Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Stephen Harper and the conditional country

by Paul Wells on Monday, July 11, 2011 9:49pm - 239 Comments

This is getting to be worth noting. From the Prime Minister’s speech in Calgary this weekend:

“In a few short years, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of our united country. If, in 50 more years, we wish our descendants to celebrate Canada’s 200th anniversary, then we must be all we can be in the world today, and we must shoulder a bigger load, in a world that will require it of us.”

It’s no accidental phrasing. From his speech to the Conservative convention in Ottawa in June:

“In a few short years, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of our united country. If, in 50 more years, we wish our descendants to celebrate Canada’s 200th anniversary, then we must be all we can be in the world today. Therefore, my friends, our party’s great purpose is nothing less than to prepare our nation shoulder a bigger load, in a world that will require it of us.”

Pretty much verbatim. So a question arises. What does he mean, “if?” 

The plain meaning of Stephen Harper’s chosen and repeated language is that Canada’s survival over the medium term is not guaranteed, and that the threat comes from outside, not from within. (Well, I suppose he could have been suggesting that Canada will see its 200th anniversary but won’t bother to celebrate. I’m going to assume he has a larger purpose here than to critique our willingness to get our party on.)

All right, then. The question for Stephen Harper — indeed, the question he himself has now raised repeatedly — is: what is the external threat to Canada over 50 years that makes the country’s very survival, in his eyes, uncertain?

—–

UPDATE: In case it will help readers decipher the PM’s argument, here’s a fuller excerpt from his Calgary speech. Again, much of the language appeared at the same spot in the Ottawa convention speech:

“Friends, remember we are not here to do politics. Sure, we do politics. But that’s the instrument – it’s not the music. Our party is called to a great purpose. Our mission is to preserve and promote the future of our great nation and its people in a time of extraordinary, global change.

“That is our purpose. Power is shifting. New forces are coming to the fore. Some we will be pleased to work with. Some we must resist. In such a world strength is not an option; it is a vital necessity. Moral ambiguity, moral equivalence, are not options, they are dangerous illusions. And national unity, in fact and in purpose, is our greatest asset.

“In a few short years, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of our united country. If, in 50 more years, we wish our descendants to celebrate Canada’s 200th anniversary, then we must be all we can be in the world today, and we must shoulder a bigger load, in a world that will require it of us.

“We campaigned on this new Canadian reality. Not on a dream or a fantasy or a slogan, but upon the reality of this great country rising – a country founded on great principles – a courageous warrior, a compassionate neighbour, a confident partner – and under a strong, stable, national, majority, Conservative government – the best country in the world.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Anonymous

    Another coy commentary, suggesting Wells is onto something really significant, but he won’t come out and say what he thinks it is – just in case it isn’t, er, significant.  Keep keeping us guessing there.  

  • Anonymous

    Did anybody see the Paul Gross miniseries H20?  He played a Canadian Prime Minister who conspired to merge Canada with the USA so the US could get our water.  Farfetched?

    • modster99

      Very.

      • Anonymous

        yes you are

        • modster99

          Grade 3 lately?

          “I know you are, but what am I”?

          • Phil King

            Then quit setting him up already. Sheesh. LOL

          • Anonymous

            Very farfetched you are. Living in some alternate reality…

        • modster99

          Grade 3 lately?

          “I know you are, but what am I”?

  • modster99

    I find it interesting that some people are reading so much into this. There isn’t enough information given here to come to any conclusion, yet people keep up with the ‘guessing’.

    If I had to guess, I would say that he sees us playing a larger role in NATO. The other countries are putting less and less in, the US is near broke, and the middle east is still a powder keg. Again, this is only a guess.

  • modster99

    I find it interesting that some people are reading so much into this. There isn’t enough information given here to come to any conclusion, yet people keep up with the ‘guessing’.

    If I had to guess, I would say that he sees us playing a larger role in NATO. The other countries are putting less and less in, the US is near broke, and the middle east is still a powder keg. Again, this is only a guess.

    • Phil King

      “If” you had to guess?

      What do you mean by “if”? LOL

  • Anonymous

    He is here to save us from Reds under the beds, or something.  Maybe he’s been playing too much Fallout, and fears an actual Chinese invasion?

    • Anonymous

      Has Operation Photo Op 2011 started yet?

  • Anonymous

    He is here to save us from Reds under the beds, or something.  Maybe he’s been playing too much Fallout, and fears an actual Chinese invasion?

  • Anonymous

    Clever, left-leaning folks will always miss the point when Harper speaks because they are too busy being righteous and progressive and moralizing. 

    I would suggest that in the end it doesn’t matter the occasional ambiguous line from Harper. What matters is that he set out to change the country — incrementally. He is succeeding but Liberals and liberals cannot see this. Quite similar to how Toronto liberals can’t explain how Rob Ford won because they are not as perceptive as  they think they are, liberals from coast to coast cannot accept that more Canadians are accepting a conservative country.

  • macuto55

    “If, in 50 more years, we wish our descendants to celebrate Canada’s 200th anniversary, then we must be all we can be in the world today, and we must shoulder a bigger load, in a world that will require it of us.”

    Meaning? Not a conditional country, as posited by that great mind, Paul Wells. Rather, the “conditional” refers to our descendants celebrating Canada– with the emphasis on celebrating, because Canada will have unconditionally lived up to her promise. Having met that condition — shouldering a bigger load — our descendants will have cause to celebrate.

  • macuto55

    The comment appearing as posted by “macuto55″ actually belongs to me, Gabby in QC. Damn passwords!!!

  • Anonymous

    If I’m not mistaken, Mr Wells did in fact consider this very interpretation, and dismissed it (reading between the lines a bit) on the grounds it was too absurd to contemplate.  I am by no means a great mind, but I must say I am inclined to agree with him.  

    • macuto55

      Sorry, I don’t see where Wells has given that interpretation, unless he’s written it in some column I haven’t read.

      Sometimes statements should just be taken at face value rather than someone trying to squeeze some supposedly inscrutable meaning out of them that only a media maven will be able to decipher for the rest of us.

      PM Harper is simply calling on Canadians to rise up to the challenges facing Canada; it’s a call to excellence, similar to Wilfrid Laurier’s ”The 20th Century Will Be the Century of Canada” — which the current PM has evoked in some of his speeches.

      • Anonymous

        I was referring to this statement of Mr Wells’:

        “Well, I suppose he could have been suggesting that Canada will see its 200th anniversary but won’t bother to celebrate. I’m going to assume he has a larger purpose here than to critique our willingness to get our party on.”

        After re-reading your comment I see you might have meant “celebrate” in the broader sense of “express admiration or warm feelings toward” rather than its “party on” sense.  It strikes me, however, that in this context the two amount to much the same: what we’re talking about in either case is some future Canada so debauched and depressed all love-of-country has been wrung out its citizens.  This is what the PM meant?  This is where thinks where we’ll end up (in only a few decades) unless we ”shoulder a bigger load, in a world that will require it of us”?  That unless Canada plays a bigger part in world affairs Canadians will altogether stop caring about their country?  Doesn’t think much of us, does he?  I’d say Mr Wells has given the PM the benefit of the doubt on this one.   

  • Anonymous

    If I’m not mistaken, Mr Wells did in fact consider this very interpretation, and dismissed it (reading between the lines a bit) on the grounds it was too absurd to contemplate.  I am by no means a great mind, but I must say I am inclined to agree with him.  

  • Anonymous

    My last comment was meant to be a reply to that of macuto55.  Sorry about that.

  • Claudia Lemire

    Goodbye Coalition strategy, hello external threat strategy! 

    Once again it will work, what happens in between, who cares! The thing is that is going to take him from point B to point C.

    • TonyAdams

      “Once again it will work, what happens in between, who cares! The thing is that is going to take him from point B to point C.” 

      I am not sure exactly what you mean but I am pretty certain that I care what happens in between. 

      And what was point A again? 

      Also, I wonder if Canada will be ready for D and E. 

      • Claudia Lemire

        Point A was a minority to a majority, B to C just a bigger majority, establish the CPC as the new natural governing party.

        It is just strategy talk the same way he did it with a coalition, he is not going to do anything drastic nor has a hidden agenda, he loves his country and wants it to be better. And he will react to any big threats the way that he has till now.

        And he will succeed too,  NDP is totally irrelevant LPC are in denial I think, because they keeping making same mistakes. The only way he is going to be gone is if he quits for personal reasons and it is not an option right now, the Harper’s are very happy the way things are working out.

        • TonyAdams

          ” …. NDP is totally irrelevant LPC are in denial I think … ”

          How long does this last, you think? Does NDP move more to middle, will LPC rise again and what about all the Reform types in Conservative party who surely want some proper conservative policies. Economic conservatives, classic liberals don’t have comfortable home at moment.

          “The only way he is going to be gone is if he quits for personal reasons and it is not an option right now … ”

          I was just looking at photo of Obama a few minutes ago and he looks older. Being President has aged Obama as it does every person who holds the office.

          I saw Harper a few days ago on news and was thinking he looked fresh as daisy,  job is not aging Harper apparently. 

          http://ottawa.ctv.ca/tl/photo.html?pname=http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20110711/600_obama_barack_cuts_ap

          • Claudia Lemire

            IMO NDP will move slowly to the centre, but it doesn’t matter because most people won’t trust them they will always have that socialist edge to them. Plus a new door has open for the federal government to try to get Quebec to turn around. LPC I think made a mistake with the new amendment to chose a new leader, is too long, I know they shouldn’t rush but I wouldn’t trust Rae, and they need that anchor to take them somewhere they feel like a lost child with a foster parent.
            I just saw the Prime Minister a few days ago (I am in Calgary) and he looks wonderful, he is glowing, he has grown into his position very comfortably and he is not letting his guard down he knows that getting to the top is the easy part mantaining is the though job. He is in some kind of second honeymoon with his wife, I think they both are feeling much better about their roles, they look very happy. He has gained some weight though.

  • Anonymous

    I have to agree that Mr Wells has jumped to an erroneous conclusion.  From my reading of it, this speech amounts to: if our descendants want to celebrate what Canada stands for in another 50 years, you have to trust us and do things our way, which includes preserving our interpretation of morality.  

    Those who see this as religious foreboding may be justified because religious people do believe there can be no morality without a belief in god, and that scripture dictates moral actions. 

  • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug rogers

    It’s really just another subtle appeal to our reptile brain fear triggered amygdala.

  • Anonymous

    What Harper could have meant is that prosperity in the West (and in Canada) should not be taken as a given.  There will be a lot more competition in the coming 50 years than there has been in the past 50 years and it will probably be easier to fall behind the pack than many imagine.  In a sense, he’s cautioning a tortoise and hare scenario.  Western economic and geopolitical dominance will be harder to sustain and the question is whether Canada can reaffirm its relevance in that new environment.  We shouldn’t fall into the trappings of a false sense of security.

    • Anonymous

      Well, tarnation…why did’n he jus’ say so!  Woulda saved us all a whole lot of fussin’ and bother.

      (Sorry…I feel like doing dialects today.)

    • Anonymous

      That’s the most reasonable interpretation I’ve read so far. It could not only apply to the natural resource boom (or the economy in general), but also to education, innovation, and many other fields where Canada must step up its game to be/remain competitive.

    • Anonymous

      That’s the most reasonable interpretation I’ve read so far. It could not only apply to the natural resource boom (or the economy in general), but also to education, innovation, and many other fields where Canada must step up its game to be/remain competitive.

    • Anonymous

      Seriously, your interpretation is reasonable.  And this would have been a reasonable and (if he truly believes it) important thing for the PM to have said to Canadians.  Maybe he just needs a new speechwriter – one with less of a taste for dramatic opacity and more interest in communicating in clear specifics about the issues facing the country.     

  • Anonymous

    Shorter Stephen Harper:
     
     ”You saw ’The Road’, right?  That movie about a post-apocalyptic society terrorized by roving gangs of cannibals.  Well, my friends, if the Liberals ever get back into power that’s what we’re looking at.”

  • Anonymous

    @twitter-100842674:disqus , stupid question, but why don’t you just ask him (or his comm director/PMO, or better yet, an “unnamed source”)? Surely Macleans must have some contact with the PMO? Or am I being naive?

  • Anonymous

    @twitter-100842674:disqus , stupid question, but why don’t you just ask him (or his comm director/PMO, or better yet, an “unnamed source”)? Surely Macleans must have some contact with the PMO? Or am I being naive?

  • M L

    Everything I know about Harper tells me that its China, folks. We know he is a Sinophobe, even if he believes the threat is sufficiently distant that Canada can still make a few bucks off China’s rise (although I don’t think we should understate his overtures to India, China’s most important continental rival). 

    And if so, he has a point. Unipolarity is not perfect – we still have peripheral conflicts, and the hegemon sometimes exploits others. However, when power is less concentrated, there has been a tendency for global wars that kill lots of people. Declining hegemons vs. rising challengers, fighting over the spoils of global leadership is a story as old as time:

    WWII: declining Britain vs. rising Germany (globally)/ rising Germany vs. faster rising USSR (continentally)
    WWI: declining Britain vs. rising Germany (globally)/ rising Germany vs. faster rising Russia (continentally)
    Napoleonic Wars: declining Britain vs. rising France
    War of Spanish Succession: declining Holland vs. rising France

    Pelloponesian war: declining Sparta vs. rising Athens

    What is also common to all of these stories is that the declining power formed a broad coalition in order to defend the status quo (the challenger usually had relatively few allies, and minimal complementarities among them). When the declining power won, it did so, often at the cost of their global position (Britain is the exception). However, they could ensure that the next global leader was one closer to their values, eg. 

    Holland->Britain
    Britain->USA
    USA->India?

    Does China have benign intentions? Maybe, but we cannot know for certain until we let them rise. 
    That uncertainty is likely to be a point of contention. Does trade stop wars? It sure didn’t stop WWI, and anyway, keeping an open system of global trade open gets more difficult in a multipolar world when fewer states are willing to provide the necessary public goods. Moreover, China is likely to face the same dilemma at the regional level, as a result of the rise of India (like Wilhelmine/Nazi Germany did with Russia). 

    Nor would a Chinese-led world be a good one. The most powerful state has a profound impact on others. This can be direct (eg. CIA coups) and indirect (eg. the widespread use of English). A Chinese-led world would probably mean the spread of authoritarianism… and of a truly difficult language.

    The best way to prevent this sort of outcome peacefully is for the west to present a united front. China may surpass the US, but is unlikely to ever surpass the west collectively. Europe, Japan, the US, and the Commonwealth have vast resources, and shared values. By understanding that power speaks louder than intentions, they can prevent a (potentially nuclear) major power war. 

  • M L

    Everything I know about Harper tells me that its China, folks. We know he is a Sinophobe, even if he believes the threat is sufficiently distant that Canada can still make a few bucks off China’s rise (although I don’t think we should understate his overtures to India, China’s most important continental rival). 

    And if so, he has a point. Unipolarity is not perfect – we still have peripheral conflicts, and the hegemon sometimes exploits others. However, when power is less concentrated, there has been a tendency for global wars that kill lots of people. Declining hegemons vs. rising challengers, fighting over the spoils of global leadership is a story as old as time:

    WWII: declining Britain vs. rising Germany (globally)/ rising Germany vs. faster rising USSR (continentally)
    WWI: declining Britain vs. rising Germany (globally)/ rising Germany vs. faster rising Russia (continentally)
    Napoleonic Wars: declining Britain vs. rising France
    War of Spanish Succession: declining Holland vs. rising France

    Pelloponesian war: declining Sparta vs. rising Athens

    What is also common to all of these stories is that the declining power formed a broad coalition in order to defend the status quo (the challenger usually had relatively few allies, and minimal complementarities among them). When the declining power won, it did so, often at the cost of their global position (Britain is the exception). However, they could ensure that the next global leader was one closer to their values, eg. 

    Holland->Britain
    Britain->USA
    USA->India?

    Does China have benign intentions? Maybe, but we cannot know for certain until we let them rise. 
    That uncertainty is likely to be a point of contention. Does trade stop wars? It sure didn’t stop WWI, and anyway, keeping an open system of global trade open gets more difficult in a multipolar world when fewer states are willing to provide the necessary public goods. Moreover, China is likely to face the same dilemma at the regional level, as a result of the rise of India (like Wilhelmine/Nazi Germany did with Russia). 

    Nor would a Chinese-led world be a good one. The most powerful state has a profound impact on others. This can be direct (eg. CIA coups) and indirect (eg. the widespread use of English). A Chinese-led world would probably mean the spread of authoritarianism… and of a truly difficult language.

    The best way to prevent this sort of outcome peacefully is for the west to present a united front. China may surpass the US, but is unlikely to ever surpass the west collectively. Europe, Japan, the US, and the Commonwealth have vast resources, and shared values. By understanding that power speaks louder than intentions, they can prevent a (potentially nuclear) major power war. 

  • Anonymous

    Pure Bush scare tactics. Oh well, it worked in the US. I thought we were smarter here….

  • Anonymous

    Pure Bush scare tactics. Oh well, it worked in the US. I thought we were smarter here….

    • Anonymous

      Hey, Harper=Bush.  How incredibly original.

      Let me guess what’s next:  Harper=Hitler.  Oh yeah, that’s already been done on this thread.

      • M L

        Ah yes, but simple mathematics illustrates that this is impossible.

        Assume the following:
        1. Harper hates artists
        2. Harper = Bush
        3. Harper is a narcissist

        We know, from Moore’s axiom that Bush = Hitler, therefore Harper = Bush = Hitler.  However, it is also true that Hitler was an artist. So if Harper hates artists, he would have to hate himself. However, this is impossible because, as any ill-informed application of first year psych will tell you: Harper is a classic narcissist. 

        • Anonymous

          Brilliant.  The other confounding factor is that Harper-haters insist that Harper is a Nazi.  Yet they also excoriate Harper for his blind, unwavering support for Israel, the Jewish State.  I wish someone could square THAT circle for me . . .

        • Anonymous

          Brilliant.  The other confounding factor is that Harper-haters insist that Harper is a Nazi.  Yet they also excoriate Harper for his blind, unwavering support for Israel, the Jewish State.  I wish someone could square THAT circle for me . . .

          • M L

            Actually, I think the twisted rhetoric is consistent on that one. Zionism = fascism, and Zionists include anybody who has ever remotely questioned the actions of any Palestinian. The fact that Palestine is a regressive place where homosexuals are executed and women have no rights is irrelevant. 

      • M L

        Ah yes, but simple mathematics illustrates that this is impossible.

        Assume the following:
        1. Harper hates artists
        2. Harper = Bush
        3. Harper is a narcissist

        We know, from Moore’s axiom that Bush = Hitler, therefore Harper = Bush = Hitler.  However, it is also true that Hitler was an artist. So if Harper hates artists, he would have to hate himself. However, this is impossible because, as any ill-informed application of first year psych will tell you: Harper is a classic narcissist. 

      • Anonymous

        Sure – keep your head in the sand
        On Jul 13, 2011 12:18 PM, “Disqus”

  • Anonymous

    “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion … And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.”

    ~ Stephen Harper MP

    (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

  • Anonymous

    “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion … And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.”

    ~ Stephen Harper MP

    (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

From Macleans