Quebec provincial by-elections

There will be 3 provincial by-elections in Quebec on May 12th. One of these is in the riding of Hull. I would be incredibly surprised if any party other than the Liberal Party won the by-election in Hull. I interestingly found an editorial written by Fred Ryan that discusses the Hull by-election. The editorial says that the share of the vote for the PQ in the Hull riding has been growing(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=e66221f2-93e8-4ad2-9e8f-ccdcf904ab38). However, I looked at election results for Hull and found the opposite to be the case.

Looking at elections from 1994 onwards, we get the following:

1994 election: PQ – 41.12%
1998 election: PQ – 32.02%
2003 election: PQ – 25.47%
2007 election: PQ – 23.93%

As you can see the PQ vote in Hull has actually been dropping.

As a side note, in the 1995 referendum Hull voted about 70% NON and 30% OUI. In the 1992 Charlottetown Accord referendum Hull voted about 44% NON and about 56% OUI. In the 1980 Quebec referendum Hull voted about 67% NON and about 33% OUI.

The PQ remains a sovereigntist party. Hull has twice voted overwhelmingly against Quebec sovereignty. Therefore I personally feel that it is not a good idea for federalist voters in the Hull riding to vote PQ as a protest vote. Electing a PQ MNA, especially one in such a federalist riding, advances the PQ’s sovereignty agenda and I do not believe federalists should vote to advance the sovereigntist agenda even indirectly. I believe that in the circumstances it is best for Hull to have an MNA from the governing party which is the Liberals. This may sound cliché but indeed it would be a government MLA who would best be able to fight for improved health care service in Hull.

The other two by-elections are in ridings that were held by the PQ. One of them was held by former MNA Diane Lemieux who resigned her seat over disagreements with party leader Pauline Marois. The other riding was vacated by former PQ leader Andre Boisclair who chose not to stick around after being forced out of the party leadership. These two ridings are likely to stay PQ. In one of them, former Bloc MP Maka Kotto is running for the PQ. Kotto’s resignation, however, created a vacancy at the federal level that has created a potential by-election. I have long found that Quebec, especially at the provincial level, has more by-elections than other provinces. This seems to be because Quebec politicians, especially those at the National Assembly, are more readily willing to resign their seats than politicians in other provinces. The Charest government is currently doing well right now in terms of popularity and I wish all 3 Liberal candidates the best of luck.

PQ gone extremist

I am strongly opposed to a bill on immigration that the PQ has tabled in the Quebec legislature.

Here is what it is:

“Under the proposed law, immigrants who can't speak proper French after an appropriate apprenticeship in provincially funded language courses would be forbidden from running for election in provincial and municipal elections as well as those for school boards.”


If immigrants to Quebec want to run for office, they should obviously be able to speak French. But first they have to become Canadian citizens. That takes 3 years at the minimum. These courses would last 3 years. I do not think taking these courses should be mandatory for immigrants if they want to run for office. Immigrants can learn French on their own. Why should the state forbid immigrants to run for office who learn French on their own without taking the government-controlled courses? I expect the law would get a Charter challenge and be struck down. If a PQ majority government then wants to use the notwithstanding clause, that is their choice but I’d expect it to cause a significant backlash in the rest of Canada as it always does when a Quebec government uses the notwithstanding clause to take away rights. But a PQ majority government could only use the notwithstanding clause if the law were struck down on equality grounds. The court could, should and probably would do something much more powerful. The court could strike down the law (or at least a significant portion of it) using section 3 of the Charter. Section 3 of the Charter is not subject to the notwithstanding clause. Section 3 guarantees the right of all Canadian citizens to qualify for membership in the House of Commons or in a legislative assembly. Prisoners don’t qualify even if they are citizens but I’d expect the court to uphold that under Section 1 of the Charter. Now, if a court struck down the proposed law under Section 3 of the Charter, it may only be able to void the restrictions on running for the National Assembly. Because school boards and municipal councils may not count as legislative assemblies, the court may have to leave the restrictions for running for school boards and municipal councils intact. But if the Supreme Court were to strike down the restrictions on running for the National Assembly under Section 3 of the Charter, it would be a significant blow for a PQ government and could not be overturned by the notwithstanding clause.

In short, as I have demonstrated, the bill in question introduced in the National Assembly is unconstitutional.


Also, under this unconstitutional law, would immigrants who already know French upon arriving in Quebec also be forced to take those courses? The article did not say whether the Quebec government or the ADQ supports this bill. I’ve since found out the government does not support this bill. I still don’t know whether the ADQ supports this bill. Because it is a minority government, the bill could conceivably pass without the government’s consent. In a case like this, the premier might have to order the Lieutenant Governor not to give the bill Royal Assent if he opposes it strongly enough.

Also take a look at this quote from the article:

”Among the measures proposed by the PQ are the creation of a Quebec constitution and a certificate of citizenship, the reinforcement of the province's language laws and the revision of the provincial charter of rights.”

What is this “certificate of citizenship”? Is this some kind of Quebec citizenship? If so, I am very strongly opposed to this proposal. Quebec is part of Canada and has no authorization to implement its own citizenship. Any attempt to do so would likely be unconstitutional. This is just one more reason why I don’t want the PQ back in power.


Source:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071019/immigrants_french_071019/20071019?hub=Politics

Quebec and Jean Charest

I’m glad the Charest government survived its budget vote on Friday. The budget passed 46-44. There was one missing Liberal whom I haven’t figured out who it is. I’m glad the PQ backed off and now the tax cuts can take effect.

Speaking of the PQ, it is unfortunately true that former PQ leader André Boisclair’s sexual orientation had a negative impact on the PQ in the campaign trail. I find this odd because Quebec is supposed to be very tolerant of homosexuality. In fact it is. The only exception seems to be Quebec shock jocks. Shock jocks are radio jocks who make their career out of purposefully making inflammatory statements. Shock jocks have a propensity to exist in the United States, but I find they are even more common in Quebec. As a result, Boisclair suffered homophobic slurs against him by at least two shock jocks, one of whom is now a federal Member of Parliament. During the campaign, a shock jock used a French homophobic slur against Boisclair that I can’t remember. Then at the time of the leader’s debate Independent MP André Arthur called Mr. Boisclair a ‘p'tite fille’, a little girl, which is obviously a homophobic slur. Arthur is a former Quebec City area shock jock. It’s unfortunate that these shock jocks have to resort to personal insult. But it becomes obvious how much Boisclair’s sexual orientation negatively affected the PQ campaign.

Speaking of issues to do with sexual orientation, I want to discuss a topic that I am fascinated by – civil unions in Quebec. Since 2002, Quebec has had a civil union law. It allows two people who are both of the same sex or of opposite sexes to enter into a civil union. It gives largely the same rights as marriage. For opposite-sex couples, it gave a less legally entangling alternative to marriage. For same-sex couples, it offered them much sought-after spousal rights. The Quebec court later ruled that civil unions were not the equality needed under the Charter and immediately legalized same-sex marriage in Quebec. The civil union alternative is not available to anyone who lives in Ontario. I kind of wish Ontario offered a civil union alternative like Quebec. But I suppose marriages and common-law relationship recognition is good enough too.

I want to mention one more unique aspect of Quebec law. As in France, when a marriage between a man and woman occurs, the woman in the marriage cannot change her last name to her husband’s name. That is probably why Stéphane Dion’s wife’s name is Janine Krieber. Dion’s daughter has the double-barreled name Jeanne Krieber-Dion. For the record I can’t help but think it is sex discrimination that traditionally it is the male in an opposite-sex marriage that is expected to pass his surname to his children, but I can go on about that on another day. For now I want to just congratulate Jean Charest on being the first minority Quebec premier to survive a confidence vote in over 100 years.

Quebec's unstable minority government

I think I know the reason why Quebec’s minority government is proving to be so unstable. I think it is because Quebec has not had a minority government in over 100 years, and as a result Quebec politicians and Quebec in general has positively no experience in how to handle a minority government. At the federal scene, by contrast, there have been enough minority governments in recent memory that the federal politicians are able to handle a minority government with greater success.

I find it odd that at the federal level, the separatist party is propping up the Tories, but at the provincial level in Quebec, the separatist party is refusing to prop up the right-of-centre Charest Liberals. To me it defies logic. The PQ is deeply in debt and hasn’t even sworn in its new leader. And it still wants an election? Even when the most recent Quebec poll puts the ADQ in first place and the PQ in third place? The PQ opposes the Charest tax cuts on ideological grounds. The ADQ does not oppose the Charest tax cuts on ideological grounds. ADQ leader Mario Dumont instead argues that the tax cuts should not occur when there is a deficit. The ADQ is also opposing the budget simply because it is the Official Opposition and the Official Opposition always traditionally votes against the budget even in minority governments. It is for this reason that I believe it is fallacious when Harper attacked the Liberals for voting against his 2007 budget. The Liberals had every right to vote against the budget in its role as an Official Opposition fulfilling tradition.

I support the Quebec Liberals, although somewhat tacitly because Charest is slightly too right-of-centre for me. But the Liberals are the centrist party in Quebec politics whereas the PQ represents the left and the ADQ represents the right. So in that sense the Quebec Liberals fulfill the same role as in Ontario and federally as the centrist party. If, however, I were in charge of the Quebec Liberals the party would be more left-of-centre.

In conclusion I hope the Charest government does not fall on Friday and that instead something can be worked out to save the government.