Harper du jour
"The broad lesson of history is that Canada's natural governing coalition always includes the federalist option in Quebec, not the nationalist one."Now...:-- Stephen Harper, January, 2002
Prime Minister Stephen Harper championed his "open" brand of federalism in Quebec's rural heartland Saturday night, finding an echo in the province's newly emboldened autonomists.GENS DU PUH-LEEZE:Harper - speaking exclusively in French - painted himself as a defender of the Quebec nation, and the federal leader best positioned to fight the province's separatist forces.
"When you are a nation, it is perfectly natural to be a nationalist," he told a crowd of more than 400 people gathered in the community centre of this farming town south of Quebec City.
"Open federalism is what we did when we asked the Canadian Parliament to recognize that Quebecois form a nation within Canada," Harper said.
He said a re-elected Conservative government would lead a Canada that was "strong, united and free, with a Quebec (that was) autonomous and proud." ...BACKDATE: Here's more from that long-ago speech by Canadian Alliance leadership candidate Stephen ("the Canadian Alliance is here to stay") Harper, delivered at the Versailles Park Place Hotel in Montreal, Jan. 19, 2002:Monday is Harper’s birthday, and after his speech, which was entirely in French, he was serenaded to the Quebec birthday theme, "Mon cher Stephen, c’est a ton tour de te laisser parler d’amour," to the tune of Gens du Pays.
Conservative political parties have long recognized that their relative weakness in Quebec is a critical factor in limiting them to opposition rather than government status. Conservatives have also observed that, when they came to power in Canada in the past century, they did so in coalition with the province's so-called "nationalist" forces. This lesson has been interpreted by the Canadian Alliance as meaning that the party should position itself as a nationalist force in Quebec and focus on the significant anti-Liberal vote.
Over the past few years I have concluded that this strategy is fundamentally mistaken. It ignores the real lesson of Canadian history -- that while Conservatives have come to power by exploiting a nationalist strategy in Quebec, such coalitions have never lasted very long. Indeed, they have ended in political disaster.
The broad lesson of history is that Canada's natural governing coalition always includes the federalist option in Quebec, not the nationalist one. This is what the Liberals were in the 20th century. In the 19th century, when the Conservatives usually made up the government, they occupied a similar position. It would therefore be a mistake, in my judgment, for the Canadian Alliance to focus on simply grabbing the anti-Liberal vote in order to build a beachhead in Quebec. The party must undertake the long-run work necessary to become a federalist option in Quebec acceptable to a significant number of Liberal as well as anti-Liberal voters.
4/29/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
34 Comments
Exactly the speech I thought of when I read about his speech in Quebec.
Sigh.
- Mustafa Hirji
This post has been removed by the author.
AC,
This is certainly interesting. PMSH has changed dramatically in his view of the federation.
We all change, but this was not what people thought they were voting for, so it will be interesting as it unfolds. He is lucky that there is nobody to the right of his party right now.
As a bit of a libertarian, I was pretty disappointed in the last budget. But my choices are limited.
This Quebec affair will alienate some of his western support base.
All things being equal, he is still a far sight better than anything else I see around me. I am also still enjoying what I heard described last year as our "Prague Spring".
Tomm
I think Harper is moving in the right direction.
Harper wants to win seats in Quebec. He realizes that he has more chances to win seats in place like St-Tite than in Westmount.
But anyway... I appreciate the fact that he recoginze "Les Québécois" as a nation (What about Èles Québécoise")?
But the fact that this is purely symbolic and doesn't explicit link the nation to the territory of Quebec make the nation thing imcomplete.
But as they say... nationhood is a process... one step at the time...
With Quebec it is damn slowwwww.
well, if you think about it, the Conservatives are actually "acceptable to a significant number of Liberal as well as anti-Liberal voters" now. all you need to do is hand tons of cash to Jean Charest.
is that what you wanted, Andrew?
i swear it's like you can get 'em coming and going or something. if we side with the Quebec old guard (half of whom will always say "give us cash or WE will separate" and the other half will always say "give us cash of THEY will separate") it angers you. but if we side with the newcomers ("we should be ashamed of ourselves for holding the country's equalization hostage" - paraphrased) it angers you too for some... unexplained reason. ok fine whatever.
but here's the thing. Mario Dumont openly endorsed the Conservatives back in December 2005 portion of election 2006, when the Conservatives were still in the political boondocks in Quebec. since then the ADQ has never really wavered in their support for the Conservatives. well, at least not as much as you.
so what would i have done in Harper's place? exactly the same thing. in fact, i would sideline Jean Charest if possible. that's the one thing that Harper has disappointed me on.
but hey this move wins nothing less than a 10/10 from me. i'd rather associate with people who stuck with the Conservatives through thick and thin than - oh, say - somebody who didn't.
I'm sure Mr. Harper wouldn't be choked to get the votes of any group.
What will be more interesting will be the candidates he will allow to be nominated to run in those ridings.
I'm sure that more than usual he'll take a hands on approach with the process although he'll be taking a risk with ADQ organization.
I don't think he's going to jump at a prospective Bouchard or Lapierre.
Just another Harper puppet.
A crowd in rural Quebec adoringly sings "Gens du Pays" to Stephen Harper, an Anglo federal prime minister from Alberta.
This is practically an act of national reconciliation and yet the liberal peanut gallery is up in arms.
Typical.
Joshua: Harper tried to enlist Mario Dumont to join the federal conservative. Dumont actively campaigned for the "oui" in 1995.
Now Dumont is in the "noui" camp. Just like Lapierre and Bouchard he is ambiguous.
Bouchard refused to anwser questions about if he is still a separatist in his last public apparence.
Parizeau has been the only unambiguously separatist Quebec leader of the past years.
remove the thick paint of the nationalist/federalist debate and the more traditional shades of Quebec politics emerge.
In a non nationalist Quebec, Bouchard and Dumont are conservatives....LaPierre, not sure, Liberal I think...
The push back I would give AC is that, perhaps the time for nationalism is not now and there are other things that concern Quebecers more.
So Dumont and Bouchard have their pasts....but I think the message of the Quebec election was 1995 was 12 years ago, but not quite the Plains of Abraham being 400 years ago..
Has the Harper who crafted the clarity act disappeared? No...was Harper ever a centralist, no, so I wouldnt push that one too hard....Harper is an albertan, I dont think any of this is inconsistent. I guess I see him as chasing consevative Quebecers not nationalists.
With the exception of the centralists in Mount Royal and Westmount I dont see many Quebecers as centralists.
The labels federalist and seperatist may be old labels and the debate has shifted to dimensions like centralist, decentralist and the more traditional left right....
Harper never was a centralist, so I dont find this the same contradiction, but thats just me.
Quebecers will choose between Harper, Dion and Duceppe. I don't know much about Quebec politics, but will they choose an Albertan over two native sons?
Doubtful.
ACoyne should be kinder to Harper. The man is fighting for his job. His options are somewhat limited. He has to try to increase his seat count in Quebec because the prospects of doing so in Ontario don't look very good.
Well there's one good thing about it I stopped giving $$$$.
pro death for babies and pro life for olson,
Bring back Manning.
Your point Andrew?
I thought so, the sole, one and only federalist vision was laid down by Pierre Trudeau who received it in a Revelation from God Almighty. Anything else is heresy.
Except for cultish trudeauites like yourself who can't see beyond their not-to-be-questioned dogmas, other federalist options exist with respect to Quebec. It simply does not follow that failing to read from Pierre Trudeau's gospel makes one a nationalist, separatist sympathiser etc. Other options exist and Stephen Harper is forging another federalist option, his own, not Trudeau's.
The only people who are grumbling about it are the Separatists and the Trudeauites.
Nic Nanos set it well in an analysis of one of his SES polls in Quebec recently. He said Stephane Dion is the only party not gaining from the Bloc's slide and in that sense, politically the Liberals are better off with maintaining the Bloc where they are.
Harper is a shrewd tactician who is not afraid to play a gambit. Past alliances with nationalists were based on delivering negotiated change, such as Meech Lake. Harper promises nothing but parliament's recognition of a Quebec nation as an example of open federalism. In fact, all he has said is to "vote conservative".
The clarity act applies only to sovereignty referrendums, not federal fuzzifications which drive a wedge between Quebec separatism and Quebec nationalism. It must be depressing to be a separatist when even the Prime Minister is claiming to defend the Quebec nation.
Harper learned well from the Liberals. Hence his Liberal lite routine. He knows it matters not what he says. People have a memory maximum of about two weeks. The only people who remember are joiurnalists and everyone knows how fickle and agenda'd they are. Once you get past the 50 % illiteracy rate members club. Take out the zealots, the pox on all their houses,and the earnest idiots, and you all are fighting to convince a very small percentage of people to change their vote. Hell of a way to run anything.
Isn't it interesting that Andrew Coyne is so desperate to defend Trudeau's centralist vision that he takes up bandwidth on his blog for this nonsense story (omg, Stephen Harper changed his mind about Quebec's place in Canada!!!!) and has yet to comment the potentially very damaging Afghan torture scandal and the prospect of a soon-to-be-sacked Minister of Defence.
yaaaaaaaaaawn.
Wake me when something important happens.
I heard a rumour Al Gore is going to walk the CO2 walk and reduce his CO2 footprint from the size of Texas ( or is it his backside - both are gi-mungo-normous) by becoming a sack cloth wearing hermit who holds his breathe to prevent his CO2 from polluting.
Now that would be news.
Then:
Stephen Harper leading a party with 0 chance of forming government ensuring Pax Liberalis forever.
Now:
Prime Minister
Then:
Quebec seeing no end in sight to the perpetual and economically crippling divisons of federalist vs. separatist.
Now:
Not so much.
Sorry, but I have to return with a Stephen Colbert joke that seems to apply:
Bush is a steady guy - consistent. You always know where he stands. He believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday.
No matter what happened on Tuesday.
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew,
You did an excellent job rehashing Harper's old speech on Quebec, but there's another contribution Harper made to the political world that you forgot, but he didn't: the "firewall" letter.
When Harper made the speech you cited, AC, the French Firewall Force had exactly one MNA, and was expected to be an also-ran for a generation. Now, everyone assumes it will make Dumont premier in the next Quebec election (well, everyone north of the 49th - I like Mario, but transitioning to Oppo leader is big as it is - let alone building a govt-in-waiting, but I digress).
Harper still can't stand the separatists; but the Firewallers are right up his alley.
Separatism is not an evil thing.
Hostility against the french language is on the rise in Quebec in the past 7 years. I am afraid it will get worst. Go read Graham Fraser's "Sorry I don't speak french".
That's why we need a country.
but you are more than qualified for the "evil" descriptor, Quebecois Separatiste. or, rather, the pro-human extinction borderline-xenophbic Quebec supremacist. because that's what i remember about you anyway.
Andrew, Andrew... can you do Harper on spending next? or how about the environment? oh, I know, when you get the chance, do fiscal balance! compare Harper Beta version circa 1993 to version 2.0 circa 1998 to version 3.2 (release date: January 24, 2006)... or how about accountability... or trusting him on income tax reductions... or income trust taxation... or "distinct society": oooooh, that would be a good one... or better yet, the "Clarity Act": you'd have a monopoly 'cause no one is asking him about that... or agreements regarding the inspection of transferred detainees...
... or open and transparent government, that should be easy enough with Google...
... or answering questions during Question Period...
... or former politicians and, um, campaign chairs becoming paid lobbyists...
... or parachuting candidates into ridings or blocking an open riding nomination process... or sole sourcing defence contracts... or sponsorship programs without rules... or bilingualism or civility in Parliament...
... or...
... or...
... or...
*sigh*
Andrew, I'm beginning to understand why you take those massive blog vacations every now and then.
Liberals are hilarious. Short, very convenient memories, but hilarious all the same.
I think it's funny watching Liberal commentators get more shrill and less sensible the further they get from power. The next decade should be a hoot.
Orly:
Can you describe to me how I can make my "sigh" sound shrill? That would take more talent then I think I have. That would take Sheila Copps/Jason Kenney shrill-level talent.
Sucks being in government doesn't it. Especially sucks when you suck at it.
It's tough. A bunch of angry white men and their spouses spend fifteen years hating their guts out at a rival political tribe, sneeringly certain that their hero-politicians would do Everything Better, and that governing is a cinch and the only problem is that "Liberals are ___" (insert epithet here) -- and it turns out the angry haters' heroes are no better, and in some ways less competent, than the guys they replaced, even by the measure of the haters' own ideology.
Tough world. But there's a bright side: Angry white male haters get to continue being angry and hating.
And isn't that what it's really all about?
Cerberus:
This small-c conservative-leaning libertarian doesn't necessarily disagree with you.
But the Liberal Party is a cancer on this country. And Harper remains its greatest foe, and he's doing the best he can in a socialist-dominated Parliament and Liberal Senate. Hence he gets my support.
Not to mention that he DID ditch the Martin/Dryden socialist kiddie warehouse scheme, so he hasn't completely abandoned conservative sensibilities. And really, who do you think Canadians believe is more likely to deliver on real tax relief down the road? Stephen Harper or Steffi Dion?
Personally I don't give a rat's ass about Harper's views on Quebec society/nation/autonomy or how they've changed over the years. Mario Dumont is the only Quebec leader with the courage and strength to give his people the straight talk they need - i.e. that their social welfare model is not sustainable and they need to be dislodged from Nanny's teat. If Harper wants to give him a boost, all the better.
Now, I really do await Andrew's column on the Afghanistan file...
Did you like the Graham Fraser book Mr. Separatiste? Do you know what his new career is and who hired him?
The big lie in Quebec politics is the fight between the federalists and nationalists. There was never a federalist option in Quebec. (never, as in from 1975-2000) The choice has always been between Quebec nationalists who want to take Quebec out of Canada and Canadian nationalists who want to centralize power in Ottawa. Nowhere was there a defender of federalism: strong, independent provinces that work together on a limited number of issues.
Thank heaven there is now a defender of federalism.
-Pete E
Well said Pete E.
It's funny how much "defender of federalism" appears and acts so much like an "appeaser of separatists".
Cerberus, granted the Harper government has gone a little "wobbly" of late on a few files.
But sorry, it's still nowhere near the level of:
"That's not a confidence motion silly! That's only a motion to concur a report!! And hell, forget bringing in a motion of non-confidence anytime soon, as we just moved all your opposition days to the end of the session!! How u like dem apples, biatches!! And if you're still all uppity-like, and wanna pull the plug, you alone will have to wear it that we're having an election over Christmas!! Sucka's!!!"
If you defended the Liberals at all during those shambolic days, then you don't really have a leg to stand on and denounce the current government, do you? Maybe after the 20th scandal under Tory rule, it'll be safe to come out.
appeaser of separatists?
cerberus, my friend, the appeaser of separatists is that party which gives endless cause for the separatists to rally people around: that's your party.
in an age when the PQ are the loser party of Quebec, laying off workers and learning about how to use public transport to get to the National Assembly...
in an age where the BQ polls at historic lows and has MP retirements rivalling your Liberal party...
in an age where political discouse in the province of Quebec is not frozen in some boring divide of separatist vs. federalist...
in an age where Quebecois Separatist is so lonely for conversation, he must come here and find some ONTARIANS to debate...
you can hardly call separatists appeased. separatism is diseased, separatists are not appeased.
What a difficult country to govern is Canada. The master politician in Canada cannot truly be a stateman, but some form of. If Stephen who came with a better vision of this country cannot master the task, then no one can.
And Stephen Harper is above all else, a statesman.
The country demands very much from one person, Our system rewards the
the critic over the builder.
Let us hope the media can keep pace, and allow the best shot we have had in statesmanship to create a path and leave a footprint on the future.
Lord knows this country has had many politicians but few statesman.