Élections québécoises	Lettre ouverte aux Québécois La peur du changement Paul Piché VOIR 17 avril 2003 L'animateur radio demande à ses invités électeurs de commenter l'élection du Parti libéral, qui vient d'être confirmée. Il commence par celui qui a annulé son vote (Radio-Canada accorde beaucoup d'importance à ceux qui annulent). Celui-ci, peut-être un peu surpris par la rapidité du décompte, nous dit: "Ben j'espère qu'y vont pas tout défaire ce que le PQ a fait." Je crois que c'est à ça que ressemblait le Québec lundi soir, jour d'élections. Déçus, ou tout simplement tannés de voir un gouvernement péquiste, les Québécois ont quand même tout fait pour éviter le Parti libéral et son chef. Voyant que l'ADQ était encore pire en termes de valeurs pour la société québécoise, ils se sont finalement résignés. Plusieurs, même, demeurent encore surpris de la victoire libérale. Particulièrement chez les militants de gauche, qui, quoique très hésitants à appuyer un gouvernement qui leur a fait vivre l'atteinte du déficit zéro, s'inquiètent d'avoir laissé leur avenir entre les mains de ceux qui ont le plus contribué à créer la situation de départ. Beaucoup de ces militants qui n'ont pas voulu voter PQ rêvaient peut-être secrètement que d'autres le fassent à leur place. Surgissent peut-être aujourd'hui des images de "Boubou macoutes" et de scandales de millionnaires hydro-québécois quand ils se demandent comment seront réparties, chez les plus pauvres, les compressions budgétaires annoncées permettant les baisses d'impôt tant réclamées par le big business. À noter qu'avec le Parti québécois, c'est la première fois qu'un parti politique pouvant prétendre au pouvoir s'est permis d'avoir le courage de ne pas proposer de baisses d'impôt et de défendre cette idée jusqu'à ce qu'elle soit acceptée par l'ensemble de la population. L'avons-nous assez souligné? Notre défection aura-t-elle pour résultat de classer ce courage politique au rang des lubies de la gauche à éviter? Espérons que non. De toute façon, le seul avenir possible pour le Parti québécois est à gauche. Bernard Landry l'avait compris, peut-être tardivement, ou c'est peut-être trop tardivement que les jeux de pouvoir lui ont permis de laisser les éléments les plus progressistes l'emporter. Quoi qu'il en soit, pour l'environnement en tout cas, les enjeux ne s'étaient jamais si clairement dessinés. L'environnement a toujours été, à mon avis, l'enjeu le plus négligé par rapport aux gains électoraux possibles. La conscience écologique a énormément grandi ces dernières années et elle pourrait tout autant rallier les forces motrices de la société québécoise d'aujourd'hui que le mouvement ouvrier l'a fait dans les années 70. Bernard Landry aura été, historiquement, le premier leader souverainiste à le comprendre et à y agir. Le virage vert du PQ est peut-être imparfait mais il demeure réel et a forcé beaucoup de militants écologistes sur le terrain à défendre le PQ avec l'énergie du désespoir, leur cause étant soudainement dépendante de la réélection du gouvernement. Vous avez vu dernièrement beaucoup de citoyens s'opposer au saccage des rivières pour des intérêts privés. Vous avez vu aussi plusieurs artistes se faire leurs porte-parole. Cette élection, pour tous ceux-là et pour d'autres, dans d'autres domaines environnementaux, est certainement crève-coeur. Mais j'ai tellement vu de détermination dans leurs actions et un espoir naître de leur victoire que je sais que cela sera très porteur. Et je leur dis tout de suite que s'ils continuent à porter cet espoir, nous allons continuer à porter leur message. J'ai eu l'occasion de leur dire exactement cela à l'enregistrement d'une émission qui s'est faite avant l'élection mais qui ne sera diffusée que la semaine prochaine, et où j'avais prévu qu'ils auraient à continuer à lutter. Remarquez, si le PQ avait gagné, nous aurions pu aménager et rendre accessibles des rivières avec des sites absolument magnifiques. Il n'est pas difficile d'imaginer qu'aussitôt fait, un promoteur se serait pointé pour tenter d'y construire des condos, au nom du développement et du bien public, évidemment. Qu'on se le dise, si la bataille pour un Québec souverain sera plus longue que prévu, la bataille de l'environnement sera éternelle. La peur du changement Contrairement au slogan si peu original qu'on s'est âprement disputé au cours de cette élection, c'est bien la peur du changement qui a été le moteur de celle-ci, non la volonté de changement. Tourne à gauche, tourne à droite ou tourne en rond. On le sait trop bien, le seul vrai changement dans cette province serait de faire du Québec un pays. Mais au fond, tout le monde a peur de ce seul vrai changement, y compris les souverainistes. Surtout les souverainistes. On a presque réussi en 95. Ni assez convaincus, ni assez convaincants, de toute évidence, nous n'étions pas prêts. Peur de s'affirmer, peur de l'engagement, peur de la confrontation, de prendre position, de se mouiller, de ne pas être à la mode. Par contre, on a vu et on voit encore des gens déployer une énergie extrême pour justifier leur neutralité, par des chroniques, des films, des pièces de théâtre, alors que s'ils étaient vraiment neutres, ils cesseraient d'en parler, simplement. Les prochains mois devraient être consacrés à nos peurs et à nos courages, ainsi qu'aux choix que nous voudrons faire dans notre engagement. Je suis, curieusement, plus confiant que jamais que nous allons réussir. Et beaucoup plus rapidement qu'on pourrait le croire. Jean Charest était prêt, mais pas nous. La journée où on va être prêts, on n'aura plus besoin de lui.
PLQ	Charest victory seen good for Martin Canadian Press Saturday, Apr. 19, 2003 OTTAWA — With Jean Charest’s election victory in Quebec, Paul Martin will deal with the province as one among equals in his bid to win the Liberal leadership, his top advisers say. Mr. Martin has room to move toward a one-size-fits-all strategy for the provinces now that he no longer faces fallout from a Parti Quebecois win in Quebec or a looming referendum, they said. “We don’t have to be Quebec-obsessed in our speeches, while we would have probably had to have a higher priority in a more polarized setting,” said a top strategist working on the campaign’s Quebec file. The provincial Liberal win this week marks an opportunity for Mr. Martin to let go of fears of separatist threats that have long dogged Liberal leaders, said the source, who asked not to be named. “For us, the worst case scenario [was] the re-election of the PQ, in which Landry would be announcing he has a mandate to promote sovereignty … and [Prime Minister] Jean Chrétien and [Intergovernmental Affairs Minister] Stephane Dion would be digging ditches around Quebec, polarizing the vote,” said the source. Mr. Martin, who has been silent in recent weeks to avoid jeopardizing Mr. Charest’s sudden surge in the polls, will continue to walk softly on the Quebec issue now that separatist flames have been dampened. “The issues we are going to be dealing with are going to be more national in scope because of the fact there is no referendum strategy,” said the source, who likened Quebec’s traditional concerns to those of Alberta. “Ralph Klein’s speeches over the last six months about western separatism are the speeches that were given in Quebec 30 years ago. So we don’t want to go down that road.” Echoing that sentiment, two western cabinet ministers — Public Works Minister Ralph Goodale and Health Minister Anne McLellan — said this week that Mr. Martin was the right leader to woo western Canada into a fuller federal partnership. And in the face of new talk from Alberta this week about creating a “firewall” of provincial control around programs such as taxation and police, the Martin team suggested it’s less concerned about who maintains control. “We’re willing to look at the needs and not who can serve them,” the source said. But, while adopting a more generic strategy toward Quebec as just one of 10 provinces may go some way toward pleasing English Canada, it won’t necessarily wash with Mr. Martin’s potential supporters in seat-rich Quebec, experts said. A new era of fiscal generosity for all provinces including Quebec, now that premier Bernard Landry has been overthrown, would result from a Martin government, suggested one strategist. “If there is a financial situation that continues to be favourable [nationally], we can easily sit down and iron out problems,” said the source. Just how far Mr. Martin’s team will go toward addressing the fiscal imbalance — Ottawa running surpluses while provinces run deficits — remains to be seen.
PLQ	Paul Martin ne sera pas "obsédé" par le Québec, suite à la victoire libérale PC 21.4.2003 OTTAWA (PC) - Avec la victoire récente de Jean Charest aux dernières élections québécoises, Paul Martin traitera le Québec comme une province pareille aux autres dans sa campagne à la direction du Parti libéral du Canada, disent ses principaux conseillers. Maintenant qu'il n'a plus à se préoccuper des retombées d'une éventuelle victoire du Parti québécois, ou de la tenue possible d'un référendum, M. Martin a maintenant la liberté d'appliquer une stratégie unique pour toutes les provinces, disent-ils. "Nous n'avons pas à être obsédés par le Québec dans nos discours, alors que nous aurions probablement dû lui accorder une priorité plus marquée dans un contexte plus polarisé", a déclaré un des stratèges de la campagne de M. Martin au Québec. Le pire scénario aurait été la réélection du Parti québécois, ajoutait cette source, qui a préféré ne pas être identifiée. M. Martin, qui est resté discret ces dernières semaines pour éviter de compromettre la progression soudaine de M. Charest dans les sondages d'opinion, continuera de faire montre de prudence sur la question du Québec, maintenant que le mouvement souverainiste est relégué à l'arrière-scène. On s'occupera de questions de portée nationale, parce qu'il n'y a pas de stratégie référendaire, ajoute cette source. Mais l'adoption d'une stratégie commune envers le Québec et les autres provinces, si elle pourrait plaire au Canada anglais, ne fera peut-être pas l'affaire des partisans potentiels de M. Martin au Québec. Jeffrey Hale, un observateur de longue date du Québec à l'Université de Lethbridge, en Alberta, prédit que M. Martin s'assurera que son programme reconnaisse les préoccupations traditionnelles du Québec - à défaut de quoi, il s'expose au courroux de ses électeurs québécois. Un autre stratège laisse entendre qu'une nouvelle ère de générosité fiscale attend les provinces, y compris le Québec, sous un gouvernement Martin, maintenant que Bernard Landry a été défait. Jusqu'où ira l'équipe Martin pour régler le dossier du déséquilibre fiscal reste à voir. M. Martin n'a par le passé pas manifesté beaucoup de patience envers les provinces, rappelle cependant M. Hale. L'ex-ministre des Finances a en fait mis sur pied le système actuel des relations fiscales fédérales-provinciales, et n'a absolument pas de temps à perdre avec l'approche nombriliste des provinces à l'égard des transferts fédéraux, croit-il.
PLQ	Dion saved Canada The Gazette Monday, April 21, 2003 Éditorial - Some day, someone will write a book titled The Man Who Saved Canada. It will be about Stéphane Dion. The federal minister of intergovernmental affairs said out loud last week what political insiders have known for some time - his days in Ottawa might soon be over. And that's bad news for this country. With the Parti Québécois out of office, Dion is greatly tempted, it appears, to emulate the hero at the end of a western movie: tuck his pen back in its holster, intone "my work here is done," hitch his book bag over his shoulder and stride off into the sunset, back to the academic life. From the point of view of federalists in Quebec, "hero" is scarcely an overstatement. With imperturbable logic, great patience, academic rigour and relentless precision, Dion systematically attacked and exposed fatal flaws in the conventional wisdom that was leading this country straight to Quebec separation and ruin. The separatist leadership hated his incessant open letters, Quebec cartoonists regularly depicted him as a rat, his name became a curse in some circles - but they couldn't escape his ideas. "If Canada is divisible, then Quebec is divisible," he said, and there was no way separatists could evade that limpid logic. "There would have to be a clear majority on a clear question," he insisted, and suddenly, the Yes camp's convoluted subordinate clauses and "sovereignty-association" hypotheses were revealed as a giant con game. "The Supreme Court should tell us if separation would be legal," he said, and the court did so, with a response that was equivocal in some ways but which also plainly raised the bar for those trying to slide Quebec out of Canada on the sly. Dion accomplished all this not only over the opposition of sovereignists but also over the not-so-muted criticism of many federalists. This was the "lamb lobby," made up of people who thought that any direct challenge to separatist nostrums would be too risky and that soft words plus more concessions would somehow tame the beast. This Outremont-Westmount elite approach had helped lead the country to the very brink of disaster in October 1995. Right after that national near-death experience, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made perhaps his best-ever cabinet appointment. He reached into the political science department at the Université de Montréal and found Dion, son of a prominent nationalist academic and himself a hard-headed Canadian federalist. He was made minister at once, even before he was fixed up with a safe Commons seat. With his trademark campus-style book bag and his tweedy common-room air, Dion at first seemed owlish and dazzled in the glare of the political arena. But he loves a challenge, and soon he was at work. Federalist critics fell silent, one by one, as Dion's elegant open letters began to skewer separatist shibboleths and to pose questions that all of Lucien Bouchard's talk of "magic wands" just couldn't wish away. Support for separatism dropped steadily for several reasons after 1995, but Dion certainly deserves a substantial share of the credit. But Chrétien's most likely successor, Paul Martin, we understand, doesn't like him. Martin seems to think that anybody who has any enemies, anywhere in Canada, is unfit to be in the Martin cabinet. Martin wants to be on good terms with everybody, including Quebec nationalists. Then there was Dion's intervention in the Martin-Chrétien fight a year ago. In his usual Socratic fashion, Dion spoke up to ask two simple questions: Is Martin saying the Liberal Party should dump Jean Chrétien now? If so, why? The answers, known to everyone in the Liberal Party, were respectively "yes" and "because he wants the job now." But this is the truth nobody was supposed to utter, and it was natural for Dion, understandably loyal to Chrétien and devoted to evidence, logic and debate, to rub the party's nose in it. Martin is thought to have interpreted Dion's questions - rightly, we must admit - as an attack. So Dion will likely be bumped from his job once Martin takes over, early next year. It's hard to imagine the professor in another cabinet post, though he is said to be ready to get interested in any big-problems, big-issues portfolio. Most likely, he'll leave when Chrétien does. And that will be Paul Martin's first major failure as prime minister.
PLQ	What made Jean run? LYSIANE GAGNON The Globe and Mail Monday, April 21, 2003 I often wonder why anyone would want to head a government. Running for office is running for trouble. Just consider what's on Jean Charest's plate: nothing but piles of problems. In order to keep his campaign promises, Quebec's premier-designate will have to deal with the explosive issue of dismantling the recently formed megacities. He will have to fix a severely ailing health-care system; he will have to trim the public service while negotiating with hungry unions; he will have to provide tax cuts while pouring more money into health services and the school system, and he will have to deal on a daily basis with a strong, excitable, 45-member sovereigntist opposition. These are the kind of challenges that any ordinary person would run away from. Yet Mr. Charest is elated. He finally reached his goal, after five difficult years. The man we viewed as the sometimes glib, absent-minded Leader of the Opposition has metamorphosed into an entirely new person -- a smiling, enthusiastic and highly energetic man who is obviously blossoming in his new role. For the hard job that awaits him, he will receive $153,000 a year -- $24,000 less than his own cabinet secretary. But Mr. Charest is not in it for the money -- neither are the other Canadian political leaders. Yet, I wonder why there are still so many people willing to exchange a comfortable private life for the political jungle. I marvel that they do. What would happen to our democratic life if they didn't? Canada is lucky: Even as political life is becoming increasingly difficult, there is a relatively high number of valuable men and women who are willing to sacrifice a large part of their private lives to run for public office, in the full knowledge that they will rarely be thanked for their services. Just as his election campaign was meticulously planned, Jean Charest has carefully prepared his agenda for his first weeks as Premier. Even as he was in the middle of a tough electoral battle, he was already building his future staff. The day after the vote, the key jobs of the Premier's cabinet secretary and secretary of the Executive Council (basically the boss of the public service) were filled. A gracious winner, Mr. Charest moved smoothly into his new role, surrounding himself with experienced advisers, including former Liberal premier Daniel Johnson. The test of Mr. Charest's leadership will come very soon. He is caught with an embarrassing promise to open the door to the dismantling of recently amalgamated cities. Before the summer recess, the government will pass a bill allowing former municipalities to hold referendums on undoing the mergers that were imposed in 2000 by the Bouchard government. This is a very sticky issue. There is localized resentment throughout Quebec against the mergers. The Parti Québécois actually lost five or six ridings over the issue, on the south shore of Montreal and in Quebec City. But, in Montreal, the situation is more explosive because the forces behind dismantling are based in the predominantly Anglophone former municipalities of the western part of the island -- which also happens to be the richest area of the megacity. So the dismantling issue will have a linguistic and social dimension. Mr. Charest presents himself as a rassembleur -- a unifier -- opposed to what he used to call the "divisive policies" of the PQ. He will need all his talents as a conciliator to survive in what might become a very ugly debate. lgagnon@lapresse.ca
PLQ	Not everyone is overjoyed at Jean Charest's election NORMAN SPECTOR The Globe and Mail Monday, April 21, 2003 Jean Charest's victory over the Quebec sovereigntists will bring a new dynamic to first ministers' meetings. Yet, though he says his objective is to improve the Canadian federation, not destroy it, there already are signs of nervousness in the rest of the country over what his election portends. No one questions Mr. Charest's commitment to Canada, or his comfort level in all regions of the country. Indeed, there is great relief that he gives no sign of pining to discuss the Constitution, and, not since Pierre Trudeau, have Canadians seen a political leader as fluently bilingual. Yet, it's also clear that to win the votes, if not the hearts, of Quebeckers, Mr. Charest had to shed some of the Trudeau persona we saw when he served in Brian Mulroney's cabinet. I do not only mean the quality of his excellent French, which has taken on a distinctive Québécois nasal twang these past few years. (His English is still better than Mr. Trudeau's was, and as good as Mr. Mulroney's.) It's clear that his commitment to a strong central government also has eroded. These days, Mr. Charest promises to restore Quebec's traditional "leadership" in federal-provincial relations. Trudeau acolytes will be anxious about the examples he cites: the Quebec pension plan and immigration and manpower training. All are areas where the province has opted out of federal programs, and exercises a disguised form of special status. Nor will federal Liberals take comfort in the enthusiastic reaction by the premiers of British Columbia and Alberta to his victory. In Mr. Charest, these Westerners think they have a new ally. Like Gordon Campbell, Mr. Charest has promised deep tax cuts and, simultaneously, to improve health care -- the No. 1 cost driver and priority of all provinces. Having served in government, he'll likely proceed more prudently than Mr. Campbell and phase in the tax reductions over a number of years, starting only in the 2004-2005 budget. Still, he'll have to find some way to square the circle of his commitments. Expect, therefore, the next big federal-provincial dustup to be about the "vertical fiscal imbalance." (Jean Chrétien has always rejected the idea that Ottawa has too much money and the provinces not enough; even the suppler Paul Martin expresses doubts about the existence of any structural inequity.) As Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein's problem is not money, but Alberta voters' sense of powerlessness. They are still unwilling to face the hard truth that the West is not "in" but further out, thanks to the Reform/Alliance experiment. Separatist sentiment is growing, but Mr. Klein understands that road is a dead end. In order not to be stymied, he will try to reconstitute the old Alberta-Quebec alliance, though many of his voters are deeply suspicious of their putative partner in decentralization. All this political churn would be positive if it were to lead to a greater disentanglement of federal and provincial responsibilities. Canada is poorly -- and overly -- governed, with citizens not knowing which order of government to hold accountable for which deteriorating services. However, since no Quebec premier has ever been able to countenance trading off jurisdictions, such discussions inevitably become one-way demands that are fiercely resisted by politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa. It all comes down to what Quebeckers -- a minority, after all -- want to do in common with their fellow Canadians. Of course, residents of all provinces can be in the minority on certain issues, and federalism is a matter of constantly shifting alliances. However, while most of Canada views Quebec as just one of 10 provinces, east of the Ottawa River, it is viewed as a "nation" -- a slippery term that can denote either a separate country or people. Of course, Quebec is only really distinct in matters of language and culture. But try, if you're their premier, telling Quebeckers that housing or transportation distinctions between British Columbia and Newfoundland are greater than between their province and Ontario. Don't expect Mr. Charest to be the first. To avoid having to take a substantive position on federal-provincial relations, Mr. Charest proposed a new federal-provincial mechanism: a council of the federation. This would give the provinces a say in areas of federal jurisdiction such as international trade; as such, the concept was uncontroversial during the election campaign. But what happens if Ottawa makes demands for reciprocity in provincial areas such as education, or health? As premier of Quebec, would Mr. Charest accept national standards supported by seven of 10 provinces, for example, without demanding a right to opt out and receive compensation? And, if he does, will Quebec nationalists remain quiet for long? nspector@globeandmail.ca
juifs	Can the Liberals count on the Jewish vote? JOHN IBBITSON The Globe and Mail Monday, April 21, 2003 Politically, Canadian Jews used to be just like American Jews. Then came Sept. 11 and the war in Iraq. Now Canadian Jews and American Jews are different. American Jews haven't voted en masse for the Republican Party since 1920. Franklin Roosevelt swung the Jewish vote solidly behind his New Deal vision in the 1930s, and Jews in the United States have largely identified themselves as liberal Democrats ever since. They did their duty in 2000 as well, voting heavily in favour of Al Gore and vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman. But many political observers in the United States believe the small but extremely influential Jewish vote is shifting, and that George W. Bush will be the first Republican since Warren Harding to enjoy their support. It started with the attacks on New York and Washington, pitting the American government against Islamic terrorists, who are also mortal enemies of Israel. Evangelical Christians, who are avid supporters of Mr. Bush and who usually make Jews nervous, have been trumpeting their Zionist credentials, seeing a reborn Israel as essential to fulfilment of prophecy. Mr. Bush's determination to take on Saddam Hussein, and the efforts of European governments to stop him, have pushed Jews even more into the Republican fold, since many of them see the Europeans, especially the French, as suspiciously pro-Palestinian. And if any more incentive were needed, a small but vocal minority of Democrats in Congress have gone to extremes in accusing Mr. Bush of abandoning the Palestinians. One influential Democrat, Representative Jim Moran of Virginia, even blamed the Jews for the Iraq war: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going." After Jewish groups protested, Mr. Moran apologized and was punished by the party. But the remarks only deepened the growing perception that the Democrats are no longer the natural home of the Jewish vote. Canadian Jews should be as disenchanted with the Liberals as American Jews are with the Democrats. After all, this government stayed neutral during the war, even siding with the opprobrious French. And Jewish leaders say there is, indeed, a growing rift between their community and the Liberal Party. "I think there is a movement [away from the Liberals]. I think there is a shift," Jack Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, said in an interview. The great difference, however, is that there is nowhere for most Canadian Jews to go. Although the Canadian Alliance full-throatedly supports Israel, with the same evangelical Christian fervour of its American counterparts, the party remains stuck in the West, and alien to the urban centrist sensibilities of Jews in Toronto and Montreal. If the Alliance could ever make itself more palatable to Ontario or Quebec voters, or if the Conservatives could stage a rebirth of popularity, "then that would change the voting patterns of the Jewish community," Mr. Dimant believes. But, in the meantime, the Liberals get to keep the Jewish vote by default. The Liberals are also benefiting from the rightward shift of leftist Jews who formerly supported the NDP. Many Jews now believe that the NDP's obsession with Palestinian statehood, and its implacable opposition to the Iraq war, has taken on an anti-Zionist cast. The NDP would disagree, but the undoubted effect has been the migration of some Jews out of the party, with the Liberal Party the only place for them to go. But if the Liberals can still count on the Jewish vote, the party's leadership candidates, nonetheless, can expect some unpleasant questions from Jewish organizations and Jewish voters during the coming race. Such as: John Manley, MP Colleen Beaumier is apparently one of your supporters in caucus. What do you think of her visit to Iraq earlier this year? She said she found her Iraqi hosts "extremely charming." Paul Martin, where were you when student protesters at Concordia University prevented former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking? Your condemnation appears to have gone unrecorded. Sheila Copps, how do you justify your support for a Canadian Museum of Civilization show on Canadian-Arab art that contained elements offensive to many Jews? Care to explain yourselves? Or, as Liberals, do you simply take the Jewish vote for granted? jibbitson@globeandmail.ca
PLQ	Robbing Quebec? Toronto Star Monday, April 21, 2003 Éditorial - Jean Charest is no separatist, to be sure. But his federalist credentials didn't stop Quebec's new premier-designate from latching onto one of the separatists' favourite arguments to establish his Quebec-first bona fides — that Ottawa is robbing La Belle Province blind. As soon as the votes were counted, Charest promised Quebecers he'd march off to Ottawa to demand that his province be given new "tax points" to make up for some of the loot it steals from Quebec. Of course, Quebec isn't the only province to claim Ottawa collects more from its citizens than it puts back in. This is a popular shibboleth in Alberta, at Queen's Park, and in most other provinces as well. Still, his complaint raises an interesting question: If Ottawa doesn't spend its money in Canada's 10 provinces, then where does all the extra money go? Foreign aid? Actually, Ottawa already spends everything it collects on programs and paying down the federal debt. Unless provinces want to cut federal programs or take over the massive federal debt, they should remain silent. Rather than bash Ottawa before he is even in office, Charest should acknowledge upfront that Quebec has benefited from $50 billion in equalization payments since 1980. It can thus hardly claim to be a financial loser from Confederation. So, if Charest wants more taxing power, which puts him in the ranks of every other premier, he should shoulder more of the debt.