sir_springer

It all comes down to this: Harper is running to be the Prime Minister. Layton is running to be the Prime Minister's wench.

I couldn't find, "When hell freezes over." So I settled for, "Never". The day the NDP form a federal government, I'll be with millions of other Canadians down at the border seeking refugee status... At least until Alberta and BC pull the plug. I figure a week, tops.

So then why was Manning on Politics today saying good things about Harper? In fact, I've heard Harper pay tribute to Manning on numerous occasions since his rise to leadership of the CA. And I've heard Manning speak highly of Harper.

http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/politics.html On the RHS, click on the Monday PM version. Then slide across to about the 13 minute mark. There you will hear for yourself Preston Manning state that he does NOT endorse any one of the candidates. And that, in fact, he attended events for all three of them. Any resemblence between the facts and Stan's posts is purely coincidental.

http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/politics.html On the RHS, click on the Monday PM. Then slide across to about the 36 minute mark and listen for yourself. They all concede that Harper clearly is in the lead, however this skewered point system makes polling very difficult. While both Anderson and Gossage are cooler to Harper, Spector is adamant that he's clearly the one to lead against Paul Martin. Anyway... I'm sure you all know better by now than to take anything Maple Stan Syrup has to say as even remotely ressembling the facts or truth.

What did I tell you? WHAT DID I TELL YOU ??? I TOLD you that none of the right wing heavyweights would touch Harper with a ten foot pole. Didn't I? DIDN'T I ??? Galahad, take a valuum. Ya think maybe, just maybe, Manning does not want to reinforce the...albeit ridiculous...notion that Harper constitutes a CA takeover of this new party? So he's keeping a respectful distance rather than line up behind him? As for other "rightwing heavyweights"... Like who? Harris? Mulroney? Those roaches have shown their true colours in spades. Manning has not "endorsed" anyone, a policy he maintained throughout the Day/Harper race as well. On the other hand, he has been generous in his general support of the cause of this party, as well as for whoever emerges as its leader at the end of the day.

Stan, as usual you are so full of "BS", it's a wonder it isn't running out your ears. I watched Question Period. I have no idea what show you were watching, but it wasn't the same one. Or if it was, you were catching it through the bathroom door. Political suicide is Belinda Stronach. In fact, it would be the equivolent of blowing our collective brains out. The credibility of our party would tank quicker than the Titanic. Martin and Laidup would be on her like starving hyenas on a week-old carcass. She'd be roadkill before she gets out of her driveway. Give it a rest, and give the rest of this forum...and that other one you haunt as well...some credit for some intelligence. Or at least try to raise yourself up to the level of those around you. Frankly, you have the political IQ of a doorknob.

Belinda's campaign gets big lift By MICHELLE MARK, Calgary Sun BANFF, ALTA. -- He stopped short of endorsing her, but Reform party founder Preston Manning lent his support to Belinda Stronach during a campaign stop in Banff yesterday. "(Belinda) is as experienced as anyone on international matters," Manning said. "It's not academic, she's been there and I think she has a lot of strength to contribute. It's up to Canadians to decide if they're ready for a house cleaning -- I personally think they are." In her speech to more than 100 party supporters at the Banff Springs Hotel, Stronach expressed her thanks to Manning for his contribution to democratic reform. "I'm very inspired by what you stood for and all the work that you've done to promote that," she said. "You've been a trailblazer for this country and for that you should be truly commended." POLITICAL 'INTEGRITY' Stronach, who is battling Stephen Harper and Tony Clement for the party's leadership, also said political "integrity" has become a bigger issue in light of the Adscam scandal plaguing the Liberals. "Paul Martin wants to believe he was a stowaway on the good ship Chretien when in fact he was its first mate," she said. Stronach said the new Conservative party "has the potential to dramatically change the political landscape in Canada." But she said the party must win seats east of Manitoba. "I am the only candidate that can win Ontario, win Quebec, win Atlantic Canada and win out west."

Maple Stan Syrup... That is such a load of absolute crap, one wonders what the hell planet you live on. Harper has been laying out policies on every issue worth mentioning for two years, long before Stronach had clue about anything to do with politics. Her next original thought on policy will be her first. Your suggestion that Harper is knocking off Stronach's policy statement is, to be blunt, a pathetic and deliberate fabrication. And, to be perfectly honest, it's precisely the type of garbage I've come to expect over the years from slimey NDP trolls like yourself. You're a real piece of work.

I wouldn't trust Jack "I'll sleep with Paul Martin for the right price" Laidup with change for 50 cents. It takes a total clown like that doofus to make Liberals look merely moderately asinine.

Pell, if I had my way, we'd be gone tomorrow...sooner, if possible.

Don't let the door slam in the ass on your way out.

Galahad... Where did you get this knot in your underwear regarding Harper??? It is common knowledge among Reformers that Harper quite literally wrote the policy manual for the Reform Party. In his book, Manning credited Harper as a "brilliant strategist", had nothing bad to say about him at all. Accomplishments? Harper is credited for the actual first draft of the Clarity Act for which Chretien loves to take credit. Again, pretty much wrote the policy manual for the Reform. Has written a wealth of papers and given numerous speeches on policy, conservatism, federalism, you name it. Even has taught at the university level. Do you even begin to understand what the "firewall" thing was about? Do you even care? I agree with the position put forward in that document wholeheartedly. Demands nothing for Alberta that Quebeccers don't already take for granted. Calls for an end to Ottawa's incessant meddling in Alberta's affairs. It talks about Alberta because at that time, Harper was not an MP, just a concerned citizen of a province that's been getting bent over and jammed for decades and for tens of billions of their dollars. Why the hell would you, a supposed "Reformer", find anything at all objectionable with his "firewall" comments? They are nothing more than an extention of provincial jurisdictional rights, an issue that lies at the very core of what the Reform Party was all about since day one. I think you have a bone up your ass over the merger thing...something Manning strove for relentlessly since 1997. And you're looking for someone to blame, if not to literally hate, for what you consider a betrayal of your Reform loyalties. Give it a rest, and take off the blinders. This had to happen, it was inevitable, it's the natural evolution of a process. The PC Party had to gernade first in order to once again become a "conservative" party...as opposed to merely another Liberal Party in drag, waiting for the real one to self-destruct so it could have its own turn at bastardizing this country's institutions, democracy, as well as lining the pockets of their own pals at the government trough. Yes, there is a struggle for control of this new party under way. No doubt about it. The "good ol' boys" of the federal PC heirarchy and Ontario's Big Blue...thinly veiled behind the Stronach campaign...are taking a damn serious run for the grand prize, even as I write this. They are about power, prestige, money, and elitism that have been the trademark of both the Libs and the PCs since I can remember. Harper represents the new CPC, an extention of populist, participatory, grassroots democracy born out of the Reform/CA. Harper is our last hope. He loses this leadership, all of it...the Reform, the CA, you name it...will have been for nothing. And I'm here to tell you that March 21, for me, is the acid test of what this country is going to be about. Harper loses on the 21st, on the 22nd I mail in my CPC membership. And on the 23rd, I start hunting for a separatist party to join...because from that day forward I will not walk across the street to vote in a federal election. Canada, for me, will be a lost cause no longer worth the braincells I've been wasting upon it, let alone the sweat off my GD ass. Yeah, I've got issues with all this, too. But this isn't about Stephen Harper, pal. He's part of the the solution, not the cause. Get that straight in your head right now. This is about the coming moment of truth when we...western Canadians in particular...find out where this country intends to go from here. And if it chooses to go "back to the future" with the likes of that political bimbo and the big bucks behind her, I'm jumping off that train before it even leaves the station. End of story. I've had it with suckin' it up for the sake of kissing central Canada's collective arse just to get treated like second rate colonists in my own country. I know for a fact that a great many other westerners are watching carefully to see what happens on March 21. Harper loses despite pulling the majority of votes actually cast, western members of this party are going to go nuclear. And this new party is going to suffer a meltdown like no one can even begin to imagine.

Galahad... So that you know from where I am coming: I've been a Reformer/CAer/now CPCer since the earliest days of Manning's campaigns to get his new party off the ground. I was, and still am, one of Manning's biggest fans. I also am a fan of Stock Day, despite his crash and burn experience starting in the 2000 election. That said... Stephen Harper brings qualities to the table that neither Manning nor Day could manage to manifest: (And know that I've dug up and read just about every word he's written or uttered over the last ten years.) 1) Politcal savvy the likes of which I have not witnessed since WAC Bennett. 2) Shrewdness that Manning could at times match, but of which Day had little or no inkling. 3) An ability to be a tad ruthless when need be, something that Manning, and certainly not Day, were reluctant to apply when push came to shove. (Joe Clark can thank Harper for the quick demise of his own political career atop the PCs.) 4) A degree of intellect probably only approached by Trudeau. If there is another mind in Ottawa as sharp as Harper's, I have no idea who owns it. 5) A degree of integrity of which those who know him describe as "almost to a fault". 6) A knowledge of conservative principle and policy that is second to no one in this country. Needless to say, I would not want to play neither chess nor poker with this guy. He did NOT, as you suggest, backstab Manning. He simply disagreed with the direction in which Preston was leading the party. As it turned out, Harper was right and Manning was not. And it took Harper's ability and skill to accomplish that which eluded both Manning and Day: Merger. Had Harper ran against both Manning and Day, I would have supported him ahead of the others. Many would have. No one knew more about what the Reform Party was about than Stephen Harper. That being said, by Harper's own admission, he has mellowed on his political stances over recent years, primarily brought about by having his own family...something that tends to take the hard edges off of just about anyone. I had a recent conversation with a member of his caucus. Could not say enough good things about Stephen, but most importantly was the degree of leadership which he brought to the party that had been missing prior. To put it in no uncertain terms: He does not suffer fools lightly, and he does not take shite for an answer, period. The degree of professionalism he has brought to what prior was a rather unruly bunch of MPs has been stark in contrast to that of both his predecessors. As it was told to me, his effect upon the caucus was virtually immediate. Short version: This is the man who must become Prime Minister of this country, end of story. He is precisely what we need to turn around the sorry ass state of this nation, and bring some integrity, accountability, and responsibility back to the federal government...minus all the do-gooder agendas, empire building, and patronage bullshit that has become the trademark of Ottawa over the last 40 years. We blow this opportunity, this GD country deserves whatever shite it lands in under the Liberals, cheered on by the NDP.

Maple...or Stan, as the case may be... Those predictions for the NDP in BC are absolute nonsense. 1) You cannot find even so much as one little hint of co-relation between federal and provincial voting patterns for the NDP. In fact, during the NDP's entire reign provincially in this province, the Reform/CA ruled federally while the NDP got trashed repeatedly. 2) For the NDP to win more than 4 ridings in the entire province would require a massive and fundamental shift in federal voting habits in this province. What...in your wildest dreams...could you possibly predicate such a shift upon? Discontent with Gordon Campbell's Liberals??? That's so inane it's beyond even being funny. The BC Liberals have gone out of their way to distance themselves from the federal Libs, and for damn good reason, too. Not the least of which is that a huge percentage of the their membership and/or constituency workers are also members of the Reform/CA/CPC. With the emergence of this latest scandal involving Martin campaign funding, etc, here in BC, the BC Libs...if any at all were toying with the federal party...deffinitely are keeping their distance now. The only reason the provincial NDP are contenders in this province is because they're the only alternative to the incumbant government du jour. British Columbians, contrary to the blatherings of professors operating in hotbeds of socialist drivel in our universities, are about as leftwing as your average American across the border in Montana. The federal NDP are a joke in this province. And every time someone wants to have a good chuckle at their expense, they bring up the likes of Svend or Libby...or that jackass, Layton. For the NDP to take half the seats in this province would require them to swing at least...AT LEAST...35% of the voters to their side. That's in addition to what they got in 2000. And that, pal, ain't gonna happen. Not now, not any time soon...if ever in BC.

I think where the Libs are really in big trouble is in Ontario. I did an analysis of the 2000 vote for Ontario a while back. It would not take much of a fundamental shift in Liberal support in that province to swing anywhere from 40 to 60 seats over to the CPC. The strength of NDP support is also hugely overblown in Ontario. The fact is that in 2000, the NDP were virtually a non-factor in over 80 ridings, taking between 3% and 10% of the vote. Discontent with the Libs in Ontario will NOT translate into NDP support. Never has, never will...especially with a doofus like Jack "I'll sleep with the Liberals for the right price" Laidup leading them. Laidup is a far cry from the likes of Broadbent or Lewis in the "credibility" department. It is my estimation that the NDP will be lucky to come out of this next election with party status, so remotely pocketed is their support. The PCs got something like 25% of the vote in 1993...and won only 2 ridings. The ADQ took some 20% of the popular vote in Quebec last year...but took only about 6 ridings. The NDP got creamed in Ontario's last provincial election, despite something like 15% of the vote. If the vote polarizes...and it almost certainly will...in this next election as Canadians sense the real opportunity to dump this rotten government, the NDP will end up roadkill in the stampede, mark my words.

I get the impression there's alot of NDP wishful thinking going on. It's in the nature of NDP supporters to be young and naive. But the last poll had the Libs at 40% or something in BC. This I don't get at all. Can you explain? The last three elections were each preceeded by polling that indicated the Liberals were leading the Reform/CA in BC. Within days of an actual election call, Liberal support in each instance immediately began to rot, ultimately to crash by election day. Why? British Columbians pay little attention to federal politics. Until an election. Then they pull all those little tidbits out of the back of their minds accumulating over the last several years...and they remember quite vividly why they, for the most part, have no GD use for the Liberals. This time, Paul Martin actually seemed to be getting a bit of traction in BC...people actually thought he was different. That is, until the shite hit the proverbial fan over this latest Liberal scam. I'll be amazed if any Liberals are returned from BC next time out. Voter contempt for this latest batch of corruption is palpable. And I will add... Anyone who thinks Jack Layton, a politician from the GTA and a rabid socialist, is going to get one vote more than the support of similarly rabid NDPers...whose numbers aren't worth mentioning in BC...is dreaming in technicolour, if not stoned outright. And they don't know shite from shinola about BC politics.

Quick scan, I keep reading that the NDP are somehow going to "make big gains" in BC. What this is predicated upon totally escapes me. I've concluded that the CPC will take at least 30 ridings, if not more. Here's why... 1) In each of the last three elections, the Reform/CA lagged behind the Libs in midterm polling. Upon the actual call of an election, each time the Liberals tanked within weeks, while the Ref/CA surged ahead. 2) The CA took roughly 49% of votes cast in 2000. 3) The CA won 16 ridings with 50% + pluralities in 2000. 4) When combined with PC votes cast, the two combined would have taken accounted for 25 ridings with 50% + pluralities. 5) No Liberal or NDP won in 2000 with 50% +. In fact: If we take 10% slippage, because of this scandal, from the Libs next time out... Ridings won by Daliwal, Fry, Anderson, and Owen are seriously threatened by the CPC. Further, NDP Robinson won with 37.4% of the vote. The combined vote for the CA/PC was 38.5%. There is no reason whatsoever, particularly in light of recent developments with the Liberals, to expect that they will do even as well as they did in 2000. Outside of Robinson's and Davies' ridings, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the NDP will score any gains in BC. Davies won with 42.3%, the biggest NDP win in 2000. The NDP scored less than 10% in 21 ridings...many of these, less than 5%. The NDP scored less than 20% in another 9 ridings. And only over 20% in a total of 4 ridings. There would have to be a monumental shift of support for the NDP to even win 4 ridings. What the actual results do indicate is that the NDP's ridings in BC, particularly Robinson's, are highly vulnerable to a polarization of voting in a backlash against the Liberals. At the end of the day, there is no complelling reason for voters to shift from the CA/CPC to the Liberals or NDP, Certainly not after the revelations of the last couple weeks. I cannot escape the conclusion that the CPC will sweep BC in a landslide, probably taking down Robinson, Anderson, and Fry in the process.

What kind of crap are you trying to perpetuate here, Galahad? It would have been just as easy, in fact, much easier to post the entire article...as opposed to statements taken totally out of context. You work for the CBC? Or the Toronto Liberal Rag? Or what??? That's about as slimey as it gets, pal. Here's the full article. Give people around here some credit for brains and give them the entire story. ********************************************** Can this hockey dad be PM? Linda Frum National Post Saturday, March 06, 2004 "You can't win this race unless you have widespread appeal," says Stephen Harper, Conservative party leadership contender. On March 20, the Conservative Party of Canada will select a new leader from among three candidates. Linda Frum knows each of the candidates personally: She has raised money for Stephen Harper, been friends with Tony Clement for 20 years, and attended Belinda Stronach's second wedding. Over the next three weeks she will present profiles of each contender in an attempt to illuminate their distinct personalities and political styles. **ADMIN -- Remainder of this post removed due to Copyright Infringement**

Springer: I read that sentence about 5 times. It sounds like you're saying you believe more than a few people will see Stronach as a capable leader. But from the rest of your post, I can see you support Harper. I think Harper has it in the bag, and knows how to make the true believers stand in line so he should/will win the leadership. But look for Harper and Layton to make like a Raptor and "drive for the middle" - if you know what I mean... Yeah, I screwed that up, didn't I. Ahem... Allow me to correct that... And doubt that more than a relative handful of members of a new party in need of a leader that can take this fight to Paul Martin are going to see anything close to that capability in Belinda Stronach.

Sorry, Syrup... Just watched her media launch. No doubt a valuable asset to the new party. But leader??? I don't think so. And I have few doubts that more than a relative handful of members of a new party in need of a leader that can take this fight to Paul Martin are going to see anything close to that capability in Belinda Stronach. I don't think even Ontarians are that naive. And if they are, we...Canadians...are in deeper doodoo than even I imagined possible. Watching and listening to her, it became ever the more crystal clear as to exactly why we need a leader like Stephen Harper.

Can anyone here imagine the NDP in charge of the gun registry? And what they would do with it, given half a chance? It would be Britain and Australia all over again...only worse. Which is one good reason I'm so opposed to registration. We have no idea today who is going to end up in control of that time bomb tomorrow. One other thought... The NDP gets elected, Alberta separatism would go ballistic. It would be the final straw for them. I know it would be for me...and I live in BC.

Layton can promise the moon...and probably will before he's done. He's not ever going to Prime Minister. He'll be lucky to win his own seat. A federal NDP government? Now if that isn't our worst nightmare come true, eh?

Federalism and All Canadians Notes for Address by Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance Leadership Candidate Montreal Saturday 19 January, 2002 I am visiting Quebec today to talk about Canadian federalism. In no part of Canada has this subject been debated and analyzed more than here. I am not here however, to give an academic lecture, but to campaign for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance, an entity formed to create a modern, national conservative coalition capable of winning an election and forming government. So let me begin by making a few remarks on the coalition building that must take place in the province of Quebec. The sheer size of Quebec in Canada obviously makes the province crucial in the formation of a national government. As well, its status as the sole province with a francophone majority means that, even in federal politics, unique issues and voting patterns dominate the political culture. Conservative political parties have long recognized that their relative weakness in Quebec is a critical factor in limiting them to opposition rather than government status. Indeed, the Liberals’ claim to be Canada’s natural governing party has often been due to its overwhelming predominance in the province of Quebec. (Ironically, this is not the case under the country’s first pur laine prime minister, Jean Chrétien. Throughout three successive majority governments, the Liberals have been a competitive party in Quebec, but not the dominant one.) Conservatives have also observed that, when they came to power in Canada in the past century, they did so in coalition with the province’s so-called “nationalist” forces. This lesson has been interpreted by the Canadian Alliance as meaning that the party should position itself as a nationalist force in Quebec and focus on the significant anti-Liberal vote. To the extent that it had a Quebec strategy, the Reform Party before it tended to think the same way. Over the past few years I have concluded that this strategy is fundamentally mistaken. It ignores the real lesson of Canadian history – that while conservatives have come to power by exploiting a nationalist strategy in Quebec, such coalitions have never lasted very long. Indeed, they have ended in political disaster. In my lifetime the federal Social Credit Party was torn apart by its separatist and crypto-separatist associations in Quebec. The similar flirtations of the Progressive Conservatives in the 1980s were equally disastrous in the long run, creating the unprecedented strength of the Bloc Quebecois and damaging the country nearly as much as the party. The broad lesson of history is that Canada’s natural governing coalition always includes the federalist option in Quebec, not the nationalist one. This is what the Liberals were in the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, when the Conservatives usually made up the government, they occupied a similar position. It would therefore be a mistake, in my judgment, for the Canadian Alliance to focus on simply grabbing the anti-Liberal vote in order to build a beachhead in Quebec. The party must undertake the long-run work necessary to become a federalist option in Quebec acceptable to a significant number of Liberal as well as anti-Liberal voters. For this reason it is essential for this party to define its view of federalism. I have chosen for the title of my address today the phrase “Federalism and All Canadians”. I do this in deliberate contrast to the title of Pierre Trudeau’s famous book, Federalism and the French Canadians, for it is well known that I don’t share the centralist and socialist notions of federalism that have come to dominate the thinking of the Liberal Party in recent decades. Ironically, the centrepiece of Trudeau’s book was not the crypto-unitary state in which so many Liberals have come to believe, but the constitutional division of powers that defines any true federal state. In particular, Trudeau argued that Canadian federalism was exactly what Quebec needed to protect its language and culture. To those who wanted a new constitution, he challenged, “Let them first come up with a system in which the rules of the game are really more favourable than the present one.” Trudeau argued that Canadian federalism served French Canadians well. I agree, though I would prefer a vision of federalism that is pan-Canadian federalism not just for French Quebeckers, but federalism for all Canadians. Under such a pan-Canadian federalism, the provinces should be autonomous in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Canada is a country of regions with widely differing geography, cultures, and economic interests. Those differences are best served and reconciled by allowing differences to exist among provinces in a wide array of policy areas. Federalism with greater provincial autonomy is not just a convenient way for Canada to deal with its vast geography, cultural diversity and regional differences. It is also a political arrangement best suited to meet the challenges we face today. World events since September 11 have reminded us that we now live in a world with only one superpower – the United States of America. The world is being reshaped by that nation’s vital forces – liberal democracy, global markets, technological innovation, and unprecedented information flows. No government in the developed world is under more pressure from these forces than the Canadian federal government. On the one hand, there is the emergence of a truly international marketplace, continental integration, and what we call “globalization”. These trends are leading to new forms of intergovernmental cooperation beyond the nation-state, of which the European Union and NAFTA are examples. On the other hand, within this expanded horizon are revivals of older nationalisms, the regionalization of economic hubs, and what is called “localization”. Today, for example, we speak of “city states” as we used to talk only of nation states. Canada is simultaneously both a collection of its parts and itself part of a greater whole. As a nation of regions with differing geography, cultures and economic interests, it is highly subject to the pressures of localization from below. As an extension of the geographic, cultural and economic realities of the North American continent, it is uniquely vulnerable to the pressures of globalization from above. A federal state such as Canada, with its constitutionally autonomous federal and provincial governments, is ideally suited to react to this combination of global pressures and local concentration, or “glocalization”, as the Queen’s University economist Tom Courchene calls it. Provinces, having jurisdiction over human-capital programs in health, education, job training, and welfare, are ideally suited to react to the regionalization of economic hubs. And the federal government, with its control over currency, trade, national security, and monetary policy, is ideally suited to deal with issues of intergovernmental cooperation, such as those of NAFTA, the G-7, and APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation). The trouble is, jurisdictional boundaries in Canada have become blurred. As originally conceived, Canadian federalism was a unique effort to create absolutely clear boundaries between the areas in which the provincial governments would exercise sovereignty, and the areas in which the federal government would be paramount. Clearly defined barriers were established between the powers of the two levels of government, with the clear understanding that neither level could legislate in those areas falling under the competence of the other. This was quite distinct from the models of federalism adopted under the Australian and American constitutions, in which a short list of areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction is provided, and all other matters are assumed to be under state control. In the American and Australian models, it was anticipated that shared jurisdiction would develop in a wide number of areas. Section 96 of the Australian constitution contains a provision explicitly authorizing the attachment of conditions to federal transfers to states, in areas that would normally be regarded as being under state jurisdiction. In Canada, by contrast, the responsibilities of each level of government were laid out in considerable detail in the 1867 British North America Act. In the 1937 “Labour Standards” case, the Law Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would describe the uniquely clear lines of jurisdiction that exist in Canada as “watertight compartments which are an essential part of [Canada’s] original structure.” It was to this arrangement that I, along with five co-authors, was referring when almost a year ago, we stressed the need to develop what we called “firewalls” between the federal and provincial levels of government. The clear delineation of powers that my co-authors and I called for is a part of Canada’s original design. It is time to recognize the wisdom of that original design, in a country as geographically and culturally heterogeneous as Canada, and to allow our institutions to evolve away from the forty-yearlong Liberal experiment in centralized federalism. It is the evolution that the Liberals are so fiercely resisting. This resistance was showcased most recently in the Liberals’ tepid and sluggish response to the events of September 11, and was reinforced in their latest budget. What was already clear has become even more obvious: Ottawa has for too long ignored the core functions that the constitution assigns to our national government. Worse, the recent budget shows no signs that Ottawa understands the need to focus the federal government on issues where it can do the most good for the most Canadians. Following September 11, the spotlight on Ottawa’s core functions – Defence, Justice, Solicitor General and Immigration – revealed that they have been suffering what might at best be called benign neglect. It is no secret, for example, that Canada long has been a target and a base for actual and suspected terrorists. CSIS briefings have become ever more clear and specific on the risks Canada faces. If these warnings were not enough, as early as 1999 the infamous Ahmed Ressam case laid bare Canada's national security and immigration vulnerabilities. And benign neglect is too friendly a term to describe the treatment of our military over the past few decades. This poor performance is not restricted to national security. In just about every area in its jurisdiction, Ottawa has performed badly. Our airline policy is a national disgrace. Only because of the pressure exercised by the able Alliance transport critic, James Moore, did the Liberals finally agree to put air marshals on our planes. And the continued failure of our national airline policy to bring real competition to the skies is imposing significant costs on Canadians and Canadian business. This situation has only been made worse by the airline passenger tax introduced in the recent budget – a cash grab that will fall disproportionately hard on smaller airlines. Our currency is an international basket case. The decades-old policy of intentional devaluation is putting Canada’s natural resources, its businesses, and manufactured products available at fire-sale prices. Our criminal justice system is too soft on criminals because the Liberals care more about the rights of criminals that the rights of law-abiding citizens. Our economic union is too weak because Ottawa has failed to use the powers it has under the constitution to ensure that goods and services can freely flow across provincial borders. I could go on, and on. The point is that our constitution assigns certain responsibilities to the federal government. And on nearly every one of these, the federal government is performing badly. Yet there is no alternative for Canadians other than for the federal government to do its job. Many of these areas cannot be plausibly assigned to the provinces. Nor is there any quick fix in to be found in schemes for greater continental integration. The relative size and nature of the government of the United States puts limits on further integration that do not exist in other parts of the world. Given Ottawa’s gross failures in its own jurisdictions, does it really make sense for it to try to do things that the constitution assigns to provincial governments? The call for firewalls is about refocusing the federal government on its own responsibilities as much as it is about giving provinces greater control over their responsibilities. I advance this notion of pan-Canadian federalism as an alternative to the mentality that led to the dead-end constitutional debates of the late 1980s and 1990s. Those debates, which produced the Meech Lake Accord, Charlottetown Accord, and Calgary Declaration, were premised on giving Quebec a vague special status in response to an even vaguer threat to Quebec’s language and culture. That approach threw a poorly thought out sop to the separatists. The core assertion of its proponents – that special status is needed to protect the French language in Quebec – is simply false. The French language is not imperiled in the province of Quebec. Language retention among Francophones in Quebec remains at nearly 100 percent, and this percentage increased from the 1970s to the 1990s. Today, no one disputes the view that French should be recognized as the predominant and common language of the province. The reality of the strength of French in Quebec is one of the principal reasons why the sovereignty movement is fading. While nationalist sentiment will always be an important factor here, there has been a steady growth in the confidence and security of Quebeckers regarding the state of their language. This security robs the increasingly anachronistic sovereignty movement of its central premise unless, of course, federalist advocates of special status choose to fan the flames. Speaking of not fanning separatist flames, let me also state unequivocally that the Canadian Alliance, while it must defend legitimate provincial jurisdiction, must never defend those who interpret provincial power as including a right to unilateral secession. Any act of secession on the part of any part of the country must be done within the confines of the current constitution, which includes the rule of law and clear democratic consent. I spent a good part of my first term in Ottawa working on this issue, and my fundamental position has not changed. I should acknowledge that the Liberals have done the country a great service by recognizing these principles in the Clarity Act – an act the Progressive Conservative Party continues to officially oppose. I cannot help feeling a certain amount of paternal pride when I look at the provision of the Clarity Act that now requires a question on separation to be clearly worded. In 1996, I introduced a private members bill that stated in part, No referendum or plebiscite conducted by the National Assembly of Quebec on the question of the separation of Quebec from Canada shall be recognized by the government of Canada if that question implies that Quebec is empowered or may be empowered by an affirmative vote in the referendum to unilaterally amend any part of the Constitution of Canada [such as the right to secede unilaterally]; is ambiguous or unclear. Before leaving the subject of Quebec’s specific place in Canada, let me take a minute to address the question of language policy. Provinces, including Quebec, have a legitimate role in this field. I support Quebec’s right to legislate in the area of language. Having said that, I also support the Charter rights to freedom of expression and language choice. As a federal political leader, I would not intervene in Quebec language legislation, and I would leave the courts to deal with constitutional challenges. But it would be disingenuous to suggest I am comfortable with all aspects of Bill 101. It is one thing to recognize the predominant status of French and promote its use as a common language. It is another to restrict the use of English or to make it difficult for Francophones to master the language. I cannot pretend that I agree with those aspects of Quebec’s language policy, and responsible federal leaders should not voice approval of linguistic restrictions here any more than they would in other parts of the country. But I am also confident that debate in Quebec will liberalize these laws over time. They are contrary to an increasingly libertarian and individualistic ethic in this province – one that has led the country in debates over trade liberalization and health care reform. They also obscure the real threat that Quebeckers face along with other Canadians – the gradual decline of Canada as an internationally competitive economy. The upshot of all this is that conservatives can lead the long-term evolution of the country if they recognize the principles of a pan-Canadian federalism. This means support for provincial autonomy and jurisdiction, including differing language policies within the context of a free and democratic society, and opposition to ideas of special status and unilateral secession that only serve to inflame separatist sentiment. I see two major areas where these principles can immediately be put to work. First, within the next few months, the federal government and the provinces will have to renew the 1999 Social Union Framework Agreement, or SUFA – an agreement that is intended to regulate jurisdictional interaction between Ottawa and the provinces. The existing Social Union Agreement is flawed in at least three ways. First, the Agreement allows Ottawa to impose a program in provincial jurisdiction with the support of as few as six provinces. Ottawa could potentially invade provincial jurisdiction with the support of the six smallest provinces containing only 15 percent of Canada’s population. Second, the Agreement has no opting-out provision for provinces that object to an invasive new federal program. Third, and most important, Quebec has not signed the Agreement. It refused to sign primarily because of the two flaws just mentioned. As the CD Howe Institute has said, the Agreement risks “Quebec’s progressive isolation’ from other provinces and forces “Quebec to stand alone in defence of its constitutional rights.” It is worth remembering that Quebec did not isolate itself from the Social Union Agreement. Quebec had agreed to a Provincial Consensus document containing much more stringent constraints on the federal spending power until a week before the signing of the SUFA agreement. In the end, Ottawa effectively bribed nine provinces away from the Consensus with the promise of gobs of money for health care. The first priority for SUFA¹s renewal, therefore, must be to bring Quebec back to the Social Union Agreement. It is simply unacceptable that any agreement dealing with such important matters of provincial jurisdiction can effectively exclude a quarter of the country’s population. This leads me to the second major area where the principles of pan-Canadian federalism should be put to work immediately – health care. Predictably, Ottawa’s infusion of cash to the provincial health care systems has failed to resolve the country’s worsening health care problems. Conditions will only continue to deteriorate as long as Ottawa plays its destructive role in the health care debate. The federal government has never met, and will never meet, its historic funding commitments for health care. With few exceptions, it does not pay health care professionals, operate the health care system, or have any substantive ideas of reform to apply to growing crisis. Ottawa is less worried about the health of Canadians than about using the outdated Canada Health Act to grandstand as the defender of a centralist national identity. The key principle of the Canadian health care system is that no Canadian be denied necessary health care services anywhere in Canada due to inability to pay. Abiding by that principle does not preclude examining innovative payment and delivery options. Nor do the provinces pose a threat to that principle. The Canadian Alliance should take the lead in being the federal representative for the growing number of provincial voices – Quebec, Alberta, Ontario – demanding fuller provincial jurisdiction and freedom in developing solutions to the serious challenges facing the health care system. I am running for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance because it is the only party in Canada placed to pursue these issues – responsible federalism for all Canadians, strict division of powers between provinces and the federal government, a stronger federal government that focuses on its priorities and does them well, and greater autonomy for provinces in areas where they can be accountable to their provincial voters, rather than to Ottawa, for the results they deliver. The Canadian Alliance can make these arguments because it is the only conservative party worthy of the name in Canada. It is the only option for the millions of Canadians who believe in traditional institutions such as family and community. It is the only option for the millions of Canadians looking for a greater democratic voice in Ottawa. It is the only option for the millions of Canadians who want to stop applying the solutions of the past, and want to start thinking about new solutions for all Canadians for the future. It is the only party taking a consistent position on issues of smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom. In running for the leadership, I want to ensure that the Canadian Alliance will continue to address these issues that matter to Canadians. Today I have outlined a vision of federalism for all Canadians. In the coming weeks I will comment on other areas of policy of concern to Canadians. I welcome all like-minded Canadians to help me in building not only a party but also a country that is able to face the future with confidence.

So tell me then... What about it?