You won't recognize Canada . . .

I think we've heard this song before.

Click the title link and read, as Warren Kinsella pulls out the same worn and tired Liberal red herrings as in 2006. What a shock. I thought hope, not fear, won elections. Who knew?

When the Liberals grasped at straws in 2006, suggesting that a Conservative win would make the sky crash, I wrote this (links to the post -- Activist Judges? Never).

Funny how the Liberals silly bag of tricks never holds anything new. Whether it's their promises, like Universal Child Care or their tactics, like scaring Canada into hating Harper (links to the post -- Defending Stephen Harper) or worse, trying to vilify a whole segment of Canadians for their core values (links to the post -- Expressing my views and advancing my cause) Liberals never seem to get bored with the idea that Canadians are too lazy to think.

Despite Kinsella's regurgitating old canards, Stephen Harper isn't stupid enough to dredge up dead social issues like same-sex marriage or abortion despite his personal beliefs on those issues. I think he and Conservatives believe they're done deals and that Canadians have other priorities. As for the death penalty, if that was in his nefarious plans, why build more jails when you're just gonna kill 'em all? And many rational, centrist Canadians agree with Harper on the long gun registry -- so as scary as going back to the days when farmers and hunters were running amok with unregistered guns, a lot of Canadians are okay if we revisit that.

The only ones scared right now are the Liberals.

Warren, you're starting to sound like a dinosaur.

Canadianna

Dear Stephen,

There's no doubt in my mind that you can run a government . . . an election campaign . . . not so much. Don't mind me saying, a man who doesn't learn from his mistakes is making another mistake. Three times you've tried it your way and maybe you think fourth time's a charm. I'm thinking not.

The news link up top caught my attention. I don't believe for a minute that you've ordered your campaign people to toss out non-supporters at events. That kind of minutia is just not your turf when you're out there stumping . . . you're quoted in the piece as saying:

"Staff runs our campaigns and I can't comment on individual matters like that.''

Sorry Stephen, not good enough.

First, why were your staffers checking out people's Facebooks before they came in to hear you speak? I think that's creepy and I'm one of your supporters.

Second, your reaction to this very, very bad situation should not have been so blithe. You should find out who these girls were and invite them to talk with you personally . . . not only would it be a grand gesture, it would be the right thing to do.

Third, you should not fire the dorks who stopped them. You should give proper direction to those handling your campaign that you'd rather be disrupted by hecklers than by *their* stupidity.

You seem to have lightened up over the past few years and it suits you. It would serve you well to suggest your staffers do the same.

Finally, I hope you quit finding molehills to trip over, but when you do, remember that only you can make a misstep better--- not by shrugging it off like it was nothing --- because it wasn't *nothing* to those young women -- but by saying *wow, I didn't know that happened. I'd really like to make things right . . . * and then doing something to show you mean it.

Stephen, I've always thought you were the best man for the job, but the job is about more than just policy and platforms -- it's about people. You know it . . . so don't leave it to some staffer when things go wrong.

Sincerely,
Canadianna

Nice Guy? Please!

In the print edition of the National Post, the headline of Don Martin's column states:

He didn't get it: Politics is nasty

The online edition says -- Nice guys don't last in politics

Both are referring to Stephane Dion.

Gimme a break!

Martin goes on to say:

Like it or not, and I still think it was beneath him, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper's instant attack on the do-overs of Mr. Dion's bumbled CTV interview was blood sport politics at its finest and is credited for an overnight downturn in Liberal fortunes. By the time Mr. Dion got around to going dirty by repeatedly shouting "liar" at the Prime Minister, it sounded pathetically desperate.

Go back Mr. Martin -- read your paper from the first day of the election race. From the get-go, Dion called Harper a liar. Let's not pretend his animus was in response to anything. Dion broke from the gate calling the PM a liar. Throughout the campaign, he and his party equated Harper to the most hated man in the world, George Bush. Liar, quitter, classless, malevolent -- the name-calling was all one sided and all from the direction of the Liberal campaign. The Conservatives stuck with one issue -- Stephane Dion -- Not a leader, not worth the risk. It was right. Boo hoo.

All the pejorative adjectives thrown out in this campaign were tossed by either Stephane Dion or his attack dog, Elizabeth May. Is Martin so clueless that he doesn't 'get' that Dion and the Liberals planned that she'd do most of the rude and hostile, English mouthing off? But still, it isn't like Dion held back--he showed hostility, arrogance and he spewed vitriol every time he mentioned Harper's name. And yet he gets labelled a 'decent guy' and a 'nice guy' by the press.
What were they watching during those six weeks?

Harper never once name-called. During the debate, he was the only leader to display manners and courtesy, despite the attacks being levelled on him. He sat and listened as Ms May called him incompetent, accused him of not being able to read, suggested that his only good quality is that she's fairly certain he loves his kids -- despite being a bad enough PM to possibly be intentionally destroying the future of their country, and berating him for not making chit-chat with her at some dinner.

Stephane Dion is whining. Throughout the campaign, he whined. He's a whining, crybaby loser who hasn't learned to take responsibility for himself.

Who's the nice guy?

canadianna

One more reason not to vote Liberal

Ooops. They got him! Stephen Harper is offically human.

Um, Liberal war room? The differences between Mr. Harper's flub and Mr. Dion's meltdown are astronomical.

First, Harper didn't ask for a do-over. He misspoke and moved on.

Second, you were able to figure out what Harper meant to say. Even the Liberal war room has no clue what Dion was trying to say in that interview.

Third, even you concede that the average family has benefitted by $3,000 thanks to the Harper government. That's not chump change to the average household. Do you think we like the idea of that cash being clawed back through an onerous carbon tax imposed by the new Red-Green regime?

Thank you Liberal war room, for pointing out yet another reason not to vote for Stephane Dion and his band of merry taxers.

Liberals -- always there for you -- with their hands out.

canadianna

"Not Conservative"

It amazes me how many people are willing to jump onto the ABC bandwagon or buy into the 'Stop Harper' campaigns. With little thought to what the 'Anybody' in ABC might be putting forward in their own campaign, it seems many people are ready to define themselves as 'not Conservative'.

Congratulations. That's so clever. Well, if being 'not Conservative' is your main reason for voting for 'Anybody' else, then there are a few things you might want to think about before marking that ballot.

Stephen Harper is the only leader not panicking over the economy.

Who do you want at the helm-- a harried, worried scaremonger who sees icebergs and storms in every direction and who will run us aground or scurry for the nearest port? Or a calm, rational leader whose nerves are steady enough that he can steer through the crisis, not into it?

Personally, I'd go for the level-headed guy. Fear is self-fulfilling and panic-begets-panic-begets-crisis. Harper has been navigating choppy waters without getting into a tizzy like Dion, Layton and May. If he doesn't seem empathetic enough, thank God. There's someone who's keeping his head while those around him are losing theirs. If it seems cold or unkind -- I'll take it. It means he's not being governed by fear or emotion and guess what -- that's a good thing.

If you're simply anti-Conservative because you're stuck in the 'don't scare me' frame of mind -- then you are scary because the Conservatives are the only ones looking forward on the economy instead of trying to reach back.

Call me crazy, but I'm not surprised that Canada is losing jobs in the manufacturing sector -- are you?

In global economy, first world manufacturers with their nifty benefit packages, pension plans and high hourly wages are not competitive. Thanks Buzz, Sid, Jack and your ilk for years of amazing labour negotiations that have brought us to this point. The truth hurts -- you had it great when the economy was good and now that things are going down -- you're being hit hard. It's sad and I feel for all the people who are victims of it -- but the Conservatives aren't lamenting manufacturing job losses as much as they're committed to creating jobs in other sectors. Doesn't that make sense -- to open ourselves up to fields where we can be leaders and competitive?

We're never going to go back to the days where GM and Ford and their feeder companies make up a huge portion of the labour force of Ontario -- we need innovation. We don't need leaders who are looking wistfully to yesterday -- we need people who can focus on the future. Yes, manufacturing jobs have been lost -- but more and different jobs are being created and there are new strategies for job retraining. Maybe you won't have all the union perqs but it's a far brighter future than trying to reach back for something that's long gone to another country that can do it much, much cheaper.

The Liberals and NDP have to start living in today's world. The corporate 'tax cuts' or the NDP derides? What about all the corporate welfare that's been happening in the auto sector and for Bombardier -- that's okay? Yes, yes it is. Just like it's okay to get abortions in private clinics but not MRIs -- because one is politically correct and the other not. One pleases a particular interest group, the other not -- but corporate tax cuts are not gifts to the devil as Jack would have you believe.

What Jack fails to grasp -- or grasps but hopes the ABCers don't, is that it's the corporations who create and maintain jobs. If they don't like the tax laws, they ain't staying. It's a buyers market. They can shop around for the best tax deals and if those deals happen to be in Mexico or China or Wisconsin -- those corporations aren't going to give a damn about your family, your mortgage, your car payments. Business is business -- a favourable tax climate for business is a good thing -- which is why Jim Flaherty said that Ontario is the last place companies would want to invest -- the tax burden on the business doesn't make it profitable -- WHY SHOULD THEY COME and WHY SHOULD THEY STAY?
If we want companies to invest here, we have to make it worth their while. Dalton, Dion and Layton don't get that.

If you're voting 'not Conservative' because you think that's going to help the arts -- then think again. Did any of you read the National Post editorial that detailed some of the benefactors of 'arts funding'? According to the Post, advertising companies receive the largest portion of 'arts funding'. So, you get to give money to the government, who hands it to the ad company, who creates and ad to get you to buy their product with what little money you have left after you've given so generously to the taxman. And this is what you believe in?

I never used to believe that very many people defined themselves as 'not American' rather than putting any real thought into what it meant to be a Canadian. Why would anyone define themselves as 'not something'. Most of us know that to be Canadian holds special significance -- it means respect for authority, listening politely to the other guy but thinking independently. It means being ready to stand up for what's right and having the muscle to back it. Being Canadian means quiet strength, it means honesty and integrity, it means seeing the whole picture -- not just the few pixels we ourselves inhabit. In my opinion, the Conservatives -- even with their decidedly unconservative tilt since forming government -- best represent Canadian values and they are prepared to define themselves, rather than rant that at least they're not the other guy.

Stephen Harper isn't perfect and the Conservative Party platform falls far short of what most conservatives would prefer. Far from being ultra-right wing, the Conservatives have pulled the party left because they are seeing the whole picture, and are calmly leading into future. Harper showed quiet strength at the debates and he's showing it each day throughout this campaign. I'm surprised at his patience in the face of some of the vile comments and insults that have been hurled at him.

What does Anybody else have to offer? Oh yeah. 'Vote for me because I'm not him and I'm also not American or George Bush.' They are defining themselves by what they are not -- 'not Conservative'. All that really means is they are not prepared to move forward -- they are still looking back to a global economy that no longer exists and to three elections ago when Canadians didn't know who Stephen Harper was. They think we'll be swayed by dark, shadowy images flashing across our television screens. The Liberal team is banking on us not figuring it out -- if the Liberals are the fall-back guy, then they really don't have anything to offer and they hope that if they scare us enough, we won't notice.

The Liberals think we're stupid. I hope we don't prove them right on election day.

canadianna

A tale of two speeches

Advice to Stephen Harper: Stand behind your Iraq speech.

Everyone should know that speechwriters DO NOT shape foreign policy. They reflect the ideas and ideals of the person to be delivering the speech. For Bob Rae to suggest that Harper can't be trusted with Canada's foreign policy issues because he couldn't express his position on Iraq "in his own words" is insulting -- not to Harper, but to Canadians. He expects we are stupid enough not to understand the role of speechwriters. Plagiarism is wrong -- the message was correct.

Having read the speeches side-by-side , I see that the similarities are in the history leading to the amassing of troops on Iraq's border but in the areas where Harper outlines his vision for Canada, they diverge completely. There is no text in Howard's version where Harper stresses Canadian history and values and their role in determining our attitude towards the war.

There is nothing in Harper's speech that suggests we should send military support -- in fact he says:

The coalition assembled by the United States and the United Kingdom is now ready to act. It is now acting. It will bring this long run conflict to an end once and for all. It will bring to an end the regime of Saddam Hussein and the militarism, brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his rule. (...) We will not be neutral. We will be with our allies and our friends, not militarily, but in spirit we will be with them in America and in Britain for a short and successful conflict and for the liberation of the people of Iraq.

Throughout the text you find no suggestion that Canada send troops -- simply, that we support the rightness of the coalition position -- that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions and that military intervention was therefore mandated by the UN.

Let's remember too, that those countries opposed to military intervention have been found to have been involved in the Oil-for-food scandal. France, Russia, China -- are we still proud to be on their side?

The war in Iraq has taken far longer than anticipated. It has taken a toll on Americans and Iraqis both financially and militarily -- but the fact remains -- Canada was never going to send troops -- we had no troops. All the Canadian Alliance Party was offering to the US was moral support. It was offering an acknowledgement that their position --- that Saddam had failed to comply with the conditions for ceasefire and still posed a threat to the world, was a valid one. It could be argued that he didn't pose a threat because he had no WMD -- but given his ties to China and Russia and what we now know about their roles in the 'peace' between the two Gulf Wars, it's a good thing those relationships were nipped when they were.

Harper should not back down. Go through the speech. He doesn't offer Canadian soldiers -- he offers Canadian moral support. It could be argued that if Canada had supported the coalition position that war might have been prevented. We see ourselves as the righteous brokers of peace -- had we said YES, the the US and its allies have the right and responsibility to move in and fulfill the obligations under the UN resolution -- then maybe Saddam might have seen it wasn't just the countries who were dirty-dealing with him who were on his side. If a 'moral' nation like Canada had said 'we insist you comply or be invaded.' maybe he would have listened. He knew that Russia, France and China had too much to lose to align themselves with the US. He knew he could count on their support because if they sided with the coalition, it would expose their corruption and duplicity.

We can still debate the Iraq war, whether it was a success etc. But there is still no question -- I'd still rather be aligned with those who fought against Saddam, than those who tried to hide their corruption by supporting Saddam.

canadianna

Meet the Candidate

A Canadian Press article had a link that led me to the writings of R.K. Finch, Liberal candidate for Dufferin-Caledon. Over the years I've read some shrill, over-the-top assessments of Stephen Harper. There are comparisons to Bush, allusions to some malevolent right-wing cabal, accusations of snobbery and critiques of his parenting style. Never have I come across a one-stop hate-fest like this. Keep in mind, this piece was written in March of this year -- long after most Canadians began to shed the 'fear' of a 'hidden agenda' and see Harper in a more positive light.

Originally it was based on the same basic intuition all Canadians feel when staring at those glassy, watery eyes; eyes that only show a glint of real emotion when they're blazing in delight over the taunting or jeering or destruction of someone else, or accidentally revealing an astoundingly low self-esteem and less surprisingly high sense of paranoia. It was in reaction to the early indications that his right-wing, ultra-conservative agenda is not good for all Canadians yet is slowly but surely going to be forced upon us anyway if he has anything to do with it, which unfortunately at this moment in history, he does. It was due also to the sense of that hidden agenda that almost all Canadians know with every ounce of intuition is there, though they just can't put their finger on it.

This is how it begins. Never mind that much of her opinion is based on his looks and her 'intuition' -- it's also based on innuendo and allusions to gossip that circulated ages ago. Apparently Rebecca Finch has had her head in the sand for the past couple of years -- but that was just the warm up:

Let's start with the really nasty stuff, though, the stuff that conjures up comparisons to Hitler or Stalin; let's talk about a damaged psychology, a malevolent personality disorder, and lessons that we, the discerning public who are ultimately affected by these characters, should have already learned.

When I recently re-read the definition of the term, "malignant narcissism", I felt like I was sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons, watching Harper . . .

Harper mightn't be your cup of tea, but Stalin-like? A bit much.
A megalomaniac? Malignant narcissist? Wonder if it's a pot/kettle thing.
And taking "delight over the taunting or jeering or destruction of someone else." Maybe poor Becky's projecting a little. And she's not finished:

What we have here is an immature and conscienceless man who is using this country as an experiment to prove a theory posited in a university paper (which got him great attention) he can't get over, and for the ongoing attention he discovered after writing that paper which led to meeting the people who secured his success in politics, allowing him to simultaneously indulge his megalomania while holding fast to his grudges and punishing those who treated him badly in his erased history. This is a story about a radical Christian who denies his beliefs in order to win over what he shows with disdain is the moderate majority, who has bought into a story of a political parousia that includes Canada as the landing strip for Jesus' triumphant return to Earth.

This woman has put a lot of time and energy into hating Stephen Harper, yet most of what she says is completely unsubstantiated. It just flows from a visceral, blinding hatred that seems to seep into the very fibre of her being. Look at those adjectives -- so certain and so hostile -- immature, conscienceless. Look at the tone, mocking and sneering. It's creepy and weird how very much she hates a complete stranger, based solely on the biographies she's read, some snippets on CPAC and some pseudo-pychological conjecture about his motivations. This obnoxious, toxic screed says a lot about its author. If she manages to win her riding, let's hope she tones down her rhetoric and learns to judge people based on more substantial criteria than their eye colour, or the province they choose to live in, or their religious beliefs -- no matter how ugly or ridiculous she finds them.

For those who are interested, here is a post I wrote a while back responding to someone who shared a similar distaste for Stephen Harper. Defending Stephen Harper from January, 2006.

canadianna

Paranoid

There is no "I" in team. But you'll find D-I-O-N in paranoid.

Apparently, as he single-handedly 'did the Clarity Act' and 'saved the Kyoto Protocol', mild mannered, bookish, Stephane Dion, donned a cape and tights and became -- SUPER-DION -- a mild-mannered, bookish superhero who managed to thwart nefarious adversaries, repel all sorts of furtive enemies and some really mean anonymous guys-- all of whom were intent on destroying Canada and the world.

"When I did the Clarity Act, I had a lot of anonymous sources against me," Dion said. "When I saved the Kyoto protocol I had a lot of anonymous sources against me. A lot."

Dion's vocabulary is peppered with references to Harper and the pronoun "I". That's all he has. That, and an ego the size of France and enough paranoia to further deflate a flagging campaign.

M. Dion seems to be taking lessons from a certain Liberal-come-lately MP from just outside of T.O. and who shall remain nameless on this blog. Paranoia is not appealing in a leader and neither is overstating one's participation in events or self-aggrandizement. Maybe someone should tell Stephane. Better yet, maybe they should just let him keep talking-- after all, he knows everything.

canadianna

Who's calling the shots at the RCMP

To hear Greg Weston tell it, it's Stephen Harper.

Weston apparently believes the RCMP takes its marching orders from the PMO, which is why they used a hammer to smash an ant when they hauled in Jeffrey Monaghan for questioning the other day. Likening this to a police state, Greggie supposes the Conservatives would love to do the same thing to more people, both bureaucrats and reporters. And yet here we read an insulting accusative story about the government -- Greg, you're so brave.

Of course, the absolutely non-political RCMP couldn't possibly have its own agenda for making the sitting government look stupid or high-handed. And never has any individual or group within the RCMP made errors in judgment, appeared overzealous or acted disproportionately. It must be all Harper's fault.

Environment Minister Baird's suggestion that the arrest was "a signal to other government employees that leaks of information wouldn't be tolerated" and his conclusion that "obviously (the RCMP) feel it's serious enough to lay charges" which proved to be erroneous, seem to be the smoking gun for political commentators. Baird's first statement was in defense of having called in the RCMP to investigate in the first place, not an admission of political interference. His second was a reaction to an apparent arrest. And had the detainment been politically directed, Baird likely would have got that point right, and the episode -- so public and so over-the-top, would have likely resulted in more than a conversation. But let's overlook the obvious if it makes Harper look bad.

It's far juicier to imply government conspiracy than to assume that the RCMP acted rashly. It also fits in much better with Weston's personal antipathy for Harper. If it's the RCMP running amok, it fits in with the larger issues that pre-date Harper's governance. But if it's political direction, Harper and his nasty band of not-quite-conservatives can be castigated with impunity without ever having to prove any involvement on their part. This works much better with Weston's ongoing hypothesis that Harper is the puppet master to whom everyone demurs.

Weston's bizarre accusation is part of a pattern. He and pal Don Martin are a scrawling dynamic duo, who will stop at no cliche and leave no insinuation left hanging in order to ascribe blame to Harper personally in any awkward or unflattering situation, regardless of how unlikely his involvement. Whether it's the way Harper dresses or unfounded political innuendo, the two columnists share such bitter contempt for Harper, they never mind setting aside credibility in order to get in a good dig.

Just an observation, Mr. Weston: The RCMP does a pretty good job of screwing up all on its own.

That huge chunk of animus on your shoulder is probably impairing your vision.

canadianna

Garth wants Dion's job

Why does the Toronto Sun persist in giving yet another venue to that tiresome bore, Garth Turner?

Garth always seems to have so much time on his hands. He spends much of it thinking up clever barbs he must believe will pierce the heart of his arch-nemesis, Stephen Harper.

Sometimes I think Garth should pilfer the CityTV tag line: EVERYWHERE because you just can't get away from the guy.

The time-wasting exercise showcased by the Toronto Sun, both yesterday and today, is Garth's recent post: 'Sixty-ways-to-dis-Steve-Harper' or '60 proofs Harper is a mean guy, na-na-na-na-na' or some such other silliness.

Garth Turner already gets more attention than he deserves and here a newspaper gives him yet another forum to vent his bitter bile. His list seems to be the product of an obsessive mind. It's like he's a spurned boyfriend or something, unable to let go of his unreciprocated love. Creepy. The list must have taken him a while and one can just sense the pinching resentment that has Garth's shorts all bunched.

He's included things that haven't even happened yet (an election in 2007) and he's taken the liberty of predicting that the GST won't be cut by another cent while Harper is in office by already calling it a 'broken promise'.

At least a couple of his points are repeated, but reworded or augmented so the list will fill out the full 60 (one point for each week of Conservative governance). For example, he mentions income trusts at least three times, with a different take on why Harper's handling of them was wrong.

Many of the points on his list are either untrue, twisted or out of context, like point 41 where he says Harper vowed to dismantle the gun registry 'after (a) fatal shooting in Montreal with registered weapons.' As though Harper's plan to scrap the registry was in response to that tragedy.

Some of the points are unsubstantiated and others are simply unfair -- pointing out how much Jim Flaherty spent on skates? What business is that of Garth's, or mine? Is Garth going to give us a listing of his personal family expenditures?

Other points are correct, and are reasons to applaud Harper -- such as number 44 -- Garth being kicked out of the Tory caucus. And if Garth is still lamenting that, then perhaps he should re-think his Liberal credentials.

The real interesting post from Garth's blog is from today. I ventured over there, spurred on by this gory curiosity that happens whenever he's been overwhelmingly Garthly, and I found this rumination:

We may be entering the age of romantic notions. Voters, at least a lot of them I’d say, are hungry for a none-of-the-above alternative to politics as usual. It may manifest itself as it did Monday night in Quebec, or last November in the London by-election. It may take form as a new kind of leadership, practiced by a new kind of leader – who consults with people using today’s technologies and opens the doors and windows of Parliament as never before. It could be one of the parties willing to forego the mushy, centrist policies of something for everything, and launches a crusade. (. . .) The man or woman who can stride outside of the establishment one day, talk directly to the people and move them to consider achieving the improbable, the noble and the slightly untamed, may find the time is precisely right.

Gosh now, who would that striding, talking, improbable, noble and slightly untamed beast be?

Garth, surely you jest -- but Stephane Dion might want to start checking over his shoulder and making sure Garth feels loved in caucus, or else the Liberal leader might regret the day he yanked the thorn from this lion's paw and invited him to the table.

Number 44 on that list looks better every day.

canadianna

RESIGN

Smug as usual, Garth Turner is blaming everyone else for his lack of conviction. He won't resign until Stephen Harper calls a by-election. Nothing is ever Garth's fault, he wouldn't be where he is today if other people would just do what's right.

While I maintain that a party-swapping MP is not obligated to go to the people until the next general election, Garth Turner does not. He believes an MP should serve under his party's banner, and, should he choose a new party, that the MP must go to the people and be elected in his new party of choice.

To that end, Garth has issued a challenge to the Prime Minister (from Garth's blog):

Today in Question Period I asked the prime minister two questions:

(1) Will he immediately work towards calling by-elections in Halton, Vancouver-Kingsway (Emerson) and Mississauga-Streetsville (Khan), so we three members can be accountable to the people?

Stephen Harper did not answer. Instead he had House Leader Peter van Loan stand up and say I could resign if I want. So, I said,

(2) If the prime minister calls a by-election in Halton today, I will resign my seat today, so the people of the riding are without an MP only for a few weeks before the vote. Will he do that, yes or no? And if I quit, will he ensure Wajid Khan also resigns, for a by-election for that floor-crosser?

Turner is playing a game here, pretending that because he doesn't "trust" the Prime Minister to ensure Halton's constituents maintain federal representation, he is stuck in a limbo of Harper's making -- a situation he implies can be alleviated 'if only' Stephen Harper would call a by-election.

Two things -- first, the other members are under no obligation to resign their seats simply because the great and pious Garth Turner thinks it should be so. Like it or not, members of parliament must be allowed the freedom to follow their conscience on matters of party affiliation. Imposing party loyalty under threat of removal from parliament would be a severe blow to the freedom of members to be true to their principles. Regardless of the cynical and mercenary reasons that some MPs switch parties, MPs must have the freedom to govern their own political destinies, and because eventually all of them must face the electorate, their motives and movements will eventually be judged.

Second, and more importantly -- according to Elections Canada, a by-election can only be called when a parliamentary seat is VACANT. Until Garth chooses to resign, the Halton seat remains occupied. Only when a seat is vacant:

. . . the Speaker of the House of Commons informs the Chief Electoral Officer by means of a Speaker's warrant. If the Speaker is absent, or if it is the Speaker's seat that is vacant, two members of the House of Commons may address the warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer.

So Garth, if you're so desperate to go to the people, and you're so sure that you're right, take a risk like the maverick you pretend to be --- stop blaming Stephen Harper -- do what's right and get your ass out of that chair.

canadianna