Harper's Secret Meetings with Mulroney, Charest, Chrétien (?)

[August1991]

This is "old" news but I'm travelling now and so while I have time to read, I don't have the Internet. I'm surprised there has been no other thread on this.

The potential for a national unity crisis to emerge out of the next Quebec provincial election has prompted Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do something he has hasn’t done for years:

Meet with former prime minister Brian Mulroney.

Stephen Harper held a secret meeting in a Montreal hotel with Mulroney last week, The Canadian Press has learned, to seek advice on forming a better relationship with Quebec.

He sought similar advice that same day from Liberal Premier Jean Charest, government sources said.

National Post

Stephen Harper doesn’t announce many of his most important meetings. He routinely meets one-on-one with provincial premiers without either party mentioning the encounters to reporters. And from Stephanie Levitz at Canadian Press comes news that he met Brian Mulroney and, separately, Jean Charest last week.

Paul Wells

“No matter what government is elected, we’re going to work with the Government of Quebec,” said Paradis, who was joined by Harper at a BBQ near Quebec City for the province’s annual Fete nationale.

“We can’t always be in harmony with the province of Quebec, but I think you need to do is identify our common interests and need to grow.”

Toronto Star

---

What's up?

I reckon that Harper can read the poll numbers/focus groups as well as anyone. His numbers are dismal in Quebec and without Quebec, and without a viable federal Liberal Party in ROC, the Tories will be back in opposition after 2015.

It's a quaint phrase to say that a week is a long time in politics, and the election is three years away, but some basic facts will not change. (It's also a cliché to argue now that Quebec no longer matters.)

The fact is that Harper must struggle to get 35%-40% of the vote and if he faced a weak Liberal Party, he would lose against an NDP with more. Meanwhile, without visible "regional" support in Quebec, the CPC will lose many voters in Ontario/the Maritimes.

My only query is why this is in the news. I reckon that Harper wants certain English-Canadians to believe that he is a "national" leader, concerned about all regions of Canada.

I reckon too that, if Harper is consulting Charest, Mulroney, Chrétien, he figures that his ultimate trump card will be the F-35 contracts, announced in late 2013.

[Wild Bill]

I dunno August. His numbers were dismal in Quebec last election and so was the Liberal Party. Yet he pulled off a majority!

I don't follow your reasoning that his numbers in Ontario and/or the Maritimes will automatically drop because so much of Quebec doesn't like him. This is an assumption on your part, perhaps based on previous experience. As someone who has lived in Ontario since he was very small I don't share it.

I think Quebec may have overplayed its hand! It has always been much more socialistic than the rest of Canada. I could see the NDP staying strong in Quebec but making no gains in TROC.

I have already posted on this topic in another thread. I think Harper is not doing this for himself. I doubt if he thinks he can win more support in Quebec without skewing more to the left and losing more in TROC.

No, I think he genuinely wants the country to stay united and fears a rise in the fortunes of the separatistes, when the PQ takes on Charest's liberals next provincial election.

Whatever, these are interesting times.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Charles Anthony
removed entire Opening Post quoted in reply

[bleeding heart]

I don't follow your reasoning that his numbers in Ontario and/or the Maritimes will automatically drop because so much of Quebec doesn't like him. This is an assumption on your part, perhaps based on previous experience. As someone who has lived in Ontario since he was very small I don't share it.

I was wondering the same thing, Bill, about the Maritimes remark; I've always lived here, and people's opinions on Quebec seem to more or less mirror Westerners' opinions on Quebec, in my view.

Hell, even our Acadians aren't thrilled with Quebec!

[Wild Bill]

I was wondering the same thing, Bill, about the Maritimes remark; I've always lived here, and people's opinions on Quebec seem to more or less mirror Westerners' opinions on Quebec, in my view.

Hell, even our Acadians aren't thrilled with Quebec!

BH, I've teased our friend August about this before. He doesn't like to admit it but he does have the typical Quebecois "isolated" viewpoint, in that they often have as much idea about what people in TROC think as those people know about Quebec culture! Quebecers are used to having a great deal of influence on whichever party is ruling in Ottawa. I don't think they properly appreciate their new situation.

That being said, I envy August for living in a province with great beer and people who truly know how to have fun and party! They make many Ontarioans look like incredible "tight-asses"! :P

[August1991]

I dunno August. His numbers were dismal in Quebec last election and so was the Liberal Party. Yet he pulled off a majority!

Ignatieff split the non-Tory vote. Second, (certain) voters in Ontario/Maritimes/ROC had yet to see that Harper would do so poorly in Quebec.

I don't follow your reasoning that his numbers in Ontario and/or the Maritimes will automatically drop because so much of Quebec doesn't like him. This is an assumption on your part, perhaps based on previous experience. As someone who has lived in Ontario since he was very small I don't share it.

IMV, Canadian federal politics are not ideological, they are regional.

Many voters vote for the party that best represents/will best negotiate their region/interests. Ultimately, many voters prefer a federal party that best manages the regional intersts of all Canadians.

Without Quebec, Harper (and the CPC) has lost credibility as a broker of regional interests. Mulcair, on the other hand, has shown that he's adept at this very issue.

Look at the "great" federal PMs in Canada's history: from Macdonald through Mackenzie King to Trudeau and Mulroney, ideology took a back seat to "regional management skills".

I think Quebec may have overplayed its hand! It has always been much more socialistic than the rest of Canada. I could see the NDP staying strong in Quebec but making no gains in TROC.

Quebec is only one part of Canada's regionalism.

I think he genuinely wants the country to stay united and fears a rise in the fortunes of the separatistes, when the PQ takes on Charest's liberals next provincial election.

Of course Harper wants a united Canada. But clearly his current standing in Quebec is giving him reason to think about his electoral viability.

An election may be 3 years away, and a majority may be aritmetically possible without 75 Quebec seats, but I think Canadians choose their federal PM on regional grounds, not ideology. Without Quebec seats, a federal PM is not a real broker.

-----

Again, I wonder why Harper has allowed this to get into the press now?

Second, what can Harper do to improve the CPC electability in Quebec? Charest/Mulroney/Chrétien will no doubt favour a F35 contract in 2013.

Edited June 27, 2012 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

IMV, Canadian federal politics are not ideological, they are regional.

Many voters vote for the party that best represents/will best negotiate their region/interests. Ultimately, many voters prefer a federal party that best manages the regional intersts of all Canadians.

Without Quebec, Harper (and the CPC) has lost credibility as a broker of regional interests. Mulcair, on the other hand, has shown that he's adept at this very issue.

An election may be 3 years away, and a majority may be aritmetically possible without 75 Quebec seats, but I think Canadians choose their federal PM on regional grounds, not ideology. Without Quebec seats, a federal PM is not a real broker.

-----

Here again I think you are making an assumption, August.I agree with you that there are regional feelings among voters but I think they are strongest in Quebec and not nearly as strong in TROC.

What's more, you seem to be saying that Harper's loss of support in Quebec somehow serves as a bad example to other regions, resulting in a loss of seats.

August, I believe that the average guy in TROC doesn't give a damn if Quebec doesn't like Harper! Or if Quebec doesn't feel it has been given enough as a region! They view Quebec as not just a separate culture but a society that has rejected TROC in their heart anyway! Why on earth should someone outside of Quebec give a damn for a people who don't appear to care about HIM?

You have to live and socialize "on the ground" in TROC to understand the popular sentiment. The more Quebec has shouted "We are different" over the years the more TROC has taken this to mean "We are not part of you!".

That TROC voter would care very much about HIS region but he certainly doesn't care about if Quebec is happy! To be fair, he likely doesn't care about any other region in the country all that much either.

In fact, since Quebec has worked so hard to be thought of as "special" instead of "one of the guys" it could be that Harper will actually get increased support if he is seen to be standing up to Quebec! Quebec has a reputation of always making demands and being given more than other provinces. Even simple things like road signs irk TROC Canadians. In Ontario, we have had bilingual signs on the 400 series highways for decades. Yet when any Ontarioan goes to Quebec he immediately sees that it is not reciprocated. Sure, there is a long, convoluted explanation about why Quebec has to do this to save its culture but the average Ontarioan doesn't buy it. He simply thinks that Quebec gets away with it because the party in power in Ottawa is trying to pander for their votes.

Sorry if I sound cynical, August. I don't altogether approve of my own view either. I just think its more accurate than YOUR view of how the typical voter feels who lives outside of Quebec!

[cybercoma]

You know how he's going to pull it off? He's going to plant more seats out West. That's how. When they're done gerrymandering, they'll coast to another majority. Canadians will be pissed and continue to do nothing about it.

[Wild Bill]

You know how he's going to pull it off? He's going to plant more seats out West. That's how. When they're done gerrymandering, they'll coast to another majority. Canadians will be pissed and continue to do nothing about it.

No CC, SOME Canadians will be pissed, not all!

If your views were the majority Harper would never have gotten his majority. If enough people change to your viewpoint by next election he will lose it.

I really get irked when someone thinks his POV is somehow automatically the majority even if reality contradicts him!

If the left wants to convert more folks to their POV for next time, it might be an idea to lose some of the arrogance. Frankly, THAT can piss possible converts off!

[cybercoma]

No CC, SOME Canadians will be pissed, not all!

If your views were the majority Harper would never have gotten his majority. If enough people change to your viewpoint by next election he will lose it.

I really get irked when someone thinks his POV is somehow automatically the majority even if reality contradicts him!

If the left wants to convert more folks to their POV for next time, it might be an idea to lose some of the arrogance. Frankly, THAT can piss possible converts off!

The entire point is that it's quite a bit distasteful that any political party in this country could get a strong majority, the ability to pass whatever the hell legislation they want with less than 40% of the popular vote. You're implying that Harper got his majority government because the majority of Canadians agree with his policies. They don't. In fact, recent news shows even his MPs disagree with the things he's doing, but don't have enough integrity to hold the "executive" branch of our government accountable.

[PIK]

It is called leadership. First he showed quebec that a majority can be won won out them, now it is time to bring back a little more humbled quebec. Will it work, who knows.

[Wild Bill]

The entire point is that it's quite a bit distasteful that any political party in this country could get a strong majority, the ability to pass whatever the hell legislation they want with less than 40% of the popular vote. You're implying that Harper got his majority government because the majority of Canadians agree with his policies. They don't. In fact, recent news shows even his MPs disagree with the things he's doing, but don't have enough integrity to hold the "executive" branch of our government accountable.

While he may not have gotten a clear majority of the popular vote, he STILL outpolled the "other guys"!

There were even fewer people who preferred any other party.

And that's a good thing! Our FPTP system protects regional interests. All the proportional representation schemes I have seen tend to destroy them.

Allowing politicians to pick extra MPs from their OWN list goes even further in destroying democracy!

[cybercoma]

So what? Parliamentary democracy works on the basis of co-operative problem solving. There's absolutely nothing co-operative about the Conservatives. In fact they're condescending and antagonistic. They've even gone so far as to call coalitions, a very legitimate and democratic principle in parliamentary democracies, undemocratic and essentially a coup. When you get less than 40% of the vote and you tell 60% of Canadians "f*** off! We won!", it just shows that you have no clue how to govern.

[Wild Bill]

So what? Parliamentary democracy works on the basis of co-operative problem solving. There's absolutely nothing co-operative about the Conservatives. In fact they're condescending and antagonistic. They've even gone so far as to call coalitions, a very legitimate and democratic principle in parliamentary democracies, undemocratic and essentially a coup. When you get less than 40% of the vote and you tell 60% of Canadians "f*** off! We won!", it just shows that you have no clue how to govern.

So which of the other two parties do you think could command more than 50 % of the vote?

[August1991]

Here again I think you are making an assumption, August.I agree with you that there are regional feelings among voters but I think they are strongest in Quebec and not nearly as strong in TROC.

What's more, you seem to be saying that Harper's loss of support in Quebec somehow serves as a bad example to other regions, resulting in a loss of seats.

August, I believe that the average guy in TROC doesn't give a damn if Quebec doesn't like Harper! Or if Quebec doesn't feel it has been given enough as a region!

Regional feelings extend well beyond Quebec; it's just that Quebec is the most manifest.

Newfoundland, northern Ontario and even Alberta itself. The biggest "region" is southern Ontario which for some reason seems to think there is no regionalism in Canada: "Everyone in Canada is just like us! Just one of the guys!"

[cybercoma]

So which of the other two parties do you think could command more than 50 % of the vote?

Really, Bill? I don't for a minute believe my point flew that far over your head.

[cybercoma]

Regional feelings extend well beyond Quebec; it's just that Quebec is the most manifest.

I don't know that it's most manifest in Quebec. It's just that Quebec is the only region that gets ganged up on by the other regions. You know... because they speak funny there.

[August1991]

You know how he's going to pull it off? He's going to plant more seats out West. That's how. When they're done gerrymandering, they'll coast to another majority. Canadians will be pissed and continue to do nothing about it.

There are not enough seats to form even a minority.

It is called leadership. First he showed quebec that a majority can be won won out them, now it is time to bring back a little more humbled quebec. Will it work, who knows.

More pointless Quebec-bashing.

Federal Canada is a marriage of regional interests. Bashing one region is perfect evidence of my point.

So which of the other two parties do you think could command more than 50 % of the vote?

That's the key question, WB.

And I'm arguing that Harper got his majority in the last election in part because the opposition was divided but also because many (ROC) voters believed that he could be a regional broker.

I reckon that Harper has lost credibility as a fair broker, in part because he visibly has no support in French Canada, and hence Mulcair/the NDP will form the next federal government. Mulcair can claim to have support in Quebec, urban English Canada (Toronto/Vancouver) and the Maritimes. The battleground will be southern Ontario and I think many swing voters will side with the guy/party who brings Canadians of different regions together.

This is what explained the success of past federal leaders.

[PIK]

There are not enough seats to form even a minority.

More pointless Quebec-bashing.

Federal Canada is a marriage of regional interests. Bashing one region is perfect evidence of my point.

That's the key question, WB.

And I'm arguing that Harper got his majority in the last election in part because the opposition was divided but also because many (ROC) voters believed that he could be a regional broker.

I reckon that Harper has lost credibility as a fair broker, in part because he visibly has no support in French Canada, and hence Mulcair/the NDP will form the next federal government. Mulcair can claim to have support in Quebec, urban English Canada (Toronto/Vancouver) and the Maritimes. The battleground will be southern Ontario and I think many swing voters will side with the guy/party who brings Canadians of different regions together.

This is what explained the success of past federal leaders.

It might be bashing and they deserve every bit. You have no idea living outside quebec all these years listening to the whinning, like you are special and the rest of us should be honoured to have you.You are your own worst enemy. And quebec will leave when we tell it to.

[cybercoma]

There are not enough seats to form even a minority.

You can't see the forest for the trees. You say the number of seats is insignificant. First, I would dispute that 30 seats is insignificant. That's a 10% increase to the number of MPs. Thirty seats is the difference between a minority and a majority government. It's the difference between falling to a strong coalition or forming government yourself. More importantly, however, is the fact that the constituencies will need to be redrawn to accommodate the seat changes. It will be interesting to see how these changes are applied.