Stephane Dion, extreme centralizer
I wish. From Double Vision, by Edward Greenspon and Anthony Wilson-Smith, p. 363-5:
As a professor in politics, Stephane Dion launched his career with a highly unusual two-page essay... He stated clearly and with great eloquence the case for the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness in the Constitution. He also put forward the arguments for decentralization..., saying a strong Canada must not be confused with a strong federal government alone. "We as Canadians have nothing to fear from decentralization. We know it well enough to make it our ally. A strong federal government must not be confused with a centralizing government. Restricting itself to its own role will only make it more effective"...Wells has posted about sixty-eleven other examples on various occasions. Anyone who thinks Dion is a "Trudeau federalist" is, well, apparently among the majority of readers of this blog.In cabinet, Dion quickly made his impact felt. He and Pettigrew ... served as a sounding board as the government translated the work of the unity committee into a Speech from the Throne...
Dion thought it wasn't enough, not in labour market training nor in other areas. Like Massé, he argued that Ottawa had to promise to restrict use of its spending power in fields of provincial jurisdiction. In his blunt way, which was often mistaken for arrogance, he told Chretien in front of the cabinet that if Ottawa could not see its way clear to meet such a basic Quebec demand, then he, Dion, had to woner why he had bothered joining the government...
4/04/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
37 Comments
just to be sure, centralist tendencies were never among my criticisms of Stephane Dion.
but let's talk about you Andrew. what do you want out of federalism? you praise Dion for supporting "distinct society" scant months after dumping on Harper for the nation motion? wtf?
Would you please stop reading intent in when it isn't there? I was opposed to distinct society then, I'm opposed to it now. It it not praise to quote a fact from a book. It's research, something I encourage all my readers to engage in.
They might start by reading some of my past work, rather than attributing views to me that I don't hold, on my own site, when the real thing is at most two clicks away. If they did -- there's a search bar at the top of the page -- they might find examples of columns where I criticized Dion and praised Harper, as well as the reverse. Imagine that.
It's a big old complicated world, ain't it?
AC, You lost me at "I wish". You wish Dion was an extreme centralizer? Or are you concerned that Dion is a decentralizer?
that's good to hear Andrew. never hurts to be reminded of your ideals, especially in days when we never know what you'll say next in Stephane Dion's "defense", or how you might use him to wage weird proxy wars against "blind Tory partisans", if i may put it that way.
by the way i don't like using the word "Tory". it apparently came from an Irish-Gaelic word meaning "outlaw". wtf (x2)?
anonymous: "You wish Dion was an extreme centralizer?" Yes he does. "Or are you concerned that Dion is a decentralizer?" Yes he is.
One of the occasional issues on which Andrew and I part company, incidentally. I got no problem with decentralizers, or less than Coyne does. But this is another instance where, if you're gonna get proper enjoyment from the Coyne website, you should probably first pass an entrance exam in Coyne Political Philosophy. It fits poorly with any political party's actions while in office. It's like he thinks with his own head or something. Weirdo.
They might start by reading some of my past work, rather than attributing views to me that I don't hold, on my own site, when the real thing is at most two clicks away
Umm, no - I don't have the time to go digging around in your archives.
If you can't get you point out adequately in your column, that's not my problem. Write it better. If you're po'ed because your readers are assigning motives to you that you don't have then make your motives clearer. That's your job, not your readers'.
Hey, Paul Wells said something! He must be very pleased with himself.
Whereas "Jack Kerouac" is clearly racked with self-doubt.
Another interesting point...
Some people like to bring up the notion that Harper came up with Clarity for the terms of separation before Dion with his Quebec Contingency Act. But it's no wonder Conservative officials never bring the Quebec Contingency Act up because it's much more "centralizing" than the Clarity Act. Doesn't really fit the narrative I guess.
Paul Wells, If I'd been writing that entrance exam I'd have gone with YES and YES and moved onto the next question.
But rather than calling Andrew an "Extreme Centralizer" I thought I'd ask. Guess I'll have to settle for second best (pw on ac rather than ac on ac).
I doubt that even an entrance exam or Coyne wearing a bell and shouting Extreme Centralizer as he goes about, will cure the blogsphere of folks that post more than they read. Speaking of Cherniak...
Well, Jack does make a point, I've been a little confused lately as to what Andrew is trying to say.
If Andrew has some notion of democratic theory he would like to put forward then he should do so, we can assent or dissent. Should I assent and fail to maintain the integrity of my opinion, then I'll honour calls to the floor. But he hasn't. So, any catcalls from the tower down to us proles, would have us dancing an uneven jig for the high prince's amusement.
I read Andrew's work becuase he's a thoughtful writer, but if I was supposed to bookend his articles and accept that as some sort of treatise on the future of liberal democracy to which I must be accountable to, I never would have ventured to read his work.
But on the topic at hand, Andrew, we have speeches made by any number of politicians from any country in any period of history that contradict some later speech.
Aren't you in fact just being a Pollyanna?
Dion isnt....Kennedy is.
SO the real question is can Dion stay his "own man". The expectations of the Liberal party core and activists are not fulfilled by M Dion....Dion may be seperatist fighter but I wouldnt doubt that view in Harper either.
Dion is a Quebecer and there is only so far you can go....you may think someone is crazy to want Quebec to leave Canada but that doesnt mean you necessarily want a strong centralized fed.
Kennedy represents that part, at least he did during the convention. But who really knows what the "himbo" really believes.
on the other point....There are centralizers and decentralizers in both parties and across the political philosophies....think the big cetralizers in communism and the ones who thnk it best done on a small basis. ALthough I have a hard time thinking of decentralized fascists...
How you organize doesnt necessarily indicate what your objectives are.
But I am also not a fan of AC's centralist "thang"....dont think it works for Canada....France sure, UK sure (although that is changing) but not here, imho...
"They might start by reading some of my past work ... "
Well, I did, when you asked your readers to vote for your 5 best columns ... and then silence from you. Did you ever have a reveal? Or did I miss it?
Please, don't ask me any questions about what I read. Moments enjoyed are fleeting, as are my memories of them ...
Anonymous #343
A centralist? A decentralizer?
Two, two, two mints in one.
But then,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070119.cover20/BNStory/National/home
"Yes, the future leader of the federal Liberals campaigned for the Parti Québécois and wrote his master's thesis on the debate within the party about how to achieve independence. He even “corrected” some of his father's teachings."
So, when will the REAL Stephane Dion stand up?
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Wow, Gabby has really nailed this one. Stephane Dion was once a sovereigntist/separatist and now is a federalist. All those years of scorn and abuse in Quebec were an act. It must be some kind of trick. In fact it is; it's called learning and changing your mind.
It is very hard for me to understand why so many 'conservatives' are attacking AC for his opinions about Harper. As Louis Pasteur once said "the greatest error in thinking is to believe in something because you wish it to be true". The question in front of us is what evidence do we have that Stephen Harper and crew are conservative? Is the belief that this government is conservative founded in reason or just plain old wishful thinking? It seems to me all Andrew is pointing out is that actual evidence for the "Harper is conservative" theory is getting very hard to come by. It is Mr. Harper, not Mr. Coyne, who is deserting his conservative base in a hurry, and we conservatives should all be worried about this.
Dion isn't a decentralist in the sense that he is viewing a federal and provincial distribution of powers. He's in favour of more powers to Quebec. That's all.
His view of Canada is the asymmetric one set up by Trudeau and Chretien; that of the ROC and Quebec. That's what he means by decentralization; that basic split of the country into two parts - where Quebec is not controlled by the ROC (otherwise known as Ottawa).
I don't think Dion is in favour of legitimate decentralization, which empowers all provinces. After all, Dion is talking about shutting down Alberta's oil sands, a carbon tax, a universal day care, education etc - all issues that are the responsibility of provinces.
Keith,
Spare us the drivel. As Aristotle said politics is the art of the possible. Harper has governed well thus far and then some.
Maybe you want him to govern like he had a majority like Joe Clark. Clark couldn't count, Harper can. That is one of their many differences.
Brent - I guess governed well is in the eye of the beholder so I can't argue.
But if the point is that we expect a conservative government to practice rational economics - reign in government spending, lower taxes, avoid uncompetitive market subsidies, and understand why health care rationing (i.e. hospital wait times) is not simply a matter of better central planning, then there isn't much evidence that expectation will be met, now or in the future.
You can believe this will change if they get a majority if you like, but that's all it is - a belief, not based in any evidence.
Forgive me, but I can't resist. Something about glass houses I guess.
If we're going to start lecturing people for their lack of research skills, maybe we should ourselves be just a bit more diligent in such matters...enough, say, to know just which ad we are reading the nefarious "intent" into, and not missing the mark by months. Those ads and their first dates of appearance are a website away, I'd say.
A humble request from one of the great unwashed.
DMD
Why the attacks on Andrew?
(disclaimer, I am an "idiot" according to Paul Wells, so be very very careful in accepting anything in this comment)
Many conservatives feel that a double standard has existed in Canadian politics and the media that reports it. Two sets of rules, one for the Liberals and one for Conservatives.
Two and a half years ago, Harper was villified beyond belief. A Liberal meme that the media was only too happy to go along with. Harper was scary, he would take away all of our rights, ect.
Now we have Harper playing tough, yes, but not even close to what the Libs have done.
Not
even
close.
Yet here we are with Harper in power, and the same old double standard is being used,
and its Andrew Coyne doing the double up. He has joined the rest of the pack. The Ivory tower media establishment, that overwhelminly leans liberal.
Yes there's a fine line between a "higher standard" and a double standard. Andrew appears to have crossed that line a long time ago.
Why is he doing it? Why is Andrew appearing to try to build a case, by going to stale dated stories, or old ads to make a point? Not sure.
ChuckerCanuck has a few plausible theories.
I suspect it may be a potent brew of all of them in varying degrees.
Ironically Andrew's stated reason for attacking Harper - that he expected more - is the reason so many are outraged at Andrew.
We expected more.
We can handle Jason Cherniak sounding like Jason Cherniak. We can't handle Andrew Coyne sounding like Jason Cherniak.
I may be just another cowardly anonymous poster, but I would think you'd get YOUR facts right before moaning about how others don't do their research. Just sayin'.
It's not really the truth that matters as much as the perception of the truth.
Dion has called Québec's bill 101 a 'great Canadian law' as it demonstrates that the French language can be protected inside a confederated context.
Do you think Trudeau would have called Bill 101 a 'great Canadian law' ?
Yet, you ask 99% of Quebeccers about Dion and they will lump him in with Chrétien and Trudeau because of the political scars he acquired in 1995.
Again: Perception.
"In fact it is; it's called learning and changing your mind."
I hope Harper's critics remember that when they dig up another one of his speeches to wave about, crying: "See what he said in grade 7! It shows what an ultra-right wing mean-spirited neo-con hypocrite climate denier who wants to paralyse the world he was, even way back then!" :-D
Differences between Dion and Trudeau.
1) Trudeau: "why should I sell your wheat". Dion: "I must be the only one who sells your wheat".
2) Trudeau: flips hecklers the bird. Dion: Insists hecklers must apologize.
3) Trudeau: opens oil sands. Dion: will screw them up.
4) Trudeau: elected PM of Canada. Dion: will soon be listed (alphabetically) after Edward Blake.
Ac: I read every column! Much as I like your work, I don't know if I want to write the exam on short notice. You are likely not an "extreme centralist" but you will have to point out where you wrote anything that proves you are not a centralist. Even Wikipedia says you favour a "strong central government".
"Dion has called Québec's bill 101 a 'great Canadian law'"
Wow, you learn something new every day, and today it's a new reason to dislike Dion.
A couple of days ago it was Dion harping about the fact that holding a vote about the wheat board is equivalent to adhering to a rigid ideology.
Imagine that, freedom of choice is a rigid ideology. Freedom of expression denied is "a great Canadian law".
Good grief.
Steve L. - clearly you're not familiar with, well, English.
I hate to interpret AC on his own blog, but I think his point was that he WISHES Dion were an 'extreme centralizer' because that would be BETTER than what he really is, which is someone who SUPPORTS distinct society status.
(I'm not endorsing AC's opinion, but it did seem blindingly obvious enough to warrant being restated in capitals for the cognitively impaired.)
As an aside, I think it's really cool to have Paul Wells scrapping with posters on AC's blog. PW, you should have comments on your blog too.
Sean - don't be silly. Bill 101 doesn't deny anyone freedom of expression. If you don't grasp that French needs special protections to survive in a sea of 300 million anglophones, you're either very silly or simply of bad faith.
see Andrew? Érik Labelle Eastaugh is exactly one of those federal Liberal Quebeckers who would likely support all kinds of political goodies for Quebec and gladly take potshots at people like me just so they can cheer on someone who has little to nothing in common with them. and you wonder why i always sound so fed up.
and Érik Labelle Eastaugh, sir... do you harbor discriminatory attitudes towards those with unfortunate learning difficulties, hmm? well, even if i am cognitively impaired, at least i'm not a bigot like you. have a nice day.
Dear Mr. Coyne, I've long thought there's an inverse relationship between the quantity and the quality of most authors' writing, yourself included. When you intermittently disappear from the blogosphere, your thinking and writing improve. I mention this because it seems to me, after reading your comment board and your praiseworthy attempts to engage your readers, that you are wasting your time dealing with nonsense from excessively silly people. Why bother? Shut it down and focus on your columns. It would be a pity for me because your blog allows me to read your columns without paying for the National Post, but then, if they improve from their already high quality, it might just force me to buy the squalid little rag.
Should you decide to keep the blog running, all I can say is that you're a more democratically minded man than me, if democracy is reasoning with the unreasonable.
no Andrew, don't go!
we'll behave.
Steve L. - Ironically, I am neither a Quebecker (my family's lived in Ontario for 150 years) nor do I support more 'political goodies' for Québec. Nor am I a bigot (although I suspect you'll disagree with me on that).
You seem to suffer from a persecution complex. I was merely pointing out that the implication of AC's post was patently obvious, i.e. that he disagreed with Dion's stance on distinct society. Consequently, when you say that AC was 'praising' Dion for supporting distinction society status, you were wrong.
You also read into my four sentence post a whole load of political ideology, merely based on the fact that I have a French name. That, my friend, is bigotry. It's also exactly what you did to AC's post. I suggest that in future you read things more carefully and confine your interpretation to the plain meaning of people's words.
As an aside, distinct society isn't a 'political goodie'. One of the most basic problems with this country lies with the fact that English Canadians completely fail to grasp the importance of cultural security to French Canadians. Continued indifference in this regard, following on centuries of cultural persecution and attempted assimilation, are clearly as responsible for Canada's constitutional quandaries as the demagogic vagaries of idiots like Bouchard.
Of course, reducing French Canadian's preoccupation with cultural security to a demand for 'goodies' as though they were intemperate children is also bigotry.
Je te suggère mon ami que t'apprennes le français. Une fois que seras à même de communiquer de façon pondérée et intelligente avec l'autre solitude et de comprendre ses préoccupations, là tu pourras te permettre d'émettre des opinions sur l'opportunité des revendications constitutionnelles des Québécois.
Oh, and I called you cognitively impaired because clearly you are not. It's called irony. You may recognize from such instances as: AC's original post.
i stand corrected about your demographic background, Érik Labelle Eastaugh. unequivocally.
however, you've not convinced me that you don't have positive biases for Quebec. it's not exactly wrong for you to have these biases, but dishonest for you to not admit to them.
Steve L. - Forgive me for being pedantic, but I'm a law student. I'm not sure your last comment made any sense.
For example, I'm not sure I understand what is meant by 'having a positive bias for Québec".
Québec is a province. It exists. One cannot be for or against it. (Well, if you're John A. McDonald and you think Canada should be a legislative union, I suppose you can, but [thankfully] nobody today seriously holds THAT particular opinion).
I've provided my opinion on exactly one (1) aspect of Québec politics, i.e. I've expressed support for Bill 101. This would make me biased in favour of French continuing to exist as a viable language in Canada. I concede that particular bias.
Anything else you might seek to read into my posts is purely your own invention.
More to the point, I didn't notice YOU prefacing all of your posts with a 'disclaimer' of all of your 'biases'.
As a French Canadian (and a francophone) from outside Québec, my opinions on Québec nationalism are far, FAR too complex to be boiled down in a single blog post. Suffice it to say that applying the word 'bias' to those opinions is reductive and patronizing. It implies that they are thoughtless and reactive, which they are not.
Finally, since I openly lectured you on how (most if not many) English Canadians are basically ignorant idiots when it comes to dealing with Québec, I'm not really sure how you can accuse me of 'hiding' my 'biases'.
let me just partially address your post (for i don't intend to drag this on any longer than necessary), Érik Labelle Eastaugh, by saying that:
i didn't use the word "bias" to imply a denigrated state of logic and reason, which was why i said it's not exactly wrong for you to hold the beliefs you do.
i have my own biases. but i don't think it's as important for me to define them as it is for others to independently draw their own conclusions about me. and even the latter is not always meaningful in some way, hence the familiar notion that "you can't please everyone". hence, also, why i don't always care about what people think of me.