Sammy's Dot

Now that I’ve more or less stopped fuming over the proroguement of Parliament, I want to get down my thoughts about the Bloc Quebecois and the perception of their place in the coalition.

I don’t agree with the Bloc’s goal of sovreignty for Quebec, and I think the Bloc is incorrect in their argument that sovreignty will improve the situation of the the Quebecois both on the world stage and in North America. I think that despite the intense regionalism across Canada, most of our individual regions are stronger together than they are separately.

This is illustrated particularly strongly in some of the Bloc’s campaign material. In this pamphlet (PDF), for example, although every section ends with a declaration that things would be better in a sovereign Quebec, the platform consists almost entirely of asking for federal funding from Ottawa while demanding that Ottawa allow Quebec greater freedom to chart its own path.

Demanding a raise of federal transfers for post-secondary education (college and university) and social programs of 2.75 billion $ over three years for Quebec.

…

Continuing to demand the abolition of loopholes in the income tax system allowing Canadian businesses to pay less than they should by settling in Barbados, a tax haven.

…

Becoming the relay to the federal government of the initiatives coming from within that are common ground in Quebec’s regions.

Despite their advocacy of Quebec sovreignty, it’s pretty clear that the Bloc Quebecois is now essentially a regional party, dedicated to promoting their province at the federal level. This can be grating for the rest of Canada when it seems as though the Bloc is arguing that Quebec is special and the rest of us are not, but it is hardly treasonous, particularly when the requirements for separation from the country are now written into law.

But by insisting that any government which is supported by the Bloc officially is of necessity illegitimate, the Conservatives are not just reopening a painful debate about whether or not Quebec should separate. They are arguing that a party with a great deal of support within Quebec, and strong representation in the House of Commons, essentially does not count because of their sovreignist platform. It cannot be repeated enough that support for sovreignty is not illegal, and is not illegitimate. I may not like that platform, but I don’t think that calling the Bloc the devil is going to lure its supporters to me. I think that it’s quite likely that the Bloc will actually be strengthened in the next election by the not unjustified feeling that the rest of Canada is ganging up on Quebec and discounting the status of their elected representatives. This will make it hard for any party to gain a majority in Parliament, and makes it all the more important for politicians to take the long view and remember that they will be working together for the foreseeable future.

As a group, we Canadians need to work harder on reaching across our regional and linguistic divides. I dislike the Bloc’s intense regionalism because it works to strengthen those divides. I would argue that the solution is for our members of Parliament to acknowledge the importance of regional advocacy and to recognize that we have many common fears and hopes across regions as well.

I’ll end by saying that, as an anglophone, my knowledge of Quebec is obviously limited; I’ve visited the province but do not live there. I speak French more or less fluently, and attended French immersion schools, but my analysis of the situation vis-a-vis the Bloc and their position in the House of Commons is coming from the outside. For a position quite different from mine, one could check out this post by AngryFrenchGuy, which argues that Gilles Duceppe is going to be hurt by his willingness to sign on with the NDP and the Liberals. I’m not convinced, particularly after the way Quebec voters perceived the arts funding cuts in the previous election, but his post raises a valid point.

I have some thoughts concerning the Bloc Quebecois and their position in the House of Commons, and I began a post about them. However, five minutes after I started to write, I discovered that Governor General Michaelle Jean had concluded her meeting with Stephen Harper.

Unfortunately, she made the wrong decision, and allowed Harper to prorogue Parliament until January.

This is not a good precedent.

Harper and the Conservatives will proceed to use the next two months to vilify the Opposition, to launch ad after ad arguing that the coalition cannot lead Canada, and almost certainly pour gasoline on the national unity issue by emphasizing the fact that the Liberals and NDP made a deal with the Bloc. Meanwhile, Harper can pretend that he has not, as is obviously the case, lost the confidence of the House. Once Parliament reconvenes, it will be clear that Harper can avoid any confidence votes he believes his government will lose by appealing to the GG for a prorogue. Jean has given Harper carte blanche to govern as if he has a majority and she has gutted the ability of the Opposition to hold the government accountable by defeating confidence motions.

I think that the Opposition’s chances for an effective government were slim. I had little confidence in Dion’s ability to lead it. Furthermore, I’m fairly sure that even if, as it appears, they will not be allowed to form a government, the Liberals and NDP will suffer in the next election (though I suspect the Bloc will be strengthened). I wouldn’t like to see a Conservative majority, and I think that will be the likely result of the next election. Another election would still have been a better decision than a prorogue. Our system should not allow a do-over in the face of impending defeat.

Seems like the Liberals, along with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, have really and truly agreed on a deal to form a coalition government in the event that Harper’s Conservative government falls, and right now that looks astonishingly likely. (Though Andrew Steele of the Globe & Mail outlines some other possibilities.) I’d about resigned myself to at least another year or so of this government, and then a nasty fight that might well have led to a Conservative majority, so this is a very interesting surprise.

I’m not convinced that the end result won’t eventually be a Conservative majority anyway – although perhaps not with Stephen Harper as leader – but a shake-up in our Parliament is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially as many Canadians (e.g., those who are commenting on this CBC story) seem to need a reminder that we live in a Parliamentary democracy, and that our electoral system does not match that of the US (see, oddly, a Making Light post for an excellent and logical explanation of how elections are called in Canada; see also this rundown of the options of the Governor General). The people who are loudly declaiming that the request to form a coalition represents an attempt to seize power in a coup d’etat by the opposition parties in particular need this reminder.

I like the idea of a coalition government far, far more than I like the idea of having the Liberals and NDP form a united party, because I think that having a broad array of political positions represented in government and in Parliament is preferable to gradually narrowing the options for voters. However, unless the coalition does a truly phenomenal job of governing, and keeps the BQ onside without making major concessions to Quebec, both the Liberals and the NDP may be in trouble when the next election rolls around. If things have not improved, and particularly if there has been a worsening in the economic situation, they’re going to take the blame and I think it’s going to be greatly exacerbated by the way they took power. The formation of a viable alternative government given a loss of confidence in the existing government is entirely permissible in our system, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the alternative government will enjoy public legitimacy. The fact that under a coalition government, the Prime Minister would essentially be a caretaker until May, and that the new PM would almost certainly be either Ignatieff or Rae, both of whom would be problematic, would increase the perception of illegitimacy.

At this point, I believe that things have gone too far for there to be any option except the formation of a new government, an election, or Harper’s resignation as leader of the Conservatives. The opposition would destroy itself if it backed down now without any changes in the current government, regardless of whether or not it gets public funding. And I don’t believe that anyone wants another election, particularly if the results would be essentially the same. I could live with Harper’s resignation if there were somebody reasonable to replace him; the problem is that I’m not sure that there is. I certainly do not want to see Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement, or Chuck Strahl (though I doubt he’s a serious contender, I’ve seen his name suggested) as Prime Minister. In any case, this would be contingent on Harper stepping down; so far, he has not indicated that he will.

A coalition seems like it’s the best option right now, and barring major changes, the most likely outcome, but the long term prospects for a Liberal-NDP coalition are unsettling.