Danielle Smith’s Speech to Quebec Conservatives

56 Replies to “Danielle Smith’s Speech to Quebec Conservatives”

1. My number 1 priority in Canadian politics has always been the establishment of the EEE Senate. This would make Confederation fair. For me, the benefit of the Harper Majority is first and foremost the ability to change the political infrastructure in our favor to buffer Canada from the next Loony Left government. Consecutive majority governments will give Harper time to move the country to the Right via the Supreme Court, the Senate and the Federal Employees…
   Posted by: Indiana Homez at May 18, 2011 11:29 AM

   
   There is no longer a priority 1 need for a EEE Senate in Canada from a western Canadian conservative perspective. That concern may have been valid 25 years ago; it is no longer valid today. I am not convinced that the Toronto-based pundits have all accurately understood what took place on May 2. I believe that it heralds a sea change in Canadian politics, a major fortress has been taken over, things will never be the same again, and other similar metaphors are appropriate.
   To understand what happened on May 2, one needs to discard the MSM narrative of a “divided right” from the 1993-2003 period. Sure, the right was divided over that period, but the “divided right” narrative entirely misses the significance of what took place because it oversimplifies the situation. A more accurate description of what took place was the “management change” of the Canadian conservative movement which took from 1993-2003 to accomplish. It is not accurate to say that the right was reunified under Harper, nor is it correct to state that the PCs were reduced to 2 seats in 1993 and have since come back. That is not true. The current Conservative Party has a more Reform/Alliance base that it does from the old PCs. Sure, the old PCs did merge with Alliance in 2003, but one should see that as a bit of a hostile takeover than a merger of equals. The current CPC is an alliance of Reform Party supporters joined with Mike Harris Ontario supporters.
   I will return to that theme in a moment.
   Let us now look at the House of Commons seat distribution in 1984. I will ignore the 3 seats north of the 60th parallel for simplicity. I will follow that with regional seat counts and those seat counts expressed as a percentage of the total number of seats in the HOC (282) at that time.
   BC AB SK MN ON QC NB NS PEI NL
   28 21 14 14 95 75 10 11 004 07
   Western 77 (27.3%)
   Ontario 95 (33.7%)
   Quebec 75 (26.6%)
   Atlantic32 (11.3%)
   The same data for the May 2, 2011 election, the HOC now increased to 308 seats.
   BC AB SK MN ON QC NB NS PEI NL
   36 28 14 14 106 75 10 11 004 07
   Western 92 (29.9%)
   Ontario106 (34.4%)
   Quebec 75 (24.4%)
   Atlantic32 (10.4%)
   I now add the 30 seats that are expected to be added sometime before the October 2015 election with the regional percentages based upon the 338 seat HOC.
   BC AB SK MN ON QC NB NS PEI NL
   43 33 14 14 124 75 10 11 004 07
   Western104 (30.8%)
   Ontario124 (36.7%)
   Quebec 75 (22.2%)
   Atlantic32 ( 9.5%)
   I am going to argue that when Trudeau was around, Quebec was effectively larger than the western provinces by virtue of the fact the Quebec voted Liberal and the west did vote mostly PC but enough NDP that Quebec Liberals outnumbered western PCs. Yes, I am aware that the 1984 77 western seats slightly outnumber the 75 Quebec seats, so that is why I qualified my statement with “effectively”. When Trudeau was around, the Liberals controlled the largest and second largest (qualified “effectively”) regions of the country. That was in 1984.
   I think the Toronto pundits continue to think in terms of Ontario and Quebec. If one examines the projected seat numbers for 2015, AB and BC will have 76 seats against 75 Quebec seats. So one could say that BC and AB will have as much Parliamentary power as Quebec. The populations of those provinces continue to grow.
   If one thinks in terms of Ontario and Quebec, one will miss what has taken place over the last 25 years. If one thinks in terms of the largest region and the second largest region, then things are very clear. The so called natural governing party (pre-1984) owed its success to population distribution and not to overly clever politics. In 2011 and beyond, the natural governing party will owe its success to the same factors. The second largest region in the country has been changed over the period 1984-2011. The natural governing party will be the same – in one sense – as always; the party that can control the largest and second largest regions of the country will dominate Canadian federal politics.
   Returning to the theme of the makeup of the CPC (Reform/Harris alliance), it should be clear why there has been a large change in Canadian politics. The regional population shifts no longer favour the Liberals; they now favour the CPC. The EEE Senate is only of benefit to those or that party which is not the natural governing party. In the past, it was the Liberals, and the Senate acted as a sober second thought whenever PCs were in power. Or so, the MSM told us. Now the Senate will act as sober second thought when Liberals (or their replacement) do attain power, and will have the power to block or stall bad Liberal legislation. The MSM will have a change of thought and will not call the Senate a Chamber of sober second thought, but will demand changes to the Senate.
   Things will be on our side for a while. I am not convinced the Bloc Quebecois is dead. For the next several years, there will be a three way fight in Quebec. Untill that fight is settled, the CPC will have a majority. The CPC will eventually loose power, but as long as the CPC can hold much of Ontario, the West has a natural ally. A much better ally than Quebec nationalists like under Dief and Mulroney.
   Provincial Premiers like Wall and (potentially) Danielle Smith will ensure that economic power continues to flow to the West. That economic power will cause continued population migration, with the resultant political power that accompanies those shifts.
   It’s a good time to be a conservative and a Conservative in Canada.

2. BW
   I don’t disagree with you about that; but, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” in my view, and our new political and economic clout shouldn’t stop us from accomplishing something that in ‘principle’ is the correct thing. Now that’s speaking as a Canadian not a western Canadian.
   As a western Canadian and a Conservative, I believe 8 years is a lot of time to work the system in our favor and accomplish the Senate reform we’ve committed to.
   Finally, I’m very trepidatious to trust the Conservative Majority more than is necessary. It’s likely that Harper will eventually shed support in the west and make it up in Central Canada; thus, I’d still prefer the protection of an equal Senate if and when the Conservatives stray from western Canadian values.JMO

3. Indiana Homez:
   I will address your points in a different order than you raised them.
   I don’t disagree with you about that; but, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” in my view, and our new political and economic clout shouldn’t stop us from accomplishing something that in ‘principle’ is the correct thing. Now that’s speaking as a Canadian not a western Canadian.
   Principle is always a good thing. However, we should always remember that Senate reform was always a means to an end. The “end” or goal was always democratic reform. Senate reform was always a component of democratic reform; it was never the whole. I will expand upon this in the third point.
   Finally, I’m very trepidatious to trust the Conservative Majority more than is necessary. It’s likely that Harper will eventually shed support in the west and make it up in Central Canada; thus, I’d still prefer the protection of an equal Senate if and when the Conservatives stray from western Canadian values.JMO
   This is key to our disagreement and why I noted what the current CPC is (the Reform/Harris alliance). This alliance took years to put together. It has survived the tail end of a Liberal majority government and brought about in successive order: a Liberal minority, then a CPC minority, and now a CPC majority government. There is no doubt that Harper will not rely upon the western provinces only – how can he? – but this Harris/Reform alliance is strong and Harper will rely upon this alliance. Relying upon this alliance also means relying upon Ontario MPs – that part is true. That Harper will deliberately shed support in the west is something I do not see at all in Harper.
   “The West wants in” was the motto of the Reform Party. To those east of the MN/ON line, it simply meant “Oh, Reform is not a separatist party.” To a western Canadian, it meant more than a simple rejection of separatist notions. It was an open acknowlegement by a political party that the west was not “in” Canada, but wanted in. Since May 2, 2011, the door is now open for the West to come “in”. It will take several years for this to happen but the future direction is clear.
   Some critics of the CPC have pointed out it is not a true conservative party. There is not too much dispute there from me. However, we should keep in mind that Trudeau was able to move Canada into a model of “Cuban socialism” as he called it by getting a lot of support from the most socialist part of Canada. It should be clear that a political movement that gets much of its base from the most conservative part of the country will move the country in a different direction from “Cuban socialism”. One should expect incremental changes in this direction because one needs to keep in mind 3 of 4 western provinces have had NDP provincial governments and the PCs in AB (Lougheed/Getty/Klein/Stelmach) could hardly be considered conservative. (Danielle Smith is different.) Therefore, one should expect the CPC to favour western interests over explicitly conservative interests (these are the realities), but long term western interests do translate into long term slightly more conservative interests.
   As a western Canadian and a Conservative, I believe 8 years is a lot of time to work the system in our favor and accomplish the Senate reform we’ve committed to.
   The Equal part of EEE cannot be accomplished without a change to the Constitution and that is the biggest one for the smaller provinces.
   The real issue is democratic reform. Canada is known as having one of the worst democratic regional disparities in the world as measured by representation-by-population (rep-by-pop). The expected additional 30 seats in the HOC before 2015 only address one issue. It addresses the issue of making ON,BC,AB votes equal to those in Quebec. But the votes in these 4 larger provinces are worth less than the votes in the 6 smaller provinces.
   I think the American model is better. They have an approximate equal rep-by-pop system for the House and an equal rep-by-state Senate. I think if we were to try to get a constitutional change to make the Senate equal by province, too many provinces would fight it. ON and QC would go from about 25% of the Senate each to about 10% of the Senate each. I think if one wants to get the Atlantic provinces on board, one needs to reduce their relative seat count in the HOC to approach a rep-by-pop system; they would then be more amiable to increased Senate power. The only way to do this outside the constitution is to increase the number of seats outside the region. My estimate is that the seats in the HOC should go up to about 420 with 1 going to MN, 1 going to NB, about 15 going to QC and the remainder going to ON,BC, and AB. That is how bad the current system is. Once we have the rep-by-pop system in place, the Atlantic provinces should be on board for the Equal part of EEE. Diluting the Atlantic vote to a proper rep-by-pop system would also have the side effect of allowing a CPC government to restructure some of the regional “make work” projects and special EI treatment that were simply Liberal vote buying schemes.
   Senate reform is important, but not prority 1. Rep-by-pop is more important and will help the efforts at achieving EEE. Both are part of the larger goal of democratic reform.

4. eastern paul at May 18, 2011 12:26 AM wrote: “There’s not a lot of entrepreneurial spirit there” Referring to Quebec.
   I disagree. There is a lot of it, but much of it has been funnelled into government initiated efforts (i.e. taxpayer dollars), which leads to, well, fulfillment of functionary requirements, and not innovation.

5. The BC people have not one lick of use for Harper.
   He is forcing the Enbridge pipeline and the dirty oil tankers from China, on the BC peoples objections. We all know pipelines burst, The damage of the pipe burst in Alberta, has done severe damage to the eco system. The underground water is contaminated. That spill is a disaster. We are destroying our clean drinking water, at an alarming rate. And, we can’t drink oil. Enbridge has the worst record for pipe bursts. We don’t want their pipes in BC, over our hundreds of rivers, streams and our land. What-so-ever. The First Nations children, were made so sick from that, Alberta pipe burst. They can’t even go back to their school.
   The huge dirty oil tankers from China, are to come into the Port of Kitimat. Those seas are the most dangerous seas in the world. There are furious winds, high waves. There are undersea crop outs of rocks. The channel is so narrow because of the rocks, navigation has very little room for error. The ocean there, is absolutely treacherous.
   There is still oil gathering on the rocks from the Valdez spill 21 years ago. When the spill happens off our beautiful, pristine northern coast. Our beautiful Orca whales would perish. All the marine life in the oils path will die. The Gulf spill has taught this government nothing.
   There is not one advantage for the BC people. Enbridge has their own experienced pipe layers. When the pipeline is finished, so are the jobs. Our province gets all the risks, and Harper fills his coffers. The First Nations, people have the support of thousands of, non native BC people.
   Athabasca Lake has deformed fish in it. The mighty Athabasca River has oil in it, heavy metals and cancer causing agents. The huge Athabasca watershed, is contaminated. A First Nations village, has many of their people with cancer. The caribou are dying. Another flock of ducks perished landing in the filthy sludge. From space, the tar sands are an abomination on the face of Canada. The eco damage is permanent, nothing can clean that horrible mess up.

6. Gloria >
   I understand your sentiments, but what do you propose to do about it? Unless you plan on living in the forest with the animals, you need coal & oil. The only question is where do you wish to buy it? People are abused and dying in third world countries to sell you theirs.
   The fact is whether you want to go back to nature or not, someone is going to use our coal & oil like it or not. If we don’t have control over it, it will be taken from us like Middle Eastern oil. Does Canada have the capacity to protect our resources militarily from, Russia, China even the US interests? The answer is no, we cannot. That is a reality that you can deny or justify all you wish, but at the end of the day if we don’t trade and play ball with the world superpowers who have no conscience or liabilities with polluting, they will simply come and take it.