Talk:Bloc Québécois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada / Quebec / Politicians (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.
 
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Moved section[edit]

I removed this:

The Bloc holds the balance of power after the 2006 election. Therefore it will be able to co-operate with Stephen Harper's Conservative Party on the issues of resolving the fiscal gap between Ottawa and the provinces, especially Quebec, and on matters of Meech Lake Accord-style decentralization and power shift from Ottawa to the provinces.

Why? Well, first off, the above sentences make predictions about the Bloq's activities in the house. They _also_ make predictions about the Conservative Party. Will they actually co-operate on the above issues? What other issues will the Bloq and Conservatives co-operate in? There are dozens, or even hundreds. This is a future prediciton, and has no basis in an encyclopedia. However, re-wording it _might_ work, in a section under "campaign promises - 2006" or some such.


    • I removed the sentence that said 'bloquiste' comes from analogy to 'pequiste.' Both are in reality just the standard french form for denoting a supporter or adherent of a group, so neither form can be said to have 'inspired' the other. A minor change that I hope everyone will accept. **

In my opinion, the addition of remarks made in a 1997 election campaign is completely anecdotic (and is therefore bias-by-content). It defies all definition of "encyclopedic" - that is even before considering the fact that it takes up a third of an article on a topic that could see so much more relevant statements added to it. Tremblay 22:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is evidence of the political position of a prominent member of the party and an elected member of the Canadian House of Commons. In describing the Nazi party, we most certainly refer to the speeches, claims, policies etc. of its members. Angelique the brainwashed moron

Yes, it might be evidence of a person's political position. So why is it not in an article devoted to this person's political stance instead of being in an article about a political party? Tremblay 23:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in response to Angelique both on her user page and mine, if Suzanne Tremblay's comment is expounded on in such length in Bloc Québécois, then by extension we have to add long passages on every controversial comment ever made by any Canadian politician whatsoever. Canadian Alliance would have to include "back of the shop", "Asian invasion", "No more Prime Ministers from Quebec", etc. Progressive Conservative Party of Canada would have to include an extensive analysis of the long-term political fallout of "Tequila Sheila", "Sambo", "I don't speak Chinese or German, either", "Riel will hang...", "let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark", and on and so forth. Tremblay's comment is no more or less relevant than any of those. So, Angelique, tell me: why are you so much more offended by anti-English sentiment in the BQ than by anti-French sentiment in the Alliance? Bearcat 06:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is a copy of what I posted to Bearcat.

It's sometimes a matter of opinion, however I think you would agree that any such issue would have encyclopedic merit based on its national media coverage which in the Suzanne Tremblay racist statement issue, was not only substantial, but sustained. Publicity wise, it ranks second only to Paizeau's racism for which he resigned. And, by all means include any racist (or extreme right wing economic policies (please)) into the Canadian Alliance article. The collective thinking, or intolerate views of party members, is extremely relevant in writing an encyclopedic article. After all, a political party is created because its beliefs are different, therefore Wikipedia's job is to inform readers about what specific things make them different. Note, in the Bloc Quebecois case, that the leader only "distanced" himself from Ms. Tremblay, he did not condem her or discipline her. And, it is racism throughout the separatist movement, that scares English Quebeckers --- and Wall Street. Angelique 13:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And, Bearcat said: why are you so much more offended by anti-English sentiment in the BQ - "Sentiment" ! I am offended and disgusted by racism, and Ms. Tremblay's remarks were pure racism. Also, far too many articles in Wikipedia contain "some think that etc. etc." Giving exact, precise, substantiated examples of conduct, is far more encyclopedic than "some believe the party has racist etc.". Angelique 13:19, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And by the way, the "Riel will hang" matter you raised, relates to a deliberate misquoting a Prime Minister to make his words appear to say something completely different than the real words. Too, in dealing with racism, it is essential to spell it out so that readers can judge for themselves, in particular those from countries beyond Canada. As to how Wikipedia has dealt with racism, check out Henry Ford. And this is one businessman, not the Official Opposition Party of the GOvernment of Canada. Or, for lengthy views, maybe Mother Teresa. Angelique 13:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Still today, no one actually knows the problem you have with MacDonald's quote. Just that you continuously remove it. I'm not going to get involved in your new "forum on alleged racism".. but I'll point out that Henry Ford and Mother Teresa are articles about people not political parties, corporations or religious institutions. It supports the point I'd stated earlier: the Suzanne Tremblay event (which, from what I can tell, was mostly publicized in the "usual suspects" media) is relevant in her own article, possibly in Jean Charest's article, but it's not encyclopedic in the Bloc Québécois article. Tremblay 15:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
First, go and see racism so you understand what you are talking about. Are you saying that Canadians are a race? If that is the case, the only racist person I know is you. Being a Canadian is something that every human can be by becoming a citizen of Canada. In order to feel Canadian, identify as Canadian though, a person needs to adopt the Canadian culture and values. One requirement for this is a knowledge of the English language in order to communicate with the other Canadians. This doesn't mean they should completely abandon their own language, but it means that they will not be using it in every aspect of their lives anymore. That's how a nation composed of individual from all over keeps its unity.
Did it ever occur to you that Quebecers were maybe hoping to build such a society for themselves and the next generations, using the language and culture that unites the majority of them? I think you should stop using words you do not understand and learn the meaning of the words culture, diversity and humanity. -- Mathieugp 14:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Quote from something called Wikipedia.org : Race - Race is a type of classification used to define groups of living things based on such elements as common descent, heredity, physical attributes, self-identification, and more rarely behavior and language.

Perhaps Mathieugp can explain which culture, diversity and humanity that his calling others at Wikipedia "hopeless, brainwashed morons," comes from? Angelique 14:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Certainly. The individuals that I called "brainwashed morons" where human beings self-identifying as Canadians, of the kind that believe all the anti-Quebec junk they read in the right-wing Ontarian press. The kind that denies that something like the people of Quebec event exists and that Quebecers have their own culture because they have their own social, political, cultural, economic, and national institutions, some which are older than the Canadian federal State itself. You could in fact self-identify as "Canadian" yourself and end up concluding the same by understanding politics and nationalism in the context of a prolonged domination by the imperialism of another nation.
Being a Canadian is certainly not belonging to a race. Being a Quebecer either. Being a "brainwashed moron", something that you have attributed to yourself on multiple occasions, is something you cannot think of as being inherent to a person's origin or nationality, unless you are a racist and intolerant being yourself. Ignorance and stupidity is in reality common to all humans whatever culture they belong to, whatever language they speak.
Please, learn the meaning of the words nation, nationality, culture, ethnicity, language, pluralism and humanism. You might also benifit from reading on moral absolutism, chauvinism and for the love of God start reading on philosophy, the truth, and ethics. -- Mathieugp 16:23, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re Suzanne Tremblay Stating facts is NPOV. Changing something to make it sound totally harmless is the hallmark of Mathieugp/Tremblay. Angelique 23:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angelique, I strongly suggest you peruse Wikipedia's guides to writing with a NPOV - it will cut down on your reverting-quota. In it you'll see that very debatable adjectives must be avoided (for example "major controversy" becomes "controversy"). Also, statements such as 'racist' and "really bad guy" must be avoided. Because if it is evident that a particular event was caracterized by quote-unquote pure racism, readers will be able to come to that conclusion without the slightest bit of difficulty. Furthermore, in your version it only states that some "racist statements" were made about Jean Charest; no details.
Here is the definition of anecdote for your benefit.
anecdote: a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident.
I stand by my earlier statement. Biographical incidents belong to biographical articles, otherwise it's not encyclopedic. What do you think about this? Tremblay who is still (hopelessly?) trying to have a discussion instead of a string of reverts.

Perhaps now that DW's new incarnation is gone we'll be able to discuss parts of this item.

I still think the Suzanne Tremblay anecdote should be kept on her own page. Otherwise it paves the way to the addition of all sorts of similar "subjective" anecdotes (i.e. Bloquiste Oswaldo Nunez being called an ungrateful immigrant for being a sovereigntist by Liberal minister Doug Young). Also, the general idea behind the Suzanne Tremblay anecdote is explained in an encyclopedic manner under "internal division". Any objections to removing the anecdote? Tremblay 00:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It should be moved under the "Internal division" heading - it seems very out of place currently.
In addition to the longstanding tension between those who define their nationalism ethnically vs. those who reject this view, there seems to be a new division arising between those who think sovereignty should/can be acheived and those who have given up hope (...which should be explored in the article). For example it should be noted that a number of sitting Bloc MPs have left the party for the Liberals in the last while, and several look set to do the same. -- stewacide 12:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In the 1997 election, a controversy erupted when, at a Quebec rally, Bloc MP Suzanne Tremblay implied that Progressive Conservative Party of Canada leader Jean Charest was not a real francophone Québécois because his legal first name is "John".

I don't think francophone Québécois conveys the correct meaning either, since someone of (for example) Hatian heritage whose first language is French and who lives in Quebec could correctly be called a francophone Québécois - but that's clearly not what Suzanne Tremblay meant (Charest in fact is clearly both a francophone and a resident of Quebec). What I'm trying to indicate is that she was refering to his not being of Québécois ethnicity (not simply of Quebec civil nationality). -- stewacide 06:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


However, things progressively changed starting from the winter of 2003, partly because of the Charest government rapidly became quite unpopular and of the support for independence in Quebec rising again. The tide took its sharp turn when, in February 2004, the sponsorship scandal (uncovered in considerable part by the Bloc) hit the liberal federal government.

Is this true? The only poll I've seen has independence and constitutional at the very bottom of Quebecker's concerns. -- stewacide 16:11, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

It is quite true and thank you for asking your question. I will present some facts to back it up. A biased campaign by the media is in course to show the opposite, but the facts are that the support for sovereignty has been rising from 39%-41% upward since the 2002 Déclaration de Gatineau, where PQ leader Bernard Landry laid out a new plan and determination for attainment of independence. Please refer to this article ("Charest would be sent back to opposition"), if you can read French. It mentions the poll taken between the 18th and 29th of March where the support for national independence beats the support for the NO side before repartition (OUI: 46%; NO:45%). After repartition, the YES side is at 49% (since, according to statistics, the pollsters give more votes from the indecisive to the federalist side). I believe such numbers in history have been yet seen only around 1995 to 1997 and at the death of the Meech Lake Accord (when it rose as high up to the 70 percents). Also, minorities are more and more open to associate themselves with the Quebecois identity and even the sovereignist project. A poll made by "Generation Quebec" found out that 40% of young people from minority groups are sovereignist. With all this said, one must objectively conclude that this statement (in the article) is vital to the understanding of the new Bloc phenomenon and that sovereignty is seeing a third wave of high popularity. -- Liberlogos
You're right. I just dug up some polls and support for "sovereignty" has gone up ~5% (to high-40s), but is still very soft (it drops to high-20s for full seperation). This seems to be directly related to dislike of the Charest government, as is the rise in Bloc support, so I'm not sure if sepratism is a cause or just an indicator. -- stewacide

Earlier projects[edit]

Although I find it interesting for it contains numerous facts, I am not certain this belongs in the article on the Bloc Québécois. Maybe somewhere in Quebec nationalism? Or maybe in a new article on Quebec in federal politics? The facts are that the current Bloc is sovereignist and progressive, and has very little to do with the other Blocs.

In any case, here are some points that need to be fixed:

1. where an article calls for a party of Quebecers defending the Quebec nationality in Ottawa.

The Action nationale article does not say that. It says:
À la Chambre des communes, il faut des députés canadiens-français capables, à l’occasion, de maintenir l’esprit de la Confédération… basée sur l’existence de deux éléments ethniques, les Canadiens français et les Anglo-Canadiens…
Which means: In the House of Commons, there must be French Canadian MPs capable, sometimes, to maintain the spirit of the Confederation... based on the existence of two ethnic elements, the French Canadians and the Anglo-Canadians...
It would have been anachronic (or revolutionary) to speak of a Quebec nationality in 1926.

2. There are two L'Action française magazines : the French one, which turned fascist, and the Quebec one which was renamed l'Action nationale when the editor wished not be associated with the fascism of the French magazine. The name change occured in 1926 if I am correct.

-- Mathieugp 03:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Yes, I agree. The article wanders off topic in a few other places as well. the off-topic material should be moved to more appropriate articles.--Indefatigable 11:26, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The picture with the caption which claims to be a picture of Lucien Bouchard is actually a picture of Hitler.

Now their symbol is depicted as being a gay pride flag, and Gilles Duceppe has been replaced with Shania Twain. I'd change it myself, but I'm new at this.

Done. Kevintoronto 18:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can we just get rid of it? It really has little to do with the BQ. This section might as well go back to the Plains of Abraham...--Boffob 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You know what, I'll just move it to this page for now. See below.--Boffob 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Social democratic?[edit]

An edit war is brewing over whether or not the Bloc is social democratic. I started to read the 2000 platform, but got tired and quit. I may take another look at this if I have the time. Maybe someone else for whom reading French is less of an effort could review this. It is posted on the party's website. In the interim, let's stop the edit war and have a discussion here about whether "social democratic" is a correct descriptor for the Bloc. And by discussion, I mean examples from their platform, not just assertions of personal belief. Comments? Kevintoronto 14:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The BQ is not a social democratic party. They have social democrats in it but they also have conservatives. They are not a member of the Socialist International and do not declare themselves to be social democrats in their constitution or election literature. AndyL 21:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Their platform and goals are social democratic but AndyL is correct to say that there are some conservatives in the party. They are united by their desire for Quebec soverignty not by a common set of policies. I think it would be fair to call them social democratic as that is the position their platform espouses, however they are not explicitly as such. - Jord 22:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A similar edit was made to Green Party of Canada, changing progressive (linked to progressive, a disambig page) to social democratic. I reverted it to progressive (linking this time to progressivism). That might also fit here? Samaritan 23:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Bloc is inlined with the PQ and the UFP it is fair to say the party is social democratic and did you know the leader Gilles Duceppe was a Union Orgenizer and trade unions back the Bloc - michaelm

And founding leader and secular icon Lucien Bouchard was a Mulroney cabinet minister. Samaritan 13:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ture but Lucien Bouchard realise that he was in fact a social democrat and he did not like the accord. - michaelm

While the party is not offically social democratic, many of its members and supporters are social democrats, and party policy often promotes the goals of social democracy. At the same time, many of its members and supporters were formerly Liberals or Progressive Conservatives, and the party attempts to attract sovereigntist voters from across the political spectrum.

Comments, please. Kevintoronto

This is spot-on, I think. Samaritan 19:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The CAW don't just support the NDP thay also support the Bloc ther is a sorce to prove it [1]. - michaelm

This is a good reference -- labour movements in Quebec clearly support the Bloc. But does that mean that it is exclusively a social democratic party, or that it is a 'big tent' that includes social democrats as well as other Quebec nationalists? Kevintoronto 21:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above compromise is very good. Kudos to Kevintoronto on it. The Bloc (largely because its ties to the PQ) are support by labour but neither are officially linked to labour like the NDP is. The Bloc is clearly to the left of the Liberals in their positions and those two parties or the only viable ones in federal Quebec politics, thus it is a very wise, pragmatic position for unions to support the BQ if they want to promote their agenda in parliament. At the end of the day, an analysis of the Bloc platform would lead to a political scientist labelling them social democratic. That said, many of its core supporters (its 30ish% floor of support) are seperatists who don't give a damn what it's other policies aren't and don't necessarily agree with them. How about this, based on Kevintorontos bit: The Bloc is a broad coalition of those who want Quebec to obtain sovereignty. Though a majority of its members, as reflected in its platform, are social democratic, it is not a homogeneous party which can be easily labelled with a specific ideology. In fact a minorty of the Bloc's caucus is socially conservative. - Jord 15:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if a majority of its members are social democrats or not though I think it's fair to describe Duceppe as one. I think it's fair to say that the BQ advocates a number of social democratic policies but I don't think the party itself should be described as social democratic since they do not describe themselves as such in their platform, constitution or "mission statement" where the NDP does use the phrase "democratic socialist" or "social democratic" (don't remember which one off hand), if only sparingly, in its mission statement and some of its central documents and is a member of the Socialist International. I know the PQ at one time described itself as social democratic (don't know if they still do, we should check that out) and I think they at least applied for membership in the Socialist International (can't remember if they were vetoed by the NDP or given some sort of associate status). Unless a party officially describes itself as social democratic or democratic socialist for us to call a party that would be POV. Anyway, I think the aforementioned compromise is sound. As far as the actual sidebar is concerned, though, the BQ should not be described as "social democratic" but simply nationalist/sovereigntist. The only thing I'd be comfortable saying beyond that is "centre-left" since that would seem to be a fair description of them at present and there seems to be consensus about that in the media and among other observers (ie I can think of no reference to the BQ as "right wing" or "centre-right", at least not since Duceppe became leader). AndyL 17:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I propose the following lines then, better combining the points in my line and that of Kevintoronto and noting AndyL's remarks:

The Bloc is a broad coalition of those who want Quebec to obtain sovereignty. Though its leader, and its platform, espouse social democratic principles, it is not a homogeneous party which can be easily labelled with a specific ideology. In fact, many of its members and supporters came from both the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties, and the party attempts to attract sovereigntist voters from across the political spectrum.

I think that that should suit everone. Any objections? - Jord 16:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've done a general clean-up of this article to:

  • reduce some of the duplication,
  • clear out the repeated wikilinks to the same articles, as per the convention that an article should be linked generally only at the first instance, and
  • clear out some of the dead wikilinks, although I have left them in where they involve a person.

More importantly, I have erased the anonymous editor's changes from last night indicating that it is a social democratic party, and put in the compromise that Jord outlined above. There is no point in just re-inserting "social democratic" into the article without stating the case for doing so here. It will just be revertedIf, on the other hand, someone can provide on this Talk page a reference from the BQ's constitution or its campaign platform, for example, indicating that it is a social democratic party, then of course the article should be changed to reflect that. Kevintoronto 16:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fwiw, I agree. Samaritan 18:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the Bloc Québécois, like the Parti Québécois, can be counted as genuine social democratic parties, at the left of the political spectrum. I also disagree with the said "Jord compromise". Just so people have proof *once and for all* about the Bloc, I am transcribing (and very lightly adapting) a research text I wrote at Image talk:Canadapoliticalchart.PNG. If someone can still challenge my assertion, I'll love to hear it. ;)

  • I will study in this intervention the Social Democracy in the Bloc Québécois. I believe that understanding the BQ as a simple "open bar" (in left and right matters) sovereigntist coalition is a false perception. This spirit might have been partly present in the very beginning, but, if so, it is much less now. An example might be the Ghislain Lebel affair(s) (his traditional stance on nationalism, seen when he endorsed a document made by right-wing sovereigntist Mathieu Bock-Côté and, later, his less open approach to First Nations claims expressed in his denunciation of the PQ deal with Côte-Nord aboriginals resulted in important internal criticism and final expulsion). Please allow me to point out apparent proofs and, afterwards support them with concrete quotes directly from the horse's mouth (or rather, the horse's official documents and platform).
  • The Bloc has, in recent years, supported a plethora of typically left-wing causes. It has strongly supported marijuana decriminalization and gay marriage, as well as opposed the war in Iraq, the anti-missile defense shield and health care privatization (on the health care subject, let me salute the great Mr. Tommy Douglas). It criticized Paul Martin's Canadian Steamship Lines fiscal escapes and the surplus building in Ottawa that could go into social intervention (some centrist and center-right people would demand to lower the debt first or keep a large and stable safety surplus). It also heavily criticized the use of the employment insurance program money to achieve such a surplus. As the platform says, they "are seeking more open immigration policies" (a fact some ultra-federalist opponents somehow prefer to keep quiet). Despite the possible theoretical temptation of wholly denouncing the fire arms control program since its scandalous cost is a Liberal responsibility, it remains firmly committed to keeping it in place while finding ways to never again fall in such a fiscal disaster. Duceppe and his party were especially hard on the new Young Offenders Act. I have heard Duceppe make numerous speeches underlining that a sovereign Quebec would, as opposed to the way the federal government chose, treat its young offenders "in a progressive way, in conformity with the common values of the Québécoises et Québécois". In 2004, it received the support of Steven Guilbault, from Greenpeace, and the Bloc has the strongest relations with labour unions in Quebec. Proposing an anti-scab law (like the one put in place by René Lévesque in Quebec; the first in Quebec and Canada) has recently been an important cause of the Bloc. Duceppe has also stated his opposition to the ADQ right-wing ideas. The Bloc has quite often participated in (and organized) common fronts with the NDP. Even Jack Layton said in an SRC (French language CBC) interview, on the show "Maisonneuve en direct", that the opinions the Bloc and the NDP have defended in parliament are "very often the same" (I last heard the show a year ago so a word might not be the exact one, but this was the exact idea of his statement).
  • These ideals and other equally progressive ideals are clearly displayed in the platforms and documents of the Bloc. For example, the official 2004 platform summary states that "the Bloc Québécois is committed" to the following (...and this is but a part of their progressive stances). Those are all direct, word for word quotes from the English 2004 platform summary.
    • Proposing the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol so that it is fair for Quebec and based on the principle of polluter-pays.
    • Proposing an investment plan for the wind turbine energy industry that will lead to the creation of thousands of jobs that will be environmentally friendly.
    • Firmly opposing the expansion of the Saint-Laurent seaway.
    • Demanding a surtax on the profits of large oil companies.
    • Opposing the relocation of jobs and unfair business practices.
    • Drafting an anti-strike breaking bill and engaging in a proper follow up if it is not adopted.
    • Proposing a tax credit that is refundable for all families that have children under the age of 18.
    • Proposing that the federal government set aside 1 % of its expenses, or $2 billion per year, for the development of social housing.
    • Ensuring that eligible senior citizens receive guaranteed income supplements and that the government refunds the $3.2 billion in funds they should have received.
    • Fighting with determination alongside the aboriginal population in order to encourage their achievement of self-government.
    • Proposing maintaining peace-keeping missions as the primary role of Canadian military forces.
    • Proposing that the federal government introduce a plan to fight poverty in the world by increasing the levels of its international aid and respecting its dialogue concerning the debt reduction of the world’ s poorest nations.
    • Demanding that the government submit to Parliament, before ratification, all proposed agreements of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
    • Demanding that the federal government end the use of tax shelters and flags of convenience that allow businesses to avoid having to pay taxes and honouring their social and environmental responsibilities.
    • Supporting positive practices of globalization such as responsible investment and fair business practices.
I'll conclude the quotes with these excerpts from another document that can be found (in French, this time) here. "It is more profitable, economically, to preserve the environment than to degrade it.", "The common good must absolutely come before individual interests.", and "We have known for long that the societies with the most inequalities are often the most violent societies. The Bloc Québécois will intervene in order to diminish the gap between the richest and the poorest. When, in a society, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, insecurity grows." The text sends us to a bottom-page reference stating that "[t]he Bloc Québécois remains, in this sense, a political party attached to Social Democracy".
  • So, there you have it. I think practically none of these stances would feel out of place in the NDP or other authentic social democratic parties. The Bloc Québécois is genuinely social democratic.

Main references:


The above, posted by User:Liberlogos, is:

(a) excellent research, and

(b) the sort of evidence that I have been looking for before we accept calling the Bloc "social democratic". Heretofore, we have not had this quantity or qaulity of research and analysis.

I do have one question, though: I have been looking here for the statement you quoted, i.e., "[t]he Bloc Québécois remains, in this sense, a political party attached to Social Democracy", and have been unable to find it. Could you give us a page number? Thanks again for your great work. Ground Zero 18:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC) (formerly User:Kevintoronto)

Never mind. I found it at the bottom of Page 23. I would add to the above, also, a line from page 21 of the same document, "Le développement durable implique un rôle prépondérant de l’État.", which I would translate as "Sustainable development implies a significant role for the State." Sounds pretty social democratic to me. I tink we have a fist-full of smoking guns, here.
I wonder, though, to what extent this solidly soc-dem stance is a product of recent times and the leadership of M. Duceppe. When Lucien Bouchard was leader, was the party more of a "big tent" without economic ideology? It is certainly fair to say, based on its 2003 policy statement, that it is a social democratic party. Should we also say that when it was founded that it was not? Again, we'd need more evidence than I can provide to say that. Ground Zero 19:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Ground Zero, you're too good to me. :-P Like Ground Zero says, I think we should hold any elaborate speculation about the Bloc's initial economic beliefs or "umbrella" nature before getting more solid evidence. Furthermore, in light of the arguments above, the whole "can't be easily labelled with a specific ideology" straying, in the article intro, should be cut I believe. I can try asking people I know involved in politics if getting a hand on older Bloc platforms is possible. That study should also be quite interesting; thanks for bringing this up, Ground Zero. Since you mention Mr. Bouchard, I will quickly state that I don't think his presence alone at the leadership would legitimize any more the "Umbrella" or "Big Tent Theory". One can read about Mr. Bouchard's progressive values in Jean-François Lisée's article "Our debt to Lucien Bouchard" (in English). So, I'll try to get more info on the first days of the BQ. I might also try to do a similar research job on the Parti Québécois (which could be beneficial), once its National Congress of June is over and the new platform is adopted. Cheers. --Liberlogos 05:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how we can continue to cal them "Social Democratic," especially with their new choice of leader. (By the way, in response to michaelm's comment above, Ronald Reagan was also a union leader.) HistoryBA 01:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
New leader? You are confusing the Bloc Québécois with the Parti Québécois. --Liberlogos 05:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Quebec(k)ers[edit]

User:24.205.72.87 "switched" the way "Quebec(k)ers" is written, in this article. This was surely done with good intentions but, while both are generally acceptable, the standard spelling on Wikipedia is "Quebecers", not "Quebeckers", right? And, if so, does anyone object to restoring the former spelling? --Liberlogos 02:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I wish the convention had been established as "Quebecker", but it's too late now: "Quebecer" is strongly entrenched as the Wiki convention. Go ahead and revert it. Indefatigable 12:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
"Quebecer" is the standard used in Canadian media. I haven't see "Quebecker" since Lulu Bouchard was a federalist. Ground Zero 20:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The correct term is Quebecois, why not use that?
Quebecois is the French word for Quebecer, not the correct English word. BTW, shouldn't the ideology be Quebecois or Quebecer nationalism, not Quebec nationalism? Kind of like saying Corsica nationalism rather than Corsican. Is Quebec an adjective in this case or not? Homagetocatalonia 19:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"Quebec nationalism" (rather than *"Quebecer nationalism") is just part of the Canadian English idiom. The "adjective" form of provinces (Manitoban, Ontarian, and so on) are used as nouns for the residents of those provinces, but are rarely used as "attributive adjectives" modifying nouns. Phrases like "Albertan government" and "Ontarian culture" sound really odd to Canadian ears. (Note that the word Canadian is used as an adjective, as my preceding sentence demonstrates.) There's no good explanation for it; that's just how it works. Indefatigable 20:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the question, Homagetocatalonia. I think one should not limit oneself to Canadian English for the explanation. Quebec is a society of the world, watched by the world. So, why "Quebec nationalism"? Well, I think that the word given to Quebec's inhabitans, "Quebecer", simply (and sadly, sort of) is not convertable into an adjective in the English language. Is there any similar denomination of a nationality or collective belonging ending with -er that is widly accepted as an adjective in English? It can be bothersome when one tries to show how that society holds qualities that make her more than any "subnational" region. But for now, that's the way you have to go with it. "Quebecois" has been accepted in the English language. It is, for example, in the Webster dictionnary [2]. Being able to use "Quebecois" in English can sometimes be practical, even if it sometimes makes things less... seamless. But sometimes more poetic. --Liberlogos 01:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the Bloc National Socialist?[edit]

The Bloc Quebecois is Socialist and Nationalist and it's only Socialist when it comes to its own people, which is the basis of National Socialism. The party is also fairly anti-English, what am I saying fairly for? They are anti-English.

Anonymous person, a political theorist you are not. AndyL 06:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Classy answer, AndyL. I agree with you. This is too pathetic to be taken seriously. --Liberlogos 07:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
they are not anti-english they are anti unfair treatment of Canada's francophone population by anglophones. BIG difference.

Even though that assertion is dumb, the Bloc Quebecois does interestingly enough support Quebec's language laws which specifically target Quebec's anglophones. Though this is not unique to the Bloc Quebecois, anti-English sentiment to varying degrees is a subtle feature of the entire Quebec nationalist movement within the Quebec Liberal Party, ADQ, PQ, Bloc, Quebec Solidaire and other groups. By the way "National Socialism" is a variety of fascism based on the belief of the needs of the nation taking precidence over the needs of the individual, absolute loyalty to a single leader, a view of racial superiority, anti-semetic conspiracy theories, eugenics, empire building through the conquest of other nations, and "harmonizing" of class interests to better serve the nation, i.e. corporatism, NOT socialism. So inspite of their name they were not and have never been socialist in the least bit. National Socialism (Nazism) is a complete anethma to socialism. (Canadianpunk77 19:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Merge Temporary ad hoc rainbow coalition[edit]

I have suggested that the article Temporary ad hoc rainbow coalition be merged here, as it will never reach non-stub status on its own. -Joshuapaquin 04:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Treason.[edit]

In any country, these political revolutionists would be arrested and tried for treason and a surprisingly large percentage of English Canada believes so too.

Uh... I... err... OK then. -Joshuapaquin 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
False, rambling rubbish. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other former British dominions are ironic but blatant examples since the people responsible for the Statute of Westminster have not been thrown in jail like in the falangist dictatorship you seem to envision. In the British Isles themselves, of course, many independence parties also exist under the principle of democracy (the Scottish National Party for example). Many other democratic parties devoted to similar ideals exist in numerous other places across the world, like Catalonia or Puerto Rico. Canada, like the Netherlands, France, Sweden, and dozen others, through their whole populations, exercise every day what a party like the Bloc Québécois or the Scottish National Party advocate: self-determination. You are calling treason a high international principle of the UN, the right to self-determination. That might be the treason, this treason to democracy. Shameful. --Liberlogos 02:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't be Majority Government[edit]

Since the BQ only runs candidates in Quebec, the most seats they could win (in the House of Commons) is 75. This is far short of a majority of 155. Should this be mentioned in the article? GoodDay 16:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how the BQ can form a minority government? There are 233 seats in the House of Commons outside Quebec, so if those 233 seats are equally divided among the 3 other parties represented in the HC, then the party with the most seats would get 77 seats, which is still greater than the number of ridings in Quebec.

So unless there's another political party represented in the HC (possibly the Green Party), I don't see how the BQ can form any kind of government. Bourquie 8:41 utc, 17 Jan 2006

See discussion sections in User:GoodDay and User:Bourquie for answer. GoodDay 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does there need to be more than 4 parties? Say the Conservatives won the most seats but all the other parties ruled out working with it, but would go with the Bloc. Then, if the Bloc had the second highest amount of seats, it could form the Government. -Nichlemn 09:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Bloc-Heads?[edit]

I removed the term Bloc-Head. I don't think that pejorative names for political parties have their place in an encyclopedia.

Well, they do in the sense its a part of their perception (in thie case, perception of them by their foes) and therefore definition, but since most of these articles are getting vandalized with alarming frequency (like that idiot comment) I guess it should be left out until it can be put in without causing a damned edit war. 27/03/2007

Moved from main page here for clean up.[edit]

Earlier projects[edit]

The idea of a Quebec nationalist party with candidates running for seats in the House of Commons is not new. The term Bloc Québécois was seen as early as 1926 in L'Action Française magazine in which an article called for a party of Quebecers defending Quebec's interests in Ottawa.

From March to May 1941 L'Action Nationale magazine renewed its calls for such a party, especially to oppose plans for conscription. In October 1941, the Bloc populaire Canadien was created with those very objectives.

In September 1971, there was a similar plea in L'Action Nationale, this time with a view to countering the federalism of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. One year after the October Crisis, a desire to express frustration through democratic means was visible in the magazine: "The time has come to play hard; and it is necessary that it happens at the parliamentary stage to avoid other forms of violence." [3]

The Ralliement des créditistes was a rural Quebec-only federal party in the 1960s. Social credit ideology was based on the ideas of the British engineer, Major C.H. Douglas. The Créditistes took over the remnants of the federal Social Credit Party of Canada and had members elected to the House of Commons until 1979. While right-wing in approach, as opposed to the nominally more leftist Bloc, this party carried the torch of Quebec nationalism and separatism for decades.

The Union Populaire was a minor party that tried to build on the success of the Parti Québécois at the provincial level by nominating candidates in the 1979 and 1980 federal elections on a sovereigntist platform. The PQ, however, had rejected participation in federal elections and provided no support to the party, which achieved little success.

The Parti nationaliste du Québec was founded in the 1980s as an alternative to federalist parties (those opposed to independence for Quebec) and can be seen as a modest predecessor. It annoyed many anglophones.

Finally, the Rhinoceros Party, founded in 1968 by Doctor Jacques Ferron, a renowned Quebec writer, won many votes from people who disapproved of federalist politicians. Jacques Ferron, the poet Gaston Miron and the singer Michel Rivard ran against the federalist Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in his seat of Mount Royal, but made little impact at a time when Trudeau was at the height of his popularity and influence.

The founder of the Bloc Québécois, Lucien Bouchard and his wife.

Guy Bertrand, a former PQ candidate, had a plan to create a federal party in favour of Quebec independence, a Bloc Québécois, in the 1970s. René Lévesque, the founder and leader of the Parti Québécois, stated in his autobiography that he had opposed this plan, believing that it was not the right time to do so.

After decades of reflection and failed attempts to launch a sovereigntist party at the federal level, members of a sovereigntist party were first elected on the federal level during the 1990s.


To be put back into main article if there is concensus to keep it --Boffob 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bloc is not a party that runs candidates in all federal ridings. It wasn't until a Prime Minister from "Quebec" changed the rules that the Bloc was able to come into existence. Mainly from running candidates in all Provinces to running in a specific number of ridings (IE 75). Now that a Provincial party can run in a Federal Election,(thus undermining the will of the Canadian People as a whole) and forward a treasonous separatist agenda.


I don't have a problem with it, and it is important to note that they do not run in the entirety of canada, a part of what sets them apart. The treason bit is a little unwarrented, however. 27/03/2007

Suggestions To Improve The Article[edit]

Excellent discussion above, guys, but I think the article still needs improvement, and can be fixed based on several of the suggestions above.

More historical background would help flesh out the article. Elements of the section above that details earlier Quebec nationalist politics on a federal level would be useful. Most useful would be a more in-depth look at the origins of the Bloc itself, especially in relation to Trudeau leaving Quebec out of the constitution, and Mulroney subsequently bringing Quebec nationalists into the Progressive Conservative party with the promise of "power to the provinces."

A section that deals specifically with their ideological leanings is badly needed. A reader of this article would come away with the mistaken impression that sovereignty, as expressed in the Meech Lake split and the 1995 referendum, is all that the party is about. It completely ignores their conservative roots and, as people pointed out in previous discussion, their social democratic leanings. This is important, especially as they were once the party of the Official Opposition, and because we are in an era of minority government. The Bloc has had a tremendous influence on Canadian politics, and have directly influenced policy decisions that affect all Canadians. Hipsterlady 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bq90s.PNG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Bq90s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Leadership confidence votes[edit]

Notable for being exceptionally high (over 90%). Where to put these figures in this article?Toddsschneider 14:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a sub-section pertaining to leadership confidence votes in the leaders' section of the article.Xiaoshan Math (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Any discussion of the results of confidence votes needs to be referenced to reliable, independent media sources. That is, a newspaper article about the results of a leadership vote is an acceptable reference, but a streaming video of the results being announced on the party's own web page is not okay.
Also, for the record, a leadership confidence vote at a party convention is basically a pro forma bit of party business that isn't particularly notable in its own right. They're really only notable if, say, a leadership race gets called because the result was underwhelming, or a high-profile critic of the leader gets repudiated and silenced because the result was strongly in the leader's favour. It's really only notable if it actually has measurable consequences — and for the ones that don't actually have a real consequence, we really don't need an exhaustive list here. Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Victims" of FPTP in 2000?[edit]

Why are the Bloc protrayed as victims in the 2000 election? the fact that they recieved fewer seats inspite of winning more votes than in 1997 makes it sound like our electoral system disenfranchised them. Could not be further from the truth, they still won more seats than the Liberal Party in that province even though they recieved almost five percentage points less in the popular vote. It's regionalist parties like the Bloc that unfortunately always benefit from First Past the Post. (Canadianpunk77 05:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Duceppe gilles 170h.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Duceppe gilles 170h.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A few changes[edit]

The first sentence mentioned the Bloc as being "devoted to the promotion of sovereignty", I also added "protection of Quebec's interests" and provided a link to prove that. I also added [citation needed] tags on two sentences mentioning "speculation". Finally, I added a sentence at the end of the "criticism" section. I hope everyone will agree that these changes are objective and contribute to the quality of this article. Ithaka84 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

Hi I know that this is the English wikipedia and that english canadians don't especially like the Bloc. But I think there is a strong anti-Bloc bias on this wikipedia.

  • The BQ is the only article with a critism section of any major canadian federal party.
  • Gilles Duceppe is the only leader of a major canadian federal party with a "controversial issues" section. Harper even as an "Honors" section.

In each case, the section is a major % of the article. I will therefore delete those sections, they were not very important and not sourced anyways. I don't want to start an edit war, we should discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.255.66 (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if other parties don't have a criticism section, then it would be biased to leave one for the BQ. It's also true that the criticism section for the BQ was not sourced anyways. If someone wants to bring back the section, they should at least source it, and we would have to create similar sections for the other main parties.Ithaka84 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Numbers need correcting[edit]

The Election Results chart is incorrect as it shows the BQ with 48 seats in the 2008 election. The rest of the article says 50, as does media coverage. 68.146.25.241 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Call it the post-election day fog if you wish. Numbers are uncertain for at least 24 hours after any election. They'll be fixed soon enough with official numbers. ETA: I updated with numbers from CBC.ca.--Boffob (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideology?[edit]

Why is there no section discussion the BQ's ideology/policies/ etc? The Jade Knight (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Small but acute change[edit]

I added a redirect from "Bloq Quebecois" (for people who don't or can't enter accent marks). --- OtherDave (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I also added a redirect from "Quebecer Bloc" (I believe some people would refer to the Bloc Québécois as the Quebecer Bloc or the QB)Xiaoshan Math (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Honestly? Nobody ever would. Absolutely, positively nobody in a million years. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarify party objectives[edit]

I inserted a new sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction to clarify for readers in as neutral a way as possible that the principal political objective of the Bloc is to pull Quebec out of Canada. The "promotion of sovereignty" phrase used in the first sentence is a Quebec nationalist euphemism for separatism that requires decoding for foreign readers. For greater clarity, I also re-ordered the last sentence so as to better explain that although the Bloc runs candidates in Canadian national elections, its electioneering is restricted to Quebec. -- Pinkythecorgi (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your alternative, "pulling Quebec out of Canada", is far *less* NPOV than the 'sovereignty' wording, in my view. Note that the word sovereignty in the lede links to Quebec sovereignty movement, which is a very decent article. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sovereignty" is how the Bloc describes its own political objectives and so cannot be any more NPOV than "separatism" - in fact these are two sides of the same coin. As it now stands, the first sentence of this paragraph self-identifies the Bloc according to that party's own published views and doesn't reflect any critical analysis or balance at all. The new sentence that I inserted merely clarifies what the Bloc's self-identification actually boils down to in plain descriptive language of the kind that one could easily find in a comparative politics textbook. A truly non-NPOV qualifying sentence would be one that stated that "the Bloc seeks to destroy Canada" or "the Bloc is a separtist political party that seeks to promote independence and weaken Ottawa through reducing Quebec representation in federalist Canadian political parties." I have not gone in that direction. And, I am not completely fixed on the precise phrase I used but I think it is accurate to say that something needed to be added to the previously existing introductory paragraph in the interests of promoting clarity and balance. Pinkythecorgi (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase you inserted, "It is dedicated to pulling Quebec out of Canada", is not NPOV - it is an opinion. I have no problem with introduing balance to the "sovereignty" issues, but this is certainly not it. Mindmatrix 19:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Quebec+sovereignty+still+alive+maintain/1203441/story.html

"Quebec sovereignty still alive, BQ and PQ maintain

By Philip Authier, Canwest News Service February 3, 2009

MONTREAL -- Now is a great time to start talking up separation, the two most powerful leaders of the sovereignty movement say.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe and Parti Quebecois Leader Pauline Marois emerged Wednesday from their first joint caucus meeting since 2004 to say that, far from stagnating, the sovereignty option is in better shape today than it was even a year ago.

And despite a period of economic turmoil where Quebecers are mostly concerned about bread-and-butter issues, cranking up the sovereignty machine now makes sense because they can show how much better off Quebec would be in a recession if it was not part of Canada which they described as a “dead end,” and a “losing proposition,” for a province with high aspirations.

Quebec as a country would have more control over economic levers and federally-dominated programs such employment insurance and labour re-training, they said. There would not have been federal cuts to culture spending. Quebec would have been able to go ahead and apply the Kyoto environmental accord which the federal Conservatives oppose.

The list went on, with Mr. Duceppe and Ms. Marois defending the idea of steering their focus onto sovereignty at this time, by saying if Canadians can sing the praises of unity any time they want, they can talk about sovereignty, too."

'nuff said... Pinkythecorgi (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope - those are the opinions of Philip Authier, the author of that piece. Reliable sources requires that references should quote independent parties, preferably experts in the field, for such things. The fact that a columnist for some newspaper makes a statement is irrelevant. However, if what he wrote is true, then it shouldn't be difficult to find references that satisfy the policy to which I linked (especially given the quotations provided, though they do remove all semblance of context). Mindmatrix 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Irrespective of that, the phrase "It is dedicated to pulling Quebec out of Canada" is not appropriate - find better wording. Mindmatrix 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources - "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed..."

Canwest is a mainstream news organization.

The reporter is repeating here what was said at a press conference and what is well known to be Bloc policy since its formation - that Quebec not remain part of Canada because it is a 'dead end' and a 'losing proposition'.

Can you suggest a satisfactory alternative wording to the "dedicated to pulling Quebec out of Canada" that I have suggested?

How can one consider the existing first sentence, if it continues to stand alone, to be NPOV as it allows a political subject to self-identify on terms it chooses to describe itself?

And, I can also cite a university comparative politics textbook that uses this exact phrase. R. Jackson et al. North American Politics: Canada, USA, and Mexico in Comparative Perspective (Toronto: Pearson, 2004.) p. 159 "in the 1993 federal election the Bloc won 54 seats and Lucien Bouchard - now leader of a group dedicated to pulling Quebec out of Canada - became the official Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons." Pinkythecorgi (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And, http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/580512

"Separatism is back at forefront, Duceppe tells party meeting

February 01, 2009

Karine Fortin

THE CANADIAN PRESS

ST-HYACINTHE, Que.–Separatism has returned to the top of the Bloc Québécois agenda after being on the back burner for a few years. "Our goal is as pertinent as ever," Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said yesterday at a party meeting in St-Hyacinthe, Que. "In 2008, Bloc and Parti Québécois victories brought hope to sovereignists. It's up to us now to translate this hope into action." Duceppe made the comments just before Bloc delegates gave him 94.8 per cent support in a confidence vote on his leadership. The score fell just short of the 95.4 per cent backing he got in October 2007. Duceppe has received near-unanimous support from the party he's led for the last 12 years, despite persistent rumours about his imminent retirement. In recent years, the Bloc has downplayed sovereignty and promoted itself more as the defender of Quebec's interests."Pinkythecorgi (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that none of the individuals who have reverted my addition has chosen to engage in a serious discussion of the issue being raised here beyond opining that my sentence - 'It is dedicated to pulling Quebec out of Canada' - is “not appropriate” or “it is an opinion” or “it is far less NPOV than the sovereignty wording in my view” or the existing text is “clear enough” or simply “stop it.” Even sourcing the sentence doesn’t seem to merit serious engagement. Nonetheless, "sovereignty" in the context of the debates around Canadian national unity is decidedly not a NPOV, it is a political slogan for one side just as "separatism" is for the other. Both intentionally play on the emotions - one emphasizes the constructive politics of the positive while the other negatively highlights the destructive political consequences. Employing "sovereignty" alone and unqualified to describe the principal goal of the Bloc Quebecois is decidedly not any more NPOV than using "separatist" alone and unqualified would be. My addition is meant to bring balance to the existing text and has the advantage as well of making it immediately clear to readers who are unfamiliar with Canadian politics how the Bloc Quebecois wishes to employ "sovereignty" in the real political world. Pinkythecorgi (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, we're not watching each page dilegently, responding to changes immediately. Some discussions on WP can drag on for weeks (or longer). Some people abandon conversations, others will get around to answering whenever they feel like it. For the record, I don't much care for this topic, and only interjected because I happened upon an edit I believed to be POV. I don't care what the result of this discussion is, but I do care that the result doesn't violate WP:NPOV or WP:RS.
To answer your points, please distinguish between a reference and an opinion. A columnist writing an editorial, or injecting opinions based on an interpretation of external comments, is not a NPOV source. Such sources indicate other people's opinions. In other words, look for third-party reportage. (You selective quoted WP:RS; here's a better quotation from that policy: Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources (bolding mine) ) You added "It is dedicated to pulling Quebec out of Canada", and then claim that "The reporter is repeating here what was said at a press conference"; this isn't true. Now, whether it's well-known Bloc policy is a different issue, but let me present it differently: the Bloc (and other parties) are engaging in political rhetoric to sway citizens to vote for them on emotional or populist issues, so that they can elect more MPs and increase their chances of influencing some policy choice at the federal level. "sovereignty" is a handy tool to achieve that. (BTW: not everyone in the Bloc is a hardline "separatist".)
My addition is meant to bring balance to the existing text - not the way you phrased it, though. You're more than welcome to distinguish between the use of the terms "sovereigntist" and "separatist" (or the words du jour that reflect this), which is what the media does.
Employing "sovereignty" alone and unqualified to describe the principal goal of the Bloc Quebecois is decidedly not any more NPOV than using "separatist" alone and unqualified would be. - I fully agree with this.
Finally, "pulling Quebec out of Canada" is semantically ludicrous for readers who are unfamiliar with Canadian politics (as you say) that don't understand you mean "separate politically". Be rigorous in your choice of terms, phrasing, and supporting evidence. Mindmatrix 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your observations. Let’s see if I followed. What about an introductory paragraph that seeks to balance the POV in this fashion: “The Bloc Québécois (BQ) is a federal political party in Canada that defines itself as devoted to both the protection of the province of Quebec's interests on a federal level as well as the promotion of its sovereignty.[1] The Bloc seeks the political separation of Quebec’s territory from the Canadian federation and wants the province to become an independent state. During Canada's federal elections, it campaigns only within Quebec.”? The existing version reads: "The Bloc Québécois (BQ) is a federal political party in Canada that defines itself as devoted to both the protection of Quebec's interests on a federal level as well as the promotion of its sovereignty.[1] As such, it campaigns only within the province during elections." Pinkythecorgi (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It's better, but not quite there yet. I don't recall ever reading that the Bloc wants an independent state - all English literature from the Bloc and media, that I've seen anyway, say nation. I may be wrong about this, and I know there was a piece about French/English use of the terms nation and state on The National at about the time Harper "recognized" Quebec as a distinct nation within Canada. (That, by the way, was another piece of political rhetoric bollocks, which happened to give the Conservatives a temporary bump in the polls.)
I notice that the word "sovereignty" links to Quebec sovereignty movement, which has a reasonable balance, and clearly notes the various views of sovereignty, even within the Bloc. You can also find information about the Bloc's position in its statutes; see this (PDF, French), and a similar (but not the same) document (PDF) in English. (The documents are interesting in that the Bloc expects full economic rights over taxes and planning for itself from the federal government, but only grants the aboriginal "nations" it recognizes "the right to take part in and benefit from the economic development of Québec". That's something that certainly belongs in this article. See page 10 of the EN document for more.) You should also take care to note distinctions regarding the expected results of this nationhood; is it like Wales/Scotland vis-a-vis the UK, is it more like Ireland, or is it like Georgia and Belarus were with respect to the USSR? (No need for comparisons in the text though.) Mindmatrix 00:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It just occurred to me - some in the Bloc advocate for a relationship with Canada similar to that that Sardinia has with Italy. They don't use the example, per se, but I think it's an apt comparison. Any scholarly mentions of this? Mindmatrix 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What about "The Bloc wants Quebec to separate politically from Canada and become an independent country."?? I could cite the two newspaper sources above. More work on the rest of article could be helpful to readers, I agree. But I am not an expert in Quebec politics, just a Wiki user who consulted this entry and felt the intro relied too much on what the party was saying about itself to its voters and too little in plain language about the Bloc's principal political objective. Pinkythecorgi (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The term country has the same issue as state. The BQ only refer to the word nation, which is an ambiguous term in both French and English. It's likely that the BQ uses the term intentionally, in part to avoid comparisons to the PQ. After reading over some of the material, my inclination is to simply mention that the party is referred to in a pejorative manner as "separatists" by some, and leave a full discussion to the sub-article. References for the BQ as separatists are readily available from major media, so this shouldn't be an issue. If need be, this article could include one or two paragraphs about the issue, but not in the intro. (By the way, the section "Relationship to Parti Québécois" already covers this.)Mindmatrix 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, the Bloc often refers to Quebec's future as a "country" For example, Daniel Turp, one of their more theoretical types says on his website that "Québec aspires to possess all the tools necessary for its economic, social and cultural development. And like for many other peoples before us, this desire to control our future is contingent on the creation of our own country, Québec." http://www.rocler.qc.ca/turp/eng/Road/Road.htm Pinkythecorgi (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
(out-denting for readability) The positions held by individuals shouldn't be used to support a claim about the party - that's cherry-picking (and could be considered synthesis). For example, just because some Liberals were against the same-sex marriage bill did not imply that the party was too (yes, it's a contrived example, I know). As I've noted, there are also moderate members of the BQ that have no interest in a separate state. However, we could include this in a section discussing party members, or in criticism about the party. Let's put the info in it's correct context, and let's differentiate between party positions and individual positions. Mindmatrix 14:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
“Ottawa and Quebec City are two equally important fronts in this goal of achieving sovereignty for Quebec and making Quebec a country,” he (Duceppe) said at a press conference, held not in Montreal or Quebec City but in the precincts of Parliament Hill.” http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2005.09-politics-gilles-duceppe/ As I noted above, the Bloc frequently talks about Quebec becoming a country. It isn’t hard to find quotes like this. And I don’t find it very constructive to accuse me of 'synthesis'or to suggest that I’m cherry-picking. Pinkythecorgi (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Newspapers are not a reliable source when better sources are available. They should be used for current events but the BQ has been around for almost twenty years. Books published by universities are available, and should be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I cited a university textbook in the discussion above in order to support my attempt to amend the existing introductory paragraph – a paragraph that at present confines itself to rebroadcasting how the Bloc chooses to self-identify in order to promote its partisan interests. It seems that there is no source good enough or phrase neutral enough to amend this entry in the interests of promoting a more NPOV. Pinkythecorgi (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


One calendar year after my last post here - a day on which Gilles Duceppe is quoted as saying of Canada that "this country is not my country." Careful readers of the discussion above will note that currently the introduction of this article self-identifies the Bloc according to its own point of view and my various sincere and reasonable attempts to bring a more realistic balance to the language that is used were systematically blocked by what I presume to be a small and completely unrepresentative set of individuals. Help!! Pinkythecorgi (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted the sentence "It is dedicated to creating the conditions necessary for the political secession of Quebec from Canada" in the first paragraph. This is substantially the same language employed in the first paragraph of the French Wiki for the BQ - "il s'est donné pour mission de mettre en place les conditions nécessaires à la réalisation de la sécession du Québec." http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois Pinkythecorgi (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph -- invert the 2 principles?[edit]

"...devoted to the protection of Quebec's interests in the House of Commons of Canada, and the promotion of Quebec sovereignty..."

Personally, I think it should read: "...devoted to the promotion of Quebec sovereignty, and the protection of Quebec's interests in the House of Commons of Canada..."

Pursuit of Quebec sovereignty is first and foremost in the party's platform. Lucien Bouchard made that clear in the early days of the Bloc's formation.

Thus, it should be mentioned as the first phrase, in that opening sentence.

--Atikokan (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Gilles Duceppe[edit]

What is Duceppe's status? Is he still president & leader of the BQ? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought he resigned on election night and I haven't found anything online that says anything different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vale of Glamorgan (talkcontribs) 16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Party leader versus party president versus parliamentary leader[edit]

Louis Plamondon is not now, nor has he ever been, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, interim or otherwise. In fact, it doesn't seem as though the party has a leader at present.

Gilles Duceppe was both leader and president of the BQ before the 2011 election (thank you, Internet Archive). Vivian Barbot was chosen as the party's interim president after Duceppe's resignation, and she is still interim president as of this writing (source: the party's website).

Plamondon was chosen as the BQ's interim parliamentary leader on 2 June 2011. This is a parliamentary, and not a party, position. It more-or-less corresponds to the former position of House Leader, which no longer formally exists for the BQ as they are no longer an official parliamentary group. This article, clarifying Plamondon's title, does not indicate that he was chosen as party leader. This article, published in 2010, indicates that BQ House Leader Pierre Paquette had the same official title (in French) that Plamondon holds now.

The BQ website does not indicate that the party has a leader, interim or otherwise, at present. The only logical conclusion is that the position is vacant. In the absence of a formal leader, Barbot is the senior party official.

A few published articles since the 2011 election have described Plamondon as the BQ leader. This is due to confusion over the titles. CJCurrie (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Date format[edit]

Hi. Is there a reason why British date formats (e.g. 11 June 1991) are used instead of standard North American English format (June 11, 1991) ? The latter is used for articles about Quebec, Canada, Montreal, Quebec City, PQ, etc. I think that we should use Canadian English by default as it is spoken by Quebec anglophones. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:STRONGNAT Canada may use either, and since the BQ prefer the French language, dmy is appropriate for the topic. 117Avenue (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, but I do not understand the relation between the date formatting in French and this article, which is in English. In Montreal, MDY format is used, for example this article from The Gazette. In my opinion, DMY looks just wrong, but perhaps this format is fine outside Quebec. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)