I'm seeing some pundits take Jack Layton to task for claiming his NDP opposition caucus at 103 members is the "largest ... opposition in 31 years". Notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary by self-appointed fact-checkers, Layton is quite correct. His opposition caucus in the 41st Parliament is in fact the largest in decades.

Those who dispute Layton's claim hold up as evidence the 103 Liberal members elected by the 39th federal general election on January 23, 2006. 103 Liberals elected in 2006, 103 New Democrats elected in 2011. A tie? No.

The tie-breaker? David Emerson.

Elected as a sitting Liberal cabinet minister on January 23, 2006, Emerson did not sit even a single day in opposition during the 39th Parliament. Rather than fulfill his election-night commitment to constituents Emerson instead became engaged in secret negotiations with Stephen Harper less than 24 hours after ballots were counted.

Two weeks later on February 6th 2006 Emerson stepped out of a limo and entered Rideau Hall to be sworn in as a member of Stephen Harper's Conservative minority government cabinet.

The 39th Parliament itself would not reconvene until April 6 of that year, and when it did reconvene, the Liberal caucus -- now missing Emerson -- stood at 102 members. The Liberal caucus in 2007 briefly dropped to 101 members after MP Wajid Khan crossed the floor to Harper's Conservative benches, but soon added former Conservative Garth Turner turned Independent when he joined the caucus in February of that year.

The Liberal opposition never -- not even for a technical split second of a moment -- had more than 102 members during the 39th Parliament.

Jack Layton is not relying on a technical quibble to back up his claim. David Emerson never sat in opposition during the 39th Parliament thus Layton is quite right in asserting that his 103-member opposition caucus is the largest in thirty one years -- don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

(Whether or not Mr. Layton can put his large caucus to effective use won't likely be fully known until the conclusion of the next federal general election.)

BREAKING: Latest internal polling commissioned by the Vancouver-Centre Liberal campaign shows Hedy Fry and Deputy Leader of the Green Party Adriane Carr are running in a neck and neck race to the finish.

A second round of internal polling done for the Vancouver-Centre Liberal campaign shows six-time electoral winner Hedy Fry is in danger of being voted off the island by constituents in favour of Deputy Leader of the Green Party, Adriane Carr.

Captain Fry is sailing a seriously leaky ship. This is the second internal poll to have been leaked in as many weeks. Last Friday, too late for media to properly run with the story, Paul Nixey -- Fry's campaign manager -- issued a statement:

I find the Green Party candidate's claim to have received a "leaked poll" ridiculous. My campaign has not conducted any polling; I am focussed on continuing to deliver results for my constituents, connecting with voters, and stopping Stephen Harper. No one in our team could leak a poll; it doesn't exist. Hedy Fry

Fry's denial came in response to an article published in Common Ground magazine (Are the tables about to turn on Hedy Fry?) which cited internal polling done on behalf of her campaign. Survey results showed voter intentions supporting Carr had lept from fourth place to a close second just behind Fry, the incumbent.

There's just one problem here: the first poll does exist, and in following up on this story I've just become aware of the details contained in a second internal poll. Is Fry not aware of what her own campaign is up to?

Reliable sources -- sources other than Common Ground magazine -- confirm a second round of internal polling done on behalf of Fry's campaign show voter intentions for Green Party candidate Adriane Carr now virtually tied -- within the margin of error -- with incumbent candidate Hedy Fry.

This may be a bad news story for Fry personally but for progressive voters, for Green voters, for voters that want change which doesn't involve Stephen Harper, and for the anybody but Harper crowd -- the battle for the riding is already won. The Conservative candidate - missing in action - will not win the race. It seems very unlikely that the NDP candidate between now and Monday can move voter support above fourth place, therefore on May 2 a Green or Liberal candidate will represent the riding in Ottawa.

Carr's campaign has the momentum in this race. If Vancouver-Centre constituents are truly in a mood to choose change, based on the Liberal's own polls, it seems electors there could easily make history on Monday and elect the first, or second, Green Party Member of Parliament in Canadian history.

Vancouver-Centre voters will have the final say in just over two days.

FYI for fellow residents of our splendid riding, Liberal party leader Michael Ignatieff will host a town hall meeting tonight, Monday April 25, at 6:30 pm at the Vancouver Alpen Club (map) - located at the corner of 33rd avenue and Victoria. If you live in the area, why not attend and see what the unfiltered view looks like and write about it.

People that know me know I am not anti-anything other than Harper's Conservatives so please do not take this as an endorsement or my qualifier as a lack of endorsement.

If I could attend this evening, I would, just as I have attended a number of Jack Layton's events over the years. Speaking of Jack, on Saturday April 30, 12:30 pm, Jack Layton will host a Metro Vancouver Rally (Facebook) at the First avenue Film Studio, 4088 1st Avenue, Burnaby (map).

I would attend Stephen Harper's events but the screeners would never let me in.

Updated throughout the day when so moved...

First out of the gate: Liberal campaign releases their election platform; English and French versions attached at the bottom of this post.

Joke of the day: Q: Why did the chicken cross the road? A: Because Stephen Harper wanted to avoid the debate train!

CTV Poll: Do you think that Stephen Harper should debate Michael Ignatieff one on one? Vote: http://www.ctv.ca/qp/

One-on-one debate train has "left the station": Harper (April 3, 2011 - Andrew Mayeda, Postmedia News/National Post) Stephen Harper is ignoring the ongoing calls for him to debate Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff one on one. CBC comedian Rick Mercer over the weekend offered to moderate a debate between the two leaders. Other organizations have put their names forward as well, including a public-policy group called Canada2020 that is connected with former CBC host Don Newman. Mr. Ignatieff has accepted Mr. Mercer's offer. But Mr. Harper said he's moved on.

Liberals carry on red book tradition: Paul Martin (April 3, 2011 - Susan Delacourt, The Toronto Star) Martin said he'd advise Harper not to campaign on the economy: "I'd say: 'You better not — somebody's going to point out that you totally misread the onset of the recession, the opposition had to force you into stimulus, and that you had destroyed our margin of manoeuvre before we even got into it, before the recession came.'" [See also...]

Bruce Carson, convicted of fraud, disclosed criminal record to PMO: lawyer (April 3, 2011 - The Canadian Press) Bruce Carson was convicted on five counts of fraud - three more than previously known - and received court-ordered psychiatric treatment before becoming one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's closest advisers. And his lawyer told The Canadian Press that Carson disclosed his entire criminal record during a security check that was required to become a senior staffer in the Prime Minister's Office. [...] During Carson's stint at the PMO, it was publicly known that he'd been jailed and disbarred by the Law Society of Upper Canada in the early 1980s for two counts of defrauding clients.

Feds accused of trying to muzzle commission report into Afghan torture (April 3, 2011 - Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press) The [Harper] government quietly went to Federal Court last week hoping to impose limits on what a military watchdog can say in its yet-to-be-written final report into torture allegations involving Afghan prisoners. The government wants to exclude the testimony of diplomats and civilians who did not work for the Defence Department. It lawyers also want any documents belonging to those officials, including reports that warned of torture or documented the abuse, excluded from the commissions findings. "They're asking the Federal Court to put a muzzle on the commission," said Paul Champ, the lawyer for both human rights groups. "They're trying to prevent or curtail the commission's ability to speak about all of the evidence they've heard. Even while the MPCC is deliberating on the evidence they've heard, (the government) is trying to get the court to issue a judgment or an order restricting what the MPCC can say."

Stephen Harper's secret weapon: low voter turnout (April 1, 2011 - The Georgia Straight) With polling stations closing at 7 p.m. on the West Coast on May 2, it may be difficult for some Lower Mainland transit riders to cast a ballot. [...] Meanwhile in Quebec and Ontario, polling stations close at 9:30 p.m. in their time zones.

The Vancouver Courier - Decision Canada (The Vancouver Courier) Local paper unveils dedicated local election coverage page.

What, talk to each other? (Originally titled "Coalition clause" in Liberal platform, April 3, 2011 - Susan Delacourt, The Toronto Star) One tiny item in today's Liberal platform leaps out (at least to me): a Liberal government would convene regular, face-to-face meetings of all party leaders in the House of Commons, to "take stock of the tone of Parliamentary debate, productivity in the conduct of people's business and the mandates for in-depth work by standing committees."

(Sad that we need parties to promise to do such a thing in this day and age, isn't it?)

Liberals lay out $8B 'families' platform (April 3, 2011 - CBC News) The Liberals put families front-and-centre in their platform unveiled Sunday, with a five-point plan to strengthen families as its centrepiece. "We're offering these policies to Canadians and we're saying we can deliver these practical benefits to Canadian families without raising your taxes," Ignatieff said at an online "town hall" in Ottawa to announce the platform. Ignatieff pointed to a post-secondary funding policy announced last week. "You get the grades, you get to go," Ignatieff said, echoing a refrain from the campaign trail. "It's like all these policies - they're simple, they're easy to understand, they address a real need of Canadian families."

Since the election call I've watched coverage of NDP, Liberal and Conservative rallies and at this early stage of the campaign one can point objectively to positives in the performances of all three party leaders. Clearly as the front men in several national campaigns, Layton and Harper have learned and improved from the experience.

But after watching Ignatieff at work in Campaign 2011 his performance thus far, first day aside, has left me the most impressed. Truth be told I'm almost stunned over the dramatic improvement in his ability to make a connection with Canadians.

Yesterday at a rally in Ontario Michael Ignatieff spoke passionately and believably and strummed a number of heart-string chords that I think will resonate with voters if they get the chance to see him speak. In addition he answered the important question "why do you want to be PM" in a way that will work for many Canadians.

Unlike the awkwardly professorial picture we've largely been treated to thus far, Michael Ignatieff on the campaign trail seems far more comfortable in his skin now than he ever has as a politician and far more comfortable at the job than Stephen Harper was in his first few campaigns or even now. Iggy's pitch seems suddenly more approachable, more natural, more believable, and, to me at least, somehow more Canadian.

Conservatives who take an objective look at Ignatieff's performance in the early days of his very first national campaign will probably view him as a serious threat to their aspirations. They've sunk millions into trying to define Michael Ignatieff for two years now yet the Ignatieff on the campaign trail I'm seeing shows that he has what it takes to bust through those Conservative attempts to pre-define him. If Ignatieff is successful at this, much of the Conservative narrative starts to fall apart.

While Iggy's work remains cut out for him, I'm now of the view that he's a real threat to Stephen Harper's Conservatives and that's the first time I've said that about any Liberal leader Harper has faced, including Paul Martin.

I've been an objective observer on the sidelines ever since Stephen Harper forged his immoral "coalition" with David "I'll be Stephen Harper's worst enemy" Emerson back in 2006. Privately in my riding I give my vote and support to the candidate who best deserves it. Publicly, I've preferred to be an objective commentator even though it's been a fairly boring pastime given there's been no serious challenger to Stephen Harper in all these years. My sense in these admittedly early days is that this time the race will be a little more exciting.

Thanks to a surprisingly good early effort by Ignatieff, this campaign just got interesting.

Liberals wiped out in Vancouver area. Good-bye Ujal Dosanjh, good-bye Joyce Murray, and more than likely it is time to say good-bye to Hedy Fry.

Update: I'm going to leave the above words for posterity but wonder if I was too hasty in dismissing the chances of the former professor Michael Ignatieff. Please see Initial Impressions: Ignatieff Impresses for my take on the Liberal party leader in these early days of Campaign 2011. Will I still be singing the same tune by the time May rolls around?

Here is a stacked bar chart showing voter intentions and election dates (with some editorial comments) since 1978.

Click here for a full size version.

I have to imagine Jean Chretien would be the first to credit a deeply divided conservative opposition as an important contributor to his party's success in elections from 1993 through 2000.

Stephen Harper now enjoys the same benefit.

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.

• Despite denials, merger debate continues in restive Liberal ranks - The Globe and Mail)
• John Ivison: Ignatieff tries to outlast merger rumours | Full Comment | National Post

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.

• MergerWatch: The affidavits of Warren Kinsella and John Mraz
• Liberal president talked merger: affidavits - Apps denies 'serious' merger talks

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.

• John Mraz: The Liberal-NDP coalition's mission - National Post, December 1 2008
• Just ask Stephen Harper - National Post, June 9 2010

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.

Layton says merger talk is nothing more than Liberals talking to Liberals. Just now Ignatieff, in a press scrum outside today's caucus meeting: "I have no relationship with Kinsella". Warren Kinsella has been a visible figure in press reports of potential merger discussions of late.

Are merger/coalition discussions happening? Or is this a resurfacing of the Martin-Chretien war?

With such a blanket repudiation of merger discussions by Iggy, with leadership contenders standing behind him, joined in the chorus by Layton, I can only think of... Peter "I am not the merger candidate" MacKay, who would soon (talks held over the summer... coincidence?) announce a merger.

Regardless of the veracity of merger discussions, the base problem - a fractured centre / centre-left support in the country, with insufficient critical mass to challenge Harper's Conservatives in large swaths of the country - remains very real.

If the current opposition parties stick to status quo, then how about a much more radical plan: ditch all the cliques in the opposition parties and start an entirely new organization not beholding to either the NDP or the Liberals as they stand today, backed by well recognized and trusted names, and invite Canadians to join. Give Canadians the option they want, but no party leader seems willing to deliver upon.

In other words, follow the "Reform" route, only faster. Cut off the other two at the knees. And then fold the remains of the hold-outs back into the new party at a future point in time.

Where can Canadians sign up?

This evening CBC News reports Liberal, NDP insiders talk merger, quoting Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella "Serious people are involved in discussions at a serious level."

Having lived through the Progressive Conservative Party's morphing into the Conservative Party, I have a perspective on mergers that might be different than those of the average NDP or Liberal member.

As one can probably tell from the title and pull quote in this article, I'm all in favour of what Mr. Chretien says.

I know it won't be easy, and that there'll be plenty of naysayers on both sides of this discussion. There has been plenty of scorched earth left between the two parties and there are elements in each party which have a visceral hatred of the other.

If it is doable, lets do it! Former P.M. Jean Chretien

This is a situation exactly like that which faced the Reform / Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties. Yet the vast majority of members in each, after they had time to consider what the merger meant, voted in favour of the merger.

I wasn't in favour of that merger. I'd spent a great deal of time volunteering with the PC Party specifically because I wanted to help ensure that the Reform/CA did not rise to power, and when Harper returned to the CA, I had an even greater reason to continue to fight for the resurgence of the PC Party.

That of course would never happen. Why that is so is the subject of another post some day, but the bottom line is that regional divisions within the country that had been growing for years would prevent the PC Party from ever regaining the critical mass a party needs to be viable on a national, winning, basis.

Winning might not be everything, all the time, but it isn't a concept politicos should be shy about desiring. You've got to be able to win to prevent others from winning, and winning remains the single best approach for effecting real change for the country.

While I wasn't in favour of the CA-PC merger, I did help man the phone banks that were set up to communicate to members, in order to make the merger happen. Why? Because it was clear from the start that most members wanted it to happen, and indeed on voting day for the merger ratification, members who had not participated in many years had come out of the woodwork to make their voices heard.

Don't dismiss the possibility out of hand. The CA-PC merger proved that it can be done, and that the result can achieve results.

Consider this as well: unless bold action is taken by Canada's centre and left, Harper will win a majority. I have no doubt at all about this. Those who believe he is stuck at a permanent minority have learned nothing about him, or how ruthlessly efficient a political machine they have built. No other party on its own could build an effective counter to what Harper and his minions can do when they grab a majority.

Canadians, the regular kind that are not party activists, don't give a crap about what we insiders care about when it comes to our beloved party creatures. They want to see a strong, united, opposition to whoever is in power, and I happen to believe that most Canadians, like me, oppose Stephen Harper.

Yeah, I was one of those "red Tories" but even within that bunch the political compass spins wildly. I might be too conservative for some hard core NDP activists, or too progressive for some Liberals, but chances are we would agree on a great many things. I'd like to see the Greens join this party because I find myself agreeing with David Suzuki - we need our big national parties to all be green, green or out of power.

I support a union of the Liberal-NDP parties because I believe that is what their members would like to see, and what's more, I will jump in to help if it stands a chance of happening.

Let's do it!