No, apparently they didn't
This is obviously a great night for Mario Dumont. In an election that was in many ways a referendum on the three leaders, he has made an astonishing breakthrough... -- from 5 seats to contending for power, at one leap. He will not be entirely disappointed, either, that he did not finish with the most seats: his party is plainly not ready to govern. Indeed, it hardly exists, but for him.
For the other party leaders, this is an utter disaster. There is no other word for it: on present trends, this will be the worst popular vote showing for the PQ since its first election in 1970 -- and the worst for the Liberals since ... ever. Andre Boisclair is finished, that much is clear. Mr. Charest is probably finished as well, though his party may prevail upon him to stay on for some time, at least as a caretaker, in the interest of stability. (NB This was written when it looked like Charest had lost his seat. But the fundamentals of his situation are not all that different with a seat: this was his last election. There is no way the party will let him lead them in another campaign, and I doubt he even wants to.)
For Stephen Harper, this is a mixed night. Clearly, the decimation of the PQ can only be to the good -- for Quebec, for Canada, and for Mr. Harper -- not least since it will throw their Bloc Quebecois cousins into a similar state of disarray. Gilles Duceppe might be thought a leading contender to replace Mr.Boisclair -- but if Mr. Harper pulls the switch on an election, as I think now is all but a certainty, Mr. Duceppe will be pressured to stay on at the Bloc. But if he takes the pounding I expect, any hopes of being PQ leader will likely be extinguished.
But make no mistake: Mr. Charest was Mr. Harper's boy in this campaign. He gave him everything he asked for: "nation" status, a seat at Unesco, billions of dollars in cash. And he still was rejected by two voters in three. Mr. Dumont is obviously sympatico with Mr. Harper in ideological terms -- indeed, the surging ADQ is the most recognizably conservative party in Canadian politics, which may perhaps give some pause to the centrist pablum-feeders advising Mr. Harper -- but it is anything but clear whether he is Mr. Harper's boy, or the other way around. As weak as the ADQ's machine is, it is the wehrmacht next to the federal Conservatives'.
So much will depend on how Mr. Dumont interprets his "mandate." There is an opportunity here -- for the ADQ, for Quebec, and for Canada -- to change the subject: to pull the province out of the endless federalist-separatist impasse, and actually start dealing with the real challenges that confront it: namely, liberating it from the over-taxed, over-indebted, over-regulated "Quebec model" that has held it back all these years. If Mr. Dumont pursues that agenda, all will be well.
If, on the other hand, he pushes his undefinable, unworkable "autonomism" model, demanding powers from Ottawa that cannot and should not be delivered, then Mr. Harper has a problem on his hands -- and so does the country. Separation, pur et dur, was always unlikely, if not impossible: Quebecers are not willing to make that kind of abrupt break with Canada. But a separation by stages, a gradual hollowing out of the federation, is a much more threatening prospect, if only because it seems so unthreatening. And if Mr. Harper refused, then we should have once again disappointed expectations, as In similar constitutional episodes in the past.
I rather doubt that more than a fraction of Mr. Dumont's supporters voted for him because of his constitutional position, and I suspect he knows it. Here's hoping, then, that he uses his newfound influence to improve the government of Quebec, rather than to torment the government of Canada.
MOREOVER: Dumont must know that his biggest weakness is the perception/reality that his party are not fit to govern. So his energies have to be focused on showing managerial competence and proposing realistic solutions to the problems Quebecers face, not chasing autonomist rainbows. There's just no percentage to reopening the constitutional file -- especially since, after tonight, he can hardly invoke the separatist bogeyman to back up his demands. UPDATE: First news reports...
- CTV.ca | Que. Liberals win minority, ADQ forms opposition
- Voters Pick Quebec Assembly - washingtonpost.com
- Quebecers shelve independence movement in provincial election - Yahoo! News
- Canadian unity safe as federalists win Quebec vote - Yahoo! News
- Quebec election pushes separatists to third place - Yahoo! News
- globeandmail.com: Liberals to govern divided Quebec
- globeandmail.com: Charest barely hangs on to his seat
- Liberals reduced to minority in Quebec election - Yahoo! News
- Liberals win minority in Quebec, premier wins riding seesaw
- Harper can count blessings at historically poor result for sovereigntists - Yahoo! News
- Quebec voters chose provincial assembly - Yahoo! News
- ADQ becomes Quebec's Official Opposition
3/27/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
23 Comments
Quebec Separatiste questioned my knowledge level about Quebec in AC's previous post. Judging by AC's post above QS should be questioing AC's knowledge as well as AC and I are of very similar opinions about what happened in QC tonight.
2. "autonomism" = secession
Among the many items that it includes is for quebecers to only have file one tax return - like canadians in the rest of Canada do - except that return would go to the Quebec government and they would forward the cheque to the federal gov't for their share.
3. And the ADQ is not "the most recognizably conservative party in Canadian politics" the Sasketchewan Party holds that title (going away) and is poised to romp to victory in the fall.
" a separation by stages, a gradual hollowing out of the federation, is a much more threatening prospect, if only because it seems so unthreatening"
I am aware that AC believes in a strong centralized government. But I happen to think that decentralization is the strongest source of unity. The U.S. is a prime example, a nation of 300 million and 50 states, which has not had a separatist whimper for 150 years, and they have a much more decentralized government than ours. Brazil is an example of another large country that is decentralized, and despite an extremely unstable central government has remained strongly united. Meanwhile, smaller but more centralized nations like Belgium and Spain have powerful separatist movements.
On another note, I am pleased that Dumont made his breakthrough. Quebec was long overdue for a party that did not adopt the status quo of the Quebec economic model. The PQ and the Libs for decades have tripped over each other in agreement over the direction that Quebec was headed, in almost every way, except for the ultimate question of separation.
Another interesting aspect is how Montreal remained a liberal stronghold, comletely impervious to the advances of the ADQ. This is a complete mirror of the resistance to the conservatives that is present in Montreal and Toronto on the federal scene. The inner cities and large suburbs remain liberal strongholds that are extremely resistant to change. Yet smaller regions such as Quebec City can swing from one election to the next. I would love to see some analysis to explain this.
Charest has a few more lives left and Dumont and his "autonomy" could help Dion.
The death of the PQ and separatism is way too premature. A less controversial PQ leader would have had a far better result.
I really doubt that Charest is Harper's man.
Honestly I think Harper couldn't give a crap about Charest and is probably secretly happy at the strong conservative showing there.
For Harper, Charest was simply someone he could use to get his message through to Quebec that Harper's version of federalism is different from the liberal version. Why bother to use Dumont for that as Dumont was not the premier?
Andrew's obvious dislike for Harper continues,
"a mixed night"??????
Funny, every conservative I have corresponded with was literally jumping with glee, seeing this as pretty much a best case scenario.
A "mixed night" is about the most negative spin one could put on this amazing outcome.
Sean, the danger with "autonomie" is not decentralization, but assymetric federalism. If we devolve to a situation where Quebec City is passing laws for Quebecers, and Ottawa is passing laws for everyone else, then at some point everone is going to say what's the point of having Canada at all.
Mississauapeter, unfortunately you're probably right about the PQ's survival, but we can hope. The Union Nationale went downhill fairly quickly once it was revealed as an emperor without clothes.
My sister-in-law, a feminist, secular humanist, anglo West Island matron, voted Green and said the Greens took almost half the opposition votes in her riding. (Combined opposition 8-9K votes to Liberals' 18K votes.) I think we are witnessing the beginning of a sea change in politics in Quebec and Canada, and I think there is too much turbulence for anyone to predict the future.
A strong central government that does precisely what? That's the big ol' bugaboo for the provinces. If Quebec and Alberta have their way, Ottawa becomes tax collector/distributor extraordinaire - more of a regulatory cog for the provinces to function autonomously. Anything less smells of Ottawa sticking it's nose in provincial jurisdictional issues and we know how much that upsets the status-quo. Frankly, the whittling away is going to happen under a Harper government more than it would from any province - this is likely the big evil secret agenda we've heard so much about and frankly I say, bring it on.
The only negative I can see for Stephen Harper here is that he's cast the perception of himself, and Jean Charest, of being closely aligned... and Jean Charest, though him and his party held on to power, took a major lost tonight.
Stephen Harper and Jean Charest were largely allies of convienance, more based upon the mantra of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and uniting to fight the seperatist threat, than on any more natural ideological alliance (i.e. of having the same policy preferances in general).
Mario Dumont is actually a more natural ally of Stephen Harper in this vein, as they share more or less the same views on the conservative vs. liberal debate.
If Stephen Harper plays his cards right, he'll be able to broker support from both Charest, and Dumont, in the next federal election. Dumont will almost certainly be the easier of the two to earn this support from.
Given how obviously little he gained from his alliance with Stephen Harper, it is possible that Jean Charest may be less willing to continue to publically align himself with Stephen Harper in the future.
In actual fact, I think that most people who voted for Jean Charest in this election will likely vote for Stephane Dion in the next federal election (unless Jean Charest was to campaign passionately for Stephen Harper, which seems unlikely to me), while Stephen Harper (barring a major government scandal) should get the the votes of almost every signle person who voted for Mario Dumont (if you're conservative enough to vote for Mario Dumont, you'll have no problem with Stephen Harper's level of conservatism, and would hold at your nost at Stephane Dion).
Mario Dumont's vote percentage alone would give Stephen Harper over 30% support in Quebec. That's huge. That could very well give him a plurality of seats in Quebec in the next federal election.
Stephen Harper's alliance with Jean Charest may come crumbling down, which is bad news for Stephen Harper, but a stronger and more natural ally in Mario Dumont would more than make up for it.
Also, in reality, the only outcome that I could have forseen leading to Stephen Harper holding off on a federal election call would be the PQ winning. They didn't - they finished 3rd - so that alone makes Stephen Harper happy, I would say.
We have a Constitution. If the federal government would respect the division of powers in Section 91 and 92 more often, and use restraint in the execise of the federal spending power, most provinces autonomist desires would be satisfied.
Canada's problem is that we have too many federal politicians who really should be provincial politicians, and have gone and got themselves elected in the wrong place.
& the inverse is true as well: we have too many provincial politicians who think that federal jurisdictions should be their playground.
When would a leadership race start for the Liberals and PQ? Both don't seem set to announce they're leaving anytime soon. And in a minority legislature, you want to have your leader lined up and ready to go at a moment's notice.
A bigger question for me is whether the ADQ's strong showing allows Charest the cover to bring the sorta change (tax cuts, privatization) that he promised in 2003, or whether the ADQ vote represents more an Anybody-But-You-Two vote than a buy-in to the ADQ's platform?
Sean: I am aware that AC believes in a strong centralized government. But I happen to think that decentralization is the strongest source of unity. The U.S. is a prime example, a nation of 300 million and 50 states, which has not had a separatist whimper for 150 years, and they have a much more decentralized government than ours.
No they don't, not even close! The U.S. is way more centralized than Canada. It was less centralized when Canada was formed (before the Civil War, you'd say "The United States are ...", and afterwards it was "The United States is ..."), but in the U.S. successive judgements on jurisdiction have tended to go in favour of the federal government, whereas in Canada it's been the opposite.
You need a national government to enforce certain standards across the country. We are Canadians first, then residents of our province. I don't know if the feds could just leave it up to the Council of Confederation to come up with agreed national standards.
I agree that past federal governments have dabbled more in provincial areas while allowing exclusive federal areas of responsibility to slip down the list.
I believe that it's better for our democratic structures if transfers are pared down, and that each jurisdiction raise the taxes they need through their own means. That would make everyone more accountable, and stop the beggaring and finger-pointing.
AC,
How can you expect anyone to tkae your analysis on this seriously when all your wailings and gnashing of teeth during the "Nation" debate have just been exposed as completely wrong. "Fan the flames"? Fan the flames of the fire that torched the seppies back to third place, you mean. That useful to Liberals bogeyman is not dead but he is on life support, no doubt with Stephane running the ventilator. I guess his whole campaign will revolve around new light bulbs.
I can't believe how at least one obvious reality for Harper is being conveniently overlooked: He had no choice but to work with Charest, the "FEDERALIST PREMIER" of Quebec.
How could he possibly have openly aligned himself with Dumont, and not been accused of directly interfering in a provincial election?
That said...
I'm going to remind everyone here that once upon a time about 20 years ago another man began talking about a new kind of federalism in this country. And circa 1998 he organized a convention in which this topic was he central theme. At that convention westerners and notable Quebecois nationalists came together and advanced that cause, out of which the Canadian Alliance was born.
And today the Prime Minister of Canada, one time Reform Party guru and policy chief, can honestly look at last night's election results and conclude that the fruits of all those efforts are now beginning to manifest.
Quebecois and westerners alike are sick and GD tired of a patriarchal attitude out of Ottawa towards the provinces and people therein that has been the eternal trademark of Liberal politics in this country for longer than most care to remember.
Harper has finally broken that paradigm, and more power to him for it!
It is, IMHO, the result of Harper's efforts to decentralize power in this nation back to the original intents spelled out constitutionally that has finally give rise to a freedom amongst Quebecois to realize that there's a better way to manage within the Canadian confederation.
Last night signaled a huge groundshift in politics in both Quebec and Canada, one long overdue but ultimately inevitable.
Frankly, it's not so much that Harper was the big winner last night, but that both the federal Liberals and the BLOC got dealt a 2x4 upside their collective ears.
The Liberals and the seppies have been making living off of each other for decades in an almost symbiotic relationship of dependency (once implied not so subtly by Harper resulting in Dion having a spitting tantrum on national TV).
Yesterday was a good day for Canada, no doubt about it.
I agree with Sean - this is an important 'tectonic' shift in Quebec. Finally.
The old model of Quebec had the Liberals and PQ separatistes as two sides of the same coin. The same economic model of welfare state-run socialism with a centralist gov't, top down authoritarianism. The only difference between the two was the source of funding this welfare state. For the Liberals, it was the federal gov't. For the separatistes, it was god, the angels and dreams.
What we are now seeing in Quebec is a rejection of welfare state socialism, a rejection of separatism, and a mov't towards a decentralized federation - exactly as envisaged in the BNA act, and before the centralist sabotage of that act in the 1960s-1980s.
With a Dumont party as opposition, we are seeing that Quebecers are rejecting state run socialism, and moving towards a pragmatic capitalism, with a mixture of private and public, more responsibility and powers to the family, a rejection of multiculturalism and its isolation of peoples into closed cultural groups.
Instead, we are seeing Quebecers taking more responsibility for their own economy and lifestyle, and insisting on a collaborative and integrating rather than isolationist population. Collaborating with the rest of Canada, and within itself.
No, this does not mean an isolate quebec and the ROC. It means decentralization and more provincial powers for ALL provinces. As has been pointed out, this decentralized model is hardly unique in the world and actually operates far better than our rigid centralism.
Canada is too large geographically and its population too large for a centralist gov't. It requires decentralization, which enables rapid, flexible and locally relevant responses - rather than the slow, top heavy and often irrelevant centralist responses.
As Bouchard's Manifesto, written in 2005 pointed out, Quebec has to move away from this socialist welfare economic model - and that's exactly what is happening.
Dumont rejects separation, wants a decentralized federation and less intrusive gov't. Exactly the same as Harper.
It's a tremendous and vital change - for the better.
What ET so eloquently said!!!
Canada's problem is that we have too many federal politicians who really should be provincial politicians, and have gone and got themselves elected in the wrong place.
WSISYW, you should take a gander through the House of Assembly Hansard, and ministerial press releases, in the Province of Dannystan.
You will quickly find that disrespect for the constitutional division of powers is very much a two-way street.
"Charest has a few more lives left and Dumont and his "autonomy" could help Dion."
LMAO! Keep dreaming. Dion's done. The LPC is completely out of touch with the views of mainstream Quebec. This vote was as much an endorsement of Harper's Canada as of Dumont's Quebec.
"A less controversial PQ leader would have had a far better result."
This statement shows that you have no freaking clue what you're talking about. It's easy to blame Boisclair. However, it was not Boisclair's fault that Harper got elected and removed many of traditional irritants of the federal-Quebec relationship. It's not even Boisclair's fault that the right-wing of the party left and voted ADQ. Have you even looked at the party platforms? The ADQ is totally different than the PQ. The only thing keeping them together were irritants with the feds.
Another question not being asked: How would have this election turned out had Martin et al won the 2006 election?
I'll tell you: Boiclair would be Premier leading a majority government.
And Canada's future would be once again hanging in the balance.
It's ironic, at least to me, that it ultimately took a conservative Prime Minister from Alberta to finally bring to an end this otherwise seemingly endless dance with the devil of separatism.
But not at all surprising...
Sean said:
"But I happen to think that decentralization is the strongest source of unity. The U.S. is a prime example, a nation of 300 million and 50 states, which has not had a separatist whimper for 150 years, and they have a much more decentralized government than ours."
it appears you are conflating the US's de jure federal makeup for its de fatco. indeed, the US was intended to be in principle an extemely decentralized federation. however, in practice, the US has developed into one of the most centralized federations in the world.
in canada, we have experienced the diametric opposite. the fathers of confederation envisioned a federation with a powerful central gov't. however, this vision was summarily usurped by a bunch of colonizing pricks on the judicial committe of the privy council, which has led to canada being an etremel;y decentralized federation beholden to the pedestrian interests of those beset by a provincial p-o-v.
Springer said:
"Quebecois and westerners alike are sick and GD tired of a patriarchal attitude out of Ottawa towards the provinces"
patriarchal or paternalistic??? are we talking about federalism or feminism ;-) ? i'll assume you are using it synonymously to paternalistic. the thing is, if the federal gov't is acting in a paternalistic fashion towrads the provinces, it is because the provinces insist on continually acting in a childish fashion. if the provinces don't want to act like adults, someone has to.
Canuck...
I'm always typing on the fly. "Paternalistic" is definitely what I meant...although maybe "patriarchal" arguably wasn't that far off, either.
;-)
There's a strong case to be made that the Liberals' idea of "national unity" has always been dependency upon the federal government's (i.e., nanny state) teat.
In fact this breeds contempt and suspicion, and ultimately divisions.
People want to belong to a nation because of pride and heritage, not because of a knife to their collective throats.
Well, what's next? Will Charest aided and abetted by conservative minded Dumont embark on a tough-love program to sort out the Quebec economic mess? Seems unlikely, Charest went nowhere but down last time he tried this and small-town populist politicians much prefer paving rural roads and supporting ($$$) small towns in the hinterland to shaking up moribund economies.
The pessimistic view is that Charest and Dumont will now start a bidding contest for more money and perks (UNESCO + ??) from Harper. The approach will be "gee, there just might be some votes and an endorsement for your party during the next federal election if you help me out with $xx$ and $yy$". No harm in this, provincial politicians are born for little else but ratcheting little bits of sovereignty here and there will eventually add up.
Let's remember that Charest is the inheritor of Bourassa's "federalisme rentable" while Dumont wants to strengthen the Quebec economy the old-fashioned way to better enable the Quebec national dream. Neither approach has much to recommend it as supporting Canada in a possibly not very pleasant 21st century (oil, Russian & Chinese adventurism, terrorism, etc.)
Better be careful what you wish for (in the way of notionally federalist and/or conservative players in Quebec City) because you might just get what you asked for!
Its always amusing to read what Andrew has to say about Quebec. He usually provides insightful analysis with a sound fiscal conservative slant, but its become readily transparant since the token nation motion that he's entirely unable to look at Quebec's relationship with Canada in a reasonable and level headed manner. As for whatever reason when it comes to respecting the division of powers Coyne tends to side with the latte sipping, big government, downtown Toronto girly men.