• Will he get one? I don’t know, and neither does he.  But is he close to one?  Yes, yes he is.  Therefore, I figured I’d use my spot in the Sun to (a) speculate as to why that happened and (b) what policies we are likely to see if it does.  Typically, I do those two things in reverse.  Today, I predict what a Harper majority will do, by looking at past Conservative behaviour.  On Tuesday – the start of the new-look Sun, its new network, and its new web site – I suggest a few reasons why he has been winning Election 2011.  Conservatives won’t like today’s column; Liberals (some of them, anyway) won’t like Tuesday’s.  Here’s all of today’s.

What would a Stephen Harper majority government look like?

It’s not an idle question. We’re now in the second half of the 2011 national election campaign, and the Conservative Party remains comfortably ahead of the Liberal Party — and, according to some pollsters, is in (or very near) majority government territory.

Harper’s campaign team has done surprisingly poorly, while Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals have turned in a more solid performance. But poll after poll have shown that Team Harper’s many missteps haven’t really affected voter intention.

That’s why, perhaps, the Conservative leader is doing something in this campaign something he would never have dreamt of doing in 2004, 2006 or 2008 — he’s openly appealing for a majority.

Harper, while strategic, has never really been very secretive about what he would like to do with unfettered power. All of it is on the public record.

This, then, is what a Conservative majority government’s policies should look like.

• No abortion. In May of last year, Harper’s government was alone among G8 nations in opposing abortion as part of family-planning projects in poor nations. He stuck to his decision, even when facing criticism from Barack Obama. If put to a vote — and Tory MPs periodically push for one — abortion would be gone. Since Harper assumed control of the party in 2004, more than 80% of his caucus favour banning abortion.
• No gun control. More than other issue of its type, Harper has been clear about gun-safety laws — he detests them. In 2009, a Conservative backbencher’s bill to gut the centre of Canada’s gun control laws was defeated in Parliament. But Harper is undeterred. Throughout the campaign, he has said his party will go back to the issue and “scrap the long-gun registry.” Shootings generally account for a third of all murders in Canada; after tougher gun controls were introduced in 1995, shooting-related deaths dropped dramatically. But, despite the pleas of police officers and victims’ families, gun control will be history under a Harper majority.
• No equal marriage. In 2005, Harper and a majority of his party voted for the proposition that marriage can only happen between heterosexuals. During the debate on Bill C-38 — the equal marriage bill — Harper appeared at rallies where anti-gay rhetoric flourished. The Tory leader does not regard the issue as one of human rights. In Parliament in September 2003, he dismissed it as a discussion about “sexual behaviour.” It’ll be gone, too.
• The death penalty. Since 2004, Harper has said he favours a free vote on a return of the death penalty. He wrote the Reform Party platform that called for a binding referendum on it. Most of his caucus are onside, with a majority of Conservative MPs — including Harper’s current justice minister — voting for it the last time it was before the House in 1987. More recently, in an interview with CBC in January, Harper stated: “There are times where capital punishment is appropriate.” Harper hastened to add that he then had “no plans” to bring back the ultimate sentence.

There are many other issues where Stephen Harper has been clear about what he favours — such as more jails, more government advertising, more baubles for the generals — and what he does not.

He isn’t shy. It’s all there, on the record, for those who want to look.

What is also there is this truth: For good or bad, by the time Harper is done with it, you won’t recognize Canada.

 

Comments (207)

Coming soon to Sun TV!

 

Comments (9)

Spike Jonze, Yo-Yo Ma, Lil Buck.  Amazing.

Comments (2)

Now we’re talkin’.

Comments (98)

Who do you want defending health care for Ontarians at the fed-prov negotiating table?

My guy, McGuinty? Or Timmy Hudak, who will never be anything more than Stephen Harper’s water boy?

Comments (12)

• It’s wet and cold and gloomy around here this morning….Which should match the mood of some Liberal partisans (and some Conservatives).  Personally, I’m ticked off that the ice is still on the lake, so we can’t get to the cabin to open it up (although we could walk, I suppose).  My sons probably aren’t so unhappy – video shooter games of the type favoured by Stephen Harper were invented for days like today. So it’s a miserable, lousy day.  Particularly politically.  Here’s why.
• Grits are in trouble in Quebec: Federalists who want to stop the Bloc are looking at the strongest federalist alternative, les bleus. And my friend Martin Cauchon – who I have long felt was the guy most likely to be a future (and perhaps next) leader of the Liberal Party – is in trouble in Outremont.  As Hebert writes, the Coderre-Cauchon dust-up (which, ironically, was caused by a lawyer from Toronto) shut down the LPC’s momentum in la belle province. And I’d wager that Iggy’s musings on Afghanistan (let’s stay longer), the oil sands (it’s an instrument of “national unity”) and health care (let’s look at charging people more for it) turned off Quebecois more than folks in any other province.  Not good.
• The NDP is surging: You’ll notice, in Your Daily Nanos Crack™, that Stephen Harper isn’t doing particularly well, either – he’s been stalled for days.  Why aren’t the Ignatieff Liberals celebrating about that?  Because they’re facing a potential disaster – an NDP that’s been surging, big time, since Jack Layton’s much-lauded performance in both TV debates.  If the Dippers don’t slide back to where they have been over the past few weeks and months, Liberal candidates will fall in squeeze plays. In this way, Ignatieff can say – and he should be saying it more – that a vote for Jack gets you Stephen. And with that, goodbye abortion, equal marriage, gun control and health care as we’ve known it.
• Why’s Harper in B.C.? He’s been comfortably ahead there for a while – so why the tour through ridings that should be safely Conservative?  Because, as Nanos shows, he’s been slipping a bit there in recent days, the Grits have been steady – and, again, Layton is upticking. In B.C., I can tell you, that’s relevant – the swings are straight from left  to right, or vice-versa, and often without a pausing in the Liberal middle. Harper can’t take anything for granted in always-volatile B.C.
• Enough with the doom and gloom! Here’s a column by the Post’s Kelly MacParland that you should read: he is singularly decent to Helena Guergis, unlike many other baying, bullying right-wing shills: “We’ve learned from his five years as Prime Minister that Mr. Harper is pretty skilled at ignoring transgressions when he wants to. But Ms. Guergis he threw to the wolves. Without knowing if she was guilty, as it seems now she wasn’t.” Meanwhile, his porcine, loathsome colleague mocks Guergis for – wait for it – crying.  What an asshole.
• That’s not all, as they say in newspaper paragraph transitions! Chretien and Martin, as in previous campaigns, are back to rally Grit troops – and that can only be a good thing for the dispirited Grits (see above).  Chretien has another big rally in Toronto – and Martin’s out West.  Both men will have an impact, and it can only be positive for Team Grit.
• Pic of the day! Captionize away, Team wk.com!

“Captin! Captin! We’ve beamed up three strangely-gesturing men from the planet surface!”

Comments (121)

We at the Daisy Group represent a group of small-town Ontario families.  When we heard their story, we offered to do so pro bono.

I don’t normally put client stuff on my web site, but I’m making an exception in this case, because it’s an extraordinary case.  I’ve just returned from a press conference at Queen’s Park, where these families told the story of what the multinational TransAlta is doing to them.  And how TransAlta has effectively destroyed their lives. It was a very emotional experience for them.

Watch the video, and the read the press release below.  These people deserve help – from their community, from fellow citizens, from governments, from you – in pushing TransAlta into finally giving them some justice.  If you have ideas about how to help us do that, or if you wish to lend support, comments are open.

No one deserves to be forced to live like this.

SICK FROM ELECTRICAL POLLUTION, AMARANTH TOWNSHIP FAMILIES
WANT SUFFERING TO END
Two families call on TransAlta to do the right thing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 15, 2011 (Toronto) – TransAlta is making some Ontario families sick with continuous noise and electrical pollution being produced by one of their electrical transformer substations located irresponsibly close to their homes.

The Whitworth and Kidd families, living on the 10th Line in Amaranth Township near Orangeville, Ontario are asking TransAlta to do what is right.

“Before the substation was built next to our homes, we were all healthy,” said Theresa Kidd, “but as soon as it went online, we became very sick. We can no longer continue to live under these conditions and we want TransAlta to relocate our families and livestock to a safe environment and compensation.”

When a single transformer went live at the substation in 2006, the two families began experiencing health problems, such as extreme insomnia, ringing in the ears and internal vibrations. Once the second transformer went live in December 2008, their lives became a living nightmare. The families where suddenly struck with additional health issues, such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, anxiety, extreme internal vibrations, and severe headaches.

Originally built by Canadian Hydro Developers in 2006, the substation was purchased by TransAlta in 2009. It was during that year that the Ministry of Environment established regulations stating that transformer substations had to be at least 500 metres from a dwelling if the substation had an acoustical barrier. The substation is 390 metres from the Kidd’s home and 490 metres from the Whitworth’s. By living so close to the substation, both families have been constantly disturbed by the noise and made extremely ill by the electrical pollution coursing through their properties, homes and bodies.

“We are reasonable people, but our situation is no longer liveable,” said Ted Whitworth. “Our families are sick, our farming business has been negatively affected and I fear that I or someone in my family might develop a serious illness like cancer, at any time. We feel like we are living in a microwave. TransAlta must do something to help us.”

Due to sickness, Ted was forced to retire five years earlier than anticipated, causing his family financial difficulties. Both families say that they cannot continue to live under such dangerous and unhealthy conditions. To date, TransAlta has refused to deal with the situation. Both families have spoken out today, because they can no longer continue to live on their properties with a substation in such close proximity. They are asking TransAlta do the right thing and relocate and compensate them, so they can get on with their lives.

For more information, contact:
Jason McCann
Daisy Consulting Group
416 642 3100

Comments (55)

• …and the scandal, naturally, is in the “yes” of the beholder: Last night, CBC News broke this story about former Conservative cabinet minister Helena Guergis.  Said the CBC:  “CBC News has learned that the “serious allegations” Prime Minister Stephen Harper referred to last year in connection with former Conservative MP Helena Guergis included unsubstantiated claims of fraud, extortion and involvement with prostitutes.  But a letter written by a Harper aide and obtained by CBC News states that the Prime Minister’s Office learned the allegations had been made by a Toronto private investigator. The letter also reveals the allegations were not based on any hard evidence.”
• Get that?  Neat trick: The story details – in as much salacious detail as possible – the stuff that someone, somewhere, was saying about Guergis.  The story tells you all about it!  And then it notes, almost as an afterthought, that the allegations – which the CBC has succeeded in Krazy-Gluing to your brain – weren’t based on any “hard evidence.” But, dammit, we’re going to give you all the dirt anyway, even if it is total bullshit!
• I used to be an investigative reporter. At the Ottawa Citizen and the Calgary Herald. There is virtually nothing I have done in my life that was as rewarding.  I probed the suspicious deaths at the Hospital for Sick Kids (and concluded there were no murders), and kickbacks at the Ottawa Courthouse (and succeeded in getting the most senior official there removed from his job).  In my experience, you can’t just run with a single document as big page one scoop.  You need more than that – you need context. And you need to closely examine the motives of the person who ultimately gave you the document, very carefully.  Ask yourself – and the answer in anonymous source stories, the answer is almost always “yes” – this: “Am I being used?”
• The context here is crucial. It’s the middle of an election campaign, for the love of God: do you think – just for a minute – that a story like this landing in the middle of said election campaign is, well, a bit suspicious? Does it mean, perhaps, that Guergis’ independent challenge of the Conservative Party’s candidate might be getting traction?  That running with this story, as CBC did, assists the Conservative government which, not coincidentally, is ultimately responsible for the CBC’s fiscal health?
• Here are some questions that could have been asked: Why was Guergis fired, and her reputation destroyed, for unproven gossip about prostitutes – when Bruce Carson, in proven fact, waltzed into Stephen Harper’s 24 Sussex with a hooker, and later introduced another hooker to half of cabinet?  Why was he given a big patronage appointment, for which he apparently lobbied without registering?  Why was he given the big PMO office – him, a convicted fraudster who served time? And why was Guergis ground into meat, and then thrown to the dogs?  If I get a private detective to pass along a few rumours to the RCMP and/or a CPC lawyer about the after-hours lives of John Baird, John Kenney and Rob Anders, will that mean their careers will be over, too?  Not on your life. She’s a girl. They’re all boys.
• More is found: Here and here and here.  It’s going to be “the story of the day” on the campaign trail – says, naturally, the CBC.  I carry no brief for Helena Guergis.  I hope the Liberal candidate wins (and perhaps he was on the way to doing so, before this).  But this “story” truly is a scandal – not for what Guergis did (because it’s now clear she was fired without cause).  It’s a scandal for what was done to her. And for what is still being done to her.  By the CPC, by the CBC, by others.

 

Comments (110)

…but I’d guess that CBC brass were looking for a little bit of insurance against next fiscal’s budget cuts.

And, Hell, if this crap don’t do it, nothing will!

Comments (23)

…and my friend points out a big gap in Harper’s logic:

1. He’s been saying since 2004 he’s a-okay with a minority.  He’s in fact even suggested it can help to hold him in check, remember that?
2. He’s been saying, for years, we can get the job done with a minority.
3. Now he’s saying, over and over, he needs a majority.
4. He’s obviously saying that because he has polling showing people agree that it is a good way to avoid further “unnecessary elections.”
5. So what, then, would happen with a Harper majority?

I endeavour to answer that last question in my Sun column on Sunday.  Needless to say, I don’t see it as a positive development.

Neither does Chretien.  Thus, this:

Ex PM Jean Chretien takes aim at Harper’s plea for a majority government (FedElxn-Chretien)
Source: The Canadian Press
Apr 14, 2011 14:22

---

MONTREAL – Jean Chretien took aim Thursday at Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s plea for a majority government.

Harper has repeatedly urged Canadians to give the Tories most of the seats in the Commons on May 2 to avoid another election.

But when asked about the prospect of a Tory majority, the former Liberal prime minister shot down the need to heed Harper’s request.

“You know, most of the countries in the world don’t have majority governments,” Chretien, who himself won three consecutive majorities, said before addressing a conference on international policy in Montreal.

“Only in Canada, when I was there, we had three. In all humility.”

Looking at his own party, Chretien said the Liberals’ election campaign has been better than most Canadians thought.

“Not bad, better than expected,” Chretien said when asked about the Michael Ignatieff-led Liberal campaign.

“But we knew that the day of the election (call).

“We have good candidates and the mood with the membership that I meet seems to be better.”

Chretien also predicted the leaders’ debates will have little influence because there were no knockout punches.

He said with the televised debates behind the leaders, the “real campaign” now can begin.

 

Comments (89)