Her website will be up soon: www.carolwall.ca

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

CLC Convention
Montreal
June 13 - 17

[ 01 July 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

****
Carol Wall challenges Georgetti for CLC president

TORONTO, May 6 /CNW Telbec/ - In what promises to be a defining moment for the labour movement, Carol Wall, a longtime union and social justice activist, is challenging Ken Georgetti to lead the three million-member Canadian Labour Congress.

For the first time in more than a decade, delegates to the CLC biennial convention to be held next month in Montreal will have a choice for president. Wall's leadership bid is seen as a major challenge to the status quo.

"We need to renew and reinvent the labour movement," said Wall, who is calling for the CLC to adopt an action plan grounded in the day to day concerns of its members. "Slogans and posters are not enough - and they're no substitute for action," said Wall. "We need to listen to our members and reach out to build coalitions with our community allies. Working together we have tremendous power."

Flanked by a diverse group of workers from different occupations and ethnic backgrounds, Wall launched her campaign with a call for a more inclusive and democratic labour movement. "We need to tap into the tremendous creativity and experience of our membership and activist base," she said. "We face many challenges but we have many of the answers. What we have lacked is leadership and support for moving forward our vision of grassroots involvement and strong, collective action."

After 17 years in the advertising department of the Toronto Star, Wall has spent the past ten years working full-time in the labour movement, including positions as a national representative for the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union and as that union's first director of human rights. In 2002 she was elected a vice president of the CLC representing workers of colour and most recently has worked as a national negotiator for the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Wall says her bid to lead the CLC has generated a great deal of excitement among union members. "As I speak with people across the country, there's a real thirst for a more active and vocal union leadership. We're the voice of working people and those without a voice. That's a huge responsibility but when we come together, we can make a real difference in workers' lives."

Over the coming month, Wall will be traveling across the country meeting with workers and convention delegates. She has also launched a new web site carolwall.ca to reach out to labour activists and tap their ideas and support.

Carol Wall challenges Georgetti for CLC president

Flanked by a diverse group of workers from different occupations and ethnic backgrounds, Wall launched her campaign with a call for a more inclusive and democratic labour movement. "We need to tap into the tremendous creativity and experience of our membership and activist base," she said. "We face many challenges but we have many of the answers. What we have lacked is leadership and support for moving forward our vision of grassroots involvement and strong, collective action."

I for one see the times ahead, as requiring vision, and setting up the envirnoment, for this process requires conducive inclinations. To support ideas, and creativity.

So this to me is a positive sign of progression and foresight in planning. I don't care if she is female or f a man ,a male. Such status quoes have to be removed from the picture. You move pass gender, color of skin, and all the other trappngs that become obstacles to this clear thinking and planning.

So this leaves you with, the "inability of progress," in the current CLC plan, has been and will be in the future, holding current leadership? If the platform is status quo, then forget it, becuase you have lost the essence of what is most important.

Innovation in ideas and creativity holds no flavour to whether your male female, black or white. It would be like, "seeing passed the obstacle" or a person, "standing in front of the window of vision."

Such dialogues are conducive to things,and in my time, I have encourage youth to use the brain in all its efforts, to bring forth good social constructs that would further nurture dynamical individuals for our futures.

In this case, such leadership standing on this point alone, capabiltiies in organizational structure allocation, to ensure continue dealings, with the corproate strategies that would replace humanitarian efforts to live in such conducive environments.

The medium of expression we use? That it be used in ways that respects the integrity and rights to further communicate these ideals of vision and creativity.

You see? This must be incorporated with expression and versatility in developement of this medium. So, this post is a example. I have expeirmented. Doe shtis answer and respect the rights of authors and their material not only in written material but of images as well.

Not that I respect less Robbie Dee post but comparison in the way it is displayed? The times are coming now, where you must be very versatile not only in our dealings with each other, but in how we see and further develope further extensions to our conversations.

No where have I meet this example I am telling you about now? If it is present in other parts of this medium, then this is a progression that we all must moved too. I can't see your faces, but I move past this limitation and obstacle to seeing further into your creative abilities.

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

My problems have been my literary structures. I am much more versatile to communications, by using the structures of this medium and exploring it's potential. Is this, "self evident"?

The mountain, as a image of archetectural implicaton of voting procedures, requires momentum. So you develope allegiances amongst the factions(speak good sense), and to the time, when the mountian top to becomes the choice of the delegate?

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

posted by forum observer
Not that I respect less Robbie Dee post but comparison in the way it is displayed? The times are coming now, where you must be very versatile not only in our dealings with each other, but in how we see and further develope further extensions to our conversations.

---

I'm just passing along the press release. I'm not involved in the Carol Wall campaign, and indeed I can't be since I'm not even living in Canada right now. I think a contested election at the CLC could be a good thing, though, if it encourages Canadian unionists to have an open and honest debate about making some changes in the direction that unions are going.

quote:

---

Mind you, it's at this level that charges of union lack of democracy tend to stick best, because you've got delegates, who probably were in turn picked by other delegates, who were picked by local union executives maybe. I'd be for OMOV in these sorts of things.
. . . Say, shouldn't we be calling it OPOV? Well, anyway, direct voting.

---

OMOV - One Member, One Vote. That's the preferred gender neutral way of describing it.

I think its a great idea. But how many Canadian unions use the system even for their own national officers? I figure at the CLC level its not so bad to have delegated conventions make these sort of decisions, since the CLC really operates as a federation of unions rather than a unitary organization. Although it does mean, unfortunately that this election will probably be decided by which affiliated organizations line up behind whom, rather than the real grassroots mobilizing that Carol Wall has made her mark in.

[ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Although it does mean, unfortunately that this election will probably be decided by which affiliated organizations line up behind whom, rather than the real grassroots mobilizing that Carol Wall has made her mark in.

---

CLC conventions are not the same as AFL-CIO conventions in that delegates are elected by local unions...so depending on the union concerned, the leadership of the various unions does not necessarily have that much control over the delegates.

So its indeed possible, though very difficult to "break" the slate.

I do recall being a delegate to a CLC convention some years ago and the "caucus" of my union was taking particular positions on certain issues on the floor which I opposed (and my local members opposed).

Because of the diffeent factions of unions that belong, and how ever many candidates, is vote, by majority. Let me see here. So your down to Two candidates. Until a majority sanctions? Or until a third party moves to align with one individual?

These moves are calculated by speakers turn then a vote?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I'm against Carol's bid for presidency. Anyone with her impressive credentials shouldn't be sidelined like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by forum observer:

Why would you think her being sidelined if placed in presidency?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Anyone with her impressive credentials shouldn't be sidelined like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

Because I think the CLC isn't a particularly relevant organization. Traditionally, it's where labour leaders go to sample retirement.

---

Wouldn't philosphical positions developed in ideology, be a good thing having a large audience?

You bring this back to your organizations? All the well knowing you have a effort and front, towards which these organizations could develope too?

In this sense, a vision is necessary, as much as an idea, that leads to ideals, and action orientated from such ideals?

By analogy, society has older folks, that have a lot of wisdom. Years of toil and mistakes, that we offer our children in guidance.

Although the generations of our youth might think these ole godgers not worth the spit of the fight, it is better sometimes, for that wisdom to guide the youth? Prepare for the future?

"Sideline," might seem like, "being put to pasture" but this is far from what society would want from their elders? This is not just a cultrual thing that we could see borrowed from this group, or that group. It is "very real" that such wisdom, be utilized.

[ 08 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Because I think the CLC isn't a particularly relevant organization. Traditionally, it's where labour leaders go to sample retirement.

---

Apparently Georgetti isn't too worried, though. He's already got votes of confidence from several leaders who would ordinarily be considered most likely to back a challenger:

quote:

---

Heavy-weight labour leaders such as Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove say they strongly support Georgetti.

They argue labour now exerts a political influence in ways that eluded his predecessors.

"We have a real presence on Parliament Hill that we haven't had for many years,'' said Hargrove.

"(For example), we've had several meetings with the governor of the Bank of Canada and been able to get input on the interest-rate policy that we've never experienced before because of his credibility.''

---

quote:

---

Although Wall was a CLC vice-president representing workers of colour and is now a negotiator for the Public Service Alliance of Canada, several labour leaders said they barely know her.

They said the 52-year-old Wall simply doesn't have the experience to lead the movement.

"I don't think a union the size of (ours) should be taking a gamble on a complete unknown to lead the entire labour movement,'' said Sid Ryan, Ontario president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:

Sort of a Senate, for trade unionists, then?

---

Not a bad anology, Swallow.

As far as vision and philosophy goes, the labour movement was far stronger when that came from the bottom and not from the top.

Wisdom from our elders is important on tactics. But it shouldn't set the strategy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

As far as vision and philosophy goes, the labour movement was far stronger when that came from the bottom and not from the top.

For example, the CLC might take a strategic idea from the grass roots, like reducing the number of unions in Canada. We would count on thier experience in tactics to arrive at that position.

---

I am starting to get confused. Not your fault.

If the votes are generated, where are they generated from? The point was made that the executive from one local decided to vote a certain way. This member and others, "voted contrary."

Would the constitutions not have to be clear here? Such almagamations would speak to this basis, the organization, it's people? It also speaks to all people. Negotiated processes, very much within context of a bargaining unit, serves all bargaining units.

So, inflation becomes a model for consideration, as well as, "people who work for corporations who profit?" So we look to this basis in all unions?

Canadian tax payers have footed the bill for the climate favorable to business profiting? Here is a example. The liberals in British Columbia would take credit for mining's favouable opinion of doing business British columbia. While the smoke screen is, "commodity prices."

So Liberal agendas coddle votes for survivor? Sit in corporate meetings of the miners? Who is going to get voted off next? The miners say it is the liberal who have made it profitable, and this is far from the case. Commodities orentate what the miners corporation will do and such profiteering, shoud squash labor?

The liberal agenda has basically come out strong and said that union labor is in the pocket of the NDP?

So we have a liberal misfit who constantly lies and plays shells games. What is the CLC strategy in Canada to handle such obvious miscarriages of injustices, pulled over societies eyes, over and over again?

Objectively, business with the help of the LIberal Government have made decent hard working peole look bad. Those same people who support business, by buying. If such organization is in the business sense going to gobbled up, then why should not there be such a coalition in the CLC, to move money into avenues that would support the infrastuctures of the towns business people who are struggleing to make it? Instead of supporting the conglomerates, diversity and directed spending no less then conglomerate holds, keeps prices and quality competitive?

A strong vision, would thus recognzie the money that working people need for the sustenance of life. Such a persoanlity would need to be seated to run. Can Georgetti do this?

[ 10 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

Long shot energizes labour vote

quote:

---

What Georgetti hasn't done is attract much public attention.

"We don't seem to have a voice anymore," Wall says. "There's this sense that you do things quietly in the backrooms.

"I understand the need for lobbying and diplomacy. But the membership doesn't know about these quiet meetings and I don't see much evidence that they're making life better for working people."

She decided to challenge Georgetti in March. She was delivering the closing speech at a York University conference on equity within the labour movement. She challenged the participants — women, aboriginal activists, young delegates, people of colour — to "be innovative, courageous, take charge, do whatever it takes to ensure that the leadership and staff of unions are representative of the members."

Midway through her appeal, it occurred to her that she had to do what she was talking about.

One of the main messages Wall intends to take to next month's convention in Montreal is that organized labour must reach outside its own ranks to help workers trapped in precarious, low-wage jobs with no benefits and no bargaining power.

"That's where we should be putting our focus," Wall says. "These people are the workforce of tomorrow and we need to figure out how to organize them. If we let the floor slide for them, it lowers the floor for all workers."

She acknowledges that the CLC has passed resolutions and published policy papers on the need to support women and immigrants in low-paying occupations. But it has done precious little to support community organizations such as TOFFE (Toronto Organizing for Fair Employment) that actually help these workers, she argues.

Wall refuses to concede that the race is unwinnable, but she does admit she is a long shot. The leaders of many powerful locals say they don't know her. The executive council has already endorsed a slate headed by Georgetti.

"But even if I lose, I've still won because there's a kind of energy, a re-engagement among the membership that I haven't seen in many years," she says.

"Regardless of what happens in June, this has been a healthy, invigorating debate and I hope it continues."

---

[ 23 May 2005: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
How many votes could Carol Wall realistically expect to get? Is there a certain threshhold (say, 30-40%) above which Ken Georgetti would likely to face pressure to resign sometime after the convention, even if he wins the vote?

---

Who cares (how many votes she gets)? (And my sense is that Georgetti will never have to resign as long as he wins.)

I met her here at the Convention for CUPE Ontario in Niagara Falls. Just knowing that there is someone like her willing to run so that we can actually have an election in the labour movement at the national level with a candidate who really knows what's what at the grassroots level is pretty inspiring for those of us who are getting a little more cynical and jaded each day. (Run-on sentence...sorry.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Call me crazy but I thought elections were about "winning." I suppose just having a contested election is a victory of sorts, but only if it leads to some kind of larger change. If you don't think you can beat Georgetti and you don't think he will resign, exactly what do you want from this election?

---

No you're not crazy. I'm just so disillusioned by what's been happening in the Canadian labour movement that it's a relief to see somebody
step up and run.

quote:

---

Heavy-weight labour leaders such as Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove say they strongly support Georgetti.
They argue labour now exerts a political influence in ways that eluded his predecessors.

"We have a real presence on Parliament Hill that we haven't had for many years,'' said Hargrove.

"(For example), we've had several meetings with the governor of the Bank of Canada and been able to get input on the interest-rate policy that we've never experienced before because of his credibility.'

---

Which is the most telling of comments.

This is corporate unionism at it's finest, and most blatant.

While the percentage of unionized workforce declines, Buzz Hargrove is in talking to the Bank of Canada about the interest rate.

quote:

---

The Canadian labour movement has a false sense of security about the state of unionization in Canada because in self-congratulation we compare our situation to that of the U.S. But our unionization rate or density is in decline, and this weakens the ability of union members to stand up for our rights and for the union movement to be anything but reactive to capitalist restructuring.

The overall union density in Canada has dropped, according to the Workplace Information Directorate, from 36 per cent in 1994 to just 30 per cent in 2003, and the decline is most pronounced in the private sector.

---

Unfortunately, Hargrove and Georgetti are so concerned with protecting the union bureaucracy they've lost sight of the fact the foundations are crumbling under them.

The sooner they're gone, the better.

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: maestro ]

quote:

---

A Contested Election for CLC President

by Dennis Watson

Democracy is a good thing. Holding elected officials accountable to the people they represent is a good thing. Having more than one candidate on the ballot is a good thing. Carol Wall has announced her candidacy against Ken Georgetti for the position of CLC President. Win ore lose, this too is a good thing. It has already made a difference as we will note by the recent addition to the CLC website about Wal-Mart.

It appears that there has been a movement growing to get rid of Ken Georgetti. For some it may be a personality thing. For others it appears to be a part of the internal ideological war between Business Unionism and Socialist Unionism. For others it's just a matter of having a New Vision on how to get the Business of the Union done.

Normally I don't support a change in leadership unless there is something "wrong" with the incumbent or the direction the incumbent is going. In this situation, I have nothing against Ken Georgetti at all. I see his past involvement in the Labour movement as speaking for itself and his current dedication as benefiting the Labour movement in this country greatly.

However, without destroying what he has done and built, I believe we can add on to it and do even better. That is why I am supporting Carol Wall for the position of CLC President even though I am an Anglophone from B.C. as is the incumbent.

---

code:

---

Carol Wall         643     37.0% 
Ken Georgetti     1084     62.3%
Spoiled             13      0.7%
Total:            1740    100.0%
Hassan Yussuf, Barb Byers, and Marie-Clarke Walker were all acclaimed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cmkl:
This just in from the CLC Convention floor:

code:

---

Carol Wall         643     37.0% 
Ken Georgetti     1084     62.3%
Spoiled             13      0.7%
Total:            1740    100.0%
Hassan Yussuf, Barb Byers, and Marie-Clarke Walker were all acclaimed.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil:
Thanks for posting this cmkl... This strikes me as a respectable showing for Wall and a wake-up call for Georgetti and those who endorsed him...

---

I am keen also to find out how Wednesday's delegate count compares to Thursday's vote tally.

I had heard there were 900 registered when the convention started.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cmkl:

I am keen also to find out how Wednesday's delegate count compares to Thursday's vote tally.

I had heard there were 900 registered when the convention started.

cmkl

---

cmkl -- thanks for the updates. That's a good question, huh?

It's well known that there was an attempt to rig the vote in favour of Jim Clancy last time around, and certainly, many of the same people behind that effort are still in the picture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:

That being said, 37% is way more than I thought Carol would get considering that the only union officially supporting her, to my knowledge, was CUPW, although PSAC, if they didn't endorse her, certainly helped her a lot.

---

quote:

---

Support for Georgetti is obviously a mile wide and an inch deep...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
the CLC isn't a particularly relevant organization. Traditionally, it's where labour leaders go to sample retirement.

---

Labour is at this tremendous crossroads. We're shifting to a service economy. Unionized jobs are vanishing. A central labour body should be taking the lead in organizing the unorganized, leading a co-ordinated movement to get this country's growing ranks of working poor organized and out of poverty.

They're not because the CLC is essentially hamstrung by a bunch of self-satisfied labour leaders who would rather defend their own turf then work together for the benefit of working people. The CLC can't do anything that might step on the toes of Buzz Hargrove, Leo Gerard, Sid Ryan, etc. etc.... so they consequently do nothing. The CLC has become a comfortable safe place to retire because the member unions (or rather the leadership of the member unions) wants it that way. They don't want an effective CLC because an effective CLC would undermine the power of their unions.

And, while Carol did ruffle some feathers (which is very good), it wouldn't have made much difference if she had won. She had no plans for systemic change with the Canadian Labour movement and would have had no mandate to do much different. I imagine we'd protest a little more and lobby a little less but, frankly, that's pretty fucking irrelevant. I've been to enough labour-sponsored protests to realize that politicians don't tremble at the sight of ten buses full of porkchoppers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burns:
True. But that's the damn shame of it.

Labour is at this tremendous crossroads. We're shifting to a service economy. Unionized jobs are vanishing. A central labour body should be taking the lead in organizing the unorganized, leading a co-ordinated movement to get this country's growing ranks of working poor organized and out of poverty.
*****
The debate happening now in the US over the AFL-CIO (see here) is the important debate. We need to have it in Canada.

---

Burns--I agree (although I probably wouldn't characterize the current leadership as harshly--probably because I don't know as much as you!)

quote:

---

I just returned from the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) Convention in Montreal, where I served as one of four delegates from my union local, CUPE 3903 (which consists of 2400 educational workers at York University).

The most newsworthy event of this convention was the election for President of the CLC. The election results quickly made the rounds over the Internet: the incumbent Ken Georgetti beat challenger Carol Wall with 1084 to 643 votes (62% to 37%). However, it was Wall and her supporters who were celebrating, while the winner appeared sullen and defeated. Why? Because the vote was stacked: the incumbent had the support of the virtually the whole labour establishment, which ensured his re-election.

In practice, this "support" meant the following: the CLC's 20-member Executive Committee selected Georgetti to head the slate of the establishment, which included Secretary-Treasurer Hassan Yussuff and Executive Vice-Presidents Barb Byers and Marie Clark Walker (all incumbents whose positions were not contested); the leaders of all the largest unions (with the notable exception of CUPW's Deborah Borque) encouraged/instructed their delegates to vote for the incumbent; the President of the CAW, Buzz Hargrove, went so far as to exclude Wall from addressing the CAW caucus, while personally welcoming Georgetti; the challenger was never permitted to address the convention (instead she shuttled to all the various evening caucuses and forums to have the chance to speak to delegates), while the incumbent presided over the whole convention.

Under these circumstances, all Georgetti had to do to win was breathe. While not technically an election victory, Carol Wall's 37% represents a crushing defeat for Georgetti. The word at convention following the election results was that Georgetti's days were numbered and that he would not serve out his full term in office.

---

quote:

---

Overall, this convention demonstrated not only the weakness of the labour establishment, but also the weakness of the opposition.

---

quote:

---

In the past, the CLC has focused almost entirely on lobbying governments rather than on mobilizing its members, and this essentially dead-end strategy continues to guide its activity.

---

quote:

---

strikes and other forms of mass direct action that fall outside labour law's narrow definition of a legal strike bring with them the risk of huge fines or other serious damage to union institutions. Officials generally try to preserve good bargaining relationships with employers, which militancy can hurt.

---

quote:

---

The current form of the labour movement (since the mid-1940s) establishes a whole layer of union officials whose interests differ from the majority of union members. While union members make a living from their places of work, and directly benefit from the collective agreements they manage to win, the top union officials make their living from the union itself, and do not experience attacks on workers in the same way as rank-and-file members.

---

quote:

---

The second forum was called "Resisting War, Occupation and Imperialism." It featured speakers on Iraq, Haiti, Palestine, and Canadian complicity with militarism. It focused largely on making the links between these various struggles and the labour movement.

---

[ 23 June 2005: Message edited by: Burns ]

While Carol Wall's bid for the presidency of the CLC was important news, the other matter that was of outstanding interest is that for the first time in history, to the best of my knowledge, a party leader other than the NDP leader was invited to address the convention. I mean Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois.

Ken Georgetti, the incumbent [and outgoing] President of the CLC introduced Duceppe by pointing out that "we have to face the fact that there are now two social democratic parties in parliament" and that "there is another ally for labour in parliament". Duceppe's main message was, obviously, that an independent Quebec will protect the rights of working people. He expressed his support for EI reforms, anti-scab legislation, pension security, etc. Duceppe pointedly criticized the Parliamentary NDP and said that the budget concessions wrung from the Liberals meant very little to Quebec, which already has a child care program. Of course, one would expect any party leader to distinguish his/her party even among friends.

OK, that's my first point. I'm curious why any NDPer would think that their party should run candidates in a province where the central labour body of Canada recognizes a friend in the Bloc. Curious. Does the NDP run perfunctory candidates in Quebec? Is the point here simply to suck up to federalist voters in english Canada? It seems to me that the weakness of the NDP on the national question dooms the party to political limbo in Quebec. But what the hell do I know? I'm just a yahoo from the prairies.

[ 06 July 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I'm curious why any NDPer would think that their party should run candidates in a province where the central labour body of Canada recognizes a friend in the Bloc.

---

Certainly, among the responses to Buzz Hargrove's proposals last year, we saw more references to how this would threaten our claims to being a 'national party', and how it would affect our base in Western Canada, than claims that such a proposal would either 'weaken the Left' or in some way work against our social democratic principles. Indeed, some responses left me quite depressed, realizing that some New Democrats do put the interests of the party *ahead* of the broader interests of progressive Canadians (and Quebeckers). Of course, not everyone outside of Quebec felt that way.

That being said, I've worked fairly closely with several candidates, volunteers, and party workers in Quebec, and suffice it to say that we interpret the situation differently.

Rather, most party people I speak to (in Quebec) are genuinely interested in running New Democratic candidates in Quebec for two main reasons. First of all, there were those who argued that the BQ wasn't really a left-wing party, which in many ways is true. They enjoy some labour support, but their raison d’etre isn’t to be a labour party or to work with social movements. I know that sovereignty isn’t incompatible with these, but there was the feeling that when the chips come down, the Bloc prioritizes certain things over others. Witness on globalization, trade and security. Similarly were those who saw aspects of intolerance in their approach to the national question. Of course this included some angry-phones, but it also included people who were genuinely upset over Bloc allegations, like that "Pierre Ducasse is not a real Quebecker", etc.

The second category consisted of those who wanted to offer Quebeckers a way out of the constitutional impasse. These people were motivated by the feeling that despite some of the Bloc’s strong points, and some of their positive achievements, that they had led the Quebec Left into a stalemate. Let's face it, the Left has been investing in the Bloc for a while, and what has that got us? Better to invest in a Left political party that can at least mount a credible effort at acheiving government. This latter is assuming of course that the NDP would be willing to change in a way that accomodated their views.