Harper: un bilan qui se défend

[August1991]

For those who can manage a bit of French, I will post this here so that you get a flavour of how Quebec views Harper.

Claude Picher is a very reputable business columnist who writes for Montreal's La Presse. He's a no nonsense kind of guy with a mild sense of humour and no observable political axe-to-grind. At most, he writes for a Montreal audience.

Here's what he says about Harper's government:

On ne peut certainement pas reprocher au gouvernement minoritaire de Stephen Harper d'être demeuré inactif dans les dossiers économiques et financiers pendant son mandat de deux ans et demi.

Le point le plus positif de son bilan, je trouve, est le règlement du déséquilibre fiscal, affaire qui a empoisonné les relations fédérales-provinciales pendant une décennie. À partir de 1997, moment où le ministre des Finances Paul Martin a réussi à éliminer le déficit qui rongeait les finances publiques, Ottawa s'est mis à accumuler d'énormes surplus. Pendant ce temps, les provinces devaient faire face à une explosion des dépenses de santé tout en subissant d'importantes compressions dans les transferts fédéraux.

Résultat: Ottawa nageait littéralement dans l'argent pendant que les provinces (sauf l'Alberta) renouaient avec le cercle vicieux des déficits ou de l'endettement, ou, dans les meilleurs des cas, parvenaient de peine et de misère à maintenir l'équilibre financier, au prix de mille contorsions. À l'époque, Benard Landry avait trouvé une excellente formule pour décrire cette situation malsaine: les besoins sont dans les provinces, l'argent est à Ottawa!

Pourtant, à Ottawa, le gouvernement libéral de Jean Chrétien a toujours nié l'existence du déséquilibre, même quand celui-ci est devenu évident. Chose intéressante, ce n'est pas le ministre des Finances de l'époque, Paul Martin, qui a été chargé de monter au front pour défendre la position fédérale, mais le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales, nul autre que Stéphane Dion. Quand M. Martin est devenu premier ministre à son tour, il a continué à nier l'existence du déséquilibre.

Dans ce dossier, il est clair que l'élection de M. Harper a constitué un déblocage majeur. Dans le premier budget du nouveau gouvernement, déposé seulement quatre mois après les élections, le ministre des Finances Jim Flaherty est on ne peut plus limpide: "Le gouvernement s'engage, écrit-il, à prendre des mesures immédiates pour rétablir l'équilibre fiscal au Canada."

Il tiendra parole. Depuis 2006, les transferts aux provinces sont passés de 37,5 à 44,9 milliards de dollars, une augmentation qui frise les 20%. Même en tenant compte de l'inflation, les transferts ont maintenant rejoint et même dépassé leur niveau d'avant les compressions. Pour une province comme le Québec, cela fait une nette différence. En 2006, les transferts fédéraux au Québec représentaient 9,2 milliards, ou 17% de l'ensemble des revenus du gouvernement québécois. En 2008, les transferts ont bondi à 12,2 milliards, ou 20% des revenus.

Le gouvernement Harper a également respecté intégralement une autre promesse électorale, celle de baisser la TPS d'un point de pourcentage après les élections et d'un autre point avant la fin d'un premier mandat. Le taux de la taxe est effectivement passé de 7 à 6% le 1er juillet 2006, et de 6 à 5% le ler janvier dernier.

La Presse

In Quebec, Harper has captured the right thinking francophone Montrealers and he's also captured the ordinary Quebecers outside Montreal.

Jacques Brassard:

« Prenons Kyoto, je trouve que ce n’est pas un texte sacré que l’on doit vénérer d’aucune façon. Même chose pour le registre des armes à feu. Je ne suis pas du même avis, mais alors pas du tout que le Bloc. Sur la présence de soldats en Afghanistan aussi ou encore sur nos relations avec les États-Unis. Bref, j’ai peu de choses en commun. Il y avait la souveraineté, mais elle est plus ou moins dans le placard », a affirmé M. Brassard.

Le Soleil

Brassard said this in the full knowledge that Harper is PM and seeking voters in Quebec now.

I have posted about this before and about how the BQ doesn't "get" Quebec, how it has become a parti du plateau. (The plateau is a left wing, granola neighbourhood in Montreal.)

While Quebec has a political vacuum, what is astonishing is how Stephen Harper has apparently filled it. A man with the unlikely name of Stephen Harper has become a personnage in Quebec. Quebecers don't entirely know Harper but they are willing to trust him.

If Harper is smart, he will not betray that trust and in the process, he will learn far more about life than any senior political position can ever offer.

Canada has never had a WASP PM who can speak French. Harper's the first.

Edited September 12, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Canada has never had a WASP PM who can speak French. Harper's the first.

You always say this but it isn't true. Lester B. Pearson was a Protestant and while you might not like his French, he did speak it and used it in the House and in communication overseas.

[Moonbox]

You always say this but it isn't true. Lester B. Pearson was a Protestant and while you might not like his French, he did speak it and used it in the House and in communication overseas.

Technically, you're right. He is remarkable nonetheless in that he's a WASP that can speak non-ridiculous french. My french is better than Dion's English and I'm not running for PM.

[jdobbin]

Technically, you're right. He is remarkable nonetheless in that he's a WASP that can speak non-ridiculous french.

Pearson's French was certainly not ridiculous. It wasn't as smooth as some of today's leaders but he was able to speak without notes and without translation in the House and with French speaking leaders around the world. His high position in External Affairs was due in part to language skills and ability to articulate policy.

Harper owes a lot to the man who decades before showed how it was done when it comes to involving French Canadians. Who do you think recruited people like Marchand, Trudeau, Chretien and Lalonde? Chretien didn't speak a word in English when he became an MP. He communicated with Pearson in French.

How successful was Pearson's legacy? At one point his successors won every seat in Quebec.

[Moonbox]

Pearson's French was certainly not ridiculous. It wasn't as smooth as some of today's leaders but he was able to speak without notes and without translation in the House and with French speaking leaders around the world. His high position in External Affairs was due in part to language skills and ability to articulate policy.

I didn't say his french was ridiculous. I said Harper's bilingualism is miles above most of his contemporaries. Pearson happens to be one of my very favorite Prime Ministers and was a huge boon to Canada. He was from a different time, however, and the things I liked about him are hard to find in the present crop of Liberals.

Harper owes a lot to the man who decades before showed how it was done when it comes to involving French Canadians. Who do you think recruited people like Marchand, Trudeau, Chretien and Lalonde? Chretien didn't speak a word in English when he became an MP. He communicated with Pearson in French.

How successful was Pearson's legacy? At one point his successors won every seat in Quebec.

and I'm not so sure he'd be proud about what his successors have accomplished. Things like massive debt, high taxes and strained relations with our neighbours were not really Pearson's legacy.

[August1991]

You always say this but it isn't true. Lester B. Pearson was a Protestant and while you might not like his French, he did speak it and used it in the House and in communication overseas.

Pearson's French was barely comprehensible when he was scripted. Pearson could not speak French without a text. For example, he was incapable of sitting down with an editorial board and discussing politics in French.

Moreover, Pearson relied on Guy Favreau and later Jean Marchand to handle Liberal Party affairs in Quebec just as King had let Ernest Lapointe run affairs before. These so-called Quebec lieutenants were the public face of the government in Quebec.

This situation is entirely different under Harper. Harper is a known entity in Quebec and he has a distinct public persona. While I don't think he's been on Tout le monde en parle, he would certainly be a worthy guest.

But even if I accept your argument, Harper is still remarkable because he's only the second such PM in Canadian history.

----

I don't mean anything negative about Pearson. He was a decent human being who did good (although I'll add that spending money and making government bigger, as Pearson did in the 1960s, are easy tasks for a politician). He knew how to receive advice about Quebec.

Here's a sample of Pearson's spoken French.