Tag Archives: Jean Chrétien

Some (More) Musings on Canadian Democracy

Let me get on my soap box so you can see me better. I ask that you hold your questions until the end… I can’t promise to answer all your questions or comments but I can assure that I will read them and consider them…

Friends and neighbours, I’d like to speak for a bit on a subject very dear to me, a subject I feel is very important to all of us, the subject of Democracy.

Now I don’t plan on going into a long winded explanation of how we got Democracy from the Greeks or how it was used throughout the ages, I’m just going to touch upon Canadian Democracy.

Our Democracy.

I came across an item while I was looking for something else about how Members of Parliament, prior to the Second World War, were required to surrender their seat in the House of Commons and run in a by-election if they were deemed worthy to be a member of Cabinet.

This intrigued me. Imagine, after winning an election the newly minted Prime Minister comes to you and says “I’d like you to be my Minister of …” and then you’d have to decide whether you wanted to be in Cabinet.

Today it would be a no brainer, a pay raise, a larger staff, a title, it all sounds good doesn’t it? But back then you’d have to decide if you wanted the headaches and hassle of running again for the seat that you had just won, and the risk that you might lose.

Why would they do such a thing?

It was tradition, it was the convention, it was done that way because that was the way it was done.

But this wasn’t some strange idea that Canadians dreamed up to complicate running a Country, it was in fact part of the Westminster Parliamentary system. This was and is the system we inherited from Britain when we became a Country in our own right.

At that time, the Parties didn’t have as much control over the individual or Private Members of the House of Commons. An MP’s job was to represent their constituency and to hold the Government to account. The Government being the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Now if you’ve ever watched Question Period from the House in London, you may have seen vestiges of this. Occasionally a Member from the Government Side of the House will rise to ask a pointed question about policy or a proposed law which would not be a good thing for their home constituency. As a Private Member, you have the ability to challenge the Government, as a Member of Cabinet, you do not.

You see as a Minister you are required to support any policy or legislation that the Government brings forward even if you think it is a bad idea, even if it is bad for your constituency.

So there was merit in having these by-elections back then. If the people supported Bob Brown because they thought he would do a good job of representing them even if he belonged to the wrong party, the people could toss Bob out and elect someone else if they didn’t like the Party he was affiliated with, the Government he would be representing.

But things certainly have changed. At least here they have.

It certainly is a rare event to hear an MP stand up to his or her own Party. It’s political suicide. At best you’d likely lose any status you have built up with the Party and be a back bencher for life, and at worst you might have your seat taken away and a new candidate parachuted in to replace you. Today you cannot run for the Party of your choice unless the leader of the Party signs your nomination papers so it is best to keep the leader happy if you want to be an MP.

So whatever happened to this odd rule? Well after a number of minority governments in the 1920s, it just disappeared in the 1930s.

You see this wasn’t a law that you had to run in a by-election, it wasn’t even a real rule. It was merely a convention, like saying “Thank you” or “You’re welcome”, you don’t Have to say these things, but we generally do anyway… it’s the way things are done.

Many of the “rules” we have in our Parliamentary system are just conventions. It’s part of the way our Democracy works.

Have you ever wondered why when the Speaker of the House is selected, they are escorted to the Speaker’s Chair by the leaders of the Government and the Opposition? Have you ever wondered why they pretend they don’t want the job?

It’s part of the same thing. Traditionally the Speaker was chosen from the Opposition side to weaken the Opposition and to show that the Speaker holds no favouritism to the Government. The Speaker also surrenders their ability to speak for their constituents in the House.

The use of the prorogue is another example. Traditionally the prorogue was used by the Government to show that they have met the goals they set out in the Throne Speech and to provide a break with which to draw up a new set of goals and a new Throne Speech. Often a prorogue would be called when there is a normal break scheduled for the Legislature. This would give the Government plenty of time to set a new agenda, but there are also examples of short breaks as well, such as a prorogue in Ontario’s Provincial Parliament that lasted only a few hours.

It’s kind of handy for historians too. A prorogue can break up a Parliament into Sessions, so if you are looking for a specific item, you wouldn’t have 4 or 5 years worth of information to go through, but only 2 or 3. You could look for the 42nd Parliament, 2nd Session for example.

However, the prorogue has also been abused, used as a “get out of trouble card” if a Government is having a bad go of it.

Jean Chrétien prorogued Parliament during the Sponsorship Scandal, but he was on his way out as Liberal leader and Paul Martin could very well have used the same tool to set his agenda as he was coming in to replace Chrétien.

Stephen Harper has also used the prorogue to get out of trouble twice so far. Once when the opposition parties were lining up to bring down his minority government and then again when the Afghan detainee situation was threatening to boil over. Lately Harper has said he will prorogue again this summer, he claims it is so he can set a new agenda, but the Senate Scandal that is knocking at his door suggests other motives are at play.

Listen, as a people we have seen some great changes in our electoral system. We have gone from a show of hands at a local beer hall to the secret ballot. We have gone from a time when only men of wealth or property were the only ones who could vote to a time where virtually all citizens have the right to vote and there are not a lot of places that can say that.

But, while our electoral system has been improved, our governance has gone the other way. Our individual MPs , our voices in the House are for the most part muzzled. If you want to be more than a backbencher for your political career you pretty much have to toe the Party line and that rings true for pretty much all the parties, but even more so for some.

I would love to see at least one backbencher on the Harper side of the House stand up and say “No” to limiting debate, to say “No” to omnibus legislation.

We need our MPs to have voices again and not just parrot the party line regardless which party is handing out the talking points.

So how do we do this? I don’t know.

I don’t even know If we can do this.

We have seen the gradual diminishment of the MP to the point where they are little more than place markers in the House of Commons. After we find out how many seats each party won, we don’t need ‘em any more.

The power in Ottawa appears to be getting so concentrated that we may not even need a Cabinet any more other than to reward good MPs for reading their talking points and not being an embarrassment to the Government. It seems all they do is read their talking points anyways, and that includes the Cabinet Ministers.

Short of pointy sticks or cattle prods, how do we remind our MPs that we sent them to Ottawa to represent us and not to just send us periodic reports on what a wonderful job their leader is (or would be) doing.

Maybe we should go back through the long forgotten conventions of our Parliamentary system and make them use them again, in the ways they are supposed to be used? Maybe 39 by-elections for Cabinet appointments would make people wonder what the devil is going on in Ottawa?

So endeth the Rant for Today,

I appreciate your time.

Cheers! BC

Brian Peckford corrects the “Narrative”

Brian Peckford debunks the “Kitchen Accord” and “Night of Long Knives” Narrative

  • Giving Credit Where Credit’s Due: Rewriting the Patriation Story:
    For the last 30 years, politicians and the media have frequently recounted the same story about the patriation of Canada’s constitution and the adoption of the Charter of Rights. Most of the credit in this version goes to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, but three others are recognized for breaking an impasse in the negotiations in 1981: federal justice minister Jean Chrétien, Saskatchewan attorney general Roy Romanow, and Ontario attorney general Roy McMurtry. In his memoirs, Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford argues that the key intervention came not from Romanow, Chrétien, and McMcMurtry, but from Peckford himself and the members of the Newfoundland delegation.

    The long-accepted narrative goes like this. In the 1980s, Trudeau was determined to create a charter of rights and a procedure that would allow Canada to amend its constitution without seeking Britain’s permission, a legacy from the country’s colonial past. Trudeau faced opposition from eight provincial premiers (all but those from Ontario and New Brunswick), who formed the Gang of Eight to advance their own decentralized vision of Canada. After failing to come to an agreement with the provinces, Trudeau decided to proceed without them, but a Supreme Court ruling forced him back to the negotiating table.

    continue reading: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/featured/giving-credit-where-credits-due-rewriting-the-patriation-story

  • Brian Peckford and the patriation of the Canadian constitution:

    In Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More, the political memoirs of Brian Peckford, former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador from 1979 to 1989, were formally published today at a launch party in St. John’s. Political Management professor and historian Stephen Azzi, writing in the Canadian Encyclopedia, draws attention to a little-known but markedly consequential contribution Peckford made to the Canada that exists today: his role in breaking the political log jam that permitted the patriation of the constitution and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

    The commonly accepted folklore holds that the provinces and the federal government were bitterly divided at the constitutional conference of November, 1981, until federal justice minister Jean Chrétien, Saskatchewan attorney general Roy Romanow, and Ontario attorney general Roy McMurtry ducked into an unused pantry in the conference centre and hashed out a compromise that was later dubbed “the Kitchen Accord.” It is a nice story, says Prof. Azzi, but it fails to do justice to the complexities of the negotiations or to the role played by Brian Peckford in bringing about an eventual agreement.

    continue reading: http://www6.carleton.ca/politicalmanagement/2012/brian-peckford-and-the-patriation-of-the-canadian-constitution

  • Brian Peckford interview on Power and Politics with Evan Solomon
    POLITICS | Oct 8, 2012 | 44:38

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2288652796/

  • Brian Peckford re-writes constitution’s Night of Long Knives
    CBC News
    Posted: Sep 20, 2012 9:54 AM ET
    Last Updated: Sep 20, 2012 9:53 AM ET

    It is one of the enduring stories of the battle to patriate Canada’s constitution: late-night talks on Nov. 4, 1981 that produced the Kitchen Accord, a compromise that ultimately led to an agreement that brought home Canada’s constitution.

    That breakthrough has long been credited to then Justice Minister Jean Chrétien, Saskatchewan Attorney General Roy Romanow and Ontario Attorney General Roy McMurty — the so-called Kitchen Cabinet that met in the kitchen of Ottawa’s convention centre until the wee hours.

    In Quebec, it has been known by another name: the Night of the Long Knives, referring to the perceived exclusion of Quebec premier René Lévesque and the betrayal of Quebec’s interests.

    But 30 years later, another version of events has emerged — and former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford has outlined his own account in a new book, Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More.

    Was it his proposal that actually laid the ground for the final agreement during the historic constitutional talks? Brian Peckford spoke with Power & Politics host Evan Solomon.

    continue reading: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/20/pol-brian-peckford-patriation-constitution-power-and-politics.html

  • Peckford rewrites history with new account of ‘Kitchen Accord’ to patriate Constitution
    Randy Boswell, Postmedia News | Sep 12, 2012 11:54 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 13, 2012 12:27 AM ET

    Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford has literally rewritten history, prompting the Canadian Encyclopedia to substantially revise the story of the 1982 patriation of the Constitution.

    The then-premier of Canada’s newest province now gets central credit in shaping the historic deal, with the encyclopedia playing down somewhat the significance of the famous “Kitchen Accord” led by future prime minister Jean Chrétien that up until now was largely thought to be the constitutional saga’s breakthrough moment.

    Mr. Peckford, whose political memoir was launched Wednesday in St. John’s, used the 30th anniversary of patriation in April to raise objections to the prevailing “mythology” about how the deal was done during a high-stakes first ministers’ conference in Ottawa in November, 1981.

    Now, the country’s main easy-reference resource for historical knowledge has examined Mr. Peckford’s claims, conducted additional research and — as the author of the revised patriation entry puts it — is now “giving credit where credit’s due.”

    continue reading: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/12/kitchen-accord-downgraded-former-premier-rewrites-constitutional-history/


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Who’s the man between the prime ministers?

Who’s the man between the prime ministers? iPolitics Insight

By | Sep 28, 2012 5:00 am | Comments

Whatever the relationship between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Nathan Jacobson, the high-flying Canadian businessman now a fugitive from U.S. justice, one thing is certain: they certainly didn’t just run into each other at a “community event” as the PMO claims.

Jacobson had an intimate relationship with several senior Harper cabinet ministers, paid off a CSIS agent while doing business in Russia, and apparently finessed a secret settlement out of the Canadian government under the Liberal administration of Jean Chretien even though the government denied ruining Jacobson’s business interests abroad.

Notwithstanding the Harper PMO’s ludicrous official line that “the prime minister may have met with Mr. Jacobson at a community event, as he meets thousands of Canadians from all walks of life each year,” perhaps they would be good enough explain this: who is the man standing between the prime ministers of Canada and Israel and how did he make his way into the inner sanctums of the current government?

For a prime minister who has lived through the murky departure of Arthur Porter, his handpicked chair of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, and who also hired convicted felon Bruce Carson as a senior policy analyst and troubleshooter, it is a momentous question.

Porter left office under a cloud after his dealings in Africa with an arms dealer were revealed, and now faces a police investigation from his days at the McGill Hospital Health Centre and a billion-dollar contract the hospital awarded to disgraced Canadian engineering firm SNC Lavalin Group Inc.

Carson was a lawyer who had been jailed and disbarred for multiple counts of fraud, a criminal past that, according to his own lawyer, was fully disclosed to the government during a security check before joining the inner circle of the PM’s staff.

And so, to Nathan Jacobson: For a man with a devastating secret, the Winnipeg-born businessman lived like a male version of Cinderella – until the legal clock struck midnight.

He was rich, powerful, funny, generous, and very well-connected. The Jewish community never had a more dedicated son. Well known for his philanthropy, Jacobson and his wife Lindi were staunch backers of Israel. After high school in Winnipeg, Jacobson spent six years in the Israeli Defense Forces.

The couple were major sponsors of an event in September 2007 to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the “re-unification of Jerusalem.” Jacobson was also a sponsor of the Maccabi Tel Aviv football club, a franchise that Gerald Schwartz of Onex Corporation once considered buying. (It was ultimately acquired by two Russian oligarchs in December 2007. Ironically, they were associated with the Russian defence corporation Rosoboronexport, Syria’s top weapons supplier.)

In October, 2010, when the Royal Winnipeg Ballet celebrated its 70th anniversary with performances in Israel, two of the major funders of the tour were Gerald Schwartz and Nathan Jacobson.

Even Jacobson’s anonymous philanthropy sometimes drew attention. A visitor to his ancestral home, Pavolitch in western Ukraine, admired how the Jewish cemetery there had been restored and noted the local talk about the modest benefactor whose name doesn’t appear at the site. “The renovations were done there a couple of years ago by a guy named Nathan Jacobson…”

The blogger posted photos of the restored graveyard on the internet. On the chain-link fence around the burial ground was a sign that read, “The cemetery is renovated by descendants of the Jews buried here, in their blessed memory.” The blogger got this response from a native son of Winnipeg who knew Jacobson from childhood days: “He’s about 10 years older than me and grew up around the corner … Nathan is an apparently successful international-man-of-mystery kind of guy.”

Not badly said.

Jacobson’s business acumen and philanthropy made him legendary in both Canada and Israel. He was honoured at the 38th Annual Sports dinner in Winnipeg on June 23, 2010. “Nathan lives in Herzylia, Israel and is the current International Ambassador of Jerusalem,” a local paper gushed. Eleven hundred people attended the event, including the Israeli ambassador who flew in to the evening.

There were glowing profiles in the Winnipeg Jewish Review, a favorable notice in the Jewish National Fund of Canada newsletter, and praise in newspapers like the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz for his entrepreneurial brilliance.

Jacobson was busy in the world of the boardroom too, holding positions on the Jewish National Fund, Meir Hospital and the Ukrainian Jewish Congress. He also sat on the Board of Tel Aviv University and personally funded two faculty recruitment chairs at TAU, bringing over young researchers from Toronto. One of his fellow board members was Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate and, according to Forbes, the 12th richest person in America.

The two men shared the same working-class roots as descendants of immigrants from the Ukraine and both were self-made tycoons. The businessmen have given generously to a variety of charitable causes and shown unwavering loyalty to the staunch right-wing policies of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and to neo-conservative causes in their own countries.

Adelson, for example, has worked ceaselessly to have convicted spy Jonathan Pollard released from a U.S. prison, lobbied Washington to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and championed former GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich after he declared the Palestinians to be an “invented people.”

In the current U.S. election, Adelson has promised “limitless” funding to defeat the Democrats. He may be the only political donor in history to have given $10 million to political activists who also happen to be billionaires themselves. Charles and David Koch, the recipients of the contribution, and whose own companies have annual revenues of $100 billion and estimated personal net worths of more than $30 billion each, have dedicated the donation to taking down Barack Obama through their action committee, Americans for Prosperity.

If Romney and the GOP couldn’t imagine a better supporter than Sheldon Adelson, Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party would have trouble finding a more dedicated backer than Nathan Jacobson.

Jacobson not only shared their conservative ideology, but put his money where his political heart was; from 2007 to 2011, he made the maximum donation to the party, and also gave to several individual Conservative riding associations.

The love did not go unrequited. Jacobson was a fixture at major events involving senior Harper cabinet ministers.

12345 Next >>>

© 2012 iPolitics Inc.

continue reading: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/09/28/whos-the-man-between-the-prime-ministers/


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Harper’s dangerous game of sectarian division

Harper's dangerous game of sectarian division

How Harper has 'gone to questionable lengths' in using Israel to turn Jews away from the Liberals

By Donald Barry

20 October 2010 – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper came to power in 2006 with little experience in foreign affairs but with a well developed plan to transform his minority Conservative administration into a majority government replacing the Liberals as Canada's "natural governing party."[1]

Because his party's core of Anglo-Protestant supporters was not large enough to achieve this goal, Harper appealed to non- traditional Conservatives, including Jews, on the basis of shared social values. His efforts were matched by those of Jewish leaders and the government of Israel to win the backing of the government and its followers in the face of declining domestic support for Israel and the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism.

These factors accelerated a change in Canada's Middle East policy that began under Prime Minister Paul Martin, from a carefully balanced stance to one that overwhelmingly favors Israel. Harper's "pro-Israel politics," Michelle Collins observes, has "won the respect—and support—of a large segment of Canada's organized Jewish community."[2] However, it has isolated Canada from significant shifts in Middle East diplomacy and marginalized its ability to play a constructive role in the region.

Harper and the Jewish Vote

When he became leader of the Canadian Alliance party, which merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative Party of Canada in 2004, Tom Flanagan says that Harper realized "The traditional Conservative base of Anglophone Protestants [was] too narrow to win modern Canadian elections."[3] In a speech to the conservative organization Civitas, in 2003, Harper argued that the only way to achieve power was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or "neo-cons," as they'd become known, but on what he called "theo-cons"—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defense. even foreign policy had become a theo-con issue, he pointed out, driven by moral and religious convictions. "the truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values," he said, "so conservatives must do the same."

Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents' right to spank their children to putting "hard power" behind the country's foreign policy commitments, he cautioned that it also had to choose its battlefronts with care. "the social-conservative issues we choose should not be denominational," he said, "but should unite social conservatives of different denominations and even different faiths."4

In the 2006 election, the victorious Conservatives elected 124 members of parliament (MPs) to the 308 seat House of Commons, subsequently adding three more members.5

The party maintained its stranglehold on western Canada, increased its representation in Ontario and made a breakthrough in Quebec. It swept cities in Alberta but fared less well in other urban centers where the largest multicultural populations reside. Increasing support among Quebeckers and minority voters is critical to Harper's goal of forming a majority government. As Flanagan puts it, "The suburbs of Toronto, Vancouver, and to a lesser extent of other cities are now filling up with people who, based on their social values and capitalist work ethic, should be natural Conservative voters, but who are still emotionally tied to the Liberal Party."6 The main targets are the Chinese, Korean, Hindu, Jewish, Persian, Italian, and Vietnamese communities.7

Flanagan claims Harper "has done all he can" to win their support, "starting with his anti-same-sex-marriage advertising campaign of early 2005. He insisted that the 2005-06 [election] platform contain specific measures, such as an apology for the Chinese head tax, lower landing fees for immigrants, and better recognition of their credentials; and he has worked hard to fulfill these promises as quickly as possible after forming government."8 After taking power, Harper created an "ethnic outreach team" directed by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and Jason Kenney, currently Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, to wage a "focused direct voter campaign to build support" for the Conservatives in order to "replace the Liberals as the primary voice of new Canadians and ethnic minorities." The PMO is in charge of statements in parliament concerning ethnic communities and of securing the attendance of the prime minister or senior ministers at "major ethnic events." Kenney and designated MPs liaise with minority leaders and communities.9

Although only 371,000 strong, Canadian Jews are an established part of the country's economic and political landscape. Most also "have a strong affinity for and identification with Israel."10 Concentrated primarily in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg, they are an important focus of Harper's attention. In a 2007 briefing paper, the ethnic outreach team used the Toronto area constituency of Thornhill, the most Jewish riding in the country, to show how the recruitment strategy works. Comprising 37 percent of the electorate, Jews were a key target in the effort to secure the 5,000 additional votes the Conservatives estimated they would need to unseat the Liberal incumbent. The approach included maintaining an up-to-date database of Jewish and other ethnic group electors, championing the party's positions on issues that concern the community, targeted mailings, and individual contact at various events. Harper also assigned a PMO official to keep in touch with Jewish groups.11

Conservative strategists estimate that 20 percent of minority voters are not "accessible" to the party. This figure appears to include Arab Canadians, although the Conservatives have begun to make overtures to carefully chosen Muslim groups. Arab Canadians are almost twice as numerous as their Jewish counterparts, but they are not as well established and are more reluctant to engage in politics. The community, moreover, is "divided along national, regional and religious lines, which has actively prevented it from presenting a united front to policy makers."12

The Conservative party's interest in the Middle East is relatively recent. The Reform Party of Canada, which was established in 1987 and became the Canadian Alliance thirteen years later, paid little attention. But under Stockwell Day, an evangelical Christian who was the first leader of the Alliance, the party began taking strong stands on issues affecting Israel. After taking over the leadership in 2002, Harper, who had no record of speaking out on the Middle East, made it clear that the party would remain firmly in Israel's corner. Reportedly, his thinking was influenced by neoconservatives in the United States, including expatriate Canadians David Frum, then a speechwriter in President George W. Bush's White House, and Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.13 Accusing the Liberals of "moral neutrality" in world affairs, Harper said an Alliance government would adopt a "value-oriented foreign policy" with "a stronger sense of Canada as a member of an alliance, a member of a family of western democratic nations that share certain political values—and our determination to work with those countries to achieve these things. We have a view of Israel…as an ally and part of our western democratic family."14 Lloyd Mackey credits Day with building ties to the conservative Jewish community when he was Harper's foreign affairs critic. Mackey identifies Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, and Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, as key contacts. "The tradeoff is that B'nai Brith provides social conservatives with access to the conservative Jewish community, while McVety encourages the 'bonding' of Christians and Jews as an alternative to Christians proselytizing Jews."15

According to Mackey, "the evangelical Christian viewpoint," embraced by many members of the dominant Alliance wing of the Conservative party "has always tended to be quite pro-Israel."16 Pollster Conrad Winn agrees, citing surveys indicating that "churchgoers and Christians show the most support for the religious rights of Jews in Canada and also the strongest support for Israel."17 The Conservative caucus contains up to seventy MPs who can be called evangelical Christians.18 This has enhanced the party's appeal to Jewish voters and helped to blunt criticism that the adoption of positions favoring Israel is not simply a response to pressures from the Jewish lobby and the Israeli government.

The Jewish Lobby and Israeli Government

For their part, Canada's Jewish leaders were alarmed that Canadian support for Israel was falling at a time when threats to that country were on the rise. "In particular," says Harold Waller, "there was concern that Israel's position in both public opinion in general and in elite opinion was deteriorating, that the media was not treating Israel fairly, and that government policy, especially at the United Nations, had tilted away from Israel."19 Underlying these trends, Waller claims, was "the growing clout of Muslim voters (especially in some key areas), an entrenched foreign affairs bureaucracy that tilted toward the Arabs, and declining enthusiasm for Israel among party elites as Israel struggled to combat Palestinian terrorism through the use of techniques that were controversial in some circles."20

In 2002, an ad hoc group, consisting "mainly of wealthy Jewish businesspeople," reviewed the community's lobbying efforts.21 Calling itself the "Israel Emergency Cabinet," it engaged GPC International, a public affairs firm, to devise a strategy to improve Jewish advocacy. This led to the creation of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), which "oversees and coordinates the advocacy work" of five agencies: the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canada-Israel Committee, the Quebec-Israel Committee, National Jewish Campus Life, and the University Outreach Committee. The right-leaning B'nai Brith has remained outside the arrangement.22

A study of Canadian attitudes toward Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, commissioned by the CIJA in the fall of 2004, offered a sobering assessment. Of those who considered themselves knowledgeable, 32 percent supported the Palestinians while 26 percent backed Israel. Overall, 89 percent held Israelis and Palestinians equally responsible for ongoing violence; 57 percent thought the conflict involved the human rights of Palestinians rather than the protection of Israelis from terrorism. Eighty-three percent did not want Canada to take sides, and 50 percent thought it should not play a role in settling the conflict. Unlike Jewish Canadians, only 11 percent thought the media viewed Israel unfavorably, while 33 percent saw the media as biased against Palestinians.23

The fact that conservative Christians are most supportive of Israel would make Harper's party a target for Jewish lobbying efforts. The CIJA adopted a two-fold strategy, "to underscore the shared values of an enlightened democracy between Canadians and Israelis and to downplay the significance of whatever the Palestinians were or were not doing."24 B'nai Brith was also active in strengthening ties to evangelical Christians.25

In the meantime, building on a strategy begun by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the 1970s, the Israeli government began encouraging visits by Christian evangelical groups to build support for Israel and to increase tourist income. In 2003, paralleling similar visits by their US counterparts, twenty prominent Canadian evangelical clergymen, commentators and educators went to Israel at the invitation of the country's chief rabbi to strengthen ties between Christians and Jews. The group was led by Charles McVety, who, in addition to leading Canada Christian College, represented the US-based John Hagee Ministries in Canada. Hagee, a prominent figure in the Christian Zionist movement, heads Christians United for Israel, which lobbies on behalf of Israel in the United States. The goal of this and subsequent visits was to rally support within Canada's estimated 2.5 million member evangelical community.26

In 2007, the Israeli Knesset established the Christian Allies Caucus to expand Christian support for Israel. The Canadian Israel Allies Caucus was launched in February 2007, with Harper in attendance.27 An executive assistant at Israel's embassy in Ottawa is the Jewish representative of the Christian Allies Caucus in Canada. The caucus also has a Canadian Christian representative based in Ottawa. Activities have included speaking tours of major Canadian cities to encourage evangelical Christians to back Israel. According to a caucus representative, support within the evangelical community continues to grow.28

The Liberals and Jewish Voters

Historically Canadian Jews backed the Liberal Party because of its support for Israel and its progressive social policies. By the 1970s Jewish support for the Liberals was 20 percent above the national average.29 Joe Clark's Progressive Conservative Party attempted to sway Jewish voters in the 1979 election by promising to move Canada's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had resisted pressure from Menachem Begin to do so, but Clark succumbed to the urgings of party candidates in closely contested Toronto ridings with a substantial Jewish vote. The Conservatives won four of those seats to the Liberals' two, although party organizers said the embassy pledge was marginal to the outcomes. Clark tried to implement the plan after he became prime minister. However, he retreated in the face of strong opposition, including the threat of sanctions from Arab states, concern among Canadian businesses, adverse public opinion, and the reaction of the Jewish community, which did not want to become embroiled in the controversy.30

The issue helped to defeat the Conservatives in the 1980 election, which returned Trudeau's Liberals to power. According to Charles Flicker, it also had a long-term impact on Canada's Middle East policy, "which shifted from a pro-Israel bias to a more even-handed treatment…. Canada established relations with the PLO, its voting record at the United Nations was more balanced, and it strongly criticized the invasion of Lebanon in 1982."31 Still, Canadian Jewry, which "flourished" under Trudeau's policy of multiculturalism that sought to promote social cohesion by recognizing the equality of Canada's ethnic populations, remained loyal to the Liberals. "Jews were not only well represented in virtually all sectors of Canadian society," says David Goldberg, "they also held leadership positions in, and were making important contributions to, many of these sectors."32 The connection remained strong during the 1984-93 period when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government held power, although its policies were not substantially different from those of its predecessor.33

However, the "increasingly controversial nature of Israeli foreign and domestic politics" soon ushered in a new era in Canada's relations with Israel.34 Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's Liberal government, in office from 1993 until 2003, supported Israel's right to exist within secure borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state. It opposed Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories and Israel's security fence inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and condemned Palestinian terrorism and excessive retaliation by Israel. At the United Nations, Canada parted company with the United States and Australia, and joined the dominant European and developing country majority in supporting or abstaining on resolutions sponsored by Arab states criticizing Israel's occupation of the territories, its attacks against civilians, and its nuclear weapons program.

"Although these votes were clearly biased against Israel," columnist John Ibbitson observes, Canada saw them "as one of the few forums through which the Palestinian people [could] make their voices heard."35 At home, Jewish voters, who showed greater willingness "to openly express competing perspectives on Israel," continued to vote for the Liberals at a rate 8 to 10 percent above the national average.36

Canadian policy began to shift under Chrétien's successor, Paul Martin. According to the Jewish Independent, "pro-Israel" parliamentarians gained "significantly more strength" in government, with six members of the recently formed "Liberals for Israel" caucus receiving cabinet appointments.37 Cabinet and caucus supporters "pushed hard" for a change in Canada's votes at the UN, as did Jewish organizations, including the Canada-Israel Committee, which lobbied the government to adopt criteria to assess resolutions it considered biased against Israel.38 "One of the most powerful voices" says Ibbitson, was that of Gerald Schwartz, a close advisor to Martin and a key fundraiser for his party leadership campaign. Liberal MPs with large Arab Canadian populations and foreign affairs officials warned that a change in policy would not be welcomed by Arab states.39 But the views of Israel's supporters prevailed.

The shift began in the summer of 2004 when Canada abstained on a heavily supported resolution that took note of a finding by the International Court of Justice that Israel's security barrier contravened international law. It continued during the General Assembly's annual fall debate when Canada joined the United States and a few other countries in voting against resolutions condemning Israeli violence against Palestinians and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza on which it had abstained in the past. The government argued that it could not support unbalanced measures condemning Israeli attacks against Palestinians while ignoring Palestinian assaults on Israelis. But Ottawa reversed earlier abstentions in supporting another resolution aimed at Israel, which called for a nuclear-free Middle East.40 The change in Canada's voting record was confirmed in November 2005 when Ottawa opposed three more resolutions on the basis that they were one-sided and hindered peace negotiations.41 But by then Martin's government had been defeated in parliament forcing an election that would bring Stephen Harper to power as head of a minority Conservative government.

Harper Comes to Power

During the election campaign Harper assured the CIJA that the Jewish community had "a good friend in the Conservative Party." Describing Israel as "the only fully fledged, developed democracy in that part of the world," he said "We share a unique relationship…that we believe all freedom oriented, democratic countries should share in." A Harper government would "not support resolutions at the UN that are aimed specifically at Israel or designed to create a bias in the resolution of the Middle East conflict." Harper's comments drew praise from Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, who expected Canada would be more active in "encouraging the kind of reforms that would allow the UN to fulfill the objectives it was initially designed to address," including an end to "the annual cycle of Israel-bashing."42

Dealing with Hamas

While the Canadian campaign was under way Palestinians were in the midst of an election of their own to choose a new Palestinian Legislative Assembly. It was apparent that Hamas, running on an anti-corruption platform, would defeat the ruling Fatah, confronting Canada and its allies with the challenge of how to deal with a democratically elected party espousing terrorism, and whether to continue their aid programs to the Palestinian Authority.43 In a conference call with Marc Gold, chairman of the Canada-Israel Committee, and Ed Morgan and Victor Goldbloom, the president and national executive chairman of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Harper credited his party with forcing Chrétien's government to declare Hamas a terrorist organization in 2002. He added, "if institutions committed to terrorism are playing a role in the Palestinian state, whether elected or not, that is an indication to me that the road to democracy has not been travelled very far." The representatives seemed pleased. "I think you have answered fully," Gold replied.44

On February 14, after speaking with President Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Harper indicated that future Canadian aid to the Palestinian Authority would depend upon the new Hamas government's commitment to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements, including the "road map," sponsored by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the UN, which called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.45 Confusion over the government's stand arose when foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay met with his Russian counterpart, who claimed Hamas had agreed to a "monitoring mechanism" to assure that aid would not be used for military purposes. Appearing to abandon his government's conditions, MacKay said the mechanism would ensure that aid reached civilians and that Canada would continue to provide some assistance. But he backtracked after receiving "a flurry of phone calls from pro-Israeli groups."46

Knowing that the United States and the European Union would soon suspend their aid programs to the Palestinian Authority, Harper decided that Canada would be the first country after Israel to do so. MacKay declared that Canada would have no contact with the Hamas government and would withhold aid until Harper's conditions had been met. The action would reduce by a third Canada's annual $25 million assistance package to the West Bank and Gaza. Another $10 million would continue to go to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East via the Canadian International Development Agency. "We cannot send any direct aid to an organization that refuses to renounce terrorist activities," said MacKay. "There will be no contact and no funds period."47

The announcement was praised by pro-Israel organizations and condemned by Arab and Muslim groups. "Canada has stood true to its principles by refusing to do business with a terrorist entity whose avowed aim continues to be the destruction of the Jewish state," said B'nai Brith. "A resounding slap in the face to Canadian values," charged the Canadian Islamic Congress, which accused Harper's government of "blindly following the lead of Washington and of the influential pro-Jewish lobby in both [the United States and Canada]."48 Opposition parties in parliament urged the government to concentrate on humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians.

Close observers of Middle East politics were also skeptical. Norman Spector, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel, applauded Ottawa's decision to cut funding to the Palestinian Authority but criticized its refusal to deal with Hamas. "I think we should be finding some way to explain to Hamas what it is going to take to become an accepted and respected member of the international community, and even if there is just a one percent chance of success, we should take that chance," said Spector. "We cannot foreclose any possible avenue to trying to resolve this conflict, and as good as it feels to say we have to cut off all contact with them, it won't work."49 However, Harper put more distance between his government and Hamas, telling a Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony that Hamas posed a threat to Israel similar to that of Nazi Germany.50

Evangelical Christians applauded Harper. Promoting his Christians United for Israel lobby group before an audience of 2,000 Canadian evangelical leaders and Jewish representatives, including Israel's ambassador, Alan Baker, and Major General Aharon Zeevi Farkash, chief of that country's military intelligence, at Charles McVety's Canada Christian College in Toronto, John Hagee praised the prime minister for denouncing Hamas. McVety established Christians United for Israel-Canada as an affiliate of Hagee's group.51

Meanwhile, Canada joined the United States in opposing a non-binding resolution in the UN Economic and Social Council calling on Israel to allow Palestinian refugee women and children displaced in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to return to their homes. Ottawa had abstained on the same vote a year earlier. Harper reportedly made the decision "quickly and with little consultation."52 MacKay denied that the vote marked a shift in Canadian policy. But the Canada-Israel Committee's Shimon Fogel left little doubt that this was the case, saying "This government is showing some really meaningful resolve in continuing and expanding on what the previous government had begun to do."53

War in Lebanon

Events in the Middle East took an unexpected turn on July 12, 2006, when Hezbollah militants fired rockets into northern Israel and attacked a military patrol, killing three soldiers and abducting two others in an attempt to force Israel to return Lebanese prisoners. Calling the attack "an act of war," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, ordered a massive artillery, air and ground offensive to break Hezbollah's grip on southern Lebanon. By the time the conflict ended 34 days later more than a thousand Lebanese civilians had been killed, almost a million had been displaced, and much of the country's infrastructure lay in ruins. Forty-three Israelis perished as a result of Hezbollah rocket attacks. An Israeli government sponsored commission would later call the operation a "serious failure."54

When hostilities broke out Harper was en route to Europe for meetings with Prime Minister Tony Blair in London, G8 colleagues in St. Petersburg, and President Jacques Chirac in Paris. Although up to 50,000 Canadians were stranded in Lebanon, Harper agreed with President George W. Bush that Israel had "the right to defend itself," describing its response as "measured."55 He also supported Blair's call for a return to the road map approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict but saw no evidence that Hamas agreed.56

The crisis in Lebanon dominated discussion among the G8 leaders. The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada opposed an immediate end to the fighting, in effect giving Israel a green light "to destroy as much of Hezbollah as it could." France, Germany and Russia agreed that Hezbollah had started the conflict but condemned "Israel's disproportionate response and insisted on an immediate cease-fire."57 The communiqué tried to bridge the gap. It expressed concern about the rising death toll, destruction of infrastructure, and the impact on Lebanon's government, and called for the return of captured Israeli soldiers, an end to rocket attacks on Israel, cessation of Israel's military operations and early removal of its forces in Gaza, and the release of arrested Palestinian politicians. Harper backed the statement, which Canadian officials insisted was consistent with his earlier comments.58

However, the declaration was overshadowed by the bombing deaths of eight members of a Montreal family in southern Lebanon, which accelerated Ottawa's plans to evacuate Canadian citizens from the country. Harper expressed sympathy to the relatives of the victims but moderated his earlier views only slightly. "We are not going to give in to the temptation of some to single out Israel, which was the victim of the initial attack," he said. "The onus remains on the parties that caused the conflict," although "We urge Israel and others to minimize civilian damage." Asked whether he would still describe Israel's response as "measured," he replied, "I think our evaluation of the situation has been accurate. Obviously there has been an ongoing escalation and, frankly, ongoing escalation is inevitable once conflict begins."59

Harper joined Bush in opposing Chirac's call for an immediate cease-fire, which, he argued, was not "the first thing" or "the only thing" called for in the G8's statement.60 But with domestic criticism growing, the prime minister, accompanied by a photographer, press aides and his security detail, diverted his aircraft to Cyprus to return the first of 15,000 Canadians rescued from Lebanon. The government would also provide a $1 million aid package for Lebanon, which would grow to $30.5 million by the time the conflict ended.61

An opinion poll suggested that most Canadians supported the government's handling of the evacuation, with 66 percent approving and 34 percent calling it inadequate. Criticism was strongest in Quebec, where most of the country's 150,000 Lebanese Canadians reside.62 Only 45 percent agreed that Harper's position on the conflict was "fair and balanced" versus 44 percent who thought it "decidedly too pro-Israel." Again, opposition was highest in Quebec, where 62 percent were dissatisfied with the government's stand.63

Apparently believing that the controversy would not damage its electoral prospects, the government stuck to its position. It participated in peace talks in Rome in late July, which failed to produce an agreement on ending the war. Canada joined the United States and the UK in insisting that a durable settlement had to precede a cease-fire, while moderate European and Arab states maintained that the fighting had to end first. Harper said Canada would not participate in a possible peacekeeping force, adding that its purpose should be to drive out terrorists, a task best performed by soldiers from nearby states.64 He would ask Israel and the UN for an explanation after Israeli forces bombed a UN observer post in southern Lebanon, killing a Canadian officer and three other soldiers serving with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. But Harper appeared to blame the UN for putting the soldiers at risk. A Canadian Forces board of inquiry later held Israel's military responsible for the deaths, which it called "tragic and preventable."65

Canadian supporters lined up behind Israel's war effort. In late July, 8000 attended a "Stand with Israel" rally in Toronto organized by Jewish groups. The event's master of ceremonies, film producer Robert Lantos, thanked Harper for his "unequivocal support," and announced that he was giving up his membership in the Liberal party. Another participant, Israel's consul general in Toronto, called the gathering a significant endorsement.66 Charles McVety, who had been the principal speaker representing the Christian right at the rally, called on Christians "to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Jewish friends in their hour of need."67 In his capacity as chair of Christians United for Israel-Canada, he joined B'nai Brith's Frank Dimant and Ambassador Baker in designating August 20 as a "National Day of Prayer for Israel and the Peace of Jerusalem."68

Conservative party officials sought to capitalize on Harper's stand, asking supporters for "a special contribution of $150 or $75" in order "to keep the focus on principle and character and Canada's return to its place in the world." The Liberal and New Democratic Party opposition denounced the government for seeking to profit from the crisis. Arab Canadian groups were also outraged. But Jewish groups were not opposed. "The Liberal party has been a great beneficiary of Jewish largesse," said Dimant. "Harper has taken a principled stand and I think that, in the next election, Canadians will respond accordingly."69

Exploiting Liberal Divisions

Harper's stance put pressure on the Liberal Party, then in the midst of a campaign to choose a successor to former leader Paul Martin, to declare its position. With members split between those supporting Israel and those favoring Canada's traditional peacekeeping role in the region, interim leader Bill Graham tried to steer a middle course. Reiterating the party's friendship with Israel, he argued that the government needed to maintain its capacity "to act as an appropriate intermediary," for only in this way could it "truly help our friends."70

The public, too, believed the government had abandoned Canada's traditional approach. A new poll reported that 45 percent of Canadians, including 61 percent in Quebec, disagreed with Harper's support for Israel's actions, while only 32 percent agreed. Seventy-seven percent wanted Canada to take a neutral position.71 Saying he was "not concerned with opinion polls," Harper refused "to be drawn into a moral equivalence between a pyromaniac and a fireman." Ambassador Baker weighed in calling Ottawa's stand "completely consistent with Canada's values of supporting the right of a sovereign state to act in self-defense against a terrorist organization that is part of the world Islamic jihadist attempt to destroy the state of Israel." Setting diplomatic propriety aside, he called Graham's statement "a continuation of the non-committal and un-useful position that was held by the previous Canadian government, which neither helped advance peace or prevented terrorism." Jewish groups also applauded Harper. "We are enormously appreciative of the support that the government has extended to Israel," said Shimon Fogel of the Canada-Israel Committee. This, he added, could help pry Jewish votes from the Liberals in the next election.72

The Conservatives received another boost during their national caucus meeting in Cornwall, Ontario in early August. Gerald Schwartz, Heather Reisman and six other prominent members of the Jewish community, several of whom had been active in the Liberal party, took out an advertisement in a local newspaper praising Harper for "standing by" Israel.73 Frank Dimant called it a "very loud wake-up call" for the Liberals. "If Mr. Harper stays the course…I think this will end up being a long-term commitment [to the Conservatives] by these people." Reisman, a life-long Liberal, joined the party shortly thereafter.74

Dismissing the complaints of protesters outside the meeting as "very predictable," Harper said "There are a lot of long-term strategic interests of this country and of the world at stake here and that's why we're taking the positions that we're taking." However, he took a softer line in remarks in French directed at Quebeckers, most of whom remained opposed, saying, "We have a completely different situation from three weeks ago…. We have a full-blown conflict, almost a war, and it's hard to say whether a response is proportional to another."75 Still, Lebanese Canadian groups in sensitive electoral battlegrounds in Quebec and Ontario vowed to campaign against the Conservatives in the next election.76

On August 8, two days after 15,000 demonstrated against his government's policy in Montreal, Harper tried to assuage the dissenters, taking the unusual step of appointing Wajid Khan, a Liberal MP for the Toronto area riding of Mississauga- Streetsville and a native of Pakistan, as his special advisor on South Asia and the Middle East. Khan's assignment was to visit the Middle East and report on Canada's policy involvement.77 The Conservatives had tried to persuade other ethnic Liberal MPs to join the party, but Khan would not have to do so. Jason Kenney, then Harper's parliamentary secretary responsible for ethnic outreach, called the initiative an attempt to "to reach out past partisan concerns."78

Khan would not say where he stood on Middle East matters, claiming he had an open mind. He also denied that he would become a Conservative, insisting his appointment was "a supra-partisan issue."79 But Arab Canadian groups were skeptical. Mazen Chouaib, executive director of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations (NCCAR), said "We don't want to see this [becoming] another public relations stunt. The government has to deal with real issues and substantive issues."80

Khan's appointment aggravated the split within Liberal ranks. Fellow MPs forced Khan to resign as assistant defense critic and to withdraw from caucus. The divisions deepened when Senator Jerry Grafstein called on the party to put its support firmly behind Israel. MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who had been a member of a parliamentary delegation invited to visit Lebanon by NCCAR, suggested Canada find a way to communicate with Hezbollah. Seizing the opportunity to exploit the Liberals' differences, Kenney declared there should be no discussions with Hezbollah, which he likened to the Nazis. Bill Graham affirmed the party considered Hezbollah a terrorist group "that should be treated as such under all applicable Canadian laws," but MPs were entitled to their views. Still, Wrzesnewskyj was forced to resign his associate defense critic post.81

Controversy continued to follow the hapless Liberals. Leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff, who had said he was "not losing sleep" over an Israeli bomb attack that killed 29 Lebanese civilians in the village of Qana, reversed himself. In an interview on a popular Quebec television talk show in early October, he described the attack as a "war crime." Widely seen as an attempt to regain lost support in Quebec, his comment was sharply criticized by Jewish organizations.82 Harper also pounced on the gaffe, accusing "virtually all" of the leadership contenders of harboring "anti-Israeli" views. B'nai Brith and other Jewish groups urged Graham to denounce Ignatieff's remark and to ensure that "anti-Israeli rhetoric" did not become part of the leadership contest. But they were silent on the prime minister's characterization of the Liberal candidates.83

The Toronto Globe and Mail editorialized that the comment was "illustrative of an unbecoming hyper-partisanship that Mr. Harper carries around like a chip on his shoulder." But columnist John Ivison pointed out that Harper hoped to gain a "tactical advantage" with his attack. "The Conservatives are becoming the logical political option for many in the influential Jewish community because of Harper's steadfast support for Israel," he observed. In mid-October the prime minister would speak at B'nai Brith's annual dinner with sponsorship packages available for $1 million "and, by all accounts, people are lining up to offer him their thanks."84

Confirming Ivison's judgment, Frank Dimant said, "I don't predict an ovation. I predict several ovations…. There is certainly a groundswell of support today in the Jewish community for the Conservative Party."85 Harper did not disappoint. Fresh from preventing passage of a resolution acknowledging only Lebanese suffering in the Lebanon war at a meeting of la Francophonie, he made no apologies for his stand. "When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot, and will not be neutral," Harper said, "those who seek to destroy the Jews, will, for the same reason, ultimately seek to destroy us all."86 The reaction was all he could have hoped for. "Every Shabbat, every Saturday, we recite [a] prayer for you, Mr. Prime Minister," said Dimant. "I believe that the Almighty has answered our prayers.87

Some observers believed that opposition to Harper's foreign policy, especially among Quebeckers, contributed to his party's failure to improve its popularity. A new survey put the Conservatives in a virtual tie with the leaderless Liberals and pointed to a steady decline in support in Quebec. Another poll reported that although more Canadians approved than disapproved of the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon, 40 percent disagreed with the government's approach to the war, while only 29 percent agreed. Fifty-five percent of francophones disapproved of Ottawa's handling of the issue.88

Canada's pro-Israel tilt at the UN became more pronounced when the government abstained on three more General Assembly resolutions dealing with Palestinian peoples' right to self-determination, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and Israel's exploitation of natural resources on "occupied Arab lands," which its predecessor had supported.89 Harper admitted that diplomacy was the only way to achieve peace, but his government would not deal with Hamas or Hezbollah "whose objectives are ultimately genocidal." Despite this, Ottawa could serve as an interlocutor. "My own assessment of Canada's role in the Middle East in the past decade or so is we have been completely absent," he asserted. "I don't see any evidence we were playing any role." The government was looking for ways to encourage dialogue with the Palestinian Authority through President Abbas.90

Searching for a Role?

In January 2007, Peter MacKay visited the Middle East seeking to build on Ottawa's role as chair of the Refugee Working Group of the Middle East Peace Process, to "find a niche where Canada can make a contribution."91 MacKay met with Abbas, who encouraged Canada to help resolve the future of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. But a senior aide to the president charged that the decision to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority and refusal to meet with Hamas officials had diminished Canada's influence in the region. MacKay also met with Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, whose view of a two-state solution would not give refugees the right to return. MacKay appeared to agree, although his officials said Canada's policy was that the issue should be settled by negotiation.92

MacKay was mildly critical of Israel's security fence but reaffirmed that Canada stood "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Israel. Israel's foreign ministry praised Harper's government for maintaining "particularly warm relations," and noted that "bilateral and diplomatic ties are currently at their peak."93 However, as columnist James Travers saw it, MacKay's visit confirmed that the Palestinians were "losing interest in what this country has to say," and that the Israelis had "heard everything they need to know."94

Meanwhile, to no one's surprise, Harper's Middle East advisor, Wajid Khan, left the Liberals and became a Conservative. Harper blamed the party's new leader, Stéphane Dion, for forcing Khan to choose between his roles as a Liberal MP and prime ministerial advisor. But Harper had facilitated Khan's move by appointing his Conservative opponent in the 2006 election to a citizenship court position.95 Harper hailed the defection as a sign that minority voters were becoming more receptive to the Conservatives. "There's a place for everyone within the new Conservative Party of Canada," he boasted. "The news is getting out and the party is continuing to grow."96

However, the government refused to release Khan's report as Khan undertook to do when he was appointed. Its claim that Khan's advice would become less valuable if it were made public led to speculation that the document did not exist or that it ran counter to government policy.97 The rebuff increased Arab and Muslim Canadian skepticism about Ottawa's intentions. "We are now suspicious that this whole thing was a charade," said Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation. "Wajid Khan is not a professor of political science," the Canadian Islamic Congress's Mohamed Elmasry asserted, "and his knowledge of the Middle East is very limited. He's a member of Parliament and he so happens to be a Muslim, and he does not represent the Muslim viewpoint." The Canadian Muslim Forum and the Muslim Canadian Congress also called on the government to produce the report.98

In June, Hamas fighters attacked Fatah security forces and took control of Gaza, leading President Abbas to appoint an emergency government from which Hamas was excluded. Israel responded by imposing an escalating blockade of Gaza. King Abdullah of Jordan visited Ottawa the following month to encourage support for the new government and a renewed Arab league peace initiative. Harper said the government was committed to peace. But it was only after the United States and the European Union resumed their aid that Harper agreed to do so. The Canada-Israel Committee, which had opposed restoration of the funding, said the action would not "undercut the appreciation the pro-Israel community has for the Harper government."99

More evidence of Harper's attempts to strengthen ties to Jewish voters surfaced in the fall of 2007 when Canada's privacy commissioner began a "preliminary enquiry" into reports that the Conservatives had compiled a mailing list of Jewish voters. It followed complaints from some recipients of personalized Rosh Hashanah greeting cards from the prime minister. Jason Kenney defended the initiative as part of the government's commitment to multiculturalism. B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress approved. Calling it a first, Frank Dimant hoped "it's a tradition that prime ministers down the line will carry on."100

More of the Same

In November, the United States launched another Middle East peace initiative at a conference attended by forty countries, including Canada. The meeting failed to produce agreement on the so-called "core issues" of borders, settlements, the status of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian right of return. But Israel and the Palestinian Authority made a best-efforts commitment to reach a deal by the end of 2008. Responding to Prime Minister Olmert's request, Harper agreed to contribute $300 million over five years to further Palestinian security, governance and development. But the aid would be contingent on "demonstrable progress in negotiations by both sides, as well as progress in Palestinian democratic reforms." Ottawa would ensure that it did not go to "Hamas or other terrorist groups."101

In January 2008, during a follow-up visit to the Middle East by Maxime Bernier, the new foreign affairs minister, Olmert's government announced the expansion of existing settlements in East Jerusalem. Although Canada opposed "any new growth of settlements," Bernier did not say whether this included expansion of existing ones. His officials called the expansion "extremely unhelpful" but added that individual settlements would be dealt with in negotiations over the final status of territories held by Israel, leading observers to speculate that Ottawa had shifted its position.102

In March, Bernier expressed concern over an Israeli military assault on Gaza, which killed 120 Palestinians, in retaliation for rocket attacks on cities in Israel by Hamas militants. Bernier's comments were criticized by Israel's vocal ambassador, Alan Baker, and the Canada-Israel Committee. However, Canada was the only member of the UN Human Rights Council to oppose a resolution accusing Israel of war crimes in its attack on Gaza.103 The action followed Ottawa's decision to lead the way in withdrawing from the second UN World Conference Against Racism, to be held in Durban, South Africa (later moved to Geneva) in 2009. The government argued that the conference would provide a platform for opponents to resume attacks on Israel begun at the first conference seven years earlier. "We're very happy that we see things in a similar way," said an Israeli official, "Canada has adopted several times in recent months very brave positions."104 In another sign of their deepening relationship, the two countries signed a "declaration of intent" to deal with "common threats" to national security.105

But relations with Israel continued to provoke controversy. In May, Ambassador Baker expressed alarm that the growing Muslim population could produce a shift in Canada's policy. Singling out a Liberal MP, Omar Alghabra, who he claimed, "had been outspoken in his hostility toward Israel," (though he offered no evidence) Baker suggested "that the type of political influence that we're seeing in Britain, in France, might ultimately reach the Canadian political system." Public safety minister Stockwell Day gently chided the ambassador for his intrusion into domestic politics, saying "we are proud of the fact that we are made up and built from people from all countries, including the Jewish people." But Harper appeared to agree with Baker, charging that "some members of Parliament" were willing to pander to "anti-Israeli sentiment," which he described as "a thinly disguised veil for good old-fashioned anti-Semitism."106 In his address to a dinner marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, Harper assured the audience of his government's "unshakable support."107

Harper tried to balance his stance by praising "the moderate but theologically isolated Ahmadiyya Muslims" at the opening of their new mosque in Calgary, Alberta in July. A party source claimed the overture, similar to those made to Ismaili Muslims, was aimed at the wider Muslim audience. "It's an important signal the prime minister is sending, not just to militant Islamists abroad, but to their sympathizers here at home, that he's perfectly prepared to ignore them and side with persecuted minorities within the faith." Harper's comments provoked predictable criticism from the Arab and Muslim communities. "As a prime minister I can remind people of the danger of extremism in religion or ideology, but you don't try to describe one Islam as better than another," said a spokesman for the Canadian Arab Federation. The Canadian Islamic Congress's Mohamed Elmasry contended that Harper needed to improve his understanding of Muslim issues "instead of relying on overnight experts supplying him with one or two pages [of information]."108 But Harper's remarks were consistent with his strategy of "digging deep into a few select social strata," rather than seeking broad support, in order to enhance his party's electoral prospects.109

Conclusion

Opinion polls conducted as late as August 2008 suggested the Conservatives and Liberals remained about where they stood at the time of the 2006 election.110 But there were signs that Harper's strategy had begun to have an effect. For example, long-standing Jewish support for the Liberals in the Montreal riding of Outremont collapsed in a by-election in September 2007. Jews, who make up 10 percent of the constituency's electors, voted Conservative or stayed away, contributing to the victory of the New Democratic Party candidate. The Liberal standard bearer finished a distant second.111

In another by-election in March 2008, in the British Columbia constituency of Vancouver Quadra where the Liberals had piled up impressive wins in recent years, the Liberal candidate's margin of victory was reduced to 151 votes over the runner-up Conservative. "We have worked aggressively to court the Jewish community there," said a party strategist. Actions included a meeting between Harper and Jewish representatives a week before the vote. "People are now trying to determine if that influenced the numbers," the official said. "This all goes back to the government's strong support of Israel in 2006."112

The big test came in the October 2008 election in which the Conservatives portrayed themselves "as the only party with a staunchly pro-Israel record."113 In a major speech in the Toronto riding of Eglinton-Lawrence, home to the fourth largest Jewish community in Canada, Harper reminded his audience of the government's support for Israel in the Lebanon war and its veto of the Francophone summit resolution acknowledging only the suffering of Lebanese civilians. He also accused opposition MPs of "marching in the streets beside the flag of Hezbollah" at the August 2006 rally in Montreal opposing the government's policy toward the war.114 The Conservatives promised to continue to work closely with Israel on economic and security issues, and reaffirmed that a Harper-led government would not participate in the UN's forthcoming anti-racism conference. They committed to fund a $3 million pilot Security Infrastructure Project to increase safety at places of worship, schools and other community centers for Jewish and other ethnic groups at risk of hate crimes.115

Harper's government was returned to power with 143 seats, short of the 155 it needed to attain majority status.116 Early assessments suggested that the party's ethnic outreach strategy had started to pay dividends. Although the Liberals took 48 of the 80 constituencies with ethnic minorities larger than 20 percent, the Conservatives increased their total to eighteen, six more than in 2006, and boosted their vote in others.117 The party lost ground in Vancouver and Winnipeg constituencies with a substantial Jewish population. It also failed to win in Montreal and Toronto, which together account for more than forty seats. However, it improved its share of the vote, in some cases dramatically, in ridings in both cities where large numbers of Jewish electors reside.118 In the test case riding of Thornhill they helped the Conservative candidate defeat the Liberal incumbent by slightly more than the 5,000 additional votes the party's ethnic outreach team estimated it would take to win. Liberal turned Conservative MP, Wajid Khan, though, was soundly defeated by his Liberal opponent, despite several visits by Harper.119

Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress calls the Conservatives' electoral strategy normal political activity. "I see both a positive outreach to communities and I see politics at play, which is not a bad thing."120 Polling firm executive Paul Adams adds, "This is a game of inches in a minority [government] situation. The Jewish community is not a large demographic, but it tends to be concentrated in a small number of seats… It looks like an ethnic group that could be separated from the Liberals."

At times, Harper's party has gone to questionable lengths to do so. In November 2009, it targeted six Liberal constituencies containing large Jewish minorities (three in Montreal, two in Toronto, one in Winnipeg) with taxpayer- funded flyers claiming the Liberals had "opposed defunding Hamas and asked that Hezbollah be delisted as a terrorist organization," that Jean Chrétien's government had "willingly participated" in the "overtly antiSemitic" first World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001, and that Michael Ignatieff, the Liberals' current leader, had "accused Israel of committing war crimes." As Sheldon Gordon notes, "Only the last charge was incontestably accurate and free of distortion."121 Privileging one set of interests over others to enhance its electoral prospects, moreover, does nothing to further the government's professed goal of multiculturalism.

Likewise, good electoral politics does not necessarily lead to good foreign policy. As James Travers puts it, "Seeing the planet through a provincial prism encourages certainty over caution and, as a glance towards the Middle East confirms, is often catastrophic…. In exercising his foreign policy prerogatives, Harper [has] repositioned the country from being a small part of an elusive solution to the centre of an entrenched problem."122

Former prime minister Joe Clark agrees. In a speech in 2007, he argued that the Harper government had abandoned Canada's traditional "constructive role" in the Middle East. He took issue with Harper's claim that Canada had absented itself from the region during the previous decade, saying, "Apart from being flatly false, that rebuke is even more unsettling as either a warning shot, or an unguarded statement of belief, by the prime minister who so dominates this government." Harper should admit his mistake as Clark himself had to do on "one celebrated occasion."

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments had tried to be a "reliable interlocutor," between Israel and its Arab neighbors. "Not many other countries have that reputation."123 Harper was unmoved, telling the CIJA that a "battle between a democratic state and terrorist groups who seek to destroy it and its people is not a matter of shades of grey, it is a matter of right and wrong."124

However, Israel has sometimes shown more flexibility than its Canadian backer, creating opportunities for states with more balanced perspectives to perform a facilitating role. For example, in May 2008, months of indirect talks between Israel and Hamas brokered by Egypt culminated in a six-month cease-fire in Gaza and a temporary end to Israel's blockade. The following month, with Germany serving as mediator, Israel and Hezbollah agreed to exchange prisoners and the remains of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture helped ignite the 2006 Lebanon war. Turkey was also instrumental in helping Israel and Syria begin indirect negotiations aimed at achieving an overall peace settlement.125

Although Canada is not a major player in Middle East politics, it can encourage constructive solutions to the region's problems. It can also provide expertise, as it has done elsewhere, in such areas as governance, federalism, judicial reform, economic development, border control and enforcement, and the training of security forces. But this will not happen as long as electoral politics dominates the Harper government's foreign policy thinking.

Notes

I would like to thank Tom Flanagan, Paul Heinbecker, Tareq Ismael, Anthony Sayers, Denis Stairs, David Stewart and Livianna Tossutti for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation is mine. An extended version will appear in Tareq Y. Ismael, Canadian Foreign Policy and the Middle East: Continuity and Change (forthcoming).

1. Tom Flanagan, "Thou shalt not lean too far to the right," Globe and Mail, September 22, 2007.
2. Michelle Collins, "How the Jewish Vote Swung from Red to Blue," Embassy, February 11, 2009. http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2009/02/11/how-the-jewish-vote-swung-from-red-to-blue/37244
3. Flanagan, "Thou shalt not lean too far to the right."
4. Marci McDonald, "Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons," The Walrus, 3:8, (October 2006), 50-51 http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-politics-religion-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/. For the text of the speech see Christian Coalition International (Canada), Stephen Harper, "Rediscovering the Right Agenda," June 2003 www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html (11/6/2007).
5. The Conservatives won 124 seats (receiving 36.3% of the popular vote) in the 308 seat parliament, followed by the Liberals with 103 (30.3%), the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) with 54 (10.5%), and the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 29 (17.5%). One Independent was elected. Three Liberal members subsequently joined the Conservatives. According to an Ipsos Reid election day poll, 52% of Jewish electors voted Liberal, 25.5% Conservative, and 15.2% NDP. Muslim voters voted 48.6% in favor of the Liberals, 15.5% for the Conservatives, and 28.2% for the NDP. Overall, 50.4% of non-Christian voters supported the Liberals, 23.6% the Conservatives, and 19.8% the New Democrats. Barry Kay, "The Denominational Vote: Non-Christians," September 17, 2008, www.wlu.ca/lispop/fedblog/?p=67 (9/23/2008).
6. Tom Flanagan, Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2007), 280. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40204376
7. Don Martin, "Tories campaign on ethnic outreach," National Post, February 19, 2008. http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=522a6723-00ee-4796-aaac-4456cd0b6d4d&k=72618
8. Flanagan, Harper's Team, 281.
9. Quoted in Daniel Leblanc, "Tories target specific ethnic voters," Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007; "Anatomy of a Conservative Strategy," Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007.
10. Brent E. Sasley and Tami Amanda Jacoby, "Canada's Jewish and Arab Communities and Canadian Foreign Policy," in Paul Heinbecker and Bessma Momani, eds., Canada and the Middle East in Theory and Practice (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2007), 197.
11. Daniel Leblanc, "Tories target specific ethnic voters," Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007; "Anatomy of a Conservative strategy," Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007; Daniel Leblanc, "Responses to tactics range from outrage to shrugs," Globe and Mail, October 17, 2007; Marci McDonald, The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada (Toronto: Random House Canada, 2010), 38. In Ontario the boundaries of federal and provincial electoral districts are identical. During the 2007 provincial election, Progressive Conservative party leader John Tory promised that a government led by him would extend education funding beyond the province's public and Roman Catholic schools to other faith-based systems. Tory was forced to withdraw his pledge in the face of public opposition, although it was welcomed by Thornhill's ethnic populations. Premier Dalton McGinty's Liberal government was returned to power. But the Progressive Conservatives won the Thornhill seat, which had been held by the Liberals.
12. "Anatomy of a Conservative strategy," and Sasley and Jacoby, "Canada's Jewish and Arab Communities," 198. Sami Aoun argues that this extends to the issue of Palestine, which because of its "complexity makes objectivity within the Arab and Muslim community in Canada difficult. The resulting differences of opinion have prevented a unified pro-Palestinian position that would help further the Palestinian cause with respect to Canadian foreign policy." "Muslim Communities: The Pitfalls of Decision-Making in Canadian Foreign Policy," in David Carment and David Bercuson, eds., The World in Canada: Diaspora, Demography, and Domestic Politics (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008), 118. On Arab Canadian lobbying efforts see Liat Radcliffe Ross, "Canadian Muslims and Foreign Policy," International Journal, LXIII:1 (Winter 2007-08), 187-205.
13. Tom Flanagan, personal communication. Mearscheimer and Walt observe that Jews, including Frum and Krauthammer, "compose the core of the neoconservative movement," in the United States. Neoconservatives support "spreading democracy and preserving U.S. dominance [as] the best route to long-term peace," are "skeptical of international institutions," and "believe that military force is an extremely useful tool for shaping the world in ways that will benefit America." Their agenda includes "vigorous support for Israel and a tendency to favor its more hard-line elements." John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (Toronto: Viking Canada, 2007), 132, 129, 132.
14. Quoted in Stacey Stein, "Harper criticizes Liberals on Israel," Canadian Jewish News, January 30, 2003. Harper has said little about his religious convictions. Raised in the United Church, he sometimes attends Ottawa's East Gate Alliance Church, which belongs to the evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance. In 2005, Harper told an interviewer, "I won't say I always keep my faith and my politics separate, but I don't mix my advocacy of a political position with my advocacy of faith." Quoted in McDonald, "Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons," 49.
15. Lloyd Mackey, Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (Toronto: ECW Press, 2006), 92.
16. Quoted in Brian Laghi, "It's a marriage of principle and politics," Globe and Mail, July 18, 2006.
17. Quoted in Leslie Scrivener, "Jewish Liberals a Hezbollah casualty?" Toronto Star, August 20, 2006. See Father Raymond J. De Souza, "The Christian case for supporting Israel," National Post, May 8, 2008.
18. Not all of these MPs would identify themselves as evangelical Christians. However, they tend to fall within David Bebbington's classic definition of evangelicalism, based on a belief in biblicism (biblical authority), crucicentrism (the redemptive role of Christ on the cross), conversionism (the conversion of non-Christians), and activism (a commitment to spreading the Christian message). They may be members or followers of evangelical or conservative Protestant or Catholic churches, attending on a regular or periodic basis. Their activities may include participation in prayer breakfasts or faith-based study or advocacy groups. Lloyd Mackey, personal communication.
19. Harold M. Waller, "Organized Canadian Jewry: 'CJC's glory days are long past," Canadian Jewish News, March 15, 2007.
20. Harold M. Waller, "The evolution of Canadian Jewish advocacy: CIJA shifts the focus," Canadian Jewish News, March 22, 2007.
21. Ibid. The group included Gerald Schwartz, CEO, Onex Corporation; Schwartz's wife Heather Reisman, CEO, Indigo Books and Music Inc.; Brent Belzberg, owner of Torquest Partners; Larry Tannenbaum, chairman, Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment; Stephen Cummings, CEO, Maxwell Cummings; Stephen Reitman, executive vice-president, Reitmans (Canada) Ltd.; Israel Asper, CEO, CanWest Global; Sylvain Abitbol, CEO of NHC Communications; Senator Leo Kolber, a former director of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Seagram's and Loews Cineplex; and philanthropist Julia Koschitzky. See David Noble, "The New Israel Lobby in Action," Canadian Dimension (November-December 2005), and Dan Freeman-Maloy, "AIPAC North: Israel Advocacy in Canada," ZNet, June 26, 2006, www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10486 (12/20/2007).
22. The Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, www.cija.ca/eng/home.htm (7/11/2008); Waller, "The evolution of Canadian Jewish Advocacy"; McDonald, The Armageddon Factor, 318-321.
23. Jeff Sallot, "Neutrality on Mideast favoured, polls found," Globe and Mail, November 12, 2004; Jeffrey Simpson, "Canadians don't share Ottawa's pro-Israel tilt," Globe and Mail, February 1, 2005.
24. Waller, "The evolution of Canadian Jewish Advocacy."
25. The author of the strategy is B'nai Brith's Frank Dimant, who has close ties to Charles McVety of the Canada Christian College. In 2004, the college awarded Dimant an honorary doctorate. Four years later he was appointed inaugural chair of its new Department of Israel Studies. Another important figure is Joseph Ben-Ami. In 2002, after serving on the staff of Stockwell Day, Ben-Ami joined B'nai Brith first as director of communications and later as director of government relations and diplomatic affairs. In 2005, he left B'nai Brith to become executive director of McVety's Institute of Canadian Values. Three years later, Ben-Ami established the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, his own conservative think tank. See Stephen Scheinberg, "Partners for Imperium: B'nai Brith Canada and the Christian Right," Canadian Jewish Outlook (July-August 2008), 5-8, 37-39; McDonald, The Armageddon Factor, 318-323.
26. Paul Lungen, "Evangelical Christian leaders head to Israel," Canadian Jewish News, March 13, 2003; Paul Lungen, "Evangelical Christians planning next mission," Canadian Jewish News, March 27, 2003. Christian Zionists are a subset of opinion within the evangelical community. They "tend to hold more rigid views on policy matters related to Israel than mainstream evangelicals," although Canadian members are inclined "to be more moderate" than their US counterparts. While Israel and many pro-Israeli groups cultivate the support of Christian Zionists, their views cause unease in some quarters. Robert McMahon, "Christian Evangelicals and U.S. Foreign Policy," www.cfr.org/publication/11341 (27/3/08) and Douglas Todd, "'Christian Zionist' beliefs cause unease among Jews," Vancouver Sun, August 25, 2007. See also Mearscheimer and Waltz, The Israel Lobby, 132-139.
27. Etgar Lefkovits, "Canadian government forming pro-Israel lobby," Jerusalem Post, February 4, 2007, www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359780973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull (11/5/2007); Knesset Christian Allies Caucus, www.cac.org.il (11/22/2007).
28. Janice Arnold, "Christians must stand with Israel, evangelical leader says," Canadian Jewish News, July 12, 2007; Lloyd Mackey, "Israeli politicians court Canadian evangelicals," canadi- anchristianity.com, www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/070215israel (3/6/2008); McDonald, The Armageddon Factor, 332-333.
29. Scrivener, "Jewish Liberals a Hezbollah casualty?"
30. Charles Flicker, "Next Year in Jerusalem," International Journal, LVIII:1 (Winter 2002-03), 115-138; Jeffrey Simpson, Discipline of Power: The Conservative Interlude and the Liberal Restoration (Toronto: Personal Library, Publishers, 1980), 153.
31. Flicker, "Next Year in Jerusalem," 137.
32. David H. Goldberg, "The Post-Statehood Relationship: A Growing Friendship," in Ruth Klein and Frank Dimant, eds., From Immigration to Integration, The Canadian Jewish Experience: A Millennium Edition (Toronto: Malcolm Lester, 2001), 141.
33. Michael Bell, Michael Malloy, and Sallama Shaker, "Practitioners' Perspectives on Canada-Middle East Relations," in Heinbecker and Momani, eds., Canada and the Middle East, 12.
34. Goldberg, "The Post-Statehood Relationship," 143.
35. John Ibbitson, "In case you missed it, our Mideast policy has shifted," Globe and Mail, December 3, 2004.
36. Goldberg, "The Post-Statehood Relationship," 143; Scrivener, "Jewish Liberals a Hezbollah casualty?"
37. They were: Montreal MP Irwin Cotler (justice), Vancouver's Stephen Owen (public works and government services), Toronto area members Joe Volpe (human resources), Carolyn Bennett (public health), Jim Peterson (international trade), and Vancouver senator Jack Austin (government leader in the Senate). Pat Johnson, "Israel supporters in cabinet," Jewish Independent, January 9, 2004.
38. Paul Lungen, "Canada shifts vote on UN resolution," Canadian Jewish News, March 16, 2006. The criteria, whether the resolution singled out Israel, used excessive language, and offered a balanced treatment of the issue, of course, leave considerable room for discretion in making such decisions.
39. Ibbitson, "In case you missed it, our Mideast policy has shifted"; John Ibbitson, "Is Canada preparing to shift line in the sand?" Globe and Mail, October 21, 2004; Ron Csillag, "Liberal MPs work to change Canada's UN votes on Israel," Canadian Jewish News, October 28, 2004; Scrivener, "Jewish Liberals a Hezbollah casualty?" Private contributions, once the mainstay of party financing in Canada, are now strictly limited as a result of the Federal Accountability Act, passed by parliament in 2007. The act bans corporate and union donations to political parties and party leadership candidates, and restricts individual contributions to $1,000 per year.
40. Campbell Clark, "Pro-Israel shift at UN keeps balance, MPs say," Globe and Mail, December 2, 2004; Paul Martin, Hell or High Water: My Life In and Out of Politics (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2008), 348-352.
41. Sean McCarthy, "Ottawa set to reject anti-Israeli resolutions," Globe and Mail, December 1, 2005.
42. Quoted in Ron Csillag, "No Jewish MPs in new government," Canadian Jewish News, February 2, 2006.
43. Anna Morgan, "Elections here and there pose a Mideast dilemma," Toronto Star, January 22, 2006.
44. Quoted in Jeff Sallot, "How Tories tripped over Hamas," Globe and Mail, March 9, 2006.
45. Canada, Office of the Prime Minister, "Statement by the Prime Minister on the situation in the Palestinian Authority," News Release, February 14, 2006.
46. Sallot, "How Tories tripped over Hamas."
47. Quoted in "Canada halts funding to Hamas-led PA," Canadian Jewish News, April 6, 2006; Paul Wells, Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2006), 294-295.
48. Quoted in CJN News Services, "Canada halts funding to Hamas-led PA," Canadian Jewish News, April 6, 2006.
49. Quoted in Diane Koven, "Cutting off Hamas 'a no-brainer,' ex-envoy Norm Spector says," Canadian Jewish News, April 27, 2006.
50. Diane Koven, "Prime Minister links Holocaust with current threats to Israel," Canadian Jewish News, May 4, 2006.
51. McDonald, The Armageddon Factor, 308-311.
52. Brian Laghi, "Discipline, control mark PM's management style," Globe and Mail, April 8, 2006; Jeff Sallot, "Canada vetoes key UN motion on refugees," Globe and Mail, March 11, 2006.
53. Quoted in Paul Lungen, "Canada shifts vote on UN resolution," Canadian Jewish News, March 16, 2006.
54. Quoted in Mark MacKinnon, "Lebanon invasion 'serious failure' Israeli panel says," Globe and Mail, January 31, 2008.
55. Quoted in Jane Taber, "Harper defends Israel's right to 'defend itself'," Globe and Mail, July 14, 2006.
56. Jane Taber, "PM brands Canada an 'energy super power'," Globe and Mail, July 15, 2006.
57. Peter Baker, "Overseas tensions force Bush to change direction," Washington Post, July 27, 2006; John Ibbitson, "Harper under the gun in first foreign-policy crisis," Globe and Mail, July 17, 2006.
58. G8 Summit 2006, "Middle East," News Release, July 16, 2006, http://en.g8russia.ru/docs/21.html (2/27/2008); Jane Taber and Graeme Smith, "G8 leaders urge Israel to exercise restraint," Globe and Mail, July 17, 2006.
59. Canadian Press, "Harper stance firm despite deaths," Toronto Star, July 17, 2006.
60. Quoted in Mike Blanchfield, "Harper nixes call for peacekeepers," National Post, July 18, 2006.
61. For an account of the evacuation see Graham Fraser and Tonda MacCharles, "Evacuation: the inside story," Toronto Star, July 21, 2006.
62. Mike De Souza, "Harper's evacuation efforts OK, poll finds," Calgary Herald, July 22, 2006.
63. Juliet O'Neil, "Public split on PM's Mideast stand," Calgary Herald, July 24, 2006.
64. Les Whittington, "No deal on truce at Rome meeting," Toronto Star, July 27, 2006; Allison Hanes, "No peace in Mideast with Hezbollah: PM," National Post, July 26, 2006.
65. CBC News, "Deaths of Canadian officer, UN observers preventable: board," February 1, 2008, www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/01/kruedener-inquiry.html (2/7/2008); Steven Edwards, "Bomb fallout rattles UN," National Post, July 27, 2006.
66. Quoted in Jessica Freiman, "8,000 rally for Israel in Toronto," Canadian Jewish News, August 3, 2006; CBC News, "Pro-Israel rally in Toronto draws thousands," July 27, 2006, www.cbc.ca.canada/toronto/story/2006/07/27/toronto-rally-israel.html (11/29/2007).
67. Institute for Canadian Values, "Christians cannot remain neutral," News Release, August 1, 2006, www.canadian values.ca/friendly.aspx?aid=203 (11/6/2007).
68. Christians United for Israel-Canada, "Christian and Jewish Leaders call for National Day of Prayer for Israel and the Peace of Jerusalem," News Release, August 9, 2006, www.cufi.ca/documents/0008.htm (11/6/2007); Marci McDonald, "Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons," 58.
69. Quoted in Linda Diebel, "Tories draw on Mideast crisis to raise money," Toronto Star, July 29, 2006; Bill Curry, "Tories seek donations to defend Ottawa's stand on Middle East," Globe and Mail, July 29, 2006.
70. Bill Graham, "Mr. Harper has squandered our historic role as Mideast bridge-builder," Globe and Mail, August 2, 2006, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060802.wcomment0802/BNStory/Front (8/3/2006).
71. Brian Laghi, "Only 32% back PM on Mideast," Globe and Mail, August 1, 2006.
72. Quoted in Paul Lungen, "Harper rejects moral equivalence between Israel and terrorists," Canadian Jewish News, August 3, 2006.
73. Quoted in Campbell Clark, "Liberal power couple back Harper on Mideast," Globe and Mail, August 4, 2006.
74. Quoted in Allison Hanes, "Jewish leaders see support shift from Grits," National Post, August 5, 2006.
75. Quoted in Mike De Souza, "Harper refuses to let polls dictate policy on Mideast," National Post, August 5, 2006, and Les Whittington, "Reaction to Mideast policy expected, PM," Toronto Star, August 5, 2006.
76. Christopher Guly, "Middle East crisis 'at the top' of Tory caucus agenda," Hill Times, August 7, 2006.
77. Canada, Office of the Prime Minister, "Prime Minister Harper announces Special Advisor on South Asia and the Middle East," News Release, August 8, 2006.
78. Quoted in Linda Diebel, "PM seeks advice—from a Liberal," Toronto Star, August 9, 2006.
79. Quoted in Campbell Clark, "PM picks Muslim Liberal MP as advisor on Mideast," Globe and Mail, August 9, 2006.
80. Quoted in CanWest News Service, "Arab-Canadian groups skeptical about Harper's Liberal advisor," National Post, August 11, 2006.
81. Quoted in Joel Kom, "Liberal under fire from own party over Hezbollah remarks," National Post, August 22, 2006; Jeff Sallot, "Hezbollah to stay on banned list," Globe and Mail, August 22, 2006; Ian Bailey, "Liberal resigns post over Mideast remarks," Calgary Herald, August 24, 2006.
82. Quoted in Sean Gordon, "War crime remark costs Ignatieff key aide," Toronto Star, October 12, 2006.
83. Quoted in Graeme Hamilton, "Leadership contenders anti-Israel, Harper says," National Post, October 13, 2006.
84. Editorial, "Ignatieff plays into his opponents' hands," Globe and Mail, October 13, 2006; John Ivison, "Ignatieff's judgment the real issue," National Post, October 13, 2006.
85. Quoted in Graeme Hamilton, "Jewish voters face 'moment of truth'," National Post, October 18, 2006.
86. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, "Speech to B'nai Brith at the Award of Merit Dinner," October 18, 2006; Daniel Leblanc, "PM blocks Lebanon resolution," Globe and Mail, September 30, 2006.
87. Quoted in Sheri Shefa, "PM stresses his support for Israel," Canadian Jewish News, October 26, 2006.
88. Brian Laghi, "Liberals, Tories in a dead heat," Globe and Mail, October 18, 2006; Innovation Research Group, "Foreign Policy Under a Conservative Government: An Interim Report Card," October 30, 2006, www.cdfai.org (10/11/2006).
89. Quoted in Steven Edwards, "Conservatives reversing Canada's position at UN," National Post, November 17, 2006; Steven Edwards, "Canada's UN stance shows tilt to Israel," Calgary Herald, December 1, 2006.
90. Quoted in Gloria Galloway, "Harper calls Hamas 'genocidal'," Globe and Mail, December 21, 2006.
91. Quoted in "Canada pursues 'niche' in restoring Middle East peace," Toronto Star, December 26, 2006.
92. Matthew Fisher, "Palestinians seek Canada's help," Calgary Herald, January 20, 2007; Mark MacKinnon, "MacKay meets Abbas, but there's no welcome mat," Globe and Mail, January 20, 2007; Carolynne Wheeler and Mark MacKinnon, "MacKay chides Israel's Livni over barrier," Globe and Mail, January 22, 2007; Josh Mitnick, "MacKay dodges questions on thorny refugee issue," Toronto Star, January 22, 2007.
93. Quoted in Matthew Fisher, "Canada, Israel united against Iranian threats: MacKay," Calgary Herald, January 23, 2007, and Mike Blanchfield, "Arabs, Muslims to mobilize against Tories," National Post, January 25, 2007.
94. James Travers, "MacKay's muddled mission," Toronto Star, January 23, 2007.
95. Campbell Clark, "Khan's Mideast report to remain under wraps, despite initial promise," Globe and Mail, January 8, 2007; Campbell Clark, "Khan assailed Harper before joining Tories," Globe and Mail, January 10, 2007.
96. Quoted in Allan Woods, "Harper says defections prove Tories appeal to ethnic voters," Toronto Star, January 12, 2007.
97. Campbell Clark, "Khan's Mideast report to remain under wraps despite initial promise," Globe and Mail, January 8, 2007; Sheri Shefa, "Withheld report on Middle East trip raises questions," Canadian Jewish News, January 25, 2007.
98. Quoted in Carolynne Wheeler and Alex Dobrota, "PM faces fresh furor over Khan 'charade'," Globe and Mail, January 16, 2007.
99. Quoted in Alan Freeman, "Ottawa restores aid to Palestinian Authority," Globe and Mail, July 24, 2007; Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf, "Harper mulling reinstatement of funding to Palestinian Authority," Canadian Jewish News, July 19, 2007.
100. Quoted in Daniel Leblanc, "Voters disturbed by PM's letters, Thornhill MP says," Globe and Mail, October 19, 2007, and Bruce Cheadle, "Jewish groups defend PM over holiday cards," Globe and Mail, October 13, 2007. The privacy commissioner concluded that there had been no breach of Canada's privacy legislation because political parties are not bound by most of its terms. However, the commissioner also began a broader study of political parties and privacy matters that will lead to recommendations on how personal information should be used. Michael Valpy, "Holiday wish both baffling and bothersome," Globe and Mail, September 10, 2008.
101. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, "Canada Supports Palestinian Reform and Development," News Release 179 and attached Backgrounder, December 17, 2007; Karin Laub, "Donors pledge billions to Palestinians," Globe and Mail, December 18, 2007.
102. Quoted in Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf, "Bernier, Olmert trade complements," Canadian Jewish News, January 17, 2008, and Oakland Ross, "Minister fails to answer policy question," Toronto Star, January 15, 2008.
103. Bal Brach and Glenn Johnson, "Ottawa cautions Israel on Gaza," National Post, March 3, 2008; Paul Lungen, "Canada 'concerned' over Israeli measures," Canadian Jewish News, March 6, 2008; Carolynne Wheeler, "Gaza ceasefire deal at hand, Abbas says," Globe and Mail, March 11, 2008; Oakland Ross, "Shifting towards Israel?" Toronto Star, March 17, 2008.
104. Quoted in Steven Edwards, "Canada's courage sets pace," National Post, February 25, 2008.
105. Quoted in Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf, "Canada, Israel sign security declaration," Canadian Jewish News, March 27, 2008.
106. Quoted in Campbell Clark, "Israeli envoy fears policy shift," Globe and Mail, May 8, 2008, Brian Laghi, "Canada's backing of Israel unshakeable, Harper says," Globe and Mail, May 9, 2008, and Tonda MacCharles, "Rae objects to Harper's 'smear'," Toronto Star, May 10, 2008.
107. Canada, Office of the Prime Minister, "Prime Minister's Speech for Israel's 60th Anniversary," 8 May 2008.
108. Quoted in Jeff Davis. "PM Stirs Debate by Cozying Up to Moderate Muslims," Embassy, July 9, 2008; Michelle Collins, "The Test: Ethnic Voters Could Make or Break Tories," Embassy, September 17, 2008.
109. James Travers, "Going negative big positive for Tories," Toronto Star, March 27, 2008.
110. Canwest News Service, "Conservative majority still out of reach, poll finds," Calgary Herald, August 2, 2008.
111. Janice Arnold, "Jewish shift to Tories in vote helped NDP, observers say," Canadian Jewish News, September 26, 2007.
112. Quoted in Jane Taber, "Where's Layton leaning? Toward hockey commentary," Globe and Mail, March 22, 2008.
113. Quoted in Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf and Janice Arnold, "Tories make inroads with Jewish voters," Canadian Jewish News, October 23, 2008.
114. Quoted in David Akin, Andrew Mayeda, Juliet O'Neill and Glenn Johnson, "Harper affirms Afghan pullout by 2011," Calgary Herald, September 11, 2008.
115. Levy-Ajzenkopf and Arnold, "Tories make inroads with Jewish voters."
116. The Conservatives won 143 seats (37.7 % of the popular vote), the Liberals 77 (26.3%), the BQ 49 (10%), the NDP 37 (18.25%), Independent candidates 2. The Green Party did not win any seats but garnered 1% of the vote.
117. Levy-Ajzenkopf and Arnold, "Tories make inroads with Jewish voters"; Marina Jiménez, "Tories see wins in ethnic ridings as proof Liberal lock on minorities is ending," Globe and Mail, October 27, 2008.
118. Levy-Ajzenkopf and Arnold, "Tories make inroads with Jewish voters"; Mike Cohen, "Tories building Jewish support," Jewish Tribune, 23 October 2008.
119. Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf, "Kent beats Kadis in Thornhill," Canadian Jewish News, October 23, 2008; Tess Kalinowski, "The wrath against Khan," Toronto Star, October 15, 2008. It is not clear whether the provincial education funding issue had an impact on the federal vote in Thornhill or elsewhere in Ontario.
120. Quoted in Leblanc, "Responses to tactics range from outrage to shrugs."
121. Sheldon Gordon, "Where have all of Canada's Jewish Liberals gone?" Haaretz.com, December 24, 2009, www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/where-have-all-of-canada-s-jewish-liberals-gone-1.1474?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.208%2C2.209%2C (6/18/2010). Describing the controversy over his comment as "the most painful experience of my short political career" and "an error," Ignatieff later apologized for his choice of words saying it might have been better to have said that Israel "may have failed to comply with the Geneva Convention of the laws of war," or that it "has the right to defend itself but had to avoid civilian casualties." Quoted in Linda Diebel, "Ignatieff apologizes for Israeli war crime comment," Toronto
Star, April 14, 2008.
122. James Travers, "Poke at mandarins misguided," Toronto Star, June 26, 2007.
123. Quoted in Janice Arnold, "Clark raps Harper government on Mideast," Canadian Jewish News, February 8, 2007. For a discussion of Canada's policy toward the region see Heinbecker and Momani, eds., Canada and the Middle East.
124. Quoted in Diane Koven, "Harper cheered at CIJA event," Canadian Jewish News, February 15, 2007.
125. Michelle Collins reports that although most observers agree that "the Conservative government has positioned itself strongly behind Israel… it is the way the PMO [Prime Minister's Office] so tightly controls its affairs with the Middle East—experts say more than any previous minister—that for many signals a distinct drift away from Canada's traditional foreign policy in the region. 'People in Ottawa run scared of the PMO on Middle East issues,' one source close to the government's Middle East policy process told Embassy, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. 'You see at CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency), you see it at DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade). People are worried about putting things forward in case of getting slapped down by the Prime Minister's Office for not being sufficiently inclined toward Israel, so there's a real chill cast over the federal bureaucracy on these kinds of issues now, over our ambassadors in the region, and so forth,' the source said." Michelle Collins, "Harper's Silence on Middle East Politically Calculated, Experts Say," Embassy, January 7, 2009.

Originally published in Arab Studies Quarterly Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals. Donald Barry is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.

continue reading source: http://www.truenorthperspective.com/Friday_27_July_2012/harper_dangerous_game


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

The Calgary School, the Firewall Letter and Harper’s Vision for Canada

The Calgary School, the Firewall Letter and Harper’s Vision for Canada

Saturday, December 26, 2009

After the 2006 election, journalist and long time follower of Stephen Harper and the Reform Party, Murray Dobbin; wrote:

Harper now talks about a “Canada First” policy. But for thirty years, he and the pro-American think tank at the “Calgary School” (the political science department at the University of Calgary) have joined together to promote “Alberta First.” That means a weakened federal government. In a letter to the National Post in 2000, Harper wrote:


“If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away. This is one more reason why Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become ’maitres chez nous’.”

After the 2000 election when Stockwell day was pummelled, Harper wrote an op-ed piece in which he declared that he was for Alberta first and the rest of Canada a distant second. A distant second?

In January of 2001, he helped to draft a letter to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, suggesting ways to make Canada a distant second. So why wasn’t this letter published during the 2005/2006 election campaign? It might have saved us from this ruthless monster.

Dear Premier Klein:

During and since the recent federal election, we have been among a large number of Albertans discussing the future of our province. We are not dismayed by the outcome of the election so much as by the strategy employed by the current federal government to secure its re-election.

In our view, the Chretien government undertook a series of attacks not merely designed to defeat its partisan opponents, but to marginalize Alberta and Albertans within Canada’s political system. One well-documented incident was the attack against Alberta’s health care system. To your credit, you vehemently protested the unprecedented attack ads that the federal government launched against Alberta’s policies – policies the Prime Minister had previously found no fault with.

(My note: They must have forgotten the 1997 campaign when the Reformers ran a controversial television ad where the faces of PM Jean Chrétien, Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, PC leader Jean Charest, and Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard, were crossed out; followed by a message saying that Quebec politicians had dominated the federal government for too long and that the Reform Party would end this favoritism towards that province.)

However, while your protest was necessary and appreciated by Albertans, we believe that it is not enough to respond only with protests. If the government in Ottawa concludes that Alberta is a soft target, we will be subjected to much worse than dishonest television ads. The Prime Minister has already signaled as much by announcing his so called “tough love” campaign for the West. We believe the time has come for Albertans to take greater charge of our own future. This means resuming control of the powers that we possess under the constitution of Canada but that we have allowed the federal government to exercise.

Intelligent use of these powers will help Alberta build a prosperous future in spite of a misguided and increasingly hostile government in Ottawa.

Under the heading of the “Alberta Agenda,” we propose that our province move forward on the following fronts:

• Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund. Pensions are a provincial responsibility under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867; and the legislation setting up the Canada Pension Plan permits a province to run its own plan, as Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?

• Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax. Now that your government has made the historic innovation of the single-rate personal income tax, there is no reason to have Ottawa collect our revenue. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown.

Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta Provincial Police Force. Alberta is a major province. Like the other major provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we should have our own provincial police force. We have no doubt that Alberta can run a more efficient and effective police force than Ottawa can – one that will not be misused as a laboratory for experiments in social engineering.

• Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act. Albertans deserve better than the long waiting periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian medicine. Alberta should also argue that each province should raise its own revenue for health care – i.e., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years. Poorer provinces would continue to rely on Equalization to ensure they have adequate revenues.

• Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum. You acted decisively once before to hold a senatorial election. Now is the time to drive the issue further.

All of these steps can be taken using the constitutional powers that Alberta now possesses. In addition, we believe it is imperative for you to take all possible political and legal measures to reduce the financial drain on Alberta caused by Canada’s tax-and-transfer system. The most recent Alberta Treasury estimates are that Albertans transfer $2,600 per capita annually to other Canadians, for a total outflow from our province approaching $8 billion a year. The same federal politicians who accuse us of not sharing their “Canadian values” have no compunction about appropriating our Canadian dollars to buy votes elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Premier, we acknowledge the constructive reforms that your government made in the 1990s – balancing the budget, paying down the provincial debt, privatizing government services, getting Albertans off welfare and into jobs, introducing a single-rate tax, pulling government out of the business of subsidizing business, and many other beneficial changes. But no government can rest on its laurels. An economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta’s prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power. It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.

Once Alberta’s position is secured, only our imagination will limit the prospects for extending the reform agenda that your government undertook eight years ago. To cite only a few examples, lower taxes will unleash the energies of the private sector, easing conditions for Charter Schools will help individual freedom and improve public education, and greater use of the referendum and initiative will bring Albertans into closer touch with their own government.

The precondition for the success of this Alberta Agenda is the exercise of all our legitimate provincial jurisdictions under the constitution of Canada. Starting to act now will secure the future for all Albertans.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen Harper, President, National Citizens’ Coalition;

Tom FLANAGAN, professor of political science and former Director of Research, Reform Party of Canada;

Ted MORTON, professor of political science and Alberta Senator-elect;

Rainer KNOPFF, professor of political science;

Andrew CROOKS, chairman, Canadian Taxpayers Federation;

Ken BOESSENKOOL, former policy adviser to Stockwell Day, Treasurer of Alberta.

Posted by at 4:15 AM

Labels: , , , ,

continue reading source: http://pushedleft.blogspot.com/2009/12/calgary-school-firewall-letter-and.html


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Tory strategist plagiarism ‘scapegoat,’ say NDP, Liberals

The Edmonton Journal October 1, 2008

OTTAWA – The Liberals and NDP said the Conservative staffer who resigned Tuesday for plagiarizing parts of Stephen Harper’s 2003 parliamentary speech on the Iraq war was a “scapegoat” for the prime minister.

Owen Lippert, a Conservative war room strategist, abruptly resigned Tuesday afternoon, three hours after a senior Harper strategist in a conference call with dozens of journalists about the matter branded the issue a desperate attempt by the Liberals to deflect attention from a sagging campaign.

The Conservatives later dispatched a former member of Harper’s old Canadian Alliance opposition leader’s office, Ken Boessenkool, to tell journalists that neither he nor Harper had any idea Lippert had lifted parts of his March 20, 2003, speech to Parliament from a similar address by then-prime minister of Australia John Howard two days earlier.

Harper’s speech supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which began that day, contrasting with then-prime minister Jean Chretien, who refused to support it.

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae started Tuesday’s chain of events in a speech that heralded Chretien’s decision and showing a split-screen video that played parts of Harper’s and Howard’s addresses that used identical language.

“It wasn’t Mr. Harper’s speech. It was a speech of former Australian prime minister John Howard that Mr. Howard delivered two days earlier,” Rae told his Toronto audience. “How can Canadians trust anything that Mr. Harper says now?”

The plagiarism allegation made front-page news in Australia on Wednesday after being picked up on CNN in the United States, something Rae said likely led the Conservatives to point the finger at Lippert. “The speed with which they found a sacrificial lamb is almost amazing,” Rae told Canwest News Service.

The Conservatives released a statement in which Lippert said he was “pressed for time,” and “overzealous in copying segments of another world leader’s speech.”

Lippert, who holds a PhD in European history, worked at the Fraser Institute, a right-wing economic think-tank, where he wrote research papers and books, including one on intellectual property, directly related to the question of plagiarism.
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.

source: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/decisioncanada/story.html?id=2f140a40-4dd5-40a6-99a7-65405d9b066b


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Harper’s 2003 Commons address mirrors Australian PM’s speech, Rae says

CBC News } Tuesday, September 30, 2008 | 5:04 PM ET
Comments 1005 Recommend 426

A staff member has apologized for plagiarizing a speech read by Stephen Harper in a 2003 address in the House of Commons as leader of the Opposition.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, left, is seen on a television screen addressing the Australian Parliament in March 2003, alongside an image of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, right, speaking two days later. (CBC)”Pressed for time, I was overzealous in copying segments of another world leader’s speech,” Owen Lippert says in a news release sent out by the Conservative camp on Tuesday afternoon.

“Neither my superiors in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition nor the leader of the Opposition was aware that I had done so.”

Lippert worked for Harper, then leader of the Canadian Alliance, when the speech calling for Canadian troops to be deployed to Iraq was written.

Lippert, a former policy analyst for economic think-tank the Fraser Institute, has announced his resignation from his current position working in the Conservative campaign headquarters.

The apology came hours after Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae accused Harper of plagiarizing from the Howard speech.
Tory camp dismisses issue as irrelevant

At a campaign appearance in Toronto in the morning, Rae played video showing Howard speaking to the Australian Parliament on March 18, 2003, alongside video of an address by Harper two days later in Ottawa.

The two speeches, which the Liberals posted to their website, appear to have lengthy duplicate passages, according to a comparison of the two parliaments’ Hansard transcripts.

Earlier in the day, Harper’s spokesman, Kory Teneycke, dismissed the issue as irrelevant, saying the video’s release was an “act of desperation” by the Liberal campaign on the eve of the first leaders’ debate.

“I’m not going to get into a debate about a five-year-old speech that was delivered three Parliaments ago, two elections ago, when the prime minister was the leader of a party that no longer exists,” Teneycke said.

“We’re going to focus on the economy, which is the No. 1 issue Canadians want to talk about. We’re not going to be distracted by attacks from the Liberal war room.”
‘Shocking’ duplication: Rae

In an interview with Don Newman of CBC’s Politics, Rae called the Conservative party’s earlier attempt to brush off the issue “totally pathetic.”

He described the 2003 address as Harper’s “big coming-out speech as leader of the opposition.”

Immediately following the speech, then-foreign affairs minister Bill Graham praised Harper for his “thoughtful and powerful presentation of his party’s case.”

Rae called the apparent duplication “shocking,” saying it reveals the ideological approach of the Harper government in shaping Canada’s foreign policy and indicates the party’s own voice on foreign policy issues was weak.

“How does a political leader in Canada’s Parliament, on such a crucial issue, in fact an issue that in many ways defined our foreign policy for a generation, end up giving the exact same speech as another country’s leader?” Rae said earlier in the day. “Let alone one who was the key leader of George W. Bush’s ‘coalition of the willing.’ ”

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion earlier in the day called for Harper to be expelled from the House of Commons over the affair.

“It matters a lot, tremendously,” he told reporters at a campaign stop in Gatineau, Que. “Canadians want that their country [to] speak with its own voice on the world stage. It’s true for the prime minister; it’s true for the Opposition leader.”
Australian leader ally of Bush government

Howard was a stalwart ally of the Bush administration in the Iraq war and deployed Australian forces to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of the country in March 2003, which other world leaders, including then Canadian prime minister Jean Chrétien, opposed.

Rae pointed to Chrétien’s decision as a moment that “made us proud to be Canadians.”

“The Liberal party has always believed that Canada must have its own voice on the world stage,” Rae said. “He did the right thing and said, ‘No.’ ”

The Liberals said they noticed the similarity between the two speeches only recently, when one of their staffers was searching for a copy of Harper’s editorial on the Iraq invasion published in the Wall Street Journal, the CBC’s James Cudmore reported from the campaign trail.

The staffer entered a portion of Harper’s comments into Google and came up with a link to Harper’s remarks and another to Howard’s. The party said it then ordered a video copy of Howard’s speech.

The revelation came as the federal party leaders were scaling back on campaign appearances to focus on preparing for this week’s debates ahead of the Oct. 14 election.

Segments of speeches

In one segment, both leaders are heard saying:

“It is inherently dangerous to allow a country, such as Iraq, to retain weapons of mass destruction, particularly in light of its past aggressive behaviour. If the world community fails to disarm Iraq we fear that other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can have these most deadly of weapons to systematically defy international resolutions and that the world will do nothing to stop them.”

The clips then jump to Howard saying:

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae says the similarities between the two speeches show that the Conservatives’ foreign policy cannot be trusted.Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae says the similarities between the two speeches show that the Conservatives’ foreign policy cannot be trusted. (Canadian Press)”As the possession of weapons of mass destruction spreads, so the danger of such weapons coming into the hands of terrorist groups will multiply. That is the ultimate nightmare which the world must take decisive and effective steps to prevent. Possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by terrorists would constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people.”

According to the Hansard transcripts, Harper said:

“As the possession of weapons of mass destruction spreads, the danger of such weapons coming into the hands of terrorist groups will multiply, particularly given in this case the shameless association of Iraq with rogue non-state organizations. That is the ultimate nightmare which the world must take decisive and effective steps to prevent. Possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by terrorists would constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to the world, including to Canada and its people.”

source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/30/rae-harper.html


Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Six prominent citizens deliver a manifesto calling for provincial autonomy

By B4Ranch
02/ 19/ 01 4:27am

Alberta first

Six prominent citizens deliver a manifesto calling for provincial autonomy
by Kevin Michael Grace

ALBERTANS are not the wealthiest Canadians, but they are the biggest contributors to the cost of confederation. According to Alberta Treasury estimates, every man, woman and child paid a net fee of $2,905 for the privilege of being Canadian in 2000. For a family of four, that amounts to $11,620. The federal government has taken almost $200 billion out of Alberta in the last 30 years. Not that the Liberals are grateful–Prime Minister Chretien says the province needs “tough love.” Well, push has come to shove, and a group of six prominent citizens has declared that Alberta is no longer content to be the cow milked by Ottawa to feed Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

The six–Stephen Harper, president of the National Citizens’ Coalition (NCC); Tom Flanagan, University of Calgary political science professor; Ken Boessenkool, former policy adviser to former treasurer Stockwell Day; Ted Morton, University of Calgary political science professor and Alberta senator-elect; Andrew Crooks, chairman of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; and Rainer Knopff, University of Calgary political science professor–published an open letter to Premier Ralph Klein on January 24: “Re: The Alberta Agenda.” It is nothing less than the opening salvo in a campaign to make Albertans “masters in their own house.” (The full text is available by clicking here.)

The letter begins, “During and since the recent federal election, we have been among a large number of Albertans discussing the future of our province. We were not dismayed by the outcome of the election so much as by the strategy employed by the federal government to secure its re-election. In our view, the Chretien government undertook a series of attacks not merely designed to defeat its partisan opponents, but to marginalize Alberta and Albertans within Canada’s political system.”

During the campaign, Mr. Chretien said he preferred working with easterners because westerners are “different.” Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan said that Canadian Alliance supporters–i.e., a majority of Albertans and British Columbians–are “Holocaust deniers, prominent bigots and racists.” A Liberal attack ad implied falsely that Alberta’s Bill 11 had gutted medicare and that the Alliance planned to do the same nationwide. The Gang of Six may not have been dismayed by the election result, but many in the West concluded that it proved the East would never accept a western-led political party. The result has been a swelling feeling of rage and the rebirth of western separatism. (See story, page 15.) The rage intensified after Mr. Chretien’s post-election comments that Albertans could thank Ottawa for their prosperity and that Albertans, like Quebeckers, needed an emissary from Ottawa to correct their bad attitude.

The Gang of Six does not advocate secession. In a December 8 piece in the National Post, Mr. Harper argued, “We should not mimic Quebec by lunging from rejection into the arms of an argument about separation. As that province has shown, separation will simply divide our population in a symbolic debate while, still part of the country, it isolates us from any allies.” The Alberta Agenda proposes a middle course between separation and the status quo: “the exercise of all our legitimate provincial jurisdictions under the Constitution of Canada.”

Specifically, it calls for the Alberta government to:

“Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund.”

“Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax.”

“Start preparing to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta provincial police force.”

“Resume provincial responsibility for healthcare policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties Ottawa might try to impose under the Canada Health Act.”

“Use Section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back on to the national agenda.”

The first three conditions already exist in Quebec. Collecting personal income tax would not save money but would allow Alberta to create a provincial tax tailored exactly to its specifications. Creation of a provincial police force would not save money either, but it would protect Alberta from the depredations of federal laws such as Bill C-68, the gun registry. Opting out of the Canada Health Act would cost up to $700 million, quite feasible for a province that is reporting a surplus of $7 billion.

The letter urged Mr. Klein to build “firewalls” around Alberta, warning, “As economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta’s prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power.” In other words, a new National Energy Program or an even more aggressive transfers policy.

Mr. Klein responded at a January 29 news conference that the Alberta Agenda is “worthy of consideration.” He added, however, “Those are major policy changes and they just don’t happen overnight.” He admitted, “It is quite obvious that we do more than our fair share in terms of sending money to Ottawa to assist through the equalization program the so-called have-not provinces,” he said. This was quite a change from the position he took last year after then-Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin accused him of resenting equalization payments to the have-nots. Then Mr. Klein insisted that Albertans were “caring” and “sharing.” Now the premier’s office has released details of unfair treatment by Ottawa.

Eastern reaction to the Alberta Agenda was contemptuous. Typical was Toronto Star columnist Richard Gwyn, who, like Mr. Chretien, considers Alberta and Quebec morally equivalent. He characterized western alienation as a “non-starter,” and “somewhere between adolescent attention-getting and a way of getting through the long winters” and the open letter as an “intellectually bankrupt search for outside enemies.”

A non-starter? Not according to a January 29 Compas poll, which revealed that Alberta is more alienated than Quebec. Only 7% of Albertans supported separation (37% in Quebec); but 47% supported a constitutional limit on equalization; 75% said they have little say in federal spending decisions (62% in Quebec); and 43% said they are more dissatisfied with Canada than five years ago (38% in Quebec).

Robert Mansell, the man who has done more than anyone to demonstrate how much more Alberta pays into Canada than it gets back, says he does not extrapolate any political opinions from his data. But the University of Calgary economics professor is passionate in his denunciation of the attempt to equate Alberta with Quebec. “Studies have consistently shown that if Canada broke up, Alberta would gain and Quebec would lose,” he points out. (According to Statistics Canada, Quebec got $5.9 billion more than it paid out in 1998, a per capita benefit of $797. Other winners were Saskatchewan ($1,657 per capita), Manitoba ($2,288), New Brunswick ($3,607), Nova Scotia ($4,382), Prince Edward Island ($4,774) and Newfoundland ($5,982). Other losers were British Columbia (-$564) and Ontario (-$1,559).)

“Every place where there’s the possibility of rigging [the system] so you get as much out of Alberta on a net basis as you can, that’s what Ottawa does,” Prof. Mansell says. “Employment Insurance takes a massive amount out of Alberta. In discretionary federal spending Alberta (and B.C.) get screwed. When they reduced the tax for large corporations everybody got the benefit except the energy sector–Alberta is getting screwed again. How is it that Ontario has a higher per capita income and four times the population, yet Alberta ends up paying far more?”

To the argument that the current have-not eastern provinces bailed out the West during the 1930s, Prof. Mansell responds, “Yeah, right. Prior to the 1960s there were very few of these federal transfers. So what are they talking about? Some charity that may have happened, with no records, during the Depression? That’s very nice, but how does it compare with the almost $200 billion in net outflows [from Alberta] over the last 30 years?”

Mr. Harper says that according to central Canada, “The proof that Alberta contributes more is proof that Alberta has money that it shouldn’t have in the first place. Every benefit that Alberta has is attributed to the fact that Alberta has oil.” He counters, “Alberta has the wealth it has because of what it has done with its resources. Saskatchewan has an abundant resource base and has managed to take that and turn itself into not just a have-not province but one with no long-term prospects of growth whatsoever through a long-term series of government polices that drove industry after industry out and replaced them with incompetent crown corporations.”

“The reaction to our letter validates everything in it,” Mr. Harper declares. “I think to some degree the central Canadian Liberal establishment is frightened by what we’re saying. They must try and denounce the debate itself because they have no reply.” He concludes, “Confederation is not about sharing with this part of the country; Confederation is about taking. If it was necessary for the flow to go the other way, the system would break down.”

Tom Flanagan agrees. “I’ve increasingly become aware that the structure of Confederation has become a kleptocracy,” he says. “What is the federal government doing for us? Is it protecting us from the Russians? No, the Americans defend us. Does it provide a stable currency? No, we have a 66-cent dollar. It’s become intrinsic to the system that governments stay in power by transferring money from some parts of the country to other parts of the country in order to buy votes.”

This is not a new opinion. The Reform Party was founded precisely to fight this inequity. And three of the Gang of Six have been intimately involved with Reform: Mr. Harper was an MP, Prof. Flanagan was policy director and Prof. Morton is a Reform Party senator-elect. So does their decision to concentrate on provincial politics constitute an acknowledgement that Reform and its successor, the Canadian Alliance, have failed?

Prof. Flanagan responds, “Well, the [open letter] represents a realistic appraisal of the Alliance’s chances of coming to power. I don’t think it represents loss of support for the Alliance; I certainly continue to support it. But you’d have to be a moron not to see that the chances of the Alliance winning soon are not very great. But this isn’t really abandoning federal politics; it’s opening another front.”

Mr. Harper warned in his December National Post piece, “Separation will become a real issue the day the federal government decides to make it one.” Prof. Flanagan declines to comment on whether Alberta should threaten separation if Ottawa refuses to reform the equalization system or acts to frustrate the Alberta Agenda. He says it would be unrealistic to expect much from Premier Klein, as his re-election campaign was fully planned before the letter was released. However, “Mr. Klein is driven very much by public opinion. If he starts to hear Albertans say these things, he might move. But Mr. Klein won’t be around forever. Most people think this might be his last term.”

NCC president Harper reports, “At the National Citizens’ Coalition we are determined to establish an organization after the election to take direct political action in Alberta. It will have ambitious goals. I can’t elaborate; it won’t be a political party, but it will be a party to mobilize Albertans behind this agenda.”

So does Steve Harper aspire to succeed Ralph Klein? “They’re definitely up to something,” says Lethbridge Community College political science teacher Faron Ellis. “And I think the easiest option would be to take over the Conservative party in a post-Ralph era. It will take a major housecleaning, but the party will need that.”

The Reform Party had a “sunset clause” in its constitution. If Reform did not take power by 2000, the party would re-examine the reasons for its existence. Reform became the Alliance, but many Reformers took the clause to mean dissolution, and Prof. Ellis argues that the rise of Alberta particularism indicates that for many Alberta Reformers the sunset clause has kicked in. “The Alliance is not really a party anymore,” he argues. “It’s just a series of factions. Supporters are drifting off to separatism; some are drifting off to non-involvement, some, like Flanagan and Harper, have given up and are focusing on provincial politics.” Stockwell Day has recently given two major addresses on Western alienation, but they have largely been ignored. Attention has been paid instead to the continuing Alliance leadership crisis, the embarrassment of Mr. Day’s $800,000 legal bill in the Goddard case and MP Deb Grey’s decision to buy into the “gold-plated” MP pension plan she so long reviled.

Even before the 2000 election, many Reform/Alliance members were heard to say that it would be the last chance they would give Canada. Edmonton Journal columnist Lorne Gunter says, “In talking to people about the Harper project or people who went to the Alberta Independence Party convention, there is clearly an undercurrent that we watered down everything we believed in to get this Alliance, and it was rejected as much as Reform was. I had not fully understood until the fallout from the campaign just how pronounced was the anti-western sentiment in the East.” Mr. Gunter, a long-time advocate of the contents of the Alberta Agenda, describes it as “the next logical step, perhaps the last step to preserve Confederation.” He adds that he is not a separatist yet, but in light of the outright “bigotry” displayed by the Liberals and the Canadian establishment during the election, “we may be coming to the point where we have two incompatible visions of Canada: one held by the majority in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces and another held by the West. If this happens, western separation may occur quickly.”

Back to square one
Nineteen years ago this month Gordon Kesler of the Western Canada Concept (WCC) was elected to the Alberta Legislature in a by-election in Olds-Didsbury. Suddenly, western alienation was a real threat to the establishment. It did not last long. By the end of the year, Mr. Kesler was out of office. And by 1987, western alienation had been subsumed into the nascent Reform Party.

In 1980, the newly re-elected Pierre Trudeau announced the National Energy Program (NEP). This, in the words of Victoria lawyer Doug Christie, “effectively expropriated western Canada’s oil resources.” It was a declaration of war.

The NEP “destroyed thousand and thousand of jobs,” says Edmonton lawyer Bob Matheson. “It virtually destroyed me. I had spent 30 years building up my position as a lawyer acting for the oil and gas industry. My practice was devastated. Property values plummeted, and I’ve never gotten back to where I was then.”

Ironically, Mr. Matheson had been exploring western independence since 1975, when he and others established the Independent Alberta Association. That year Mr. Christie wrote a famous letter to the Victoria Times Colonist. In 1978, he formed the Committee for Western Independence, which in 1980 became the Western Canada Concept.

Rage against the NEP was so pervasive that Mr. Christie was able to pack auditoriums across the West, including, memorably, the Jubilee Auditoriums in Edmonton and Calgary in November 1980. The WCC was registered as a political party in Alberta the next year, but Mr. Christie lost control of it after the chief electoral officer ruled that a British Columbian could not head an Alberta party.

By this time Mr. Matheson had helped form WestFed, which, unlike the WCC, did not take a hard line on separatism. It was led by the colourful Elmer Knutson, who went on to form the Confederation of Regions Party, which later achieved some success in, remarkably, New Brunswick. The NEP had provided the impetus for separation, but the movement was bedevilled by rivalry and factionalism. After Mr. Kesler was elected in February 1980 he took control of the party and led it to a “separation if necessary but not necessarily separation” position.

Premier Peter Lougheed moved quickly to crush the movement. His leading role in the 1982 constitutional talks and his unrelenting fight to defend natural resources as a provincial jurisdiction persuaded Albertans that the Conservative party was Alberta’s best defence against Ottawa. In the 1982 provincial election, his last, he won an overwhelming victory. Mr. Kesler, now running in a different riding, was defeated. According to Lethbridge Community College political science instructor Faron Ellis, “Albertans decided to put all their eggs in one basket.”

The Alberta WCC mutated into different parties. Mr. Christie soldiered on. Mr. Matheson directed his energies to the federal scene and dreamed of a western party that could hold the balance of power in the House of Commons. “Before the Western Assembly in 1987,” he says, “Preston Manning got in touch with me and said he wanted voices from all these different organizations. When I went to the Assembly, I saw how well it had been organized and the support it had from people who could finance it. I said, ‘This is going to work.'” He threw in his lot with the Reform Party, as did many other separatists.

Mr. Christie says, “The Reform Party had the momentum. It was going to save Canada. I watched as many of our members joined it. But I always thought that over time people would realize that Ontario and Quebec have the power, and they are not going to surrender it.”

The Reform Party begat the Canadian Alliance. The 2000 election proved to many that eastern Canada would never support a western-led party. The western separatist movement has come full circle.

Send them a message
A Compas poll revealed last week that only 37% of Quebeckers favour separation. In Alberta, support stood at 7%. The difference between the provinces is that until last month Albertans did not know they had a separatist movement.

The Alberta Independence Party (AIP) held its founding convention in Red Deer January 21 and 22. If the first test of a new party is to get noticed, the AIP passed with flying colours. About 250 attended, including such observers as Canadian Alliance MPs Daryl Stinson and Myron Thompson and CA senators-in-waiting Bert Brown and Ted Morton. Mr. Brown spoke to the crowd and wished the party “every success.” Then the recriminations began.

Prime Minister Chretien suggested the two CA MPs were “traitors.” Mr. Thompson dared Mr. Chretien to make that accusation to his face. “Tough Love” Minister Stéphane Dion attacked CA leader Stockwell Day for not rebuking MPs Stinson and Thompson: “It’s a mistake, a moral mistake to blackmail your fellow citizens with separatist blackmail. You should say to them, ‘You don’t have a case.'” Suddenly Alberta separatism was more lively than at any time since the halcyon year of 1982. Pretty good work for a previously unknown 29-year-old Calgarian named Cory Morgan.

Mr. Morgan, an oil field surveyor and native Albertan, is AIP’s interim leader. He is a former Reform activist. He co-created the AIP Web site (www.albertaindependence.com) in the fall of 1998. “I had come to the conclusion that the Reform Party would end up stalemated,” he explains. He says of the Alliance, “Lots of people put their last hopes into it, but after the virtual lack of change [in the federal election], people have come to the conclusion that change is not going to happen on the federal front.”

Mr. Morgan says he became a separatist because “I feel strongly that we need some major changes in Alberta’s role in Confederation.” He rejected the Alberta Conservatives because “one of Ralph Klein’s biggest weaknesses has been when it comes to negotiating with Ottawa. He doesn’t want to rock the boat. We want change, big change.”

AIP’s goals are “pursuing provincial autonomy for Albertans,” “protecting the individual rights of Albertans,” “the preservation of western culture,” “direct democracy involving referenda and citizen’s initiatives,” “resisting the further centralization of power by Ottawa,” “maintaining the social standards which the majority of Albertans want” and “the reduction of oversized government and overspending.” It has much in common with the Alberta Agenda advocated by Stephen Harper’s Gang of Six.

But is Mr. Morgan really a separatist? At the convention, AIP voted for separation if necessary. He explains, “It’s not the explicit goal of the party right now, but it is a very possible contingency, not just a threat. We are saying that if we don’t get a new deal, separation is going to be the only alternative left to us. We do see separation as more attractive than the status quo.”

Mr. Morgan reports that AIP has “hundreds” of members, mostly in the north and south, with few in Edmonton and a “surprising” number in Calgary. The Web site is getting over 1,000 hits a day. His priority now is to get the 5,400 signatures necessary to register the party in time for what is expected to be a provincial election in March. If that is done, he admits, “We’ll have to be realistic and run probably just a half-dozen or maybe a few more candidates.” It has been rumoured that former Alliance MP Cliff Breitkreuz was going to run for the new party. He responds, “I was just requesting some information, but I’ll let you know if anything develops.”

Lethbridge Community College political science professor Faron Ellis says he has talked with Mr. Morgan and other party leaders. He reports, “They’re young, energetic, enthusiastic and have all the pluses and minuses associated with that.” He argues they should consider separation a “20-year program” and commends AIP for its “prudence” in rejecting a hard line on separation.

True separatists do not need a platform, but those that stop short of the final step do. That being the case, Albertans are not likely to vote for a government consisting of political neophytes. Prof. Ellis says, “I had to give them a lesson on the constitution. They were reading it to say that since the provinces have responsibility for direct taxation, this means the federal government cannot levy direct taxation. This was an indication of their naïveté.”

Western Canada Concept (www.westcan.org) founder and leader Doug Christie of Victoria of comments, “There are many people who would like to find a trick solution to the problems of being a western Canadian. They are dreaming. These are political problems created by our own apathy and lack of will.” In his opinion, a hard line is essential: “People who start off from a position of compromise are weak and doomed to failure.”

Edmonton Journal columnist Lorne Gunter says bluntly that the main difficulty any Alberta separatist party has is that “this province is running a $7-billion surplus.” But Prof. Ellis insists that conditions are more propitious for separatism now than in the 1980s. “Canadian patriotism is not what it was. It is especially weakest among the late baby boomers, Generation-Xers and the echo boomers. And globalism has resulted in a situation where the younger you are the more likely you are to consider yourself a citizen of North America. Chretien still represents the ’60s vision. Secessionists are more likely now to be looking outward than inward. And Albertans have had 20 years to try the alternatives, Reform and the Alliance, and they’ve failed. The colonial tax, the two-dollars-out for every-dollar-in price that Albertans pay to be in Canada can no more be justified than rape.”

continue reading source: http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1920


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/