I'll Miss Gilles Duceppe But His Replacement is No Slouch

I'm really going to miss Gilles Duceppe. He was better than anyone at holding the government to account.

But his replacement, Hélène Laverdière, is more than qualified for her job as MP. I expect she will find a place in Layton's shadow cabinet.

She holds a PhD in sociology and has been a member of Canada's foreign service since 1992, serving in Washington, D.C., Dakar, Senegal and Santiago.

Another new MP that I think I'm going to like.

Conservative Blogger Stephen Taylor Supports the Bringing Down of Government in a Coalition

With Harper suggesting that only he can protect sovereignty, before needing that as an election slogan, he was the only leader who had openly courted a full coalition with the Bloc.

And his cozying up concerned Belinda Stronach in 2005:

In an interview with CTV's Canada AM today, Stronach reiterated her reason for leaving. "I do not believe it is right to line up with the Bloc Quebecois, who have a separatist agenda, to bring down the government to force an election," she said. "I don't believe that's in our national interests and it compromises national unity."

It's rather interesting though, the way the Right spin things.

In 2005, Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor got his hands on some possible election campaign ads that the Liberals were working on, and zeroed in on one that raised concerns over another Bloc/NDP/Conservative coalition.

Not unlike concerns being raised today by Harper. The only difference is that Harper's 2004 attempt included the full support of the Bloc, as confirmed by insider Tom Flanagan. And an old Mike Duffy interview stated that Stephen Harper was wanting to be prime minister then, and Duceppe and Layton were going to make it happen.

But we've already gone over that hypocrisy. However, it was rich that Taylor was then defending the closeness of the trio:

Jack Layton was acting as a responsible parliamentarian in a minority Parliament by pulling the plug on corruption. This agenda was neither right wing, nor left wing. Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe, Stephen Harper and their respective caucuses (even a couple of elected Liberals) chose right over wrong and ended the Liberal government. The attack also laughably suggests that Jack Layton would enable policies that he is fundamentally against. This is an attack on Layton’s credibility.

So does he now believe that the Opposition members were right to bring down the Conservative government, awash in scandal?

Nope.

Instead he's raising the alarm over the coalition agreement that doesn't end until June of 2011. Why they would fall back on that, with a shelf life of a month, is beyond me. But there it is.

I was glad that Michael Ignatieff came out today and said that he would be willing to go to the Governor general if Harper gets another minority. We know that Stephen Harper no longer works well with others.

Duceppe and Layton were convenient at the time, and he used them. Many of us progressives were concerned that he would allow Harper to continue to govern as a party of one, after not only losing the confidence of the House, but being found in contempt.

This was a relief.

Debating the Debates and What the Pundits Missed

After watching the debates last night, while moving back and forth between Twitter and my political junkie group, and then later listening to the media provide their commentary, I wondered if they had been viewing the same debate.

Indeed, while most favoured Stephen Harper, the audience test groups scored it differently: 49% for Ignatieff, 34% for Layton and only 18% for Harper.

Is the Canadian media, in particular the "At Issue" panel, really that out of touch with Canadians? Only Allan Gregg seems to have gotten it right. Coyne we know is right-wing so if Harper had mooned the audience and then fell to the floor in the fetal position, he would have said that he showed passion and still declared him the winner. As for Chantal Hebert, I have no idea where her mind is these days. She used to be one of favourites.

Prior to the show, Nik Nanos had suggested that all eyes would be on Ignatieff. He was the rookie. Nanos also rightfully predicted that Harper would focus on the economy, and he did. So much so that Kady O'Malley twitted his chant. Others played a drinking game, doing a shot every time he said "let me be clear". A lot of hangovers this morning I'm afraid.

Of course there's another reason why the pundits missed, what the audience picked up on immediately. Almost everything Stephen Harper said was a lie. He just lies so convincingly. Not one person on the panel mentioned that.

We are not leading developed nations in economic recovery. In fact, we're somewhere in the middle. And given that we also have the highest amount of household debt, consumer spending will probably lag, making recovery even slower.

He lied about not intimidating the NGOs. He lied about our immigration policy. He lied about being world leaders and his commitment to human rights. He lied about our foreign aid and Africa, because most of our foreign aid is wrapped up in the budget for Afghanistan.

I missed Elizabeth May last night because she would have been all over him about that.

I also found Jack Layton's barb about Ignatieff's attendance record a bit of a cheap shot. The implication was that he was a loafer, but he was engaged, travelling the country to refute the Conservative "just visiting" label.

The year prior, Harper missed more votes. But as Joan Bryden reminds us:

..those numbers can be misleading. For instance, the prime minister and official Opposition leader generally don't vote on private members' bills, which can skew their voting records. Moreover, voting records aren't necessarily an accurate reflection of MPs' attendance records, which aren't made public. An MP can be present in the Commons during the day but miss a series of votes in the evening — an occurrence that's more likely for leaders who must attend fundraisers and other party events.

Layton scored a point for Harper on that one, but in the long term I don't think his attendance will be a huge election issue.

The Way I Personally Saw the Debates

Gilles Duceppe - Was strong for the most part. He's always lively and spot on. I do question why he was allowed in, when as a separatist he can't be prime minister, and Elizabeth May not, when conceivably she could be.

He was starting to lose his cool a bit though, when Harper refused to acknowledge the fact that he tried to be prime minister in 2004, in a coalition, that as Tom Flanagan himself admitted "included the full support of the Bloc". Even an old Mike Duffy interview confirmed the Harper wheeling and dealing. Another lie that got him a pass from the media.

Jack Layton - Though at times he appeared pompous, for the most part he was passionate and clear in his arguments. It's easy to take the high road when you have no history of being in power, so no old scandals to wear. I loved his remark about the need for jails when the criminals had found a place in the senate.

Aside from the cheap shot, there were two other comments of his that made me angry. One was about the Liberals propping up the government. He uses this a lot and in fact sent out ten per centers with a tab. But then when Ignatieff tried to take the government down a year ago, Layton pulled in his horns and kept Harper alive.

The other, and the one that really showed an ugly side of Mr. Layton, was when he attacked the Liberals on their environmental record. According to Elizabeth may in her book 'Losing Confidence', Layton attempted to sabotage the ratification of the Kyoto Accord. She pleaded with him not to but he refused to even take her calls.

Then in 2008 he campaigned against the Carbon Tax, aping the Conservative assault, and then afterward claimed that he shouldn't have done that. I hit the roof. Such hypocrisy.

Michael Ignatieff - When he was using political talking points, like corporate tax cuts, jets and prisons, he sounded like a politician and I tuned out. But when he spoke of things like democracy, human rights and our international standing, he spoke like a prime minister.

In December of 2009, Michael Ignatieff was named one of the world's top 100 thinkers by Foreign Policy Magazine, "for showing that not all academics are irrelevant." He also made Forbes prestigious list of people to watch for in 2010:

"After decades in Britain and the U.S., the professional intellectual returned to his native Canada and became head of the Liberal party. If a federal election is called in 2010, he could become the next prime minister, and the Canadian head of state with the biggest international profile since Pierre Trudeau."

That shone through.

In fact when Layton went after both he and Harper on Afghanistan, Ignatieff's answer was brilliant. He actually threw Harper a life line, who had resorted to the tired "men and women in uniform", even stumbling over the words. He reminded me of Peter Braid who was turned to jelly by Tom Clark, with the same answer.

My Favourite Moment - There was a moment in the debates that I found compelling. It was over the topic of crime and youth justice. Michael Ignatieff in his answer turned to Gilles Duceppe and praised him for Quebec's young offender strategy. Duceppe was taken aback and for a few moments the mutual respect was palpable.

The Big Issue That Everyone Missed

Nik Nanos claimed that all eyes would be on Michael Ignatieff because he was a rookie. However, that's not why all eyes were on him.

There is a huge grassroots movement committed to ousting Stephen Harper. Strategic voting, adopting ridings, running ads in papers, Facebook groups, the list is endless.

When I speak with people I hear two words used the most often. "Fear' and 'scary'. They are terrified of Harper getting a majority and feared that Igantieff wasn't up to the task of replacing him.

My neighbour, who is not an alarmist, but a retired professor at RMC, told me the same thing. Stephen Harper is not just a bad prime minister, but his ideology is terrifying, and if he is allowed to continue on the same course, it could forever change who we are as Canadians.

Following on Twitter and other social media groups, I sensed a feeling of 'relief'.

There was one comment that should have at least garnered a bit of discussion from the media. In the focus group of young people, they overwhelmingly gave the debate to Jack Layton. He said the right things to reach the young audience.

However, as one young woman said, "But if we want to get rid of Harper, we have to go red". Strategic voting and getting out the youth on election day, could make history.

Harper Digging in His Heels May Only Mean Digging His Own Political Grave

Despite so much evidence to the contrary, Stephen Harper is sticking to his story that he never tried to become prime minister in 2004, in a coalition that included the full support of the Bloc.

The more he denies this the less credible he sounds. And the media doesn't appear willing to give up the story until he comes clean.

From the Chronicle-Herald: Stop Harper-ventilating

We’re talking about the "reckless, unprincipled coalition" that Mr. Harper has invented as his political opponent and chief whipping boy in the 2011 campaign and the underlying attitude that it’s somehow illegitimate for other parties to work together without him in a minority Parliament if he isn’t able to find a way to govern co-operatively with any of them. "I don’t choose to work with other parties. So reward me with a majority. Or we’re doomed." The sophistry of the prime minister’s coalition hyperventilating really amounts to nothing more than this.

And from the Winnipeg Free Press: Deception, thy name is Harper

Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's former campaign manager and chief of staff, has confirmed the prime minister himself had a plan to form what he now demonizes as "a coalition of losers" and take power without an election in September 2004. Harper's "co-opposition accord" was "a perfectly legitimate exercise" to explore whether there was "common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government," Flanagan told The National Post Monday.

Now that "the Conservative-socialist-separatist coalition" is on the official record, it should haunt the prime minister. It exposes to Canadians the man's disquieting traits: his intellectual dishonesty, his vindictiveness, his preference for personal destruction and the low blow and his disrespect for British parliamentary democracy whose tenets he uses when it suits him and abuses or tosses out when it doesn't.

He's sounding like a broken record and the more he lies the harder it will be for him to explain.

He's asking Canadians to trust him with a majority, but how can we trust him with that when we can't trust him at all?

To John Snobelen: If the Bloc are Traitors, Why Was Stephen Harper Sleeping With the Enemy? Twice!

John Snobelen has a rather silly column in the Sun, in which he refers to the Bloc Party as traitors.

For those who don't know, Snobelen was in the Mike Harris government (talk about your traitors), and though he dropped out of school in grade eleven, was his Minister of Education.

As the country is now waking up to the fact that Stephen Harper was in a full coalition agreement with the Bloc in 2004, there is another interesting item from the Winnipeg Free Fress, May 14, 2005. At the time, Stephen Harper was still "using" them to defeat Paul Martin: "Meanwhile an Ipsos Reid poll suggested the Liberals could be headed toward defeat if the Tories and Bloc succeed in toppling the government next week."

I think Duceppe is getting tired of Harper's "booty calls". He has to state whether or not they are in "a committed relationship" or he's through.

Harper, above, speaks to news media outside Commons after the Conservatives again forced early adjournment. At left the mace, symbol of Parliament's authority, sits beside Calendar showing Friday the 13th.

I'm Beginning to Worry About the State of Stephen Harper's Mental Health

"Coalition-building is the only practical way for the right to seize national power .... an alliance with the Bloc Québécois would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life." Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan, Next City Magazine, 1997

Three years later, the Reform Party, then calling themselves Alliance, took the advice of Harper and Flanagan, and their leader, Stockwell Day began "flirting with separatists", as part of his "coalition building".

The separatist Bloc Québécois was part of secret plotting in 2000 to join a formal coalition with the two parties that now make up Stephen Harper's government, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail. The scheme, designed to propel current Conservative minister Stockwell Day to power, undermines the Harper government's line this week that it would never sign a deal like the current one between the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc. (1)

The opposition demanded answers, but got none.

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe held up the letter [of intent] during Wednesday’s question period while grilling the former Alliance leader [Day] over the alleged plan, as well as over the Conservatives’ apparent willingness to form a coalition with the separatist party in 2004.“Will he admit that in 2004, and in 2000, he was prepared to make such a deal with the Bloc?”(2)

According to the New York Times in August of 2000:

Stockwell Day's summer vacation in Quebec was going well. Every day, the rising star of Canada's right appeared on French language television, chatting in francais with his language immersion teachers, fielding reporters' questions about his politique fiscale, or posing for photographs with the eternal friend of language students, le dictionnaire Larousse.

With newspapers reporting ''informal negotiations'' between his party, the Canadian Alliance, and the Bloc Quebecois, whose stated goal is to make Quebec an independent nation, Mr. Day refused to rule out teaming up with the Bloc in coalition after general elections, expected next spring, in order to dislodge the governing Liberals. (3)

And according to political science professor and author, Trevor Harrison:

Day repeatedly journeyed to Quebec ... During August and September, Day stepped up these efforts, going even further to suggest the Alliance party welcome Quebec separatists and might even consider forming a national coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois .... But Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said he wanted nothing to do with Day whose values (re: gay rights, abortion, youth justice) Duceppe described as "inspired by the United States..." (4)

Harrison referenced this story: "Bloc leader denounces Day's ideas", Edmonton Journal, August 14, 2000.

And as further proof that Stephen had no qualms about joining the Bloc Quebecois, Tom Flanagan, the man who co-wrote the 1997 piece promoting "an alliance with the Bloc", confirmed Harper's intent in 2004.

The author of Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, managed the Conservative 2004 and 2006 election campaigns. But he insisted he "wasn't a part" of a coalition proposal made by then Official Opposition leader Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 that would have included the Bloc as a full partner. (5)

"The Bloc as a full partner"?

So why is Stephen Harper, speaking in Edmonton recently, firing up an imaginary "threat" about an imaginary "coalition", which if it existed, which it doesn't, would be dangerous since it included "separatists"?

"Some of you may ask me when the next election will be," he said. "The answer I give everyone is, ask the Liberal-NDP-Block Quebecois coalition. Canadians don't want an election. Our government is not seeking an election. We as Canadians are focused on the number one priority of Canadians and that is the economy." He repeatedly attacked the "coalition." "Think about what that means for our country," he said. "Giving a veto to a party that believes in the break-up of this country. That is what that means." (6)

He was attacking NDP MP Linda Duncan, and she fought back. Go Linda.

Alberta's lone opposition MP says the Prime Minister pulled a nasty piece of politicking by showing up in her riding to bash her before the Thanksgiving weekend. "Clearly he came here with the intention of slagging me personally," NDP MP Linda Duncan said. "Welcome to the world of Stephen Harper politics. This is the way he operates."

Harper warned voters about the dangers of a coalition between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois. He bashed the NDP as leftist ideologues and said Duncan was bent on "shutting down Alberta's energy industry and putting thousands of Albertans out of work." On Saturday, Duncan said Harper's allegations are "beyond the realm of ludicrousness." Duncan has been an outspoken critic of the oilsands, but insisted she's merely pushing for the enforcement of already existing environmental laws and regulations. Her opinions, she said, are hardly radical. That Harper would single her out for criticism isn't a surprise, Duncan said. "I already know I have a target on my head." (7)

Is Stephen Harper About to Snap?

In 1962, after having his government reduced to a minority, John Diefenbaker began to show signs of stress. He blamed it on the U.S. President, John Kennedy, and was convinced that he was out to get him.

After the 1962 election, Diefenbaker was unshakable in his conviction that Kennedy was out to destroy him. "It's now very clear," he said later, "that it was part and parcel of the beginning of actions by President Kennedy and his associates to get rid of the Conservative Party of Canada." Diefenbaker now wallowed in a swamp of miseries, beset, he felt, by a horde of malignant enemies, deeply wounded by his election pummelling ... and always obsessed with Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy ... personal blows battered his fragile psyche, sending him into a tailspin that verged on an emotional breakdown. He collapsed like a pierced balloon. (8)

And according to his old friend Alvin Hamilton:

"He was completely off his rocker ... You have to admit it, he was unstable. He just seemed confused.... He thought Kennedy was trying to gun him down." "I don't think anybody ever said anything or would say that it was mental illness, but certainly all of us knew that he was subject to fits of depression and to a much greater emotional instability than had been the case previously ... His mind was so black and so sour." (8)

Eventually, as Diefenbaker's actions became even more erratic, his own party was forced to remove him.

So why is Harper's party not stepping in now? His behaviour is clearly erratic and damaging.

- He's seeing coalitions that don't exist, increasingly paranoid that they are out to get him.

- He's still promising to scrap the gun registry (6), despite the fact that 2/3 of Canadians want it left intact.

- He's attacking military experts who speak out against the purchase of his war toys.

- He's promoting partisan attacks on the International stage. Again.

- He's following through on scrapping the long-form census, despite the fact that it is angering even his own supporters.

- He accused the opposition of supporting "White-collar criminals, pedophiles, bank robbers and violent offenders" (6), because they don't want more prisons for criminals that don't exist.

- He completely ignored a senate report on reducing poverty, despite the fact that his own senators worked on it.

I think the stress of the piling scandals and potentially damaging report card on the stimulus spending, is wearing him down. Maybe it's time his party recognized that he may not be in the best emotional state, and started looking to have him removed.

He's clearly a danger to himself and others.

Sources:

1. Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance, By Daniel LeBlanc, Globe and Mail, December 03, 2008

2. Harper ‘lies’ about coalition details: PM ‘shameful’ in portraying crisis as national unity issue, former NDP leader says, Canadian Press, December 3, 2008

3. Rightist Shocks Canadians By Flirting With Separatists, By James Brooke, New York Times, August 3, 2000

4. Requiem for a Lightweight: Stockwell Day and Image Politics, By Trevor Harrison, Black Rose Books, 2002, ISBN: 1-55164-206-9, Pg. 75

5. Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, By: Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press, November 12, 2009

6. PM attacks 'coalition' in fiery speech, By Andrew Hanon, QMI Agency, October 9, 2010

7. 'Welcome to the world of Stephen Harper politics': NDP MP takes exception to PM's warning she wants to put 'thousands of Albertans out of work', By Archie McLean, Edmonton Journal, October 10, 2010

8. Kennedy & Diefenbaker: The Feud That Helped Topple a Government, By Knowlton Nash, McClelland & Stewart, 1991, ISBN: 0-7710-6711-9, Pg. 171-173

Stephen Harper May Get His Coalition Government, Only This Time He's Out of the Loop

The Reform-Alliance-Conservative parties tried twice to lead a coalition government.

In 2000, it was Stockwell Day courting Gilles Duceppe, until Duceppe put the brakes on.

"Day repeatedly journeyed to Quebec ... During August and September, Day stepped up these efforts, going even further to suggest the Alliance party welcome Quebec separatists and might even consider forming a national coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois .... But Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said he wanted nothing to do with Day whose values (re: gay rights, abortion, youth justice) Duceppe described as "inspired by the United States..." (1)

The New York Times also covered the story and quoted Conrad Black as saying that he was against it and that Stockwell Day should quit fooling around.

''The Canadian Alliance leader needs to stop playing footsie with Quebec separatist leaders right now,'' thundered the The National Post, which has more commonly been a cheerleader for Mr. Day. In an interview on Tuesday, Conrad Black, chairman of The National Post, said the strategy would not work.

In 2004, it was Stephen Harper's turn to court Duceppe and Jack Layton, though Layton eventually pulled the plug, leaving Harper without enough seats to make it work.



Then in 2008, learning from Harper and Day, the opposition parties got together to form a coalition to remove the Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party and all hell broke loose. Suddenly it was now undemocratic ... a coup ... treason! Wow. What a difference less than a decade makes.

But the Hill Times is suggesting that now might be right, given that we are the only Parliamentary system that has never used this valuable and democratic tool to make government work.

While parties in Australia and Britain are working together to make Parliament work after citizens there elected 'hung' Parliaments recently, Canada's minority government is stuck in a hyper-partisan adversarial environment, say some political scientists. And they think the country's antiquated first-past-the-post voting system is at least partly to blame. "The old, simple two-party polarity just doesn't exist in any country in the world, except the U.S.A.," says London School of Economics political scientist Patrick Dunleavy.

The number of parties vying for seats in many western Parliaments tends to be growing, says Prof. Dunleavy. New parties are gaining ground over traditional players. In the last 20 years, Canada has seen the emergence of the Green Party and regional movements such as the Bloc Québécois and Reform Party in the West. Australia's own Green Party is rising.

In dealing with the changing nature of politics, "The other countries in the Westminster model group have adapted to coalition politics," says Prof. Dunleavy. "But Canadians seem to have more of a difficulty than the British and the Australians."

With 2/3 of Canadians rejecting the Harper regime, this could be the best, and possibly the only solution, to ensure that all citizens have a voice.



Sources:

1. "Bloc leader denounces Day's ideas", Edmonton Journal, August 14, 2000.

Stephen Harper and a House Divided

When the Reform Party had their great electoral success in 1993, their leader Preston Manning was ready. He knew what he had to do.

Stephen Harper explains:

The Progressive Conservative party is very much comparable to the Whigs of the 1850s and 1860s. What is happening to them is very similar to the Whigs. A moderate conservative party, increasingly under stress because of the secession [Bloc] movement, on the one hand, and the reaction to that movement from harder line English Canadians on the other hand.

... But I don't use this comparison of the pre-Civil War lightly. Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform party has spent a lot of time reading about pre-Civil War politics. He compares the Reform Party himself to the Republican party of that period. He is very well-read on Abraham Lincoln and a keen follower and admirer of Lincoln. The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican ... The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement in Western Canada; the U.S. Republicans started in the western United States. The Reform Party is very resistant to the agenda and the demands of the secessionists, and on a very deep philosophical level. (1)

Manning had read every word ever written about Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President of the United States, and just as old Abe had to deal with the secessionists, so too did Manning. He donned his top hat, grabbed his cane, and with his trusty lieutenant Stephen Harper by his side, he marched up Parliament Hill.

Those secessionists wouldn't stand a chance and if it meant Civil War, so be it.

Preston Manning is not averse to raising the spectre of violence when he discusses the Quebec issue. He does not raise the possi­bility of violence often, but when he does, he does not elaborate on what he means — another use of deliberate ambiguity. He has, however, planted the seed, evoking the image of violence often enough to establish it in the public mind.

... "Such terms will be judged satisfactory if they are fair and advantageous to Canada [and] if the new relationship can be established and maintained without violence ... " No one in Canada was anticipating violence over Quebec at this time, and there was little evidence that the Meech Lake impasse was about to dominate the politics of the country. Preston Man­ning was already positioning himself as the man who would, in his own words, "call Quebec's bluff." (2)

Some of the Reformers were even demanding that the Bloc members sign oaths of allegiance. They weren't fooling around. But alas Manning never got to deliver his Ottawasberg address. Most Canadians thought he was nuts.

Changing of the Guard: Next up Stockwell Day

With Manning not getting the job done, there was a new commander of the troops, now calling themselves the Alliance Party, with Stockwell Day leading the charge. Conrad Black had hand picked him as a charismatic saviour of Canada who would unite the Right-Wing flank and do battle against the evil left and everyone else who got in their way.

Before long Black was traipsing him around to $1,000.00 a plate fund raisers and allowing Ezra Levant to host parties at his house.

But what Black may not have known was that Stockwell Day had a past, and when that past was brought to light, it looked like sure defeat. But Stocky really wanted to be prime minister, so he came up with a new battle plan. He would fraternize with the enemy. If he could form a coalition with the secessionists together they could take down the Liberals.

But then the New York Times got wind of this plan and ran with the story: Rightist Shocks Canadians By Flirting With Separatists. Boy was Conrad Black ever ticked!

''The Canadian Alliance leader needs to stop playing footsie with Quebec separatist leaders right now,'' thundered the The National Post, which has more commonly been a cheerleader for Mr. Day.

In an interview on Tuesday, Conrad Black, chairman of The National Post, said the strategy would not work. ''It makes it too easy for the Liberals to represent him as a separatist fellow traveler, ambiguous about the future of the country.''

Jason Kenney was Stocky's campaign manager and once he crawled out from under the bed, he had to come up with another plan. Not that the original one had a chance. The Bloc wanted no part of them.

"Day repeatedly journeyed to Quebec ... During August and September, Day stepped up these efforts, going even further to suggest the Alliance party welcome Quebec separatists and might even consider forming a national coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois .... But Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said he wanted nothing to do with Day whose values (re: gay rights, abortion, youth justice) Duceppe described as "inspired by the United States..." (3)

When the story came to light in 2008, Stockwell Day denied it, suggesting that his DNA would not allow him to enter into a coalition with separatists. Another little white one because Stock's father was a member of the Western Canada Concept party, a group who wanted the Western provinces to separate from Canada. Maybe Stock just forgot.

He didn't stand a chance anyway. Most Canadians thought he was nuts.

Next Up Stephen Harper

So far Canada's Republican Party (aka: Reform, Alliance, Conservative Party of Canada) was not doing so well with the secessionists. Not for lack of trying. When the same-sex marriage bill was passed the new commander Harper cried foul, claiming that it wasn't legitimate because it was supported by separatists.

Where do they keep getting these guys, we asked?

But in 2004 Stephen Harper now had his chance to be Prime Minster, but he lost the darned election. Simply because most Canadians thought he was nuts.

Where Did I put those secessionists?

Poor Stephen Harper was devastated. But while at home licking his wounds he came up with a plan. So he called together Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc and Jack Layton of the NDP, and together they fired off a letter to the Governor General. They were going to form a coalition government and Harper was going to be an "unelected prime minister". He could hardly wait.

However, this time it was the left flank that deserted the battleground, as their leader Jack Layton had a change of heart (or came to his senses). And when Harper's coalition attempt came to light, he denied it and went on a rant about "separatists" and "socialists".



So to recap. Preston Manning ready to do battle with secessionists, force a civil war, and become the first Republican prime minister. Stockwell Day prepared to join forces with secessionists to take down the Liberals. Stephen Harper wanted same sex marriage bill defeated so plays secessionist card, but then pulls it back when he wants to play footsie with "separatists" and "socialists".

Whew! But at least after all of that, the Conservatives are finally ready to admit that the Bloc are a legitimate Canadian Party. Or at least I thought so.

Apparently they are now once again squawking, suggesting that the Bloc should not be allowed to see the documents relating to the alleged torture of Afghan Detainees, because they are separatists. AAAAARG!!!!

And they wonder why most Canadians think they're NUTS!!!!

Sources:

1. Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech, Canadian Press, December 14, 2005

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party. By: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 218-219

3. "Bloc leader denounces Day's ideas", Edmonton Journal, August 14, 2000.

Harper's Dictatorship Doesn't Have to Mean the Death of the Left. We Just need a Transfusion.

The video above is from a website called the Dailysplit, which is kind of Canada's answer to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Their views are far right, and after 'following the money' they appear to be an another Reform Party elite squad.

I'm going to run a series of articles in the new year, exposing all of the many (many, many, many) non-profit groups that prop up Stephen Harper, but is the guy above right? Is the Left really dead?

I don't believe so, but if they continue waging war on each other, they soon will be.

Michael Byers wrote a piece a while back on the left forming a loose coalition next election, and now Chantel Hebert is suggesting pretty much the same thing.

I couldn't agree more.

The four parties representing the interest of 2/3 of Canadians, need to get their act together. I think they must meet and discuss how best to counter the Harper dictatorship. They have to decide which issues are the most important to their parties and reach a compromise BEFORE entering Parliament again, whenever that may be.

It's interesting that Stephen Harper always does better in the polls when he pretends to be a Liberal. But as the gentleman above states, he's hoping that Harper does have a hidden agenda. Anyone following politics for more than a decade or so, knows this man won't be disappointed.

Reformer Patrick Brown from Barrie states pretty clearly his Party's goals. He says that Stephen Harper will NEVER allow economic growth, but will reduce the size of government, to alleviate intrusion into our lives.

That is Harper-speak for an end to social programs, including public health care and old age security. 'More freedom through less government' was the battle cry of the two organizations that he was heavily involved with: The Northern Foundation and the the National Citizens Coalition.

The NF was a white brotherhood that sought an end to foreign aid and for a renewal of Anglo supremacy. The NCC wanted an end to Canada, or at least the Canada we know and love.

Less government might sound attractive, except that it would spell chaos. We saw one step already implemented when food inspection was transferred to the people we were supposed to be inspecting. Seventeen deaths due to Listeriosis.

Can you imagine no universal health care, education or old age security? Those are all things on the NCC chopping block.

When Stephen Harper re-entered politics to head up the Reform-Alliance Party, he said it was because he didn't feel that the NCC had any friends left in the government. Well they've sure got lots of them now, including the biggest friend of all - our prime minister.

Hébert: Could old foes offer voters new deal?
By Chantal Hébert National Columnist
December 23, 2009

MONTREAL–If they want 2010 to be about more than the slow death of the 40th Parliament at the convenience of the ruling Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP need a game-changer.

These days, the Liberals are scouring academia for a Big Idea to feature at an agenda-setting conference in March and, in time, to champion in their next platform. If they look long enough, they will find one or more ideas that fit the bill.

But it is unlikely to matter; in the current toxic federal environment the worst thing that could happen to an ambitious concept would probably be to be adopted by one of the main federal parties. Without Stéphane Dion's well-meaning ministrations, for instance, the notion of a carbon tax would still be in the federal climate-change tool box rather than in the post-election trash heap.

If Michael Ignatieff and his new crew really wanted to think outside the box, Roy Romanow, Ed Broadbent, Alexa McDonough and Jack Layton would be the guests of the upcoming Liberal think-fest. And Jean Chrétien and other Liberal luminaries would also be in attendance.
The meeting would be turned into a convening of the elders of both tribes and it would focus on the unfinished business of last year's coalition pact.

The objective would not be to merge the two parties; their history and their culture are too different. Nor would it be to resuscitate the flawed opposition attempt at wrestling the reins of government out of Conservative hands; at this stage in the life of the current Parliament, a government defeat would trigger a return to the polls, not a constitutional showdown.

The point of the exercise would be to salvage the core ingredients of the coalition so as to put a new deal to Canadians in the next election.

Among the keeper items from last year's pact, the concept of a common government agenda focused on a limited set of key items stands out, as does a prenegotiated place for each partner within a future coalition cabinet and the maintenance of the two separate caucuses.

The biggest difference would be that this plan would not be a contingency one, to be pulled out of Layton's back pocket only in the event that the Liberals narrowly lost an election to the Conservatives. Another major difference is that it would not involve having the Bloc Québécois as a silent partner.

To put their coalition on the next ballot, the NDP and the Liberals would have to strike an electoral coalition and agree to run only one candidate of either party in each of the country's 308 ridings. Such a proposal would involve a lot of give-and-take – not least of which at the grassroots levels – and much heavy lifting on the part of the Liberal and New Democrat elite to make it happen. It would require nothing less than a dramatic change in the federal culture.

But that change is increasingly overdue.

The alternative is to continue on a downward spiral to ineffective minority Parliaments and/or virtual one-party rule under the Conservatives.

Over the past 25 years, the Liberals have lost all but one (2004) of the campaigns they fought against a united Conservative party. They are now a spent force in large areas of the country. The dice are loaded against their return to power, especially with a national majority.

Yet, the NDP is nowhere near being seen as a serious contender for government. And its fallback role of influence in a minority setting has turned out to be highly overrated when dealing with a government that would rather render Parliament irrelevant than allow the opposition to be relevant. From co-writing a budget with Paul Martin five years ago, Layton is now down to hoping for progressive policy crumbs to pick off Stephen Harper's table.

Seven years ago, Harper put his leadership in the balance of a major reconfiguration of his side of the federal scene.

His success in that endeavour, combined with the enduring presence of the Bloc Québécois, fundamentally changed the parameters of the federal electoral game. Instead of responding with new original moves, the Liberals and, to a lesser degree, the NDP have persisted in playing checkers on what had become a chessboard.

These days, a disquieting number of New Democrat and Liberal political operators are eyeing with envy the hardball partisan tactics Harper routinely uses to advance his vision of a dominant federal Conservative party.

It is his willingness to take bold risks to reshape the political landscape to his liking that they should want to copy.

New Poll Confirms That Stephen Harper is Unfreakinbelievable!!!

In the latest twist to Harper's coalition with 'Separatists' and 'Socialists', the Conservatives are now running attack ads against Michael Ignatieff during a baseball game ... get this .... suggesting that the Liberal leader will form a coalition with 'Separatists' and 'Socialists' if Harper doesn't get a majority.

What is wrong with this man? Is there a rubber room in his future or is he really that stupid????!!! I know that Harper is a lying sack of dog doo doo, but this is insane. He's definitely a danger to himself and others.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
Leader's gut reaction to ads: Don't treat Liberals like fools
Toronto Star
September 19, 2009, after the party voted against the Tories.
Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was watching a baseball game on TV Thursday night when he received a vivid confirmation of his party's decision to vote no confidence in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.

Three ads flashed on his TV screen – the first was a taxpayer-financed spot, boasting of the government's economic plan. The next two were the nasty Conservative ads, accusing Ignatieff of wanting to form a coalition with "separatists" and "socialists," and accusing the Liberal leader of just being in politics for himself.

Ignatieff said he was immediately struck by the political irony – there were the Harper Conservatives, lashing out at the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois, on the eve of needing their support in yesterday's confidence vote in the Commons.

And the Liberal leader realized, once again, that this is what happens to parties who support the Conservatives in this fragile minority Parliament.

"While you're propping the government up, they're running ads saying, `He's just in it for himself.' How stupid do they think I am?" Ignatieff said in an interview with the Star yesterday, immediately after the Liberals, for the first time in nearly four years, voted against the government in a confidence vote.

"If you want to make Parliament work, you can make Parliament work if you're the prime minister of Canada. It's that simple. So now, he can do it. But don't treat the Liberal Party of Canada like fools. Because we're not."

The Liberal party is in the midst of preparing its own round of ads to follow the flurry of TV spots they've been releasing over the past couple of weeks. While the first wave was mostly positive – some say too positive, featuring Ignatieff talking in a forest glade – the next series of ads are expected to have more bite.

But Ignatieff said yesterday he's setting strict limits on how low they can go in attack mode.
"I've got a bar," he said. "I make no apologies for attacking his policies; I've been attacking his policies vigorously and will continue to do so. But I've not attacked his patriotism, I've not attacked his family, I've not attacked his commitment to Canada."

Ignatieff will, however, attack the way Harper does politics – and the ads are a big part of it.
"What he says in private is not what he says in public," says Ignatieff, a reference to a video that emerged over the past couple of weeks, showing Harper delivering a speech to staunch Conservative supporters – a speech in which he mocked social-justice advocates as "left-wing fringe groups" and talked about a need for a majority to deliver "a lesson" to the opposition parties and their supporters.

Though Liberals are not saying what's in the next round of TV ads, there's some speculation that this video will play a part in them.

"What he says in private is contemptuous of Canadians and treats all Canadians who disagree with him as enemies," Ignatieff said. "The other disagreement I have is that when he attacks his opponents, he engages in falsehoods and the politics of personal destruction.

And when that guy's time in politics is finished and people ask what was his legacy, what was his contribution to the public life of Canada, it'll be those attack ads. And let it be on his head. I'm tired of it. And Canadians are tired of it."

Ignatieff said he laments that in the current hyper-partisan climate of Canadian politics, a party can suffer for voting in support of the government, as the NDP and Bloc did yesterday.

Is Ignatieff sorry now that the Liberals did help keep the Conservatives in power?

"No," is his answer. He's even not sorry he made a compromise deal last June to try to work out an employment insurance reform package with the Conservatives and avert an election.

Since then, Ignatieff has been criticized for caving in to Harper, the party has sunk in the polls, and some Liberals believe they lost a prime opportunity to take power away from the Tories.

"All I can say is that we tried in good faith to work with Stephen Harper," Ignatieff said. "The EI thing in the summer wasn't a game to me. ... But it was absolutely impossible to work with (Conservative MP) Pierre Poilievre and (Human Resources) Minister (Diane) Finley."

So when does he expect to see an election now?

"I'm one party leader among four. Decisions about elections involve everybody. "I've taken my responsibility, which is I've said I can't support this government any longer. It's up to the other parties to decide what they're going to do. End of story."

A Tempest in a Teapot But it Rocked the Foundations of Parliament Hill

The threats this past week - do we go to the polls - do we not go to the polls, have scored a victory for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals.

The Conservatives 'smoke and mirrors', pretending that they didn't want an election, appears to have backfired.

This may have been a tempest in a teapot, but it shook the foundations of Parliament Hill.

In January, when Mr. Ignatieff had the deciding vote on whether or not the coalition would survive, he voted with the Conservatives, because he knew that Canadians just wanted to get on with it.

But how was he repaid? With personal attack ads.

And not only that, but for the past few months both the Bloc and NDP have constantly referred to him as a traitor. When they toured this summer and were told by people that they had to get rid of Harper, both used the excuse that they would like to but the Liberals keep backing him up.

However, when Michael Ignatieff finally said 'Enough!', everyone went into retreat mode. But look what's happened.

We now have the Harper government dependant on his dreaded 'separatists' and 'socialists' to stay afloat, negating the hyperbole of a left-wing coalition. And we have the official opposition able to do what we pay them to do - oppose the government.

Well played Mr. Ignatieff. Well played.

An Important History Lesson Before Parliament Opens

Stephen Harper is in panic mode these days, back pedalling like hell trying to avoid an election, so he is once again pulling out his fall back 'coalition' threat, hoping to scare us over to his side.

Well it's not going to work this time, or at least it shouldn't. We may have been caught off guard during the Parliamentary crisis, and many Canadians believed that somehow the proposed coalition was undemocratic, but now in the light of day, we see just how hypocritical the Conservative campaign against it really was.



News of a similar plan in the works by one Stephen Harper in 2004, who wasn't ready to accept the results of the recent election, sheds a new light on the events. In an interview at the time with CBC's Evan Solomon, Harper skirts around the issue, but Mr. Solomon knew, as many did, that there was a coalition in the works. Though Harper repeatedly denies it, both Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton have confirmed that they had teamed up with Harper to take down Paul Martin at the throne speech.

What else could Stephen Harper have meant? A military takeover?

It's important to bring this issue up now for three reasons.

1. So that we do not allow the Conservatives to gain sympathy or unwarranted support by having us believe that they are being threatened by a 'coup', backed by separatists, because his coalition included Gilles Duceppe.

2. That we are more accepting of a coalition government should the Governor General decide to take that route if the Conservatives are defeated in a non-confidence vote in the fall.

3. That we recognize just how hypocritical this government can be, because most of their campaign against the proposed coalition was flat out lies.

AN INTERVIEW WITH STEPHEN HARPER LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA

Evan Solomon: Parliament opens on Monday, and in a sense you're the most powerful Opposition Leader in a generation and people want to know how you're going to use your power. So the fundamental question is: under what circumstances would you call a vote of non-confidence?

Stephen Harper: First of all, I can't forget my first responsibility - which is to be the Leader of the Opposition and that's to provide an alternative government. We've always said we'll support the government when they do things that we can accept, which you know the health accord. I supported the health accord, I called for the government to end the pay increase, they're going to do that, I'll support that, but in general my obligation is to provide an Opposition. It's the government's obligation to look really to the third parties to get the support to govern.

Solomon: But providing an Opposition in this case is very different from what Canadians have understood because your opposition could bring the government down. Are there trigger points that would bring the government down?

Harper: Well there are lots of things that could bring the government down, but my opposition can not bring the government down. The government can only be brought down because it alienates several parties in the House. And the first obligation in this Parliament, if the government wants to govern, it has to come to Parliament and it has to show that it can get the support of the majority of members, through the Throne Speech, through legislation, and through budget and supply, and the government to this point has made no effort to do that, but that's its first obligation.

Solomon: But you are a key player at that, let's not make any mistake - courting Stephen Harper is very important if it wants to stay in power, no?

Harper: We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians. What the government has to do, if it wants to govern for any length of time, is it must appeal primarily to the third parties in the House of Commons to get them to support it.

Solomon: Alright, Tuesday is the Speech from the Throne. You've gone on record saying you will oppose it, or at least make amendments to it. Now tradition is that the Leader of the Opposition often does that.

Harper: Always...

Solomon: Right.

Harper: We can't find an instance of the Leader of the Opposition either almost always moving an amendment, but in any case opposing the Speech from the Throne, with or without an amendment.

Solomon: But it's always been a formality because of a majority...

Harper: Same thing's true in minority parliaments. The Leader of the Opposition's constitutional obligation - the obligation to Parliament - it's the reason we did the merger! - is to make sure Canadians have an alternative for government.

Solomon: But when does an amendment, if you pass an amendment, when does it function as a de facto confidence vote?

Harper: Well that's a matter of some debate - but I think the short answer is when the government won't accept it. And what I've been trying to do in the last.. over the summertime, is talk to the other parties and think about what would be agreeable to a lot of people. I don't think - we're just not going to go in and say ‘take our amendment or leave it,’ because we know such a thing would be rejected anyway.

Solomon: So what amendments do you have?

Harper: We're doing what governments should do, which is examine the Throne Speech - if I were Prime Minister, what I would have done is I would have talked to all three other parties extensively to find out what would pass in the Throne Speech, and what might not pass, and what they would like to see. The government has not done such an exercise, at least not to my knowledge.

Solomon: So do you know what's in the Throne…

Harper: I don't know what's in the Throne Speech. I only know in the vaguest terms - we were told on, a couple of days ago after the Throne Speech had been printed, we were told generally what was in it. The general description was that it was the Liberal Party platform from the election.

Solomon: So what amendments... are you proposing?

Harper: Well, I'll look at the specifics. You can be sure whatever amendments we propose will be consistent with what we believe and are not in the Throne Speech.

Solomon: But I'm just trying because this is important a detail - are some amendments deal breakers? In other words, if you propose an amendment and the Liberals reject it - does that mean we could have a confidence vote on the Throne Speech?

Harper: If the Liberals can't pass their Throne Speech, then they aren't able to form an effective government. But I think the Liberals have every opportunity to do that - what they've got to do is consult with people and make sure they tailor their program so that the majority of MPs in the House of Commons will actually vote for it.

Solomon: But you're saying they haven't consulted with you.

Harper: Well, they haven't consulted me, and I wouldn't expect them to extensively consult me, because I think they understand that it's not going to be the Official Opposition that props up the government, but my impression is they haven't done a lot of consultation with anybody. I've consulted pretty regularly with Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton to get a sense of what they're looking for - it's up to the government to do the same thing. If you want to be a government in a minority Parliament, you have to work with other people. (He forgot his own advice)

Solomon: Would you describe this government's position because of its lack of consultation as precarious?

Harper: I'd describe it more as arrogant. And I think the real problem that we're facing already is that the government doesn't accept that it got a minority. The Liberals think the natural state of affairs is a Liberal majority - they're not happy about this, they don't accept it and quite frankly, they're going to look for any opportunity to call an election. I can tell you that our party and I'm sure Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton from our conversations want Parliament to work - it's in the interests of the Opposition for this Parliament to go on for a while and be effective. It is only the government that wants to end this state of affairs and go to have another election.

Solomon: Are you suggesting that the Liberals are baiting you to call a confidence vote because they want another election and you don't want another election?

Harper: I think the government's strategy will be to have an election as soon as possible. Maybe not this fall, but I think the government wants an election.

Solomon: And you don't!

Harper: They can't stand having a minority. We accept that it's a minority - for all the other parties we've been in a kind of relatively powerless position for a long time. I think we're looking forward to the opportunity of having some influence for the next few years. And I'm happy to do that and continue to take the time to build and organize my party which, as you know, is relatively new. I think it's only the government that just can't stand this situation and wants out of it.

Solomon: Alright, where will we see the Conservatives’ stamp on the Liberal agenda - if you have this power, and if you have the power to influence, show me where we're going to see your fingertips - on what pieces of legislation?

Harper: You can see a couple of fingerprints already. The health accord that the prime minister ended up signing looked a lot more like my platform than his platform.

Solomon: But it's a huge victory for him - you have to concede, he's waving the flag saying we delivered.

Harper: Well, we'll see. Look, I'm happy with the health accord. The prime minister said he had a fix for a generation he was going to tell the provinces how to run health care, the truth is all he did was transfer money. There's some in his party who don't think it's a victory but I think it's the only way we could realistically go. On the payer...

Solomon: Let's just talk about that for one second... you know the old saying that success has a lot of fathers and failure's an orphan. Is it a success that you say he did it because of us and he says we did it because we're delivering on our promise - who gets credit for the victory then?

Harper: He did it let's be clear he did it because he has no, he went to a First Ministers Conference but had no plan for health care - that's why he did it. He did a deal that the provinces can live with, a deal that we can live with - the ball's now in the provinces' court, but if Mr. Martin now tries to go into the next election saying I've fixed health care for a generation - people are going to laugh. Because everyone knows that's not what it is, it's a transfer of money that allow the provinces to try to improve the system but there's no easy fix there.

Solomon: He says that it's a victory - he claims that he's delivering a major platform. A lot of people are surprised that you played ball so much on that. You sort of cooperated.

Harper: But the agreement, I say we're not gonna switch our position on the public. We ran on a platform. The agreement he signed looked an awful lot, not a 100% but an awful lot like what we had said was realistic. It didn't look anything like what the prime minister said he was going to do and I think that's something he's going to have to explain.

Solomon: Special status for Quebec. Charest is saying we got special status on this deal - people say Stephen Harper has been a champion of provincial rights and OPPOSED to special status. Why did you agree with that kind of configuration?

Harper: Mr. Charest called me before the deal was signed a couple of times and I said would this deal be something where every province can have its own rights respected and its own deal, is it equal for everybody. Mr. Charest said yes, and that's what's in the deal. It says that every province has a right to exercise its own jurisdictions to ask for its own side deal. Only Quebec chose to do that. I can't blame Quebec for doing that.

Solomon: So you're saying that it's not a special status deal that anyone could have had that special status.

Harper: Remember also that this is provincial jurisdiction. The nature of our constitution is that everyone is supposed to be able to do their own thing in their own area of jurisdiction. I don't consider that special status - but obviously Quebec got a side deal.

Solomon: But does it hurt you in Alberta? And say hey Quebec got its... what's the difference between asymmetrical federalism and special status and the old distinct society?

Harper: I think the only question in Alberta people have is why the Alberta government didn't ask for its own deal. Because it could have done so.

Solomon: Interesting.

Harper: And I can't blame Quebec for that.

Solomon: What other pieces of legislation will we see the Conservative fingerprints on.

Harper: Well we've already seen one right away which is the Liberals were trying to get this pay increase through the back door of a judges salary and of course we called for that to be nixed and the government's now promised to bring in legislation on that - beyond that I don't know

Solomon: Marijuana legislation?

Harper: The government hasn't told us very much about what it's legislative agenda is, I know almost nothing in specifics about what it's legislative agenda is so I'm waiting to see...

Solomon: A lot of legislation died on the floor when the Parliament was prorogued, and I'm thinking specifically about decriminalizing marijuana - if that gets re-brought in will you kill that? try to?

Harper: We had some debate in our caucus about our position in caucus about that - I think it's unlikely that we would support that bill.

Solomon: Unlikely.

Harper: Yeah...

Solomon: Wednesday the Supreme Court will debate same-sex legislation again. It's a hot-button issue in your party. What happens, what do you do now?

Harper: Well really it is in the hands of the courts now - my strong view is that this should be decided by the personal opinions of the 308 elected people, not the personal opinions of 9 appointed people, but this is the route the government's going it seems to me now just as a practical matter, now that the hearing will start, it's very difficult now for Parliament to intervene. I don't think frankly we're under much of an illusion about what the courts are going to rule, their views on this are pretty well-known but I think then we'll just have to see and then the government will have to take a decision on whether it's going to table legislation on this or not. It has legislation, it's just refused to send it to the House of Commons.

Solomon: If you'd like to see elected officials determine that - you're an elected official, how would you vote on that?

Harper: I've always been clear, I support the traditional definition of marriage. I have no difficulty with the recognition of civil unions for non-traditional relationships but I believe in law we should protect the traditional definition of marriage. That's my personal view I would say most in my caucus agree with that but there are some who don't and I've always said that on these kinds of moral issues, people have the right to their own opinions.

Solomon: If you were prime minister and the Supreme Court ruled in a way that you didn't agree with what would your response be?

Harper: It depends on the issue. I think generally speaking we take court rulings pretty seriously but I've said there are issues where, I've pointed to the child pornography decision, Supreme Court rulings that have made pornography easier to obtain in this country - we would probably take pretty strong legislative matters against some of those rulings.

Solomon: We're starting back in Parliament, we followed you for the election, if we had one day to do over again in the election, what day would it be?

Harper: I don't get into that second guessing of myself publicly. I think that we had a lot better campaign than people thought we were going to. There were very few people who thought we'd be in contention to win that election, and very few people even six months ago who thought the Liberals would be facing a minority - in fact we had polls telling us Paul Martin would be winning a record number of seats...

Solomon: But then there was polling and you said you could win a majority...!

Harper: Well now, no, I didn't say we could I said that was my objective. I didn't say we could, I think we were never more than 2 points ahead in any poll.

Solomon: But you were preparing for a majority..

Harper: I always will. I'm preparing now. It's the obligation of the Official Opposition to be prepared to form a government. We've still got a lot of work to do on that. I think we had on balance when the dust settles on balance we did a lot better than people'd expect. And I think everybody thinks we're going to do better next time - I haven't read a single columnist who suggests that we will probably do worse in the next election so I think that we are on the way up, the Liberals are on their way down and time will tell.

Solomon: Last bit of business here - Parliament gets back in session, you're the Leader of the Opposition - is there any trigger issue in the first week that we could see the Conservatives bring a confidence vote to this government?

Harper: Well we're going to put an amendment to the Throne Speech that's almost inevitable because as I say the chances of the government producing a Throne Speech that's exactly the speech we want are pretty low and it's the obligation of the Opposition to show its alternative.
Solomon: Could that be a confidence vote?

Harper: Yeah sure it could, absolutely...

Solomon: It could...

Harper:... But it will ultimately depend how the other parties vote including how the Liberals vote. The Liberals always have the option of endorsing something that we put forward.

Solomon: You met with the Governor General -

Harper: Yes I did

Solomon: You haven't commented much about that meeting...

Harper: By law I'm not allowed to, I'm a privy councilor, all my discussions with the Crown are supposed to be of the highest confidence until the day I die - I can't even tell my wife!

Solomon: Okay well let's skirt around the issue a little bit - are you preparing, do you have a plan in the event the government falls to form a government instead of calling an election? (yes this has been confirmed)

Harper: No such plan. Our plan is always to be ready to be an alternative government. But my assumption is the Liberals will make the compromises necessary to be a government in this Parliament.

Solomon: Now I've known you for a while, chance favors the prepared mind, no one would accuse you of not being a prepared mind. You're telling me you don't have a plan B in the event this government falls to a confidence vote - you haven't talked to other parties - Layton, Duceppe, anybody - about forming a government? (he did and his letter and the videotape prove that he was lying here. Remember when he said I wouldn't want the Prime Minister to think he can call an election everytime he loses the confidence of the House. Lies, lies, lies.)

Harper: I'm telling you that I've always my responsibility is to be prepared to form a government so we're always working at that.

Solomon: With who?

Harper: Well I've said I would not form a coalition under any circumstances (He already had) - I said that in the election campaign, nothing changes. I expect we're going to put forward our program for the country, how we would make the House of Commons work. I know that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton don't want an election, I think the Liberals may have a different view. We'll just see. We'll do whatever's necessary but I think we're going to be the official Opposition in this Parliament, I think that's how things will work.

Solomon: I just want to clarify something - you won't work with other parties

Harper: No I said we will work with other parties..

Solomon: You will, but you won't form a coalition -

Harper: No. (Both Gilles Duceppe and Jack layton confirm that it was a coalition to take down Paul Martin. What else could he mean with the letter and tape?)

Solomon: You won't form a coalition, therefore in the event this government falls we cannot expect you to turn to another party and try to form a government, in other words it will be an election?

Harper: Well you're getting into a lot of hypotheticals...

Solomon: That's what this is all about!

Harper: I've said we wouldn't, we're not looking to form a coalition, the Bloc Quebecois has been very consistent that they're not going to form a coalition with anybody, so we wouldn't look to form a coalition - but the present government isn't in a coalition either.

Solomon: So why did you write that letter to the Governor-General with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying in the event of a confidence vote situation do not call a snap election - are we to assume that therefore you're working to form a coalition? (Mr. Solomon knew exactly what was going on)

Harper: (Changes the subject) There seems to be an attitude in the Liberal government - that they can go in, be deliberately defeated and call an election - that's not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority - it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can't form a majority, we look at other options, we don't just concede to the government's request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people.

Solomon: Other options meaning that you would have to govern though - don't you have to be in a coalition de facto - isn't that the implication?

Harper: The current government believes it doesn't have to be in a coalition and I share that view. There's a lot of options in the House of Commons - what I expect the Liberals to do is try to seek different allies for different pieces of legislation.

Solomon: This is a fascinating...

Harper: That's what I think they'll do but they're going to have to make some compromises to do that...

Solomon: This is fascinating because usually we think of the Leader of the Opposition in a minority government as trying to bring the government down - you're saying they want to bring themselves down and they want to continue the status quo! Which is a kind of ...

Harper: Canadians want the Parliament to work - but look we're not going to roll over to agree with the government just so they can stay in office. But as I say we've been away from minority government's for so long we've forgotten how they work. The government is still the government. The official Opposition is still the Official Opposition. And these two parties are still going to battle for govenrment in the next election. And that's how the system works. There's going to be other parties, the third parties and that's usually where the government's going to have to seek its mandate to try to get a majority in the House of Commons and it's - that's really their primary responsibility. They've got to get these other parties supporting them regularly or they can't command the confidence of the House. And the same would be true for me if I had the most seats, I would have to find a way of governing.

Solomon: Is there a similarity between this government and the Joe Clark government?
Harper: We'll see. We'll see - time will tell - but there does seem to be an attitude that they can govern as if they have a majority. And as I've told you I think Joe Clark taught us I think that's the wrong attitude to have in a minority Parliament.

Solomon: They didn't consult...

Harper: It didn't work either.

I don't think a coalition between these three men would have lasted long. Gilles Duceppe is too smart, Jack Layton too caring, and Stephen Harper is ... well ... Stephen Harper.