Latest news with #MeechLakeAccord
Winnipeg Free Press
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Canada still doesn't understand respecting Indigenous rights
Opinion Thirty-five years ago this week, history was made in Manitoba. Events this week in Ottawa point to just how little we have learnt from that history. In Manitoba in June of 1990, Elijah Harper, MLA for what was then the third party NDP Opposition in a minority government, said 'No', and opposed the Meech Lake Accord. The backdrop was clear. A crisis. In this case, the 'need' to include Quebec in the constitution. The solution, Canadians were told, was the Meech Lake Accord. It was agreed to by Canada's premiers with an artificial deadline set by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney. He talked about rolling the dice. There was one problem. There were many people opposed to Meech Lake. In particular, Indigenous people were clear. It not only excluded Indigenous people, but threatened to be a major step backwards. Elijah Harper was the voice for Indigenous Peoples when he came out against the Accord. What is often missed is how Elijah Harper said 'No'. He said no to procedurally giving leave to rush through the ratification of Meech Lake. Despite great pressure from the federal government, Speaker Denis Rocan ruled in favour of the key point of order brought forward by Elijah Harper arguing that the proper notice procedure had not been followed. There was no closure and the Legislature could not pass the Accord before the deadline. Thirty-five years later, in Ottawa, the House of Commons is rushing through Bill C-5 without consultation. It is a bill that claims to respond to a crisis. That somehow Canada's response to the so-called existential threat with Donald Trump is to throw out our existing processes for approving major projects, and instead we must speed up approvals by threatening to sideline Indigenous rights and environmental protections. To achieve this, the government is relying on the full support of the Conservative opposition, not only to support the legislation but to bring in closure, limiting debate. A handful of MP's have spoken out against both the contents and process of Bill C-5. The Green and NDP MPs who face a challenging situation because they do not have party status have opposed it. Even one Liberal MP called out the unfairness of the process. What is different is that in 1990, despite all the pressures, the Manitoba legislature followed its own procedures based on hundreds of years of parliamentary democracy and did not ram through the Meech Lake Accord. The actions of not only Elijah Harper, but so many other Indigenous people forced Canada to recognize the need to respect Indigenous rights. In many ways, it was a major first step towards what in subsequent years has been reconciliation. What has been happening with Bill C-5 in 2025 couldn't be more different. There has been a blatant disregard for the process you would expect for a bill of this significance. The hasty introduction and closure being attached to Bill C-5 fly in the face of the consultation you would normally expect on any bill, let alone the constitutionally required consultation on matters involving Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have been clear in opposing both the process and substance of the bill. Many people have been calling out what is seen as a betrayal of reconciliation. We learned a major lesson in 1990. That Indigenous peoples will defend their rights. That reconciliation starts with not only recognizing Canada's history of genocide against Indigenous peoples but that provincial and federal governments must recognize the limits of their own powers in the context of Indigenous rights. But as Santayana said 'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it ' Sadly, in 2025, key political leaders have chosen not to remember these lessons of history and are repeating Canada's failure to recognize Indigenous rights. There is one more lesson too. We also learned that the 'crisis' of 1990 was greatly exaggerated. Despite subsequent efforts with the failed Charlottetown accord, the constitutional question was never finally closed. But Canada continues. The so-called crisis we are facing currently will go the same way. What will matter is not just how we react to Donald Trump or any other political leader or economic threat. In terms of history, it is how much we will have acted in accordance with our own values based on our own distinct history. The events of 1990 set us on a better course. The events of 2025 with Bill C-5 threaten to set us back dramatically. Steve Ashton is a former member of the Manitoba Legislature. He was the NDP House Leader during the debate on the Meech Lake Accord in the Manitoba Legislature in 1990. Niki Ashton is the former NDP MP for Churchill-Keewatinook Aski
National Observer
01-05-2025
- Politics
- National Observer
With Carney's victory, can Conservatives avoid a fresh fracture?
In the aftermath of the Mark Carney Liberals' stunning win on Monday evening, pundits and party strategists haven't been shy about weighing in on what went so wrong for a party that seemed destined to win a massive victory mere months ago. While the Conservative Party measurably improved both its seat count and popular vote on April 28, the election of a strong minority Liberal government and the loss of Pierre Poilievre's Ottawa seat represents a massive failure for a party that led the governing Liberals by a staggering 25 points in early 2025. As many debate the immediate future of the Conservative Party, including whether Poilievre should remain at its helm, Conservatives confront a more existential threat: can the party avoid fracture? The question harkens back to the 1980s, when the then-Progressive Conservative Party of Canada saw similar divisions. Those divisions led to the formation of the Reform Party, which was primarily concerned with Western Canadian issues, in 1987. Then, in 1991, some Quebec Conservatives splintered to join former Liberals and form the Bloc Quebecois in response to the Meech Lake Accord. Though the Progressive Conservatives continued to exist, the split led to three Liberal majority governments throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Canadian conservatives did not return to power until the Conservative Party formed in December 2003 as a result of a merger between the Reform and PC parties. Today's Conservative Party remains home to a variety of disparate small-c conservative voices, in addition to a growing faction of Trump-style populists. But in a post-Stephen Harper era, the party has mostly struggled to find its ideological bearings, charting an uneven course that has seen it lurch from moderate to increasingly right-wing depending on its leader. While Poilievre's grievance-based approach to politics paid huge dividends for 18 months, four (mostly) foreseeable events brought the Conservative Party's momentum to a screeching halt by early 2025: the resignation of Justin Trudeau, the rise of Carney, the return of Donald Trump to the White House and the corresponding US-Canada trade war that plunged our economy into uncharted waters. Those factors have exposed growing fault lines in the Conservative coalition that could critically destabilize the party as it returns to the opposition benches for a fourth consecutive term. As many debate the immediate future of the Conservative Party, including whether Poilievre should remain at its helm, the existential threat of fracture looms large, writes Andrew Perez. The Trump Problem The menace of Trump has cast a long shadow on Canadian conservatives since the U.S. president first came to office in 2016. But his return to the White House and the destructive trade war that followed have both played a major role in stalling conservative momentum amid unfavourable comparisons between the president and Poilievre. Even prominent international media outlets such as the Financial Times picked up on the similarities. A Times op-ed appearing in the final week of the campaign went for the jugular: Pierre Poilievre, Canada's right wing leader, has a Donald Trump problem. Poilievre's aggressive style, obsessive attacks on 'woke ideology', disdain for legacy media and the Laurentian establishment and incessant sloganeering have rightly drawn comparisons between the lifelong Canadian politician and the US president. Like Trump, Poilievre and the Conservative Party recast in his image are driven by anger and resentment of 'elites.' This resentment was palpable when Poilievre aggressively goaded a reporter mid-campaign, peppering her with questions about the crowd size at a Conservative rally in Edmonton. The awkward and unnecessary interaction with the Globe and Mail's Laura Stone was plucked right out of Trump's playbook, stunning media and party strategists alike. Trump has always been an unpopular figure in this country. But his determination to launch the biggest threat to Canada's sovereignty and economic prosperity in our 157-year history has made the mercurial president the public enemy number one for most Canadians. Public opinion on Trump isn't so clear-cut among Conservatives, however. A November 2024 Leger poll found that 42 per cent of those planning to support Poilievre's Conservatives chose Trump as their preferred candidate in the US election. A March 2025 Leger poll found that 33 per cent of Conservative voters still support Trump, despite his unprecedented attacks on Canada. It's no wonder Poilievre wasn't willing to launch a full-frontal assault on the US president throughout the recent campaign; an opening Carney's Liberals took full advantage of by tying Poilievre to Trump in virtually all of their public messaging. The Doug Ford Factor Since 2019, there has been a growing rupture between federal and Ontario Conservatives. It first began when Doug Ford refused to campaign for Andrew Scheer in the 2019 federal election — an approach the Ontario premier stuck with during the 2021 election under leader Erin O'Toole. In that campaign, Ford barred his cabinet ministers from campaigning for the federal party, even asking them to refrain from posting about interactions with federal Conservative candidates on social media. But the relationship between the two conservative parties metastasized from frosty to downright hostile in this most recent campaign when Ford's chief strategist, Kory Teneycke, accused Poilievre's team of 'campaign malpractice' for squandering a 25-point lead. 'I know it's uncomfortable for people to hear that said out loud, but it's in every poll and every poll aggregator, the numbers are the numbers, and saying that you don't believe in polls. If you're managing a campaign, it's delusional,' Teneycke told CTV Power Play host Vassy Kapelos. When asked about Teneycke's pointed comments, Ford defended his chief strategist's criticisms of the Poilievre campaign, telling reporters 'sometimes the truth hurts.' The estrangement between Poilievre and Ford no doubt contributed to undermining the federal party in an election it should have easily won. The federal and Ontario Conservatives had long worked in tandem, using the same organizers, volunteers, donors and drawing upon a similar voter base. But the organizational damage this rupture inflicted on the federal party is a symptom of a broader challenge: Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre represent two starkly different conservative visions. Ford's approach has been one of pragmatism, mirroring Bill Davis, the late Ontario Premier; Poilievre has championed an ideological conservatism that is often Trump-like. Watch for the two camps representing these contrasting visions to be thrust into an all-out brawl for the soul of the Conservative Party over the coming months and years. The Menace of Western Populism The final factor that will divide Conservatives over the coming years is how the party addresses the perception of Western alienation from within its ranks. Throughout the election, leading Conservative figures such as former Reform Party leader Preston Manning and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith intervened in the campaign in ways that undercut the Conservatives' commitment to national unity. In the second week of the campaign came a stunning op-ed from Manning asserting that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western succession and the breakup of Canada. While rooted in anger over the Liberals' natural resource policies, Manning's comments went over like a lead balloon in most of a country buoyed by renewed national pride. In the final days of the campaign, Manning reiterated his claim, forcing Poilievre to distance himself. Danielle Smith also raised concerns during the election of a 'national unity crisis' should Alberta's demands not be met by the next federal government, but didn't outright say that a Liberal win in itself should trigger a crisis. It was Smith's comments in an interview with far-right U.S. media outlet Breitbart News in early March that inflicted the most damage on the Conservative leader. In the Breitbart interview, Smith shared that she directly lobbied Trump to lift US tariffs on Canada to help Poilievre, who is 'very much in sync' with the White House. The comments from the Alberta Premier and Western populist placed Poilievre in the crosshairs, leading many observers to conclude that he didn't push back forcefully enough against Smith's willingness to invite the US to get involved in a Canadian election. These three factors all contributed to Poilievre's Conservatives snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on Monday evening. They also point to the fact that, more than two decades after its founding, the modern Conservative Party has yet to engage in genuine soul-searching. Are Canada's Conservatives a brokerage party or one steeped in right-wing ideology? How will they confront those within their ranks convinced that Western succession is the only path forward? And at a time when Canada faces existential threats to our economic prosperity and sovereignty, do Conservatives want to be affiliated with Trump-style populists? The clear defeat of Poilievre's Conservatives on April 28 has plunged a party destined to an unprecedented win mere months ago into a precarious position where its very unity is threatened. The coming months and years will reveal what path the party intends to pursue.
Calgary Herald
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Calgary Herald
It's the 'most important election of our lifetime.' Just like all these other ones
Article content The federal candidate in Carleton district (now represented by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre) had one thing in mind. As a fierce advocate for building a canal that would link Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay, he promised that the project would be supported by 'the great majority' of MPs on all sides of the House of Commons. Article content McLeod lost the election and despite his advocacy for two decades, the canal was never built. Article content 1962 Article content In April 1962, Liberal leader Lester B. Pearson stood in the auditorium of Queen Charlotte High School in Charlottetown, PEI, and delivered what a Montreal Star reporter billed 'one of his best' speeches of the ongoing federal campaign. Article content 'Claiming that this will be the most important election in Canadian peacetime history, Mr. Pearson said that it should be conducted 'with the highest sense of public duty and morality',' wrote journalist Peter Desbarats, though he did not explain why Pearson thought that. Article content Article content If anything, the election is notable for being the first ever fought by the New Democrats under founder Tommy Douglas. Article content 1979 Article content Already nearly 50 years ago, a claim by any — or all, as in 1979 — federal party leader that an election was the most important in Canadian history was considered an 'old cliche' by reporters. Article content In early March, Pierre Trudeau, the 'aging champion' of the Liberal Party, said in an interview that his battle with Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark 'may be the most important Canadian election in our lifetime'. Article content Ironically, it would instead lead to one of the shortest-lived governments in Canadian history. Trudeau would lose the election to Clark, (briefly) ending 16 years of Liberal reign. Clark's PCs campaigned on slogans such as 'Let's get Canada working again' and argued that it's 'Time for a Change'. Article content Article content Sound familiar? Article content (This election would ultimately be listed as one of the least important elections in Canada in 2021 by Maclean's). Article content 1988 Article content There are many similarities between the 1988 federal election and this year's vote. In 1988, the single biggest issue of the campaign was Canada's relationship with the United States and if the country should sign what would become the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It was the last election before 2025 in which Canada's relationship with the U.S. was central to a federal election. Article content There was also much concern about national unity after the failure by Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government to secure the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord the previous year. Article content It was also a campaign in which Liberal candidates were legion in swearing that it would be 'the most important election in our lifetime.' Article content One such candidate was Ralph Goodale, who left Saskatchewan politics to run for the Liberals that year, a seat he would hold for the party until 2019. He argued the election was crucial because NAFTA threatened 'the security and the future of our way of life'. Article content Two months after Goodale's statement, Manitoba Liberal Leader Sharon Carstairs agreed that the Nov. 21 vote was the most important of her lifetime, citing concerns that NAFTA would cause a flood of Canadian-trained doctors to move to the U.S. Article content 1997 Article content The 1997 election is notable largely because it was the first federal campaign after Quebec's failed 1995 referendum and for the fact it's the first time five political parties (Liberal, Reform, Bloc Québécois, NDP and PC) were recognized in the House of Commons. Article content Article content But that didn't stop Alberta PC candidate Morris Flewwelling from taking out a large ad in the May 9, 1997, edition of the Red Deer Advocate with a screaming headline 'THIS IS IT! The Most Important Election in Canada's History. VOTE FLEWWELLING'. Article content Flewwelling was not elected as part of the PCs' paltry 20-seat caucus but would dedicate his life to public service all the same. Later that year, he was invested with the Order of Canada for his 'stellar record of community involvement' that included founding Alberta's first alternative school. Article content He would later be elected thrice as mayor of Red Deer and be awarded the Alberta Order of Excellence in 2014. Article content 2021 Article content The 2021 election, much like those of 1965 and 2008, is largely seen as a failed attempt by a governing party to convert their minority government into a majority. Article content Article content For weeks after he called the snap election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faced questions as to why Canadians were going to the polls in the first place amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Article content But Trudeau was so convinced the election was necessary that on the day he launched his campaign, he breathlessly declared it as ' maybe the most important since 1945 and certainly in our lifetimes'. He called on Canadians to choose the next government that would guide the country out of the pandemic. Article content Months later, the House of Commons would return with nearly exactly the same composition. Article content The author of the 2021 Maclean's list of least important elections, Jason Markusoff, said on Monday that he could add this election to the list in hindsight.
