Parizeau on Harper

[August1991]

For those that can manage French (or Google translated English), the following article is interesting.

Et à l'instar du naufrage de Meech, l'échec prévisible de Stephen Harper pourrait ouvrir la voie à un nouveau référendum sur la souveraineté au Québec, croit l'ex-leader du PQ.

TQS

Parizeau believes that Harper will fail to deliver on provincial autonomy (a failure that will be even more grave than Mulroney's failure with Meech) and this will lead to a backlash in Quebec and victory in the next referendum.

Parizeau believes Harper is well intentioned and is dealing in good faith. But English Canada wants nothing to do with Ottawa giving up any powers.

Parizeau has a good point.

[cybercoma]

Harper certainly isn't going to take more power for the federal government and if he gets the Federal Accountability Act passed through, it will give more power to the provinces. Parizeau needs to quit whining. Quebec in general needs to quit blackmailing and whining.

[Riverwind]

Parizeau believes Harper is well intentioned and is dealing in good faith. But English Canada wants nothing to do with Ottawa giving up any powers.

It is not 1985 anymore. You did not have the premier of Ontario complaining about the fiscal imbalance nor did you have the near miss of a referendum in 1995.

I used to be a Trudeau style centrist but my own views have moderated considerably in the last 20 years and am no longer convinced that everything in this country has to be run out of Ottawa. I am sure there are many other Canadians like me.

[shoop]

I think I managed the French, but help me out.

Did I read correctly in that Harper is destined to fail because "English-Canada" will refuse to recognize Quebec as a distinct society?

That sounds like Parizeau merely trying to frame the debate in the best possible way for separatists.

That verbiage is dead, never to be revisited. It is doubtful that soft nationalists would get caught up in the minutiae of language to Parizeau's liking.

Harper will accommodate Quebecker's in the short to medium term. Then we will see what policies the parties bring forth in the next election...

[geoffrey]

Parizeau believes Harper is well intentioned and is dealing in good faith. But English Canada wants nothing to do with Ottawa giving up any powers.

It is not 1985 anymore. You did not have the premier of Ontario complaining about the fiscal imbalance nor did you have the near miss of a referendum in 1995.

I used to be a Trudeau style centrist but my own views have moderated considerably in the last 20 years and am no longer convinced that everything in this country has to be run out of Ottawa. I am sure there are many other Canadians like me.

Quebec has friends in the west in regards to that too.

[fixer1]

The whole gist behind what Pariseau said was that Harper will fail to allow Quebec the presence at the international and saring of power table, because English Canada would not allow this. It is his way of saying that even though Harper is on a trail that would address many issues Quebecers have, he does not have a majority and therefore it would be english Canada that would vote aginst this.

What he does not say is that when all the counting is done the PC +Bloc would have more then enough votes to pass anything that would be needed to give Harper the ability to pass these bills. So if it did not go thru it would really be the Bloc's lack of support that would disallow it and not English Canada. But Pariseau never was very good with numbers

[fellowtraveller]

But English Canada wants nothing to do with Ottawa giving up any powers.

Not really. What is an abiding concern of the ROC is that no province should be given special status. That does not in any way prevent Quebec from gaining more autonomy gfrom Ottawa, but implies that all provinces would benefit from the same increased autonomy. A change in the relationship between Ottawa and Quebec City does not necessarily mean a change in the relationship between Quebec City and Queens Park. I doubt that Harper has any intention of giving Quebec alone any large degree of special power within the federation. It would be political suicide.

[shoop]

That is exactly what he has proposed, and exactly what he will do.

What is an abiding concern of the ROC is that no province should be given special status. That does not in any way prevent Quebec from gaining more autonomy gfrom Ottawa, but implies that all provinces would benefit from the same increased autonomy.

I doubt that Harper has any intention of giving Quebec alone any large degree of special power within the federation. It would be political suicide.

[fellowtraveller]

How is my spelling?

[Spike22]

I though Piggyzo was dead? Are you sure it was not an animitron of him?

[tml12]

How is my spelling?

Giving Quebec more sovereignty is a wise political move for now, but not a wise political move for the future...it is also not a wise move for Quebec.

If we look at Quebec today, regardless of whether we believe this province should have special status or distinct society status or not, it DOESN'T.

If you give Quebec more autonomy, you will undoubetly here about it from other provinces, like Newfoundland or Alberta.

You will also give the soft nationalist voice more authority, and they will undoubetly want more.

Time to realize Canada cannot just be ripped into 10 different pieces. We can either function as a federation or as ten governments...the choice needs to be made now.

[fellowtraveller]

How is my spelling?

Giving Quebec more sovereignty is a wise political move for now, but not a wise political move for the future...it is also not a wise move for Quebec.

If we look at Quebec today, regardless of whether we believe this province should have special status or distinct society status or not, it DOESN'T.

If you give Quebec more autonomy, you will undoubetly here about it from other provinces, like Newfoundland or Alberta.

You will also give the soft nationalist voice more authority, and they will undoubetly want more.

Time to realize Canada cannot just be ripped into 10 different pieces. We can either function as a federation or as ten governments...the choice needs to be made now.

"it DOESN"T" what? I don't understand this sentence.

Harper isn't suggesting that Quebec get special status, or at least none that matters. For what he is suggesting , see my and shoops posts above. Nobody is ripping Canada into further chunks, but action must be taken to prevent the complete regionalization of the country, which is well and truly advanced. I

disagree that it will give the soft nationalist voice any authority, in fact it will help serve to cut them off at the knees.

[Vancouver King]

How is my spelling?

Giving Quebec more sovereignty is a wise political move for now, but not a wise political move for the future...it is also not a wise move for Quebec.

If we look at Quebec today, regardless of whether we believe this province should have special status or distinct society status or not, it DOESN'T.

If you give Quebec more autonomy, you will undoubetly here about it from other provinces, like Newfoundland or Alberta.

You will also give the soft nationalist voice more authority, and they will undoubetly want more.

Time to realize Canada cannot just be ripped into 10 different pieces. We can either function as a federation or as ten governments...the choice needs to be made now.

Decentralizing the country into 10 newly empowered fiefdoms replete with new tax points and reduced federal intrusions will do little to satisfy Quebec's demand for recognition of it's distinctiveness. Success for sovereignty is linked to a definition of Canada as a duality of two solitudes - not 10 - with all the implications of such a partnership - shared ownership and shared power over the dominion.

It gets worse for Harper. The fiscal imbalance in Quebec includes a dimension that Quebec is contributing much more to confederation than it is receiving. Forget the fact that this is nonsense and realize that at some point the Conservatives will have to risk the attendant political fallout and explain to Quebecers that from a fiscal perspective they are the country's largest beneficiary.

[shoop]

This gospel truth has even begun falling out of favour in Quebec.

Boisclair admitted during the PQ leadership race that Quebec probably would face many financial hardships upon gaining sovereignty.

It gets worse for Harper. The fiscal imbalance in Quebec includes a dimension that Quebec is contributing much more to confederation than it is receiving. Forget the fact that this is nonsense and realize that at some point the Conservatives will have to risk the attendant political fallout and explain to Quebecers that from a fiscal perspective they are the country's largest beneficiary.

[Hicksey]

I know I am entering a discussion halfway through here so ...

I fail to see how allowing provinces into the discussion where interests are at stake is such a bad thing. This doesn't mean that the PMO has to bow to their every wish, but still makes them feel that their concerns and interests are taken to heart when the PMO acts.

As far as the fiscal imbalance, if Harper doesn't at least narrow that gap, the 10 seats he won in Quebec disappear. If he doesn't keep that promise, his chances of re-election are pretty well zero if the Liberals put forward a candidate that Canadians can put even one ioda more trust than Martin's name evokes.

[shoop]

Of course Harper knows that. He will definitely narrow the gap. Will it be enough to make the premiers happy ... time wil tell. But delivering nothing on the fiscal imbalance would hand the PMO back to the Liberals without a doubt.

As far as the fiscal imbalance, if Harper doesn't at least narrow that gap, the 10 seats he won in Quebec disappear. If he doesn't keep that promise, his chances of re-election are pretty well zero if the Liberals put forward a candidate that Canadians can put even one ioda more trust than Martin's name evokes.

[Hicksey]

Speaking of election promises, the thing I am most disappointed with is the pandering of Harper and the rest of the candidates. They keep proposing more and more social programs. It drives me nuts. Fix the ones you have before moving forward and committing yourself to more. At this rate all we'll end up with is a broken country nobody can afford to fix.

Of course Harper knows that. He will definitely narrow the gap. Will it be enough to make the premiers happy ... time wil tell. But delivering nothing on the fiscal imbalance would hand the PMO back to the Liberals without a doubt.

As far as the fiscal imbalance, if Harper doesn't at least narrow that gap, the 10 seats he won in Quebec disappear. If he doesn't keep that promise, his chances of re-election are pretty well zero if the Liberals put forward a candidate that Canadians can put even one ioda more trust than Martin's name evokes.

[fellowtraveller]

How is my spelling?

Giving Quebec more sovereignty is a wise political move for now, but not a wise political move for the future...it is also not a wise move for Quebec.

If we look at Quebec today, regardless of whether we believe this province should have special status or distinct society status or not, it DOESN'T.

If you give Quebec more autonomy, you will undoubetly here about it from other provinces, like Newfoundland or Alberta.

You will also give the soft nationalist voice more authority, and they will undoubetly want more.

Time to realize Canada cannot just be ripped into 10 different pieces. We can either function as a federation or as ten governments...the choice needs to be made now.

Decentralizing the country into 10 newly empowered fiefdoms replete with new tax points and reduced federal intrusions will do little to satisfy Quebec's demand for recognition of it's distinctiveness. Success for sovereignty is linked to a definition of Canada as a duality of two solitudes - not 10 - with all the implications of such a partnership - shared ownership and shared power over the dominion.

It gets worse for Harper. The fiscal imbalance in Quebec includes a dimension that Quebec is contributing much more to confederation than it is receiving. Forget the fact that this is nonsense and realize that at some point the Conservatives will have to risk the attendant political fallout and explain to Quebecers that from a fiscal perspective they are the country's largest beneficiary.

Agree and disagree. Quebec is not a monolith. Harper knows full well there is nothing he can do to convince the hard separatist faction that Canada is worthwhile, and I doubt he'll waste much breath trying. He will try to keep the soft nationalists and soft federalists onside - they are the swing vote, not the separatists.

And I think that Harper is the only guy on the national scene who will simply tell it like it is to the province of Quebec. There will be greater autonomy for all the provinces. There won't be a partnership. Take it or leave it. Enough wil take it. We saw proof of that January 23.

[shoop]

Harper proved himself to be a lot shrewder than most people though going into this election.

He realizes the biggest lesson to be learned - *moral* victories are for chumps!

He will govern with an eye towards a majority in 2008. By delivering on his promises in the election he has a chance to make much bigger inroads in Quebec.

Agree and disagree. Quebec is not a monolith. Harper knows full well there is nothing he can do to convince the hard separatist faction that Canada is worthwhile, and I doubt he'll waste much breath trying. He will try to keep the soft nationalists and soft federalists onside - they are the swing vote, not the separatists.

And I think that Harper is the only guy on the national scene who will simply tell it like it is to the province of Quebec. There will be greater autonomy for all the provinces. There won't be a partnership. Take it or leave it. Enough wil take it. We saw proof of that January 23.

[tml12]

How is my spelling?

Giving Quebec more sovereignty is a wise political move for now, but not a wise political move for the future...it is also not a wise move for Quebec.

If we look at Quebec today, regardless of whether we believe this province should have special status or distinct society status or not, it DOESN'T.

If you give Quebec more autonomy, you will undoubetly here about it from other provinces, like Newfoundland or Alberta.

You will also give the soft nationalist voice more authority, and they will undoubetly want more.

Time to realize Canada cannot just be ripped into 10 different pieces. We can either function as a federation or as ten governments...the choice needs to be made now.

"it DOESN"T" what? I don't understand this sentence.

Harper isn't suggesting that Quebec get special status, or at least none that matters. For what he is suggesting , see my and shoops posts above. Nobody is ripping Canada into further chunks, but action must be taken to prevent the complete regionalization of the country, which is well and truly advanced. I

disagree that it will give the soft nationalist voice any authority, in fact it will help serve to cut them off at the knees.

Quebec DOESN'T have special status. It never did...Meech failed, as did Charlottetown.

If Quebec is given more powers, it will undermine federation and erode Harper's western base...maybe increase support for seperation there.

I understand why Harper needs to give Quebec more power, but he should not do so at the expense of the federation.

[tml12]

Harper proved himself to be a lot shrewder than most people though going into this election.

He realizes the biggest lesson to be learned - *moral* victories are for chumps!

He will govern with an eye towards a majority in 2008. By delivering on his promises in the election he has a chance to make much bigger inroads in Quebec.

Agree and disagree. Quebec is not a monolith. Harper knows full well there is nothing he can do to convince the hard separatist faction that Canada is worthwhile, and I doubt he'll waste much breath trying. He will try to keep the soft nationalists and soft federalists onside - they are the swing vote, not the separatists.

And I think that Harper is the only guy on the national scene who will simply tell it like it is to the province of Quebec. There will be greater autonomy for all the provinces. There won't be a partnership. Take it or leave it. Enough wil take it. We saw proof of that January 23.

The government needs to be reworked and the provinces given more power, but Harper muat ensure that when he grants Quebec more power, he does not anger the West.

[geoffrey]

Harper proved himself to be a lot shrewder than most people though going into this election.

He realizes the biggest lesson to be learned - *moral* victories are for chumps!

He will govern with an eye towards a majority in 2008. By delivering on his promises in the election he has a chance to make much bigger inroads in Quebec.

Agree and disagree. Quebec is not a monolith. Harper knows full well there is nothing he can do to convince the hard separatist faction that Canada is worthwhile, and I doubt he'll waste much breath trying. He will try to keep the soft nationalists and soft federalists onside - they are the swing vote, not the separatists.

And I think that Harper is the only guy on the national scene who will simply tell it like it is to the province of Quebec. There will be greater autonomy for all the provinces. There won't be a partnership. Take it or leave it. Enough wil take it. We saw proof of that January 23.

The government needs to be reworked and the provinces given more power, but Harper muat ensure that when he grants Quebec more power, he does not anger the West.

Just give us more power too and I'm sure all will be ok.

95% of Westerns in my view don't really care about what happens in Quebec, as long as we don't get screwed out of money in the process.