Quebec

[jdobbin]

Dumont insists people not regard him as a federalist.

Dumont doesn't want another referendum on separation and he moved to portray his "autonomist" approach as something distinct from traditional federalism. He warned that federalists shouldn't consider him one of their own. "I hope that's not how they perceive me," Dumont said Tuesday. "That would be a mistake."

He also puts tax cuts in doubt.

Charest and Dumont could clash on tax cuts and that could be the first test for the minority Liberal government.

Dumont signalled he will take a second look at the $700 million in income tax cuts the Liberals promised during the last week of the campaign, noting it was "not well received by Quebecers."

Charest defended the cuts on Tuesday, saying Quebec needs to be fiscally competitive and the middle-class needs a tax break.

I'm not sure what kind of federalist the Tories in Ottawa thought they were supporting in Dumont.

[geoffrey]

I'm not sure what kind of federalist the Tories in Ottawa thought they were supporting in Dumont.

The kind of Federalist that Mr. Harper was all along. Harper was Alberta's Dumont at one time. Do you not recall the firewall letter?

I see any cozying up to Dumont by the Tories as a good sign that they might start heading back to the right track on considerably sizing down Ottawa and giving most powers back to the provinces where they belong.

[jdobbin]

The kind of Federalist that Mr. Harper was all along. Harper was Alberta's Dumont at one time. Do you not recall the firewall letter?

I see any cozying up to Dumont by the Tories as a good sign that they might start heading back to the right track on considerably sizing down Ottawa and giving most powers back to the provinces where they belong.

If Harper's support truly is with Dumont, I wonder if Charest will support federal Liberals.

[geoffrey]

If Harper's support truly is with Dumont, I wonder if Charest will support federal Liberals.

Charest is in a pickle. Harper's support, deep down inside, is with Dumont. They are one in the same in many ways. On the surface, Harper can't be so picky. Charest though, is a conservative through and through, he'd never ever been seen siding with Dion.

No Quebec politican that wants to get elected will ever support the author of the Clarity Act.

[August1991]

If Harper's support truly is with Dumont, I wonder if Charest will support federal Liberals.

There's a certain logic to that idea.

The PLQ (Charest) is now third among francophone voters and its seats largely come from Montreal/Laval in areas with allos and anglos. These are the same places where the federal Liberals have their seats too.

I don't like to impose an ideological framework on Canadian voting patterns but it appears that the federal Liberals will tend to get urban or suburban ridings with immigrants. The federal Tories will tend to get rural ridings.

The NDP in English-Canada and the PQ (possibly QS in the future) in Quebec will get radicalized, poor urban ridings and some regional ridings for historic reasons.

The ADQ was entirely shut out of Montreal and Laval - that's 33 seats of which 25 went Liberal and 8 went PQ. Over half the PLQ caucus comes from Montreal/Laval.

[seabee]

There is a real potential that the PLQ will come to be known in Québec as the "anglo" party. I don't like the idea, but it is a possibility.

[August1991]

La Presse published short bios of the 40 odd ADQ candidates elected.

I may be way off but I suspect that they ressemble rural (Conservative) backbenchers in Alberta or any province.

Two were ex-military. Several farmers. A couple of financial planners. One lawyer. Retired teacher. Another guy ran an auto glass shop. Several had been previously Liberals. Several had been involved in municipal politics. Most are men but there are several women. One woman managed the chain grocery store in a small town. One guy was born in Switzerland and his parents moved to Quebec to be farmers when he was 10.

One guy I think has a cable-TV Gun and Hunting show (he's against the gun registry) and another has a criminal record (stealing cars when he was 23).

Nobody knows any of the names except maybe one or two.

[gc1765]

He also puts tax cuts in doubt.

I don't know much about Quebec politics, but I thought the ADQ was supposed to be a (small-c) conservative party. You'd think he'd be in favour of tax cuts?

[jdobbin]

There's a certain logic to that idea.

The PLQ (Charest) is now third among francophone voters and its seats largely come from Montreal/Laval in areas with allos and anglos. These are the same places where the federal Liberals have their seats too.

I don't like to impose an ideological framework on Canadian voting patterns but it appears that the federal Liberals will tend to get urban or suburban ridings with immigrants. The federal Tories will tend to get rural ridings.

The NDP in English-Canada and the PQ (possibly QS in the future) in Quebec will get radicalized, poor urban ridings and some regional ridings for historic reasons.

The ADQ was entirely shut out of Montreal and Laval - that's 33 seats of which 25 went Liberal and 8 went PQ. Over half the PLQ caucus comes from Montreal/Laval.

When I looked at the map of how the vote went, it really did seem like an urban/rural split.

Provincial Liberals might be stinging from the less than full out support that Tories gave the party when it came to achieving a majority. Charest might have been a PC at one point but I wonder if he is considering his options now in who to release his people to when it comes to a federal election.

[jdobbin]

I don't know much about Quebec politics, but I thought the ADQ was supposed to be a (small-c) conservative party. You'd think he'd be in favour of tax cuts?

Kind of put the kibosh on the idea that the province is going to a small government province when tax cuts are not at the top of the list.

[Charles Anthony]

This might even put the kibosh on the comfortable misconception held by Rest-o-Canadians of Quebec politics.

[jdobbin]

This might even put the kibosh on the comfortable misconception held by Rest-o-Canadians of Quebec politics.

And what misconception is that?

[Mad_Michael]

Dumont insists people not regard him as a federalist.

If he would promise to refuse federal subsidies, I might believe him.

But he's a Quebecer and so on this issue, I call 'bullsh*t'. Quebec is addicted to federal subsidies.

[Charles Anthony]

And what misconception is that?

For example, the myopic misconception that a Quebecker associates the ills of big government primarily with high taxes.

Here is some proof: the difference between that Rest-o-Canadians and Quebeckers had with the Liberal Party of Canada's sponsorship program.

[jdobbin]

For example, the myopic misconception that a Quebecker associates the ills of big government primarily with high taxes.

Here is some proof: the difference between that Rest-o-Canadians and Quebeckers had with the Liberal Party of Canada's sponsorship program.

Do you have a citation for either or is that your opinion?

[Charles Anthony]

Do you have a citation for either or is that your opinion?

Do you have an alibi for the last few years?

[jdobbin]

Do you have an alibi for the last few years?

No need to get upset. Just looking for something other than your opinion.

[Charles Anthony]

Kind of put the kibosh on the idea that the province is going to a small government province when tax cuts are not at the top of the list.

Are tax cuts the best way to reduce the size of the Quebec government?

[jdobbin]

Are tax cuts the best way to reduce the size of the Quebec government?

Some say so. Why don't you show me a source that says what the best way to reduce government involvement in the economy? And then show me how it is related to what we see in Quebec now.

[Charles Anthony]

Some say so.

In that case, I am 100% convinced of your unsupported statement in post #10 up above. Absolutely convinced.

Why don't you show me a source that says what the best way to reduce government involvement in the economy? And then show me how it is related to what we see in Quebec now.

Translation: "First prove my unsupported statement is false otherwise it is true." I get it.

[jdobbin]

In that case, I am 100% convinced of your unsupported statement in post #10 up above. Absolutely convinced.

Translation: "First prove my unsupported statement is false otherwise it is true." I get it.

It seems your standard method of operating is to make a statement and then not show how you came to that conclusion.

In case you have forgotten, this is what you said:

For example, the myopic misconception that a Quebecker associates the ills of big government primarily with high taxes.

Here is some proof: the difference between that Rest-o-Canadians and Quebeckers had with the Liberal Party of Canada's sponsorship program.

So enlighten us. How did you come up with this conclusion? And to be so kind as to show some sources.

I repeatedly said I saw no evidence to indicate the Dumont's platform meant small government.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/quebecvotes2007/s...21.html?ref=rss

Dumont insists he can deliver family-friendly programs and cut Quebec's expenditures by one per cent by weaning 25,000 people off social assistance, and cutting back on business grants and subsidies.

He also said he would reduce provincial spending by 1%.

What he didn't say was how he would reduce taxes. If spending is down, more taxes are collected than needed for services. He rejected the tax refund that Charest announced in his budget. Why? Why have the additional money in the budget if not to increase provincial spending?

I saw the platform as mere tinkering. During the campaign he made some fair sized spending announcements as well. Many critics outside government didn't think his platform added up.

[Charles Anthony]

It seems your standard method of operating is to make a statement and then not show how you came to that conclusion.

No, I like to call it -- let me remind you, in case you have forgotten -- throwing pearls before swine.

So enlighten us. How did you come up with this conclusion?

Simply, I came to that conclusion by being partially awake during the last few years.

And to be so kind as to show some sources.

Sure. Before I do, I will say this: this is tooooo easy.

Anyway, I will entertain your request. Here is one that I have always liked:

Gomery Inquiry May Mark the End of an Era in Quebec

For many Quebecers, though, the damage has been done. Response in the rest of Canada might be somewhat muted, but in this province where politics has long been elevated, along with hockey, to the heights of religion, these latest developments seem like a watershed that marks the end of an era. For Quebec voters, the embarrassment of the rest of the country guffawing over their perceived corrupt political mores is compounded by the indignation of learning that the heady public debate over their future has been hijacked and bogged down in corruption. Their sense of outrage, and discouragement, is palpable.

From day one, Quebec voters have followed the Gomery inquiry with the fascination usually bestowed on advancing floods or forest fires slowly encircling a village. The hearings, often tedious, have become a TV phenomenon, with at times more than 200,000 viewers riveted to the obscure cable channel that broadcasts them. The public galleries at the inquiry are filled with the sort of regulars usually found at spicy trials.

What does it mean? Here, it's as if Quebec's political culture is now crumbling. And the silly damage-control games the various parties have played following the Gomery bombshell only seem to have made matters worse. Quebecers have lost faith in their politicians, and that's that.

But it's interesting: a recently published poll indicated that Quebecers are more likely than other Canadians to say they are better off now than they were five years ago - despite what the daily political news says about how their affairs are being managed. That can mean only one thing: Quebecers think they can look after themselves and their interests without the help of those mingling, self-interested - and often corrupt - apparatchiks.

A new era.

Maclean's

I repeatedly said I saw no evidence to indicate the Dumont's platform meant small government.

Big deal.

This is an easy one too. I will now kill a few more birds with one stone.

What he didn't say was how he would reduce taxes. If spending is down, more taxes are collected than needed for services. He rejected the tax refund that Charest announced in his budget. Why? Why have the additional money in the budget if not to increase provincial spending?

Your question is valid but you do not realize one thing: Dumont may not even have a real plan at all.

Here we see rest-o-Canadians trying to debug and interpret Dumont's "economic plan" when Quebeckers have already figured it out long before the election. Here is my reference, previously posted by aout91 in a different thread whereby Dumont's "economic plan" is clearly and concisely summarized in two words. That video is very revealing. In case you have trouble finding Dumont's Economic Plan In A Nutshell, I will give you a hint: one of the words is a pronoun.

This exemplifies "the comfortable misconception held by Rest-o-Canadians of Quebec politics" upon which I am convinced exists.

Many critics outside government didn't think his platform added up.

Correct. However, it seems like some people are still trying to read too much into it.

Now, please excuse me while I compile references to support my latest opinion: the sky is blue.

[jdobbin]

Sure. Before I do, I will say this: this is tooooo easy.

Anyway, I will entertain your request. Here is one that I have always liked:

Gomery Inquiry May Mark the End of an Era in Quebec

For many Quebecers, though, the damage has been done. Response in the rest of Canada might be somewhat muted, but in this province where politics has long been elevated, along with hockey, to the heights of religion, these latest developments seem like a watershed that marks the end of an era. For Quebec voters, the embarrassment of the rest of the country guffawing over their perceived corrupt political mores is compounded by the indignation of learning that the heady public debate over their future has been hijacked and bogged down in corruption. Their sense of outrage, and discouragement, is palpable.

From day one, Quebec voters have followed the Gomery inquiry with the fascination usually bestowed on advancing floods or forest fires slowly encircling a village. The hearings, often tedious, have become a TV phenomenon, with at times more than 200,000 viewers riveted to the obscure cable channel that broadcasts them. The public galleries at the inquiry are filled with the sort of regulars usually found at spicy trials.

What does it mean? Here, it's as if Quebec's political culture is now crumbling. And the silly damage-control games the various parties have played following the Gomery bombshell only seem to have made matters worse. Quebecers have lost faith in their politicians, and that's that.

But it's interesting: a recently published poll indicated that Quebecers are more likely than other Canadians to say they are better off now than they were five years ago - despite what the daily political news says about how their affairs are being managed. That can mean only one thing: Quebecers think they can look after themselves and their interests without the help of those mingling, self-interested - and often corrupt - apparatchiks.

A new era.

Maclean's

I repeatedly said I saw no evidence to indicate the Dumont's platform meant small government.

Big deal.

This is an easy one too. I will now kill a few more birds with one stone.

What he didn't say was how he would reduce taxes. If spending is down, more taxes are collected than needed for services. He rejected the tax refund that Charest announced in his budget. Why? Why have the additional money in the budget if not to increase provincial spending?

Your question is valid but you do not realize one thing: Dumont may not even have a real plan at all.

Here we see rest-o-Canadians trying to debug and interpret Dumont's "economic plan" when Quebeckers have already figured it out long before the election. Here is my reference, previously posted by aout91 in a different thread whereby Dumont's "economic plan" is clearly and concisely summarized in two words. That video is very revealing. In case you have trouble finding Dumont's Economic Plan In A Nutshell, I will give you a hint: one of the words is a pronoun.

This exemplifies "the comfortable misconception held by Rest-o-Canadians of Quebec politics" upon which I am convinced exists.

Your citation of the Gomery enquiry and Aubin's conclusion that it means Quebecers can take care of themselves does not follow. I have no idea what poll the author cites but could it be that years of economic growth might be the reason they say they are better off?

You are reading far too much and despite your smugness, there is little evidence to support your conclusion that Dumont represents a change for small government in the way you think it does.

I don't think Quebecers know who Dumont really is. They certainly don't know who is party is. Some of those MNAS will have trouble finding the washrooms in the next weeks. What this resembles is Sharon Carstairs jump from third to second. Will those new MNAs be speaking from the Dumont page or will they have trouble discerning what the message is?

I'm not even sure Dumont knows what he is politically.

[Bakunin]

A few months after the 1995 referendum, the Quebec government focused on three things, reduce the government size, reduce the debt and natality. However sometime things takes more time than we think to happend. Lucien bouchard cutted evrywhere he could cut, he did evrything too fast and what happend for sample is the transport minister couldn't do his job proprely so what they did is they found other way to get money without writing it in the budget wich is why the debt is still growing but we can't blame them, the cut where not realist. But if we look at it, i think 10-12 year later we are starting to have smaller government, our natality is getting better and better and we didn't reduce the debt itself but we managed to lower our debt ratio.

There are also new strong sign that things are getting better, i think quebec is the place where private schooling system and private healthcare system is growing the fastest wich are the 2 biggest spender in the provincial budget so it will lead in less government. I think in 4 year, quebec healthcare system will change drastically.

The only 2 new social program since 1995 where built to help the natality wich is imo the key to rebuild a strong economy in quebec because it lower our ratio debt and put less pression for the new generation to repay the debt.

Jean charest should not have cut taxes however, he raised almost evry fee and unofficial taxes like electricity through hydro-quebec to balance the most possible his budget, he should keep the money to help his finance minister sleep at night and not have to worry how he will keep his budget balanced but i guess he wanted too much to get elected...

[Mad_Michael]

A few months after the 1995 referendum, the Quebec government focused on three things, reduce the government size, reduce the debt and natality. However sometime things takes more time than we think to happend. Lucien bouchard cutted evrywhere he could cut, he did evrything too fast and what happend for sample is the transport minister couldn't do his job proprely so what they did is they found other way to get money without writing it in the budget wich is why the debt is still growing but we can't blame them, the cut where not realist. But if we look at it, i think 10-12 year later we are starting to have smaller government, our natality is getting better and better and we didn't reduce the debt itself but we managed to lower our debt ratio.

There are also new strong sign that things are getting better, i think quebec is the place where private schooling system and private healthcare system is growing the fastest wich are the 2 biggest spender in the provincial budget so it will lead in less government. I think in 4 year, quebec healthcare system will change drastically.

The only 2 new social program since 1995 where built to help the natality wich is imo the key to rebuild a strong economy in quebec because it lower our ratio debt and put less pression for the new generation to repay the debt.

Jean charest should not have cut taxes however, he raised almost evry fee and unofficial taxes like electricity through hydro-quebec to balance the most possible his budget, he should keep the money to help his finance minister sleep at night and not have to worry how he will keep his budget balanced but i guess he wanted too much to get elected...

What is a "natality"?

Quebec has the highest taxes and the largest debt of any Province in Canada. And of course, Quebec receives the largest amount of Federal tax subsidies from the 'rest of Canada'. Funny how that all goes together.