Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 9 (Summary)

Vote for Harper? Inconceivable!

Ninth and final  in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Summary

Rather than include all of the main points of the eight prior blogs in this series, three Harper failings are highlighted: democracy, the environment and economy.

1. The Harper government runs one of the most undemocratic regimes in Canadian history — and has undermined and abused democratic institutions and procedures at every turn. 

2. Harper is the only Canadian Prime Minister to be found in contempt of Parliament, which occurred in 2011 after his government refused to release certain program costs to Opposition MPs. 

3. "We have a crisis in Canada where public information is disappearing and being restricted." (Executive Director of  Canadian Journalists for Free Expression)

• Weak Canadian access to information rules need revision, says Canada's information commissioner

4. The Harper government shows no intention of moving forward with climate policy and remains the worst performer of all industrialized countries.

5. Harper may blame the current recession on any number of historic or international events, but there can be little doubt that his polices have exacerbated the situation.

6. Harper's strong card was his promise of a balanced budget, however, it appears the government will run a $1-billion deficit in the current fiscal year even if it uses all of its contingency fund, says a report recently released by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. 

• Federal government facing $1-billion deficit: budget watchdog

7. The Bank of Canada's Monetary Policy Report released last week downgraded economic growth for 2015 and projected that Canada had slipped into a technical recession in the first half of the year. 

8. Moreover, the Canadian dollar dipped to its lowest point in more than a decade.

Vote for a Harper government? — Inconceivable!

Is Harper the worst prime minister in Canadian history? 
Clearly YES!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
An amazing op-ed article appeared in the New York Times, 14 Aug. 2015:

The closing of the Canadian mind

Subtitle: Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada, is creating a legacy of secrecy and ignorance. 

A few selected quotes [précised] about our PM:

He has consistently limited the capacity of the public to understand what its government is doing, cloaking himself and his Party in an entitled secrecy, and the country in ignorance. 

Mr. Harper’s war against science has been even more damaging to the capacity of Canadians to know what their government is doing. 

In 2012, he tried to defund government research centers in the High Arctic, and placed Canadian environmental scientists under gag orders.  

He ended the mandatory long-form census, a decision protested by nearly 500 organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Chamber of Commerce. 

[He] passed the [Un]Fair Elections Act, a law which not only needlessly tightens the requirements for voting but also restricts Elections Canada from promoting voting.  

He is “tough on crime” and builds more prisons at great expense when even American conservatives realize that over-incarceration causes more problems than it solves. 

Conclusion: Whether or not he loses, he will leave Canada more ignorant than he found it. 

Harper will leave Canada more ignorant. How sad. Yet it correctly sums up our PM, mocked for what he is in the New York Times, who's print version has the largest circulation of any metropolitan newspaper in the USA, and is long regarded as a national "newspaper of record", respected around the globe.

Vote for Harper? Who could? He does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 6 (Abuse of Prorogation)

Harper's Abuse of Prorogation 

Sixth in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Although prorogation normally allows governments to bring in fresh bills, usually mid-way through a prime minister's mandate, Harper has used prorogation four times, shutting down parliament for a total of 181 days.

In December 2008, Harper enraged constitutional experts by proroguing Parliament. Many accused him of simply trying to avoid a confidence vote over a fiscal update, which his minority government appeared certain to lose. 

Apart from the doomed attempts of Charles I to prorogue the British parliament in the 17th century, there has not been precedent in any parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world where a democratic parliament was shut down to hide from a vote of confidence. 

• Prorogation redux: Harper in contempt of Parliament 

In 2010, Harper prorogued parliament again in the midst of a controversy over Canada's treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan.

In August 2013, Harper prorogued during a scandal involving the expenses of Conservative senators.

Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair accused Harper of shutting down Parliament to evade accountability and to avoid questions on the Senate. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
What is prorogation of Parliament? 

The main effect of ending a session by prorogation is to end all government business. All government bills that have not received Royal Assent prior to prorogation cease to exist; committee activity also ceases. Thus, no committee can sit after a prorogation.

Note who wrote 'Harper in contempt of Parliament' above:

• Errol B. Mendes
• The person calling our PM in contempt isn't a political shill for opposition parties, or a leftie media hack, he is a constitutional lawyer of the highest regard internationally.

Even The Economist, not a left-wing rag by anyone's standards, chastises Harper on his abuse of proroguing:

• Harper goes prorogue: Parliamentary scrutiny may be tedious, but democracies cannot afford to dispense with it

To date these blogs have featured Harper's contempt for and attacks on democracy whether it be

• Control of the media
• Censuring of scientists
• Abuse of Question Period
• Obstruction of 'access to information' requests
• Abuse of omnibus bills

Today, Harper's anti-democratic mentality is evident by forcing Canadians who want to attend his campaign events to be vetted by the party and receive a bar-coded ticket bearing their name.

Honest, you couldn't make this stuff up.

As an aside, Conservatives has been embarrassed into relenting on the 'no photos' rule, naturally putting a spin on it, but stick to the vetting. To claim it's about security is nonsense since Harper's party has done it since at least 2008.

With Harper it's all about 

• Controlling the message, as practiced by authoritarian regimes worldwide;
• Even if it means abusing democracy.

Harper does not deserve our vote. It's fair to say he is a SCARY outlier among all prior Canadian Prime Ministers. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Part 7. Harper's Environmental Record

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 5 (Abuse of Omnibus Bills)

Harper's Abuse of Omnibus Bills 

Fifth in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Harper was a Reform MP, he argued that a Liberal 20-page omnibus bill should be broken up so that its measures could get closer scrutiny. 

However, when Harper came to power, in 2010, he tabled an omnibus bill with 883 pages addressing a multitude of issues, served with the threat of an election if the opposition failed to support its passage. 

Since then, Harper has passed 10 more omnibus bills, each between 300 to 450 pages. Each has been an abuse of process and each has shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role.  

Major changes to policy and law that should have been examined by MPs have been pushed through with almost no debate, sometimes with disastrous results:

• Harper's Ottawa is omnibusted (Globe and Mail, 2014)
• Harper sneaks in ideology-driven policy via a 321-page “omnibus” budget bill with many unrelated measures (Toronto Star, 2013)

In 2012, one of the omnibus bills, C-38,

• Completely gutted Canada’s environmental laws;
• Cut $36-billion from health care funding;
• Weakened Canada’s food inspectors through job cuts;
• Made it harder to qualify for EI benefits. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
PM Harper consistently shows himself to be a hypocrite, preaching one policy when in opposition, and behaving exactly the opposite once in power. 

His 180^o turn on omnibus bills is especially odious. Once again Harper 

• Manipulates laws for political purposes;
• Hides them from MP scrutiny; 
• Hides them from Canadians;
• Mocks parliament with his utter contempt;
• Degrades Canada's democracy.

An omnibus bill is a single document accepted in a single vote that groups together multiple diverse measures. Because of its large size and scope, an omnibus bill limits opportunities for debate and scrutiny. As such, omnibus bills allow governments to

•  Subvert and evade the normal principles of parliamentary review of legislation.

And they've become a Conservative government brand. The PM's 'flipping us the bird', folks. Harper does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Part 6. Harper's Abuse of Prorogation

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 4 (Obstruction of Access to Information Requests)

Harper's Obstruction of Access to Information Requests

Fourth in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Stephen Harper came to power in 2006, his stand on "transparency and accountability" included a promise to reform Canada's 30-year-old Access to Information Act, in particular to give the information commissioner the ability to order release of information, to read cabinet records and to adjudicate complaints. Subsequently, few substantive changes have been made to the Act.

Instead, the government has gained a reputation for secrecy, erecting one roadblock after another to any attempts to shed more light on government's inner workings, from the handling of Afghan prisoners to its battles with independent watchdogs.   

Ironic, because when Mr. Harper was opposition leader, he said: 

Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions and incompetent or corrupt governments can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.

Incredibly, one access to information request actually resulted in the Harper government retroactively changing a law to cover criminal activity. 

After the government got rid of the long gun-registry in 2012, the RCMP was ordered by the Government to destroy its records. By then, however, an access to information request for this data had been made. The RCMP destroyed the information anyway, which, according to Suzanne Legault, Canada's information commissioner, is a criminal offence if an access request is being processed. Legault recommended charges be laid against the responsible RCMP members. 

However, in an omnibus bill, the Harper government simply retroactively rewrote the access laws to erase the RCMP's mishandling of gun registry records, to protect these officers from facing criminal charges. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments

On Access to Information, Harper behaves exactly the opposite to what he advocated when in opposition, which makes our PM a hypocrite. Many politicos change tunes once in power but Harper's behaviour makes him unique in the annals of Canada's political hypocrisy. He's done 180^o turn on so many issues. Our PM's brand includes secrecy and manipulating laws for political purposes.  

Retroactively changing laws sets a dangerous precedent. As a Canadian citizen it scares the hell out of me.

• Tories set ‘perilous precedent’ by retroactively changing law to absolve RCMP, information commissioner says

The Harper government not only rewrote a law and backdated the changes, it buried it in an omnibus bill. That should scare every Canadian.

Harper degrades Canada's democracy to an extent never before seen in any of our past governments. Harper does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome.

Part 5. Harper's Abuse of Omnibus Bills

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 3 (Abuse of Question Period)

Harper Government's Abuse of Question Period 

Third in a series of mini-blogs on
Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015.

DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs.
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question Period is supposed to be the heart of Canadian democracy, where the government is held to account by the opposition and forced to explain and justify its policies.

However, rather than provide clarity and transparency, Harper Government responses to questions during Question Period more often result in evasion, reading of prepared talking-points, denigration of the questioner, and/or aggrandisement of the government.

Paul Calandra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, best exemplifies the nature of these responses. For example, when asked to provide more information about the scope of Canada's foray into the Middle East

• Calandra launched into a totally irrelevant accusation that an NDP fundraiser had accused Israel of genocide and that New Democrats do not support Israel. 

Similarly, when Calandra was asked how many lawyers from the PMO were involved in setting up the secret deal with Mike Duffy, he responded with an irrelevant non-answer, laughably lauding Harper's government:

Thank goodness Canadians elected a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government, led by the best prime minister in the world, flanked by a minister of finance who has won awards, with the strongest cabinet in Canadian history and Conservative members of Parliament working all over the country to hope for hope, jobs and economic prosperity.

In keeping with his failure to be accountable and transparent, Harper attended only 35% of the daily Question Periods in 2015. To further avoid answering questions, Harper signalled he would not participate in 2015 election leaders' debates organized by a consortium of broadcasters.

This is the same Prime Minister who has

• Refused to meet Canada's provincial and territorial premiers as a group;
• Skipped the Council of the Federation meetings of Canada's provincial and territorial premiers for years;and
• Did not attend the January 2015 meeting although it met just a few blocks from his office. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As stated in Canada's Model Parliament for students, daily Question Period in a parliamentary democracy is an opportunity for MPs to obtain information for their constituents and all Canadians, a chance for MPs to hold government accountable for its actions.
The right to seek information and hold the government accountable are two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. 
That Harper has Paul Calandra as a Parliamentary Secretary says volumes about our PM: 

• One of Calandra's many disgraceful performances in QP, as instructed by PM Harper (After 75 seconds of CBC ads, but it's well worth it)

Harper systematically degrades our Parliament's QP and by extension Canada's democracy. Our PM prevents Canadians from 

• Getting answers to important questions;
• Being aware of key information that affects us all;
• Holding our government accountable for its actions;
• Even those involving sending our sons and daughters into life and death situations.

Harper does not deserve our vote.

As always, comment are not welcome.

Part 4: Harper's Abuse of Access to Information Requests

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 2 (Censuring of scientists)

Harper Government's Censuring of Scientists 

Second in a series of mini-blogs on
Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015.

DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs.
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stephen Harper's information policies muzzle scientists in dealings with the media:

• Canada must free scientists to talk to journalists (Nature 2010;467:501)

For example, climate change researchers from Environment Canada have been prevented from

• Sharing their work at conferences;
• Giving interviews to journalists;
• Even talking about research that has already been published. 

Similarly, scientists in departments that deal with natural resources, health, fisheries and oceans have also felt the pinch of the muzzle. Nine out of 10 federal scientists feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about their research. 

• Why Canada needs a Parliamentary science office

In 2013, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), representing 20,000 federal scientists, found that

• Hundreds of their members reported being asked to exclude or alter technical information in government documents for non-scientific (political) reasons;
• Thousands reported being prevented from responding to the media or the public.

As a result, PIPSC abandoned its tradition of neutrality in elections to actively campaign against PM Harper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
Harper's policy of preventing scientists from talking to the media, even about their published papers, is difficult to understand.

• Harper shackles science done by Canadians working in federal departments when it doesn’t serve his political interest;
• He prevents research from being published, even research done in collaboration with international scientists.

Such policies make a joke of Canada. We're a democracy yet Harper's actions resemble those of the authoritarian regimes of the former USSR. 

Of note, when PIPSC goes to the bargaining table this year, it will seek a clause guaranteeing scientists the “right to speak.” They say Canada is the first country in the world where scientists have sought that kind of clause in a contract.

You know it's bad when the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) sends a letter to Harper urging him to knock it off: Prime Minister urged to end clampdown on scientists.

Scientists are quitting their jobs and will increasingly leave a stifling environment. Harper's policy routinely suppresses not only big science but even minor scientific news. Why? Because he has to control everything? That's what control freaks do.

Shackling scientists has consequences: it weakens Canada's ability to deal with ongoing and future environmental issues that affect us all. 

• Harper controlling the science message

Harper also puts politics above scientific evidence as when he tried to shut down Vancouver's Insite safe injection site, but was overruled by Canada's Supreme Court, which stated

• The evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety.

In response Harper created Bill C-2 designed to make it difficult for new sites to open. The bill is opposed by the Canadian Nurses Association and others.

Similar to his controlling the media, Harper seeks to control scientists, undermine scientific evidence, and weaken democracy. That's how he consistently behaves, folks. It's our Prime Minister's brand. He does Canadians a disservice and does not deserve our vote.

As always, comments are most welcome.

Part 3: Harper's Abuse of Question Period

Why I will NOT vote for a “Harper Government”: Part 1 (Control of the media)

Harper Government’s Control of the Media

This is the first of a series of mini-blogs on 

Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 

DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 

My brief comments follow each blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While campaigning to replace the Martin Liberals, Stephen Harper promised more openness and accountability, however, throughout his term as Prime Minister, he has drawn

• Criticism for his near-total inaccessibility to journalists who cover politics. 

The Harper government has established more roadblocks to access to information than any previous government. For example:

• Press  releases announcing events at which the PM would be speaking, often stipulate that photographers and videographers can attend, but no journalists will be allowed. 
• As a result, broadcasts of the event show the PM speaking from a script without responses to any politically relevant questions. 

The role of the press in government matters is to monitor the different levels of government and report to the public. However, the Harper government's media policy is to prevent media access and subsequent reporting to Canadians. Journalists regularly report that 

• Their calls are not returned;
• They are given copies of speeches only when they are days old;
• Cabinet meetings are held in secret allowing ministers to avoid the press who wish to meet with them after the meetings and ask questions about their portfolios. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments 

DaBa has it right and it follows that Stephen Harper's Conservative government actively sets out to stifle democracy in the pursuit of self-interest. This alone is sufficient reason for Canadians not to vote Conservative.

Excerpt from 'The Role of the Press' by Dmitry Fadeyev (Feb. 2014) 

Members of the public cannot sit still and be passive participants of their state, but must, for the state to be a democracy, take an active role in asserting their will.

For a democracy to be a true democracy, the people must be active participants in political discourse, and for this to happen, the press itself must be an active agent that brings this about.

Harper's policy of limiting media access lessens our democracy. He and his Conservative government do not deserve the votes of Canadians.

As always, comments are most welcome. 
Part 2: Harper's Censuring of Scientists

In praise of Yiddish (Listen up, schmucks!)

I've always loved Yiddish words ever since I became aware of them. Who can say why and I'm not alone. Who cannot love such a language? Yiddish was the language of the Ashkenazic Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, most of whom died in the Holocaust. 

Years ago I gave a graduation talk to MLS grads on Yiddish words, since one seemed to fit their class to a T: chutzpah. 
Chutzpah
Chutzpah has a positive meaning in popular culture, meaning cheeky, gutsy. That's how I meant it for the MLS students who graduated that year and were an audacious bunch of rascals.

When thinking of chutzpah, I picture saying it with a guttural sound with spit flying everywhere but here's what Cambridge Dictionary says on its pronunciation.

Politicians mangling the word: For fun, see attempt by US politician Michele Bachmann.

How to pronounce chutzpah (for you and me)
Mensch 
I love Guy Kawasaki's 'How to be a mensch'

My choice for a guy most likely NEVER to be called a mensch:

• Stephen Harper, Canada's Conservative Prime Minister (note he's hardly ever had a real job outside politics) 

Shalom
You have to love a word that can mean hello, goodbye, and peace (and much more). I heard shalom often during 1965 travels in Israel.

Then there's greetings like Shalom aleikhem. Also the writer Shalem Aleichem whose Tevye's Daughters was the source of Fiddler on the Roof. 
Schlep
I've spent much time traipsing around Europe, beginning in the 1960s.

Occasionally, that would best be described as schlepping, especially in Berlin after a 2001 plane trip that took over 24 hrs. for what should have been less than half the time. Blame using Aeroplan points and getting stuck with a ridiculous route with long hours in Vancouver and Frankfurt airports.

Like most Yiddish words, schlep is fun to say and use, even when it doesn't quite fit.
Schlemiel
How many schlemiels do you know? I know a few, all of them lovable. 
Of course, Woody Allan epitomizes the quintessential schlemiel. But Peter Sellers is great too as Inspector Clouseau.

As a Seinfeld fan (still watch reruns), Jason Alexander as George Constanza perfects the schlemiel.

Schtick
Everyone has a schtick, sometimes good, sometimes not. 
Do you know anyone whose schtick is to be negative? I call them "boo birds". Never a good word, always moaning and groaning. Know a senior like this and quite a few 20-somethings too. Or how about the opposite? No matter what disaster befalls them, their schtick is stoicism, just grin and bear it.

Most successful comedians have a schtick, e.g.,

• Bob Newhart on tobacco (Hilarious example of his understated humour)

Summary
I could include many more Yiddish favorites like schmooze and the whole darn megillah, as in this Yiddish dictionary.
But, bubbee, that might cause you to exclaim, Oi, Vai! Enough already for one blog....
And for anyone who gratuitously uses the F-bomb - see In praise of angst and other German words (Banish the F-bomb) - the word that comes to mind is schmuck. Your language ain't worth bupkis.                                                                         
That goes for comedians Russell Peters and Jon Stewart and Robin Williams. They're immensely talented, so why rely on the lazy man's F-bomb to get a laugh from the immature schmucks in the audience?

CBC 'brown noses' PM Harper

Why did CBC broadcast Jian Ghomeshi's 30-minute interview with Stephen Harper about the PM's love of hockey before the 2nd game of the Vancouver-Boston series? It gave the 'pygmy PM' a kazillion $ worth of free publicity. Was it to ingratiate CBC with Harper who threatens to axe Canada's national broadcaster?

Canada's PM pushes asbestos for votes

On 26 April 2011 articles in many Canadian and foreign papers reported that Canadian PM Stephen Harper had a campaign stop in Asbestos, Quebec in which he supported allowing Quebec's asbestos industry to export its product abroad:

• Canada labelled 'immoral asbestos pusher'

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 107,000 people die of exposure to asbestos annually. Quebec's asbestos industry employs 500-800 people. And we wonder why Canada's reputation around the globe is in shreds. Harper supports Canada as an immoral exporter of death to poor countries.

Is there anything our PM won't do for a vote? Do Canadian jobs trump killing others? Anyone who votes Conservative needs to know what Harper stands for. And why was there no mention of Harper's Quebec campaign stop to support asbestos exports in the Edmonton Journal? Aren't newspapers supposed to keep citizens informed about the activities of the government?

Canada's pygmy Prime Minister

Canada is in the midst of a political crisis:

• A most un-Canadian caper (The Economist, 4 Dec. 2008)

It's true that Canadians did not vote for a coalition of Liberals and NDP headed by Stephane Dion (a decent man but weak leader who Canadians rejected in the Oct. 14 election) and supported by the Bloc Québécois. Neither did we vote for right wing doctrinaire (old Reform Party/Alliance) policies like banning pay equity or removing the right to strike of public employees under the guise of belt tightening needed for the upcoming recession that Harper kept insisting did not exist. Moreover, regardless of the merits, choosing this time to unilaterally cut public funding for political parties was just plain nasty or stupid, probably both.

Yet Harper had his Finance Minister toss these into an economic update, something that most observers, including supporters of the Conservative Party, now describe as his "bully" gene or arrogance. Harper's decision clearly triggered the current crisis. Instead of an economic plan to deal with a crisis our PM opted for partisan attacks.

The opposition parties were astounded and reacted as would be expected. Let him get away with this in a minority government and who knows where it would stop. The trigger was the partisan attack, especially on their finances, which could cripple them, but Harper also chose to ignore the economic crisis and paint an overly rosy picture of Canada's economy.

They proposed a 2-party coalition. Unlike Harper, the coalition pledged to deal realistically with the economic crisis.

That's how parliament works - the government must have the confidence of the House of Commons or it falls. Rather than calling another election so soon over the last, a coalition can take power under our system.

But such a coalition would also inflame the West, which had voted overwhelmingly for the Conservatives. Westerners could view the coalition as a way to cheat them of their government. An added problem is that it would be headed by Dion, an ineffective leader who had agreed to step down in May 2009 after the Liberals had a poor showing at the polls. And, perhaps most of all, changing governments during an economic crisis seemed risky.

To combat his imminent defeat, Harper backed down on the triggering partisan ploys but to no avail. The opposition had had enough and no longer trusted him.

Accordingly, Harper ratcheted up the rhetoric. He decided to demonize the Bloc as evil incarnate, vile separatists about to destroy Canada, even though he has a long history of cosying up to them himself when he needed their support. He said the Bloc was part of the coalition when it was not. He said the coalition leaders did not have a Canadian flag at their signing ceremony when two were there and easily visible. He plain lied.

This Harper tactic has stirred up latent Western alienation against Eastern Canada and Quebec in particular. His caucus was heard to sing "O Canada" during the crisis, which reminded me of McCain and Palin's right wing supporters chanting USA! USA! as if they had a monopoly on patriotism. Pardon me while I puke. Are we in for rallies where Conservative supporters chant "CA-NA-DA! CA-NA-DA!"?

Harper went to the Governor General and asked that Parliament be prorogued (suspended) until 26 Jan. 2009. This is the first time that a PM has ever suspended Parliament to avoid defeat. And in the midst of an economic crisis no less.

Here come the US-style attack ads.... They are guaranteed to be full of distortions and outright lies and name calling and he counts on us being stupid enough to believe them. Unfortunately, many voters can be swayed by such nonsense and a media blitz of attack ads. His support is up.

Is this what's coming next from our PM in a month-long string of advertisements aimed at keeping power? That the Conservatives alone love this country and want what's best for it? Are supporters of the Liberals and NDP to become "The Others," not quite "real Canadians" but left-leaning socialists, just one step away from "Commie red b_astards"? Is that where he is heading, all in an attempt to save his own skin? You know they are short of ideas and valid arguments when the separatist and socialist labels come out.

When Parliament resumes in January, who knows what will happen. The coalition is unlikely to hold given that the Liberals are in the midst of a leadership race. If Harper gets his way, the hate mongers within his ranks will be out in force. Canadians of different political persuasions will be turned against each other. His supporters will be so aroused against a coalition that they will destroy opposition signs, attack opposition MP offices, and spit on coalition supporters in the street, or worse, since they are anti-Canadian. All in support of his keeping power.

Most Canadians just want our political leaders to show leadership and cooperate so that our government works. Harper had his chance earlier but blew it. No doubt he will now give the impression of wanting to consult and show respect for others. Can he be trusted? If history is prologue, the answer is no.

Frankly, Harper's actions in stirring up national disunity and in asking for Parliament to be suspended to avoid a non-confidence motion that would defeat him are undemocratic. His mean and bullying behavior during the current crisis is what Canadians somehow seemed to know about him. It's the reason he has not gotten a majority government despite a weak and crippled Liberal Party.

HARPER'S CHOICE

• Harper could have chosen to draw opposition parties into a common fight against the economic crisis.
  
• He could have respected the views of all Canadians and solicited ideas from elected representatives of all parties.
• He could have chosen greatness by cooperating and creating an all-party team of advisers.

He could have stepped up at this historic moment of crisis and chosen to be a giant.

But instead he chose to be a pygmy. Our PM has proven to be a small man indeed. Our Parliament is now suspended, all so he can retain power. His stature is forever diminished.

FURTHER READING

From fiscal update to prorogued Parliament in 7 days

Fanning the fires of national disunity

Charest warns against Quebec-bashing in Parliament crisis

Ottawa rhetoric likely incited sign burning, B.C. MP says

Emotions run high in the West

The first Liberal step: Replace Dion

Liberals try a new leader, Michael Ignatieff

Sad state of democracy in Alberta

Note: The Oct. 27. 2008 issue of the Edmonton Journal has a shorter version of this blog entry in its Opinion section.

In his column "We lack strong presence in Ottawa. With an NDP member elected, will Edmonton be punished?", Todd Babiak wrote, "The fact that this is a serious concern for any thinking person is worrisome for the future of democracy in this part of the country, which is in desperately bad shape and becoming worse with every election."

Kudos to Todd for pointing out that democracy in Alberta is all but dead. Not only are there Albertans who are not content with winning 27/28 electoral seats but apparently some think Edmonton-Strathcona should be punished for the gall to elect a non-Conservative. How pathetic, if it were not so scary.

Have any of the "elect only Conservative" populace ever wondered why Alberta had so few members in Stephen Harper's cabinet after the 28/28 sweep in 2006? Reasons include the

• Quality of most elected Conservatives in Alberta
• Fact that Albertans can be taken for granted if they repeatedly elect 100% of the party slate;
  
• Need for a governing party to have a cabinet that reflects all of Canada

Alberta lacked a strong presence in Ottawa after electing nothing but Conservatives in 2006. Our one party voting pattern is pretty much a joke in the rest of Canada. Edmonton-Strathcona electing a high quality representative like Linda Duncan can hardly be blamed if Alberta is again treated with disdain by Harper with few cabinet members.

Maybe it's time for Alberta's school system to teach civics and what it means to live in a democracy? Many people here do not seem to understand the basics of how a strong opposition results in better government.