William Johnson: ‘Conditions gagnantes’ – the NDP dilemma

‘Conditions gagnantes’ – the NDP dilemma - The Globe and Mail

This was not a new posture for the NDP. In 2006, the party held its convention in Quebec City and adopted as official policy the so-called “Déclaration de Sherbrooke.” It committed the party to many demands made for years by Quebec’s provincial politicians but that had been rejected by the Liberals of Pierre Trudeau. 

The NDP accepted special status for Quebec under the name of “asymmetrical federalism.” Quebec was to exercise powers not available to other provinces: “The NDP believes that asymmetrical federalism is the best way to consolidate the Canadian federal state with the reality of Quebec’s national character. That means that Quebec has to have specific powers and room for manoeuvring.” 

The NDP also accepted unconditionally Quebec’s right to secede unilaterally by obtaining a majority vote on a question of its choosing: “The NDP recognizes Quebec’s right to self-determination, which implies the right of the people of Quebec to decide freely its own political and constitutional future. This right can be expressed in various ways and can go as far as achieving sovereignty.” 

In the Commons, the NDP has supported subjecting federally regulated industries in Quebec to the Charter of the French Language, in violation of the Official Languages Act. [1] It opposed the right to accede to English-language public schools in Quebec obtained by a sufficient stay in non-subsidized private English schools – a right recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. [2] It opposes the nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada of anyone who is not fluently bilingual. [3] And it opposes changes to representation in the Commons according to population that would mean more seats for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, if that would have the effect of diminishing Quebec’s present proportion of seats [4].

NOTAS BENEFICIALES:

[1] symbolic pandering; the bill does not change the legislation, nor open the constitution;[2] hateful pandering: the number involved are small now; but it opens the school system slightly to rich non-anglos , too;[3] useless pandering; bilingualism will be even more important than judicial competence;[4] anti-democratic: contra one man, one vote.