# Political crisis in Canada? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 28, 2008, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765 "2008-11-28T05:22:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dread_pirate_jimbo/32/3897_2.png) [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dread_Pirate_Jimbo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/121 "2008-12-02T06:15:14Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > You have to see the difference between facts and opinions. You’re allowed to say the Bloc MPs (or even Bloc voters, if you want) are bastards and do not belong in your view of Canada; that’s your opinion. But if you say they hate Canada, you’re attributing ideas to them, ideas that they do not hold. > > There seems to be this idea in English Canada that Quebec sovereigntists “hate Canada” and this is what I’m trying to correct. Do you want Canada to merge with the US? No? Then does this mean you hate the US? > \ That’s a bit of an apples and oranges argument, isn’t it? Canada doesn’t want to become part of the USA; meanwhile, the BQ don’t want to remain part of Canada. That distinction makes a rather huge difference. Separatists, by definition, want out of the confederation. Perhaps “hate” is too strong a word to characterize the BQ attitude towards the rest of Canada, but I don’t think it’s all that far off. Perhaps you’d prefer “antagonistic” or “actively hostile?” ---
**Author:** ![Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dread_pirate_jimbo/32/3897_2.png) [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dread_Pirate_Jimbo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/122 "2008-12-02T06:36:58Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > This business of a minority government falling at the hands of a majority coalition points out something that I quite like about our Parliamentary system. > > At its heart, we have people in out communities who run for office. They may be of one political affiliation or another, or may switch from one to another, or may have no affiliation at all, but ultimately they simply stand up as community representatives for election, we pick the ones we want to represent us, and off they go to Parliament. > > Once they are sitting in the House, it is not that one political party has the ultimate authority. Instead, it is that the majority of the elected MPs decide between themselves what will be done in Parliament. Sometimes it happens that the majority of MPs are members of a particular party. Sometimes it happens that a majority of MPs are not members of a particular party, and we end up with a minority or coalition government. > > The nice thing about this is that rather than monolithic political parties bumping up against each other, we have a system in which first and foremost each individual elected MP primarily represents his or her community and is responsible to that community, rather than being primarily responsible to a political party. A party can kick an MP out of caucus, but not out of the House. It remains up to the electorate to decide who sits in the House. > > Because our MPs are elected to their seats as individuals, we have a system in which the majority of MPs rules, with that majority being formed by individual MPs, each working for the people who voted for him or her. They may form parties, but ultimately their right to vote for us arises out of their being elected as individuals. That way, regardless of political affiliation, it is possible for a majority of elected MPs to form a government, rather than for a particular party affiliation form a government against the will of the elected MPs. You seem to be suggesting that party loyalty is not a significant factor in our system of government, which is, at best, naive. Party politics define our system – rarely do MPs ever vote against their party line and purely in favour of whatever agenda their constituents hold. And you cannot tell me that voters in general are voting for their individual MPs so much as they are for the party to whom they belong. It would be far more accurate for you to have said, “we pick the ones who belong to the party which we want to represent us, and off they go to Parliament.” Frankly, I’d love to live in a system where each individual MP votes his or her conscience every time, and not what the party whip has instructed him or her to do. But that’s not the way it goes in the real world, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/123 "2008-12-02T06:38:31Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > \ **featherlou** ’s suggestion is unworkable, undefinable, and ridiculous)\ Have you ever considered _not_ being rude and dismissive? I understand you’re an engineer and as such probably don’t have many social skills, but you really come across as much harsher than you need to be. > [@Hypnagogic Jerk](#): > > \ I’d like them to actually try to push Canada into a direction that would make Quebec and the other provinces… well, not independent, but sovereign in almost all regards. Oh, please, make all the provinces sovereign in almost all regards - Alberta most especially. And then keep the money within the provinces and stop the taxes going into the federal government and the transfer payments coming out. _Please!_ ---
**Author:** ![serious\_lark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@serious\_lark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/serious_lark)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/124 "2008-12-02T15:29:59Z")
> [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](#): > > Allow me to answer your question with another question: If Dion and everybody else couldn’t beat Harper last time, when they had the chance, what makes you think they could beat him in another election? The simple fact remains that the only party out there right now that has any hope of effectively leading this country is the Conservatives. The rest are hopelessly bogged down with leadership questions and general lack of credibility. I’ve seen a number of people indicate that the nation sent a clear message that the Conservatives do not have a mandate to go about their business unhindered by deals with other parties. I would put it to you that they sent an even stronger message to the other parties that their services as the national leaders are not currently wanted. If the Liberals could only pull half of the ridings that the Conservatives did (give or take), in what insane universe does anyone think that means Canada wants a Liberal running the show – especially when they can’t even decide which one will be the leader in the proposed coalition. If they’re that messed up right now, how could that possibly be better for the nation than the current Conservative minority, which has an uncontested leader and a workable plan? > > Something else to consider where the GG’s decisions in the next week are concerned: if she pisses off the wrong people by exercising her powers as GG, choosing one group over another, and that grouop eventually wins a majority, we could be looking at the elimination of that position entirely. Just like the Senate filibuster at the start of Mulroney’s time in office, if Jean makes the mistake of actually acting as the person in charge, rather than just a figurehead, Canadian politicians may suddenly realize that they no longer require a Governor-General (of course, the Senate came to their senses and backed down, rather than lose their cushy little patronage appointments). Yet another piece of the dangerous little game being played out right now… None of the opposition parties has what it takes to beat the Conservatives in a federal election now - that was just proven in that recent election. I don’t think one can reasonably interpret the election results to mean that Canadians want Dion as PM etc - we would’ve voted him in if we’d wanted to. What I do interpret the election results to mean is that Canadians overall wanted the Conservatives in power, but not with the "blank cheque"of majority status; they wanted some counterbalance, because we voted in significant blocs of Libs, NDPs and BQs. The Tories saw a higher seat count for themselves and took that to mean stronger mandate, but ignored the fact that they were still a minority government and should (political prudence, if nothing else) show some respect for their democratically elected opposition. (This concept that vote results are the reflection of what 'the average Canadian voter wants"is a bit shaky, given that it’s more about regional voting patterns and population bases, but it’s the basis of those old chestnuts "the people have spoken"and “this has shown us the will of the people”.) As to whether a Conservative government under the uncontested leadership of Harper would necessarily be better than a coalition government formed by our opposition parties (fumbling through leadership issues or not), I’m afraid I respectfully disagree. I see Harper having denied the then impending world economic mess and its expected impact on Canada when it was clearly about to hit us like a Mack truck (for political reasons, I hope, rather than through being that oblivious) while trying to get the election done before said crash to try to maximize chances of getting majority status (perfectly sensible political move, can’t fault him there). The opposition parties seem to have plans for economic stimulus packages while the Conservatives appear to either be ideologically unwilling to present same quickly or else caught somewhat flat-footed by the economic situation and needing time to come up with acceptable plans (although the time frame did change with this current “crisis”). (In honesty, I’m not sure whether the stay the course approach would not be better than the economic stimulus packages, but economists are publically insisting that increasing public spending is crucial at this time, so I’m deferring to their possibly better judgement on this one.) That being said, if the Liberals are planning for the long term, they should not take power now. The resentment that them taking power in this way will create in many Canadian voters would be monumental and come back to haunt them in the next election. Unfortunately, I think the opposition feels that Harper has shown them that he has no desire to make this minority parliament work and that they have to defeat him while they have this chance, rather than making their point and then stepping back graciously. Regarding the GG: I hope she consults her constitutional advisors (and possibly Queen Elizabeth II ) for advice and then makes whatever decision she feels is best. Whether she lets Harper prorogue Parliament or lets him dissolve Parliament for another election or effectively forces him to resign to allow the opposition coalition parties a shot at governing - given the three lousy choices, I don’t envy her her position right now. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/125 "2008-12-02T15:52:30Z")
> [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](#): > > I don’t listen to the CBC. I avoid their crap as much as humanly possible, except maybe for the non-Leafs hockey game on Saturday nights. Too bad. I like to listen to/watch a wide variety of media to get a varied view. If some prefer to get all their news from the National Post, good luck to them. > [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](#): > > Having some blend of the Grit and NDP economic platforms which effectively tries to bankrupt the western-dominated oil and gas industry to prop up the failing Ontario manufacturing sector isn’t out of the question, however. AND it has the virtue of having been done before! I don’t think that the reincarnated body of Pierre Trudeau is going to rise up and re-institute the NEP. With oil currently at $50/barrell, this is not in the cards. > [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](#): > > Trust me; Harper’s paranoia about what could happen to national economics under a more left-wing umbrella is well-founded and not the sort of scare-mongering speculation done by the McCain/Palin ticket. Yes, I well remember the days when Paul Martin as finance minister was busy bankrupting Canada. Oh wait… That didn’t happen. Given that Martin, Manley, McKenna and Romanow have been brought on board as economic advisors to the coalition, I would not worry too much if I were you. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/126 "2008-12-02T16:12:05Z")
For heaven’s sake, the Bloc are not a boogeyman which will come eat your brain in your sleep! I speak as an anglo Quebecer, and someone about as much against seperation as anyone can be. They do have beliefs and policies other than “destroy Canada”. Seperatism is pretty much off the table at this point in time, and it seemed pretty clear in the federal debates that what Duceppe is advocating is maintained/increased provincial autonomy, not the wholesale annihilation of the government. There have been regional parties before - Reform was originally a Western version of the Bloc, minus the seperatism thing. French-Canadians are part of this country just as much as you all are. They absolutely have a right to have their votes count and their members of parliament form part of the government. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/127 "2008-12-02T16:46:58Z")
For those interested in supporting the coalition, this website just came to my attention - [Canadians for a Progressive Coalition](http://www.progressivecoalition.ca/) ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/128 "2008-12-02T17:00:31Z")
For those interested in supporting the Conservatives, there is a petition on their web site [here](http://canadians4democracy.ca/index.php?msg=submitted). ---
**Author:** ![Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dread_pirate_jimbo/32/3897_2.png) [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dread_Pirate_Jimbo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/129 "2008-12-02T17:06:09Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Too bad. I like to listen to/watch a wide variety of media to get a varied view. If some prefer to get all their news from the National Post, good luck to them. I prefer to get my various media sources from something other than the Ontario-centric leanings of the CBC, that’s all. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that the reincarnated body of Pierre Trudeau is going to rise up and re-institute the NEP. With oil currently at $50/barrell, this is not in the cards. Call it what you will, but the “Green Shift” plan proposed by Dion during the last election is nothing more than a thinly veiled NEP II. > [@](#): > > Yes, I well remember the days when Paul Martin as finance minister was busy bankrupting Canada. Oh wait… That didn’t happen. > > Given that Martin, Manley, McKenna and Romanow have been brought on board as economic advisors to the coalition, I would not worry too much if I were you. I wasn’t referring to Martin, who I think was a fairly astute and clear-thinking finance minister… for a Liberal. 😃 > [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > For heaven’s sake, the Bloc are not a boogeyman which will come eat your brain in your sleep! I speak as an anglo Quebecer, and someone about as much against seperation as anyone can be. > > They do have beliefs and policies other than “destroy Canada”. Seperatism is pretty much off the table at this point in time, and it seemed pretty clear in the federal debates that what Duceppe is advocating is maintained/increased provincial autonomy, not the wholesale annihilation of the government. There have been regional parties before - Reform was originally a Western version of the Bloc, minus the seperatism thing. > > French-Canadians are part of this country just as much as you all are. They absolutely have a right to have their votes count and their members of parliament form part of the government. The Reform Party was not anything like the Bloc – yes, its mandate at its outset was to attempt to give Western Canada a voice in Parliament, but that mandate had shifted to a national view by the time they began to win seats in the federal legislature. While they remained the de facto voice of the West for their entire history, they always ran candidates in every province, with policies that addressed national concerns, notwithstanding a national perception that they were a regional protest party (a perception enthusiastically endorsed by the CBC, as I recall). While they advocated more provincial autonomy and voice in federal politics, they did not insist on continuing to act as a special interest group, the way the BQ does. Seperatism is only off the table at the moment, because Duceppe hasn’t felt the need to play that card lately. And as for the French-Canadians who vote for the BQ, I’ll accept them as being as much a part of this country as we all are when they start acting like it. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/130 "2008-12-02T17:22:21Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > For heaven’s sake, the Bloc are not a boogeyman which will come eat your brain in your sleep! I speak as an anglo Quebecer, and someone about as much against seperation as anyone can be. > > They do have beliefs and policies other than “destroy Canada”. Seperatism is pretty much off the table at this point in time, and it seemed pretty clear in the federal debates that what Duceppe is advocating is maintained/increased provincial autonomy, not the wholesale annihilation of the government. There have been regional parties before - Reform was originally a Western version of the Bloc, minus the seperatism thing. > > French-Canadians are part of this country just as much as you all are. They absolutely have a right to have their votes count and their members of parliament form part of the government. Separatism is not off the table, and I don’t know who is telling you that. The first plank in the Bloc Quebecois platform is an independent Quebec. The second plank is trying to get everything they can get for Quebec with no consideration for the good of Canada as a whole. That’s the problem I have with them being allowed federal party status - they don’t work for Canada, they work for Quebec. Here’s what I see as the difference between Western sentiments and Quebec-firsters - Western Canada would like the government to leave us alone so we can get on with business (and making all that money that goes to Ottawa so it can pay out transfer payments to Quebec). The Conservative government under Harper seemed to be doing that quite nicely. Quebec wants the federal government to actually do things _for_ it - legislation and special status and special treats. I don’t like the idea of Quebec being more special than the rest of the provinces - it has nothing to do with not wanting French Canadians in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/131 "2008-12-02T17:27:13Z")
> [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](#): > > Seperatism is only off the table at the moment, because Duceppe hasn’t felt the need to play that card lately. And as for the French-Canadians who vote for the BQ, I’ll accept them as being as much a part of this country as we all are when they start acting like it. You are more of a seperatist than I am, then - you want to disenfranchise a part of the country. If some Canadians would stop acting like Canada is really Canada minus Quebec, then maybe some Quebecers would stop thinking that way too. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/132 "2008-12-02T17:42:49Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > Separatism is not off the table, and I don’t know who is telling you that. We could start with Pauline Marois, leader of the Parti Québécois, the driving force behind the sovereignty movement in Quebec, who explicitly refused to run on a platform of seeking the independence of Quebec in this election, and actually had rather a fracas with her base over it. More to the point, sovereignty is off the table because most Quebecers either are against it or don’t care enough. Actually, that’s largely a result of how successful the PQ and BQ have been in their actions at the federal and provincial level: Quebecers have gotten many of the things we needed to protect our culture and institutions within Canada, thereby demonstrating we don’t have to separate to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dread_pirate_jimbo/32/3897_2.png) [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dread_Pirate_Jimbo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/133 "2008-12-02T17:46:29Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > You are more of a seperatist than I am, then - you want to disenfranchise a part of the country. If some Canadians would stop acting like Canada is really Canada minus Quebec, then maybe some Quebecers would stop thinking that way too. Hardly. I think you will find that virtually all anglophone Canadians think of themselves as Canadians first and members of their particular region second, even when they are at their most pissed-off with the federal government – when the NEP was instituted in the 80s and started bankrupting Albertan oil companies by the dozen, Albertans didn’t suddenly start defining themselves as Albertans fighting against Ottawa injustice; they saw themsleves as Canadians being screwed by their own government. The disenfranchised in Quebec, from what I’ve seen, and from what I’ve heard from French folk who have moved here to take advantage of the booming economy, see themselves as Quebecois first and Canadian second. If they’re feeling disenfranchised, when the entire nation twists itself in knots to placate their constant demands and complaints, then that is their problem, not mine. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/134 "2008-12-02T17:51:50Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > While we are looking at wierd and wacky possibilities that in weality simply never will come to be, consider how a ruling party could play with the democratic rights sections of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Theoretically, a PM could pop by once a year and then prorogue, over and over, until five years were up and an election had to be called. Could he? Once the new session of Parliament began, the first order of business would have to be the Speech from the Throne, which is a confidence matter. Could the PM have Parliament prorogued before the Speech from the Throne? My feeling is that the easiest way out of the Constitutional crisis you propose is to say that a session of Parliament has not begun until the Speech from the Throne has been voted on, and the GG cannot prorogue a session before it begins. It’s unfortunate that an entire year must go by before the government could be defeated in this scenario, but I think that the Constitution is quite explicit in allowing Parliament not to meet for a full year. I’d be open to an amendment to fix this, but I think that the precedent of a GG disobeying the PM is worse than the precedent of a government proroguing Parliament for a full year in accordance with the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/135 "2008-12-02T19:05:25Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > Have you ever considered _not_ being rude and dismissive? I understand you’re an engineer… I am? Since when? I stopped taking hard sciences in Grade 12. Your suggestion was ridiculous. Sorry. However, it doesn’t make YOU ridiculous, and I shouldn’t have implied that. I have ridiculous ideas all the time. I should not have been that mean spirited in my phrasing, however, and apologize for that. [QUOTE=serious lark] What I do interpret the election results to mean is that Canadians overall wanted the Conservatives in power, but not with the "blank cheque"of majority status; they wanted some counterbalance, because we voted in significant blocs of Libs, NDPs and BQs. [/QUOTE] This is a common thing I’ve sene written, but if you deconstruct it, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Canadians don’t (can’t) divide their vote up into percentages; you can’t allocate 37% of your vote to Party A, 29% to Party B, and so on. Votes are quanta; each one is a 100% vote for one candidate. A voters cannot vote in a way that ensure a Conservative minority; you either vote Conservative, or Liberal, or NDP, or Green, or Bloc, or what have you. I believe that MOST Canadians wanted nothing more than for their candidate to win. I think most Conservative voters wanted a Conservative government, most Liberal voters wanted a Liberal government, most NDP voters an NDP government, and so on. You can’t get together with 99 of your neighbours and collectively decide how to divvy up your votes. Collectively, this gives the vote the appearance of being “Canada wanted a minority government.” But that’s not precisely how it works; it’s really just the mathematics of ten million individual voters making distinct decisions. If you counted the votes in different ways - proportional rep, or single-transferable votes, or even just changing the way you allocate seats in Parliament - you would get very different results from exactly the same voters. It’s worth noting that almost every majority government of recent times did not get a majority of the popular vote (the 1984 election being the only case, and then just barely - be3fore that you go back to 1958) so even in the case of majority governments, like in 1988, 1993, 1997, and 2000, it’s the result of a minority of voters voting that way. The difference between a Conservative minority and a majority in this year’s election would have been two, maybe three percent of all voters. Swing it five or six points the other way and we’d have had a Liberal minority and a Conservative opposition. It’s not that big a swing. You’d also get dramatically different results if you changed the choices - if you got rid of the NDP, or the Bloc, or broke the Conservative Party back into two parties, or what have you. **But at the level of the individual voter, it’s still one clear choice** ; I am voting for This Candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/136 "2008-12-02T19:18:20Z")
But the key to remember is that ‘this candidate’ is the MP in your riding, not any person who may or may not be PM. So, **Jimbo** , I’m confused. What’s your ideal here? That Quebec splits off? That the Quebecois sit down and shut up and be part of the Canada that you envision? Because I see a pretty different Canada, even as an anglo - Quebec IS integrally part of Canada, and that means that Canada has to deal with having what were historically two different cultures. The logical conclusion is that the BQ is just as Canadian as the Conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/137 "2008-12-02T19:35:02Z")
Canada _is_ the result of historically different cultures engaging. The Bloc and PQ are, at their core, proponents of disengagement. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/138 "2008-12-02T19:41:16Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Canada _is_ the result of historically different cultures engaging. The Bloc and PQ are, at their core, proponents of disengagement. And so’s everyone who says that Quebec should sit down and shut up. They’re refusing to engage that reality that exists. There are other options besides 1) Quebec leaves and 2) everything stays the same. That fact has been stifled by both of the main political options, but it’s what’s ended up happening anyway, to my relief. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/139 "2008-12-02T19:55:08Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > The logical conclusion is that the BQ is just as Canadian as the Conservatives. I would suggest that one’s perception of the BQ depends on what part of the country one lives in. We’ve discussed the differences in the Quebec media and the ROC’s media before on this board (sorry I cannot find the cite right now), and when everybody’s views came together, it was apparent that the picture that various media painted of the BQ differed significantly between Quebec and the ROC. The fact of the matter is that, here in Alberta at least and I would imagine other regions as well, the BQ is presented in the media as a party that is anti-Canada. The logical conclusion to draw from exposure to local media, at least here, is that the BQ is bent on destroying the country. I believe you when you say otherwise, **Helen’s Eidolon** , because you’re there; but I also believe that **Jimbo** has a point–because we in the west have very little saying otherwise. Yes, CBC is available (although few admit watching anything on it other than hockey), and Montreal and Quebec City newspapers are available in public libraries; but few out here pay any attention to eastern media–and admit it; you probably don’t rush down to your public library to read the \*Calgary Herald \*or the \*Edmonton Journal \*either. I’ve always said better communication between Quebec and the ROC will go a long way towards helping us understand each other. This, I guess, is another example illustrating that. ---
**Author:** ![Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dread_pirate_jimbo/32/3897_2.png) [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dread_Pirate_Jimbo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765/140 "2008-12-02T20:13:00Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > But the key to remember is that ‘this candidate’ is the MP in your riding, not any person who may or may not be PM. > > So, **Jimbo** , I’m confused. What’s your ideal here? That Quebec splits off? That the Quebecois sit down and shut up and be part of the Canada that you envision? Because I see a pretty different Canada, even as an anglo - Quebec IS integrally part of Canada, and that means that Canada has to deal with having what were historically two different cultures. > > The logical conclusion is that the BQ is just as Canadian as the Conservatives. My ideal – and I freely admit that it’ll never happen, because human nature would not allow it – would be everyone seeking to do what is best for the nation as a whole and prioritizing local concerns behind national needs. Those concerns which are local should be left in the hands of the local government. The BQ, as far as I have ever seen, is solely interested in what brings the greatest advantage to Quebec, with little or no consideration for what is best for Canada. To me, that is entirely contrary to the ideals of a federal government and that, more than anything else, is what continues to divide the country by ostensibly encouraging each region to look out for itself regardless of the greater good of Canada. Duceppe once again demonstrated this within the coalition plan, by flatly refusing to have anything to do with helping govern the country as part of the cabinet – he doesn’t appear to give a tiny little rat’s ass what happens to Canada, so long as Quebec gets as much attention, concessions, and money as they can squeeze out of everyone else. I do consider Quebec to be an important and intrinsic part of this country. However, I got tired of the BQ and PQ screaming for special status and inordinate federal mollycoddling quite a few years ago. From my perspective, this has nothing to do with anglophone culture versus francophone culture – I honestly don’t care what language anyone speaks. This is about valuable federal governing time being burned placating a noisy group of people who have gotten used to being kept in a manner disproportionate to their overall impact on the nation. Not all Quebecois, mind you, but the ones who continue to support the seperatists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-crisis-in-canada/474765.md?page=8)