Quebec Election: 4 Sep 12

[Infanteer]

I think the further we decentralize the further we reduce the friction that regionalism has on our confederation.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think the further we decentralize the further we reduce the friction that regionalism has on our confederation.

That's my belief, too.

I believe we can get most of the way there within our current Constitution - it requires, mainly, the federal government to vacate areas of provincial jurisdiction ... and to transfer the tax powers that are needed by the provinces to exercise effective jurisdiction. Further decentralization will cause some complications - complications such as we face, now, when we negotiate deals regarding e.g. fisheries with the USA: we must deal with the USA, proper, and all the states involved. We would look more like them on some matters. Ditto in some international organizations where our provinces have Constitutionally legitimate interests.

But the federal government would retain full, absolute power over its own, proper, areas of responsibility, including: fiscal policy, foreign and defence policy, the criminal code and so on.

 

[Brad Sallows]

1. Citizenship: pick one.

2. Debt: Quebec issues its government bonds to Canada for its share.  One of two things can happen: Quebec can make sure those bonds are worth something, and maybe sell a few more to others, or make those bonds valueless and never sell another penny of debt.  If Quebec decides it doesn't want to live within its means right now, Canada will be able to sell rather than simply hold.

 

[Sythen]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/facts-plan-nord-quebec-liberals-northern-development-project-100507931.html

Facts about the Plan Nord, the Quebec Liberals' northern-development project


MONTREAL - Here are some facts about the Liberals' northern-development plan for Quebec, dubbed "Plan Nord":

—Focuses on broad development — including mining, energy and tourism — across an area north of the 49th parallel about twice the size of France.

—Liberals project it will attract $80 billion in private and public investment to Quebec's northern over the next 25 years.

—Liberals say it will create 20,000 jobs in Quebec over that period.

—Plan is to invest $2.1 billion in public money on infrastructure — such as roads and airports — that will ease access to faraway regions.

—Liberals say project will eventually pump $14 billion into provincial coffers and make Quebec a contributor to equalization.

—Parti Quebecois opposition calls current plan a cheap selloff of the province's resources.

—PQ wants a 30 per cent surtax, as in Australia, on profits beyond a certain level.

—PQ criticizes government for investing so much public money to build roads for private business.

—Canadian National Railway is working with mining companies and Caisse pension manager to study possibility of building rail line, with estimated cost of $5 billion.

End of article.

For someone like me who knows absolutely nothing about northern development, it sounds good. Anyone here who knows what they're talking about care to chime in?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was going to write something about Quebec politics and the culture of humiliation but I'll let (normally lefty) Ottawa Citizen columnist Janice Kennedy do it for me in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Canada+doesn+deserve+kicking/7071593/story.html

Canada doesn’t deserve a kicking

By Janice Kennedy, The Ottawa Citizen

August 10, 2012

Picture this, if you can. A cartoon stick figure wearing a maple leaf grins as he gives an exuberant boot to a little frog wearing a fleur-de-lis.

Uncomfortable?

How about this? A Québécois stick figure does the same to a beaver wearing a Mountie hat.

Not so uncomfortable, right? At least not in Quebec. That image is a part of a campaign ad for Québec solidaire, a party hoping to make gains in the province’s Sept. 4 election. Québec solidaire, obviously not given to subtlety, wants to be clear that it favours sovereignty.

That is done, it seems, by being as derisive as possible while bashing the bad guy — which, in nationalist Quebec, is Canada. (Or technically, The Rest of Canada, for the time being.)

Canada! The country with such a global reputation for niceness it’s seen as boring. Canada! Where politeness is a national virtue. Canada! Which cherishes fairness, accommodation, generosity and diversity.

Canada. The bad guy.

How did this happen? How did one of the world’s most decent countries get transformed into world-class villain in French-speaking Quebec?

Is it because of all those domineering Anglo captains of industry in Montreal back in the bad old days? If it is, why does the animosity extend beyond that rarefied elite to all the province’s average Joes and Josephines who happen to speak English? For that matter, what could possibly justify hating Canadians in Charlottetown, Medicine Hat, Victoria?

Then there’s the other side of Bad Canada. It appears this milquetoast country has stomped all over the French language and Québécois cultural aspirations. Yes, the indépendantistes obviously think, Quebec has survived with its culture intact and flourishing, despite being a tiny linguistic island in a vast Anglo sea. But that’s due to a miracle, to latter-day language legislation, and to Quebecers’ native pluck.

Not to take anything away from said pluck, but here’s a dose of reality. Quebec has survived historically as a French-speaking North American entity because of Great Britain’s determination in the 18th and early 19th century that it should — and because of Canada’s similar determination since 1867, when French Canadians joined willingly in a visionary new national partnership.

Anyone who quibbles with that interpretation really should pay a little visit to New England, where nearly a million Quebec workers migrated between 1840 and 1930. Drop by an Aubuchon hardware outlet (but pronounce it “Aw-buh-shawn”). Visit Vermont’s state capital of Montpelier (“Mawnt-peel-yer”). Learn about the late 19th-century drive to make English the only permissible language of schools, public and private. Or else head south to Louisiana, home of Cajun culture, where y’all can let the good times roll. In English, of course.

And yet Quebec nationalists insist that Canada is the evildoer extraordinaire. How else to explain that offensive little Québec solidaire campaign ad, unveiled with the certainty it would be received without outrage?

How else to explain Pauline Marois, the woman with the Champagne tastes who would be queen of all the Quebecers?

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

I have explained, elsewhere, how and why humiliation works in ther countries - notably China - as a tool for provoking nationalism. It, humiliation, can be a powerful tool - if it used well.

I'm not convinced that Québec solidaire is, actually, playing the humiliation card - if it is I don't think it is playing it very effectively. It appears to me that it (Québec solidaire) is, rather, playing the maîtres chez nous card, again - asking for the "status"of a sovereign state without the concomitant responsibilities. It was a winning formula when the Liberals were in power in Ottawa because, as Sythen noted, they (the Liberals) needed a firm Quebec base to achieve and hold power. It appears to me that the Conservatives do not have the same problem: they are learning how to govern without Quebec - not against Quebec, just with minimal support from it.

But the humiliation 'narrative' has a lot going for it: almost none of it true, but a lot. It fact Quebec is a failing state and has been since Jean Lesage launched the maîtres chez nous campaign 50 years ago, in 1962. The "Quebec model" (or system) has been a consistent failure because it ignored flew in the face of sound economics. The "Quebec model" is insular and protectionist in a world that works best when it is globalized and open. The "Quebec model" seeks immediate and short term social and political gains and sacrifices medium and long term economic gains for them; consequently it cannot afford what  it has bought - it is living beyond its means. So: Quebec is right to feel humiliated, it is a second rate province; but Quebecers are looking in the wrong direction. Their problem, their only problem is themselves: French speaking Quebecers have failed themselves.

Quebecers are unlikely to admit that they are failures, that they are the sole authors of their own humiliation; that being the case they will remain a second rate, failed state within Canada - our very own Greece.

The problem is obvious; so is the solution: obvious but culturally impossible.

 

[Blackadder1916]

2. All Quebecers born up to the minute of Quebec's formal declaration of independence will be Canadian citizens, by birth, and will be entitled to all the rights and privileges that attach to that status: pensions, passports, and so on. So we gain nothing, not for about a generation, anyway, by casting off our least productive fellow citizens because they're still citizens and they're still unproductive.

Though there would definitely be a constitutional challenge if Canadian citizenship was automatically stripped from those born within the geographical borders of Quebec, it is not without precedent (even in a Canadian context) for a right to a specific citzenship to be revoked upon independence.  On 31 March 1949, all those who had been born within the Crown Colony of Newfoundland (remember, we had forgone our status as a self-governing dominion years earlier) were British subjects.  On 1 April 1949, those roughly half million (or less) living on the Rock and the greater number living in Toronto (sarcasm) automatically became solely Canadian citizens, with (save some exceptions) no recourse to retaining their previous nationality.  Would there have to be some legislative changes, yes, but it is not beyond the realm of possiblity that Quebecers will be solely Quebecers.

 

[Sythen]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/08/20120812-144335.html

MONTREAL - The Parti Quebecois targeted the English language while the Liberals took aim at suspected criminals in the construction industry during the latest round of election promises by both parties on Sunday.
Within the first 100 days of a PQ mandate, the party said it will create a new language law forcing companies of more than 10 employees to conduct business entirely in French. The new law would also prevent francophones from attending junior colleges in the province.

PQ Leader Pauline Marois said that her proposed law would affect roughly 54,000 businesses, which would be subjected to the same laws that currently apply to companies with more than 50 employees.

"The administrators of unilingual anglophone companies are imposing the English language in their workplaces because of their ignorance of our language," she said.

More on link.

So let's call this what it is: Fascism. They are implementing laws that allow the government to decide what language you speak in your own business.

 

[Haletown]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/08/20120812-144335.html

More on link.

So let's call this what it is: Fascism. They are implementing laws that allow the government to decide what language you speak in your own business.

They like to think of it as being Progressive.  Same difference in the end, people who think they are so smart they  must always be right.

 

[Sythen]

They like to think of it as being Progressive.  Same difference in the end, people who think they are so smart they  must always be right.

On top of deciding which courses you're allowed to take in school. Why isn't the Federal government speaking out about this?

 

[ModlrMike]

On top of deciding which courses you're allowed to take in school. Why isn't the Federal government speaking out about this?

Because then everyone would gang up on the Feds. Right or not, nothing galvanized Quebeckers like someone else casting them in a negative light.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This report  in the Globe and Mail, headlined Putting SNC back on track first priority for new CEO, might have gone here, but one bit caught my eye and convinced me to add it in this thread:

... Norman Levine of Portfolio Management Corp. says Mr. Card will have to deal with antipathy created by the fact that he is not Québécois.

Quebec is a province that leans heavily toward hiring its own, Mr. Levine said Sunday. “It’s like nepotism. And, in nepotism, you are not chosen because you are the best,” he said, “you are chosen because you are what you are, not what your credentials are.”

And there we have another problem with Quebec Inc, the insular, provincial (in every sense of that word), protectionist thing in which so many Quebecers have so much totally misplaced pride. It's why Quebec needs to elect a businesslike government - or follow Greece.

 

[observor 69]

This report  in the Globe and Mail, headlined Putting SNC back on track first priority for new CEO, might have gone here, but one bit caught my eye and convinced me to add it in this thread:

And there we have another problem with Quebec Inc, the insular, provincial (in every sense of that word), protectionist thing in which so many Quebecers have so much totally misplaced pride. It's why Quebec needs to elect a businesslike government - or follow Greece.

And all Les Anglais families who left Quebec because no matter how good their childrens french they would never get ahead because they weren't pure lain.

 

[foresterab]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/facts-plan-nord-quebec-liberals-northern-development-project-100507931.html

End of article.

For someone like me who knows absolutely nothing about northern development, it sounds good. Anyone here who knows what they're talking about care to chime in?

I'll give it my best shot although I'm out west and have never worked in Quebec. 

It is my understanding that Quebec's economy has always been driven in part by resources - fur trading,  wheat, timber, and more recently hydro projects of the last 30 years.  Mining has always been in the mix with bauxite (aluminum) and asbestos as main minerals off hand.    Unfortunately almost all of the this activity has been limited to a fairly narrow band along the St. Lawrence due to water/shipping access and high quality roads.

Quebec, like Newfoundland to British Columbia contains large amounts mineral deposits due to geological formation of the bedrock which forms northern Canada.  Most of these areas are remote, very rarely visited and in many cases have been off limit to exploration let alone development.    At the same time changes in technology in both the exploration field (ground penetrating sonar, computer 3D mapping, records compilation) and extration (helicopter portable drills for example) have allowed companies to better focus and develop projects.  Resources from Iron to Diamonds are found across the north just depending on quantity, volume, and grade of deposits found.

Plan Nord would open up the next level of resources to exploration and development where areas north of the existing logging and mining infrastructure would be considered for new facilities.  Unfortunately if you are going to allow exploration there is an expectation that you will allow development by industry which has raised concerns that projects would be "rubber stamped" for approval irregardless of what happens.      The infrastructure is rough to say the least and any serious mine would potentially involve building not just some road but possibly 100's of km of road, all season, and preferably paved which is a huge cost....but with out the road how do you get the equipment and manpower in?

Some of the opposition appears to be the NIMBY (not in my back yard) effect which is pretty common to run into when dealing with people.  This is part of why Quebec for example has limited coal bed methane development in the province despite having large natural gas reserves (more than that to that topic though).  Others are concerned with the revenue the province gets in royalties vs the profits made....Australia and other jurisdictions have wealth taxes that adjust the royalty rate depending on the profits made on the site while others like Alberta oil and gas have fixed rates irrespective of market forces.

When dealing with a fairly unexplored area there is lots of science still missing....what sites are you potentially disturbing, what effects will you have, short term impacts, long term impacts, alternatives.  So now the government has the perception of approving without knowing the impacts which alarms some.    Also woodland caribou (endangered species), first nation oppositions (reasons vary by person/band/tribal organization), and fear of "big corporation" all play a part.

Hope this helps...like I said before I'm not 100% in touch with what's happening in Quebec so I fully admit to any errors if someone more qualified can help out.

 

[Rifleman62]

Plan Nord is a series of huge open pit mines rivaling the oil sands in Alberta.

I heard that from a gal in P.E.I. who has a long lost sister living in Texas.

Once a road is in, IKEA is going to build several stores along the route.

The Jeffrey asbestos mine will be closed, filled in, and a French language only Disneyland Nord established.

Headlines:

Charest pitches $1B fund to aid and block takeovers http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/08/13/liberals-takeover-fund.html

PQ wants 15,000 more spaces in daycares http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/08/13/quebec-election-pq-daycare-caq-health-care.html

Québec Solidaire vows free tuition, more tax on rich http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/08/10/quebecvotes-quebec-solidaire-budget.html

ALL of the above will be financed without whining to the ROC, AND funded totally from Quebec internal resources. (It's fun to promise the world financed by the hated ROC).

 

[Rifleman62]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/14/matt-gurney-good-luck-with-those-extortion-demands-marois/

Matt Gurney: Good luck with those extortion demands, Marois National Post - 14 Aug 12

Ahead of next month’s Quebec provincial election, Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois has a pretty good strategy. If her party forms the next government and she becomes premier, she intends to pick a series of fights with Ottawa. She will demand more money, more autonomy, more control over Quebec’s government. Ottawa can either capitulate, meaning that Marois has delivered the goods for Quebec, or it can refuse, at which point Marois gets to use Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not exactly a man widely loved in Quebec, as a foil. Even if she loses to Harper, Marois will just spin that as yet another insult by Canada against Quebec, and argue that that proves the need for sovereignty.

As I’ve already written here, it’s a good plan, because it truly is a win-win. The Parti Quebecois has never been stupid. For generations, they’ve convinced frightened federal governments to keep the goodies rolling in, and have so conditioned Quebecers to expect the rest of Canada to just pay up and shut up that even the provincial Liberals dare not act as if more, more, more wasn’t Quebec’s solemn right. But the PQ knows that even if Ottawa gets tough and says no, they’ll benefit from the battle.

It is looking increasingly likely, however, that if the PQ does indeed win and this scenario begins to unfold, Marois is going to have the play the grievance card after being spurned. It would appear that Canada is tired of piecing off one particular province.

A new poll, released Tuesday by Abacus, shows that only 52% of Canadians outside of Quebec would vote to keep Quebec inside the federation if given the chance. The poll wasn’t a true blind sample, since it wasn’t truly random — online panelists were invited to participate. But it’s still believable. Other recent polls, as well as my own anecdotal observations, had been suggesting a great deal of Quebec fatigue in Canada for some time.

But Abacus also polled Canadians on how they felt Quebec should be treated while it still remains a part of Canada. The answer? Equally, and if that means Quebec leaves, so be it. Specifically, a whopping 88% of polled Canadians agreed with the statement that “All the provinces should be treated equally, even if it upsets Quebec and risks separation.” Again, that’s not a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to the tenor of the debate over the last few years. But what is interesting is how that massive number completes cuts across Canadian society. Support for Quebec staying in Canada varies significantly across different provinces and by political affiliation, but that 88% figure is eye-poppingly large.

What federal government, of any affiliation, would want to go contrary to 88% of the public? That would be hard enough on any hypothetical Public Policy Issue X. But this is something very specific. The Canadian public has expressed its preference for fairness. For a government to take a contrary view, it must side with the 12% of Canadians who think that Quebec should be treated unfairly if that’s what it takes to keep it in the country. That’s a political migraine waiting to happen.

Indeed, such figures are probably already causing headaches in Ottawa. Should another national unity crisis develop, the federal government will have very little room to maneuver. That will once again play into the PQ’s hands. They can set the tone of the ongoing debate. Ottawa would obviously have to work to keep Quebec in Canada, even though the public doesn’t want them to have many arrows in that quiver. Yet one gets the feeling that Ottawa saying, “Let’s just keep things as they are and hope this goes away” won’t pacify the PQ.

But there is also danger for the PQ here. With the exception of a few die-hard sovereigntists, it is likely that most PQ supporters don’t actually want to leave Canada, but are perfectly content to pretend they are in exchange for more goodies. The Abacus poll is the latest bit of evidence that that may not work well for much longer. Voting for the PQ could easily trap Quebec in a situation where, its demands having been rebuffed, it feels it either has to leave Canada or admit it was bluffing all along. In such an time, with emotions running high, anything could happen. And Quebec could end up its own country without ever having really intended to. It would seem that only a slim majority of Canadians would even miss them.

National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com

 

[Edward Campbell]

Two columns in the National Post take on the notion that Quebec is both intolerant (Chris Selley) and xenophobic (Tasha Kheiriddin). I, personally find little fault with either column although I will understand that many Quebecers will treat it as just another example of les anglais telling them, French Canadians, to "speak white."

Chris Selley says, "Quebec is genuinely different: Different majority language, an island of French in a vast anglophone ocean; different conception of the role of government in society; different notions (if not rejection) of multiculturalism; a greater appreciation, perhaps, for genuine and aggressive secularism (along with a weakness for Ms. Marois’ odious ersatz form). In recent years, under Mr. Charest’s Liberals, Quebec society has reached something of an equilibrium on these matters. Angry anglos aren’t nearly as angry as they used to be. The reasonable accommodations foofaraw mostly died down, despite Mr. Charest’s unwillingness to help. This is generally seen as a good thing ... But odious principles aren’t validated simply because a society agrees on them. Intolerance is intolerance. Backwardness is backwardness ... And minority rights are minority rights. Over the years, various human rights organizations whose opinions generally matter to progressive Canadians have expressed their disapproval at government-enforced language restrictions that extend beyond public life and into freely undertaken commercial transactions. Mostly, we just look away."

All that is, in my opinion nothing more than a series of incontrovertible facts, especially the fact that, for the most part, "we just look away." Why do we "just look away?" Because, I think we actually believe that French speaking Quebecers are, somehow, culturally inferior and, therefore, need to be excused their consistent flaunting of the rights of others. If they were "like us," members of a strong, vibrant liberal culture, then we would castigate them for their views, but ...

Tasha Kheiriddin says, "First, Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault lambasted young Quebecers for being interested in living “the good life,” unlike children in Asia whose parents all want them to become engineers, and have to stop them from studying lest they make themselves sick. When he was attacked for this remarks, he retorted that the fault lies with Quebec parents, and that they should review the values they are transmitting to their children ... On Tuesday, Ms. Marois unveiled her party’s desire to implement a “Secular Charter” which would ban the wearing of any religious symbols by government employees. With, as my colleague Chris Selley tartly notes on these pages, one notable exception: Symbols of Christian faith, such as the cross which hangs over the Speakers’ Chair in the National Assembly. In other words, a crucifix necklace, good: hijabs and yarmulkes, bad ... [and] Then on Wednesday, Mr. Tremblay took xenophobia one step further, when he launched a tirade against Djemila Benhabib, the Parti Québécois candidate in Trois Rivières. On a popular radio show, Mr. Tremblay let loose: “I am shocked that we, the softies, the French Canadians, will be told how to behave, how to respect our culture by a person who comes from Algeria, and we can’t even pronounce her name.”

It sure looks like xenophobia to me and if those remarks came from anyone except French speaking Quebec politicians we would all be up in arms. But they are excused because, I repeat, we do not hold French Quebec to the same high standards that apply to anyone in English multicultural Canada hors de Québec. The reason we don't have a "level playing field" is because we don't believe Quebec could manage on it ... we don't think they are quite "good enough" to compete with us.

As Cassius said (courtesy Shakespeare) "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." (Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141))

 

[observor 69]

When it comes down to the game of prediction I would add a dash of caution in light of the surprise NDP success in the last federal go around.
I regarded that as a very smart alternate choice from the Quebec perspective.

 

[a_majoor]

The PQ might win the election, but discover the "war" has already been lost in Ottawa (One can always hope):

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=15450

Pauline Marois Is A Canadian
Posted on 18 August 2012 by PhantomObserver

When we consider the Québec provincial election, and the current attitude that the press seems to be taking towards the prospects of a Parti Québécois victory, it’s useful to remember the title of this blogpost.

Of course, Ms. Marois will not see it that way. She will conveniently ignore the fact that the coat of arms on her passport is that of Canada and not Québec; she will not draw attention to the fact that should she fly to the States, the border inspection people are paid from the budget of Ottawa rather than Quebec City. Instead, if you press her, in all likelihood she will declare herself une pure québécoise, dedicated to the welfare of her “nation.”

Which, of course, is her mistake.

Ms. Marois’s anticipated confrontation with Ottawa has an implicit base: the assumption that a resident of her province is either a Canadian, or a Quebecker; a true definition of identity, in the sovereigntist’s eyes, cannot be both. That may have worked in the past, with the previous Chrétien years, because the federal side found it easier to deal with the Péquistes by not challenging that assumption.

Stephen Harper, on the other hand, has a different position, both philosophically and strategically.

In 2011, he demonstrated that a majority government in Canada can be achieved without Quebec. The upcoming redistribution of seats will make that status a stronger reality, which means that one weight that Quebec could hold over Ottawa is gone.

With the world still trying to move past the 2008 recession, and with the Eurozone crisis still flaring up in the news, Harper can also argue the case for reduced government spending at all levels, confronting the Péquistes with the reality that independence is going to be too expensive to pursue.

Mr. Harper is also what you might call a strong constitutionalist, which we’ve seen in his approach to health care funding: in areas where the Constitution grants the provinces jurisdiction, he’ll keep the federal role to the absolute minimum. This means there are areas where Ms. Marois may waste energy in planning a fight, only to discover that nobody’s there.

Or, put another way: if you think like Ms. Marois, then the PQ will have the edge over Ottawa; if you think like Mr. Harper, your perceived “weakness” can actually be turned into a strength.

A lot of conventional pundits and politicians have consistently been made to look silly by the Harper government, simply because they failed to appreciate the way he thinks. Unless she starts to appreciate the Harper point of view — which regards Quebec as an important subset of that entity called Canada, but is still a subset nonetheless — Pauline Marois’s tenure on her chosen stage is likely to be abruptly short, retiring from the scene not as a triumphant patriot, but a chastised Canadian.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This happens pretty often in Canadian politics, and 99% of Canadians normally shrug off the strategic voting 'advice' but in this case, outlined in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, it might work because of the federalist/separatist issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/quebec-liberal-fundraiser-calls-on-party-faithful-to-vote-for-caq/article4491956/

Quebec Liberal fundraiser calls on party faithful to vote for CAQ

RHÉAL SÉGUIN AND LES PERREAUX
Montreal and Quebec City — The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Aug. 21 2012

Jean Charest is facing dissent inside the Liberal ranks with a senior party fundraiser, Jean-Paul Boily calling on his troops to vote for the Coalition Avenir Quebec to stop the separatist Parti Québécois from taking power.

Mr. Boily said that Liberals need to vote strategically, convinced that Mr. Charest was headed for certain defeat in the Sept.4 election.

The stunning change of heart by Mr. Boily gives tonight’s confrontation with Liberal leader Jean Charest added impetus to Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault who has been handed a strategic opportunity  to increase his standing with federalist voters.

Whatever gains the upstart CAQ has achieved in the Quebec election campaign has been mainly at the expense of the Liberals. In order to maintain that momentum, Mr. Legault will need to showcase his leadership credentials and make his case that his party was a better alternative to the current frontrunner, Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois.

Mr. Legault will call on more Liberals to defect in order to further push his message to disaffected federalists and angry Liberals that they have a credible alternative that rejects sovereignty.

“The Liberals are in a state of panic,” remarked CAQ candidate Gérard Deltell who was once the leader of the now defunct Action démocratique du Québec party that merged with the CAQ earlier this year. “I hear it more and more on the hustings. Liberals are tired, they are embarrassed with Mr. Charest and his Liberal government and no longer recognize themselves in the Liberal party.”

The CAQ needs to create the perception that despite being third in public opinion polls the party a wave of support was building behind Mr. Legault. Tonight’s debate will serve to drive home that perception and at the same time put on display the recruitment of anti-corruption crusader Jacques Duchesneau to demonstrate that party was serious about eliminating corruption in government.

The PQ certainly appeared worried that Mr. Legault’s strategy was succeeding. Ms. Marois didn’t wait for her duel with Mr. Legault on Wednesday to reiterate her warning that the CAQ would bring chaos and social unrest to the province.

“It would be a threat to Quebec society should they be elected,” Ms. Marois said as she set the stage for her confrontation with Mr. Legault on Wednesday.

For Mr. Charest this will be his third test in as many nights and there was no doubt that he needed to perform better than in last night’s duel with Marois or Sunday’s all candidates debate.

His aggressive and often confrontational approach has not served Mr. Charest well. Several viewers commenting in the social media contend that Mr. Charest will need to be more dignified if he hopes to stop the slide in Liberal supporters towards the CAQ.

Mr. Charest has responded by saying he will likely be more composed during tonights debate. "I hope it unfolds in a more peaceful manner," Mr. Charest said. "We'll see."

When they accepted the one on one debate format the Liberals never expected that Mr. Charest would find himself in such a difficult situation. The party was confident that their leader’s sharp debating skills would deflect whatever criticism thrown at him, especially on the issue of corruption and government integrity. They were probably too confident and now the party was scrambling.

By accepting the format the Liberals have given Mr. Legault more than what he bargained for when he launched his campaign less than a year after founding his political party. According to CAQ and PQ insiders, none of the parties questioned the potential impact these debates could have on their leader.

Mr. Legault performed well enough during the first leadership debate against the other party leaders. But now the pressure was on for him to do even better in his confrontation with Mr. Charest if he hopes to convince more federalists to come on board.

According to public opinion polls Mr. Legault’s campaign has eroded a portion of the anglophone and ethnic votes that have traditionally supported the Liberals. Tonight’s objective will be to reach out to francophone voters, those who will decide the CAQ’s fate in the Sept 4 election.

If I was a federalist Quebecer and if I agreed with M. Boily "that Mr. Charest was headed for certain defeat in the Sept.4 election," then I might well decide to vote CAQ to try to prevent a PQ victory.

 

[a_majoor]

While Ioubt that anyone of the candidates will speak of this, the real problems with Quebec are far deeper than student tuitions or what language you get your beer and smokes in:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/quebec-is-committing-slow-motion-suicide/article4488827/

Quebec is committing slow-motion suicide
JOHN IBBITSON The Globe and Mail Published Sunday, Aug. 19 2012, 8:48 PM EDT

Whatever her intention, Pauline Marois’s proposed secular charter is bound to worsen the immigration crisis in Quebec.

The province is committing slow-motion demographic suicide. Year after year it fails to bring in enough newcomers to replenish the diminishing ranks of the native-born.

The Parti Québécois Leader’s proposed law banning the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols, such as turbans, skullcaps or other head coverings, by provincial employees – while permitting a discreet crucifix on a necklace – will only make the problem worse.

The PQ is not alone. Jean Charest’s Liberals introduced a bill banning face coverings whenever Quebec citizens interact with the provincial government. It died, possibly of embarrassment, on the order paper.

CAQ Leader François Legault, in a compliment of sorts, said Quebec students should mimic their more industrious Asian counterparts. His comments only succeeded in reinforcing racial stereotypes, while highlighting the supposed gulf between Quebec culture and the culture of Canadian immigrants.

Demographic decline is the greatest problem afflicting Quebec society. Not enough babies are being born to sustain the population. The average age in Quebec is older than in any province to its west. Without young, skilled immigrants to fill vacant jobs, pay taxes that sustain social programs and contribute to pension funds for older folk, those jobs, programs and pensions will eventually disappear.

What is the solution that Quebec politicians propose? Deter, restrict and insult immigrants.

The Quebec government is responsible for selecting most of the immigrants who come to Quebec. It doesn’t do a very good job.

In 2011, Quebec represented 23 per cent of Canada’s population. But over the past five years, the province has been responsible, on average, for only 19 per cent of the annual intake of permanent residents, according to Statistics Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada data.

In the business class, Quebec has a selection target of 9,000 to 10,000 immigrants a year, but only brings in 2,500 to 2,700.

Quebec’s French-language requirement ensures that many of the immigrants who do arrive in that province come from poorer parts of the globe, where new arrivals are less likely to have the education and skills needed to contribute.

In 2010, for example, 50 per cent of immigrants to Ontario came from Asia or the Pacific, with the emerging economic powerhouses of China and India being two of the biggest source countries. But not many of them speak, or want to learn, French.

That may explain why, in that same year, Quebec drew only 15 per cent of its intake from Asia and the Pacific. Instead, 41 per cent of new arrivals came from Africa and the Middle East, and 19 per cent from the Caribbean and Latin America. The two regions are home to some of the world’s most impoverished states. But in many of the countries there, such as Haiti and Morocco, people at least speak French.

Many of those who do immigrate to Quebec promptly leave. Data is thin here, but the Quebec government did recently report that a paltry 10 per cent of investor-class immigrants selected by the province between 1999 and 2008 were still living in the province in 2010.

“Citizenship and Immigration Canada is concerned with statistics showing low rates of investors selected by Quebec actually arriving or remaining in the province,” a spokeswoman for the department stated in an e-mail.

So Quebec is unable to attract sufficient immigrants; many of those who do arrive come from some of the poorest places on earth, and many of the more affluent head straight to another province.

You might think that, faced with such grim realities, Quebeckers and their political leaders would be debating how to attract and keep more immigrants, especially those who can bring needed skills and resources to the province.

Instead, they compete over who will more vehemently promote and defend their shared cultural heritage, even as the population ages and stagnates.

It may be good politics, but it’s slow-motion suicide just the same.

More Related to this Story
Charest's $1.2B spending promises put budget targets at risk

NDP will run Quebec party in next provincial election: Mulcair

Quebec Liberals losing support as CAQ gains ground