With the drop in PQ support in Quebec and the poor performance of PQ Leader Andre Boisclair we may be seeing changes in Quebec. What would happen to BQ support if, for example, Gilles Duceppe left the party to seek the PQ leadership? What would happen if BQ support dropped significantly?
To that end, SES added an extra question to its latest omnibus survey. Quite simply, we asked committed BQ supporters who they would vote for federally if the BQ did not exist.
As you know, this is a hypothetical situation but it does instruct observers as to the potential future movement of voters.
In a nutshell, the absence of the BQ would likely move the Conservatives into majority territory. They would lead in Quebec with the support of 41% of voters followed by the NDP and the Liberals who would be statistically tied (23% and 21% respectively). BQ committed voters would move to the Conservatives (who pick up 13 points), the NDP (who pick up 10 points), the Green Party (who pick up 8 points) and the Liberals (who pick up 3 points). Factoring the margin of accuracy for the sub sample the discernable movement is to the Tories and the NDP and to a lesser extent to the Greens.
My read is that the departure of Gilles Duceppe to the Quebec political scene and any weakening of the BQ would result in a major political realignment. The old federal battle lines between sovereigntists and federalists in Quebec would be weakened.
Detailed below is a glimmer of a potential new political reality.
[Bloc voters only] If the Bloc Quebecois did not exist federally and you had to choose between the federal [rotate] Liberals, Conservatives, NDP or Green Party, which federal party would you vote for? Values in parenthesis represent the change in support if the BQ did not exist. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Check out the detailed stats in the Support Materials box on the right.
Canada without Bloc (N=910, Margin of Accuracy +/-3.3%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 39% (+3)
- Liberal 34% (+1)
- NDP 19% (+3)
- Green Party 8% (+2)
- None 1% (0)
Quebec without Bloc (N=230, Margin of Accuracy +/- 6.5%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 41% (+13)
- Liberal 21% (+3)
- NDP 23% (+10)
- Green Party 12% (+8)
- None 4% (0)
What do you think? Will Duceppe jump to the provincial scene? What is the future of the BQ?
Cheers,
NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard.
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
This is a very interesting poll and basically confirms my view that the Liberals... more
paulalex (Québec) 17 Apr 01:34
Both the PQ and the Liberals picked the wrong person to lead their respective pa... more
RonMacD (Ontario) 17 Apr 07:33
This poll and all the rest taken since PM Harper obtained a minority government ... more
Digbyou812 (Alberta) 22 Apr 11:37
Pressman (Ontario) You have a jaundiced view of Quebeckers. Perhaps the Bloc ma... more
e guye (Nova Scotia) 17 Apr 22:35
I am sure you meant you would welcome the advent of a divided left since that is... more
paulalex (Québec) 19 Apr 22:27
You are absolutely right that the provinces do have the power to deal with healt... more
hollinm (Saskatchewan) 19 Apr 22:36
Comments
paulalex
This is a very interesting poll and basically confirms my view that the Liberals are slipping down to third party territory. Personally I would not be surprised to see Layton become leader of the opposition sometime soon. If we are not voting on national issues then a traditional lef/right divide makes sense (and this basically excludes the Liberals who, in trying to be all things to all people, have ended up being nothing to anyone. In any case, Liberal party support has all but vanished amongst francophone Quebecers; -- well OK, they still have about ten percent support, mainly among unilingual senior citizens but also of course within the corrupt kleptocracy. But the Uncle Tom Quebec politicians whom so many other Canadians used to love voting for are becoming less and less successful at fooling so many people so much of the time, and they have certainly reached their nadir in Stephane Dion. His love-in with Madame May may well have marked his party's demise. If the Liberals are in league with the Greens then that means there are three left-wing parties and one right-wing. (Actually only one left-wing party and one alliance between a left-wing party and a whatever party, so might as well vote for a real left-wing party). One should also not forget that one of the reasons so many Quebecers supported Mulroney was out of a desire to see the party of Trudeau squashed, and this sentiment is quite strong again at the moment.
Anyway, the Bloc is of course not going to disappear completely although its fortunes may wax and wane as more or less viable alternatives are presented to the Quebec electorate. (The real test will come in the next referendum so it is quite safe to vote for a 'federalist' party in Ottawa or an 'autonomist' party in Quebec in the meantime). Duceppe will not move before the time is right, which means certainly not until after the upcoming federal election, and perhaps not until after the next Quebec election. He would dearly love to be leader of the opposition in Ottawa, but if the Conservatives win a majority and the Bloc remains in third (or fourth) place then he will move sooner rather than later. It is not yet clear whether the PQ convention will be brought forward to this year or next, nor is it clear that the ADQ surge has crested. We may have to wait to the following Quebec election to see a Dumont Duceppe showdown. A few things are certain however; -- the Bloc will lose a few seats this time round, the Tories will gain a few, and both the federal and Quebec Liberals are on their way to third party status ...
17 Apr 01:34
49 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
hollinm
It is interesting to see your view from a Quebec perspective. I agree with your analysis. Quebec is tiring of the old fight: us against them that the Liberals like to perpetuate. That day is gone because Quebecers have seen a new prime minister with a different vision than the old tired Liberals. I do believe that it could happen that Layton becomes leader of the opposition. Dion will not sell in the West even though he will promise the moon and say he is different. His pit bull Mark Holland virtually sealed the Liberals' fate when he said a Dion government would consider nationalizing the oil sands if they didn't fall in line. Dion's environmental policy is a dud and will not sell when Canadians become aware of the costs for implementing it and the impact on industry. His Afghanistan position is a flip flop from day one. Remember he said we need to be out right away and then we will not withdraw in dishonour and now its the mission is ok but is not being executed properly. Sad, sad, sad. Now he is hiding from Question Period in the H of C because Harper shows him up everyday he is there and Canadians see evidence of a weak leader.
17 Apr 12:30
paulalex
Yes the Liberals have had a long reign as a result of their divisive tactics, but Dion seems to be trying to be divisive at the same time as he is uniting with the greens??? Their old game plan, while objectionable, did at lewast work for them, but now Dion seems to have thrown away the script.
Interestingly, his performance in both the French and English languages leaves much to be desired. While Chretien could use that as an asset, Dion's pompousness makes it a serious liability. Even Duceppe's English, while heavily accented, is more intelligible than Dion's. Also interesting and refreshing is that both Harper and Layton speak fairly comprehensible French. Nevertheless, the NDP only have a distant outside chance in two ridings in Quebec, and only if they poll more than 20% here.
17 Apr 15:18
hollinm
I agree about the language issue. I am English but my wife is bilingual and there are often times when we listen to Dion that we look at other and say...what did he just say?
This will hurt him in an English language debate because he will not be able to think quickly enough in French and translate it into English and at the same time make sense. English speaking Canadians will look at this and say do we want a person who cannot speak the language of the majority well enough to be prime minister. You and I both know the answer to that question.
17 Apr 18:17
e guye
holinm (Saskatchewan) Stehpen Harper, an Ontarion-Albertan, an outsider to the Canadian political spectrum for the last 17 or so of past 20 years, learned to speak the French language intelligibly so that he could communicate with all Canadians.
Stephan Dion, an insider to the Canadian political spectrum for the last 11 years or so, did not bother to learn to speak English to the extent that he could communicate to all Canadians. Even though English is one of the 'official' languarges, and as an elected official in a governing party he had the obligation, I think, to do so.
What does that tell us?
18 Apr 01:43
hollinm
It tells us Mr. Dion is typical of many francophones who do not believe they need to learn the language of the majority. However, they are quick to point out that should someone aspire to political office in Canada he/she must be able to speak French. Talk about hypocrisy or at the very least a double standard. However, we Canadians have allowed Quebec to dictate the political agenda for the past 30 years without hardly a whimper including choking their language down the throats of Canadians living outside of Quebec. This has been aided and abetted by weak kneed politicians who are not prepared to take a stand despite the fact it divides the country. Sometimes when I watch Parliament or other public events I think that Canada has been frenchified to such an extent I don't recognize the country I was borne in.
If you read any of the biographies on Stephen Harper you will clearly understand his position towards Quebec. People say he has changed. Not so, I would argue. His position is decentralization where the provinces look after their own areas of jurisdiction and the feds theirs. Language is a provincial issue but the Liberals have once again interferred with provincial jurisdiction by introducing and enforcing the Official Bilingualism Act. This was so they could promote a social engineering experiment in Canada by forcing Canadians to learn and speak the language of the minority. It has not worked but accounts say we have spent some $700 billion over the past 40 years in an attempt to force bilingualism on the public. However, recent census shows little has changed in the number of people who consider themselves fluently bilingual. Yet the feds perpetuate the myth that we are a bilingual country. Mr. Dion is a prickly Frenchman who has more than a hint of arrogance and he will have difficulty selling himself outside of Quebec because of his fractured English, his arrogance and his recycled policies.
18 Apr 02:05
paulalex
To my respected interlocutors in the distant lands of Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia,
First of all, Dion is extremely unpopular here in Quebec.
Secondly, for most francophones in North America (i.e. here in the nation of Quebec), French is the language of the majority (i.e. here in the nation of Quebec).
Thirdly, the farcical issue of bilingualism outside of Quebec is completely irrelevant to Quebecers. What I don't understand is why people in the R of C keep voting for something that they then complain about.
Everything would just be so much easier if we could all just govern ourselves, but if people in the R of C want to keep trying to governing each other, then rest assured that Quebecers will not try to stop them doing what they want.
If only the reverse were also true.
18 Apr 02:48
hollinm
I am glad to hear that Dion is unpopular in Quebec. You will not read this in the English media in the R of C.
We will see if your lack caring about French in the R of C is a non issue when the Official Bilingualism Act is amended when decentralization takes place. Because with this we agree decentralization is the route to go if we are ever to have harmony among the provinces and the feds. That will not happen if the Liberals ever get back into power. So Quebecers should vote Conservative in the next federal election to ensure that a prime minister is elected who believes in the provinces looking after their own areas of jurisdiction. Voting for the Bloc will not accomplish this goal.
18 Apr 02:59
paulalex
Yes I think it is fair to say that Dion is hated, despised, and reviled here in Quebec. In the last poll Nik posted here he did worse in Quebec than any other part of Canada, gaining only 10% support.
Bilingualism is only an issue for Quebecers when it concerns the bits of the central governmental machinery that deal with Quebec. Obviously they have to deal with Quebecers in French. As far as the francophones outside Quebec are concerned, most Quebecers have written them off - Levesque referred to them as sitting ducks, meaning that they will eventually be anglicised.. Still I suppose it is fair to have some central government services being bilingual in Sudbury, Moncton, and Montreal Ouest, but really nobody in Quebec expects people in Vancouver or Toronto to speak, read or write French. It is just never going to happen so why pretend. I think only about 1% of the population there are capable of that. The inflated sorry attempts at mispronouncing a few dozen words are more pathetic and insulting than anything else. Similarly only about 1% of people in Saguenay or Trois-Rivieres are able to read, speak, and write English, and that too will not change.
The language divide of the two solitudes is much stronger and more unbridgeable than any unilingual person can ever realise (which is why the airhead liberals poll higher among the older more unilingual people here in Quebec). Anyway, for every single other country in the world (other than highly-decentralised Switzerland), it has been found that two ethnolinguistic nations cannot co-exist in the same state. Unless we go the same route as Switzerland, it will be found that Canada is no exception.
I think Quebecers will give Harper a majority this time round, but a Harper minority dependent on Bloc support would give Quebec much more power to get what it wants than a simple majority for Harper would. Actually maybe we will alternate between these two scenarios because sometimes a government does need at least three years unencumbered in order to accomplish something so important; - but that will be another tactical move on the part of the Quebec electorate, the long-term goal and the overall strategy will remain the same.
18 Apr 04:16
hollinm
What does Quebec want? Most of us in the R o C don't know. If Quebec wants Harper to form a majority government then that is the only way to get real change in Canada including Quebec. Having the Bloc as the balance of power will not allow the change that needs to be made. I agree with you on the language issue. However, the Liberals tried, despite what Quebec may want and feel, to have most Canadians learn to speak French. They think that is what Quebecers want and they feel that will keep Quebec in Canada. I have no problem with people learning another language but it should be at their own expense and it should not only be French. However, the Official Bilingualism Act has gone too far. It is threatening the livelihoods of many English speaking civil servants and the government is even prepared to discriminate against it's own employees in an attempt to have the major management jobs declared bilingualism imperative. Now it is spreading to Ottawa and I think it will come to Ontario. Make French language services available where there is sufficient numbers to warrant it and it is not cost prohibitive.
19 Apr 22:56
paulalex
Quebec wants to be autonomous and/or independent. 67% of voters voted against the pro-federal Charest Liberal party in March. It was the worst performance by the Liberals in over 144 years.
In the 1995 referendum, 49.5% of Quebec voters voted in favour of sovereignty, but unfortunately the referendum was stolen by the Liberals using stolen tax money to bribe corrupt people to ignore the election rules by flooding Quebec with federalist propaganda. They also rushed the normal immigration process to give canadian citizenship to many new canadians and bussed in many liberals from out of province to vote. This is why Quebecers are so angry about adscam, because our money was stolen and then used to steal our referendum. Then to add insult to injury, Canadians blame Quebecers for the scandal.
Most Quebecers have now decided to go slow on the sovereignty project (because the federalistas will not play fair and will try to provoke all kinds of racist anti-Quebec conflict and stereotyping), but this is just a temporary tactical move.
Unfortunately there is an elite class in Canada (Chretien/Martin/Dion/Trudeau etc) who maintain power for themselves and their friends in the Ottawa bureaucracy by misrepresenting Quebec to Canadians. They will use any dirty trick possible to maintain power. They will fight to maintain the farcical fraud of official bilingualism because it helps them to maintain their grip on the handles of power/money.
20 Apr 10:01
hollinm
Well paulalex I guess I now know where you stand. You are a Separatist who wants to leave Canada. Well, while it would be sad to see Quebec leave the federation I think that you may get what you wish for should the people of Quebec vote for separation in the next referendum.
I don't think you need to worry about busloads of Canadians coming to Quebec to support the NO side the next time around. Most Canadians will sit back and tacitly watch.
In 1995 Canadians wanted Quebec to stay because we felt they formed a distinct part of Canada. However, I would suggest that feeling has changed since 1995 as we saw the demands of Quebec increase.
Effective governance of the country has been stymied as a result of the Bloc and the 75 seats that Quebec holds within the Parliament of Canada. For too long Quebec has held the country hostage and some people have suggested that they continually blackmail the RoC with the threat of separation in order to get what they want but really have no intention of separating at all.
You foreget that Quebec was defeated on the Plains of Abraham and were sold by France in exchange for a Caribbean island. There are no two founding peoples. It is English Canada who developed Quebec and the ability to retain their religion, language and system of justice was granted as a peace jesture. This is by no means an effort to gloat but merely to point out the realities of history.
You should read the official accounts of the history of Quebec rather than believe the propaganda taught in schools or promoted by Quebec politicians.
Maybe unfortunately for the Separatists this is still a democratic country and while there are about 40% of the population who want to separate there are still 60% who want to continue to part of the best country in the world.
I firmly believe that Canada is a federation made of up 10 provinces and three terrorities none more equal than the other.
20 Apr 21:00
paulalex
"There are no two founding peoples. It is English Canada who developed Quebec and the ability to retain their religion, language and system of justice was granted as a peace jesture."
Wow ! and there I was thinking that my ability to learn and retain language was something I had been born with. But now I know that it is only through the incredible generosity of the imperial conqueror that I have that ability .... and how could I possibly have thought that the canadien paysants were sweating and toiling when it was actually the English Lords and Scottish Barons who developed Quebec. However can we possibly repay such remarkable magnanimity? Perhaps if we promise to be well-behaved slaves you will permit us to continue speaking our own language?
Well at least we now know how things stand. I somehow always did know that the whole two founding nations shtick was a case of protesting too much, although I confess I am a little surprised at how easily the mask slips. If only we could get those kinds of comments broadcast at the time of the next referendum, we would have no problems in easily winning a 60% majority. More immediately, if any CPC candidate dares to say anything that intolerant at the next election, Harper can say goodbye to winning any seats in Quebec. I am sure it must be terribly inconvenient for some people to have a democracy where other races not only have the vote but also dare to occasionally cast their votes in a manner that displeases their masters.
21 Apr 04:49
e guye
I not only disagree, think this comment propoganda.
As far as Mr Harper's chances in the next federal election - think this poster states 'maybe' a 10% opinion Quebeckers.
Harper reached out in a principled way to Quebeckers, who I think have responded in kind.
Let's wait and see.
22 Apr 02:33
hollinm
I knew this would be the kind of blather I would hear back from a person who would like to the see the country break up. You really should get the chip off of your shoulder. Leave Mr. Harper out of this. It is my opinion and probably many other people in Canada. You want to break up my country and I am entitled to not be very happy about that fact. Quebecers are not the only ones entitled to have opinons you kow.
21 Apr 11:09
blossom
Yes hollinm, we poor little, stiffled Quebecers...You are quite
discerning, and yes, those whom I happen to know, are people
who have a chip on their shoulder, and it has nothing to do with
politics. Ask them what they are griping about, and they can not
answer you, because they do not know why they want to separate
this Country. They were brain-washed, and like sheep, they follow
blindly what they were erroniously taught!
For those who did not hear andre boisclair (pq) during the last
campaign, and I distinctly heard him say that separation now
has nothing to do with the language and culture...This was a part
of the old indoctrination, but now, it seems it is something else
that they have invented.
03 May 02:11
e guye
Hi Holinm, Heard about the poll on Duffy but haven't been able to find a mention of it yet.
A ten point spread doesn't surprise me in the least.
Have you seen the clips on TV - I've seen twice without trying - Harper in his vest, with a stomach?
Wonder when the Liberal media will understand that Canadians really don't care if their PM carries an extra 15 pounds, or if he's not clothes conscious. We don't care that much about the packaging, although realize in this media age it's important, too, for people who don't read or think.
We care about the man, who he is and what he stands for - the PM is giving Canadians a chance to be proud of their leader for a change.
When all's said and done I think the PM is so far ahead of the Liberal, NDP leaders in all the ways that matter that whenever an election comes, early or late, there's going to be a huge Tory majority in this country.
21 Apr 22:55
hollinm
I certainly agree with you. However, the media doesn't like a prime minister who they can't intimidate. He is one step ahead of them all the time. By the way I think a Striing election is coming. Justic, democratic reform and the silly Kyoto bill. Unless the oppostion backs down there is enough for him to go to the polls. When compared to the weak leader Dion he will get his majority. Canadians want environmental improvement but they are not prepared to go bankrupt to accomplish. What do you think?
By the way have seen my back and forth with the Separatist from Quebec.. paulalex?
22 Apr 00:08
e guye
hollinm (Saskatchewan)
No I hadn't read them - find it hard to follow the 'threads' on this board sometimes - but now that I have, posted a few of my own.
22 Apr 02:38
blossom
Hello hollinm,
You have my respect for an outstanding and truly informative
relavent and factual statement, and it is really sad that this
separatist movement has been forced into young people's minds,
for generations now. Forty years of this falacy has not helped Qc,
nor the rest of the Country. Because of the uncertainty, investments
were deferred elsewhere. Yet, it has always amused me to see separatists imitate and adulate their hollywood
neighbours...French Canadians have always rushed to cross the
borders to shop, vacation, and even invest in properties in the US.
If Qc separated, they would have no bargaining power neither with
Canada or the US. Even jacques parizeau warned them, and that's
when his party dismantled him to behind the scenes. Another
fantasy, is that France is behind them!!!
I am happy about what you wrote, since this is the way I feel,
but somehow, never seem to find the words and arguments with
separatists, since it so much contradicts my own views. The last
paragraph is what all of us should look forward to. As the Ministers
of all of our Provinces who met this week said, that we all want to
make it work for all and our Country, considering each's own
needs. We should all stand together to make this Country work,
and for all!
Thanks,
03 May 02:00
e guye
67% voted against Charest because of 1) apparently his broken promises (I don't pretend to know what they were) 2) he's a Liberal.
You say 'Most Quebecers have now decided to go slow on the sovereignty project (because the federalistas will not play fair and will try to provoke all kinds of racist anti-Quebec conflict and stereotyping), but this is just a temporary tactical move'.
I disagree. Most Quebeckers are probably very tired of the 'sovereignty project' - what, after all, would it accomplish?
Sovereinty or seperatism from what? The country of Canada, one of the most fortunate in the world, has bent over backwards for the past 25 years to accommodate, reassure, accept the province of Quebec.
You say 'federalists will try to provoke all kinds of racist anti-Quebec conflict and stereotyping' - why the racist/Anti-Quebec/stereotyping allusion?
You disregard that Canada as a whole has adopted national polices to promote the interests of French-Canadians - often at the expense of English Canadians - for decades.
But you don't point to a single instance of the abuse of Quebeckers that you profound.
22 Apr 02:21
e guye
What arrogance.
Changing times - the influence of the internet alone will dissolve the concept of the 'two solitudes' - that was many years ago.
The long term goal, the overall strategy of Quebec, will be to act and work in modern times as any other province of Canada - to achieve the best for Quebec within Canada, just as Danny Williams is trying to achieve what he considers is the best for Newfoundland now.
The fact that he is basically wrong in his thinking, that Newfoundland should not have special 'over and above' privileges as compared to the rest of Canada - does not change the fact that he has every right to fight for his province.
Noone has a quarrel with a province having strong views, points of special interest, matters which are particular to them - noone opposes their right to propose these views and fight for them as they see fit.
But it's getting a little tired that Quebec is 'Quebec' - always apart, always alone, always negleted by the rest of Canada.
Recent and even past history has shown that this is just not so.
22 Apr 01:58
paulalex
I don't think Quebecers have ever claimed to feel neglected (unless perhaps you are thinking only of the so-called 'fiscal imbalance' farce).
I think the real issue is that Quebecers think that there is way too much interference. But you are right that the argument does get very tiring, so sometimes we just give up and return to work and live in hope for better days.
29 Apr 22:28
e guye
paulalex (Québec)
You're probably right - shouldn't have used the term 'neglected'. Perhaps 'misunderstood', 'unappreciated' would have been better.
But I still have the basic belief that Quebec has been accommodated to extremes by politicians - in fairness to Trudeau I believe he came from a time that felt there were real injustices to Quebec that should be acknowledged and compensated for - Mulroonie's Tories - always in the search of that elusive
Quebec vote - Jean Chrethien perhaps still under Trudeau's influence but first and foremost a politician after the same votes - Martin a shameless panderer looking to his own aggrandizement.
Maybe I'm naive - but I believe that Harper's approach to Quebec is more honest, more realistic, more moral if you like.
He believes in a strong federal government in the areas of federal jurisdiction - strong provincial governments in the areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Even in his new environmental proposal, he invites the provinces to expand in areas of their special interest, and has given the provinces the money to do so if they feel so inclined. He believes that the federal government should allow the provinces enough money to set up programs, equal across Canada to allow basic rights to all Canadians, but special in content due to the specific wishes of the provinces to direct how monies should be spent beyond the basic common necessities.
He is placing a trust in the integrity, good will of the provinces that is rather new in Canada. He's not trying to establish an over reaching policy, such as official bilingualism, that affects all of Canada - he is trying to establish basic needs that must be met by all provinces in Canada, but then allowing the provinces to go beyond these bases in their own fashion, to suit that province's needs.
Rather a refreshing outlook. And perhaps not so much federal interference as Quebeckers have found in the past.
30 Apr 00:12
paulalex
I agree almost completely with almost everything you have said with the only difference being that I think the ultimate goal is or at least will be significantly different.
Like many other people I have been very naive in believing that a rapid rapprochement is possible, but I do not blame anyone for trying. Harper is certainly the best, if not only chance that federalism has for surviving in Quebec. I think that many Quebecers are willing to take a 'beau risque' again in yet another attempt at finding amicable mutual common ground with our friends and neighbours, but I am also afraid that this is yet again doomed to failure and will turn out to be just another tragiically ironic chapter in our history.
You are right that there has been excessive overacommodation on the bilingualism issue. Basically Canada is just not a bilingual country but is instead composed of two intransigently unilingual parts, and because they are intransigently unilingual, they are solitudes, with effective communication being unfortunately essentially impossible. Official bilingualism has in any event not increased the rate of bilingualism, and interestingly enough, with the exception of the elite, when bilingualism does increase, people tend to become less rather than more federalist as they begin to understand exactly what 'les autres' are saying. So the ineffectiveness of the stated objectives of the official bilingualism boondoggle fits in rather nicely with the liberal tactic of misrepresenting each side to each other.
To be fair however, Trudeau did initially set out to cement the theory of two founding nations in order to entrench federalism, and in this he was largely successful. Nevertheless, even though this theory has become canonical, it must be understood that french canadiens never voluntarily negotiated to enter into this founding, and failure to recognise this historical fact is the reason that all accomodation is destined to fail. Basically Quebecers do not want a strong federation but are however, willing to negotiate a weak federation provided that equality of respect and status is granted first. Harper's reasonableness will be accepted as a means to this end and such reasonableness will not be agreed as being the end in itself. Unfortunately some of the subtleties of this view are inevitably lost in translation. I do not wish to annoy anyone by re-repeating this again, but what we really want to be acknowledged, what Quebecers want people to understand is that we are a separate distinct nation, a people, who were conquered by force of arms in 1759, who patriotically rebelled and were repressed in 1837, who were then confederated in 1867, and who then had in 1982, a repatriated constitution imposed upon us. While many of us were consulted along the way, and tactical concessions were made to prevent us from rebelling, at no time did we have the option of refusing. Essentially what negotiations did occur were only partially, if at all succesful, and were in any case held only with a view to mitigating the status quo and not with a view to creating something new. I know many people have a different view of history and refuse to even discuss this 'grievance', thus making all further discussion impossible.
What many Quebecers want and now propose is that Canadians recognise us as equal partners in any negotiation so that we can voluntarily choose to associate, because even most hardline separatists would like to have some voluntary association.
Anyway it seems we will never get to that point because Canadians cannot accept that as a nation we are distinct and deserving of equal standing notwithstanding the history of conquest and the difference in numbers. It is hard to find exact analogies, but imagine if you will, the Portuguese part of Latin America negotiating with the Spanish part of Latin America for a possible union. Such negotiations would be doomed if the negotiators did not recognise that Brazil's status was qualitatively different from Venezuela's for example. Now I know many people will not follow this kind of analogical thinking outside the Canadian box, but it is our failure to think outside of our traditional terms of reference which has condemned us to this impasse.
I think that we may well make a little progress with Harper but at some point we will realise that we are not on the same page, that we have different assumptions and expectations, and that our entrenched positions are irreconcileable: Canada will not negotiate equally with Quebec, and Quebec will not negotiate if not equally. So any agreements that are made are therefore purely temporary expediencies and do not solve this basic problem.
Of course we all get tired of the apparent refusal to recognise or comprehend, so the whole imbroglio will probably be swept under the carpet as we collapse in a state of exhaustion, and will then return at some later date to haunt some other generation or some other blog :)
30 Apr 02:53
icecoolputer
Having lived in the Saguenay region, I know many people there that have never left the area. They have no desire to move to Montreal to get jobs and would rather sit there and whine because they can't get a job. They do not want to learn English even when they have friends who are fluent in both English and French. I would say that 90% of the English speaking people of the Saguenay area are the Military personnel from Canadian Forces Base Bagotville. Hardly anyone else would have any reason to learn English, especially seeing as they will never leave! Personally, I felt suppressed while living in Quebec as I was treated as an Anglophone because I was not born there. My father was, but that was not good enough. I was not French enough!
I did see the difference between the news in Quebec VS the news out of province though, and everything was made to look worse about Quebec out of province, and everything English was made to look bad in Quebec. No wonder everyone is so pissed at each other!
Getting all the unilinguals to learn another language might be a moot point as the Chinese may end up demanding to have Chinese as an official language. They are not far behind the French as quantities learning the language as the primary language taught at home. So they could ask why the French are allowed to have French as an official Canadian language at 33% of the population when the Chinese have 32% of the population. You are going to see me demanding that I be taught all of the official languages! I did not have a choice to learn or not learn English when I went to a French school, so why would I not be allowed to be taught Chinese?
So would Mr. Harper get a majority with Quebec helping him? Not if there are losses of life when the Vandoos go to Afghanistan...They are a French unit, and hurt the French, and you hurt your chances in the election.
Ummm What is R o C?
06 May 16:36
PMK
Please, do you not think that "decentralization" is merely an excuse used by our political classes to avoid making hard decisions. Does anybody think that decentralization will fix health care, make us more competitive or strengthen our role in the international community? What powers do the provinces need that they don't already have?
The provinces can't fix health care, they can't improve our school systems and they treat our cities (over which they have a constitutional responsibility) with contempt. Canadians should be far more concerned with the 'decentralization" devil they don't know.
18 Apr 07:29
hollinm
You are absolutely right that the provinces do have the power to deal with health care, ecducation etc. However, under the Liberals they have starved the provinces of the cash needed to address the problems within their provinces. If the feds stop collecting outrageous taxes there will be room for the provinces to tax their citizens and specifically address these issues once and for all. Remember the feds promised to fund medicare 50/50 with the provinces when medicare was first introduced but that fell to 15/16%. On the international front it is the jurisdiction of the federal government and only the federal government. On the issue of medicare and education the lines became so blurred that the public does not know who to blame for the mess.
19 Apr 22:36
PMK
While the feds collect the money, it is up to the provinces to deliver the programs. How much money have we poured into health and education without any real changes. I fail to see how more money to the provinces will force them to make the hard decisions.
If the feds were honest, all transfers to provinces would come with accountabilities, not blank checks as per our current government's approach. I think most Canadians would be open to shared funding, if it were accompanied by shared responsibility. Right now our current approach is "give me the money, leave me alone and I will blame you for my inability/unwillingness to make decisions.
20 Apr 09:15
hollinm
I don't disagree with you. Money won't solve the issues but when the feds force the provinces to adhere strictly to the Canada Health Act there is not much room for innovation. Because these areas fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces the feds can't put accontabilities on to them, That's why the daycare discussion is so silly. Do we need more daycare spaces in some provinces? Probably but who should establish the daycare spaces? It should be the provinces. Let the citizens of that province pay for them. Handing over billions of dollars with no accountability is a recipe for wasting of taxpayers money. Citizens need to be able to determine who is responsible and accountable for policies, good and bad.
22 Apr 10:12
e guye
Paulalex - you say 'Thirdly, the farcical issue of bilingualism outside of Quebec is completely irrelevant to Quebecers'.
But it was the Quebecker Trudeau who imposed this 'farcical issue' on non-Quebec Canadians with the culture of bilingualism - a huge boondoggle - costs will never be calculated - setting English speaking Canadians at a distinct disadvantage from Quebeckers in all areas of the public service -and, we were expected to apologize for not speaking French fluently at the same time as our jobs were stolen away.
I read recently that this 'farcical issue' was not successful - that indeed there are no more English Canadians who speak French well than there were 25 years ago.
But this whole issue of bilingualism should not be 'irrelevant to Quebeckers' - it was an example of extreme accommodation to the people of Quebec from the rest of Canada, perhaps not willingly adopted, but certainly adopted.
22 Apr 01:22
paulalex
e guye - the problem is that both Canadians and Quebecers have been deceived by Trudeau and the liberals and the only people who have benefited are the liberal party establishment.
Sure Trudeau was born in Quebec but he and his legacy is/was extremely disliked to put it mildly by most Quebecers. At first Quebecers were fooled by him, as were other Candians, but after the 1982 constitution was imposed without Quebec's consent, it became to clear to all that he did not have Quebec's interests at heart.
You are right that the official bilingualism policy is an expensive boondoggle and that the rate of bilingualism has not actually improved. The whole thing is, however, a very useful tool for the Liberals. Quebecers only want to be served in French when in Quebec or when dealing with Quebec issues in Ottawa, but of course there are francophone minorities in places like Sudbury and Moncton who do strongly support bilingualism, but then again, mainly just when it comes to their areas.
Unfortunately Canadians were fooled by Trudeau into thinking that this is what Quebcers want when in fact all that Quebcers wanted, want, and will want is more and more autonomy.
29 Apr 21:34
e guye
hollinm (Saskatchewan)
Have read a couple of books on Harper - his views as a younger man on bilingualism, at least the 'politicized' bilingualism practiced in Canada since the 60's I think are close to your own. And mine.
18 Apr 19:27
hollinm
Glad you have read some of the books on Harper. You will know the accuastions of him being a religious zealot or right wing ideologue are fabrications perpetuated by the opposition or the media. Language is a provincial jurisdication and so the feds have no business imposing official bilingualism on the country. It is up to each province as to what language will be spoken in that province. Trudeau imposed this on the country through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the weak opposition parties of the day allowed it to happen. I suspect if Harper gets a majority one of the issues dealt with in his centralization platform will be language and while he will not eliminate official lanaguages it will become regional language act.
19 Apr 22:44
e guye
hollinm (Saskatchewan)
Harper has clearly stated that his religious views are his own, not those of his party. His action since election as PM, to defuse the gay rights issue, substantiate this.
The media has only in the past couple of months taken a somewhat softer stance on Harper - they can see the writing on the wall. Up till then en masse they ridiculed, reviled him. Now a few diehards, as Lawrence Martin, still 'fight the fight' against him, but most are looking more realistically at a Conservative majority government in the near future, one that will last as Canadians realize what they have in his leadership - and are 'trimming their sails' to accommodate this new actuality in the Canadian political spectrum.
It's almost funny to see a 'journalist' such as Jane Taber suddenly find cause to criticize Liberals. Qute a new hat to wear, and so far it doesn't fit too well.
20 Apr 01:26
hollinm
I wish it were true what you say about the media but I think he is fighting an uphill battle on this front. You see most of the press gallery are socialist in their thinking and believe in the Liberal way of governing. To change this mindset will be a huge task.
Periodically you see positive reports but they are few in nature. The current discussion about who pays for Harper's makeup person etc. is a good case in point. This should not even be covered by the media but to suggest that Harper who represents the country should pay for this out of his pocket is ridiculous. It is his job to look good as he represents the country on our behalf. However, it is there way of hoistiing him on his own petard about accountability.
However, there is one thing we agree on and that is they are coming to the realization that Dion is such a disaster that Harper is going to beat him hands down in the next election.
Ipsos is coming out with a new poll tonight showing the Conservatives at 39% and the Libs,are you ready, 29%. Positive news for the good guys. Despite the media's best efforts Canadians know good leadership when they see it.
20 Apr 21:15
e guye
paulex (Quebec) An interesting post. First of all I agree with your observation that Dion is pompous - to a ridiculous extent - and that Canadians have a certain fondness for Chretien that over rode any difficulties in language, that never seemed to me very severe - Mr Chretien always made his points clear, something Dion appears unable to do.
If I had to guess would say Dion is getting his advice from advisors who don't have his best interests at heart. A big difference between Dion and Harper - I think Harper listens to advice, then decides himself what he will do in any situation based mainly upon his own thinking, tempered by advice, but not necessarily changed.
Also think Harper is capable of transcending pure politics - the drive to win election success - to set and state his objectives and beliefs. This may prove to be his undoing I guess, but I hope not. His like does not come along very often.
Do not suggest that Harper will not fight to win - he's been around about 20 years and has learned the ins and outs of political congress.
I don't agree that the NDP may become the 'second party' in Canada - they are too immature in their beliefs, aspirations - do not take into account the realities, actualities of situations, the war in Afghanistan as an example.
I think the LIberal party will eventually reinstate itself - once it has ridden itself of Dion, Ignatieff and Rae, as a strong political force in Canada. But it will take years - and these years will belong to the Conservative party.
18 Apr 01:22
paulalex
I think you are mostly correct. Harper is clearly a principled man, which resonates very well in the Quebec heartland. It's about time we had honesty in politics. And his principles are not flaky like Joe Clark's. And he is also an intelligent independent thinker who is becoming more and more adept. I predict he will enjoy at least two majority governments.
I agree the NDP will not become the 'second party' of Canada, but with a Liberal meltdown looming, I think there could be at least one rogue election result where they come in second. Layton is also an honest and skilled man. His position on Afghanistan is very popular here in Quebec, but it is identical to the BQ position. And the NDP is too close to the trade union / labour movement, and too 'politically correct' to win a significant portion of the social democratic vote away fom the Bloc.
I think the Liberals will re-invent themselves a la Rae and become more like the NDP to survive, but this will of course relegate them to the opposition for at least two terms.
18 Apr 02:11
e guye
paulalex (Quebec)
I agree Layton appears a sincere man - his position isn't enviable, always last or almost last in line - able to suggest but not put into effect.
If you're right and the NDP gain official opposition status in one or two elections wonder what effect this would have on both leader and party.
The basic fault of the NDP in my view is an overly simplistic view of policy - also very black and white, no shades of gray. Although some policy is admirable, some is not well reasoned or backed up. As a party that to date has never had to 'put up' they are free to say what they like, in fact sometimes never seem to 'shut up'.
Wonder how many 'broken promises' you would see if the NDP ever gained Federal power - don't think something to worry about in my time.
18 Apr 19:36
paulalex
Layton is probably the biggest asset that the NDP has. For the rest, the party is something of a mishmash, like the liberals in overdrive, trying to accomodate every special interest group (except middleclss canadians and middleclass quebecers of course). Anyway some of their policies do seem quite noble, but some are really just ridiculous ...
We can see from Bob Rae's history what might happen if ... but in a four party system they will never again even hold the balance of power, and can also only become official opposition if the bq and libs do really badly, which would entail a tory majority. I think we can look forward to a decade of split leftwing votes between a reduced liberal party, an 'empowered' ndp, and the leftwing of the bloc, and continued green spoilers; thus ensuring a tory majority for a long time to come in much the same way as the pc/reform split allowed chretien to reign so long.
Eventually continued 'unite the left' attempts will result in some kind of revised liberal party becoming competitive again, although they will continue to perform poorly in quebec as long as they keep up their rabid canadian nationalist rhetoric
But hopefully by then, however, we will all have recognised our individual sovereignty as accorded by the Staute of Westminster; corrected the error of the unilateral imposition of the '(re?)patriated' constitution (which would be most easily and effectively done by just dissolving this dubious and unratified confederation), and then for the first time we could all have freely and and voluntarily associated as a geographic community with some common interests ... .. but I fear that the nationalist centralists will force us to do it the long way with referendums that adhere to Dion's 'clarity act' ...
18 Apr 23:58
e guye
paulalex (Québec)
I agree with your posits right up to the last paragraph - would enjoy advent of a 'divided right' cast out in the wilderness for a good many years.
However you have lost me in the last paragraph. If I follow you, you would advocate the dissolution of Canada as it presently is under a strong Federal government, to be replaced by a 'federation' of individual provinces which would loosely make up Canada (much like the countries of Europe within the European Economic Union).
If this interpretation is so, would not agree that such a loosely bound confederation would make up a nation such as Canada.
The concept of Canadian nationhood requires the controlling hand of a Federal government.
Have probably misread your intent, however.
19 Apr 21:32
paulalex
I am sure you meant you would welcome the advent of a divided left since that is what I posited ...
My last paragraph is indeed difficult to read. You are right that the concept of Canadian nationhood requires a controlling central government, in fact, the concept is impossible without it. Personally, I am not really in favour of federation at all. I would like to see a very loose association to advance our common interests, something not quite as centralised as the EU, but probably more centralised than NAFTA. In any case the whole concept of Canadian nationhood frankly eludes me. I think it is something that was developed only in the post-war years particularly around the time of Pearson and the introduction of the Canadian flag. Before that people identified primarly with their 'province' and only secondarily with the 'dominion' of Canada. While the concept of a Canadian nation has evidently taken root amongst anglo Canadians it has never really taken off among Quebecers. Obviously if Anglo Canadians are happy with this concept Quebecers are not going to interfere with that, but it just must be understood that Quebec is not, has never been, and never will be followers of this concept. Quebec is nation that is inside a geographically united Canada, but it is not at the heart of, nor does it comprehend the concept of a Canadian nation.
At the moment our constitutional framework is full of holes, inconsistencies, and omissions. Unfortunately the Canadian nationalists (a.k.a 'federalists') refuse to negotiate. I really think it would be better for everyone if our political institutions reflected the reality on the ground rather than trying to impose some conceptual reality from the centre. I am not sure if this makes my views clearer, but I hopeit does not make them even less clear.
19 Apr 22:27
e guye
paulalex -
Yes a divided left it is. Guess I got too used to a divided right.
I can't agree with your statements
'Quebec is nation that is inside a geographically united Canada, but it is not at the heart of, nor does it comprehend the concept of a Canadian nation'.
(the concept of Canadian nationhood) 'something that was developed only in the post-war years particularly around the time of Pearson and the introduction of the Canadian flag'.
I don't agree with your first statement as Quebec, one of the two founding nations of Canada, is integrally bound with the concept of Canada as a nation. Every Canadian schoolchild is taught the importance of Quebec, or the French nationality, as an integral part of Canada, along with the English (or Scottish, English, German, Irish etc)
nation.
I think where things have gone awry is in the concept that the French have somehow kept their 'purity' as pure Laine? is that the term? while the 'English' have somehow been watered down to represent the rest of Canada, even if the 'English' are made up of people of English, Scottish, German, Swedish, Russian, Chinese, on and on.
Such diversity of population is a fact of modern life, such as is even being felt in Quebec today. That does not change the fact that the French co-founded Canada, acknowledged.
Perhaps Quebec has in the past kept its 'island' status within Canada, but think this will not last much longer with the knowledge revolution taking place today.
To your second observation - my grandfather was a soldier in the First World War, 1918 - came home with shrapnel in his brain which could never be removed - I came to know him well in later years - there is
no doubt whatsoever that he fought in that war for Canada - not his province.
20 Apr 01:01
paulalex
e guye:
I am sure that every anglophone Canadian school child is 'taught the importance of Quebec or the French nationality as an integral part of Canada' but this is not often the case in Quebec, where children are taught instead about the diversity of the modern Quebec nation, the 'pure laine' ethnic view of Quebecois identity being something of the past. Both the PQ/BQ and ADQ run candidates of many different races and ethnicities. The common factor here, bringing together people of Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Mexican, Arab, African, Haitian, Algerian, Lebanese, Romanian, Polish, Hispanic, carribean, and many other origins, is the use of the French language. Most Quebecers of Irish, Ukrainian, and Aboriginal origin are so integrated that they don't even know their own origins. Quebecers of Italian, Greek, Portuguese, Indian, Jewish and Jamaican origins tend to be more split between the different linguistic communities however, and of course there have been to my knowledge only two English PQ members of the Quebec National Assembly.
The internet generation certainly does have a more global and less insular view of Quebec and is eager for Quebec to take its place on the world stage.
I think that you are right that most anglophone soldiers thought of themselves as fighting more for Canada than for the British Empire as a whole or for their province in particular. The issue of overseas wars has always provoked reactions ranging from ambivalence to opposition here in Quebec, but there were certainly many Quebecers and Acadiens on the frontlines in both world wars.
Back at the time of the conquest in 1759, the terms Quebec and Canada were used interchangeably and it was only gradually that the rest of Canada came to be seen as different. (The maritime provinces of course were not thought of as being part of Canada until 1867, and after confederation continued to send anti-confederation MPs to Ottawa for many years
Anyway, even today many people still use the terms 'Quebecois' and '(french) canadien' interchangeably, but this does not necessarily reflect their political views.
20 Apr 08:58
blossom
e guye, you can bet that all of our soldiers faught for Canada. Keep
cheering because altho the separatist movement is still out there, it is
dwindling, and hopefully, today's children are learning that we need a
strong united Canada, and especially in Qc, where we have emerging
ethnicities from all over, and I can imagine that those newly arrived
will make a difference, and a contribution to keeping Canada together,
because they lament that they have left their own Countries' nationalism,
and can't believe that they will be engulfed by it when they get here.
I get the sense that we who are Federalists on this blog are truly trying
to spread the message that we must familiarize each provinces' issues,
and want better understanding amongst ourselves. I sense that we have
the same ultimate goal of a united Canada, and that we all share in this
dream, and want to make it work. In this growing world of today, we
must all come closer together with sentiments of sharing, and bringing
closer ties amongst the Provinces. We shall all benefit by this. What
I mean, is a growing understanding of the differences, and the likes, and
how to manouver and engender stronger ties.
Well, I am glad that we are on the same side!
Cheers,
03 May 02:30
parnel
Paulex, I think you are dreaming in technicolour if you think the liberals are going away in Quebec. First of all Dion is very credible and Harper is starting to self destruct. Anyone who believes the views of a separatist in terms of Canadian elections forgets the built in biases they have. One must also remember historical perspectives. When the Liberals were last out of favour in Quebec the Creditistes were electing about as many MP's as the Bloc. The electorate got tired of that rhetoric and the Liberals regained their favour. This will happen again.
28 Apr 17:52
paulalex
Of course the Liberals will not go way, but in terms of elections to the Quebec National Assembly they are certainly heading for third place.
There was a remote chance that the Liberals might come in third federally but I think you are right that Harper is starting to ruin his chances, so I don't think that is at all likely anymore.
You are right in saying that the Creditistes did nearly as well as the Bloc. They have both attracted largely the same voters, but the Liberals never really regained favour after Trudeau. In 1980 they won a few more seats because of the Creditiste meltdown, but most Quebecers then switched to supporting Mulroney's 'beau risque' before switching to the Bloc. I really cannot see the Liberals ever winning half the seats in Quebec ever again although I suppose a third of the seats is still possible even though unlikely. The polls show that Dion has less support here than anywhere else in Canada. But you are right that they will not go away ...
PS. You are also correct that one should remember the built-in biases that people have.
29 Apr 22:03
e guye
parnel (Ontario)
I'm going to butt into your conversation with paulalex - disagree on so many fronts.
Dion is credible where? I've found no evidence that he is credible in Quebec, nor that he is credible in the rest of Canada, other than with environmental groupies as May.
He isn't credible with most of the Liberal party. He's not credible with Canadians serving in Afghanistan (Goldhawk Live, tonight).
Harper is starting to self-destruct?
Is that because of his government's environmental plan? His policies on the environment are at least stated, at least are made in Canada, the benefits remain in Canada - unlike the Kyoto agreement so touted by Dion and so ignored by Dion - except for the obligation to send money to foreign countries.
Perhaps because of his Afghanistan stand? At least clearly stated, honest. He has never backed down from his committment to Canada's NATO obligations in this sad country - he has committed money (contrasted to the the 'dark years' as Gen Hillier states, dating from Mulrooney's day to Martin's) - he has committed Canadian Armed Forces, who appear to back him wholeheartedly.
So unless it's all the media hoopla, what are you alluding to?
The Liberals regained favor in the past - perhaps before Adscam, the proven failure of the LIberal party to live up to the most mediocre of ethical standards - and perhaps before new revelations that surely will follow LaFleur's sudden guilty plea, which I hope was obtainied for leniency in sentencing in return for his naming some of the previously 'unnamed' persons of consequence in this scandal.
30 Apr 01:05
blossom
parnel, since I was away from this blog for a while, I am astounded this eve to see how
much the rhetoric is about separation...I thought that this had been ousted in the last
election, because a lot of die-hard separatists felt that it was time to move on...There
is a lot of talk about ousting andre boisclair, and they have no funds, and they have to
redefine their act as a party...They are in big trouble! That's the good news!
I agree that in the last two weeks, everything is back-firing on S. Harper, and he is at
31% and S.Dion at 30%...Give it time, and a Liberal majority will be back. Mr. Dion is
not to be under-estimated, and by far the "visionary" for our Country. Just next week,
watch when he meets with the scientitists, and Arnold Schwartznegger, who altho an
elected republican, toys with Democratic issues. Harper and Baird have refused to
commit to the Environment, and sustainable development, which would enhance our
Canadian economy, but watch out, at how much experience M. Dion is going to pick-up
in the next year in politics. He is going to surprise a lot of voters, whereas Harper has
disappointed a lot of voters, and his right-wing faithfuls. In no way can Harper recapture
his poll ratings. Also, with fixed elections, he will no longer be able to go to the Governor General,
and bring down his gov't...The three opposing parties will still have the right to bring it
down by acclamation.
03 May 02:53
canada562001
What a stupid comment by your Liberal Senator, Celine Hervieux- Payette, she does not have the brains to be in the Senate, is she your Liberal buddy, Her ignorance and stupidity were displayed on Don Newman's Politics Today, saying the average Canadian does not play attention to what goes on in the Senate, bloody rights we do and if these fixed elections dates do not get royal ascend, then it will be become an Election issue, we do not need this dysfunctional Liberal Judges Appointed mainly from the Province of Quebec sticking their noses into Parliament's business, is this Celine one of your buddies in Quebec. If the Bloq is so concerned about a Code of Ethics regarding Shane Doan, then WHY HAVE LIBERAL FRENCH CANADIAN POLITICIANS NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED OR ARRESTED FOR MASTERMINING THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM, THIS IS ENTHICS THEY SHOULD BE WORRYING ABOUT NOT SHANE DOAN, you have to be the most arrogant group of people on the face of the earth, thank god I have never been to Quebec and will not be going. Stupid people.
03 May 19:23
BBS
This highlights the symbiotic relationship between the BQ and the Liberals that has existed for many years. They have needed each other to feed off of. The polarizing affect of their two-sided debate has hampered Quebec for a long time now.
17 Apr 07:28
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonMacD
Both the PQ and the Liberals picked the wrong person to lead their respective parties; opinions would probably change quickly with new leadership. Several more years with Dion at the helm will probably reduce national support for the Liberals to the mid teens. I don't think Duceppe will make the jump to provincial politics because the BQ doesn’t have anyone to replace him.
17 Apr 07:33
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
I don't feel qualidied to make a credible comment on Quebec politics and even more so on such a hypothetical question.
From the little I do know, I feel that there is not much substantive support for the conservatives. After Dion gets adjusted to his new position I believe he will pick up support. I have never understood why the NDP doesn't have a higher profile there. NDP policies seem closer to what Quebec voters would support.
17 Apr 08:19
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Andrew
Nik has highlighted some very important trends that will have a huge impact on the political landscape across the country.
The Quebec election results had little to do with the personal popularity of any of the 3 Quebec leaders. In fact, if you look back about a year you'll see that the separatist PQ under Boisclair were comfortably heading towards a majority win. The results of the election in Quebec are directly related to the work Stephen Harper has been doing over the past 18 months.
Harper's achievement in Quebec over the last year has been to present Quebec - and the other provinces - with a renewed perspective on federal/provincial relations. Like it or not, the sovereignty option in Quebec no longer offers any significant advantage. Quebecers are now able to put that important debate behind them, and are now able to focus political attention to more mainstream issues, such as the economy and social justice.
In other words, Quebec elections are now more like elections in the rest of Canada. And isn't it about time?
17 Apr 09:49
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
magusa
Dear NJN.
I am confused.
People outside Quebec cannot vote for the Bloc.
You however have a sample ( N = 910 ) for Canada and a sample ( N = 230 ) for Quebec.
Why would people outside of Quebec be questioned on their voting intentions in regards to a party that they can't vote for? It seems non-nonsensical to me, unless you would be willing to explore the idea that certain people outside of Quebec vote differently depending on the popularity/presence of the BQ in politics ?
Cheers
-DanL
17 Apr 10:56
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
hollinm
As you say Nik it is hypothetical but provides an interesting window on theQuebec electorate. It may not be that far fetched though. I get the sense that Quebec is changing and is no longer interested in the old fight. Rather Harper has given them a reason to believe that positive changes will be made to the federal/provincial relationship if Harper gets a majority. However, it will only happen with a majority because the Liberals would never let Harper make the changes that are needed to be made. The Liberals are centralizers and want control of the purse strings so they can continue to dictate which provinces get money and which programs they are prepared to support. Canadians are seeing this and Quebecers always more politically astute than the rest of Canada will help that transition take place at the time of the next federal election. The provincial election was just a foretaste of what is to come.
17 Apr 12:05
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Pressman
Asking the hypothetical about the Bloc is amusing. It's like asking the effect on society if chickens had lips. The Bloc isn't going anywhere any time soon and there will always be another "Duceppe" waiting in the wings. Quebec is not a province comme less autres and the Quebecois know having a third voice in Parliament serves them very well.
17 Apr 13:32
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom Good
Very interesting, Nik: For me to comment on Quebec politics would be presumptious but the suggestion for the demise of the centre party and a future right / left split puts you in the BC scene over the last 35 years. BC has the prototype with NO centre party. Of interest is in British Columbia we have grown the largest swing voter centre imaginable as we vacillate between the two extremes of the NDP and, currently the right right wing Campbell "Liberals". But it is not only the the left / right split, but the emerging dominant urban right vs the minimally represented "country" left, the large business city interests vs the general worker country primary producer interest. It is not a good trend for governments to noticeably cater to their supporters' interests. When the provincial voters change political horses in BC, each party tries to demean the former government usually at a huge cost to the province (meaning the voter using the voter's money) and each starts a huge mega project----at least that is the current trend. The last NDP government had the fast ferry fiasco under a billion and the current Liberals---disguised Conservatives---have the super mountain highway to Whistler for the 2010 Olympics that will be over 2 billion if not 3 billion. Both the left and the right tend to be big spenders and the provincial debt goes up. In my opinion, the loss of the centre party would not contribute to a stable situation for the future. Governments should be seen to support majority interests sensibly and without favourites.
17 Apr 15:16
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Glenn
Nik:
An interesting poll indeed. However, I am not so sure as to how Quebecers as a whole would vote these days even if the Bloc were a mere shadow of its former self or, conversely, it was a strong fighting force. The province just seems to be in such a state of flux. It is simply just too volatile right now as the dust from provincial election has not had time to settle yet.
Adding to this uncertainly, and after a few recent polls showed the Conservatives getting stronger in Quebec, today's Decima poll comes along and shows the Liberals are ahead of the Conservatives in Quebec. Should we read that as a reaction in Quebec to the tragic and significant recent loss of life in Afghanistan? Regardless, the Decima poll casts a somewhat different interpretation to the voting intentions found by the SES survey of Bloc supporters in Quebec if the Bloc was no longer a player. That Liberal vote percentage unearthed by Decima has to come from somewhere.
As and aside, I really would be very interested to see what the national polling figures would be for the federal parties if the Alberta results were not included.
As for Duceppe's future plans, I would think the pressure on him to jump to his provincial cousins in considerable. However, while such a beau risque may indeed raise the PQ fortunes in that province, his leaving the federal scene may signal the beginning of a long cold journey into the night for the BQ - one they may not return from for some time.
Glenn
17 Apr 15:26
6 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
e guye
Hi Nik - Congratulations! Your're ahead of the times - noone else seems to have grasped the significance of remarkable political changes, realignments in Quebec.
Your main conclusion "They (Conservatives) would lead in Quebec with the support of 41% of voters followed by the NDP and the Liberals who would be statistically tied (23% and 21% respectively".
In my view the Conservatives are closer to the 40% mark in the ROC, too, than recent polls have shown. Maybe this is because Canadians just don't want an election this spring or early summer - when Mr Harper's figures get too high, there's a pulling back.
In the real world Quebeckers have shown their disenchantment with separatist parties with the rise of Mario Dumont. Not being a Quebecker, it's difficult to judge how much of this is due to the personal popularity of 'Mario' - and how much is due to the changing times.
Perhaps a combination of both. I personally don't fear Dumont's autonomism aspirations as long as Harper is in charge - would though with Dion, who would panic.
The more cynical of the electorate may see these figures as a result of Harper's budget, equalization formula, some say favoring Quebec and Ontario. I don't agree - the formula is based largely on population and it's a fact of life that Central Canada, in these two provinces, outweighs the rest of Canada in sheer people - as a result they need and deserve the lion's share of monies from the Federal government. This should, and has been, taken into account by Harper.
I see these figures as more of a result of Harper's 'Quebecois a nation within a United Canada' proclomation - these words were hardly noted at the time, other than being widely criticized as opening the door to Quebec seperatitsts - but have had the opposite effect, pulling the rug out from under the Bloq, and provincially the Parti Quebecois - and received by Quebeckers on the whole as an acknowledgment of what is only fact, denied them so long.
The face of political life, forces in Canada is changing - generational - yet also in a philosophical way. Perhaps the spread of discussion boards such as yours has allowed Canadians to chrystalize their own thinking.
Cheers!
17 Apr 21:28
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
blossom
Hi Nik,
I haven't read other comments or support material, and go by my own feelings...but will
do so afterwards. My own sense of what is happening.
"bloc" has no business being in Ottawa, and I think that gilles duceppe wants to go into
private business? I "believe" that we have (12) small parties in Qc - one who is the
"communist" party??? Who needs that...Then there is the Quebec Independent party (or
something), and heard that perhaps pq could join this party and find a new name???
I know that S.Harper would want to unite Canada, once and for all, but has always
said that he would not want to re-open the Constitution...The adq (dumont) has talked
about it, but since, read that the prov. Liberal party is not interested in doing so...
Stephane Dion, who is an expert, is also "not" interested in re-opening the Constitution,
since hwe have many other important priorities, and Dumont, being a nationalist, who hasen't yet
defined what he means by this, would want to negotiate, but for Qc only. This is the catch!!!
So beware of the adq. I still do not believe that facing an election that votes for the adq
represents more votes for the Conservatives. I quote Albert Einstein, who said that
"nationalism is a desease; the measles of the people"!!! Stephane Dion is gaining
momentum, and as Jean Chretien said, it was also predicted that he would not win, but
when he told the voters, if you don't want to discuss the Constitution, vote for me, and
he did win. I still maintain that we shall all be surprised at the results of the next election,
if M. Dion has time to to get himself known, people in general will start appreciating his
views and his vision. At least, he has proven that he would work for the whole of Canada,
and all Canadians.
18 Apr 04:19
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
As we all know in the world of polling, it would be very unlikely that the seperatists would ever allow a party to control the fate of the Quebecors that want to leave Canada. What the polls say and what happens in Quebec are two different animals. May the best animal win.
18 Apr 12:00
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Digbyou812
This poll and all the rest taken since PM Harper obtained a minority government contiune to lead observers to the same stubbornly static conclusion; that is if an election were held today the result would argueably be either a conservative or Liberal minority government!
PM Harper has had more than a year to present to the the Canadian electorate an alternative vision. He has had a year to demonstrate by his actions that he has the right vision for Canadians now.
What we have been treated to in observing PM Harper's actions is shameless tactical political manouvering instead of a solid vision that would lead Canadians to overwhelming conclude that PM Harper's "vision" is the right "vision". PM Harper's election platform was simply a tool to attract votes - something that he has flip flopped on and something that was and is 100% disposable. Kyoto - Rona Ambrose - the environment -nothing more than issues to be managed. The real agenda is really a secret.
It seems that PM Harper pictures himself as some kind of latter day "Captain James T. Kirk" of the Federation starship "Tory" and he sees himself as charged with following the "Prime Directive" in order to save Canada. He will not admit to what HIS "Prime Directive" is but we all know what that will be if he gets a majority.
PM Harper as a majority Prime Minister will systematically dimantel every single progressive LIBERAL initiative that was ever undertaken. He will shameless model his legislation on the now totally discredited legislative programs of current and recent U.S. Republican administrations. Three stikes and your out, lock up criminals and throw away the key, keep our atmosphere safe as a place to dump pollution, follow the US lead on foreign policy because an independent Canada is too risky, give the provinces whatever they ask for and make the federal government nothing more than a head waiter at a provincial buffet. Above all exempt Alberta from anything it doesn't like, like exempting pick up trucks from proposed pollution controls to name just one example.
Most Canadians know that in a majority government a then PM Harper will implement legislative changes that will radically change our country. He is NOT willing to "boldly go" and lay out those intended legislative changes out for Canadian voters NOW because if he did he would soon find himself as leader of the opposition again - and the Liberals back with a majority. That is PM Harper's big connundrum......
In the vaccuum that PM Harper's lack of ideology honestly creates he is left with the tactical villification of Liberals. He refuses to address issues with substantives responses. That is why Canadians are not yet willing to trust him with a majority government. Compounding the electorates lack of trust of PM Harper's plans are new revelations. I wonder if a future "former PM" Harper will still be getting his hair done by hired staff at tax payer expense by his "follow me everywhere" hair dresser and clothing consultant. Is PM Harper reviewing old Kenedy/Nixon debate tapes in feeling a need to "look his best"? What about devoting time to substantive matters?
Mr. Dion - keep up your good work - do not be afraid to challenge Quebec head on where it needs to be challenged. Canada needs your ideas on Quebec like the "Clarity Act" and your DISTINCTLY HONEST ideas on the environment. Do not be fooled with Quebec's/Mr. Dumont's dishonest suggestion that he would sign the constitution as a future Premier. Mr. Dumont sees weakness in PM Harper and, in suggestiong that he is willing to sign the Canadian constitution, would only do so if it would advance Quebec seperatism or autonomisim or whatever code words Qubebec seperatist use these days.
Say what you will about lagging Liberal polls but with the polls not rewarding PM Harper better than they have - it is PM Harper who has the bigger polling problem.
22 Apr 11:37
19 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Hello Nik :
Where most pollsters ask, Thinking about a federal election, which party would you be most inclined to vote for at this time?, Dan asked, How many seats do you think each party should ideally have in Parliament?
Right now the answer to the traditional question will be something like, Liberals 31%, Conservatives 30%, NDP, 18%, Greens 13%, Bloc 8%. But when the seat allocation question is asked, here are the results:
Conservative 97 ,seats 32 % of the vote
Liberal 81 ,seats 26 % of the vote
NDP 49 , seats 16 % of the vote
Green 42 , seats 14 % of the vote
Bloc 39 ,seats 13 % of the vote
Baril says the difference here in polling methodology is that his company, Core Strategies, “specializes in figuring out what Canadians really want, not what politicians want Canadians to want.” If this poll of 1,000 people has validity, and it would appear to be covered with it, then what we have is a national cry for help – for electoral reform, for an end to the way Ottawa now operates, for a far more consensual governance.
In Baril’s House of Commons, neither Cons nor Grits could govern absolutely with the support of only one other party. In fact, to get anything passed, members of at least three parties would have to lend their backing. This suggests the current practice of party block voting could lead to frequent Parliamentary paralysis. It also suggests voters are looking to MPs to be more free agents than trained seals, and it certainly suggests Canadians are looking for leaders who know how to compromise, instead of being blinkered macho ideologues.
It ends the bizarre electoral realities of today – where 600,000 people voted Green, yet no MPs were elected, and where Stephen Harper’s Conservatives formed a government elected by just 23% of eligible voters.
Some will say this is a recipe for Parliamentary disaster. A prime minister would have to become so through diplomacy, bridge-building and coalition. Policies would need consensus to become law. MPs would have to stray from narrow party platforms, forced to make voting decisions based on the greatest good for the greatest number. Conflict would be counter-productive. Question Period might even yield some answers.
Hey, maybe elections would be about ideas instead of leaders. Maybe voters would concentrate on picking the best citizen-politicians to be MPs, instead of voting for the party with the coolest TV ads. Maybe we would end up respecting those people we send to Ottawa more than the guys who sell used cars (sorry, car guys).
Of course, this will not be the result of the next election. Our first-past-the-post system, combined with the growing trend towards lock-step party discipline, the steady neutering of MPs, and the Presidential, leader-centric style of government which has evolved will likely see the next Parliament looking eerily like the current one, whoever forms government.
From Garth Turner's Blog
What do you think of the methodology and result Nik .
Attila
04 May 13:39
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.