Further to my post earlier this morning it seems that Quebec’s vested order has indeed suffered a huge electoral setback:

What is clear is that ADQ leader Mario Dumont, at age 36, orchestrated one of the biggest political upheavals in the province's history, tapping into an undercurrent of voter dissatisfaction to re-write the political map.

The ADQ saw its popular vote soar to 31 per cent from 18 per cent during the 2003 election. The Liberals plummeted to 33 per cent from 46 per cent. The PQ dropped the least, to 30 per cent from 33 per cent, but that is a record low for the sovereigntist party.

The incumbent Liberals can only just form a minority government, the leftish separatist Bloq Quebecois is relegated to third party status and the young right-of-center leader Mario Dumont and his ADQ following are now more or less a government-in-waiting. Dumont’s leader of the opposition status will give him an unusual amount of influence and more than that it will provide him with the right sort of training to indeed prove that he can one day govern.

Fond as I am of cross-border comparisons it is hard not to miss that the Dumont insurgency is very similar to Fortuyn’s rise in The Netherlands. Small government, a critical stance on multiculturalism and a quest for renewal by taking on the established players may all be very worthwhile objectives, they have to be delivered and carried forward by an experienced team. Fortuyn never lived to see it, but both on a local and national level his revolution fizzled precisely because there was a total lack of credible political talent. Dumont will bring with him an equal ragtag of novices into Quebec’s assembly and he will have to work very hard to avoid the fate of the Fortuynists who in a snap election lost most of what they gained during their initial success.

On the national level this result is good for Stephen Harper. The results have proven that there is a growing market for conservative ideas among Canada’s French population and the hardline separatists have for now been relegated to the sidelines. So, there is scope for fundamental change but caution is warranted in banking on Dumont to actually deliver it.

Watch how the Quebec provincial elections will unfold today where after decades of center-left hegemony a small conservative-libertarian outfit - ADQ - is expected to make major inroads. As is to be expected when voters shift their allegiance from the vested politically correct establishment to some fresh new thinkers on the right, negative reporting will follow. The Independent takes the charge: 'Quebec's Le Pen' likely to make major election gain'. ADQ leader Mario Dumont - whom I had the pleasure of meeting once at a Fraser Institute get together – is suffering here from what I would call the Fortuyn-syndrome where close to the finish the most unsavory comparisons are used to try and stop a ballot-box success. One wonders why the Independent would be so keen to wade into this provincial Canadian spat with such a ridiculous header.

In Quebec politics there are basically three forces: the incumbent Liberals who are a status quo centrist but in Quebec above all a federalist party, the nationalist and left-of-center Parti Quebecois (PQ) and Dumont’s emerging Action Democratique du Quebec on the right who are as nationalist as the PQ. The problem to some extent is that while Dumont’s small government no-nonsense agenda provides a welcome change for one of North America’s most highly taxed and unionized polities, his interest in seceding from Canada is a potential problem. And while he has argued for autonomy rather than secession, the ADQ and PQ may find enough to like in one another to resurrect Quebec independence after this election.

Whatever the outcome, long overdue change is in the air for Quebec and that we can only welcome.

As you may recall one of my favorite books is former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten's East and West. Patten was not a welcome guest in Beijing during his years in Asia and the reason was quite simply that he managed to stand up to Beijing, regardless of the consequences:

Patten's most provocative chapter is on China. He contends that the West should treat it like any other country and refuse to kowtow to a regime that is ''at the end of an era.'' There is no correlation between bending to Beijing and benefiting economically, he says.

It is a lesson that is hardly ever practiced, so deep is the fear to miss out on the economic frenzy that is China. Yet, in breaking with his predecessor's record of leaving Canadian citizens to their own devices in foreign prisons and in taking Patten's clear advice to heart, Stephen Harper has created another unusual benchmark. And note that Harper is pursuing the human rights of someone that can hardly be classified as an average Canadian: Huseyin Celi holds dual citizenship and is, according to the Chinese, a terror suspect.

Smart and sound.

Canada has reached a settlement with Maher Arar for some $10.5 million, about 9 million in US funds. Good news for Arar who will no doubt use this as ammunition to go after US authorities in order to get compensation from them and to be removed from a US security watch list.

This is the fall-out of deporting terror suspects to nations that torture and it is very instructive in how not to fight the war on Islamist terror. I've discussed this case in detail a while ago in a lengthy post about the Arar case.

My latest column about Canada's struggling Liberal Party is up over at Pajamas Media.

John Turley-ewart evaluates the Wajid Khan defection and wonders why the Liberal party made no efforts to retain its MP:

My own view is that Mr. Khan is the wrong kind of Muslim for Mr. Dion's Liberal party: a self-made businessman and politician who supports the Afghan mission when many Muslims in Canada do not. In recent decades, the Liberal party has expanded its ranks in large part by indulging the parochial concerns of ethnic groups concentrated in strategic urban ridings --from Jews to Sikhs to Arabs. But Mr. Khan is a free thinker who eschews the anti-Israeli, anti-American stance that many Muslims embrace. He is therefore regarded by the Liberals as the Democratic party in the United States would view a black pol who opposes affirmative action -- that is to say, insufficently "authentic."

And quite possibly, no longer a magnet for ethnic voters. It is now up to Harper and the Conservatives to repackage this indulgence of parochial concerns in order to get as many votes as the Liberals once did, but without compromising the core values that separate them from Dion's party. A tall order maybe, but Harper is building a decent record of accomplishments that many thought were impossible when he assumed the office of prime-minister now almost a year ago.

The year started good for Stephen Harper. The Canadian prime minister is, if we are to believe ongoing media coverage, embattled and likely to face a general election shortly. While there is potential for the latter, one has to be impressed with Harper’s clever positioning. The first week of the new year ended not only with a cabinet reshuffle, but with a Muslim Liberal member of parliament crossing the floor and joining the conservative team. Although a shrewd political move for Harper, it seems that Ontario MP Wajid Khan made this step based on personal motives rather than in response to the prospect of a cabinet post. Khan who was already acting as an adviser to the current government on Middle East affairs put it succinctly:

"Quite frankly, the Liberal party has moved away from people like me -- people who believe in free enterprise, support for families and a stronger, more assertive Canada on the world stage."

The party has ‘moved away from me’ is of course not an entirely new sentiment, but it is surely interesting to see how it persists over time and across borders. The conservatives have thus changed the numbers game in the current parliament, attracted a prominent immigrant into their caucus, one from the traditional liberal heartland of Ontario no less, and have no doubt added some credibility and expertise in the debate over Canada’s role in Afghanistan.

What Harper now has to do is neutralize the one issue which currently excites Canadians most and which is also the key platform item for the Liberals: the environment. It will be a long shot and require unusual political savvy, but working out a deal with the leftist NDP to pass clean air legislation will deprive his direct political opponents from having a real chance of unseating Harper anytime soon. It has potential for a coup de grâce that can change Canada's politcal landscape for years to come.

NOTE: The blogosphere was ahead of the MSM by about a day and kudos to Stephen Taylor of being the first to report this.

Ontario Court Justice Marion Cohen deserves an award for taking political correctness to a level where even Muslim organizations balk:

A judge's order to have a Christmas tree moved from the lobby of an Ontario courthouse for fear it would offend non-Christians backfired Thursday, drawing the ire of everyone from the Muslim Canadian Congress to Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Ontario Court Justice Marion Cohen ordered the tree moved from the lobby of the Toronto courthouse to an out-of-the-way corridor because it was a Christian symbol that might not make everyone entering the building feel comfortable.

"This is stupidity and takes political correctness to new heights," said Farzana Hassan, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

"We should ban political correctness, not the Christmas tree."

The judge by the way is mistaken about more than one thing. The origins of the Christmas tree are not Christian, but pagan.

A poll last week revealed that no matter what leader the opposition Liberal Party would choose, Canadians still favored the incumbent Conservatives with a healthy margin. Yesterday, in a spectacular run-off the Liberals opted for a relatively low risk candidate, Stéphane Dion, ditching favorites Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. Rae’s demise can no doubt be interpreted as a positive farewell to that dangerous and regressive mix of old-style socialism with elitist power. Yet, it is unfortunate that Ignatieff was shown the door as his thirty-year absence enabled some fresh and unconventional thinking in the Liberal ranks; although that is probably precisely what did him in.

Dion has little charisma and is unlikely to excite anyone in both his home province of Quebec and almost anywhere in Western Canada. His promise to make the environment and the Canadian effort in Afghanistan key issues in a future election may be nice soundbites on a party conference, but a credible campaign requires a more creative approach to issues such as childcare, healthcare and yes, taxes. On all of these files, Stephen Harper’s conservatives are well ahead and are in the envious position of launching regular legislative initiatives.

Still, Dion appears to be a man of ideas and integrity, qualities not exactly associated with his predecessors Chrétien and Martin. And since we know that Harper has proven to possess both, we can least expect a more mature and intelligent debate in Canadian politics going forward. And that is good news.

Others Blogging
Stephen Taylor is the frontrunner in Canadian political videoblogging and has been doing some great reporting (click on BT-TV) from the Liberal conference. For commentary, check out Ed Morrissey, Michael Stickings and Warren Kinsella - Canada's own Dick Morris - who usually nails it.

Somehow I had missed the news that George Galloway had visited Canada earlier this week. It was not lost on Terry Glavin who wrote a must-read piece for The Tyee about how the anti-war left has become a convenient partner for radical Islamists:

But if you regard the United States as a greater enemy of the left than even Islamism, "what you end up with," says Hashmi, "is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'" And that brings us back to the degeneracy of the "anti-war" activism represented by Galloway and his followers in Britain and in Canada, in their alliance with Islamists.

I would be remiss in not offering you one of Galloway's pearls of wisdom during his tour of the north:

Galloway also weighed in on Canada's Liberal leadership contest, saying that "Anyone but Ignatieff" is a common slogan in British politics.

Of course.

Apparently not according to the Indigo book chain:

Charges that Indigo is "boycotting" Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, are ludicrous. Mr. Steyn's book was for sale at Indigo's channels in September of this year and it promptly sold out. Indeed we should have purchased more initially but the moment we realized the error, we immediately placed a reorder for several thousand more books. As of this moment, we, as well as most other book retailers in Canada, are still awaiting new copies from the publisher, which we are told will arrive in mid-November.

There will always be a whiff of suspicion when it comes to the apparent clash between Steynesque theories about modern history and Canada's media barons. But for now, the issue is settled. (hat tip: Glenn).

So, Canada’s largest book retail chain, which by the way pratically owned a monopoly before it failed to eject Amazon.ca from its home turf, has effectively decided to ban Mark Steyn’s latest book, America Alone. You can check their site and it indeed indicates “Temporarily Unavailable to Order” and the number ‘0’ comes up a little too frequently when you try to figure out its in-store availability in a number of locations.

Suppression of free speech? Or is Heather Reisman, the chain's proprietor, exercising her basic right to economic freedom and store her shelves selectively? Sure, there is no law compelling her to put Steyn there, but her moral obligation as Canada’s largest book retailer to do so with any current bestseller in North America is obvious. Her actions fall exactly into what I yesterday called the ‘sophistication and stealth’ with which ‘debates are framed’. Few will notice it and even fewer will probably attempt to use regular media outlets to openly challenge the retail polices at Indigo-Chapters. It is hard to have a decent and informed debate when its boundaries are arbitrarily set by self-appointed media elites.

The chain’s mean-spirited attempts to ban Amazon from the Canadian market are testament to Reisman’s dated view of the new media world and her inability to artificially insulate Canada from it. The latest chapter - no pun intended - is evidence that nothing has really changed at her own Indigo-Chapters book empire.

Steyn, the cultural pessimist is however the optimist when he looks at the attempts to suppress him: it may yet sell him more books. You can order the book here, in Canada here and of course in Steyn's own little bookshop. Enjoy.

NOTE: John Hawkins has excerpted the most salient quotes from the book, here. I will, once I have read it, add my review in due course.

RELATED: There was a time when we had high hopes for Reisman ... but even then, skepticism ruled the day.

One of the defining characteristics of the left, wherever you are: no sense of humor.

It's not just Europe that needs to take a closer look at its work habits, according to one of Quebec's eminent politicians:

Former premier Lucien Bouchard has set off a firestorm of debate by saying Quebeckers do not work hard enough.

The former separatist leader of the Parti Québécois said Quebec trails Ontario and the United States in economic terms, in part because its residents lack the same work ethic.

In a television interview, Mr. Bouchard said Quebec is failing to make economic headway and that its future could be very, very difficult. Labour leaders were enraged.

I bet they were. Quebec’s unionization rate is one of the highest in the world and their hold on the local economy has not only throttled fresh investment, it has created a culture where ‘work’ or ‘effort’ are often secondary to perceived basic rights such as leisure time and other off-the-job perks. It reminds me of the late 80s in The Netherlands where supermarket employees went on strike, protesting plans to keep stores open after 6 PM in order to enable other workers to shop. Closing hours eventually were relaxed, but the right to a 'social life' for workers at the check-out counter remained a very potent obstacle to rationalizing shopping hours.

To be clear, I remain an ardent supporter of holidays and various other breaks, which is one of the reasons I work for myself. In the end I devote more time of my waking hours to working, I do however have the ability to schedule them flexibly and are able to negotiate a decent price for this arrangement in the marketplace. And that is precisely what is lacking in economies that are either overregulated or highly unionized. The inability to attract various types of workers in different time slots prevents businesses from offering more services at a better price and in the end creates a barrier to raise an adaptable workforce. And no, this is not a clever argument for the creation of a low wage labor pool waiting to be abused 24/7 although that is most likely what Bouchard and other economic reformers will hear when they make their point. It is an argument for wealth, for all.

While the Bush administration is now continuously blasted for its flawed strategy in Iraq, it should be noted that its outsourcing of the war in Afghanistan to NATO has equal potential for trouble. And that is not necessarily an American mistake, but the inability of some of NATO’s members to step up and share the dangerous workload equally with some of its allies on the frontlines:

Canada's Defence Minister is confronting those NATO countries with troops deployed in relatively stable parts of Afghanistan — including Germany, France, Spain and Italy — saying they must lift the restrictions that prevent their soldiers from taking on the more dangerous tasks being shouldered by Canadians.

It's a problem that one former Canadian military leader says threatens the future of the 57-year-old North Atlantic Treaty Organization — an alliance founded on the principle that an attack against one of its members is an attack against all.

Canadian troops are paying the ultimate price with a frequency that has caused many at home to question Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Trooper Mark Andrew Wilson, killed in a roadside bomb explosion this weekend, was the 40th Canadian soldier to die in the conflict.

You may recall the difficulty some nations had in getting a fiat for troop deployment in Afghanistan. The debate very often centered on the fine distinction between “peacemaking & reconstruction” versus “combat”, the latter one being not all that palatable in Europe’s mainland capitals. If we take that lack of resolve into account combined with the latest and troubling missive from NATO’s top commander in Afghanistan, then it is not overly hard to conclude that this mission is in peril.

Britain is prepping itself for the Blair-Brown handover, the Dutch are in election mode, Angela Merkel is relying on a grand coalition and appetite to support American ventures is running very low in Madrid and Rome these days, not to mention the upcoming French presidential battle. In other words: no one is foolish enough to, at this point in time, waste political capital on a highly contentious move to increase troop levels for Afghanistan. And that is something which Canada’s conservative minority government has discovered as well, no doubt prompting its Defense minister’s desperate call for help.

If the Afghan mission fails we will not only lose a country to years of darkness, the twinkling NATO star will probably lose its luster for good.

RELATED: Leaders-in-waiting grope for new position on US.

The Liberal Party of Canada has now started its formal process of rebuilding itself and this weekend is the first round of finding a new leader. Michael Ignatieff is doing well with an early and significant lead.

According to a Conservative Party memo leaked last week Ignatieff is not their favorite opponent as the internationally renowned academic and writer is a centrist – especially when compared to the field of candidates against which he now competes - who may well be quite palatable for many right-of-center voters. Of course it is too early to tell, but if Canada’s left resurges to the halls of power in Ottawa I think both the nation itself and the world at large will be far better of with Ignatieff than any of his opponents. Stay tuned.

It happened in the US and now it is Canada's turn, the westward shift:

For the first time, the combined population of British Columbia and Alberta has surpassed the number of people living in Quebec, growth that could translate into more Western political influence.

[ ... ]

Political observers believe the population growth in B.C. and Alberta may boost what many see as inadequate federal representation for the West.

A total of 64 members of Parliament are chosen from B.C.and Alberta, compared to Quebec's 75 seats.

Todd Hirsch, with the Canada West Foundation, predicted the West would eventually catch up.

"When they do redistribute seats in the House of Commons, it'll be adding seats to certain provinces, probably to Alberta and British Columbia," said Hirsch.

In the US this westward move was one of the key enablers of Reagan's ascendancy and the ability of the Republican Party to become the dominant political player. We won't see the exact same thing in Canada, but the last federal election did indeed inaugurate a shift to the right, engineered by a man from the west. Expect a continuation of this trend, and, a more conservative Canada.

Andrew Sullivan is more than a little disgusted over the Bush administration’s fiscal profligacy. The end of small government conservatism it appears. Well, not so in Canada where the Harper government is extraordinary careful in managing the huge surpluses that the country’s economy keeps spewing out:

The Stephen Harper government racked up a $13.2-billion surplus for last fiscal year, all of which will go toward reducing the national debt.

This is one of the largest single debt repayments in Canadian history. It will help bring Canada's debt down to $481.5-billion.

And:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Treasury Board President John Baird announced the surplus Monday afternoon, when they also announced cuts to government spending this year and next.

It should be noted that this is one brave move in handling the budget, especially considering the fact that Harper and friends are still in minority territory. While throwing the Canadian electorate some appetizing bones - the GST cut in particular – they have remained principled bookkeepers. If following an early election next spring they will get a parliamentary majority the temptation of radically cutting taxes could be too much even for Harper, but judging from these fresh numbers, he has some room.

… Maher Arar, a Canadian national of Syrian descent, changing flights in the US in September 2002, detained and deported to Syria by US authorities where he was held captive and tortured before being released. He is now back in Canada and making frequent media appearances to discuss his case. This has been front page news in Canada for months now and I find it somewhat surprising that only now it is getting traction in the blogosphere, the reason probably being that Maher Arar was a suspected terrorist, making it difficult for some to advocate the man's rights.

An excerpt form a post I wrote more than two years ago and yes, bloggers continue to be relatively mum about this issue apart from a select group of American left-of-center blogs keen to acquire some ammunition in the ongoing torture debate. This however is not strictly a torture case, but it warrants some critical examination in a way that should be of interest to both the left and the right.

As most of you know, Maher Arar was fully exonerated earlier this week by an independent Canadian commission of inquiry which ruled that Arar has been the victim of inaccurate RCMP intelligence reports and deliberate smears by Canadian officials. Note that these reports were provided to US officials who wasted no time to deport Arar to Syria (he holds dual Syrian-Canadian citizenship) and that the smear emerged following Arar’s return to Canada after a less than pleasant stay in one of Boy Assad’s prison facilities.

There is just too much here to capture in a brief narrative – and you have to make a distinction between the Canadian and American angle here - but let me summarize what is significant:

1. The deliberate smears did their work to the extent that many commentators – and that includes me – while being aware of the problematic behavior of both Canadian and US officials either neglected to defend Mr. Arar or at least presume his innocence. There always was a whiff of jihadist guilt associated with the man, so why bother? Looking away was the better option, an attitude that continues to this very day. Yet, for the sake of honoring independent judicial inquiries we now have to accept that Arar is not guilty of any crime and that he did not deserve the abuse meted out to him by the Canadian, US and Syrian governments.

2. As Majikthise points out, the damage to counter-terrorism operations is phenomenal. There can be little doubt that RCMP heads are going to roll over this affair and even if they don’t, Canada’s venerable police operation will think twice before sharing information with US counterparts. No prizes for guessing what this will do to the already challenged cross-border security situation on the 49th parallel.

3. Like the Hirsi Ali case (where Dutch neocon minister Verdonk ditched Hirsi Ali out of political expediency) it turns out that those who we believed to have staked a certain position in the debate over Islam, terrorism and all that comes with it, would not necessarily remain pure in adhering to that position. The same is true here, but the reverse. Canada’s left-of-center Liberal government (defeated in early 2006) was responsible for this fiasco by adopting an almost Rumsfeldian recklessness in handling this terror suspect. At the same time it wasted no opportunity to distance itself from the Bush administration in order to placate a testy and not overly pro-American electorate. Odd and duplicitous behaviour.

4. In a way this affair also echoes the themes I touched on earlier this week. We can’t under any circumstance allow jihadist terror to put us in a position where the lives of Muslims in general are deemed to be of lesser value. We may not realize it, but the very necessary break with politically correct multiculturalism has gone to an extreme where exactly that is happening. Muslim minorities in western societies need to be assisted and compelled to become the Jews of 17th century Amsterdam, not the Jews of 20th century Warzaw.

5. And torture? Not sure here. There is a good argument to be made that the US simply deported Arar based on immigration law and that there was no arrangement to let its ‘friends’ in Damascus extract some information from the Syrian-Canadian suspect. Seriously, since when have we partnered with Damascus in fighting terror?

So there you have it. My gut feel tells me that we will never learn the real truth here, but the Arar affair provides us with a microcosm of things that can go wrong when pursuing terror suspects. Obfuscating the truth, imperiling future security operations, dishonesty, political expediency, nascent racism and a dose of physical abuse. Incredible failure, highlighting a level of moral ineptitude that will cost us dearly in fighting jihadism.

Or rather the shifting plates of the political power game and how Israel becomes a vehicle for change. Note what happened last week and which is highly significant:

Liberal power couple Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz have publicly broken with the Liberal Party line on the Middle East crisis and are turning to Prime Minister Stephen Harper because of his support of Israel.

Mr. Schwartz, a confidante of former prime minister Paul Martin and one of Canada's most influential businessmen as the head of Onex Corp., is one of the eight signatories of an advertisement placed in a newspaper in Cornwall, Ont., where the Conservatives are holding caucus meetings.

The ad welcomes the caucus to Cornwall and expresses appreciation to Mr. Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Conservative MPs for "standing by" Israel. It also lauds other G8 leaders and Australian Prime Minister John Howard for their stands on the war.

And Ms. Reisman is not without influence either as she has a virtual monopoly on book sales in Canada through the Chapters, Indigo and Coles bookstores which she controls. The first thing you have to do when you walk into one of them is to avoid the table with 'Heather’s Picks' which given her political interests I have always looked on with a fair degree of caution. Not sure if we can find Alan Dershowitz on that table now that Reisman has moved along the political spectrum, but you never know.

In any case, it was both encouraging and refreshing to hear that Harper was standing by Israel while his Foreign Affairs minister, Peter McKay, went as far a describing Hezbollah as ‘a cancer’. Even more interesting was the deep confusion that had somehow grasped Canada’s Liberal Party where the current interim-leader preached desperately for Canada to remain neutral, while the various leadership contenders wandered off in all sorts of directions in order to balance a clear moral stand with getting sufficient interest on the left-of-center flank. Notably the purported frontrunner, Michael Ignatieff who was twisting in all directions without staking out a very credible position, something he was so capable of before he moved back to Canada:

Saying nothing is no answer, either. On holiday in Europe, Ignatieff, who is supported by many of the party's pro-Israel activists, remained silent for two weeks before finally taking a stand criticized as too late, too problematic and too impersonal.

This Middle East mess is, of course, the last thing the presumed Liberal front-runner needs. It sucks attention back to his controversial support for the Iraq war, his tortured arguments on torture and his ivory tower background.

Harper will mark six months in office this month and his poll ratings were solidly in positive territory as he moved fast and decisively on a mildly conservative domestic agenda. It is ironically a foreign affairs issue that has now put a few dents into that positive track record as not all Canadians yet fully grasp the essence of what is going on between Israel and Hezbollah. That is most notably the case in notably in the province of Quebec where Harper in the end needs to make inroads to win an outright majority.

Given these dynamics, the opposition is struggling hard to find the right note as they know full well that taking a firm position on Israel and the Middle East is not without risk. But with influential and moneyed forces shifting their interests – and I somehow suspect it is not all about Israel for Schwartz and Reisman - it looks as if a less ambiguous position about the Middle East is now enabled to get more traction in Canada.

UPDATE: More here:

Senator Jerry Grafstein said he has a big problem with Liberals who suggest that Canada has a history of neutrality when it comes to dealing with aggressors such as Hezbollah, and he will encourage those vying to lead his party to clarify their positions and make the war a bigger issue.

“I have a lot of problems with Bill Graham's position and some of the leadership candidates,” he said during an interview about the interim Liberal leader. “We've never been neutralist.”

More or less related
The Dutch and Israel

As I didn’t really fancy leaving my car with my laptop behind for more than a little while, I decided to skip attending the pro-Israel rally here in Vancouver last night. The turn-out it appears was solid. What’s more, there were quite a few cars sporting the Israeli flag driving around on Oak Street in a valiant display of support for the embattled state. One driver actually pushed the envelope by having both the American and the Israeli flags mounted on his SUV which in a city like Vancouver can only be explained as gutsy. Or a sign of changing times. But most likely both.

Canada’s new conservative government is on a roll with Stephen Harper threatening an early election if his budget – which contains a few controversial items – is rejected by parliament. And poll numbers indicate he would do well if such a snap election were held today.

This week the debate has centered around one of the more interesting features of the upcoming budget, the proposed childcare benefit which amounts to a taxable $1200 cash benefit per year for each pre-school child. Of course, the critics are correct in pointing out that this is a pretty measly hand-out which won’t buy you an awful lot of care for your child. But that is not the point here.

With the proposed childcare benefit, Harper aims to achieve a few things. Firstly, in order to fund it he will scrap the bloated one-size-fits-all solution put in place by the previous Liberal government which will inevitably create a unionized, huge in overheads, behemoth that will benefit and take care of everyone except your child. It’s an outdated solution, based on an outdated nanny-state philosophy. Secondly, and this is the more interesting part, the new childcare benefit seeks to give parents who have made the choice to stay at home something of value which they would miss out on if the one-size-fits-all solution were to be implemented. You want to invest in your child? Great, but don’t expect to see any of your tax dollars coming your way as we need it to fund our cradle-to-grave plans for other children. So, the new plan above all gives parents the right to make their own choice and frees them from being subject to an expensive institutionalized system of almost mandatory daycare.

All sound logic you will say, but the left has reacted as if bitten by a snake. Yesterday’s Globe and Mail ran the same picture of Harper as the one you see above, but it was accompanied by the headline “Social Conservatives to sell Tory daycare plan”. The positive, well-meaning and sometimes costly choice to stay at home for the first few formative years of your child’s life is for some not a particularly progressive choice. Worse, today’s “progressives” tend to look down upon moms and dads that are willing to forego income to help raise their child.

One other thing will also take center stage here. Many opponents to Harper’s plan will argue that some do need the old statist solution to their problems because some just can’t make ends meet without it. You won’t here a response to this argument from the conservatives, too awkward politically, but I will hand it to you: If you can’t make ends meet, you shouldn’t have a baby; if you’re a single mom you haven’t exactly acted very responsibly in getting pregnant in the first place; if your marriage is rocky then maybe you shouldn’t have a baby. In short, take responsibility.

It is too early a stage to throw a value as “socially conservative” as ‘responsibility’ in front of your average citizen, but with his childcare plans Stephen Harper has at least made an earnest beginning. By the time the little kid that pinches his nose is a grown up, maybe citizens can be expected to responsibly make their own choices without the omnipresent state as the giver of last resort.

In a significant, but hardly surprising move, Canada's new conservative government has made it clear that it will abandon the plans made in accordance with targets under the Kyoto Protocol. These are impossible to achieve according to environment minister Rona Ambrose who will probably be mandated to come up with a unique Canada-based formula to reduce greenhouse gases. These efforts are supported by a letter from 60 leading international climate change experts who once more reiterated the near impossibility to seperate the various causes that are contributing to climate change:

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."

To be frank, I am no expert in climate or environmental matters but the theory that earth will warm up over time (the impact of the evolution of the sun comes to mind) has been around long before the environmental movement started to sound the greenhouse gas alarm bell. There is evidence that the latter does accelerate some of the climatic shifts. However, until we really get a better sense of what each component contributes to global warming there is no point in signing up for politically expedient, arbitrary and costly measures which in the end only seem to contribute to a weird feel-good factor. A healthy dose of realism is required here.

The first government to cut financial aid to the Palestinian Authority following Hamas taking the reigns of power: Canada.

Milblogging has come to Canada and here is a new blog dedicated to the sacrifices made by the country’s armed forces.

More than once have I received e-mails about Canada’s poor record in participating in overseas military efforts, but I think that such criticism is not always entirely fair. Those comments reflected frustration over the inability of Canada’s political leadership to step up to the plate with a strong enough commitment in major efforts such as Iraq, but such blame can not be apportioned to the men and women in uniform. With a new government dedicated to its armed forces, Canada appears to be re-entering the allied stage of which it had always been a proud member.

There now is solid evidence that Canada's Liberals deliberately fueled anti-American sentiments for campaign purposes during the last general election. More telling is that it is one of the Liberal Party's key people who has been frank enough to reveal this and he commented as follows:

"I don't think [Canadians] buy into the idea of gratuitously being offensive. If I had to speculate, I would say that playing that card during the election was not helpful at all to the electoral prospects of the people doing it."

And that's why it didn't work. Together with slandering conservative leader Haprer and his party the Liberals ran a terribly self-destructive and overly negative campaign. And they did this while they had a viable option to run on their economic record and possibly some new ideas. The inability to do that, combined with the latest revelations, underlines why they lost the recent election.

What it also tells us is that we will see more fingerpointing and skeletons coming out of the wretched campaign closet in the months ahead as the Liberals try and find a new leader as well as a new direction. It won't be a pretty sight, but it will be very revealing. And for some of us, highly entertaining.

Interesting developments on the immigration front in Canada:

The federal government should require new immigrants to take an oath of loyalty to Canada and its values -- and deport them if they breach it, a former diplomat says in a study of counter-terrorism policies released yesterday.

The Fraser Institute report, authored by former senior Foreign Affairs official Martin Collacott, also says the government must give special attention to working with the Muslim community since radical Islamic terrorists are currently the greatest danger to Canada's security.

This falls into line with what we've been discussing this week and that is a more American-style integration process where the adoption of the core cultural values of the host nation takes center stage. It will be interesting to see if European nations will follow suit, but my sense is that "an oath of loyalty" will be laughed away as "too American". Note that this a recommendation only and that the actual report highlights why in the past such common-sense recommendations were never followed up with sound policies:

A further reason for the reluctance of the government to take firm measures against terrorists and their supporters is concern over the possible loss of political support. A notable example of this is Ottawa’s failure to designate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as a terrorist group. Related to this is the fact that little action has been taken to stop terrorist fundraising in Canada even though this is now estimated at $180 million a year.

At the very least an argument can be made that there now is a conservative government in Ottawa which is open to taking on terror and the excesses of fundamentalism.

In related news, the Dutch are going to the polls for local elections next week and it will be interesting to see how the issue of immigration will play out there. Especially since the last municipal elections swept the Fortuynists to victory in Rotterdam - the city with the largest percentage of immigrants - where the campaign in is full swing.

UPDATE: As I said, there is definitely a fresh wind blowing in Ottawa.

The Olympic Winter Games ended in Torino today and I can honestly say that I didn’t see one minute of it, even today when I decided to watch part of the closing ceremony I tuned in too late for the part that I really wanted to see. And that was the passing of the Olympic flag to Vancouver-mayor Sam Sullivan whose city will host the 2010 edition of the games:

Rogge fit the flag into a special holster on Sullivan's motorized wheelchair. The mayor, a quadriplegic from a skiing accident when he was 19, then drew a standing ovation from the sellout crowd at the 35,000-seat Stadio Olimpico when he weaved his wheelchair along the stage to follow the tradition of waving the flag eight times.

Sullivan’s amazing strength and spirit should stand as a formidable example to us all:

With his neck broken and four limbs all but paralyzed, Sullivan, 46, went from 15 months in hospitals and rehab centers into public housing and onto welfare. He languished for seven years, spiraling deeper into self-pity and despondency, he said in an interview, until he became suicidal. ''I had to decide whether or not I wanted to continue living," he said.

And he chose to live. Sullivan established a number of non-profit organizations, learned Cantonese and embarked on a political career where he had to overcome another major obstacle in a left-coast city like Vancouver as Sullivan is a conservative. Yet, his determination enabled him to defeat a hard-left candidate last fall and we can only hope that Sullivan wins another mandate in 2009 to witness the next edition of the Winter Olympics as mayor and as an exampe of strenghth and recovery to us all.

NOTE: Driving home today from a quick errand to the local mall I encountered a horde of environmentalists who had picked today to vent their anger over the construction of a new Vancouver-Whistler highway which is part of the overall Olympic infrastructure. It will make the road - one of the deadliest in North America - significantly safer and will no doubt give another boost to surging property prices. But the relatively small price of cutting a few trees and removing some scenic rocks is even for some too much to pay. Confident prediction: their effort to block construction will fail.

Posted by Pieter Dorsman at 07:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)