By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Holy shit, Canada's having an election! But why?

Jaicee said:

Concerning the internal dynamics of Quebec, I was referring to Quebec's internal politics. As you can see from the outcome of the most recent election thereto, sovereigntist parties currently hold 94 out of the 125 seats in Quebec's internal parliament and enjoy the cumulative support of more than 70% of the population. The only Canadian party that holds seats in Quebec's internal parliament is the Liberal Party, which is also the only federalist party with any seats. There is no domestic Conservative Party in Quebec; no party that wants to define itself more by right wing ideology than by sovereigntism.

The question in federal elections isn't whether Quebecers want national sovereignty (they clearly do, and that fact is persistent), it's how much of a priority they consider that to be as an issue at a given moment in time. Any Canadian party that wants to contest in Quebec will do better though to recognize and support its nationhood.

To understand the details, one should notice that there are Quebec sovereigntist parallels to all of Canada's parties (e.g. the governing Coalition Avenir Quebec = the Conservatives, Quebec Solidaire = the New Democrats, and the Parti Quebecois is a sovereigntist analogy to the Liberal Party), but the social liberal vote in Quebec is split between its sovereigntist faction (the Parti Quebecois) and its larger federalist faction (the Liberal Party), which is why the right-leaning Coalition currently prevails. Were the social liberals united on the issue of sovereignty, they would clearly dominate because there are more of them per capita in Quebec than in Canada. By contrast, the Coalition's support level simply parallels that of the Conservatives in Canada and Quebec Solidaire's support level likewise parallels that of the New Democrats in Canadian elections. That's the political composition: high support for liberal multiculturalism, but even broader and more unanimous support for national sovereignty, with some, but a finite amount of, overlap.

You're nonetheless right in the sense that nationalist parties in any country tend to have a somewhat socially conservative bent in that one is somewhat required to embrace the concept of national values. Concepts like national values can naturally run a bit contrary to the liberal ideal of multiculturalism, or at least position multiculturalism within stricter limits. To that end, it makes sense that the most dedicated nationalists would be social conservatives who live in rural areas and that liberal values would prevail more in urban centers. Softer nationalism that embraces multicultural values more though is common in all different kinds of places. It's not a coincidence that it's specifically Quebec's social liberals who lean toward federalism while the social conservatives and progressives alike are both one-sidedly pro-sovereignty. One could say, in this sense, that the Quebec nationalist (or most any nationalist) coalition demographically resembles Franklin Roosevelt's old, now-defunct New Deal coalition here in the U.S. in that it mainly revolves around politically uniting workers and farmers. The Bloc Quebecois seeks to represent all of those people.

Anyway, there is definitely evidence that the People's Party has acquired a real base of support in this election that they just didn't have in 2019 and I suspect that as much is owed to...

1) The coronavirus being an issue in this election, unlike in 2019. There is no pro-Covid party other than the PPC in Canada, so the minority of the population that opposes vaccines and such needs somewhere to go and they can't look to Conservative leader Erin O'Toole to back their position. Being an American, I'm fully aware that that's likely a significant chunk of the population, albeit definitely a minority. That and...

2) Exclusion from the debates. Maxime Bernier was terrible at defending his positions in 2019 and having to on a national debate stage definitely hurt him (he lost his re-election bid) and his party as a whole in a way that caused most of its supporters to abandon it for the Conservative Party when it came time to actually vote. I'm actually kind of with you on the merits of including the People's Party leader in these debates for that reason. Exclusion from the debates has allowed the PPC to claim social cancellation and persecution instead of having to defend their unpopular "populist" positions, which they're terrible at doing. The BQ isn't really a good comparison here considering that they only contest in Quebec for obvious reasons and currently hold 32 seats in the federal parliament, which is out of Quebec's 78 total for perspective, while the People's Party of Canada is obviously supported pretty exclusively in a different country (Canada) wherein their support is spread out far more thinly across the much larger space they actually contest. However, in terms of popular support, you're right in that it's tough to explain the inclusion of Annamie Paul of the Green Party in these debates while PPC, which currently polls about twice as well, enjoys no representation. (Paul is proving to be no Elizabeth May and her pick as the new Green leader expresses a recent shift into unpopular wokeness territory that runs parallel to the New Democratic Party's analogous, and analogously unpopular, shift toward concerning itself only with the opinions the youth. To this end, the Greens so far are so far only polling about half as well as in the 2019 election.)

As to my characterization of Bernier's debate style, I linked to the 2019 debate I was referencing in my previous post, so you can judge for yourself. It's impossible not to notice how much time allotted to other leaders he manages to absorb through constant interruptions and trying to talk over other people. I believe normal people found his disproportionate aggressiveness off-putting. I know I sure did. He was just a Trump-like person who behaved like his American idol.

I mostly agree except for : "the governing Coalition Avenir Quebec = the Conservatives"

There's is no equivalent of the Conservatives party in Quebec politics (well actually there is but they only got 1.46% in the last election and are not recognize as an actual party by the National Assembly of Quebec) . The Conservatives are more akin the US Republican in regards to climate change, gun and gun control law, LGBTQ issues and abortion rights. There's is no parties in Quebec politics that does not fully believe climate change, that is hostile to LGBTQ rights, that is pro gun, or is against abortion. on the Left to right spectrum the Quebec Liberal party is even more on the Right than the CAQ (Coalition Avenir Quebec). Although, even Quebec Liberal party would actually be considered a Left (probably event far left) party in the US.

As for the Green party presence in the leaders debate vs PPC absence. Well Green party got a share of 6.5% of the vote last election vs PPC 1.6%. Green party currently holds 3 seats vs none for PPC. https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2019/results/

Also, it's not like a Leaders debate in Canada can include every leader as there is actually 22 currently registered party https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 13 September 2021



Around the Network

I'm from Quebec and i'm glad someone from the outside of this country pointed out how little absurd that first question was. I a do not wish for Quebec to seperate because i love Canada. Just came back from a trip to Toronto and i love it there. Forced to say Quebec really stands on it's own for their values and vision. People in Quebec really pushed religion early on and were in the first to push for rights and equality. The majority of the population agrees on these laws Bill 96 and 21 to protect our language which is surrounded back english literally everywhere. Find it kinda dumb some people don't understand how we want to keep our culture in check. And the other one, to remove religion from some fields like cops, doctors etc. It's not about not wanting to see a sign of another religion in these places, it's that we literally voted to remove catholic symbolism in many places few years ago and are trying to remove it from some key establishment that shouldn't be represented by religion , so it only make sense for everyone to go under that rule.

Sometimes Quebec is in the wrong for sure and i don't think these bills are the most correct options, but still the way this question was asked at the very start is laughable. The way they kept making fun of him as well during the debate too. I did hate how Blanchet compared the rejection we face in Quebec from the rest of Canada to the first nations which we clearly don't have it that bad.



xMetroid said:

I'm from Quebec and i'm glad someone from the outside of this country pointed out how little absurd that first question was. I a do not wish for Quebec to seperate because i love Canada. Just came back from a trip to Toronto and i love it there. Forced to say Quebec really stands on it's own for their values and vision. People in Quebec really pushed religion early on and were in the first to push for rights and equality. The majority of the population agrees on these laws Bill 96 and 21 to protect our language which is surrounded back english literally everywhere. Find it kinda dumb some people don't understand how we want to keep our culture in check. And the other one, to remove religion from some fields like cops, doctors etc. It's not about not wanting to see a sign of another religion in these places, it's that we literally voted to remove catholic symbolism in many places few years ago and are trying to remove it from some key establishment that shouldn't be represented by religion , so it only make sense for everyone to go under that rule.

Sometimes Quebec is in the wrong for sure and i don't think these bills are the most correct options, but still the way this question was asked at the very start is laughable. The way they kept making fun of him as well during the debate too. I did hate how Blanchet compared the rejection we face in Quebec from the rest of Canada to the first nations which we clearly don't have it that bad.

I'm also from Quebec, and I have mixed opinion on bill 21
I understand that this law is to further and in a way take action on the separation of state and religion value we hold.
It prevents public servants in position of authority, which do represent a religion free/neutral government, to wear or display any religious symbol/garment while exercising their job.

It kind of made sense in a nutshell.

On one side:

Some media like to liken this law to a blatant "display" of Quebec overall 'Racism'.
After reading some, most of them stem from oversimplification of the issue, other are just plainly clickbait title with Quebec bashing included (which seams to be quite popular in some part of Canada).
Most argument trying to paint this portrait does not hold any water though

  1.  No minorities or ethnic group is targeted by this law.
  2.  No specific religion is targeted by the law.
  3.  No one is actually banned from holding those position as long as they respect the religion neutral aspect of the government which they represent.
  4.  Religion 101, religion is mostly spread from an authority figure. Mostly parents to children, but any other form of authority may influence a person religious decision.
    With a clear separation of state and religion, the state does not want to be associated with any king of religious influence.
    This may seems far fetched but it's important to note some students in quebec were greatly suspected, and with some evidences in support, to have been radicalized by a teacher and tried (some even suceeded) joining the islamic state.
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/college-ends-rental-contract-with-muslim-group-over-hate-messages/article23216479/
  5. Bill 21 have some support among minorities and ethnic group, mostly those whose country of origin have repressive religious state.
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-s-religious-symbols-ban-welcomed-by-some-who-left-muslim-countries-behind-1.5091277

In any case, the only 'victims' of this law are those whose religion require them to wear religious symbols.
But there's a problem, if your religion does have such a hold on you that cannot consider/dare removing them when required, how can we trust you to take decision free of religious influence?

Also, I see this law as a test for secularism in general.
Most agree(if not almost everyone) that a secular state is the way to go. But any concrete act/law to secure a secular state will be met by racism claim.
Kind of a paradox

On the other side

I fail to see how bill 21 actually fix anything.

While not targeting any religion, Muslim women are particularly hit by its consequence.
Even in case were the person agree to remove religious symbols it does not prevent him/her of being influenced by it while exerting his/her duty.
A teacher may still preach his/her religion even when not wearing face covering/turban.
A baptist judge may still render decisions based on belief.
A teacher wearing religious symbols may/does actually (probably like 99% of the time) lead to a healthy discussion on religion and would most likely help combat racism.

Conclusion

While I see reasons behind Bill 21 and it can be explain frankly easily without invoking racism, it does not provides any benefits except satisfying electorate.
In the end I don't support Bill 21 but don't think it is motivated by racism in any way.
IMO a universal deontological code, which assess that decision making must not involve religion in any way shape or form, applied to any government position, not just those with authority, would have been better.

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 13 September 2021



SvennoJ said:
EricHiggin said:

I figured this was the likely way the Cons would market themselves. By not marketing themselves. They're taking a page from what the Dems did in the last U.S. election. Which is don't vote for who's in power now because they're horrible, and since the next choice is almost certainly us, well...

Canada overall, especially due to the big city pop, is quite liberal, so the Cons can't present what you'd expect from a Con platform because they'd never stand a chance of winning today. Unless they win and do a 180, which is possible though seems unlikely, I don't see things changing all that much.

Polls show O'Toole ahead by enough for a probable minority right now, but my gut ain't so sure about that. Liberal people have become a little more quiet as right wing and populist politics have gained in popularity over the last while. Could end up a silent majority 2016 U.S. type election maybe.

All I know is, if O'Toole wins, there needs to be enough change or it'll go straight back to the Libs next time around with whoever they run. I'm far from confident that change will happen. Many people around here aren't and it wouldn't surprise me if turnout is low.

As mentioned in another thread not long ago, it only makes sense to me that the Libs wanted the election now because they think things are headed terribly south in the next year or two and don't want to have to deal with it. If the Cons get stuck with whatever that might be, it'll be an easy wins for the Libs next time assuming the Cons can't execute and adapt.

It's an inherent problem with bringing change. It takes a while. 'Canada's 10 year recovery plan' spans 3 terms in government. The start of change is always hard, the benefits come at the end. People aren't patient, can't see the big picture and only see the inconveniences at the start, and we're back to the other 'side' undoing everything again.

Ha, yes, the elections do kinda of feel like a hand off. Here you can deal with the current mess, we'll be back next term...

Canada’s net debt is now over $1 trillion for the first time ever, after a $354 billion deficit for the pandemic year just over. It is expected to keep climbing with deficits of nearly $155 billion this year, and $60 billion in 2022-23.

Government Debt to GDP in Canada is expected to reach 120.00 percent of GDP by the end of 2021, according to Trading Economics global macro models and analysts expectations.

This pandemic made a big mess and it will take a long time to clean it all up.

Inherent problems eh...

Just wait until some political party offers a matrix like simulation for you to live in where the changes can be made quickly on the fly. Oh how convenient they'll say. What a visionary they'll say. Vote for the architect!

An onside kick, hoping the Cons fumble the chaos coming their way so the Libs can quickly recover and continue.

The Libs here are the best at spending money, that title they can certainly claim without rebuttal.



EpicRandy said:

I mostly agree except for : "the governing Coalition Avenir Quebec = the Conservatives"

There's is no equivalent of the Conservatives party in Quebec politics (well actually there is but they only got 1.46% in the last election and are not recognize as an actual party by the National Assembly of Quebec) . The Conservatives are more akin the US Republican in regards to climate change, gun and gun control law, LGBTQ issues and abortion rights. There's is no parties in Quebec politics that does not fully believe climate change, that is hostile to LGBTQ rights, that is pro gun, or is against abortion. on the Left to right spectrum the Quebec Liberal party is even more on the Right than the CAQ (Coalition Avenir Quebec). Although, even Quebec Liberal party would actually be considered a Left (probably event far left) party in the US.

*shrugs*

You're just factually wrong about this. I mean you say there's no point of comparison between the Coalition Avenir Quebec and the Conservative Party of Canada, and yet Quebec's premier, Francois Legault, who belongs to the Coalition, has very publicly endorsed the Conservative Party in this federal election:

I don't think points of comparison get more direct than endorsements. The question of Quebec sovereignty appears to be the main ideological difference between the two parties, in fact. To be sure, from the standpoint of advancing Quebec's independence from Canada, an endorsement of O'Toole's Conservatives makes sense for Quebec on a certain level, I think, in the sense that the Conservatives often favor more autonomy for the provinces and Quebec compared to the other Canadian parties. However, they're also often stingier in terms of the amount of aid they provide to the provinces and Quebec relative to what they request, I would point out, so there's also a price to going along with the Canadian Tories.

You know what doesn't come with such a price? Supporting Quebec sovereignty in a principled way by voting for the Bloc Quebecois. Fortunately (at least in my opinion it's fortunate) that appears to be exactly what many Quebecers are doing right now despite their popular premier's endorsement of the Canadian Conservatives, as that same report above highlights. It goes to show the limits of even Legault's degree of overwhelming popularity (some 80% of Quebecers approve of his job performance according to recent polling) and that many of his supporters actually occupy a political space to his left.

As to your comparison of Canada's Conservative Party to our Republican Party here in the U.S., let me just say as an American myself that that comparison is patently absurd. The current leader of the Canadian Conservatives, Erin O'Toole, has publicly declared himself pro-choice, a supporter of Bill C-16 (the sweeping gender identity bill that has resulted in the de-funding of Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter over their shelter's women-only policy, among other things...which, let's face it, is what Canadians actually mean these days by "LGBT rights" and the kind of legislation I'd rather not see imported here, personally), taxing carbon emissions, and a whole raft of other social policies that frankly I cannot even imagine someone analogous here, like a Republican presidential nominee or a the Chair of the Republican Party ever endorsing, ever. Frankly, even the Canadian Tories' of budgetary hawkishness is quite mild compared to what many Republicans in this country support. Some of these policies for their part are new; a slight, conciliatory leftward shift made under new leadership selected after their second electoral defeat in a row two years ago that effectively renders them basically just a lite version of the Liberal Party on almost every issue. There are Republicans like that in this country (such as Vermont Governor Phil Scott, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, or Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, for example), but they're today only politically viable in the liberal-leaning American Northeast and ideologically represent less than 15% of Republican partisans overall. They're different from their Democratic counterparts mainly just in that they veto minimum wage increases and such (and may well get overriden at that). They even take Covid seriously and favor Western-style democracy over the emergent police states of Russia and Eastern Europe, just to be revolutionary. The Coalition Avenir Quebec seems very much like this as well in most respects in my observation.

No, the closest analogy to our Republican Party in Canada, and in this election, can be found squarely in the anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, pro-Covid People's Party of Canada, the very creation of which was obviously inspired by the election of Donald Trump to the American presidency in 2016 in the first place. Not exactly being a fan of our "GOP" here, I'm particularly unimpressed with the PPC there.



Around the Network
EpicRandy said:
xMetroid said:

I'm from Quebec and i'm glad someone from the outside of this country pointed out how little absurd that first question was. I a do not wish for Quebec to seperate because i love Canada. Just came back from a trip to Toronto and i love it there. Forced to say Quebec really stands on it's own for their values and vision. People in Quebec really pushed religion early on and were in the first to push for rights and equality. The majority of the population agrees on these laws Bill 96 and 21 to protect our language which is surrounded back english literally everywhere. Find it kinda dumb some people don't understand how we want to keep our culture in check. And the other one, to remove religion from some fields like cops, doctors etc. It's not about not wanting to see a sign of another religion in these places, it's that we literally voted to remove catholic symbolism in many places few years ago and are trying to remove it from some key establishment that shouldn't be represented by religion , so it only make sense for everyone to go under that rule.

Sometimes Quebec is in the wrong for sure and i don't think these bills are the most correct options, but still the way this question was asked at the very start is laughable. The way they kept making fun of him as well during the debate too. I did hate how Blanchet compared the rejection we face in Quebec from the rest of Canada to the first nations which we clearly don't have it that bad.

I'm also from Quebec, and I have mixed opinion on bill 21
I understand that this law is to further and in a way take action on the separation of state and religion value we hold.
It prevents public servants in position of authority, which do represent a religion free/neutral government, to wear or display any religious symbol/garment while exercising their job.

It kind of made sense in a nutshell.

On one side:

Some media like to liken this law to a blatant "display" of Quebec overall 'Racism'.
After reading some, most of them stem from oversimplification of the issue, other are just plainly clickbait title with Quebec bashing included (which seams to be quite popular in some part of Canada).
Most argument trying to paint this portrait does not hold any water though

  1.  No minorities or ethnic group is targeted by this law.
  2.  No specific religion is targeted by the law.
  3.  No one is actually banned from holding those position as long as they respect the religion neutral aspect of the government which they represent.
  4.  Religion 101, religion is mostly spread from an authority figure. Mostly parents to children, but any other form of authority may influence a person religious decision.
    With a clear separation of state and religion, the state does not want to be associated with any king of religious influence.
    This may seems far fetched but it's important to note some students in quebec were greatly suspected, and with some evidences in support, to have been radicalized by a teacher and tried (some even suceeded) joining the islamic state.
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/college-ends-rental-contract-with-muslim-group-over-hate-messages/article23216479/
  5. Bill 21 have some support among minorities and ethnic group, mostly those whose country of origin have repressive religious state.
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-s-religious-symbols-ban-welcomed-by-some-who-left-muslim-countries-behind-1.5091277

In any case, the only 'victims' of this law are those whose religion require them to wear religious symbols.
But there's a problem, if your religion does have such a hold on you that cannot consider/dare removing them when required, how can we trust you to take decision free of religious influence?

Also, I see this law as a test for secularism in general.
Most agree(if not almost everyone) that a secular state is the way to go. But any concrete act/law to secure a secular state will be met by racism claim.
Kind of a paradox

On the other side

I fail to see how bill 21 actually fix anything.

While not targeting any religion, Muslim women are particularly hit by its consequence.
Even in case were the person agree to remove religious symbols it does not prevent him/her of being influenced by it while exerting his/her duty.
A teacher may still preach his/her religion even when not wearing face covering/turban.
A baptist judge may still render decisions based on belief.
A teacher wearing religious symbols may/does actually (probably like 99% of the time) lead to a healthy discussion on religion and would most likely help combat racism.

Conclusion

While I see reasons behind Bill 21 and it can be explain frankly easily without invoking racism, it does not provides any benefits except satisfying electorate.
In the end I don't support Bill 21 but don't think it is motivated by racism in any way.
IMO a universal deontological code, which assess that decision making must not involve religion in any way shape or form, applied to any government position, not just those with authority, would have been better.

Love your response. I do agree on what you said overall. It's probably not going to be the thing that does the most progress but i think it would help in the same way you formulated in that sentence i highlighted in your pros. It's what Quebec has been trying to do for years now, remove religion from being something of impact in today's norms and values. So it's not coming from a racist mindset but really just that if it applies to catholics, it applies to every other religions as well.



Jaicee said:
EpicRandy said:

I mostly agree except for : "the governing Coalition Avenir Quebec = the Conservatives"

There's is no equivalent of the Conservatives party in Quebec politics (well actually there is but they only got 1.46% in the last election and are not recognize as an actual party by the National Assembly of Quebec) . The Conservatives are more akin the US Republican in regards to climate change, gun and gun control law, LGBTQ issues and abortion rights. There's is no parties in Quebec politics that does not fully believe climate change, that is hostile to LGBTQ rights, that is pro gun, or is against abortion. on the Left to right spectrum the Quebec Liberal party is even more on the Right than the CAQ (Coalition Avenir Quebec). Although, even Quebec Liberal party would actually be considered a Left (probably event far left) party in the US.

*shrugs*

You're just factually wrong about this. I mean you say there's no point of comparison between the Coalition Avenir Quebec and the Conservative Party of Canada, and yet Quebec's premier, Francois Legault, who belongs to the Coalition, has very publicly endorsed the Conservative Party in this federal election:

I don't think points of comparison get more direct than endorsements. The question of Quebec sovereignty appears to be the main ideological difference between the two parties, in fact. To be sure, from the standpoint of advancing Quebec's independence from Canada, an endorsement of O'Toole's Conservatives makes sense for Quebec on a certain level, I think, in the sense that the Conservatives often favor more autonomy for the provinces and Quebec compared to the other Canadian parties. However, they're also often stingier in terms of the amount of aid they provide to the provinces and Quebec relative to what they request, I would point out, so there's also a price to going along with the Canadian Tories.

You know what doesn't come with such a price? Supporting Quebec sovereignty in a principled way by voting for the Bloc Quebecois. Fortunately (at least in my opinion it's fortunate) that appears to be exactly what many Quebecers are doing right now despite their popular premier's endorsement of the Canadian Conservatives, as that same report above highlights. It goes to show the limits of even Legault's degree of overwhelming popularity (some 80% of Quebecers approve of his job performance according to recent polling) and that many of his supporters actually occupy a political space to his left.

As to your comparison of Canada's Conservative Party to our Republican Party here in the U.S., let me just say as an American myself that that comparison is patently absurd. The current leader of the Canadian Conservatives, Erin O'Toole, has publicly declared himself pro-choice, a supporter of Bill C-16 (the sweeping gender identity bill that has resulted in the de-funding of Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter over their shelter's women-only policy, among other things...which, let's face it, is what Canadians actually mean these days by "LGBT rights" and the kind of legislation I'd rather not see imported here, personally), taxing carbon emissions, and a whole raft of other social policies that frankly I cannot even imagine someone analogous here, like a Republican presidential nominee or a the Chair of the Republican Party ever endorsing, ever. Frankly, even the Canadian Tories' of budgetary hawkishness is quite mild compared to what many Republicans in this country support. Some of these policies for their part are new; a slight, conciliatory leftward shift made under new leadership selected after their second electoral defeat in a row two years ago that effectively renders them basically just a lite version of the Liberal Party on almost every issue. There are Republicans like that in this country (such as Vermont Governor Phil Scott, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, or Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, for example), but they're today only politically viable in the liberal-leaning American Northeast and ideologically represent less than 15% of Republican partisans overall. They're different from their Democratic counterparts mainly just in that they veto minimum wage increases and such (and may well get overriden at that). They even take Covid seriously and favor Western-style democracy over the emergent police states of Russia and Eastern Europe, just to be revolutionary. The Coalition Avenir Quebec seems very much like this as well in most respects in my observation.

No, the closest analogy to our Republican Party in Canada, and in this election, can be found squarely in the anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, pro-Covid People's Party of Canada, the very creation of which was obviously inspired by the election of Donald Trump to the American presidency in 2016 in the first place. Not exactly being a fan of our "GOP" here, I'm particularly unimpressed with the PPC there.

Well the only reason for Legault endorsement of the Conservatives is as a rebuke for the Liberals, the Conservatives are the only party who have completely shut down any federal intervention against bill 21 vs Liberal who left the door open (if need be).
Also the liberals were greatly favored to form a majority government early in the race. The CAQ does not like the idea of a majority government on federal level.
Like you pointed out the endorsement does not have any significant impact on Bloc voting intention nor was it expected to. But it could sway many vote from the Liberals to the Conservatives in Quebec though, which could hinder the ability of the Liberals to form a Majority.
Also the CAQ does not have any direct federal party equivalence, which allow them to be flexible with their endorsement except for the Liberals because of the obvious association to the provincial Liberal Party.
Then again there's is a Quebec Conservatives party, it just don't get any love from the electorates.

While Legault 'Endorsed' the conservatives party, make no mistake, he will vote Bloc as Legault was once a member of Quebec Partie Québecois and was about the most separatist you could possibly have.
Asking the then prime minister (Lucien Bouchard) for a referendum about every other week or so.

As for the difference between CAQ and Conservatives.
There is much more than the obvious Sovereign Status of Quebec.

Gun registry program and gun law in general
Oil and natural gas exploitation and regulation
Environment policy and climate change

The only real point of similarities between the two are on the economics side, but as I said before the Quebec Liberals are actualy more akin to the Conservatives on this front than the CAQ.
The CAQ did win their 2018 election by playing the middle ground between the Liberals Right and the 2 Left and sovereignist party (PQ and Quebec Solidaire) after all.

As for the position of O'Toole on Abortion and climate change those are very recent position for the Conservatives and while I welcome those change, I have no confidence that he will follow through on those election time position.
And can you blame me to doubt this position, they even refused to acknowledge climate change existence as recently as this year https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-delegates-reject-climate-change-is-real-1.5957739

But, of course when compare to the US Republican I though in a much more moderate/refrained way and was based on Conservatives classic position, not the fairly recent change.
Also I had in mind more classic "Bush republican" waiting to be unleashed by a Trump like populist figure.
And, yes, Conservative would hardly register as a party on the Right in the US, still it is the party most to the Right in Canada. (Except for the PPC but it is not even considered as a party by the national Assembly)
Maxime Bernier and the PPC would undoubtedly better fit the comparison to the US Republican of today.
But that said Maxime Bernier was actually a member of the Conservatives party and was only a hair shy of becoming their leader as recent as 2017.
And he only lost to Andrew Sheer (Later replaced by O'Toole) 49.05% vs 50.95% in a race reserved to party members.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 17 September 2021



Vote NDP people. Both conservatives and liberals are bad and do nothing. What will O'Toole do? More oil pipelines and make bill 21 from Quebec national? What is Trudeau doing? Will he finally increase universal healthcare to include dental and pharmacare? Don't think so, the green leadership right now is a mess. NDP is the best option by default unless some particular NDP candidate is really bad. Their platform is the best and Jagmeet Singh is the best leader in Canada right now



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 said:

Vote NDP people. Both conservatives and liberals are bad and do nothing. What will O'Toole do? More oil pipelines and make bill 21 from Quebec national? What is Trudeau doing? Will he finally increase universal healthcare to include dental and pharmacare? Don't think so, the green leadership right now is a mess. NDP is the best option by default unless some particular NDP candidate is really bad. Their platform is the best and Jagmeet Singh is the best leader in Canada right now

I also thinks the NPD as the better platform but I little on the (we have no chance so we promise every thing) side. They actually had a shot in 2015( leading in early polls) at forming a government but then Trudeau came and the grannies and aunties found him to be 'cute' so they voted for him in droves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_Canadian_federal_election
https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/the-real-reason-women-are-gaga-over-trudeau_b_8362144

They had my vote in the 2011 and 2015 election but then was unhappy with their decision to oust Thomas Mulcair which was a good Leader IMO.
In the 2015 election the NPD still retained 44 seats which was more than they were used to, before Jack Layton an the orange wave, so the decision to oust him was kind of dumb to me.

Jagmeet Singh is great I grant you that, but I can't explain why he retained his position after the abysmal 2019 result from a party that ousted someone who had way more favorable results in the previous election. The only reason I could think of was for fear from their own party member of being painted as racist would they dare to ask him to step down. But perhaps this though is only a perception caused by the fact the media rarely mention Jagmeet Singh outside election except in story which involve racism, which is sad.

For me the Bloc will get my vote this time as I believe a strong Bloc is better for Quebec in minority government. but would the NPD ever rise again like they did in 2011 - 2015 I'll be voting for them again.  

For the liberals I won't paint them as do nothing but certainly as corrupted as f***. However I greatly support the federal Carbon tax they've put in place as I believe it is the most efficient and easy measure to put in place to combat climate change. The amount per ton of CO2 is a little on the low side though, I would have started at $50 instead of $20 and rose the amount 10% every year we did not get to our emission target and another 10% if the country global emission rose from the prior year.

Conservatives are also corrupt, I don't think they would want a national Bill 21 though, they are very much Catholics themselves are the party that shows the least amount of separation from religion. While O'Toole have pledge to keep the carbon tax, I have no doubt they would reduce the amount until it is pretty much meaningless.

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 17 September 2021



EpicRandy said:
Eagle367 said:

Vote NDP people. Both conservatives and liberals are bad and do nothing. What will O'Toole do? More oil pipelines and make bill 21 from Quebec national? What is Trudeau doing? Will he finally increase universal healthcare to include dental and pharmacare? Don't think so, the green leadership right now is a mess. NDP is the best option by default unless some particular NDP candidate is really bad. Their platform is the best and Jagmeet Singh is the best leader in Canada right now

I also thinks the NPD as the better platform but I little on the (we have no chance so we promise every thing) side. They actually had a shot in 2015( leading in early polls) at forming a government but then Trudeau came and the grannies and aunties found him to be 'cute' so they voted for him in droves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_Canadian_federal_election
https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/the-real-reason-women-are-gaga-over-trudeau_b_8362144

They had my vote in the 2011 and 2015 election but then was unhappy with their decision to oust Thomas Mulcair which was a good Leader IMO.
In the 2015 election the NPD still retained 44 seats which was more than they were used to, before Jack Layton an the orange wave, so the decision to oust him was kind of dumb to me.

Jagmeet Singh is great I grant you that, but I can't explain why he retained his position after the abysmal 2019 result from a party that ousted someone who had way more favorable results in the previous election. The only reason I could think of was for fear from their own party member of being painted as racist would they dare to ask him to step down. But perhaps this though is only a perception caused by the fact the media rarely mention Jagmeet Singh outside election except in story which involve racism, which is sad.

For me the Bloc will get my vote this time as I believe a strong Bloc is better for Quebec in minority government. but would the NPD ever rise again like they did in 2011 - 2015 I'll be voting for them again.  

For the liberals I won't paint them as do nothing but certainly as corrupted as f***. However I greatly support the federal Carbon tax they've put in place as I believe it is the most efficient and easy measure to put in place to combat climate change. The amount per ton of CO2 is a little on the low side though, I would have started at $50 instead of $20 and rose the amount 10% every year we did not get to our emission target and another 10% if the country global emission rose from the prior year.

Conservatives are also corrupt, I don't think they would want a national Bill 21 though, they are very much Catholics themselves are the party that shows the least amount of separation from religion. While O'Toole have pledge to keep the carbon tax, I have no doubt they would reduce the amount until it is pretty much meaningless.

I think I mostly agree with this.

Jack Layton was the best leader the New Democrats ever had. He wasn't my definition of perfect, but no one is, and he was about as close to it as I've seen a politician be. A true believer in the idealist politics of the New Left student movement from the 1960s and '70s, he felt that "human society has the potential to achieve liberty when people work together to form a society in which equality means more than negative liberty, the absolute and protected right to run races against each other to determine winners. Idealists imagine a positive liberty that enables us to build together toward common objectives that fulfill and even surpass our individual goals." His emphasis on the concept of positive liberty separated him from the traditional politics of the classical Marxists and the Old Left more broadly, to which end he was also, appropriately, a Trekkie. And he very much lived what he believed. For his whole life. He spent his time as NDP leader fighting government corruption, advocating for the protection of consumers against predatory creditors, defending the right of workers to strike, defending public funding of elections, petitioning for a redress of NAFTA, promoting peacekeeping and helping American conscientious defectors to the Iraq War find sanctuary, advocating for indigenous peoples, etc. Married an artist and anti-domestic violence activist from British Hong Kong. Spent much of his life living in housing co-ops and actively supporting environmentalist and other co-ops. Campaigned in Quebec speaking fluent, casual Quebecois French. There is a theme of respect for people (especially ordinary and disadvantaged people) and just the world here that carried through into his personal demeanor. One almost can't help being drawn to someone like that at least politically, if not personally as well.

Layton's moral consistency helped him a lot. Helping him just as much though really was the fact that the parties he was running against -- the Liberals and the Conservatives -- were different, more right wing institutions back then than today, allowing his NDP, of which he represented the left wing, to standing out more from the pack and offer an in many ways uniquely clear alternative. He led his party to a record 103 seats in the federal parliament and to a parallel record vote share of 31%, making them the official opposition party for the first and only time to date between 2011 and 2015 before dying of cancer shortly after this 2011 election victory.

Conversely, I failed to understand the appeal of his very square successor (to appropriately apply '60s terminology in lieu of Layton), Tom Mulcair, and apparently so did voters. Mulcair was just a conventional, bland (and I really can't stress the term 'bland' enough here because listening to him debate was less interesting than watching paint dry, and certainly more difficult to understand), quasi-libertarian type who disrespected the people of Quebec over, well, the same sorts of issues the NDP routinely does now (namely and in particular the separation of church and state) and proposed to respond to Canada's 2015 recession by balancing the federal budget while Justin Trudeau's Liberals outflanked him from the left by proposing deficit spending to stimulate the economy. The Liberals gained a majority and the NDP lost most of their seats. The New Democrats drew from this development the conclusion that Mulcair's center-right politics were unpopular and in need of replacement (which they were). Thus Canadian Bernie Sanders Jagmeet Singh. Who I guess is fine on economic policies for my taste, but ugh, the wokeness. Today's social justice progressives ain't the same as the Layton social liberal left that saw communitarianism as a means by which to realize and enhance personal freedom rather than a means by which to limit the range of public debate. This shift so far has met with generational appeal to voters under the age of 30 and not many other people, resulting in the NDP losing most of their remaining seats in the subsequent 2019 election (with a near-total wipeout in Quebec specifically that returned the party to its traditional one-seat-in-Quebec status from before the Layton era).

Matter-of-factly, Canadian politics as a whole have shifted leftward since the days of Layton (perhaps, on a certain level, part of his legacy). The Liberals and Conservatives have gone from being center-right parties to being center-left parties. This leftward shift by the two major parties has made it more difficult for the NDP and the Greens to differentiate themselves, so they've responded by venturing further leftward from their already-left-leaning stances into fanatically hyper-sensitive territory, alienating large swaths of their previous supporters in the process. Meanwhile, for their part, the Conservatives under Erin O'Toole may have shifted far enough from, well, conservative viewpoints that it's actually starting to weaken their electoral prospects by alienating their more right wing constituents who have formed the base of the party, as evidenced by improved support for the People's Party in this election in the polling so far; a fact that could spell the difference between their ability to form a government of their own or endure another Liberal minority government instead if current PPC support doesn't collapse on election day.

As to Quebec, in many ways recent elections should be considered flukes because more than one Canadian party has been led by Quebecers therein (e.g. Jack Layton, Justin Trudeau, Tom Mulcair). There is a pride factor therein that I suspect diminishes nationalist sentiments, at least temporarily. But already the moment is passing, the honeymoon and its delusions of appreciation by Canadians is ending, and the Bloc Quebecois is starting to regain lost ground. Mark my words: the second Trudeau ceases to be the leader of the Liberal Party, support for the Liberals in Quebec will drop off precipitously and the BQ will regain its traditional position of dominance.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 18 September 2021