Tonight’s French language leaders debate will almost certainly attract a smaller audience than yesterday’s – language comprehension being one reason and hockey playoffs, another – but it is likely to be a more substantive affair than the English one.Despite its billing as a national event in one of the country’s two official languages, the nature of the audience and the media covering this debate will almost certainly skew the balance of questions toward those of particular interest in Quebec, for better or for worse (a subject canvassed to near death by Andrew Coyne at Macleans in recent years).Quebec’s media tend to be a little less focused on the strategy/tactics obsession of their counterparts in the English Canadian media, and even the National Press Gallery folks will have gotten some of the “who won, where and why” drivel out of their systems in the past 24 hours.It also goes without saying that Gilles Duceppe will have saved his catchiest lines and punchiest quips for the only audience he really wants to reach. All of these things will make for a different tone and tenor to this evening’s round of verbal jostling.Hopefully, this debate will open up a number of important policy issues for discussion which have otherwise been dormant during this election, and for various reasons have particular resonance in Quebec.First among them is any discussion about the federal government’s role on the energy file. Suggestions by the three major party leaders that loan guarantees are a possibility for the Muskrat Falls development in Labrador set off a strong negative reaction in Quebec, but none of the federal parties blinked after Premier Charest’s criticism of the notion of such federal intervention. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s similarly concerns might be put to rest by commitments to similar scale funding or support for Ontario’s nuclear projects. But since nobody is even clear what the “ask” is from Newfoundland, it’s hard for any of the federal leaders to demonstrate what their “answer” will be. Nevertheless, having a national conversation about our national government’s role in the national development of future energy sources just might be in the national interest – but that’s just my opinion. And if a debate brings that about – so be it.Second is the issue of the Harmonized Sales Tax. Both Quebec’s provincial government and the Bloc have been adamant that the province be offered financial compensation similar to that received by B.C. and Ontario in their recent harmonization initiatives. Faced with growing discontent in the wake of Prime Minister Harper’s utterances on Labrador hydro power, his Quebec MPs quickly reassured Quebec voters that the HST cash was on the way, even thought they hadn’t budgeted for it yet.But here’s the catch – Quebec’s sales tax regime is not and has never been harmonized with the GST. It’s application as a value-added tax is very similar, but it has never merged its collection and administration with Ottawa’s nor realized the economies of scale and scope which ensued in the HST provinces. Which begs the question why on earth we’d be compensating the province for refusing to harmonize their tax? Better still, forays into the HST debate would result in an inevitable pants-around-ankles moment for Jack Layton, who supports the HST in Nova Scotia, dislikes it in Ontario, and has promised to help scrap it in BC and let the province keep its transition costs with no penalty. His position(s) is(are) untenable, anywhere, and tonight’s debate might provide just the opportunity to expose it(them) as such.What else can we look forward to? Well, we haven’t had much in the way of “identity politics” since Jason Kenney’s ethnic solicitation letters popped up, so we’re probably due for a round on something along those lines. Language issues are always likely fodder, and are another awkward issue for at least one federal party leader, who’d rather the rest of the country not know what his party’s been up to in Quebec in recent months.Other likely questions – probably the first honest criticism of Harper’s law and order agenda, maybe an attempt to re-ignite the arts funding debate from 2008, and, of course, something that results in an over-zealous commitment by somebody to reduce the federal spending power.Unlikely questions – anything to do with the Quebec Nordiques… but one never knows.(ps – a bunch of hyperlinks to follow…)
