Dear Conservative Party members,
First of all thank you for choosing Montreal for your
first national policy convention next March 2005! Now that your party leader, Stephen Harper, is "determined to build a truly national party" by
re-establishing roots in Quebec, it seems important to put things in
perspective.
First the obvious
Your party obtained less than 9% of the vote in Quebec
last June. This was in part due to the unpopularity of your party’s perceived agenda which included large tax
breaks for the wealthy, deficit financing, less government services,
environmental deregulation, huge increases in military spending, support for
American unilateralism, and some social conservatism.
Of course Brian Mulroney was able to win two majority
governments and still do all of these things. The trick is he won in Quebec primarily
by promising constitutional reform during both election campaigns in 1984 and
1988. The latter backed up by a free-trade agreement with the U.S. that Quebec
nationalists said “liberated” the province from the Canadian economic
stranglehold.
Since your party leader has diametrically opposed
views regarding special status for Quebec, it will be difficult to duplicate
Mulroney’s temporary success in the province. Especially now that the
home-grown Bloc Québécois has been able to convince many voters that it can
best defend their interests and affect change, at least if they hold the
balance of power. Otherwise...
Mind you the federal Liberals are not in much better
shape. They haven’t been able to win a majority of votes among French-speaking Quebecers
(representing 82% of the population), and thus majority of seats in Quebec, since
they repatriated the constitution in 1982 without Quebec’s consent.
Decentralization
The recent agreement on health care, with its unified
objectives and asymmetric delivery for any province, has opened up new
possibilities. Many conservatives in the past have talked about withdrawing the
federal government from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, accompanied
by federal revenues or taxation points.
Quebec’s main political parties would likely have gone
along with that. However most other Canadians would not because they rightly feared
what this meant for health care and social programs, not to mention Canadian
identity, if left in the hands of some provincial premiers.
To counterbalance, you could support a broad
social agreement or charter covering the affected areas, agreed to by all
provinces and the feds as was done with health care. This would ensure provinces
had the necessary flexibility and means to provide comparable social services across
the federation. And it would help prevent them from competing against each other
by undercutting the quality and quantity of services to lower taxes.
Social policy
Yet, what really got your party into trouble in Quebec
last spring were statements made by a few Conservative candidates and officials
regarding bilingualism, gay rights, and legal reform. It’s enough of a problem
that you should discuss these questions openly and come to a consensus. Diluting
official bilingualism, an historic milestone, is such an obvious non-starter
around here that it’s not worth dwelling over. Your party’s so-called hidden
social agenda is a different matter.
The problem as I see it is not with the personal
beliefs of “undisciplined” MPs and party members. They have just as much right
to hold their own beliefs as anyone else. Rather what frightens many in this
province is their apparent desire to impose their beliefs on those with
different views, either directly through government or private-member’s bills,
or indirectly by filling the courts with
like-minded judges (as some accuse the Liberals of doing).
As you know Quebec went through an
incredible process of social transformation starting in the 1960s, which lead
to a separation of church (primarily the Catholic Church) and state, as well as
various measures to end discrimination against women, visible and religious minorities,
and gays and lesbians (a first in 1983), for example.
The situation today is not perfect, but few
want to roll back the clock, especially now that Quebec is a much more diverse
society, with many different religious denominations and diverse opinions on
social issues. Most prefer to leave individuals free to make up their own minds and act according
to their own moral and religious beliefs, in this context.
The courts
You might very well reply, as some have, that it’s not
fundamentalists who are imposing their social beliefs on others these days. Rather
it is the state through the courts that is imposing its will on the majority,
without the consent of parliament, the government, or the governed.
But isn’t that what the courts are there for, to safeguard
what the overwhelming majority of Canadians have stated they cherish above all
else, and that is their liberty, within reasonable limits?
What we do want is an open-minded, balanced, rigorous,
and independent judiciary that will defend individuals and minorities whenever their
rights are being violated, while protecting the life and rights of all
citizens. When the courts have strayed from this ideal in the past, some
Canadians have been hurt.
So to recap: a little recognition, a
reintroduction of progressiveness, and a respect for individual freedoms and civil liberties should get you on your way. Otherwise have a good time in
Montreal, but don’t forget all your belongings when you leave. You might not
want to come back for a while.
