Tag Archives: Stephen Harper

It helps to be holding cards when you bluff

Posted on by
3

From the National Post:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has to make a choice: cash for Quebec or an election, says Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.

“I am now challenging Stephen Harper to respond to Quebec’s expectations,” a pumped Mr. Duceppe said Sunday in a speech closing a party general council meeting. “We are asking for simple fairness, elementary justice.

“Mr. Harper has a choice. He can respond to Quebec’s expectations or he can spark elections. For our part, we will not fold. We are going to stand up for Quebec. We are not going to give up, we are not going to be quiet.”

Apart from being pathetic losers, the Quebec nationalist movement — led by Gilles Duceppe’s Bloc Quebecois — is forgetting one important fact: You need to have something the Conservative Party needs before you can start giving ultimatums. The Bloc is in a similar boat to the New Democratic Party: They will always be ready for an election because the outcome of said election doesn’t matter to them. As perpetual opposition parties, they don’t need to play the numbers to figure out when the time is right for an election, they’re ready to go whenever. As such, those two parties have very little bearing on votes in the House of Commons given that they’re diametrically opposed to any Conservative bill.

That being said, it’s not unlikely that they will attempt (yet again) to form a coalition government with the Liberal Party of Canada after the next election comes. For them, that’s their only hope of being anywhere close to governance, so sooner is rather than later. Duceppe can threaten the government all he wants, but the decision lies with Ignatieff. Scary, huh?

Is Harper headed for a majority?

Posted on by
1

Former National Citizens Coalition vice-president Gerry Nicholls seems to think so, and I’d have to agree given how much in disarray the Canadian Liberal Party is:

After much pondering, I have come to the conclusion that if we do have a federal election this spring, the result will be a Conservative majority.

Now I realize this forecast goes against conventional political wisdom.

Many pundits, using current public opinion polls as evidence, are arguing no party currently has enough voter support to win a majority.

Columnist Lorne Gunter has written, “Party standings would probably end the campaign at more or less their current levels. There is almost certainly no majority available to any party.”

And former Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella has declared, “Harper is still far from a majority.”

Really?

Gunter and Kinsella are forgetting one simple fact: Canadians are not yet politically engaged.

The Liberals recently released a poll, for instance, which showed only 15 per cent of Canadians are even paying attention to federal politics. (By the way, that’s completely normal. The average person rarely cares about the goings on in Ottawa. They would rather watch American Idol than The National. And who can blame them?)

But once an election is actually called Canadians will get focused on politics. They will start paying attention.

And what will these focused Canadians see when they start paying attention?

Well for one thing they will see a Prime Minister in Stephen Harper who is at the peak of his political powers.

A battle-hardened veteran of three national election campaigns and two leadership races, Harper is a wily political tactician who leads a united, well-disciplined and wealthy party.

The Liberals, on the other hand, are in a sorry state.

Their leader, Michael Ignatieff, is intelligent but a rookie when it comes to running a national campaign. He has only one national race under his belt, a Liberal leadership contest, which he lost.

Nor has he shown any evidence that he is a good campaigner or that he possesses good political instincts or that he can come up with a message that will resonate with Canadians.

His party is also demoralized and cash-poor.

[...]

However, all things being equal, we should expect 2011 to mark the true beginning of the Harper dynasty.

Conservative government still awesome on foreign policy

Posted on by
4

From the Canadian Press

Minister Jason Kenney says Canada will not attend a UN conference on racism next September because the event will be a “charade” and a “hatefest.”The conference, dubbed “Durban III,” is intended to mark the 10th anniversary of the 2001 meeting in South Africa aimed at defeating racism.

Canada and several other countries walked out of that meeting after Iran and several other countries began ganging up on Israel.

Canada was the first country to withdraw from Durban II last year in Geneva.

Kenney says the UN General Assembly has chosen to “repeat and even augment the mistakes of the past” by holding a commemorative meeting in New York next year.

He says the government has lost faith in the process and Canada “will not lend our good name to this Durban hatefest.”

Kenney says Canada is clearly committed to the fight against racism, but he says the Durban process “commemorates an agenda that actually promotes racism rather than combats it.”

Despite legitimate issues I’ve had with the Conservative Party of Canada’s direction on fiscal issues and domestic policy, one area where Stephen Harper’s administration has never wavered is on pragmatic foreign policy and support for Israel. The latest decision by the government to refuse to acknowledge a special United Nations panel on d**k-all (“ending racism”) and, as such, refuse to take part in it, really shows the fact that they haven’t sold out.

The point is never to blindly defend a particular country, but rather to acknowledge when a country is being unfairly treated as Israel constantly is. The only thing the United Nations has ever done right in the Middle East is giving Israel back to the Jews like it belonged. Since then, the U.N. has been an anti-Semitic global orgy.

Prime Minister, please do more stuff like this.

Harper Government Kills Potash-BHP Billiton Deal

Posted on by
4

Yesterday BHP Billiton announced that it is withdrawing its bid for Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan. The Harper Government blocked the bid from BHP Billiton because the deal did not provide a ‘net benefit for Canada’ – according to Industry Minister Tony Clement.  Whether or not the deal benefits Canada should have nothing to do with the deal. Companies are not in business to benefit the government, people, or the community – though private business does all of this – business is in business for money. Nothing else.

Industry Minister Clement commented:

We were concerned the bid would mean that other capital expenditures would not be forthcoming

Wow. So-called conservatives are telling companies how they should be investing their money. I wonder how Minister Clement defines small government.

It’s amazing that the Harper Government is so arrogant to presume that it has the moral authority to determine what is good for Canadians. You’d think that a ‘conservative’ government would understand that the government is not the grand arbiter of morality.

This is not the first time the Harper government has interfered with the free markets – recall the sudden elimination of income trusts. Millions of seniors saw the value of their savings plummet because of a Harper government decision. It’s a wonder that the Harper government even calls itself the ‘Conservative Party’.

The government is creating a made-in-Canada discount. If your public company is listed in Canada, the government may actively inhibit your ability to deliver value to your investors.

Its always sad to see how the Conservative Party of Canada now represents the fashionable right. It’s time that they stick to their principles – rather than trying to appease a small group of voters to the detriment of the country.

I’m curious how many government bureaucrats are holding short positions on Potash Corp (betting that the stock price will go down).

Strictly Right Radio with Conrad Black

Posted on by

On this Strictly Right, Ari and Andrew have a wide-ranging discussion with Conrad Black, take a look at the latest race shakedown, question what the Federal Reserve is up to, commend Speaker-elect Boehner and more.

Listen Online:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.

Is Canada ready for a majority government?

Posted on by
5

Everyone this week has been asking, “Is Canada ready for the Tea Party Movement.” (The answer is YES by the way.) The Ottawa Citizen though is asking if Canada is ready for a Majority government.

After four-and-a-half years of governing with more seats than any other party, but less than half of the total available seats in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper may need to make a bold move in the next election to get the extra 11 seats he needs to have complete control of the federal government. The alternative? A government lead by a Canadian who lived outside the country for 34 years returning only to run for office, a socialistic who thinks terrorists are just misguided freedom fighters, and a man who hates Canada so much that he wants to pull the second biggest province out of confederation. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that Stephen Harper isn’t perfect. He’s passed some policies that I personally disagree with. However, he’s a heck of a lot better than the three stooges on the other side of the aisle. Actually, the two don’t even compare.

The Tea Party Movement in Canada is not a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party of Canada. In fact, it’s a mouthpiece for the citizens of Canada, and I sure hope that government will take the Tea Party values of limited government, greater liberty and individuality and start to insert that into policy. Some people fail to see that liberty is not a fringe value. Liberty is a God-given right shared by everyone. The government doesn’t give us freedom, government by nature limits freedom.

So, how can Harper get his majority? According to Tom Flanagan, former Harper aid, he needs to contrast him versus the opposition without ever uttering the word ‘majority.’ Oddly enough, where majority governments used to be common, Canadians seem to be scared of them now. In the two-party United States system, there’s a majority party and a minority party. Nothing else. In the recent British election, the voters had no idea what they would do when the winning party failed to win the majority of seats. As a response, the “conservatives” got into a coalition with the socialist Liberal Democrats. Critics of Prime Minister Harper assume that he’s only riding out the wave until he has a majority then this miraculously conservative hidden agenda will be implemented.

If he were prepared to hold out for almost five years before putting forth those policies, I imagine they wouldn’t be that important. Just as it’s time for Canadians to make a bold move, it’s time for Harper to. If the Prime Minister continues on this path, he’ll lose support from the right that he won’t gain from the Left. He needs to tell people he wants a majority, and tell them what he’ll do with it.

National Priorities

Posted on by
4

The West is entirely dependent on the United States military. Following the Second Would War, Europe and Canada decided that they would build up social welfare plans, and allow the United States to be the one superpower that defends them all. The obvious requisite in this deal is that the United States forswear socialism, in order to maintain the world’s strongest fighting forces.

In 2009, following the election of Barack Obama, Australia came to the conclusion that the United States had broken its end of the deal. Australia realized that they could no longer depend on the United States. As such, Australia greatly expanded and retooled its military. It would appear as though Canada has come to the same conclusion.

Canada, the country famous for nixing military spending in favor of socialist healthcare, is set to rearm. Under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, the Canadian military was neglected, as Canada thought that the United States would always be there to fight. As a result of this thinking, Canada cut back on all types of expensive military equipment. However, with President Obama projecting weakness around the globe,  severe cutbacks in American military spending, all paired with an enormous expansion in social spending, have resulted in the creation of an apparent power vacuum. This vacuum is forcing other countries to reassess their national priorities. According to the National Post Canada is set to unveil a $16 billion dollar plan to purchase the brand new Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter. 10 years ago, Canada scrapped plans to spend $5 million of EH-101 helicopters, deriding the choppers “airborne Cadillacs.” That was an entirely different time. With the realization that the United States is on its way over the precipice, set to join the West in stagnant socialism, countries like Canada and Australia are acting preemptively, readying their own defenses. This is a decision the rest of the West is being faced with – without the backing of the United States will other countries chose to remain weak, or will the vacuum left by the destruction of American power cause socialist countries to rise from the slumber, reduce social, and rearm?

Teens are stupid

Posted on by
7

Especially when they’re from Newfoundland.

When Jeremy Dyer was selected to represent his province because of his human rights art, he had no idea he’d find himself in line to shake Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hand.

The notion was an affront to Dyer, an activist who vehemently disagrees with many of Harper’s policies.

Dyer, 19, who hails from St. John’s, N.L., was at the Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg, where he and 11 other young people from around the country were on hand to display their human rights-themed artwork.

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip were both in attendance, as the Queen unveiled a cornerstone to the museum.

Then, standing in front of cameras alongside his peers, Dyer heard rumblings the prime minister was en route.

“I didn’t know until literally minutes before,” said the Memorial University student. “I was pretty outraged that he was going to be there… I told them I would politely decline to shake his hand if he attempted.”

After a speech about youth and Canada and human rights, Harper did, indeed, shake the young artists’ hands. But before he could reach Dyer, a museum staff member came up behind Dyer, and asked him to step back, Dyer said.

Refusing to shake Harper’s hand was his way of expressing his disapproval, he said.

“That was the breaking point — when I was suppressed for my beliefs.”

But the Museum said Dyer stepped back voluntarily, just as the Queen was approaching.

“He told us that he didn’t feel comfortable and we respected his decision,” said Angela Cassie, the museum’s director of communications.

Dyer said the event was co-opted and turned into a photo-op for the prime minister and a promotional tool for the museum.

“It was such a degrading experience. I felt so tokenized,” he said. “I feel like they took something so huge away from me that weekend. So huge.”

Cassie, however, said they wanted the students involved to have the best possible experience.

She said they travelled to Winnipeg on the museum’s dime, visited all sorts of art galleries and historical sites, were given $350 digital cameras to record their experiences, and had their art displayed on a big screen during the museum ceremony.

They were given the opportunity to meet many dignitaries, including the Queen, the premier, and yes, the prime minister.

She added that Dyer’s art submission was “powerful” and that “he has a very strong artistic vision and voice.”

Cassie called Dyer herself as soon as she heard he was upset with his experience at the museum to get his perspective.

“It’s about encouraging young people to express themselves,” she said.

Dyer dismissed the suggestion he stepped back because he was overwhelmed.

“That’s just a ridiculous statement,” said Dyer. “Stephen Harper does not overwhelm me.”

So just to clarify, a boy didn’t want to shake Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hand, so the museum took him out of the line-up that was for people shaking hands with the PM, and then he complained that he wasn’t allowed to decline to shake Harper’s hand? To quote the great Ari Fine, “I see why tigers eat their young.”

Happy Dominion Day!

Posted on by
5

Happy Dominion Day folks! I figured I’d take this opportunity to post an old column that David Menzies wrote for the National Post. Its message still rings true today. Enjoy the injection of patriotism and amusing history lesson from the Menzoid!

We should be celebrating Dominion Day

David Menzies, National Post  Published: Friday, June 30, 2006

Ah, today is the First of July. It means a day off work. It’s the unofficial
start of summer. And millions celebrate with barbeques sizzling, hammocks
swaying and fireworks blasting. For 24 years, July 1 has been known as
Canada Day. But undoubtedly, some “old-timers” (that is to say, those
Canadians who have memories stretching back to the early ’80s) likely recall
the original moniker for July 1: Dominion Day, a holiday officially
established by statute in 1879 but now consigned to the scrapheap of
political correctness.

The sneaky process that resulted in Dominion Day’s assassination is
certainly a story worth retelling. The deed took place in Parliament on July
9, 1982, back when the Trudeau regime was calling the shots. Purging
Dominion Day from the Canadian lexicon occurred on an otherwise laidback
Friday afternoon, the last day of Parliament before the summer recess. A
mere 13 members were present, seven short of an official quorum.
Alas, so much for formalities: a private member’s bill seeking to officially
expunge “Dominion Day” and replace it with “Canada Day” was quickly
rubberstamped. Faster than you could say, “fuddle duddle” more than a
century of history disappeared.

The move was “consistent with what Liberal governments have been doing since
[Lester] Pearson took over, which is trying to ‘re-brand’ Canada,” notes
Stephen Clarkson, a University of Toronto history professor who specializes
in Canadian politics and Pierre Trudeau. “I think for people like me, I’m
sort of the last vestige of the British Empire, so [Dominion Day] has
nostalgic qualities.”

While it’s hard to determine precisely how many Canadians are or were upset
over the “re-branding”, Clarkson does note that those most likely to take
umbrage — “white Anglo-Saxon protestants” — were already the “minority in
Canada by the early ’80s.”

Even so, according to the Monarchist League of Canada, “dominion” is a very
proud and powerful term. After all, the preamble to the Canadian
constitution — that document so beloved by Liberals then and now — states
there shall be “one Dominion.” And Monarchists note that the D-word is
misunderstood: Dominion is synonymous with independence, freedom and free
association — not subservience or colonization.

Alas, a contributing factor to Dominion Day’s exclusion from the Canadian
holiday vocabulary is that dominion does not translate very well into
French. Given that pandering to Quebec sensibilities is practically Canada’s
national pastime, Dominion Day was perhaps doomed for this reason alone.
How sad. After all, the genesis of Dominion Day had much to do with that
very positive Canadian attribute of compromise. As noted in The Canadian
Encyclopedia, Dominion “refers to Dominion of Canada (British North America
Act preamble), to the federal government or Parliament, and to Canada’s
status in relation to the Imperial government. The fathers of confederation
wanted to call the new nation the Kingdom of Canada, but the British
Government, fearing the sensitivity of Americans to references to the Crown
and anxious not to antagonize them after the American Civil War, insisted
the Fathers find another title. Leonard Tilley suggested ‘dominion’: (Psalm
72). ‘He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto
the ends of the earth.’ The Fathers said it was intended to give dignity to
the federation, and as a tribute to the monarchial principle. Under the
Constitution Act, 1982, ‘Dominion’ remains Canada’s official title.”
On sober second thought, no wonder Dominion Day was given the axe. After
all, it’s all so “B&B” (biblical and British) — neither of which jives that
well with Liberals.

Ideological agendas aside, perhaps re-branding wouldn’t have been so
offensive if only the replacement for the regal-sounding Dominion Day wasn’t
the appallingly bland Canada Day — a “McHoliday” if ever there was one. Can
anyone imagine Independence Day being replaced by USA Day? The most
important American holiday would end up sounding like the name of a national
newspaper — just as our most important national holiday now sounds like a
brand of ginger ale.

Even so, wouldn’t it be a fitting birthday gift if the Harper Conservatives
were to undo this particular example of Liberal vandalism, restoring
Dominion Day to its rightful place? While changing the name (again) of our
most important holiday is not high on the priority list, it would certainly
be something worth celebrating. At least for those Canadians who still care
about such things.

Libertas Post Profile of Andrew Lawton

Posted on by
8

Nate Hendley from the Libertas Post interviewed me a couple of weeks ago for his website. I really enjoyed chatting with him about Ann Coulter, Tea Parties, my public healthcare nightmare, and lots of other stuff, so I would encourage you all to check it out here!

What’s your opinion of Harper? Is he doing a good job or are you angry at the Conservatives now?

I’m not angry at the Conservatives. I’ve never been one of those people that wanted to throw the Conservative Party under the bus. I am a member of that party. I will vote for that party in the next election, most likely, unless something really major comes up. From an analytical standpoint, I think Harper does need to do a lot between now and the next election to get back some of the base—our listeners, people who read our blog. There are some genuine conservatives out there, who have been conservatives their whole life who have issues with Harper as a leader. They feel he has been going too much to the centre. I think there are reasons for making compromises in government. I’m not blind, however. I do think he has some work to do to hold onto the base.