'The prime minister has to stop manipulating, he needs to tell all Canadians the limits to their spending powers in Ottawa,' Dion said in French..."
In question period, Dion said the prime minister was to blame for the tight race that distanced the Quebec Liberals from majority support.'The prime minister has to stop manipulating, he needs to tell all Canadians the limits to their spending powers in Ottawa,' Dion said in French...
The Liberal leader continued his attack later during a news conference, accusing Harper of using the so-called fiscal imbalance and his concept of an 'open federalism' in order to manipulate Quebec voters.
'Always he is giving the sense that Canada is as it is unacceptable, that Canada is closed to Quebec, that there is a domineering federalism,' he said.
'As if Canada was closed to Quebec today, without substantiating what he means by that. Does somebody know?'
Dion also accused Harper of failing to define exactly how much money is needed to 'fix' the fiscal imbalance.
3/27/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
44 Comments
"Bravo",
well at least Andrew is now openly declaring, what has been evident for some time now:
his cheering for Dion.
And for the return of the Trudeau era.
'The prime minister has to stop manipulating, he needs to tell all Canadians the limits to their spending powers in Ottawa,' Dion said in French...
Sorry Mr.Dion. I have trouble understanding the part in bold.
"... well at least Andrew is now openly declaring, what has been evident for some time now: his cheering for Dion..."
Riiiight. Let's see...
Liberal vs Liberal, grown-up vs child
Outfoxing Dion on his own green turf
Don't apologize to Ralph
Just because someone isn't blindly partisan in one direction doesn't mean they are in the other.
It would be nice if more people could get past this with-us-or-against-us mentality. It's OK to have opinions that don't overlap completely with one group or another.
I really wish AC would stick to quoting English language sources on his blog.
Google Translator has been of no help in converting Dion's remarks into English for me.
Anonymous: as-tu peur de mourir si tu vois du français?
ok let me just say that:
1. it's theoretically impossible for Andrew to support a party that demands that Harper spend even more than what was already spent on the budget and the environment.
2. however, given Andrew's penchant of criticizing Harper for opportunism, it is definitively unfair for him to complement some Dion comment that i have no reason to believe is any less politically motivated than any of Harper's opportunistic acts (it's from Question Period, for crying out loud), regardless of what merit he saw in that comment.
is it possible for Andrew to keep making baby steps towards the Liberals and then finally lose all trace of conservative principles at some point? JUST LIKE HIS ACCUSATIONS OF HARPER? maybe. but i hope that doesn't happen, man.
Yep, the liberal failure in Quebec was all Harper's fault.
He showed that conservatives can govern the way people like giving ADQ a boost.
I imagine all the other reasons the people in Quebec are fed up with the provincial liberals had nothing to do with it.
But if anything the Sovereign movement in Quebec is weaker than ever under Harper than before - so Dion's words make even less sense than the senseless meaning they have.
Not that I am personally happy with the Budget, I hate it, but I'm not going to be stupidly bitter about it. At this point AC, you're way off.
For the first time in my lifetime, two federalist parties are in power in Quebec. The PQ had their lowest result since 1970, the year the party was created.
6 months ago, the PQ had a 20 point lead in the polls.
So, Mr. Dion, Harper is to blame for the close race? You might want to rethink your approach.
Dion:'Always he is giving the sense that Canada is as it is unacceptable, that Canada is closed to Quebec, that there is a domineering federalism,' he said.
Hmmmm, I always got that sense from Referendums, refusing to sign the Contstitution and such, but it was the Prime Minister all along......who knew? Now the political dynamic in Quebec has changed, the separatists are in third place, and our opinion elites, which along with the the Federal Liberals have been well served by the status quo, don't like it. Maybe it is time to learn a new story?
Bravo? For who? For what?
What Andrew is really saying (I think) is what he has always been saying - that Quebec should just shut up and accept the constitution and current governmental structure for what it is and move on. When Dion says that, Andrew agrees with him.
There's only one problem with this analysis (one Harper has noticed): Alberta is just as angry about Ottawa as Quebec.
This is, in fact, where the Trudeauistes have continued to miss the boat. There is now and English Canadian constituency for constitutional change - and its largely Harper's base in the west.
What really upsets Dion is the rise of the ADQ. The LAST thing Dion needs is a genuine right-wing party in Quebec reaching out to disgruntled Westerners.
And that will happen; you heard it here first.
...Dumont says he's not a federalist...so what is an "autonomist" if not a veilled separatist?
http://www.metronews.ca/story.aspx?id=38722
It looks like Dion has broadened his attacks on Harper. The nitpicking of course continues, as seen by his weak complaint that the Quebec outcome was too "close". But Dion is also now pressing Harper to reveal his cards earlier in the game. Unfortunately for Dion, Harper has his own timetable re this division of spending and responsibilities.
Flaherty is meeting with the Finance Ministers in a month or so, at which time one more of Harper's cards will be played. Even us unsophisticated non-Quebecers understand that these things need to progress one step at a time, and in the proper order. Dion is properly being kept in the dark right now, as there is no need for him to know much just yet.
Luke: Your mistake is in thinking that the ADQ is a "federalist" party. It's moe accurate to syat that they are a "have your cake and eat it too" party. It's abundantly clear from Dumont's past statements and history that what he wants is a Quebec that is as autonomous and independent as possible while still retaining the right to have full representation in the federal parliament and full input into policy that affects the country as a whole.
How on earth can you call that a federalism worth supporting? It's a recipe for the eventual dissolution of the country.
And if the country is going to dissolve, I'd rather that it eb at the hands of people who are at least honest about what they want.
Many of the commenters on this blog have allowed thei partisanship to overwhelm their common sense. I don't blame Harper for the fact that the ADQ did so well, but he's playing a dangerous game in trying to treat them as a party that shares the same interests as anyone in the rest of Canada. They do not.
(Oops, sorry about the typos in the last post.)
What is the alternative?
Had Martin won the last election (minority or otherwise), I suspect that we would be looking at a PQ government in Quebec with the threat of another referendum possible. With Harper at the helm the Seps. are third party with their leader declaring the obvious ,a referendum is an impossibility.
The "Quebec nation within a united Canada" declaration was also supported by Dion and Co.
Dions complaint is rediculous.Dion knows now that the Lib.'s Schtick about how Harper and the Cons are anti-Quebec and how only they can unite the country,are now proven nonsense.He also knows his voice is irrelevent in Quebec.
I can here him now...."That's not fair!...
@ Herb,
Sure the ADQ doesn't share the interests of the rest of Canada.
Name me one provincial party that does?
They're all trying to get as much as they can for themselves.
one thing that should be noted is that Mario Dumont is the only Quebec provincial party leader that said, in a campaign rally, that Quebec should seek to contribute to equalization as opposed to biting the biggest chunk out of it.
even if you don't like him for whatever reason, he is, without a doubt, the top choice for all principled conservative people, especially western-alienation conservatives.
"so what is an "autonomist" if not a veilled separatist? "
a separatist is a dreamer, a pie-in-the-skyer, who thinks Quebec sends more money to Ottawa than Ottawa gives back and so would be economically better off not being part of Canada
See also: rose colored glasses
an autonomist is a pragmatist who realizes Quebec is the economic Hoover of Federal funds, is a Province that has an economy that sucks and understands that the only hope for a decent standard of living is to scream, yell, whine, bitch, complain and threaten for more time on the federal teat.
see also
http://www.premier.gov.nl.ca/premier/
'Always he is giving the sense that Canada is as it is unacceptable, that Canada is closed to Quebec, that there is a domineering federalism,'
Hmm, that kind of sounds like the view of all three of Quebec's provincial parties.
"Always he is giving the sense that Canada is as it is unacceptable . . . that there is a domineering federalism"
I would humbly sumbit at least a third of all voters in the western provinces (and an absolute majority of Albertans) would call Canada a "domineering federalism." All Dion is really doing is showing rural Quebecers and Westerners that they have a lot in common.
Not the wisest political strategy.
Here's what Coyne wrote today in the Post, and it seems to me exactly right:
"So while everyone is celebrating the demise of the Parti Quebecois, and saluting the strategic genius of Mr. Harper, bear this in mind. Mr. Harper bet the farm on Mr. Charest -- and lost. Having ratified nationalist mythologies, appealed to nationalist prejudices, argued from nationalist principles, he has only whetted Quebecers’ appetite for more concessions. True, he will probably benefit personally from the PQ’s collapse -- the Bloc must be feeling postively ill at the prospect of a spring election -- but we should not assume the rise of Mr. Dumont and the ADQ is as much of an unalloyed boon to the Conservatives as presented. And even if it is in the Conservatives’ interests, it may not be in Canada's."
Coyne, one of the best political writers in the country, sometimes completely loses me.
Charest was considered complete toast before Harper became PM. Much as the rest of Canada (me included) were pulling for him, he had God awful poll results in Quebec.
Today Charest is Premier still, and the PQ (woohoo!) is in third place.
The voters in Quebec had 3 options. One would have resulted in a referendum that could split the country apart. Now that won't happen.
With deadlines looming, columnists have to write something. I guess we are in for a string of Coyne columns making us feel guilty for the decline of the separatists.
Ho hum.
Why the big drop off in comments here?
This place used to rock!
"Mr. Harper bet the farm on Mr. Charest -- and lost."
How exactly did Harper lose? Charest's still Premier. It's all he wanted since he knew if Boisclair won all the usual suspects would start beating the war-drums about how we need to "get tough with the separatists" and start touting Stephane Dion. Apparently, they've started doing that anyways.
And, honestly, does anybody think a Quebec Premier, federalist or separatist, is not going to ask for more powers? We've hardly wandered into the unknown here.
The issue is that there is a mismatch between provincial responsibilities and provincial tax raising power.
Unfortuantely this forces the federal government into areas it constitutionally has no business in...BUT feels it should have some say like a parent providing an allowance.
This is what I find the most surprising in the Health Care debate. If "the people" dont like what a provincial government is doing via private health care they can kick them out. Why is there a need for a federal bully to enforce this. Is a province a police state where people are unable to remove government's they are unhappy with?
The issue that people probably do get ipset about is the transfer from one region to another and that being mediated by that regions provincial government. But if it pisses you off in Quebec it should REALLY piss you off in Newfoundland, who for years was funded out of Toronto and Calgary.
Danny Williams can stiff it as far as I am concerned....he is lucky his constituents were able to pay his cable bills with money that flowed from Ontario and Alberta.
I would rather the federal government got out of the areas, transferred some tax points and made it clear that the level of taxation is being caused by their local government.
Yes AC longs for a unitary state....he wold be sympathetic to Sir John A's statement that provinces were glorified municipalities. Well, didnt work out that way and its not the country we live in.
Just the way it is.
By the way...there will be a lot of CPC elected out of QUebec and there will be immense pressue for there to be a decentralization that brings Quebec into the constitution. That wont be promised but it will happen.....like it or not....just saying thats what the jungle drums are saying.
In question period, Dion said the prime minister was to blame for the tight race that distanced the Quebec Liberals from majority support.
Why should the PM be "to blame" for Charest's failures? Was Charest that impressive that he deserved to be a shoe-in for another majority? I don't think so. He was at best a drab, mediocre premier, without much conviction or principle. No coincidence he was once a Red Tory in federal politics. Yes, Charest was Harper's "boy", but only because six months ago, Mario Dumont was nowhere. Certainly Dumont is closer to Harper ideologically.
Does Dion really think that this minority government is a disaster for Quebec? It isn't. It's a disaster for Liberals, both provincial and federal. They lost their grip on the federalist vote to conservatives in the last federal election, and have now watched it happen provincially as well. They now know it was no fluke. You can bet that smarts.
As for the PQ, they have not polled this low since their very first election as a party. Harper wanted Charest to win, but only because he wanted federalists to win. And federalists have gotten more seats now than at any time since 1970. Some would quibble and say that Dumont is no federalist. Well, I'm guessing he'll find lots in common with the western premiers with his views on how the Canadian federation should work.
I would think that Harper is rather thrilled with this latest Quebec election. He was a Charest cheerleader only because he didn't dare dream of a scenario as favourable as this. Hitching his star to a small third party in Quebec would have been foolishly risky. Liberals, however, have much less reason to be happy.
Rick Anderson has perhaps the best comments on Super Mario's breakthrough so far. Yes, he does site Wikipedia as a source at one point (ouch, talk about cheapening one's writing) but that doesn't diminish the sense that he is speaking.
After reading it, I found myself almost wishing that Preston Manning and the old Reform Party were still around. I think they'd have made common cause with Dumont in a hurry, and finally had a chance for that eastern breakthrough they were after.
Here's the link. You need to scroll down a bit to get to Anderson's comments.
http://tinyurl.com/37dvzs
Harper "bet the farm" on Charest?
Six weeks ago there were only two horses in the race... would you rather he bet on Boisclair Andrew?
Would Charest and Dumont have done as well without Harper's help?
Many thought that the Charest was doomed as little as six months ago. If Harper had done nothing and the PQ had won, what would Dion be saying today? Where would the CP be in the polls?
As I understand it, the Fiscal Imbalance has been addressed in the opinion of a very large majority of Quebecers. Had SH not acted the imbalance would have been THE issue in the campaign.
Due to the work that SH has done the CP has the support and has earned large amounts of political capital of both the QLP and the ADQ
while Dion has the support of NO provincial party in Quebec.
Dion is like Al Gore - unable to carry his own province/state - totally out of touch with the vast majority within their home province/state
...
The next step is to legislate restrictions on federal spending on areas of provincial juristiction - sometime this fall. If Dion votes against it - as he likely will (with the loud support of Andrew no doubt) - the CP will have a landslide majorities for the next ten years. The Liberals will be viewed as treating the provinces as so many Uncle Toms.
Andrew,
You're in agreement with HERB, for crying out loud.
Herb.
That should tell you something. That, and that you're being cited by some far out left wing sites as some oracle.
//..Dumont says he's not a federalist...so what is an "autonomist" if not a veilled separatist? //
An "automonist" is someone who wants the federal government to respect the separation of powers in the Canadian Constitution.
The federal government isn't respecting the spirit of the deal that Quebec made when Canada was created.
Provinces are sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction.
The federal government has been using the federal spending power to run roughshold over the separation of powers in the Canadian Constitution.
AC is afraid that once the toothpaste is out of the tube it won't go back in.....and he is correct. What he fails to see from within his "old Canada" triangle formed by Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal is that the other end of the tube is ruptured and all the stuffing they do at the neck forces more out the bottom. Canada is inexorably headed for devolution or dissolution, this is it's last chance for the former, and the latter, if it comes won't be just Quebec, but the west as well.
I don't think Harper bet the farm on anyone. He simply dealt with the leaders and parties available to him to defeat the PQ. What was he supposed to do? Encourage a pre-election coup against Mr. Charest?
Charest means well and really did try to reform Quebec's socialist ways when he first became premier, but public opinion forced him to become just another boring Quebec Premier demanding more money from Ottawa while refusing to get Quebec's fiscal house in order and ease up regulatory barriers to free markets.
Dumont's demands for all the benefits of Confederation without any of the responsibilities do not impress me, but if he can help transform Quebec's economy into something resembling the 21st-century, Canada as a whole will benefit (as Andrew notes in his most recent Post article). Being a stronger leader in the province than Charest, he might just be the one to do it.
BTW Andrew, what did you think of John Ibbitson comparing Mario Dumont to Jean-Marie Le Pen and the rise of the ADQ to racist, backward tendencies among francophone Quebecers outside Montreal? The man can't go a week or two without insulting every Canadian who doesn't live in the three biggest cities.
Anonymous wrote:
"Andrew,
You're in agreement with HERB, for crying out loud.
Herb."
For some of us, it's about which argument is more convincing, rather than which side one habitually takes.
That's why I like Coyne even though I'm further to the left than he is. I know I'll find challenging and interesting views here (in Andrew's posts more often than in the comments section); Coyne is a conservative (of sorts), but that doesn't make him a parrot of Stephen Harper's view or anyone else's.
You, Anonymous, would apparently prefer the latter. Perhaps you should just stay on SDA, where you can be sure that your preferred orthodoxies will never be challenged or disturbed.
Stevo, I too believe that Ibbitson is just mailing it in of late. And yes, he does go on about the whole racism angle too much (the division of ridings was done in a racist fashion as far as he's concerned, because it shortchanged the representation of citizens in big metropolises!).
Perhaps someone from Bracebridge (where he's from originally) said something nasty about him, and this is payback.
I believe some international paper also compared Dumont to Le Pen, which is just stupid.
"Dumont's demands for all the benefits of Confederation without any of the responsibilities do not impress me"
That statement is so vague it could be applied to any provincial politician (especially any provincial politician from Quebec). The only politicians who promote a more centralized Canada in Quebec run federally in extremely safe Montreal ridings.
If the pro-Trudeau federalism crowd wants to save his vision of Canada, they need a voice in Quebec provinical politics. Maybe you should convince Justin to replace Charest. Of course, I somehow doubt that he has the courage to take the Trudeau vision to the people of Quebec. Better to run federally and be loved by Ontario like Dion.
Herb is from the Liberal-NDP axis? no f*cking wonder!
Anonymous, do you actually have any ideas or thoughts to contribute to this discussion, rather than pathetic, brain-damaged, childish insults? If so, I'd be happy to commment on them.
I think most of you are analyzing this wrong.
Assuming that Harper "bet the farm" on Charest and a LIBERAL government in Quebec is completely wrong. Harper is too sharp a political tactician to do this. What Harper did was in fact lay yet one more of his political land mines that Dion stepped on.
Dion in his zeal to be the opposite of Harper, told Quebecers to vote ADQ back in February because Charest was *wink wink* Harper's man. Funny how everyone forgets or misses this. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070228.wcharest0228/BNStory/National/home)
If you look at the ADQ policy/ideology it is far more in line with Harper's brand of conservatism than the Quebec Liberals were under that red Tory Charest.
Harper played Dion. And Dion fell for it like he always does. And Harper got exactly the result in Quebec he was looking for. The big government Liberals reduced to a minority, the "get the Feds out of Provincial jurisdiction" ADQ in opposition holding the Liberals in check, and the seperatist PQ relagated to roaming the wilderness for a while. Brilliant!
KRB:
The weird thing about Ibbitson is that his coverage of Liberals and Conservatives as political parties is fairly balanced, I find. But bring up immigration or rural Canada and he turns into a snarling left-wing version of Ann Coulter, hurling insults at everyone who disagrees with him.
Herb:
I'm surprised to see that you, of all people, would say that being called a member of the Liberal/NDP axis is a "pathetic, brain-damaged, childish insult". I guess we agree on more than I previously thought. For I too would be mortified if someone hurled that insult at me.
Stevo,
That's because anyone who wasn't pathetic, childish and brain-damaged would be well aware that nobody hates the NDP more than Liberals. And vice-versa.
This site is not unusable with IE 7 on Windows XP and even hang my explorer.
not = now
whatever i wanted to say had been iterated in 2 previous posts Herb.
on Andrew Coyne:
"ok let me just say that:
1. it's theoretically impossible for Andrew to support a party that demands that Harper spend even more than what was already spent on the budget and the environment.
2. however, given Andrew's penchant of criticizing Harper for opportunism, it is definitively unfair for him to complement some Dion comment that i have no reason to believe is any less politically motivated than any of Harper's opportunistic acts (it's from Question Period, for crying out loud), regardless of what merit he saw in that comment.
is it possible for Andrew to keep making baby steps towards the Liberals and then finally lose all trace of conservative principles at some point? JUST LIKE HIS ACCUSATIONS OF HARPER? maybe. but i hope that doesn't happen, man."
on the ADQ:
"one thing that should be noted is that Mario Dumont is the only Quebec provincial party leader that said, in a campaign rally, that Quebec should seek to contribute to equalization as opposed to biting the biggest chunk out of it.
even if you don't like him for whatever reason, he is, without a doubt, the top choice for all principled conservative people, especially western-alienation conservatives."
these posts were mine (ask Andrew for IP information). now what exactly have you done to address these points?
it's not my fault if you're a dishonest cretin.
Check out SDA and read the link to Lemon as well.
While Andrew cheers on Dion for his hollow political posturing, another scandal unfolds, which will be even deeper and cut to the very foundation of our democracy.
And of course, at its roots is Liberal political corruption.
Sorry for the interruption, proceed with the cheering on of hollow political posturing.