Progressive Conservative leadership convention, 1967

The 1967 Progressive Conservative leadership convention was held to choose a leader for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The convention was held at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto, Ontario, Canada between September 4x and 9, 1967. Robert Stanfield was elected the new leader.

Issues

The campaign for the leadership hinged on two main issues:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• where the candidates stood on the question of Diefenbaker's leadership, and
• where the candidates stood on the controversial Deux Nations policy.

Diefenbaker had engendered considerable loyalty amongst Conservatives during his time as leader because of his passionate speaking style, and his fierce commitment to Canada. Diefenbaker had led the party to the biggest victory in a Canadian federal election (to that time) in the 1958 election, winning 208 of the 265 seats available in the House of Commons. On the other hand, divisions and infighting in his Cabinet had led to the party's defeat in the 1963 election.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The controversial Deux Nations policy had been proposed by the party?s "Thinkers? Conference", held in August 1967 at Montmorency Falls, Quebec, as a way of reconciling the role of the Province of Quebec within Canadian confederation. The Thinkers? Conference described the policy as a statement that "English Canadians and French Canadians form two distinct societies with differing backgrounds, personalities and aspirations." The phrase "distinct society" returned in the 1980s to be a key component of proposals to amend the Canadian constitution in during the debate over the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord.

Related Topics:
Quebec - Canadian constitution - Meech Lake Accord - Charlottetown Accord

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The policy proposal was endorsed at the convention by the party?s Policy Committee by a vote of approximately 150 to 12.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Opponents of the policy were concerned that the French deux nations would be interpreted in English as "two nations", i.e., the end of a united Canada. The proponents argued that deux nations meant "two founding peoples".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In their final speeches to the convention, all of the candidates addressed the issue, but the issue did not "ignite" the delegates:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Stanfield tried to distance himself from the issue by arguing that the Policy Committee resolution was not clear enough, and the French Canadians wanted more than just the right to enjoy linguistic distinctiveness.
• Roblin supported deux nations, explaining that two European cultures had decided to live as one nation.
• Fulton also tried to avoid the argument saying that it was about semantics, and that the real point was that Canada was founded by "two races, two cultures, two peoples".
• Fleming tried to straddle the fence, saying that the meaning was unclear, and would oppose it if Diefenbaker?s "two nations" interpretation were correct, but accepted that it meant "two founding peoples".
• Hees supported the resolution as meaning "two founding peoples".
• McCutcheon said that he was "not afraid to say" deux nations because it meant "two cultures", not "two sovereign entities".
• Starr argued that the policies would be unfair to other cultures in Canada, that all provinces should be equal, and that the party should not adopt a policy on the issue because Quebecers themselves were not clear on what they wanted.
• MacLean supported the policy.