RT_1984

Pell, If someone like Keith Martin can support Harper for leader, any other Red Tory can too

Any meaningful debate is over. Harper is the man for the Job. He has been kicked around and downplayed by the Pells and Gugsy's of this country for too long. Harper is NEW. He's only been leader for a year and a half. Prentice has no more credentials than Tony Clement. Not as many in fact. I'd rather vote for Tony any day. Harper is the choice now. I'm sick of trying to pick the "perfect strategic" candidate. There isn't one, which will stand up to Martin the way you're thinking. We don't want another Paul Martin. We want a conservative. And if Harper goes to Bay Street with the new united brand name and shows his ideas, I think they'll jump with support. HARPER FOR PM.

Pell. It's people like you with those kind of opinions are what makes this country come short of what it could be. The only reason why this country has to be centered in Ontario is because of the quasi-federalist structure of Canada which was so centralized by the charter in 1982. But if we just close our eyes, and kick the Liberals out and get a disruptive, hard-core neo-con dedicated to decentralization like Harper then we can change all that. Sure we could elect, diet coke like Prentice or Lord who would carry out "some" conservative measures but he'd only really be keeping the chair warm for when we get kicked out: and the Liberals get back In (that will eventually happen). But if we get someone like Harper (who could be the Reagan/Thatcher) of Canada then he could ensure lasting change and devolve powers to the provinces in a way that couldn't be significantly reversed and would impact for generations to come. I was this country decentralized for good. And when I think decentalization I don't think Prentice: I think Harper, and any literate person who has read his materials knows what his intentions are. However, because of ignorant opinions that fail to see the long-term big picture, the best we're supposed to hope for is Prentice. For god's sake, we might as well vote for Martin, than listen to your BS. Go to the Liberal Party of Canada Forum. you'll fit right in with their nice "vision."

You're a lefty anyway Pell. Whatever choice is presented other than a conservative watered back, will not please you. Go back to the NDP. I mentioned the benefits before. Besides, do you really think people across Canada know Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement or Jim Prentice as much as Stephen Harper to vote for him.

I disagree with you pell. THe fact that vote splitting will end, the fact that we'll get better quality candidates than before (some people vote for the MP) and the fact that we're united will bring in more support. Many people in the east don't even know Harper but with the spotlight of an election, his intellect will be showcased. And I'm confident he'll impress here. He'll retain solid support in the west gaining seats in Alberta, maintaining BC, gaining is Sask and Manitoba, while getting a at least a couple dozen in Ontario (harper is from Toronto). He speaks French really well and he'll be concentrating on campaigning in the East now that he knows that there's something to be gained by it. I'm for Harper. Anyone else doesn't have his smarts intellectually or the media (he knows how to keep out of trouble as opposed to Day), his federal knowledge is unmatched by Prentice, and certainly by provincial politicians like Clement and Flaherty. I'm for Harper. For me, and many others, the choice is now clear. He's young, billingual, energetic, with little baggage.

"I would argue that we could force a democratically approved revision of the treaties, however." Enforcing democracy on aboriginals would be reneging on the contracts which you previously mentioned since we have guarenteed them the right to self-governance and consult on a nation to nation basis. "We could also argue that, while the government of the First Nations remains so corrupt and autocratic, that we will not deal with them. Basically, that would be the same idea as refusing to recognise the government of a foreign country as the legitimate government because it does not rule with the mandate of its people. " - Here I agree with you but in an ironic way. My previous post was a "tongue in cheek" assessment of this situation. We both know that they are not nations in any traditional sense and really have never been treated as such. What the govt. has been doing is treating them as a nation in some ways but not in others. This is unsustainable and undemocratic and you seem to agree with me. We both know that dealing with the Nisga is not the same as dealing with the French Government. We don't impose laws in France like we do on Reserves. I'm saying this hybrid approach is not working. I think that is obvious looking at the last 100 years. You speak of consitutional revision of their recognition. I would suggest that the mere fact they are recognized as having special status at all in the constitution is the problem. You must keep in mind that whatever the government decides in the way of bills can be overuled by the activist court we have. Parliament's power has increasingly diminished and this is no longer considered solely an issue of public policy as has been discussed earlier. If there is special legal provisions in the constitution then these groups can and will (as we have seen) go around parliament and through the courts to get what they want through litigation. Parliament can do little to stop this while the court has grounds under the constitution. All they need are expensive lawyers and we're back to square one. Which is where we are. I'm not concerned with honoring an contract which was made at gun point and is therefore irrevelant. Consider what's happened since them and what that invalid contract has achieved. It reminds me of the Godfather where a character was made an offer he couldn't refuse. I say today, we extinguish that contract and constitutionally recognize them the same way we recognize Quebec: "unique" with no strings attached. That's it for me on this topic.

Philospohically I definitely agree with you. And there is no law that says the PM should speak french. But there is a convention that has evolved in Ottawa that says he should, as well as a general assumption and perception in the Canadian public. Perceptions are everything, and if we truly want to get elected than we are going to have to be realistics and acknowledge those perceptions and conventions in order to form government. After that we can work on changing those (and I think Harper will). The other option is to be idealistic and naive in thinking we can get elected without taking the pulse of the nation. I also think that Martin is just as bland as Harper, but Harper has been working on this and perceptions are changing (even the media) and I think that in the end this will be of little relevance. Harper must concentrate on campaigning in the East in the next election because his respect and support in the west due to this merger and his other stances is solid. Go Harper go.

The "problem" with going over the heads of executives like the the AFN is that it would violate provisions in the constitution and conventions and say we must negociate on a nation to nation basis with the aboriginals. This means that "Us" being the other nation have supposedly no right to invoke a referendum or democratic apparatus on the aboriginals (that's supposedly the AFN's job). For example: The govt. of Canada would call a referendum in France to prevoke change in France since it isn't it's jurisdiction. Therefore it's once again left up to the AFN and other executive groups to basically relinquish the awesome, power that they have. And forgive me for being skeptical but I doubt that they would ever agree to this. And meanwhile, while we're waiting the average aboriginal is meant to suffer. I'm a populist and as a populist I'm generally opposed to recognizing special group interests in the constitution. To draw up another agreement (even if it's different) would be doing just this. I also find it ironic Hugo that you invest so much loyalty to a contract that as you said was made at gunpoint, and the aboriginals had no choice in anyway. That doesn't really sound like a contract at all. It's an ultimatum, and today if an agreement was made in that manner it would'n't be considered a "treaty." Therefore I would say that there were never really any true treaties and that they were invalid and not genuine in the first place. Special deals, a constitutional agreements for special groups in general are what caused many of this countries conflicts (Meech Lake, Charlottetown). And look what happens whenever the govt. actually tries to rid the system of corruption under this special agreements of self-governance: We have the native governance bill deemed by the aboriginal elites, and Canadian political elites of all politically correct stripes calling it "neo-colonialism." I see no other alternative but to eventually give Aboriginal the same rights as others and to give these nations the status of muncipalities (as the CA proposes).

I've previously voiced my support for Mike Harris to lead the united Right. After further consideration it mightn't be as simple a choice as I and many others had thought. Several realities lurk: Mike Harris can't speak and as a rule in Canada now it is generally perceived that the PM should be able to speak French both in and outside Quebec. This may be to a lesser degree but not in Atlantic Canada and Ontario. I still think it will noticed in the West as well, not resentful but a lack of confidence. Harris comes with a lot of political baggage including a perceived botched deregulation of electricity, Walkerton link. Harris also has very limited experience in Federal politics, whose knowledge pales in comparison to potentials such as Stephen Harper. The other major contender: Stephen Harper has problems of his own: he is considered bland (no doubt this is exaggerated by the media who are left-wing and when they can't come up of ways to make fun like they did with Stockwell Day then I guess this is the best they can do). Harper is considered a Westerner and this could be perceived as an Alliance takeover if he won. On the other hand, Harper is fully billingual, has superb debating skills (I'd bet on him against any of the other leaders, including Martin any day), doesn't overemphasize social conservative issues to the point of eclipse (like Day) but does retain the loyalty of social conservatives (which is where a significant base of support must be maintained). Harper would keep support in the west because he's considered a westerner. Harper is also from Ontario and could play this up in the election. Harper has relatively little baggage compared to Harris. In the end, the new party will probably have to concede the next election to the Liberals (although it may be a minority govt.) with bigger hopes for the next election. I think the biggest gains in this merger will be from the end of vote splitting, and also the attraction of new votes by the rise in confidence that we are united. Now there will only be one choice. We will still retain the west, pick up some in Ontario with the combined vote, and retain and gain a little in Atlantic Canada. Once Canadians see these "National" results in the next election they will see us as a national party and the alternative to the Liberals and we will further be able to capitalize on this from there. Oh yeah. Harper is also quite young and has plenty of time to go. (Harris' last term in office was considered by people on both sides of the spectrum to be a lacklustre.). I say, go Harper and encourage unity. We will also attract better candidates under a new party which is important because many people vote for the person rather than the party. Whatever gets us to power works for me.

Trudeau made those comments but his actions when drawing up the constitution speak louder than words. It wouldn't be the first time a politician said one thing and did another. And I wasn't referring to what others suggest about reneging on a deal. I was referring to what I said, as I clearly indicated by saying "Myself." "Myself" as you hopefully know refers to the the 1st person. The rest of what you wrote regarding a breach of contract has already been dealt with in our previous discussions. I have presented continious and additional, new arguments in each post, while you have mostly repeated previous statements of oversimplifying Aboriginal relations down to honoring inapplicable agreements made in the 19th century and prior. I think that we can all agree that if Aboriginals were consulted as they were in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (mostly comprised of Aboriginal group leaders) then you will get similar suggestions to what these group leaders proposed at that time: more fiscal transfers from Ottawa in unmarked dollars to ensure that aboriginal governments can self-govern. That's what we have now, and I see no need to reiterate that. In order to bring Aboriginals into the market economy, I suspect it will require going over the heads of elites like the AFN executive who have no motivation, incentive and therefore intention of relinquishing that executive spending power in a decentralized manner.

I assumed that yourself and others on this panel would have the inclination to scroll and read themselves, but if you would like me to eliminate the daunting tasking of scrolling your mouse than that's fine with me: Hugo "What bothers me is to believe that it would be acceptable to renege on a contract or treaty, retaining all benefits but defaulting on all obligations. That is both illegal and immoral, and might has never ethically made right." - This is what I mean by narrow, uncompromising and unrealistic interpretation of aboriginal affairs. What I am suggesting is that it is not sustainable or democratic (I have no interest in you personal morality which would rather honor the surface agreement between elites than address the heart of the issue - giving "all" aboriginals the opportunity for a better life, by giving them the same right as other Canadians) to continue basing governance on the outdated Indian Act. Your attempting to view this through a narrow and politically correct viewpoint which has been a source for self-serving aboriginal elites to litigate through the courts, provisions which only they will be able to distribute at their discretion. You basically suggesting we go down with the ship and take everyone with us to serve a very particular, and narrow sense of morality. I also disagree with your premesis that it has been previously suggested by myself that we renege on a contract without giving up any of the benefits. I don't think giving property rights to aboriginals is taking away from them. I think it is empowering them. I am also unsure of where you get the idea that Trudeau thought aboriginals should have no rights. Before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, treaties could be extinguished by Canadian Governments, but the Charter (created by Trudeau) entrenched a provision which guarentees the recognition of all past treaties. Trudeau despite his liberal individualistic stance towards Quebec, generally revamped our constitution which made it increasingly activist, by empowering the supreme sourt to delegate citizen power with the govt. where before, the supreme court was mainly confined to delegating power between the provincial and federal governments.

What a surprise? SirRiff doesn't think Canada is too socially Liberal. I never would have expected that. The day that SirRiff stops defending things like the Gun Registry, and the Homosexual Hate Crime Bill to alter religious texts (it will eventually happen with the activist courts - bout ten yrs is my guess). Ah yes. Always good to have diversity I supposed. Otherwise we'd have nobody to beat up on around here on this forum. Again, thank you SirRiff for giving us a punching bag that never fails to be plump with fluff and stuffing, despite what blows it may take.

I think the problem isn't the way the reserves are being run. I think the problem is the reserves. Aboriginals do not have property rights for housing or the rights to obtain housing through mortgage, and cannot resale. This creates a lack of incentive to invest, and maintain the house for resale which has resulted the housing problem on reserves and communities across Canada. It's amazing the media proclaims aboriginals are without adequate housing and the property is in tatters and runned down without mentioning that the average age for these houses is ten years old. This system is structurally wrong and won't be fixed by mere changes in accountability and corruption and Hugo suggested. However this would mean perhaps changing the Indian Act itself, which according to Hugo, we can't do because it would be breaking a contract (which is clearly faulty and unsustainable as demonstrated over the last 100 years). However according to Hugo we must honor this contract and maintain as a matter of broad, sweeping, uncompromising, unpractical, and unrelenting moral principle. What Hugo doesn't seem to have moral difficulty with however is that this Indian Act (which is clearly in need of modernization to deal with the realities of a Market Economy which have only been discovered and universally accepted since the Indian Act was signed) should be maintained to ensure that Aboriginals remain excluded from the benefits of property rights, like the rest of Canada has, participation in the mainstream economy, prejudice attitudes caused in part by special treatment based on group affiliation, and outright exlusion from the mainstream Canadian economy which has provided increasing prosperity for Canadians over the past century. But all is irrevelent to Hugo because it may breech the outdated Indian Act and treaties which ensure aboriginal funding go to a select few in the band councils (who are appointed through family affiliation and used to punish political opponents) and pay for Matthew Coon Come's expensive suites and his colleague's mansions. But all that doesn't matter because altering this would be a "breech of contract." I think someone needs to replace this broken record. It's getting pretty scratchy.

Hugo, this is the same kind of nonsense that I hear spread around by the politically correct everyday. Those past treaties that you talked about do not stipulate billions of unmarked dollars in federal transfers each year. I also disagree with the notion that we should treat them as nations. For one, that don't meet even close the traditional requirments of a nation (population size, financial autonomy, etc.) and neither does the fact that they were here before us. As you will recall the French Canadians in Quebec and settled in quite nicely long before any permanent British settlement. But do we refer to Quebec as a nation or give it nation status of any kind? Not a chance. We destroyed that hope in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. The is despite that fact that historically Canada was founded by French and English in Quebec and Ontario. But what we have deemed as a collective through our elections, and accords, is that this arrangement in a constitutional manner is unfeasible and unsustainable and undemocratic. And if we're going to rank immigration waves in Canada according to their date of arrival, then we should also be ranking the first "nations" against eachother as well, since they didn't exactly arrive from Asia at the same time. The came in disbursed waves through thousands of years, and over time stole land from eachother, murdered entire tribes to extinction through headhunting, right up until after confederation. Most of the tribes were nomadic and migrated seasonally across vast stretches of territory so it has been exceedinly difficult to determine which land they "own." You're economical contract analogy is relevant, but so is the need to "default" on that contract and bring aboriginals into the 21st century. Self-governance is a myth and a politically correct failure which harms the aboriginals most of all. As we speak the Innue of Labrador in the newly established community from Davis Inlet are in peril. The majority of children are sniffing gasoline again, destroying their internal organs, and the family, clanish appointed band council is bootlegging alcohol into a community where the rate of suicide and alcoholism is astronomical. You may recall several house fires in Northern Labrador where these children were brunt to death. However, the government can't do anything by interfering in the band council operations because they protected by self-government legislation despite the Innu in the community and some from within the band, pleading the government to step in and save what's left of "self government." In conclusion I think we need to take a realistic, rational approach which sees the aboriginal culture maintained just as other cultures in Canada are maintained. It's the only way to really save their culture before our pathetic 19th century policy ruins it. I don't agree with your uncompromising adherance to an outdated treaty that hardly addresses modern day conern (those treaties are quite vague when it comes to what type of compensation is required). I don't agree with your philosophy (it's been a fatal failure) and I don't like what it stands for.

Keith Martin rejects Liberal defection rumours Canadian Press OTTAWA — British Columbia MP Keith Martin cleared the air of defection rumours Wednesday by stating he'll continue to sit with the Canadian Alliance and hopes to run in the next election for a new merged conservative party. "It's been my privilege to serve the constituents of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for the past 10 years, and it is my full intention to continue to serve them in the new Conservative Party of Canada," Martin said in a statement. Martin, a medical doctor, informed the Alliance caucus of his plans during its weekly meeting Wednesday. The unusual declaration was sparked by persistent rumours that Martin, a social progressive on the far left of the Alliance caucus, was considering a move to the governing Liberals. The MP himself did nothing to dispel such talk earlier this week when he would not comment on the Liberal speculation and added he was "contemplating all of my options." Another B.C. Alliance MP, Joe Peschisolido, defected to the Liberals in January 2002. Rumours of Martin meeting Liberal officials have been circulating for several weeks. On Wednesday, Martin not only recommitted himself to the Alliance, he also endorsed Leader Stephen Harper as the best prospect to lead the proposed united right. Harper has not yet formally declared his intention to run.

To sign-up: http://www.alliancevictoria.com/cabreakfast.html

The next Canadian Alliance Breakfast Club event on Thursday, October 30th, 2003 will feature Gary Lunn, M.P. Saanich-Gulf Islands We are proud to present Saanich-Gulf Islands Member of Parliament Gary Lunn. Gary will be speaking about the recent merger agreement signed between Progressive Conservative leader Peter McKay and Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper. The meeting begins at 7:15am, and the program is finished by 8:30am. At the Union Club, 805 Gordon Street (across from the Empress Hotel). Admission is $12.00 per person for reserved seats (cash only), $15.00 at the door. Student admission is $6.00, but must be reserved in advance (please bring your student identification). Includes breakfast, guest speaker and intriguing discussion. Regular breakfasts will be held the last Friday of each month at the same time and location. To sign up to receive notification about Guest Speakers for upcoming Breakfasts, complete the form below (even if you are not attending the next breakfast):

Ipos-Reid has never has never had anything good to say about the right. They are always the ones to emphasize the bad news and if you listen to them on tv, then you will clearly hear their bias. They also do 20 million dollars a year of business with the Liberal Party of Canada. It should also be noted that the Liberals always ride high in polls between elections but then drop during the election. The opposite has always happened for the CA.

Both parties are officially supported by the apparatus of either party but have been organized at the grass roots level. We are going to see this merger through and teach the Orchardites, the partisans, and the purists that this is future of the Conservative movement. As Harper said: We're going to teach David Orchard a lesson in democracy. And role over opposition.

Ladies and Gentlemen, DON'T MISS THE NEW PARTY PARTY! Where ... Swan's Hotel, Penthouse Suite (506 Pandora Street, Victoria) When ... Thursday, October 23rd, 5:30pm to 7:00pm Pacific Time Join us in celebrating the coming together of our two great parties! This is a great opportunity to meet local leaders that we will now be working with to build Canada's next governing party: The Conservative Party of Canada! There is no cost for admission. Cash bar. Please forward this message to all your conservative friends, whether Alliance, PC, BC Liberal, or other. See you there! There is a similar party in Ottawa the day before. Connie and I will be attending. Location is TUDOR HALL - 3750 North Bowesville Rd. (near Riverside & Uplands), Ottawa, ON, K1V 1B8 613-739-4287 . Oct.22/03 7:00 PM Local Time

"Peter MacKay may have gotten his way on the leadership selection, but the one-member, one-vote is still in place for the policy. Whose policies will prevail then????" - Most of the policies of both parties are the same. We're very close on most issues. Policy wise, in this agreement the PC's certainly got the most concessions with billingualism, the environment and leadership selection. As for any upcoming disagreements: It's called compromise. It's what forming govt. is all about. You can kick up a stink all you like about this party, no body in ever party that has ever existed has agreed on everything. In fact most disagree on many things. Get over it. This is about seeing the big picture and achieving the greater good.

I really don't give a rat's ass about the NDP. The only possible benefit they can be to Canada in my mind is that they will take seats from the Liberals. That's about it. I don't want a socialist party. I don't need a socialist party. And the sooner that pathetic ideology is destroyed by cold, hard economic facts, laws and realities, the better off we will all be. Marx and Engels are dead and Keynes has been discredited as a philosopher rather than an economist. Long live Milton Friedman.

The only people who see this deal as an extremist takeover are people who have been influenced by the left-wing media (80% of canadian journalists identify themselves as significantly left of center). Now consider this: If you were one of these journalists you would want destroy this merger and new conservative option at any cost other than losing your job perhaps. That is why the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, CBC etc. are primarily pointing out all the controversial points while only the National Post is pointing out primarily the positives. The Canadian Media in general are enemies of this merger and the Conservative movement in Canada. They should be indentified and pegged for what they are. Left-wingers who have an invested interest in our destruction as a whole. While their supposed goal is indepth and inpartial coverage, their underscoring objective is to divide and conquor the conservative movement. This must be stopped at all costs. Spread the word that this is good for Canada and must be accomplished. The purists in the Canadian Alliance and the partisans like Joe Clark in the PC Party should no longer be allowed to thwart our efforts. They should be welcome to join us, but in the end the Big Blue Machine must roll on with or without them. As for the fringe elements in the West, I don't think their abandonment is sincere or significant. No matter how hard I try, I just can't see Calgary, Prince George or Red Deer voting Liberal. Elections are won by support from mainstream society. That doesn't mean diluting our positions to be unrecognizable from the Liberals, but it does mean being tolerant of the existence of opinions different from our own. As Western Populists are always fond of touting when they seek and end to gag laws: "we live in a democracy." Our tent should be large and friendly. Except to the David Orchard cult of course. But that's a different story. They are of the old-style organic conservatives. Mr. Orchard knows his Canadian history very well. But for the last 20 years, conservatism has undergone durastic changes and has evolved into neo-conservatism which is otherwise known as classical liberalism. This believes in the individual puruit of self-interest through free markets, and a non-interventionist government. Orchard speaks of a conservativism that is long gone. This is very evident when he speaks of the principles of the PC Party: He can't mention anything beyond John A. MacDonald (who's been dead for over a hundred years) and John Diefenbaker who has long since died and many in the west considered a socialist. The truth is that this will be Canada's first real conservative party in the modern sense. Mulroney talked like one but the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords proved that he wasn't (both called for much affirmative action to be ingrained into the constitution). We should all celebrate this new party with a new vision. It will have the populist principles of democratic reform, the moderate social policies and environmental concern of the PC Party and Keith Martin (which will make more Canadians feel at home) and the economic conservatism which will provide us with a strong economy. Most of all we will be providing a viable alternative to the Liberals. I've read a lot of Stephen Harper's material from the past. And I've come to this conclusion. This is not the kind of man who would sell us out, water us down, or jeopardize our electoral success.

Unite the Right timeline CanWest News Service Wednesday, October 15, 2003 ADVERTISEMENT The road to unite the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance has been fraught with numerous twists, turns and unforeseen obstacles. For many Canadians, however, a merger of federal conservative parties has been deemed essential in order to give the right a legitimate shot at knocking the Liberals from power. • As former prime minister Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative began to lose support among Canadians, especially those in the West who were upset with Ottawa’s overtures to Quebec and lack of progress on issues dear to westerners, the Reform Party of Canada was formed in 1987. Preston Manning, son of former Alberta premier Ernest C. Manning, helped form the fledgling group and was chosen the party’s leader. • After years of developing a groundswell of grassroots support in the West, Deborah Grey wins Reform’s first seat in the House of Commons in a March 13, 1989, byelection in Alberta. • The 1993 federal election marks a breakthrough for the party when Reformers elect 51 MPs to the House of Commons, including Manning. • After the 1997 federal election, the party raises its total to 60 MPs and becomes the official Opposition in the House of Commons, but Reformers fail to extend the party’s base beyond Western Canada and Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s Liberals win their second consecutive majority government. • Throughout 1998, Manning continues bridge-building efforts among like-minded conservatives searching for informal solutions to unite the right. Those efforts were especially focused in Ontario where vote splitting among conservatives was blamed for clearing the way for Grit victories. • March 25, 2000. Reformers, heeding Manning’s plea, vote overwhelmingly to dissolve their party and fight the next election under the banner of the Canadian Alliance. The endorsement ended an oft-divisive two-year crusade by Manning to persuade party members that building a broader coalition of small-c conservatives is their fastest track to power in Ottawa. • At a July 8, 2000, Alliance leadership convention, the party and the nation are stunned when Stockwell Day wins more than two-thirds of delegate support to wrestle the party’s leadership from Manning. • In the November 2000 federal election, the Alliance fails to capitalize on the momentum of that summer’s leadership convention and is defeated soundly by the Liberals. The party retains official Opposition status with 66 seats, but again fails to gain that elusive foothold in Ontario. • Dissent among Canadian Alliance MPs, who claim they can no longer support Day as leader, reaches a boiling point in the spring of 2001 when several MPs, lead by Grey and Chuck Strahl, bolt from the CA benches to sit as the Democratic Representative Caucus. • Later that year, Joe Clark’s Tories, sensing an opportunity to capitalize on Alliance turmoil, invite the CA MPs -- now known as the dissidents -- to sit with the PCs. They accept and the working coalition becomes know as the Progressive Conservative-Democratic Representative Coalition. The group, however, is not formally recognized as a party by the Speaker of the House of Commons. • Pressure on Day to resign as party leader continues throughout 2001 and on Dec. 12 he calls a leadership race for the winter-spring of 2002, and declares himself a candidate. • Stephen Harper is elected leader of the Canadian Alliance on March 20, 2002. by winning more than 55 per cent of the mail-in ballots in the campaign. Day, who was his nearest rival in a field of four candidates, has 37 per cent. Most of the dissident MPs later return to the Alliance benches. • On Aug. 6, 2002, Tory Leader Joe Clark announces he will step down. Later, Harper calls for a joint Tory-Alliance leadership race by the end of the summer, a move that Clark rejects. • At a Tory convention in Edmonton later that month delegates reject a motion to join forces with the Alliance. • On Jan. 15, 2003, Nova Scotia MP Peter MacKay declares his candidacy for the Tory leadership, which he wins on the fourth ballot with 64 per cent of the delegate support in June. MacKay beats Calgary lawyer Jim Prentice, but makes a convention floor deal with candidate David Orchard. The deal included the promise the Tories would run candidates in every riding. • Reports, however, emerge Harper and MacKay agreed in June to begin an exploratory merger process, and talks between party representatives have been ongoing since August. • After weeks of tumultuous negotiations, where talks were on one day but off the next, the Alliance and Tories seemed poised to merge. Compiled by CanWest News Service © Copyright CanWest News Service

A new website has been launched which will give indepth coverage of the conservative merger as the exciting process unfolds. Information will include key players involved in the merger, potential leadership candidates, and ways to participate at the grassroots level. www.bluedraft.com Don't forget to buy a PC Party Membership via mail, phone, or online: http://www.pcparty.ca/doc/510/ Join the party and vote to ratify the merger.