That’s definitely true.
Yes, I know this is really just summing up votes, and that votes are not divisible. That’s why I had put in this part in my post : 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”. OK, so it’s more than just a little bit shaky. But are you truly serious in proposing that most people who vote for the BQ and the NDP actually want BQ and NDP government at the federal level respectively? I don’t buy it, even if that is what they are officially doing with their votes. IMHO, most of them are voting strategically or as a protest.
Well, obviously the BQ is more a “I want the BQ to be the biggest party in Quebec” vote.
But as for the NDP, yes, of course. Even if the average NDP voters knows they likely will not win, I think most of them vote in earnest. After all, they’ve won provincial elections; nothing’s impossible.
Ramen to that and I will add if you want to know why the Conservative party will not gain more seats in Quebec, replace BQ in your post by Conservative and replace anti-Canada by anti-French. This how most Quebecois feel about the party.
What you’re missing is that Canada, unlike the United States, has a true federal system. A Canadian owes some level of loyalty both to their province and their country; their province has some level of sovereignty. It is entirely standard for provincial governments to push their own interests through negotiation with the federal government of Canada and with each other. Naturally, the level of loyalty either way varies from person to person – but you would simply be wrong to think that non-Québecois are uniformly nationalist. There are separatist parties in Alberta, British Columbia, and Newfoundland & Labrador (and probably elsewhere), and it wasn’t Quebec that took down the Canadian flag.
I suppose it is, though I’m not francophone – but then again, the Conservatives are to some extent a regional interest party themselves.
I’m hoping that this hijack ends soon. It’s awfully lame, and not really relevant, given that the Bloc is a legitimate federal party, whether you like it or not.
Actually, the capacity of the Governor General to disobey the Prime Minister is an integral part of Canadian democracy – in a crisis, she acts as an arbitrator to figure out what is actually going on. The precedent exists, though it is certainly weaker than a reading of the B.N.A. would suggest, while I don’t think there has been a case yet of the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament in Canada, and it is generally considered unacceptable to use that power to avoid a vote of confidence.
Basically, the powers of the Governor General are for the bad times – this is a bad time. She thus goes from being a dignified actor to an efficient actor. Upside is, Canada now has an entry in the next “hottest politician” thread, since she starts to count as one. Downside is, actually, none; she’s appointed in the same manner as a member of the Supreme Court, after all.
This is different from the United States how?
In the United States (at least as we learned it in school), the federal government asserted its sovereignty post-Civil War to the point that it’s not as meaningfully federal as Canada – it’s more like Germany, where individual regions have powers, but the federal government has the ultimate power.
It’s also relevant to note that in the United States, borders of identitiy don’t really follow state borders – the Midwest is not a state, nor is the Bible Belt or the Rust Belt. Big exceptions are Alaska and Hawaii, of course.
[/Hijack over, hopefully]
There’s really no (substantial) difference between Canada and the USA in that regard. Here the federal government is still much more powerful than the provinces. Both are federal states, Constitutionally granting certain powers to both levels of government. The details vary, but it’s the same concept.
The issue at hand in the Civil War was whether the USA was, in fact, like Canada - a federal state - or something more akin to the European Union, a voluntary association of sovereign nation-states. As it turned out, the winning side wanted a federal state.
That’s not so much a function of law, though, as it is simple geography. Canada is very big and very lightly populated; there is nowhere in our country where substantial populations straddle a provincial border, except Ontario and Quebec, the border of which is sort of the defining border of Canada.
Even then, you might be underestimating state identity in the USA. Folks in the Midwest certainly do identify strongly with their state.
I’m not really missing that at all. The provincial government is mandated to take care of provincial matters, whether that be by setting their own policies or negotiating with the federal government or the other provincial governments. It should not be, IMO, the federal government’s mandate to directly address provincial jurisdiction, which is exactly what the BQ forces the feds to do.
With the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Conservatives have representation in every province in the country (and one of the seats in the Territories for good measure). That includes a majority of the seats in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia – that’s six provinces out of ten, if you’re keeping count, and one in each major region. Please explain how that could possibly mean that they are a “regional interest group?” Unless, I suppose, you are referring to ROC as a “region.”
Agreed. I’ll add that some sense of that power is noted in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, along with certain other sections in the 90s dealing with agriculture, immigration, and other topics. The federal government’s declaratory power is found in there as well. In addition, there are unwritten conventions dealing with federal paramountcy.
Any level of sovreignty a province has, is generally derived from section 92 of the Constitution (mostly), and a few other sections of the Constitution. Court cases, of course, do decide other questions that arise as to the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces; but any province’s powers are, for the most part, plainly listed in the Constitution, as they have been for 141 years.
Compare this with the US Constitution, which lists the federal government’s powers; and later says (at Amendment X), that anything not listed as a federal right or power belongs to the states or to the people. In other words, the American constitution limits the power of the federal government; but by stating the powers of the provinces as neatly as it does, the Canadian constitution limits the power of provincial governments.
Sorry - you’re right. I was looking at an out-of-date website.
Well, personally I don’t feel that something explicitly allowed by the Constitution rises to the level of a crisis needing the intervention of the GG. If the writers of the Constitution did not believe that it was a problem if the legislature did not meet for a full year, than I believe that that GG should defer to their judgement. The GG should be exercising her reserve powers in cases that are not handled by the Constitution.
Actively hostile? No, there is no hostility. They just think Quebec being part of Canada has a negative impact on Quebec, and some would also tell you it has a negative influence on Canada.
I see you’re interested in the concept of sovereignty-association. 
This isn’t the reason I didn’t vote for the Conservatives. I don’t really care if they’re “anti-French” (what would this mean anyway?); and if they’re anti-bilingualism, I must say that I don’t believe in the Liberal vision of a bilingual Canada anyway. I didn’t vote for the Conservatives because even though I like the idea of stronger provinces and a smaller federal government, I don’t really trust Stephen Harper. I find him an excellent politician, but I don’t know what are his true values, or if he even has values.
This said, notice that in the last election, the Conservatives were on the verge of a breakthrough in Quebec, which would have happened at the expense of the Bloc, until they announced the cuts in culture and the toughening of the young offenders law. I believe this is the reason why they weren’t able to get more votes: not because they’re perceived as “anti-French”, but because they’re perceived as strongly right-wing, uncaring about anything cultural and uninterested in rehabilitation of offenders.
While I’m not convinced the federal government even has a business funding culture – a provincial responsibility – I’m certain these cuts were done for ideological right-wing reasons and not because the government figured out it was outside its area of responsibility. And in a Canada where criminal law is under federal jurisdiction, their trying to toughen the young offenders law is a good reason to vote against them, especially in Quebec, where the youth crime rate appears to be lower than elsewhere in Canada, probably in large part because of our emphasis on rehabilitation.
We’re just killing time until Monday. 
…and if the Constitution gave the Governor General the power to make these decisions herself (which it explicitly did), then she should exercise those powers as she sees fit – that’s going by your logic. Note that the Governor General is the one in charge of proroguing, not the Prime Minister. Now, in reality and by convention, she has to have a good reason to say no to the PM, which in this case she does: this particular procedure was not created in order to prevent votes of no confidence. Incidentally, what would a “case not handled by the Constitution” be? The G.G.'s powers are (by definition) handled by the Constitution.
featherlou, good point. 
Sure is. They say a week is an eternity in politics, and I’m starting to believe it.
Hey, I’m not saying that the GG couldn’t refuse the prorogue Parliament. I’m just giving my opinion on how I feel the GG should act in a scenario.
But the Constitution explicitly says that prorogation requires the permission of the Governor General, does it not?
I don’t quite grasp the idea that the Governor General should only be exercising her judgment in cases the Constitution doesn’t cover. The Constitution is pretty explicit in this regard, in granting powers to the Governor General in cases that ARE handled by the Constitution. I mean, that’s why we have a Governor-General - the Constitution says so. I would agree that in principle she should deny the Prime Minister’s advice with only the most careful consideration, but sometimes, she might have to do exactly that.
If Harper tries to prorogate for a full year, I would say that is a most exceptional circumstance, in this particular case. He would effectively be trying to shut down Parliament to avoid facing a House that has lost confidence in him. It’s an affront to democracy and a significant material threat to the good governance of this country. If he tried to just prorogate until he presents a January budget (as has been suggested he will) I would agree Jean should not stop him - shit, it’d take that long to get a new government up and running anyway.
Either way, though, it’s her job and her call.
No problem.
That’s not what I want. What I want, also, if for the federal government (and Canadians outside of Quebec) to leave ourselves alone and let us do our thing. But the federal government has a tradition of interfering with Quebec internal affairs (though I will admit this is mostly true with Liberal governments, and especially with Trudeau), and English Canadian media seems to really enjoy pointing out every single thing that may or may not be wrong with Quebec. Some English Canadian media is intensely and virulently critical of Quebec, while French-language media in Quebec doesn’t seem to care that much about what happens in the rest of Canada. As far as I can tell, this is because there is currently a nation-building process in progress in English Canada, and usually peoples who build their national identity do so at least in part by defining what they are not and attributing these values to close or similar peoples, which in Canada means Americans (extremely patriotic and religious, culturally imperialistic) and Quebecers (ethnocentric, xenophobic, somewhat fascistic), but it’s still tiresome.
Yes, I am aware there are unflattering stereotypes of Albertans in Canadian popular culture, but I’ve never read them in serious, opinion-setting Quebec newspapers.
Actually, featherlou, while I am aware that transfer payments are an important part of Quebec’s budget – and yes, it probably means you have a better work ethic than us, or are morally better than us, or whatever --, if I was in power I think I’d almost be willing to at least greatly diminish this program if it had the effect of making Canadian provinces more autonomous, and especially if it took you people off our backs. Yes, I know that when there are discussions on economic matters in Parliament, the Bloc often tries to get the best deal possible for Quebec, and personally I’d like it better if they followed their ideological program of provincial autonomy and a smaller federal government. But if anything should tell you the Bloc isn’t trying very hard to make Quebec independent these days, this should be it.
As for Quebec being “more special” than other provinces, Quebec has traditionally wanted to take control of programs that other provinces leave in the hands of the federal government. For some reason a certain number of English Canadians seem really bothered by this. But other provinces could do the same, and I’ve heard Alberta is starting to do it.