Dynasty, s3: Canadian Politics 2018

I mean, I strongly dislike Quebec's language laws but I can at least understand why they were important enough to francophone Quebec nationalists to warrant invoking the notwithstanding clause. Has Ford even given any explanation of why the number of Toronto city councillors is such a life-and-death issue for him? (Maybe he has; it's an honest question. I've been really occupied.)

smaller more effective government! lol

Not to go on a tangent here, but assuming you think protecting the French language in Quebec is important (I do), what alternative is there to the Loi 101? I loathe the xenophobic discourse it occasionally engenders, but I haven't quite figured out another effective solution to the problem.

Pomenitul, I'm pretty unconvinced that e.g. the regulations on commerce and signage (which were the basis for the Charter challenge iirc) are necessary for, or are doing much for, the protection of the French language in Quebec.

Eh, suit yourself. It has led to risible excesses on occasion, no doubt about that, but given that more than half of Québécois are functionally illiterate in their own language, a much higher percentage than the rest of Canadians, I think French needs all the help it can get. I know too many anglo Montrealers who don't speak a lick of French but who would never dare remain monolingual if they moved to France. Passivity is no solution unless, once again, you think language is just a matter of communication in the strict sense.

More than half of Quebecers are functionally illiterate in any language, right? And that's the case after decades of Bill 101? That's an education issue (and probably also a poverty issue - and there's plenty out there on the economic impacts of Bill 101). I don't see how regulating the colour, size, and position of English lettering on signs and business cards is helping that issue.

Focusing on signage is missing the point, imho – that's merely one, overexposed aspect of the Charter, which ignores all the other provisions (French as official language of Quebec, the right to be served in French, French as language of instruction, including for first generation immigrants such as myself, etc.). Quebec's poverty rate is also lower than that of most provinces, including Ontario, so I'm not convinced that's a key factor, especially when you consider that Quebec's economy has been performing quite well over the past few years.

French as official language of Quebec, the right to be served in French,

I have no issue with these provisions and I don't think these things were challenged on the basis of the Charter of Rights, or protected with the notwithstanding clause. (Feel free to correct me.) Will admit that I don't fully understand the afaict fairly complex provisions concerning the language of instruction and don't really have the time right at this moment to review them.

So maybe "strongly dislike Quebec's language laws" was an overstatement.

I'm hardly an expert when it comes to this, but as far as I can tell the Charter of Rights was only invoked once in relation to Bill 101, in 1984, to allow children receiving English instruction elsewhere in Canada to be exempt from French school in Quebec should their family choose to settle there. Otherwise, unless you were born to anglophone parents who have been established in Quebec for generations, you're meant to study in French until CEGEP/college (some immigrants circumvent this, which I personally think is a shame).

Tbf I get the sense that anglo-franco relations are way more peaceful nowadays than they used to be. Outside of Montreal anglos are still looked upon with some suspicion, but in the city interactions are generally quite chill between the so-called two solitudes as far as I can tell. For what it's worth, I remember witnessing an idiotic row a while back between two gentlemen at the gym, each in their own language, and not once did either of them resort to racist (in the broad sense) slurs. It was weirdly heartwarming.

The 1988 SCC ruling concerning the signage rules, followed by Bill 178 (an amendment of Bill 101 that explicitly invoked the notwithstanding clause) was what I was thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_178

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bill-178

Quebec also inserted the notwithstanding clause into all legislation from 82-87 aiui!
xp

Heh, so it was actually used against Bill 101, as it were. Interesting.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

It's not an unimportant tangent because it is central to the electoral debate in Quebec. So quick summary Sund4r, as much as I dislike quebec nationalism, la Loi 101 is a good law that I will defend. Signage represents a marginal set of policies of what it actually does, it gathers laughs from journalist because the absurdity of it is indeed hilarious but really it shouldn't be the focus.

The key part for me is that for elementary and high schools, the public options are only french speaking, which guarantees that the new waves of immigration have to foot a massive bill to ensure their kids learn english first and foremost. The next generation of kids is overwhelmingly french speaking, maybe the french that will be spoken will be different from what the pure-laine desires, maybe the next generation will be bilingual/trilingual, because turns out learning english is key in the north-american context, but french remains at the center of it all. The failure of french in Quebec, for which I don't know if it is real at all I'll be honest, would be an education problem, the school themselves, drop out rates are still a staggering 18%. It is 21% for kids of 1st and 2nd generation immigration.

Plus Toronto was on the rise on so many levels that the impact of Bill 101 was a shock, instead of banks and insurance companies gradually leaving Montreal forever bound to be the second city at one point. Privatized crown corporations like Air Canada and CN, which are english speaking today, are doing very well with Montreal as their home city.

(The signage regulations were the ones that were protected with the notwithstanding clause, which is why I was bringing them up in the context of that discussion.)

Got it.

I'm sure we all agree the notwithstanding clause is pure bullshit.

I honestly don't know why PET was willing to include it in the Charter in the first place.

Pretty sure PET didn't want any of it but he needed the provinces to sign and they added at.

Yeah, just seems like one hell of a compromise to make.

Anyway, federal politicians are going to need to reassess what is more important to them: cities that are the drivers of the economy or MPs that got elected with 35-40% of the popular vote of a 50-58% turnout, mostly in places outside of the city.

being led by a guy who got the second most votes in his own parties' leadership vote, which was plagued by scandals and possible vote-rigging.

Btw, VHS, this was a fair point; thanks for more context:

Plus Toronto was on the rise on so many levels that the impact of Bill 101 was a shock, instead of banks and insurance companies gradually leaving Montreal forever bound to be the second city at one point. Privatized crown corporations like Air Canada and CN, which are english speaking today, are doing very well with Montreal as their home city.

This might be a controversial opinion but I'm really baffled by how Singh and the federal NDP are handling this Erin Weir situation. This basically seems right to me: the allegations against Weir, as they have been reported, seem frankly trivial (standing too close to people, 'not picking up non-verbal cues', but backing off when asked to). If there are real reasons for expelling him from caucus, it seems like it should be possible for the NDP to release a redacted report that still protects the complainants' identities. A party leader calling his own party members 'privileged' when they defend Weir is just odd.

Catching up on the Quebec election now and ... ugh, why are the CAQ leading again?

The general feeling I'm getting is that lots of people don't like any of the parties in this election, so are basically willing to give the CAQ a shot. PQ doesn't really seem to stand for anything anymore since they mostly dropped pushing for independence (as much as you might dislike some of their ideas, this used to be a party with very solidly anchored principles). People are tired of being governed by the Liberals. I'm not sure if people voting CAQ is necessarily indicative that they support their anti-immigration stance or if they just don't care and are just voting for them because of a lack of good options.

If I lived in a riding where the outcome wasn't 100% predictable I'd probably vote Liberal at this point, seems like the least worst option.

this used to be a party with very solidly anchored principles

I would never deny this!

When's the period of very solidly anchored principles? Lucien Bouchard was an austerity lord for a good while.

Why do I watch the debate? I want to punch them all in the face.

I was going to say that the PQ used to be solidly committed to the principle of sovereignty but tbf even their referendum questions were a little half-assed.

i think they were smart with their questions. make it vague, and make it sound like it doesn't definitely mean independence, and you get more voters who are vaguely dissatisfied and gullible.

the snp in scotland tried a similar tactic but david cameron wasn't having it.

bernier launched his party

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bernier-peoples-party-canada-1.4823647

nobody tell bernier about first past the post

i'm pretty stoked for the vote-splitting. there's a definite feeling i get from being extremely online that there is a significant appetite on the canadian right for a move from the sotto voce white identarian rhetoric of Harper/Scheer to a more full-throated "the Rebel" style direction.

yeah I am not stoked for the White People's Party fearmongering about immigrants in the national debates

yeah that definitely is going to be shitty as fuck

BREAKING NEWS: Liberal @LeonaAlleslev just crossed the floor to the Conservatives #cdnpoli

— Mike Le Couteur (@mikelecouteur) September 17, 2018

that seems out of the blue...

My worst-case scenario fear is that right-wing vote-splitting may not pan out the way we think it will. If Bernier's new party mainly appeals to Quebec voters who are suspicious of immigration, they will be more likely to take seats from the NDP or Liberals than from the Tories. I don't expect that he will erode the Tory vote in Western Canada. Some sort of alliance or coalition between the CPC and PPC might end up becoming stronger than we expect.

that makes a lot of sense, scarily. regional based parties have maximal vote efficiency under first-past the post, and the two right-wing parties could succeed with a modicum of cooperation.

CAQ is no longer ahead in the polls. History repeats itself as Legault continues to harm his campaign merely by opening his mouth.

CBC Poll Tracker still has them ahead: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/qcvotes/poll-tracker/

Fwiw some Québécois redditor has access to Mainstreet poll results before their publication (so far they've turned out to be legit) and the latest one is relatively encouraging:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Quebec/comments/9gv44u/la_descente_de_la_caq_se_poursuit_en_baisse_de_7/

I mean, it's depressing that we have to keep rooting for a Liberal win in QC but yeah.

Québec Solidaire also appears to be performing better overall. Who knows what could happen ten years from now… But yeah, I'd rather maintain a small-scale perspective on this or it gets too dispiriting.

Not too excited about the prospect of another sovereigntist party becoming a contender for govt in 10 years but I guess they're preferable to the currently biggest sovereigntist party.

I've come around to the notion that sovereignty's what you make of it, but that probably has something to do with its exceedingly low likelihood at this point in time. Makes it easier to just treat it as a fantasy.

If Bernier's new party mainly appeals to Quebec voters who are suspicious of immigration, they will be more likely to take seats from the NDP or Liberals than from the Tories

Mostly, Quebec voters who are suspicious of immigration did not vote for either the NDP or the Liberals. In Quebec at least, this is not a lost for Trudeau.

I have my doubt QS will be a separatist party in 10 years. Around me, it's a major reason some people aren't voting QS. Separatism is dying, for example, only 30% of the under 25 age group has favorable views of separatism. It might never be an issue again. And QS would be smart to abandon a platform they do not seem to care that much about. On top of that, we finally have a left wing federalist party with the NDPQ, which might become a force in the next 10-15 years if QS is not careful.

Some sort of alliance or coalition between the CPC and PPC might end up becoming stronger than we expect.

Isn't the whole point of the PPC is to not be an alliance with the CPC?

I don't think they'd hesitate to team up on at least a temporary basis if they could get a shot at power, block the Libs, and extract some concessions from the CPC, just as the NDP is usually willing to ally with the Liberals, while remaining a distinct party. (Remember that the Alliance even permanently reunited with the old PCs.)

Together, the Libs and NDP currently hold 56 of the 78 federal seats in Quebec. Based on what's going on provincially (esp looking at both the CAQ's and PQ's numbers), I was fearful that anti-immigration sentiment might be widespread enough to threaten at least some of those. Hard to say, though.

The anti-immigration stuff was well underway during the 2015 elections, but yes you are right it is a threat.

The key might just be that dairy is huge in Quebec ridings that went CPC (even since Scheer got the nomination) so we might be looking at a very difficult split for the Torries... between farmers who want to keep the dairy system as is with CPC and the anti-immigration, anti-supply mgmt stances of Bernier.