Charest

Hier, j’ai affirmé qu’il serait bon pour le PQ de garder André Boisclair à sa tête. Je n’ai nullement l’intention de changer d’avis.

Je n’avais pas parlé de Jean Charest, car j’étais persuadé qu’il quitterait la vie politique après avoir vu son parti enregistrer le pire score de son histoire. Evidemment, je me suis trompé...

Au contraire d’André Boisclair, je pense que Jean Charest nuira sérieusement à son parti s’il en reste le chef. Soyons clair, vu les problèmes de Boisclair et la mauvaise équipe de Dumont, les Libéraux auraient dû gagner une forte majorité. Si cela ne s’est pas fait, c’est à cause de leurs promesses non tenues et de leurs erreurs de jugement pendant leur mandat. S’il veut remporter une majorité au prochain scrutin, le parti a intérêt à faire oublier aux Québecois son piètre bilan. Comme Charest, en tant que Premier Ministre, y sera pour toujours associé, le parti n’a d’autre choix que de s'en débarrasser.

Elections

Bon, les élections québecoises sont finalement terminées. Il faut dire que le temps commençait à se faire long. J’avais hâte d’en finir.

Dans l'ensemble, je suis plûtot content. Bien que je ne me rejouisse pas de l’étonnante montée de l’ADQ, il faut quand meme reconnaître que c’est un meilleur scénario pour l’unité nationale qu’un gouvernement péquiste.

Le plus sinificatif est que cette élection est la première depuis 1974 dans laquelle le vote n’a pas été polarisé par la question de la séparation. Il sera intéressant de voir si cette tendance se maintient jusqu’à la prochaine élection. Chose certaine: il n’y aura pas de nouveau référendum pour un bon bout de temps.

Boisclair a dejà indiqué son intention de rester à la tete du PQ. Au point où ils en sont, c’est pour eux une assez bonne décision. C'est un homme intelligent et je doute qu’il commettra d’autres erreurs de jugement. L’expérience qu’il a acquise pourrait faire de lui un bon chef. Il est vrai que ce n’est pas sans risques pour le PQ, mais c’est tout de même moins risqué que d’élire un nouveau leader et de courrir le risque de son inexpérience.

On verra bien...

A Real Deception

Read this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070324.wxethanol24/BNStory/National/home you are going to scream!

These cars are going to get a green rebate for running on a fuel made of 85% ethanol, even though this fuel is sold nowhere in Canada. I can understand that Flaherty would want to create a demand for that fuel, but the real effect of his policy will be to nullify the competitive advantage he had just awarded Hybrids.

To put it simply: why would I buy a cheaper Prius when I can buy a cheaper Monte Carlo?

The ADQ Option

ADQ leader Mario Dumont is somewhat of an enigma. He started off as the leader of the Young Liberals, then became a separatist for the 1995 referendum, and now claims to have switched back to a soft version of federalism he calls “autonomy”.

“Autonomy” is basically what Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson calls the "cake and eat it, too” vision. The ADQ wants Quebec to sign Canada’s constitution, as well as its own separate one! Quebec would not be a province but the "autonomous state of Quebec.", but this doesn’t mean they won’t get equalization.

A lot of people see the “autonomy” solution as the way to satisfy once and for all Quebec’s demands, while keeping it as a part of Canada. This is one of the main reasons explaining the ADQ newfound success with traditional Liberal supporters.

This is a mistake.

The more Quebec becomes autonomous, the less attachment it has to Canada. This may seem like a totally obvious statement, but it is obviously being ignored by all those federalist ADQ supporters.

You see, the union of Quebec and English Canada is like a marriage: both parties have differences, but they have enough in common to both benefit from the union. Divorce becomes inevitable when the couple doesn’t share anything. The more Quebec and Canada get detached, the closer we get to a divorce.

As far as I’m concerned, the most effective type of federalism is a strong one.

Budget

So there it is! The long awaited Flaherty budget has finally been unveiled.

It’s a decent budget. Far from excellent, but still much better than what we were used to seeing from Conservative governments. I mean, this one is actually balanced!

There aren’t any drastic changes. Apart from the solution to the so-called fiscal imbalance, there isn’t really anything new. I’m glad to see that SUV owners will face a $1000 “green levy”, less glad to hear that truck owners are excluded. What surprised me the most were the 30 million dollars set aside for a new program designed to provide "support for local arts and heritage festivals that engage Canadians in their communities." How un-conservative is that!

This being said, there are a few things that really disappoint me. I am appalled that the Natives didn’t even get a penny to fight poverty. Even though they most of them live on remote reserves, they are still Canadian and deserve to be aided when in need. If people in Calgary were facing the same living conditions as some natives living on reserves, I am sure the government would have declared a state of emergency.

I am also disappointed by the lack of green programs. The SUV tax is a step in the right direction, but in the larger scheme of things, it is totally insignificant. I’m sorry to say that a few small programs and tax incentives won’t suddenly make Canada green. What we need is an environmental revolution, and that will only happen with massive federal investment.

Post coming up tomorrow

I'm waiting to see what comes up at the budget vote before my writing next post. Who knows, my next post may be about why an election was triggered!!!

A Real Climate Change Plan

After reading the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary Jason Kenney’s remarks about the new Liberal climate change plan, I just had to laugh. "It allows companies to increase their emissions as much as they want so long as they pay a tax." said Mr Kenney.

Have you ever heard of market based solutions Mr Kenney? Yes, the Liberal plan does involve letting companies produce as much GHGs as they want, but I don’t know many companies which would satisfy their shareholders by wasting $30 on each tonne of emissions above the Kyoto target.

But that’s too complicated, too corrupt, too academic and too eastern. Canadians want action and Mr. Kenney’s party has a better plan: if we don’t start seeing action by 2050, the government will send Strormtroopers off to their oil sands to force companies into compliance. That’s a real Conservative plan: crude, tough, outdated.

Fed up!

A recent survey by environmental groups found that Alberta was Canada’s top greenhouse-gas emitter in 2005. Yes, the province of Alberta, which accounts for roughly 10% of Canada’s population accounts for 40% of the greenhouse gases.

My message to all Albertans who are fed up at being the largest per-capita equalization contributors:

-Maybe the rest of Canada is fed up at you being the largest greenhouse-gas emitters.

European Radical Idealism

Last week, a young girl participating in a Quebec soccer tournament was given the choice by the referee of removing her hijab or not participating in the game. The family of the girl appealed that decision to FIFA, which judged that the referee had done the right thing. This obviously caused quite a debate among politicians, editorialists and bloggers, so I thought that I should add my voice.

So here’s my voice: The referee and especially FIFA are wrong.

You see, this whole decision was a classic example of staunch European idealism. FIFA cited security concerns as the reason for its hijab ban. Wearing a hijab would apparently increase the risk of a heat stroke or cardiovascular problem. Maybe in Palermo, but this is Quebec in February!! I actually think the hijab could have a positive effect by keeping the ears of the players from freezing solid.

But the problem is FIFA doesn’t understand how rules can be adapted to suit different countries and regions. As far as they are concerned, a rule is a rule and must therefore be interpreted the same way in Montreal and Lagos as in Paris.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Bien que j’habite à 6 000 kilomètres de l’Amérique du Nord, je suis pourtant la LNH de près. Bon, je ne regarde plus la Soirée du Hockey les samedis soirs, mais je vérifie quand même les résultats des parties plusieurs fois par semaine.

Je trouve vraiment que le lockout a fait le plus grand bien à la ligue. Il a donné l’occasion aux dirigeants de rénover le jeu et de contrôler les salaires. Il faut dire qu’ils en avaient rudement besoin. Les gens étaient tannés d’assister à des parties se terminant en bagarres générales par des scores de 0-0. De plus, l’incident Bertuzzi avait souligné l’importance d’éliminer la violence excessive sur la patinoire.

Pendant les 18 derniers mois, nous avons eu la chance d’assister à un spectacle de toute première catégorie. Un hockey de finesse, de vitesse et de talent. Un hockey ne tolérant aucune conduite anti-sportive.

Mais bon, toute belle chose a une fin, et l’incident qui a mit fin à cette période de beau hockey c’est produit avant-hier. Dans une partie opposant les Rangers aux Islanders de New-York, Chris Simon, un joueur des Islanders, c’est vengé d’un plaquage cuisant en tapant sur un adversaire avec son bâton. Evidemment, le comité disciplinaire de la ligue a imposé des sanctions: 25 matchs + amende, mais étaient elles vraiment à la hauteur du délit?

Simon a mis la vie de son adversaire en péril, et il reçoit 25 matchs et une amende. C’est minable! La ligue nationale a raté une occasion en or de montrer sa volonté d’éradiquer la violence excessive de la patinoire en condamnant ce joueur à une interdiction a vie de jouer dans la LNH. Cela peut paraître excessif, mais bon dieu, Simon aurait pu tuer son adversaire. Si cela c’était produit dans la rue, il aurait probablement été condamné par un tribunal à une peine d’emprisonnement, alors une interdiction de jouer dans la LNH, c’est en réalité très peu.

Bloc Logic

For the last few weeks, the Bloc Québécois has been busy attacking the government in question period because Quebec’s aeronautical industry wasn’t going to get 60% of the financial fallout from the federal government’s contract with Boeing and Lockheed for the purchase of four C-17s aircrafts.

They claim that because the Quebec aeronautical industry represents 60% of Canada’s, it should be handed 60% of the financial fallout of every single defense contract, just like in any free market economy! The Bloc also affirms that a sovereign Quebec would join NAFTA. Maybe they should practice competing with New-Brunswick before competing against the US.

Oh, and by the way, the Bloc has opposed Canada’s mission in Afghanistan even though it is the main reason for the government purchasing those planes. So even though the party which holds the vast majority of Quebec’s seats opposes the Afghanistan mission, Quebec should still be handed most of the financial fallout. Typical Bloc Logic!

The Pot Shouldn't Call The Kettle Black

The softwood lumber dispute generated a wave of anti-Americanism all across Canada. We had both signed NAFTA and we expected our partners to abide to the rules set in the agreement. Luckily, our politicians defended their country with pride and vigor:

Paul Martin: “Friends live up to their agreements”
Frank McKenna: “We’ll sue their a**es off”

But to our great despair, this was not enough. The Americans didn’t budge and we ended up having to accept a settlement which prominent Washington economist Elliot Feldman criticized as "one-sided" and a "bad deal for Canada". Of course it was “a bad deal for Canada,” the US basically got to keep a billion dollars in illegal duties.

At least we haven’t descended to their level. So much of Canada’s mentality is directly influenced by the US that you’d almost expect our politicians to suddenly start neglecting our international agreements.

But to my great pride and joy, we still take them very seriously. Take for example, the Kyoto protocol. This official document was signed by 168 countries and as usual, we Canadians lead the way in meeting the targets. Unlike those spiteful Americans, who can’t tell the difference between an international protocol and an election promise, we understood that all countries that signed the agreement had a moral obligation to meet their targets.

A Challenge

Harper is obviously trying hard to appear like a simple, down to earth guy who consistently gets things done. He’s totally uncharismatic, communicates in short, simple sentences and sticks to the few key issues he owns. He never gets carried away in his speeches and he can count on Baird and co. to do the dirty work of constantly reminding Canadians of how much better he is than the previous government. His whole attitude can be summed up in five words: He thinks we’re stupid. Unfortunately for our dignity, recent polls are proving him right!

Yes, I know, it’s never a good idea to follow polls too closely. Not only is public opinion about the only thing more volatile than oil prices, it’s also important to note that historically, the Prime Minister has always led his challenger in pre-election polls (even Kim Campbell and John Turner). This being said, aside from the quick honeymoon the Liberals enjoyed after their convention, the Conservatives have consistently maintained a substantial lead. They’ve never reached majority territory, but they have proven that their election victory isn’t entirely due to anger towards the Liberals, some people actually like them!

Liberal supporters would have hoped that the arrival of Stéphane Dion would help reverse the momentum, but the Conservatives have responded extremely well to his arrival by capitalizing on his poor record as environment minister. The tactics they used were both ruthless and shameful but, a lot like Harper himself, proved to be extremely effective.

I am still confident that Dion’s principle will triumph over Harper’s slyness, but that will take time. The longer it takes the Liberals to get back in power, the harder it becomes for Canada to meet its Kyoto target (if they are still attainable).

Dion needs to make us dream. I think he should challenge Canada to become fossil fuel independent in ten years, just like Kennedy challenged his country to put a man on the moon. Not only would this make our country extremely rich in the long run, it would turn Dion into a true leader by uniting Canadians towards a common goal.

I think Canadians would appreciate a bold challenge like this one. We would all like the idea of becoming the uncontestable world leaders in green technology. Even Alberta could participate willingly, as it exports all its oil to the US. The initial investment required by the federal government would be huge, but Sweden successfully pursuing the same goal and it doesn’t have any oil. I know we could use this money to pay the deficit, but we’re better off becoming a sustainable economy.