sign in sign up
<<
Home , David Orchard, Hugh Segal, Joe Clark, Leadership convention, New Right, Preston Manning

THE RETURN OF : NEW HOPE FOR CONSERVATIVES? Introduction

When Joe Clark won the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party on November 14, 1998, it had been almost 23 years since his first federal leadership win. In 1976, Clark achieved victory after a long, drawn-out party convention that involved 11 candidates, 2300 delegates, and four nerve-wracking ballots. During that race, Clark's bid seemed unlikely. He was considered a fresh face, and at 36 years of age he was an unknown quantity. Clark's eventual victory meant he would be leading a 95-member caucus in the House of Commons and serving as Leader of the Official . In those days the party's finances were strong since it was the only national alternative to the Liberal Party. In terms of ideology, the party was also the undisputed national voice of fiscal and social .

In 1998 there was no hotly contested and there was little surprise when Clark was chosen leader. Instead, the leadership was determined by the grassroots membership in an innovative process that involved roughly half of the more than 90 000 party members. Voting occurred by secret ballot in local riding associations far from . There was little dramatic television coverage, and Clark's acceptance speech was seen and heard by few . In the past, such events were considered major opportunities for winning voters in advance of an election.

No longer a fresh face or an unknown quantity, Clark stressed in his campaign his experience, his public service record, and his reputation of trustworthiness. These strengths, however, also saddled him with the persona of "yesterday's man" and he was considered by some to be too old. And this time he assumed leadership of a 19- member caucus with fifth-party status in the House of Commons and a party with a $10-million debt.

The most dissimilar aspect, however, of Clark's two leadership opportunities is the party's diminished role in as guardian of the principles of conservatism. In 1976 Clark led a national party that claimed to be the undisputed voice of fiscal and . There was little debate about who represented the so-called "right." But with the emergence of the Reform Party in the late 1980s the political landscape changed. Clark has emerged as leader of the Progressive Conservatives, but now he is in a new contest with for overall leadership of the right. And Manning, believing that only an alliance can defeat the governing Liberals, has invited the Progressive Conservatives to join with the Reform Party in a . This strategy was supported in principle by the results of a poll conducted by Compas Incorporated that suggested that a combined right-of-centre federal party would pose a serious political challenge to the Liberals. Despite this news, Clark made it clear he would reject Manning's offer, and he refused all offers to attend the United Alternative Convention planned for February 1999.

In 1976 Clark's challenge was to unite a party that was divided, as often happens during leadership campaigns. In 1998 he needs to bring back disaffected Conservatives who left the party for the Reform and Liberal camps and to reinvent the Progressive Conservative Party in order to make it once again the true national voice of conservatism. Many political observers believe that the future viability and success of the party depends on Clark's ability to succeed in this challenge. Despite vague references to his own conservative strategy, he has also claimed that only the Progressive Conservative Party can achieve a true national sense of purpose while at the same time promoting the principles of fiscal and social conservatism. As he said in his acceptance speech, "There is absolutely no question about our ability to pull together and work together . . . to unite our party and our country. That is now the message of my leadership."

Introduction Back to the Future An Experiment in Why Joe? A Glorious History The United Alternative Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions THE RETURN OF JOE CLARK: NEW HOPE FOR CONSERVATIVES? Back to the Future

In the Hollywood film Back to the Future, Michael J. Fox plays the young hero Marty McFly, who accidentally gets sent back in time to the year 1955. Inadvertently he meddles with the past and eliminates the one critical encounter that originally brought his parents together. For the rest of the film Marty endeavours to get his two "future" parents romantically involved. Failing to do this would put his very existence and future in jeopardy. To "get back" to the future and "save" it, Marty must "fix" the past.

When Joe Clark won the Progressive Conservative leadership on November 14, 1998, his political re- emergence was described by some as that of "Yesterday's Man," "Déjà Vu," and "Back to the Future." Some political observers welcomed Clark's return to politics and argued that the PC party's return to prominence could only be achieved if the party returned to its roots, to its past based on its fiscal and social conservative beliefs—and Clark, as past leader, was the best man to do this. The past was viewed as the party's saving grace. Other analysts, however, argue that the party's choice of Clark is a non- progressive, backward step. They feel that a return to the past will bring few benefits to the PCs. Furthermore they maintain that the party's future success depends on its re- inventing itself to get in step with modern conservative thinking. They claim that the party requires a new leader with new ideas. They fear that Clark will return the party to the past, and it will be left there to flounder. To them, it is the past that is the party's nemesis. Where do the fortunes of the Progressive Conservative Party lie—in the past, in the present, in the future, or in some unique combination of all three?

Present Tense As a class, discuss the implications of the phrase "back to the future" as it applies to any leader of any group or organization.

Past Tense As you watch this News In Review report, make brief notes in which you document Joe Clark's long and varied career with the Progressive Conservative Party. What seems to be his greatest contribution and legacy? Is his past his nemesis or his salvation?

Future Tense With reference to what you have seen in the video, formulate answers to the following questions.

1. What have been Joe Clark's contributions to politics? How have his contributions in the past shaped and defined his leadership style and the fortunes of the Progressive Conservative Party?

2. In your opinion, what has emerged from the leadership campaign as Clark's real challenge?

3. What role does Preston Manning play in Joe Clark's political future?

4. To what extent and in what ways will Clark, like Marty McFly, have to come to terms with the past in order to have a political future?

Introduction Back to the Future An Experiment in Democracy Why Joe? A Glorious History The United Alternative Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers. THE RETURN OF JOE CLARK: NEW HOPE FOR CONSERVATIVES? An Experiment in Democracy

When the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced to only two seats in the 1993 federal election, some party insiders and other observers blamed both then leader and the leadership selection process that chose her. In their view, Campbell was not the choice of the grassroots membership. They believed her selection as leader was a result of systemic flaws in the old-style convention system. Some saw Campbell as the leader of choice of the party hierarchy only and the product of an antiquated convention system that favoured backroom deals and secretive meetings. They did not consider her the choice of the core of the party members— the party faithful—who live throughout Canada. Many in the party felt that this mistake must be avoided in the future and advocated that the selection process needed to be democratized to permit greater membership participation at the local riding level.

The Party Convention System In the past the Progressive Conservative Party selected a leader by the party convention system, a process that most mainstream political parties traditionally have followed. In a typical leadership convention, which is the culmination of an election-like campaign, the leader is selected over the course of one day by party delegates at a national convention. These delegates have been selected by their local riding associations to attend the convention on their behalf. This process is considered by many to be a good blend of direct and representative democracy. Direct democracy is practised at the local level at the delegate selection meetings. At these meetings, local party members have an opportunity to seek delegate status as well as have input into the selection of delegates to attend the convention. Representative democracy prevails at the convention. Each delegate votes after considering the views of the local riding members. The delegate tries to represent these views as best they can.

The Party Membership System The new selection process used by the Progressive Conservatives in 1998 was an attempt to accentuate and strengthen the direct democracy aspects already in place. The custom of delegates representing party members was discontinued, and all local riding party members—provided they purchased a party membership before September 29 —were given a vote. This was not the first time, however, that this kind of selection process has been used. Several provincial parties, including the Progressive Conservative Party in 1990, used this method. At the federal level only the Bloc Québécois had previously used this method, but with the Bloc being a separatist party from , the system was only used in one province. This was the first time a national party tried the process across many jurisdictions and across six time zones. Party members were to vote in their own federal ridings just as they would in a federal election. Each of the 301 federal ridings was given 100 points, and all votes were converted into points and tabulated as a percentage. For example, if 60 per cent of the votes cast in a riding were for Joe Clark, Clark would receive 60 of the possible 100 points from that riding. With 301 ridings having 100 points each, a total of 30 100 points were at stake. To achieve the necessary majority support (50 per cent plus one) one candidate would have to receive at least 15 051 points before there would be a declared leader. Party officials in Ottawa kept a running total. If there wasn't a clear winner with majority support on election day—October 24—another vote was to be held on November 14 with a "preferential" ballot.

The Candidates At the beginning, 15 candidates announced their intentions to run; but staying in the race was more difficult than simply announcing one's candidacy. Each candidate was required to pay a deposit of $30 000 and present nomination papers with 250 signatures from registered party members. By voting day on October 24, only five candidates remained. They were:

• Joe Clark, 59, leader of the party from 1976 to 1983, briefly prime minister in 1979, and a prominent cabinet minister under • , 36, a lawyer from and Progressive Conservative Party organizer • , 47, a farmer from and an anti- proponent • , 47, a long-time Progressive Conservative Party strategist and television commentator from Ontario • , 43, a former cabinet minister in the legislature

The Results Just over 90 000 party members were eligible to vote, but only 53 per cent did. At the end of the first day of voting on October 24 the results were as follows:

Joe Clark: 14 591.82 points (48.48%) Hugh Segal: 5689.20 points (18.90%) David Orchard: 4915.77 points (16.33%) Brian Pallister: 3675.88 points (12.21%) Michael Fortier: 1227.23 points (4.08%)

Although Joe Clark was disappointed that he did not achieve a first vote majority victory, he recognized that he stood within a whisker of regaining the party leadership. Clark commented, "It looks to me like second down and an inch to the goal." Clark organizers had hoped that with Clark having such an overwhelming lead, the other candidates would step aside for the good of the party rather than risk a potentially divisive campaign. According to the rules, if no candidate achieved the majority of votes, the fifth-place finisher would be dropped from the ballot. In addition, any candidate who received less that five per cent of the total vote was also to be dropped. In the end, only Orchard stayed, forcing the leadership contest into a second election on November 14. Unlike the previous election, this time the members were asked to vote preferentially, listing the candidates in order of preference from first choice to last. If no candidate had achieved a clear majority after the first choices were counted, the scrutineers would go to the second choices and tabulate them.

After the first choices were tabulated, Joe Clark was declared the winner and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. He achieved 23 320.97 points for 77.48 per cent support. Orchard improved to 6779.03 points; but with only 22.52 per cent support, he conceded defeat.

Questioning the Process While the leadership race received a certain amount of attention for using a different selection process, it was not a media event as past leadership conventions had been. The process was criticized for lacking the glamour, excitement, and publicity that traditional campaigns engender. Commentators pointed out that the atmosphere, punctuated by dramatic speeches, lacked the boisterousness and festive mood of traditional leadership conventions. The new process did not have the drama and tension of the convention system, and it did not make for good television viewing and news coverage. A lot of exposure that could have been generated from a pitched leadership convention, which is usually televised nationally, was seen by some within in the party as a lost opportunity. At one point Hugh Segal indicated that he felt that most Canadians did not even know the debates were going on. Facing strong competition for media prominence from the Quebec election campaign, the APEC incident, and the Reform initiative to unite Canadian conservatives, the Progressive Conservative leadership campaign had difficulty attracting attention. Political commentator Jeffrey Simpson wrote, ". . . the PC leadership race would never have been a riveting affair, given the party's abysmal standing in Parliament and the country. But this fancy new process—in the name of ‘democracy'—makes the whole affair more boring to the party and the country than the good, old system."

Other criticisms on the process centred around the point system. In some ridings it was apparent that membership was low enough to permit a candidate to have undue influence with the scantiest support. For instance, in the Saskatchewan constituency of Regina-Lumsden Lake Centre there were only 57 members. A candidate that could achieve the support of 30 of these members would capture the majority of the 100 points of the riding. In addition, some people felt that the point system had permitted certain candidates to "hijack" the party. Some commentators felt that the selection process's appeal to grassroots members had in effect revealed the perils of "too much democracy." Jeffrey Simpson commented, " . . . the new ‘democratic' process is all about grassroots democracy, but the rules are so loose that anybody with a membership card before today's deadline [September 29] can vote in the October 24 leadership election." Orchard's opponents argued that the point system had made him a contender in the race because of his ability to sign up outsiders. Orchard was accused of signing up as party members who would not normally vote , and this had apparently "shoehorned" him into the leadership race. The implication was that Orchard's support was not a true indication of the grassroots membership. However, upon closer examination it was apparent that all the campaigns signed up new members, so it was difficult to discern if these were valid criticisms or just political posturing.

Discussion 1. With reference to this story, explain the significance of the terms representative democracy and direct democracy. Aside from the party leadership selection process, how are these aspects represented in general elections and in the federal ?

2. Compare the merits of the two methods of party leadership selection. In your opinion, which system best serves the democratic process? Which system works best to advance the interests of a political party? Are these two aims mutually exclusive or can they be achieved within the confines of one system?

3. Based on what you have learned from the video do you think the outcome was shaped by the leadership selection process? What changes or reforms to the leadership selection process would you propose?

Introduction Back to the Future An Experiment in Democracy Why Joe? A Glorious History The United Alternative Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers. THE RETURN OF JOE CLARK: NEW HOPE FOR CONSERVATIVES? Why Joe?

When Joe Clark first announced his candidacy for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party it was met with a degree of scepticism and consternation. Headlines made reference to his first leadership victory in 1976, which he won as a virtual unknown. At that time the headlines read "Joe Who?" The expression has become part of his political and historical legacy. He had been out of politics for five years and was enjoying a successful career in the private sector before joining the leadership race. And many people were asking "Why Joe?"

Joe Clark Explains Why Below are excerpts from Joe Clark's speech announcing his candidacy for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. As you read his own words, think about why he wants to be leader and prime minister at this time in his life, at this time in the life of his party, and at this time in the history of Canada.

Calgary, , June 25, 1998

Thank you for joining us. I am announcing today that I am a candidate for the national leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. If successful, I would seek election to the House of Commons, at the next federal general election, here in my home province of Alberta. . . .

. . . Some pundits call me "Yesterday's man." If that means that I have led a government, and won an election, and run complex ministries, and brought difficult Canadians together, then yes, I have experience in the job I am seeking. Speaking personally, I prefer the interpretation that I was a little ahead of my time. But there is no doubt that I bring few surprises to this campaign. If you want novelty, look elsewhere. My record and my attitudes are widely known, and it would be generally agreed that I am beyond the help of image-makers.

The question most people ask is why I would want to do this again. The answer is straightforward. I have been extremely lucky, both in the opportunities that were open to me, and in the reputation I enjoy today. Good fortune creates its own obligations, and I believe I have a simple duty to try to apply what I have learned, to a country which, while the most blessed in the world, is gradually losing its sense of common will.

The simple truth is that our country needs a different kind of leadership than it is receiving now. I believe that, working with you and with others, I can lead this country to a new sense of purpose, direction, and community.

These are not ordinary times, not in my party, certainly not in my country. The very composition of the present House of Commons both reflects deep divisions in the country, and makes it more difficult to reach beyond them. Those are real differences, but they are not fundamental. There are no irreconcilable differences in this country. But neither is there the kind of leadership or will to bring the Canadian family together. Bringing Canadians together is where I can make a difference. . . .

. . . The question is: How do we become our best again, as individuals, as a national community? For a long time, we have talked about national unity. The real need is for national purpose. If that becomes clear and compelling, the unity will follow. So what should be the purposes of this country, in these times? What do we need to do, as individuals, and as a community? How do we organize ourselves to do that? Answering those questions, organizing that response, must be the driving purpose of this party in the next 30 months. The alternative which Canada requires is not so much a change in parties as it is a change in the way we see our country and our future. . . .

. . . The challenge is to make government as effective as possible in the field where it needs to act, to live within our considerable means, and to be open and honest about the decisions we take.

We are here to replace a Liberal government which has neither learned much, nor changed much. Its most successful policies were those we started; its current popularity is because it is unchallenged, because Canadians see no alternative. We must provide that alternative, across the whole of the Canadian community. In order to do that, we have to win back the trust of Canadians who have lost faith in us or, more seriously, lost faith in Canada's political institutions.

We all know people who left this party to vote for Reform, or for the Bloc Québécois, or for the Liberal Party. They turned away from the Progressive Conservative Party, for reasons that made good sense to them. We have to earn back the respect and support of those Canadians; they chose to leave us, and we must give them good reasons to work with us again, in the interests of Canada.

The greater challenge is the millions of Canadians who have simply given up on the political system. In the last federal election, one in three Canadians did not vote at all. In this Province of Alberta, the voter turnout fell to 58.5 per cent. Across the country, of the Canadians eligible to vote for the first time in 1997, fully 42 per cent did not vote.

The greatest resource of this rich country is the intelligence and ingenuity and compassion of our citizens. Yet, in growing numbers, they have stepped outside the political system, because they think it has become irrelevant. That is dangerous in any democracy, but particularly in a country that relies on the will of its citizens as much as Canada does. My highest priority, as leader of this national party, is to rebuild the sense that Canadians can make a difference in their own country.

This party's reaction to its great defeats was to become much more democratic internally. That is the ideal base from which to reach out to new people, new ideas, new knowledge, to the growing number of Canadians who care about their country, and are looking for a way to shape its future. What is at issue here is not a party, but a country. It is clear that this party will succeed only if we become a genuine instrument of the Canadian will. What is more sobering is the reality that we may be the only way that will can be expressed.

Other countries were formed by geography, or conflict, or the whim of colonial masters. But not Canada. Virtually alone among nations, this country is an act of will. That is how we were created, at Confederation. That is how we built a society, admired around the world. It is an act of will to build a railway, against all the odds, from sea to sea. Our health care system was an act of will. So was free trade. So was the concept of equalization. So was the decision to create crown corporations when the challenge was too big for the private sector, and to privatize them, when that became appropriate.

The history of this country is of acts of will. And so is our future. That will is eroding now in Canada, and if we let it slip away, we let the country slip away. I will not sit back and let that happen. This country is a gift—but a gift we lose, if we take it for granted.

You ask why I would put aside the comfort of a quieter life. Canada is the reason. I love this country. I think it is threatened. I believe that, together, we can make it whole again.

I ask for your help. Thank you.

Oratorical Analysis Canada has a of great orators, speakers in the political arena especially, who can inspire people, use effective and convincing language, and who can also create a strong personal identification on the part of the people. Their speeches contain well-crafted literary and rhetorical devices, strategically placed factual information, rhythm and cadence, humour, and other personal touches. But above all, their oratory communicates a sense of strength, commitment, honesty, and integrity. They have the oratorical power to win the hearts and minds of the people.

Examine the above speech in depth. Have a class member read it aloud as effectively and as dramatically as possible, as Joe Clark did. Assess this speech in terms of the elements already mentioned here and make a list of what, in your opinion, are the most effective elements of the speech. As a class, evaluate how Joe Clark did in a one of the most important speeches of his life.

Introduction Back to the Future An Experiment in Democracy Why Joe? A Glorious History The United Alternative Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers. THE RETURN OF JOE CLARK: NEW HOPE FOR CONSERVATIVES? A Glorious History

In the weeks leading up to the Progressive Conservative leadership convention, political commentator and long-time Conservative strategist Dalton Camp expressed his view on the state of the Progressive Conservative Party: "We're down to mouth-to-mouth," he said. "The choices that 70 000 or so Conservatives must make next weekend are whether to have a Progressive Conservative Party representative of its history and tradition or to have no party at all. These are hard times for the . They have lost a considerable portion of their hard-core support, they have been betrayed by their Ontario provincial cousins, they have lost their leader to the Quebec Liberals, and they have lost the support of the financial community."

For many Progressive Conservatives, Camp's comments provided a stark reminder of the glorious history and tradition of their Progressive Conservative Party. His comments made it all too clear that this was not the party it once was.

The following is an excerpt from "The Progressive Conservative Party: Its History and Heritage," by senator Marjory LeBreton. As you read the party's history consider the reasons for its early success, and highlight any information you believe to be similar to the circumstances of the party today.

Our Party has a remarkable history—in fact I would argue the most important in the shaping of the Canada of today. No democratic state functions without free and open political parties and our country's first Leader was a Party builder before he became a nation builder. In 1864 our first leader, Sir John A. Macdonald fought for the future of our Party and our nation. He fought pro-American groups who wanted to annex the country to the . He fought others who favoured making Canada into a loose legislative union of provinces and territories. He fought for his vision of a strong confederated state from sea to sea. Macdonald built a broadly based Party that would reflect Canada . . . its geographic expanse, its diverse regional interests, its innumerable cultural identities and its linguistic reality. The Party he built was composed of numerous political groups from the scattered colonies. And it was characterized by an important alliance—that of Sir John A. himself and Georges Étienne Cartier. Their mutual respect, personal relationship and devotion to the interests of the country helped in the accommodation between English- speaking and French-speaking Canadians at a critical time in the building of Canada.

Macdonald led our Party, the Conservatives, to form the first in 1867, and immediately embarked upon large-scale programs of national development, such as the development of a transportation system to tie the nation together physically. Macdonald dealt strongly with religious and racial extremism, and fought the forces that wanted to change Confederation into an alliance of autonomous states.

Throughout his tenure in office, Macdonald fought the supporters of political and economic union with the United States believing that the health and very survival of Canada were dependent upon the East-West flow of its economic lifeblood. Macdonald and the Conservatives returned to power in election after election, in 1878, 1882, 1887 and 1891. During this time, the CPR was pushed through to the Pacific Ocean, the Arctic Islands were acquired from Britain, immigration to the West was encouraged, an industrial policy established, and Canada's independence and strength as a nation developed.

With the slogan "The Old Flag, The Old Policy, The Old Leader," Macdonald won his fourth consecutive term as Prime Minister in 1891. But the leader and founder of our Party was exhausted after the rigours of a winter campaign and a lifetime of fighting for the survival of his beloved country. He died in June 1891 and with him passed a brilliant and colourful era in Canadian political history, but to us he passed a mantle which we have embodied to this very day.

. . . The Party has had leaders of vision, integrity and dedication determined to serve the interests of the nation as a whole. It has been willing to set aside partisanship for the greater good of the country. Consistently, it has been committed to . It has served the interests of all regions through the creation and improvement of national institutions that satisfy the needs and concerns of the country coast to coast; and it has committed itself to human rights, effective social policies and protection of the interests of individual Canadians. The PC Party has striven to control the power of government in order to prevent the unnecessary intrusion of government into the lives of Canadians. It has advocated that the private sector be the prime generator of the wealth needed to make and keep Canada and Canadians prosperous. It has put Canada first as a country of social justice and fair federalism at home, and nobility of purpose abroad. . . .

Discussion 1. What were the challenges facing the Conservative Party in the early years? How were these challenges addressed?

2. Compare the "second coming" of Joe Clark with John A. Macdonald's last campaign. To what extent are the circumstances of Clark and Macdonald similar? To what extent are the party's circumstances similar?

3. What are the party's great achievements, and what appears to be the legacy of the Progressive Conservative Party today? In your opinion, has the party remained faithful to that legacy?

Introduction Back to the Future An Experiment in Democracy Why Joe? A Glorious History The United Alternative Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers. THE RETURN OF JOE CLARK: NEW HOPE FOR CONSERVATIVES? The United Alternative

The challenges facing the Progressive Conservatives today are not unknown to them. In 1941 the Conservative Party of Canada was leaderless, moneyless, and lacking direction and vision. A small group of members proceeded to produce policy resolutions and bring the party back from oblivion, modernizing Canadian conservatism. They formulated progressive policies in areas such as labour relations, old age pensions, mothers and widows allowances, health insurance, and banking. Eventually many of their recommendations made their way into the party's platform, and within a year the party renamed itself the Progressive Conservative Party. By adopting progressive ideas the party managed to reinvent itself in such a way that it set its course as a vibrant and healthy party for the next half century.

Today many political commentators believe that once again the Conservative Party must reinvent itself or risk being relegated forever to its present status as a minor political player. For some observers the key to Conservative rejuvenation lies in the concept of uniting with the Reform Party. They argue that uniting all "small c" conservatives will present a serious alternative to the governing Liberals. In May of 1998, the leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, invited supporters of different federal and provincial political parties to come together at a national convention to discuss a United Alternative coalition. In September of 1998, a group of concerned Canadian citizens formed a steering committee to stage a convention in February of 1999 to debate the merits of a contemporary, national, broadly based, democratic conservative movement in Canada. The United Alternative was proposed to create a broad coalition of Canadians who share common principles about responsible, accountable government and consider themselves to be conservative in ideology. You can access information about the United Alternative on the Internet at www.unitedalt.org/whatis.html.

Public Opinion Poll On October 31, 1998, the polling firm Compas released the results of a poll investigating the impact a new united right- wing political party combining the interests of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party would have on the federal political process. The poll asked Canadians across Canada the following question:

As you may know, there is an effort by some Reform Party people and some Progressive Conservatives to form a new, larger, united, right-wing alternative to the Liberals in the next federal election. Suppose that this happened and there was a -wing party which united the Reform Party with the Progressive Conservatives. If a federal election were being held today, which federal party would you vote for: the Liberal Party, the New Right-wing Party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois (Quebec only)?

Findings The poll found that a new right-wing political party in federal politics would be a very serious contender for power. The poll indicated that such a party would be virtually tied with the governing Liberals in popular support: 36 per cent versus 39 per cent for the Liberals, with 13 per cent going to the NDP, 10 per cent to the Bloc, and 3 per cent to an "other" category.

In the four Western provinces the net total strength for the new right-wing party proved to be about equal to the combined vote for the Progressive Conservative and Reform parties: 53 per cent for the new right-wing party versus 52 per cent for the Progressive Conservative and Reform parties combined.

In Ontario a single right-wing party would not have much effect. The net total strength of Progressive Conservative and Reform totals 35 per cent and would stay as such if there was a single right-wing party. The Liberals would still lead in Ontario with 47 per cent. In Quebec support would jump to 17 per cent from 7 per cent for Progressive Conservative and Reform combined. In the Atlantic provinces support would jump to 36 per cent from a total of 27 per cent for Reform and Progressive Conservative combined.

The poll indicated that a new right-wing party would not be just be an amalgamation or the combined total support of the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties. A new right-wing party would lose some current Reform or PC support. The poll found the following:

• Ten percent of current Reform voters would leave, going mainly to the NDP.

• Almost a third of current Progressive Conservative supporters would not join the new party and would join the Liberals.

However, the poll found that the falling away of some Progressive Conservative members and a few Reform Party members would be more than made up by the new right-wing party's appeal to current Liberals and New Democrats. The poll found that:

• Twelve per cent and 15 per cent of prospective voters for the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, respectively, would go to the new party instead.

Discussion 1. In your opinion, what would be the major benefits of a Reform-PC alliance? What would be the drawbacks?

2. What are the regional variations in terms of support for a Reform-PC alliance? Where is the core support of ?

3. How would the other parties be affected by a Reform-PC alliance? What does this indicate about conservatism in Canada?

Introduction Back to the Future An Experiment in Democracy Why Joe? A Glorious History The United Alternative Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions THE RETURN OF JOE CLARK: NEW HOPE FOR CONSERVATIVES? Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

1. Throughout the Progressive Conservative leadership contest there were many efforts to evoke images of a revitalized party getting ready to emerge from a political wilderness. Some analysts felt that the contest failed to convince Canadians that the Progressive Conservative party speaks for all Canadians. The party was criticized for not addressing issues of concern to women, and both the composition of the party and the party's message were criticized for not reflecting multicultural Canada. Research the platform and policies of the Progressive Conservative Party at www.pcparty.ca/english/pceng.pdf and determine to what extent these criticisms are valid.

2. In previous leadership races young people had to be 18 years of age to be selected as a delegate from their local riding and therefore to attend a leadership convention. Under the new system any party member 14 years of age or older was permitted to vote. To what extent is the increase in youth participation a democratization of the political process? Is there potential for abuse or manipulation? Explain.

3. According to the Progressive Conservative campaign rules, the only form of candidate identification permitted was in the form of a button or sticker no more than three inches in diameter. Hugh Segal's campaign broke these rules when they wore T-shirts at an important Progressive Conservative meeting. Upon review of the campaign rules by a 15-member committee, Segal's campaign was fined $10 000. Establishing ground rules that all candidates can agree to is an important safeguard of the democratic process. Examine the Progressive Conservative document "1998 Leadership Selection Process: Rules and Procedures" at www.pcparty.ca/english/lcrp.htm. As you read each rule consider the reasons for adopting it. How does each of these rules safeguard the democratic process? Are there any rules you disagree with?

4. You can investigate the results of the Progressive Conservative leadership vote for each of Canada's 301 ridings on the Internet at www.pcparty.ca/leadership/results/index.htm. Compare the results of Clark and Orchard from province to province. Where do each of the candidates have their core support? According to the information, in what regions of the country must a candidate have strong support in order to win a national leadership contest?

5. In the 1997 federal election, the Reform Party won 60 seats with 19.4 per cent of the popular vote, whereas the Progressive Conservative Party won only 20 seats with 18.8 per cent of the popular vote. Some political observers say that Preston Manning rejects electoral reform as a means of matching votes with power because electoral reform would be at the expense of the Reform Party and to the benefit of the Progressive Conservative Party. Observers say this is why the Reform Party is trying to broaden its appeal to conservative voters rather than promote electoral reform. Research and examine this issue of electoral reform. To what extent would electoral reform balance out any inequalities between votes and power? Would electoral reform be more helpful to the Progressive Conservative Party than an alliance with the Reform Party under the banner of the United Alternative?

Introduction Back to the Future An Experiment in Democracy Why Joe? A Glorious History The United Alternative Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.