Conservative Insider Charged With Breach of Bail

The Conservative law and order agenda must include keeping the criminals close by. Another one is facing charges of fraud and now breach of bail.

Boy they can pick 'em.

Could Dean Del Mastro be Taken Down by Two Women?

The horrible Dean Del Mastro and his brother have launched a smear campaign against a Peterborough resident, simply because she has a Liberal lawn sign.

It was uncalled for and pretty low class.

Why does Peterborough keep sending this man back to embarrass them?

Betsy McGregor would be a much better MP.

I've Done the Math. Why Jack Layton Will Never be Prime Minister

The late senator Eugene Forsey, was considered to be one of Canada's foremost constitutional experts. A few days ago someone shared an opinion of Forseys':

“Suppose the government gets a dissolution, and no one gets a clear majority. The government retains office and meets the new Parliament - as it has a perfect right to do - hoping to pick up enough votes to keep it in power. But the new Parliament defeats it. It declines to resign; governments don’t automatically resign on defeat..."

They interpreted this to mean that even if Harper were to be defeated, and either the Liberals or the NDP won a minority, that Harper would still have the option of trying to secure enough votes in Parliament to stay on as prime minister.

Remember we don't elect prime ministers in this country, only Members of Parliament, and in a minority, the legitimacy of the prime minister is contingent upon gaining the confidence of the House.

It seems unlikely that he would, but then what if he said I'm going to the GG, a Conservative cohort of Brian Mulroney's, by the way, and I'm going to ask him to dissolve Parliament?

According to Forsey: "Rather than simply being a rubber-stamp for the Cabinet in office, the Crown, with its “reserve” power to refuse its ministers’ advice, may be all that prevents an autocratic government from “spanking the electorate into submission”" According to Lawrence Martin in Harperland, the Conservatives were going to go right to the Queen if the Governor General wouldn't allow them to prorogue to save their jobs.

Expect the unexpected from Stephen Harper if it means power.

So what would he do if the GG refused? We already know what he would do. He will create such a public outcry that Canadians wouldn't know what hit them, especially if any combination of opposition members made Jack Layton prime minister.

It explains why a Conservative operative, emailed this to me. The NDP's socialist agenda includes closing down the tar sands (good news for environmentalists), and nationalizing the auto industry, banks, insurance companies and big oil.

Now we know that's pretty out there, and not likely to happen, but it won't matter. The Conservatives have it in their arsenal, ready to fire off, when and if needed.

Why else has the MSM started to ask about the NDP Constitution? They didn't really care about it before.

They are creating a new fear factor. Socialism. Lock up your children, bar the doors and nail the windows shut. They're coming for you.

It's not fair, but since when has Harper or the media in this country been fair?

Since this so-called NDP "surge" the headlines are changing. NDP can't handle economy. NDP wrong in times of trouble. Reality check on the NDP.

And Michael Ignatieff is right when he told them all to go to hell. They headlined him out of the race, while Jack Layton has been given a free ride. He hasn't had to endure 2 1/2 years of attacks ads. He's had a week, and what a week it's been.

And sadly the strategic voting has now hit a snag. Layton was on board , but is no longer. And the NDPers are asking us to hold our nose and vote NDP, because of some "wave" that's going to knock Harper out. That must be a tsunami.

So now that leaves the rest of us to do all the heavy lifting. Because we are not just looking for warm bodies to occupy seats, and if the NDP did sweep Quebec, the only way this fairy tale works, their MPs would be a ragtag bunch of the mostly disinterested.

How is that going to help our country move forward?

The only way Jack Layton will be prime minister, is if he gets a majority, and even then don't expect Harper to go down without a fight. But the chance of an NDP majority are pretty slim.

So I'm sticking with strategic voting to the end, and fortunately so are most others determined to get rid of Harper.

The NDPers can sit on shore, waiting for the "wave" if they want to, but I'm going to storm the barricades.

Thinking Twice: Why a Conservative-NDP Alliance Would be Bad for Canada

With all the fabricated hype of a Jackomania and NDP surge, the reality is that the NDP will gain few seats. As 308 reminds us: "more than half of the NDP's boost in support is located in Quebec. But according to their own people in the province, they don't have a local organization worth its salt in more than six or eight ridings."

I've already posted on the people running for the NDP in that province and I don't see any gains. In fact, if some of them did get in, they might be worse than the Conservatives.

And in Ontario:

Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research, also said polling has been mostly stagnant. With the exception of Mr. Layton in Quebec [margin of error 6.4], polling shows the Conservatives still dominate in the Prairies, and the Liberals have been holding steady in Ontario after initial Tory gains.

The only thing this faux news story might do is pull support from the other left parties, giving Harper his majority.

And Jack Layton is clearly running to be the leader of the Opposition in a Conservative government. But is that what's best for our country?

I posted last week of how Harper's National Citizens Coalition had helped to engineer a stunning victory for Ed Broadbent back in the day, but it was at the expense of the Liberals. And with a Conservative Majority under Brian Mulroney, the NDP accomplished little. We got the GST and the job killing Free Trade. But in 1988 it could have been avoided:

In the early days of the contest, the Conservatives topped the polls. In a televised leaders’ debate, however, Turner scored a powerful hit by warning Canadians of the consequences of Mulroney’s trade deal. “With one signature of a pen,” Turner thundered at Mulroney, “you’ve thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States and will reduce us, I am sure, to a colony of the United States.” The impact was immediate. The Liberals, having seized an issue that was at least as dear to the hearts of left-wing progressives, took the lead in the polls.

It was a moment of truth for business, labour, social movements, and for the ndp. Rather than joining the Liberals and other nationalists in a full frontal assault against free trade, the ndp reprised its 1984 election strategy, turned its guns on Turner (who was not even in office), and declared that there was no real difference between Grits and Tories. Those running the ndp campaign decided that what mattered most was the party’s seat total and its vote share relative to the Liberals’, not the fight for economic sovereignty.

When I first learned that Layton was going to change strategy and start attacking Michael Ignatieff, I started to really worry. It was 1988 all over again.

Broadbent got his 43 seats and Canadians got the shaft. According to James Laxer, in "Fake Left, Go Right": "Mulroney salvaged his free trade agreement, which took effect on January 1, 1989. To this day, we are witnessing the legacy of this deal in the softwood lumber dispute and other disagreements that bring into question Canada’s right to subsidize Crown and private corporations, and to use other instruments of state economic intervention."

In 2004 Layton tried a repeat performance. Instead of warning Canadians about the dangers of a Harper victory, he went after the Liberals. Many progressives were concerned because they knew how devastating a Stephen Harper victory could be.

So they started a "Think Twice" campaign, to do what Layton and the NDP refused to.

Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians, for one, told me that she felt pressure “not to critique Harper,” and that the top priority was “to win more seats for the ndp.” During the election, the Council was involved in the Think Twice coalition, made up of groups that came together to warn Canadians about Stephen Harper’s record. “If the ndp was not going to talk about Harper’s record,” Barlow said, “we felt we had to.”

The ndp and the wider progressive community are divided over whether it really matters if a Stephen Harper or a Paul Martin is in power. The standard party answer during the election campaign was a flat no, a position Maude Barlow couldn’t agree with.

Some things are more important than party politics, or at least they should be.

Layton, again teamed up with Harper in 2006 and where did it get him? What has he accomplished that he set out to accomplish in his political life? Nothing.

As Laxer says of the Harper-Layton team:

Child-care advocates are, in turn, furious at the ndp for its electoral tactics. Immediately after Harper was sworn into office, and after Layton announced that he could work with the Conservative government, the new prime minister made good on his promise to scrap the Liberals’ national child-care program. Harper will cancel the agreements with the provinces after the minimum one-year notice period, meaning they will lapse on March 31, 2007. The deals the Liberals had negotiated would have provided an average of $1 billion annually for five years to create spaces, hire staff, and make existing provincial child-care programs more affordable and accessible to all families.

Martha Friendly, the coordinator of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto, told me, the implementation of the child-care agenda was “considerably less advanced than it could have been several months further down the road.” Friendly has worked for three decades in pursuit of a universal, not-for-profit, early child-care program of the kind that exists in western Europe. ...While child-care advocates have fight left in them, Friendly says the Conservative victory has put the quest for a universal not-for-profit system on hold.

30 years to get a childcare plan, and Layton squashed it. Five years to hammer out the Kelowna Accord, and Layton-Harper squashed it.

The big issue this election is our democracy. With so many people working so hard, a progressive revolution was within our grasp. But now, any NDP gains, if indeed there are any, will not be at the expense of the Conservatives, nor will they move us an inch closer to restoring democracy.

Like Harper, Layton has put party and power above everything else.

At this stage of the game, I thought I could just continue reminding Canadians why Harper had to go. I never thought in a million years that I would have to start going after the NDP. I thought they were on our side.

NDP tweets now are almost all about Ignatieff and they are even going after Avaaz, questioning it's legitimacy, after they sued to have G-8 documents released. The same G-8 documents that the NDP helped the Conservatives suppress.

How incredibly sad.

Surprise, Surprise. Democracy Matters

The two key issues this election are democracy and getting rid of our autocratic prime minister.

And Gloria Galloway in the Globe confirms this. On the Internet, it’s anybody but Harper

Polls continue to suggest a climb for the NDP, but there appears to be few, if any, seats they can take in Ontario or Quebec. This means possible gains in the West, their home base, but I'm afraid that in the two key provinces, they will only further split the vote and possibly give Harper his majority.

In fact, I'll bet the Conservatives are counting on this.

Damn pollsters and their games.

However, locally, most people know who is the strongest contender to the Conservatives, so hopefully that will impact the vote.

The latest Nanos results still have an unusually high margin of error, suggesting that like us, they really have no idea what's going on.

This election will be decided by us, not them. And us wants Harper gone.

Conservative Law and Order Agenda Tough on Victims

By now most of us know that Harper's law and order agenda is misguided at best, dangerous at worst.

But his constant use of the term 'victims' has many 'victims' angry over being used as props.

When the Conservative government created the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime four years ago, it said the watchdog would promote access to programs, explore systemic issues and make sure Ottawa met its commitments to victims. None of that can happen if the justice minister keeps the office’s annual reports under wraps. Sullivan says he filed his 2008 and 2009 reports before his three-year term ended last April but they have yet to be made public by the government.

And what does it say that the highlight of office’s work is getting the Conservative government to invest $5 million to fund centres for children who have been victims of abuse at a time when it was happily committing taxpayers to spending billions of dollars to house more inmates in ever more prison cells? It suggests the Conservatives are more interested in using victims as props in their ongoing drive to impose expensive and unnecessary anti-crime bills on Canadians than helping those victims through better services and programs.

One more reason to throw the bums out.

Harper Trading Cancer for Votes

In a shameful bid for votes Harper is endorsing Canada's asbestos industry. My brother-in-law died from Asbestosis, one of the worst forms of lung cancer, because of exposure. We should be banning it, not promoting it, and certainly not exporting death.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has just set a new low in trolling for votes, with a shamelessly self-serving campaign stop in Asbestos, Que., home to one of the country’s most notorious exports.

In Ottawa the Conservatives may be stripping asbestos from Parliament, Harper’s official residence and other public buildings as a health hazard. But Harper is only too eager to court rural Quebec voters by extolling Canada’s role in a dirty industry that ships the mineral to developing countries, where it can cause deadly lung diseases including cancer if not properly handled.

Just how low can this man go?

So Who Didn't Want an Election?

Stephen Harper and the Conservative talking points, sure have this one wrong, when they claim that Canadians didn't want this election. Over 2 million votes were cast in the advance polls, which could be bad news for Harper, whose success depends on our tuning out and turning off.

I think this election will be one of the most exciting on record. I don't see a real sweep for anyone. Some of the pollsters and pundits in their hype are predicting a replay of the major success stories of John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney.

But we didn't have as many major parties then to split the vote.

And if the Bloc is on the ropes, it's difficult to predict who would gain. According to Andrew Steele in the Globe, the NDP don't have many quality candidates in the province.

The challenge for the Liberals this election is getting the 800,000 faithfuls who stayed home in 2008, to get out to vote, and I think they will do that. Because despite the questionable national polls, Michael Ignatieff is packing them in.

This election will be determined riding by riding, with the only national commitment to get rid of Stephen Harper, or at least hold him to a minority, though I don't think that will help. He needs a clear loss.

The Hill Times is reporting that there are as many as 95 close calls across the country. And regional polling is not showing the same as the national polls.

Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research, also said polling has been mostly stagnant. With the exception of Mr. Layton in Quebec [margin of error 6.4], polling shows the Conservatives still dominate in the Prairies, and the Liberals have been holding steady in Ontario after initial Tory gains.

However, while they are suggesting little will change, a high voter turnout could very well change everything.

And we have to look at some of the pollsters weighing in. Summa Strategies vice-president Tim Powers is a Conservative insider, and David Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data, is a colleague of Tom Flanagan's.

I wouldn't put too much weight on anything they say.

The anticipated high voter turn out and youth participation, will be the game changer. And if this doesn't split the vote, the Conservatives could be in trouble.

Cheryl Gallant is struggling in her riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. Dean Del Mastro and his brother have waged a war against constituents in Peterborough, coming across as bullies.

In the Ontario riding of Brampton-Springdale, where Conservative Party candidate Parm Gill is running against Ruby Dhallah, there are charges of inappropriate access to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, and even the possibility that Gill, a private investigator, is selling visas for votes.

Former prime minister Joe Clark is backing Liberal Scott Brison, not that Brison's seat is really vulnerable, but it is a reminder that Harper's party is not the same as the historic Conservative Party that folded in 2003.

And while it would appear that the hype over the NDP surge has drowned out the debate on healthcare, that is still prominent on people's minds.

Few pollsters are paying attention to the Green Party, and I think they are about to make a breakthrough. Elizabeth May is in front in Saanich-Gulf Islands, and the Green platform will appeal to young voters. It may not be a splash, but I think we'll see a few Green MPs this time. Hopefully.

But there is one very important factor that is being missed. The determination of the Canadian people to get rid of Stephen Harper. The fact that his candidates are not showing up at debates and avoiding the media, only shows further contempt for Canadians.

If I had to make a prediction I would say that we could be looking at a Liberal minority, with a stronger NDP presence. The Bloc about the same, perhaps a bit diminished, and 3 or 4 Green MPs.

Hey, I can't be any further off than Nik Nanos. I just have to say with "a margin of error" requiring all fingers and a few toes, and I'm covered.

But in another prediction, where I'll be spot on, is that this election is going to be very exciting and yes, unpredictable.

Western Masochism and Redneckerology

In her 1999 book, Hard Right Turn, Brooke Jeffrey describes a 1993 election debate in the B.C. riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap.

At a town-hall meeting in the riding of Okanagan—Shuswap, a large crowd listens patiently to the speeches of the candidates during the federal election in the fall of 1993. Several of the candidates made lengthy presentations about the platforms of their parties and their positions on the major issues of the day. The Reform candidate, Darrel Stinson, stands up for only a few minutes of his allotted time, looking nervous and out of place.

He tells the crowd everything they need to know is in the Reform "Blue Sheet." "Read it. If you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them." Then he gives them the telephone number of his campaign office. Twice. During the question-and-answer period that follows, several people ask Stinson about his party's position on specific issues. "I haven't looked into that one myself but I know we have a position somewhere here in this," he says, holding up the "Blue Sheet." It falls to me, the Liberal candidate, to inform the audience of Reform's position, quoting from the sheet as a furious Stinson looks on. (1)

Telling this story, you might think that this would mean the end of Stinson's political career.

But on the contrary, not only did he win a seat for the Reform Party that year, but would hold that seat for more than a decade. In 2004, he won with 46.39% of the vote.

Some of his more memorable performances in the House, included the suggestion that "the best way to prevent spousal abuse was to give women handguns", he challenged a Liberal opponent to a fistfight, asking "Do you have the fortitude or the gonads to stand up and come across here and say that to me, you son of a bitch?" and he called then PC leader Jean Charest, a "fat little, chubby, little sucker."

An absolutely charming man.

But he was not, and is not alone, in the redneckery Conservative stable. And even in 1993, the combative style, that now defines Conservative politics, was emerging.

Across British Columbia and Alberta similar scenes of overzealous Reform behaviour unfolded in many ridings. Although Okanagan- Shuswap may have been among the most extreme cases, the dumbing down of politics in the 1993 election was a common phenomenon in Western Canada, as was the emergence of a large group of previous disaffected voters whose only interest was in expressing their negative often prejudiced views. (1)

They knew where to draw support, and most of that support came from what we might now call a "Tea Party" uprising.

Reform was a corporate sponsored movement, in the same way that the American version is. But it knew how to play to a noisy "silent majority".

And it's rather sad, because Western Canada is more progressive than their representatives would suggest. The Famous Five were from Alberta, the women involved in the "Person's case" that finally made women "citizens".

Yet most Conservative MPs from the West, would prefer that the case was repealed.

So why do they keep sending people like Brad Trost, Maurice Vellacott, Garry Breitkreuz, Rob Anders and Jason Kenney to represent them, when they do not reflect Western values?

And two decades later, the candidates are still using talking points to drive their campaigns, no more aware of the world around them than Stinson was.

David Climenhaga discusses going to an all-candidates meeting in Alberta, where Conservative incumbent Brent Rathgeber was asked about the future of the CBC.

"I don't know that we need a national broadcaster in 2011," Rathgeber told about 100 people at a Chamber of Commerce all-candidates' forum in a local hotel. "…We have to wean them off … of the taxpayer's dollar…" It is well known, of course, how since Stephen Harper became prime minister of Canada, the Conservative Party has become a tightly disciplined organization, especially during election campaigns.

No Conservative candidate strays far from the official talking points, and if that means repeating the phrase "constant bickering" seven times in an introductory speech to a local all-candidates' meeting in a Prairie town, as Rathgeber did at another forum last week, you can be confident the same phrase is being repeated a similar number of times at dozens of other meetings across English Canada.

Yet Rathgeber will probably be re-elected, based solely on the fact that he is running under the Conservative banner. In 2009, Lawrence Martin spoke to a party strategist:

Over lunch the other day, a senior Conservative strategist from Calgary mentioned how his party was suffering from Alberta leader fatigue. There's no way, he said, the next Conservative leader can come from that province. For two decades, he added, Alberta has had the run of the party. (2)

I'm not experiencing Alberta leader fatigue, only Reform-Conservative MP fatigue, especially the most regressive ones coming from the West.

Why do they keep sending us these people?

Enough already. You're better than this. Take a stand.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2 4, Pg. 304-306.

2. Alberta leader fatigue is the federal Tories' next big test, By Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, April 16, 2009

The Unpublished and Well Hidden Book on Stephen Harper

In his book, Harper's Team, Tom Flanagan describes an operation whereby "the team" gathered up every quote voiced and every item written by Stephen Harper, so they could work on "explanations" I suppose.

However, Flanagan also reveals that when the 1997 speech surfaced during an election campaign, it hit them right between the eyes.

Who knew that a notorious right-wing American organization, The Council for National Policy, would have posted Harper's speech on their website?

But why wouldn't they? Harper was their ticket into Canada.

However, with a week before the election, the dossier compiled by Flanagan and his crew, has made it into the hands of the Liberal Party. Disgruntled or concerned former Conservative? Who knows?

A 500-page dossier of potentially damaging remarks by Stephen Harper has hit the election campaign, but don't blame the opposition parties — it was prepared by the Conservatives. The thick binder of material, obtained by the Liberals, is a treasure trove of controversial Harper quotes, listed alphabetically by subject matter. It covers everything from abortion to western alienation and reaches as far back as the 1980s.

It has the potential to be pretty damaging, as Harper is still trying to paint himself as a moderate.

On the campaign trail now, Harper stresses that he has no hidden agenda to reopen the abortion file. But the Tory files include this 2002 boast from Harper, then a leadership contestant: "I'm not ashamed to say that, in caucus, I have more pro-life MPs supporting me than supporting Stockwell Day."

And before anyone cries foul, remember that since Michael Ignatieff became Liberal leader, we have been subjected to nothing but "quotes" going back to his days as a lecturer, author and war correspondent.

Who can forget Harper's Nixonian line when the Opposition was demanding Flaherty's resignation after he misled them about the state of our books? He'd love to fire the leader of the opposition, but wouldn't because of all the old tapes he had on him.

Now we may have an even better chance of firing Harper with all the quotes we have on him. In alphabetical order.

Check Out the New Song: Imagine There's No Harper

What a lovely thought.

Imagine there's no Harper. My version of heaven.

And Terry Milewski gets shouted down trying to ask a question. Isn't it wonderful what passes for Democracy in Harper's world?

What's in a Preposition?

"Look. I've got to suck up to Quebec, so just shut up and let me get on with it." Stephen Harper (Harperland, Lawrence Martin, 2010 P. 82)

James Laxer recently wrote a piece Stephen Harper: Now He’s The Champion of National Unity, in which he questions Harper's new found love of a united Canada. He invoked memories of Harper's Reform Party under Preston Manning, who had an Abraham Lincoln complex, hoping to invoke "A House Divided" in his handling of Quebec.

With a recent surge of NDP popularity in Quebec, Laxer believes that anything is possible. I still feel that Gilles Duceppe is pretty popular in this province and doubt that the NDP will capture many more seats, but stranger things have happened. It would be wonderful if a federalist party made inroads into the province. And I believe that this election will not be decided by the polls but at the polls.

However, let's look at Stephen Harper himself. His campaign is being run under the banner 'Here for Canada' (while hiding from Canadians). A stark contrast to his former plans for decentralization.

"Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be." - Stephen Harper in a 1994 National Citizens Coalition speech.

However, there was a more direct attempt by Stephen Harper in 2004, to divide Canada, based on the 'Belgian Model'.

The Conservative leader first floated the idea during a speech in Quebec last Friday. He said there are some areas where Ottawa could hand over some of its powers to linguistic groups, such as francophones or anglophones. "By devolving authority, not solely to a province, but to have an arrangement based on linguistic groups that cross the country," he said

Then Prime Minister Paul Martin said: "I think the role of the prime minister of Canada is not to build a better Belgium, it's to build a stronger Canada.

His party immediately went into damage control, because he didn't explain how this would work for Anglophones in Quebec or Francophones in other parts of the country.

Of course anyone following Stephen Harper's career, knows that few of his ideas are his own. As chief policy wonk for the Reform Party, he "cribbed" about 2/3 of their platform from the National Citizens Coalition handbook. (1)

And he also stole the idea of the Belgian model to handle Quebec, from Peter Brimelow's 'The Patriot Game'. In his book Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, William Johnson said that after reading the book, Stephen Harper was so excited that he went out and bought ten copies to give to friends. (1)

Brimelow lays out the Belgian model on Page 83 of his book. (2)

And after suggesting this model for Canada, André Lecours, from the Department of Political Science at Concordia University, wrote a paper on why Harper's (Brimelow's) idea wouldn't work. In fact it's not even working in Belgium.

So is Stephen Harper really here FOR Canada, or for what he plans to do TO Canada. Sometimes it's all in the preposition.

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3

2. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3

Religious Fundamentalism Hampering Aid to Afghanistan

I'm still not convinced that Harper himself is terribly religious, but he has taken the Religious Right into his party, much of it transported from the United States.

And because of it, aid to women in Afghanistan is being hampered.

The former head of Canada’s aid program in Afghanistan has expressed concern that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s religious beliefs are hampering humanitarian efforts.

Speaking to the Straight from Kabul, Nipa Banerjee noted that Harper is a born-again Christian, and she argued that his religious beliefs could be adversely affecting the Canadian International Development Agency’s efforts to help Afghan women.

We have got to get rid of this regressive government.

Did Harper Take $15 Million From Alberta and Give it to Tony Clement?

This should thrill Albertans. Apparently the Harper government took $15 million earmarked for Alberta and instead funnelled it into Tony Clement's re-election campaign.

“Why did it disappear? It doesn’t just evaporate,” said Boucher, a former RCMP superintendent. “The investigation will prove it. We know the $15 million disappeared. We know that there’s millions that were taken from border security infrastructure and moved to Tony Clement’s (riding). I think we’re going to see two plus two here.”

The draft auditor general report said the Harper government did not act “clearly” and “transparently” when it sought permission from Parliament to spend $50 million on the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund that delivered 32 projects for the Parry Sound-Muskoka riding in southern Ontario represented by Clement.

They really take Alberta for granted don't they?

Harper Refused to Say Why Canadians Should Trust Him

On a campaign stop, Stephen Harper was asked why Canadians should trust him.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper strayed away Sunday from explaining why voters should trust him personally with the power of a majority government, preferring instead to put the focus on the success of his Tory party.

Murray Dobbin is Preparing for HarpergeddonBut making preparations for a Harper majority are not enough:

But what about preparing for another Harper minority? Getting serious now, there are genuine signs that Harper is planning to create a constitutional crisis should the opposition parties do what every thinking Canadian opposed to Harper hopes they will do: defeat Harper at the first opportunity and form a government that actually represents a majority of the voters (and non-voters, too).

Harper’s arrogance on the issue of who gets to govern is breathtaking and he strongly hints that he will not step down without a very nasty fight, one that could create a constitutional crisis involving every federal institution including the Supreme Court of Canada.

And James Laxer is wondering why Harper is considering himself the champion of national unity. He never wanted national unity before. In fact, he championed the opposite:

Now we’ve seen everything---Stephen Harper, who only a few years ago counseled Albertans to build “firewalls” around their province to protect it from Canada, has proclaimed himself the indispensable champion of national unity. Without him at the helm of a majority government, this one-time quasi-Alberta separatist would have us believe there will be no one to protect the country from a new round of sovereignist upheaval in Quebec.

In fact, I’d be surprised if Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois didn't regard a Harper majority government as one of the essential “winning conditions” for a sovereignty referendum should she succeed in becoming premier of Quebec in the next provincial election. The PQ is well ahead of Jean Charest’s hapless Liberals in the polls, but an election does not need to be called for two and a half years.

Vote and vote wisely.

NDP Surge Was Barely a Blip

News today is that after all of the hoopla, the seat projections for the NDP remain the same.

Polls indicate that there will be very little difference in the makeup of Parliament. Seventy some odd seats for the Liberals. Thirty-six for the NDP and Forty-Five for the Bloc.

But is that true?

We know that polls now aren't worth much, especially since they don't factor in the youth vote, and the Canadian desire to oust Harper. And both Nelly Furtado and the Canadian Auto Workers Union are campaigning for Elizabeth May to remove Gary Lunn.

Hopefully, the Green will end up with at least one seat, though I'd prefer a few more. I like their platform and Elizabeth May is amazing.

The current seat projections don't show the Green with anything.

They also don't show the situation in Bev Oda's riding with a growing "not" campaign, or the revelation that Julian Fantino bled $10 million tax dollars to his fundraisers.

In this election, anything is possible.

The best I can tell people is to ignore the national polls and concentrate on your riding. Who has the best chance of beating the Conservative candidate? Then follow your best instincts.

Harper Must Have Sore Shoulders From all His Shrugging

To avoid having to answer questions about terrorists in his party, Stephen Harper's goons drowned out the media.

How is this democracy?

Canadians deserve answers. This is pretty serious. Cheering Conservative partisans shield Harper from awkward terrorism questions

Partisan supporters of Prime Minister Stephen Harper — led by Conservative staffers —purposely drowned out media questions Saturday about a controversial endorsement from a man with links to the Air India bombing. Harper was in Mississauga, Ont., where he hoped to use the venue of a Coptic Christian place of worship on Easter Weekend to promote his platform promise of a new office of religious freedom.

But two controversies about extremism overshadowed that message. A Tory candidate in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough has been shown to be a vocal supporter of the banned Tamil Tigers, prompting Conservative cabinet minister Peter Kent to say someone in his party's organization "obviously dropped the ball." And a Vancouver candidate is trying to distance herself from an endorsement from a high-profile Sikh advocate who has long been linked to the Air India bombing and the controversial Babbar Khalsa movement.

He's handling his campaign like he handles his government. In total secrecy.

Contempt, Coalitions, Republicans, Tea Parties. It's All So Surreal

If someone abused your children, would you hire them to babysit?

If someone broke into your home would you hire them to guard it?

If someone stole your money, would you ask them to hold your wallet?

Of course not. And yet someone was found guilty of crimes against democracy, literally, and Canadians seem prepared to trust that person with their country.

In the Spec today, Naz Fiorilli says: We’re too soft on contempt of Parliament

Why the talk of prison over contempt of Parliament? Because for a similar offence in the U.S., contempt of Congress, prison is mandatory. The penalty for contempt of Congress is a minimum one month in prison, up to a year; plus up to a $100,000 fine. Many people have been charged with contempt of Congress, including author Arthur Miller, G. Gordon Liddy, and Karl Rove.

Harper isn't going to jail, at least not over this. Instead he is arrogant enough to tell Canadians that he has no intention of respecting Parliament, so we'd better give him a majority.

And if the pollsters and pundits are right, we may be ready to do just that. Like a robber saying, "I'm going to rob this bank so you might as well leave the door to the vault open", so we leave the door open.

Daniel Nathanson of Hamilton, writes: Harper style is akin to Bush legacy

It appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper finds his citing for contempt of Parliament by the Speaker of the House frivolous and meaningless. He finds debates over policy pesky, a drag and an interference with his own plans.

Sometimes he expresses his plans openly, and sometimes keeps them secret, as it suits his whim. He replaces Parliament with media control and a hand-picked Senate. He shows no interest in democracy. His policies are aimed at titillating the banks, large corporations and the rich with tax breaks, ignoring the rest of society. It appears he plans to decimate social services and health care, whose costs will then be downloaded to overburdened municipalities, where ordinary people must pay more for needed services or do without them.

Yet for some reason Canadians want him back.

He doesn't allow his candidates to engage in public debates. We shrug.

He destroys a man's career and reputation causing his premature death. And we shrug.

Haroon Siddiqui says: Republicans would feel right at home

Stephen Harper has Americanized Canada more than any prime minister in memory. Even those who disagreed with Brian Mulroney’s free trade agreement with the U.S. never accused him of Americanizing our politics, or even wanting to. What Harper has done, in fact, is to import some of the worst Republican policies and tactics:

We allow our opinions to be guided by visceral personal attacks on candidates and their families and we shrug.

He abuses our veterans, and we shrug.

What's it going to take? The loss of our democracy? Our healthcare? Our country?

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

On May 2, vote and vote wisely. This may be the most important election in your lifetime.

Why Does Alberta Keep Electing Potted Plants?

A funny video of how Conservative candidates get elected in this province, even when they do nothing. And really what do Harper's MPs from Alberta ever accomplish?

They are not going to Ottawa with their constituents concerns, but instead are bringing talking points back home. This is what we're going to do, live with it.

And even when they're not happy with their candidate and try to get someone else to run, Harper steps in and demands that they sit down and shut up.

Very strange. Albertans are being taken for granted, and they either don't know or don't care.

Weird.

Margaret Atwood Does a Wonderful Harper Impersonation

In the Globe, the wonderful Margaret Atwood does a satirical impersonation of Stephen Harper in his autocracy.

“Just a minute!” you say. “You want me to commit to an unknown, very large sum? That’s not fair! And it’s not competent, either.” “More bickering!” he says. “We need stability!” “But I might have to go on paying huge sums for decades!” you say. “We’re already up to our necks in debt! I’ll have to give up other things – I won’t be able to pay for the doctor, or support for special needs, or drinking water, or care for the elderly, or the kids’ education, or … and what happens if there’s a pandemic, or a natural catastrophe such as an earthquake, and you’ve already spent the money that could have helped in a disaster?”

“You are a very negative person,” he says. “You are not welcome here.” “Where is here?” you say. “In my country,” he says. “These are my mountains, this is my hockey, this is my flag. Mine! All mine! And I’m stamping my image on all of it!” “I like those icons, too,” you say, “but I think they should be shared with everyone, don’t you?” “What is this ‘shared’ of which you speak?” he says. “I believe in the individual and nothing but. Talk to the hand! Weak to the wall!”

It's very funny and well worth a read.

I love this: “Once I really get the whip hand, I will never have to answer another question from anyone. Not one question. Not ever again.”
Funny but sadly true if Harper were to win a majority.

On May 2 vote and vote wisely.