Québec Politics...

[c9]

Paul wells says it best...

So today André Boisclair broke a month's silence on his "youthful" cocaine use (he used to enjoy the odd snort back when Lucien Bouchard was premier of Quebec) because he needed to rebut jokes that governor-general Michaëlle Jean made about him at the Press Gallery Dinner two weeks ago! ("Mr. Boisclair always follows the party line...")

Note to Parti Québécois: Pleeeeeeeeeeease vote for André Boisclair for leader.

Comments

[c9.livejournal.com]

Yup, he's the one. It's funny, the cocaine use really had little effect on his candidacy -- hardly anybody who mattered cared.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Not at all. She mocked herself, and several politicians, in her speech. Paul Martin made nasty fun of himself and Harper. Harper made fun of himself and everybody. Jack Layton sang songs that mocked himself. That's the whole point of the press gallery dinner. Were she to make any sort of similar joke or even just politically comment outside of that event, that would definitely be inappropriate. But in this case, Boisclair is just whining.

[c9.livejournal.com]

I agree that maybe because he wasn't in the room, it would have made sense to leave him out of it. But the whole point of the Press Gallery dinner is to cross those lines, and make those ridiculous jokes. Insinuating that Stephen Harper is gay and into leather? That's pretty wild too. Inability to master a language sounds a lot like "Haha, you're illiterate." Not exactly acceptable humour outside the dinner either -- remember Kim Campbell's attack ad against Chretien's facial trouble? There are a TON of things that are said at the dinner that are not OK under serious circumstances. What you're advocating is that the dinner turn into inoffensive knock-knock jokes. That's an OK position to have of course. It's just not the same as "Michaelle Jean went too far but everybody else was fine."

[c9.livejournal.com]

Oh for sure, politics is all about agendas. But since the dinner is barely broadcast (CPAC, which very few watch) and barely reported, it's not playing for votes, which makes it a very different beast.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Downside to getting rid of the GG position: we have to deal with Paul Martin making all the decisions, and never get to see a smiling neutral face again!

[c9.livejournal.com]

I actually see a lot of value in the GG position, as Adrienne Clarkson redefined it anyway. Having a figurehead head of state is *very* common around the world, and gives us a non-partisan person to deal with for the national unity topics, support of military, national mourning... think about how George Bush can't talk at a soldier's funeral because it becomes a political act, for example.

100% agreed though that her job is a job, not the position of court jester. Luckily both Adrienne Clarkson and Michaelle Jean are familiar with how it works, and to my eye have performed admirably. It will be interesting to see where Jean takes the job next.

Downside to getting rid of the GG position: the Prime Minister gets to make *all* the decisions, and can start ignoring constitutional laws in times of minority government. I don't like the look of that road.

[c9.livejournal.com]

You're right, the GG's real value is outside of her decision-making authority, to be sure. I realized this in answering Jamie's comment shortly afterward. My new response would be "Downside to getting rid of the GG: we never get to see a smiling neutral face again!" More important than it seems at first glance.

But anyway:

1. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has way too much power, and can do many things with no recourse in the House of Commons whatsoever. Not that the GG can stop this, but it's another cog in the overall machine that prevents simply outright ignoring the customs of office.

2. Even should the HoC decide to pass a motion of non-confidence in a minority situation, how is the government supposed to deal with that when the PM doesn't want to go? Taking the King-Byng situation: the minority government falls just a few days after the election. Should we just keep having elections every month or three? No PM would say "well OK, you go ahead and try Stephen." :-) Yes, new laws could be written to take the place of the GG's role, but then we'd be stuck with whatever Paul Martin decided was best, or we'd be rewriting that law every time a new party got into office.

3. Remember that "the rest of the electorate" has no power outside of election time. We can't just "bring down the government," we have to hope that the opposition gets their shit together and does it, or in a majority situation we have to just wait out five years of elected monarchy. While I would never call the US a working democracy, I do like the staggered elections deal, that might be an interesting thing to try somehow.

[c9.livejournal.com]

In the US, there are federal elections every two years. From wikipedia:

Elective offices of the U.S. government are filled by Election Day
 balloting, for terms starting in January of the following year,
 specifically:

    * in every even-numbered year,
          o for all seats in the United States House of Representatives;
          o for approximately 1/3 of United States Senate seats;
    * additionally, in years divisible by four,
          o for the President and Vice-President.

Although we only have one elected body, part of me likes the idea of having half the MPs up for re-election every 2-3 years. The cynic in me says that governments would just stay in election mode all the time, and then we'd all go crazy.

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

I would like to reiterate that, this controversy notwithstanding, I'd totally hit that.

[c9.livejournal.com]

He meant the GG. But that was funny.

(It amuses me that the PQ, despite having added "instant referendum" to their platform, is about to elect a moderate (either Boisclair or Marois) who was saying "not yet, not yet" to Parizeau last time around. To be honest, anything to keep the PQ divided and scattered if OK by me.)

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

Well, I meant the GG. But either way, really. I'm easy.

[skeezix1000.livejournal.com]

Boisclair seems awfully thin-skinned to me, and he seems easily taken aback and/or put on the defensive. Regardless of whether the GG's comments at the press gallery dinner were over the line or not, Boisclair's subsequent whining about them was just pathetic. Given how unpopular Charest is, I'm surprised that the PQ has fielded such a weak slate of leadership candidates.

Too bad, because if Boisclair had more substance it would be great to see him become the first openly gay premier. He could wink at Ralph Klein across the table at First Ministers' conferences.

[c9.livejournal.com]

I'd kinda prefer the first gay premier be someone who is happy being a premier inside Canada, rather than premier ministre of a separate country. :)

[skeezix1000.livejournal.com]

No question about that. Nonetheless, I do like to see gay men succeed in all political camps. And I have to have some grudging respect for the PQ, despite its parochialism, since it enacted the first human rights protection for sexual orientation in Canada, back in 1976. Having said that, though, you're right that it would be a lot easier to get excited about Boisclair's candidacy if he wasn't peddling tired old nationalist rants from the 1960s.

[skeezix1000.livejournal.com]

I disagree. I actually do think he's recycling old nationalist rants.

You're right, Boisclair is not a "I was insulted at Eaton's" type of independentiste, and he didn't join the PQ because he had a bad train ride out west in the 1960s. So he's abandoned some of the baggage.

But when his name started appearing in the media as a potential leadership candidate, I went and read his blog b/c I was interested in the whole gay/Harvard/about to move to Toronto thing. But his blog was full of the same old tired rhetoric, and I haven't heard anything different from him since. Most of it could have been copied from a PQ election pamphlet from 1973.

Sovereignty for sovereignty's sake. Vague illusions to how sovereignty will give Quebec the tools to help the environment, improve social justice, etc. but no explanations of how this would be accomplished. Sovereignty will solve all our problems, blah blah blah. Let's not think too hard about the Quebec Model because we might have to acknowledge parts of it might need fixing or updating. Same old, same old.

So, no diatribes about language or anglophones, but everything else is the same. He's sexier and younger than Landry or Parizeau, but that's about it.

I have nothing but respect for Quebec nationalism, but I'd love to hear something new or different from a sovereignist for once. The knee-jerk reaction to the so-called Bouchard manifesto was just depressing.

Ironically, I have the same criticisms of most Canadian nationalists too.

I hope none of this makes me sound as some free market conservative, because I'm not. And you'll have to take it all with a grain of salt, given I'm an anglo in Toronto who doesn't follow the issues as closely as you do. :)

[c9.livejournal.com]

Actually, Nova Scotia had domestic partnerships before Quebec, if I recall correctly.

www.religioustolerance.org says 1999, but that seems too early for me. nihilicious was one of the first to register a domestic partnership, and that would have been in 2001 I think.

The Liberal Party of Quebec is really the Tories, since Quebec doesn't have a functional provincial conservative party. The PQ really is far more liberal / progressive, which is a good thing for sure.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah ... it was just after we moved here, because I wasn't technically a resident when we filed. So, 2001 sounds right.

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

Says me.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Very true.

It would be odd to see jean Charest as the old guy in a campaign versus Boisclair and Dumont. He's *always* been the kid!

[skeezix1000.livejournal.com]

You're right. Weak might not be the right word. Except perhaps for Boisclair -- I have doubts that he is up for the job, that he's even capable of being premier. Marois, on the other hand, could probably do the job in her sleep. The reason that I think she's weak, and again weak might not be the right word, is that she's not likeable and I don't think a new idea has come out of her mouth in more than a decade. Maybe I'm being too harsh.

I've kind of ignored Legendre, perhaps unfairly. A while back, I checked out the candidates' web sites. I couldn't figure out from Legendre's site where he stood on anything, except that he voted Oui in both 80 and 95. A lot of talk of his tennis days and who supports him in the leadership race. That's it. Maybe it's just a bad web site, and the man is brimming with great ideas. I'm likely not following the race closely enough.

[canuckboy.livejournal.com]

If an-ex coke junkie is good enough for the Red States, it's good enough for Québec! hehehe