- Excerpted with permission from Sheeple: Caucus Confidential in Stephen Harper’s Ottawa by Garth Turner. Published by Key Porter Books. ©Garth Turne

I walked into the Prime Minister’s office. It was 6:15 p. m. and snow whipped against the outside stone walls of Centre Block. Downstairs the reception was thinning and the foodplates decimated. Upstairs, the door closed behind me, and Harper approached. We shook hands. There were a few small words about the campaign in my riding and we stood during them, while Chief Whip Jay Hill watched. The Prime Minister then motioned me to sit down, which we did on either side of a small wooden end table with a brass lamp on it.
My bottom was barely in the chair when Harper let it fly. I am very disappointed with you, he said. It got worse quickly, and the tone was unmistakable. Stephen Harper was condescending, belittling and menacing. Here was a man with whom I had exchanged perhaps 200 words in the last year, talking to a newly elected MP, a member of his own caucus, who had just succeeded in taking a riding from the Liberals after more than a decade — a riding that was a beachhead into the constituency-rich GTA–and he spoke to me as if I were a petulant, useless, idiot child.
His voice was without a single shred of respect. No acknowledging I’d been in this office before, or in the Cabinet room down the hall, or had run to be leader of a legacy party. It was as if conservativism had started with the election of Stephen Harper as leader and led directly to this moment. Prior to that, he may have believed politicians bobbed like rudderless vessels on a sea of public opinion, blown helplessly by the winds of media know-italls. And he alone was out to change that.
The Prime Minister was at me now about my comments on former Liberal Jim Emerson, and I explained my opposition to floor-crossing MPs and my position that despite the new minister’s worth and experience, the ethical action would be to re-submit to the people. How, I asked, could you have been critical of what Belinda Stronach did, and now turn around and cause this to happen?
Harper glared. He pointed out to me that he had not voted for legislation in the last Parliament that would have banned floor-crossing (although half his caucus did). He said there had been nothing in the election campaign platform that prevented an MP from abandoning a party, or the voters, to pursue his or her own agenda. That, he said, leaning forward and staring hard at me, was not his position, and I was absolutely wrong in talking to anyone about it. Pointedly, he did not mention Belinda’s name. I thought the better part of valour at the moment was to follow suit. But it also struck me:Here was a man hiding behind semantics, convinced his position was unassailable because words defended him. He may have hinted broadly that Belinda was a weak person of questionable intellect that led her to make the wrong decision in leaving his side. But he never actually said the process was incorrect. In an argument of logic, he won. So when I said, “I still find this position unprincipled,” he needed only to look at me with disdain.
He was done with that. We moved on to me. It was not going well.
Harper said he felt he could not trust me. “To put it charitably, you were independent during the campaign.” The penny was dropping now. The dots between anonymous on-the-phone Doug Finley, worries about my blog and the leader’s ear were filling in rapidly. He turned to look squarely at me and said, “I don’t need a media star in my caucus.”
Media star. The choice of words was interesting. I had come to my candidacy as a businessman, employer and entrepreneur, running three companies. I thought the man would have known that, realized I had not been an on-camera personality for a few years, or a daily newspaper columnist
for decades. But perhaps some sins could never be expunged.
The Prime Minister paused. “I was going to offer you something, a role, something I had that is delicate, something important,” he said. “But now I’m not going to anymore. Instead we will just see what happens, what you do, over the next few weeks.”
The Prime Minister looked over at me, waiting for my face to react. Was he seeking disappointment, anger or regret? Remorse, maybe? A desperate cry for forgiveness? Stephen Harper had just dangled some valued, unnamed position or title, then snatched it away.
But I was not here to ask for anything. He had nothing I wanted. The only goal pursued had been to become a Member of Parliament, and my behaviour, principles or beliefs could not be changed with a job offer.
I started to rise out of my chair. “Well,” I said, “I guess that’s it then …”
But Harper wasn’t done yet. “Sit down.”
“You’re a journalist,” he said, “and we all know journalists make bad politicians. Politicians know how to stick to a message. That’s how they are successful. Journalists think they always have to tell the truth.”
The phone rang. “This is the Prime Minister’s office,” a woman announced. “I have the Prime Minister’s chief of staff on the line. Please hold.”
“This is Ian Brodie. I have Jay Hill, the government whip, here with me.”
It was mid-morning, and I had promised many media outlets I’d tell them shortly whether or not interviews would happen. After the events of the previous evening nothing was exactly clear. Pathetically, I imagined Brodie was about to extend an olive branch.
“I’m a blunt person,” Brodie said. “I heard your comments on Canada AM, and this freelance commenting of yours has to end. The public undermining has to end. There was nothing in our platform that was against floor-crossing. If you want to f–k with us, we will certainly f–k with you. Do you want to sit as an independent? Then we can arrange that. Count on it.”
The tone was shocking, the words driven by an obvious anger. I tried a compromise, and offered to turn down any further media interviews. Jay Hill spoke. “That is unacceptable,” he said. “You are damaging your colleagues and the Prime Minister. You will do no more media.” Then he asked me, simply, why I was saying the appointment of David Emerson was wrong.
“Because that’s what I believe,” I said. Hill laughed.
“Let me make this clear.” Brodie’s voice dropped a bit and he slowed. “I am telling you, you will not give any more media interviews. I am telling you, you will stop writing the blog. And I’m telling you that you’ll issue a press release today praising the Prime Minister’s appointment of Emerson. Are you clear?”
Yes, I said. Clear.
It was clear that a political staffer, unelected and unaccountable, answering directly to the Prime Minister, had just tried to gag a Member of Parliament, threatened to throw him out of the party he’d been elected by the people to represent and ordered him to make a false statement.
Oh my God. Here we go.

Angus Reid Poll -- Maclean's

Maclean’s John Geddes has provided a balanced and interesting delineation of the Angus Reid online poll. Islam, in particular, has been getting much negative attention since 911, much of it justified, if one look at the rabid, extremist Muslim factions. Sikhs also have been involved in extremist acts; the Air India affair being the worst example. Tamils, though practically “inventing” suicide attacks, have had less impact on Canadian society.
It is unfortunate that new Canadians bring their origin countries conflicts with them here, especially when it leads to violence in their adoptive country. It does seem that the current crop of immigrants, especially those with strong ethnic and religious connections, have more difficulty accepting and adjusting to the values of their host county, than did earlier arrivals. The extremist behaviour displayed by some groups, reflected in some youth and a few families such as the Khadr clan, is causing damage to the Muslim image everywhere, and one can fault, to a degree, the moderate Muslim community for not taking a more vocal and firm stance against the few recalcitrant extremists among them.
However, one need not be a historian to know that these problems have always been with us, in one form or another. For example, Irish Fenians caused much conflict and consternation both in Canada and the United States, including physical attacks and the assassination of a member of the Canadian parliament and former sympathiser, Thomas D’Arcy McGee, in 1868. The Irish have maintained a strong Irish cultural identity over the years, but no one would suggest today that they have failed to adapt to Canadian society.
It is unfortunate that extreme tribalism, both of the political/social and the religious mode, is allowed to prevail in our society, but it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. The same churches, temples, synagogues and mosques that serve as a support system for new arrivals, can also act as an incubator for extremism. We must always be vigilant in ferreting out the lunatic fringes, but also be mindful that given time, the greater good for our society will persevere. It did in the past, and it will do so in the future. Our ship of state is built for stormy weather, and behind the clouds the sun is still shining.

No bailout for pensioners – Star April 23/09

I must applaud Premier Dalton McGuinty for not caving in to the unreasonable demands of a group of auto-workers for taxpayer’s rescue of their rich pension entitlements. These people have had wages and benefits (including a non-contributory pension plan) that are far beyond what most Canadian workers can dream of. It should be adequate that the taxpayers are bailing out their employers and saving their jobs in the process.

DEPORTATION DRAMA –Star, April 23/09

While I in no way condone queue-jumping by unqualified foreigners, I do think that if there should be exceptions, this case must be one. Not for the mother, but for the young child who was born here and does not know the country to where she will have to go with her deported mother. Surely, in eight years the immigration service would have had ample opportunity to return the mother to South Korea, before her daughter started school here. To do it now is just cruel.

I commend the Star for keeping this issue in the public eye.

“Teen shot dead in lane” –Star April 22nd.

This was yesterday. Today, again, another young black male has been gunned down by a wholly of shots, this time in the Jane/Eglinton area. This black on black shooting epidemic must be cured, one way or another.

What I find most distressing is the fanatical response to being “dissed”. The 19-year-old victim was shouting “don’t disrespect me”, as if not showing respect was worse than death. When all that matter to these young men –when all they hold dear is to be “respected”, or conversely, not “disrespected”, something is seriously missing from their lives and their sense of self. Therein lies the crux of the matter, and presents a focal point for our collective attention to this serious social cancer before it spreads to other areas of society.

“Kiwi candy….” Star April 23/09

I suspect Seeka Lee Veeve Parsons is a publicity hound. She is a visitor to New Zealand and her silly criticism of a candy’s appellation is an insult to that country. “Eskimo” is an accepted term everywhere, including Canada, and I have often enjoyed an “Eskimo Pie” ice cream bar; I also have some nice Eskimo art. To associate it with “discrimination” is just plain silly, and “bringing it up with Prime Minister Stephen Harper” is just beyond the pale. I am sure this will become a serious diplomatic issue when Mr. Harper sees this insulting candy!

It’s sad when someone must make hay with such a trivial matter. If you are looking for a slight, you’ll surely find it everywhere you go, and insulting your host is in that league.
I think The Star made a mistake in placing this “news story” in the main section (page 3). It surely was meant to be in the Entertainment section.

Obama's Clever Liberalism
Apr 20, '09 11:39 AMfor everyone
Hold the tea bags: "Obama has no intention of changing the nature of American capitalism," Frank Foer and Noam Scheiber write in The New Republic. Obama believes in "behavioral economics" (which policymakers call "libertarian paternalism"). "Obama has set out to synthesize the New Democratic faith in the utility of markets with the Old Democratic emphasis on reducing inequality. In Obama's state, government never supplants the market or stifles its inner workings--the old forms of statism that didn't wash economically, and certainly not politically. But government does aggressively prod markets—by planting incentives, by stirring new competition—to achieve the results he prefers." Foer and Scheiber conclude: "Obama has groped toward a form of liberal activism that is eminently saleable in this country—both with the average voter, easily spooked by charges of creeping statism, and the constellation of political interests in Washington."

NEW DELHI’S END GAME? -Adnan Khan, Maclean’s Apr. 27

I am surprised that Maclean’s would abet and countenance such abject, one-sided and biased presentation as the one given here by Mr. Khan. He intimates that “India’s goal is Pakistan’s disintegration” or at least, “to keep Pakistan weak.” This, he does, neatly, by quoting a Mr. John Pike as an alleged authority (“a leading online source for security and intelligence information”). Not only is India blamed for Pakistan’s woes, but they are also implicated in fomenting conflict in Sri Lanka!

It seems to me that Pakistan is quite capable of self-immolation and requires little help therewith from India. His arguments might carry more weight had it not come from a Pakistani-descendant scribe quoting internet-based “authorities.”

“Tamil protesters, yes. George Galloway? Keep out.”

“Tamil protesters, yes. George Galloway? Keep out.”
–Andrew Potter, Maclean’s Apr.27th


Mr. Potter writes that “if these (Tamil) protesters were, say, Palestinians in support for Hamas, we’d be far less tolerant”. Maybe so, but I am not sure you can equate Tamils in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) with Palestinians. However, they have one thing in common: “suicide bombers” and terrorism, though I have not heard of Tamils plotting to assassinate our government leaders, or blow up our railways or any other Canadian institutions.

I think most reasonable Canadians reject both groups behaviour, but it would likewise be within the law if Palestinian immigrants here wanted to peacefully demonstrate in support of Hamas, or Afghans supporting the Taliban for that matter. To paraphrase Voltaire, “I don’t agree with their beliefs or behaviour, but I will defend their right to protest.”

Where I draw the line, however, is at Mr Potter’s analogy and juxtaposition of Tamil protesters, who are mostly Canadian citizens, or at least landed immigrants, with Mr. Galloway, who is a foreign demagogue and rabble-rouser. We have no obligations whatsoever, to allow this self-promoting, aggrandizing political agitator to use our home as his pulpit.

“Mother ‘trapped’ in Saudi Arabia” –Star April 16, 2009

I find it very hard to feel sorry for this woman who on her own volition went to Saudi Arabia to get married and now, after seven years and two children, has second thoughts after her marriage did not turned out to be the Cinderella story she envisioned. She has returned here twice, so she isn’t imprisoned there, but now she wants to leave again, with the children who are Saudi nationals. And, of course, she is looking for the Canadian government to help her leave.

Her “plight” must really resonate with the many really abused Canadian women in shelters here. Give me a break!

“How the rich and powerful win again” –Bob Hepburn, Star April 16th

“How the rich and powerful win again” –Bob Hepburn, Star April 16th

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Hepburn, et al, about not revoking Conrad Black’s Order of Canada.

As Mr. Hepburn notes, “there is a bad smell” to this, and I can see a few reasons for it (check one):

Conrad Black is a (ultra) Conservative ( C & c)
He has friends in high places –whose reputation he is protecting and whom is protecting him –he could raise a “stink” here).
He is a friend of the Asper’s (friends in high places cont.; see National Post).
He is an enemy of Jean Chrétien –thus the adage “your enemy is my friend” applies here.
ALL OF THE ABOVE

All that’s now left to do is returning his citizenship and welcoming the prodigal son “home.”

Rushing to judge others – Star editorial April 10th/09

Rough night’ for baby Kaylee, Star April 10/09.

Help me out here, but was it not Mr.Wallace, the father, who suggested Kaylee be taken of the respirator so her heart could be harvested and given to the Lillian O’Connor, another child in need of a heart transplant? It is a legitimate question to ask whether Mr. Wallace and Ms.Vitelli, the parents of Kaylee, were not in some way seeking public attention and glory by offering their dying child’s heart to another dying child – something they had no right to do –and by the same magnanimous effort ridding themselves of the liability of a severely handicapped child that would require constant attention for years to come. It seems he is now vacillating between wanting to keep his daughter on the respirator and “pulling the plug,” while putting words in the mouth of hospital staff to the effect that he is wasting resources. I don’t believe him. Mr. Wallace’s last pronouncement is now “that they are ‘not going to go with life support’ for their daughter.”

It is not so that the media pounced on this issue and these people by their own volition. It was Mr. Wallace who brought this to the fore, and kept it in the public eye by repeatedly calling radio stations and newspapers about the situation and their personal struggles.

There seems to be a trend these days, of people in stressful circumstances to air their sorrows and frustrations in public. After a while, it becomes an addiction, where the publicity is reinforcing and supporting their need for attention. There is a downside to this for these Thespians, when their histrionics are no longer news; they are left alone with only themselves and their personal grief and frustrations.

Death penalty arguments

“Death-row cases deserve aid: Poll” Star April 4^th/09

While I am not a proponent of the death penalty, I do question the need and appropriateness of the Canadian Government’s further involvement in the Ronald Smith case. This man decided to kill someone in Montana, a foreign country, and he has faced justice in the jurisdiction where he committed the crime. Montana is not some banana-republic without human rights or democracy. As we expect the US to respect our sovereignty and laws, so we must abide by theirs. Beyond ensuring that Mr. Smith receives proper legal representation, we should not –nor do we have the right to –interfere in another country’s legal affairs. No one compelled Ronald Smith to commit murder in Montana.

We should also remember that in the seventies, for almost ten years, the US did not have the death penalty (found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in its then present form), but Canada did (though no one were executed from Dec.1962 (Ronald Turpin and Arthur Lucas, hanged back to back at Don Jail in Toronto), until its abolition in 1976.

Sometimes I think we Canadians act a bit like “the mouse that roared” vis-à-vis the US. It might be better to mute our criticism and save the ammunition for the really important and deserving cases.