Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

Paying for the Bloc

by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:09pm - 110 Comments

Even Chantal Hébert gets the odd thing wrong. Here she falls into a common trap on the subject of the per-vote subsidy and the Bloc Québécois:

According to federal Democratic Reform Minister Steven Fletcher, many Canadians are frustrated with the notion that their taxes are funding a sovereignist party. Given that the subsidy is based on a per-vote formula, that is a bogus argument, unworthy of Fletcher’s ministerial title.

The Quebecers who support the Bloc are taxpayers, with no less right to have the $1.95 subsidy tied to their vote channelled to the party of their choice.

The last part is right. But the implication in the first — that taxpayers at large are not funding the Bloc, because Bloc supporters are taxpayers and the subsidy is “per vote” — is flat wrong. The Quebecers who vote Bloc do indeed “channel” the subsidy to the party of their choice. But they don’t pay it. The money doesn’t come from them. It comes from general revenues.

These revenues come, disproportionately, from people with incomes above the national average. Quebecers’ incomes are, on average, below the national average, and if I’m not mistaken Bloc voters’ incomes are, on average, lower still. Which means, yes, there is an element of redistribution in the subsidy: taxpayers across Canada are paying, disproportionately, to fund a party dedicated to the country’s destruction.

Tags: Bloc, party finances, per-vote subsidy

More by Andrew Coyne

Anon

Well done, Mr. Economist. Now tell us, what is the cost per Canadian of this subsidy?

I'm sure Bev Oda''s limousine expenses are costing us just as much.

What an abysmally picayune and petty post.

Cash

I guess you're one of those oh-so-hip, intellectual, boundlessly tolerant liberals. You need to get something straight. People that vote for the Bloc are voting for a party whose reason for existence is Quebec independence. The Bloc and the people that vote for them do not accept non Quebecers as fellow citizens. Are you a Quebecer? Are you a pur laine Quebecer? If not then you don't make the cut. Asking us non Quebecers to tolerate the presence of such a party in Ottawa is absurd, asking us to pay their expenses equally so. Now that we're at it, asking us to tolerate Duceppe as de-facto co-prime minister and the Bloc as a de-facto co-governing party in that coalition is obscene. Understand?

http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

Most Quebecers who vote for the block do so because they feel the BQ best represents Quebec interests at the federal level and not necessarily because they "don't accept non-Quebecers as fellow citizens," or even want to split apart the country. Now before you tear my head off, it drives me bonkers that we have a party in Ottawa whose raison d'etre is to destroy the country, and further drives me crazy that most of their voters– and hence most of their subsidy comes from peope who– don't de facto support their ultimate goal. It's like the old fiscal conservative/social conservative divide. Many fiscal conservatives hold their nose and vote CPC in spite it's connection to religious nutcases, many hold their nose and vote Lib because of the same connection.

scf

This is not true. There are some quebecers who vote BQ who are not sovereignists. But they are a minority of Bloq voters. I'd say 75% of Bloq voters are sovereignist. For this reason, minorities in Quebec are loathe to vote BQ. Sure, you can find a few exceptions, but that is the general rule.

Secondly, there is no measurable number of "religious nutcases" in the CPC or Lib party, unless you count church-goers as "religious nutcases". Canada, compared to most countries, is very secular.

peter

We need t amend the las about public funding for poltial partis when it is not in he Canadian intres, and the BLOC defiitelyhas noiterest in other Canaians.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Did you spill something sticky on your keyboard?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Maybe those were his dying words, and the name of the killer is somehow encoded in his cryptic message.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Perhaps his ISP charges by the letter?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Habitant Habitant

Wow… That's a slippery slope!!!

When we start taking in account the earnings (or potential earnings) of segments of the Candian population in making arguments for or against party subsidies, we are in serious trouble.

Andrew Coyne's argument is nothing but an exercise in semantics.
CAPS

Real of the Coyne returns but if this is the sort of stuff you'll be peddling then I think you need a bit more time away.

Anon

This is just the first taste. I imagine Harper's going to do it "without Quebec" in the next election and Coyne has been enlisted to "help out."

I wonder what quid pro quo was?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Are you the same Anon who posted all those other comments today? It's hard to tell. Some of the comments made by "Anon" are quite decent, but others (like this one) are tedious and insipid.

Anon

I'm sorry you were forced to read it and respond to it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Apology accepted.

Anon

I agree with the essence of what Coyne's saying.

If I can talk in baseball terms, a lot of fans are upset at Vernon Wells' salary. I think what Coyne is saying is that the big-money sponsors, season ticket holders, and field-level ticket buyers have earned more of a right to be upset than the folks who come on 2$ Tuesdays or buy tickets in the nose-bleed section.

At least, I think that's what he is saying.

jkg

Yes, but you do realize that the implications and the dynamics behind a baseball club are vastly different than a democratic state.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

a a rough translation i think it works. the hard work comes next. first notwithstanding that baseball doesn't actually work that way, it is a luxury, and it is prob generally expected and accepted that people's attachment and influence is differentiated on economic lines.

Coyne is talking democracy. whether he, you or i like it or not the subsidy is part of the institutional structure of our democracy. it could be changed, but to the degree that Coyne/you/others want it partially applied along economic lines is striking.

http://twitter.com/acoyne @acoyne

I don't want it applied partially. I don't want it applied at all — not to the Bloc, not to any of the parties. My point (sigh) was not that the rich should have more say in how public funds are used, or whatever other bizarre construction certain readers want to put on the post. My point was simply that it's false to claim the Bloc is not being subsidized, on the grounds that Bloc voters are ponying up for the $1.95 per vote they send the party's way. They aren't.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Bloc voters are only ponying up $1.91 per vote. Non-Bloc voters are subsidizing the other four cents.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

as a clarification the point of the Coyne/you/others was leaving open who actually supports the idea of selective application besides Fletcher.

i know that in principle that you want it eliminated entirely from your posting at the time of the budget update and following fallout. but i also know that your post was not made it in isolation. the point (sigh) is that you were responding to Hebert who was responding to Fletcher who is actively shopping selective application. your argument gives his position further credence – intended or not. to the degree that you make no point to distinguish the intent of your post and that you point out (negatively) the redistributive nature of the Bloc's subsidy it is hardly surprising that folks will extrapolate.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

as a clarification the point of the Coyne/you/others was leaving open who actually supports the idea of selective application besides Fletcher. apologies for any confusion and to the degree that you feel you have been unfairly maligned.

i know that in principle that you want it eliminated entirely from your posting at the time of the budget update and following fallout. but i also know that your post was not made it in isolation. the point (sigh) is that you were responding to Hebert who was responding to Fletcher who is actively shopping selective application. your argument gives his position further credence – intended or not. to the degree that you make no point to distinguish the intent of your post and that you point out (negatively) the redistributive nature of the Bloc's subsidy it is hardly surprising that folks will extrapolate.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

as a clarification the point of the Coyne/you/others was leaving open who actually supports the idea of selective application besides Fletcher. apologies for any confusion and to the degree that you feel you have been unfairly maligned.

i know that as a matter of principle that you want it eliminated entirely from your posting at the time of the budget update and following fallout. but i also know that your post was not made it in isolation. the point (sigh) is that you were responding to Hebert who was responding to Fletcher who is actively shopping selective application. your argument gives his position further credence – intended or not. to the degree that you make no point to distinguish the intent of your post and that you point out (negatively) the redistributive nature of the Bloc's subsidy it is hardly surprising that folks will extrapolate.

Stephen

But Andrew you know that is only because of the fiscal imbalance (sarc off)

While my preference is still for elimination I think one simple ammendment to the formula would server the purpose quite well:

Multiply the current formula by (number of ridings the party fields candidates in/number of total risings in election)

Right now a Bloc vote receives more for less. One assumes that the formula was meant to account for parties running national campaigns. So if you must provide a subsidy, have the subsidy reflect the costs, and committment, a little better.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

… and then you have angel's, dancing on the head of a pin.
Norton

So people whose income is below the national average do not pay enough into general revenues to have their democratic wishes (however flawed) be considered legitimate?

Or another way the 6-7 million-ish tax payers in province with below average incomes pay less total tax then say a province of a million with above average incomes? Really? The gap is that huge? Really?

I do not think you thought this one through.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Oh, I suspect he thought it through as far as he wanted to.
Olivier

Why should he think it trough? It's a bog!

But, more seriously: the Conservatives know full well the Bloc is perfectly able to, uh, "work their treason on their own dime", as some of us like to say. What the Conservatives also know is that such reform would chiefly hurt the Liberals. So there you go: use the Bloc as the big, evil foe to defeat for the fate of the country and cut subsidies to your chief opponent. Tadaa!
http://twitter.com/acoyne @acoyne

I didn't say or suggest either of the things you suggest I have not thought through. I suggest you have not read through what I actually wrote…

Olivier

Eeek… Where I wrote: "It's a bog!" I, of course, meant "It's a blog!"

Oh well…

Norton

Monsieur Coyne is making a bit of a swampy argument so maybe bog is more appropriate…..
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

i think you nailed it with this one is a bog, as per Norton's post.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

The timing of this posting couldn't have come at a more coincidental time for me. I have just reviewed the latest EKOS poll and if I understood the numbers correctly, the Bloc are the choice of almost half of all those polled who have only high school or lower. Which I found most surprising because I had assumed that sovereignty was an issue more for the Bourgeois.

Anyways, you are correct that Ms. Hébert's argument was sound. You are also correct that taxpayers across Canada are paying, disproportionately, to fund a party dedicated to the country’s destruction. However, I would like to point out that bringing up the income disparities between non-Quebecers and Quebecers, and Bloc supporters and non-Bloc supporters, you are fuelling the perception many have of you as being "anti-Quebec". I'm not suggesting that you are anti-Quebec, but it would make it easier for me and my home life. My Quebecois spouse has taken issue with me enjoying your CBC commentary and Maclean's columns.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

Everyone is equal, unless I make more money than you.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I don't think Coyne has fully thought through his implication that progressive tax rates should entitle the rich to more rights. Its a weak article at best.

A more notable point in the Hébert article is that, the Bloquistes have largely turned out to be model parliamentarians

Olivier

Well, maybe so, but don't be fooled, Ed; the bloquistes are "dedicated to the country’s destruction". So if it's bad for them, it must be good for Canada.

Again, I guess we are supposed to be oblivious to the fact that what the Conservatives are proposing is bad for the Liberals, not for the Bloc.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I think the Bloc, based on their track record, can not be assumed to be interested in the country's destruction. There are, as always, interested in serving Quebec's interests. The have done almost nothing to campaign for separatism and have been very active in promoting Quebec's interest in federalism.

I agree on the point about the Liberals being the primary target. I think the per vote funding is good policy, the only troubling part is that a large majority of Canadians are against it.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I think the Bloc, based on their track record, can not be assumed to be interested in the country's destruction. They are, as always, interested in serving Quebec's interests. The have done almost nothing to campaign for separatism and have been very active in promoting Quebec's interest in federalism.

I agree on the point about the Liberals being the primary target. I think the per vote funding is good policy, the only troubling part is that a large majority of Canadians are against it.

http://twitter.com/acoyne @acoyne

"… progressive tax rates should entitle the rich to more rights…"

Where do I say this? Where do I imply it? How does it follow from anything I actually said? The point of the post was whether Bloc voters actually pay for the subsidy their party receives. They don't. That's it.

Yeesh.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

You took issue with the right of Canadians to channel money proportionate to their vote choice rather than by the amount they paid in taxes. Correct?

JamesHalifax

Not really Ed….

Model Parliamentarians should be working for the good of the WHOLE country……..not the exclusive interests of a select group composed mainly of bigots, socialists, and the under-educated.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Model parliamentarian should be working in the interests of those people they represent. That is democracy.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Model parliamentarians should be working in the interests of those people they represent. That is democracy.

Dot

Like aother commenters, I think AC is off base with this argument. Especially when you consider he is an outspoken proponent of proportional representation.

His argument might have more weight if political parties were subsidized according to the number of seats they have. The logic is a bit rusty…
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Welcome back, Mr. Coyne.

If the Bloc voters' average income was higher than the Canadian average, would this invalidate your argument about proportionality?

The "element of redistribution" seems trivial. It probably amounts to a few hundred thousand dollars. By and large, most of the Bloc's per-vote subsidy could be said to come from Canadian taxpayers who vote for the Bloc. Ms. Hébert is correct, as she so often is.

http://anatomyofculture.blogspot.com/ Wayne Whig

The whole argument is bogus.

There is no "channeling" of votes toward any particular party; the subsidies come from general revenue, and it must be presumed that many who vote for this or that party, pay no taxes at all.

The subsidizing of private entities – for this is what political parties are – to compete for votes in Parliament is an outrage and has no place in a democracy. Why Bev Oda's transportation keeps being brought into it is beyond me – unless of course the people saying have a problem with "those kind of people" riding limos (which I suspect is the case).

The real issue, of course, is that the NDP, bloc and Greens are terrified that if their subsidies are removed, they will collapse like a deck of cards bec. the public at large does not agree with what their programme.

Remove the subsidies now.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

…and Andrew Coyne makes his triumphant return. I have to disagree with you on this one though. A bit too much of six degrees of separation for my liking. I don't have any issue with the funding the BQ gets, it's based on the votes they get in their own province – yeah the fact there's a separatist party in our federal legislature kinda irks me too, but I'm used to it (particularly since I don't remember a time they weren't there).
Mike

Let me add to the near-complete dissagreement with AC.

The per vote subsidy is nothing compared with the tax breaks on donations and the apportioning of seats. Each seat a party receives means that many more party faithful are hired to work the offices in Ottawa and back home. Each seat gives more money for silly 10% flyers. Each seat means an MP is paid. Etc, etc… So, the system we have gives the BQ tens of millions of dollars, of which $2 Million is through this subsidy. Whereas, for the Greens, they only received just under $2 Million.

Take it away and you take away the only proportionally alloted funding. Every other piece of funding is tied to the archaic system that AC apparently opposes.

And, seriously, how much less does the average BQ voter earn? 10% less than average? So, you are fighting for $200,000? I.E. you are trying to save the average Canadian 2/3 of a cent.
http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

I think I am willing to foot the insanely tiny amount that I pay to the Bloc because they stir the Parlimentary Pot and keep the ruling party on its toes. They can be nuts, but if you've ever sat in at question period, it's quite amusing. And I think that many Quebecois support the Bloc and there ends their sovereignty dreams. It's a token move for many in the sovereign movement. Fighting their existence is not worth it. It would just infuriate Quebec and getting them up in arms rarely turns out well for the rest of the country.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"These revenues come, disproportionately, from people with incomes above the national average. Quebecers’ incomes are, on average, below the national average, and if I’m not mistaken Bloc voters’ incomes are, on average, lower still."

Wait a minute…

Is Coyne suggesting that Canadians with a lower income shouldn't have a right to democratic representation? I mean… You do understand that, separatist or not, the BQ MPs were democratically elected by a sizeable portion of voters.

I want to give Coyne the benefit of the doubt on this but… huh?!?!

http://twitter.com/acoyne @acoyne

"Is Coyne suggesting that Canadians with a lower income shouldn't have a right to democratic representation?"

Um, no. Next question?

andy

Go Andrew. Maybe we should just, like y'know, restrict voting to wealthy male landowners or something. Democracy is so inconvenient.
andy

Another thing. Andrew, you've been the most vocal advocate of P.R. in Cdn media. I agree with you. But it ain't gonna happen – not because it's bad, but because there are too many roadblocks.

But there are other ways to level the political playing field.- and that's by changing the nature of the profit motive that drives our system.

So eliminate all tax deductibility for political donations, then double the per-vote subsidy, while incorporating a version of the formula proposed by Stephen above: multiply the subsidy by [# candidates fielded / (106 +9 ridings, so that no party can get full value of the subsidy while running candidates in only one province)].

Then you mandate 6 nationally broadcast debates during elections as a condition for networks or whatever obtaining CRTC licenses. Then you lower the local and national election ad spending limits by 50%, and you introduce a cap on ad spending during non-campaign periods.

You want to reform democracy? Stop making parties compete for money, and start making them compete for votes. You want to get rid of the Bloc? Beat them in an election.

Stephen

But why shouldnt parties or candidates also compete for resources. Money is only one resource, volunteers, smart people, creative ad guys, good candidates are also resources. Why is money such a unique resource that parties shoudlnt compete for it….on its own it means nothing and it is used to obtain other resources that actually do things.

In the extreme should we be ensuring same numbers of signs, quality of strategists etc?

I would argue that some level of raising funding, just like otaining volunteers forces parties to see if their core product attracts what it needs, to carry forward. Money can be corrupting, especially when doled in large sums by few people, but then again so would supply of volunteers (see union influence on the NDP)

Make them compete to a reasonable level. It also becomes inforamtion that voters use, party stalwarts use internally etc to judge the effectoveness of a party on translating its ideas into action. Cant orgainze your own party = probably cant run a government.

andy

I don't advovate preventing political parties from competing for money. I advocate eliminating the preferential treatment of political parties with respect to the treatment of political donations versus charitable donations in the tax code. In fact I don't see why political donations should be eligible for any given any tax emption at all. $10K delivered by a local union activist or a church community organizer is just as potentiallly corrupting as $10K delivered by a corporate bag man.

According to the Hill Times report this morning the Tories are on track to raise over $15 million this year; the Libs are on track for $10 million this year and are targetting $25 million in fundraising next year; the NDP gloated last fall about how, thanks to enhanced fundraising, they were able to spend to the limit during the election. This would all be great news if it were happening alongside greater engagement of citizens in the federal political process. But it's not.

Wayne Whig

Yes "andy", that's a real `simple' way of reforming the Parliamentary system.

Here's an actual simple solution: eliminate the subsidy, and let the Greens, NDP, bloc and all the other fringe parties come up with policies and programmes that people will support with their tax funds – voluntarily – not involuntarily, as under the subsidized vote system.

andy

My goals are different from yours, Wayne Whig. You want to raise the threshold for playing in the political arena, make it harder for "fringe" parties to compete with "mainstream" parties. I don't care about that. I want the parties to value votes more.

I'll also point out, as others have previously, the Bloc predates the current party funding system by 10 years, the NDP by 50. The Grits and Tories have spent years (and millions) trying to out-spend, out-strategize, and out-organize them into political oblivion. It hasn't worked. And instead of trying to understand why, you're proposing that we re-jig the rules to make it easier for the big parties to out-spend, out-strategize, and out-organize – when we've already proved that won;'t make a difference to the outcome.

Sun Tzu said that war is a moral contest. The problem with our politics is that all sides treats politics as war but ignore the moral arguments in play.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

If the rest of Canada wants to do something about the Bloc, we should have the guts to do so directly. None of this starve them out nonsense, which is both an awkward and childish approach.

Ban any form of federal funding or party status to organizations that advocate separatist goals. Explain that treasonous intents (and if breaking up the nation doesn't count as treason, I'm not sure what does) are not a justifiable contribution to Canadian democracy.

Think of it as a logical extension of the clarity act. All we ask is that federal parties be clear in their minimal support for maintaining the federation. Otherwise, they can support themselves.

I know this will never happen, but it would be honest. Tinkering with back door strategies is as disingenuous as the whole 'sovereignty association' BS. If we want the Bloc gone, then lets be straightforward about it.
scf

I agree whole-heartedly with Coyne, who once again is a voice of reason. Good points Coyne. One more in a long list of important reasons to ditch the vote subsidy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Are you also in favour of ditching the 75% tax credit subsidy?

scf

I'm not sure which subsidy you are talking about. Are you talking about the tax credit for political donations? I don't think it is 75%.

Anyway, yes, I am certainly in favour of ditching that too. Funding for poltiical parties should be decoupled from taxes and decoupled from voting.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Yes, that is the subsidy to which I was referring.

And, I also wasn't totally sure about the %….perhaps that number is my provincial rate or I read it somewhere else. In any case I can't think of any downsides to eliminating those tax credits.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Did a tiny bit of research…

http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?i…

http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/english/bulletins/itrp/p…

scf

Wow. 75% of the first $372/$400. That is quite a large subsidy.

I don't like it, at all. Parties have rigged the tax rules to fill their own coffers. Donations should be donations, period. They should not result from schemes to siphon money from tax payers.

Daveyy

The theory behind this tempest in a teapot is that the $3M Bloc subsidy is preventing national parties from winning a majority in parliament.. That is less than 10 cents per capita. Boy are we ever cheap. A measly $3 M can somehow circumvent the will of the people. Only in canada you say.

As for SeanStok's argument, the likely outcome of banning the Bloc would be that they would sweep all 75 Quebec seats and those seats would sit empty in Ottawa. Just like the IRA in Westminster in 1919. Brilliant idea , why not just ban Quebec representation in ottawa while youre at it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

First off, I said *if* we want to do something about the Bloc. And consideration of possible outcomes should be a big part of that.

Second, I would still find it preferable to have all cards on the table, as opposed to this prolonged tantrum Quebec has engaged in,. for decades now. It's hurting the federal governance of the nation, it's creating a *de facto* separation of Quebec in certain respects, and it undermines our ability to act as a cohesive whole. Making a treasonous party illegal is not the same thing as banning Quebec representation, and it's outlandish to suggest that. I would simply suggest that they've been able to hold both ends of the stick for too long now. Time for the good voters of Quebec to grow up and understand that extreme positions (like breaking up a country) come with consequences.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Second, I would still find it preferable to have all cards on the table, as opposed to this prolonged tantrum Quebec has engaged in,. for decades now. It's hurting the federal governance of the nation, it's creating a *de facto* separation of Quebec in certain respects, and it undermines our ability to act as a cohesive whole."

Why making it specific to Quebec? What you describe can be said of several provinces, starting with Newfoundland and you can add the separatists in Alberta too.

To describe the Quebec issue as a "tantrum" is to be wilfully ignorant of this country's history and it plays into the hands of the Quebec Sovereignists.

This here is the very reason why Reformists will NEVER take Quebec.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

was referring to Quebec, because the discussion surrounding federal funding has centred on the "problem" of the Bloc. I'm not aware of any other federal parties advocating for the separation of a region that receive per vote subsidies. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. And the rules I would suggest we enact – *if* everyone sees the Bloc as that big a problem – are generic in nature, and would not be a Quebec-only act.

You wrote: "To describe the Quebec issue as a "tantrum" is to be wilfully ignorant of this country's history and it plays into the hands of the Quebec Sovereignists" Which part of history am I willfully ignorant of? Please enlighten me, because from where I sit Quebec has enjoyed an extremely privileged position in the federation – starting with the outcome of the initial British victory over the French.

Playing into the hands of the sovereignists? How is the status quo not doing that?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Sean, I think you are simplifying the situation, probably out of a frustration that we can't all just get along, despite considerable goodwill toward Quebec.

Let me offer up a ridiculously brief history of Quebec and Canada.
1763 Treaty of Paris – France cedes control of Upper Canada to Britain
1867 Confederation – Quebec folded into Canada by Britain
1982 Patriation of Constitution – Quebec does not ratify
1990 Meech Lake Accord fails

Of course the purpose of the Charlottetown Accord was to get Quebec to sign off on the Constitution, the only province that never has. The ROC generally refuses to see this as a legitimate concern. Leading to:

1991 Founding of Bloc Quebecois

As long as ROC fails to see the legitimate concern, the Bloc is likely to be the predominant federal party in Quebec. Minorities often recognize the value in uniting behind a strong voice. For English Canada to discount that as a 'prolonged tantrum' is really patronizing. The terrifying aspect is that any reasonable examination of a Constitutional amendment that Quebec would sign off on, will recognize that the Charlottetown Accord was about as good an agreement as you could hope for in a negotiated agreement. So its difficult to imagine any resolution to the matter in the foreseeable future.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Sean, I think you are simplifying the situation, probably out of a frustration that we can't all just get along, despite considerable goodwill toward Quebec.

Let me offer up a ridiculously brief history of Quebec and Canada.
1763 Treaty of Paris – France cedes control of Upper Canada to Britain
1867 Confederation – Quebec folded into Canada by Britain
1982 Patriation of Constitution – Quebec does not ratify
1990 Meech Lake Accord fails

Of course the purpose of the Meech Lake Accord was to get Quebec to sign off on the Constitution, the only province that never has. The ROC generally refuses to see this as a legitimate concern. Leading to:

1991 Founding of Bloc Quebecois

As long as ROC fails to see the legitimate concern, the Bloc is likely to be the predominant federal party in Quebec. Minorities often recognize the value in uniting behind a strong voice. For English Canada to discount that as a 'prolonged tantrum' is really patronizing. The terrifying aspect is that any reasonable examination of a Constitutional amendment that Quebec would sign off on, will recognize that the Charlottetown Accord was about as good an agreement as you could hope for in a negotiated agreement. So its difficult to imagine any resolution to the matter in the foreseeable future.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Since Ed did most of the work for me, I'll just ad this…

"Playing into the hands of the sovereignists? How is the status quo not doing that? "

Have you checked the polling numbers on sovereignity lately? I'd say the status quo is doing wonders for the unity of this country.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Your points are both well taken, though I fail to see the country as unified when the one province who hasn't signed the constitution sends separatist representatives to Ottawa. And I prefer not to have a country that owes its stability to the whim of how Quebecers feel about things when they wake up in the morning. But I certainly am not so simplistic about things as to not account for what PJ and Ed are noting.

I may have directed too much focus on Quebec, when in fact my initial concern was with using indirect means to take on the Bloc. You have both identified some very real potential for fallout, which ought to give folks pause. But I think people are mistaken if these sorts of ploys aren't going to inflame things just as easily, and if we're going down that road I'd rather we be above board and honest about things. From both sides.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I agree 100% with your sentiment, but I'm not so sure about the approach.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Third, my position is equally directed to those who want tinker with funding formulas to starve out the Bloc. It's a weasel approach to things. *If* enough people see the Bloc as a problem, then we should be prepared to do something direct about it, and live the consequences. Time for the ROC to grow up, in that respect, and realize that hoping a problem will go away doesn't usually work.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Third, my position is equally directed to those who want tinker with funding formulas to starve out the Bloc. It's a weasel approach to things. *If* enough people see the Bloc as a problem, then we should be prepared to do something direct about it, and live with the consequences. Time for the ROC to grow up, in that respect, and realize that hoping a problem will go away doesn't usually work.