Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Bloc?

In this era of minority governments, parties representing all regions need to have a seat at the table.

Two and a half years ago, Canada suffered through its very own Bush versus Gore moment. The 2008 prorogation of parliament allowed the constitutional illiteracy of Canadians to undermine the role of parliament, poison the idea of coalitions in Canada, and make the demonization of a political minority – namely the Bloc Québécois – acceptable. Two years later, not much has changed. Responding to the team at the National Post (which is rarely a good idea), Michael Ignatieff has stated that he now favours an issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties and has categorically ruled out a formal coalition with the NDP or any other sort of arrangement with the BQ.

Predictably, whatever hopes Ignatieff had that this would quell catcalls for a Conservative coalition have been dashed. Stephen Harper has continued the attack unabated and, in the coming election, it is Ignatieff who will likely be punished for saying that he does not favour a coalition. Since all governments rely upon coalitions of one sort or another, Ignatieff’s attempt to reject the idea altogether may serve as the final straw for progressives who are willing to give the Liberal leader another look. Ignatieff’s adept handling of the contempt motion and confidence vote last week appeared to some as evidence of the new Ignatieff we had all been promised. But it seems the old Ignatieff is still lurking beneath the surface, and there are two problems with his new adventures.

First, on the subject of coalitions, Ignatieff has been politically outmanoeuvred. While coalitions are – or perhaps were – a legitimate constitutional option in our system, they have been thoroughly discredited in Canada. Coalitions can provide stable governance and are more representative of the majority of voting Canadians. This is especially important for someone who is supposedly running on a platform of democratic renewal. Yet instead of informed leadership and an effort to educate the electorate, we get political pandering.

This has a practical impact as well. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes often remarked, “it is a capital offence to theorize without data.” Ruling out a coalition before we know what the composition of the House will be after the election is asinine. After all, parliamentary systems of governance are notorious for making strange bedfellows. Could anyone have predicted that the Conservatives, NDP, and BQ would have been willing to work together to replace Paul Martin’s government in 2004?

Second, on the subject of the BQ, Ignatieff the human-rights scholar has been fully and finally undone. While some Canadians have legitimate concerns about the influence the BQ may have in a coalition, the proposition that those with a different political outlook and/or language do not deserve the same constitutional rights to fully participate in the affairs of the House of Commons, and the country, is abhorrent. It makes a mockery of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and remains one of the lasting “harms” brought about by the 2008 prorogation.

As I argued at the time, the 2008 prorogation – like the case of Bush versus Gore – was based not on constitutional principles, but on far more partisan concerns. It cannot go unnoticed that the efforts to delegitimize the BQ have long been a part of our political narrative. In effect, the 2008 efforts in this regard were no different than the arguments that the 1994 Reform Party made through commercials that were described as “race-hate ads.” Fifteen years later, such arguments appeared to have become commonplace. Today, the party of the Canadian Charter seems unwilling to challenge them.

We can no longer deny that there remain some in Canada who are "anti-Quebec," “Franco-phobic," and proud of it. When it comes to French Canadians, it sometimes seems as if Canada’s reputation for multicultural tolerance is more myth than reality.

Whatever our complex history as a country, the BQ’s ability to engage in separatist rhetoric and bluster should not be mistaken for a real threat. Polls in recent years have shown that unilateral succession is less likely than ever. Canadians would do well to see the BQ as a regional party that has negotiated for transfer payments, political recognition, and provincial control by effectively playing the “separatist” card.

Real leadership in this era of divisive and fractured Canadian politics will require that all views from all regions of the country come to the table and receive equal attention. Ruling out the BQ’s constitutionally protected right to participate in government is un-Canadian. While the BQ’s views – like those of all other parties – must be subject to rigorous debate and deliberation, they should neither be ignored nor demonized. The tried and true democratic mechanisms of the people’s Parliament deserves more than the routine contempt it has suffered in recent years. Canada needs leaders who will stand up for what is right – even if it is not popular in the short term.