A Young Voter Speaks To Her Peers

Bravo to this young lady who articulates some of the dangers posed by the Harper regime:

Thoughts On The Shunning Of Helena Guergis

Wikipedia offers the following definition of 'shunning': Shunning is the act of social rejection, the deliberate avoiding association with, and habitually keeping away from, an individual or group. It is a sanction against association, often associated with religious groups and other tightly knit organizations and communities. Targets of shunning can include, but are not limited to, apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, people classified as "sinners" or "traitors" and other people who defy or who fail to comply with the standards established by the shunning group(s).

I couldn't help but think of the term, and the parts of the definition, (i.e., most parts) that would be applicable to fallen former Conservative cabinet and caucus member Helena Guergis, as she was being interviewed yesterday on Evan Solomon's Power and Politics.

Having discussed her in an earlier blog entry, I will repeat that I have never been especially fond of either her politics or her performance as a cabinet member, but I have to agree with some of her objections over how she was treated by Mr. Harper after unsavoury allegations arouse about her and her husband, allegations that were eventually deemed to be without foundation after an RCMP investigation. Nonetheless, at the first hint of scandal, she was removed both from her Cabinet post, something I can understand happening under the original circumstances, and from the Conservative caucus, something that I can't agree with, essentially rendering her a pariah, a persona non grata to the Party. She was effectively shunned.

In addition to the fact that Guergis seems to have been held to a different standard by Mr. Harper than others (think of Bev Oda, Maxime Bernier and Bruce Carson), the fact that she was expunged from the Party without any due process says much about the Harper style of governance, so thoroughly explored in Lawrence Martin's Harperland as well as in many online and mainstream media publications. It is a style that brooks no deviation, no independence, and requires absolute fealty to the leader. In other words, it is essentially one-man rule, although we have more unflattering ways of describing such governance when it occurs in the Middle East, Africa, and South America.

And that is why, despite the dismissal by some pundits that what happened to Guergis is only part and parcel of the rough game we call politics, I think her treatment is both newsworthy and should be considered by voters as yet another reason they should give serious pause before so blithely casting their ballots in favour of the Conservatives on May 2.

Student Voting at Guelph, and A CBC Appeal

Hot on the heels of news suggesting that more young people are making efforts to get politically involved in this election is the disturbing action by the Harper operatives to get a special ballot overturned at the University of Guelph in which 700 students voted. The people at Leadnow.ca are fighting back with an online petition demanding that the Conservative regime drop its challenge and let the vote stand. You can sign the petition here.

On a related note, Friends of CBC is offering a handy guide and downloadable campaign signs for those concerned with the political threats to the funding of the Corporation. Click here for that information.

More Harper Pork, This Time In Vaughan

Conservatives quit over Vaughan health-care money So reads the headline on the CBC website reporting that more federal pork is being doled out, this time in the riding of Vaughan, currently held by Julian Fantino who captured it in a byelection last year. Outraged over the fact that two of Fantino's key backers, developer Michael DeGasperis and construction insurance man Sam Ciccolini, will benefit from a $10 million grant to an organization of which they are chair and director respectively, two prominent Conservatives have quit their riding association.

The two dissenting Conservatives, Richard Lorello, the local Conservative candidate in 2008, and riding association member Tracey Kent feel that it is wholly inappropriate that the money was awarded to a private group, Vaughan Health Campus of Care (VHCC); both regard it as a reward to both DeGasperis and Ciccolini for their help as fundraising co-chairs in Fantino's victory last November.

the Newest Liberal Online Ad

Sometimes you have to really love the Internet. Witness this new Liberal online ad, a response to the Harper government's misspending of G8 money:

He Who Controls The Media Controls The Truth

Were this April 1st, I would have dismissed the following story as simply a prank, a kind of satire on the anti-democratic propensities of the Harper government which, as all of us who follow politics know, runs 'a closed shop' administration. Numerous posts and stories have reminded us of the multitude of measures practised by the regime demonstrating its antipathy towards anything resembling an open exchange of ideas, choosing instead to 'manage the message' through fear, anger, innuendo, and character assassination. In other words, for those who pay attention to such things, the Harper regime's contempt for democracy has been breathtakingly transparent.

Imagine how much more power to control, manipulate, and frighten that these goose-steppers will have if they realize their dream of media control that is being reported by the CBC in an article entitled: Harper to create government-run media centre: report

As they used to say, read all about it here.

But Can You Convince Laurie Hawn?

I have to confess that in some ways I envy the Conservative mindset. For its adherents, life is satisfying because it is so uncomplicated, all issues are black and white, and they never allow facts to get in the way of a good narrative or otherwise ruin their day.

One of the greatest practitioners of this singular and simple-minded approach to life, dominated as it is by magical thinking, is Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay.

I have written previously about Hawn's adamantine insistence that the 65 F-35 fighter jets will be purchased by the Harper overnment for $75 million each, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. While I doubt that his religious zeal for that figure can be shaken, there is a compelling story in today's Star offering even more evidence that the jets will cost much much more, and once more leads the rational thinker to question the wisdom of committing to the purchase of craft whose technology is unproven and still undergoing development and revision. I hope you will take a look at it, but don't be expecting any 'road to Damascus' moment for the aforementioned Hawn.

Thomas Walkom on Harper's Paranoia

By using Stephen Harper's past public pronouncements, Thomas Walkom in today's Star illustrates the threat the Conservative leader poses to the traditional Canadian values of openness and tolerance. Entitled The Reasons for Harper's paranoia, it is a column well-worth reading.

Lawrence Martin On The Dire State of Democracy Under The Harper Regime

Writing at i.Politics.ca, Lawrence Martin, author of Harperland, (a revealing look at the Prime Minister and his contempt for just about everyone outside his narrow clique), does us all a service in his article, By the way prime minister, this is not a police state, reminding us of some of Harper's more egregious and flagrant violations of democratic norms over the past few years. Given that there have been so many instances of these abuses since the Harper regime took power, I am grateful for the brief refresher course Martin offers here.

The Star Finally Exposes The Truth About Harper's Press Restrictions

What follows is a copy of today's headline story in The Star. I was unable to find it online after reading it in my home delivery, so I cannot provide the link. Therefore I am taking the liberty of reproducing the entire story.

While Andrew Coyne expresses outrage in a Twitter message that this is headline news, I think it is far overdue that the general public learn of the methods the Harper camp is using to control the P.M.'s image. Although this has been well-known since the start of the campaign by bloggers and users of Twitter, newspapers with wide circulation have not reported it until now, as far as I know. Significantly, there is no mention of the story in our so-called national newspaper, The Globe and Mail.

Tensions rise as Conservative leader imposes daily cap on queries from reporters at campaign events
HALIFAX— The cost to travel with Stephen Harper’s campaign? $10,100 a week.

The number of questions Harper takes each day? Five.

Looking like an over-controlling politician? Priceless.

The bright yellow fence that kept reporters penned in far from the Conservative leader Thursday during a campaign event here was an apt metaphor for his first week dealing with the media — controlling and restrictive.

Now Harper is facing questions about his questions. Namely, why he isn’t willing to take more. And he’s refusing to answer. Harper takes only five questions from the media each day — four from the reporters on his tour and one from a local reporter. His political rivals place few restrictions on how many questions they take.

That’s produced tension between the Conservative leader and the journalists following his campaign tour as it criss-crosses the country.

Harper has settled into a routine in his first week — a morning announcement, followed by a media availability. Journalists on the campaign tour get four questions — usually two in English and two in French — and a local reporter is given the chance to lob a question at the Conservative leader, as well. But the situation boiled over Thursday when Harper was asked — using one of the five questions — why he refused to take more than a handful of questions from reporters each day. Harper refused to answer, but when pressed, suggested he would be open to addressing any issues he hadn’t already discussed.
But he never explained his rationale for not fielding more questions.

“In terms of questions, is there any specific issue that I haven’t addressed that you want me to address?” Harper asked.

“If there’s another subject, I’ll answer,” the Conservative leader told journalists behind the fence, more than 10 metres away.

Later, Harper supporter David Cameron, who was at the event, came up to the journalists to express his frustration with their questions.

“You guys reporting the news or making it?” he asked.

Senator Michael MacDonald, a Harper appointee, tweeted: “Lovely day on Halifax waterfront for PM’s trade status. CBC reporters (Terry) Milewski and (Jennifer) Ditchburn were like attack dogs afterward — pathetic!”

In fact, Ditchburn works for The Canadian Press.

MacDonald later wrote that he withdrew the comment.

The New Democrats soon issued a news release noting that MacDonald — who was vice-president of the Conservative Party of Canada before Harper put him in the Senate in 2009 — earned $132,300 last year and rang up expenses totalling $257,142.

Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas said later the Conservative leader has several media interviews with radio and television stations across the country this week.

Power and Politics: Evan Solomon's Interview with Helena Guergis

Watching last evening's interview with Helena Guergis, a politician I have never been particularly fond of, especially given her airport tantrum a couple of years ago, I couldn't help but think that the Harper Conservatives probably now wish that they had treated her better.

Readers will remember that she was summarily removed from Cabinet and expelled from the party for reasons that were never fully explained; the fact of her marriage to Rahim Jaffer, who came under suspicion for influence-peddling, presumably made her a victim of guilt by association and hence a liability to the party. This, despite the fact that embarrassments by other Conservative M.P.'s (Bev Oda and Maxime Bernier come to mind) have not resulted in similar party retribution.

Now sitting as an Independent Conservative, she acquitted herself with impressive grace, saying that she hopes to return to the Conservative Party when it is under 'a different leader.' She also talked about the freedom she feels as an Independent, no longer having to go through a long and complicated approval process for permission to speak publicly, fetters she has been bound by in the Harper regime, given as it is to exerting complete control over all government members, requiring them, amongst other things, to fill out a Message Event Proposal (MEP) detailing who they would like to talk to, why, and what, precisely, they wish to say.

She also revealed how her sister, Christine Brayford, Guergis' riding's chief financial officer, had been asked to be part of the 'in and out' scheme but refused, as it didn't seem legitimate to her.

You can see the entire interview here.

Will the Harper Government Sacrifice Lives to Score a Political Advantage?

The answer to this question, as I have feared since election speculation started, is likely to be yes. A story in today's Star talks about the bills the Harper Government wants to pass into law before dissolution comes, and they include two crime bills and one that will better compensate injured soldiers.

Unfortunately, getting the Senate's final approval on Bill C-393, the NDP bill that passed in Parliament recently amending Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, is of little interest to Harper and his Conservative-dominated Senate. C-393 would make it much easier for generic drug manufacturers to send to Africa life-saving drugs to treat aids, tuberculosis, and malaria, potentially saving millions of lives. etc.

There is little doubt in my mind that the Harper team, which to my knowledge has never felt constrained by moral considerations, sees real campaign advantages in enacting crime and compensation bills, their supporters tending to believe in the need for more incarceration and better support for the troops. Very likely as well, Team Harper will blame the 'parisan games' of the 'coalition responsible for this unnecessary election' for the drug bill not having time to complete its way through the Senate.

The untold numbers of Africans who die as a result of this bill's obstruction will be the victims of the Harper regime's immoral but hardly surprising decision to put their political fortunes above all else.

So yes, to answer the question that pundits have been asking, the integrity of the Government will be an issue in this election.

What Do Peter Mansbridge and Ed McMahon Have in Common?

In my younger days, I was quite a devotee of late-night television, my allegiance owed almost exclusively to The Tonight Show starring, as they used to say, Johnny Carson. The nightly ritual was the same. Ed McMahon would introduce the star, and Johnny would come out to perform his droll monologue, periodically assisted by the always-reliable Ed. For example, Johnny might make a declaration such as, “Boy, it was really hot in downtown Burbank today,” and Ed, the perfect second banana, would ask, “How hot was it? at which point Johnny would say, “It was so hot that....(followed by a punchline that usually elicited sufficient laughter to ensure that the routine would survive in one form or another for as long as Johnny wanted.)

Because of its importance in spotlighting the star, being a second banana in show business has a long and respected history. Being a journalist and behaving like a second banana does not.

Watching The National last night, I couldn't help but remember that relationship between Ed and Johnny. Peter Mansbridge's brief interview last night on The National with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was, to say the least, disappointing, given that his questions were reminiscent of a second banana whose job it is to make the star shine.

Take, for example, the first softball question Mansbridge lobbed to Flaherty:

You've said all along that you didn't want an election. You reached out to the NDP, met with them, and today there was stuff in the budget for the NDP. Did you miscalculate what would be enough for the NDP?

This gentle query offered Flaherty the predictable opportunity to appear statesmanlike and beyond political games by saying he didn't know what it would take to satisfy the NDP (of course implying how unreasonable the party was being) and then talking about how it is the Finance Minister's responsibility to “look at the big picture,” consult widely and look out for “the best interests of the people.” He went on to talk about other things in the budget intended to meet some of the Liberal demands, but concluded that none of the measures seemed "good enough for the opposition parties" (at least he didn't say 'opposition coalition' this time).

Peter then threw another dainty slo-pitch, this one even more leading, by asking:

If it does end up in an election ... does that cause damage to the recovery program?

He could very easily have asked a much less biased question by inquiring how an election now might affect the economy.

Mansbridge's final question came when he asked Flaherty that if he didn't want an election, "Why didn't you try putting through an amendment?” Notice how he didn't make a much more hard-hitting query such as why Flaherty didn't ensure Bloc Quebecois support by including in the budget $2 billion for the harmonization of federal and provincial tax that Quebec undertook in 1992, a precondition for support already previously articulated by Giles Duceppe, an agreement, by the way, that most are saying is essentially already a done deal. In other words, Mansbridge allowed to stand the fiction that the Harper Government has done everything it could to avoid an unnecessary election, a fiction that will doubtless form a large part of the government's election narrative.

As frightened of offending the Harper regime as the CBC may be, I expect much much better from our national broadcaster.

To watch the entire 3:48 minute interview between Mansbridge and Flaherty, click here.

A Harper-Orchestrated Attempt To “Change The Channel”

Watching last night's edition of CBC's Power and Politics, as I frequently do, offered yet another opportunity for insight into the Harper mind, a mind that many would describe as dark, manipulative, and contemptuous of everyone outside of 'the Conservative philosophical tent' (which, when you think about it, must be a small abode indeed, given its very restricted range of thought and vision.)

The predictable discussion occurred throughout the first half-hour of the show, as Liberal Scott Brison, Conservative Tom Lukiwski and the NDP's Yvon Godin discussed the contempt of Parliament verdict by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As was to be expected, Tory Lukiwski spun the partisan and already frequently-repeated line that the contempt finding was simply partisan politics and a sham. This is, of course, the Conservative narrative, one we will hear incessantly if an election is called. However, the really interesting development came in the next half hour.

In that segment, Solomon was interviewing Conservative James Rajotte, Liberal Ralph Goodale, and the NDP's Thomas Mulcair about the pending federal budget and how the contempt finding might affect the vote on it. Suddenly, looking at his Blackberry, Evan Solomon broke in with the news that there had been a leak about the Conservative budget, and he then went on to articulate the details of the leak: forgiveness of student loans for medical personnel willing to work in isolated areas, money for research and development, etc. At that point I believe Mr. Solomon thought that the CBC had scored a coup. I told my wife that there are no leaks in the Tory 'ship of state' (please forgive the tired metaphor), and that this revelation was clearly designed for another purpose.

My 'spider sense' tingling, I switched over to CTV's Power Play with Don Martin where, lo and behold, he was announcing the same leaks, when previously he had been talking about the contempt finding. Back on CBC, Solomon was trying to get Mulcair and Goodale to evaluate the specific details leaked and wisely they demurred, suggesting to the host that he was simply being used by the Tory apparatus for spin purposes. Solomon did look decidedly disappointed a few minutes later when he announced on-air that the leaks had been sent to several news agencies.

This transparent attempt to 'change the channel' away from discussion of the contempt of Parliament finding, I think, gives us an idea of how the Harper regime will conduct their campaign, should an election be called. Today may well see the beginning of the process culminating in a non-confidence motion on the budget so that the Government will fall on that issue, thereby circumventing a formal vote in Parliament on the contempt findings, which would allow the Conservatives to continue during the campaign with the narrative that the Committee’s finding of contempt is, once more, only a partisan sham, proven by the fact that the opposition voted down a responsible budget that would have benefited all Canadians.

It is clear to me that yesterday's above-described events offer potent proof that the Harper Government's contempt is hardly limited to Parliament. It suggests a mentality that cynically views most people as easily manipulated, easily distracted, and easily convinced to overlook all of the egregious violations of democracy they are guilty of.

God help us if they are right.

Harper's Uncanny Ability to Maintain his Political Fortunes

In reading Lawrence Martin's Harperland, I was struck by how many times Prime Minister Harper and his operatives have had their political skins saved, not just by their own Machiavellian machinations, but by external events.

Take, for example, Harper's first unnecessary prorogation of Parliament in order to avoid a confidence vote that would have surely toppled his government. Having badly miscalculated the political opposition to ending public subsidies for all parties, a measure he included in Finance Minister Jim Flarherty's 2008 economic update, he faced the prospect of a coalition of the Liberals and the NDP, with a promise of support for at least 18 months from the Bloc Quebecois, to form a new government after a confidence vote in the House. According to Martin, Harper was ready to concede defeat having made a rare but huge tactical error. But fate intervened to save him.

Although not part of the coalition, the Bloc Quebecois leader, Giles Duceppe, was invited by Dion and Layton to take part in a public signing to demonstrate their ability to work together and thus form a replacement government without an election, something quite constitutionally legitimate. However, the inclusion of Duceppe gave Harper the opening he needed, whereby he went on a campaign to denounce this unholy alliance with 'separatists' as an attempt to 'highjack democracy.'

Harper was successful in his propaganda blitz and the rest, as they say, is history. His visit to Governor General Michelle Jean secured him the intended result: a prorogation of Parliament, during which the idea of a coalition lost its momentum, largely due to the public outrage against it that Harper had fuelled.

Similarly, in 2010, to avoid a showdown in Parliament over his refusal to turn over Afghan detainee documents that many believe would have shown that his Goverment had known that those Afghans turned over to the authorities by the Canadian military faced torture, he once more prorogued Parliament, this time on the pretext of 'recalibrating' his Government's agenda. Initially, this backfired on the Prime Minister, as Canadians expressed their outrage through protests, Facebook petitions, etc. But then two things happened: the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and the opening of the Winter Olympics in B.C. The ensuing public diversion of attention allowed the Harper regime to dodge another bullet.

There are numerous other examples in the book, but what does all of this suggest? That Harper is capable of using any opportunity for political benefit, which leads me to predict the following:

Given that he has already used the terrible recent tragedy in Japan to suggest now is not the time for an election, there is little doubt in my mind that he will use Canada's entry into the Libyan conflict to do two things. He will again suggest that a time of war, as he has called it, is not the time for political games by the opposition parties in trying to engineer an election; experienced and stable leadership in paramount in these perilous times. Also, he will take the opportunity to talk about how this sudden incursion into Libya demonstrates the need for up-to-the-date military aircraft, and so his Government's decision to spend untold billions on the 65 F-35 jets is yet another example of his wise and prescient leadership.

Once more, external events will likely save this Prime Minister's hide.

The Dark Shadow of Stephen Harper

The dark presence of Stephen Harper loomed heavily today during the Parliamentary Committee hearing into whether International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda should be held in contempt of Parliament for her earlier misleading and evasive answers regarding her department's defunding of KAIROS.

While the evaluation of her testimony will undoubtedly split along party lines, her 'answers' to the Committee's questions, in which she frequently simply proclaimed her probity, had all of the earmarks of a carefully scripted and carefully rehearsed performance, doubtlessly orchestrated by the Prime Minister's minions (a.k.a. The PMO). Her inability or unwillingness to answer questions with either a 'yes' or a 'no' without very animated prompting by M.P. Pat Martin bespoke the evasiveness of someone with something to hide. While watching this performance, I was reminded of all the evidence Lawrence Martin brings forth in Harperland that nothing happens in the Harper Regime without the explicit approval of Mr. Harper or his operatives.

Let the spin begin.

The Facade of Integrity – Harper Regime Calls in the RCMP

With an election in the air, the past few days have seen the Harper regime trying to perpetrate the illusion of integrity. On Tuesday we learned that Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose called in the RCMP to investigate allegations that Sebastian Togneri, a former staffer, tried to impede access to information requests by first trying to retract and then ordering heavy censoring of documents that had already been cleared for release. His subsequent resignation has allowed Ambrose to claim that “no current member of this government is involved in this case." Today we learn that former Conservative bigwig Bruce Carson is being investigated for influence-peddling. The investigation was ordered by Harper.

To the naive, the requests of Ambrose and Harper for police investigation might suggest an underlying integrity to the Harper Government. To many of us who follow Canadian politics, their actions bespeak a desperate attempt at damage control.

One need only look at the sequence of events in the Carson scandal. As reported in The Toronto Star,

“Carson reportedly illegally lobbied Indian Affairs Minister John Duncan on behalf of a company that was trying to sell water filtration systems to First Nations reserves with poor water quality. “

Federal law stipulates that no former employee of the government can engage in lobbying of that government for at least five years after leaving its employ.

I have a simple question for a Government that trumpets its empty rectitude: When he was being lobbied, why did Minister Duncan not report it and initiate action against Carson? Since Duncan had to have been well acquainted with both Carson and the lobbying regulations, why did he conceal his contacts with the former adviser?

My other question, which I think can readily be answered, is why has Harper called in the authorities at this point? The answer, I believe, is not difficult to deduce. As reported in The Star,

The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network uncovered the alleged wrongdoing in an investigation into the activities of Bruce Carson, a longtime Tory political operative who advised the Prime Minister on energy and environmental issues.

Since APTN is planning to broadcast a program on March 25 revealing the full details of its investigation, it would seem that Harper had no choice but to call in the authorities. In the letter (which APTN quoted) Harper's office sent to William Elliot, Commisioner of the RCMP:

a government official writes that Harper’s office “became aware of the existence of materials in the possession of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.”

“These materials contain troubling details about recent actions and claims made by Mr. Bruce Carson, a former employee of the Prime Minister’s Office,” wrote Ray Novak, Harper’s principal secretary.

The inference I draw from all of this is that because APTN is about to run this explosive expose, the Harper Government had no choice but to call in the RCMP in a desperate play at damage control and misdirection.

To attribute anything but the basest and most cynical motivation in this affair is to caught in the sleazy game the Prime Minister and his operatives play.

Lawrence Martin's Column Today

In today's online Globe, Lawrence Martin offers a lacerating analysis of the departure of what he calls “the ethcially upright” (Chuck Strahl, Stockwell Day, and earlier, Jay Hill) from the Harper regime. He describes them as “low key and reasonable, not inclined to engage in character assassination. They won admiration for their sense of decency, so it’s in this respect that their departures will hurt the government.”

Consider the key material Harper has to work with in terms of Cabinet representation from Ontario: ”From the old Harris government, the Tories have House Leader John Baird, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Trade Minister Peter Van Loan, Industry Minister Tony Clement and campaign manager Guy Giorno.”

Need one say more?

A Very Effective Video Denunciation of the Harper Regime

Thanks to the Progressive Bloggers site for posting this video:

More on Harperland - Intolerance of Dissenting Opinion and Misuse of the RCMP

While I am a reasonably fast reader, especially when it comes to fiction, I sometimes have to slow down and digest small chunks of non-fiction that deal with the political arena, lest I do grievous harm to my blood pressure or mental state. Such was the case as I made my way through Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, dealing as it did with how the right wing exploits natural or human-made disasters to advance the cause of free-market economics, despite the damage that system can do to those upon whom it is imposed.

I am exercising similar caution with Lawrence Martin's fine political analysis, Harperland, which, as I mentioned in an earlier post, confirms our worst fears and suspicions about the Harper regime. This morning I read a couple of parts that reflect both Harper's contempt for opposing viewpoints and his authoritarian bent:

Michael Biels, a history professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote a newspaper piece opposing Harper's decision to confer nation status on Quebec. Senator Marjory Lebreton, a former Mulroney loyalist who was named Senate leader for switching her fealty to Harper, contacted the university and demanded that Biels be disciplined and forced to issue an apology. Fortunately the university resisted her demands, saying that freedom of speech is a mainstay of academic institutions. Since the implications of this incident are obvious, no further comment from me is needed.

Many will recall the next example, which occurred when the Conservatives had a caucus meeting in Charlottetown in 2007. As was the tradition P.H. (Pre-Harper), journalists gathered in the lobby of the hotel to talk to caucus members as they passed by. The Prime Minister's Office, with its Harper-directed mandate to keep media contact to a minimum, ordered the RCMP to remove the reporters from the hotel. Besides this wholly inappropriate and probably illegal use of our federal police force for political purposes, this incident made me wonder anew exactly what role Harper played in another political misuse of police authority, the widespread violation of Charter Rights that occurred during the G20 Summit in Toronto last June.

While I strongly encourage everyone to read this fine book by Lawrence Martin, I do have to post this warning: CONSUMPTION OF ITS CONTENTS MAY POSE RISKS TO YOUR PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH