Full Text of new Booklet slamming Alliance-PC merger
Mondo Politico
Alliance-PC Agreement-in-Principle. Entitled "Two Birds in Hand, Something
Hiding in the Bush", it is important reading for people who will have a vote
on whether to ratify the deal, but others may find it interesting too: it
gives some detailed insight into what really makes the Alliance and PC
parties so different.
The booklet is free, and is available in two formats right now. Plaintext
(see below), and in Adobe format at http://www.freedomparty.org/merger.pdf .
Also available at Mondo Politico in the Canada discussion forum
(http://www.mondopolitico.com/discus/messages/715/94.html). Reprinted here
with permission.
Regards,
Mondo Politico
www.mondopolitico.com
===============================
Two Birds in Hand, Something Hiding in the Bush
PART I
Some Sober Second Thought Before You Vote on Whether to Ratify the
Agreement-In-Principle on the Establishment of the Conservative Party of
Canada
by
Paul McKeever, B.Sc.(Hons), M.A., LL.B.
Published: October 25, 2003
Copyright 2003, Paul McKeever
Summary: Pressured by the Canadian Establishment to form a single
alternative to the Liberals, the leaders of the Alliance and PC parties have
signed an Agreement-in-Principle. The Establishment's corporations can endow
a party with a war chest only before new federal election finance reforms
take effect on January 1, 2004. For the merger to take effect, it must be
ratified by PC and Alliance members no later than December 12, 2003. If
ratified, the Alliance and PC parties will be eliminated and replaced with a
party called the Conservative Party of Canada. The Agreement-in-Principle
makes no commitments about what the constitution and policies of the new
party will be. It does not state whether the party will be a top-down or a
grass-roots party: it does not say who - the members versus the leadership -
will have the power to adopt party policy. It simply lists a number of
"founding principles" largely cut and pasted from the constitution of the PC
party. The strategy behind the deal is to have members eliminate their
parties so that, whatever may be the nature of the new party, they will have
no alternative but to compromise their ideals and embrace it.
Paul McKeever is an employment lawyer practising in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.
He is a former member of the federal PC and Reform parties. Drawing partly
from the constitutions of the Alliance, PC, Liberal and other parties, he
drafted the constitutions of the Freedom Party of Canada and the Freedom
Party of Ontario. He is a founder, and currently the leader, of the Freedom
Party of Canada.
He can be contacted via e-mail: pmck...@mckeever.com
-1-
Of Humpty Dumpty, Kirk Jones, and Taking the Plunge
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a Wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,
All the King's Horses and All the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again."
- Anonymous
"I think he just reached the point where whatever happened was the best plan
for him," Fronek said. "If he made it, he might benefit with money. If he
died, so be it."
- Friend of Kirk Jones, Niagara Falls Jumper
quoted by Associated Press, October 23, 2003."
On Thursday, October 16, 2003, the leaders of the federal Canadian Reform
Conservative Alliance ("Alliance") and Progressive Conservative ("PC")
parties announced that they had come to an "Agreement-in-Principle" to merge
the two parties. As you probably know, the Agreement-in-Principle must be
ratified (i.e., approved) by the Alliance and PC party memberships not later
than December 12, 2003, or else there will be no merger.
Little has been said about the nature of the merged party. In effect, the
leaders of the Alliance and PC parties have signed a suicide pact in the
hope that they and their respective party members will follow suit and all
will arrive together in conservative heaven. This article is written so that
members of both parties can know what they are really getting into - what
knowns they are trading for unknowns - before they drink the ratification
Cruel-Aid or hop aboard the Harper-MacKay comet in the underinformed hopes
of going to some great conservative love-in in the sky.
-2-
The Sudden Urge to Merge: The Canadian Establishment
"Ontario is the Canadian establishment; everything Reform and the CA did or
said dripped anti-establishment."
- Lorne Gunter
National Post, October 16, 2003
Media reports have informed Canadians, essentially, that monied Bay Street
interests (i.e., the Canadian Establishment) have forced the leaders into
agreeing to merge. The most credible reason mentioned: effective January 1,
2004, federal election financing laws will tightly limit corporate donations
to federal political parties: Bay Street will lose much of its financial
clout with federal political parties. Therefore, if the Establishment is to
endow an alternative to the Liberals with corporate money, it must do so
before the new year, which is only weeks away. If the Establishment does not
endow another party with a war chest, the Liberals will have no financial
equal, and the new election finance laws will ensure that that never
changes. However, before the Establishment funds an alternative to the
Liberals it wants to minimize the likelihood of vote-splitting: "why fund a
losing cause?", it thinks. Better to get the warring Roses to move back into
the same house together, first.
Why does the Canadian Establishment want to fund a merged "conservative"
party? Well, for most Titans trying to maximize the bottom line, it has very
little at all to do with ideology. In fact, were the to-be-formed party to
share the ideology of the Liberal Party, that would be fine by most of the
Canadian Establishment. All that the Establishment really wants is two
parties (no less and no more) with the potential of forming the government.
A two party system serves two functions. First, if one government forgets
who butters its bread, the other party, if willing to respond to the demands
of a majority of the Establishment, can be given the organizational support
and media attention it needs to form the next government. The two parties
can say that they are left-wing, right-wing, green, socialist, capitalist,
whatever. They can
-3-
name themselves whatever they want. None of that really matters. The
Establishment's only condition for obtaining its support and its media
attention is that the parties remember who is really in charge: the
Establishment.
Second, a two-party system simplifies things to the point of a Politics for
Morons book. One party gets to be called "left" wing or "centre-left". The
other gets to be called "right-wing" or "centre-right". Minute differences
between the two parties' platforms are portrayed as somehow being important
when they are not. To prevent us from developing some perspective and sense
of scale, the Establishment's news media get us all worked up and distracted
with a story about some politician charging a $200 steak dinner to his
government expense account. Meanwhile, our governments quietly pay over one
hundred million dollars ($100,000,000.00) to Establishment banks and other
creditors every day.
Lacking perspective and a sense of scale, we are easily led to believe that
one party is "left-wing", "tax and spend", and "liberal" because it would
spend an additional $500M on schools over five years, while the "heartless",
"cheapskate", "selfish", "right-wing", "American-style", "conservative"
party would spend only $400M on schools over four years. Lacking perspective
and a sense of scale, we pat ourselves on the back after an election, having
"chosen change" and shown those parties who is boss. However, nothing that
should really matter to Canada changes: same boss (the Establishment),
different secretaries (the political parties). Whichever party is in power,
Canadian Establishment businesses continue to get legal protection from US,
European and Asian competitors, continue to get subsidies (many disguised as
tax deductions) to keep them afloat at taxpayer expense, and continue to
collect interest on an immense debt that no Establishment party dares to
reduce significantly.
Given its preference for a two-party system, it should hardly be surprising
that the Canadian Establishment's news and opinion
-4-
media companies have been gushing with excitement, praise and enthusiasm
about the idea that the Alliance and PC parties could be replaced with a
single "Conservative" party. Already, the jockeying has begun to promote
certain personalities (most notably, Ontario's former Premier, Mike Harris)
as the leader-in-waiting of the yet-to-be-formed party. Though not a fait
accompli, the Establishment's news editors are editing in ways that imply
the "merger" is a fait accompli.
At the same time, the Canadian Establishment's news and opinion media
companies have stepped up efforts to crush the personalities and arguments
of those who dare to question their wisdom in trying to dismantle two
well-known, differing parties, and replace them with a single, internally
conflicted party. For example, the National Post - normally analytical - has
stooped to publishing an ad hominem attack on one higher-profile PC party
member, mocking him by suggesting he is like a pesky bird with an annoying
"no-merger" cackle. He may be right, he may be wrong, but I submit he is
entitled to be heard without insult.
Before you are cowed by similar insults, and before you respond to the
Establishment's pro-merger campaign with your gut, take a moment to consider
what is being proposed in the Agreement-in-Principle...and, perhaps more
importantly, what is not being promised or even suggested.
-5-
Okay Name, but What Does it Stand For?
" 'My NAME is Alice, but -- '
'It's a stupid name enough!' Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. 'What
does it mean?'
'MUST a name mean something?' Alice asked doubtfully.
'Of course it must,' Humpty Dumpty said with a sort of laugh: 'MY name means
the shape I am -- and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like
yours, you might be any shape, almost.' "
- Excerpt from Lewis Carroll's
Alice Through the Looking Glass
"When you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there."
- Excerpt from George Harrison's Any Road
The Agreement-in-Principle begins by choosing a name for the proposed new
political party: "Conservative Party of Canada". Many will stop there and go
directly to filling out their ballot. Does it take more that plopping the
word "conservative" into a party name to get your vote? Were the Alliance
and PC parties to eliminate themselves on condition only that the NDP change
its name to the Conservative Party of Canada, would you choose to eliminate
your party and join that Conservative Party of Canada? What if the Natural
Law Party's yogic flyers or the Greenies to decide merely to call their
party the "Conservative Party of Canada": would you vote to eliminate your
party and join that party? If all that matters "fixing democracy" and
"ending the Liberal dictatorship" by ending vote splitting, why stop at
destroying just your party and one other? Why not get every party other than
the Liberals to kill their parties too, and join the Conservative Party of
Canada? If what you stand for doesn't matter, why not fight the Liberals
shoulder to shoulder with a communist?
The important point is this. A good name is important for a party, but a
name's importance pales by comparison to a party's guiding principles, its
policies and the way in which it forms those policies. Therefore, let's turn
to the issues that really matter when deciding
-6-
whether to trade what you have for whatever's waiting behind curtain one.
======================================================================
"Founding Principles" of the CPC = PC Principles + 3
"The messy origins of the PC-Alliance 'founding principles,' mostly lifted
verbatim from the old PC constitution, cast doubt on their integrity"
- Terence Corcoran
Financial Post, October 24, 2003
"Being aware of these divisions, we were prepared to make significant
compromises with the PCs, and we did."
- Stephen Harper, Leader of the Alliance
Globe and Mail, October 21, 2003
The Agreement-in-Principle sets out nineteen "founding principles". What are
they? Well, sixteen of them are "Aims" and "Principles" set out in the
Constitution of the PC party of Canada. Word for word. For the most part,
not even the order of the list has been changed: it is almost a cut and
paste job (compare Appendices "A" and "B"). The Principles of the Alliance
appear nowhere in the Agreement-in-Principle. There has been no compromise
or negotiation by Mr. Harper or his negotiators: just a whole-hog adoption
of the PC party's aims and principles. To those sixteen, three have been
added: commitments to bilingualism, to socialized health care, and to "free
and fair" (i.e., not free) global trade.
In the Agreement-in-Principle, it is said that the constitution and policies
of the new party will be guided by the "founding principles" which have been
cut and pasted from the PC constitution. It should be noted that the PC
party's constitution says that its policies are guided by those principles
too. How then, do you suppose, some Alliance policies will stand up in the
face of those PC guiding principles?
Consider, first, the problems introduced by the fluffy, say-nothing nature
of most of the "beliefs" cited as principles. Most human
-7-
beings - even Liberals - would undeniably and truthfully say that they hold
most of the beliefs. For example, what Liberal, Greenie, Communist,
capitalist, libertarian, or yogic flyer lacks the belief that "Canada should
accept its obligations among the nations of the world"? Who believes firmly
that it is right to shirk responsibility, and that shirking should be a
principle that guides the "policy basis" of a party? A belief in accepting
ones obligations does not distinguish any person or party from any other. To
cite such a "belief" entirely (and intentionally) skirts the issue, which
(in this example) is: "What should be Canada's obligations among the nations
of the world". The Agreement-in-Principle avoids the actual issue (and many
others) to avoid addressing differences (arguably irreconcilable) between
the Alliance and PC parties so as to 'get the deal done' for Bay Street.
Again, the thinking is that you will have no party to return to by the time
you discover what is really meant by the say-nothing founding principles set
out in the Agreement-in-Principle.
Another problem with the "beliefs" set out in the Agreement-in-Principle:
many are completely ambiguous. Take for example the belief in "progressive
social policy". What, exactly, is "progressive social policy"? Do you know?
If you think you do know, do you honestly think that everyone agrees with
your definition of that term? Would the belief in "progressive social
policy" prevent the new party from proposing that same-sex relationships be
included in the legal definition of "marriage". In the alternative, would
the belief in "progressive social policy" permit (or even require) the new
party to promote such a legal definition? Do you know? Shouldn't you know
before eliminating your party, its principles, and its policies?
-8-
How Would the Conservative Party of Canada's Policies be Affected by its
Principles?
"You've got to stand, for something, or you're gonna fall, for anything..."
- excerpt from John Mellencamp's
You've Got to Stand for Something
The Agreement-in-Principle says that the proposed party's "policy basis"
(whatever that is, and however its meaning may differ from the meaning of
simple word "policies") will be guided by the new party's "founding
principles" (i.e., by the "beliefs" of the PC party of Canada). I suppose
that's more re-assuring than saying that the party will be guided by things
it does not believe. However, because the beliefs are so say-nothing and
ambiguous, they cannot really guide policy at all: in reality, they place
virtually no limit on the sort of policies that the new party could adopt.
The Policies of the Proposed Conservative Party of Canada
"The truth is the PCs simply aren't a party of the right at all and haven't
been for some time. Many of their policies on social issues, on regional
development and even on fiscal matters are closer to those of the New
Democratic Party than those of the populist and unashamedly right-wing
Canadian Alliance...We wish Harper and MacKay every success."
- Montreal Gazette, editorial, October 17, 2003
What are the policies of the proposed Conservative Party of Canada? The
Agreement-in-Principle sets out none. That's right, not one. Instead, it
simply states that six Alliance appointees and six PC appointees will set up
a convention responsible, in part, for "proposing and developing" policies
(the word "adoption" of policies is not mentioned as a right or
responsibility of such conventions). The Agreement-in-Principle further
notes that the convention probably will not be held until after the next
election.
-9-
It is not entirely clear what sort of hodge-podge the new party would
present as a platform going into the next election. Given that the votes
received by the new party in the next election will largely determine its
funding over the following four to five years, do you think it is smarter
for conservatives to go into the next election with a hastily cobbled
platform than to present a coherent policy package that has been studied,
debated and adopted by the Alliance or PCs?
Who Defines "Conservative": The Power to Adopt Policy
"In today's climate, the most persistent and relevant division pits the
institutional loyalty and elitism of the Tory tradition against the
grassroots populism of parties such as Social Credit and Reform."
- Stephen Harper
Globe and Mail, October 21, 2003
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means
just what I choose it to mean - - neither more, nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many
different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - - that's
all.'
- excerpt from Lewis Carroll's
Alice Through the Looking Glass
Some may say that there is simply no time to go through the process of
developing and adopting party policies before the next election, so
conservatives should just ratify the deal and worry about policy later.
However, even if that argument has merit, there is certainly time to tell
you who, in the party, would have the ultimate authority to adopt the party'
s policies. Most certainly, the policy-making process adopted in the party's
(currently non-existent) constitution will be more important than any given
set of policies. Yet - Stephen Harper knowing full well the nature of "the
most persistent and relevant division" between the parties - the
Agreement-in-Principle avoids saying who, ultimately, would have the
authority to adopt party policies. Indeed the text of the
Agreement-in-Principle implies that policies will be adopted by
-10-
the leadership, because the Agreement-in-Principle says that, at its first
convention, the party's policies can be "amended": you cannot amend
something that does not already exist, so it is implied that somebody other
than members at a convention will have the power to adopt policies.
It is worth noting, also, that even the relatively limited power of the
membership to amend the policies is only said to exist with respect to the
"first" convention. Moreover, even then, this one-time amendment by the
membership would be extremely difficult to exercise. Amendment by the
membership would require a double majority: not only a majority of
delegates, but a majority of delegates from a majority of provinces.
The often ignored or obfuscated truth about the ideological division between
the PCs and the Alliance is that the core differences between the parties
lie not in policies themselves, but in who, ultimately, adopts the policies
of the part: the leadership versus the membership. In the Alliance
constitution, all policies must be adopted by the membership at a National
Convention. Policies tentatively adopted by the party caucus between
conventions must be adopted by the membership at the following National
Convention. In other words, the Alliance membership, not its leader, has the
power to adopt the policies of the party. The Alliance constitution
specifically states that:
"The Leader, together with Caucus, will endeavour to promote and implement
the Principles and Policies of the Alliance" (Article 7[a][ii])
and that
"The Leader and the Caucus are bound by the Principles and Polices as
determined by the Members of the Canadian Alliance" (Article 17[d]).
-11-
In other words, the Alliance's members choose the policies, and its elected
MPs have the job of promoting those policies - and only those policies -
that, ultimately, are approved by the membership at a National Convention.
Ultimately, the Alliance party leader is not a policy maker: he is a person
charged with the responsibility of promoting or implementing the policies
adopted by the party's membership. Put another way, the real leader of the
Alliance is the membership: the fellow with the title "leader" is actually
the chief follower.
Contrast the Alliance's "grass roots" philosophy of policy adoption with the
"top-down" policy adoption process of the PC party. According to the PC
constitution:
- the PC party has "a continuing policy process and a permanent policy
resource which respects and encourages the participation of Members"
(Article 8.1.3). The PC constitution "encourages" members to participate,
but no membership involvement of any sort is required: under the PC
constitution, policies can be adopted by the leadership without the
participation of members;
- at a convention, PC members may "review, discuss and formulate policy for
the PC Party, taking into consideration the continuing policy process of the
Party" (Article 8.8.2). Note that PC policies are not adopted at a
convention, as they are by the Canadian Alliance. They are merely
"formulated": the result of the PC membership's efforts at a convention is
merely a "policy proposal" or a "resolution", not a policy. Note that,
similarly, the Agreement-in-Principle does not list policy adoption as an
responsibility of party conventions: like the PC constitution, it gives the
convention responsibility only for "proposal and development";
-12-
- Some may think that when PC party members "formulate" policy, they are
somehow adopting it for the party. The PC constitution makes it clear that
that is not the case. Specifically, the PC constitution says that a central
objective of the "policy process" is to "facilitate and promote on a regular
and timely basis responses from the leadership to Members, constituency
associations, affiliated organizations, youth associations and the PCYF on
policy proposals and resolutions put forward by them" (Article 9.3.3). Read
that carefully: the members and their associations submit policy proposals
and resolutions. The leadership (i.e., the National Council and the
Management Committee) provides a response. That "response" is a decision, by
the leadership, about the policies of the party.
- The Management Committee and National Council are said to be charged with
the responsibility of ensuring that the policies of the party are "guided"
by the twelve "principles" of the party (sound familiar?). Given that the
Management Committee and the National Council (i.e., the leadership) are the
bodies ultimately responsible for adopting party policy, it is reasonably
safe to assume that those bodies will always consider the policies they
adopt to have been guided by the 12 beliefs.
You will find nothing in the PC constitution that says that the members
decide policy. That is because the members of the PC party do not adopt
policy: they only express their wishes and proposals. If you need evidence
of that, see the PC party's "Policy Document Adopted at the national Policy
Convention Held in Québec City in May, 2000": every list of policies is
titled "Policy Proposals" (emphasis added). In the PC party, the leader
(through the Management Committee and the National Council) adopts whatever
policies he wants to, whether they were proposed at a convention or not. The
only real limit on the leadership's policy-
-13-
making power is the political reality that the leader has to maintain the
membership's loyalty (though, not necessarily their happiness, satisfaction,
or respect) if his leadership is to continue smoothly without provoking a
leadership review.
One could argue the merits of the Alliance's bottom-up "grass roots" policy
making process versus those of the top-down leader-determined process of the
PCs all day long. At the end of the day, there would still be serious and
divisive disagreement about who should have the power to adopt the party's
policies: the members versus the leadership. That disagreement has been and
remains the chief difference between most Reformer/Alliance members on one
hand and most PC party members on the other.
It is hard to believe that the proposed party - pushed on as it is by the
Canadian Establishment - would have any intention of allowing the membership
of that party the power to adopt policy. Consider that, after all, the
grass-roots movement's primary motivation is - and has always been - to
ensure that the Canadian Establishment, separatists and the other special
interests do not call the shots: that party members determine what their
party's MPs do in the House of Commons.
Arguably, the deep division over who adopts party policy is precisely why
the Agreement-in-Principle does not speak, at all, about who will make
policy: about whether the new party will be a grass-roots, bottom-up party,
or a top-down party. The merger plan would appear to be to get everyone into
the party first, kill the PC and Alliance parties, and then leave one or the
other party's members unhappy about the way the party ultimately decides to
determine its policies. Given that you are being asked for your consent to
the elimination of your party and its policy-formation/adoption process,
shouldn't you know - in advance - who will have the real and ultimate power
in the proposed party to decide matters of party/government policy? Shouldn'
t you know, in advance, whether you will be a General or a foot soldier in
the proposed party?
-14-
The Impact on All Canadians: How Would the Party's Prime Minister be
Controlled?
"The young movement is in its nature and inner organization
anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects, in general and in its own inner
structure, a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to
the level of a mere executant of other people's will and opinion. In little
as well as big things, the movement advocates the principle of a Germanic
democracy: the leader is elected, but then enjoys unconditional authority."
- A 20th century dictator,
re: discretion within his new political party
It must also be considered that the issue of who decides policy (i.e., the
membership versus the leader) is incredibly crucial not only to party
members but to all Canadians. Under Canada's system of government, the
leader of the party getting the most votes becomes the Prime Minister of
Canada. In practice, the law places very little limitation on the powers of
the Prime Minister. However, keeping in mind that the leader of the party in
power is the Prime Minister, a party can make up for the shortcomings of the
law: it can, with its constitution, limit the power of the Prime Minister by
ensuring that the party can replace its leader should he/she step out of
line. If a party in power replaces its leader, it replaces the country's
Prime Minister.
Let us apply this observation to the differing constitutions of the Alliance
and PC parties. Were the leader of the Alliance to become the Prime
Minister, he could continue to be the Prime Minister only if he restricted
himself to making laws consistent with the policies determined by the
members of the Alliance: if he were to have implemented laws inconsistent
with what the members ultimately agreed were party policy, he would have
exceeded his authority under the Alliance constitution and would probably be
replaced as leader at a National Convention requested by a quarter of the
party's riding associations. As a result, were the Alliance leader to become
the Prime Minister, his actions and legislative
-15-
proposals would be limited by the policies ultimately adopted by the
membership of his party.
In contrast, were the leader of the PC party to be the Prime Minister, he
could conceivably take any action and introduce any legislation he wanted
to. The real limit, in practice, would be not a set of policies but merely
the loyalty of the PC party membership. Provided the members were kept
reasonably loyal (they need not be obeyed or kept happy), no review of the
party's leadership would be demanded and the leader would not be in danger
of losing his seat as Prime Minister. For example, except after losing an
election, the PC party cannot even be asked whether it wants to have a
leadership review until 100 constituency association presidents, approved by
a 2/3rds majority of a general meeting, approve the submission of that
question itself. History informs us that the membership of parties with
top-down policy-making processes (e.g., the Liberals, the PCs) tend to
remain loyal to their leader provided that their party remains in power: if
the leader is winning the party a majority of seats, his virtually unlimited
discretion as Prime Minister will not be undermined. Therefore, in practice,
the membership of top-down political parties exercise little direct control
over the Prime Minister's decisions.
The Alliance and PC parties' respective beliefs about how and to what extent
its members' opinions determine the conduct of the Prime Minister are, in
reality, very, very different. Therefore, you must ask yourself not only who
would make party policies in the proposed Conservative Party of Canada, but
also the more fundamental question: who should have influence over the Prime
Minster? All interested Canadians, or the Canadian Establishment on Bay
Street?
A primary consideration for those who have thought about that question has
been the observation that it is much easier to persuade or corrupt one party
leader than to persuade or corrupt hundreds or thousands of party members.
Fear of corruption or high-powered influence over the Prime Minster was one
important reason giving
-16-
rise to the grass-roots policy-adoption process of the Reform Party (and,
subsequently, of the Canadian Alliance ). Should the Prime Minister be free
to change government policy when asked, or told to, by Bay Street? Should
the Prime Minister have the freedom to appease separatists with your tax
dollars if he/she wants to, or should that sort of thing require your
approval? If the Prime Minister doesn't require the approval of his party's
membership, does that leave the Prime Minister more likely to be corrupted
or influenced by the Canadian Establishment or other powerful special
interests? Who loses? Does it matter to you?
The point is this. You are being asked - in fact, you are practically being
told - by the Canadian Establishment to eliminate your party. Before
granting your consent to the elimination of your party, should you not first
know whether the new party's constitution would leave your leader, as Prime
Minister, dancing to your tune or to the tune of the Canadian Establishment
and other special interests? If the Agreement-in-Principle has been reached
because Bay Street has strong-armed the leaders of the PCs and Alliance to
reach it, what sort of limits do you think the new party's constitution will
place on the power of Bay Street and special interests to influence the
Prime Minister?
Merger, or Suicide?
"How all of this will work out in practice remains a little fuzzy. But that'
s OK."
- David Frum
National Post, October 17, 2003
"We're not merging two parties...we're killing two parties and creating a
new one."
-André Bachand, PC MP
Quoted in Toronto Star, October 17, 2003
Whatever decisions you may make concerning the questions brought up in this
leaflet, one thing is certain: rightly or wrongly, the Canadian
Establishment will pump a great deal of money and influence into the effort
to dismantle the Alliance and PC parties
-17-
and to form the Conservative Party of Canada. This merger plan is not the
result of grass-roots efforts. It is and will continue to be an effort
promoted and carried out by the Canadian Establishment and its news media.
That said, a hunger to get rid of the Liberal Party's stranglehold on
government is likely to have at least 50% of conservatives voting in favour
of ratifying the Agreement-in-Principle.
If the Agreement-in-Principle is ratified by both parties, and you if you
vote in favour of the ratification, you will eventually be able to determine
whether you made the right decision: at some point in the future - probably
after the next federal election - the party will hold a convention and you
will finally find out who you have gotten into bed with. If you choose to
vote "no" to the merger, and the merger goes ahead anyway, you quite
probably will find yourself to be a member of the very sort of Establishment
party that many people joined the Reform Party to fight. And, if so, there
will be no Alliance or PC party for you to return to. Both will be fading me
mories and elements of political history.
The desire to end the Liberal Party's grip on government is a strong
incentive to do something - for some, to do anything - to "unite the right".
Frankly, this is not a marriage: it is a re-marriage of two divorcees that
divorced over irreconcilable differences: divisions that remain
irreconcilable to this day. It is an attempt to bind oil with water, red
tories with blue tories, top-downers with bottom-uppers.
Whether or not you share this opinion, and whatever your party affiliation,
do consider that the Agreement-in-Principle offers you no guarantees about
what will be the party's policies. It offers no guarantees about who will
have the power to adopt party policy. It doesn't even offer a guarantee of
when the first set of policies will be adopted, instead suggesting that they
won't be adopted until a post-election party convention. It offers no hint
of how (or even whether) the new party would control the powers of the Prime
Minister in the face of an influential Canadian Establishment,
-18-
separatists, or other special interests. The ratification of the
Agreement-in-Principle guarantees only one thing: that the Alliance and PC
parties of Canada will be eliminated forever.
-19-
Appendix "A": Aims and Principles of the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
Excerpted from the Constitution of the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
"2. AIMS
2.1 As Progressive Conservatives, we believe in a balance between fiscal
accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and
responsibilities.
2.2 The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada exists to:
2.2.1 Build a national coalition of people who share these beliefs and who
reflect the regional, cultural and socio-economic diversity of Canada;
2.2.2 Develop this coalition, embracing our differences and respecting our
traditions, yet honouring a concept of Canada as the greater sum of strong
parts; and
2.2.3 Provide an organizational framework within which Members of the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada can effect change, gather public
support for its policies and influence government policy through the
nomination of Progressive Conservative candidates in every constituency and
the election of Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament, for the
betterment of Canada.
2.3 The Party will operate in a manner accountable and responsive
to its Members.
3. PRINCIPLES
3.1 The principles of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada are:
3.1.1 A belief in loyalty to a sovereign and united Canada governed in
accordance with the Constitution of Canada, the supremacy of democratic
parliamentary institutions and the rule of law;
-20-
3.1.2 A belief in the equality of all Canadians;
3.1.3 A belief in the freedoms of the individual, including freedom of
speech, worship and assembly;
3.1.4 A belief in our constitutional monarchy, the institutions of
Parliament and the democratic process;
3.1.5 A belief in the federal system of government as the best expression of
the diversity of our country, and in the desirability of strong provincial
and territorial governments;
3.1.6 A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of
the people of Canada are:
3.1.6.1 the freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightened and
legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy;
3.1.6.2 the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their
labour to the greatest possible extent; and
3.1.6.3 the right to own property.
3.1.7 A belief that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent and
should be limited to those responsibilities which cannot be discharged
reasonably by the individual or others;
3.1.8 A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for
themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that
government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion;
3.1.9 A belief that the purpose of Canada as a nation state and its
government, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a
climate wherein individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued,
security and privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is from a
free competitive market economy;
-21-
3.1.10 A belief that the quality of the environment is a vital part of our
heritage to be protected by each generation for the next;
3.1.11 A belief that Canada should accept its obligations among the nations
of the world; and
3.1.12 A belief that good and responsible government is attentive to the
people it represents and has representatives who at all times conduct
themselves in an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and concern
for the best interest of all."
-22-
===================================================================
Appendix "B": Founding Principles of the Proposed CPC
Excerpted from the "Agreement-in-Principle"
"3. Founding principles
The Conservative Party of Canada will be guided in its constitutional
framework and its policy basis by the following principles:
. A balance between fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and
individual rights and responsibilities;
. Build a national coalition of people who share these beliefs and who
reflect the regional, cultural and socio-economic diversity of Canada;
. Develop this coalition, embracing our differences and respecting our
traditions, yet honoring a concept of Canada as the greater sum of strong
parts;
. The Conservative Party of Canada will operate in a manner accountable and
responsive to its members;
. A belief in loyalty to a sovereign and united Canada governed in
accordance with the Constitution of Canada, the supremacy of democratic
parliamentary institutions and the rule of law;
. A belief in the equality of all Canadians;
. A belief in the freedom of the individual, including freedom of speech,
worship and assembly;
. A belief in our constitutional monarchy, the institutions of Parliament
and the democratic process;
. A belief in the federal system of government as the best expression of the
diversity of our country, and in the desirability of strong provincial and
territorial governments;
. A belief that English and French have equality of status, and equal rights
and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and
Government of Canada;
. A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the
people of Canada are:
-23-
o The freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightened and
legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy;
o The freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to
the greatest possible extent; and
o The right to own property;
. A belief that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent and should
be limited to those responsibilities which cannot be discharged reasonably
by the individual or others;
. A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for
themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that
government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion;
. A belief that the purpose of Canada as a nation state and its government,
guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate wherein
individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and
privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free
competitive market economy;
. A belief that the quality of the environment is a vital part of our
heritage to be protected by each generation for the next;
. A belief that Canada should accept its obligations among the nations of
the world;
. A belief that good and responsible government is attentive to the people
it represents and has representatives who at all times conduct themselves in
an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and concern for the best
interest of all;
. A belief that all Canadians should have reasonable access to quality
health care regardless of their ability to pay; and
. A belief that the greatest potential for achieving social and economic
objectives is under a global trading regime that is free and fair."
-24-
Copyright 2003, Paul McKeever
Sticky Beaver
top-down and the CA party is grass roots. I think you may have
over-sold this one a bit.
Heidi Graw
>"Mondo Politico" <con...@mondopolitico.com> wrote in message
news:6b9nb.1288$Nm6....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Paul McKeever, an Oshawa, Ontario lawyer, has published a new booklet on
the
> Alliance-PC Agreement-in-Principle. Entitled "Two Birds in Hand,
Something
> Hiding in the Bush", it is important reading for people who will have a
vote
> on whether to ratify the deal, but others may find it interesting too: it
> gives some detailed insight into what really makes the Alliance and PC
> parties so different.
>
What caught my interest is this desire for "progressive social policy." I
don't know how that can be reconciled with the Alliance's desire for
"traditional social policy." And, clearly, we need to know the details of
what is considered "progressive" or "traditional".
Anyway, the new conservative party seems to lean heavily towards "fiscal"
conservatism. Social conservatism seems not to be part of the agenda. But
isn't the social conservatism exactly that what prompted Reform and Alliance
parties to be created in the first place? Anti-abortion? Anti-gay?
Anti-child care centres? Home, hearth and motherhood?
Oh well...it'll be interesting to see what comes next.
Take care,
Heidi
MI Wakefield
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7pjnb.200118$6C4.26375@pd7tw1no...
A loss in the next election, but more seats than the PC's and Alliance have
today ... in about three years, some social conservatives will realize that
they've been co-opted and start agitating for change ... a couple of years
after that, the Liberals, tired after being in power for far too long
without a break, will collapse back to their base (40 to 45 seats), while
the NDP surges and the Conservatives form a majority government ... it's a
one-term government, because the western social conservatives abandon the
party in droves when they realize that from Ontario east, most of the
party's supporters are socially moderate to liberal, and the social agenda
items near and dear to their hearts just aren't getting any play.
Wineknows
discussion group!
To date there are no entries so you can fill her up.
"Mondo Politico" <con...@mondopolitico.com> wrote in message
news:6b9nb.1288$Nm6....@news20.bellglobal.com...
"The Right One"
from Ontario
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
A fish rots from the head down.
-Preston Manning
"Mondo Politico" <con...@mondopolitico.com> wrote in message
news:6b9nb.1288$Nm6....@news20.bellglobal.com...
nshi...@columbus.rr.com
airhead, with or without any degree!
""The Right One"" <te...@rightpoint.ca> wrote in message
news:R3eob.226210$9l5.184136@pd7tw2no...