Harper's Gold in Quebec

[August1991]

The next general election in Quebec will likely be in the fall of 2012, or maybe the spring of 2013: A year or so away.

This election will determine whether a Liberal (likely Charest) or the leader of a new party (CAQ, Legault) will be PM.

Charest is a bilingual federalist, and as a federal Cabinet minister (under Mulroney) identified himself as John James Charest. Charest is a career politician.

Legault? He's an accountant, created Air Transat and was once a PQ cabinet minister. Now, he says that Quebec sovereignty is a question for his children, or grandchildren.

-----

Harper should be so, so thankful that he faces such a political situation in Quebec.

Something else: Now is the time for Stephen Harper to be a Lord Elgin.

Edited December 4, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Harper and his staff may believe that their actions created this Gold. Wrong. Quebec's political situation is an affair of people in Quebec.

IMV, Harper would be foolish to waste this opportunity.

Edited December 4, 2011 by August1991

[Shwa]

Harper and his staff may believe that their actions created this Gold. Wrong. Quebec's political situation is an affair of people in Quebec.

IMV, Harper would be foolish to waste this opportunity.

And exactly how would PM Harper do a "Lord Elgin." Apologize for Saint-Eustache perhaps?

[PIK]

Harper and his staff may believe that their actions created this Gold. Wrong. Quebec's political situation is an affair of people in Quebec.

IMV, Harper would be foolish to waste this opportunity.

But he did create this gold. Harper played quebec just like everyone else has thru the years , some day hopefully quebec will grow up and get with the program.

[August1991]

But he did create this gold. Harper played quebec just like everyone else has thru the years....

No, Harper did not create this Gold. If he or his people believe that, they will be sorely mistaken.

Harper arrived at a moment when most people in Quebec are very tired of the nationalist debate.

For Harper, a WASP federal politician, it is an opportunity.

-----

From what I understand, Harper wants to reach specific, conservative voters in Quebec. It may be only a few seats but these voters will remain federal Conservative whoever is in Ottawa, far into the future.

I think that from his perspective, Harper has this right.

Edited December 29, 2011 by August1991

[fellowtraveller]

Refresh my memory, is Quebec that province where all the money goes that is increasingly irrelevant in the national political arena?

[August1991]

Refresh my memory, is Quebec that province where all the money goes that is increasingly irrelevant in the national political arena?

I think that you are referring to Toronto. Or maybe, if you're still in the 1970s, you mean Newfoundland.

----

FT, a federalist Canada is presumably not a zero-sum game. If Canada were zero-sum, why bother?

Edited December 29, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Peter White is about as conservative (and Conservative) as they come. He worked at Brian Mulroney’s side throughout the former prime minister’s nine-year tenure. In 2001, he turned his frustration with Jean Chrétien’s seemingly perpetual hold on power into a book, Gritlock, perhaps best described as a blueprint of how to neuter the then-powerful Liberal brand. In his free time, the former Hollinger Inc. executive has relentlessly pushed the Conservative brand in his native Quebec, both as a riding president and party organizer. And he’s sick of trying.

Macleans

If I had time or patience, I would criticize Peter White, and point out his errors. Or rather, I will simply say that I think Harper is doing this right.

Harper is trying to make federal Conservatives a presence in Quebec despite political vagaries.

IOW, let me agree with both White and Harper: the statue of Lord Elgin stands on the face of the National Assembly. To my knowledge, there is no statue of a francophone Roman Catholic before the Ontario legislature, indeed Ontario has had only two Roman Catholic PMs.

Ontario? Surely English Canada is more.

----

My Canada, if it exists, is a civilized conversation.

Edited January 21, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

This election will determine whether a Liberal (likely Charest) or the leader of a new party (CAQ, Legault) will be PM.

I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I would put my money on Harper being the PM after this election.

[August1991]

Politics, what a game. If Harper has any gold in Quebec, it's apparently fool's gold.

Contemplant d'un oeil terrifié les sièges de la deuxième opposition à l'Assemblée nationale il y a à peine deux mois, le Parti québécois se hisse désormais à 33 % des intentions de vote, contre 28 % pour le Parti libéral du Québec et 24 % pour la Coalition avenir Québec après répartition des intentions de vote des indécis.

Le Devoir

The PQ may be at 33%, but only Le Devoir declares this as a "victory". And while the Liberals have large support among non-francophones, they are still the only party which bridges the cultural/linguistic divide. Finally, Legault does not want sovereignty now, and his support is largely francophone. Do the numbers.

I think a telling point is that Quebec Solidaire/Parti vert have fallen. Sovereigntists are returning to the PQ fold. And perhaps because of Meryl Streep. A La Presse journalist described Marois as La Dame de beton (The Cement Lady - it works better in French. I am always saddened when bad cultural motifs are borrowed badly. The term "Iron Lady" was the invention of a Soviet journalist.)

Thatcher in fact said that she's "not for turning" - and that's very different from being made of Iron or Concrete. Marois BTW has turned as much as Legault or John Major. She's no Thatcher. Anyway. Whatever.

-----

I reckon that there is some truth to Trudeau Jnr's claim that Harper has inspired this rise in support for Quebec sovereignty. It is true that many Quebecers do not see themselves in Harper's Canada as it is now portrayed.

Does this matter? Ask Quebecers in a few years when they have to decide in an election.

Edited March 13, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Perhaps The Stone Woman would sound better to anglophones, rather than The Cement Lady. Stone has a different connotation than "cement", which is usually derogatory.

[August1991]

Peand rhaps The Stone Woman would sound better to anglophones, rather than The Cement Lady. Stone has a different connotation than "cement", which is usually derogatory.

Whatever, she means business.

And yes, this radical change in Canada could happen. Czechoslovakia no longer exists; people no longer use 8 tracks because ATMs are more convenient.

---

I don't think that "Canadians" quite understand what a "country" is. Pierre Trudeau understood the idea, as do most Albertans - and federalists in Quebec.

I reckon that Mark Steyn, like Jean-François Lisée, are confused.

Edited March 16, 2012 by August1991

[Smallc]

I don't think that "Canadians" quite understand what a "country" is.

Well then please, enlighten us.

[August1991]

Well then please, enlighten us.

Well, a country is not a nation. And a country can contain people of different languages and diverse cultures and yet still be a single country.

Excepting maybe city-states (and even then), a country is invariably a federal state with sovereign jurisdictions.

Ultimately, a country is a political arrangement among people to live in civilized manner with each other. It's certainly not a marriage. It's more like a condo association agreement with benefits.

Edited March 18, 2012 by August1991

[Smallc]

Not all countries are federations.

[Vineon]

I don't think that "Canadians" quite understand what a "country" is. Pierre Trudeau understood the idea, as do most Albertans - and federalists in Quebec.

Well, a country is not a nation. And a country can contain people of different languages and diverse cultures and yet still be a single country.

Excepting maybe city-states (and even then), a country is invariably a federal state with sovereign jurisdictions.

Ultimately, a country is a political arrangement among people to live in civilized manner with each other. It's certainly not a marriage. It's more like a condo association agreement with benefits.

And you're saying the Albertans understand this (the same Albertans that would reject the notion of Québec being a nation on the ground that exists only the Canadian nation?) and the Quebec sovereignists do not?

Rare I've seen Canadians make a difference between 'nation' and 'country' and that goes double for Albertans. The Québécois though, starting with the 'seperatists', will remind you that they do not believe them to be the same thing in everything they do.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Vineon

[Smallc]

That has a great deal to do with a difference of meaning between language though.

[August1991]

Gawd, what a thread drift.

And you're saying the Albertans understand this (the same Albertans that would reject the notion of Québec being a nation on the ground that exists only the Canadian nation?) and the Quebec sovereignists do not?

Absolutely.

Most Albertans, people on Bay Street and federalist Quebecers understand that "Canada" is - as young people today would say - a condo association agreement with benefits.

Is that bad?