Mark Adler: From Belle of the Ball to Do Not Call

As Conservatives prepared for the 2011 election, they began targeting ridings with large Jewish populations, that they felt they could steal away from the Liberals.

Stephen Harper was already portrayed, and not always in a positive light, as the most staunch supporter of Israel; so to build on that, they had to select candidates with the same commitment.

In the Toronto riding of York Centre, that candidate was Mark Adler, who had at least one friend in a high place, Nathan Jacobson; who was somewhat of a kingmaker for the Harper Conservatives. A described "philanthropist" Jacobson had all of the right connections, both in Canada and Israel.

Jacobson hosted a number of Canadian-Israeli receptions on Parliament Hill, and said that people from the Prime Minister's Office attended, as well as Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird ... A photograph has circulated in the media of Jacobson standing between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Prime Minister Harper ...

Jacobson also said that he had introduced Kenney to top-level politicians in Israel. "Jason and I have spent a little time in Israel on several occasions when he's been there. And I've hosted dinners in Israel with senior government people. I, in fact, took Jason to meet Netanyahu his first time, meeting Netanyahu and other people within the security and political environment within Israel."

Mark Adler had met Nathan Jacobson when he was trying to secure Israeli speakers for his Economics Club of Canada. According to Jacobson he loaned Adler $140,000 to expand into the U.S., which he failed to pay back. As a result, Jacobson was suing him. Stephen Harper had to know of the lawsuit, as his then Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright told Adler to settle it.

But soon a scandal would break that would prove to be more of an embarrassment for the Conservatives. Seems their bridge to the vote rich Jewish community might collapse, when it was discovered that Jacobson was wanted in the United States on a charge of money laundering.

Harper, Kenney and Baird claimed not to know of his criminal past, which begs the question: why is there no screening of people getting this close to the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet?

A Bizarre Election Campaign

Mark Adler would go on to defeat the incumbent, hockey legend Ken Dryden. However, what made the campaign bizarre, was the issue of who was the biggest supporter of a foreign country.

York Centre has a large Jewish population and a key issue, Dryden told CBC News, is the two parties' positions on Israel.

Standing outside Kiva's Bagels on Steeles Avenue, Howard Cohen is one such voter. He said Conservative Stephen Harper's consistent backing of Israel has won him over to the Conservative camp. "We need all the friends we can get and he's the leading supporter of Israel in the western world," said Cohen.

Voters like Cohen have not forgotten Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's labelling of an Israeli military action in Lebanon as a war crime back in 2006, and he said Dryden could end up paying the price. "He's on the wrong side this time," Cohen said.

Ironically, key players in both the war in Lebanon and attacks on Gaza, are being investigated by the Israeli courts.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the current justice minister, are among the high-level figures accused of breaking the laws of war when they launched attacks on Lebanon in 2006, and on Gaza in the winter of 2008-09.

The allegations have been levelled by Marwan Dalal, the only Israeli lawyer to have served as a senior prosecutor in one of the international criminal courts at The Hague in the Netherlands.

Dalal, who spent three years as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, belongs to Israel's Palestinian minority, which comprises a fifth of the country's population. He said he had based his petition to the court on "strong factual and legal findings" from public sources, including the reports of Israeli official inquiries.

His evidence includes statements from senior Israeli officials in which they appear to implicate themselves in actions - including killing, collective punishment and attacks on civilian infrastructure - not justified by military necessity. Such acts are breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Israeli law.

I hardly think that Dalal is anti-Israel. He just knows that if they don't address this issue themselves, the International Criminal Court will take over.

So apparently Michael Ignatieff was on the right side of this issue after all.

Robocall Scandal and Republican Canvassers

Mark Adler may have been the Belle of the Ball after his stunning victory, but the glow would soon fade from his tiara, when it was discovered that his riding was one being investigated in the Robocall election fraud scandal.

He was also one of the Conservative candidates who used the Republican Front Porch Strategies to canvas for him, but failed to mention that on his Elections Canada financial report. Would that invoice have put him over his legally allowable limit? He spent more than $94,000.

In Hot Water Again

Adler would continue to play off the Israel connection to ensure his political fortune, especially given the bad press he'd received after the election.

When Stephen Harper visited Israel for the first time in January of this year, Adler was heard on tape begging to have his picture taken with him at the sacred Western Wall.

A month later, he barred Liberal MP and human rights activist, Irwin Cotler, from an Israel charity event.

Global News reported last week that Adler told Cotler – a well-known human rights activist – he was not welcome at the event on Jan.19. Rabbis said they heard about the incident and were upset that Cotler was not invited to attend – one even calling it senseless hatred.

Senseless hatred indeed. Nothing new for the Harper clan though, as they also tried to ban Michael Ignatieff from attending a Hanukkah ceremony at a school for disabled children.

But aside from the gaffes, Adler's integrity is again put into question, with a pending and controversial fundraiser that he will be hosting.

He settled the lawsuit with Nathan Jacobson, by agreeing to pay $114,962, hence the need for the fundraiser.

However, this has now become an issue for the ethics commissioner.

The Conservatives themselves, questioned how NDP Pat Martin was going to pay a $100,000 settlement, and according to Martin: “It’s wrong to use subsidized public dollars for personal private use,” he said. “I’ve got tons of money in my riding association coffers and they can’t spend a single nickel to help me with my legal problems or the debt from my lawsuit"

Donations made are tax receipted meaning that 75% of the donations would be made by us, and it's pretty clear that this fundraiser is being conducted by the riding association. Says Steve Maher:

Mark Adler’s brother, Paul, is the treasurer of the York Centre Conservative Association. Martin Rosenbaum, who handled Adler’s defence in the Jacobson lawsuit, is a former president of the association. The invitation to the fundraiser is headlined: Fundraiser in support of Mark Adler.

The “confirmed guests” at the event are Industry Minister Christian Paradis, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan, Senator Linda Frum and parliamentary secretary Pierre Poilievre. Shelly Glover withdrew on Wednesday. Her office said she has events in her riding to attend.

Glover wouldn't want to remind the public of her own lobbyist invited fundraiser. It's important to note that this is not the first time that Adler has been in trouble over fundraisers.

How much does he think he can get away with?

Hopefully, by 2015, the voters of York Centre will have had enough of Mark Adler. I know I have.

How Canadians Forced the Republicans to Miss the Bus

The Neocons South of the border, are in a flap ... again.

Not satisfied with bringing their country to the brink of collapse with their silly posturing over raising the debt ceiling, they are now attacking Obama for riding in a bus.

Maybe it's just that he refuses to sit at the back.

The Secret Service has ordered two custom made buses from the Quebec-based manufacturer Prevost (Go Canada), at a cost of 1.6 million per.

This is an outrage that the taxpayers of this country would have to foot the bill so that the campaigner-in-chief can run around in his Canadian bus and act as if he is interested in creating jobs in our country,” the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, said Tuesday.

Other conservatives were snarkier. Wrote Dana Loesch, a “tea party” activist and CNN contributor, on Twitter on Tuesday, “Nothing says 'Let's tour America and talk about jobs!' than a big, black, hearse mobile of doom.”

As usual, they failed to do their homework (or go to school), because in 2004, George W. Bush also rode around in a bus, made by the same manufacturer.

oops!

It must be so tiring to be so ignorant.

It Now Comes Down to the Battle Between Two Little Books

The common misconception about Stephen Harper is that he brought Republican style, divisive politics to Canada.

That's certainly true. His connections to the American Tea Party/Religious Right/Republican movement, are vast and well recorded. But this brand of conservatism originated in Canada when Harper was just a lad, pulling wings off butterflies, or whatever he did to pass the time.

And it started with a battle between two little books, both written by Conservatives, in the same era, but with completely different visions.

In 1965, scholar George Grant, wrote Lament for a Nation, fearing that the fall of Diefenbaker, would spell the end of Canada as a sovereign state: "To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state." George P. Grant (1).

The book was an instant best seller and though written by a conservative, became the new battle cry for the left. And as an expansion of Diefenbaker's "One Nation" philosophy, it also, in many ways, became a thesis for the Red Tory.

However, at about the same time, another Canadian conservative was writing a little book, called Political Realignment: Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians. It was a bit controversial at the time, because its publication was funded by a group of wealthy businessmen, but Ernest Manning with the help of his son Preston, laid out their vision for a Conservative Canada. It became the framework for a party of the right-wing, that would be based on pure ideology and the 'will of God'. (2)

Manning's book caught the attention of Colin Brown, founder of the National Citizens Coalition, that Stephen Harper would eventually head. In fact, it was Manning who suggested that the NCC incorporate, and he would be on the advisory board.

I've read both Lament and Realignment, and could find no common ground.

Ron Dart, professor of Political Science, Philosophy and Religious Studies at University College of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, BC, wrote a book The Red Tory Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes.

The recent decision by the Progressive Conservative party [2003] and the Alliance party to fold into and become the Canadian Conservative party does raise some interesting and important questions. What does it mean to be a Canadian conservative? Who defines the term? Why, at this juncture and point in Canadian political life, is the more republican interpretation of the term trumping, censuring out and banishing the older Tory interpretation of what it means to be a conservative?

Those with little or no sense of the Canadian political journey will not even realize there was and is a Tory tradition that has, in many ways, been the backbone of Canadian conservatism. It is this High/Red/Radical Toryism that needs retrieving and remembering at this point in history. The right of centre, republican read of conservatism is before us night and day. This needs little comment or commentary.

And he also saw the clash of the books:

The 1960s in Canada (and in many other parts of the world) were an unsettling and turbulent time. Much was up for redefinition. Two important political tracts for the times were written, in Canada, in the 1960s. Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (1965)and Political Realignment: A Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians (1967). As we briefly unpack and unravel these missives, we will get a feel for how Canadians have, in our history, understood the meaning of conservatism in different ways. It is as these two traditions lived in tension, there was some degree of political health. It is as these two traditions have fragmented, the republican brand of conservatism has redefined Canadian conservatism in a right of centre manner. (3)

Two Conservative visions for Canada. One Republican the other Tory. Why is the Republican version winning?

Money probably. Manning's movement has been very well financed and never changed direction. Pure ideology. While the Tory tradition was more organic, changing with the times and the needs of Canadians.

In fact, there was often little difference between the PCs and the Liberals, so elections were always about the platform.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle?

Four decades ago did either man see that their books would do battle, literally and figuratively?

Because you see, George Grant is Michael Ignatieff's uncle, and of course Stephen Harper not only headed the 'Realignment' inspired National Citizens Coalition, but was Preston Manning's lieutenant in the Reform Party. He also wrote it's policy:

Harper said that “the agenda of the NCC was a guide to me,” while then NCC President David Somerville crowed that Reform “cribbed probably two-thirds of our policy book.” (4)

So in many ways this election has been about the clash of "conservative values". Republican or Tory? And the clash of visions. American or Canadian.

And I'm afraid I'm now feeling like one of those authors almost 50 years ago "To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state." George P. Grant (1).

Republican is winning. Are we going to let it?

Sources:

1. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George Parkin Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1965

2. Political Realignment: Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians, By Hon, E. C. Manning, McClelland & Stewart Limited, 1967, Kingston Public Library call no. 320.971 M31

3. Ernest Manning And George Grant, By Ron Dart, ViveleCanada

4. Stephen Harper vs. Canada, By Scott Piatkowski, August 8, 2005

The Election Has Provided an Opportunity to Prevent Harper's Fire Sale of Canada

Canadians are enjoying a temporary reprieve from the EU trade deal that will not only cost thousands of good Canadian jobs, but also trades away everything from our water rights to our public services.

And the man who claims to be 'Here For Canada' has again proven that he's just not that into us. Multinationals will always come first.

"The deal on the table involves a number of controversial social and economic policy changes," says Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. "It would be a contempt of democracy for provincial and federal governments to let trade negotiators from the EU decide Canadian public policy behind closed doors." There have been six quiet negotiating rounds so far toward a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU. The provinces and territories are at the table, and were supposed to exchange initial offers with the EU during a seventh round of talks April 11 to 15 in Ottawa. According to news reports today, the offer exchange has been postponed.

Those offers will eventually include services, including public water, health, transit and energy services, as well as public procurement by provincial and municipal government agencies. The procurement chapter will ban 'Buy Local' and other strategic purchasing strategies by municipal governments in order to open up more public spending to European multinational companies. The provincial offers are not the only controversy in the CETA negotiations. Just last week we learned the deal will add less than $6 billion to Canada's GDP after 2020. The Harper government has been falsely claiming benefits of $12 billion by 2014.

One more reason to vote him out.

New 'Block' Canada Movement May End NAFTA

So Mr. Fat Cat may not have clinched such a great deal for himself after all.

I posted last week that there was a group of American law makers who are trying to put an end to the NAFTA agreement, that has been devastating for Canadian sovereignty.

Their plan is to give us and Mexico a six month notice, that the deal would be terminated.

Dare we dream?

Apparently it has also cost jobs in the U.S., as much of the production has been outsourced to Mexico.

I don't know how Harper's Buy America/Sell Canada deal will fair, though given that he sneakily made our health services part of NAFTA, we may be saved from that.

It will still hold that provinces and municipalities must allow the Americans to bid on their projects, so I doubt they'll end that one.

That's what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. They are scrambling like mad, looking for new trading partners, but I don't know that they will be able to make up for the lost U.S. trade. Mind you it doesn't mean that business will stop, it just means that it won't be as arbitrary.

The Canadian impact of cancelling NAFTA is likely to have little sway with the sponsors of this bill, their concern is the health of the U.S. economy. Rep. Taylor is quoted by Reuters as saying, “At a time when 10 to 12 percent of the American people are unemployed, I think Congress has an obligation to put people back to work.”While supporters have long credited NAFTA with helping boost trade and create jobs, opponents like cosponsor Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, say the trade treaty has cost American jobs, “I remain opposed to NAFTA because it continues to hurt the U.S. economy and put Americans out of work. I am pleased to join my colleagues to propose a repeal of this failed trade policy. NAFTA has failed to deliver the benefits that were promised and has cost Michigan hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs.”

Obama has never really like the deal anyway:

President Obama has promised to support freer trade and NAFTA in particular since coming to office, yet he was known for critiquing the pact while campaigning to be president. During a speech two years ago in Ohio, then candidate Obama was critical of rival Hillary Clinton and her support for NAFTA saying the United States can’t keep passing unfair trade deals. “One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA" Obama told his audience, "including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have.”

What we need is some good 'Buy Canada' marketing. And we need to end these ridiculous corporate tax cuts that are sinking the rest of us. Harper said recently that he wants our corporate taxes to be lower than America's.

If I honestly believed that that would inspire companies to set up here, I might think it was wise, but the cuts come with no strings. And most companies are using research and development grants to phase out jobs. Instant tellers, self check outs, computer generated phone calls.

Enough is enough.

Stephen Harper Speaking 'Luntz' to Engage in Reckless Havoc

I posted yesterday about Stephen Harper's new love of hockey, and how it was inspired by one of the top Republican strategists Frank Luntz.

The relationship between Harper and Luntz goes back years and he has been guiding the neoconservative movement since the old Reform Party days.

I also mentioned in my post that Frank Luntz used unethical means to get what he wants, and as you can hear in the video, a seventeen page memo was leaked that shows how he has attempted to manipulate the American public with catch phrases and fear mongering, on behalf of his corporate clients.

Today someone posted another article on Luntz at the CAPP site, that shows how he teaches his clients to 'speak Luntz'. Recalibrate would be one of those words, since it sounds much better than "we have no idea what we're doing."

Men like Luntz have ruined the Republican brand, turning it into a party of pure nonsense, in much the same way that Canada's new Conservative party is now. See how many similar phrases you can spot.

How to speak Republican
January 23, 2007
By Katherine Mieszkowski

Frank Luntz is a Republican word doctor who coaches conservatives to talk to Americans about "personalizing" (Harper uses 'choice') Social Security instead of "privatizing" it. He urges them to promote "tax relief," (Harper: progressive, fair tax relief to every single Canadian) not "tax cuts." He's counseled Republicans to spread doubt about the scientific consensus around global warming. Recently he recommended that "drilling for oil" be referred to as "exploring for energy," which goes down much more smoothly. Luntz is so reviled by environmentalists that one group has named an award after him for great achievements in Doublespeak ....

So start listening for Luntz speak. It's there in the Conservative message.

Stephen Harper to be Traded for a Minor Leaguer and a Snickers Bar

The Civitas Society is a secretive, ultra right wing group, founded by Tom Flanagan. One of the directors is Ian Brodie, former Harper Chief of Staff, and the membership is drawn from Canada's corporate elite, conservative and libertarian academics, think-tankers, lobbyists and journalists.

In many ways it might be considered to be the vanguard of individuals and groups that make up the infrastructure of the neoconservative movement.

Members include Brian Lee Crowley, president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, a conservative, free-market think tank in eastern Canada, and a member of the advisory Board of the Frontier Institute for Public Policy in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

In one of those 'knee bone connected to the thigh bone' things, the Frontier Institute also has connections to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Fraser Institute through Tasha Kheiriddin, co-author of Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution.

Harper's new speech writer, Nigel Hannaford also has ties to the Fraser, Frontier and Civitas. He is a columnist for the Calgary Herald and has always written strong social conservative rants, denying climate change and attacking the gay community.

Montreal Economic Institute president Michel Kelly-Gagnon is also a member of Civitas and Maxime Bernier was plucked from this institute to run for the Conservatives in Quebec. The group’s current president is Lorne Gunter, a columnist with the right-wing national paper, National Post, launched by media mogul Conrad Black and now owned by the Asper family, which also owns the CanWest Global media empire in Canada. (once just morally bankrupt, but now in receivership)

In May of 2006, at it's annual meeting, the Civitas invited the high-profile Republican pollster Frank Luntz, to coach the group on how to achieve a majority for Stephen Harper. The relationship between Luntz and Harper goes back a long way. They worked together with Preston Manning to achieve a landslide in 1994, for the Republicans and Newt Gingrich.

So what does any of this have to do with Stephen Harper's new found love of hockey?

Be patient, I'm getting there.

As I mentioned, Frank Luntz was invited to the meeting and the topic of discussion was Harper tricking the Canadian public into giving him his majority. Who knew at the time that he didn't need a majority to dismantle Canada after all. He could just maneuver himself into a dictatorship.

Kick the Liberals as they're down
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should do its best over the coming year to dig up embarrassing information on the former Liberal administration and portray it as corrupt, a prominent Republican pollster counselled an influential group of Conservatives yesterday.
By The Ottawa Citizen
May 7, 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should do its best over the coming year to dig up embarrassing information on the former Liberal administration and portray it as corrupt, a prominent Republican pollster counselled an influential group of Conservatives yesterday.

Speaking a day after meeting with Mr. Harper, Frank Luntz described the Conservatives as allies of the Republicans and urged them to discredit the Liberals so thoroughly that it will be years before they make it back into power...

"... Mr. Harper dropped by unannounced Friday for the opening reception, which featured a speech by federal Treasury Board President John Baird titled "The Way Forward for Conservatives."

Among the Conservative MPs spotted at the conference were Scott Reid and Maurice Vellacott. MP Garry Breitkreuz, a vocal opponent of the gun registry, was a panelist in a session on property rights, with a speech titled "Why Property Rights Should be Constitutionally Protected in Canada."

... Introducing Mr. Luntz yesterday, former Reform party leader Preston Manning praised the work Mr. Luntz had done for him several years ago. During his speech, Mr. Luntz mentioned that he had met with Mr. Harper -- whom he referred to on a first-name basis -- Friday and had posed for a picture together.

I know, I know. Get to the HOCKEY ALREADY!

During his speech, titled "Massaging the Conservative Message for Voters," Mr. Luntz drew a communications roadmap to bring the Conservatives to a majority government -- a roadmap that Mr. Harper's government already appears to be following in several respects. Focus on accountability and tax relief, said Mr. Luntz. Images and pictures are important.

Tap into national symbols such as hockey. "If there is some way to link hockey to what you all do, I would try to do it." (Didn't I tell you!)

So with Harper on the ropes and Canadians penalizing him in the polls, he has all of a sudden become Canada's number one hockey fan.

His accountability act was a sham and his tax cuts have almost bankrupted us, so this is the only option left.

But as Susan Delacourt says for the Star:

It's not about hockey

The gender divide may be re-emerging in the Conservative-Liberal battle, as noted in a story I have in today's Star. I find it intriguing the way in which the Conservatives have chosen to respond to the Liberals' big announcements this week on child care and abortion -- by trying to turn voters' attention to... hockey.

Now you might ask, so what's the big deal. So what if Luntz is a Republican pollster?

Well it's a very big deal, because like two other Republican pollsters, who have played a huge role in the success of this party, Karl Rove and Art Finklestein, he is not above using unethical means to obtain results. You will see in the following video, how he has placed the same actor in two separate locations, to give the appearance of a broader discontent with the Democrats.



So the next time you hear Harper nattering on about hockey, remember what this is really about and give him a misconduct penalty. And you can do that by VOTING in the next election and making sure that everyone you know does the same.

She shoots, she scores!

This is Canada Mr. Harper. Keep the Republican Nonsense on the Other Side of the Border

I was sent this video and I love it. Very much in the 'Joe Canadian' vein. Between possible war crimes and Harper may be losing us our spot in the Commonwealth because of his inaction on climate change, it's hard to get pumped up about Canada these days. But this video reminds me who we are.

Harper would hate this. No oil, guns or war. And no Republicans.

I am noticing though lately more people, especially in the mainstream Media, discussing Harper's involvement with some of the worst that the Republicans have to offer and how the Reformers have muddied Canadian politics. Karl Rove comes up a lot lately and Frank Lutz.

Have they just now figured out what's going on here?

One of my favourite journalists, Murray Dobbin, knows though and has always known, exactly who Stephen is, was and will always be.

The Republicanization of Canadian Political Culture
By: Murray Dobbin

Watching the sickening performances of the Harperites in the House of Commons this week – out right lying, bullying, slander, contempt for the public and parliament, and a stunning disregard for the public good – brings home a hard reality: we are witnessing the Republicanization of our political culture. And it’s not just the torture issue – it’s the Conservative labeling of Liberals as anti-Semitic – a kind of shit-house rat politics virtually unknown in Canadian political history. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that Karl Rove is on the PMO’s payroll; his disciples certainly are ....

We must stop this man before he literally destroys the country – that is, destroys the core of who and what we are and how we see ourselves. The first step is recognizing that we are in grave danger.

Why Did Taxpayers Fund a Bush/Harper Reunion?

Canadians have recently learned that we forked over $ 124,000.00 for security so that George Bush could visit Harper and his few friends in Canada.

Why?

He's not the President now. If Stevie can't quit Georgie, then visit him at Brokeback ranch. We don't want that war criminal here.

Bush visit cost taxpayers a bundle
Posted By BILL KAUFMAN,
SUN MEDIA
August 5, 2009

Taxpayers anted up more than $124,000 to provide security for former U. S. president George W. Bush's appearance in Calgary last spring, the Sun has learned.

Responding to an access to information request, Mounties say 2,611 service hours -- nearly 1,600 of them on overtime payroll -- cost $124,163 to secure a trip by the former leader who spent less than 24 hours in Calgary last March.

Bush spoke to a sold-out, appreciative private luncheon audience of 1,500 who paid $400 apiece to hear him speak on freedom, free trade and the economy at the Telus Convention Centre. (the economy? Is he kidding me?)

Bush's detractors say the ex-president's role in torture and launching aggressive war should have barred him from Canada, saving taxpayers the cost of protecting him.

The security tab "is very distasteful" especially for someone who's now a private citizen with such a dubious past making a lucrative visit, said Sally Hodges, Calgary chairman of the group Project Ploughshares.

"It comes down to the value he's given Calgary with the words he's spoken and I don't think it had much value," said Hodges. "I assume we're expected to be honoured by his visit."

She said the money paid for Bush's security -- none of which he pays -- would be better spent on government programs or other policing efforts. But even so, she said risking a security incident by not providing protection would sully the city's name.

Canadian Taxpayers' Federation Alberta director Scott Hennig agrees.

"Picking and choosing is a slippery slope we could get into," said Hennig. "If not, you run the risk of not protecting someone and having an incident ... it's a real tough line to draw."

So the Conservatives wouldn't let Galloway in because he offered food and essentials to the Palestinians, but they welcome Bush, a man responsible for the death of thousands? Good to know.

Josee Verner Says 'You'll Watch What I Tell You to Watch'

I don't know if Josee Verner herself is this narrow minded or if she's just like all Conservative women. Good little girls who do what the big boys tell them to do. Was this why she so easily agreed to become involved in an alleged money laundering scheme that she is yet to be accountable for? (nothing has been proven in court and won't be until this matter is allowed to be heard in court. The Conservatives still declare they did nothing wrong)

However, her defense of arbitrary Bill C-210, sure shows her inadequacies.

This got buried in the last budget, courtesy of Harper's pal, Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, who taught them all the dirty tricks he knows, and believe me, he's a master.

Pierre Poilievre had a little rendezvous with the man to learn how to pretend to have an Accountability Act, while hosing taxpayers, and look how well that's going.

Six Questions: Sex, Tax and Bill C-10
April 30, 2008
Jeanette Lee

In February 2008, members of the Canadian film and TV industry publicly denounced amendments to the Income Tax Act contained in Bill C-10, Dlabeling them "censorship." Director David Cronenberg was quoted in Xtra.ca, an online magazine, as calling the provisions an assault on freedom of expression, and the source of potential catastrophe to financing a film "because the whole thing would fall apart like a house of cards." Minister of Canadian Heritage Josée Verner rebuffed the censorship claims, asserting that Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship and its goal "is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent."

Why the fuss? This six-question primer covers key and background points in the current controversy over Bill C-10.

1. WHAT?

Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, amends the definition of "Canadian film or video production certificate" in subsection 125.4(1) of the Income Tax Act. A production must receive a Canadian film or video production certificate in order to qualify for certain federal tax credits administered by the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office (CAVCO).

Under the changes, a "Canadian film or video production certificate" will mean a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that minister is satisfied that certain criteria have been met concerning revenue share, and that "public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy [emphasis added]." This ‘public policy’ provision is the source of the controversy.

The heritage minister has stated that Bill C-10’s public policy provision will address "only the most extreme and gratuitous material." News reports speculate that criteria for denying tax credits could include grounds such as gratuitous violence, excessive sex, significant sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group.

In fact, the language of Bill C-10 provides no explanation of the criteria according to which a film could be considered, in the heritage minister’s discretion, "contrary to public policy." Bill C-10 also provides that the heritage minister shall issue guidelines under which a film or video production would satisfy the criteria. The bill expressly states that the guidelines will not be statutory instruments under the Statutory Instruments Act (and therefore not governed by the process of review and public comment afforded to regulations).

At the time of writing of this article, the heritage minister had not released any guidelines nor given precise indications of their content, despite urging from members of the film and TV industry.

On April 2, 2008, the Department of Finance reportedly argued, before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, that the criteria for offensive film and TV productions should not be included in the legislation or its regulations — the court could void regulations due to vagueness but were likely to be more lenient with criteria contained in guidelines.

Minister of Canadian Heritage Josée Verner (now James Moore. I have no idea what Josee is doing these days but it doesn't appear to be much) also appeared before the Senate banking committee, stating that Canadian Heritage would not apply the public policy provision until 12 months after Bill C-10 received royal assent. In addition, she invited input from the film and TV industry on the development of the guidelines. Members of the industry have subsequently voiced concerns about being involved in the development of censorship guidelines, since they are opposed to their very concept.

WHEN?

The bill was passed by the House of Commons with all-party support (hidden in the budget) on October 29, 2007. It received its second reading in the Senate on December 4, 2007. At the time of writing this article, the Senate banking committee was conducting hearings on Bill C-10, and concerned parties were appearing before the committee.

WHERE?

The bill must undergo its third and final reading in the Senate. The Senate banking committee delayed a third and final reading of Bill C-10 in late February 2008, when public criticism of the bill erupted, putting the matter on hold until April 2008.

WHO?

Objectors within the industry include a wide range of groups and individuals, including directors, actors and politicians who have publicly voiced opposition to the bill. Groups expressing concern or lobbying to challenge the bill include ACTRA (Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists), the Writers Guild of Canada, the Directors Guild of Canada, and the Canadian Film and Television Production Association.

WHY?

A similar "public policy" provision was proposed in draft regulations to the Income Tax Act in 2003 by then Liberal Heritage Minister Sheila Copps. Ms. Copps was quoted in various press reports as explaining that the intention of her proposed provisions was to establish "reverse onus" for producers of extremely objectionable material, and to give the heritage minister discretion to prevent a film from receiving a tax credit in extreme cases.

The 2003 proposal arose in response to the film Karla about the lives of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, and the hypothetical scenario where a film such as Karla might be eligible for tax credits had it been produced in Canada. However, the Income Tax Regulations enacted in 2005 did not contain the provision granting ministerial discretion to deny tax credits to films considered contrary to public policy.

The motivation for the Conservative government’s inclusion of the public policy provision in Bill C-10 is unclear. Traditionally, the tax credits have been highly labour-driven, designed to encourage producers to hire Canadians using relatively objective criteria that award points to a production based on Canadians hired for key positions. Current regulations already exclude content such as pornography, news, reality television, game shows, talk shows, corporate video and advertising.

HOW?

The affected federal tax credits are not the only source of funding available to film and TV producers. Other direct and indirect sources are available from federal, provincial and private sources, including Telefilm Canada (also administered under Canadian Heritage), banks, provincial tax credit programs and other private financiers. Practically, however, CAVCO tax credits and Canadian Program certification are often critical components to secure funding for Canadian productions. Consider that:

Domestic film and TV productions typically apply and may obtain subsidies at the script stage, but refundable tax credits are subsequently applied for and received after completion of principal photography.

Domestic productions often rely on funding from more than one source. Other sources of funding may base their funds or advances to the producer on the expectation or condition that the federal tax credit and certification as a Canadian Program by CAVCO will be received.

A producer (or financiers) therefore will not know if a production is unacceptable until after it has been shot, monies have been spent and the reviewing committee has reviewed the film and rendered a decision, should it choose to do so.

Producers who are denied tax credits could face a great risk of exposure to repay financiers whose grants or advances (e.g., Telefilm Canada, bank and distribution advances, etc.) were based on anticipated tax credits. This could potentially result in business or personal bankruptcy for the producer.

The public policy provision may not affect foreign productions shooting in Canada that receive CAVCO-administered federal tax credits but are not considered "Canadian" productions. Canadian Heritage representatives have argued that such tax credits are intended to encourage investment based on spending in Canada and not on content.

Supporters of the public policy provision claim it is only fair that public monies not be used to support the production of offensive content, and that nothing stops producers of such content from making their projects using other funding.

Opponents of the amendments raise numerous concerns, including:

the importance of the tax credit and Canadian program certification to financing arrangements;
the lack of clarity about who will decide what norms are "contrary to public policy";
the lack of guidelines or criteria;
the discretionary nature of how review and decisions will be exercised;
the volatile and practical effect of the timing and subjectivity of decisions;
the resulting inability of producers to secure adequate financing for their productions; and, of course,
the aftertaste of censorship.

Banks may be discouraged from providing the necessary loans to edgier, riskier productions if the projects may not be eligible for the tax credits on such subjective terms.

If the guidelines are put in place, some opponents argue self-censorship will result — writers and producers will write to the guidelines in order to ensure tax credits are received so the production can be made. Either way, they argue, the end result may be a freeze on the artistic expression of edgy, unique Canadian voices in film and TV.

Bill C-10 may be law but our fight isn't over
Public Service Alliance of Canada
March 13, 2009

Our parliamentary democracy continues to be tarnished with the passage into law of another Conservative omnibus budget bill. Unable to accept their position as a minority government, the Conservatives have chosen, once again, to ram through legislation completely unrelated to the budget without time for proper scrutiny.

Bill C-10 is full of poison pills including wage roll-backs, a new pay equity law for federal public sector workers that is anything but, watered down environmental protection of our navigable waters and considerable loosening of foreign investment limits, among many other changes.

At the same time, the budget and its stimulus measures provide virtually no help for social infrastructure such as child care or for industries and jobs that are not “shovel ready”.

The Conservatives' callous use of the unemployed to get its budget bill passed – the extra five week's of benefits only become effective once the bill becomes law – is reprehensible, as is their refusal to fix the system to allow more workers, particularly women, to access the benefits they have been paying for and to provide a reasonable level of benefits. They even reinforced this position when they recently voted against an opposition motion to improve EI. The motion passed but the government will take no action.

The Harper government had a choice. They could have introduced a budget that was just a budget. There was absolutely no reason to include such a wide range of legislative changes in the budget bill, changes that would normally have been introduced as separate pieces of legislation with sufficient time for proper scrutiny by the House of Commons and the Senate. Instead the Conservatives chose to abuse our parliamentary democracy.

More than 550 pages of a bill have been given Royal Assent and have become law. I doubt very few of our MPs and Senators can tell you the extent of Bill C-10, much less what impact it will have on us, our economy, our environment and our country.

C-10 became law but not without a valiant effort by our members and staff who met with, phoned, e-mailed and petitioned both MPs and Senators; who demonstrated and made their opposition known; who joined with women's groups, the unemployed and other concerned citizens to protest against the ugliest features of this bill. I thank you for everything that you have done.

PSAC will continue its fight against unjust legislation. Challenging bad law in the courts is one avenue. But legal action isn't enough. We all need to talk to our family, friends and neighbours and to connect with others in our community who believe that what this government is doing is unjust and undemocratic. We need to continue the pressure on our MPs to bring them to account. We need to be prepared for the next election. And we need to start this now.

John GordonPSAC National President

Stephen Harper's True Religion: American Money and Power.

There is a great deal of discussion about Stephen Harper's evangelical roots, and church affiliation.

He never speaks of it, at least not to us; but is it out of desire to keep his spiritual beliefs private, or fear that if we delve into his religious background, we will discover what is really behind it. Money and power.

Indeed there are many Social Conservatives in his caucus, who are members of the Religious Right, and constantly denounce homosexuality, abortion and equal marriage, while promoting war and violence.

They will play the role of the pure and holy, while engaging in acts that are clearly in violation of their public moral superiority.

For instance it would appear that Stockwell Day visits brothels, and Maxime Bernier hooks up with biker chics while Vic Toews fathered a child by a young woman, while still married to his now ex-wife.

They also engage in criminal behaviour and are not above using bribes and coercion to get what they want.

And what do they want?

To hold onto power at all costs, at least until they've sold off our country to American interests. They've almost achieved that goal and the National Citizens Coalition will be able to add another successful campaign to their list of accomplishments.

But back to Stephen Harper and his religious beliefs, or lack thereof. In the book Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, his former girlfriend, Cynthia Williams, claims that they never went to church, and according to Tom Flanagan, Harper's wife Laureen, is not terribly devout.

So is Harper's interest in Evangelism, spiritual or opportunistic? His actions clearly show that he worships on the altar of the Almighty Dollar, so who knows. He certainly exploits the Religious Right, in the same way that the Republicans do in the U.S.

However, there is a fairly lengthy article in the Vancouver Sun that tries to define his beliefs.

A matter of faith
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been associated with evangelical Protestantism for decades, but it is an aspect of his political agenda about which he seldom talks publicly
Douglas Todd,
Vancouver Sun
August 18, 2007

CALGARY - The mega-church headed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's pastor friend boasts a coffee bar, a soft-rock band and a shopping-mall-sized parking lot. Rev. Brent Trask's RockPointe Church -- which displays moving images of Jesus on three giant screens when elders serve communion -- is perched on rolling farmland right next to Highway 1A.

Overlooking the snow-capped foothills of the Rocky Mountains, Rockpointe is a giant "destination" church, accessible only by car, SUV or truck. It's reached by driving west of the endless, look-alike subdivisions of this sprawling, oil-rich city.

On the outside, RockPointe Church looks like a bunker. On the inside, it's a cavernous auditorium with no crosses, altar or pulpit. Instead it has a "stage" on which its many pastors champion conservative moral values while strolling like casual talk-show hosts, remarking on how "cool" things are, exclaiming "Right on!" and referring to adherents as "You guys."


Prime Minister Stephen Harper seldom talks about his Christianity and discourages his Christian MPs from talking too much about their faith in order to avoid alienating more secular Canadian society.

Trask believes the more than 2,000 evangelical Protestants in his thriving church, as well as most of the 2.5 million evangelicals across the country, are enthusiastic supporters of his old friend, the prime minister.

Evangelicals like the Conservative leader, Trask says, because he's a "small-c conservative" on moral issues, encourages followers to help the poor through Christian charity rather than government programs, trusts in the free market and shares the evangelical belief Jesus Christ is the route to salvation.

As a sign of how evangelicals support Harper on policy issues, Trask last year joined a network of Christians across the country in vigorously supporting Harper's cancellation of the Liberals' universal daycare program, in favour of handouts for parents. Evangelicals, Trask says, don't want the state meddling in the sacred duty of raising children.

Harper, the 48-year-old leader of a minority Conservative government, virtually never talks publicly about his Christian beliefs. As a result, those who are curious about his spiritual views resort to visiting Harper's friends, such as Trask, and congregations like RockPointe -- which belongs to the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination, with which Harper has been connected for about two decades. (The Christian and Missionary Alliance has been called a cult by many other religous groups who claim they have become the Walmart of megachurches, hurting many small community based churches)

Some political observers say Harper -- who has been criticized for muzzling his cabinet and his many evangelical MPs -- could suffer politically if he were more open about his form of Christianity in a diverse, multicultural country such as Canada.

Fewer than one of 10 Canadians consider themselves evangelical Protestant, the religious stream to which the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination firmly belongs. The percentage of Canadians who might generally follow evangelical-style theology, say pollsters, could at the most rise as high as 18 per cent, but only if one were to include theologically conservative mainline Protestants and Catholics.

A recent poll, in addition, revealed Canadians are growing much less inclined to vote for a prime minister who is evangelical.

Friendship began in 1980s

"Stephen is a personal friend of mine," Trask said after a recent Sunday service in which he urged about 700 worshippers to "be relentlessly focused on the lost [people who have not converted to Christianity]."

Well-muscled, dressed in a short-sleeved shirt and sporting a goatee, Trask said he and Harper have talked frequently, beginning in the 1980s.

That's when Harper was on an intense spiritual and political quest and becoming involved with the then-new Reform party of Preston Manning, an evangelical radio preacher.

"[Harper] didn't just believe what he was told. He had to rationalize what he was hearing about Christianity. He wasn't a blank slate. That's the best way to come to faith," Trask said.

About two decades ago, Harper shifted away from the mainline Protestant denominations of his father and began finding a home in the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, which has about 2.5 million members and 14,000 congregations worldwide. One fifth of its members live in North America, with Alberta a Canadian hotbed.

Since Harper moved in 2003 to Ottawa, he has been attending the capital city's Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, called East Gate, under the guidance of Pastor Bill Buitenwerf.

Evangelical political journalist Lloyd Mackey, author of The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, says the prime minister is a "cerebral" evangelical Christian who appreciates Buitenwerf and "speaks warmly of the influence" and intelligence of Trask.

Two other important religious mentors for Harper, according to Mackey and others, have been Calgary Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy, a fellow evangelical, and Manning, who like Harper is an Alliance Church adherent. (Chuck Strahl also belongs)

Foundational convictions

Indiana State Purdue University religious studies Prof. Philip Goff says the Alliance Church holds to four foundational convictions, which emerge out of its belief the Bible is without error.

The Alliance Church places an intense focus on the need for personal salvation, emphasizes the importance of leading a "holy" life and encourages spiritual healing, says Goff. The denomination also stresses that Jesus Christ's return to Earth is imminent, says the evangelical specialist, who was raised in the Alliance Church.

Alliance Church rules, like those of other evangelical denominations, strongly oppose homosexual relationships, describing them as the "basest form of sinful conduct."

The Alliance Church is also tough on divorce and holds that Christians who have been adulterous do not have a right to remarry.

The denomination's leaders, in addition, oppose abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, the use of marijuana and ordained female clergy.

When Trask told his suburban Calgary congregation during a recent Sunday sermon about RockPointe's mission to be "relentlessly focused on the lost," he was reflecting the Alliance Church's belief in the need to rescue non-Christians from damnation. The Canadian church's website features a list of sample prayers "for the lost," so members can pray for sinful non-Christians they hope Jesus Christ will save from "eternal damnation."

Harper doesn't respond to journalists, including those from The Vancouver Sun, who want to ask whether he shares such Alliance Church doctrines. Goff, however, says saving the "lost" is "general evangelical language about the need to be born again, otherwise you will not get to heaven."

Airing such a belief in the U.S. would not cause a politician any damage, says Goff, in part because evangelicals dominate President George W. Bush's Republican party and are active among the Democratic party.

But Notre Dame University's Mark Noll, one of North America's leading evangelical church historians, says: "I suspect many Canadians would be upset to learn about the conservative beliefs of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. They certainly are far less tolerant than, say, the United Church of Canada."

For his part, RockPointe's Trask, who spoke regularly to Harper until 2004, didn't want to say what Harper believes about the need to convert non-Christians. "I'm not going to talk about his [Harper's] personal life."

It's interesting to know which theologians have shaped Harper.

Mackey says he "risks embarrassing" Harper by revealing that Harper has been inspired by two British Christian thinkers: C.S. Lewis and Malcolm Muggeridge.

Lewis (1898-1963) is the famed Irish writer of The Chronicles of Narnia fantasy series, who converted in mid-life to evangelical Anglicanism.

Lewis is much-loved in evangelical circles for his apologetics -- his engaging literary defences of traditional Christianity. In books such as Mere Christianity, Lewis outlines his conviction that Jesus Christ was more than a wise man, that he was the divine, only son of God, responsible for handing down absolute positions on morality.

Muggeridge (1903-1990) was another British author and agnostic who converted as an adult to conservative Christianity. A drinker, heavy smoker and womanizer in his earlier life, Muggeridge first made his name as an adventurous journalist and soldier-spy. But he went on to become known as the "discoverer" of Mother Teresa, producing the film, Something Beautiful for God.

As a conservative Christian, Muggeridge adopted right-wing economic views and attacked Britons and others for relying on alcohol, sex, birth control and marijuana.

Mackey, who is well-connected in Canada's evangelical community, understands why Canada's prime minister won't talk more about his loyalty to the Alliance Church, even to sympathetic biographers such as himself.

In Canadian politics, Mackey believes Harper is one of many conservative Christians who have been striving to downplay the public's fears about evangelicals being "scary."

A 2006 Ipsos Reid poll showed the percentage of Canadians willing to vote for a prime minister who is evangelical had fallen 17 percentage points in a decade. Only 63 per cent of Canadians said they'd vote for a prime minister if he were an evangelical, below the 68 per cent who wouldn't hesitate to vote for an atheist or a Muslim.

Even though two-thirds of Canadians tell pollsters they believe the resurrection of Jesus provides for the forgiveness of sins, just one-fifth share the Alliance Church belief the world will end with the return of Jesus Christ and a cosmic battle called Armageddon.

And only one-quarter of Canadians support evangelicals' push to convert non-Christians. Aware that many Canadians are suspicious of evangelicals, Manning last year organized a series of conferences to urge conservative Christian leaders to tone down their Biblical, "peel-the-paint-off-the-walls" rhetoric.

As head of the new Manning Centre for Building Democracy, he called on religious people to be patient as they pursue their political agendas, whether it's opposing abortion and homosexuality or supporting capitalism and reducing the size of government.
Some commentators said Manning's "charm school for Christians" could sound to outsiders like "stealth evangelism."

The rational and the supernatural

Bruce Foster, head of policy studies at Mount Royal College in Calgary, believes Harper keeps his religious beliefs close to his chest because he's a strategic thinker who worries it would hurt his chances of winning a majority government.

"If Harper came out and said those who don't know the Lord are 'lost,' are doomed, he'd be held up to ridicule," Foster said. "In a multicultural, diverse, relativistic country like Canada, that's toxic stuff for most voters."

It is hard for the Canadian public to reconcile Harper's image as a highly rationalistic policy wonk with the conservative Christian morality and leap-of-faith belief system of the denomination to which he belongs, says Foster, a specialist on Canadian politics and conservative Christianity.

Harper's "near-Teutonic" rationalism, says Foster, seems at odds with his evangelical faith, which Foster says relies on supernatural belief. "It's as if the two hemispheres of his brain are warring with each other."

If Harper was upfront about his evangelical loyalties, Foster believes he could be mocked by opposition politicians and the media.

That's the fate Foster maintains befell former Alliance party leader Stockwell Day, now a Conservative cabinet minister, when journalists learned he was a Biblical creationist who thinks humans once lived with dinosaurs.

Canadians tend to be suspicious about evangelicals in high office. Only 39 per cent of Canadians believe "Christians should get involved in politics to protect their values."

That's a drop of seven percentage points from 1996, according to Ipsos Reid, and well below the 54 per cent of Americans who want Christians running governments. Still, it appears Canadian voters may be beginning to polarize along religious lines, like Americans.

Andrew Grenville's research for Ipsos Reid shows the 2006 federal election brought the first indication of a new national religious-conservative voting bloc.

Compared to the 2004 federal election, the Conservatives in last year's February election enjoyed a 25-per-cent increase in votes from Protestants who attended church weekly, with no increase from those who did not.

Despite such new religiously shaped voting trends, Foster doesn't believe Harper is pretending to be an evangelical just to court conservative Christian support.

Noting that Harper's wife, Laureen Teskey, is not interested in evangelical religion, Foster says Harper would probably draw conservative Christian support whether he was one or not. "Evangelicals have nowhere else to park their vote."

Still, the Calgary-based political scientist says Harper has to find a way to appeal to non-conservative Christians for support, especially the many secularists who live in Quebec and major Canadian cities. That's where Harper's party did badly in 2006 -- and where skepticism is strong about politicians who blend religion and politics.

As a result, Foster believes Harper is in a double bind. He's damned if he becomes more open about having conservative religious connections. But he's also damned if he remains silent about his faith "because it makes it look as if he has something to hide."

Notre Dame's Noll, who frequently teaches at Vancouver's evangelical Regent College, believes Harper could ease Canadians' fears of evangelicals by emphasizing the Alliance Church has traditionally had a "quietistic," or private, approach to religion, which emphasizes converting individuals rather than imposing faith-based values on the public.

Whatever strategy Harper adopts, polls show his personal popularity has fallen since he took office in February 2006. In July an Environics poll revealed his approval ratings dropped below 50 per cent for the first time.

Given such low ratings, Foster says, Harper may have no choice but to come more boldly out of his religious closet.

Like Harper, former Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau was also an intellectual who was coy about his Roman Catholicism, Foster says. But, unlike Trudeau, Harper has been unable to make his aloofness entertaining.

"Harper is stolid. He's solemn. The man is almost robotic. You can't get a feel for the guy. And he must know it's a problem. If voters can't get a sense of the man, then it's no surprise his personal ratings have stalled, or worse.

Stephen Harper Our First Republican Prime Minister

I recently watched the movie 'Dave', starring Kevin Kline, and it reminded me of something I had discovered after our 2006 election.

Kline plays a look alike of the U.S. President, who was asked to stand in when the man suffered a stroke and his administration wanted to keep it from the public.

Aside from the backroom wheeling and dealing, it was a cameo performance by John McLaughlin that jogged my memory.

Mr. McLaughlin is one of the most prominent Republican pollsters, and the man who just happens to have taken credit for the career of one Stephen Harper.

Soon after he became Prime Minister, I accidentally stumbled across a congratulatory letter on the net, part of the New York based McLaughlin and Associates website. In it the company stated that they had worked with both Mr. Harper and the National Citizens Coalition for many years and were proud that one of their clients had achieved their goal.

What was also significant was that under the heading of success stories, appeared not only the name of Stephen Harper, but also the Conservative Party of Canada as a separate entity.

I printed off the letter and gave it to a local activist who ran a site protesting NAFTA and deeper integration with the United States. I also sent a link to several opposition MPs and media outlets. Others had picked up on the McLaughlin story as well, and several bloggers began providing links to the site.

Then something strange happened. I visited the site again and both the letter and mention of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada were gone. Only the name of the National Citizens Coalition remained. Odd.

I started thinking I had been imagining the whole thing, but then noticed on another page that someone else had experienced the same thing.

In the comments after the post:

The National Citizen's Coalition, PC Party & Harper are all clients of McLaughlin & Ass. a New York consultant firm. Could be a pipeline? Check out their client list at www.McLaughlinOnline.com

Then down a bit:

Oddly enough, it used to be at this linnk:http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/aboutus/abtjm.htm but it's gone...hmmm...

The commenter had saved the original text, however, "John McLaughlin has worked professionally as a strategic consultant and pollster for twenty years. During this time he has earned a reputation for helping to guide underdog Republicans and conservative challengers to victory. He has worked across America and internationally in hundreds of campaigns.

Within the past year, John McLaughlin has helped elect Iain Duncan Smith, the leader of the Conservative Party (United Kingdom); Stephen Harper, the leader of the Canadian Alliance Party (Canada); Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore; and a historic 30-seat Republican majority in the Virginia House of Delegates...."

The new bio:http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/aboutus/abtjohn.htm Doesn't mention Harper. Strange, that...But this does: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/aboutus/assoc.htm#banks Abroad, he has processed a number of surveys for Canada's National Citizens Coalition, and Conservative Party (Canada) Leader Stephen Harper.Hmmm...

The fact that he states that Harper was the "leader of the Canadian Alliance Party (Canada).." reveals that their relationship went back a ways.

Another blogger also pointed out the connection:

One thing I learned from that entry that I hadn't known is that Harper outsources his attack ad production to an American firm, Mclaughlin and Associates. Quite a piece of work, judging by the client list, producing material for everyone from the RNC to the Smokeless Tobacco Council to the American Conservative Union to the lovely and talented people at the Media Research Centre.

Were I one of those Canadian bloggers making attack ads, I'd leave aside the general question of Harper using attack ads to focus on how and why Harper is retaining the services of such people. ... this cements something that should be foremost in their minds right now- they aren't competing against "Tories", but against the Republican Machine. Disastrous governance aside, the Republicans' ability to use that machine should never, ever be underestimated.

On Gerry Nicholls blog, former colleague of Harper's at the NCC, he flogs this endorsement: Broadcaster Charles Adler calls Gerry Nicholls a “political warrior”, Toronto Sun Money Editor Linda Leatherdale says he’s a “fierce defender of democracy”, John McLaughlin, a top Republican pollster, describes him as a “brilliant strategist”, while the Fraser Institute has dubbed him a “non-partisan ideologue.”

But while McLaughlin and Associates have purged all mention of Stephen Harper, John McLaughlin does include his name on his bio (for now anyway):

McLaughlin's recent clients include Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA); Iain Duncan Smith, the leader of the Conservative Party (United Kingdom); Stephen Harper, the leader of the Conservative Party (Canada); Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore; and a historic 30-seat Republican majority in the Virginia House of Delegates.

So is it any wonder Harper would hire Ari Fleischer to help sell him to the U.S. media? He certainly appears on Fox News more than he does on any Canadian stations.

And of course Jason Kenney's new aid was once part of the Bush administration. There could be others, but these two names are significant.

We've recently learned that the so-called Rhuby Dhalla affair was groundless, but typical of a Karl Rove style attack.

Yep. Stephen Harper. Canada's first Republican Prime Minister.