Based on Wednesday's news cycle, it appears that many professional and armchair pundits alike have concluded that there's no water in the merger talk bucket. I beg to differ. Bear with me to the end of this piece to learn why.
Let's indulge ourselves in a bit of denial first.
On Tuesday Warren Kinsella in an interview on CBC's The National had stated that serious people from the parties concerned were having "serious" discussions.
These are not people whose name one can wrap up into a false rumour of a merger or some other "serious" realignment of Canadian political parties. Something is happening.
This led to twin denials from the leaders of both the Liberals and NDP on Wednesday. Following a pre-Question Period caucus meeting, Michael Ignatieff - physically flanked by potential leadership rivals Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc - actually sounded honestly forceful in his denial. Jack Layton merely commented that it was his view the talk was all about and between Liberals. Both camps declared that they'd authorized no such discussions.
That seemed to put the story to bed for a while on Wednesday, until Warren Kinsella let it be known there would be further information forthcoming on CBC's late afternoon Power and Politics show. This turned out to be a sworn affidavit Kinsella provided to the CBC wherein he asserts that Liberal Party president Alfred Apps stated "there is a lot of interest in merger in the NDP. There have been many discussions at a high level... involving the NDP saints [whom he described as Broadbent, Romanow]." Apps is also said to have stated that a pre-election coalition would not work, only a merger would be viable as a pre-election party configuration.
Then, in real time during the Power & Politics show, Apps contacted the CBC to deny the assertions made in Kinsella's affidavit.
No matter what one believes about Kinsella or Apps, a he-said, he-said match is always less than satisfactory when the stakes are high. Fortunately circumstances did not disappoint and before the Power & Politics show concluded, another affidavit was submitted to the CBC, this time from Liberal consultant John Mraz.
Mraz had recently met with Alfred Apps in preparation for an article or op-ed piece he was submitting to the National Post for publication. The potential for coalition is a topic Mraz has written on in the recent and more distant past, including covering the tense days in 2008 prior to Harper proroguing Parliament.
Mraz was the Ontario director of Bob Rae's bid for the leadership of the Liberal Party. Mr. Rae is said to have the support of Jean Chretien, and very clearly Warren Kinsella is very supportive of Jean Chretien.
Yet I do not believe that what is going on is simply an attempt to mirror the Tories "Dump Dief" campaign of decades ago, rebranded Liberal red and labelled "Toss ignaTief". There seems to be much more at play.
Consider Mraz's affidavit and take it at face value. In it he states that Apps exclaimed to him, perhaps in a fit of exasperation or self-important fact-dropping, that "you don't know the half of it. You've got no idea what you're talking about. I've been involved in those discussions, and they not only include Broadbent and Chretien, but Romanow, Clark, and McMurtry."
Joe Clark? A once Progressive Conservative Prime Minister and second to last leader of that now extinct party? And Roy McMurtry? A close friend of a former P.C. premier of Ontario, Bill Davis? These "conservatives" are sitting down with elders from the Liberals and NDP?
McMurtry might not be a household name but in political circles the name not only resonates, his inclusion in these talks makes sense.
McMurtry's history with the federal and Ontario provincial Tories dates back many decades. He is, I believe he would agree, a "Red Tory". As Chief Justice of Ontario when he retired he could look back on his career on the bench with the satisfaction of knowing he and his panel of judges paved the way for same-sex marriages in that province, and thus setting a precedent for the rest of the country.
Roy McMurtry was also one of the political elders engaged in federal-provincial negotiations of the repatriation of our constitution and the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Around a kitchen table McMurtry worked with none other than Jean Chretien and Roy Romanow to break through a frustrating impasse in negotiations, coming up with the kitchen accord that helped lead to all provinces, save Quebec, signing on to our Canadian constitution and the often hated by Conservatives Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Joe Clark. Jean Chretien. Roy McMurtry. Roy Romanow. Ed Broadbent. These are indeed very serious people, broadly trusted people, all arguably are progressive politicians in their own right with decades of experience behind them. In their day some truly big, great, advances were made in Canada, for Canadians and indeed because of some of the things done in those days we broadcast a better reflection of ourselves to the world. The Economist once then declared "Canada is cool". We stood on our own two feet and did stuff.
Thinking about the life and times of these leaders, I can't help but draw a comparison to Stephen Harper. What, really, has Harper done - started and finished of his own accord - that has made Canada a better place? I don't think you can name much save for election trinkets and minor tinkering.
Based on the names named so far, I have to take both Kinsella and Mraz at face value. These are not people whose name one can wrap up into a false rumour of a merger or some other "serious" realignment of Canadian political parties. Something is happening.
I'd like to take a guess: these elders are working on principles which a merged party, or a totally new organization if need be, can be formed.
If you have people like Romanow, Broadbent, McMurtry, Clark and Chretien talking together at the kitchen table again, I'm interested, and once the story truly breaks out into the open, I'd bet that many Canadians will be likewise intrigued, and perhaps even excited, by what they see.