I haven't read through this thread here (beyond the first couple of posts) so I'm not really trying to address anyone's arguments here. I'm just re-posting a few key points from a discussion I've been having at another site regarding this issue.

* * *

A few thoughts on Harper's initiative here.

1. This initiative from Harper has all the signs of having been a spur-of-the-moment decision. This idea has NEVER been floated in any Conservative circles - ever. Indeed, even in hollow principle, it flies in the face of the traditional Conservative party platform.

2. The purpose of this initiative appears to be entirely stort-term and tactical (which is very bad news and tends to suggest that Harper is neophyte political strategist). In the short term, the purpose of this initiative is to head off the broadside that was coming from the BQ. Harper was in a tight place because he is dependent upon the BQ in the House and there is no way in hell Harper was going to be able to support the BQ proposal (that was due to be tabled next week). Harper's initiative is an attempt to get ahead of the BQ proposal. In this respect, it has been successful in setting the terms of the debate from the BQ proposal to Harper's proposal (where the terms are so much less controversial than the BQ one).

3. Another short-term advantage to Harper is the perceived 'boost' this gives to Michael Ignatieff's campaign for the Liberal Leadership (due next week). Michael Ignatieff has all the personality and charisma of someone like John Kerry and thus, from Harper's point of view is the ideal campaign opponent (ie. perceived to be a weak campaigner). Ignatieff's campaign has been faltering lately and Bob Rae is really starting to look like he's going to win it, so a boost for Ignatieff has to be in Harper's short-term political interests here. Without a doubt, Rae would be a far more formidable opponent than the stiff and inexperienced Ignatieff.

4. Harper's initiative has all the smell of desperation on Harper's part (this is generous, the alternative is idiot incompetance). Harper's control of the house is on the line (requires BQ support) and Harper's Conservative government has not been polling well at all (suggesting that Harper would likely lose his minority government to a leader-less Liberal party if an election were held today). And it is difficult to see the bright side in Harper's proposal. It is pretty much guarranteed to be hated by Harper's own political base, and is unlikely to produce any additional vote strength in Quebec for the Conservative party, so I don't see any electoral 'upside' to this for Harper. Indeed, in the short, medium and long terms, this proposal plays to the Liberals by neutralising a potentially deadly split in the Liberal party over the issue.

5. Constitutional issues are particularly dangerous. We have a long history in Canada of our political class being completely out of touch with the electorate when it comes to any Constitutional issue. The finely nuanced words of Ottawa-comprimises do not always mean the same things to the citizenry of Canada and backlashes can and do build up to punish the politicians for their audacity in proposing fundamentally radical changes to the Constitution that no one wants (except the politicians).


6. Harper is defending his proposal by insisting upon the precise English meaning of his finely nuanced words. As is well known in the 'soveriegnty' debate (to which this proposal is integral to) words often have different (emotive) meanings in English and French. The term 'nation' is exactly like 'sovereignty' with an ambiguity of different meanings in the translation. This can be a major minefield when addressing Constitutional issues involving Quebec.

7. Harper is very poorly placed (politically speaking) to be making such Constitutional noises about Quebec and should refrain from trying to lead the issue for this reason. Harper is already on the defensive, pointing out that his proposal is ultimately symbolic in order to calm his horrified supporters. This is a huge mistake since every word Harper utters to defend his proposal in front of his supporters (by saying it is hollow or symbolic only) is going to piss off Quebecers. It is a no-win situation for Harper once this starts to happen and it started happening six hours after his announcement. Not good. If the proposal is hollow and symbolic, why bother making it? If it is tangible, what does it mean in Constitutional terms? The more Harper downplays the proposal, the more Quebecers are going to demand it be defined in the Constitution and that opens up the Meech Lake 'can-of-worms' that no one really wants to face (again).

All in all, this is looking like a very bold move for Harper (the Ottawa establishment media were initially falling over themselves gushing with praise for Harper - save only Andrew Coyne). At the same time, the proposal appears to be so ill-planned and ill-timed (and Harper so over his head on this issue) that it is likely to do more harm than good to Harper and Canada. There is a reason the Liberal Party has been torn in knots over the issue (they understand it). Harper's simplistic approach suggests that he really hasn't thought very deeply about this dangerous issue.