Canadian Dopers: Is it unacceptable to have the BQ allied with the government?

Prime Minister Harper is currently harping on the issue that the potential coalition government, by being supported by the BQ on votes of confidence in its 1st 18 months, would be “in bed with separatists” etc. While there is nothing in law (that I’m aware of, anyway) to prevent the BQ from being part of a governing coalition, it is clear that a lot of Canadians are unhappy about this prospect.

So, I thought I would try to take the question out of the immediate issue how our grudge-filled politicians have yet to figure out how to play nice in the Parliamentary sand box and solicit opinions on two questions.
(1) Is it unacceptable to you to have the BQ (as opposed to any other opposition party) in a formalized alliance with the government, and why or why not?
(2) What do you think of the BQ’s record in opposition as compared to other opposition parties over the last 18 years (Duceppe was first elected as the 1st BQ MPin 1990)?

I guess a 3rd question would be, why do you think Quebecers choose to keep re-electing the BQ to Parliament even though it looks like the separatist dream is unlikely to be fulfilled any time soon?

It is unacceptable. Aside from their stated position on separation, their only interest is what’s good for Quebec. Any issue that pits the national interest against the interest of Quebec will be compromised. What if transfer payments were on the table? Both national party governments have compromised regional interests in the past for the good of the nation. Quebec will be immune.

The BQ is the only party that confines itself to representing Quebec. The NDP is untested but as I’ve said, the other national parties have disappointed Quebec in the past.

A governing coalition is exactly that - governing. I object strongly to any separatist party being a member of such a coalition.

And to forestall any objections - I have no problem with them acting to defeat the government. I object to them becoming the government.

Secondly, the Bloc has no need to be successful. They simply need to show that the Canadian government is insufficiently attentive to Quebec to drive separatist sentiment up. Tactically it’s quite clever - by minimizing Quebec seats available to parties actually in a position to govern they reduce the province’s clout in Cabinet while at the same time making any move to engage with Quebec seem disproportionate to the number of federally held seats. And so in other regions further removed from Quebec issues it breeds resentment which then feeds back into the classic siege mentality of us vs. them.

In a way forcing the Bloc to sit as members of a governing coalition could undercut their arguments but I’d rather starve them of funds, reduce them to runt rural party and have vigorous engagement of Quebec MPs within nationally focused federal parties.

I also want a pony.

Okay, clarify for me. Some people are saying that the BQ is going to be part of the governing coalition, and others are saying that the BQ is NOT going to be part of the governing coalition (as in, they get no Cabinet seats, unlike the NDP). Which is it?

I guess it’s only acceptable if the Conservatives do it. When they got their budget passed with help from the Bloc, and therefore avoided a non-confidence vote that would have brought them down, that was OK.

When the Alliance party under Stockwell day secretly plotted in 2000 with the Bloc to form an alliance to bring down the Liberal government of the day, that was probably OK too, right?
Cite

Glass houses, Mr. Harper, glass houses.

BQ has agreed to support the NDP & Liberals in any confidence motions for the first 18 months, but does not want /is not getting any Cabinet seats.

The BQ will not be part of the coalition government. No cabinet seats. No inside influence, we think. But they will be part of the coalition. Its really an academic argument, because BQ members will be in exactly the same position as the vast majority of Liberal and Conservative members. That is, support the government for the next 18 months.

The coalition is composed of the Liberal party and NDP. The prime minister is the Liberal leader, who will appoint 24 ministers. 6 of these will be appointed from the NDP caucus, the remainder Liberals. The minister of finance will be a Liberal. The Liberals and NDP will sit separately, side by side on the government side of the House. The agreement for the coalition runs to June 2011.

The Bloc Québécois is not formally part of the coalition. They have agreed, however, to support it on critical bills, until June 2010. They have also agreed not to pursue separation issues for this period. The Bloc will sit in opposition, and have no members in the coalition cabinet. The PM will however, set up a ‘consultation mechanism’ with the Bloc to help ensure their support on the critical bills.

The details of the agreement are here.

They’ll be as much a part of this coalition as they were a part of a Conservative/Bloc coalition when they supported the previous Conservative budgets, and helped keep them in power.

Okay then. Give me a cite where the Bloc gave the Conservatives a signed quid pro quo agreement over a duration of a specific agreement.

No, not unacceptable at all, but I’m not sure if my opinion is all that relevant since I live in Quebec and I even voted for the Bloc last election. In fact, it wouldn’t even bother me to have the Bloc actually have seats in Cabinet. To me that fact that the Bloc MPs support independence for Quebec is totally irrelevant, since they cannot do anything about it in Ottawa anyway. Only the Quebec government can do something about it, and none of the main parties running in the provincial election on December 8 want to touch the issue. It seems to me that saying Bloc support for the government is illegitimate because they’re “separatists”, even though it’s impossible for them to pass measures intended to bring us closer to this goal, comes close to establishing a distinction between “tolerable” and “intolerable” opinions. But who’s to say which opinions are tolerable and which aren’t?

As I’ve said in another thread, I’m quite certain some countries have had parties that could be considered as “separatist” taking part in federal coalition governments. I’m absolutely certain this is true for regionalist parties. This is part of how democracy works, and everybody has to make concessions.

Actually, the fact that the Bloc’s agenda is to above all defend Quebec’s interests is in my mind more of an obstacle to them being a part of a federal government than the fact that they’re technically “separatist”. It wouldn’t be an obstacle if the other parties in the coalition were also regionalist parties, but both the Liberals and NDP give themselves a pan-Canadian mandate (and actually hold seats in Quebec, so we can’t even see this as an agreement between Quebec parties and parties from the rest of Canada). But what is certain is that having put his signature on the alliance contract, Duceppe, without losing sight of Quebec’s interests, will have to take into account the needs of the rest of the country as well. Already some Bloc voters are unhappy with Duceppe handing the Prime Ministership to Dion, one of the greatest opponents of Quebec independence. The Angry French Guy is actually saying Duceppe is the biggest loser of this week’s political crisis.

It’s a bit disappointing, actually. The Bloc started as a loose alliance of former Liberals and Conservatives who couldn’t support their parties anymore after the defeat of the Meech lake accord, then became a sovereigntist party designed to defend Quebec’s interests until the day of independence, but now they’re trying to defend Quebec’s interests in perpetual opposition. They’ve tried to pass some legislation, with little success: the cornerstone of their legislative platform for the last 15 years or so has been a federal anti-scab law, which still hasn’t passed. Before the last election, there were a lot of debates in Quebec about whether the Bloc is still pertinent in Ottawa, with many ex-Bloc MPs taking the position that it isn’t anymore. (To be fair, most of these ex-Bloc MPs are now Conservatives or provincial Liberals.)

I guess Duceppe has figured out that if his party is to survive, he has to try something else. Namely actually try his hand at governing. He won’t be part of the actual coalition, but at least he’ll be able to try to influence legislation and actually do something for Quebec and Canada.

They have an explicit agenda of defending Quebec’s interests, while the Liberals are the party of invading provincial areas of responsibility, the Conservatives are scary – while relatively good for provincial rights, they also seem to [post=10522221]be quite right-wing[/post], especially with Harper at the helm – and the NDP is an unknown, and probably nearly as centralizing as the Liberals, as left-wing parties tend to be.

I’m pretty amazed at the number of people willing to agree that it’s unacceptable. I suppose I have a question, though - are you saying that it’s unacceptable in the sense of a disagreement of opinion? As in: “For me, it’s unacceptable for Canada to be run by a right-wing party.” Or is it unacceptable in the sense that you feel it should not, morally or legally, be allowed to happen, as in: “It’s unacceptable for the Prime Minister to order the other parties to be disbanded and institute martial law to enforce his order.”

My view (which I think everyone in this thread has seen me repeat multiple times) is that the Bloc MPs are the legally elected representatives of the Canadian citizens in those ridings. To deny them, in the second sense given above, the right to participate fully in the government in any way they choose is to act in an extremely, extremely undemocratic fashion.

I expect I’m in a fairly small minority being a westerner who has no problems with the Bloc being allied with/part of government. I’ll chalk it up to having read Hypnagogic Jerk’s many posts about Quebec nationalism. :slight_smile: I’d actually kind of prefer they were part of government instead of supporting it off from the side, because it would increase the degree to which they’d be accountable to their constituents for the governance they’d be helping to provide. In my fantasy world they’d morph from being an explicitly Quebec-only party into a national party with an emphasis on devolution of federal powers to the provinces. I imagine they’d remain largely or maybe even wholly Quebec-based, but it would greatly increase their credibility in the rest of the country. I suppose it would also entail abandoning the dream of independence, but that’s seeming inevitable these days anyways.

Nobody here is talking about taking away the right of the BQ to participate in the government. What I’m talking about is the deplorable decision of the Liberals and the NDP to bed down with the Bloc. And I’m not disputing the right of the Liberals and the NDP to do so either. Democracy reigns.

I guess an unsigned draft agreement in 2000 between Stockwell Day and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe would not cut it?
Cite

This certainly does show that Harper’s colleagues in cabinet are not exactly innocents when it comes to making political allies out of strange bedfellows.

The Bloc MPs are legally elected Members of Parliament and it’s fine with me if they align themselves with the proposed coalition according to the agreement we’ve seen.

If Mr. Harper hadn’t been such an arrogant twit and decided to start throwing his weight around in the midst of the worst crisis this country has seen in decades, I might feel differently. I had thought, although I am not a Harper fan, that he might be the guy to steer us through this. But lo! And no! Never mind the economic crisis, let’s work on really important stuff.

Mind you, I’m no Dion fan, either.

Buncha dorks. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

According to your own cite, Day himself was apparently not part of the discussion. Not that I like Stockwell Day, but this story says one lawyer discussed this with the Bloc, not Day or even an MP.

As to the OP

  1. Yes, I feel it’s morally unacceptable. It’s legal, but profoundly wrong.

  2. Not particularly strong. Granted, they have constituted the Official Opposition only once, from 1993 to 1997; since then they’ve been the third party (part iof the Opposition, but not the Official Opposition, if you see what I mean.) It’s difficult for the party in third place to do a lot that you’ll notice.

From your link

Just a draft, with no evidence that a cabinet colleague was involved. But it does take the steam out Harper’ accusation.

Actually, I was really hoping to hear from some Quebecers, especially any one who had voted for the BQ, so thanks very much for responding. I was born and raised in Quebec but left in 1994, so the BQ is not within my direct experience. Thank you in particular for your assessment of the BQ as an opposition party; again something that I’ve paid little attention too because it affects me very little here in Stampede land.

I’m definitely going to have to look at your Angry French Guy link when I have a moment.

Great - this helps me better understand the appeal of the BQ to Quebecers.

You’ll excuse me if I don’t take Mr. Chipeur’s word on this… I’m a bit skeptical that he had no direction on this file whatsoever from his political masters. He just prepared this document all by himself? Pull the other one.