Harper and Charest

[Leafless]

Jean Charest is in Ottawa this week to discuss a whole "host of issues" including the daycare issue signed with the previous Liberal government.

What is going on with these meetings behind closed doors already.

In other media reports quoted Charest as saying -no need here to give Quebec families $1,200 a year per child. Give it to my treasury.

Meanwhile Ontario's Dalton Mc.Guinty is reported as saying- Mr. Harper has promised all provinces will be treated equally. These men have begun a debate in which Mr.Harper can't afford to be seen as MIA.

Do you hear the faint clicking of dice-

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02...1440643-cp.html

[fixer1]

I think it is a good thing that Harper and Charest have had the meeting. It does not mean it has to be a hush hush thing. It should not take a lot of thinking to know the type of issues that will be talked about. Also since Martin's Liberals all but sold out the Charest liberals, in everything, it is nice to see that someone is again talking to them with friendly intwentions. Harper will not sell out the store, and I am sure he will speak candidly about hisintentions on the fiscal imbalance, and what he has in mind for solving it. It is nice to see that the government is moving on even before it sits in a month or so.

I am sure he will meet with all the premiers shortly each one on one. It just seems to me to be the right thing to do, and no one should find fault in any of this.

[Leafless]

fixer 1

You wrote- " It should not take a lot of thinking to know the type of issues that will be talked about."

It's obvious Mr. Charest does not like Mr. Harper's plan concerning a substitute for national care compared to what was offered by the Liberals and to that I say to bad and Quebec gets what the ROC gets.

The same goes for goes for Quebec's fiscal imbalance-what fiscal imbalance are we talking about?

And then there is the contentious issue of the appointment of Alberta Ted Menzies as English unilingual parliamentry secretary to the cabinet minister in charge of official languages and La Francophonie.

I think this was a brilliant move on the part of Mr. Harper to show Quebec that yes the federal government does have a place and say concerning represenatives in our officially bilingual federal government and that Quebec does not run the the federal government.

You also wrote- " Also Martin's Liberals all but sold out, in everthing, it's nice to see someone is talking to them with friendly intentions. Harper will not sell out the store."

Martin's Liberals were not the only ones to sell out the store to Quebec as the Trudeau and Chretien Liberals did the same thing.

I think there is no room for closed door meetings concerning policies and programs and all premiers should be treated the same with no special deals for anyone.

[Vancouver King]

Leafless:

"It's obvious Mr. Charest does not like Mr. Harper's plan concerning a substitute for national care compared to what was offered by the Liberals and to that I say to bad and Quebec gets what the ROC gets."

-----------------------------------------

This kind of thinking will keep the CPC in perpetual opposition. In Quebec, the national Liberals have owned federalist sentiments for a generation but have now fallen from grace. Harper cannot afford to allow the present oppourtunity to slip away. Negotiate and compromise with Quebec, the hearts and minds of it's electorate will determine if the CPC gets it's majority.

[Spike22]

What is the big deal? It is the normal ass kissing to the premier of Quebec. The rest of the premiers will get their meeting in order of priority. Nunavut, Yukon, Newfoundland etc will be last no doubt.

[Vancouver King]

What is the big deal? It is the normal ass kissing to the premier of Quebec. The rest of the premiers will get their meeting in order of priority. Nunavut, Yukon, Newfoundland etc will be last no doubt.

You got it ... the only change will be the identity of those doing the puckering.

[fellowtraveller]

Every photo of Harper and Charest holding hands and smiling must ruin Duceppes day.

He'll never get closer in his life to an independent Quebec as he did in November 2005.

[Leafless]

Vancouver King

You wrote-" In Quebec, the national Liberals have owned federal sentiments for a generation but now have fallen from grace. Harper cannot allow the present opportunity to slip away."

And why did the Liberals fall from grace in Quebec?

Some might say it was the sponership fiasco or is the real reason the Liberals simply had no more to give without Quebec fully becoming a country of it's own.

I find it amazing after Quebec for years being at the receiving end of federal politcal favourism that only a few months ago separation levels were very high around 50% with some reports slightly over 50%. This ironically can be compared to the problems the U.S. and it's allies are having in Iraq trying to implement democracy. But in Canada the Quebec separation thing is perpetual in nature.

I think Mr. harper should not sway with his promise as Mr. Mc.Guinty suggested that all provinces be treated equally.

Running Canada like the Liberals will only result with putting the political emphasis on regionalism, fracturing Canada even further which could also result returning the Conservatives to oppositon status.

[seabee]

One should keep in mind that there will be a provincial election in Québec no later than in 2008, probably in 2007. This might even coincide with another federal election if the present minority federal government is toppled. Harper's and Charest's careers are, to a certain extent, intermingled.

Also, Charest's popularity is very low in the polls; an election held now would give a clear win for the PQ.

It is not possible, in this Charest-Harper thread, to consider only the federal, or only the provincial stakes; both are intertwined in a terribly complex manner.

The next year, politically, is going to be very entertaining.

[Vancouver King]

Vancouver King

You wrote-" In Quebec, the national Liberals have owned federal sentiments for a generation but now have fallen from grace. Harper cannot allow the present opportunity to slip away."

And why did the Liberals fall from grace in Quebec?

Some might say it was the sponership fiasco or is the real reason the Liberals simply had no more to give without Quebec fully becoming a country of it's own.

I find it amazing after Quebec for years being at the receiving end of federal politcal favourism that only a few months ago separation levels were very high around 50% with some reports slightly over 50%. This ironically can be compared to the problems the U.S. and it's allies are having in Iraq trying to implement democracy. But in Canada the Quebec separation thing is perpetual in nature.

I think Mr. harper should not sway with his promise as Mr. Mc.Guinty suggested that all provinces be treated equally.

Running Canada like the Liberals will only result with putting the political emphasis on regionalism, fracturing Canada even further which could also result returning the Conservatives to oppositon status.

The Liberals fall from grace in Quebec could be attributed to Martin's losing strategy of framing the election there as a vote for or against sovereignty. Not even Duceppe claimed that was the Jan. 23rd stakes. Harper promised Quebecers another way, discarding the Liberals shop-worn rhetoric of the 1980's. It involves greater autonomy through less federal intrusions, continuing a Liberal tradition of one-off agreements, a voice for the province in appropriate international forums, less corruption/more ethics and addressing Quebec's sense of the fiscal imbalance.

We can now add Paul Martin's 5 year day care funding guarantee to the above list of Quebec requirements.

Any observer would be fully justified in asking do Harper's pledges amount to de facto independence - basically missing only the military factor - a gradual ceding of administration over a people aching to receive autonomy. The answer is yes. Quebec the nation is about to become effectively sovereign.

This could prove to be as much in the country's interest as it is to the future of the Conservative party.

[Leafless]

Vancouver King

You wrote-" Quebec the nation is about to become effectively soverign."

Firstly Quebec is not a nation but a province like all others.

If this ever happens it better not be at the expense of the ROC or it will split the country right down the middle and Mr. Harper will be history along with the rest of the party.

Asymetrical federalism will not encourage Quebec to leave and become soverign but could provide the type of support to provide it to do just that at a later date as Quebec lacks investment and is dependent on the federal government to fulfill it's separation fantasies.

I believe if even if Mr. Harper attemps to provide more automony to Quebec will only fuel anti-federal Western sentments with many Canadians looking down at such a move.

I think Mr. Harper would be wise to back off on providing Quebec any kind of support leading to a soverign Quebec.

[Spike22]

He wants to be so buddy buddy with Quebec they won't want to seperate - at least I think that is the conservatives strategy. This relationship will also prove valuable in the next election by (hopefully)gaining more seats in PQ. I see that the feds will maintain all existing Quebec exclusive programs like their highly subsidized daycare and more government contracts for firms like Bombardier (new search and rescue aircraft for the CF is one particular item).

I expect more of the brown nosing by both the premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister to get their agenda's moving forward.

[The difference between a brown noser and a sh*t head is depth perception]

[Vancouver King]

Leafless:

"You wrote-" Quebec the nation is about to become effectively soverign."

Firstly Quebec is not a nation but a province like all others."

____________________

Not by their own estimate or in the responses of successive federal govts since Lesage's "quiet revolution" of the 60's. The moment ROC asked the question, "what does Quebec want?", the nation legitimized Quebec's dialogue and quest for special status. Harper's recent overtures represent the latest, and probably final, attempt to accommodate Quebec aspirations within a loose and diminished national framework. The fact we can ease the province into self-govt without a shot fired will be testimony to our country's civility.

Leafless:

"I believe if even if Mr. Harper attemps to provide more automony to Quebec will only fuel anti-federal Western sentments with many Canadians looking down at such a move."

____________________

This theme will have larger implications in a Tory majority. How will Harper reconcile the remaining Reformist, sometimes anti-Quebec sentiment of his Western caucus with the party's generous response to Quebec's aspirations for further autonomy?. Maybe a collision is coming. Meanwhile, a short term strategy of deference to Quebec's sense of nationhood enhances the CPC's main priority: a majority government with substantial Quebec presence.

[fellowtraveller]

How will Harper reconcile the remaining Reformist, sometimes anti-Quebec sentiment of his Western caucus with the party's generous response to Quebec's aspirations for further autonomy?.

That seems pretty obvious. He'll offer all the provinces, not just Quebec, increased autonomy.

Or rather, he will provide them with his interpretation of the roles and responsibilities described in the Constitution. There will be no problem selling that to the West.

[geoffrey]

How will Harper reconcile the remaining Reformist, sometimes anti-Quebec sentiment of his Western caucus with the party's generous response to Quebec's aspirations for further autonomy?.

That seems pretty obvious. He'll offer all the provinces, not just Quebec, increased autonomy.

Or rather, he will provide them with his interpretation of the roles and responsibilities described in the Constitution. There will be no problem selling that to the West.

Quebec and Alberta want the same thing. A free hand in their economies and cultures.

[Vancouver King]

How will Harper reconcile the remaining Reformist, sometimes anti-Quebec sentiment of his Western caucus with the party's generous response to Quebec's aspirations for further autonomy?.

That seems pretty obvious. He'll offer all the provinces, not just Quebec, increased autonomy.

Or rather, he will provide them with his interpretation of the roles and responsibilities described in the Constitution. There will be no problem selling that to the West.

Quebec and Alberta want the same thing. A free hand in their economies and cultures.

A caucus that became publicly restive over the Emerson appointment is also a group likely to react negatively to a preoccupation with the Quebec file. Elements of this group once ran campaign ads openly questioning the legacy of prime ministers from the province. To some Western rural MP's, the West getting in must be pretty thin gruel. It remains to be seen if this "let's put Quebec in it's place" crowd remains silent and under control.

[Leafless]

Vancouver King

You wrote- " It remains to be seen if this "lets put Quebec in their place" crowd remains silent and under control.

When I hear a comment like this I wonder if Canada is just as far behind as places like Iraq.

Is religion just as volatile as language?

And to that I would say YES as proven by the political antics of Quebec who really never gave Canada anything but a series of aggressive demands built on a false premise that was developed basically by the Liberal party a party that Quebec was always part of and has manipulated that party with the "voice of Quebec" creating what has resulted in Quebec acquiring significant political power.

In fact I woud edit what you said to read -It remains to be seen how long "the Quebec lets take over Canada crowd" remains vocal and in control.

[Spike22]

Luckily Quebec receives no favouritism from the feds otherwise people might get upset in the rest of the country.

[Vancouver King]

Leafless:

"In fact I woud edit what you said to read -It remains to be seen how long "the Quebec lets take over Canada crowd" remains vocal and in control."

____________________________________

If it's any comfort, I understand your obvious frustration and that of many other people who refused the tag of "non distinct" in the face of Quebec's quest for distinct society status. One acquaintance demands after a lifelong federal diet consisting largely of the nuances and intrigues of French Canadian separation that his own children should grow to experience a political climate free of the pall associated with a never ending risk of national disintegration. He simply wants closure.

Reality, of course, brooks no such sentimentality. Harper's position is harsh and driven by the numbers. Without the country's major centres on side Harper has no option other than a positive response to Quebec's 10 seat invitation to service it's agenda. Quebecers can be expected to hold him to his promises.

Is a country within country too terrible to accept?

[fellowtraveller]

How will Harper reconcile the remaining Reformist, sometimes anti-Quebec sentiment of his Western caucus with the party's generous response to Quebec's aspirations for further autonomy?.

That seems pretty obvious. He'll offer all the provinces, not just Quebec, increased autonomy.

Or rather, he will provide them with his interpretation of the roles and responsibilities described in the Constitution. There will be no problem selling that to the West.

Quebec and Alberta want the same thing. A free hand in their economies and cultures.

A caucus that became publicly restive over the Emerson appointment is also a group likely to react negatively to a preoccupation with the Quebec file. Elements of this group once ran campaign ads openly questioning the legacy of prime ministers from the province. To some Western rural MP's, the West getting in must be pretty thin gruel. It remains to be seen if this "let's put Quebec in it's place" crowd remains silent and under control.

You are grossly overestimating Western antipathy to Quebec, and unrest against Harper - after two weeks in office. Wishing does not make it so.

[Leafless]

Vancouver King

You wrote- " Is a country within a country too terrible to accept?"

Quebec has described itself as a nation in which it has no legal basis to do so as France gave it all away with the "Treaty of Paris".

We should make clear what we are talking about here.

A nation denominates a group of human beings, a community of people mainly of common decent, history and language forming a State or inhabiting a territory.

A country dominates a territory or the territory of a nation.

This land was won by the British the dominate group to establish claim to Canada and provided Canada with the government we have to-day.

Based on the premise of "founding nations" and Quebec's logic concerning desire for it's own country then all provinces in Canada have a right to the title of a country.

I would never accept Quebec as a country within Canada. The only reason to date Quebec has been able to enjoy the luxury of utilizing their own language in their own province is thanks to the federal government and the tax payers of Canada for providing the financial base in which to do this.

Dream on.

[seabee]

A nation denominates a group of human beings, a community of people mainly of common decent, history and language forming a State or inhabiting a territory.

A country dominates a territory or the territory of a nation.

To denominate is not synonymous with to dominate.

It can happen that two nations (group of human beings) inhabit the same territory. And also that the most violent, agressive, racist of these two nations dominates the other.

[seabee]

And Canada, of course, is not a nation: its people certainly do not come from a common descent, have different languages, conflicting histories, and is legally multi-cultural. It barely qualifies as a country. Being legally a Dominion, it is essentially an autonomous British colony.

[fixer1]

And Canada, of course, is not a nation: its people certainly do not come from a common descent, have different languages, conflicting histories, and is legally multi-cultural. It barely qualifies as a country. Being legally a Dominion, it is essentially an autonomous British colony.

If this was the 1950's I would agree with you. But it is not. Back then Canada flew the Union Jack as its flag and we all pledged aligence to the queen each day in school. That al changed when we got our new flag and we withdrew from being a dominion and were granted our our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are now a country, sovereign and free.

The problems come back in history to haunt us. The battle at Quebec City between Wolfe and Montcalm was lost by the french and they pledged to the British realm and the Queen. That is why they were not spoils of war so to speak. France was having problems after that with the new world and sold what they had left to the United States (Louisiana Purchase). The difference is the French around New Orleans were asimmilated into the USA. In Canada we allowed them to go on working and exploring as if they were still part of France. We never really asimilated them, at a time when this was just assumed. Now the word assimilate is something people abhor and cry foul at. They say you allowed us to be French so long we are now a distnct society within Canada. The catch is we all know that allowing them the distinct status, also makes seperation easier when they try that. So we are now seeing what a small mistake in history and untimely nation building has brought to modern government. I like most Canadians see there not being a huge problem with the Distinct Society, as long as that society pleges to the country of Canada once and for all. The nervous nellies on the Meech Lake Accord, have brought you this same problem now mired with much more baggage. Hind site is perfect vision RIGHT?

[seabee]

The Constitution has not been modified as it clearly states that Canada is (still) a Dominion, whose head of state is the monarch of England.

The catch is we all know that allowing them [...]

The catch word, of course, is "allowing". It presumes that "they" must submit, on the ground that might makes right, on the grounds of a violent conquest. This presumes that one group of "Canadians" are, by patrimonial right, the conquerors, and that another group, the original pre-1759 Canadiens are, because of their heritage, the conquered and hence must submit to the "superior race" (Lord Durham's words).

Conquering is the easy part; keeping it conquered, that is the problem, even nearly two and a half centuries later.