Those requirements are designed to allow Quebec’s provincial party a seat at the table, while impeding access for parties such as the Greens and Peoples. They’re basically an example of institutional discrimination that came in fairly recently, with a pretty explicit target/goal.
I have much less interest in sitting through a debate between 4 people, when 1/4 of the time will be dedicated to a guy talking about one province’s interests, and where that party doesn’t even run outside of that province. Guess I’ll just wait for my media bubbles to give me the highlights and hope that it’s not too biased.
I have much less interest in sitting through a debate between 4 people, when 1/4 of the time will be dedicated to a guy talking about one province’s interests, and where that party doesn’t even run outside of that province.
I know you might not interest in listening, but at the time the writ was drawn up, he had 33 seats, which was over 10% of the total. If a party can muster 10% of the seats, they almost certainly should be included in the debate!
That’s nice, but I don’t really care. They aren’t a national party, nor are they interested in being a “Canadian” national party. Giving them a platform to debate on the national level is in part why they’re able to maintain their seat count – it’s the same sort of pageantry that drives dictators to covet meetings with democratic leaders, to trick people into thinking “Oh, they’re basically the same”, when they’re very much not.
The peoples party, and the greens, even if they’re super fringe in nature, have more merit for being included in the debates in my view. I’d watch (well, listen to) those debates. I won’t bother watching the bloc get up and do its stupid bloc crap. There’s talk in the media again about western alienation / succession, and Quebec / Canada’s approach to Quebec compared to its handling of Western interests is a big part of what fuels that sort of resentment. The bloc is basically Quebec just giving the entire country a giant middle finger, which is a wonderful way to show support for the country as a whole…
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Greens. I voted for Mike Morrice twice and would have voted Aislinn Clancy if I hadn’t already moved. I would love to see the Greens on the debate stage, but they knew the rules and chose to fall out of line with them.
I’m also not sure why you think if a party isn’t national, that they don’t count. At the time the election was called, the BQ represented 10% of Canadians. Do you think those voices shouldn’t count? Do you think nationalism and patriotism should be a prereq to get into the debate? I’m really trying to figure out your argument lands because it sounds like you are against dictators, but also want to dictate specifically who can and can’t be on the debate stage which would be the actions of a …
Yawn. I think national parties should be highlighted on the national stage: I don’t think the metrics provided by the TV consortium for who gets to participate properly captures what a national party is. I think rules/requirements that specifically carve out a ‘system’ that enables one niche interest from one part of the country, to masquerade as a ‘national’ party, is disingenuous and insulting to everyone outside of that niche – especially as the ‘rules’ were clearly structured to preference/enable the blocs participation. That % threshold of the voting public is a lot easier for a separatist movement to hit in Quebec, than it is in the West due to population density – its basically tailor made for them, and provides a ‘structure’ to block other regions doing the same / getting the same preferential treatment for their ‘niche’ interest parties. At least the PPC and GPC are interested in the country as a national body, and in governing/contributing to the national interests.
They should just change the format. Do an hour long unedited interview with each candidate, with pre defined topics / identical questions, to allow leaders to get their talking points out in a more ‘user friendly’ conversational way. Allow as many leaders as they want to sit for an interview, post them all on third party news sites to allow them to generate some ad revenue for providing the interview services/hosting (with requirements to host all qualifying candidates to mitigate news agency bias). Let voters watch whichever clips they want. Hell, have local news agencies do similar with the local candidates, so that you can see your person speak on topics of import, and how they would represent your region on those fronts.
They all just try to say their sound bites anyway. And few voters are realistically going to suddenly support a different party based on a one night zinger.
It’s not because you don’t like the party that it should not get visibility. You can’t be for democracy and against giving visibility to a party that represent a non negligeable percentage of the population. If that party is gaining such popularity, maybe there is an underlying issue that drive it, like why one province did not get to sign the constitution 🫣
Canada’s a young enough country that there were still a bunch of bitter Quebecois who remembered losing against the British, and they had such giant rods up their arses that they decided to take it out on the rest of Canada by not signing a piece of paper, and having a militant separatist group go bombing English speaking people (and then whining about martial law when the govt took action to stop it). And to try and appease the pampered province, Ontario continues to compete in National “French Language” debates where each politician spends a TON of time trying to convince Quebec they’d give the best sloppy bj with tons of financial perks as lube. Financial lube that they take from Provinces in the West, who they ignore. Quebec then tells them all to get fucked and votes for the Bloc anyhow. And while telling everyone to get f’d, they still get more benefits than any other province. They’re a spoiled child in this sense.
I wonder why there’s often talk of Western alienation, hand in hand, with Quebec separatist movements. Like the last time the Bloc had a ‘real’ referendum, there were movements in BC/Alberta half-jokingly asking if we could vote them out.
Like here’s an Idea, we’re having a french language debate – that’s totally fine and Canadian. But that shouldn’t require it to be a whole debate focused almost entirely on Quebec and Quebecs local issues. The Bloc guy, despite his attestations, is not some king representing “Quebec”: they deserve to have a broader conversation, and Canada ought to treat the language’s reach as “National”, not “Just this one niche pocket”. Ask questions about how the politicians will help British Columbia during that French language debate. Ask another about Alberta. How will Canadians voting for the Bloc, benefit people back West? Make that Bloc guy stand there for 10-15 minutes explaining to voters that a vote for him, is a vote to tell every other Canadian to get fucked, because he has no real plan or care for Canada as a country. And then when he’s in power, treat ridings that go bloc like they treat most minority party ridings out west – shift funding to the provinces that actually support the federation. Or at the very least, let them keep their tax revenue, instead of sending it to Quebec as “equalization payments”.
The current format of those debates is divisive, and elevates the bloc more than it deserves.
For point 1 : From my understanding, it is a bit more than not signing a piece of paper. Not participating in the signature of a founding document like a constitution seems like a good recipe to create resentment long term. If it was just an admin task to sign it, why not re-open that document for signature ? I’m not even judging the situation that lead to this, just the impact it has today.
For point 2 : While I don’t disagree that it’s a bit odd to have a party at the federal level that defend provincial interest, there is an underlying issue that lead peoples to vote for them. And no one is really interested to have this embarassing discussion 😅
For point 3 : I’m not knowledgeable enough to say if Quebec receive or give more, even if I doubt that this is a black and white answer
Not knowledgeable enough? Look up equalization payments then. Quebec gets the majority of equalization payments, and has gotten such for literally decades, because they’re considered a “have not” province. Like last year (2024) they got around $13 billion (52% of the total amount handed out) – from Western Canada, as the region that is historically termed “have” provinces (every province except BC, Alberta and Sask got money, those western provinces just ‘lost’ billions to support the rest of Canada). That money is no strings attached, which allows Quebec to do stuff like offer additional social supports, and then the people of Quebec get to look down their noses at the West, and say crap like “Why aren’t your education options cheaper? Peasants!”. Maybe they would be, if we could keep our tax revenue, rather than being forced to support Quebec.
Even more insulting, those payments are a result of the Constitution. If Quebec doesn’t want to sign, fine, don’t give them the Western province’s money. Or how bout those Bloc folks take a principled stance and just hand the money back to the West. They don’t agree with the constitution, but seem perfectly content to reap the benefits from it. They’re good with Canada so long as they can sponge.
This isn’t a new issue from the Western provinces. It’s been ongoing for decades. Even as recently as 2018, with Kenney and Moe in Alberta and Sask, when the formula was last renewed at the fed level, there were releases about how pissed the west was with it – the feds renewed it without consulting the provinces, and without any changes to address the issues the west has with it. I’m guessing you’re from back east, which makes it entirely fitting that you’re completely ignorant of the issues on this side of the country.
As for the resentment long term, imagine a bunch of kids at a party. One kid loses a game and throws a tantrum and refuses to play with the others any more. The other kids bend over backward to try and get that kid to calm the fuck down. The kid refuses, even after everyone’s tried bribing him / treating him better than every other kid there. He keeps disrupting things and being a pain in the arse. He takes other kids toys and plays with them, while mocking those kids. Who would want that kid back at the next party. Continuing to spoil them, just re-enforces their negative behaviour. Sure, there may be “reasons” to be a spoiled little shit, but at some point Quebec ought to grow up and look outside their own border. Resentment cuts both ways, and based on the realities of ‘today’, Quebec’s got a lot less to complain about than western provinces.
Like I listened to some of that debate yesterday. The gall of that Bloc guy being all “Carney hasn’t called me to consult on what’s best for Quebec, he can’t be trusted” is just lunacy. And that’s the sort of narcissitic self-centered dipshit that Quebec supports. Like if the fed was to consult anyone about Quebec’s provincial interests, it would be a meeting with the premiers, which is what happened. If some minority leader in the house, who refuses to treat national issues as national issues, wants to throw a hissy fit about how the people dealing with a crisis aren’t directly consulting with them in their self-aggrandized role… that leader should be tossed the hell out. Asking a national party, during a national crisis, with national support, to come bend the knee for some minority party with (quite literally) an anti-national agenda, is beyond ‘not helping’. And saying that stuff, and broadcasting it to the whole country, should be embarrassing for the people he represents. But people in Quebec are likely to be all “he stands up for us!”, similar to how dumbass Ford was able to get back in just by draping himself in a f’ing flag to distract people from the damage his govt does on the whole.
Those requirements are designed to allow Quebec’s provincial party a seat at the table
Certainly, and I’ve already expressed how I feel about that. But I get it - they’re able to leverage the electoral system to their advantage, and have in fact been the Official Opposition at times.
Those requirements are designed to allow Quebec’s provincial party a seat at the table, while impeding access for parties such as the Greens and Peoples. They’re basically an example of institutional discrimination that came in fairly recently, with a pretty explicit target/goal.
I have much less interest in sitting through a debate between 4 people, when 1/4 of the time will be dedicated to a guy talking about one province’s interests, and where that party doesn’t even run outside of that province. Guess I’ll just wait for my media bubbles to give me the highlights and hope that it’s not too biased.
I know you might not interest in listening, but at the time the writ was drawn up, he had 33 seats, which was over 10% of the total. If a party can muster 10% of the seats, they almost certainly should be included in the debate!
That’s nice, but I don’t really care. They aren’t a national party, nor are they interested in being a “Canadian” national party. Giving them a platform to debate on the national level is in part why they’re able to maintain their seat count – it’s the same sort of pageantry that drives dictators to covet meetings with democratic leaders, to trick people into thinking “Oh, they’re basically the same”, when they’re very much not.
The peoples party, and the greens, even if they’re super fringe in nature, have more merit for being included in the debates in my view. I’d watch (well, listen to) those debates. I won’t bother watching the bloc get up and do its stupid bloc crap. There’s talk in the media again about western alienation / succession, and Quebec / Canada’s approach to Quebec compared to its handling of Western interests is a big part of what fuels that sort of resentment. The bloc is basically Quebec just giving the entire country a giant middle finger, which is a wonderful way to show support for the country as a whole…
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Greens. I voted for Mike Morrice twice and would have voted Aislinn Clancy if I hadn’t already moved. I would love to see the Greens on the debate stage, but they knew the rules and chose to fall out of line with them.
I’m also not sure why you think if a party isn’t national, that they don’t count. At the time the election was called, the BQ represented 10% of Canadians. Do you think those voices shouldn’t count? Do you think nationalism and patriotism should be a prereq to get into the debate? I’m really trying to figure out your argument lands because it sounds like you are against dictators, but also want to dictate specifically who can and can’t be on the debate stage which would be the actions of a …
Yawn. I think national parties should be highlighted on the national stage: I don’t think the metrics provided by the TV consortium for who gets to participate properly captures what a national party is. I think rules/requirements that specifically carve out a ‘system’ that enables one niche interest from one part of the country, to masquerade as a ‘national’ party, is disingenuous and insulting to everyone outside of that niche – especially as the ‘rules’ were clearly structured to preference/enable the blocs participation. That % threshold of the voting public is a lot easier for a separatist movement to hit in Quebec, than it is in the West due to population density – its basically tailor made for them, and provides a ‘structure’ to block other regions doing the same / getting the same preferential treatment for their ‘niche’ interest parties. At least the PPC and GPC are interested in the country as a national body, and in governing/contributing to the national interests.
They should just change the format. Do an hour long unedited interview with each candidate, with pre defined topics / identical questions, to allow leaders to get their talking points out in a more ‘user friendly’ conversational way. Allow as many leaders as they want to sit for an interview, post them all on third party news sites to allow them to generate some ad revenue for providing the interview services/hosting (with requirements to host all qualifying candidates to mitigate news agency bias). Let voters watch whichever clips they want. Hell, have local news agencies do similar with the local candidates, so that you can see your person speak on topics of import, and how they would represent your region on those fronts.
They all just try to say their sound bites anyway. And few voters are realistically going to suddenly support a different party based on a one night zinger.
It’s not because you don’t like the party that it should not get visibility. You can’t be for democracy and against giving visibility to a party that represent a non negligeable percentage of the population. If that party is gaining such popularity, maybe there is an underlying issue that drive it, like why one province did not get to sign the constitution 🫣
Canada’s a young enough country that there were still a bunch of bitter Quebecois who remembered losing against the British, and they had such giant rods up their arses that they decided to take it out on the rest of Canada by not signing a piece of paper, and having a militant separatist group go bombing English speaking people (and then whining about martial law when the govt took action to stop it). And to try and appease the pampered province, Ontario continues to compete in National “French Language” debates where each politician spends a TON of time trying to convince Quebec they’d give the best sloppy bj with tons of financial perks as lube. Financial lube that they take from Provinces in the West, who they ignore. Quebec then tells them all to get fucked and votes for the Bloc anyhow. And while telling everyone to get f’d, they still get more benefits than any other province. They’re a spoiled child in this sense.
I wonder why there’s often talk of Western alienation, hand in hand, with Quebec separatist movements. Like the last time the Bloc had a ‘real’ referendum, there were movements in BC/Alberta half-jokingly asking if we could vote them out.
Like here’s an Idea, we’re having a french language debate – that’s totally fine and Canadian. But that shouldn’t require it to be a whole debate focused almost entirely on Quebec and Quebecs local issues. The Bloc guy, despite his attestations, is not some king representing “Quebec”: they deserve to have a broader conversation, and Canada ought to treat the language’s reach as “National”, not “Just this one niche pocket”. Ask questions about how the politicians will help British Columbia during that French language debate. Ask another about Alberta. How will Canadians voting for the Bloc, benefit people back West? Make that Bloc guy stand there for 10-15 minutes explaining to voters that a vote for him, is a vote to tell every other Canadian to get fucked, because he has no real plan or care for Canada as a country. And then when he’s in power, treat ridings that go bloc like they treat most minority party ridings out west – shift funding to the provinces that actually support the federation. Or at the very least, let them keep their tax revenue, instead of sending it to Quebec as “equalization payments”.
The current format of those debates is divisive, and elevates the bloc more than it deserves.
For point 1 : From my understanding, it is a bit more than not signing a piece of paper. Not participating in the signature of a founding document like a constitution seems like a good recipe to create resentment long term. If it was just an admin task to sign it, why not re-open that document for signature ? I’m not even judging the situation that lead to this, just the impact it has today. For point 2 : While I don’t disagree that it’s a bit odd to have a party at the federal level that defend provincial interest, there is an underlying issue that lead peoples to vote for them. And no one is really interested to have this embarassing discussion 😅 For point 3 : I’m not knowledgeable enough to say if Quebec receive or give more, even if I doubt that this is a black and white answer
Not knowledgeable enough? Look up equalization payments then. Quebec gets the majority of equalization payments, and has gotten such for literally decades, because they’re considered a “have not” province. Like last year (2024) they got around $13 billion (52% of the total amount handed out) – from Western Canada, as the region that is historically termed “have” provinces (every province except BC, Alberta and Sask got money, those western provinces just ‘lost’ billions to support the rest of Canada). That money is no strings attached, which allows Quebec to do stuff like offer additional social supports, and then the people of Quebec get to look down their noses at the West, and say crap like “Why aren’t your education options cheaper? Peasants!”. Maybe they would be, if we could keep our tax revenue, rather than being forced to support Quebec.
Even more insulting, those payments are a result of the Constitution. If Quebec doesn’t want to sign, fine, don’t give them the Western province’s money. Or how bout those Bloc folks take a principled stance and just hand the money back to the West. They don’t agree with the constitution, but seem perfectly content to reap the benefits from it. They’re good with Canada so long as they can sponge.
This isn’t a new issue from the Western provinces. It’s been ongoing for decades. Even as recently as 2018, with Kenney and Moe in Alberta and Sask, when the formula was last renewed at the fed level, there were releases about how pissed the west was with it – the feds renewed it without consulting the provinces, and without any changes to address the issues the west has with it. I’m guessing you’re from back east, which makes it entirely fitting that you’re completely ignorant of the issues on this side of the country.
As for the resentment long term, imagine a bunch of kids at a party. One kid loses a game and throws a tantrum and refuses to play with the others any more. The other kids bend over backward to try and get that kid to calm the fuck down. The kid refuses, even after everyone’s tried bribing him / treating him better than every other kid there. He keeps disrupting things and being a pain in the arse. He takes other kids toys and plays with them, while mocking those kids. Who would want that kid back at the next party. Continuing to spoil them, just re-enforces their negative behaviour. Sure, there may be “reasons” to be a spoiled little shit, but at some point Quebec ought to grow up and look outside their own border. Resentment cuts both ways, and based on the realities of ‘today’, Quebec’s got a lot less to complain about than western provinces.
Like I listened to some of that debate yesterday. The gall of that Bloc guy being all “Carney hasn’t called me to consult on what’s best for Quebec, he can’t be trusted” is just lunacy. And that’s the sort of narcissitic self-centered dipshit that Quebec supports. Like if the fed was to consult anyone about Quebec’s provincial interests, it would be a meeting with the premiers, which is what happened. If some minority leader in the house, who refuses to treat national issues as national issues, wants to throw a hissy fit about how the people dealing with a crisis aren’t directly consulting with them in their self-aggrandized role… that leader should be tossed the hell out. Asking a national party, during a national crisis, with national support, to come bend the knee for some minority party with (quite literally) an anti-national agenda, is beyond ‘not helping’. And saying that stuff, and broadcasting it to the whole country, should be embarrassing for the people he represents. But people in Quebec are likely to be all “he stands up for us!”, similar to how dumbass Ford was able to get back in just by draping himself in a f’ing flag to distract people from the damage his govt does on the whole.
Certainly, and I’ve already expressed how I feel about that. But I get it - they’re able to leverage the electoral system to their advantage, and have in fact been the Official Opposition at times.