Of the articles, IMV, these two are the best:
Jef Lisée
M. Vastel, le journaliste Balzac du Canada
----
Articles in English:
Lysiane Gagnon
L. Ian Macdonald
----
Who is Lapierre?
Luc Lavoie, Mulroney's press guy, now Quebecor VP media guy, described Lapierre as the Brian Tobin of Quebec. Smart.
Lapierre had André Ouellet as first mentor. As a 25 year old Liberal MP, he voted for the patriation of the constitution in 1981. Then he voted for Turner (over Chretien) when Trudeau resigned. He favoured Meech and then left the Liberals with the arrival of Chretien in 1990. (He had supported PM PM in the post-Turner leadership race.) Lapierre heeded the call of his new mentor in 2004.
Is there any logic?
This Lapierre quote in the Vastel article says much:
Quote
"Faire de la politique quand tu es pauvre, c'est de la pauvre politique (...). Paul Martin, par exemple, qui possède une cinquantaine de millions de dollars... C'est pas mal plus intéressant que le gars que sa femme appelle le jeudi pour aller faire l'épicerie."
No one quite knows how Lapierre voted in the 1995 referendum. (To my knowledge, he's never said.)
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that Jean Lapierre is an "opportuniste". He seems more inclined to be federalist than separatist - but the distinction is small.
Trudeau, Pearson, Mulroney and even Chrétien were genuine federalists. They all had to deal with the Lapierre sort. (Ottawa is filled with such 'federalists'.) But Trudeau et al somehow aimed for something higher.
The Liberal Party (or PM PM) has apparently chosen, on an issue critical to its raison d'être, to go low.
Why? Where is the articulate, genuine federalist Stéphane Dion? Why did PM PM choose the one over the other? What happened?
Trudeau is not around to write a polemical piece to Actualité and Maclean's. But he may well be rolling in his crypt.

Add Reply


MultiQuote