|
LATEST CONTENT
One Canada or 10?
Funnies
section
updated!
Feedback section
updated!
Harper's "new" Confederation
The Demise of Canada
|
|
One Canada or 10 Canadas?
Harper's goal to create autonomous regions out of the
provinces is a step back to colonial times.
By Sinclair Stevens
Some say Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a hidden agenda. In fact, he
has a very clear agenda. Harper is an ideologue who thinks in top-down
terms. When he speaks to fellow believers, his audience consists of
confirmed neo-cons who envision a promised land of unfettered capitalism
with as little government interference as possible. This is the key
group for Harper and his Conservative party.
But there is a second audience he and his associates speak to – the
general public, the voters. Harper and his associates recognize that to
reach their goal it is necessary to play to the parochial interests of
groups such as Bloc Québécois supporters in the hope of winning their
votes.
This creates a dichotomy for the Harperites, leading to their
double-talk. This month we have had a good example of this phenomenon.
Referring to "Quebec's historical demands," Labour Minister Jean-Pierre
Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the
province, up from the current 11.
"The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think
that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is
more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the
provinces," Blackburn said in an interview. On the topic of
constitutional change, he added: "When you're a minority, you never know
what can happen, so it's not obvious to do that type of thing in the
actual context."
The media jumped all over the story so Harper introduced the
double-talk. He told a news conference: "I don't sense among the
Canadian population, or the population of Quebec for that matter, any
desire to engage in constitutional discussions in the near future. And
the government has no plans to do that."
Blackburn had made a mistake. He should not have used the words
"constitutional change."
Harper's inner group is aware of the need to act incrementally so as not
to scare the wider public. But they have made it clear: All they need is
a majority government to reach their objective.
Here are the facts:
On Oct. 15, 1995, Reform party leader Preston Manning and unity critic
Stephen Harper presented Reform's "New Confederation" proposal, a
package of 20 measures to modernize and decentralize Canada.
"We propose measures which will assert the autonomy of all provinces and
the power of the people well into the future," Harper said.
Each of the 20 changes could be accomplished without comprehensive
federal-provincial negotiations of the sort that led to the failed Meech
Lake and Charlottetown accords. Reform's proposals simply required a
federal government willing to act. "Canadians want change, not more
constitutional wrangling," Harper said.
Earlier, speaking to a meeting of the National Citizens Coalition on May
24, 1994, Harper said: "Whether Canada ends up with one national
government, or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people
will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or
arrangements of any future country may be."
In 1997, Harper and his confidant Tom Flanagan, writing in their Next
City magazine, suggested that coalition-building was the only practical
way for the right to seize national power. They said an alliance with
the Bloc Québécois "would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist
for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their
local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to
their way of life."
In 2001, Harper proposed "a firewall around Alberta."
In October 2004, Harper made his "Belgian waffle" speech in Quebec City,
suggesting that Canada should become a North American version of
Belgium, which has autonomous regions. He was sympathetic to this
"national autonomy" concept because "Québécois never wanted to be an
overwhelmed province in a centralized Canada." Subsequent to Harper's
speech, the Belgians had an election that left them so divided they were
unable to form a government for more than eight months.
As keynote speaker at the Conservative policy convention in Montreal in
March 2005, Harper said: "I also know very well the pride and solidarity
of Quebecers. I know they will never let the autonomy and the dignity of
Quebec be undermined. But they also want to be partners in the future of
Canada. And they will be – once again – with the new Conservative Party
of Canada."
Harper made that comment after referring to the Bloc eight times. Each
time he set out what the Bloc had proposed for a sovereign Quebec but
had not achieved.
"The policy of the Bloc is the strategy of the empty chair," Harper
stressed. Then he delivered the punch line: "We, the Conservatives, are
the only real vehicle of change here in Quebec and throughout Canada.
The Bloc will never make a single positive change. In Quebec, as
everywhere in Canada, the only vehicle of change is the Conservative
Party of Canada."
With little mainstream news comment, Harper – the day after his keynote
speech – slipped a new section into the Conservative policy paper passed
in Montreal. It is a shocker! For the first time in Canadian history, a
national political party embraced a provincial rights agenda. The
section – Part D – binds the party "to ensure that the use of the
federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions is limited,
authorizes the provinces to use the opting out formula with full
compensation if they want to opt out of a new or modified federal
program, in areas of shared or exclusive jurisdiction. Consider
reforming Canadian federalism, taking into account: (a) the need to
consolidate Quebec's position within the Canadian federation; (b) the
need to alleviate the alienation felt by the citizens of the West."
In his closing speech at the convention on March 19, Harper said: "I
would like to say to Quebecers, our party is going to respect the
autonomy of their government, the pride they have in their society and
also their needs within Canada, our huge country. The Bloc Québécois for
15 years have not done everything that Quebecers deserve. And I think
now Quebecers can express their solidarity within the Conservative Party
of Canada."
Almost 50 years earlier, campaigning on a "One Canada" platform in March
1957, John Diefenbaker told a Montreal audience that the Progressive
Conservative party "will bring about a united Canada. Our first aim is
`One Canada' in which there will be equalization of opportunity for all
parts of Canada. We will maintain the Constitution and provincial rights
thereunder, which we consider as a sacred trust which shall be
maintained in fact as in law."
He cited the words of Sir George-Étienne Cartier: "First of all, let us
be Canadians."
Given a choice, without double-talk, Canadians will support a One Canada
vision rather than Harper's suggestion that we make Canada the Belgium
of North America, with up to 10 autonomous nations.
Does Harper not realize that prior to Confederation, the colonies of
British North America were autonomous and that Lord Durham in his famous
report reaffirmed their colonial status while Britain retained control
over foreign affairs and the military?
It is strange that Harper's mission today is to make all our provinces
autonomous with Ottawa mainly looking after foreign affairs and defence
as Britain did in colonial days.
Do you call that progress or just ludicrous?
|
|
Sponsored
By