Interesting.
After aiming frequently and often over the last year at the impuissance of Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois when speaking to Quebec voters, Prime MInister Stephen Harper this evening warns Quebeckers against Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals, La Presse reports. In fact, La Presse says Harper hardly talked about the BQ and accused Ignatieff of being the most — and forgive my French here — centralizing leader the Liberals have ever had, a contrast to Harper and his (often vague and undefined but sometimes popular) open federalism:
Stephen Harper a décrit le chef libéral Michael Ignatieff comme «le chef libéral le plus centralisateur de l'histoire de ce pays».
Il a d'ailleurs opposé ce fédéralisme «centralisateur» des libéraux à ce qu'il a appelé «le fédéralisme d'ouverture» que lui dit pratiquer face au Québec. Il a cité en cela la reconnaissance du Québec comme nation et son siège au sein de la délégation canadienne à l'Unesco.
La Presse also notes that, though the party says it sold 2,300 tickets at $150 a pop for the fundraiser in Montreal tonight, its reporter only saw about 1,800. A Canadian Press reporter counts 2,000. La Presse and CP both noted the presence of former ADQ leader Mario Dumont at the event — he says he was attending as a journalist.
“… his (often vague and undefined but sometimes popular) open federalism …”
If one reads L. Ian Macdonald on this point, one sees that PM Harper does NOT have a “vague and undefined” notion of open federalism. Rather, his is the classical form of federalism as outlined in the BNA, with its distinct division of powers.
http://www.lianmacdonald.ca/speeches.html
According to Macdonald (in a 2007 speech):
“The Conservatives, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Stephen Harper, are the party of classical federalism. The Liberals, from Lester Pearson to Paul Martin, are the party of centralizing federalism, as are the NDP, from Tommy Douglas to Jack Layton. …
So to return to the constitutional metaphor of Canada as two mints in one. The Charter is the candy mint, the BNA is the breath mint and the Constitution Act of 1982 is two mints in one.
But it's important that they be understood, and interpreted, with a sense of balance, and the spirit of Canadian compromise.
The balance of 1867 was apparent in the division of powers, the compromise apparent in the room found for Quebec's minority within Canada and its English-language minority within Quebec. These were the deal makers in one century. BNA federalism, division of powers federalism, classical federalism, is on the march again in another century. And if Harper wins a second mandate, it may result in a welcome re-balancing of the federation. …”
Of course, we know that Harper did indeed win a second and stronger mandate.
Lately though, Macdonald’s fierce loyalty to his former boss Brian Mulroney has led him to write some pretty critical columns about the present PM. He claims the Conservatives are tone-deaf to Quebec’s sensibilities, citing the cultural funding cuts, the crackdown on young offenders, and the mobile billboard used during last fall’s election stating voting for the Bloc was a waste of $350 million of taxpayer money. http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Harper+managed+Quebec+support+half/1511614/story.html
To a certain extent Macdonald is right, but some of the blame should go to the members of the Quebec caucus, who should be more attuned to their own province’s sensibilities. And let’s not forget the Bloc’s very able distortion of the issues cited above.