A New Form of Proportional Representation

A lot is being made these days about the need for electoral reform in Canada. It was a major theme of the New Democrat Party leadership race in 2012 and is emerging as an important if not dominant issue with the upcoming Liberal leadership contest.  The main idea is for all the Federal progressive parties to cooperate in the upcoming general election in 2015 to defeat the Conservative Party of Canada, then to collaborate on legislation that would implement a Proportional Representation or "Fair Voting" system. This would eliminate the "First Past the Post" system we currently have that has enabled the current Harper Government to rule with an iron-fisted majority despite receiving little more than 39% of the popular vote.

In truth, this situation has existed for quite some time. Several previous governments achieved majority status in the House of Commons with less than 50% of the popular vote. But the Harper regime has brought to light the glaring deficiencies of our current system through his use of voter suppression tactics, highly focused campaigns in "winnable" swing ridings and his use of a well financed, highly efficient and ethically deficient, 24/7 election machine. His subsequently questionable majority has been used to erode the democratic process in Canada and to impose legislation, not with the will of the people in mind, but in spite of them. There are absolutely no checks and balances to his political agenda within our current Parliament. He has effectively neutered the majority of our elected officials, including members of his own party.

While Proportional Representation might not completely eliminate the highly partisan and corrosive state of affairs in Ottawa as previously discussed here, it is believed that it will be a fairer representation of the "will of the people" and will ultimately eliminate false majority governments such as Stephen Harper's.

Enter Fair Vote Canada. They are the leading proponents of Proportional Representation in Canada. They are a highly credible and highly motivated organization with such high-profile backers as Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party of Canada and Stephan Dion, the former leader of the Liberal Party. Fair Vote works hard to dispel a lot of the myths and anxiety regarding PR systems of voting by observing that over 80 countries in the world currently embrace one form of Proportional Representation or another. They advocate for implementation of one of the three leading systems of PR in use in the world today. They are: List Systems, Mixed Member Proportional Systems and Single Transferable Vote Systems.

Canada, despite the Harper regime, remains a socially liberal country, but it is also small-c conservative in many ways, especially in the area of change. While none of the three proposed systems are exactly rocket science, they involve change. They involve lists, lists of lists, quotas and -"gasp"!- casting TWO votes at a time. Now these are all very concrete and workable systems but they require Canadians to take a giant step outside their comfort zone. Our First Past The Post system is nothing if not simple. It requires very little of the voter except the effort it takes to check off a name on a ballot and stuff it into a well guarded box. PR systems seem to actually require some thought, some decision making and could well take longer than the 30 seconds currently required to cast a ballot. Even if we don't completely understand our own politics, the act of casting a ballot is relatively simple.

This is where "Majority Representation" comes in. It requires no change what so ever from the voter's perspective. The ballots look the same as they do now and voters opt for the person or party of their choice, just as they currently do. But the big change lays in the outcome of the vote. Instead of just sending the candidate with the most votes to Ottawa, a local riding must be represented by 51% or better of the popular vote. This means that if the top vote-getter does not have 51% (a clear majority) of the popular vote in their particular riding, then the candidate with the second most votes also gets a seat in Parliament. And if the top two candidates don't add up to better than half the popular vote then a third candidate also goes to Ottawa. The point being that each and every riding must be represented by a bare minimum of 51% of the voters. This can mean that a particular riding can be represented by two or more parties. Stephan Dion proposed a similar system and argued that having more than one representative in each constituency would make for better service as it would create competition for the best representation,  meaning that constituents might actually carry more clout with a particular MP than the party whip as is currently the case.

The House of Commons might need a face lift.
The Price of Democracy?

The Majority Representation system requires no major changes to our current way of electing candidates but it does involve a drastic physical renovation in the House of Commons. After doing some number crunching based on the outcomes from Election 41 in May of 2011, I arrived at a total of 473 seats in the House. It may well make things a little crowded physically. But here is the up-shot. Based on Table Two below, the total number of MPs for each party is MUCH closer to the actual popular vote. The Conservatives for example, who had just 39.6% of the popular vote in 2011 would have 43.97% of the seats in the House of Commons under the Majority System. Well below the 53.9% of seats they have now. The NDP, with 30.6% of the popular vote in 2011 would have 31.08% of the seats in the House and would still be the Official Opposition. The Liberals, who garnered 18.9% of the popular vote in 2011 would have 17.12% of the seats. It should be noted that none of the 308 riding would have sent more than two representatives to Ottawa. 143 ridings would have elected one candidate with a clear majority while the other 165 would have selected two MPs in order to get their 51% representation or better. Curiously enough, the ratio of representatives per region were remarkably similar to what they are now, meaning that - for example - PEI didn't end up with more MPs than Quebec. The proportion of representatives remained fairly consistent.

So what does this kind of Proportional System mean for Canada? Well it might mean an end to majority governments altogether. This does not necessarily mean an end to strong effective governments. But it could well usher in an era where governments try harder to work with all parties in an effort to stave off elections every few years. In fact, if the notion of Majority Representation were taken a step farther and transferred from the riding level into the House of Commons, meaning the government must represent 51% of the House or better, much like the Liberal/NDP coalition in Ontario in the 80s, we could certainly see our Parliamentary system representing a wider majority of Canadian interests. Formal coalition agreements could be written that might see cabinets contain ministers from more than one party. Agendas from both sides of the isle could be entertained and a natural system of checks and balances would evolve. No more "rule by decree". In fact, when presented with a minority government scenario, the Governor General may insist on a coalition that represents 51% of the House or better as opposed to simply handing the reigns of power to which ever party has the most seats, which, it should be pointed out, is a mere matter of convention, not constitutionality. In this way, a more stable government would exist rather than the ad hoc, issue by issue minorities we currently see who's existence hang in the balance at every vote in the House.

Most democratic counties
embrace coalition governments.
Why not Canada?

Of course, all this would mean that Canadians would have to get past the Harper myth regarding coalition governments being undemocratic. This was a falsehood inflicted upon the citizens of Canada in 2008 in his effort to cling to power. Unfortunately, the behaviour of the opposition parties in response to Harper's fear-mongering did little to dispel the myth. Canadians need to ask them selves, which is more democratic, a government that in reality, reflects a minority of  it's citizens or one that reflects a true majority?

So while Majority Representation does mean a change in the way our governments are formed, it would mean our Parliament would more closely reflect  the popular vote and the will of the people (though admittedly, not as reflective of the popular vote as any of the three systems advocated by Fair Vote Canada). But it would not change how people vote. It would still mean they vote for the person or party of their choosing. One person, one vote. And it would mean that the majority of votes count in local ridings, not just those for the candidate with the largest total, meaning a greater proportion of the population would see their votes count. It is a compromise between our current First Past the Post system and those proposed by Fair Vote Canada. One that Canadians could easily get their heads around and embrace.

Please see the tables below for a region by region break down of how Parliament might actually look today if a Majority Representation System were in effect in May of 2011.

Table One: Region by Region Break Down of Number of Seats Based on Majority Representation System (based on voting in Election 41, May 2011).

	Maritimes	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Sask	Alberta	B.C.	Territories	Total
Liberal	18	15	40	1	1	0	5	1	81
CPC	22	13	89	11	14	27	29	3	208
NDP	9	72	39	4	3	2	17	1	147
Ind	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	2
Green	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Bloc	0	34	0	0	0	0	0	0	34
Totals	49	135	168	16	18	30	52	5	473

Table Two: Comparison of Majority Representation Seats to current Seats ( based on voting in Election 41, May 2011).

	Total Seats under Majority Representation	% of Seats under Majority Representation	Existing Number of Seats (1)	% of Popular Vote in 2011 (1)
Liberals	81	17.12%	34 (11.04%)	18.90%
Conservatives	208	43.97%	166 (53.89%	39.60%
NDP	147	31.08%	103 (33.44%)	30.60%
Independent	2	0.42%	0 (0.00%)	0.40%
Green	1	0.21%	1 (00.32%)	3.90%
Bloc	34	7.19%	4 (0.1.29%)	6.00%
Totals	473	99.99%	308	99.40%

Notes:

• Number of seats required for a majority government under Majority Representation: 237 (this number would vary depending on election results)
• Number of seats currently required for a majority government: 155 (this number does not take into account newly adjusted ridings)
• All Calculations are based on figures taken from CityNews.ca,  Riding by Riding results of Election 41 which can be found at: http://www.citynews.ca/2011/05/02/riding-by-riding-federal-election-results/
• (1) Existing seat totals and % of popular vote based on numbers taken from: Wikipedia, Canadian Federal Election 2011, Results by Provinces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011

Harper Has Never Denied Sharing Flanagan's Belief in Assimilation of First Nations.

The "Idle No More" movement has good reason to be supremely suspicious of Stephen Harper and suspecting him of having an agenda of "assimilation" as far as First Nations are concerned. 

In addition to his legislative agenda - bills passed in the last year, C-38 and 45 in particular which gut environmental protections including protection of the vast majority of our sources of water with out consulting anyone, let alone our First Nations partners - Harper has shown little regard for our nations and people in his mad rush to declare Canada "open for business" 

Like environmental protections, Harper consider's First Nation's land and treaties as nothing more than "red-tape" to be eradicated in his efforts to open up vast tracts of Canada to exploitation to the highest bidder, be they Europeans, Chinese or whom ever else. He has fired, silenced or otherwise discredited and attacked anyone who could in anyway get in the way of his agenda. And he has used his majority government like a sledgehammer to smash any and all legitimate opposition in the House of Commons. He has closed his ears and otherwise ignored critics and bullied his way forward, forcing his will upon the 62% of Canadians who didn't vote for him, all the while spin-doctoring and lying through his teeth about facts, figures and events as he lays waste to the country side and shreds the very fabric of our society to pieces. It would seem on the surface then, that he has treated First Nations no differently than any other obstacle in this regard.  

Some disturbing clues regarding
Harper's First Nations Agenda

But there seems to be something decidedly more sinister about Harper's treatment of First Nations then merely regarding them as one more obstacle to achieving his goal of forever transforming Canada into a Neo-Conservative Oligarchy. One does not have to dig too far into Harper's political past to find some very disturbing clues as to his view of Canada's Aboriginal population. 

It is no secret that Harper is a "Calgary School" alumnus. This is in reference to a particularly toxic school of political and economic thought that closely resembles The Chicago School in the US. Both the Calgary and Chicago schools are heavily influenced by Austrian philosopher Friedrich Hayek and though they vehemently deny it, there is  ample evidence that the Calgary school is also influenced by controversial political philosopher Leo Strauss. Another Calgary School alumnus and close friend of Stephen Harper's is Tom Flanagan. 

Flanagan has been a close personal friend and mentor to Harper in his political career. Both Harper and Flanagan were major policy advisers and strategists with the old Reform Party and though he left politics in 1993 to continue his career in academia, Flanagan returned in 2001 to guide Harper's rise to power, first with the Alliance Party of Canada (which was nothing more than the re-branded Reform Party) and then with the hostile take-over of the Progressive Conservative Party. When Flanagan finally left politics again in 2004, Harper was leader of the Official Opposition and well on his way to becoming Prime Minister of Canada. Flanagan is currently a Senior Fellow at the conservative Fraser Institute and as such, is still  very influential in the creation of current government policy. But what, you might well be asking, has this all to do with Canada's First Nations and the Idle No More movement?

Tom Flanagan, mentor and man behind Harper's throne
openly advocates for assimilation of Canada's
First Nations People. 

Flanagan has based his academic career on researching and writing about Canada's First Nations, particularly about the Metis, Metis land claims and Louis Riel. In 2000, Flanagan published the book "First Nations, Second Thoughts" which was meant to be a critique of the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. In his book, Flanagan dismissed First Nations people as merely the "First Immigrants" who happened to cross the Bering Straight Land Bridge a few thousand years before Europeans arrived, a view of history that all but eliminates Aboriginal land claims. In addition, Flanagan claimed that the only sensible Native policy was outright assimilation.   

So given Flanagan's position as the man behind Harper's throne,Canada's First Nations had every reason to be concerned about Harper's policies regarding Aboriginal land claims. Phil Fontaine, then leader of the Assembly of First Nations, wrote an open letter to Harper asking him if  he shared his mentors views on assimilation. He never replied. 

So while Harper has never confirmed he shares Flanagan's views on assimilation, he has never denied it either. So does he merely view First Nations as another political chess piece to be manipulated in an effort to achieve his agenda, or does he have something far more sinister in mind for Canada's Indigenous peoples? His recent treatment of Native Treaty Rights and his outright ignoring of hunger-striking Chief Theresa Spence and the whole Idle No More movement would suggest the latter. 

Idle No More means First Nations People never having
to bow to men like Harper or Flanagan ever again. 

So When Will Canada Elect it's First Female Prime Minister?

Canada is slowly waking up to the fact that women can make very good politicians. And why shouldn't they? Out side of the fact that Canadian politics has been until now, seen as a combination blood sport and gentleman's club, there is absolutely no reason why a woman couldn't be every bit as effective as a man in the political arena. In fact, the lack of testosterone induced combativeness may be a decided advantage, especially when Canadians are desperately seeking a return to a more collaborative Parliamentary Democracy as opposed to the hyper-tribal Harper Autocracy we currently have. 

There are currently a record 76 women sitting as MPs in our 308 seat House of Commons. That's an average of about 25% as opposed to the United States that has 72 women currently sitting in it's 435 seat House of Representatives. That's 17% by comparison. In addition, there are  5 women Premiers in Canada, or roughly 38%. There are only 7 women Governors in the United States for an average of about 13%. It seems Canada has a slight edge in the area of gender equality in the political arena. That's not to say though that the U.S. is less open minded. America came with in a hair's breadth of nominating Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Representative in it's 2008 election and there is every reason to believe she could have won the whole damn thing. 

Kim Campbell. First Female
Prime Minister In Canada

While not elected, Canada briefly had a woman Prime Minister in 1993 when Brian Mulroney resigned. Kim Campbell was anointed leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and served as Prime Minister for six months.  Campbell was a well respected cabinet Minister in the Mulroney Government and held such posts as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Minister of Justice, Attorney General and Minister of Defense  All very high-profile positions. So Ms. Campbell was indeed, an extremely qualified and effective politician. However, taking the reins of the Progressive Conservative Party and leading them into a Federal Election, hard on the heels of the Mulroney years was tantamount to being made the captain of the Titanic after it hit the ice berg... and the band had stopped playing. So as with Ms. Clinton in the states, circumstances dictated that North America would not see it's first elected female head of state. 

Elizabeth May
Parliamentarian of
The Year

Today, there is a plethora of highly qualified and dedicated women in Canadian politics. I would have to say that first among them would be Elizabeth May who just recently was voted Parliamentarian of the year by her peers. That recognition speaks volumes. Ms. May is without a doubt, one of the hardest working MPs in Ottawa today. She is a prolific writer and researcher and as leader of her party, she has gained the reputation as being very vocal in the House (in a productive way as opposed to the usual "Rah-Rah" party rhetoric). Unlike most MPs, she attends the House almost daily. She considers it her job and her duty. 

In opposition to the destructive and anti-democratic bill C-38, May collaborated with the other parties in opposition to craft hundreds of amendments to that disastrous bill and subsequently participated in the marathon voting session that followed. And as she is the only elected member of her party, May sat through the entire affair. 

May also demonstrates her collaborative nature by openly and actively advocating for cooperation (as opposed to merger) among the parties in opposition so as to overcome the obstacle of vote splitting- there by deposing the Harper Autocracy and setting the stage for electoral reform. This plan is seen as a remedy to our "first past the post"  electoral system which Harper skillfully manipulated and was able to turn slightly more than 38% of the popular vote into a rather questionable majority government. But alas, as Ms. May is leader of the distant fourth place Green Party, she has zero hope of ever becoming Prime Minister unless she is prepared to jump ship and change her knickers from Green to either orange or red. Unless of course, Canada decides to do away with Political Parties all together, but that is another story.

Joyce Murray. A
Collaborative Strategy
For Electoral Reform.

Elizabeth May is not the only woman talking about inter-party collaboration as a means to electoral reform. Liberal Party leadership hopeful Joyce Murray is also advocating for this process which seems to be gaining some grass-roots support. Recent NDP leadership hopeful and current House leader Nathan Cullen has also advocated for opposition party cooperation in bringing about electoral reform. 

Martha Hall Findlay
Campaigned on issues
Near and Dear to
Canadian's Hearts.

But alas, Ms. Murray is a dark-horse candidate for the Liberal Leadership which seems hell-bent on bestowing the crown upon Justin Trudeau. But who knows, perhaps if Mr. Trudeau continues to shoot himself in the foot every few days, Murray and her vision might actually have a shot. But Joyce Murray is not the only woman contending for the Liberal Leadership. Successful entrepreneur and 2006 leadership hopeful Martha Hall Findlay is also  vying for the Liberal top spot. In her first quest for leadership, Hall Findlay was an ambitious campaigner who formed her platform around the environment and health care, things that are still near and dear to the heart of many Canadians, especially health care. 

Nycole Turmel
Held a rookie NDP caucus
together after Layton's passing

And leave us not forget that in the wake of Jack Layton's tragic passing, Nycole Turmel was given unanimous support by the NDP caucus as interim party leader until Layton's successor could be chosen. As such, Ms. Turmel sat as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for seven months preceding Thomas Mulcair's election as party leader. During her brief tenure as interim leader, Turmel showed a steady hand in guiding the largely rookie NDP caucus and forming them into a coherent opposition party. She now serves as "Party Whip" in the House. 

As I mentioned in a previous article, Alberta Premier Alison Redford has demonstrated a decidedly collaborative approach in dealing with the other provinces (with the exception of B.C.s Christy Clark who is attempting to make political hay on the strength of her animosity for Redford). Thus, she is gaining supporters outside of Alberta's boundaries and could one day, restore the "P" (for progressive) to the Federal Conservative Party. It says here, Ms. Redford has a better than reasonable shot at replacing Harper once the severely  "whipped" CPC caucus has decided they have had enough of the Harper Autocracy and the Harper-Youth in the PMO. Being outside of the Federal caucus, Redford would seem a logical leader of a palace revolt. 

Alison Redford has proven the
ability to be able to stand
Toe to Toe with Harper, yet
plays well with others.

So it seems that there is quite a number of extremely strong and qualified ladies well suited to being Canada's first elected Woman Prime Minister. These are all  women who have demonstrated leadership, a collaborative approach and a strong vision for Canada, not just enthusiastic  support for the ruling elite. The only thing that seems to be standing in their way is the traditional party system which tends to favour men, and the support of the Canadian electorate. 2015 may or may not be the breakthrough year for Canadian women, but it is coming soon and it could well be a decisive factor in finally overhauling our electoral system and ultimately salvaging our devastated democratic system of government.  

Canadian Women Parliamentarians
In front of the Centre Block. In support
Of International Women's day, March 2010.

The Link Between Mike Harris's Common Sense De-Evolution and the Harper Regime

Mike Harris, author of the
Common Sense De-evolution

Those of us living in Ontario remember well the Mike Harris "Common Sense Revolution". It came hard on the heals of the Bob Rae years.

 Rae was Ontario's first and only NDP Premier and is remembered only for his wildly unpopular "Rae Days" which forced thousands of public sector workers to take unpaid days off in an effort to attack the Ontario deficit. Rae was soundly criticized by his power-base- organized labour- and the millions of Ontarians who were effected by this restriction in services. I myself have terribly painful memories of it's impact when my then pregnant wife was experiencing complications and needed to get an emergency ultra-sound and couldn't because all the technicians were on a "Rae Day". But while Rae became unpopular for this move, it saved many public service jobs, in contrast to the Federal Conservatives slash and burn strategy regarding public servants. 

So when Mike Harris came along, waving his blue book that seemed to contain all of the answers to all of our problems, the majority of Ontario voters were quick to jump on board. Harris presented himself as a grass-roots kind of guy with a down to earth kind of logic that backed his 'revolution". He was the "anti-Rae", the antithesis of what was commonly believed to be the usual "entitled" political elite. (not unlike Toronto's Rob Ford today). 

But Harris's "Common Sense" approach was to attack the public services in a way that was down right blood-thirsty. He slashed Welfare and bade recipients purchase dented 69 cent cans of tuna. He cut health care, closed hospitals and John Snobelen's  "useful" artificially created crisis in Education resulted in two teacher's strikes. And Harris closed his ears, stayed his disastrous course and refused to acknowledge the growing criticism and upheaval in Ontario. He had an agenda and he intended to see it through. The horrendous impact these policies had on the province are still being felt today, ten tears after Harris has left the political stage. Despite his so-called grass-roots common sense, Harris was no friend of the common man. 


But there is a direct connection between Mike Harris's "Rule-By-Sledgehammer" government and Stephen Harper's "Shock and Awe" reign of terror. The most obvious connection occurs when we take a peek inside the Harper Cabinet. 

Flaherty's Budgets
 are "Killers"

Right off the top, there is Jim Flaherty who was Harris's Minister of Finance. Flaherty has been Harper's one and only Minister of finance during his six years as Prime Minister. It was under Flaherty's watch and as a result of Flaherty's attacks on the public service that seven people died in Walkerton of an outbreak of E-Coli. Under his guidance as the Federal Finance Minister, there has been similar out breaks of E-Coli and Listeriosis at Canadian meat packing plants. Coincidence?

Tony "The Gazebo

Under Mike Harris, Tony Clement was the Minister of Health as hospitals were being closed and  people were dying in Walkerton. With Stephen Harper, Clement took on the same cabinet position which he held until he became known as "Tony Gazebo" due to siphoning off  millions of dollars of Tax-payers money for the beautification of his riding in anticipation of a scheduled G7 summit. Clement has since become the President of the Treasury Board and is Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's chief adversary in the PBO's quest for Government accountability and transparency. 

Bombastic Baird never learned
to use his "indoor voice"

Then there's "Bull-Dog" John Baird, perhaps one of the biggest blow-hards in the history of Canadian Politics. Baird is well known for his rabid partisan "attack-dog" style in Parliament and having never mastered the art of the "indoor voice". Baird has held several different portfolios in the Harper Government and has left bloody fingerprints on each one. But Bellicose Baird was also a "Harrisite", serving in various cabinet positions in Ontario as well, most notably as Minister of Children, Community and Social Services which saw a vicious attack on Ontario's poorest and most vulnerable citizens. 

Bob Runciman
The personification of all
that is wrong with the Senate.

Another ex-Harris accomplice  Bob Runciman, who was the Ontario Minister of Justice, couldn't win a seat in his federal riding so Harper tossed him into the Senate. He has since become a hyper-partisan "Rah-Rah" Harpercondriac in what is supposed to be the house of sober second thought. He has done little since then to advance the cause of the Red Chamber's continued existence and has in fact, been the personification of all that is wrong with the Senate. 

Another little known connection between the two regimes, is that from 1997 to 2002, which was the majority of the Harris years, Stephen Harper was president of the uber-right leaning and highly secretive National Citizens Coalition. The Ontario arm of the NCC, Ontarians for Responsible Government were major backers of the Common Sense Revolution. But due to their highly secretive nature, it is impossible to know to what extent Harper and his connections had in funding and influencing Harris's agenda. 

Harris the Fraser Fellow

Since leaving politics, Harris, along with former Harper accomplice Preston Manning, have both become Senior Fellows at the Fraser Institute, the right-leaning think-tank that has major influence on current federal Government policy. So Harris might be gone from Government, but he is still influencing events in our country. 

Harper won his recent Majority on the strength of heavy campaigning in key Ontario swing ridings. In 2015, he will likely duplicate this strategy. He needs Ontario to win.  So when Canada goes to the polls in the next federal election, Ontarians would do well to remember the painful legacy of Mike Harris because he and Stephen Harper are not only cut from the same cloth, they are also well connected and Stephen the Terrible is merely duplicating Harris's agenda only on a national level. 

Yes, and little "Timmy the Terrible"
was also there.

Harper and Harris. 
A 2008 meeting of the 
criminal minds.

It's Time For De-Unification of the Right

It is clear that since the merger of the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party in 2003, there has been one voice and only one voice in Canada for those  who tend to inhabit the territory to the right of the political centre. That voice is Stephen Harper's. 

Actually, the transaction that brought the two right-leaning parties together was less of a merger and more of a hostile take-over. It was a carefully orchestrated maneuver that involved equal amounts of manipulation and treachery. The main goal was not so much a meeting of Conservative minds but the acquisition of the Conservative name. You see, the only way Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan and their cadre of Straussian ideologues could gain credibility east of Manitoba and hence, any hope of ever forming a government was through the annexation of an existing political party.  The Progressive Conservative Party was severely wounded and directionless since the Mulroney years and thus, ripe for plunder. 

Once he had his hands on the Conservative name, Harper wasted no time in dropping the "progressive" label. For the first few years of this shot-gun marriage, Harper had to keep the old progressives happy in order to continue the existence of his new creation. This included keeping co-conspirator Peter MacKay well placed in the Conservative hierarchy. Despite having become a political liability as a result of his numerous blunders, MacKay remains as deputy leader of the party. But as time passed and his core of hard-right disciples became stronger and stronger, the old P.C.s in the Harper caucus have had less and less of a voice in managing party or governmental affairs. In fact, all power with in the party rests with Harper himself and his collection of Harper-Youth within the PMO. 

No room for Red-Tories in Harper's Caucus

At first, this "new Conservative deal" seemed like a good idea. Harper had the grit, the smarts and the ruthlessness to finally lead right-leaning Canadians out of the shadows and into government, thus supplanting the age old Liberal party and their attitude of entitlement. The problem that has eventually come to light though, is that while Harper has finally formed a majority government (however credible it may be), he has stepped on a lot of toes along the way and forced the majority of his caucus into the rather embarrassing role of cheerleader. No one dares contradict "His Harperness". Any MP who inadvertently expresses an independent thought is quickly swarmed by the Harper-Youth and immediately "reprogrammed". As a result, all the old "progressive" voices with in the party have been effectively neutered, cut off by the hard-right cohort who sit at Harper's right hand. 

Many of the old P.C.s saw the hand writing on the wall from the outset. Ex-Prime Minister Joe Clark would have nothing to do with Harper's Hooligans and sat out his remaining days in Parliament as a P.C. Some Senators continued to do likewise. Former Mulroney Cabinet Minister Sinclair Stevens went so far as to form a new political entity, the Progressive Canadian Party (thereby retaining the old P.C. moniker). But Canadians, as Harper had calculated, are traditionalists by nature and have stuck with the party that still retains the Conservative name. Slowly however- ever so slowly - voters are beginning to wake up to the fact that the CPC is NOT the Conservative Party of Joe Clark, Robert Stanfield, John Diefenbaker or their grand daddies. Harper's party (and make no mistake about it, it is most definitely HIS party)is nothing more than the Tea Party on steroids. It has no room for "Red-Tories" or progressives. Various Harper minions such as Jim Prentice awoke to this fact and have since "retired" from politics. 

History will show that Richardson
backed the right horse.

One of the most telling departures from Harper's caucus of late was Lee Richardson from Calgary Centre who took his leave round about the time Parliament was having C-38 shoved down it's throat and various glassy-eyed CPC MPs were forced to applaud and shake their blue pom-poms on cue. While the timing of his departure is certainly suspect, the most interesting aspect of it is that he left the Harper-fold to work for Provincial P.C. leader Alison Redford. It's no secret that The Government of Harper supported the radically ideological Wildrose Party over the Progressive Conservative Party in the last Alberta election. This made Richardson's move all the more interesting, and telling.

 Harper likes to think of himself as overlord of the Provincial P.C. parties, simply because he stole the Federal Party out from underneath everyone's noses, but the Alberta scenario has proven that the Machiavellian Harper will squash any P.C. who disagrees with him and he'll prop up any Premier, regardless of Party, who he can manipulate. Harper is no friend of nor has he any loyalty to any provincial Progressive Conservative Party anywhere in the Country. Just ask Danny Williams. 

So moderate right-leaning voters are presented with very few options. Either support the radical ideologues who have stolen their party or look to the fractured left of the political spectrum. Not an easy choice. One that probably leaves many Canadian voters shaking their heads and deeply regretting the "Unite The Right" movement that at one time, shone like a beacon of hope and now burns them like an interrogator's lamp. It is time then according to this writer, for all good Red-Tories (and some disgruntled Blue Liberals) to reclaim their turf - to "Take Back the Right" from the autocratic Harper. To do this, they must undo the mischief wrought by Harper's Henchmen. They must untie the knot that bound their fortunes to a second rate Banana Republic dictator. The marriage born of treachery must be annulled.  It is time for the Re-birth of the Federal Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. 

Could Redford be the one to lead a
reserected Progressive Conservatve Party?

It says here that in the end, Lee Richardson has backed the right horse. If anyone is to lead the New Progressive Conservative Party, Alison Redford is a good fit for the job. She is proving to be a skilled tactician, in overcoming the manipulation of the CPC in the last Provincial election, certainly Harper's equal. But she is also a good politician who has demonstrated the willingness and ability to work with the other Premiers all for the greater good of the Federation. And in standing firm with the show-boating Christie Clark, she demonstrates the  ability to make the "tough decisions" when necessary.   And Redford's collaborative approach is gaining her supporters outside of Alberta's borders as well. So she is well equipped to lead the re-birth of a proud Canadian tradition. Hence, she is well placed to restore the Progressive voice to Canadian democracy and to pull the rug out from underneath his Harperness. 

It's Time For the Rebirth of the Federal Progressive Conservative Party.