Ever wonder about the cost of Harper's campaign announcements?

Here is a running tab of what has been costed and announced so far (more or less in order of announcement:)

1. 1% immediate cut in GST: $4.5 B (additional 1% approximately $4.0 B)
2. Announcement on healthcare wait time reduction: COST NOT INDICATED
3. Gander, Nfld forecasting announcement: COST NOT INDICATED
   
4. Childcare tax cut/subsidy: Avg $2.2 B per year ($11 B over 5 years)
5. Fisherman Assistance announcement: COST NOT INDICATED
6. Small Medium Business Opportunity Plan: COST NOT INDICATED
7. Apprenticeship & Post Secondary Assistance plan announcement: COST NOT INDICATED
8. Seniors Retirement Assistance plan: Avg $460 M per year ($2.3 B over 5 years)
9. Cancer Care announcement: Avg $50 M per year ($250 M over 5 years)
10. Military spending announcement: Avg $400 M per year ($2.0 B over 5 years)
11. B.C. Plan announcement: Avg $100 M per year ($500 M over 5 years)
12. Quebec Plan announcement: COST NOT INDICATED
13. Farm Support plan: Avg $500 M per year ($2.5 B over 5 years)
14. Arctic Defence plan: Avg $1.1 B per year ($5.3 B over 5 years)

Total Cost to date: Average $9.3 B per year, $32.5 B over 5 years
Estimated surplus for 2005/2006: $8.2 B* (Of course, never final when dealing with Liberals)

By Dianne Rinehart
December 24, 2005

* The reason why the Conservative Party is unable to budge the polls may be quite simply found in the electorate's distrust of its leader

When politicians call an election that nobody wanted and that no one really expects will change things, it isn't too surprising that hypocrisy reigns supreme.

Still one comment this week made me howl with disbelief: Stephen Harper saying Canadians would not tolerate a "Liberal opposition" that would not co-operate with a Conservative minority government.

Hello? Like we wanted to tolerate a Conservative party that did not co-operate with a minority Liberal government? Like we wanted an election before the holidays? Like any of the opposing parties are running on anything other than a thirst for power?

Pl-e-e-ease! Nobody gave the electorate a choice, but the Conservatives surely had one. And that was to make Parliament work hard for Canadians -- not for the Tory party. Or Harper.

Call me naive but Harper's hypocrisy left me outraged.

Here is a man who cosied up to the Bloc Quebecois to bring down the government, but says a Conservative minority government would not join forces with the Bloc Quebecois to maintain power. "It's simply unworkable to work with a party that isn't committed to the fundamental institutional structures of the unity and the same basic kind of core values as other federalists," he told The Globe and Mail.

Interesting. Who else would he be joining forces with to maintain power in a minority House? Certainly not the NDP, whose natural coalition partners are the Liberals.

So how disingenuous of him is it to suggest he wouldn't be counting on Bloc votes for support?

And how would that coalition play in the rest of the country?

"Joining with the Bloc to defeat the government is one thing," notes political scientist and McMaster University professor Henry Jacek. "Holding power with the Bloc is another."

No wonder Harper is in denial. His ploys with the Bloc are already costing him votes in B.C., says Jacek.

And what would a Conservative-Bloc coalition achieve for Canada? Decentralization, notes Jacek, power to Quebec which the Conservatives would then have to offer the other provinces -- along with a share of the federal surplus. But it would never be enough for a sovereigntist party, he notes. To maintain power: "They're then going to have to keep offering the Bloc more."

Decentralization is putting it mildly. Harper offered Quebec it's own separate voice on world bodies, such as UNESCO, this week.

Think it doesn't matter that Canada's voice on the world stage might be weakened? Imagine, then, a world where Quebec representatives voice different views than their Canadian counterparts at human rights and economic conferences. For example, would Quebec , perhaps looking out for its own economic interests, have sided with Britain against former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney's insistence of a Commonwealth-wide economic boycott of South Africa during the apartheid era, a stand that helped defeat that former evil empire?

No, it's important that Canadians speak as one to the world.

How far is Harper willing to go to woo Quebec? How about his sinister suggestion that Prime Minister Paul Martin would rather see the Parti Quebecois win power in Quebec so the Liberals can stand up for Canada. Does a comment, as Jacek points out "totally lacking in credibility", help Canadian unity?

So why go there? He's desperate, says Jacek. "They started out with a game plan (daily policy announcements) and it didn't work. ... Now they're really unhinged and unfocused because they're so frustrated."

John Wright, a senior vice-president with the polling firm Ipsos-Reid, says Harper's negative affect on Conservative party fortunes is astonishing and suggests the Conservative's only electoral hope is to reinforce the notion that Harper could be reined in by Parliament in a minority government situation.

Dianne Rinehart is a former magazine editor and news correspondent in Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto and Moscow.

By BRIAN LAGHI

Saturday, December 24, 2005

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Stephen Harper's policy-heavy election campaign is no better at capturing voters' imaginations than the Liberal effort, according to a new poll that also finds less gloom about the direction of the country than when the election was called.

A mid-campaign poll for The Globe and Mail-CTV News shows that Canadians actually like the Liberal campaign marginally better than the one run by the Conservatives, despite positive reviews of the Tory effort as mistake-free and heavy on ideas.

According to the survey conducted by The Strategic Counsel, 25 per cent of Canadians say the Liberals are running the best campaign, up six percentage points from Dec. 5-6. By contrast, 23 per cent think the Tories have the best campaign, down from 26 per cent, while 16 per cent of Canadians think the NDP is making the best effort, up two points. The survey also found that the number of Canadians who think the country is on the wrong track is declining.

The poll of 1,000 Canadians was taken Dec. 21-22 and is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points 95 per cent of the time.

Allan Gregg, chairman of The Strategic Counsel, said a strategy of not focusing on criticism of the Liberals may be contributing to the Tories stall.

"[The Conservatives] have to get that general protest sentiment back up there," Mr. Gregg said. "The cornerstone of any opposition party is unhappiness with the status quo. It's the oldest cliché in the book, but it's true. Governments defeat themselves."

Mr. Gregg said the Liberals may have found their game simply by fighting back every time the Tories lay out a policy proposal.

"They're not doing much on the initiative front, but they're very effective in their counter-punching," he said.

The results appear to run against the grain of some commentators who have criticized the Liberals for running a relatively quiet campaign focused on their record rather than announcing new policy ideas. The Tory campaign has announced almost daily policy prescriptions, while the Liberals have criticized them for being too ideological.

The poll also found that fewer Canadians believe the country is going in the wrong direction. Of those surveyed, 38 per cent say they believe the nation is on the wrong track, down from 43 per cent who said the same thing when the election was called last month. Forty-five per cent said the country was on the right track, down two points from the election call.

Mr. Gregg said the lack of work getting done in Parliament in the fall may have contributed to a greater sense that the country was on the wrong course.

The reduction of misgivings may also stem from the fact that the Liberals have been unimpeded in their plan to persuade Canadians that the country's economy is humming along and that voters shouldn't jeopardize that by switching governing parties. The sponsorship issue, for example, has barely been mentioned by the Conservatives.

On the question of momentum, voters think the Liberals have the most heading into the second half of the campaign. The two major parties were tied in momentum at the beginning of the campaign.

The poll comes as the Liberal lead widened nationally, although the shift is still within the margin of error.

The survey found that 36 per cent of voters prefer the Liberals, up from 33 per cent Thursday, compared to 29 per cent for the Conservatives, who are down one point. The NDP is at 17 per cent -- down one -- while the Bloc Québécois has also dropped a point to 13 per cent. The poll sampled 1,500 voters and is accurate to within 2.5 percentage points.

And, for the first time since the campaign started, federalist parties together (The Liberals, NDP and the Conservatives), have more momentum than the Bloc Québécois. The momentum numbers are often a precursor to changes in voter intent, Mr. Gregg said.

Increased momentum for the federalist forces may stem from a fear among Montrealers that there will potentially be no francophone presence in a federal cabinet, Mr. Gregg said. Liberal voting preference in the province, which had dropped to 20 per cent earlier this week, is now up to 29 per cent, about five points shy of the 2004 election. The BQ has dropped eight points this week to 52 per cent, three per cent above their 2004 numbers.

Mr. Gregg noted that, while the Liberals have not been able to consolidate the federalist vote under their tent, they may hold on to some Quebec seats as the BQ loses support.

The New Democrats and the Tories each have eight per cent of Quebec supporters.

On the hustings

Who is running the best campaign?

Paul Martin/Liberals: 25%

Stephen Harper/Conservatives: 23%

Jack Layton/NDP: 16%

Gilles Duceppe/Bloc Québécois: 10%

No response: 18%

None: 7%

Other: 1%

Right now, do you think that overall the country is on the right track or the wrong track?

Benchmark: Nov. 24-27

On the right track: 47%

On the wrong track: 43%

Don't know: 10%

Dec. 21-22

On the right track: 45%

On the wrong track: 38%

Don't know: 17%

Tory minority government would operate on issue-by-issue basis, leader says

By JANE TABER

December 23, 2005

SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER

WINNIPEG -- Stephen Harper said yesterday that a Conservative minority government would not enter into a coalition or formal arrangement with any other party, especially the separatist Bloc Québécois.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Harper said forming a coalition is unrealistic, and that he would govern on an issue-by-issue basis, co-operating with "individuals or parties that are absolutely committed to the unity of the country."

Mr. Harper said he believes his party can win this election.

Yesterday, he spoke at length on how a Conservative minority government would operate, and he tried to debunk the Liberal scare tactic that the Tories would team up with the Bloc.


He called that a "complete bogeyman."

"It's simply unworkable to work with a party that isn't committed to the fundamental institutional structures of the unity and the same basic kind of core values as other federalists," he said. "It just won't work."

Appearing relaxed, the Conservative Leader was interviewed in his hotel suite in Winnipeg after a week of major announcements, in which he also took on Liberal Leader Paul Martin over national unity. This is about the midpoint of the campaign for the Jan. 23 election.

Mr. Harper, who is much friendlier with the media in this campaign than in 2004, even played Santa Claus, and gave out boxes of chocolates to reporters at a Christmas lunch.

He then travelled home to Calgary, where he will take several days off before resuming campaigning in British Columbia on Dec. 27. Mr. Harper, who has been campaigning vigorously, said he just didn't think "I could sit still for eight days."

He said yesterday that the Liberals have governed as if they had a majority, with a strategy that "if things didn't work, to always blame it on everybody else, and say 'that's why we need a majority.' "

But he said that Canadians would not tolerate a "Liberal opposition" that would not co-operate with a Tory minority government.

"I think . . . the people of Canada are kind of annoyed that the Liberals acted as if they had a majority," Mr. Harper said. "I think they will expect the Liberals, if they are defeated, to eat some humble pie and work co-operatively in Parliament."

Mr. Harper said that his Tories have shown from the last Parliament that they can co-operate with the other parties on individual issues. And he said that the Conservatives are similar to the NDP and the Bloc on a "limited range of issues."

"But we are not naive. Even where we share particular agenda items with the Bloc, we know that the Bloc happens to agree with these things for entirely different reasons than we do," he said.

He would not discuss whether he has a transition team in place, although he said his party would be ready to govern right away if it wins the election.

"If we get a minority, we will proceed, let me be clear, we will proceed with the core promises we made in the campaign, things like reducing the GST . . ." he said.

On the controversial issue of same-sex marriage, Mr. Harper said that attempting to bring back the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman was a "commitment we had made for some time."

"I say we will proceed with our promises," he said. "On other things we'll have to look for support to pass things."

This election for Mr. Harper and the Conservatives is clearly different from the one fought 17 months ago.

Mr. Harper said his party is better prepared this time, and he has been "immensely helped by the fact that none of the other parties seem to be competing with us . . ."

He has made one major policy announcement after another in the first four weeks of the campaign. The other leaders have made fewer policy announcements.

He said he and his strategists have found targeted policy announcements more effective than the kind of larger announcements they made in the last election campaign, when they simply, "dumped it [the platform] out in big chapters."

" 'Here's all the things we're going to do for the economy. Here's all the things we're to do on the federation,' and the consequence was that nothing really got through, whereas this time we've tried to hone in on specific policy ideas . . ."

Mr. Harper said that party polling data has shown that the public immediately understood his promise to cut the GST by two percentage points.

He said that they have also had much interest in their child-care policy in which families with young children would be given $1,200 a year toward care.

"The child-care policy, believe it or not, is well understood and has resonated out in the public not just because we pushed it out but frankly because of Scott Reid and John Duffy's amplification of it," Mr. Harper said.

Mr. Reid and Mr. Duffy, two senior Martin strategists, said on national television that Canadian parents would spend the money on beer and popcorn.

As well, the Conservative Leader painted a rosy picture of the situation in Ontario, the province with the most seats in play.

Taking a substantial number of Ontario's 106 seats can win a party a government.

He said that despite public polls that have shown little upward movement for the Conservatives, the party's internal polling is positive.

He also predicted his Tories will win seats in Quebec.

Friday, December 23, 2005

TORONTO (Reuters) - The leader of the opposition Conservative Party ruled out a formal coalition with the separatist Bloc Quebecois in a newspaper interview published on Friday, eliminating one option for Canada after the January 23 election.

Stephen Harper told The Globe and Mail newspaper that he was confident his party would win the election, the second federal vote in Canada in less than two years.

But he said a minority Conservative government would cooperate with other parties on an issue-by-issue basis rather than form a formal coalition with the Bloc Quebecois, a party that did not support the unity of Canada.

"It's simply unworkable to work with a party that isn't committed to the fundamental institutional structure and the same basic kind of core values as other federalists. It just won't work," the paper quoted him as saying.

The Bloc, a federal party with ties to the pro-independence Parti Quebecois, only puts up candidates in the French-speaking province of Quebec. Opinion polls show it well ahead of the ruling Liberals in the province, with the Conservatives trailing far behind.

Countrywide opinion polls mostly put the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives, although no party would win enough seats to be guaranteed a majority in Parliament if the latest poll figures were translated into votes.

The Liberals had a minority of seats in the previous Parliament. The other parties voted them out of office over a corruption scandal that centered on wasted government cash and kickbacks to Quebec Liberals during an advertising campaign to promote a united Canada.

The Liberals have been hinting that the Conservatives might form a coalition with the Bloc if they are returned as the largest party in Parliament. Harper dismissed that as a "complete bogeyman."

December 23 2005

Canadian Press

MONTREAL — Gilles Duceppe says Canadians are in for another minority government - but that it will last longer than the last one.

The Bloc Quebecois leader told The Canadian Press on Friday that voters don't want another short parliamentary session.

"I think people will learn a lesson from this short legislative session," he said.

He cited Lester B. Pearson's successive minority governments in the 1960s. Pearson's second minority government lasted longer than his first.

However, in 1979-80 Joe Clark's minority Conservatives held onto government for only nine months.

Duceppe did not say whether he believed it would be Paul Martin's Liberals or Stephen Harper's Conservatives at the helm. But he said either could do well if they avoid being "arrogant."

He also told a French-language all-news channel that if the Liberals are re-elected on Jan. 23 he would have to recognize their "moral authority" to govern.

"Unless other things come up, which they've hidden from us," he said, referring to the sponsorship scandal.

December 23 2005

CTV.ca News Staff

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says a photo circulating within Liberal ranks is a "tasteless" sign the Grit campaign is set to take turn to the negative.

The photo, depicting a quiet conversation between Harper and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, is featured in campaign instructions available to Liberal candidates online.

"I think it's beyond tasteless," Harper said Friday, noting that the photo was taken when all four federal party leaders were attending a Holocaust memorial on Parliament Hill last spring.

"To imply that Mr. Duceppe and I share some sort of agenda other than opposing the Holocaust is disgraceful."

According to the Conservative leader, the material foreshadows an impending negative turn in the ongoing election campaign.

"I think you're just seeing the beginning," Harper told reporters outside the Calgary toy store where he'd stopped to buy presents.

"A corrupt party that doesn't have a record to run on: this is the sort of stuff they're going to do."

Liberal Party national director Steve McKinnon refused to discuss the ads on camera, but in a statement the Grits denied a negative campaign was in the works.

"They were never at any time prepared in the context of an advertising strategy," the statement said, describing the material as part of a list of issues intended to help candidates as they go door-knocking.

The picture was used to illustrate the suggestion a Harper-Duceppe coalition would lead to a weakened federal government.

Pollster Allan Gregg warns, should the Liberal campaign take a negative turn, the party should be prepared for the move to backfire.

"Negative advertising and negative campaigns can have a negative effect on those who launch it -- so they have to be very careful," the Strategic Counsel chairman told CTV News.

Saddled with a nagging reputation for negative campaigning, the Conservatives are taking a more subtle tack in their newest advertisements.

But Harper stopped short Friday of vowing his party would avoid negative campaigning in its bid to mislead the public in his bid to form a Conservative government.

"Anything we will be saying in this campaign will be factual and accurate. I can't promise it will all be pretty."

Meanwhile, the Jewish community is demanding an apology from the Liberals, for making them the first casualties in what is expected to be an increasingly nasty campaign in the weeks leading to Jan. 23.

Prepared with a report from CTV's Robert Fife

December 22, 2005

45%

The percentage of Canadians who say they have a favourable view of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper - the lowest favourable rating of any party leader. Liberal Leader Paul Martin is judged favourably by 49 per cent of those surveyed nationally and NDP Leader Jack Layton by 61 per cent. In Quebec, 75 per cent of those surveyed have a favourable view of Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe.

Dec. 18-20

Liberal: 34%

Conservative: 30%

NDP: 16%

Bloc Québécois: 15%

Green Party: 5%

The Strategic Counsel's daily tracking allows us to provide Globe readers with an unprecedented degree of insight every day. At globeandmail.com, you'll find a daily poll tracker and the complete methodology of the polling.

The national race remains little changed, with four points separating the two top parties. The Liberals lead the Tories 34-30. The NDP, with 16 per cent of voter support, has lost its modest post-debate gains.

In B.C., the Liberals appear to be pulling into a solid lead in what was a tight three-way race, gaining strength as the Conservatives suffer a 13-point decline from last year's election results. The Liberals have the support of 39 per cent of declared voters in the province, compared to 29 per cent for the NDP and 26 per cent for the Conservatives.

In Quebec, however, Liberal support is falling apart. At 20 per cent, they have fallen 10 percentage points since the beginning of the campaign, and even strong federalists are abandoning the party. The Bloc dominates, with 58 per cent, while the Conservatives and NDP are both at

9 per cent.

Frankly, I don't go around demanding apologies. I can take a punch."

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, refusing Paul Martin's request that he apologize for suggesting the Liberal Leader wants a separatist government in Quebec to wrap himself in the flag and win votes.

CHRISTMAS CAMPAIGN Debates work like a tonic; now the gloves come off
Do you want the smart tax cut, as a consolation for Liberal bungling? Or the dumb, but popular, tax cut?

STEVE MAICH
December 20, 2005

The most enlightening moments of an election campaign never come in the choreographed media presentations. They're more often in the unscripted moments that crop up along the way.

When Stephen Harper is enthusiastically embraced by a grinning toddler, and he reacts as if the child might be infected with the Ebola virus, he's telling you something about himself. And when one of Paul Martin's senior advisers says working parents are more likely to blow a little extra cash on beer and popcorn than to spend it on their children, you learn something about the attitudes that help form Liberal policy. The media tend to characterize these things as "gaffes," when in fact they are precious moments of truth.

These little clues are useful, but the more substantive evidence is gleaned from the ideas that underlie the parties' promises. Take, for example, the contrast between two key tax proposals now on offer to Canadians: do you want the smart tax cut, offered as a consolation prize for Liberal bungling? Or do you prefer the dumb, but popular, tax cut, proposed by the Tories?

First, consider the incumbents' plan. In addition to gradually reducing income taxes by $30 billion over five years, Team Martin is now dangling a proposal to slash dividend taxes. It's a sensible idea, affordable and likely to yield real benefits to the economy. The trouble is not the end result, but the disgraceful route taken to arrive there.

The dividend tax cut was announced last month, after several weeks of costly agonizing in Ottawa, all revolving around the Liberals' paranoia that income trusts are decimating federal coffers. Companies structured as trusts pay out most of their cash flow to investors in monthly cash distributions, and by doing so, they're able to avoid federal taxes. Some estimate this costs the feds hundreds of millions every year, but that wasn't seen as a major problem until recently. More and more companies have been converting into income trusts of late, and when reports surfaced this year that some major banks might make the switch, the bureaucrats in Finance mashed the panic button.

Ralph Goodale declared that this income trust thing had to be reined in, and a wave of fear was sent crashing through the capital markets. Small investors sold trusts like mad, retirees saw their portfolio values plummet, and confusion reigned. In the end, on the eve of a new election, Goodale stumbled on the simple solution that had been obvious to most observers all along: cut the dividend tax rate to reduce the incentive for companies to convert into trusts. It'll still cost the feds millions, but the so-called tax leakage will be reduced, and companies will be encouraged to reinvest profits in the business.

The Liberals ended up in the right place, but not before sparking an unnecessary crisis for untold thousands of investors. The whole farce was capped off by what appears to have been a disastrously timed leak from Goodale's underlings that may have sparked a rush of insider trading on the day of the announcement. Now the Liberals are campaigning as if this tax cut is a gift to voters that came in a flash of fiscal genius. It's a clever line, it's just not true.

Sadly, the prime alternative suffers a different set of problems. The central plank of the Conservative tax plan, so far, is Harper's promise to trim a percentage point off the much-loathed GST, and to follow up with another percentage point cut within a few years. It's good politics, and bad policy.

The Tories declared that the initial cut would put another $400 a year in the pockets of an average family with an income of $60,000. Sounds great, except it won't. That calculation assumes the family spends $40,000 a year (essentially every penny of its net income) on things subject to the GST. In the real world, most families spend a lot on GST-exempt necessities -- like groceries, rent or mortgage payments -- meaning the real savings will be far less than advertised. But that's not all. The Tory tax cut is also totally regressive. Slashing a consumption tax like the GST favours the people that buy the most stuff -- i.e. the rich -- thus providing the greatest benefit to the people who need it the least.

Harper defends the cut on economic grounds, saying there's no better way to spur consumption. And that may be, but Canada doesn't have a consumption problem, it has a competitiveness problem. People and corporations don't need encouragement to go buy more stuff, they're already doing that at a healthy pace. The country needs incentives to invest more for the future. A GST cut encourages the opposite. Moreover, every point cut from the GST costs the feds $4.5 billion a year, so there won't be much room for additional relief once this is done.

It hardly inspires confidence that Harper flubbed a basic math question right out of the gate, and seems to misread the nature of Canada's economic challenge. The only redeeming fact is that the Tories are at least offering up a policy that people seem to want.

Still, it's a depressing choice. Do you want the party that has fallen backwards into the right policy, but only after blundering through a few missteps first? Or would you rather the party that's more prone to let populism form the backbone of misguided policy? Hey, we said election campaigns could be enlightening, not inspiring.

Stephen Harper quipped that the NDP is “proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.” It's hard to imagine a Devil promoting affordable housing, education, social conscience, women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, daycare or health care.
by Michael Nickerson
December 22, 2005

It's been quite a sight watching Stephen Harper contort himself into a sheep costume these last few months, and despite a few hiccups along the way, he's done a remarkably good job transforming into the sort of placid political farm animal that Conservative strategists hope will win over the Canadian public.

He's got a new haircut, a new wardrobe and a sudden affinity for photo-ops with 14-year-olds. If he isn't flipping burgers in summertime, then he's cracking wise in the winter, all his fangs tucked away, a peaceful, caring man who has found his heart along with the centre line of Canadian politics.

He's done such a good job that you almost forget who's still inside the costume.

Not that the Liberals haven't tried to remind us.

More worried about job security than actually doing the job at hand, they've turned the last two election campaigns into fear fests right out of a David Cronenberg horror movie, replete with ogres and monsters and tales of the apocalypse should we do anything other than vote for our local Grit.

It's the sort of divisive, negative politics that has made many grow weary of the electoral process. But with another of Harper's skeletons clattering out of the closet last earlier this month, one wonders whether it's more than just Liberal smoke and mirrors when it comes to the right-wing bogeyman.

In an eight-year-old speech (which received very little coverage or commentary in the corporate media) that Conservative Party strategist Tim Powers tried to spin as nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek laugher on par with the sort of wit displayed at the annual press gallery dinners, Harper expressed a side of himself recently forgotten.

Aside from the undesirability of ever subjecting people to the sort of wit expressed at such dinners and the need to leave humour in the hands of comedians and not stilted politicians who chuckle at a moderately well-turned pun, this speech was not humour, nor jest, but a public expression of a man enamored with a political movement and social focus that would appall most Canadians.

Speaking to a crowd whose members would make even the most radical of Conservatives and former Reformers seem like mild-mannered Communists, Harper comes across as a man not terribly proud of his own country; in fact, he seems disdainful of much that it represents.

He calls us a welfare state, second tier, a land where unemployed people happily live on the public dole. We are “basically an English-speaking country,” with a French-speaking minority throwing dirt in the gears of government. We consider things like universal health care and women's rights fundamental, ideas that apparently would horrify his audience whom he calls “a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.”

I would be very surprised if many in this country would ever consider the Council for National Policy an inspiration, save for a few evangelicals who might like to see church and state find their way back into the same room.

Referred to by some as a “think tank,” the CNP is a collection of diehard conservatives and religious fundamentalists who are already making many Americans fear for their First Amendment rights. Expressing and financially supporting views that have been at the heart of a resurgence of Republican power in the U.S., this group represents much that is right (forgive the pun), if you're Stephen Harper, but much that is very wrong if you have an ounce of social compassion.

Since Harper's speech in 1997, the United States has moved steadily towards a policy of tax cuts, and more tax cuts. The idea has always been an unproven one: that putting money in the hands of the middle class will lead to prosperity for all. The sad fact is, it has gone quite the other way in the U.S., with an increased stratification of rich and poor, spiraling debt, and a devalued dollar, along with social and foreign policies that few in Canada would ever consider “an inspiration.”

Stephen Harper quipped that the NDP is “proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.” It's hard to imagine a Devil promoting affordable housing, education, social conscience, women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, daycare or health care.

The Devil may be in the details, but not in the policies. It's an observation that I suspect is still lost on the new Harper, or at least the Republican behind the costume.

Michael Nickerson is a regular columnist and political commentator for Politics Canada and Esprit de Corps magazine. His work has also appeared in a range of publications, including The Globe & Mail, The Toronto Star, The Halifax Chronicle-Herald, and the e-zine Caffimage.com.

December 21, 2005

There was a flash of firewall in Stephen Harper's remarks this week. Even as he competes to head the government of Canada, the Conservative Leader is running against the very notion of a strong central government. He has gone beyond attacking Paul Martin's Liberal government. By using such terms as paternalistic and domineering, he has suggested it is illegitimate for Ottawa to exercise its influence in the federation on behalf of all Canadians. He paints a picture of Ottawa stepping on the provinces' toes, and proposes to "limit the federal spending powers that the Liberals have so badly abused" and that have "given rise to a domineering federalism, a paternalistic federalism." He would also allow Quebec a seat at international conferences, as though it were a separate country.

It is fair to ask where he would stop. A minority government headed by Mr. Harper's Conservatives would rely on the separatist Bloc Québécois to support it. The Bloc would demand further concessions for Quebec, which, if Mr. Harper were true to past Reform Party and Canadian Alliance values, he would offer as well to the other provinces. What would he expect the federal government to look like after a few years of this? How many tax points might he hand to the provinces before calculating that the federal government -- the sole government that represents all Canadians -- has surrendered enough?

Does he believe that more money and a seat at international tables would mollify the separatists, rather than whet their appetite for full independence? He claimed this week that the Martin Liberals "can't wait to see a PQ [Parti Québécois] government, so they can stand up for federalism and fight the separatists." There are times when it seems Mr. Harper is using the separatist threat as an excuse to transfer federal funds and oversight to Quebec and, as a corollary, to other provinces. Mr. Martin's attack -- that Mr. Harper "would simply reduce the role of the federal government to a tax collector" -- didn't have the sting of Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau's 1979 jibe that Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark would be merely a headwaiter to the provinces. But the point is the same: that it is odd to see someone running for federal office whose aim is to weaken the federal presence in Canadian life.

The earlier firewall reference was to a letter Mr. Harper wrote in 2001 with five other intellectuals, including University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan, his closest adviser, urging Alberta Premier Ralph Klein to build a "firewall" around the province to protect it from an "aggressive and hostile" federal government. They wanted Alberta to defy the Canada Health Act, to collect its own income tax and to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan. When Mr. Klein replied that "the vast majority of Albertans" would reject a retreat behind their provincial borders, and when polls indicated that Mr. Klein was right, Mr. Harper responded that it was early days and that his ideas would eventually catch on. His comments this week suggest his antipathy toward Ottawa has not mellowed.

Mr. Martin is certainly no role model for standing up to the provinces, as he showed in his capitulation to Newfoundland and Labrador over equalization payments and revenues from federally owned resources. And his sharp words to Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe during last Friday's debate -- "I am a Quebecker and you are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question" -- had a hint of prepared notes and borrowed phrasing to them. But there was no doubting his passion in speaking up for a united Canada.

The same passion has been missing in Mr. Harper, which raises the germane question of how a Conservative government he led would handle a Quebec referendum on sovereignty. His history is less than reassuring. He is on record as condemning the 1997 Calgary Declaration, a mild document drafted by nine premiers as an olive branch to Quebec on national unity. In his acceptance speech as the new Conservative Leader last year, he spoke (in French) about "what Canadians and Quebeckers want from us now," as though Quebeckers were somehow separate from Canadians.

When Mr. Harper talks about a "domineering federalism," he invites apprehension that he would give away the federal store. If this view does him a disservice, he would do well to counter it as soon as possible.

By Mark Browne
Esquimalt News
December 21 2005


A column in a right-wing U.S. newspaper has given Liberal MP Keith Martin the ammo he needs for his argument about what a Conservative election victory would mean for Canada.

The MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca recently issued a press release with an excerpt from a column written by Patrick Basham in the Washington Times on Dec. 2 that essentially endorses Conservative leader Stephen Harper.

“Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto and socially conservative,” Basham wrote. “Move over Tony Blair: if elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush’s new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader.”

Basham’s comments, Martin said, reveal certain truths about Harper and the Conservatives. As well, he said the column provides examples about why he left the Conservatives in early 2004 to join the Liberals.

The party’s stance on social issues, its “punitive” approach to recreational marijuana use and its ties to the Republicans are among the reasons Martin said he crossed the floor.
The Republicans have sent “trainers” to Canada to indoctrinate Conservative Party MPs and staffers about ideologies and policies advocated by President George Bush, Martin said. As well, many Conservatives have attended training camps put on by the Republicans in the U.S., Martin said.

Many social conservative groups are also getting involved in Canadian politics through their ties with the Conservatives, he said.

“This is very dangerous for Canada, this toxic mix of religion and politics that Stephen Harper embraces,” Martin said.

Gary Lunn, the Conservative MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, dismisses how Martin is using a column from an American newspaper to make Harper and his party look bad.

“I think Keith Martin should be answering about the Liberal Party’s record for the last 12 years … Instead of telling us what they’ve done and what they stand for he’s going totally negative,” Lunn said. “His statement has zero credibility.”

Canada, Lunn said, is a “very strong ally” with the U.S. and the relationship would be stronger if the Conservatives come to power on Jan. 23.

Martin rejects Lunn’s suggestion that he’s running a negative campaign.

“I’m merely stating the facts of what has been reported and what’s actually taking place and to point out the very clear and stark difference that people will have on Jan. 23,” he said.

Harper sent a letter to the Washington Times concerning the column by Basham, who also described the federal Liberals as a “centre-left” party.

Harper stated that while he’s pro-free trade, if he became prime minister he would expand trade with Asia if the U.S. didn’t pay the $5 billion in softwood lumber subsidies. He also said that while he applauded the efforts by the U.S. to establish democracy in Iraq he doesn’t support sending Canadian troops to war in that country.

December 21, 2005

CBC News

Toronto voters should not be frightened into voting Liberal to stop the Conservatives because the Tories have no chance of getting elected in the city, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday.

Layton said during a campaign stop in Toronto that there is no need for strategic voting, and anyone who supports the New Democrats should feel free to vote for them.

"[The Liberals] are going to try to scare the people of Toronto," he said. "They will paint Stephen Harper and the Conservatives as the big bad wolf. But the truth is that there are no Conservatives in Toronto to be afraid of and we are going to keep it that way."

Layton pointed out that no federal Conservative has been elected in Toronto in 17 years, and that on average, the Tory candidate has finished almost 15,000 votes behind the Liberal.

"So a Conservative in Toronto has about as much chance of getting elected as a jaywalker does [of] getting across the 401," Layton said.

"The Liberal scare tactic doesn't work in Toronto. It is like being afraid of sharks in Lake Ontario."

Layton, who is the only NDP MP in Toronto, also took a swipe at Liberal Leader Paul Martin's press for national unity by praising former prime minister Jean Chretien's stance on Iraq.

"When Jean Chretien made the courageous decision to keep Canada out of this war, New Democrats supported him. Paul Martin hid. He ducked, he waffled, he spoke out at both sides of his mouth and now he tries to claim credit.

"Paul Martin is no Captain Canada," added Layton. "He is Captain What Can I Say to Get Some Votes Today. And we can do much better than that."

December 21, 2005

CBC News

Paul Martin swung back on the national unity debate on Wednesday, saying Conservative Leader Stephen Harper went too far in suggesting the Liberals want a separatist government in Quebec.

Martin said in Dartmouth, N.S., he's been fighting for national unity all his life.

Harper has been on the attack all week on the issue of Quebec separatism in an effort to grab the role of federalist champion from Martin and the Liberals. He suggested on Tuesday that Martin was hoping for a Parti Québécois victory in Quebec so he could play the hero defending national unity.

Martin said on Wednesday Harper owes him the courtesy of withdrawing what he said.

"As different as our views might be I would never for a moment suggest that Stephen Harper would prefer for partisan political reasons to see a separatist victory," Martin said in prepared remarks.

Harper scoffed at the suggestion, saying that Martin has made worse remarks about the Conservatives getting into bed with the separatists.

"This accusation I've made against Mr. Martin arises because it is Mr. Martin who's talked continually about a referendum and about having a PQ government in Quebec," said Harper.

"I don't go around demanding apologies," Harper said at a campaign stop in Chatham, Ont. "I can take a punch."

The Tory leader is also offering to debate Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, head-to-head, in French.

On Wednesday morning, Martin denied he was running from the fight.

"We have two more debates to come and I am certainly going to defend my vision of Canada, I am going to defend Canada's unity very, very strongly in both of those debates and I look forward to doing it," Martin said.

That vision, he said, includes strong provinces and a strong federal government, working together.

The Liberal leader was in Dartmouth talking about his government's support for research and development, and touting his record on economic growth.

He also pointed out that the Liberals' lifetime capital gains exemption rise announced on Monday would apply to fishers.

The Hamilton Spectator
(Dec 20, 2005)

RE: 'Harper makes a play for parents' (Dec. 13)

As I read this article, I became increasingly angry at the implications of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's $500 tax break for families with kids in sports activities. This, coupled with the $1,200 tax break for each child under six, shows how little Harper understands about how Canadian families operate.

My children were active in sports in school and day care. We paid karate, swimming, and dance lessons. Our connections with our community were through the school, friendships and music.

Despite his insistence that politicians should not tell parents how to spend their money, Harper is indirectly doing that with this latest announcement. Not all children are inclined toward, or interested in, sports activities.

Will Harper be expanding his tax break for families to pay for music lessons? Chess? Books? Crafts? Clubs? Brownies? All of these have the potential to enrich children's lives, increase community involvement and support success in school. Why are sports singled out?

Harper says the Liberals are trying to replace families -- how? By funding day-care spaces? By suggesting the money they set aside for childcare actually be spent on childcare? The implication is that people who decide to put their children in day care are not "families."

This is outrageous. What we need is not more money for individual parents to spend as they wish, nor financial incentives for women to stay home with their children, nor money to pay for private sports lessons or club fees.

We need quality, well-financed day care spaces with well-qualified, well-paid and motivated teachers who will provide the kind of stimulating programs, including sports and other activities, children need to stay safe, healthy, and happy.

And although it is not a federal responsibility and therefore not a topic of discussion in this election campaign, we also need more money for public school physical education programs.

My own children are now young adults. As a public school teacher, I paid for day care throughout their early years so that I could continue to work in a career I loved and contribute to the income of my family. I believe our government needs to support working parents with improved services, not pocket money.

December 20, 2005
CBC News

The federal Liberals in Quebec would like nothing more than a separatist government, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said on Tuesday.

Harper said in Toronto that the Liberals are fighting a phoney war against separatists in Quebec hoping to distract voters from their own record of corruption.

The Liberals would like to see the Parti Québécois form a government in Quebec so the Liberals could assume the mantle of heroes of national unity.

"I think it's obvious," he said. "I think they can't wait to see a PQ government, so they can stand up for federalism and fight the separatists."

The hard-hitting remarks came at a Toronto boxing club, where Harper held a roundtable discussion on urban youth and crime.

They also come a day after Harper spoke to the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, and presented his Conservatives as the better alternative for federalist Quebecers.

On Tuesday, the Tory leader said he would have more details about the Conservatives' plan to reduce crime, but that the country needs crime-prevention programs, not a redundant handgun ban, as proposed by the Liberals.

"Every child should have the right to grow up in a safe and secure environment. We must help young people avoid crime and avoid becoming the victims of crime."

Pro-abortion advisors, party officials often pressure candidates to hide from life, marriage issues

By Paul Tuns and Steve Jalsevac

December 18, 2005

Every Canadian federal election, all candidates are faced with the decision of whether or not to complete and sign the Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) questionnaire on “controversial” life and marriage issues. (See the 2005-6 CLC Federal Election Questionnaire online at http://campaignlifecoalition.com/elections/federal...)

It is a recurring struggle pitting candidates’ consciences and commitment to democratic openness against political advisers that often have no respect for their candidates’ personal principles. It is also something that CLC national leader Jim Hughes believes grassroots pro-life Canadians can greatly influence when they pursue the candidates about it.

CANDIDATES WRONGLY TOLD SIGNING WILL HARM ELECTION CHANCE

The Canadian national pro-life organization sends its questionnaire to every candidate in every party all across the country during federal elections. Unfortunately, say CLC leaders, many candidates usually completely underestimate the importance of responding to it. As well, says CLC, many pro-life leaning candidates sadly accept, without any real proof, advice or pressure to avoid the questionnaire because, they are always told, it would harm their election chances.

CLC National President Jim Hughes“To put it a lot milder than I really feel like saying, nothing could be further from the truth”, says Jim Hughes, the national president of CLC. “I can’t believe that this goes on election after election and that so many naïve candidates, including some incumbent MPs from every party, are taken in every time by the party hacks or the media propaganda on this”, says Hughes.

Hughes says, “openly pro-life candidates get elected and re-elected all across the country every time and often by wide margins, sometimes near the highest margins for their party." “In the last federal election”, he says, “not a single pro-life MP lost." "And when some of them have lost in the past", he emphasizes, "those losses had absolutely nothing to do with their views on the life issues."

“So, please,” Hughes asks, “someone tell my why anyone continues to believe that complete nonsense that being openly pro-life, pro-family is an election handicap.” “Responding to the questionnaire always helps those candidates”, he states. “Anyone who tells them otherwise has certain agendas, is misguided or is just plain not to be trusted.”

Recently in Toronto, leading Republican strategist, Ralph Reed, emphasized the folly of candidates believing they have to hide from social conservatism. Reed said, “The reason why we won was … we ran unapologetically and boldly on a conservative, pro-family platform.” He added that when a politician runs on a social conservative platform, he is not simply “preaching to the choir,” but appealing to every constituency, because such values are held commonly by people of every background. “It’s a mainstream, common sense set of values”, he said.

CRUCIAL INFORMATION FOR INFORMED VOTING

“First of all” says Hughes, “answering the questionnaire provides Canada’s so-called social conservative voters with crucial information about who they might vote for and perhaps donate to and work on their campaign.”

“Second”, Hughes says, “if the responses are straightforward pro-life, it tells voters in a riding, whether they are concerned about the life and family issues or not, that this candidate is up front, honest and believes in some serious principles. Principled candidates are seen to be a rarity and are naturally attractive to all voters. The public instinctively knows such a person can be trusted.”

He also explains that candidates have the option of responding in their own words or adding comments to the quesionnaire if they prefer. CLC just wants to know where the candidates stand on the questions.

CLC’s final published ratings do not include endorsements of candidates but it does rate the candidates, as "pro-life", "pro-life with exceptions", "not pro-life" or "pro-abortion". The organization’s Voters’ Guide in The Interim newspaper or on its website simply provides information so that Campaign Life Coalition supporters can make informed decisions on election day.

As well, the information obtained is vital because it puts into motion the national organization’s other machinery to assist a candidate. It gives CLC the hard evidence it must have to motivate its large grassroots membership in individual ridings to support and vote for pro-life, pro-marriage leaning candidates.

Mary Ellen Douglas, national coordinator for CLC, also stresses the importance of getting the completed questionnaires back to the national pro-life organization as quickly as possible. “Too often”, she states, “we have had supportable candidates send in their responses too late for us to do anything for them. We need time to get the word out in a riding and give our local supporters the opportunity to do something for the candidate.”

NOT SIGNING SAYS LIFE ISSUES LIKELY NOT IMPORTANT TO CANDIDATE

Hughes laments, “a lot of pro-life candidates say ‘I’m pro-life, the voters know I’m pro-life and so I don’t need to complete the questionnaire’. If a candidate, even an incumbent, can’t take the time to sign our questionnaire then that tells many of our supporters, and especially many new people who also look up our results, that the life and family issues are likely not important to that candidate. Then, especially for new candidates without a solid voting record, we are left helpless because we have nothing to give the folks to prove the candidate is worth considering.”

“Our supporters,” says Hughes, “don’t act and vote for candidates just because we tell them to. Anyone who thinks that is sadly mistaken. The grassroots wants hard evidence that a candidate has made some significant commitments to do something. No commitment - no action, no vote. And there’s nothing I can do about that”

MP PARLIAMENTARY VOTING RECORDS ALONE NOT ENOUGH

Some incumbent Members of Parliament have asked why CLC does not rely on parliamentary votes alone. Hughes says that usually won’t cut it since there simply aren’t enough bills on life issues to provide a clear indication of every MPs positions. However, this election there is a more extensive voting record than usual and lots in information from the 2004 election. Still, to be fair to all candidates, CLC strongly encourages all incumbent pro-life MPs to complete the questionnaire again.

Whereas in the United States Congress and Senate there are often several abortion and other life issue bills voted on each session, in Canada there can be years between votes on these issues. Our governments do everything possible to avoid ‘controversial’ issues, to avoid recorded votes and to prohibit their MPs from speaking and voting freely on them.

Furthermore, the questionnaire is crucial to evaluate candidates running for Parliament for the first time. By focusing on the questionnaire, CLC and grassroots pro-lifers are using a level playing field for a point of reference in comparing all candidates.

CLC QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUES MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OTHERS

Hughes laments many candidates’ lack of understanding of the huge importance of the issues in the CLC questionnaire. He states, “the hardest thing to accept about all the lame excuses we get every time from candidates for not responding in some meaningful way is that these are the only election issues that deal with the very life and death of over 100,000 innocent, vulnerable Canadians per year by abortion and a number now growing with euthanasia. This is having a massive affect on our nation, on our society, on our future.”

Hughes adds, “Our questions are the only ones that deal with the collapse of respect for all human life and with the destruction of marriage, the necessary foundation for any healthy culture and the nurturer of future generations. These are far more important issues than anything else these candidates will be dealing with.” “And yet,” he adds, “many don’t comprehend this or perhaps just don’t want to or haven’t the courage to face them.”

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES CAN MAKE CRUCIAL ELECTION DIFFERENCE

There are MPs across Canada who know the difference that pro-life Canadians have made at their nomination and general election victories. In a close race, just a few hundred pro-life votes can make the difference between winning a squeaker of a race or finishing a disappointing second. And such races can have a big impact.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the importance of returning a questionnaire is the story of a questionnaire that wasn’t completed and which might have changed Canadian political history for good.

THE LOIS BROWN VS BELINDA STRONACH SAGA

The socially conservative Lois Brown faced the pro-abortion Belinda Stronach for the Conservative nomination in Newmarket-Aurora in 2004. Her situation was one of many that illustrated a crucial loss experienced by a candidacy that refused to complete the CLC questionnaire.

Stronach had just been beaten in the leadership race by Stephen Harper so she had the benefit of not only her money but a high-profile, national campaign behind her.

Brown sought CLC’s assistance knowing that in such contests, the margin of victory can be quite small. However, for whatever reason, probably party advisors, she sadly refused to sign CLC’s questionnaire. The organization could not apply a double standard to her simply because she was facing Stronach and therefore was unable to rally that crucially needed extra support to put her nomination over the top.

Brown lost her nomination by 100 votes out of more than 1,000 cast. The number of people on CLC’s database in the riding far exceeded the 100-vote margin she lost by. They could have easily been activated for the nomination fight - if Brown returned a questionnaire and gave CLC what it needed to motivate its supporters to get involved in the nomination battle.

Imagine, now, how the events of the last 18 months might have been different if Brown had defeated Stronach for the Conservative nomination in Newmarket-Aurora.

Brown might have won in the general election in June 2004. There would have been no Belinda Stronach to entice with a cabinet post to cross the floor to save the Liberals in a close budget vote in May 2005, a budget that passed only after the Liberal Speaker of the House tipped the scales after a tie vote. The government survived for another six months, during which time the Martin Liberals passed the same-sex ‘marriage’ bill.

This is not to imply Brown is responsible for same-sex ‘marriage.’ She might not have won the election and Prime Minister Paul Martin might have persuaded another Conservative to join them. But history might have been very different if Brown completed the questionnaire and a hundred pro-lifers became involved in her nomination battle with Stronach.

STILL, MANY CANDIDATES DO COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Campaign Life Coalition stresses that although many candidates do not respond to the questionnaire or just send in canned party responses, enough candidates still have sufficient regard for democracy and openness to make the mammoth exercise worthwhile. The national pro-life organization has accumulated a large amount of information that will allow many voters to make informed voting decisions on these issues that are their top priority.

Jim Hughes urges supporters to view the extensive results on line via LifeSiteNews.com, after they are posted in the near future, or to call Campaign Life Coalition at 1-800-730-5358 or 416-204-9749.

GRASSROOTS PRO-LIFE VOTERS MUST ASK CANDIDATES IF THEY SIGNED

He also urges every Canadian who understands the high priority of the defence of life and family to make an extra effort to seek out and ask every candidate in their riding if they completed the CLC questionnaire and answered each question. And if the candidate has not answered the questionnaire or only part of it, Hughes says to “insist that the candidates do so or you will not consider anything else they have to say and certainly will not vote for them.”

“That”, says, Hughes, “is one the most important things the grassroots supporters can do for us.” If the candidate says he or she does not have the questionnaire, Hughes urges supporters to call CLC and they will tell if and how many times it was sent to the particular candidate or will arrange a trained representative to immediately get one to the candidate. As well, Campaign Life Coalition will take responses directly from the candidate over the phone, if necessary.

See the 2005 CLC Federal Election Questionnaire online at
http://campaignlifecoalition.com/elections/federal...

Martin O'Hanlon, Canadian Press

December 19, 2005

OTTAWA (CP) - Stephen Harper is promising Quebec more autonomy at home and abroad, hoping that building bridges with the province will help him along the road to power.

The Conservative leader said Monday he would allow Quebec to play a role in international institutions such as UNESCO, when its cultural responsibilities are at stake. The province already participates in la Francophonie, but Harper said he'd look at expanding that to other groups.

He also pledged to recognize provincial autonomy "as well as the special cultural and institutional responsibilities of the Quebec government."

And he said a Tory government would correct the so-called fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces, although he offered no specifics on how he would do that.

Harper made the announcement in French in Quebec City, but the message appeared to be aimed at people across the country as much as at Quebecers. It's part of a broader effort to convince wary voters that the Conservatives are tolerant and inclusive.

Harper used the outrage in Quebec over the sponsorship scandal to hammer home his message that there is a choice between Liberal corruption and Bloc Quebecois separation.

"Making a real change means having an honest government that can help Quebec be more than just a powerless spectator in the House of Commons or totally absent from the cabinet table," he said.

"The federal Liberal party has damaged the cause of federalism in Quebec. Millions of Quebecers are looking for an alternative to corruption and separation that only a new Conservative government can provide."

The Tories have little support in Quebec and Harper is well aware that must change if the party is ever to achieve a majority government.

Quebec has long demanded a more direct role in the negotiations on the world stage that affect provincial jurisdiction, such as culture and language. A poll this year suggested that 60 per cent of Quebecers supported that view.

Prime Minister Paul Martin said before the last election that provinces should have a greater international say in areas of their jurisdiction.

However, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew insists Canada must still speak with one voice.

"Our intention is to make sure that the Canadian voice is well co-ordinated with the provinces," he said this fall.

Heritage Minister Liza Frulla got into hot water this year when she said her Quebec counterpart could speak for Canada at a UNESCO meeting.

While Harper was courting Quebecers, the Bloc Quebecois - which holds a huge lead in the polls in its home province - got an endorsement from the 500,000-strong Quebec Federation of Labour.

The federation said the Bloc is best placed to defend Quebec's interests on a wide variety of issues.

The federation supported certain Bloc candidates in last year's election and even backed one New Democrat.

By Gudrun Schultz

EDMONTON, Alberta, December 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A woman who went to a Conservative rally to seek support for a petition after her pregnant daughter was murdered last month was harassed, manhandled, and threatened with removal.

Mary Talbot has been circulating a petition asking for legislation to bring criminal charges against anyone who causes the death of an unborn child by killing the child’s mother. Talbot lost her 19-year-old daughter, Olivia, and her daughter’s unborn son last month when her daughter was shot to death in her Edmonton home. (See earlier LifeSiteNews coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121408.html)

Peter Goldring, Conservative MP for Edmonton East, told Talbot to go to the rally, and provided tickets for the event, she said. At the rally, Talbot and several supporters were handing around copies of the petition when Conservative supporters descended on them, saying it was illegal for candidates to sign petitions, and blocking a picture of Talbot’s daughter with party signs.

“I was physically backed into a corner, separated from the rest of our group,” Talbot said. “One person kept hitting my arm with a party sign, trying to get me to lower my daughter’s picture—it was humiliating and uncalled-for.”

Talbot says she was grabbed by a security guard who threatened to throw her out.

“Is Canada becoming a communist country? Was I waiting to see Hitler? We were just there to talk with Stephen Harper and ask him to support the petition.”

Harper apologized, said Talbot, once he arrived on the scene and she was able to speak with him privately.

“I really felt I’d been stripped of my dignity.”

He stated that he was only recently aware of her petition, and did not yet have an official position on it. Talbot says she has faith in the people of Canada and believes that eventually the law will be changed.

“There were two bodies in that coffin. My daughter was cradling her baby in her arms. It’s beyond me how anyone can say this wasn’t two murders. Don’t you know how to count?”

Under current federal law the unborn child is not considered a person until it has been born alive. There is no legal judgment against causing the death of the child through the murder of its mother.

By BILL RODGERS -- Toronto Sun

December 18, 2005

OTTAWA -- What's not to like about Stephen Harper?

Well, quite a few things it seems. And it doesn't matter if you're a recent arrival to Canada or you've been watching Canadian politics for years -- there are striking similarities in the views expressed about the Conservative leader's public image.

It has been a hot topic of debate ever since Harper's Liberal adversaries tagged him in the 2004 election as an angry, scary right-winger with a hidden agenda. But political observers and image experts say the perception, fairly or unfairly, goes back years to when he helped co-found the now-defunct western protest party, Reform, and later his heading up of the conservative National Citizens Coalition.

"I think he used some intemperate language and it reflected an anger at the country but also the people within it and it hurt him with women," said Warren Kinsella, an adviser to former Grit PM Jean Chretien.

Melissa Haussman, an associate professor of political science at Carleton University, who just moved to Canada from the U.S. last August, sees a lot of American in Harper's style. She contends that Harper, rather than his opponents, is the author of the image the public has of him today.

"He has run like a lot of (political) figures actually in the U.S. as being an anti-system candidate," Haussman said.

"He and his party in particular have massaged that image pretty strongly, so I don't think it's a great surprise that he comes off that way because, in fact, that's the way in which he's tried to package his appeal."

Haussman said the Conservative leader's decision to raise the same-sex marriage issue on the very first day of the election campaign last month is an example of statements he's made that lend themselves to the harsh conclusions of some Canadians, even though he has been attempting to soften his image.

"I think he's doing his darnedest but obviously there is quite a long-term legacy there of really pushing the hard edge of hot-button issues," she said.

University of Toronto prof Marcel Danesi, who studies images in the media, believes all the polishing and buffing won't change what he believes is an "enormous" problem for Harper.

"He defined himself and the Liberals saw it and simply articulated it and people said, 'Hmm, yeah, I kind of agree with that.' It's the body language, it's the non-verbal communication that comes through consistently," said Danesi.

"(Paul) Martin seems to care. He'll look right into the camera. His eyes are kind. Harper never quite looks into the camera, has difficulty looking at people and therefore it's part of the negative image that we get of him."

Many voters have sensed what they perceive to be the Tory leader's unease in public. In a Leger Marketing/Sun Media poll last week, he ranked behind both Layton and Martin when people were asked which leader had the "nicest personality."

It's not for a lack of trying by the Tory image makers policy makers and the leader himself over the past 12 months. In addition to having a suitcase full of policies not unlike those of the old Progressive Conservative Party, Harper has spiffed up his hair and his clothes, polished his speaking delivery and he's even taken to a little self-deprecating humour.

In a speech to the annual Press Gallery dinner last October, Harper prompted considerable laughter when he said he was the only guy in Canada who looks just like his passport photo.

It's something you have to do in the era of 24-hour TV news and five-second sound bites. Political campaigns have become obsessed with hair, teeth, smile and suits. For a cerebral economist and policy wonk like Harper, it's the kind of political showbiz he detests.

'POLICY WONK'

"Rarely do you meet a policy wonk with a lot of personality," chuckled Conservative strategist Goldy Hyder. "So by the curse of his own admission, he's an economist who takes policy seriously -- not much room for charisma there."

And Hyder notes the playing field has changed since the last election. Liberals, he said, can't accuse the Tory leader of a hidden agenda this time around because the Conservative platform is an open book, which wasn't the case in 2004 when the election happened before the newly merged party's policy convention.

"No one believes Stephen Harper is scary. They may disagree with his policies, they may disagree with his approach but the idea that the Liberals can successfully label him as scary is gone and there's no better evidence of that than the fact that they're not saying it themselves," said Hyder.

SHED NEGATIVE IMAGE

Kinsella believes Harper has done a lot to shed his negative image -- an image he admits to contributing to.

"It's mean, old guys like me who did a better job than we thought in demonizing the Conservative choice going back to the Reform and Alliance days," Kinsella said.

"A lot of that stuff didn't just stick around for an election writ, it actually has remained as an issue for them even though they have an incredibly youthful, ethnically diverse caucus. Most people don't know that."

Kinsella said even though Harper's still not considered the first guy many would want to sit down and have a beer with, he has managed to shake off the scary tag.

December 18, 2005

FROM CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — A new poll suggests Prime Minister Paul Martin was the winner of the English-language election debate on Friday.

But the Decima Research survey also suggests NDP Leader Jack Layton struck a chord with many viewers and that Tory Leader Stephen Harper made the poorest impression of the three main leaders.

The poll found 31 per cent of respondents thought Martin won, with 20 per cent picking Harper and 17 per cent going for Jack Layton.

The survey results, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, suggested that 49 per cent of respondents said the debate improved their perception of Layton.

Another 35 per cent said their impression of Martin was better after the broadcast, while 34 per cent said they thought better of Harper.

Bruce Anderson, Decima’s CEO, said the debate was a boost for Martin.

“Layton did particularly well and Harper trailed the other two, which in a relative sense makes Martin’s performance more important,” Anderson said.

However, he added, Layton made gains.

“The really important measures here are probably Layton’s continued ability to impress people as an empathetic person and as a skilled communicator and, at the same time, Stephen Harper doesn’t seem to be able to achieve that measure of connection with people.”

Anderson said the NDP leader could be a problem for Harper.

“Both of them are essentially competing . . . for the same voters right now; undecided voters, particularly in Ontario, particularly in urban areas.”

The Decima study involves 12,000 voters who were first interviewed Nov. 25-Dec.5, most of whom agreed to be re-interviewed at intervals during the campaign. The latest survey of 2,976 voters was conducted Dec. 16-18 after the English debate and is considered accurate within plus or minus 1.8 percentage points 19 times in 20.

Recent polls show NDP support in the high teens, but some of the support may be soft.

Anderson said the key now is how the parties essentially frame the ballot question for Jan. 23.

“If the ballot question becomes almost a referendum on the Liberal party, then whether the NDP support is elevated or not it will probably hold . . . and that’s probably enough for the Conservatives to win,” he said.

“If the ballot question becomes about Stephen Harper’s Conservative party, then I think that the chances of the soft NDP votes migrating to the Liberals in the last stages of the campaign are still very noticeable in our numbers.”

The poll suggests that the key issues in the debate were national unity, selected by 21 per cent of respondents, and same-sex marriage, cited by eight per cent of viewers.

The sponsorship scandal was cited by only four per cent.

Anderson said he doesn’t think that means the scandal issue has run out of steam. Instead, “a lot of people have heard what they need to hear on that issue” and want to hear about other things.

Richard Foot, CanWest News Service

Published: Saturday, December 17, 2005

BRIDGEWATER, N.S. -- Peter MacKay is driving through the Nova Scotia countryside, from a friendly Tory riding on the province's south shore to the "turncoat" Liberal territory of Kings-Hants a once-solid Conservative base which re-elected Scott Brison as MP after he defected to Paul Martin's Liberals only months before the 2004 election.

The sunlit, wintry surroundings are lovely to behold. Well-kept Christmas tree farms and serene valleys lie beneath a mantle of December frost. But the rural solitude seems lost on MacKay during this day of hectic campaigning. As his car crosses the federal boundary into Kings-Hants, the deputy leader of the Conservative party bristles with thoughts of betrayal.

"You know, crossing the floor, leaving the party at a critical juncture, I could never do that. I could never live with myself," he says. "It's just not in my nature to bail."

MacKay one of the few national figures on the Conservative campaign roster, and Stephen Harper's most obvious successor has been buffeted by issues of loyalty and betrayal his entire political career.

As the son of Mulroney-era cabinet minister Elmer MacKay, he witnessed first-hand the breakup of Mulroney's conservative coalition by western populists and Quebec separatists in the late 1980s.

In 1997, when MacKay himself was first nominated to run for Parliament, his bosses fired him from his Crown prosecutor's job and accused him of breaching a Nova Scotia rule banning provincial employees from seeking elected office. MacKay sued, and eventually won his case, plus an apology from the province.

Six years later he watched with anger and embarrassment as Brison left the Tory benches to join the Liberals. The two Nova Scotian MPs haven't spoken since.

Brison's defection was followed this year by the stinging decision of Belinda Stronach to abandon not only her party, but also MacKay, her boyfriend, for a cabinet post with the Liberals. Humiliated, MacKay retreated to his father's farm in Pictou County, N.S., to lick his wounds.

"I think I'll go home and walk my dog," he said at the time. "At least dogs are loyal."

Whatever disloyalties have been heaped upon him, however, the most infamous betrayal was of MacKay's own making when he broke a written promise to David Orchard, in return for his support at the Progressive Conservative party leadership convention in 2003, not to merge the PCs with the Canadian Alliance.

Today MacKay resolutely defends the merger, saying not only that he gained nothing personally out of the deal he lost his leader's job and was pilloried in the media but that the outcome was fully endorsed by the party's caucus and its members.

Calling it the defining moment of his political career, he says the merger was also a crucial step in ending the vote-splitting on the political right that guaranteed years of Liberal hegemony.

"Some might see it as negative. I think the merger improved democracy in Canada," he says. "We were living in a dysfunctional democracy, and the Conservative party was just eating itself."

Yet the Orchard episode still clouds MacKay's reputation with voters.

In person he is warm and humble: more straightforward, more soft-spoken, and less cold-blooded than he appears in the prefabricated shouting wars of Parliament. But whatever his true qualities, he knows he suffers a credibility problem with the public, and walks with an Achilles heel on the national stage.

"Any time I'm getting under the skin of the Grits," he says, "they start shouting `Orchard."'

Even Nova Scotians who traditionally vote Tory and would otherwise love to see a native son rise to high office in Ottawa remain wary.

"I think Canada needs someone young like him as prime minister," says Esther Ramey, an elderly voter in Bridgewater, N.S., after meeting MacKay at a campaign stop. "But one thing that bothers me about him that sticks in my mind is that he says one thing, and does another."

Says Ralph DeLong, a Nova Scotia farmer and longtime Progressive Conservative: "We're still very nervous of this new federal party, because Harper and his followers are too right-wing for us. I like MacKay, but I don't like what he did with that merger."

Such nagging doubts are almost certain to haunt MacKay if he seeks the leadership of his party, or the country, in the years to come. MacKay denies he is angling for either job, and says he has no leadership machinery or war chest waiting in the wings.

"I have not been organizing or fundraising, or doing anything that would destabilize (Harper's) leadership or the party."

But he would like to be Tory leader, wouldn't he?

"That's a big question, even in my own mind," he says. "Politics takes its toll and I had originally thought I would put in 10-12 years and then reassess."

MacKay says for most of his life he had only "a passing interest" in electoral politics. He was never a member of the PC Youth, or an official delegate to Tory conventions until he became an MP. It was Quebec Premier Jean Charest, who as leader of the federal Tories in 1997, while recruiting young candidates for the election that year, convinced MacKay to get involved.

Until that point, MacKay had kept his distance from politics, wary of the pressures and demands he had seen it impose on his father's life, and the direct role such pressures played in the breakup of his parents' marriage.

Now, after turning 40 this year and enduring the heavy public scrutiny of his own breakup with Stronach, MacKay says he's acutely aware of his status as an aging, albeit eligible, bachelor, and the difficulties of raising a young family as a prominent player inside the high-stakes hot zone of national politics.

"I don't have a family, and that weighs heavily on my mind," he says, "because I want a family."

"It's something that I don't want to miss. Obviously, because of other personal experiences I've had recently, it's caused me to reassess my own priorities."

Is MacKay saying he would pass up a shot at the prime minister's job for the sake of having children?

"Sure I am. Absolutely. There's nothing more important to me than my family, and the prospects of having a family. If somebody said it has to be one or the other, I'd take the family," he says.

And then the disclaimer: "That's not to say you can't do both."

For now, MacKay says he's fully focused on helping Harper win the election. While his romance with Stronach sowed mistrust with Harper, he says the relationship between the two men is "much improved" since then.

MacKay is scheduled to campaign for the Tories across the country until voting day. His mission and his advice to his leader from day one of the campaign has been for Harper to soften his hard edges, show more of his personal side, and convince Canadians not to fear him.

"People voting for this party shouldn't have to feel like they're making a leap of faith," he says, although he admits that remains a daunting task.

"There's an enormous appetite for change, but for some reason we haven't been able to tap into that, to the extent I'd hoped we would," he says.

"But I still believe it will happen."

MacKay would be facing an easier campaign this winter had he accepted the many calls to come home to Nova Scotia and enter the leadership race now underway to replace retiring Premier John Hamm.

Most observers believe he turned down the opportunity because his personal ambitions remain fixed on a much greater national prize. MacKay says he simply couldn't leave his fellow MPs, and betray the new party he'd helped create, on the eve of another election.

"I'm not a quitter," he says. "I'm a team player. I've always played team sports and I've always believed that you're a lot stronger if you stay tight, you stay together, and you work toward a common cause. It's when you have individuals breaking off on their own that's when things fall apart."

Winter campaign

By ELIZA BARLOW, EDMONTON SUN

December 18, 2005


The defiant mother of a murdered pregnant teen held her ground yesterday as Conservative handlers tried their best to muzzle her at a Stephen Harper campaign rally.

"I might as well be standing here waiting for Hitler to come in," said an aghast Mary Talbot, as Tory supporters tried to hide a photo of her slain daughter from view with Conservative placards as she clutched the photo over her head.

"I cannot believe the Conservatives are behaving like this. It's humiliating, excruciatingly upsetting."

Talbot went to the rally at the Alberta Aviation Museum with the intention of asking Harper to support bringing in a law that would allow police to lay murder charges in the slaying of an unborn child.

Talbot's daughter Olivia Marie Talbot, 19, was 27 weeks pregnant when she was shot dead in her Mill Woods home on Nov. 24. It's the family's belief that the man who killed Olivia should be charged with two counts of murder.

Shortly after the Talbot family started to collect signatures for their petition in support of the law, a woman wearing a Conservative campaign jersey told them candidates and their families weren't allowed to sign the petition.

Then Edmonton Centre candidate Laurie Hawn's campaign manager Vitor Marciano told them to put their petition away because the rally wasn't the appropriate venue to gather signatures.

He said it was a time to celebrate Harper's performance at Friday night's leaders' debate and to show support for the Tory campaign. Mary Talbot refused to put the petition away. "I'm going to show my support, too, if he's going to show me his," she told Marciano. "Where else am I supposed to meet these people?"

Security guards crowded around the family as staffers prepared for Harper's arrival at the rally. As Mary Talbot tried to hold up Olivia's picture for news cameras, security guards stood holding campaign placards in front of her. Talbot tried to move but was closely followed by Conservative supporters, with one woman waving a homemade sign in front of Talbot each time she waved the photo.

But when Harper's personal staff arrived, Talbot and Tammy Brownlee, the sister of the unborn baby's father, Lane Griffiths, were whisked away for a meeting with Harper.

According to Talbot, Harper told her he'd just heard of the issue a couple of days ago and doesn't have a position on it yet.

David Taras, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, said the Conservatives are likely skirting the issue because they've become a "middle-class Ontario party."

"What they're trying to do is downplay the kind of old Reform party-Alliance party politics of social conservatism," he said. "They don't want to get into fetus politics."

Taras added that "roughing up victims of crime doesn't make for great politics."

Meanwhile, Harper delivered a 20-minute speech outlining Conservative policies, including a cut in GST, "ironclad protection" for whistle-blowers, an elected Senate and fixed election dates.

December 18, 2005

LES WHITTINGTON
OTTAWA BUREAU

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL—Prime Minister Paul Martin is slamming Conservative Leader Stephen Harper as unfit to govern — even as the Tories and New Democrats are opening the door to working together in a minority government.

The ratcheting-up of the election stakes came rapidly after Thursday and Friday's TV debates, which seemed to signal a new, pull-out-the-stops phase in the holiday campaign.

Martin yesterday asked whether the Conservative leader's desire to outlaw same-sex marriage makes him fit to be Canada's leader.

"We look to the prime minister of the country to protect" the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Liberal leader said as he launched his post-debate campaign phase.

"And in my view, if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then you have no business trying to become prime minister of Canada."

But in an immediate push-back, Harper told more than 500 supporters at a rally in Edmonton that Martin's comments smacked of intolerance.

"Mr. Martin suggested that anyone who disagrees with him on the marriage issue is unfit for public office," Harper thundered to a chorus of catcalls.

"I say that Canada is a democracy," he said. "We have to be able to disagree on these issues and we must accept the right of the people to choose who leads them."All of Canada's leaders were out on the campaign trail in the West yesterday trying to capitalize on the first of two sets of debates in this campaign and plant the impressions that could be sealed when Canadians begin the holidays a week from now.

What this post-debate back-and-forth boils down to is whether Martin or Harper has the momentum in this election campaign and perhaps more significantly, where NDP Leader Jack Layton chooses to park his hopes for being a broker in a minority Parliament.

It leaves voters to decide whether they should back the winner or cast their ballot based on a more complicated calculation of which minority-government mix they prefer.

Martin, who appeared to hit his campaign stride after the first two candidates' debates, continues to zero in on Harper's plan to hold a free vote in Parliament to see if MPs would reverse the current law making gay and lesbian marriages legal.

Martin's campaign seems to be geared around courting soft-left votes that could go to the NDP, and now he's growing ever-more blunt in telling those voters a Conservative government would undermine Charter rights.

But Layton and Harper were dropping hints yesterday that they could in fact work together — undermining that main Martin theme.

While Layton has decried Conservative campaign pledges such as the cut to the GST and reopening the same-sex debate, yesterday he said that it would be irresponsible for him to rule out working with Harper after the Jan. 23 vote.

"If we're starting the election by saying `we're not going to work with other MPs who are elected,' that would be a terrible attitude," Layton said.

"Whoever Canadians send to that House, we will sit down and make our proposals based on our campaign commitments and we will try to find ways to get that adopted," Layton said.

Asked pointblank if he could work with Conservative MPs — whom he has criticized as "wrong on the issues," Layton replied: "We will work with the House of Commons that's composed by Canadians. I think every political leader has that obligation."

`Mr. Martin suggested that anyone who disagrees with him on the marriage issue is unfit for public office.'

Stephen Harper

Harper is not discouraging that scenario either.

"We'd obviously look at the circumstances as they arise, but my inclination in a minority Parliament would be to quite frankly handle things issue by issue probably, rather than try to cut a deal with another party," Harper told CKNW radio Friday.

"Look, if there were people committed to Canada in other parties who wanted to work with our government, I wouldn't discourage that."

On Tuesday, Harper told reporters aboard his campaign plane he believed the NDP could support some of his program. He emphasized that a minority Tory government would "have to engage in a way that's co-operative with the other parties."

"You can't govern as if you have a majority. That was Joe Clark's great mistake," he said, referring to the Progressive Conservative prime minister whose government fell Dec. 13, 1979, after trying to foist an 18-cent-a-litre gasoline tax on Canadians.

But all is not yet settled on the Conservative-NDP front.

Despite the musing about working with the Conservatives, Layton wasn't pulling his punches yesterday. Buoyed by a strong showing in the debates, he lashed out at "ineffective, out-of-touch" Conservatives," saying his five NDP MPs delivered more to B.C. than the 22 Tory MPs. And he said Prime Minister Paul Martin's "broken" promises are an "embarrassment to Canadians."

"Canadians need to send Paul Martin a message. His record is a failed record and it shouldn't be rewarded," he said, following a brunch rally with supporters.

Martin, however, is warning New Democrats that if they thought it was hard to work with Liberals, Conservatives would be much worse at protecting rights and protecting a modern, progressive view of Canada.

Although the Conservative leader says he would not use the controversial opting-out clause in the constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Martin insists that there would be no other way for Harper to do so. And that makes Harper a threat to minority rights under the constitution, Martin says.

"Canada is a nation of minorities" and that makes it paramount to ensure that the government "is never allowed to cherry-pick which rights Canadians can have," he told about 200 Liberal supporters at a rally in nearby Burnaby, B.C.

If elected, Harper would "turn back the clock," Martin declared. "He would take up an old fight (on same-sex marriage) and he would seek to deny a Charter right."

Martin appeared energized by the two nights of debates, in which he scored points on Harper on the same-sex issue and on Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe over the BQ's drive to break up the country.

Reacting to the Conservative leader's characterization of Martin's stand against the Americans on trade as phony, the Liberal leader said, "I don't think, Stephen Harper, that there is anything phony about fighting day in and day out to defend the interests of Canada, to stand up and say that free trade ought to be fair trade."

Martin said Harper seems unwilling to confront the United States on the softwood lumber issue and that the Tories are "playing catch-up" in efforts to protect workers and businesses hurt by U.S. protectionist measures.

Later at a rally in Calgary, Martin kept up the personal onslaught, repeating the assertion that someone who might take away minority rights shouldn't run for prime minister.

Martin said: "Stephen Harper, Charter rights don't belong to you, they belong to Canadians."