And his name is Stephen Harper.
Years ago, Preston Manning gave a speech at a Reform Party Convention. Below is the speech with commentary as it appears in William Johnson’s book Stephen Harper And the Future of Canada. (I hand typed this from the book so please pardon the typos and note the bolded parts are bolded by me)
On October 28th, Preston Manning gave perhaps the most memorable speech of his career. it is recalled as “the House Divided speech,” and it was to ring throughout the country. Its central focus was the Quebec question, in the spirit of the Quebec motion.
Manning set up his discussion with a telling joke: “Last year, in a magnanimous effort to redress regional disparities, Edmonton allowed Calgary to win the Stanley Cup. While it is Edmonton’s nightmare that this might be repeated this season, Les MacPherson of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix had an even worse nightmare. He dreamt that Mulroney and the federal government intervened after last year’s Stanley Cup final, to give the cup to Montreal even after Calgary had won the series.” That, of course, was a sly replay of the 1986 decision on the maintenance contract for the CF-18 fighter planes. Then Manning sent a barb to Ottawa over Meech lake: “The genesis, content, and pending collapse of the Meech lake Accord illustrates a lack of constitutional leadership. How ironic that Ottawa, the centre of our national government, will be the last centre in the country, rather than the first, to discover that there is no public support for Meech Lake.” And then he came to the core of his speech, and sounded the themes that would resonate in the hearts and minds of citizens in the four western provinces and beyond.
“Of all the troublesome issues which will face Canada in the next decade, I can think of none which are more in need of a blast of fresh air from the West than the issue of relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada. It is now more than a quarter of a century since the Pearson administration committed Canada to governing itself as an equal partnership between the English and the French. It is now more than twenty years since the Trudeau administration declared the federal government rather than the Quebec government to be the primary guardian and promoter of the French fact in Canada. Based on those commitments and declarations, the Liberals gave us the Official Languages Act of 1982, and the Conservatives (following in the same rut rather than breaking new ground) have given us Bill C-72 and the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord.
“All of these measures have been advocated, promoted, and in some cases imposed upon the Canadian people for the avowed purpose and intention of making Quebec ‘more at home in Confederation,’ reducing the separatist threat, and strengthening Canada’s sense of national unity, identity, and purpose. As the sun rises on the last decade of the twentieth century, it is imperative that Canadians fully assess the results of this course of action in the cold, clear light of a new and coming day.”
For Manning, the current distemper so evident in Canada was the proof that the past assumptions had failed and that a new approach was needed. “Has this approach produced a more united, less divided, Canada? No, it has not. Has this approach produced a more contented Quebec? No, it has not. has this approach reduced the use of Quebec separatism as a threat to wring mor concessions out of the rest of Canada? No, it has not. has this approach engendered in Quebec politicians an emotional as well as an economic commitment to Canada? No, it has not. Has this approach produced in Canadians a new sense of national identity, pride, and purpose sufficient to guide us into the twenty-first century? No, it has not. Instead, what the Pearson-Trudeau-Mulroney approach to constitution development has produced is a house divided against itself. And as a great Reformer once said long ago, ‘a house divided against itself cannot stand.’ “
The audience listened, rapt. This was not the usual inflated droning of convention speeches. This was not the pussyfooting around the question of Quebec that had become the distinctive Canadian way. This was the boy standing up to say the emperor has no clothes. And the Reformers listened to their leader revealing openly, without apology or circumlocution, what had been hidden in the bottom of their hearts.
“Now if this is the unvarnished truth as we see it, then leadership demands that we rise to our feet in the federal political arena, and say at least three things on behalf of western Canadians: First, we do not want to live, nor do we want our children to live, in a house divided against itself, particularly one divided along racial and linguistic lines. Second, we do not want nor do we intend to leave this house ourselves (even though we have spent most of our constitutional lives on the back porch). We will, however, insist that it cease to be divided. Third, either all Canadians, including the people of Quebec, make a clear commitment to Canada as one nation, or Quebec and the rest of Canada should explore whether there exists a better but more separate relationship between the two. In short, we say that living in one Canada united on certain principles, or living with a greater constitutional separation between Quebec and the rest of Canada, is preferable to living in a ‘house divided.’ ”
Manning anticipated that his words would be misunderstood, that the Reformers would be stigmatized as anti-Quebec. On the countrary, he protested, the Reformers were for a united Canada, one in which Quebec could be both prosperous and culturally secure. He recognized that Canada would be diminished without Quebec within the federation. But Manning went on to make Harper’s argument that the current course itslf was bringing the country to a crisis.
“If we continue to make unacceptable constitutional, economic, and linguistic concessions to Quebec at the expense of the rest of Canada, it is those concessions themselves which will tear the country apart and poison French-English relations beyond remedy. If Canada is to be maintained as one undivided house, the government of Canada must ask the peoiple of Quebec to commit to three foundational principles of Confederation:
That the demands and aspirations of all regions of the country are entitled to equal status in constitutional and political negotiations.
That freedom of expression is fully accepted as the basis of any language policy.
That every citizen is entitled to equality of treatment by governments without regard to race, language, or culture.
“If these principles are accepted, our goal of one united Canada is achievable. But if these principles of Confederation are rejected by Quebec, if the house cannot be united on such a basis, then Quebec and the rest of Canada should openly examine the feasibility of establishing a better but more separate relationship between them, on equitable and mutually acceptable terms.”
Manning was introducing implicity the concept which had been put forward explicitly in Harper’s memo: the test of constitutionality. Quebec alone could not unilaterally determine the terms of a possible secession. “From the West’s perspective, such terms will be judged satisfactory if they are fair and advantageous to Canada, if the new relationship with Quebec can be established and maintained without violence, and if the terms are approved by a majority in both Quebec and the rest of Canada.”
It was surely, one of the great political speeches ever given in Canada. The next day, the assembly voted for the Quebec motion, and much of the country was aghast. Manning, when he met reporters, said more clearly than in his speech that it was about time “to call Quebec’s bluff.” And he added: “We think it’s about time sombeody stood up and said ‘no, we’re going to put some demands on you. If you can’t respond to those, then maybe you better think about a separate relationship.’ ”
…
Manning and the Reform Party had now moved close to Harper’s position on Quebec. Both now recognized that the country was at a crossroads and must choose between incompatible paths leading to quite different values, to a very different national identity.
You see, Stephen Harper knows that there IS a way that a province can separate from the rest of Canada under our current Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed this on August 20, 1998 in their decision on the unilateral secession of Quebec.
I believe that the initial plans to call the Quebec bluff were sped up when the BQ had a similar motion on the table regarding the word nation. This move not only addressed Quebec’s needs, but it also took the wind from Duceppe’s sails and opens up the topic of unity. And from what I have read, Stephen Harper had a plan on unity over a decade ago and this is just a small part of the plan.
From my understanding, our PM means to uphold the letter of the Constitution which means the provinces are indeed their own masters and the Federal government is there to hold them all together and only control those things the Constitution enables the federal government to control.
It’s definately going to be interesting watching this, because I have a feeling we are watching a political chess grandmaster at work.
Stay tuned.
Eva Longoria recently made the following statement:
