Modeling Journey

Harper has opted for the perpetual campaigning mode of governing, with his eyes set on winning a majority so that he can accelerate the achievement of his major goal of changing Canada's political structure. The coming Throne Speech will be another module in his on-going campaign, and we can expect him to use it to achieve three objectives: to wound the Liberals, placate the Quebeckers, and marginalize the Dippers.

Being able to achieve the first two objectives with one action would be the best solution for him, and he probably has stumbled upon the way to do that with his already announced plans.

What would be attractive to many (if not most) Francophone Quebeckers, while at the same time sowing seeds of dissension amongst Liberals?

One issue is the role of the federal government in the governance of the Canadian nation. Harper has spoken of the ability to change the governance pattern by actions falling short of constitutional amendments, and is on record as saying that a lot can be achieved by bilateral agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments.

Harper is also on record regarding his low regard for a major, constructive and activist role for the federal government. His view of our central government is more akin to the statist views of the conservatives in the USA, where the desire is for state governments to have more power, and the central government to be limited to tax-collector, war fighter, and little else. Harper's visceral response to Ottawa's power was shown clearly with his advice to the Alberta government to erect firewalls so as to diminish the ability of the Ottawa government to exert much influence in that province.

This view of the role of Ottawa is a fissure between Harper and his neo-con new Tories, and the Liberals of the past. Liberals have by and large believed in a significant, nation-building, and equity-maintaining role for the central government, without diminishing the rights of the provinces under the Constitution.

How can Harper win votes from Francophone Quebec voters and at the same time sow seeds of dissention amongst Liberals?

Easy. He elevates the diminishing role of Ottawa - through restrictions on its spending - to a major element in his Throne Speech. He promises to enter into agreements with whichever provinces wish to do so, to limit the spending of Ottawa in areas under provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution. He offers to enter into political agreements with such provinces, which in some cases would entail handing over money to the provinces, so that the provincial government could spend it - perhaps not in the same area or for the same purpose.

What would this mean? Several things. It would limit the ability of the Ottawa government to launch nation-building or nation-enhancing schemes, such as our national health plan. Or a national standard child care program. Or a national plan to provide free education to all students who wished to go to college. Or similar plans. The bilateral agreements would limit Ottawa's entry into such plans, and leave all such decisions open to the provincial governments only.

The poorer areas of Canada would suffer the most. National plans allow a redistribution of national wealth into such national-standard ventures, so that the poorer regions benefit. Not having Ottawa enter into any such national plans would mean there would be no benefits for the poorer regions. They would be left on their own, to cope with their problems.

Finally, such a Harper policy would force Dion to decide where he comes down on the role of the federal government in nation-building or nation-sustaining ventures, which cross into areas which primarily (but not, constitutionally, exclusively) are areas allotted to the provincial governments under our Constitution. Will Dion side with Harper and adopt a province-rights view, restricting the federal government from such ventures in the future?

If Dion did that, he would open up a fissure between his more restricted view of the role of the federal government in governing Canada, the view of most Liberals, and indeed, most Canadians.

Let us hope that the Liberal Party brainstrust have anticipated such a move by Harper, and have prepared a response by the Liberal Party which accords with the liberal views of most Liberals.

Otherwise, we - and the voters - will see a leaden, flat-footed, surprised and awkward response from the LPC on the day of the Throne Speech.