08.26.2016 12:03 PM

So long, Stephen

Here’s what I wrote when he started packing up his Hill office.

Good luck!


  1. Ron says:

    He is a closet seditionist. Maybe he can open up about that now too.

  2. harvey bushell says:

    Nope. Never liked him never will. First time I recall laying eyes on him was when I saw him shaking his son’s hand as he sent him off to school. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/21/harper-handshake-with-son-2006-book_n_4136852.html

    Like the article says I saw him as a cold hearted man incapable of even showing simple emotion to his own son. I didn’t want him to represent me or the country I live in.

    I for one am very happy I no longer see his cold dead eyes staring out at me from on my computer, in newspapers or on my TV on a nearly daily basis.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      If I recall correctly, he shook his daughter’s hand, first day of school.

      • Howard says:

        Not having been afflicted with HDS, I can’t claim to understand the bizarre (and quasi-perverted) obsession by progressives as to how much physical contact Mr. Harper had with his pre-teen son.

        Between Mr. Harper and folks like harvey bushell, I know who I’d prefer to have around my own kids.

    • Howard says:

      Like many if not most successful leaders, Harper is introverted and not emotionally demonstrative. It’s your shallow thinking (I use the term “thinking” loosely in your case) that leads you believe that you can know his innermost emotions based on a 10-second video.

      Moreover, 10-year old boys don’t generally like it when their dads hug them in public, much less in front of cameras. Given your hysterical posting, I believe Harper is a better judge of other people’s desires and emotions than you are.

    • The Doctor says:


    • Eric Weiss says:

      When you were a pre-teen boy did you want your father hugging you in the front of your new school?

  3. Tim Sullivan says:

    Source he didn’t wreck the place!?!

    He did wreck the place. We have terrible appointments in the Senate, prospective re-appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, especially the NEB, lost information from the census, the gun registry, libraries, demoralized and in some cases destroyed public service personnel, ideological and in some cases unconstitutional criminal legislation, no progress on environmental reforms and climate change, lost reputation internationally and the “honest broker” moniker and we don’t punch above our weight internationally anymore, a tax code sliced and diced for micro-engineered electoral gain, legal bills, and lots more. He’s divided our population with policies like the anti-Muslim stuff and called environmentalists “terrorists”. He refused to allow opposition members from attending conferences which ignores the long-game view of building international relationships with foreign states.

    He fixed elections and mocked science and silenced scientists and government officials. He offered no scrums, few interviews and lead the most secretive government we’ve had.

    He cut of refugees from medical services. He was a nativist who offered no respect for citizenship.

    We wait to see how history judges him, but I think the worst will be that he stretched the bounds of legal and constitutional propriety to advance the argument “if it’s not written in black and white, it is not a rule government has to follow”, rendering the peace, order and good government clause a suggestion only.

    He didn’t outlaw same sex marriage which he couldn’t do anyway. Tell that to Canadian citizens who were detained in Africa without a right to fly home (what’s his name?), Richard Colvin who was pilloried, Linda Kean, and oh so many others wronged by the government he lead.

    He was elected to the House of Commons to represent the constituents of his Calgary riding less than 1 year ago. He’s a coward, a demagogue and an anti-democrat.

    But what a nice guy. He phoned your mum. Sure will miss him.

    • Kevin says:

      What you said.

    • Howard says:

      I think you’ll find that Harper is significantly more respected internationally than Trudeau’s dad ever was. No contest really, nor is there with the calibre of those who respect versus those who respected PET.

      The rest of your post was mostly emotional HDS.

      Though I have one question for you re: “silencing scientists”. Your guy has been in power almost a year. I’m still waiting for these now-unsilenced scientist to present to is their earth-shattering revelations. Maybe you can fill us in on that?

      • Kelly says:

        Harper’s vision of the country was 50 years behind the times. You know all that multiculturalism and socially progressive equal marriage stuff and UN peacekeeping instead of illegal invasions stuff? Well THAT is the POINT of Canada now. We put paid to the phony idea of nationalism. We are a postmodern country whose purpose is to push boundaries and make the world a better place for all. We are no longer a nation of brush cutted siwash wearing Export A smoking uncle Pete’s hanging out down at the rink. More of us play soccer now. We don’t smoke much either. We eat curry and kebabs and injera and Pho and bibimbap as easily as roast beef and Nanaimo bars. That’s why voters finally pushed through our fake FPTP electoral system and voted for the team that speaks the language of the Country as it really is instead of how it never was.

        • Peter says:

          We are a postmodern country whose purpose is to push boundaries and make the world a better place for all.

          Talk about being 50 years behind the times. Sounds like you are stuck in the era of UN clubs, blue helmets, preaching disarmament, United Church basement talks on the end of the nation-state, etc. Ah yes, there is no problem in this vale of tears that can’t be resolved with a healthy dose of Canadian righteousness. I can’t help feeling for the rest of the world, though, and wonder whether more than a few of them mutter “Oh gawd, here they come again, munching on their bibambap and telling us how to solve our problems. Look, I know they’re insufferable prigs, but let’s just smile politely and trust that eventually they’ll go away.”

        • The Doctor says:

          I didn’t realize that Harper banned gay marriage. I must have missed that.

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        There is some science that shows conservatives are not a smart as non-conservatives. Let’s prove that wrong, shall we.

        If I have emotional HDS, show me in my post where I am incorrect on the facts. My conclusions are drawn from the facts as I know them.

        As for “silencing scientists”, I have this to say. It would not be my obligation to show Trudeau has set them free, or at least freer than Harper has established, but so what if you can show that. My point is that Harper in fact did wreck the place, and if establishing a manner or precedent to have scientists silences for successors to use and abuse, it proves my point. It is the silencing of scientists, employed by the public service for the benefit of Canadians, by refusing them speaking parts at conferences, not allowing them to publish, and firing them which is the bad. I don’t care who does it; it is not the person who did it who makes it bad, it is the event itself. If Trudeau fixes elections like Harper did, it would not make it any more acceptable.

        So, show me Trudeau has carried on Harper’s silencing scientists and you will have proven my point. Show me the damage he had done can be undone, and I may accept that Harper has not wrecked the place.

        It is great for people to use scientific nomenclature (HDS) to show criticism of him is irrational. I am deafened by the silence from his supporters showing his positive legacy.

        Over to you …

        • The Doctor says:

          For FFS, it’s not criticism of him that’s irrational; it’s stupid criticism of him that’s irrational. Like the “closet boy” idiocy, wafergate, and getting fits of the vapours about the manner in which he saw his son off to school. Harper did lots of things I disagree with. I focus on criticizing those things, rather than claiming that he hated Canada and was the Second Coming of Hitler.

    • The Doctor says:


    • Eric Weiss says:

      And regardless of that, exaggerations and all, Canada is just fine. I think that’s what Warren meant by not recking the place. Although I don’t want to speak for our host, but that’s what I read into it.

  4. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    Ask Harper how much of a fan I was when I was a CPC member…

    Harper is moving on. As a human being, the least I can do is thank him for his service to Canada and wish him well.

    And one more thing: those three letters made a mistake in not taking him on.

  5. Howard says:

    He will do splendidly in the private sector where his intellect and persistence will serve him well. He is still quite young and has much to offer Canada and the world. The bitter HDS devotees, union members mostly with few marketable skills, can only look on in resentment.

    As for his legacy, well Mulroney was disliked a vocal “MDS” faction when he left office, yet any historian or economist worth his/her name ranks him among the best. So it will be with Right Honourable PM Harper.

  6. Michael Bluth says:

    Before Harper facilitated the merger of the Conservatives the talk was of Martin and his thugs winning a record majority in 2004.

    Looking back who of the two of them had the better tenure as Prime Minister?

  7. Eric Weiss says:

    Well, he took out three Liberal leaders, I think that sums up most of the LPC bitterness on display here. Stay classy Libs.

    • The Doctor says:

      But of course those elections were stolen, the sole result of massive electoral fraud by Evil Lord Harper. Because if there’s one thing we know, any time a right-of-center party wins an election in a Western industrialized democracy, it’s because they cheated.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        The Doctor,

        It’s what Chrétien used to say: you need a good proof. As for 2006 and 2008, there is absolutely none. However, 2011 is another matter altogether.

        • The Doctor says:

          The result of the 2011 federal election was Conservatives 166 seats, NDP 103, Liberals 34. Now, please name me a single seat in that election that, based on a reliable, authoritative, non-partisan source, went Conservative instead of Liberal or NDP as a result of cheating or fraud.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            The Doctor,

            You must take into consideration the Robo Calls. There were complaints filed in 200+ ridings but insufficient proof for Elections Canada to prove it. I received a call from a so-called Elections Canada telling me to go vote on election day where the advanced polls had been…I had already voted in the advanced polls. My friend, in the same riding, also a former PCC member, but still a disgruntled CPC member got her call from a so-called Liberal Party who started an aggressive fight with her over the phone. She called to complain to me – – our chief LPC organizer in the riding told me that none of our phone volunteers in the riding had placed that call…

          • The Doctor says:

            Oh FFS. The fact that complaints were filed is not proof, or a finding of fact, that any fraud occurred. Elections Canada investigated the matter. Remember? Please tell me you’re not a lawyer, because you seem to think that a complaint equals a definitive legal finding of fact. If that is what you truly believe, I suggest you go to law school.

            As I recall, the one riding where charges were laid (leaving aside the improper Liberal robocalls which of course you failed to mention) was won by a Liberal. I beleive that was in Guelph. So obviously those Michael Sona/Pierre Poutine calls had zero impact on the result.

            Yes, some improper robocalls happened (including, of course, the Liberal ones). As I recall, there was also significant evidence that many of those complaints were bogus, lacked merit, etc.

            But in any event, there is absolutely zero evidence out there that the substantive result of the election was affected or altered by those calls, particularly given the fact that Harper won a 63 seat majority. This is not some razor-thin hanging chads in Florida situation.

            Once again, HDS.

        • Tim Sullivan says:

          In 2006, the Cons perpetrated the In and Out scam, leading to a minority government but overspending a few million dollars. Can’t say how the illegal overspending swayed the votes. To at least the Conservatives, advertising was important to convince voters to go their way.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            The Doctor,

            I mentioned the part about insufficient proof did I not? But that doesn’t mean you can chalk it all up to mere coincidence. That would be wishful thinking. As for my HDS, I got over that in 2009, just for the record.

  8. Maps Onburt says:

    For a mild mannered guy who focused on:

    1) the economy (and managed to get us through the worst recession since the 1930’s AND balance the budget),
    2) national defence and public safety (implementing laws that the majority of Canadians agreed with even if they were kryptonite to the progressive hug a thugs) and
    3) removing corruption and entitlement (their major scandals on that front were a $17 dollar glass of OJ, a $50K gazebo in the closest town to a global summit, and the repayment of $90K in expenses that the Chief of Staff didn’t believe were appropriate),

    PM Harper sure draws a lot of hatred from the progressives. They pick on the stupid closet incident (Bravo Warren for calling them out on this), his supposed lack of emotion for his kids and his supposed religion even though he never once tried to impose it – saying God Bless Canada is about as far as he ever went). If you haters had 10% of the class of that man, you’d STFU and let him retire with grace. I’m guessing you demonize him exactly because you know how effective he was. He’ll go down in history as one of the better PM’s we ever had and that bugs the shit out of you.

    • smelter rat says:

      Hahaha. Not even in the top 20.

    • Ron says:

      May you never appear before one of his social conservative judges.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      1) He presided over and was unable to identify the “worst recession”. There was a recession immediately before the election. He’s supposedly an economist. He refused to admit there were two quarters of negative growth. He made a lot out of balancing a budget as good fiscal management. This ignores the several deficits he caused even having inherited a large surplus BEFORE THE RECESSION, and it ignores the fact that a deficit or surplus for that matter, have no economic indicator significance.

      2) Focusing on national defence — what do you mean? He was unable to purchase new airplanes and never got that right. His minister of defence didn’t understand procurement rules. His minister of foreign affairs dated a biker and left briefing notes with her. He appointed a criminal to head-up CIRC. He passed a number of criminal amendments which have not withstood Charter scrutiny.

      3) if the in-and-out scam is not good enough for you, there is the misuse and inability/unwillingness to identify who used the CIMS database so inappropriately a federal judge said there was corruption but could not go further without knowledge Harper could have provided. His own PS cooled his heels in jail, and minister Penashue misspent on yet more election corruption. The Fake Lake and gazebo misspending is bad enough, but those funds were predicated on national security. No one gives a shit about the orange juice. That’s a bit of a straw man argument.

      Mr. Haper draws a lot of hatred from many people. He was a terrible PM and lead a secretive and poorly managed government. Brent Rathberger (sp?) is hardly a progressive and he’s his loudest critic.

  9. smelter rat says:

    HDS begat TDS.

  10. billg says:

    Throw up a column about Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chretien and there will undoubtedly be 100’s of people with stats and figures to prove their own personal point of view that they were the worst PM’s in Canadian history, to me, its all noise.
    We continue to be one of the greatest places to live and raise children in the world due to the political balance of governments we vote into power.
    In Canada, its a pretty good bet that 60% of Canadians will dislike the sitting PM, its just part of the job and the critics are just part of the noise.
    In my lifetime of Pearson, Diefenbaker, PET, Mulroney, Chretien and Harper, I’d say Mulroney was the biggest let down…the policy’s have shaped Canada but, the brown bags of cash will forever be his legacy.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      Yeah, facts and statistics!!! Not the ones you make up. I mean the real ones. They really suck during a discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *