[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Sheilbh]

To what extent does the Federal leader matter in Quebec (or other provinces) v the local party/local leader?

[Jacob]

Do Canadian parties have "local leaders"?

[Oexmelin]

I am not sure what you are asking? It matters a great deal for federal election, since that person is going to be PM of Canada. Politics, in Canada, has followed similar trend elsewhere, and has become a lot more determined by a few national figures with media presence, while the role of MPs has declined considerably. So-called Quebec lieutenants can help or hinder, but they are rarely super strong figures. For Conservatives, with few ties to Quebec, they are important in relaying the message (or making it more acceptable). Harper had Michael Fortier; Poilievre has Gerard Deltell in Quebec, and the guy is at least media savvy. But none of them have clout that would allow them to exist independently from their leaders, esp. in an election year.

[Sheilbh]

Do Canadian parties have "local leaders"?

Provincial premier, leaders of parties in say Quebec's National Assembly?

I am not sure what you are asking? It matters a great deal for federal election, since that person is going to be PM of Canada. Politics, in Canada, has followed similar trend elsewhere, and has become a lot more determined by a few national figures with media presence, while the role of MPs has declined considerably. So-called Quebec lieutenants can help or hinder, but they are rarely super strong figures. For Conservatives, with few ties to Quebec, they are important in relaying the message (or making it more acceptable). Harper had Michael Fortier; Poilievre has Gerard Deltell in Quebec, and the guy is at least media savvy. But none of them have clout that would allow them to exist independently from their leaders, esp. in an election year.

That makes sense.

It's very rare here, but can happen. For example, Ruth Davidson who was leader of the Scottish Tories took them to become main opposition in the Scottish Parliament and is widely credited with taking the Tories from 1 MP (of about 55) in 2015 to 13 in 2017. It helped Theresa May but was very much read as a vote for Ruth Davidson, not May.

On the other hand Welsh Labour can do better than Wales nationally - in part because they're a bit of a pain for the national party and have always followed a "clear red water" strategy of locally positioning themselves to the left of Labour nationally.

Wondering if there's similar, or if, perhaps because the federal/provincial distinction is far better established, Canadians are perhaps a bit savvier in focusing on who is relevant in each election?

[Jacob]

The provincial parties are very much their own thing, even when they are formally the same party - which I think is only true for the NDP.

In BC, for example, I often come across folks saying "I'm not a natural NDP voter, but Eby's (the provincial premier) has been doing a good job and has my vote (and the alternatives are crap). I'd never vote for them federally. Singh's (the federal leader) is pretty useless."

So in my observation there doesn't to be a strong effect in that way. That said, our newly formed local BC Conservative Party is trying to cash in on the success of the Federal Conservative party and that does seem to be working somewhat... but I think in legal and branding terms they're their own entity (even if there's some strong sympathies and shared personnel one assumes).

[crazy canuck]

To what extent does the Federal leader matter in Quebec (or other provinces) v the local party/local leader?

We are a Federation. There is no such thing here.

To the extent it matters, Canadians traditionally vote in opposing provincial and federal governments.

[Barrister]

Chrétien's English was orders of magnitude better than the French of most Anglophones who opposed him, regardless of the specific context that ensured Liberal dominance during those years... I mean, was there any chance that Quebec would vote Reform or Alliance?

Conservative and NDP leaders who did well in Quebec had all good, or better than average French as a second language. The capacity to address, and be understood by, electors, goes a long way. If you can't do much more than mumble a string of incoherent words, you better have a strong Quebec lieutenant.

In any case, as long as the Quebec question dominated Canadian politics, it's hard to fault Quebec for picking and chosing politicians who, at least, said they cared about it. Again, was there any chance that Quebec would vote Reform?

I get irritated by the "parochial" comment because it's a frequent way to delegitimize certain politics in general, and Quebec politics specifically. It's a lazy (and insulting) way to explain away political difficulties by blaming "tribal thinking". In a federal regime where relations between a majority and a minority is an issue since 1840, it should be unsurprising that it matters in picking national leaders.
Albertan grievances were similarly "parochial" and the solution that Albertan conservatives picked was, unsurprisingly, to reshape the federal Conservative party into their own image -as much as possible. Would BB ever describe his own politics as parochial?

So a few different issues here...

1. Lets start with my politics.  I'm at least partially a result of geographic sorting.  Because I went to a couple of Reform Party meetings back in the 90s I came to Alberta.  I thought this is a pretty happening place (not principally because of its politics, but I'd be lying if it wasn't a tiny factor) and so after graduation I moved here.  But I believe that my politics have been pretty steady whether I lived in Manitoba, Alberta, or Yukon.

Remember I'm the guy who used to joke I'm the last thing from a party-first voter - after all I voted for Reform, PC, Libertarian, Alliance, Conservative, Wild Rose, Yukon Party, United Conservative...

(then I had to ruin it by voting Alberta NDP)

So I leave it to you if you think I'm parochial.  I won't be offended if you say yes.

2. Quebecers vote for people who can speak french.  Well sure!  That was a huge reason why Reform couldn't really win in Quebec.  As much as I loved the man, Preston Manning couldn't speak French.  Then came the Canadian Alliance - IIRC Stockwell Day's French wasn't very good either (and yes - comments from back then suggest it was extremely limited).  But note that once Harper came along with passable French the Conservatives did win seats in Quebec.  Not a ton, but some.

3. But look at what I suggested - that Quebec might be more inclined to vote for someone with a French name.  That's separate from speaking French.  And maybe I'm wrong - maybe that won't be a factor.  But we will see.

[Barrister]

To what extent does the Federal leader matter in Quebec (or other provinces) v the local party/local leader?

So lots of people have answered this, but I wanted to give another dimension.

If you go back 30-40 years, national parties and local parties were unified, or at least strongly aligned.  Federally you have the PCs, Liberals and NDP, and in each province you had the PCs, Liberals and NDP.

Quebec was a little bit different, as you had the right-of-centre Union Nationale which wasn't associated with any federal party, then later the separatist Parti Quebecois.

But that whole system has largely blown up.  A lot of it was on the right.  Federally the PCs disappeared, merging to become the Conservatives.  But you'll note there are no provincial Conservative parties.  In some provinces they remain as the PCs.  But you have the CAQ in Quebec, Saskatchewan Party in Saskatchewan, United Conservatives in Alberta, then the whole mess of the Conservatives / BC United in BC.

The provincial liberals have taken a serious beating almost everywhere.  The only province they hold power is Newfoundland (and oddball Yukon).

The NDP does maintain I believe a "unified" party - but because of the relative weakness of the federal party, provincial leaders and provincial parties have taken very different positions than the federal party - and have had success doing so.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah it is really interesting, thanks - would they campaign for each other in respective elections (as broadly associated parties) or have any relationship like CSU? Or practically - fully get there's province specifics - if you're a party activist/militant in, say, Toronto would you need to be in multiple parties (federal and provincial)?

[Barrister]

Yeah it is really interesting, thanks - would they campaign for each other in respective elections (as broadly associated parties) or have any relationship like CSU? Or practically - fully get there's province specifics - if you're a party activist/militant in, say, Toronto would you need to be in multiple parties (federal and provincial)?

Federal and provincial leaders might campaign for each other, but it would be highly situational and certainly not automatic.  For example in Alberta I doubt very much they'd get Alberta UCP Danielle Smith to campaign for Federal Conservatives.  In part of course because they don't need to in Alberta - but also because that might not play well in other parts of the country.

Yes - I can tell you I hold separate memberships in the UCP and the federal Conservatives (though I think my UCP membership has lapsed).

[Grey Fox]

Let's muddle the water a little.

We have 1 party, altho have different names, that are tied at the hip and where they use each others apparatus. The federal Bloc Québécois and the provincial Parti Québécois.

Altho, I don't think it is at all like the relationship Sheilbh was asking about.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah it is really interesting, thanks - would they campaign for each other in respective elections (as broadly associated parties) or have any relationship like CSU? Or practically - fully get there's province specifics - if you're a party activist/militant in, say, Toronto would you need to be in multiple parties (federal and provincial)?

The right leaning party in BC that has a chance of forming government would never campaign for either the liberals or conservatives, because the provincial party is a coalition of members of both federal parties

[Sheilbh]

Altho, I don't think it is at all like the relationship Sheilbh was asking about.

No that makes total sense

[Jacob]

The right leaning party in BC that has a chance of forming government would never campaign for either the liberals or conservatives, because the provincial party is a coalition of members of both federal parties

You think BCUP is a better positioned against the NDP than the BC Conservatives? Last I looked (which is a little while ago) the media narrative seemed to be that the BC Conservatives were eating BCUP's lunch.

[Barrister]

Wow.  This is just a fascinating story (to me at least):

When George Filipovic got a text from a friend on Wednesday saying the prime minister had announced funding for a new bridge in Dawson City, Yukon, he was utterly floored.

"I thought you know, maybe it was a vague statement, or something misinterpreted — but there was absolutely no misinterpretation," said Filipovic.

The West Dawson resident confirmed it by listening back to that day's Question Period in the House of Commons. There it was — the prime minister, responding to the opposition leader's questions about road infrastructure, saying what few if any Yukoners were expecting. 

"Through the National Trade Corridors Fund alone, we are building projects like a new bridge over the Yukon River in Dawson City," said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Turns out, Trudeau's passing comment may have been a bridge too far.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/trudeau-dawson-city-bridge-funding-confusion-1.7116479

So I've been to Dawson City, Yukon many many times.  I love that town.  The Yukon River is pretty massive, and there is no existing bridge at Dawson City.  As a result West Dawson is an interesting place.  It has a few dozen permanent residents - all who know they will be cut off from Dawson City for a month or two at either side of winter.  And, because the ice bridge can be kind of unstable due to how fast the water moves, nothing is for certain.  I remember going to Dawson City for court in winter, went for supper with the court party, and we all felt it necessary to go out and see a truck that had broken through the ice and was has sunk.

A permanent bridge would be amazing.  But - based on what exists in West Dawson would be completely cost-prohibitive.  At least at present.  I'm going to throw out something like $100 million.  I could easily be off, but it's something like that magnitude.  Could it lead to a bunch of future development at West Dawson?  Could it lead to the "Top of the world" highway becoming more properly developed?  Sure.  But it would very much be of the "build it and they will come" kind of philosophy.

So anyways - why the hell is Justin Trudeau announcing a new bridge in Dawson City?

Perhaps he got confused with upgrades to an existing, but aging, bridge in Teslin?  Maybe - but apparently there is a federal government website that lists building a bridge in Dawson City.  The Yukon Territorial Government (which is led by Liberals) has apparently been asking for this to be changed since last year however.

Anyways - funny story.  And of course one that does not portray Justin Trudeau in the best light.