It is a misguided debate which will open the work of the National Assembly in a few weeks. The Liberal Party of Quebec, strong in its official opposition status, would like to prevent the Parti Québécois and, above all, Québec solidaire from having the rights and privileges reserved for so-called recognized parties.
Posted at 6:00 a.m.
This is a very misinterpretation of both the law and the rules and tradition of parliamentary assemblies in Quebec and in Canada.
From the outset, it must be remembered that the norm that we talk about so often these days of 12 deputies or 20% of the vote to be a recognized parliamentary group does not have the force of law, but comes from the regulations of the National Assembly. A regulation that can always be adapted to circumstances and to which exceptions have often been made.
The history of this standard is interesting. For 100 years, there were no real small parties in the National Assembly. The blues and the reds exchanged power there and we only had to manage the speaking time of the few rare independent deputies.
This all changed after the 1970 elections when the Parti Québécois and the Ralliement des Créditistes emerged. But newly elected Premier Robert Bourassa did not break his head. He took the election results to recognize the new parties.
The Creditistes had 12 deputies and 11% of the vote: it became the rule of 12 seats. The PQ had 23% of the votes, but only seven deputies: it became the 20% rule. A rule which was a novelty of British parliamentarism which traditionally only took account of MPs.
We see right away that the standard is not enacted to reduce the rights of members to speak, but to ensure that the greatest number can express themselves and participate fully in parliamentary proceedings. The intention is very clear and it has become one of the fine traditions of the National Assembly.
Moreover, the National Assembly has been very tolerant over the years. Even when it came to deputies she could have considered as independents.
For example, after the 1989 elections, the Equality Party—resulting from a revolt by part of the English-speaking electorate of the PLQ—had obtained less than 4% of the vote, but four deputies. It will have been recognized as a “political formation” rather than as a party. But with all the attributes of recognized parties, namely: research budget, access to parliamentary committees and question period.
Trying, today, to use the regulations to limit the speaking rights of two parties that won fewer seats but more votes than the PLQ is not only a petty political game, it is an attempt to pervert the traditions of openness to the widest possible debate, which are those of our National Assembly.
Moreover, it might be time to question this standard of 12 deputies and 20% of the votes, which does not have to be engraved in stone.
It can be noted that the Quebec standard of 12 members to be a recognized party is the strictest of all the provinces of Canada. In Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, it’s two. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it’s three, in Alberta, four. Even in Ontario, which has a larger population than Quebec, it’s only eight.
For the record, in Ottawa, the norm is also 12 members, without reference to the percentage of votes received, this dates from 1963 in a law aimed not at recognizing parties, but at giving additional remuneration to the leaders of the parties of the opposition…
In Quebec, with the proliferation of opposition parties, the 20% standard may no longer have the same relevance. Currently, we see three parties around the 15% mark, and even four if we count the Conservatives who failed to elect a deputy.
Moreover, the least we could do, under the circumstances, would be to give the Conservative Party access, if not to the Parliament building, at least to that of the Press Gallery on the other side of the street!
The Oath to the King
Many comments on my last column. But I persist: to use it as a pretext for not occupying one’s seat as a deputy is to choose a purely symbolic spectacle rather than concrete action.
If we want to abolish the oath, a simple law is required. Law that the leader of the PQ will be able to present… as soon as he becomes a deputy.
The Lévesque, Parizeau, Laurin and 15 cohorts of PQ MPs elected since 1970 have all taken this oath. Because they considered it for what it is: a mere formality.
And if this formality has become intolerable to you, logically, refrain from traveling abroad, since your passport is issued… in the name of Her Majesty.