Month: January 2006

p>This morning in Markham, Ont., Liberal leader Paul Martin announced $180-million in new support for four advanced research and development initiatives. One of those was the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ont.

The institute itself has a statement on its Web site.

But beyond that, this afternoon, the executive director of that institute, Howard Burton, released a statement criticizing this announcement. Here are some excerpts from that statement.

“I had dared hope [such an announcement would be] one component of a coherent, focussed long-term strategy for research excellence across several disciplines …

Such at any rate were my dreams. Reality, sadly, was very different. There was no coherent, long-term framework presented. There was no serious, comprehensive plan at all. ….

In short, the announcement had been reduced to a mere political event — today's desperate attempt to rescue a quasi-moribund Liberal political campaign during an election tha was wholly devoid of any substantive dialogue on science and research policy. And I couldn't even stomach the thought of showing up.

….

The ironic thing about all of this is that the Liberal Party has done wonderful things for research and education in this country over the past decade. By and large, they have a record they should be proud of: Through their policies, they have positioned Canada for future excellence in a number of key areas. Meanwhile, the NDP and the Conservatives have been ominously silent on research and education, enough to give any academic administrator serious anxiety as the polls veer towards a Conservative majority government.

But the central point is this: research policy shouldn't be cheaply politicized, reduced to the sphere of pork-barrel politics or, almost as bad, the appearance of pork-barrel politics. Jean Chretien used to wryly admit that he knew very well that his policies on research and education weren't going to win him any votes. But he did it anyway, becaused he believed it was important. Indeed.

University officials who stood smiling on the podium with Paul Martin today, anxious for their own piece of the action, should know better. The Liberal Party of Canada should know better . . .”

The Liberals have unveiled a new suite of television ads. And they're, um, not very nice if you're a Conservative. See them online at the Liberal Web site.

(Note: Here's the CTV.ca story. It has video of the ads attached — including the now-pulled 'military' ad). The text of the ads is at the bottom.

They are all similar in terms of their visual and aural structure. There are ominous drumbeats underneath a female voiceover who reads a few key lines that are set on the screen in that typewriter font. Meanwhile, a background image comes into slow focus. The image is too blurry to make out at first but then, by the end of the ad, the viewer is looking at an extreme close-up of Stephen Harper — so close all you see is eyes, nose and mouth.

One is called “Washington Times”. In it, the narrator lifts some phrases from an op-ed piece written by Patrick Basham of the Cato Institute. In that piece, Basham characterized Harper as the best friend George W. Bush could hope for. Harper responded to that op-ed piece in a letter to the editor disavowing much of what Basham had to say. I blogged about this at the time — back in December — and you can read Harper's response there.

Another is called “Mike Harris” and tries to link Harris, the former Ontario premier who won at first on his “Common Sense Revolution”, with Harper. The NDP have already rebutted this line of attack with an “alert” issued by the NDP war room. I blogged about that, too, and you can read “The Mike Harris Liberals” here.

Another ad, called “Hotel” repeats something Harper said in a speech eight years ago when he said the Conservative movement in the U.S. was an inspiration to Canadian conservatives. The Tories countered that that speech was a) eight years old and b)delivered tongue-in-cheek. It doesn't appear that any journalists were present at that speech so that second claim is difficult to verify. The Conservatives do not deny that Harper said what he said.

Finally, there is an ad called “Atlantic Canada” in which the Liberals repeat comments Harper made in 2002 when he was running for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance. Harper said Atlantic Canada suffers from “a culture of defeat”. Even Bernard Lord, New Brunswick Premier and Harper's new ally in this campaign, criticized him at the time for his comment. Harper, for his part, used a stop in Halifax early in the campaign to apologize to Atlantic Canadians for those remarks in an interview with CTV Halifax.

Here's the CP story from 2002 which outlines what Harper said with local reaction.:

Canada a nation of 'can't-do' defeatists, Harper says: Alliance leader blames handouts, transfer payments

Louise Elliott

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA – Stephen Harper, the leader of the Canadian Alliance, called Canada a nation of defeatists yesterday as he defended his remark blaming Atlantic Canada's woes on a pervasive “can't-do” attitude.

Mr. Harper said there is a “culture of defeat” not just in the Eastern provinces, but on the Prairies and among some Quebecers.

“In parts of the Prairies, we're increasingly seeing similar views — there is no hope, there is no way forward, and all we can do is kind of negotiate with the party in power,” he said. “I think any region where you have sustained underdevelopment or lack of growth for a long period of time, this starts to develop.”

Mr. Harper went further, calling defeatism a “general problem” among Canadians.

“Generally, the kind of 'can't-do' attitude is a problem in this country,” he said. “I think this whole country … should be leapfrogging the United States and there's too many people in this country think that we can't do it.

“This should be the wealthiest country in the world, not a country with a living standard that's 25% lower. So obviously the growth and the attitudes that go with that are different in some parts of the country than others, but it's a general problem.”

Mr. Harper said he comes from an “eighth-generation Canadian family that left the Maritimes because there's no growth.”

In a newspaper interview yesterday, he said the biggest stumbling block to a Canadian Alliance breakthrough in Atlantic Canada was the “can't-do attitude,” fostered by years of federal transfer payments and industry handouts.

Yesterday, rather than toning down his argument, Mr. Harper appeared to up the rhetorical stakes, saying Atlantic politicians outraged by his remarks do not understand their own constituents.

“Frankly, they're out of touch with their own people if they don't think that there isn't a lot more that could be done to get people more optimistic in that part of the country,” he said.

“Atlantic Canada can be as wealthy as any other region but that needs to be pursued aggressively and we don't sit around waiting for favours from government.”

He said the Alliance would put an end to federal handouts, and that — combined with low taxation and less regulation — would help “have-not” regions flourish.

Other federal leaders also jumped on Mr. Harper's comments yesterday, saying he was perpetuating stereotypes.

“You know, the more things change, the more they stay the same with the Alliance party,” said Alexa McDonough, the NDP leader and a Halifax MP.

“This is the real Stephen Mr. Harper who wanted to put up firewalls around Alberta to keep those nasty eastern Canadians out because we're ne'er-do-wells and we're lazy bums … They've just got it dead wrong.”

Two years ago, pollster John Mykytyshyn was forced to resign from the Canadian Alliance's governing council for saying that Atlantic Canadians are lazy and prefer taking government handouts to performing honest labour.

Joe Clark, the Tory leader, said Mr. Harper's comments were uncalled for.

“It's just an irresponsible thing for a national political leader to say,” he said. “Atlantic Canadians are not defeatist and certainly the people of Saskatchewan are not. Mr. Harper, all of us, should be very careful not to apply false caricatures to people or parts of the country.”

Other outraged politicians in Atlantic Canada also ganged up on Mr. Harper.

“Calling Atlantic Canadians defeated is offensive,” said Newfoundland's Gerry Byrne, the federal minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

“Atlantic Canada is leading the country in terms of economic growth … [Harper's] comments were insulting and inflammatory.”

Bernard Lord, New Brunswick's Premier, said Mr. Harper's comments displayed a profound ignorance of the region.

“If he truly wants to be a national leader, before he passes judgment on a region of the country, he should take the time to get informed,” Mr. Lord said.

Conservative news release

Here's a Conservative news release about the ads:

Reynolds dismisses barrage of negative Liberal attacks

TORONTO – Conservative National Campaign Co-Chair John Reynolds responded today to the release of a series of new ads by the Liberal Party of Canada, calling it a continuation of the negative and bl
atantly false campaign that has characterized the Liberal election strategy.

“As we predicted, the Liberals have stepped up their campaign of negative and personal attacks on our leader and our party,” said Reynolds. “These latest ads are similar to the ads that we saw in the last campaign – guns pointed into people's faces and dishonest misrepresentations of our policies.”

Paul Martin began this negative campaign last month by accusing Stephen Harper of being unfit for public life. Since then, his supporters have followed suit by attacking Conservative candidates in personal and unacceptable ways.

“Canadians will not be fooled by this attempt to change the channel from the Liberal record of scandal. Voters will see these ads for what they are – a desperate act from a desperate party,” continued Reynolds.

“While the Liberals continue their negative campaign of desperation, Stephen Harper and the Conservative party will continue to run a positive, ideas-based campaign,” concluded Reynolds. “But as the Liberals continue to lie about us, we will continue to tell the truth about them.”

Text of the ads

1. Atlantic Canada

“Unfortunately, many people in Atlantic Canada feel that it's only through government favours that there will be economic progress.”
He called us:”A culture of defeat.” And he said: “Atlantic Canada needs Quebec to stay in Canada because of our weak economy.” Maybe we should choose someone who actually loves Atlantic Canada. Choose your Canada.

2. Mike Harris

“Remember Mike Harris? Like Stephen Harper, Mike Harris had a right-wing agenda. Remember “The Common Sense Revolution”? Remember the environmental neglect? The shattered social programs? The crumbling schools and hospitals? Defecits? Yeah. That common sense revolution.Do we really want to go down that road again? Choose your Canada.

3. Contributions

Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the head of the party? We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's very popular with right-wingers in the U.S. They have money. Maybe they helped? We just don't know. He just won't say. Choose your Canada.

4. Second Tier

This is what Stephen Harper told his America friends: “Canada is content to become a second-tier socialist country boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.” When he said: “You won't recognize Canada when I get through with it.” He wasn't kidding. Choose your Canada.

5. Washington Times

From the Washington Times, Dec. 2, 2005: “Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the western world.Harper is pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto and socially conservative. Bush's best friend is the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader. A Harper victory will put a smile on George W. Bush's face.” Well, at least someone will be happy, eh? Choose your Canada.

6. Military

Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada.

7. Hotel

Stephen Harper spoke to a secret, ultra right-wing American think tank. In a Montreal hotel, off-limits to press and public, he said: “America, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.” No we did not make that up. We're not allowed to make stuff up. Choose your Canada.

8. Campaign Promises

Stephen Harper has made a lot of promises to a lot of people. Apparently, he's made a few too many. Now he admits he'll have to either raise taxes, or run a deficit to pay for them all. Wow. He's not even elected yet. And he's already running a defecit. Choose your Canada.

9. Healthcare

Stephen Harper's stand on public healthcare? “… Provinces have allowed private healthcare services in the past. Why should I care? Why should the federal government care how they're managed?” Seriously, that's what he said. Well, Paul Martin cares very much, Mr. Harper. And so do Canadians. Choose your Canada.

10. Unity

Gilles Duceppe and Stephen Harper worked together to bring down the government. Lots of late night secret meetings. Apparently they're quite a team. Which is great. Because if Harper wins this election? He'll need to work very, very closely with Duceppe. Unfortunately, their unity won't do much for Canada's unity. Choose your Canada.

11. Diversity

Get a load of this. Stephen Harper once said: “The western ridings that Liberals hold are dominated by either recent Asian immigrants … or recent migrants from eastern Canada … people who live in ghettos.” We're not kidding. He actually said that. Choose your Canada.

12.Social Safety Net

Here's what Stephen Harper told some of his American pals about Canada's unemployed: “Don't feel particularly bad for these people.They don't feel bad about it themselves. Not as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.” Not exactly the kind of compassion we're looking for in a Prime Minister, is it? A social safety net is a fundamental Canadian value, Mr. Harper. Choose your Canada.

This blog, of course, was silent for several months but got reactivated with the onset of the Canadian federal election campaign. About 80,000 of you were visiting every month at the point when we suspended things and, if anyone ever needed a lesson that it’s fresh content and plenty of it that keeps people coming back, it looks like we dropped under 50,000 visitors for the month of December past.

Still, we’re grateful that each and every one of you takes the time to drop by or subscribe via an RSS feed.

Here’s the ten most popular posts among those of you visited in December.

1. Air Canada and a new Celine Dion video — right here!  (Posted 11-1-2004) 
2. How much does the middle class make? (12-5-2005)
3. Finally!! Airport Extreme and my LinkSys router are talking! (12-13-2003) 
4. A Porsche moment (1-10-2005) 
5. Michael Ignatieff on liberalism and the Canadian Liberal Party (3-4-2005)
6. Who pays for this blog? Some disclaimers (8-13-2004)
7. UBC is doing podcasts (12-19-2005)
8. The New Air Canada uniforms (11-1-2004)
9. The new Dodge Charger (1-17-2005)
10. Hard at work (3–5–2005)

Reporters are often called upon to estimate the size of a crowd at a given event — a protest, a political meeting, a sports event. The estimates of crowd size can be an important part of a story. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's rally in London, Ont. yesterday is a case in point.

The most important descriptive for that particular event was that the crowd was huge — much bigger than anything any reporter on any campaign as seen so far in this election. We took the “hugeness” of the crowd to be an anecdotal indicator of the “intensity” of support for, in this case, a political party.

While pollsters can only really measure voting intentions, big and boisterous crowds might suggest that a party has support beyond that given on polling day. For example, a fired-up group of Conservative supporters may be more inclined to drive someone to the polls on polling day or do some of the hundreds of little things that can make a difference when a local race comes down to a few hundred votes. Rallies where no one is showing up might indicate that, while there is voter support in a given region, it is soft or apathetic.

Opponents of different policy positions often use duelling rallies as a way to “prove” who is right and who is wrong. We saw this last spring over the same-sex marriage issue. Those opposed to the bill held a rally on Parliament Hill within a few days, if I recall, of those in favour of the bill. One rally was much bigger than the other and its organizers used that fact to press their case to the politicians. And if the size of a rally is going to sway a politician, it's important for reporters covering that issue to have an accurate count of different crowd sizes.

But back to the Harper rally.

It was huge but the precise estimate was not as crucial as it might be for duelling political rallies on the same policy issue. Still, should it become important, we all wanted an accurate count.

Today, reviewing the press accounts, I note that The Canadian Press reporter Murray Brewster estimated the crowd size at 2,000. Robert Benzie, the Toronto Star's reporter with Harper this week, said there 1,000 people at the rally in his story on Harper's day.

On CTV Newsnet, yesterday, I reported to our viewers that my estimate was between 1,200 and 1,500 people but I also noted that campaign organizers estimated the crowd at 1,700. Just as the event was getting underway, I blogged that there were about 1,200 people in attendance.

So how do we arrive at these numbers?

Well, first of all, there is no substitute for a reporter actually doing the counting yourself, even if there are official organizers or ticket-takers or others who provide an estimate to reporters.

So, as soon as we arrived, several reporters had a quick chat about the crowd size. This is a standard sort of thing to see if there is a consensus among reporters. There really wasn't much of a consensus so we each started doing head counts. I counted 500 chairs. They were all quickly filled. Then organizers brough in some more chairs. They were not in easy-to-count rows but I figured that a little more than 100 new chairs were brought in. An organizer told me that 200 chairs were brought in but, by this point, with the hall quickly filling with a standing-room only crowd, I could not verify this with my own count.

So now, at this point, I'm very confident that I have accurately counted 600 people. But the standing-room crowd was huge and those kind of crowds, because they are constantly moving clumps of large numbers of people, are much more difficult to count accurately. Still, we try to count as best we can. By the time the event started, then, I felt that a count of 1,200 was reasonably accurate, probably to within a 100 people.

But many more people arrived at the event after it started and it was clear by the time the event finished there were more people in the room. I tried a quick re-count again and, as a result, I reported between 1,200 and 1,500.

During the event, a campaign organizer said the campaign staff felt there was 1,700 in the room. So I reported that number but noted that the source for that estimate was a Conservative campaign staffer.

Later, after the event, Harper's press secretary told some reporters, but not me, that there were 2,500 people at the event.

Today, I asked Brewster, the CP reporter, how he arrived at his number and he told me first about the press secretary's estimate but also about an estimate provided to him by the security staff at the event. The security staff estimate was the source for the 2,000 number.

Each news organization has different guidelines for reporting on crowd sizes. I believe it to be a fair method to report on different estimates. The reporter should provide his or her own estimate but will likely find it prudent to report what other authorities believe the crowd size to be. Other authorities might be the police, event organizers or a widely-quoted news organization like The Canadian Press. In this case, I felt it best to provide my own estimate but also one provided to me by campaign organizers and, most important of all, to provide a source for those estimates so that a reader or viewer can then make his or her own assessment of the independence and accuracy of those estimates.

UPDATE: The Western Standard's Kevin Steel muses on crowd sizes during his week with the Liberal campaign.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is about to speak at a rally in downtown London.
By my estimate, there are more than 1,200 people. Conservative campaign staff believe there are more than 1,700 here.

In any event, this appears to be easily the best attended rally of the election.

So far, the biggest rallies I've seen during three weeks with Harper and a week with Layton are less than 500 people.

My colleagues with the Liberals say there's been nothing this big there.
Still waiting to hear about the BQ.

Over the last few days, Paul Martin has tried to paint Conservative Leader Stephen Harper as "scary" by comparing him to former Conservative Ontario Premier Mike Harris. (It took Martin just three paragraphs into his speech this morning to link Harper and Harris.) The NDP War Room turns the spin right back at the Liberals with a terrific "Rapid Response" memo that was sent out to reporters today. In it, the NDP finds several Liberals who spoke approvingly of Mike Harris and his policies. And they even dredge up a Mike Harris comment about the Liberals when Paul Martin was finance minister. I reproduce the NDP Rapid Response below but you should also be able to find this on the NDP Web site.

Be Afraid of Mike Harris Liberals

Paul Martin just said in Whitby Canadians should be scared of politicians with close links to former Conservative Premier Mike Harris.

Okay.

How about "scary" Belinda Stronach – Mike Harris’ choice for Prime Minister?

"[A] person with vision, a person with experience, a person with courage, a person who has the ideas, and a person who has the conviction that can help Canada recover to be the number one country in the world." – Mike Harris nominating Belinda Stronach for CPC Leader, Toronto Sun, January 29, 2004

"I believe Harris made the most significant mark on Ontario and I did go to him seeking advice." – Belinda Stronach, Toronto Star, January 25, 2004

How about "scary" Scott Brison Liberal candidate for Kings-Hants?

"Tax reduction and significant tax cuts resonate significantly with Canadians as do messages from governments that keep their word. Mike Harris and Ralph Klein have remained consistent in keeping their word and providing meaningful tax relief to Canadians." – Scott Brison, House of Commons, June 10, 1999

How about "scary" Keith Martin Liberal candidate for Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca?

"Premier Klein and Premier Harris are trying to fix the publicly funded health care system. This [Liberal] government has been gutting it." – Keith Martin, November 19. 1999

How about "scary" Gary Carr Liberal candidate for Halton?

Oakville South MPP Gary Carr says that when he talks about Progressive Conservative Leader Mike Harris' "common sense revolution" he's not just mouthing the party line. – Toronto Star, May 23, 1995

Of course, the only person Mike Harris was scared of was "scary" Paul Martin:

"The only thing that I would say is obscene when it comes to health care is the Liberal Party of Canada, through Paul Martin, slashing health care spending by over $2 billion to the province of Ontario." – Mike Harris, Legislative Assembly, December 4, 1996

My colleague Rosemary Thompson, travelling with the NDP campaign this week, reported last night that Jack Layton stepped up his attacks on Conservative leader Stephen Harper in some unscripted remarks to reporters at the back of the plane.

“The Conservatives want to dismantle the Canadian state — so does the Bloc,” Layton said. He then went on to discuss the dangers of the Conservatives working with the Bloc Quebecois to write a budget. “It would mean a massive transfer of tax points to Quebec.” Picking up on that theme, Layton went on to say, “[Bloc leader Gilles] Duceppe would be carried over the border and into Quebec like a hero.”

This was new for Layton. When I was travelling with his campaign before Christmas, we asked him more than once about how he would conduct his political affairs if there was a Liberal minority government or a Conservative minority government. He would always answer that while he was working hard to elect as many NDP members of Parliament as possible, he believed all parties had a duty to make government work, that MPs have a duty to respect the wishes of Canadians to do that.

So this new twist — in which he casts doubt on the wisdom of a Conservative government — was seen in the context of some very tough fights the NDP is having in Saskatchewan and in British Columbia where, in many ridings in those provinces, the real contest is between candidates from those two parties only. The NDP, in fact, could very easily pick off a few sitting Tory MPs in both those provinces.

As Layton’s comments were made late yesterday, we never got a chance to run them by Harper. This morning, though, we did, and here’s his responses. (The transcription of his remarks is mine. I have paraphrased the questions. In other words, the question is not an exact transcript. Harper’s remarks, however, are pretty close to word-for-word. I have lightly edited them to remove ums and ahs)

QUESTION: The NDP is suggesting that if you formed a minority government, you would keep your government afloat by dealing with the Bloc, stripping away federal powers and giving them to the provinces. What do you think of that?

HARPER: [Listen to this response] We intend to respect the jurisidiction of the provinces. That is a very different philosophy than simply handing all kinds of powers to the provinces. There’s a big difference between someone who believes in a genuine federation where power is split between two levels of government versus those who believe in separation and that all powers should be with the provinces. I want to work with — and my emphasis will be to work with — the federalist premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest. I’ve made very clear that I find some of his ideas for the improving of the functioning of Canadian federalism very attractive. Mr. Charest is not proposing some kind of massive devolution of federal powers and that’s who I want to work with. That’s the opportunity we have. I don’t believe for a second — I’m not naive — I don’t believe for a second that any amount of change that I would make to the Canadian federation would satisfy the Bloc Quebecois.  They’re not going to be satisfied. Our goal is not to satisfy the Bloc. Our goal is to create an honest federal government that respects Quebec and respects the provinces and attracts more Quebeckers to the federalist position. And I would urge Mr. Layton and the Liberal Party — if we are so fortunate as to defeat them — I would urge them to work with us to make this federal government more attractive to Quebeckers.

QUESTION: Could you point to a specific example where you could work with the NDP?

HARPER: [Listen to this response] Well I would hope with the NDP in particular that they would have some interest in working with us on various changes we’re going to make to the operation of the federal government, to improve accountability and improve ethics and honesty. THe federal NDP, regardless of the philosophical differences I have with them on a range of issues, has long been concerned with ethics and accountability in government and integrity in politics. Mr. [Ed] Broadbent, in particular, has been very eloquent and very knowledgeable on these matters so there’s an example where I would hope to work with them. I would also really hope to urge the NDP to really understand that notwithstanding their views which may be very different than mine on economic and social matters, make them understand that Canada is a federation and to understand that to truly represent and truly understand this country – in particular deal with the concerns and aspirations of Quebeckers — we must embrace the federal philosophy, the philosophy that not all wisdom is in Ottawa, that not all wisdom is with the biggest, most central government possible, that we have to work with lower levels of  government in a collaborative manner.

While the NDP doesn’t always seem to grasp that idea, I don’t believe their philosophy means they are incapable of grasping that idea so I would hope they would work with us. They saw the wisdom of defeating the present government we have today so I would hope they would see the wisdom of making the next federal government work better.

JONQUIERE, Que. – At first blush, you would think that Stephen Harper had ventured into electoral no-man’s land when his plane landed this afternoon at CFB Bagotville, near Jonquiere, in the Saguenay region of the province, northeast of Quebec City. He arrived here to talk about how he would beef up the base here and boost the military in Quebec more generally. Still, it’s hard to see how that will help him elect a Conservative here.

In 2004, the poor Tory candidate here, Gilles Lavoie, finished well up the track with just 2,217 votes — less than five per cent of all votes cast.

The winner — and incumbent here in the federal riding of Jonquiere-Alma — is Sebastien Gagnon, (left), first elected in 2002 and trying for this third straight win. Given the current love affair that all of Quebec has with all things Bloc Quebecois, it seems an easy prediction to make that Gagnon is a heavy favourite here. He garnered 55 per cent of the vote here last year, besting his nearest challenger, the Liberal, by nearly 12,000 votes.

The riding is in a part of Quebec that has heavy separatist sentiments. In 1995, the 100,000 or so people here — more than 80 per cent of whom speak only French — voted 71 per cent in favour of sovereignty in the referendum of that year.

So why should Stephen Harper campaign here when there are so many other ridings he might better spend his time where a candidate has a decent shot of winning?

Senator Marjory LeBreton — she is travelling with Harper campaign to answer just these sorts of questions — says it’s not a given that this riding is a lost cause. The Conservative candidate is Jean-Pierre Blackburn, who represented this part of Canada as a Conservative MP in the 1980s during the Mulroney years. So, in Sen. LeBreton’s view, M. Blackburn has some of the advantages of the incumbent when it comes to name recognition.

Secondly, Conservative strategists believe that, if they are to knock off the Liberals, they must be seen by voters in all parts of the country but particularly in Ontario as a credible federalist alternative in Quebec. Coming into Quebec, getting some French press, and speaking, as Mr. Harper does, about how he is the heir to Rene Levesque when it comes to cleaning up government and election finance laws gives the Conservatives the kind of legitimacy in this province they lacked during Stockwell Day’s leadership. Mind you — for all that, it will be a significant achievement if they win three seats here and they can still form a minority government without winning any.

That said Quebec has strategic value for Conservatives. As Sen. LeBreton pointed out, some voters in Ontario are influenced in their voting patterns by which way the wind is blowing in Quebec. Similarly, Quebecers have been known to jump on an Ontario bandwagon, that is if Quebeckers see Ontario is about to vote in a Conservative government, Quebeckers may decide to send a few Conservative MPs of their own to Ottawa if only to sit at the cabinet table.

It’s a difficult thing to explain, this strange symbiosis of Ontario and Quebec voters, but it’s one that both federalist parties believe in.

 

Stephen Harper did not announce any new policies this morning at a rally in Ottawa but he did lay out the five most important things his government will do.

That led to questions in the press conference after the announcement about the dangers of counting your political chickens before they are hatched. In the 2004 campaign, the Conservatives appeared to lose support after they appeared to be talking about “transition teams” and even majority governments.

Here's what Harper said today about appearing too presumptuous:

“Whatever the verdict of the people of Canada is, we'll accept that. I believe we can win. Conservatives don't believe we have a divine right to rule so I'll be quite pleased to get any kind of a mandate and if the people of Canada do choose to give us a mandate, whatever kind of mandate, I can assure Canadians we'll be ready to accept that.”

It's back on the campaign planes tomorrow for me and my Parliamentary Press Gallery colleagues. The Liberal, Conservative and NDP campaigns will all start the day in Ottawa before jetting away to different parts of the country. I and our national affairs correspondent Lisa Laflamme are jumping on board Mr. Happy's Flying Circus for the next week and then the two of us will hop on board the Liberal campaign plane. (Important note: I wouldn't wager your house that this will actually happen. Things can always change at the last minute, of course, and often do.) I've already done two weeks on this campaign — the first two — with Harper and have done a week with Layton.

You should see me popping up on CTV's Newsnet bright and early Monday morning reporting on anything that's happening on the Conservative campaign.

We're expecting a little less policy from Harper in the next few weeks and a little more from the Liberals. Indeed, the Liberals hope to put make some voters forget about income trusts and Mike Klander by rolling out their campaign platform this week.