André Boisclair

[August1991]

Boisclair has won decisively. This is a good thing for the PQ because there is no question (such as in the US recently) about how voting irregularities might have affected the result.

The PQ is a difficult party to lead and this is the first time in its history (excepting maybe the choice of Pierre-Marc Johnson) when the choice of leader was truly contested. This time however, there has been ample time to consider the consequences of the choice. And this time (as when Parizeau was chosen), the PQ is in opposition. Boisclair will easily unite everyone; he'll make Marois deputy leader or some such.

As much as I dislike Louise Beaudoin for being an opportunist, I agree that it is unfortunate that only one woman ran, and she wasn't chosen.

Boisclair's advantage seems to be that he looks like Jacques Brel but I find Boisclair glib.

----

The usual measure of a PQ leader is whether they are a pur et dur (or purzédurs). Parizeau was, Johnson wasn't. Boisclair, on this issue, is closer to Lévesque and Bouchard.

----

I think we must get used to a world in which our politicians start at a young age. Boisclair is a Bill Clinton, or a Joe Clark. He has never done anything else but be a party militant. He even quit for a year to go to Harvard simply because, I suspect, he thought he looked too much like a party animal.

----

Boisclair is now promising a referendum after his election. He refers to sovereignty and un plan de pays.

----

Among the older péquistes, Landry and so on, I am sure they have doubts about Boisclair but they are willing de bonne volonté to pass the torch to the relève. The best comparison I can think of is the choice of Bourassa as Liberal party leader in 1969. The choice of Boisclair is perceived as opening a new door.

----

Boisclair has made it plain that a sovereign Quebec will be open to the world. He even spoke in English.

[Bakunin]

Him happy for him, he seems a promising chief but i think evrything is gonna begin when we will see what kind of team he will gather and what kind of vision he will push for.

[shoop]

Boislcair's plan *was* rumoured to be to go to Harvard, get some business experience then come back when Landry stepped down.

Nobody expected Landry to step down as early as he did. Thus Boisclair's timeline was moved up....

He even quit for a year to go to Harvard simply because, I suspect, he thought he looked too much like a party animal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Riverwind]

I think we must get used to a world in which our politicians start at a young age.  Boisclair is a Bill Clinton, or a Joe Clark.

He would be better described as the Jean Charest of the seperatist movement.

[Guest eureka]

Boisclair is neither a Clinton or a Clark. He does not have the intelligence of Clinton or the honesty and integrity of a Clark.

He is an apparent firecracker who wil lprove to be a damp squib.

[GostHacked]

Joy, another f'n referendum. Just seperate already and get out of Canada. They never wanted to be a part of it,. They all should be shot for treason for even thinking about seperating from Canada. What will they gain if they get independance?

But another good thing, is if they DO seperate, alot more government jobs will be open for english speaking people.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Boisclair has made it plain that a sovereign Quebec will be open to the world. He even spoke in English.

When I visited the Plains of Abraham, (years ago) I thought it sad that both Wolfe and Montcalm succumbed to injuries sustained in the battle. Looks like Canada managed to linger a while longer, but the wounds never did heal, and now she may die too.

There are some that will be saying, "Let the enfant terrible leave home, so long as he knows he can't take his bedroom with him!" Others will say "it is a terrible shame, but good luck to Quebec (as a nation)."

What are your thoughts, August, on the future of an independent Quebec?

[Guest eureka]

My God! Can you people seriously sit back in your chairs and "rationally" discuss the breakup of the country?

I have posted so many times about what will happen and I have been involved in this as few in Canada have so I know it will happen.

What we should be doing is telling the PQ that there will be no more referendums and that the promotion of separatism will now be classed as sedition and treated as such.

I could care less who is the leader of the PQ. It does not matter one whit. All that matters is that he now be told that he is the leader of a provincial party with the responsibilities that come with that. He is not a King-in-waiting for some racist mini-state.

The reputation of Canadians for tolerance seems to have addled many heads. A death wish is not tolerance for the potential murderers.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

All that matters is that he now be told that he is the leader of a provincial party with the responsibilities that come with that

I'll agree with you on that. As an 'Albertan', I have no wish to see the west secede either.

I saw a television program a while a go called 'This Hour Has 22 Minutes", and they did a spoof on political pundits, called "The 'Right' Answer". They said (in reference to Quebec) "Why wait for the referendum, start carpet bombing now!"

[Leafless]

eureka

You wrote- " What we should do is telling the PQ that there will be no more referendums and that the promotion of separatism will now be classed as sedition and treated as such."

Are you sure you live in Canada---A lot of Canadians have been screaming and demanding this for years.

Actually our federal government especially the Liberals are actually promoting sedition by actually inviting a separatist Party to be part of federalism in our parliament initiating their Right to do this under the guise of democracy.

If there is anybody screwed up it's the Liberals or maybe they aren't screwed up but simply Quebec smart.

Got any more suggestions???

[Guest eureka]

Not a solution, TFG.! There would be too much collateral damage. There are a lot of good people in Quebec and I would not like to see them harmed.

My personal desire is to go in there and hang a separatist from every lampost in Quebec City.

Let's cull the diseased ones. That would still leave about 90% of the population, half of whom simply need the dirty washwater used in their brainwashing to be flushed out.

[Clopin]

From what the media seems to say: younger Quebecers are even more of the separatist vein than their elders.

Is Boisclair more of a threat to the federation than anyone in the past 2 decades? I can't say I know much about him but I'm under the impression he has a galvanizing effect on the party, as well as Quebecers in general and could garner more support.

The notion of Canada splitting seemed so surreal to me most of the time... not so much now. It's quite disorienting actually. Or am I giving this guy too much credit?

As I type.. the Bloq Q on cpac are applauding a 'free Quebec' remark.

Clarity Act coming into use soon?

[August1991]

Not a solution, TFG.! There would be too much collateral damage. There are a lot of good people in Quebec and I would not like to see them harmed.

My personal desire is to go in there and hang a separatist from every lampost in Quebec City.

Let's cull the diseased ones. That would still leave about 90% of the population, half of whom simply need the dirty washwater used in their brainwashing to be flushed out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geez, eureka. You sound like Ann Coulter arguing that the US should just roll over Canada. If North America is divisible, then Canada is divisible.

[fellowtraveller]

What we should be doing is telling the PQ that there will be no more referendums and that the promotion of separatism will now be classed as sedition and treated as such.

Who is 'we'?

One of the least understood (by the ROC) bits of fallout of the last few years, and capped by Gomery, is that simulataneously there is nobody credible on the federalists side to speak to Quebec, while there are ever- fewer people listening in Quebec to the federalist message.

This is the main 'legacy ' of M. Chretien.

At the moment and for the foreseeable future, there is nobody to speak for Canada. The Liberals are discredited at the worst possible time, and the Tories and NDP are irrelevant in Quebec.

Meanwhile, the final pieces of the puzzle are falling into place for the separatists. If the PQ handle their young, energetic, photogenic new leader properly - the trend to separatism must become a juggernaut. I noticed they have already made one clever move - Boisclair will not be running in the upcoming byelections, even though a safe seat is available. Good move by the PQ, he won't have to endure the trial by fire of the National Assembly until it is time to take control.

[Riverwind]

If North America is divisible, then Canada is divisible.

And so is Quebec.

[Bakunin]

Who is 'we'?

One of the least understood (by the ROC) bits of fallout of the last few years, and capped by Gomery, is that simulataneously there is nobody credible on the federalists side to speak to Quebec, while there are ever- fewer people listening in Quebec to the federalist message.

This is the main 'legacy ' of M. Chretien.

At the moment and for the foreseeable future, there is nobody to speak for Canada. The Liberals are discredited at the worst possible time, and the Tories and NDP are irrelevant in Quebec.

Meanwhile, the final pieces of the puzzle are falling into place for the separatists. If the PQ handle their young, energetic, photogenic new leader properly - the trend to separatism must become a juggernaut. I noticed they have already made one clever move - Boisclair will not be running in the upcoming byelections, even though a safe seat is available. Good move by the PQ, he won't have to endure the trial by fire of the National Assembly until it is time to take control.

I think its quite clear the PQ with boisclair will be more based on strategy and the preparation of the next referendum.

Its clearly all about the new generation, the generation that didn't vote in 95 because the older one who did vote already have their minds set. This is where i find your post interesting. When you say that the federalist have no more credible leader it is true. Gomery did hurt the PLC pretty hard, it will continue to hurt them for a few years. Now how do you want to convince the youth about your project with no credible leader ? The PQ just elected a young politician, someone that is well connected with the youth. The PLQ is as much in bad shape in quebec than the PLC.

The PQ couldn't have a better situation to start the work and convince the youth of the sovreignist project. They never had much trouble in the past to do it, And they always worked hard on it, its with no doubt their best card for the next referendum, they are constantly touring in the cegep, Bernard landry visited almost all the cegep in quebec in the last year. they always did a better job than the federalist to convince the youth and now you give them a big scandal about the federal, you give them the most loved quebec politician "Duceppe" with a young politician like Boisclair against 2 governments in power that they can easily critics all day long. An unpopular Paul martin and Jean charest.

Now what better environnment could they hope for to start to convince the new generation ?

[Guest eureka]

There are many credible federalist leaders. There are just not the persuasive or charismatic ones needed to sway a gullible, weak minded polity.

Quebec has the persuasive leaders and not the credible ones. Unless a "druggie" can be considered credible.

As I have said many times it is time to talk, and act if necessary, tough and stop trying to persuade.

Quebec spends a lot of public money on the "tours of the CEGEPS" and has done for a very long time. Perhaps that is one area that Canada should tell Quebec to stick its referendum laws and spend some money too. It would be a much better employ than the Sponsorship scheme.

[August1991]

Its clearly all about the new generation, the generation that didn't vote in 95 because the older one who did vote already have their minds set.

Bakunin, you may think that, because you are young. Or you may think it because you believe your CEGEP profs, baby boomers in extended adolescence. Don't get me wrong. Boisclair will appeal to younger people; and the Landry's of the PQ are fearful that younger people will not be as ardent about independence as they were. IME, younger people are as ardent as their parents. It is the older people, the ones who got the Non merci messages in their pension cheques in 1980, people born before 1930 or 1940 who matter. They vote Non, and there are fewer and fewer of them.

What are your thoughts, August, on the future of an independent Quebec?

In a thread about Boisclair, let's say that he must first become PM of Quebec, then hold a referendum, then win it and then negotiate something with the ROC. Alot of ifs there.

To answer the question, IMV, there are two types of separatists. Those who wish for independance for cultural and psychological reasons and those who wish for independance for political and economic reasons. I can understand both viewpoints. Iceland, Finland, Ireland are successful, small, northern societies. Quebec would be no different.

----

I would have preferred Marois as leader because I think Boisclair is too glib and too young. But in fact, I don't think it matters much. The PQ will form a government, likely in 2008, and then win the referendum. I would prefer a negotiated settlement without referendum but I simply don't see how that would happen.

The only thing that could happen is a National Crisis (such as Conscription, Riel, Air Traffic Controllers). Canada would not survive such a crisis now.

----

My God! Can you people seriously sit back in your chairs and "rationally" discuss the breakup of the country?

Breakup of the country?

eureka, Canada has existed for thousands of years and it will exist for several thousand more. The rocks and trees will not disappear. In the several centuries since Europeans arrived, we have had a variety of governments. Even since the British burned houses up and down the St-Lawrence River and then won a shoot-out in 1759, we have had several different political arrangements. Newfoundland joined Canada less than 50 years ago.

The political structure of Canada is about to change again. That's all. (But true, the big losers in this will be the Liberal Party apparatchiks and the current nomenklatura of the Canadian federal political system.)

[Guest eureka]

Talk about glib, August! Canada has not existed for thousands of years. Not even hundreds. Unless you consider a very small number of hundreds.

You too, apparently swallow the "victim" psychology. The British "burning houses up and down the St. Lawrence," indeed. Both sides were not exactly with "ruth" in that war and it was the French who introduced scalping to the Indians.

Quebec would be a lot different than Iceland, Finland, and Ireland. Those three are all special situations. Quebec is not. It would be an isolated land mass with no friends and no trade since Canada can supply everything Quebec has without it. Who else would tolerate the language requirements of trade with Quebec when they can manage more cheaply without it?

Besides, to humour the separatists, suppose it does separate. What then does the rump that is left after the negotiation of territorial boundaries have or have to offer?

A professor of Finance at Concordia who I was associated with calculated that it cost Canada 15% in higher costs to maintain bilingualism and the neccesities of internal trade to sustain Quebec. I agreed with him that the cost was acceptable.

However, with Quebec gone that would improve the economic posititon of Canada and devastate Quebec.

There are a thousand things I could tel you about the impact of Quebec separation because I have been concerned with this for a very long time. However, I no longer even consider them. As I once told Levesque; noone is going to destroy this nation. That is all that is at issue.

[Bakunin]

Bakunin, you may think that, because you are young.  Or you may think it because you believe your CEGEP profs, baby boomers in extended adolescence.  Don't get me wrong.  Boisclair will appeal to younger people; and the Landry's of the PQ are fearful that younger people will not be as ardent about independence as they were.  IME, younger people are as ardent as their parents.  It is the older people, the ones who got the Non merci messages in their pension cheques in 1980, people born before 1930 or 1940 who matter.  They vote Non, and there are fewer and fewer of them.

Yes, of course, the No vote is concentrated in the pre 60's generation but this is why i think that the post 95 generation will be determining because from now, the post boomers generation are mostly in favor of sovreignty but the recent regain is due to the young generation frustrated about gomery and jean charest. Sovreignty was going up of about 2% per years, that must be the old generation taking less place and the other 4-5% in reaction to charest's government, paul martin and the gomery scandal where mostly from the young generation who can't identigy their vision with the liberal vision and they are starting to take position. Once they seriously take position, then the vote start to crystalize and this is where i see the danger for the "no" camps. Nobody can do anything about the old generation dying but if there is a new and definitive way to change the debate, it will be with the new generation taking position.

Ps: im no more in Cegep , and i never really talked about politics with profs but i talked to alot of ppl my age and most of them still don't know wich way to go and im one of those. Most of them just didn't took the time to listen to the provincial political debate and if ever they have to vote, if ever there is a referendum then im sure the 2-3 first weeks they will listen to each camps and then massively vote for one or another and it wont be previsible just like the 95's referendum when Bouchard came and brought with him alot of young undecided voters.

Quebec spends a lot of public money on the "tours of the CEGEPS" and has done for a very long time. Perhaps that is one area that Canada should tell Quebec to stick its referendum laws and spend some money too. It would be a much better employ than the Sponsorship scheme.

... The cegeps tours aren't funded with public money, Parizeau who isn't a PQ member anymore do them evry years, Landry who was in the opposition last year did those tours too, i can't see how he could spend public money when he his on the opposition...

[Riverwind]

To answer the question, IMV, there are two types of separatists.  Those who wish for independance for cultural and psychological reasons and those who wish for independance for political and economic reasons.  I can understand both viewpoints.

Both rationals are illogical: the economic losses caused by seperation will make any marginal gains in cultural and political freedom seem irrelevant. You cannot breakup a country like Canada without huge repercussions. All modern examples of countries breaking up are countries that had economies that were already basket cases that had no where to go but up.

Iceland, Finland, Ireland are successful, small, northern societies.  Quebec would be no different.

It took Ireland nearly 80 years to get where it is today and it would never have done it without a high birthrate and large infusions of cash from the EU and ex-pat Irish.

[August1991]

For the first time in too long, a federalist went on the offensive today in Quebec and a sovereignist ran like a barnyard chicken.

Paul Wells

And you know why they're doing THAT, don't you? This Boisclair guy is the best news the Quebec Liberals have had in ages. A referendum has become less likely, as of last night. And that's the best news I've heard in a long time.

Warren Kinsella

----

I chose August1991 as a sobriquet because of Mikhail Gorbachev, a smart guy. For Gorbachev, in August 1991, everything seemed the same -he flew back to Moscow and the Soviet Union still existed- but in fact everything had changed. (Remember when Yeltsin made Gorbachev publicly read the names... )

Wells and Kinsella, also smart guys, they too don't quite get it. They're like Gorbachev in August 1991.

You are welcome to dismiss my opinion, or sobriquet. But I think many smart English-Canadians have chosen wishful thinking over apparent facts. Like Gorbachev.

[fellowtraveller]

Both rationals are illogical: the economic losses caused by seperation will make any marginal gains in cultural and political freedom seem irrelevant. You cannot breakup a country like Canada without huge repercussions. All modern examples of countries breaking up are countries that had economies that were already basket cases that had no where to go but up.

Perhaps, but fewer and fewer people in Quebec are interested in what outsiders think about Quebecs motives, plans or future. And the further we get from 1995, the more that is true.

I would have preferred Marois as leader because I think Boisclair is too glib and too young. But in fact, I don't think it matters much. The PQ will form a government, likely in 2008, and then win the referendum. I would prefer a negotiated settlement without referendum but I simply don't see how that would happen.

I do not see how it would happen either, it would be complete folly for the PQ to win both an election, then a referendum, then squash their momentum by negotiating before an independence decalration. It would make no sense at all, worse from their viewpoint it could kill the thrust entirely. I'm betting on 2007.

In a thread about Boisclair, let's say that he must first become PM of Quebec, then hold a referendum, then win it and then negotiate something with the ROC. Alot of ifs there.

The only 'if' I see in your scenario is the 'negotiating something'. That will come after independence, not before - a much stronger posture, the only conceivable posture for the PQ.

The political structure of Canada is about to change again. That's all. (But true, the big losers in this will be the Liberal Party apparatchiks and the current nomenklatura of the Canadian federal political system.)

It is certainly going to change again, and it will not end with the secession of Quebec IMO. It is possible the ROC will circle the wagons, lick their wounds and reappear as the same old, same old.... But I very much doubt that the West and perhaps Nfld. will allow that... Their arguments will be: 1) why repeat such an abject and obvious failure, using the same old governance model that no longer works. 2) why would we want to live in a country that will be utterly dominated by Ontario, with no hope of any influence from any other province?

This need not be the end, the Balkanization of our country, I see it as an opportunity to relieve many of the old grievances, come up with a new governance model that works for everybody.

Perhaps, who knows, an equitable loose federation that might even interest Quebec, something they may actually have some interest in actually supporting?

[Guest eureka]

We have already an equitable, loose federation. That is the only part that does not work. Canada has worked very well, better than almost any country in the world but is now floundering because the federation has become too loose.

[fellowtraveller]

We have already an equitable, loose federation. That is the only part that does not work. Canada has worked very well, better than almost any country in the world but is now floundering because the federation has become too loose.

Yes, that is why there is a sense of tranquility, harmony and unity upon the land and its people.