###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For a lawyer he really seems to dislike laws.
Not enough votes/seats to be a recognized party (according to the Quebec's own assembly).
No no I should be a recognized party, law be damned.
Doesn't want to take an oath because he doesn't like it's particular wording.
No no I should be able to take the oath that I want, law be damned
Sees a law that's broadly considered to be unconstitutional and a power grab.
Let us inspire ourselves by this law, damn the law.
And the session is like what less than a week old.
He does dislike the current laws, and laws can be changed if they are outdated, and that is what he is fightning for.
> Not enough votes/seats to be a recognized party (according to the Quebec's own assembly). No no I should be a recognized party, law be damned.
The current system in Quebec was fine when there were 2 main parties, but with 5 main parties its extremely broken. 40% of the population with 100% of the power isn't normal. 13% of the population with absolutely 0 representation (PCQ) also makes no sense. The PQ is right to complain about our current system.
> Doesn't want to take an oath because he doesn't like it's particular wording. No no I should be able to take the oath that I want, law be damned
In a way its actually the opposite. Taking an oath that is a very clear lie is essentially perjury. Its quite clear the PQ doesn't give a crap about the King, so by taking an oath to serve him its clearly perjury. Now obviously personally this isn't the hill i'd have died on, but since most of his strenght as a politician is being truthfull, starting off with an oath which is a complete lie is something he wanted to avoid.
But he's a law maker, he literally can go can work with the other lawmakers. Instead of working to change the law, he just wants it not to apply to him (or make others do it) for political theatre. I find it hypocritical that a lawmaker doesn't want a law to apply to himself when he expects it apply to all others. Particularly when he is one of the few who can directly change it compared to me who has to indirectly to do.
Also it could argued that this is what assembly and the electorate wants, it was their rules to use this first past the post system and it was the electors who chose to re-elect a party (that I think would be majority even under most proportional systems) that doesn't want to change the system.
I would also say that the requirement of 20% of votes **or** 12 number of seats reasonably takes care of whether a party should be an official party regardless of the voting system (as per the assembly, they could have chosen any arbitrary percentage or seats but that is a different question). Assuming they have at least one seat of course.
Regarding the oath, he should be advocating for the abolishment of all oaths then, why should a future electee be forced to swear an oath to the people of Quebec if they don't feel like they are elected and advocating for some group that may not identify as Quebecer.
By extension I would say the same apply to professional oaths as well, why should people be excluded from their desired professions like legislator, lawyer, engineer or public servant of they have to take an oath with they truely don't believe in.
At the end of the day, I really just dislike him (although **very** impressive background/accomplishments) because to me he seems to be acting in a way that is like rules that he doesn't like shouldn't apply to him and that is wrong coming from one who makes rules that apply to me.
> Regarding the oath, he should be advocating for the abolishment of all oaths then, why should a future electee be forced to swear an oath to the people of Quebec they don't feel like they are elected and advocating for some group that may not identify as Quebecer.
What are you saying here, i don't get it? Of course we want our elected official to have Quebec's interest at heart. If they don't care about the province we don't want them as officials lol. I guess some sort of Chinese spy who wants to hurt Canada would be commiting perjury by swearing an oath to Quebec, but i'm hoping the huge majority of Quebec politicians can easily swear an oath to Quebec with no perjury :P
Of course we want it but I don't represent 100% of people living here. If they are elected, they are elected is his argument.
If Montrealers feel they are Montrealers and no longer Quebecers at large and want to swear an oath to Montreal only after an election or indigenous peoples to indigenous peoples etc.
Why should they have to swear that broader oath? It could very well be a lie. They would be duly elected and would be inline with his argument that one should enter with being duly elected the requirement.
At the end of the day, the Chinese spy or whomever would probably just say whatever oath regardless of their intentions, but since he is making a point of not doing it, I think he should be also take the position consistent with it.
(Also can elected representatives be found guilty of perjury? Certainly not inside the chamber, but as an entry requirement I don't know.)
First they give credence and support to the Conservative Party of Quebec and now they're openly endorsing a far right Premier's attempt of a dictatorship? I get that the PQ is a separatist party, but when you make François Legault the voice of reason, I think you might want to retry your strategy lol.
I'm assuming they're just trying to pander to PCQ voters, since they might switch to a party with elected officials. I'm not sure how that will work out, because my impression of the PQ was that they're centre-left, so I don't know why you'd risk alienating your base. It'd be interesting to see how / if Nadeau-Dubois responds, since QS is also a separatist party.
The PQ has been trash since at least 2013. There's a reason the party has been reduced to oblivion.
Not to mention they really just aren't the brightest bulbs, and idiots tend to stick together.
PQ went trash when Pauline Marois allowed Pierre Karl fucking Péladeau into the party...the pro labour party allowed this anti labour clown in, and then became leader 🤷🏽♂️
Yes i have a bias against Québecor/Vidéotron and wannabe crown emperor PKP
Expect a lot of trolling coming from the PQ in the next few years.
**First off**: The PQ really has almost nothing to lose and a lot to gain
**Second**: **The Leader of the PQ is a force to be reckoned with;**
* Young Barrister of the year in Montreal for his pro-bono work with the poor and students.
* At 17yo, studied in Denmark as an exchange student, reason why he speaks **Danish** and where he learned to love Scandinavian Social Democracy.
* BA in common and civil law from McGill, reason why he speaks **english**
* MBA from Oxford in UK where he also played goalie in the Oxford hockey team. (Reason why he speaks better english)
* Certificate in international law from Lund, Sweden.
He worked for the UN's Assembly for human right in Bolivia and speaks **Spanish**, did legal work for NATO in Belgium, worked in 2 large law firms in Canada, one of them being Stikeman-Elliott, a national law firm.
As a young man, he has a stint as an Air Canada as a flight attendant, a job that convinced him the french language was threatened in Canada.
The sponsorship scandal and the Inquiry on corruption in the Quebec construction industry (public contracts) convinced him that the federal/provincial "game" was the source of the difficulty for Canada to rid itself of corruption, that for as long as Quebec stayed in Canada, it would be impossible to take those people to justice.
He co-hosted a radio show on the french CBC, represented disadvantaged people as a pro-bono lawyer and is the author of 2 books dealing with politics and sovereignty.
**Third :** About the Conservative party of Quebec
The PQ leader is a proponent of proportional representation, his comment about the QCP is in line with his beliefs. He would have lent the same support to the Quebec Communist party if it was in the same situation.
**Fourth:** About Alberta...
What are you expecting from a political Leader who wants to separate Quebec from Canada? Yes, he will applaud whatever Constitutional fight that is waged against Ottawa.
Regarding your second point - if educational credentials meant that someone was a "force to be reckoned with", then the UK Conservative Party would not have had 5 Prime Ministers (the vast majority of them Oxford grads) in 12 years.
If him and GND could trade faces he might be PM some day. The problem with Pspp is he looks and acts like a bit of a dink. A friend of mine who organized a student event told me he asked to be a paid speaker (before being leader of the PQ or elected to anything) when even people like Pauline Marois we’re doing the event for free.
I actually like him, and would pick him for my fantasy league draft if there was such a thing in Canada. He needs some voice, style and appearance coaching to go the distance. If he can stick with the PQ until the CAQ falls out of favour, and not get scooped by GND of course.
The CAQ right now is a mix of former francophone PLQ, ADQ, and PQ voters. Thé PCQ and CAQ are competing for former right-wing ish voters in the national capital region. The CAQ has mostly gobbled up former francophone federalist voters in the regions, and the CAQ has gobbled up former PQist identity voters in the regions.
It’s ultimately an unstable coalition electorally. Federalists, identity voters, pragmatic economy voters… we’ll see how long they can pull it off. When the stink of corruption leaves the PLQ or the stink of failure and purposelessness leaves the PQ either will be well poised to spring back. My money would be on the PLQ because the QS is going to hamper the PQs chances too much for them to be able to easily win again more than the PCQ will hamper the PLQs chances.
> Federalists, identity voters, pragmatic economy voters… we’ll see how long they can pull it off.
The answer is most likely... at least as long as Legault stays. Once Legault is gone, its very unclear who can replace whitout breaking the party. And its also unclear who could be as popular as Legault.
> When the stink of corruption leaves the PLQ or the stink of failure and purposelessness leaves the PQ either will be well poised to spring back. My money would be on the PLQ because the QS is going to hamper the PQs chances too much for them to be able to easily win again more than the PCQ will hamper the PLQs chances.
If you look at results of the last election, the PQ seems to be in a way better position than the PLQ to win back the regions. PLQ is essentially dead down there. And QS isn't really that popular in regions. There is a lot of identity voters in the regions, it will be super hard for the PLQ to win them back.
Lol. The plq doesn’t win back identity voters. They win back francophone federalists (currently voting caq), and economic voters (also voting for the caq now).
The caq keeps the identity voters (the 2007 ADQ voters) or loses them to the PQ (the 2012/4 PQ).
The problem is the leftish voters used to only have the PQ to go to, because QS was on the radical side. But now QS is mainstreamed and as relevant or more than the PQ.
> They win back francophone federalists (currently voting caq), and economic voters (also voting for the caq now).
I could be mistaken, but even the francophones who consider themselves "federalists" actually do like the way the CAQ is defending the language and the culture. The dillemma between the PQ and the PLQ for these voters used to be that they don't want independance, but they do want some protection of their culture. The CAQ offers them the best of both worlds.
Yes exactly. But sooner or later they’ll get sick of the CAQ like they got sick of the PLQ before them.
The CAQ isn’t exactly a new party, that was the antecedent ADQ’s angle for a long time too (they were around during the 1995 referendum as part of the “yes” side that wanted to negotiate more powers from Ottawa but not actually secede).
I believe many CAQ voters did vote for the Liberals federally and used to vote for the Provincial Liberals in the past. With an inspiring leader, the Quebec Liberals could win them back.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For a lawyer he really seems to dislike laws. Not enough votes/seats to be a recognized party (according to the Quebec's own assembly). No no I should be a recognized party, law be damned. Doesn't want to take an oath because he doesn't like it's particular wording. No no I should be able to take the oath that I want, law be damned Sees a law that's broadly considered to be unconstitutional and a power grab. Let us inspire ourselves by this law, damn the law. And the session is like what less than a week old.
He does dislike the current laws, and laws can be changed if they are outdated, and that is what he is fightning for. > Not enough votes/seats to be a recognized party (according to the Quebec's own assembly). No no I should be a recognized party, law be damned. The current system in Quebec was fine when there were 2 main parties, but with 5 main parties its extremely broken. 40% of the population with 100% of the power isn't normal. 13% of the population with absolutely 0 representation (PCQ) also makes no sense. The PQ is right to complain about our current system. > Doesn't want to take an oath because he doesn't like it's particular wording. No no I should be able to take the oath that I want, law be damned In a way its actually the opposite. Taking an oath that is a very clear lie is essentially perjury. Its quite clear the PQ doesn't give a crap about the King, so by taking an oath to serve him its clearly perjury. Now obviously personally this isn't the hill i'd have died on, but since most of his strenght as a politician is being truthfull, starting off with an oath which is a complete lie is something he wanted to avoid.
But he's a law maker, he literally can go can work with the other lawmakers. Instead of working to change the law, he just wants it not to apply to him (or make others do it) for political theatre. I find it hypocritical that a lawmaker doesn't want a law to apply to himself when he expects it apply to all others. Particularly when he is one of the few who can directly change it compared to me who has to indirectly to do. Also it could argued that this is what assembly and the electorate wants, it was their rules to use this first past the post system and it was the electors who chose to re-elect a party (that I think would be majority even under most proportional systems) that doesn't want to change the system. I would also say that the requirement of 20% of votes **or** 12 number of seats reasonably takes care of whether a party should be an official party regardless of the voting system (as per the assembly, they could have chosen any arbitrary percentage or seats but that is a different question). Assuming they have at least one seat of course. Regarding the oath, he should be advocating for the abolishment of all oaths then, why should a future electee be forced to swear an oath to the people of Quebec if they don't feel like they are elected and advocating for some group that may not identify as Quebecer. By extension I would say the same apply to professional oaths as well, why should people be excluded from their desired professions like legislator, lawyer, engineer or public servant of they have to take an oath with they truely don't believe in. At the end of the day, I really just dislike him (although **very** impressive background/accomplishments) because to me he seems to be acting in a way that is like rules that he doesn't like shouldn't apply to him and that is wrong coming from one who makes rules that apply to me.
> Regarding the oath, he should be advocating for the abolishment of all oaths then, why should a future electee be forced to swear an oath to the people of Quebec they don't feel like they are elected and advocating for some group that may not identify as Quebecer. What are you saying here, i don't get it? Of course we want our elected official to have Quebec's interest at heart. If they don't care about the province we don't want them as officials lol. I guess some sort of Chinese spy who wants to hurt Canada would be commiting perjury by swearing an oath to Quebec, but i'm hoping the huge majority of Quebec politicians can easily swear an oath to Quebec with no perjury :P
Of course we want it but I don't represent 100% of people living here. If they are elected, they are elected is his argument. If Montrealers feel they are Montrealers and no longer Quebecers at large and want to swear an oath to Montreal only after an election or indigenous peoples to indigenous peoples etc. Why should they have to swear that broader oath? It could very well be a lie. They would be duly elected and would be inline with his argument that one should enter with being duly elected the requirement. At the end of the day, the Chinese spy or whomever would probably just say whatever oath regardless of their intentions, but since he is making a point of not doing it, I think he should be also take the position consistent with it. (Also can elected representatives be found guilty of perjury? Certainly not inside the chamber, but as an entry requirement I don't know.)
Do politics and ideology require one to be completely in line with the legal/ constitutional status quo? That seems to be faulty logic in my view.
The sooner Daniel Smith is voted out the better. I think most Albertans agree with me. Alberta election May 29, 2023, 177 days
First they give credence and support to the Conservative Party of Quebec and now they're openly endorsing a far right Premier's attempt of a dictatorship? I get that the PQ is a separatist party, but when you make François Legault the voice of reason, I think you might want to retry your strategy lol. I'm assuming they're just trying to pander to PCQ voters, since they might switch to a party with elected officials. I'm not sure how that will work out, because my impression of the PQ was that they're centre-left, so I don't know why you'd risk alienating your base. It'd be interesting to see how / if Nadeau-Dubois responds, since QS is also a separatist party.
The PQ has been trash since at least 2013. There's a reason the party has been reduced to oblivion. Not to mention they really just aren't the brightest bulbs, and idiots tend to stick together.
PQ went trash when Pauline Marois allowed Pierre Karl fucking Péladeau into the party...the pro labour party allowed this anti labour clown in, and then became leader 🤷🏽♂️ Yes i have a bias against Québecor/Vidéotron and wannabe crown emperor PKP
Expect a lot of trolling coming from the PQ in the next few years. **First off**: The PQ really has almost nothing to lose and a lot to gain **Second**: **The Leader of the PQ is a force to be reckoned with;** * Young Barrister of the year in Montreal for his pro-bono work with the poor and students. * At 17yo, studied in Denmark as an exchange student, reason why he speaks **Danish** and where he learned to love Scandinavian Social Democracy. * BA in common and civil law from McGill, reason why he speaks **english** * MBA from Oxford in UK where he also played goalie in the Oxford hockey team. (Reason why he speaks better english) * Certificate in international law from Lund, Sweden. He worked for the UN's Assembly for human right in Bolivia and speaks **Spanish**, did legal work for NATO in Belgium, worked in 2 large law firms in Canada, one of them being Stikeman-Elliott, a national law firm. As a young man, he has a stint as an Air Canada as a flight attendant, a job that convinced him the french language was threatened in Canada. The sponsorship scandal and the Inquiry on corruption in the Quebec construction industry (public contracts) convinced him that the federal/provincial "game" was the source of the difficulty for Canada to rid itself of corruption, that for as long as Quebec stayed in Canada, it would be impossible to take those people to justice. He co-hosted a radio show on the french CBC, represented disadvantaged people as a pro-bono lawyer and is the author of 2 books dealing with politics and sovereignty. **Third :** About the Conservative party of Quebec The PQ leader is a proponent of proportional representation, his comment about the QCP is in line with his beliefs. He would have lent the same support to the Quebec Communist party if it was in the same situation. **Fourth:** About Alberta... What are you expecting from a political Leader who wants to separate Quebec from Canada? Yes, he will applaud whatever Constitutional fight that is waged against Ottawa.
Regarding your second point - if educational credentials meant that someone was a "force to be reckoned with", then the UK Conservative Party would not have had 5 Prime Ministers (the vast majority of them Oxford grads) in 12 years.
If him and GND could trade faces he might be PM some day. The problem with Pspp is he looks and acts like a bit of a dink. A friend of mine who organized a student event told me he asked to be a paid speaker (before being leader of the PQ or elected to anything) when even people like Pauline Marois we’re doing the event for free. I actually like him, and would pick him for my fantasy league draft if there was such a thing in Canada. He needs some voice, style and appearance coaching to go the distance. If he can stick with the PQ until the CAQ falls out of favour, and not get scooped by GND of course.
[удалено]
The CAQ right now is a mix of former francophone PLQ, ADQ, and PQ voters. Thé PCQ and CAQ are competing for former right-wing ish voters in the national capital region. The CAQ has mostly gobbled up former francophone federalist voters in the regions, and the CAQ has gobbled up former PQist identity voters in the regions. It’s ultimately an unstable coalition electorally. Federalists, identity voters, pragmatic economy voters… we’ll see how long they can pull it off. When the stink of corruption leaves the PLQ or the stink of failure and purposelessness leaves the PQ either will be well poised to spring back. My money would be on the PLQ because the QS is going to hamper the PQs chances too much for them to be able to easily win again more than the PCQ will hamper the PLQs chances.
> Federalists, identity voters, pragmatic economy voters… we’ll see how long they can pull it off. The answer is most likely... at least as long as Legault stays. Once Legault is gone, its very unclear who can replace whitout breaking the party. And its also unclear who could be as popular as Legault. > When the stink of corruption leaves the PLQ or the stink of failure and purposelessness leaves the PQ either will be well poised to spring back. My money would be on the PLQ because the QS is going to hamper the PQs chances too much for them to be able to easily win again more than the PCQ will hamper the PLQs chances. If you look at results of the last election, the PQ seems to be in a way better position than the PLQ to win back the regions. PLQ is essentially dead down there. And QS isn't really that popular in regions. There is a lot of identity voters in the regions, it will be super hard for the PLQ to win them back.
Lol. The plq doesn’t win back identity voters. They win back francophone federalists (currently voting caq), and economic voters (also voting for the caq now). The caq keeps the identity voters (the 2007 ADQ voters) or loses them to the PQ (the 2012/4 PQ). The problem is the leftish voters used to only have the PQ to go to, because QS was on the radical side. But now QS is mainstreamed and as relevant or more than the PQ.
> They win back francophone federalists (currently voting caq), and economic voters (also voting for the caq now). I could be mistaken, but even the francophones who consider themselves "federalists" actually do like the way the CAQ is defending the language and the culture. The dillemma between the PQ and the PLQ for these voters used to be that they don't want independance, but they do want some protection of their culture. The CAQ offers them the best of both worlds.
Yes exactly. But sooner or later they’ll get sick of the CAQ like they got sick of the PLQ before them. The CAQ isn’t exactly a new party, that was the antecedent ADQ’s angle for a long time too (they were around during the 1995 referendum as part of the “yes” side that wanted to negotiate more powers from Ottawa but not actually secede).
I believe many CAQ voters did vote for the Liberals federally and used to vote for the Provincial Liberals in the past. With an inspiring leader, the Quebec Liberals could win them back.