Will he or won't he? It doesn't matter

Stephen Harper still won't clarify what he would do in the hypothetical (but quite possible) situation in which the conservatives are the front-running party in a minority parliament, but he fails to hold the confidence of the house and the Governor General asks the second place party to form a government.

In fact, it doesn't matter what Stephen Harper thinks. The rules are clear. If the leader of the second place party, or an "unacceptable, reckless" coalition, accepts the request from the Governor General then that party or coalition can form the government. These are all valid outcomes, and Stephen Harper cannot veto the Governor General's actions or that of any of the other party leaders should they accept a request to form a government.

Mr. Harper got a lot of mileage out of his assertion that the election "forced" upon him was not one that the citizenry wanted; after all, he could go another two years or more if the opposition would just co-operate (e.g. by supporting all of his legislative agenda, and ignoring anything contemptible e.g. his failure to disclose the costing of his crime legislation). So, it seems a bit hypocritical that he might want to force another election within months of the last.

That seems to be exactly how "Harper's Rules" (that only the party with the most seats can form government) would play out, however. The real rules of Canada's constitutional monarchy permit an orderly transition to a new government without an election in this case. While Mr. Harper wouldn't like the outcome, it certainly seems a better alternative than entering into a new election immediately (or at least it would to anyone who isn't opposed on principal to a non-Conservative government).

Harper Majority or risk separation? Let's remember how the Bloc Québécois came to be

Stephen Harper's latest scare tactic (here reported in the National Post) is that if his alleged Liberal-NDP-Bloc "coalition" comes into play, the country risks separation. Never mind that a "coalition" including the Bloc was never on the books (even in 2008, the Bloc was only proposed to "support" a Liberal-NDP coalition).

It's instructive to remember back to a time when the Conservative party (then the Progressive Conservatives) did quite well in La Belle Province. Brian Mulroney attracted widespread support in Quebec, largely by bring separatist-leaning politicians like his pal Lucien Bouchard into the Progressive Conservative fold. The 1984 election was a landslide victory for Mulroney. While he lost ground in 1988 he still had a solid majority, largely built on still substantial support from Quebec.

This was all to fall apart after Meech Lake, when Bouchard and others decided that the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives weren't the solution to Quebec's desire for nationalism after all. Bouchard left, and in the next election led many of the same politicians to official opposition status as part of the newly formed Bloc Québécois.

If Stephen Harper has his majority, will his Conservatives be any more successful in maintaining the kind of relationship with Quebec that will dampen its nationalist element? His record to date points to the same sort of duplicity that led to the explosive falling out between Mulroney and Bouchard. Harper and Gilles Duceppe were willing to put differences aside to replace Martin's Liberal government. In the current election, though, Duceppe is treated as satan by Harper, who misses no opportunity to warn against any possible association with the Bloc Quebecois.

Far from protecting Canada from possible Quebec separation, Harper's political opportunism is likely to push us closer to that event if he succeeds in getting the majority he is salivating over.