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

Pauline Marois

PQ leader Pauline Marois will run in a Quebec provincial by-election in Charlevoix. While the Liberals have already said they will not run a candidate against her, the ADQ is considering running a candidate against her. One reason she probably chose this seat is due to the Quebec political tradition of other major parties not opposing party leaders in by-elections. Otherwise it would not make sense because Charlevoix is not a safe PQ seat. The resigning PQ member won by only 6.88%. The ADQ had about 30% of the vote. A race with Marois against an ADQ candidate with no Liberal candidate would be strange. It could give the ADQ candidate a chance to win. This could in turn force Marois to resgin as leader and could bring Gilles Duceppe to Quebec City after all. I don’t know how a straight PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate would look like. If all the federalist vote were to unite behind the ADQ, the ADQ could easily beat Marois. If it is more of a left-right thing, then Marois would stand a good chance if the centre/left vote united behind her. I think if the ADQ insists on running a candidate, the Liberals would be doing Marois a favour to run a candidate as well. The Liberals want to let Marois into the legislature. A PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate has the significant danger of Marois being defeated and therefore in this circumstance running a Liberal candidate may be the right thing to do. Maybe ADQ leader Mario Dumont will in the end choose not run a candidate. If they do run a candidate they will receive a lot of criticism for such cruelty and it could cost them the by-election race. I say either both other parties run candidates or neither party runs candidates. The Liberals bowing out if the ADQ won’t does not exactly make sense.

The tradition of not opposing party leaders in by-elections exists federally as well but is less hard and fast. Unlike in Quebec, at the federal level the tradition does not extend to other opposition parties. What I mean by that is that at the federal level it is the tradition for the GOVERNING PARTY to not run a candidate against a leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. Other major opposition parties do run candidates against leaders trying to enter parliament and there is no tradition against this. On the other hand, if it’s a Prime Minister trying to enter Parliament (it can theoretically happen), I also know of no tradition that says opposition parties are not to run candidates in the by-election.

I do not consider the Conservatives to be strong followers of the tradition of the governing party not running a candidate against a party leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. I say this because when Green Party leader Elizabeth May ran in the London North Centre by-election last year, the Conservatives ran a candidate against her. I also strongly suspect that if someone had won the Liberal leadership race who did not have a seat in parliament, the Conservatives would have run a candidate against them in the by-election that would have occurred to get the new leader in Parliament. Of course knowing the Conservatives, they probably would not have even called that by-election until just recently, leaving this hypothetical Liberal leader unable to lead his/her party from the House of Commons.

This political tradition I have been discussing does not exist at all in Ontario at the provincial level, at least not anymore. The Liberals ran a candidate against John Tory when Tory ran in the 2005 by-election. The governing party in Ontario has also always run a candidate against Ontario Green Party leader Frank De Jong the numerous times De Jong has run in an Ontario by-election. On a side note, De Jong seems to really like hopping from riding to riding. He has run in the following places:

1988 Federal: Rosedale, Winner: David MacDonald (PC)
1990 Provincial: Ottawa East, Winner: Bernard Grandmaître (Lib)
1991 Municipal: Ottawa’s Capital Ward, Winner: Jim Watson (now Lib cabinet minister)
1993 Federal: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier (Lib)
1995 Federal by-election: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Mauril Bélanger (Lib)
1995 Provincial: Nepean, Winner: John Baird (PC)
1997 Federal: Ottawa Centre, Winner: Mac Harb (Lib)
1999 Provincial: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Gerard Kennedy (Lib)
2003 Provincial: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: Ernie Eves (PC)
2005 Provincial by-election: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: John Tory (PC)
2006 Provincial by-election: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Cheri Di Novo (NDP)
2007 Proincial by-election: Burlington, Winner: Joyce Savoline (PC)

De Jong is relatively economically conservative and has even called for the abolition of Catholic schools. As with the federal Greens, it is for reasons like this that it is hard to tell sometimes who the Greens are splitting votes with.

The political tradition I have talked about has once actually helped a political party defeat the leader attempting to enter Parliament at the federal level. Arthur Meighen became leader of the Conservatives (again) in the early 1940s. The York South riding was supposed to be a safe Conservative seat. So the MP resigned to allow Meighen to contest the riding. The Liberals followed the political tradition and did not run a candidate against Meighen. The CCF however did run a candidate. It was a two-candidate only race. Because the Liberals ran no candidate, there was no vote splitting on the left. The result of this lack of vote splitting was that the CCF candidate was able to easily defeat Arthur Meighen in the February 1942 by-election by a large margin. This forced Meighen out of the Conservative leadership. I wonder how close the 1942 York South riding boundaries resemble the modern York South—Weston boundaries where in 2007 there was also a by-election upset won by a social democratic party (the NDP) at the provincial level. This 2007 by-election upset also took place in February. Maybe in another 65 years they can have another by-election in York South in February, but a with a Liberal winning it!