Charest and Dumont, white hat and white hat? the past from the future
although both right on the Quebec political scene, many cases Mario Dumont divide and Jean Charest, as the fate of specialists for example. Yet on a particular topic, and no less important, the relationship between the federal and provincial (Intergovernmental Affairs), the distinction is rather subtle.
Indeed, the question of the constitutional future of Quebec, what really differentiates the ADQ PLQ? The two leaders are of allegiance federalist. Both appear as autonomous. The two leaders adopt the same behavior against Ottawa. Charest and Dumont, white hat and white hat?
Jean Charest has never hidden join federalism and he never hesitates to defend the legitimacy of Quebec's place in Canada. The party's position reflects that of the head and also rejects any ambiguity by making the backup of its federalism rationale. Thereupon I grant, clarity between the liberal clan ADQ. Dumont refuses because, for electoral reasons, to use for himself qualifier federalist. But in all likelihood it is. It will nevertheless enjoys a nationalist view of its involvement in the Yes camp in the last referendum campaign. However, 3 April 2007, the RDI, Mario Dumont says
"I campaigned for the yes in 1995, but I never believed in the separation of Quebec from Canada. " His participation in the campaign of yes," he said, was done more to negotiate a new deal with Ottawa, for "we live in a confederation with a genuine autonomy for Quebec in Canada as a whole." We can therefore conclude that even in 1995, Dumont did not want sovereignty. These statements confirm that, despite his reluctance to show it, Dumont is indeed a supporter of federalism. Note that it was not until a few days after the election of March 26 to qualify for the confession which says a lot about the intellectual honesty of the ADQ leader. PLQ, ADQ: Two parties, a vision Here, both sides boast to claim the autonomy of Quebec. But the image she passes the test of reality? Are we dealing with real autonomy or opportunists, ready to applaud wildly for every crumb that falls from the table of the masters?
the PLQ, the only true autonomy was fired long ago, Yves Séguin. Autonomy for Charest must simply await the next move of opening irrelevant central government to speak as an unprecedented and historic announcement. Think of her reaction when Stephen Harper has placed in Quebec within the Canadian team at UNESCO. Always the same old tactics to stretch a bone to Charest that will show it as a trophy in honor of asymmetrical federalism. Why not? This little game seems to keep Quebec in its place in Canada. Let
for a moment things differently. Could it be that, contrary to the wishes Charest, these so-called gestures of openness are used to slow the progression of Quebec, or immobilizing it in a constitutional framework adequate for its development?
Dumont, meanwhile, relies on open federalism in Canada and said yes but not at any price. However, his attitude to the Harper government on many occasions to doubt the authenticity of his nationalism, his support for the federal budget, for example. Dumont quickly came over from lying excited to budget money Flaherty about the fiscal imbalance, ready at any meanness for a handful of changes.
It is full of praise for Stephen Harper not on the recognition of Quebec as nation within Canada, so he knows full well that Harper was trying to avoid. This is the team of the Bloc Quebecois, knowing the reluctance of conservatives on this issue, which has skillfully maneuvered to take advantage of the situation and force the debate. The image is tarnished autonomist Dumont when he praises Harper like a dog wags his tail at his master.
Reminder: In 2006, meeting in Quebec on the eve of National Day, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Quebec lieutenants have all refused to recognize the existence of the Quebec nation. For Charest, Canada needs to take a while asymmetrical federalism Dumont research open federalism. Heavy shade. Both boast of defending Quebec in Ottawa when in truth, both defending Ottawa in Quebec. Simple slip? Willful blindness or historical mistake? What other choices offered to them? Recognize the federal government as unable to meet the desire Emancipation of Quebecers would give ammunition to the separatists. For them, it is better to truncate the demands of Quebec in the hope of any reasonable accommodation. Mathieu
Conservatives "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
George Orwell, 1984
Mario Dumont's reaction to the federal budget was for me a surprise. Without the approval, I naively believed his franchise when he gave airs autonomy. Its unreserved support for the federal budget soon had me back on 2 feet on the ground. Its nationalist image takes a blow when Stephen Harper praises like a dog wags his tail at his master. Stephen Harper, the politician who keeps his word.
Why this contradiction by the leader of the Action Democratique du Quebec? Why talk more often pseudo-federalism of openness of the Conservatives that Harper himself, who does the subject exclusively in Quebec? Perhaps the answer lies in the program of the ADQ, possible without federalism full of possibilities. Sign of addiction? Not for Dumont. How could he sell his vision of autonomy if Quebeckers no longer believe in the potential gains in Canada? They may be tempted by independence.
The central government surplus emerges from scandal over ten years and, if one relies on the Conference Board, its revenues are growing faster than spending in its fields of competence, which promises more flexibility for years to come. Meanwhile, only for the costs of the system, the Quebec government spending rising faster than revenue.
If the federal budget indeed settled the question (as we want to believe Harper and Dumont), a nationalist party did not applaud, it would require retroactive payments immediately as the worst consequence of the fiscal imbalance is to have weakened Quebec making it more dependent on Ottawa.
The sad reality is different in opposition. To resolve the fiscal imbalance, there is only one solution, the point transfer tax or GST. Jim Flaherty's budget provides for only a few years of extra money in Quebec. Then? Everything will be redone. But meanwhile the Tories can boast a Regulation of so-called fiscal imbalance (still in a TV ad ...). Pure madness? Pure lie that Dumont is over eager. In truth, the Conservatives are content to temporarily manage the consequences (lack of money) instead of eradicating the causes with a permanent transfer of revenue sources.
could always argue that the federalism of openness is also the recognition of Quebec as nation within Canada. Moreover, this as well, Dumont is full of praise for the Tory leader when he knows though Stephen Harper has refused to recognize the concept.
Meeting in Quebec (our national capital), on the eve of the Feast 
National in 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Quebec all his lieutenants have refused to recognize the existence of the Quebec nation.
The Bloc Quebecois, which has forced the hand of the minority government by filing a motion that the Canadian government to recognize Quebec as a nation. Driven to the wall, the prime minister made his political calculation and a gesture of despair, he responded with its motion-cons. His called open federalism has nothing to do with it.
Definitely Harper likes to play that card, that of openness toward Quebec. But I wonder what kind of aperture can show him who was actively working to overturn the Charter of the French language in Quebec when he chaired the National Council of Citizen from 1997 to 2002. Mathieu
Sovereignists what? The short PQ What happens now?
Friends sovereignists What to do? Dealing with the reluctance of the Parti Quebecois to bring its option to the forefront sometimes to give the impression he is trying to hide? How to deal with its warmth to adopt a strategic logic to reach his goal, preferring to waste the talents of its activists in the defense of its provincial management? What about a separatist party which undertakes to himself to take action of sovereignty, which rejects any significant action without approval by referendum?
sovereignty requires a referendum will say some. Yet the PQ expects no winning conditions or plebiscite to implement its "social democrat". Why not just admit that the PQ is not sovereignty but ... referenda and social-democrat?
What? Pierre Bourgault arose surely the same question in 1968 when the National Rally and Sovereignty-Association Movement join to form the PQ. Bourgault then president of the Rally for National Independence obviously wants the separatists forces unit but Rene Levesque, he rejects any formal alliance with the NIR. Bourgault convene the members of the executive national with the sole item on the agenda: what do we do now?
"[...] I suggest that the executive [national] proposed that the members to dissolve the NIR. Afterwards, we will enter the PQ one by one. We believe in the unity of the independence forces. Now we saw that it was impossible by means of negotiations. So it must be done by force. "
The executive adheres to universally Bourgault and analysis at the annual meeting, it asks its members to join the new political party more moderate and to make their triumph ideas, what they acceptance, thereby realizing the unity of separatists for decades to come ... until now.
Bourgault, who did not want a referendum, said later that the scuttling of his party had been the worst political mistake of his life. However, the scuttling of the NIR, this historic step and founder, has he failed to make essential for PQ its base, its most radical militants, the wicked purzédurs (rinistes that I associate with) those who, while like him, want an election on sovereignty rather than a referendum on an ambiguous question? By the way, I say activists in the broadest sense possible, within or outside the party, each in its midst. They are essential to PQ, then why does it reflect Does not their aspirations for clear speech and an approach based on independence? Perhaps a part of the answer lies in their unwavering support for the party, given its monopoly over the issue.
Indeed, purists can start their own party without splitting the votes. But the unity of the troops already there. The results of the March 26 clearly shows, after the breakup of the coalition sovereignty, there is now the political collapse of the movement to give Quebecers a state of their own.
In addition, a new player jumps on the ice. The Union of Progressive Forces and Option citizens joined a new party political sovereignty, QS. This young band creates great anxiety it causes for the fracture in our ranks, but it comes at the same time break the monopoly that supplies the dynamics inside the PQ. Two parties rather sovereignists softies now share the stage and they will not come together soon. So that's a huge opportunity for the disaffected to realign nationalist politics through their bargaining power. And frankly, if the left performs it with such skill and without embarrassment, why the separatists would defeat the most determined?
Take yourself what is yours
The dissatisfaction may simply choose the party that best fits their demands. Or they meet to discuss among them-the action plan they wish to adopt and then haggle over their membership in a party. Which shows the candidate most committed to independence and the program the most consistent? Which adopts a tone more firm when the national question? What are the issues for change with the parties? MES (motion for an election on sovereignty), this association wishes to abandon the PQ approach Morin could (but not necessarily) as a starting point to a kind of "union" whose central objective is to capitalize on the legacy of Bourgault and members of the deceased INR. Thanks to them today, their successors may cause a serious dilemma for the leadership of the PQ, at this juncture, can do without any ally. A serious dilemma in the management of QS can also get support from those activists who lacks to perform a remarkable breakthrough.
The opportunity now presents itself to play parties against one another to raise the stakes and take over the political agenda, we must seize it. The rinistes as goodwill for the PQ are not interested in other parties, but as a group open to change ... Who knows? The speech could suddenly become more nationalistic.
No option should be set aside, even form a new political party. A new way divide? Not necessarily. Think Françoise David. She has formed Citizens Option for the sole purpose of obtaining a merger with the UFP. We could do the same and open negotiations with the PQ, which he refused to RIN in 1968, or negotiate with QS, as David has done with the UFP.
Finally, it is in perfect continuity with the efforts of Bourgault that we can now exercise the necessary pressure on the system to push his point of bursting. Demonstrate that the dissolution of the NIR has served the cause of national independence by giving political weight to his heirs, the power to negotiate which lacked rinistes 1968. Mathieu
he quietly to his loss? A truncated For many, the results of the March 26 provincial election marked a major victory for the nationalists of the Action Democratique du Quebec. However, the breakthrough of the ADQ has to smile more than a federalist. I think, for example, Jean Chretien, and all those liberals who have worked so hard from the time they had the power to harm the Parti Quebecois and to tarnish the legitimacy of his project. Today, the Conservative Party Stephen Harper quietly harvest the fruits of hard work by the Chrétien government to break the back of Quebec society and his party the most daring.
Marginalization quiet political portrait of Quebec PQ has not occurred overnight, with the election of André Boisclair as leader, it's a long decline that began after the flight of the referendum in 1995. Since then, each election is an opportunity for the PQ of a further fall, both in terms of deputation of popular support and, unfortunately, the nationalist surge caused by the public hearings of the Commission Gomery has saved the PQ and will not have prevented him from losing more ground on March 26.
Indeed, it was following the close referendum results that the offensive against Quebec Ottawa deployed, that is to say Plan B. Sponsorships, the Clarity Act (C-20) and the fiscal imbalance are only the elements most publicized. Remember the talk of partition, the federalist propaganda, the Canada Information Office (CIO) or the sabotage of Quebec's trade missions abroad. By reducing ever the flexibility of the provincial government, the federal government has cleverly manipulated to feed the population of cynicism toward politicians Quebec became unable to resolve the most pressing problems. The ADQ advantage of the widespread anger toward a political class that the substance remains the poor victim of a Canadian dynamic to counter the desire for emancipation from Quebec.
Mario Dumont, the earthworm in a knight's armor, owes much to the whole council of ministers in the Chrétien government, and particularly to Stephane Dion, the chief architect of the plan B and current federal Liberal leader. This is their victory, the triumph of determining patient all those working against national affirmation of Quebecers and which seek to neutralize the independence movement. For them, this historic moment marks a decisive step towards the disappearance of the separatists. After the breakup of the coalition sovereignty, we are now witnessing the collapse of the political movement to give Quebecers a state of their own.
The entire province is now paying the price of defeat in sovereignty will lose what little independence he had managed to pull in the Canadian federation. Our opponents would be wrong to celebrate too quickly end if the PQ since March 26 is a victory for the federalists on the separatists, it is not the capitulation of the sovereign who is alive and well and ready to reorganize. Mathieu, a member of the PQ
the PLQ, the only true autonomy was fired long ago, Yves Séguin. Autonomy for Charest must simply await the next move of opening irrelevant central government to speak as an unprecedented and historic announcement. Think of her reaction when Stephen Harper has placed in Quebec within the Canadian team at UNESCO. Always the same old tactics to stretch a bone to Charest that will show it as a trophy in honor of asymmetrical federalism. Why not? This little game seems to keep Quebec in its place in Canada. Let 
