Institutionalised Conservatism: Harper, the nation, constitutional change and Duceppe

When I was a grad student at English university in Quebec, to graduate, I had to write a French test on the eve of my graduation to show I am worthy to have a graduate degree from a Quebec university. These rules were made in Quebec City and the onus was on my university (and program) to have such hoops in place, as a condition of funding - a provincial jurisdiction.

For the other students and me, this was for all the marbles. I still remember the topic: "centralisation versus decentralisation", which is serendipitous perhaps in light of evidence this week that confirms to me that Harper's primary goal while in office is to institutionalise conservatism in Canada and by using the Quebec problem (the Iggy nation) to do so. At the very least, this would lay down the tracks for future conservative governments to more naturally govern in a diluted/decentralised Canadian federation.

Stated simply, decentralisation is typically consistent with traditional conservative values /and inconsistent with traditional Liberal principles. Harper's vision it seems is more of a neutonian/reductionist approach to the distribution of powers and the redistribution of revenues which reduces the federation to the sum of its component parts (i.e. the provinces).

If this is consummated through constitutional renewal (which the CPC is denying but it will be hard to put the genie back in the bottle), the Canadian political spectrum will shift forever. It will be impossible for Liberals to govern from the centre because the centre will likely have shifted. Will our children and grandchildren have to be ideological Tories to avoid being off the off the scale left?...much like many Democrats have evolved to become in the United States?

So, history could show that Iggy's nation thing was the catalyst constitutional renewal, after all.

To avoid sovereignty via this process, Harper may re-open the constitution himself (or at least he will lay down the tracks for doing so) and in so doing pave the road to absolute decentralisation of Canada's federation . This would accommodate the political motives of those governing in Quebec (many of whom ultimately have sovereignist objectives). This will be rolling the dice unless the federation is diluted. The soveignists will take advantage of Harper's preferencess to weaken the federation, as long as at the end of the day Canada matters less and Quebec matters more: or no deal. As such, Canada will have a federation that is weakened considerably by these negotiations . There will be no going back.

What about the Liberal vision of federalism that would involve a stronger federation because the component parts are also stronger? To me, that is the Canadian vision. This is not about "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", is it?

This is where other scary conservative objectives may rear their ugly blue heads. While the constitution is open, why not limit federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This would save Steve some money if he is still governing, and, if he is not, his legacy will have been to have institutionalised conservatism in Canada, and the rest will be history. If I actually were ideologically conserative, like Steve, I would consider that to be a fine legacy, even if he governs only briefly.

Whether it is to sweep this under the rug before the leadership convention (or to save Iggy's butt), Liberals should be very cautious before voting for Harper's motion. Gigantic "flip-flops" like this one are usually about political survival, and not about good or sustainable policy.

Liberals should not walk into this "booby-trap".