What Stephen Harper Said in 1997

 
I don't know where Canadian Cynic gets all this stuff but he has just posted a link to a speech by Stephen Harper in 1997 [CTV.ca].

It's worth reading the entire speech if you can stomach it. If you can't, then try this little excerpt.

OTTAWA -- The text from a speech made by Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, to a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing U.S. think tank, and taken from the council's website:

Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.

Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.

But in any case, my speech will make that assumption. I'll talk fairly basic stuff. If it seems pedestrian to some of you who do know a lot about Canada, I apologize.

I'm going to look at three things. First of all, just some basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk, facts about the country and its political system, its civics. Second, I want to take a look at the party system that's developed in Canada from a conventional left/right, or liberal/conservative perspective. The third thing I'm going to do is look at the political system again, because it can't be looked at in this country simply from the conventional perspective.

First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

---

Royal Protocol

 
Ever country has a protocol officer and part of their job is to specify how one is supposed to treat the Head of State. In America, for example, you must always refer to the President as Mr. President and unelected cabinet ministers are addressed as Mr./Madam Secretary [Office of the Chief of Protocol].

Visiting Heads of State are expected to conform to American protocol and when the President visits another country he is expected to conform to their rules of protocol. That's how international diplomacy works. It's a system that has evolved over several centuries to try and makes things easier when two different countries communicate. The idea is for countries to respect each other.

Postdiluvian at The Unexamined Life doesn't think that Americans need to respect the protocols and traditions of a foreign country [Is it OK to hug the Queen?]. Now, as it turns out, Michelle's hug was a breach of protocol but not that big a deal, even in England. It would be comparable to someone forgetting to say "Mr. President" when addressing Barack Obama.

That doesn't justify this kind of response ....

Now here’s the bottom line: you can have your “Queen” as a powerless (and utterly pointless) figurehead if you like. She can even keep her massive wealth that somehow came into her family’s possession over the centuries. But if you ever start this bullshit about “Royal Protocol” again, or whether or not it’s okay for people to touch her, you will be removing yourself from the realm of the Serious and joining the realm of Laughingstock, much like the concept of Monarchy did ages ago.

Americans often wonder why they have so much trouble making friends in "foreign" countries. I can't imagine why.

---

Time to Change the Channel

 
My local Liberal candidate is Omar Alghabra, who lost the last election to one of Harper's Conservatives. Omar sent me a link to this video. He though I might get a kick out of it.

I did.

---

Liberal Party Policy Development Workshop

 
Here's where I'll be this evening.

WHEN:
Monday, March 2, 2009
7:30 - 10:00 PM

WHERE:
Mississauga Central Library
Meeting Room #3, second floor

PRICE:
Cost: $5 (to recover room and refreshment costs)

CONTACT:
For more information, please contact
Sharon McCarthy 905 828 5786
Omar Alghabra 416 564 5468

NOTES:
The Mississauga-Erindale Federal Liberal Riding Association is organizing an informative and engaging workshop on policy development and promotion. The workshop will be facilitated and presented by Maryanne Kampouris, Vice President, Policy, Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)

The session will discuss policy development process touching upon different components, including Party structure, Policy Structure, role of the riding association, role of the policy committee with practical ideas on how to engage constituents in 'ideas' or policy discussions.

The session will include practical discussion on how riding associations can proceed in engaging their members and their constituents in this process.

The purpose of this workshop is to empower Liberals and educate them on how to convert their policy ideas into real resolutions that can make a difference, and how to promote and advocate for their policy ideas.

Does anyone have any suggestions? How can the Liberal riding associations engage voters and make them care about defeating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?

We should probably start with hiring a proofreader for press releases but is there anything else?

---

Crime and Punishment

 
True to their ideology, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have introduced another "get tough on crime" bill. This one increases the jail sentences for gang-related killings.

There's only one problem. It won't work. Everyone with an IQ over 100 knows that you can't stop gang violence by just increasing prison terms for the ones who get caught.

Today's Toronto Star has two articles on the topic. The first one, Tory gang approach too little too late: critics, explains the consensus opinion of leading criminologists.

The punitive response may play well to citizens who fear gun battles erupting on city streets. But that get-tough approach lards the Criminal Code with redundant laws that haven't worked in other countries, says criminologist Irvin Waller.

"This is yet again a debate about penalties when it's very clear from looking south of the border that these penalties do not make a lot of difference to the number of people killed," he said.

"It's not a debate about what will actually stop them from happening."

Waller, a professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote the book Less Law, More Order to educate politicians on prevention and smart policing practices that have worked in other countries.

The second article, Critics say more jail time won't help curb violence, goes into more detail about what the experts are saying.

Criminologists predict tough sentences won't be effective in preventing gun and gang violence

Proposals to slap first-degree murder charges and tougher sentences on gangsters and police assailants will have little practical effect on curbing gang crime and gun violence, criminologists and other critics say.

More front-line officers, more intrusive investigative police powers and more resources for crime prevention are needed, they say.

Ross Hastings, director of the Institute for the Prevention of Crime at the University of Ottawa, joins other criminologists in arguing there is no evidence tougher sentences deter criminals, but the "certainty of being caught" is more likely to do so.

Nonetheless, amid an alarming rise in Vancouver's gang violence, politicians of all stripes rushed yesterday to endorse federal proposals to label gang killings first-degree murder offences, and to stiffen jail terms for drive-by or reckless gang-motivated shootings and assaults on police.

All three federal opposition parties promised to fast-track the measures proposed by the Tories.

I'm disappointed in all four political parties. Most of our MP's have IQ's above 100 and they know the rational response to gang violence. They know that this bill will be completely ineffective.

The only reason for supporting it is to pander to voters who don't understand the problem. There are far too many voters whose knee-jerk reaction in the face of any crime is to call for "justice" by increasing jail time. A majority of those voters probably support the Conservatives so there's nothing to be gained by the opposition parties' lack of fortitude.

Shame on Stephen Harper for his (probable) hypocrisy. Shame on Michael Ingatieff, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe for being even more hypocritical. They should know better.

---

44 Presidents?

 
This video is very popular these days. The title is "44 US Presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama." There's only one small problem .... there are only 43 different Presidents shown in the video. Can you spot the "missing" President?



How many can you name without watching the video? Please indicate whether you are American or a "foreigner."

Do Americans agree on who the best President was, and on who was the worst President? It seems to me that there are several excellent choices in each category.

---

Liberals won't back tax cuts

 
The Harper government will present its budget next week. The NDP and the Bloc have announced that Stephen Harper has lost the confidence of the House and they will vote against the budget. The Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff hasn't made up its mind about whether Harper can continue to govern even if all the other parties don't trust him. But the Liberals seem to be clear on one thing; according to today's Toronto Star, Liberals won't back tax cuts.

The Liberals are opposed to making tax cuts the centrepiece of the budget, and new leader Michael Ignatieff signalled yesterday the party is prepared to dump the Conservative minority if the budget is inadequate.

...

As they position themselves in advance of the budget, the Liberals argue that, while they generally favour income-tax cuts, it's the wrong approach during the recession.

"We don't want to see the Prime Minister come up with the kind of broad-based tax cuts that put Canada in a permanent, structural deficit once we recover from this (recession)," Liberal finance critic Scott Brison (Kings-Hants) told CTV yesterday as his party gathered in Ottawa for the caucus meeting.

Liberal MP John McCallum said such cuts are fiscally irresponsible at a time when the Tories have already put Ottawa's books in a deficit position and there's no way to ensure tax cuts benefit those who have lost their jobs or otherwise need help during the recession.

"There's a very good argument to be made that this is not the right time for across-the-board tax reductions," said McCallum, MP for Markham-Unionville and chair of a party advisory committee on the economy.

This could get interesting. I would support the Liberals if they vote against the budget because it contains significant tax cuts. Cutting taxes is typical conservative dogma so we may be headed for an election.

---

Why Michael Ignatieff Is better than Stephen Harper

 
Here's Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, speaking to young liberals in a Vancouver pub. He may not have been my first choice as leader but he's a lot better than Stephen Harper.

This is a man who can get along with, and be respected by, Barack Obama.

---

[Hat Tip: Jennifer Smith]

Take a Stand Without Taking Sides

 
On Tuesday night I went to a meeting of Liberals in my riding and heard Michael Ignatieff speak.

It was a small gathering (250) so there was plenty of opportunity to get to know the new Liberal leader. Many of the questions were challenges to his statements about the Gaza conflict. Ignatieff is careful to blame Hamas and defend Israel and this did not sit well with many of the constituents in my riding who are from the Middle East and South Asia.

There has to be a way to stand up for principles without taking sides. Today's column by James Travers in the Toronto Star makes a good case [Don't take sides but do take a stand].

Canada, with its polyglot population and its military fighting fundamentalism in Afghanistan, is more interested in Middle East conflicts than it is able to influence them. At best it can exert pressure on all sides not to reduce future peace prospects by making the immediate situation worse.

What's possible is relatively straightforward. Canada should be as forceful in holding Israel accountable for its actions as Hamas. And when the shooting stops it should invigorate honest-broker efforts to address the inequities and injustices that inevitably spawn violence.

While no panacea for a conflict layered in complexity, it would at least reaffirm values and principles that in the past informed Canadian Middle East policy. Beyond Israel's security, they include its legitimate expectation to live without fear and the countervailing requirement that Palestinians be released from decades of bondage in their own land.

Not taking sides does not mean not taking a stand. Unequivocal support for Israelis and their safety does not require equivocation on Palestinian human rights and political freedom.

Canada can best serve Israelis and Palestinians by finding its voice when it's time to say "enough."

Sounds good to me.

Jennifer Smith of Runesmith's Canadain Content makes the same point in her letter to Ignatieff [Dear Mr. Ignatieff].

---

An Unnecessary War?

 
Read what Jimmy Carter has to say about the current situation in Gaza [An Unnecessary War].

I wish Canadian politicians would be as rational as Carter and appreciate that this is a complex situation where nobody is totally right.

The one thing we can be sure about is that war is wrong.¹

---

1. Firing rockets at your neighbors is war.

[Hat Tip: Runesmith's Canadian Content]

Democracy and Lawyers

 
In Canada we vote by marking a "X" on the ballot and putting it in a box. The person with the most "X's" wins.

If the vote is close, we count the ballots again and declare a winner.

It doesn't work that way in America as we learned in 2000. It took several truckloads of lawyers and many judges to count the ballots in Florida. Ultimately it was the US Supreme Court who decided that George Bush would be President.

Now they're doing it again, only this time it's a Senate race in Minnesota [Funny Business in Minnesota]. The lawyers and the judges will decide who actually won. Meanwhile, politicians in Washington will fight over which candidate they will put into the Senate while the court cases are being decided. Apparently the Senate doesn't have to accept the recount as long as the loser is unhappy.

This must be why they call America "the greatest democracy on Earth." It's because America has so many lawyers.

---

A Lesson in How Parliamentary Government Works in Canada

 
Stephen Harper explains how the parliamentary system of government works in Canada.

---

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic who notes that "sometimes this job [mocking Conservatives] is way too easy."

What Would You Have Done?

 
The recent kerfuffle in Canada has prompted all kinds of talk from TV personalities, newspaper columnists, and bloggers. Everybody has an opinion.

One of the common threads is that all politicians in Ottawa are behaving badly and every single one of them needs to grow up and act like an adult. Some blame Harper and some blame Dion. Right now it seems to be Dion who is coming in for the most criticism.

Here's a handy way to distinguish facts from bias. Don't ask for what might have happened in an ideal world but ask instead what you would have advised when the crisis began. When you hear people spouting off about how Dion is ruining the country, for example, ask them what they would have done in his place.

Here's my take.

If Harper had called me before presenting his budget I would have told him to take out the clauses that eliminate party funding, ban civil servant's right to strike, and block pay equity challenges. I would have pointed out that all three are inflammatory and designed to alienate the opposition parties that he needs for support in the House. This is not the time for partisan politics, especially since none of these measures are necessary and, furthermore, they were not something that the Conservative Party made into election issues in October.

Obviously Harper didn't call me and didn't listen to anyone else who might have warned him of the consequences.

Once the budget was made public, what should Stéphane Dion have done? This is an important question and everyone who criticizes Dion should be prepared to answer it. Here's my answer.

The Liberal Party could not have supported such a budget because it was a deliberate slap in the face. It would have been devastating to party finances to eliminate federal funding of political parties and Harper knew that. In the previous sessions of parliament the Liberals abstained on many votes allowing the Conservatives to govern as if they were a majority. That behavior was widely, and correctly, criticized last year and it could not continue in the current session of Parliament.

The fact that Harper proposed an in-your-face challenge on the very first bill was an indication of how he intended to behave for the next few years. This was the only chance the Liberals were going to get to take a stand.

I would have advised Dion and the Liberals to vote against the budget no matter what the consequences. If Harper wanted to call and election, so be it. Having been forced into a corner, I don't believe the Liberals had a choice.

When the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition came up, I would have advised Dion to agree, provided the plan did not compromise Liberal principles. If the Bloc agreed to not vote in favor of any non-confidence motion for 18 months then that would be perfectly acceptable. In other words, if I had been advising Dion I would have advised him to do exactly what he did. The coalition avoided an unnecessary election and was perfectly in line with the principles of a parliamentary democracy.

Anyone who criticizes Dion's decision should let us know what alternative was preferable. Here were the choices: abstaining, voting for the government, voting against the government?

During this waiting period we can ask ourselves the same questions. What's the best way out of the crisis? Here's my answer ...

The best solution is for Stephen Harper to resign as leader. His replacement should seek out a compromise budget that many parties can support. The new leader should announce that the three inflammatory proposals are not part of the new leader's priorities.

That's probably not going to happen.

Assuming that Stephen Harper is still Prime Minister at the end of January what should Liberals do? I don't think they can support a government led by Stephen Harper. They should vote against the budget, or the throne speech, at the first opportunity. Not only has Harper revealed his agenda in the earlier budget, he has made things much worse by lying about our system of government, stirring up regional bigotry, and provoking a constitutional crisis. Such a man cannot be Prime Minister of my country.

I really don't care whether Dion remains leader of the Liberal Party or whether he is replaced by an interim leader who becomes Prime Minister under a coalition government. The Liberals can even appoint a permanent leader if that's what they decide to do. (Not my preference.) The important point is that the Liberals cannot support Stephen Harper in January.

We cannot have an anti-French, anti-democratic, vindictive, megalomaniac, liar as Prime Minister. I hope that Conservative MPs will realize this themselves before January. If they don't, they should be moved to the Opposition benches, which they will share with the Bloc Québécois.

---

The Globe and Mail Calls for Harper's Resignation

 
The Globe and Mail claims to be Canada's national newspaper. It has a status in Canada that's comparable to that of the New York Times in the USA. Traditionally, the editorial staff of the Globe and Mail has been more conservative than most of the country and they have supported Stephen Harper in the past.¹

Today's editorial calls on Harper to resign for the good of his party and the good of the country [Competence and trust in question].

Not only has Mr. Harper's government failed to adequately address the economic crisis; it has created a political crisis and potentially a national-unity crisis in the process. Rather than working co-operatively on measures to strengthen the economy – something the opposition initially appeared willing to do – Parliament is now locked down, with the government's legitimacy undermined. Meanwhile, the Conservatives' excessive attacks on the Bloc Québécois, and indirectly on the millions of Quebeckers who voted for that party, have fuelled regional divides and reinvigorated the sovereigntist movement – raising a prospect of Quebec's federalist Liberals losing power in Monday's election, or at least failing to win the majority they seemed on track for.

If there is a saving grace in all this, it is that anger with the Conservatives is directed more toward Mr. Harper than his party. That raises the hope that, were he replaced as leader, the greatest barrier to inter-party co-operation with a Conservative minority government would be removed.

It is on that end, rather than the ascent of a coalition government, that the Liberals ought to focus. By hinting that the replacement of Mr. Harper as Tory leader could lessen the crisis, the Liberals would make clear that they are not engaged in a mere power grab – and allow themselves time to resolve their own leadership issues. If the Conservatives accepted that proposition, they could demonstrate that personal interests were secondary to those of the country. Both parties, in other words, could behave like adults. And the economy, rather than the personality of a single polarizing figure, could retake its rightful place as the primary focus of this Parliament.

I agree with the sentiment here. Replacing Harper as leader of the Conservative Party would go a long way toward restoring democracy to Canada.

Incidentally, let's not lose site of the fact that in addition to a provocative budget that the opposition could not accept, and in addition to stoking the flames of bigotry in Western Canada, Harper also misrepresented the nature of our parliamentary system by falsely claiming that it was illegitimate for Parliament to vote him out of office [Harper wrong on democracy claims: experts]. A man like Harper does not deserve to lead my country.

---

1. Canadian Cynic provided a link to the Globe and Mail editorial that endorsed Stephen Harper last October 9th. I urge everyone who has an interest in this issue to read that editorial, it is astonishing in it's accuracy and warning of what might happen: Harper is growing into the job .

Say Again?

 
Stephen Harper. the current dictator Prime Minister of Canada received an award in New York City yesterday from Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Here's the press release.

Prime Minister Harper Given International Leadership Award

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be honoured today in New York City by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which is presenting him with its first-ever International Leadership Award. Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon will attend the reception and awards ceremony to accept the award on behalf of the Prime Minister.

“I am deeply honoured to be recognized for helping improve Western relations with Israel,” said the Prime Minister. “Canada stands with Israel, and will stand with any nation willing to put its trust in its people and follow the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations was founded in 1954 to promote the State of Israel in the United States. An umbrella group representing 50 national religious, philanthropic and civic American Jewish organizations, it serves as a central coordinating body and primary forum for deliberations and discussions among its members on national and international issues of concern to Jews.

Yesterday was a busy day for Harper. He also shut down the Canadian parliament in order to avoid losing a non-confidence vote.

Interesting how his action contrasts with the words, "Canada ... will stand with any nation willing to put its trust in its people and follow the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law."

Stephen Harper is a threat to Canada and to democracy. He must be removed from office. If that means putting up with a temporary Prime Minister in his place then so be it. This is one of those circumstances where the greater good trumps everything.

---

Conservative Lies

 
The Conservative Party under Stephen Harper has been spreading false information about how our parliamentary system works. They have been claiming that the transfer of power from the Conservative Party to the coalition under Stéphane Dion is a "coup" and that Dion does not have the right to lead a government.

Why are the Conservatives doing this? There are two possible explanations ...

• They believe what they are saying, in which case they are stupid and ignorant about how parliament works. They don't deserve to be the government.


• They know they are lying but they hope to convince Canadians that they're telling the truth. Because they are liars and because they have such a low opinion of the average Canadian, they don't deserve to lead a government.

Here's the problem. Harper and his Conservatives are doing great harm to the country by spreading lies. They are trying to convince Canadians that we have a US Presidential style of democracy and that he (Harper) was voted in as Prime Minister. Our young people are confused enough about politics without having this kind of false information spread by our Prime Minister.

Peter Russell is a Professor Emeritus in the Dept. of Political Science at the University of Toronto. We have tangled on a number of issues but always with mutual respect (I hope). He is a very smart man and you don't want him to catch you spreading lies about politics. Here's part of his column in today's Toronto Star [Constitution and precedent are on coalition's side].

If there is an alternative government available that has a reasonable prospect of being supported for a period of time by a majority in the House of Commons, she would have reason to decline Harper's request. Harper would then have to resign, and the Governor General would commission Dion to form a government.

If this happens, again there would be no "usurpation" of power but a proper application of the rules and principles of parliamentary democracy. It has been very disturbing to hear over the last few days, from people who should know better, wild unparliamentary theories about our system of government. Elections are not simple popularity contests in which the leader whose party garners the most votes gets all the power.

I am greatly concerned that there is so little public knowledge of the constitutional rules that govern our parliamentary system of government. These rules are not formally written down in a legal text or taught in our schools. Maybe the most important lesson to take from the situation we are now living through is to begin to codify as much as we can of this "unwritten" part of our Constitution and to ensure that it is well taught in our schools.

Harper is wrong. The only remaining question is whether he is stupid or a liar (or both).

Who is to blame for this mess? Peter has the correct answer ....

These precedents and many, many others illustrate the basic point that in parliamentary democracies we elect parliaments not prime ministers, and that the Governor General (or the presidential head of state in a republican parliamentary system) must be advised by ministers who are supported by a majority in the elected house of parliament.

Now let's apply these rules of parliamentary democracy to the situation Canada now faces. After the Oct. 14 election, Stephen Harper remained Prime Minister, formed a new government and prepared to face the House. Although his party had improved its seat total it was still in a minority position in the House. This meant that to continue in office Harper would have to win enough support from the opposition benches to secure the confidence of the House.

For a few days it appeared that Harper would reach out in a conciliatory manner and garner the parliamentary support he needs on order to have the right to govern.

But, to put it mildly, on Nov. 27 just a few days into the session, through his finance minister's economic update, he made an abrupt U-turn. Instead of seeking support from the opposition, his government presented an in-your-face, take-it-or-leave-it position.

The opposition parties – all three of them – decided not to take it. Instead, they announced that they would use their collective majority in the House to vote no confidence in the Harper government and support an alternative coalition government.

---

Priceless

 
Canadian Cynic keeps finding these wonderful examples of Conservative stupidity. This one is from The London Free Press [Harper's appeal to flag falls flat].

OTTAWA — An attempt by Stephen Harper to wrap himself in the flag and take a dig at the opposition coalition fell flat Tuesday.

The prime minister has been portraying the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois government-in-waiting as an unholy alliance of “socialists and separatists.”

During question period, he suggested the opposition parties staged their pact-signing ceremony Monday without a Canadian flag in the background because of the separatist Bloc.

“Yesterday, as part of the culmination of the machinations of the leader of the NDP, we had these three parties together, forming this agreement, signing a document and they wouldn’t even have the Canadian flag behind them,” he said.

“They had to be photographed without it because a member of their coalition does not even believe in the country.”

Video confirms that Harper was technically right. There wasn’t a Canadian flag in the background — there were two.

Wake up Conservatives. It's time to find a new leader before he makes you look any worse than you actually are right now. You are in danger of becoming a mockery of a political party comparable to what your predecessor, the Progressive Conservatives, looked like in December 1979.

---

Michaëlle Jean

 
This is Michaëlle Jean, the Governor General of Canada. She acts as Canada's Head of State. The Prime Minister is the head of government.¹ Sometime in the next few days Michaëlle Jean is going to have to make some serious decisions. She will have to decide whether to invite the Liberal-NDP coalition to form a new government if Stephen Harper and his Conservatives lose a vote of non-confidence next Monday. I think that's a no-brainer—she has to turn to the coalition.

More importantly, what will she do if Stephen Harper asks her to delay parliament for six weeks (the technical term is prorogue)? Everyone knows that Harper will only do this in order to avoid the non-confidence motion scheduled for Monday. That has never been done before and it is contrary to the standards of a parliamentary democracy. However, it is also important that the Governor General not put herself in the position of second guessing the advice of the Prime Minister. In my opinion, she will have to accept his request to prorogue parliament because to do otherwise is to set a dangerous precedent. The Governor General, like the Queen she represents, is a figurehead and not an active participant in government.

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and Harper won't abuse his position by requesting that parliament be suspended. Harper brought this problem upon himself by acting like a petulant, childish, bully and it's time for him to accept his fate and behave like an adult. That goes for his supporters as well.

Grow up Conservatives. You were stupid enough to force the opposition into a corner where they had only two choices, surrender and die, or unite against an unethical minority government. Much to your surprise, they were able to unite and now you must suffer the consequences of your own stupid mistake. Accept it with grace and dignity and stop acting like crybabies [Canadian Cynic].

---

1. America is one of the few democracies that combine these two jobs.

The Conservative Party Will Help You Write a Letter to the Editor

 
If you go to the Conservative Party website at Harper Leadership 08 you can get help in writing a letter to the editor. If you enter some sort of name and address you will eventually end up on a page that gives you the latest Conservative version of framing spin.

This is how Harper is going to avoid defeat when he faces the House of Commons. (Click on the image to see a larger version.)

The idea that the opposition parties don't have a mandate to from a coalition is particularly ironic given Stephen Harper's own position just a few years ago. Here's what is reported prominently on the front page of today's Toronto Star

But opposition MPs are accusing the Prime Minister of hypocrisy, charging that Harper is overlooking his own efforts to forge a coalition to replace Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government in 2004.

Harper, then Conservative leader, even joined with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe to write then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson, urging her to look at "options" if Martin's government fell in the fall of 2004, mere months after it won a minority mandate on June 28.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation," read the Sept. 9, 2004, letter from the three leaders.

"We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

That message is in stark contrast to the one Harper delivered Friday night, when he charged that Liberals don't "have the right to take power without an election."

"The opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters. They want to take power, not earn it," he said in a statement.

Now Conservative MPs are being instructed to take that message to Canadians.

---

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic: Because they really do need babysitting, that's why]

Kill Him, Kill Him Dead

 
These are interesting times in Canada. We recently re-elected the Conservative Party as the party with the most seats in Parliament—but not a majority. That means Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister of a minority government.

What this normally means is that the government has to craft legislation that will receive the support of a majority of the house. But that's not what Harper proposes to do. Instead he has come up with a proposal that promotes a hard-core right-wing agenda. He did this because he assumed that the Liberal party would be forced to support the government in spite of the fact that they are ideologically opposed to many of the items in the legislation. Harper thought that the Liberal party was in such desperate shape to avoid an election that they would vote for the devil.

Turns out he was wrong. In an extraordinary development, the three opposition parties—Liberals, New Democratic Party, Bloc Quebecois—have forged a coalition and announced they will vote against the government bill.¹ This will bring down the government. Stephen Harper will not be Prime Minister but there will not be an election. Instead, the coalition will form a new government.

Scott Reid of The Globe and Mail has a column in yesterday's paper that illustrates the seriousness of the crisis. It's unusual to see such language in a Canadian newspaper—especially The Globe and Mail—so I thought I'd reproduce part of his column here to show the world what is going on. I agree with Scott Reid. For the good of Canada Stephen Harper must be stopped before he does serious harm to the country.

First things first: take him out.

After all, Stephen Harper is the most dangerous animal lurking in the jungles of Parliament. He is a threat to the future viability of the Liberals. A blood simple opponent of the NDP and the only serious contemporary challenge to the Bloc Quebecois. Without him, his party is an unlikely combination of Reform Party leftovers, Harris refugees and Red Tory desperates. They don't matter or even exist without Mr. Harper. So before you think a moment longer, opposition leaders, think on that.

And if that's not compelling enough, remember: He doesn't play to win. He plays to conquer. Under his guidance, the public interest is always subjugated to his personal political advancement. And he poisons Parliament with an extreme, bare-fanged breed of partisanship that has no hope of repair until he is banished.

This becomes relevant because suddenly, he is weak. In fact, at this particular moment, he is almost unable to defend himself. Owing to a ridiculously ill-considered act of hubris, he has laid himself vulnerable to his opponents. Their imperative could not be more clear: kill him. Kill him dead. Do not, whatever you do, provide him with an opportunity to extend his hold on power. Because you can be damn certain he will never again be so reckless as to give you a chance to finish him off.

Fate tends to be grudging with gifts of this significance. To ignore it would be an error every bit as historic as the one Mr. Harper himself has made.

So don't get fancy. Don't get confused. And don't get weak in the knees. If you don't put Mr. Harper in his grave, he'll put you in yours.

---

1. They will also vote in favor of a non-confidence motion put forward by the Liberal party.