PIQUE N YOUR INTEREST

At first I was optimistic that the Stephen Harper Conservative
government might be a good thing for the country. Given its minority
status after the last election, and the fact that the Liberals and one
other party can bring about Canada's third national election in less
than four years, I expected a humble, conciliatory government that
works closely with other parties. You know, the kind of government
they said they'd be during the last campaign.

Turns out that Harper has about as much interest in working with other
parties as he does in holding a civil discourse on the issues, which
is to say he has no interest in this government but his own. Elected
under the pretense of bringing integrity and accountability back to
Parliament, Harper has so far been all swagger, all the time.

Here's why I'm scared:

His language and attempts to frame the debate on certain issues seem
to echo the failed Bush administration south of the border - for
example, it's "tax relief" not tax cuts, and anyone who wants to
discuss the Canadian mission in Afghanistan like an adult is accused
of wanting to "cut and run".

These days Harper is gambling, and rightly, that the opposition
parties won't risk forcing another election so soon after the last
one. Harper is currently enjoying a honeymoon 40 per cent approval
rating - almost enough for a majority government if an election were
called tomorrow. But what's going to happen in another few years when
the honeymoon is over and other parties can safely challenge Harper?

Instead of looking down the road and toning down his swagger Harper is
actually daring the other parties to vote against his initiatives. He
dared them to vote against his child-care allowance plan. He dared
them to vote against extending the military's involvement in
Afghanistan to 2009. He dared the Liberals to use their Senate
majority to block the first budget, which includes income tax cuts,
huge cuts to Liberal programs, and a one per cent reduction in the
GST.

When his nominee to head a non-partisan commission that reviews public
appointments was nixed by Parliament (because said nominee was
revealed to be a staunchly partisan conservative), Harper accused the
other parties of playing politics and decided to drop the whole
commission until the Conservative Party has its majority. In other
words, it's Harper's ball and he's going home.

That move prompted more than one commentator to use the word
"petulant" in describing Harper, meaning "childishly sulky or
bad-tempered". The perfect word - all Harper had to do was come up
with another, and less publicly partisan, nominee to head the
commission, but instead he chose to throw an embarrassing tantrum.

I have a few other beefs with Mr. Harper. One is his party's decision
to cut funding to over 100 climate change programs across Canada,
pending review. It doesn't matter if those programs were successful or
not, it's just that Harper never was a fan of Canada's decision to
sign on to the Kyoto agreement. He prefers the U.S. approach of
dangling carrots to industry, or the Australian "do our best, but set
no targets" scheme to the hard greenhouse gas reduction targets
required by Kyoto.

Harper has also dropped a plan to decriminalize the possession of
small amounts of marijuana, despite the fact that it would free up
more police time for his party's heralded crackdown on crime. The
ill-conceived war on drugs and criminalization of addiction
continues

Harper did resolve the softwood lumber issue, but did so by agreeing
to a system of tariffs in exchange for free access to the U.S. market
- - a boon to raw log exporters and a punch in the face for the whole
concept of free and fair trade. The agreement basically set aside
dozens of court rulings in Canada's favour, not to mention $5 billion
in tariffs already levied, by legitimizing American protectionist policies.

To be fair, not everything Harper has done has been negative. His
government cut the entry fee for new immigrants in half, while
streamlining the process for adopted children from abroad to get
citizenship. A lot of families also seem to like his childcare
allowance scheme, even if it doesn't create any more daycare spots and
falls well short of meeting actual costs.

It's probably also a good thing for Canada that he's patching up
relations with the U.S., but that's easy enough to do when you were
not the leader in power during the start of the unpopular Iraq war and
the numerous trade disputes that have arisen since Bush took power.

But I still can't shake this bad feeling. One reason is Harper's
recent decision to wrap up his public appearances by proclaiming "God
bless Canada", mirroring the U.S. Presidential standard of "God bless
America".

I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. Among other
things, that's what enables us to teach evolution in schools, and
gives women the right to seek safe, medical abortions. It's also
easier to unify a country politically when religion is left aside.

Harper won the last election fair and square. But next election he
won't have a Liberal scandal to pick on, or a guaranteed share of the
moderate "guess it's time for a change" vote. His success depends on
how well he steers his policies to the middle ground, but so far all
he's making are right-hand turns.