Why Quebec is spurning Dion: the compact myth

Why Quebec is spurning Dion: the compact myth



By WILLIAM JOHNSON
Author and a former president of Alliance Quebec

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 – Page A19


No, it's not possible. Can the federal Liberals have plunged so low in their once impregnable Quebec fortress? Some finger Stéphane Dion. Others smell poison lingering from the sponsorship scandal. But another factor, more fundamental, goes ignored: "the compact between the two founding peoples."

Brian Mulroney described it in his senior-college-year essay, according to his biographer, L. Ian MacDonald: "To the French, [Confederation] is a pact between French and English, which guarantees each group an equal right to its own faith, language, laws and customs." In fact, this compact theory is a myth. It was first enunciated in 1904 by nationalist icon Henri Bourassa; its progression is traced by political scientist Stéphane Paquin in his 1999 book, L'invention d'un mythe: Le pacte entre deux peuples fondateurs.

Soon taken up by nationalist historian Lionel Groulx, this invention spread among historians, then politicians. By the 1950s, it was articulated as the foundational fact of Canada by a royal commission launched by Maurice Duplessis. It's been the doctrine of every Quebec premier since, turning into an axiom, a historic grievance and a vision for reconstructing Canada. And every premier's duty is to rewrite the Constitution to make Quebec as equal as possible to English Canada.

Jean Lesage: "Today's Quebec must possess and control ... the economic, social, administrative and political levers that will enable it to realize its legitimate aspirations as an adult people." Daniel Johnson Sr. threw down an ultimatum: "Égalité ou indépendence." Under Claude Ryan, the Quebec Liberal Party published its constitutional policy, Une nouvelle fédération canadienne: "This reform aims above all at inscribing in the fundamental law of Canada the principle of the equality of the two peoples that founded modern Canada."

That included the right to secede at will, the abolition of the Senate, the transfer of all residual powers to the provinces and the repeal of the federal power "to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada." Such was the constitutional policy on which Robert Bourassa's Liberals were elected in 1985.

But the platform cautioned: "The current context is not favourable to a comprehensive reform of Canadian federalism. And so we must adopt a pragmatic approach and proceed in stages." And so Mr. Bourassa put forward five conditions for recognizing that Quebec was bound by the 1982 Constitution Act. Meech Lake was only to set the stage for later, as Mr. Bourassa's justice minister signalled, "the Quebec government wanted to establish on a solid basis the foundations of a comprehensive constitutional reform to come in a second stage of negotiations."

The "two founding peoples" doctrine clashed with the political culture of Canada. And so a constant tug of war emerged as Quebeckers voted simultaneously for politicians in Ottawa and Quebec City who were at odds with each other. Mr. Duplessis fought with Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson with Mr. Lesage, Pierre Trudeau with Daniel Johnson Sr., with Mr. Bourassa and René Lévesque. And this paradox was an accepted part of Quebec's political culture. The political class pushed for two founding peoples, and ordinary Quebeckers kept voting Liberal federally.

Mr. Trudeau patriated the Constitution against the Péquiste majority in the National Assembly, but all remained quiet. Polls showed support for secession dropping between 1980 and 1987, the year of Meech Lake. But everything changed after Mr. Mulroney thundered against patriation - and so the Constitution - as leaving Quebec betrayed, humiliated, isolated. The magician's conjuring proved so effective that ordinary Quebeckers converted to his view that the federal Liberals were guilty of high lèse-Québec.

Eventually, Mr. Mulroney and his Conservatives were discredited across Canada. But, instead of turning back to the Liberals, Quebeckers drew the logical conclusion of Mr. Mulroney's revisionism and voted for the Bloc Québécois.

The rest of the country turned the page on the Mulroney era after Stephen Harper reunified the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives. But, in Quebec, his influence lives on.

Quebeckers had accepted patriation, had accepted Mr. Trudeau's rejection of "two founding peoples," of special status, "distinct society," and his refusal in 1980 to be bound by the results of the referendum on sovereignty-association. But now, thanks to Mr. Mulroney, the Liberals are distrusted in Quebec, and Stéphane Dion is spurned for his Plan B and the Clarity Act.

Quebec will fit uneasily in the federation so long as it is governed by the myth of the two founding peoples.

Dion's Quebec disconnect

Dion's Quebec disconnect



By LYSIANE GAGNON

Monday, September 24, 2007 – Page A19


What's wrong with Stéphane Dion? Why is the Liberal leader unable to restore his party's fortunes in his own province? Why have the Tories replaced the party of Laurier, Trudeau and Chrétien as the first federalist party in Quebec?

These questions are more timely than ever, after the abysmal performance of the Liberal Party in last week's Quebec by-elections.

Not only did the Liberal Party lose its historical stronghold of Outremont - a multicultural riding in which, as the saying went, anything red, a pole or a pig, would be automatically elected - it ended up with less than 10 per cent of the vote in the French-speaking ridings of Roberval and St-Hyacinthe.

The Liberal establishment argues that by-elections don't mean much. Wrong. In this case, they do. By-elections usually bring out a protest vote and thus favour the opposition party; but this time around, the governmental party was the overall winner. The Tories won a landslide in the Bloc Québécois bastion of Roberval, and substantially increased their share of the vote in St-Hyacinthe. Even the victory of the NDP candidate Thomas Mulcair in Outremont is good news for the Tories, since the Liberal Party and the NDP compete for the left-of-centre vote.

The prospects for the Liberals in Quebec are bleak. A Leger Marketing poll a few days before the by-elections shows that among francophone voters, the Liberal Party, with 16 per cent of the vote, is trailing the Bloc (43 per cent) and the Tories (25 per cent). While 26 per cent of Quebec voters chose Stephen Harper as the best man for prime minister, only 9 per cent (and 7 per cent of francophones) chose Mr. Dion, who even comes far behind NDP leader Jack Layton (18 per cent).

The Liberal establishment argues that the party's misfortune in Quebec is a sequel to the sponsorship scandal. Wrong again. This scandal is history. Practically nobody talks about it, and in any case, Mr. Dion was not personally linked to the sponsorship operation. The simple truth is that Mr. Dion is not liked in Quebec and that francophone voters don't identify with him.

At the outset, when he ran for the leadership, Mr. Dion had very little support in Quebec. Most delegates sided with Michael Ignatieff. After becoming leader, he was unable to rally Mr. Ignatieff's partisans. Many Quebec Liberals are staying on the sidelines, waiting for a general election and a change of leadership.

The sovereigntists still hate Mr. Dion for having been such a staunch adversary of their cause, and Mr. Dion has been unable to connect with the soft nationalists who make up the larger group of francophone voters. At best, the non-sovereigntist francophones are indifferent to him.

The Liberal Leader's new image as an environmentalist serves him well, but only up to a point. He comes across as stubborn and arrogant, and his policies are hard to follow. On Afghanistan, for instance, his relentless insistence that the government fix a precise date for a retreat of the troops seems needlessly quarrelsome.

The Liberal leader is increasingly alienated from his home province. Either because he wanted it this way or because he couldn't find anybody reliable to work with, he is almost exclusively surrounded by anglophone advisers from Ontario. His rare francophone advisers - people like former cabinet minister Marcel Massé, press secretary Robert Asselin or Marc Lavigne, who was in charge of the organization for Quebec - resigned one after the other, allegedly because Mr. Dion wouldn't take any advice about how to deal with the province.

"The boss doesn't listen to anybody," an insider says, "and that's a problem, especially when one doesn't have a great deal of political instinct." As if to confirm this judgment, the day after his party's beating in the Quebec by-elections, Mr. Dion couldn't find anything better to do than to champion the cause of Omar Khadr, a terrorism suspect whose family had links with al-Qaeda.

Democracy

WigWamWag (See profile | I'm a fan of WigWamWag)
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE TO SAVE AMERICA?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Taking the pulse of the country

Taking the pulse of the country
Globe and Mail Update
August 28, 2007 at 3:05 PM EDT

Canadians continue to have mixed feelings about Stephen Harper even as they grow more comfortable with the direction he is taking their county.

A new survey conducted in mid-August for The Globe and Mail and CTV by The Strategic Counsel suggests the Conservatives and the Liberals remain in a popularity deadlock with each party being named as the first choice of 33 per cent of respondents.

But as pollsters Peter Donolo and Tim Woolstencroft write in today's Globe: "Don't let the neck-and-neck party standings fool you. After a year and a half in office, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has built up some impressive political capital.

"Nearly six out of 10 Canadians think the country is on the right track. Even if he's not setting Canadians' hearts aflame, most have a neutral-to-positive impression of Mr. Harper. He's seen as a decisive leader. A majority believe he's kept his promises. And most Canadians trust him to do the right thing for the country.


Peter Donolo (Handout)
Related Articles
Recent
• Strategic Counsel: How Harper can increase his chances of winning a majority government?
• Globe-CTV poll: The Harper paradox
• Globe editorial: Why is Harper treading water?
Photogallery
• Graphics: Key findings of the poll
Internet Links
• Complete poll details (pdf)


Does that mean we can expect a majority Conservative government when the dust settles on the next federal election? And who does Mr. Harper need to court to make that happen?

Mr. Donolo is joining us today from 2-3 p.m. EDT to take your questions on the poll.

Join the Conversation by submitting a question or comment. Your questions and Mr. Donolo's answers will appear at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Donolo was director of communications for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien from 1993 to 1999.

He oversaw communications strategies for a number of the most important government initiatives and most contentious political and public policy issues of that decade and also directed the prime minister's personal communications.

He is now a partner with The Strategic Counsel, one of Canada's most respected market research and strategic communications consultants.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: Mr. Donolo, thanks for joining us this afternoon to discuss federal politics and the most recent Globe and Mail/CTV Strategic Counsel poll. Since we've had a lot of comments and questions posted already, I'll get right to the discussion.

Paula Gaul from Rossland Canada writes: I believe that for the most part, Mr. Harper is doing the right things for the country, and I hope that he does win a majority. This may seem shallow, but he still strikes a lot of people as a bit cold.

Do you think that he can get outside and go for walks every day like the Prime Minister of Australia does — get a bit of a colour on his face, stay healthy and fight off the weight gain? I know it's a small thing, but that stuff really does matter, and it could make him seem more approachable.

Peter Donolo: There's no question that appearances matter. But what matters more, I think, is authenticity.

If Mr. Harper — or any other politician — tries to behave in a way that the public feels is too contrived, or synthetic, the public will sense it.

Moreover, let's not underestimate the public. They care about substance, not just style. Mr. Harper needs also to assuage the substantive concerns that potential voters still have.

Paul Faulkenham from Canada writes: I'd hate to think that one day Stephen Harper will lead this country, Canada to God knows where. Will we become the 53rd state of the United States as Harper seems to be more of a yes man to the United States than was Paul Martin. I have no doubt that there were things that went on behind the scenes of general Politics that we Canadians never knew about, but that being said at least Paul Martin knew that the word No existed in the English dictionary.

I'm afraid that Mr. Harper will forget that we Canadians are a proud lot and that most of us do know how to say no. I'm not a naysayer to the American Government but if it had of been up to Mr. Harper we would have been far more involved with the Americans in their war efforts with various countries and as a proud Canadian I don't think we need the hassles of war. Do you? It's bad enough that we are helping out now in foreign lands, buy hey, enough is enough.

Peter Donolo: There's no question that a majority of Canadians are very sensitive on the subject on Canadian independence from the US. That's why being perceived as being too close with an American President — especially one as unpopular among Canadians as Mr. Bush — can be politically dangerous for a Canadian government.

It's important to note that demonstrating Canada's independence and differentiating ourselves from the US don't need to descend into acts of blatant or cheap anti-Americanism.

For example, prime minister Jean Chrétien got along very well with Bill Clinton. That said, staking out an opposing position from the Clinton administration by championing an international treaty to ban land mines was smart politics, as well as solid policy - it showed a Canadian government marching to its own drum.

The same applies to prime minister Brian Mulroney's aggressive opposition to apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s. Mr. Mulroney was very closely aligned with then-US President Ronald Reagan, who was in the opposite camp on the issue. By tacking a different course on this particular issue, Mr. Mulroney was able to demonstrate an independence that many Canadians wanted and expected from Ottawa.

G G from Canada writes: Don't let the neck and neck poll standings fool you' is an understatement if I ever heard one. When it comes time to vote the Liberals are going to be buried - they have currently been cremated.

Peter Donolo: It's a little premature to predict the outcome of the next election.

Our poll suggests a number of steps that Mr. Harper can take to try and win over soft Liberal voters.

But the Liberals also have opportunities to augment their vote base. For example, negative attitudes toward Mr. Harper are deepest and most entrenched among NDP voters - who also told us they had a higher propensity to switch votes. What's more, these voters overwhelmingly pick the Liberals as their second choice. The same is true — to a greater or lesser degree — for Green voters.

So if the Liberals can effectively polarize the choice — convincing these voters that they are the best way to get rid of Mr. Harper and his government, they could benefit considerably.

The problem for the Liberals is that they will be fighting on two fronts. While they're trying to win over those NDP and Green voters, Mr. Harper will be doing the same thing with their vote.

Dan Green from Toronto Canada writes: I am convinced, regardless of who was prime minister, Canadians prefer a minority government.

Peter Donolo: That's an interesting thesis. A number of commentators have written about the moderating effect a minority has on governments.

We didn't ask about it in this survey. Though, we did in April. And the results were interesting. Forty five per cent didn't think it would make any difference to them whether Mr. Harper had a majority, and it was essentially a saw off between those in the rest of the population who thought a majority would be a good or bad thing.

Of course, that's absent an election campaign focused on the issue. But I think it's a good reminder that those of us more closely focused on the day-to-day politics may make a bigger deal about the whole majority/minority issue than does the general public.

Adam Berel Wetstein from Toronto Canada writes: Why wasn't the biggest difference addressed: gender split on Harper? I have seen polls that except in Alberta, Harper trails Dion by fifteen per cent. Maybe having two guys interpret a poll just made them miss this critical difference.

Peter Donolo: In terms of party support, there is indeed a gender gap.

Conservative support skews more toward men than women. In fact in its coverage last month of our July poll on party standings, The Globe and Mail outlined the Conservatives' lower levels of support among women.

That said, on the questions we asked this month about Mr. Harper's personal characteristics, the attitudes of women respondents were not as dramatically different as those of men. They were about as likely to describe Mr. Harper as "controlling" as were male respondents, and actually somewhat less likely to describe him as "partisan."

Maureen Haslehurst from Courtenay Canada writes: Mr. Harper appears to be a worthy strategist. What makes me nervous is his shoot from the hip mentality. This behaviour is evident with his co-authoring of the Alberta firewall letter in 2001 suggesting the Federal government was aggressive and hostile, his letter to the United States apologizing on behalf of all Canadians for not participating in the Iraq war and finally his statement as opposition leader that greenhouse gases were in fact the breath of life. He later backtracked from these missteps but what will be his knee jerk reaction to a future situation which could leave our country in peril?

Peter Donolo: There's no question this is concern — broadly speaking — that is shared by other Canadians and is inhibiting their support.

The legacy of statements like these is one reason so many believe he "does whatever George Bush wants", or is too controlling or right wing. By now the risks of striking such a tone should be clear to Mr. Harper. And if he wants to broaden his vote base, he needs to keep it in check.

Z S from Montreal Canada writes: Hi Mr. Donolo, Thank you very much for your coming to this conversation. I read the 'The Harper Paradox' in the globe and mail today. The interpretation of survey data isn't fully convincing. The main conflictive point is that majority of Canadians think the country is on the right track but the PM still doesn't win the majority of Canadian hearts. As we know, data is fixed.

Interpretation is flexible. People can argue that the country is on the right track because the minority government under checking of opposition but Canadians still don't trust the PM. The second unconvinced point is Liberal voter shifting. According to experience of past two federal elections, liberal voters and NDP voters often shift between these parties, some may be protest voting, some may be strategic voting.

Fewer liberal voters go to the conservative side. The author seems not to mention this point. What do you think? Thank you.

Peter Donolo: You're right that there are many factors that contribute to the sense that the country is on the right track. Though, I'm not sure an appreciation for the fact that we have a minority parliament is one of them.

I would think the state of the economy is a contributor — especially with a 6-per-cent unemployment rate. It's worth noting, however, that these strong economic conditions existed two years ago, but that didn't keep Quebec respondents at the time from being pessimistic about the direction of the country — at the time fewer than 30 per cent felt Canada was on the right track. Today the number is closer to 60.

In terms of Liberal-NDP switching, two points. One: the good news for the Liberals is that the percentage of NDP voters open to switching is large and growing — and they overwhelmingly opt for the Liberals as their second choice.

Here's point number two, the bad news. The percentage of Liberals who say they would change their vote is growing too. It's up to almost half the Liberal column. And here's the rub: unlike the last election, when they would likely opt NDP before voting Conservative, today they tell us they're just as likely to go Conservative as NDP.

Emperor Joshua Norton from Toronto Canada writes: The polls continue to suggest that Canadians are not impressed with either Harper or Dion — at least not enough to give them a majority government. How long will Harper or Dion try to hold onto power? Will they decide to step down for the good of the party or will their party have to force them out?

Peter Donolo: As it stands now, barring some kind of act of nature, both Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion will lead their parties into the next election. That's the way our party system works.

I would also beware of blanket statements about any given leader's electability. How many people wrote off Stephen Harper's chances in the months before the last election? Conversely, how many pundits in the early part of this decade were predicting Paul Martin would win a majority of historic proportions?

The fact is that election periods and campaigns are very important. They do two things: the focus the public's mind on choices and priorities, and they test the mettle of party leaders. Sometimes those leaders surprise by meeting or exceeding the test, and other times by flaming out. And the history of our elections has plenty of examples of both experiences.

John MacDougall from Iqaluit Canada writes: Yes, Harper is decisive. But so was Hitler. I'm sure Mr. Donolo doesn't admire Hitler. Could he be more specific as to why he likes Harper's decisiveness?

David Imrie from Winnipeg, MB writes: Stephen Harper fails to excite many people. How can the Liberals appear to look stronger? Dion is a very solid individual with similar ideas to your old boss, but how can he jump ahead of Harper, get rid of the NDP as a major political influence and win some votes in Quebec?

Peter Donolo: I clump these two questions together not because they have anything in common, but because they illustrate my point.

John's question (or, more accurately, statement) points out the polarizing, highly-charged reactions Mr. Harper brings out among some voters.

My old friend Dave Imrie asks how Mr. Dion can defeat Mr. Harper. One thing he has to do is to become the default choice for those who have this strong aversion to the Conservatives. Right now, he's not. Those votes are being shared with the NDP and Green Party, and to a lesser extent, the Bloc. If he wants to win, he can't afford to split or share those votes.

The Quebec issue is even dicier. The fact is that Mr. Harper has turned some heads in Quebec. Whether it's recognizing Quebec as a "nation" or being perceived to correct the so-called fiscal imbalance, he's made some inroads — particularly outside Montreal. And by the way, here the right track/wrong trtack turnaround is important.

Mr. Dion needs to focus on the areas where Quebeckers are much less comfortable with Mr. Harper: Kyoto, Afghanistan, Canada-US relations. Incidentally, these are issues that Mr. Harper kept a million miles away from during his Quebec byelection foray over the weekend. That is pretty strong proof of how vulnerable he feels they make him.

Rita Pollock from Canada writes: I'm not too happy with the Liberals or the conservatives. Both have ignored enhancing Universal Medicare and allowed private clinics to rise up instead of expanding the Public care.

Also, I am mystified why Canadians would think it was okay to increase our allowance of foreign ownership of our companies. With Stelco being bought by a US company and countless others now foreign owned, we wont have any control over our resources. A prime example is how much of our gas and oil is owned by others. Canadians and politicians say they want Canada to be a sovereign nation as they sell it off to the highest bidder. I think it is time to stop shareholders from selling us off for a few extra cents on the dollar while our country goes down the drain.

Peter Donolo: This head office "hollowing out" issue may be a real sleeper. Our polling shows that a large majority of Canadians - including a majority of Conservative voters are concerned about it. And a majority wants the government to do something about it. The problem, of course, is that there's no obvious answer or clear consensus about what that "something" ought to be.

The risk is that if this issue grows it can create a malaise that clouds people's sunny economic views. And for Mr. Harper, who is already suspected by many of being too pro-American, it would be particularly unhelpful development.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: I'm afraid we've run out of time for our discussion. We had a lot of comments and questions and obviously people have plenty to say about their Prime Minister and his government. We're sorry if not everyone's question was answered, but it will surely not be the last time we have such conversations. Thanks Mr. Donolo for joining us.

In this country, everyone gets to vote. Pity.

In this country, everyone gets to vote. Pity.

By DAN LEGER | 6:15 AM

IS THERE such a thing as an ideal citizen? And if so, should those citizens have rights some others don’t enjoy, like voting?

That’s a decidedly undemocratic concept, but some scholars are daring to think about it, if only in theory. It’s not hard to see why.

Voter turnout is dropping just about everywhere elections are held, including in Canada. Many people proudly ignore political news in the newspapers and on TV. They can’t be bothered to find out who is leading them and they dismiss politicians with smug generalities about corruption and self-aggrandizement.

Citizens closer to the democratic ideal are committed to the political process and understand the principle of public service. They do care about who is governing them and how they’re doing it. They make the effort of citizenship.

But often those citizens are subject to the insults of the wilfully ignorant who, despite their civic laziness, enjoy precisely the same democratic rights and privileges as the well-informed.

It’s far too easy to blame Stephen Harper or Rodney MacDonald or Peter Kelly for our carelessness about politics. The problem is not only with the parties or their leaders, although their obsessive self-interest is part of it.

I think the deeper problem resides in us.

On the federal level, turnout hit a low of less than 61 per cent in 2004, but rebounded some in 2006 to just under 65 per cent. But as recently as the late 1980s, more than 75 per cent of those eligible voted.

And those are federal numbers. In federal elections, parties spend massively to advertise, promoting the election along with their own messages. It stands to reason that if people are aware that an election is going on, chances are better they will vote.

Turnout is plummeting in the provinces, even in places where traditional turnout is high. In the 2006 provincial election here in Nova Scotia, 61.6 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots, the lowest participation rate since Confederation.

But while fewer people want to think about politics, they still have opinions, and those opinions have an influence on government behaviour.

Economist Bryan Caplan argues in a new book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, that most people are not rational when it comes to politics, the economy or public policy.

For example, people mistrust markets, so they favour regulation. In Nova Scotia, people demand gasoline regulation even though it actually makes gas more expensive.

People don’t understand foreigners, so they demand trade barriers to protect home markets from competition. Call the Council of Canadians for more on that.

Caplan also points out that people think employment and prosperity are the same thing, so they defend jobs in obsolete industries. We’ve seen plenty of that in Nova Scotia over the years.

In fact, many people vastly overrate the ability of government to improve their lives. So politicians who promise simple solutions to the complex problems of modern society tend to get elected.

But since complicated problems aren’t solved simply, government often seems dysfunctional. Elected politicians do things that are not in the public interest, notoriously in the way George W. Bush invaded Iraq to "fight terrorism" and ended up encouraging it.

Politicians also make mistakes because they rely too much on public opinion polls that have operated almost unchanged since they were invented by George Gallup in the 1930s.

Gallup’s techniques capture snapshot information about what people are thinking on a given day, at a given time. They don’t tell the whole story.

Polling expert James Fishkin of Stanford University has developed an entirely new kind of poll, in which people spend time learning about political or economic subjects before they take a survey.

In Fishkin’s "deliberative polls," people think before they respond. They don’t just give instant reactions. Their views are informed, giving the poll value well beyond the snapshot.

Perhaps elections should adopt a similar model. Perhaps people should actually have to study the candidates, parties and issues before they are handed a ballot. They would then cast an informed vote, not make a wild guess.

The media would have to change the way they cover politics and public attitudes, but that’s not a bad thing. It would certainly change the tone and content of partisan political advertising.

It might even result in better governing or at the least, to less complaining from those among us whom the law defines as citizens but who do so little to earn the honour.

(dleger@herald.ca)

Dan Leger is director of news content for The Chronicle Herald. The opinions expressed here are his own.

Charest says Dumont wants to close Quebec

Charest says Dumont wants to close Quebec
Province needs immigration to prosper, Liberal chief tells party's youth wing
MARIANNE WHITE, CanWest News Service
Published: 5 hours ago
Premier Jean Charest yesterday accused Quebec's opposition leader, Mario Dumont, of wanting to isolate Quebec by closing the door on immigration at a time when the province needs more workers and faces the problem of an aging population.
In a newspaper interview published yesterday, the Action démocratique du Québec leader said that Quebec has reached its limit on welcoming new immigrants.
"Your number of immigrants should not exceed your capacity to welcome them and integrate them, otherwise they create ghettos," Dumont told Montreal's daily La Presse.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
When asked whether Quebec had reached that limit, he replied: "Quite so."
Charest accused his opponent of working to "isolate" Quebec from the rest of the world.
"Immigration is indispensable for Quebec's future," Charest said in a speech to his party's youth wing convention.
"I want an open and blooming Quebec, as opposed to going into our shell."
"His (Dumont's) declaration does not match our vision of Quebec," Charest said.
"We have to open Quebec's horizons."
During the weekend convention, high-ranking Liberals took every opportunity to lambaste Dumont, who revived the issue of ethnic nationalism in the March 26 Quebec election, and in so doing, gained the support of many francophone voters.
That pushed the ADQ ahead of the Parti Québécois in National Assembly seats.
On Saturday, Quebec minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs Benoit Pelletier qualified Dumont's vision of Quebec's nationhood as being "too ethnic."
Liberal Party policy commission president Christian Ouellet said, for his part, that Mario Dumont had a "dictatorial" attitude when he was a leader of the young Liberals in 1992.
Dumont left the party that same year to helped found the ADQ.
"Free speech is not a common practice among ADQ representatives. Dumont keeps them under tight surveillance," Charest added.
The premier said his government will keep pushing for more immigration, and he will do so by negotiating agreements with other Canadian provinces as well as European states to allow mobility of residents.
Charest went to France in July to meet with government officials and has announced his intention of working with them to increase mobility between workforces.
He said yesterday that talks will start in September.
"It will be an agreement on the recognition of diplomas and competencies. So that a doctor in France is a doctor in Quebec and that an engineer in Quebec is an engineer in France," Charest said.
"We want to create a whole new space for Quebecers to live, work and study," he said.
The agreement will be negotiated separately from an eventual global free trade accord between Canada and the European Union and should be ready in time for next year's celebrations of Quebec City's 400th anniversary.
Charest also repeated his plan to cut a specific trade deal with neighbouring Ontario to eliminate barriers between the two provinces.
"Our central interest lies in free trade," Charest pledged.
"It's essential if we want to keep our level of prosperity."

Quebec touts plan to rein in federal power

Quebec touts plan to rein in federal power
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
License this article
Digg this story
Add to Facebook
Tag on Delicious



I'm proud of Ontario ... but I'm a Canadian first Premier Dalton McGuinty
McGuinty, PM at odds in new debate over curbing Ottawa's ability to spend in provincial jurisdictions
Aug 13, 2007 04:30 AM
Sean Gordon
Robert Benzie
Staff reporters

MONCTON, N.B.–While Canada's premiers and territorial leaders held forth on the environment and trade, senior Quebec officials were purposefully prowling the corridors of Moncton's Delta Beauséjour hotel, selling a plan to radically change the way the country is run.

Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier – a constitutional law professor at the University of Ottawa and fervent proponent of curbing Ottawa's ability to spend in provincial jurisdictions – took up the matter with several delegations at last week's premiers' meeting.

"We think this is a crucially important reform," Pelletier said last week.

Premier Jean Charest also advised his fellow leaders that he is pressing Ottawa for a deal on the matter – an arrangement that could precipitate a heated political debate this fall.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to set binding checks on Ottawa's ability to spend on social programs in provincial areas like health and child care during the 2006 election campaign, a pledge of significance that's scarcely been debated publicly.

The file has progressed slowly in the 18 months since Harper was elected, and though some federal Tories are urging caution, others are happy to let Charest – an unpopular leader working to position himself as the champion of renewed federalism – carry the ball.

Federal government sources and Quebec-based Conservatives say Harper is keen to make a splash in Quebec in the next federal campaign, and that following through on one of Quebec's "traditional demands" would be exactly the kind of bold action he's looking to take.

This weekend, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe jumped on board, which would give the Conservatives enough votes should they decide to legislate on the spending power – the Tories could even attempt to amend the Constitution through legislation.

But experts say a formal and explicit limit on federal spending authority could tilt the balance of power in Canada decisively in favour of the provinces.

"The federal spending power has enabled the federal government to exert leadership on all sorts of questions relating to the welfare state. ... To limit it would effectively formalize the possibility of opting out with full compensation of federal programs," said John Allan, associate director of the Institute for Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University. "This is a vitally important issue."

Allan describes himself as an "endangered species" of centralist – described by an aide to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty as the final vanguard of "Trudeau federalism" – and suggested a constricting, formal deal would permanently hobble the federal government.

McGuinty blasted Harper for trying to overhaul federalism "under cover of darkness."

"I'm proud of Ontario, proud to lead this province, but I'm a Canadian first," he said in Moncton. "At the end of the day, we need a strong federal government that reminds us that we're all in this together."

Asked whether Harper is donning the mantle of the "anti-Trudeau," McGuinty replied that he feels Harper is taking a philosophically driven approach.

Canada finds itself in the curious position of having a provincial premier arguing in favour of stronger central government and a national prime minister advocating for a de facto expansion of provincial powers (even though Tories describe it as a return to the original intent of the Constitution).

And so McGuinty, who is mindful of positioning himself for the Oct. 10 provincial election, and Harper find themselves on opposite sides of a conflict between competing visions of the country that last publicly clashed in the debate over Meech Lake, an ultimately unsuccessful pact that would have spelled out Quebec specificity and devolved powers to the provinces.

After Pelletier intimated early last week that Quebec would eventually like to seek a constitutional amendment to limit federal spending – which even 20 years after the calamitous failure of the Meech Lake accord is a non-starter with many provinces – the province hastily backed away.

That Pelletier's comments were made days after the federal Tory caucus and on the eve of the annual premiers' confab is likely no coincidence.

It was telling that Pelletier kept a low profile for the remainder of the week, although at a weekend conference of the Quebec Liberals' youth wing, he reiterated his belief that Quebec mustn't simply swallow its aspirations.

Charest was clear in saying the time is not yet right to reopen the Constitution, although that won't stop Quebec from pursuing its objectives.

Quebec officials said they would be happy with a deal like previous "asymmetrical" accords on immigration and health, and will pattern their demands on the recently signed UNESCO accord, which in theory allows all provinces to seek a voice on cultural matters.

The fact that other provinces would be free to join what Quebec foresees as a bilateral deal with Ottawa also gives Harper some political cover – federal officials are adamant that there will be no "special status" for Quebec.

Quebec Liberals want to seduce voters with constitutional changes

Quebec Liberals want to seduce voters with constitutional changes

Marianne White, CanWest News Service
Published: Sunday, August 12, 2007


LA POCATIERE, QUE. -- Quebec's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Benoit Pelletier, said on Saturday his province should continue to push for constitutional changes, such as a "charter of open federalism", even if Premier Jean Charest thinks the timing is not right.
Pelletier believes that's what his party must do to seduce francophone voters who put Liberals in third place in French Quebec in the March 26 provincial election.
"We have a serious challenge with francophone voters. I think that we have to bring the identity issue to the forefront and ask for more autonomy for Quebec," Pelletier said at his party's youth wing weekend convention.
"We have to keep fostering constitutional claims, but it doesn't mean that we want to open the constitution tomorrow."
Charest this week was not as enthusiastic about another round of constitutional negotiations and said that "the fruit is not ripe".
Moreover, Pelletier's proposition didn't draw a lot of attention during the premiers meeting this past week in Moncton, N.B.
But Pelletier said he intends to keep this debate alive.
"It's true that constitutional debates can be dividing and it is still taboo in Quebec's society and also in the Canadian society. But we must never stop (talking) about it ..."
The youth wing of the Quebec Liberal party, however, didn't go as far.
Rather they asked Quebec's government to adopt a declaration on federal-provincial relationships to be presented in 2008 when the province hosts a meeting of Canada's premiers and territorial leaders, the so-called Council of the federation.
The declaration would, among other things, state that francophones are the founding nation of Canada and limit federal spending .
"This will allow Quebec to take the leadership in Canada to improve federalism," said Stephanie Doyon, president of the provincial Liberals' youth commission.
The Quebec Liberal party's youth wing also discussed the identity issue, which focuses on how tolerant Quebec should be of non-Christian religious practices.
Liberal militants pledged for an open and inclusive Quebec.
"I fear that we might end up putting aside anglophones and other minorities," said Francois-Pierre Lapointe from Kamouraska.
"I am a Quebecer, I was born here. But people see me as a Haitian even if I have never been there", said Lovely Fleurme, from Montreal. "The party needs to stress that people like me are Quebecer, not only white people".
Marc Tanguay, president of the policy task force on identity, traveled to La Pocatiere to hear what the young Liberals had to say on the identity issue.
His group will hand out a preliminary report to a meeting of the party's general council in September and then start public hearings.
© CanWest News Service 2007