Liberals need to rethink their Quebec approach

Since the election of former Quebec cabinet minister Thomas “Tom” Mulcair as leader of the NDP last month, much attention has been paid to the political situation in Quebec and the consensus seems to be the Liberals are screwed in the province.

Consolidating NDP gains in Quebec is certainly a priority for the party, and as a high-profile former minister in the Charest government whose departure from cabinet was spun as a matter of principle, Mulcair gives the NDP their best shot at holding and building on those gains.

Already, commentators such as Chantal Hebert are touting Mulcair as the new federalist champion, a position the Liberals used to like to claim:

He is well placed to establish the NDP as the default federalist party in Quebec — and, by the same token, to reduce its dependency on the nationalist vote at the expense of the Liberals.

As of the convention, Mulcair has become the top Quebec federalist on the federal scene, coming second for pre-eminence in the province’s federalist line-up to Premier Jean Charest.

While I don’t think she intended the comment in this way, Hebert also obliquely hinted at the potential weakness for Mulcair here:

Mulcair’s federalist credentials are important to his national standing. They will matter even more in Quebec if the Parti Québécois wins the provincial election.

Which raises the legitimate question: just how strong are his federalist credentials? A closer examination puts him firmly in the mainstream of Quebec’s political elite, the same “federalists” that savagely attacked Stephane Dion, dismissed Jean Chretien as unpolished and un-Quebec and tried to sideline him from the last referendum, and are determined to play footsie with soft nationalists by demanding ever more special powers and special treatment for Quebec.

The 30^th anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms was yesterday, and the statements of both Mulcair and the Conservative government are interesting. It’s pretty clear both are fishing in that same soft-nationalist waters.

Here’s part of the NDP’s statement, which was finally released late in the day Tuesday after the media became vocal wondering if the party was going to ignore the charter’s anniversary:

At the same time, the anniversary of the Charter also serves to remind us that, 30 years after the repatriation of the Constitution, Quebec is still not a signatory to the most fundamental compact of our democracy.

 As such, New Democrats will continue on the path laid out by Jack Layton, working to create the conditions that will one day allow Quebec to embrace the Canadian constitutional framework. We will work tirelessly to give real meaning to the unanimous recognition that the Québécois form a nation within Canada.

Similar comments from Harper on why the federal government is only marking the charter anniversary with a brief press release:

“In terms of this as an anniversary, I think it's an interesting and important step, but I would point out that the Charter remains inextricably linked to the patriation of the Constitution and the divisions around that matter, which as you know are still very real in some parts of the country,” Mr. Harper said.

And then there’s the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration and their opposition to the Clarity Act, a position they’ve tried to soft-play in the rest of Canada.

There has long been a tug of war within the Liberal Party of Canada between the nationalist wing (dominant in the Quebec Liberal establishment) and the strong federalist wing typified by Jean Chretien and Dion. Recent comments by Chretien illustrate the wider divide:

Jean Chrétien says Quebec politicians have cultivated a “culture of grievance” over the province's exclusion from the 1982 deal to patriate the Constitution – even though Quebeckers overwhelmingly supported it at the time and have been benefiting from it ever since.

"It will always be like that,” Mr. Chrétien told The Canadian Press. “They have a culture of grievance over it, not looking at the facts.”

I’ve long argued the Liberal Party should play to itsstrengths and become that strong, unapologetic federalist champion that puts facts before emotion instead of courting soft-sovereignists. That makes sense now more than ever, with both Harper and Mulcar courting the nationalist vote. Attracting those votes has always been difficult for the party of the charter and repatriation, and it will be even more so with Harper and Mulcair fighting for them too.

And the fact is, no one in Quebec politics today is flying the Maple Leaf and speaking to that staunch and unapologetic federalist community. It may not be as big a pie as the nationalist vote, but it’s definitely there and the Liberals have a chance to own it if we embrace our history and our strengths.

I was pleased to see comments from interim Liberal leaderBob Rae yesterday, which echo much of what Dion has been saying on the topic for years:

Quebec is not an oppressed minority, Canada is not a dictatorship, Canadian federalism, democracy, and the protection of minorities are all real things. A “clear vote on a clear question” would trigger discussions, not secession. The fantasies on this issue, now being fuelled not just by the Parti Quebecois but by the NDP in their “Sherbrooke Declaration”, have to be understood as pandering, an appeasement defies logic and constitutional reason.

It’s time, as Dion would say, to demand clarity from these supposed federalist champions. It’s time for Liberals to embrace our identity and stand up as the unapologetic federalist champions. On the constitution, on House of Commons representation, on language rights.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is she still Nycole from the Bloc?

Who says political summers need to be boring? A well-timed leak to the Globe and Mail about new NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel certainly livened things up, with the revelation that Turmel was very recently a member of two Quebec sovereigntist parties, quitting the Bloc Quebecois just weeks before she became an NDP candidate for the last election, and only promising to quit the other yesterday.

Party-switching is certainly no rarity these days in Canadian politics, and that’s fine. The key for me is to explain how you got from A to B and let the people decide. As long as the people have the information, they can make an informed decision on the person’s motivations. For me, I’ll accept a well-reasoned ideological move but frown on a move motivated purely by political opportunism or expediency. In Turmel’s case, it’s hard to argue in the context of the time that being an NDP candidate in Quebec was the expedient choice. But everyone has their own criteria.

This apparently was an issue discussed in Turmel’s riding during the campaign to some extent so that test may be met, although I find the explanations she’s offering now (she joined and donated to help a friend), her overlapping BQ/NDP memberships, and the membership in Québec solidaire, somewhat less than compelling. I’ll let others dwell on them, though.

What would primarily be an issue for the people of Hull-Alymer gained national import when Jack Layton made her his pick for interim leader of the official opposition. It's a position of national leadership. But for me, this is less about Turmel (who is essentially a placeholder until either Layton returns, or doesn't) and more about the fuzziness of the NDP’s position on Quebec, and its approach to federalism.

There are many Turmels in the new NDP caucus, many MPs who were either avowed sovereigntists or, like Turmel, at least members of sovereigntist parties, and recently so. This flirting with Quebec nationalism is dangerous; just ask Brian Mulroney. And I was no fan of the approach Jean Lapierre brought to my Liberals. As I’ve written previously, the NDP seems determined to promote one vision of federalism in Quebec, and one in the rest of Canada. They continue to ignore the undeniable gulf between their Sherbrooke Declaration and the Clarity Act.

I’m less concerned about Turmel’s membership cards (a symptom) than I am the underlying condition: where does the NDP stand on federalism and Quebec nationalism, are they consistent in that position across the country, and is all of their caucus onboard with defending and promoting that position? Until they’re clear on these issues, they’re going to have to continue to deal with flare-ups like this one, because the underlying questions will linger.

And another thing

It has been painful to watch the NDP spin in response to the Turmel story. I found their strategy puzzling from a communications perspective (in their case, I’d have said something like many former BQ/LPC/CPC supported the NDP in Quebec in the last elxn because we were the only party to address their concerns, and then pivot to issues), as it seems to only prolong and elevate the story.

But more than tactics, the most striking thing was how the NDP and its supporters is their utter inability to take a hit. They’re the Official Opposition now. They’re going to be a target and under scrutiny like they never had before. Some times the criticism will be valid. Often, it won’t be. Either way, they’re going to need to grow a thicker skin and learn to role with the punches, or it’s going to be a long four years.

You can defend Turmel’s actions, and feel they are perfectly above-board. But raising the questions raised yesterday is absolutely fair. It is a legitimate story, and the people have the right to an explanation. Provide it, and then move on to your issues. But don't cry that it was raised in the first place. If all is above-board the defensiveness is unnecessary. I read some Turmel defenders cry McCarthyism yesterday, which is beyond ridiculous.

Continually playing the victim will get old fast.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

He also leaps tall buildings in a single bound

So, today Deceivin' Steven and the New Brunswick Premier had a joint photo-op to announce the funding of some highway improvements in the province.

But this isn’t just a routine federal/provincial announcement, oh no. Perhaps since Harper has managed not to invite New Brunswickers to sue him he’s hailing the $207 million announcement as an example of how federalism can work.

Mr. Harper, who is locked in a battle with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador over changes to equalization funding, said the highway improvements show how federalism can work.

"Today's announcement is a testament to what can be achieved when Ottawa and the provinces embrace the true spirit of the federalism of openness and work together to make Canada stronger, safer and better," he said at the legislature, where he was joined by Premier Shawn Graham.

What today is Stephen is an example of how federalism DOES work. Routinely. Every day. Coast to coast. Even in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. The window dressing is silly. This is a routine announcement of federal funding for highway improvement, not the end to the long, tired era of federal/provincial bickering. That ended a few months back, after all.

What’s not an example of how federalism should work is, say, inviting provincial governments to take you to court when you break your election promises to them.

So. I guess you could say Harper is right. Today was an example of how federalism can work…when the Prime Minister isn’t being a putz.

My apologies, Stephen.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers