As the prospect of a fall election moves slowly toward reality, it is a good time to give pause to what this actually means to the people of Dufferin-Caledon. Many people have told pollsters over and over again that they do not wish for another vote. Of course this is understandable. People are growing tiresome of the frequent elections which produce very similar results.

At the same time, people say they want a majority government to break us out of this cycle, and allow a government to chart a straight course for a 4-5 year period. The stability that this would bring is something that Canadians long for, especially after several successive dysfunctional parliaments. But what are the current possibilities for a majority parliament? More to the point, why have the Conservatives not broken through with a clear majority when, over the past few years, the opposition has been so badly divided or weakened?

Given this riding's voting pattern, these questions should be quite puzzling. However, when we probe deeper, the answers as to why people have not given Harper his majority reveal themselves. From many perspectives, Harper should have secured a majority three years ago. His main rival, the Liberals were weak. They had a leader, while a very capable, honourable man, Canadians did not take to him. They suffered from a scandal that left them vulnerable and financially broke. Yet the Conservatives could not make a breakthrough. Why was that?

The answer seems to have surfaced recently. This is the so called Conservative "hidden agenda" to which the Liberals and the NDP have referred many times. The Conservatives have countered that this is simple fear mongering. But Harper's latest speech to the party faithful in Sault Ste Marie lends credibility to people's fears of what Harper might do if he had a majority. This speech was not given to the Canadian public; it was secretly taped and sent to the Liberal Party who then gave it to the CBC. In it, Harper mentions items and policies that he does not share with the vast majority of Canadians.

First, he mentions the possibility of a coalition resurfacing. This is his fear mongering since Mr. Ignatieff has repeatedly said he does not want to seek this type of political arrangement. Indeed, the coalition would never had been an issue in the first place if Harper had not tried to take advantage of a weak opposition and tried to ram through legislation that would have financially decapitated the other political parties in Canada.

In fact, he has said that it is the Liberals who are to blame for this election standoff when it is furthest from his plans. Yet over the past number of years, he has constantly threatened and cajoled the opposition to dare to bring his government down. He has played chicken many times with the Canadian parliamentary system. It simply does not serve his interests to do so now.

Finally, he raises certain issues behind Tory closed doors that he rarely mentions to the general public. The most prominent of these is his eagerness to dismantle the gun registration laws. Even though it is a law that is supported by virtually every police force in Canada, the Harper government would bring it down to appease the most right wing in his caucus. Since the vast majority of Canadians support the registry and tighter gun laws, it's no wonder that he shies away from this issue with the general public. Like most Canadians, the people of Dufferin- Caledon have a right to be sick of elections and want a government for which they pay to do its job. But unless Harper governs by consensus and not like he already has a majority, there will be very little meaningful progress on government longevity. What might be more appropriate is for the people of DC to take a good long look at the MP here and to ask themselves, is he doing the type of job we expect?

With the appearance Garth Turner, a proven man of the people, this safe Conservative seat should emerge as one of the more interesting battles in Canada. Mr. Turner represents a view that puts Canadians first and the parties second.

If we had more MPs like Garth Turner, we would not need so many elections. Our MPs would do their job and remember who they work for. In turn, there would be no need for hidden agendas.
Mark Hauck
Orangeville