Why a 'love story' with Mark Carney is François Legault's only hope
OTTAWA — Quebec Premier François Legault was on fire last weekend.
The man who is clearly and unequivocally the most unpopular premier in Canada, according to the latest Angus Reid poll, stood before the future of his party, the members of the youth wing of the Coalition Avenir Québec, smiling and ready to fight.
'I want to fight more than ever! For a third term, to finish the job!' he roared. 'I need you to continue building Quebec for future generations,' he added.
But the polls suggest that the fight seems lost for Legault, known for years as the country's most beloved premier. And for the man who has made a punching bag of the federal Liberal government, it's a cruel twist of fate that Prime Minister Mark Carney may be the only person who can save the Quebec premier.
With nearly a year to go until the election, the man who won one of the largest majorities in Quebec's history, with 90 out of 125 seats, is facing a massacre. According to the latest Angus Reid report, only a quarter of Quebecers approve of his performance. In March 2020, at the start of the pandemic, his approval rating was 77 per cent.
'Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the CAQ wins zero seat in next year's election,' said a CAQ insider that was granted anonymity to speak more freely out of fear of repercussions.
The man behind the poll aggregator Qc125.com, Philippe J. Fournier, is almost convinced that if there were an election today, the CAQ would not have party status.
'Currently, Mr. Legault is in a situation that is similar or even perhaps a little worse than (then prime minister) Justin Trudeau in December,' he told National Post.
His government has faced numerous controversies over the past two and a half years. Right now, he is being hit on all fronts for his government mismanagement in the health, energy, transport and finances files.
The public, it seems, has simply had enough of this government and no longer trusts it.
Legault sees things differently and presents himself as the nationalist and economic candidate. But the road ahead isn't smooth.
On the one hand, the separatist Parti Québécois has comfortably taken the lead and is garnering all the attention with a leader who remains perfectly clear about his intentions during the first mandate of a PQ government. Yes, this is a referendum on Quebec independence.
With a popular leader leading the way among francophones, with a similar margin to that of federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a year ago, the PQ has now brought the separatists back home after a decade of desertion.
On the other hand, Legault will have to deal with a new leader of the Quebec Liberal Party starting Saturday, when the party chooses its candidate to become Quebec's next premier.
The QLP has been in dormancy since the 2022 election debacle and is dreaming of a massive comeback with a new leader. 'If the next election is about a possible PQ referendum, it becomes clear that we are the alternative. Nobody believes that Legault is a federalist,' said a Liberal source.
In April, interim leader Marc Tanguay dropped a bombshell by publicly declaring that he had information that preparations for a CAQ leadership convention were underway.
Last week, he claimed his information was still accurate. But Legault insisted he would seek a third term.
After all, he doesn't have what Trudeau had a few months ago: Carney as a successor.
And Carney may be the only person who can save Legault.
For weeks now, the premier has been unusually nice to the federal Liberals, a party that he wanted defeated last fall when he asked the Parti Québécois leader to tell his 'comrade' at the Bloc Québécois to overthrow the Trudeau government.
Now, Legault tells his own members that Quebec 'must work hand in hand with the federal government.'
According to him, there is 'an exceptional opportunity' with Carney in Ottawa because he is a prime minister 'laser focused' on the economy. But also, because Carney's entourage is prominently from Quebec. François-Philippe Champagne is finance minister, Mélanie Joly is the minister of industry, Marc-André Blanchard will be Carney's chief of staff and now Michael Sabia, who was Legault's pick as CEO of Hydro-Québec, is the next clerk of the Privy Council.
'It's as if the stars were aligned… So, now is the time to take advantage of it,' Legault said in his speech.
The PQ is now calling the Carney-Legault relationship a 'love story.'
'If he can seek economic opportunities at the federal level and then take credit for them, of course he will do so, so that is called a political opportunity,' said Emilie Foster, a former CAQ MNA and professor at Carleton University.
During her term as a backbencher for Charlevoix–Côte-de-Beaupré in the National Assembly from 2018 to 2022, Foster said she never heard her premier utter the words 'military' and 'defence.'
This week, as Carney announced massive military spending to meet NATO's two per cent target, Legault quickly announced millions of dollars to support Quebec's defence industry and visited three companies.
In Ottawa, this sudden affection from Quebec City is more than welcome. Many Quebec Liberal MPs were all smiles this week.
None of them were the most popular politician in Quebec. No, the most popular 'by far' noted Fournier, is Mark Carney.
Now, Legault wants a piece of it and wants to show the electorate his record of economic success next year. So far, he's boasted of outperforming Ontario and Canada in per capita economic growth, wage growth and disposable income growth.
Legault wants major projects. Like the Newfoundland-Quebec power line, with the help of Carney, who has introduced a bill to fast track major projects.
It's his only chance of survival, according to Foster. Over the past few decades, he's pledged to be an 'economic man,' just like Carney. Yet the province has recorded the largest deficits in its history.
But Legault is making the case that the PQ won't try to achieve success with the federal government because it wants to demonstrate that Canada isn't working.
'So this is not the time to have the PQ in power, this must be very clear, and it must be explained to Quebecers,' Legault said.
He simply hopes that Quebecers will give the PQ the same treatment that Canadians gave the Conservatives.
National Post atrepanier@postmedia.com
In Quebec, opposition mounts against a pipeline project that doesn't exist
Quebec says it 'is open to interprovincial trade' after tabling new bill
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers Sign up here.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
24 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Clean-Energy Project Cancellations Hit GOP Districts Hardest
Clean energy investments in the US are shrinking fast amid the rollback of tax incentives and policy uncertainties under President Donald Trump's administration, with Republican districts hardest hit. Businesses canceled or delayed more than $1.4 billion in new factories and clean energy projects last month, bringing the total since January to $15.5 billion, according to an analysis by E2, a non-partisan group that advocates for renewables and policies to protect the environment. The canceled projects across battery, electric vehicles and solar, were expected to create nearly 12,000 new jobs.
Associated Press
24 minutes ago
- Associated Press
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
