In 1985, after 42 consecutive years of Progressive Conservative party government in Ontario, the Liberal and New Democratic parties decided to negotiate on election night, make a deal in that short amount of time to form minority government and allow the leading party between the two, the Liberal Party, to let their leader become the Premier. Then in 1999, Saskatchewan created the first coalition government in about 50 years. After the provincial election left no party with an overall majority, the New Democratic members asked the Liberal members to join in a united cabinet to stop the Saskatchewan Party. In both elections, all parties ran seperate campaigns, leaders and candidates per riding and region yet despite differences in party ideologicy, these two seperate groups united in a coalition to defeat a longtime foe in a close election since united they could beat the opposition's minority government. The more parties, the more philosophies one must get past to create such a coalition to unseat a targeted opposition.
There have been many minority governments in Canada and amongst its provinces, where one party forms the cabinet but depends on one or more opposition parties to pass legislation but even fewer coalition governments, where two parties are in the cabinet together. They are few and far between but there is no other politically geographical area in more need of this type of scenerio than Canada.
There are three major political parties in the House of Commons currently that are affiliated with Canadian Conservatism: Canadian Alliance, Progressive Conservative and Bloc Quebecois. These three parties cover three distinct regions in Canada: CA are most popular in Western Canada, PC have a grip in Eastern Canada and BQ continue to own the Province of Quebec. This only leaves two other zones in Canada, which are heavily Liberal areas to attack, the province of Ontario and the North.
This scenerio reasons that each of the above three regions which vote exclusively with one of the above three parties should remain in doing so and, to make sure the vote in those regions remain strictly conservative, that selected conservative party inside this loose federation of power should be the only one of the cooperative three running in its own popular region for the good of the commonwealth. In the case of the other two undecided regions of Ontario and the North, the parties of CA, PC and BQ should review, per constituency association, which party made the most gains in the last election and go with the highest vote getting party per riding in the Ontario and North campaigns.
The Democratic Representative Association and its weaker sister Common Conservative Ground Committee have it all wrong. We mustn't unite the Canadian Alliance, Progressive Conservative and Bloc Quebecois parties into another Mulroney Coalition of 1984 to 1993. We have tried, tested and gone through that type of big tent thinking and, in regionally diverse Canada, it just doesn't make sense and won't work. Our American brothers in the Republican Party have sucessfully been able to run a united yet loose, conservative right wing party without much problem in the United States but there is a winner-loser mindset down south, which creates near impossible percentages for any third party to win since they are all treated like independents. The American people just know that any other party then the Big Two will not have a chance and is just a wasted vote so they don't go there.
However, back in Canada, until one of those three major political parties can gain enough votes across Canada, win enough seats and create a majority government, we must all realize only one newly created social political system can scientificly work in theory and practice. As well, with the permission of all parties and leaders involved, can let each and every party remain its own in policy and principle yet, come election time, can unite in a loose coalition of seperate groups, ideas and members. What is the name of this idea which can solve Canada's problem to unite the right: it is "Regional Disparity Coaliton Government" and with the permission and use of all three of Canada's conservative parties and regions, we can elect Canadian Conservatives to the majority of ridings in all provinces and territories across Canada as MPs.
It would be impossible to run jointly nominated candidates who run correctly nation wide because they would be without strong support because their principles and policies wouldn't be solid enough to be a Member of Parliament with real values, which creates a whole new arguement on what difference such a candidate would be compared to a left wing equivilant - a Liberal MP.
Candidates without the support of one strict principled party, following the policy and wishes of their constituency association membership, board and its executive, would be bound to nothing which leaves the riding and supporting parties a basic independent member who may do as they dictate themselves and affirmed their won direction.
Instead, we propose each party must find its seperate supporters in each seperate region and reestablish their roots in the coming years. With the CA
involved in Western Canada, the BQ involved in Quebec and the PC involved in Eastern Canada, this leaves each with ground and territory all to their own. Making these areas automatic hands off zones for the lower two Canadian Conservative parties would allow the top Canadian Conservative party to gain all of the conservtaive vote in their perferred region so not to split the
vote. This doesn't solve Ontario's or the North's problem, which is much more difficult, however if each individual riding in these two areas looked at which of the three applicable parties recieved the highest Canadian Conservative vote total and decided, with all three party's agreement, to run the top party and their candidate only this would solve those region's woes, too.
This being said, let's take this sound theory and put it into practice: In the 2000 general election of Canada, the Canadian Alliance would take the provinces from British Columbia to Manitoba, and every province and riding in between, the Progressive Conservative would take the provinces from Newfoundland and Labrador to New Brunswick, and every province and riding in between, and the Bloc Quebecois would take the province of Quebec and all of the ridings inside it. That is the solid, tight knowledge. The more liquid and loose ideas come from the Liberal solution: what to do with the regions where the majority are unconservative? Again, run only one party but, unlike the other three underlined regions previous, have the constant change per riding.
Examples of this again in the 2000 election would have been: In Ontario, three different areas of the province would have three different results - In Northern Ontario: Thunder Bay-Atikokan is a riding where the Liberal has
the split at their advantage with 11, 130 votes. Yet, under our system of running the highest vote getting party's candidate per riding, who in this particular constituency is Canadian Alliance, and dropping the other lesser party's candidate(s), who in this area is a Progressive Conservative, that
gives a united total of the CA's 8, 927 and PC's 3, 594 into 12, 521 to top the Liberals. In Southern Ontario, the same situation in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. The CA candidate leads over the PC contender so all Canadian Conservative votes would unite go to the CA candidate. This would allow the leading conservative in that area grab their CA 15, 990 majority and the PC 6, 869 minority to create a unified 22, 859 over the Liberal 19, 722 total. And finally, in the 905 GTA Metro Ontario area, Don Valley West would do the same. Except now the Progressive Conservative would led since they were given the majority
of the Canadian Conservative vote at 10, 582 PC over 7, 234 CA equalling 17, 816 in united total. But unfortuantely, like much of Metro Toronto, this total wouldn't be able to takeover the 25, 330 Liberal vote total.
| Name | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| x Stan Dromisky | LIB | 11,130 |
| David Richard Leskowski | CA | 8,927 |
| Rick Baker | NDP | 5,927 |
| Ian M. Sinclair | PC | 3,594 |
| Kristin Boyer | GRN | 759 |
| Name | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| x Ovid L. Jackson | LIB | 19,722 |
| Murray Peer | CA | 15,990 |
| Allen Wilford | PC | 6,869 |
| Karen Gventer | NDP | 2,166 |
| Name | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| x John Godfrey | LIB | 25,330 |
| Michael Murton | PC | 10,582 |
| John Wakelin | CA | 7,234 |
| Ali Naqvi | NDP | 2,024 |
| Greg Stock | MP | 469 |
| Fernand Deschamps | ML | 97 |
The three territories of the North would have given varying results, Yukon's CA led all others with 3, 659 votes but add the PC's 991 and it gives the CA candidate 4, 650 to edge out the Liberal 4,293. In Nunavut, the leading candidate would be a Progressive Conservative since the Canadian Alliance didn't run. The PC vote there was 605 and wouldn't gain over the 4, 906 Liberal votes thus a lost riding. And finally the NWT's Western Arctic riding would only run the CA representative, who led with 2, 283 votes. Add the 1, 282 extra from the PC contender and the 3, 565 total still won't beat 5, 854 Liberal number - yet another loss to the Liberals. As you can see the North will most likely remain a losing battle but we can win the war if we follow these simple and practical ideas of loose "Regional Disparity Coaliton Government".
| Name | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Larry Bagnell | LIB | 4,293 |
| x Louise Hardy | NDP | 4,223 |
| Jim Kenyon | CA | 3,659 |
| Don Cox | PC | 991 |
| Geoffrey Capp | IND | 53 |
| Name | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| x Nancy Karetak-Lindell | LIB | 4,906 |
| Palluq Susan Enuaraq | NDP | 1,356 |
| Mike Sherman | PC | 605 |
| Brian Robert Jones | GRN | 329 |
| Name | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| x Ethel Blondin-Andrew | LIB | 5,854 |
| Dennis Bevington | NDP | 3,429 |
| Fred Turner | CA | 2,283 |
| Bruce McLaughlin | PC | 1,282 |
With an agreement between all three seperate parties to commit to a loose "Regional Disparity Coaliton Government" just in case and in the event the Liberals could win with a minority government. This solution would allow all three parties to remain seperate, distinct and different in goals to acheive yet also allow Canadians a loose but united conservative front to elect. They may choose which party's leader they want to become the Prime Minister, Deputy Leader and Whip by the number of MPs their party was voted in and elected with during the election.
Examples of all three: First, in Western Canada's Palliser, a riding in Saskatchewan, the leading Canadian Conservative candidate would be a Canadian Alliance, who with the leading 11, 933 votes plus the Progressive Conservative next best 6, 495 would be able to beat the NDP's 12, 136 with 18, 428. Second, in Quebec's Quebec-Est, the leading Canadian Conservative candidate would be a Bloc Quebecois, who with the leading 21, 166 votes plus the Canadian Alliance next best 8, 595 and Progressive Conservative 3, 915, would be able to beat the Liberal's 21, 813 with 33, 676. And finally, in Eastern Canada's West Nova, a riding in Nova Scotia, the leading Canadian Conservative candidate would be a
Progressive Conservative, who with the leading 12, 080 votes plus the Canadian Alliance next best 6, 581 would be able to beat the Liberal's 12, 783 with 18, 661.
| Name | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| x Dick Proctor | NDP | 12,136 |
| Don Findlay | CA | 11,933 |
| Garry Johnson | LIB | 6,495 |
| Brent Shirkey | PC | 1,247 |
| Name | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Jean Guy Carignan | LIB | 21,813 |
| x Jean-Paul Marchand | BQ | 21,166 |
| Robert Martel | CA | 8,595 |
| Richard Joncas | PC | 3,915 |
| Majella Desmeules | NDP | 1,189 |
| Name | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Robert Thibault | LIB | 12,783 |
| x Mark Muise | PC | 12,080 |
| Mike Donaldson | CA | 6,581 |
| Phil Roberts | NDP | 3,976 |
Vote splitting has created scenerios where ridings in which the winning candidate had fewer votes than his or her two closest Canadian Conservative rivals combined. Below is a list, from East to West, of the leading Canadian Conservative party candidate that should have won and the Liberal that won the seat with the minority because of the split, which if united could have defeated that Liberal. The numbers adds up to 67 MP seats across Canada that could have been Canadian Conservative, either Canadian Alliance, Progressive Conservative or Bloc Quebecois, and would have been under the loose "Regional Disparity Coaliton Government" system, which would be used until one single Canadian Conservative party wins a solid majority across Canada.
NOVA SCOTIA (1)
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (1)
NEW BRUNSWICK (2)
QUEBEC (12)
ONTARIO (31)
MANITOBA (1)
SASKATCHEWAN (1)
ALBERTA (1)
THREE TERRITORIES (1)
CANADIAN CONSERVATIVE COALITION CANADA 2000 REPORT CARD
NEWFOUNDLAND
0 Split Vote Ridings
NOVA SCOTIA
1 Split Vote Riding
1/1 riding Canadian Alliance hurt Progressive Conservative
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
1 Split Vote Ridings
1/1 riding Canadian Alliance hurt Progressive Conservative
NEW BRUNSWICK
2 Split Vote Ridings
2/2 ridings Canadian Alliances hurt Progressive Conservatives
QUEBEC
12 Split Vote Ridings
9/12 ridings Canadian Alliances and Progressive Conservatives hurt Bloc Quebecois
3/12 ridings Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliances hurt Bloc Quebecois
ONTARIO
25 Split Vote Ridings
23/25 ridings Progressive Conservatives hurt Canadian Alliances
2/25 ridings Canadian Alliances hurt Progressive Conservatives
MANITOBA
1 Split Vote Riding
1/1 riding Progressive Conservative hurt Canadian Alliance
SASKATCHEWAN
1 Split Vote Riding
1/1 riding Progressive Conservative hurt Canadian Alliance
ALBERTA
1 Split Vote Riding
1/1 riding Progressive Conservative hurt Canadian Alliance
BRITISH COLUMBIA
3 Split Vote Ridings
3/3 ridings Progressive Conservatives hurt Canadian Alliances
THREE TERRITORIES
1 Split Vote Riding
1/1 riding Progressive Conservative hurt Canadian Alliance
CANADA
48 Split Vote Ridings
34/48 ridings Progressive Conservatives hurt Canadian Alliances
2/48 ridings Canadian Alliances hurt Progressive Conservatives
9/48 ridings Canadian Alliances and Progressive Conservatives hurt Bloc Quebecois
3/48 ridings Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliances hurt Bloc Quebecois
MARKS IN PERCENT TOWARDS TRYING NOT TO SPLIT THE VOTE IN CONSERVATIVE CANADA
Bloc Quebecois - 100.0% (A+)
Canadian Alliance - 77.0% (C)
Progressive Conservative - 22.9% (F-)
Now, a question many of you may be asking is under that plan, how is it
going to deal with members of parliaments in parties not called the majority in
regions like . Well, since this situation isn't as cut and dry as the
other situations we have dealt with. That member of parliament has the
right to represent the riding which chose them and their party which wasn't
part of the region's norm party voting. The riding also has the right to have
that party despite going against the norm. So, the measurement we
would look at is calling that riding a "Split C Zone", which means it
would allow all Canadian Conservative parties run and when that member of
parliament and their party is dethroned, unfortunately that is when the
riding will catch up with the rest of the province. However, this may not be
the way the group will want to run things. They may ask that MP to either
join the new majority regional vote party, the MP's party may take the
MP, a winnable candidate anywhere, and parachute them inside one of their
vacant regional ridings or either party may ask the MP to leave because this
riding is now off-limits and they must either join new party and run in that
riding or parachute off into their party's region to run in another region.
Examples of Member of Parliament candidates that fit this situation are: Progressive Conservative MP Andre Bachand from Richmond-Arthabaska where the party of the regional majority is Bloc Quebecois, Progressive Conservative MP Rick Borotsik from Brandon-Souris where the party of the regional majority is Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative MP Joe Clark from Calgary Centre where the party of the regional majority is Canadian Alliance. A certain exception could be made until their defeat or Liberal/New Democratic victory then those ridings in those solid regions would become part of the network in which the regional majority party would run the one Canadian Conservative candidate without infringing upon these Members of Parliament and constitutent's democratic right to have them as an option. But we can all agree, it would be best if these MPs would step down and allow the favoured party in the region run instead, just so it would be easier on the Canadian Conservative coalition and to be responsible of the fact that if one of these MPs lose, a Liberal or New Democratic candidate could be elected and become a mainstay thus ending any chance to elect a Canadian Conservative candidate from the region's party of the majority.
However, we can't be as leanient towards second place candidates who are part of a party not chosen by the majority in a certain region. Since they didn't win the riding in the last election, all bets are off and now creates a situation in which, other than Ontario and the North, that riding is applicable to the rule of one party per region. Each region has a seperate party and must solidly back each different faction with the running of it and only it. The East has the PC, Quebec has the BQ and the West has the CA. Only Ontario and the North must allow each riding to select per riding which Canadian Conservative party, be it Canadian Alliance, Progressive Conservative or Bloc Quebecois, will run according to the results of the first place party amongst them in the previous election. Those being: Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe's Canadian Alliance candidate Kathryn M. Barnes forced to change into a Progressive Conservative riding, Lac-Saint-Louis's Progressive Conservative Daniel Gendron forced to change into a Bloc Quebecois riding, Mont-Royal's Progressive Conservative Stephane Gelgoot forced to change into a Bloc Quebecois riding, Westmount-Ville-Marie's Progressive Conservative Bryan Price forced to change into a Bloc Quebecois riding, Winnipeg North Centre's Progressive Conservative Myron Troniak forced to change into a Canadian Alliance riding and Winnipeg South Centre's Progressive Conservative David Newman forced to change into a Canadian Alliance riding.
Parties that will have to join this coalition are those currently elected to represent certain regions in Canada as the favourite Canadian Conservative faction to vote for. Those are: 1. CRCA--Canadian Alliance, 2. PC--Progressive Conservative and 3. BQ--Bloc Quebecois. There are three possible parties that would want to join a Canadian Conservative coalition for power in the future. Those are: 1. DR--Democratic Representative, 2. CH--Christian Heritage and 3. CA--Canadian Action. Not included are other IND--Independent members who may wish to align themselves with the canadian Conservative cause. Other than that, parties that would be barred from the coalition until their constitutions and policies changed would be: NL--Natural Law, COM--Communist, ML--Marxist-Leninist, MJA--Marijuana, LIB--Liberal, GRN--Green and ND--New Democratic.
Finally, we have talked much on Ontario and the North yet haven't talked about what to do inside these regions. It is simple: the top Canadian Conservative party from the previous election will run alone as the only Canadian Conservative candidate only until there is no longer a need for this coalition. These being generally Liberal regions and ridings, it only makes sense we allow each riding to select which Canadian Conservative party to run by the vote of the last election. That shows the party most want in that riding from the best polling device one can have - an election. Obviously, one of the three parties will be disadvataged. That being the Bloc Quebecois, who will have no candidates under this scenerio in either region. However, in situations above, it is proven that both the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance took some losses as well and this is for the best thing for all Canadian Conservatives across the board. Sacrifices must be made in order to create a consensus that all Canadian Conservatives can agree on. And that is what this is. Below will be the Canadian Conservative parties and candidates that, according to the previous election, would be the ones the constituency should support per riding.
ONTARIO
103 Ridings-90 CA & 13 PC
Algoma-Manitoulin -- Canadian Alliance Ron Swain.
Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot -- Canadian Alliance Ray Pennings.
Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford -- Canadian Alliance Rob Hamilton.
Beaches-East York -- Progressive Conservative Wayne Clutterbuck.
Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale -- Canadian Alliance Gurdish Mangat.
Brampton Centre -- Progressive Conservative Beryl Ford.
Brampton West-Mississauga -- Canadian Alliance Hardial Sangha.
Brant -- Canadian Alliance Chris Cattle.
Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound -- Canadian Alliance Murray Peer.
Burlington -- Canadian Alliance Don Pennell.
Cambridge -- Canadian Alliance Reg Petersen.
Chatham-Kent Essex -- Canadian Alliance Sean Smart.
Davenport -- Canadian Alliance Anthony Montenegrino.
Don Valley East -- Progressive Conservative Cecilia Fusco.
Don Valley West -- Progressive Conservative Michael Murton.
Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey -- Canadian Alliance Don Crawford.
Durham -- Canadian Alliance Gerry Skipwith.
Eglinton-Lawrence -- Progressive Conservative Louise Sankey.
Elgin-Middlesex-London -- Canadian Alliance Bill Walters.
Erie-Lincoln -- Canadian Alliance Dean Allison.
Essex -- Canadian Alliance Scott Cowan.
Etobicoke Centre -- Canadian Alliance Michael G. Kraik.
Etobicoke-Lakeshore -- Canadian Alliance David Court.
Etobicoke North -- Canadian Alliance Mahmood Elahi.
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell -- Canadian Alliance L. Sebastian Anders.
Guelph-Wellington -- Canadian Alliance Max Layton.
Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant -- Canadian Alliance Jim Maki.
Haliburton-Victoria-Brock -- Canadian Alliance Pat Dunn.
Halton -- Canadian Alliance Tim Dobson.
Hamilton East -- Canadian Alliance Joshua Conroy.
Hamilton Mountain -- Canadian Alliance Mike Scott.
Hamilton West -- Canadian Alliance Leon O'Connor.
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington -- Canadian Alliance Sean McAdam.
Huron-Bruce -- Canadian Alliance Mark Beaven.
Kenora-Rainy River -- Canadian Alliance Ed Prefontaine.
Kingston and the Islands -- Progressive Conservative Blair MacLean.
Kitchener Centre -- Canadian Alliance Eloise Jantzi.
Kitchener-Waterloo -- Canadian Alliance Joshua Doig.
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex -- Canadian Alliance Ron Young.
Lanark-Carleton -- Canadian Alliance Scott Reid.
Leeds-Grenville -- Canadian Alliance Gord Brown.
London-Fanshawe -- Canadian Alliance Robert Vaughan.
London North Centre -- Canadian Alliance Nancy Branscombe.
London West -- Canadian Alliance Salim Mansur.
Markham -- Canadian Alliance Jim Jones.
Mississauga Centre -- Canadian Alliance Harry Dhaliwal.
Mississauga East -- Canadian Alliance Jainstien Dookie.
Mississauga South -- Canadian Alliance Brad Butt.
Mississauga West -- Canadian Alliance Philip Leong.
Nepean-Carleton -- Canadian Alliance Michael Green.
Niagara Centre -- Canadian Alliance Bernie Law.
Niagara Falls -- Canadian Alliance Mel Grunstein.
Nickel Belt -- Canadian Alliance Neil Martin.
Nipissing -- Canadian Alliance Ken Ferron.
Northumberland -- Canadian Alliance Rick Norlock.
Oak Ridges -- Canadian Alliance Bob Callow.
Oakville -- Canadian Alliance Dan Ferrone.
Oshawa -- Canadian Alliance Barry Bussey.
Ottawa Centre -- Canadian Alliance David Brown.
Ottawa-Orleans -- Canadian Alliance Rita Burke.
Ottawa South -- Canadian Alliance Brad Darbyson.
Ottawa-Vanier -- Canadian Alliance Nestor Gayowsky.
Ottawa West-Nepean -- Canadian Alliance Barry Yeates.
Oxford -- Progressive Conservative Dave MacKenzie.
Parkdale-High Park -- Progressive Conservative David Strycharz.
Parry Sound-Muskoka -- Canadian Alliance George Stripe.
Perth-Middlesex -- Progressive Conservative Gary Schellenberger.
Peterborough -- Canadian Alliance Eric John Allan Mann.
Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge -- Canadian Alliance Ken Griffith.
Prince Edward-Hastings -- Canadian Alliance Jim Graham.
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke -- Canadian Alliance Cheryl Gallant.
Sarnia-Lambton -- Canadian Alliance Dave Christie.
Sault Ste. Marie -- Canadian Alliance David Ronald Rose.
Scarborough-Agincourt -- Canadian Alliance Andrew Faust.
Scarborough Centre -- Canadian Alliance Bill Settatree.
Scarborough East -- Canadian Alliance Paul Calandra.
Scarborough-Rouge River -- Canadian Alliance Kaizer Suleman.
Scarborough Southwest -- Progressive Conservative Ellery Hollingsworth.
Simcoe-Grey -- Canadian Alliance George Demery.
Simcoe North -- Canadian Alliance Peter Stock.
St. Catharines -- Canadian Alliance Randy Taylor Dumont.
St. Paul's -- Progressive Conservative Barry Cline.
Stoney Creek -- Canadian Alliance Doug Conley.
Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh -- Canadian Alliance Guy Lauzon.
Sudbury -- Canadian Alliance Mike Smith.
Thornhill -- Canadian Alliance Robert Goldin.
Thunder Bay-Atikokan -- Canadian Alliance David Richard Leskowski.
Thunder Bay-Superior North -- Canadian Alliance Doug Pantry.
Timiskaming-Cochrane -- Canadian Alliance Dan Louie.
Timmins-James Bay -- Canadian Alliance James Gibb.
Toronto Centre-Rosedale -- Progressive Conservative Randall Pearce.
Toronto-Danforth -- Progressive Conservative Rose A. Dyson.
Trinity-Spadina -- Progressive Conservative John E. Polko.
Vaughan-King-Aurora -- Canadian Alliance Adrian Visentin.
Waterloo-Wellington -- Canadian Alliance John Reimer.
Whitby-Ajax -- Canadian Alliance Shaun Gillespie.
Willowdale -- Canadian Alliance Kevyn Nightingale.
Windsor-St. Clair -- Canadian Alliance Phillip Pettinato.
Windsor West -- Canadian Alliance Jeff Watson.
York Centre -- Canadian Alliance Jeffrey Dorfman.
York North -- Canadian Alliance Bob Yaciuk.
York South-Weston -- Canadian Alliance Dan Houssar.
York West -- Canadian Alliance Munish Chandra.
THREE TERRITORIES
3 Ridings-2 CA & 1 PC
Yukon -- Canadian Alliance Jim Kenyon.
Nunavut -- Progressive Conservative Mike Sherman.
Western Arctic -- Canadian Alliance Fred Turner.
In conclusion, this proposed system of loose "Regional Disparity Coaliton Government" must first be embraced by the grassroots members of all participating Canadian Conservative parties, such as the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois, before the party executive, leaders and Canadian media and public can even consider it. It starts with each individual grassroot members across Canada wishing for a true Canadian Conservative government to unite in opposition during the next election, to defeat the ruling Liberals in Ottawa and take the the majority of MP seats in House of Commons by a landslide through this idea of a strong coaliton of seperate parties with different agendas. It starts with individual grassroot members spreading the news to their party's local constituency association and making their party's headquarters take heed to this solution. It takes individual grassroot members - like you - to unite the right here in Canada for real accountability in Ottawa against those misguided Liberals.
If one or two of those top three Canadian Conservative parties, that make those helping to govern the nation, refuse to comply with and promise to take up these election emergency measures for a call to coalition government before the election then all voters and grassroot members must vote against that party in that election. A coalition between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative without the Bloc Quebecois could work, one between the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois without the Progressive Conservative could work and one with the Progressive Conservative and the Bloc Quebecois without the Canadian Alliance could work so parties would be forced into joining such a coalition or face extinction. But, rather than thinking about death and boycott, let's think about life and cooperation. That can happen if all three work together in a Canadian Conservative coalition government as seperate parties in the House of Commons yet work in one united force to combine votes and members, without the split, to defeat the Liberals with a real effective alternative that will be diverse in representation and specture which helps to cover all Canadians of different background.
Make sure to email your local riding's/constituency association's Canadian Conservative party you support, your executive and your Member of Parliament or MP candidate this webpage and this idea. If we all get on board, we can still keep all parties alive without merging and watering down of ideas. Instead, the people will decide and vote eventually which of these three parties they want when the threat of the Liberal Party of Canada is no longer there, thanks to this coalition when it takes effect. The sooner, the better. The more people contacted about this webpage and the ideas on it, the faster the real idea behind a true united right in Canada will take off and become a true situation we can all rejoice in. So pass along this URL for the page here and email it to as many Canadian Conservatives you know. Force your Canadian Conservative party to work on this idea of cooperation, instead of merging, and perhaps this friendly coalition idea will become the fresh answer to the very burning and lengthy question: How to Unite Canada's Right?
Talk more about the Unite the Right problems and solution at TP-CCC's Town Hall /Question Period forum, the omni bus posting house for all Canadian Conservatives, at http://www.members2.boardhost.com/CanConCluTruPat/
