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