Suzanne MacNevin - December 12th 2006.

When Preston Manning set out to change things he decided to create the Reform Party.

The main tenets of the Reform Party were: Alleged favoritism towards Quebec, lack of fiscal responsibility, and a failure to support a program of institutional reform (for example, of the Senate).

Today those beliefs have been washed away by neo Conservatives led by Stephen Harper.

Harper has scrapped any ideas of getting rid of the senate. He has shown favouritism towards Quebec in hopes of getting votes there. And fiscal responsibility? Does he really think cutting 1% of the GST is going to make much difference to the Canadian economy? Or to voters?

In fact, I'll put a question to you: How many of the original Reform MPs from the 1993 and 1997 federal elections are currently elected MPs in the Conservative Party? Less than 20? Less than 10?

The answer is 3.

Out of 124 Conservatives currently in power, only 3 are from the original Reform Party. The rest are remnants from the Progressive Conservatives, the Christian Coalition and the Canadian Alliance parties.

And the new party has lost the word "Progressive" and is now just plain conservative.

Or neo-conservative.

I'm not sure which is worse, old boy conservatives where women aren't allowed into politics, or neo-conservatives where everyone (male and female) is a bean-counting penny-pinching nazi.

It makes me very nostalgic for Preston Manning.

Manning voice's may have sounded like a chicken with his ass on fire (he didn't really speak, it was more of squawking sound), but at least he stayed true to his principles. Stockwell Day ruined the party with his racist slurs and Christian propaganda. Stephen Harper is an accountant in comparison. Ruthless and uncaring. Sure, he kisses babies and flips burgers at fundraisers but the cowboy hat is all fake (he was raised in Toronto). Preston Manning's hat was real. He was a real man of western Canada and a true Reformist.

But Preston Manning is retired. He's gone, never to return.

And so is the Reform Party, which died when Stockwell Day took over and then messed everything up.

And now Stephen Harper has lived up to his reputation as an accountant. He's not a leader. He's a flop.

He flip-flopped on Quebec favouritism, same sex marriage and a variety of other issues. [I'm in favour of same-sex marriage BTW, its just the fact that he flip-flopped that annoys me. Like he's playing to the crowd for votes and not sticking to his honest beliefs. He basically wasted taxpayers money arguing about an issue that he later changed his mind on.]

If Harper spent more time figuring out how to put more money into hospitals and less time worrying about gay marriages maybe we wouldn't have the waiting times we do.

Meanwhile in other news (see the articles below) it looks like Harper is going to be tossed out soon enough.

The Liberals are leading in the polls and the Bloc Parti wants to overthrow Harper's Conservative government after only 1 year in office. All signs suggest we're heading into a Spring election.

In which case the Conservative Party might want to rethink its leadership.

Isn't it time for a real leader from western Canada instead of a hat-wearing accountant from Toronto?

Duceppe threatens to topple Tories
Bloc leader warns he may trigger early election over handling of Afghan mission
SUSAN DELACOURT - December 12th 2006.

OTTAWA — The prospect of a federal election early in 2007 looms a little larger now that the Bloc Québécois and other opposition parties are talking about toppling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government over Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe issued the threat yesterday in a speech in Quebec City and other opposition leaders weren't ruling out the idea of helping to defeat the minority government as soon as February. The last federal election was Jan. 23.

"If Mr. Harper refuses to make changes or proves incapable of obtaining better collaboration from our allies, we won't hesitate to withdraw our support, and, if necessary, defeat the government on the Afghan question," Duceppe said in a speech to the Chamber of Commerce.

New Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said yesterday he'll "consider" voting the government down on Afghanistan, though he said he wanted to see any motion the Bloc would put forward. "But I know that this government could fall at any time," he said outside the Commons. "And my duty is to help my party be ready (for an election) at any time."

Liberals are viewed as increasingly anxious to pull the plug on Harper's government now that a new leader is in place and their fortunes are climbing in the polls. An EKOS poll for the Star and La Presse on the weekend put the Liberals at 40.1 per cent in public support, compared with 33.5 for the Conservatives, 10.2 per cent for the NDP and 8.6 per cent for the Bloc.

Those kind of numbers have Liberals dreaming about a return to power — having the Bloc provoke the Tories' defeat, rather than the Liberals doing it themselves, could prove strategically convenient.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party has called for an immediate troop pullout from Afghanistan, appeared to indicate he too would be an ally in defeating the Tories' on this score.

"Look, we have never had confidence in Mr. Harper's approach to this foreign policy matter," he said. "We believe that change is needed here."

The Bloc didn't say precisely when it might unleash a vote of no-confidence, or if it would be limited to the Afghan question.

Bloc House Leader Michel Gauthier even mused about toppling the government over a combination of issues of disappointment to Quebec: failure to live up to the Kyoto accord or to fix the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces.

Canada's role in Afghanistan is going to become an even more pointed topic for the Bloc in the new year, Duceppe said, because increasingly it is composed of personnel from the military base of Valcartier, Que.

The House of Commons adjourns for a long Christmas break later this week and won't be back to business until Jan. 29. There has been much speculation that an election is almost inevitable after a budget is brought down — likely late February or in March — but a vote of no-confidence on Afghanistan could mean an even earlier defeat of the Harper government.

If all opposition parties banded together and voted against the Tories — most likely on a so-called "opposition day" when the Bloc, Liberals or NDP set the Commons agenda — Harper's government would collapse.

The Conservatives hold 124 seats in the Commons while the Liberals hold 102 seats, the Bloc, 51 and the NDP have 29. There are two independent MPs.

Dion said he might support a non-confidence vote on Afghanistan, even though it was a former Liberal government that first sent Canadian troops there.

"It's not the same mission at all now ... We went in Kandahar to help a U.S. mission to become a NATO mission. And it's done.

"Mr. Harper requested a two-year extension without a clear mandate, without commitment from the other nations. ... We are in another world now."

Canada has 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan, mainly in the volatile Kandahar region. Forty-four Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed there since 2002. Thirty-six of them died this year.

Opposition threatens to topple Harper
CANADIAN PRESS - December 11th 2006.

OTTAWA — The opposition parties are threatening to pull the plug on the Tory minority government over its handling of the mission in Afghanistan.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe warned today that he might table a non-confidence motion if the mandate of Canadian soldiers in the war-torn country doesn't change.

And the other opposition parties suggested they might join a Bloc effort to that effect in the new year.

Duceppe said the mission needs to be "rapidly and profoundly" retooled and must focus more heavily on reconstruction instead of fighting.

He said the government is failing to secure troop commitments from other NATO countries and the current mission risks becoming a results-free sacrifice of human life.

"We will not go along with an obtuse government that digs in its heels," Duceppe told a Quebec City audience.

"Because if nothing changes, we are certainly going to get stuck.

"If (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper refuses to make these changes, we won't hesitate to withdraw our support and, if need be, to defeat his government on the Afghan question."

Duceppe described Afghanistan as one of three possible reasons to defeat the government. The others are climate change and the alleged federal-provincial fiscal imbalance.

Such a motion on Afghanistan would pose a particular dilemma for the Liberals, who signed up Canada for the mission in the first place while they were in power.

The party is now divided on the issue but its new leader has been critical of the current mission.

"We'll wait to see (the motion) before making a choice," Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said.

"Our mission in Afghanistan has enormous problems. One of the main reasons for that is half the Afghan economy is involved in an illicit activity (the poppy trade) that is filling warlords' coffers."

Dion is calling for a so-called Marshall plan and for alternate means to compensate farmers who grow poppies. However, he has been vague so far about what he would propose.

As for the Tories, Dion said they have only themselves to blame if they appear fragile.

"This government is vulnerable — thanks to its very right-wing policies, which are very far from what Canadians want," Dion said.

"I know this government can fall."

Forty-four Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since the Afghan mission began in 2002, the majority of those casualties this year.

But the Canadian who recently led the NATO mission for nine months says much was accomplished under his watch.

Brig.-Gen. David Fraser says 146 kilometres of new roads and more than 100,000 metres of irrigation canals were finished. Another 1,000 wells were dug in Kandahar province by Nov. 1, when the Dutch assumed control of the mission.

"We're making important progress in Afghanistan," said International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner.

"We will not abandon the Afghan people who are looking to build a democracy . . . and looking to take control of their future. . .

"I'm thinking especially about the women. It's out of the question for me to return them to the darkness. We know what sort of horrific regime they lived under.

"Little girls go to school today — which they could not do when the mission started in 2001."

Among Canadian federal parties, only the NDP has formally called for a troop withdrawal and it appears likely to support any motion of the sort Duceppe is proposing.

"We have never had confidence in Mr. Harper's approach to this foreign policy matter," NDP Leader Jack Layton said.

"We have said so and we have voted accordingly and it would not be a surprise to Canadians to have us continue on that path. We believe that change is needed here."

Duceppe denied that his hardening of opinion against the mission is a matter of political convenience.

Quebecers have been more skeptical than other Canadians about the mission, surveys say, and opposition in the province may deepen when 2,000 soldiers from Quebec are deployed to Afghanistan next summer.

But Duceppe said he has been voicing the same objections for months.

"I make absolutely no distinction between someone from Petawawa (base in Ontario) and someone from Valcartier (in Quebec)."

By John Geddes.

Politicians reveal a lot by the way they boast. Jean Chrétien took pleasure in recalling times he kept his cool while lesser politicians panicked -- a valuable attribute, no doubt, but one that might have led him to downplay a crisis worth worrying about. Paul Martin liked to talk about his ambition to bring about historic change -- a noble mission, but one that could have caused him to neglect the more mundane demands of governing. If Prime Minister Stephen Harper shows a telling tendency to brag, it's in the way he talks about his own chess master-like ability to "think a few steps ahead" or "see things coming."

In time, perhaps his pride, too, will point to a potential weakness. For now, though, Harper has reason enough to see himself as a top-tier strategist. In less than three years he has created a new political party and led it to victory. Power in his Ottawa is built around his strategy for accomplishing the next step -- leaping from minority to majority. His new team, notably the 11 core players profiled in this issue of Maclean's, was assembled for how they fit into that plan. He's taken calculated risks to promote youthful voter appeal on his front benches, balanced against a quotient of experienced savvy. His top behind-the-scenes aides are known for their skills as campaigners and organizers, not as policy wonks or ideologues.

Harper's choices are markedly unsentimental. He is relying overwhelmingly on politicians and advisers who don't have longstanding ties to him -- arguably the most dramatic departure from the Chrétien and Martin years, when power and personal bonds went hand in hand. Chrétien turned two advisers he had leaned on for decades, Eddie Goldenberg and John Rae, along with a friend from his student days, Jean Pelletier, into the most influential backroom trio in federal politics. Martin's unflagging loyalty, over many years, to his close-knit crew of operatives became the leitmotif of his rise -- and fall.

But Harper's old friends and ideological fellow-travellers are glaringly absent from the roster of his new Parliament Hill elite. Scan the list of Harper's Eleven and you will find not a single name that was prominently linked to him when he was rising in Reform, taking over the Canadian Alliance, and capturing the leadership of the reborn Conservative party. Power in his government is flowing through those he thinks can provide what he needs now, or next -- not as an acknowledgment of past services.

In fact, Harper's quest for the right person for the moment can make him quick to acquire and discard aides. He has churned through a succession of media managers and chiefs of staff in the past few years. Most recently, he dumped William Stairs, his communications director -- who had seemed to have won Harper's trust during the election -- over differences about how to handle the uproar following David Emerson's appointment as trade minister. Critics suggest Harper is guilty of a petulant inability to work with those who fail to meekly fall in line; admirers point to his steady rise as evidence he has been proven right most of the time. Most recently, they say, polls showing Canadians weren't really outraged by the Emerson defection vindicate Harper's instinct to largely ignore the media frenzy. "Harper is getting ready for a Throne Speech and a budget in April," said one long-time adviser. "It's logical that he would step back during this period, and not spend two hours a day worrying about the needs of the Parliamentary Press Gallery."

Harper's skepticism about the need to feed the daily -- no, hourly -- hunger of the media is one of his defining traits. As Alliance leader, he kept merger talks with the Progressive Conservatives secret for three months in 2003. In the run-up to the recent election, he resisted constant pressure to announce policies early. Instead, he hoarded them as campaign ammunition -- a tactic that worked brilliantly.

Harper is drawn to those who, like him, are willing to bide their time, and don't seem dazzled by the prospect of media exposure. That's good news for discreet operators like Patrick Muttart, whose post-election aura as a wunderkind campaign architect isn't hurt by the fact that he's been virtually invisible in Ottawa. And it explains why Harper has warmed up to a once harsh critic like Senetor Marjory LeBreton, a former top Mulroney aide, who urges him to "stay out of people's faces" -- the sort of advice he's primed to hear.

Strategic value trumps shared history with Harper every time. Back when he was consolidating his position in opposition, he was seen as close to smart young MPs like B.C.'s James Moore, Alberta's James Rajotte, and Ontario's Scott Reid. Not one of them made it into his first cabinet. Instead, the up-and-comers drafted into the cabinet big leagues include Edmonton's Rona Ambrose and Ontario's John Baird, who have only grown close to him since 2004. Their individual talents matter, but so do the key voter demographics they represent: Ambrose, younger, educated women; Baird, urban Ontario.

A similar pattern holds for more seasoned politicians. Veterans Harper worked with in his Reform and Alliance years, notably Calgary's Diane Ablonczy, were passed over in favour of perhaps more moderate figures, such as Jim Prentice, another Albertan, but one who remained a loyal Progressive Conservative through the nineties -- and only developed a rapport with Harper in the past 18 months.

Harper's willingness to invest trust in such new allies was something few saw coming. Back when he was taking command of the Alliance, and then creating the new Conservative party, conventional wisdom had it that if he ever became PM, he would transplant hard-core Calgary conservatism to Ottawa. University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan was widely seen as a permanent fixture as his most important confidant. But Flanagan has faded into the background.

Rather than elevating Calgary's distinctive neo-conservative culture, Harper's victory has given new life to veterans of Mike Harris's Ontario government, like Treasury Board Minister John Baird and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, and resuscitated figures rooted in the Mulroney era, like LeBreton, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, and Michael Wilson, his ambassador to the U.S. The key PMO figures -- Ian Brodie, Mark Cameron and Muttart -- were all Ontario-based before the election, and are all more recent additions to Harper's inner circle than his old Calgary network. (In general, the makeup of Harper's cabinet and Martin's are uncannily similar. Average age, 52 in Harper's, 55 in Martin's; 21 per cent women in Harper's, 28 per cent in Martin's.

It's intriguing that Harper, along with Prentice, his unofficial chief operating officer, has been reading historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, which explores how Abraham Lincoln elevated into his cabinet former adversaries who had once disdained him, and then let them do their jobs. Harper also seems to be ignoring past differences, and the tempting inference would be that Harper plans to afford strong ministers a lot of leeway. Those who have worked closely with him, though, say not to expect him to function as a hands-off delegator.

His desk tends to be piled high. He reads thoroughly on many issues, fleshes out his thinking in one-on-one sessions with experts, then expects highly informed discussion among officials. "You never just walk in and talk to him about an idea," said one adviser. "You write him a well thought-out memo, that you read over and over again to make sure it makes sense. Then give it to him, and then set up a time to go and see him." Detractors say he too often tries to control too much. But others contend he is learning to be selective. "He will micromanage a number of portfolios and utterly ignore a number of other portfolios," one former aide predicts. Which issues will he want to take the lead on? Another former staffer answers that question simply: "The ones he thinks will get him his majority."

Signs of a tendency to intrude on issues deemed strategically crucial for the next election have already appeared. Health Minister Tony Clement was muzzled early by the PMO when he wanted to talk with reporters on a Quebec plan to allow private delivery of publicly funded medical services. Health wait times is on Harper's short list of five priority policies, and he wanted to study Quebec's approach before his government pronounced. Media-friendly ministers like Clement had better get used to it. In these very early days, Harper appears to be succeeding in instilling his patiently opportunistic style on his regime.

As part of his painstaking decision-making process, Harper does sometimes seek informal advice from outside his core group. Many assume Flanagan will still be tapped on occasion, along with his former senior policy adviser, Calgary consultant Ken Boessenkool. An underestimated source of guidance, according to an informed insider, is Ray Speaker, former Alberta Reform MP and éminence grise, and one of Harper's hand-picked negotiators in the merger talks that created the new Conservative party. These days, Speaker is a member of the federal security intelligence review committee, a role that brings him to Ottawa frequently -- offering convenient opportunities for regular chats with the PM. However, Speaker and the other outsiders aren't expected to carry the weight of, for instance, David Herle with Paul Martin, or John Rae with Jean Chrétien.

Harper's cabinet structure, more streamlined than Martin's, should help him maintain control. He chairs the priorities and planning committee that will manage his top-of-mind files. Prentice runs the operations committee that will try to keep everything else on the rails. But that will get harder. In opposition, Harper could choose what to actively oppose. In government, inconvenient issues, like Ralph Klein's health reform scheme, demand action.

Harper achieved power by steadfastly believing in his own ability to plot out the next few moves, but every chessmaster eventually makes a mistake. He aims to consolidate it by sticking to his game plan, but he can hardly do it alone and he has been discarding allies (like sacrificing rooks and knights in chess) along the way in his effort for more power. The question now is whether what remains of his supporting cast has what it takes to follow -- and sometimes carry -- this least improvisational, most methodical Prime Minister from minority to majority or will they fail to win the next election at all. If that happens, who will second-guess Harper when he says he saw it all coming?

What happens when Harper runs out of pawns and has to concede defeat?