you vote for Mr Duceppe, you're going to get a Harper minority government."

Which, again, is funny when you think about it. To most people, Quebeckers shouldn't vote for the Bloc Quebecois because they're separatists. To Ignatieff, it's because not Quebeckers voting for the Bloc is good for him.

It's the kind of sentiment that gives ample cause for doubt about whether or not Ignatieff is fit to continue as Leader of the Opposition.

But while Ignatieff's stock is fading, another opposition leader continues to gather momentum in the leadership department. And, no, it isn't Gilles Duceppe.

That leader is Jack Layton. Speaking recently on the campaign trail, Layton indicated sound juggment on a matter of intense importance to Canadians: the Constitution.

Layton indicated that he would be open to re-opening the Constitution in order to secure Quebec's assent to that document. And as opposed to Pierre Trudeau, who rammed the Constitution through while a separatist government was in power in Quebec, Layton wants to wait until "the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec" exist.

Needless to say, Layton is gambling. Canadians don't exactly look back on the last rounds of Constitutional wranglings -- the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords -- with fond memories.

Yet Layton is clearly well-attuned to the problems the state of Canada's Constitution -- with Quebec not a signatory to that document -- pose to the country.

"What we're saying is that at some point in the future the whole issue of the fact that Quebec hasn't signed on to our Constitution has got to be dealt with," Layton remarked. "But the first step is getting rid of the Stephen Harper government and putting in place a government that can actually work with not only the people of Quebec, but right across the country, and stop this division that we've been getting for far too long."

Quebec isn't the only waning hole in the country's Constitutional unity. Canada's First Nations have yet to achieve a satisfactory position within the British North America Act.

But if Layton is going to be involved in Constitutional negotiations, it's imperative that those negotiations take place under a Conservative government. If Layton is able to direct such constitutional discussions from the driver's seat, God only knows what kind of disaster will ensue.

One could rest assured that Layton would do everything he can to institutionalize some rather extreme leftist principles in the Constitution. The idea of Libby Davies with a pen at the Constitutional table should send a chill down the spines of any thinking Canadian. (Read: not the kind who vote for Davies.)

All this being said, the Constitution is a key issue for Canada, whether Canadians welcome it or not. Jack Layton's understanding of this is another key marker demonstrating that he's ready to sit in the Opposition's big chair.

Jack Layton would make an excellent Leader of the Opposition... opposing a Stephen Harper majority government.

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.

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.

And Sister Sage Does it Again!

If the meltdown experienced yesterday by CK of Sister Sage's Musings didn't establish that she's just completely out to lunch with her delusions, a more recent post may confirm it once and for all.

In the post, CK suggests that progressives outside of Quebec should start a Quebec separatist movement to aid in the separation of Quebec so they may have have a far-left refuge in the case that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should ever win a majority government.

For his own part, Progressive Bloggers founder Scott Tribe has expressed his hope of hopes that CK wasn't being serious when she made that particular suggestion.

Sadly no, Scott. Rather CK is all about backing the separatists so long as it easily meshes with being anti-conservative.

But one actually has to love the sheer insanity of the very proposition itself. CK seems to imagine that a sovereign Quebec would become a progressive utopia.

Evidently, she hasn't stopped to wonder precisely how Quebec will continue as it does today without the billions of dollars the rest of Canada -- particularly conservative Alberta -- pumps into the province just to keep them in milk and honey today.

CK imagines a Quebec where that pot will almost certainly be sweetened further without the rest of Canada to subsidize it. One can only imagine how.

Perhaps she believes that Canada, following said separation of Quebec, will simply continue to be generous out of the goodness of our own hearts.

Quebec separatist leaders have certainly said as much before. During the 1995 Referendum campaign, a number of separatist leaders said they would separate from Canada without accepting their share of the national debt.

"Au revoir... et merci pour nos droits!"

And, naturally, what Canadian progressives wouldn't want to emigrate to Quebec so they can live as second-class citizens in a state that would be founded on a racial ideology? All because they can't stand the thought of having a government they disagree with for a few years?

Just fucking brilliant.

Update! Submitted for your approval:

Complete meltdown. 'Nuff said. (For now.)

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"

Attention Quebec Progressives: The PQ Doesn't Need You Anymore

Parti Quebecois ends preferential treatment of SPQ Libre

Once upon a time, Syndacalistes du Progessives du Quebec Libre had a very special relationship with the Parti Quebecois.

That is, until Pauline Marois tired of him. Now, the very special relationship -- replete with special memberships for the members of the SPQ Libre and special representation at party events -- is over.

According to SPQ Libre leader Marc Laviolette, it's apparently unmistakable: the PQ is shifting rightward.

“I think it’s obvious the PQ is turning to the right,” Laviolette insisted. “We’ve seen it with Mme. Marois’s declaration on the public sector demands and now this decision by the executive.”

Laviolette insists that Marois can broke no dissent within the party.

“There can be a minority point of view in a party. It should allow the expression of various points of view," Lavoliette continued. "Only Madame Marois doesn’t like it if you go against her point of view. I’m sure that if we’d said yes to everything we would have continued to be recognized as a political club.”

For her own part, Marois insists that the SPQ Libre's special status was alientating other members of the PQ.

But it's hard to overlook the timing of Marois' move: she's cutting the SPQ Libre off just as the Action Democratique du Quebec is reaching a point of critical weakness.

Should the ADQ manage to collapse entirely, that could leave significant portions of conservative voters in Quebec effectively up for grabs. It seems unlikely that a hardline separatist group like SPQ Libre would shift its allegiances to the federalist provincial Liberals (unless, of course, they believed they could sway the party to the cause of separatism).

Pauline Marois and the Parti Quebecois may even be content to let SPQ Libre break away entirely and form its own separatist party if the benefits it can accrue by attracting marooned members of the ADQ.

Of course, the Parti Quebecois has never legitimately been a progressive party -- the racist ideology the party was founded on seems to preclude true progressivism.

Pauline Marois and the PQ don't seem to need progressives like SPQ Libre anymore, and is ready to show it's true colours -- that of an extremist movement that is willing to do anything it needs to do in order to achieve its goal.

ADQ, RIP

Gilles Taillon resigns as leader, party fades into history books

If there was any doubt that the Action Democratique du Quebec is all but officially dead it was almost certainly wiped away when Gilles Taillon resigned as leader less than a month into his tenure.

Taillon's resignation quickly follows the departure of Eric Caire and Marc Picard from the party.

But there may be even more afoot. Taillon has suggested the ADQ may have links to a controversial Quebec construction magnate, and is apparently planning to call the police in to investigate.

"I intend to push my observations further and will probably demand a meeting with the authorities at the Surete du Quebec," Taillon announced.

That wasn't all.

Taillon -- who won the party leadership by a single vote (once a fraudulent vote is removed from his tally -- blamed the federal Conservative party for engineering a rebellion against him within the party.

He had met with Tory Senator Leo Housakos (who himself has been embroiled in the recent controversy) and told him the ADQ was going to sever ties with the federal Conservatives.

"I clearly told Senator Housakos that I had nothing against Conservatives or Housakos himself," Taillon said. "But I also told him that if I ultimately became leader, the ADQ would work only for Quebec and without any attachment to any of the federal parties."

He also insinuated that Mario Dumont was involved in the plot against him.

"I understand today, with the public comments of the former 'owners' of the party, with Mario Dumont at the helm, that my election to the ADQ leadership for these people signalled an end to this 'untouchable alliance,'" Taillon continued. "From that point, Gilles Taillon could no longer be leader of the ADQ, despite being the democratic choice of party members."

But for his own part, Dumont outright dismissed the idea of a Conservative plot against Taillon.

"It's understandable - this man is dealing with a personal failure, and it's difficult," Dumont said of his former Deputy Leader. "It's understandable from a professional standpoint: he built a brilliant career, and he's dealing with a difficult failure this week. I don't think that's any reason to be casting about for such a meticulously orchestrated plot."

The ADQ once had a proud history as the conservative federalist alternative in Quebec.

Now, just as the leadership campaign Taillon won in order to become party leader was one of the most meaningless and acrimonious in history, the party's dissolution may be one of the most meaningless and acrimonious in history.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

ThreeHundredEight - "The ADQ Self-Destructs"

Dan Shields - "If the ADQ Was a Dog We'd Shoot It"

William Norman - "ADQ Disintegration Watch"

Jean Charest Offers to Nail ADQ Coffin Shut

Charest offers welcome to ADQ defectors

With the Action Democratique du Quebec still reeling after the departure of defeated leadership candidate Eric Caire and former house Marc Picard from its ranks, Jean Charest has evidently detected the opportunity to lay the ADQ to rest for good.

He's offered Picard and Caire -- as well as any other ADQ MNAs -- the opportunity to join the Liberal Party in the National Assembly.

"Politics is the art of inclusion," Charest announced. "For us the door has always been open, from all time. It is an open party and we will not change, but we will respect the choice of each MNA."

However, Charest has made no move to formally recruit Caire, Picard, or any other member of the ADQ.

"I can tell you from experience that if a member decides to make a change in his situation, whether to become an independent or to go elsewhere, if has to come from him," Charest added. "We are putting no pressure on the ADQ MNAs and yes we have known one another for a long time and that doesn’t prevent us from encouraging one another."

Not that Charest hasn't been talking to any of them.

"In fact I spoke to Mr Caire after his defeat," he said. "I also spoke to [Christian] Lévesque to congratulate him."

But one has to wonder whether or not all the members of the ADQ would be welcome to join Charest's caucus. After all, Charest has been threatening former ADQ interim leader Sylvie Roy with a libel suit for claiming that three of his cabinet ministers had met with a controversial construction magnate aboard the man's private yaught.

Then again, for the opportunity to put his conservative opposition to rest permanently, Charest may be willing to swallow his pride, and see if Roy is willing to do the same.

Rarely before has a long-established political party collapsed so quickly after managing to become the Official Opposition. But the ADQ has managed to accomplish this task.

The ADQ has evidently reached the end of its story, and Jean Charest is perfectly content to write its eulogy.

Two More Nails in the ADQ Coffin

Caire, Picard split from ADQ

Gilles Taillon's efforts to salvage the Action Democratique du Quebec from the ashes of its drubbing in the 2008 Quebec Provincial Election has just become much more difficult.

Eric Caire, Taillon's primary rival for the ADQ leadership, and Marc Picard, the party's former House Leader, have both left the party to sit as independents.

This is only one more merciless blow to a party that has already suffered a continuous stream of defeats. In 2008, they were punted from Official Opposition status with a 34-seat loss.

Mario Dumont -- previously the only leader the party has ever known -- resigned from the leadership quickly after.

On June 22, 2009, the party lost Dumont's seat in the National Assembly to Liberal Jean D'Amour.

The party went on to conduct a long, drawn-out and often vicious leadership campaign in which policies and ideas took a back seat to personal and ad hominem attacks.

Now, fully one third of the parties MNAs have left their caucus.

Caire -- who, after his narrow defeat, stressed the importance of the party supporting Taillon -- complained that Taillon was pulling the party too far away from its conservative principles.

“It is no longer the party I joined,” Caire complained. "That ADQ no longer exists for me."

Caire even took the opportunity to lob one more hand grenade Taillon's way before departing from the party. "I think that the future of the ADQ depends on the leader of the [party]," Caire insisted, knowing full well that his departure effectively cripples the party.

He also blamed poor leadership qualities.

"[His is] a reign without teamwork, without having either the qualities or the charisma to do it," Caire added.

When a leadership campaign turns as deeply personal as the ADQ campaign did, it's only natural that the winner and losers will find themselves unwilling and unable to work together.

As Jean Lapierre has noted, the ADQ's failure to have a proper leadership contest has effectively spelled its end.

The ADQ's time has seemingly come. With it, so has the time for a new conservative party in Quebec.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Top Can of Contemplation - "Sore Loser Syndrome"

Canadian Conservatism's Troubled Symmetry

Two provinces, two parties, two different directions, and one big problem for Canadian Conservatives

While Alberta's Wildrose Alliance was meeting this past weekend to elect Danielle Smith the new leader of the party, another provincial conservative party was meeting to elect its leader.

The Action Democratique du Quebec met and elected Gilles Taillon as its new leader -- only the second in its entire history.

There are many similarities between the circumstances faced by the two parties, and each leader.

Each party has few seats in the provincial legislature, and each faces the monumental task of building its organization. Unfortunately for the ADQ, this is where the similarities stop.

The Wildrose Alliance is coming off of an exciting and vibrant leadership campaign in which ideas were strongly contested between the two competitors: namely, whether the party would proceed in a libertarian or social conservative direction (the party chose the course of libertarianism).

The ADQ, meanwhile, is stumbling out of a leadership contest in which personal animosity and smear politics seemed to be the order of the day.

While the Alliance leadership campaign attracted national attention, the ADQ contest was largely invisible on the national stage.

If Smith's election as the leader of the Alliance is truly one of the most exciting developments in the history of Canadian conservatism, the election of Taillon as the ADQ leader was purely underwhelming. This is unfortunate not only for the ADQ, but for Canadian conservatism as a whole.

In Daifallah's estimation, Taillon's prospects as the leader of the ADQ are sorely limited by a number of factors.

"Taillon is well-known, but he’s an uninspiring choice for a party looking to renew. He’s the oldest of the three major Quebec party leaders, questions about his health abound and he lost his seat in the National Assembly in the last election," Daifallah notes. "His politics are decidedly centrist. If he has his way, there will likely be little difference between the ADQ and the Parti Québécois. A number of prominent conservative ADQ members have already quit since Sunday."

"Taillon’s centrist approach is particularly unfortunate given that more and more Quebecers are coming to realize the unsustainability of their massive welfare programs and statist business model," Daifallah continues. "The prospects in Quebec for a party advocating smaller government and more personal responsibility should improve in the coming years."

The problem is that, unless Taillon steers his party back away from the centre, Quebec will have no such party to take advantage of such an ideological shift in the province.

Quebec is one of two provinces in Canada with no active provincial Conservative party. In Saskatchewan the banner of conservative politics is being carried by Brad Wall's Saskatchewan party. Although a provincial Progressive Conservative party remains registered, it doesn't run candidates.

If one considers provinces where a provincial Conservative party remains active but is politically marginal, the case of British Columbia stands out as well.

Likewise, the decimation of the New Brunswick PCs -- a ship since righted by Bernard Lord -- by the Confederation of Regions party isn't as far in past as many New Brunswick Tories would like to pretend.

If Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Alliance are successful, Alberta could soon be added to this list. Historically when Albertans have changed governments they practically erase the preceding government. Social Credit and the United Farmers of Alberta were once mighty political forces. Today Social Credit is entirely peripheral to Albertan politics.

The problem that quickly emerges is not for Canadian conservatives, but rather for Canadian Conservatives. While cross-party cooperation in matters of federal politics is far from ruled out, it can be politically perilous for conservative politicians -- particularly in Saskatchewan, and possibly soon in Alberta -- to be seen working too closely with the federal incarnation of a party they have either worked so hard to depose (as would be the case in Alberta) or has a troubled history (as is the case in Saskatchewan).

It can be particularly unseemingly in terms of the recruitment of federal candidates out of provincial ranks. While such a transition is far from unheard of -- in particular, federal Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski was formerly the General Manager of the Saskatchewan party.

By comparison, however, the Liberal party and NDP each have provincial parties in every province in Canada. While the Liberal party isn't particularly strong in Alberta, or especially in Saskatchewan, it can freely shuttle candidates back and forth between provincial and federal parties. A clear example is Dr Eric Hoskins, who was an unsuccessful federal candidate before running for the McGuinty Liberals in St Paul's.

In Quebec and Saskatchewan the Tories may get occasional help from the Saskatchewan party or the ADQ, but it has to do the bulk of its organizing and recruitment entirely on its own.

Provincial parties also offer the potential advantage -- or disadvantage -- of having another party to help build the brand image. If there is a shift underway the likes of which Daifallah suggests, the Conservative party currently has no provincial party there to help them take advantage of this shift.

It's on this note that it would perhaps be partially irrelevant if Quebec had a conservative leader like Danielle Smith -- at least for capital-C Conservatives. For small-c conservatives, it would be like a dream.

But like any political movement, conservatives fare best when they work together. Anything that impedes that kind of cooperation should properly be viewed as an impediment -- even if an impediment that some conservatives will view as a necessary evil.

It's long been past time for Canadian conservatives to learn to moderate themselves from within their provincial parties, as opposed to having to build entire vote- and activist-splitting alternative parties.

Taillon To Lead ADQ In Its Fight For Survival

Gilles Taillon wins lacklustre leadership campaign

When Mario Dumont resigned the leadership of the Action Democratique du Quebec, the party was left with the dual tasks of rebuilding from its disastrous defeat in the 2008 provincial election and choosing his replacement.

Now that the ADQ has chosen Gilles Taillon to lead the party, it must focus on the most important task to emerge out of the leadership campaign: proving it deserves to survive.

The ADQ leadership campaign turned out to be an utter disservice to the party. The disqualification of a candidate, another candidate's alleged inflated credentials, and the illness of Taillon -- who will soon be undergoing cancer treatment -- became issues in the campaign.

But, sadly, ideas weren't a central preoccupation of the campaign.

The ADQ's leadership campaign focused almost exclusively on personal attacks and acrimony, and painted a picture of a party with a disease at its very core -- of an exhausted organization with no sense of purpose, or even of its own futures outside the personal aspirations of Taillon and his principle rival, Eric Caire.

In order to get on with the task of simply surviving, the party will need to put the deeply personal nature of the leadership campaign behind them.

Taillon seems to understand this.

"I accept this victory with humility," Taillon announced. "Especially since I won with such a slim majority. We all have to work together for the ADQ to triumph in 2012, 2013."

Caire seems to share that understanding.

"I conceded victory, whether its over two votes or 150," he said. "I believe in democracy."

"Our team needs to rally around our leader," Caire added. "The decision was made by our members."

Taillon's and Caire's ability to work together in rebuilding the ADQ will prove the answer to the question of whether or not anyone other than Mario Dumont can lead the ADQ.

Gilles Taillon and Eric Caire will have to work together, without acrimony, to prove that the ADQ deserves to survive.