DIVIDED WE FALL
This month, the National Post convened a roundtable of Canadian conservatives to discuss the following question: Does regionalism obstruct their cause? With author Adam Daifallah moderating, the participants were St. John’s Tory activist Liam O’Brien, Calgary conservative Michelle Kraft, Montreal Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) activist Paul Beaudry and Toronto-area CPC candidate Michael Mostyn.
I don’t agree that Canada has become so regionalized that it has become an obstacle for conservatives. In fact, one of the reasons I became a fan of the Conservatives, and the PC party before that, was that it was the voice of provincial rights.
At the Conservative convention in Montreal last March, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were lining up next to Albertans to speak about the need for greater decentralization, to get power closer to the people. You can accommodate many more regional concerns if you do that. M. K.: It’s funny you brought up the convention, because I remember the same thing. The media reports before the convention were “the party’s going to implode” or “the fractures are going to come out,” and how regionalism would destroy the party. But talking to the delegates from across the country I found we had the same concerns, and that the way to remedy those concerns is through decentralization.
Whenever there’s an election, you can count on the Liberals trotting out Alberta as the bogeyman to play regions off one another. But I guess I think the regions have more in common than they have differences. L. O.: When Ralph Klein has come out to say that we need to respect the provinces on energy policy, or when [Newfoundland and Labrador Premier] Danny Williams says something about equalization, the federal Conservatives don’t automatically take the position that they have to “stand up to the provinces.” They recognize that the provinces are important. A. D.: Michael, do you get the same sense in Ontario? And if what they’re saying is true, why hasn’t the party done better? M. M.: One of the reasons I think regionalism is not a big deal for the party is that the party has [broad] principles that we stick to, such as support for democratic reform in Canada and for democracy abroad. These are just conservative concepts — no matter where we are in the country, it unites everybody. A. D.: Paul, why is the Conservative party not on the radar in Quebec? P. B.: In the last election, voters were angry at the Liberals, and they channelled that anger to vote for the Bloc Québécois. I think part of the problem is that many people who are not necessarily separatists think the Bloc is the only party that is going to represent Quebecers in Ottawa. And when you look at English Quebecers — and I live on the [mostly Anglophone] West Island in Montreal — I have the feeling that even when they’re not happy with the Liberals, they would see a vote for the Conservatives as a vote given away to the Bloc.
I think our challenge is to say to all those nationalist Quebecers who believe power in Ottawa must be decentralized that the Bloc is never going to be part of a government, so if they want their interests represented [the Conservatives] are the party to do it. A. D.: Michelle, do you think the party has the ability to make inroads in Quebec? M. M.: Definitely. I know a lot of Quebecers have the same grievances as Albertans. It’s a matter of convincing Quebecers that they can trust the Conservative party and that it’s a viable alternative to the Liberals and the Bloc. I don’t think we’ll ever give up on Quebec. P. B.: I think watering down the platform to try to appeal to Quebecers would be a big mistake. Our challenge is to get the party’s message out there. Our platform has the potential to sell well in Quebec, especially the fiscal side of it. A. D.: I live in Quebec City, and I can tell you the Conservative party is nowhere. So you’re saying the party just has to get its views more widely known? P. B.: I think so. I’ll tell you why. If you take, for example, the Quebec City area, at the provincial level the ADQ [Action démocratique du Québec] did very well in certain regions. When you look at their platform, it is most similar to the Conservative party. And what was the ADQ able to do? It was able to get the fiscal conservative vote and the nationalist vote. L. O.: The greatest trick the Liberal party ever played was convincing the regions of this country that they have disparate interests. In reality, we have so much in common it’s quite startling.
I’ll give you an example: regional development agencies. I put forward a resolution [at the Conservative policy convention] in Montreal to try to eliminate these things, and I’m from Newfoundland. The East Coasters were in agreement with people from all over Canada, but then the Quebecers pointed out that some of those agencies had research and development projects that were still important to Quebec. So the convention floor, quite literally, kind of said, “OK, we need to compromise.” The result was a policy that said we still need to get rid of corporate welfare, but also realized we still needed to respect the need for R&D. There’s an example of a policy where Quebec and the East came up with something still palatable to the West. A. D.: If regionalism isn’t a problem, why isn’t the party doing better? M. M.: You have to remember we have only had a new, united Conservative party for a short time. In Ontario, and in Toronto specifically, there hasn’t been a viable alternative for a long time.
Remember that historically, conservative parties have been strong, united parties that have brought together different conservative interests. In 1942 under John Diefenbaker, that was when the Progressive party and the Conservative party joined together and that led to two majority governments. Borden brought different parties together and so did John A. Macdonald. A. D.: What about the issues that play well in some areas, but not others? In Ontario, the Conservatives were undone by their perceived position on “social conservative” issues such as same-sex marriage. M. M.: Well, there are certainly issues that are more important to certain regions. Softwood lumber, for example, is not a big deal to most people in Toronto. The thing I liked about Stephen Harper’s position on same-sex marriage is that he allowed everyone to vote freely on it. That’s a conservative principle, allowing MPs to represent their own constituents. P. B.: People still have those unfounded stereotypes about the Conservative party. Take abortion. Even though the party’s stance is to not legislate on abortion, people believe [otherwise]. NP: Do Albertans think the party needs to change the platform to appeal to Ontario and Quebec? M. M.: No, I think the majority of people out here think we have a common sense platform that will work, and it’s just a matter of getting it out there. I think if the party did change its platform, if it did leave our core values behind, that might cause a lot of people out here to question their support.