Charest and Harper

[jdobbin]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03...5082426-cp.html

When Jean Charest arrives in Ottawa next week for a festive reunion with old friends, he will surely receive back-slapping congratulations on his remarkable political comeback.

But amid the cheerful chatter and clinking glasses in the French bistro near Parliament Hill, Conservative chums in the Ottawa crowd might want to ask the Quebec premier for advice about making minority government work.

There are stark contrasts between Charest's minority government in Quebec City and Stephen Harper's in Ottawa. It might come down to the difference between the olive-branch and the wedge. The atmosphere in Quebec is collaborative; few would describe the environment in Ottawa as anything but toxic.

There seems no doubt that Charest has overcome his earlier difficulties and could be the first political leader since Duplessis to win a third term.

The article speaks of the contrast to the minority government in Ottawa.

I've been impressed at how Charest has managed in the last several months. The ADQ seem stalled, the PQ are left fuming and Charest has stuck to his knitting under trying times.

Harper might learn a thing or two from Charest. But then again, there seem too many on the federal level who seem to want to engage in battle.

[maldon_road]

Popularity can be transitory. Who knows where Charest will be in the polls in six months? As for Harper - he's facing a leader (Dion) who's a joke, another (Duceppe) who's in free fall and Layton who's Mr Mediocrity. Sure he can't get to the magic 40% for a majority government but nobody in the Opposition wants to bring him down either.

[Keepitsimple]

Charest is largely reaping the benefit of having a Federal Government that has practiced Open Federalism instead of the paternalistic style that the Liberals employed - a style that continually drove Quebecers nuts and gave ammunition to the Bloc. Having said that, Charest has used this advantage mavellously so far. Harper and Charest are in debt to each other.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

Popularity can be transitory. Who knows where Charest will be in the polls in six months? As for Harper - he's facing a leader (Dion) who's a joke, another (Duceppe) who's in free fall and Layton who's Mr Mediocrity. Sure he can't get to the magic 40% for a majority government but nobody in the Opposition wants to bring him down either.

Which reinforces what the article is trying to say which is that Ottawa is bogged down with no foreseeable changes based on the style of governing. There is nothing transitory about Harper's popularity. It is the same as it was in the election. Charest meanwhile might be able to get elected with a majority.

[jdobbin]

Charest is largely reaping the benefit of having a Federal Government that has practiced Open Federalism instead of the paternalistic style that the Liberals employed - a style that continually drove Quebecers nuts and gave ammunition to the Bloc. Having said that, Charest has used this advantage mavellously so far. Harper and Charest are in debt to each other.

I don't know how Harper's style of governing changes how Charest governs provincially. Charest has benefited from more federal spending to be certain but aside from recognition as "nation", what sort of open federalism has been demonstrated in Quebec?

The Conservatives have alienated many in Charest's party by openly supporting the ADQ instead of the Liberals. We'll see how much Harper really does need Charest by whether he cuts ties to ADQ. This could become a major irritant.

Edited May 11, 2008 by jdobbin

[Keepitsimple]

I don't know how Harper's style of governing changes how Charest governs provincially. Charest has benefited from more federal spending to be certain but aside from recognition as "nation", what sort of open federalism has been demonstrated in Quebec?

The Conservatives have alienated many in Charest's party by openly supporting the ADQ instead of the Liberals. We'll see how much Harper really does need Charest by whether he cuts ties to ADQ. This could become a major irritant.

There's still some rough edge but because of Harper and his approach to Quebec (i.e. - not heavy-handed, provincial intrusive paternalism as practiced by the Liberals), it's actually OK to speak about being part of the Canadian Federation. This means that Charest can concentrate on actual issues instead of fighting the decades-old Federal-Provincial battles. The PQ and Bloc have very little left to whine about. The Feds are no longer the enemy.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

There's still some rough edge but because of Harper and his approach to Quebec (i.e. - not heavy-handed, provincial intrusive paternalism as practiced by the Liberals), it's actually OK to speak about being part of the Canadian Federation. This means that Charest can concentrate on actual issues instead of fighting the decades-old Federal-Provincial battles. The PQ and Bloc have very little left to whine about. The Feds are no longer the enemy.

I'd like some examples of this approach. Aside from the extra money of checkbook federalism and the "nation" recognition, I don't see anything different.

I think it helps that there is a Liberal rather a PQ government in Quebec. We'll see if there is open federalism if Harper tries to push Senate reform against Quebec's wishes.

[August1991]

There seems no doubt that Charest has overcome his earlier difficulties and could be the first political leader since Duplessis to win a third term.

The story is not Charest's success. It's Mario Dumont's lack of success. The old adage is that oppositions don't win, governments defeat themselves. Here's an instance where the opposition has apparently done itself in. (I suspect rather that Dumont knows that he and his party are not ready for power. Charest has already said that his minority government will likely last for four years.)

And as Stephen Harper has often said, the federal government should not look askance at a federalist government in Quebec City.

The big loser in this and one to watch? Phillippe Couillard. He's the Gordon Brown to Tony Blair, and teh Paul Martin to Jean Chrétien. He'd also be a formidable Quebec PM.

Edited May 12, 2008 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

I'd like some examples of this approach. Aside from the extra money of checkbook federalism and the "nation" recognition, I don't see anything different.

I think it helps that there is a Liberal rather a PQ government in Quebec. We'll see if there is open federalism if Harper tries to push Senate reform against Quebec's wishes.

It's more of an attitudinal change.....symbolism is very important to Quebecers. Here's a timely article from Chantal Hebert in today's Star that explains it better than I can.

Harper eases life for Quebec federalists

TheStar.com - Canada - Harper eases life for Quebec federalists

May 12, 2008

Chantal Hébert

OTTAWA — For 10 years, Jean Chrétien tried to exorcise Quebec sovereignty with Canadian symbols. Under his Liberal regime, the federal government plastered the province with the Maple Leaf. But the premise that Ottawa could win a flag war in Quebec was always a dubious one.

Long before the propaganda exercise foundered on the shoals of the sponsorship scandal, it had insulted the intelligence of a good many Quebecers. Not all of them were sovereignists; some were in the federal cabinet. The Liberals ended up falling on their post-referendum sword.

Stephen Harper has taken a different tack, aggressively changing the rules of engagement in the Quebec-Canada debate. In lieu of the flag wars of the recent past, the Prime Minister has systematically undertaken to appropriate Quebec's nationalist symbols and claim them as Canada's own.

Harper's boldest move came 18 months ago, when he hijacked the Quebec nation debate from an unsuspecting Bloc Québécois and had Parliament endorse a resolution on the issue.

That neutralized the most potent rhetorical weapon in the sovereignist arsenal – the argument that the rest of Canada was determined to negate Quebec's distinct identity. Harper has been pushing the envelope ever since.

He was at it again last week, shocking the Bloc by arguing that Quebec City's 400th anniversary was really an occasion to celebrate the birth of Canada.

In hindsight, the Bloc should not have been surprised.

Link to Complete Article: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/424388

[Michael Bluth]

It's more of an attitudinal change.....symbolism is very important to Quebecers. Here's a timely article from Chantal Hebert in today's Star that explains it better than I can.

Good point. The attitude is key. That's what is helping keep Charest in office. But, if some people feel blind to give Harper credit for his good work nothing can really be done.

[jdobbin]

It's more of an attitudinal change.....symbolism is very important to Quebecers. Here's a timely article from Chantal Hebert in today's Star that explains it better than I can.

As I said, I think the benefit of having a Liberal government in Quebec speaks for itself. By every indication, Quebecers have wearied of the constitutional battles. I think we saw a similar thing in 1985 when Bourassa came to power. It remains to be seen whether Quebec will be allowed the status quo on transfers, representation in the Senate and a host of other issues that are likely to try that federal/provincial relationship.

Everyone is taking a breather right now as it was in 1985.

I have no problem saying that Chretien mishandled the referendum and much of the aftermath. Still, it was important to put in place the Clarity Act and to defeat the intellectual argument on separation in a series of letters as Dion did against Bouchard. I don't know that Harper would have been able to paper over the raw feelings following Meech and Charlottetown any better.

Charest could have easily muffed his minority government. He has shown a penchant for falling short before. Harper had nothing to do with Charest's management changes following the last election. It was strictly sink or swim in terms of consistent performance.

It will be interesting to see if the Harper Tories will continue to support the ADQ and alienate the Charest government. It seems counterintuitive.

[August1991]

Good point. The attitude is key. That's what is helping keep Charest in office. But, if some people feel blind to give Harper credit for his good work nothing can really be done.

Harper knows that the secret to electoral success in federal Canada is to visibly win seats in Quebec. This then opens up seats in English Canada (particularly Ontario) where voters will choose the party of "national unity".

Harper's position in Quebec hasn't registered yet with voters in Ontario but once a campaign starts, it will.

As I said, I think the benefit of having a Liberal government in Quebec speaks for itself.

It's not a Liberal government, it's a federalist government. And BTW, the official opposition is the ADQ which also does not prone an independent Quebec.

It will be interesting to see if the Harper Tories will continue to support the ADQ and alienate the Charest government. It seems counterintuitive.

Harper has adeptly done neither since he has maintained good relations with both Charest and Dumont. He has only alienated the PQ and somehow snookered Duceppe at every turn without insulting him personally.

Harper's handling of Quebec has been nothing short of magistral. He understands this country extremely well. He's a great Canadian.

Edited May 12, 2008 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

As I said, I think the benefit of having a Liberal government in Quebec speaks for itself. By every indication, Quebecers have wearied of the constitutional battles. I think we saw a similar thing in 1985 when Bourassa came to power. It remains to be seen whether Quebec will be allowed the status quo on transfers, representation in the Senate and a host of other issues that are likely to try that federal/provincial relationship.

Everyone is taking a breather right now as it was in 1985.

I have no problem saying that Chretien mishandled the referendum and much of the aftermath. Still, it was important to put in place the Clarity Act and to defeat the intellectual argument on separation in a series of letters as Dion did against Bouchard. I don't know that Harper would have been able to paper over the raw feelings following Meech and Charlottetown any better.

Charest could have easily muffed his minority government. He has shown a penchant for falling short before. Harper had nothing to do with Charest's management changes following the last election. It was strictly sink or swim in terms of consistent performance.

It will be interesting to see if the Harper Tories will continue to support the ADQ and alienate the Charest government. It seems counterintuitive.

No doubt, there are always many obstacles when it comes to Quebec......I should point out that Harper was the one who put forward the Quebec Contingency Act in 1996 - the fore-runner of the Clarity Act - but it never got past first reading because of the Liberal majority at the time. It took another 3 years before Dion and Chretien finally decided to deal with the issue.

[jdobbin]

No doubt, there are always many obstacles when it comes to Quebec......I should point out that Harper was the one who put forward the Quebec Contingency Act in 1996 - the fore-runner of the Clarity Act - but it never got past first reading because of the Liberal majority at the time. It took another 3 years before Dion and Chretien finally decided to deal with the issue.

And if Harper had gotten his act through, he may have been the one who carried the bag in Quebec.

Edited May 12, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

It's not a Liberal government, it's a federalist government. And BTW, the official opposition is the ADQ which also does not prone an independent Quebec.

I never said it wasn't a federalist government.

I have no idea what the ADQ believes in and I'm not sure they do either.

Harper has adeptly done neither since he has maintained good relations with both Charest and Dumont. He has only alienated the PQ and somehow snookered Duceppe at every turn without insulting him personally.

Many of Harper's people openly campaigned for Dumont's. You don't think that alienated many in the Liberal party of Quebec?

Harper's handling of Quebec has been nothing short of magistral. He understands this country extremely well. He's a great Canadian.

I think I heard the same thing of Mulroney in 1985.

[jdobbin]

More indications that the Liberals in Quebec have some breathing room.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...13?hub=Politics

Mario Dumont's hopes of success for his Action democratique du Quebec in three byelections were obliterated Monday as his candidates were all crushed and the party lost massive support from last year's general election.

The Parti Quebecois held onto two Montreal strongholds, while the governing Liberals kept a riding in western Quebec.

PQ candidate Nicole Leger romped to victory in Pointe-aux-Trembles with about 55 per cent of the vote, while former Bloc Quebecois MP Maka Kotto won Bourget for the sovereigntist party with about 40 per cent.

Liberal Maryse Gaudreault emerged victorious in Hull, a longtime Grit riding, with more than 45 per cent of the popular vote.

The byelection results give the Liberals 48 members in the 125-seat legislature, the ADQ 41 and the PQ 36.