Monday, September 28, 1998

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Monday, September 28, 1998 CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 127 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, September 28, 1998 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 8431 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, September 28, 1998 The House met at 11 a.m. how taxpayers feel on certain issues, for example, the credibility of political leaders in negotiating these types of deals. _______________ Even though it is taxpayer money that is used to find out what the taxpayers feel about particular situations, they are not being Prayers told. They are not being given the information. We have some _______________ serious problems with that. This is very reminiscent of what happened with Brian Mulroney in 1992 when the Tories refused to release the taxpayer-funded PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS polls on Charlottetown. It begs the question of why this taxpayer money is being spent. Why are these polls being held back? Why D (1100 ) are we not being apprised of the situation? [English] It boils down to a few reasons. One of the things the government likes to say is that somehow this will taint federal-provincial CALGARY DECLARATION relations. That was decided in court by Judge Rothstein. I will get into the quotes in a minute. In that case there was a determination Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved: that the government did not have a legitimate case to deprive the That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause public of these documents. to be laid before this House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, polls and correspondence relating to the Calgary Declaration. I will go into some of these things that I think need to be touched He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion P-22 requests the government to on because previous information commissioners and others have put forward all documents relating to the Calgary Declaration. made determinations with regard to this. A wise man, a man of biblical note, King Solomon, said ‘‘What Government members, when in opposition and even while has been will be again and what has been will be done again. There running in the last election in 1997, made promises which were is nothing new under the sun’’. Unfortunately I have to report that I contained in the red book. Indeed there was a violation of one of the think that is the case today. sacred red book promises. We do not like to see that happen. There are probably others, but I will point out one which is glaring. Previously we in the Reform Party, as well as others, made access to information requests with regard to documents relating to Information Commissioner Grace wrote that it is ‘‘passing the Charlottetown accord. There was some delay and scuttlebutt bizarre that the public should be denied knowing what the public with regard to the delay of those documents, some secrecy, and we thinks when the public pays for collecting information about all know how pernicious secrecy is. itself’’. D (1105 ) It is passing bizarre. But it is something that is not so bizarre that I would put the Liberal government past it because that is exactly My prediction is that the government will vote down this motion the case today. and not produce the documents with regard to the Calgary Declara- tion. I think that is somewhat hypocritical. On the one hand the I am going to revisit some of the comments made by government government was talking about how open it wanted the process members when they were in opposition, the criticisms they levelled concerning the declaration to be. It said it did not want to do things against the Tory administration of Brian Mulroney on secrecy. the way Mulroney did with the Charlottetown accord. It wanted this to be a very open process, but we have secrecy. The government House leader has in his riding the lovely town of Prescott which I have been to several times. At that time he said It is worse than that. It is not just the case of secrecy, that the that the government must justify why taxpayer dollars were spent government is hiding something, but it is using taxpayers’ money gathering information that could have benefited the party in power, to do it. That is what I find objectionable. Polls are done to find out the government of the day. That is exactly the same question we 8432 COMMONS DEBATES September 28, 1998 Private Members’ Business raise today. Why is this Liberal government refusing to allow declaration with regard to it. We know it has had some determina- access to documents that could benefit it in terms of its strategy and tions on it. Certainly it has done polling. It has told me that it has what it is doing? done polling. I have been contacted by people who are involved with intergovernmental affairs. I have been contacted by people If it does not benefit in terms of the strategy and what it is doing who are involved in the Privy Council Office. They have told me and if it is not being used for partisan purposes, then let us see the that they have these documents, but they said they do not want to documents. The taxpayers have paid for them. It is only fair to give release them. They said that instead I should go through an access taxpayers access to the documents. to information request or something like that. If the Calgary Declaration was supposed to be an open process, If the government has the documents, if it has located the then let us open up these documents. Basically that is what this documents, surely, for the taxpayers who paid for the documents, motion asks today. there should not be a problem producing the documents in the House. The justice who had some serious problems with the rationale used by governments previously to withhold documents just like When the government released the 700 pages of documents these was Justice Marshall Rothstein. He said that he did not see a relating to the Charlottetown accord, it did so in an attempt to harm to relations with the provinces, that basically those types of pre-empt a court ruling and avoid setting a legal precedent. If that arguments were unfounded. He thought that disclosing public legal precedent had been set of course we would be looking at using opinion surveys was indeed important. it today. It only released those documents to avoid setting a precedent with regard to the release of these types of documents. That is wrong. D (1110) It is not as though this is a cheap endeavour. It is not as though If in principle it should be releasing these documents, as it these are piddly sums of money. The principle is of course that the should because taxpayer dollars have paid for them, then we should government, because it is using taxpayer dollars, should make not have to wait. The government should not be hiding behind the these types of studies, these types of surveys, these types of polls skirts of a legal decision, trying to avoid it. It should be forthright available to the public which is paying for them. The government is and release these documents. violating that principle in terms of what it is doing with these secret deals. The bills that Decima and Créatec had with respect to the Charlottetown accord amounted to $306,000. I am sure these types More than that, it is also a case of money. We have seen this of things are going on today, but because the government is being administration continually increase the amount of money it is secretive in terms of what it is doing with these documents we are spending on these polls. Indeed government advertising alone, used not going to know the actual figures and what polls were done until in conjunction with these polls, is over $100 million a year. it actually comes forth and releases them. The strategic polling that we are talking about here that was done I also note that it is not just the official opposition which is with regard to the declaration, which the government is withhold- concerned about things like this, it is also people whose job it is to ing, amounted to millions of dollars. It is unacceptable. inform the Canadian public, namely the Canadian press. These types of polls are also used for political or partisan Once again with regard to precedents, because I am laying the purposes when they probe views on people like the Prime Minister, groundwork which is very important in this argument, the last time the Leader of the Opposition and various premiers who were the journalists from the Canadian Press, Southam News, the Globe involved in some of the negotiations. If the government is going to and Mail and other researchers asked the Privy Council Office to be using public dollars, then everybody should be made aware of disclose public opinion research on constitutional proposals the them, including those people across the way who are the subject of government refused to do so. some of those polls. It is important that we include some precedents in this debate. D (1115 ) Polling results on the Charlottetown accord amounted to 700 pages. That is a lot of polling. When we look at what it contained, the idea It is not just a case of the official opposition or opposition parties that the government withheld it from the Canadian public who paid in the House requesting the information.
Recommended publications
  • Journaux Journals
    HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES DU CANADA 37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION 37e LÉGISLATURE, 1re SESSION Journals Journaux No. 12 No 12 Tuesday, February 13, 2001 Le mardi 13 février 2001 10:00 a.m. 10 heures The Clerk informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Le Greffier informe la Chambre de l’absence inévitable du Speaker. Président. Whereupon, Mr. Kilger (Stormont — Dundas — Charlotten- Sur ce, M. Kilger (Stormont — Dundas — Charlottenburgh), burgh), Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Vice–président et président des Comités pléniers, assume la Whole, took the Chair, pursuant to subsection 43(1) of the présidence, conformément au paragraphe 43(1) de la Loi sur le Parliament of Canada Act. Parlement du Canada. PRAYERS PRIÈRE DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS AFFAIRES COURANTES ORDINAIRES PRESENTING REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES PRÉSENTATION DE RAPPORTS DE COMITÉS Mr. Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the M. Lee (secrétaire parlementaire du leader du gouvernement à la Government in the House of Commons), from the Standing Chambre des communes), du Comité permanent de la procédure et Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented the des affaires de la Chambre, présente le 1er rapport de ce Comité, 1st Report of the Committee, which was as follows: dont voici le texte : The Committee recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 Votre Comité recommande, conformément au mandat que lui and 114, that the list of members and associate members for confèrent les articles 104 et 114 du Règlement, que la liste
    [Show full text]
  • The Difficulty of Amending the Constitution of Canada
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 31 Issue 1 Volume 31, Number 1 (Spring 1993) Symposium: Towards the 21st Century Article 2 Canadian/Australian Legal Perspectives 1-1-1993 The Difficulty of Amending the Constitution of Canada Peter W. Hogg Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Special Issue Article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Hogg, Peter W.. "The Difficulty of Amending the Constitution of Canada." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 31.1 (1993) : 41-61. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol31/iss1/2 This Special Issue Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. The Difficulty of Amending the Constitution of Canada Abstract The Charlottetown Accord of 1992 was a set of proposals for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. These proposals were designed to achieve a national settlement of a variety of constitutional grievances, chiefly those arising from Quebec nationalism, western regionalism, and Aboriginal deprivation. The Accord was defeated in a national referendum. In the case of Quebec, the defeat of the Charlottetown Accord, following as it did on the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord, has made the option of secession relatively more attractive, but there are sound pragmatic reasons to hope that Quebec will not make that choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Core 1..186 Hansard (PRISM::Advent3b2 10.50)
    CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 141 Ï NUMBER 051 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 39th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, September 22, 2006 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 3121 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, September 22, 2006 The House met at 11 a.m. Foreign Affairs, the actions of the minority Conservative govern- ment are causing the Canadian business community to miss the boat when it comes to trade and investment in China. Prayers The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is calling on the Conservative minority government to bolster Canadian trade and investment in China and encourage Chinese companies to invest in STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Canada. Business leaders are not alone in their desire for a stronger Ï (1100) economic relationship with China. The Asia-Pacific Foundation [English] released an opinion poll last week where Canadians named China, not the United States, as the most important potential export market CANADIAN FORCES for Canada. Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I recently met with a special family in my riding. The The Conservatives' actions are being noticed by the Chinese Spence family has a long, proud tradition of military service going government, which recently shut down negotiations to grant Canada back several generations. The father, Rick Spence, is a 27 year approved destination status, effectively killing a multi-million dollar veteran who serves in our Canadian air force. opportunity to allow Chinese tourists to visit Canada. His son, Private Michael Spence, is a member of the 1st Battalion China's ambassador has felt the need to say that we need mutual of the Royal Canadian Regiment.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Speaker, It's My Pleasure to Introduce to You and Through You to Other Members of the Assembly Ms Title: Thursday, March 22, 1990 2:30 P.M
    March 22, 1990 Alberta Hansard 213 Legislative Assembly of Alberta MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to other members of the Assembly Ms Title: Thursday, March 22, 1990 2:30 p.m. Molly Anderson, who is a teacher from the state of Florida who is here on a Fulbright exchange. Ms Anderson tells us she is Date: 90/03/22 very impressed with the education system in Alberta. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] head: Oral Question Period [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] Meech Lake Accord head: Prayers MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. Yesterday we learned that the Premier and his western counterparts have MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. agreed to set up a task force that will try to develop a common front among western provinces to deal with the constitutional Lord, forgive our excessive busyness as we seek to do our crisis. I'd say to the Premier that we welcome this initiative business. because we've watched with growing alarm the constitutional Grant us an awareness of these moments of life that we might crisis developing and the thought that our country could break take on a renewed sense of commitment as we seek to serve all up from lack of unity. At the same time, we are concerned that Albertans. the formation of this common front does not lead to a hardening Amen. of positions and that the committee will explore all avenues that head: Notices of Motions might lead to a solution to this current constitutional crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Charlottetown Accord
    Charlottetown Accord This article was written by a law student for the general public. Following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in 1990, a series of deliberations took place on the future of Confederation both within and outside of Quebec. In fact, there were four bodies empanelled to engage in these discussions – a parliamentary and an extra-parliamentary body within Quebec and a parliamentary and an extra-parliamentary body nationally. Specifically, within Quebec, there were the Allaire Committee (see Allaire Report) and the Belanger- Campeau Committee; and nationally, there were the Beaudoin- Edwards Committee and the Spicer Commission. These studies led to various reports including the federal documentShaping Canada’s Future Together. Subsequently, the federal government convened a series of five national conferences to discuss various aspects of this document. This, in turn, led to a federal report entitled A Renewed Canada. All of the foregoing culminated in negotiations among the federal government, the provincial governments (including Quebec in the latter stages of negotiations), the territorial governments and representatives from the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Council of Canada, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Métis National Council. These negotiations resulted in what is now referred to as the ‘Charlottetown Accord’. The Accord dealt with a number of constitutional issues. For example, regarding the division of legislative powers (see division of powers), it provided for exclusive provincial jurisdiction over forestry, mining and some other areas. It also required the federal government to conduct negotiations with the provinces in order to “harmonize” policy in such areas as telecommunications, labour development and training, regional development and immigration.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSTITUTION-MAKING AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS a Case Study of the 1980 Canadian Constitutional Negotiations Adam D
    CONSTITUTION-MAKING AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS A Case Study of the 1980 Canadian Constitutional Negotiations Adam D. McDonald1, University of Waterloo The Constitution Act, 1982 is a document that profoundly changed the Canadian political landscape. It brought home the highest law of the land; it provided Canadians a mechanism to change their Constitution; it created a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entrenched within the Constitution, out of the reach of one government. Perhaps its most important legacies, however, are the seemingly permanent isolation of Quebec and the primacy of place in Canadian history it gave Pierre Trudeau. This paper will examine the constitutional history of Canada with a view to determining what made the 1980 negotiating sessions successful when the sessions that led to both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord were not. It is important, however, to note that the word “successful” is used in the sense that an agreement was reached. Unlike Meech and Charlottetown, the repatriated constitution did not have unanimity among the participants. The question that comes to mind is this: if the governments did not really agree in 1981, why was a Constitution ratified? More importantly, are there lessons that can be drawn from this agreement that can be applied to the failed accords of the Mulroney era? In order to complete this examination, the paper will be divided into two parts. In the first part, Canada’s constitutional story will be told. This is a necessary part of any examination of the constitutional negotiations, for without knowing what the players wanted historically, one cannot see what was changed by the 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Commons Debates
    CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 137 Ï NUMBER 152 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, March 1, 2002 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 9399 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, March 1, 2002 The House met at 10 a.m. [English] Prayers I shall now propose Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1 to the House. Ï (1005) GOVERNMENT ORDERS Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand your ruling is that Motions Nos. BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2001 10 and 17 are not to be heard because they could have been put at committee. Unfortunately I was not able to attend that committee The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-49, an act to because I was at the procedure and House affairs committee which is implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on dealing with the matter related to the minister of defence. December 10, 2001 as reported (with amendments) from the committee. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the procedure and House affairs committee has been going virtually non-stop. I simply did not have Ï (1000) an opportunity to introduce Motions Nos. 10 and 17 at the finance [Translation] committee. Had I not been tied up in a motion that I think has precedence because of the extremely sensitive nature of that matter, I SPEAKER'S RULING could have attended the finance committee and introduced these The Speaker: There are 29 motions in amendment on the notice motions.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Darren Praznik 125
    INTERVIEW WITH DARREN PRAZNIK 125 Interview with Darren Praznik 160 A good parliamentary system is about checks and balances. Ultimately, the majority will rule, as it should. But the minority members of the House have huge ability to make the government go through a lot of processes before they ultimately rule. - Darren Praznik Any minister who is not prepared to accept reasonable suggestions or improvements from the opposition or the public does so at their own peril. You look stubborn, you look like you're on an ego trip as opposed to being a good minister, and I think you're always better to be flexible in the process. .1 always respected those groups who 2003 CanLIIDocs 77 came to me and said `we're opposed to your public policy decision, but if you're going to do it, these things make it better'. I mean, why would you just want to make it hard for people for no reason? - Darren Praznik I. INTRODUCTION s a young lawyer, Darren Praznik was first elected to the Manitoba ALegislature in 1988. Under Premier Gary Filmon, Darren served as Minister responsible for a wide variety of portfolios, including Labour, Energy and Mines, Northern and Native Affairs, Health, and Highways and Transportation. Darren continued to serve as a member of the Official Opposition from 1999 until February of 2002. He has since served as Executive Director of Government Relations for Canadian Blood Services. Over eleven years in government, Darren was witness to a number of notable legislative crises, including the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in 1990 and the Manitoba Telephone System privatization debate in 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID's Collateral Contagion
    June 2020 COVID’s Collateral Contagion: Why Faking Parliament is No Way to Govern in a Crisis Christian Leuprecht The COVID-19 epidemic is the greatest test for the maintenance of Canada’s democratic constitutional order in at least 50 years, certainly since the October crisis of 1970. It is also a bellwether for the way the Canadian state manages risk. Risks that stem from globalization have a common denominator: by definition, no state can manage them alone. However, citizens still expect their state to act. Confronted with dire predictions of immi- nent Armageddon, politicians invoke largely performative measures to signal to citizens that they are acting – to manage a risk that is largely beyond their control. Managing risk has become to individual citizens the essence of the modern welfare state: unemployment insur- ance, health care insurance, mortgage insurance, etc. Such is the essence of “risk society”: the expectations by citizens that the state will manage risks, many of which the state cannot control, such as a global pandemic. Paradoxically, the less control and certainty the state has over a risk that is perceived as existential, the more heavy-handed is its approach. Precisely because of the threatening environment in which it exists and because it is shut out of many international organizations, Taiwan was well prepared for the pandemic and its reaction was measured. By contrast, much of the rest of the democratic world was ill-prepared, which explains the heavy-handed measures taken by many of these countries, including Canada. The author of this document has worked independently and is solely responsible for the views presented here.
    [Show full text]
  • Test Your Knowledge of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario! Discover What a Typical Day Is Like at Ontario's Parliament
    Test your knowledge of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario! Discover what a typical day is like at Ontario's Parliament. Fill in the blanks using words from the word bank below. 8:55 a.m. It is 8:55 a.m. and everyone is rushing around in the Legislative Building to get ready for the meeting of the , also called the House, which is about to begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. The sessional bells are ringing throughout the Legislative Building to summon all the Members of Provincial Parliament, or , to the Legislative Chamber. The young Legislative look dapper in their traditional as they scurry about getting the ready for the business day. They take their posts on either side of the Speaker and by the Chamber doors. The Pages serve in the House for approximately two to four weeks during each session. They are grade students from across Ontario, who are here to learn about the legislative process and how works. When in the Chamber, they bring glasses of water and deliver . 9:00 a.m. Each meeting begins with the entry of the Speaker into the Chamber. The is approaching the entrance to the Legislative Assembly. The Sergeant-at-Arms, carrying the mace on her right shoulder, leads the Speaker, the of the House, the Clerks-at-the-Table and two Legislative Pages into the . " !" says the Senior Attendant as the enters the Chamber. Everyone is standing as the takes his place on the dais. The Clerk and the take their places at the big table in front of the Speaker, and he Pages proceed to their assigned posts.
    [Show full text]
  • Calgary Declaration Page 2 Freedom Flyer 33 June? 1998 Eec£6Ac We Get Fetters
    THE OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF THE FREEDOM PARTY OF ONTARIO JUNE 1998 #33 Calgary Declaration Page 2 Freedom Flyer 33 June? 1998 eeC£6ac We get fetters ... Instead of bringing you our regular 'Openers' column this issue (which will return next issue), we thought we'd use this opportunity to let our readers do some of the talking, and to introduce you to a new regular feature of Freedom Flyer: Feedback. By no means exhaustive, the following selection of letters and e-mail represents a broad sampling of correspondence received by Freedom Pa~during the period January 1997 to May 1998. While many of these letters have already been personally responded to, others have not. Editorial responses, as they appear here, may be entirely new and/or edited versions of our original personal responses. To the greatest degree possible, original letters to Freedom Pa~ are left unedited, though there are exceptions with regard to length, structure and grammar (the latter applying particularly to e-mail and Usenet (news groups) correspondence). As always, we'd like to hear from you. Your comments, criticisms, suggestions, and occasional compliments are always welcomed. To contact Freedom Party, write: Box 2214, London, Ontario N6A 4E3, or fax us at (519) 681 -2857, or e-mail us at "feedback@freedomparty org". OJ NO DONATION up on freedom. To simply ignore the disastr· the text of Joe Armstrong's first-class ous consequences of drug prohibition and the speech to Kingston's Canadian Club. It's a Too bad you folks are still hung up on effect that such laws have on individual free· clarion call which, unfortunately, will not drugs! No donation.
    [Show full text]
  • Faith Organizing, Party Politics, and the Exceptionalism of Abortion in the Harper Era Paul Thomas Phd Candidate, University Of
    Faith Organizing, Party Politics, and the exceptionalism of abortion in the Harper Era1,2 Paul Thomas PhD Candidate, University of Toronto paul.thomas@utoronto.ca Jerald Sabin PhD Candidate, University of Toronto jerald.sabin@utoronto.ca Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, University of Victoria, June 4 – 6, 2013 1 Working paper. Please do not cite without authors’ permission. 2 The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. 1.0 Introduction Can the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) maintain the support of its social conservative base while firmly resisting their policy demands with regard to abortion? Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated emphatically during the 2011 federal election that his government would not revisit its stance on abortion, announcing that: “as long as I am prime minister, we will not reopen the debate on abortion. We will leave the law as it stands” (CBC 2011). Yet instead of settling the issue, the Prime Minister’s comments have encouraged anti- abortion activists both inside and outside the CPC to escalate their activities. In the past year, Canada’s abortion laws have become a site of open conflict within the CPC, leading to such incidents as MP Mark Warawa’s private member’s motion on sex-selective abortion (M-408) and the distribution of graphic postcards in the prime minister’s riding by anti-abortion activists. Despite its recent formation, the CPC operates as a traditional Canadian brokerage party, with both fiscal and social conservative wings (Haussman and Rankin 2009).
    [Show full text]