In the political earthquake that was the recent federal election where one party was virtually annihilated (the Bloc Quebecois) and another is now in search of a purpose (the Liberals), perhaps the biggest winner beyond the Tories was the NDP.
Problematically, for a free-trading country built on classic liberal freedoms (read Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s speeches to understand those), the New Democrats are an awkward national fit – a party of 1930s-era Saskatchewan populism, 1970s-era interventionist Waffle-ism and a century’s worth of hard-left labour politics imported from Great Britain.
The NDP even has a clause in its party’s constitution about “social ownership” of the economy. That’s Orwellian Newspeak for taking control of the commanding heights of the economy. But the party’s anti-market positions and constitutional principles that endorse the same may be the least of the NDP’s problems as it attempts to become a more national party. It’s more fundamental conundrum will be its position on Quebec, which can be described as special status “plus.”
Not that the NDP’s policies are explicitly acknowledged that way. But a scan of Opposition leader Jack Layton’s comments during the recent campaign leaves no doubt that special status for Quebec is exactly what New Democrats endorse.
As it is, Quebec already enjoys plenty of existing double standards vis-a-vis the rest of the country and only some of them are constitutionally entrenched. That will be problematic for the federal NDP in Ontario and the West.
For starters, consider Layton’s bon mots to Quebec. During the election, he not only promised to “defend” Quebec’s share of 75 seats in Parliament but also to lobby for an increase, this even though Quebec is already over-represented.
The “defence” is unnecessary. Quebec is already constitutionally guaranteed 75 seats. That was an unfortunate compromise in past constitutional negotiations. It has led to the necessity of continually adding seats to Parliament to account for population growth, this as opposed to redistribution of existing seats.
Or consider Layton’s promise to extend Quebec’s anti-English-language stance to federal institutions. (How else to describe the attempt to smother one of Canada’s two official languages?) Currently, because of provincial legislation, many Quebec workplaces must function only in French. Layton proposed extending that provincial policy into areas of federal jurisdiction, a sop to the anti-English language sovereigntists and their Bill 101 policies.
Add to that the Opposition leader’s position about how he would recognize a Quebec referendum on separation if 50% plus one voted for it. That’s contrary to the Supreme Court’s position, which required a “clear majority.” If the top court thought 50% plus one vote was a clear enough statement, it would have just said “majority” instead of “clear majority.” The latter implies a higher threshold.
Then there is Senate reform.
Quebec’s provincial government has already served notice it will fight the federal Conservative government’s proposal to allow provinces to elect senators. Where will the federal NDP end up on that one?
All this will not play well in selected sections of the country. For example, on seats, if the constitutional clause didn’t exist, and the existing 308 seats could be redistributed according to population, B.C. would gain five seats, Alberta would add six and Ontario would have an additional 13 seats. Quebec would lose four.
In other words, the two westernmost provinces and Ontario would see their combined clout in Parliament equal 194 seats instead of the 170 they now have (and at Quebec and Atlantic Canada’s expense). That redistribution won’t happen given the constitutional clause in Quebec’s favour. But it does illustrate the folly of such a clause in the first place, or in promising even more seats to Quebec. It would be amusing to watch the NDP leader defend his call for more Quebec seats to voters in under-represented British Columbia or in southern Ontario.
In general, the NDP kowtowing to Quebec sovereigntists will offend voters in Ontario and the West. It won’t matter in Alberta where the NDP has only one seat; it will matter to voters in Ontario and B.C.
The latter province might prove especially problematic for the NDP’s Quebec stance. Think back to the Charlottetown Accord referendum in 1992. No province voted against the proposed constitutional amendments more than B.C. (68% said no compared with 60% in Alberta). They did so in large measure because the accord was properly seen as giving special status to Quebec, something the NDP now endorses whether it uses those actual words.
It will be fascinating to watch the new federal Opposition leader dance between the priorities of western and Ontario voters and those ensconced in Quebec, and now in the NDP caucus.