Modeling Journey

It was great to see three papers (all with economic credibility) endorse Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. The Ottawa Citizen, Calgary Herald, Montreal Gazette, Vancouver Sun, Winnipeg Free Press, Windsor Star, Kitchener Record and the Oakville Beaver also endorsed Harper and Conservative candidates. I am happy we earned the support of all of these great newspapers and magazine.
-Darryl


Harper is growing into the job

From Friday's Globe and Mail

October 9, 2008 at 9:00 PM EDT

Two anxieties, neither wholly irrational, have attached themselves to Stephen Harper in his years as a contender for and holder of the top political office in the land. The first is that he is a right-wing ideologue, badly out of sync with mainstream Canadian values and sentiments. The second is that he is possessed by a mean-spirited and controlling nature; that his emotional intelligence isn't up to his mental level.

These dual anxieties continue to fuel a passionate anti-Harper streak in Canadian politics. Certainly, he has been far too much a solo runner in the team game of politics. He doesn't trust easily and so isn't trusted much. He is prone to savage attacks on his opponents and detractors, such as his gratuitous characterizations of parliamentary critics as Taliban sympathizers or artists as rich gala-goers. He also shows an underdeveloped appreciation for the basic tenets of pluralism with his denigrations of the keepers of critical checks and balances in our political system, from officers of Parliament to members of the press.

But despite these personality traits, Mr. Harper has governed moderately and competently for nearly three years. He has not taken the country in dangerous new directions or significantly eroded the capacity of the government to act, when necessary, in the public interest. He has been side-swiped, at least on the emotional level, by an international economic crisis of epic proportions. But he has gotten the big things right.

An election rarely offers perfect choices. Voters are called upon to sort through a catalogue of inputs — issues, policies, past records, regional affiliations, personalities, etc. — in casting their ballots. On balance, Mr. Harper remains the best man for the job in the tough times now upon us. He deserves if not four more years, at least two more years. By all logic, he should be cruising to an easy majority. That he is not, and has proven incapable of holding north of 40 per cent in public support, will hopefully persuade him to be mindful of the penalty he pays for failing to address these two persisting anxieties.

That said, the anxious among us should also be mindful that the exercise of power is inherently moderating in a democracy. Elected officials need to balance competing interests and be able to justify their actions. Public opinion weighs constantly on a political leader; the knowledge is always there that his or her political strength is directly co-related with approval ratings.

In this campaign, Mr. Harper and his Conservative party are only seriously challenged for government by Stéphane Dion's Liberals. (For all the flourish of his introductory line — "I'm Jack Layton and I'm running for Prime Minister" — history and political culture suggest otherwise.) Mr. Dion is a decent man of great integrity and tremendous courage, most evident in his years as minister of intergovernmental affairs under Jean Chrétien. But a leader he is not.

If you want to meet the most inflexible head of a major political party, Mr. Dion takes it in a cakewalk. He's had a relatively strong week to be sure, but has never been much inclined to make the kind of mid-course corrections required in uncharted waters. He is a priest not a proselytizer, better at righteousness than salesmanship. The Green Shift has been an electoral disaster not because a carbon tax/income tax swap is a bad idea, but because his proposal is ill-timed, ill-considered (why mix an anti-poverty initiative into a tax on greenhouse gas emissions?) and ill-presented. You cannot be a leader without creating followers and Mr. Dion has failed to attract followers to his signature policy.

Some Liberals already have taken aim at Mr. Dion in the midst of the campaign, but they should engage in a more sophisticated diagnostic. The party-writ-large has failed to reinvent itself for the 21st century and public opinion research shows, perhaps as a result, that fewer and fewer Canadians identify themselves as "liberal." With the exception of the halcyon years of a badly divided political right, the Liberal Party of Canada has been shedding core supporters for decades, starting with Western and rural Canadians, then small business operators and Quebec nationalists and perhaps now extending even into the more entrepreneurial and socially conservative immigrant communities. It has not made adequate use of its time out.

Meanwhile, the supposedly obstinate Mr. Harper has been nothing if not open to adjusting as circumstances change. He was masterful in building a "big tent" centre-right alternative to the "natural governing" Liberals. His vision, determination and adroitness restored political competition to Canada, not an insignificant accomplishment.

Mr. Harper has done well on other fronts, too. He has spoken with refreshing candour and courage on foreign affairs, especially on the Middle East, and he was nimble in fulfilling his regrettable promise to hold a free vote on same-sex marriage while depriving the matter of any combustible material. He controlled his party's extreme social conservative rump, not vice versa.

He was shrewd and deft when the sensitive issue of recognizing Quebec as a nation was dropped in his lap by the machinations of Liberal Michael Ignatieff. He acted calmly and decisively to forge a cross-party consensus and made sure the status of nationhood went to the Québécois people, not to Quebec. As with Afghanistan, he played a bad hand very well — an example worth remembering as the economy poses unprecedented challenges.

Indeed, the most important characteristic Mr. Harper has shown over 33 months in office is a capacity to grow. There is no reason to think he won't continue along the same trajectory if re-elected — a good thing, too, since there is much more for him to learn.

Instead of carping about a dysfunctional Parliament, for which he holds much responsibility, Mr. Harper should throw out his previous playbook and try making the institution work. It would mean displaying the confidence to operate outside his comfort zone of near-absolute control, but it is a mission built for a true conservative. And, no, Senate reform is no substitute for getting the House of Commons operating well.

Mr. Harper should also use his political skills to wring real meaning out of last spring's apology to aboriginals. The rampant social pathologies afflicting native Canadians — from suicide to alcoholism to poor educational outcomes — remain the greatest stain on Canada's history and reputation. Coaxing First nations peoples into a full partnership with other Canadians and full participation in the Canadian economy and society would be the stuff of a prime minister intent on real achievement.

We also urge Mr. Harper to revisit his wholly inadequate climate-change plan. Canada and the world need to develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Counterintuitively, Mr. Harper may be the best-positioned Canadian politician to lead on this important issue, should he ever condescend to take it seriously. Given the impregnability of his Alberta base, he could strike a modern Nixon-to-China on climate change.

His attitude toward China, which thankfully looks to be in transition, has been rooted in old-fashioned, missionary-driven zeal. Human rights matter and should be part of the discussion. But managing relations with China, as with the United States, calls for balance and the pursuit of national interest, not personal ideology. Mr. Harper needs to recalibrate his approach to this proud and flawed world power.

Finally, the economy. Mr. Harper has to temper his distrust of the national government as a force in domestic policy with an understanding that Canadians always look to Ottawa in times of trouble. His instincts to play as small a role as possible, other than for electoral gain, are perhaps not as wrong-headed as those who would have the state play too big a role, given the excesses of past interventions. But we have entered an unprecedented period of market breakdown and Canadians need their government to be attentive and responsive. Mr. Harper possesses the competence and flexibility to pull this off, notwithstanding his awkwardness over the past week, including the rollout of a policy to shore up lending reserves.

Whatever you think of him, the Stephen Harper of today is not the Stephen Harper of 2004 or earlier. The "firewall" temperament has largely subsided, despite the odd recurrence on matters such as artists who choose free expression over popularity. He is in better control of his emotions. He is smart enough and adaptable enough to recognize that his tendencies toward pettiness and hyper-partisanship hold him and his party back.

By and large, Canadians still don't really trust Mr. Harper and so he has not yet earned their comfort with a majority government. If he prevails next Tuesday, it will be as a default choice, not a popular choice. Voters generally respect him — and, right now, competence trumps the unknown — but if he ever hopes to complete the construction of a governing party of the right and be remembered as more than a middling, minority prime minister, Mr. Harper will have to show as much capacity to grow over the next four years as he has over the past four.



***



Canada's general election
The fear factor

Oct 9th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Why Stephen Harper does not deserve to be dumped

IT IS not easy to be a successful Conservative in Canada. Perhaps it is the effect of living next to the United States. Perhaps it is because the country was founded on the collectivist principles of “peace, order and good government” rather than the individualist “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” of its neighbour. Perhaps it is because the things that Canadians most value about their country are its publicly run health service, its European-style welfare state and its tolerance. All are associated with the Liberals, who have been the natural party of government in Canada for the past century. To cap it all, conservative ideas of deregulation and unfettered free-market capitalism have been brought into disrepute by the financial turmoil south of the border.

So perhaps it is not surprising that the hopes of Stephen Harper, Canada’s Conservative prime minister, of endowing his minority government with a parliamentary majority at a general election on October 14th may end up being dashed. At first his decision to call the election looked shrewd, as the Conservatives raced to a lead of 15 percentage points in the opinion polls. Then the Wall Street panic got going. Canadians began to worry that Mr Harper was not doing enough to protect them. His poll lead has been cut by almost half. Unless he bucks the trend he could even lose power.

That would be unwarranted. It was a surprise when Mr Harper won the last election in January 2006, ending a dozen years of Liberal rule. Few pundits imagined that he would survive longer than a year. That he has governed for 32 months is a tribute to the political skills of an underestimated man. He does not offer a soaring vision of radical change. Canadians have not warmed to him: he comes over as a bloodless control freak. But he is hardworking, and a skilled parliamentary tactician. He governs a rather successful country that needs incremental improvement, not a revolution.

Mr Harper promised Canadians some modest measures. Some of these were sensible. Others, such as the cut in the sales tax, were not. But he got most of them done. He patched up Canada’s relations with the United States, which had deteriorated. His decision to keep Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan was unpopular, but he was careful to ensure that it was backed by leading Liberals. He has increased defence spending, which shows realism in a country that lays claim to a large chunk of the disputed Arctic.

Mr Harper’s political home is in the west, in oil-rich Alberta where they like their politicians in the carnivorous mould of Sarah Palin. In office he has tried to woo eastern Canada, dropping his previous opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and recognising French-speaking Quebec as a “nation within a united Canada”. But his inner oilman has won out when it comes to the environment, an important issue in a country that is both a heavy carbon-emitter and especially vulnerable to climate change. Stéphane Dion, the Liberal leader, bravely proposes a carbon tax, which he claims would be revenue-neutral. Simply to rubbish this as a “crazy” idea that would “screw everybody”, as Mr Harper has done, shows a disappointing lack of leadership, and is grounds enough to deny the Conservatives a majority. In fact another minority Conservative government would not be a bad result for Canada: neither of the main party leaders has done enough to persuade Canadians that they deserve untrammelled power.
The first credit-crunch election

If the voters go further and eject Mr Harper, that, sadly, will not be because they have been convinced by the cerebral Mr Dion’s worthy carbon tax. It will be because the opposition—a gang of four, comprising the socialist New Democrats, the separatist Bloc Québécois and the rising Green Party as well as the Liberals—has succeeded in panicking the voters on the economy (see article). And yet, in a sinking world, Canada is something of a cork. Its well-regulated banks are solid. Growth has slowed but not stopped. The big worry is the fear that an American recession will drag Canada down with it.

Mr Harper says, rightly enough, that his government has taken prudent measures to help Canada weather a storm it cannot duck: he has offered tax cuts and selective aid to help vulnerable manufacturing towns. But it is his seeming non-reaction to what is so far a non-crisis that looks likely to deny him the majority he was seeking, and could even let in the opposition. In what is the first credit-crunch election in a big Western country, Mr Harper’s ejection would set a dispiriting precedent that panic plays better politically than prudence.

***


Editorial: A Conservative majority serves Canada's needs

National Post Published: Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks during a campaign rally in Hamilton, Ont., Oct. 7, 2008.Chris Wattie/ReutersPrime Minister Stephen Harper speaks during a campaign rally in Hamilton, Ont., Oct. 7, 2008.

Last month, Stephane Dion called the upcoming federal election "among the most important in the history of our country." He may be right. Next week's vote will determine whether Canada's tax system is overhauled through the imposition of a massive levy on carbon-based fuels; the nature of our continuing presence in Afghanistan; and how our government will respond to the historic meltdown unfolding in financial markets. Faced with these high stakes, we believe, Canada would be best served if Stephen Harper's Conservative government were to receive a second mandate, this time in majority form.

Last month, Stephane Dion called the upcoming federal election "among the most important in the history of our country." He may be right. Next week's vote will determine whether Canada's tax system is overhauled through the imposition of a massive levy on carbon-based fuels; the nature of our continuing presence in Afghanistan; and how our government will respond to the historic meltdown unfolding in financial markets. Faced with these high stakes, we believe, Canada would be best served if Stephen Harper's Conservative government were to receive a second mandate, this time in majority form.

We have no illusions that Mr. Harper's government has been perfect. Its decision to tax income trusts, in particular, stands as a bald-faced betrayal of its earlier promise on the issue. Moreover, Mr. Harper did not make any serious attempt to clean up some of the more appalling residue left behind by previous governments -- the gun registry, the gag law, Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. We also have been disillusioned by the Conservatives' continual spending increases, Mr. Harper's flouting of his own fixed election date, and the petty, partisan spirit that often has pervaded Parliament under the Tories' watch.

But given the huge range of other activities undertaken in the course of leading Canada, it must be said that Mr. Harper has governed the country well overall. He has stuck by Canada's mission in Afghanistan, provided sound stewardship for the economy (notwithstanding the inevitable buffeting we are now taking thanks to Wall Street's meltdown), managed the Quebec file well, returned Canada-U. S. relations to their normal level of amity, lowered taxes, and implemented a number of welcome tweaks to our criminal justice system.

Most importantly of all, Mr. Harper has avoided the temptation to impose any large-scale Trudeauvian social-engineering schemes on the country, of the type the Liberals seem to cook up every few years. Yesterday's Tory platform, largely a rehash of previous announcements, is admirably stingy. It contains no multi-billion-dollar pharmacare program, no federally micromanaged daycare, no new National Energy Program. And for that, Canadians should be thankful.

This brings us to the main reason why we cannot endorse the Liberals. Putting aside Stephane Dion's reflexive leftward tilt on everything from foreign affairs to social issues, his "Green Shift" carbon-tax scheme is, by itself, enough to persuade us that he is the wrong man to be running this country. As our banking and financial-services sectors become strained by the worldwide credit crunch, this country is increasingly dependant on our oil and gas sector to sustain us through rough waters. Yet these are exactly the industries Mr. Dion wants to soak.

We also are not impressed by Mr. Dion's plan-- and general attitude -- in regard to Canada's economic challenges. In recent days, he truly has sounded like a hysteric, trying to convince Canadians that our relatively sound economy is on the brink of a cataclysmic depression. There is no evidence of this: Indeed, the latest economic numbers on jobs and growth are excellent. And as a stack of reports from our major banks attest, the fundamentals of our real estate market bear no comparison to America's sub-prime mess. Indeed, the only thing that could tip this country into full-blown depression is wide-scale investor panic of the type Mr. Dion seems intent on fomenting.

Nor are we impressed with Mr. Dion's grandly announced economic plan -- which is not a plan at all, but rather a pledge to consult with the country's leading economists, and do as they say. Consultation of this nature is something that Mr. Harper's government -- like all governments --does on a regular basis. The former professor's take on this issue seems to betray a basic ignorance of how government works, not to mention a disturbing penchant for outsourcing his own leadership.

In this regard, we are reminded of Mr. Dion's handling of former Winnipeg-area Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes, who advocated the bizarre and hateful notion that the U. S. and Israeli governments were in on the 9/11 attacks. Rather than act on principle and sack her at once, Mr. Dion initially announced that he had referred the issue to an ethnic lobby group -- the Canadian Jewish Congress --and would do as they instructed. It was a small but stunning abdication of true leadership, and a microcosm for why most Canadians, including members of this editorial board, don't believe he has the right stuff to lead a country.

As for the three other parties, fairly obvious deficiencies prevent us from endorsing them:

-The Bloc Quebecois seeks to break up the country -- and is immediately disqualified on that basis.

-The Greens have an energetic leader in Elizabeth May. But she has already endorsed Mr. Dion for prime minister. Given that much of her party's platform is similar, if not identical, to Mr. Dion's, her Green party essentially resembles nothing more than an off-label Liberal subsidiary.

-The NDP have made a strong push in this campaign. And when this editorial board recently sat down with Jack Layton, we saw why: The NDP leader is a charismatic, articulate spokesman for Canadian unions and affiliated leftists. But his prescription for Canada -- an increased tax load on corporations -- is precisely wrong. We are also disturbed by his party's' tolerance for a Quebec candidate with links to Islamists, and a B. C. candidate with Lesley Hughes-like ideas about the 9/11 attacks.

Like all elections, this one presents Canadians with a choice between imperfect options. But on balance, the Conservatives are clearly the best choice for this country. We urge our readers to vote accordingly on Oct. 14.

***

The Liberal leadership convention in 2006 was a turning point for the party as well as the country. It was everything a convention should be, with stirring speeches, tough backroom negotiations and a dramatic, come-from-behind finish. Delegates came away with hope that their dark days of scandal, disgrace and decline were behind them.

As we noted at the time, Stephane Dion, with his stumbling English delivery and ideological approach to politics, was not an obvious choice to lead a national political party.

But at a time when old-style politics were under attack, he offered the prospect of a fresh start, an opportunity to win back the confidence of Canadians after the Adscam corruption scandal that haunted Paul Martin during his brief term as prime minister and shook the party to its core.

It hasn't worked out. Under Dion's leadership, the Liberals have failed to capitalize on that opportunity. They entered this campaign a pale shadow of the iconic organization that ruled Canada for most of the past century, with empty pockets and weak popular support that started to ebb further as soon as Canadians started paying attention to the campaign.

In an election, a party with a leader who is more of a liability than an asset faces an uphill battle, but a strong team approach can succeed.

In this campaign, however, Dion faced a Conservative party that proved able under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to accomplish what Liberals could not: It remade itself.

From the combination of a rough-edged western reform movement and the ruins of the old Progressive Conservative party left behind by former prime minister Brian Mulroney in 1992, the Conservatives built a political organization that Canadians across the country were willing to support. They earned enough votes in 2006 to form a minority government.

Just as crucial to where they are today, they inspired their supporters to keep their dollars flowing in after the vote.

The financial strength of the Conservatives allowed them to start their campaign against the Liberal leader within days of the Liberal convention by painting Dion as a weak and ineffectual leader. It is an image he has been unable to shake.

This campaign was also shaped by the Liberals' inability to recover from another legacy of former prime minister Jean Chretien, the reformed campaign financing rules that cut the party off from the large corporate donations on which it has long depended.

The failure of Dion to re-energize the party in the almost three years he has had the job set up a campaign in which platforms have mattered less than the leaders. This despite the serious economic crisis unfolding south of the border that has overshadowed much of the campaign and the mounting evidence that Canadians won't emerge unscathed.

While the Liberals and NDP have tried to use the economic uncertainty to their advantage, it's clear to most Canadians that our government can't be blamed for the downdrafts we are starting to feel here.

That understanding defines the economic issue as "who can best manage the economy in uncertain times," rather than "who is responsible for the mess we're in."

Harper promises a steady-as-she-goes approach that is more akin to Liberal governments of the past than it is to a true conservative agenda. The Conservative election platform provides an additional $400 million in loans over the next four years to help the struggling manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec. Beyond that, a two-cent-a-litre cut in taxes on diesel and aviation fuel over four years totalling $600 million a year will also help the struggling truckers.

Meanwhile, Dion's platform is designed to drive the economy in a new direction. The Green Shift is at heart similar to British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell's carbon tax. They are both designed to be somewhat disruptive to the economy while over time discouraging the use of fossil fuels.

But with concern over jobs, incomes and retirement savings outweighing the fear of climate change, we see little appetite for risky exploration of uncertain economic territory. That makes the Green Shift the wrong plan for the times, regardless of any theoretical merit.

The other issue that has had a remarkable amount of traction in this campaign is Harper's hang-'em-high crime agenda. The Conservatives have been able to tap into a deep well of fear and anger across the country, proving again that the emotional appeal of getting tough on criminals pays off even though there is little evidence that the measures they propose will make anyone safer.

Unfortunately for Harper, his crime agenda hasn't resonated in Quebec, as is evidenced by the slippage in recent polls. Harper's regrettable tendency to play on voters' fears has to be weighed against what he has achieved as prime minister - holding together the longest-lived minority government in Canadian history and pushing through a significant agenda of change.

On the economic side, he has followed through with promised tax reductions. He has kept his commitment to strengthen our armed forces. By getting the accountability act through Parliament, he has ensured that Ottawa will be more responsive to taxpayers.

As promised, he increased funding for health care to reduce waiting times for surgeries and diagnostics. And - of crucial importance - he has resisted pressure from within his party to follow a more socially conservative path.

Significantly for British Columbians, he led a government that has taken the perennial issue of western alienation off the table in this campaign. Westerners are clearly in.

All parties are constrained in their platforms by their promise to deliver balanced budgets. With an underperforming economy likely to deliver diminished revenues, there is little room to manoeuvre for any party that gets to form the government.

That economic squeeze puts the emphasis on economic management in the short to medium term.

The Liberals posted a spectacular record in balancing the budget, cutting taxes and reducing the national debt for more than a decade under Martin and Chretien, a record that has allowed Harper to honestly maintain during a time of crisis in the U.S. that the fundamentals of our economy remain strong.

As for the New Democrats and the Greens, they should be considered only in their traditional role as a source of ideas and loyal opposition, not as prospective managers of the economy, in good times or bad, despite NDP leader Jack Layton's lofty ambition to be prime minister and Green leader Elizabeth May's solid performance in the debates.

As the campaign comes to a close, we have a choice between a Liberal who has been unable to capitalize on his opportunity to lead and a Conservative who had a rocky start as leader but has shown he can grow in office.

As Harper correctly put it this week: "Prudent leadership does not set economic strategy for the nightly news or rewrite plans for the morning papers. On the contrary . . . the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution."

The PM has certainly demonstrated this by executing tax cuts six months ago and by coming up with an economic plan that could potentially help us avoid some big pot holes.

So on the ballot box question that's on everybody's mind - the slowing economy - we trust Harper to navigate the rough road ahead.

A majority government for the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper is our choice.

***

To say Canada's federal election campaign has been overtaken by the near train-wreck that the international financial system has become would be an understatement.

And while Canada's federal government can do little to command the economic tsunami to cease, the question of who is best equipped to limit the ensuing damage to Canada, or who would exacerbate the effects of the financial crash, is critically relevant for Tuesday's election.

During this election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been lambasted by his opponents for being "out of touch" with the world's economic situation because he repeatedly says "Canada is not the U.S." and that economic fundamentals, including the Canadian banking system, are sound.

Experts, however, agree with Harper. On Thursday, the World Economic Forum released a report saying Canada has the soundest banking system in the world, closely followed by Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia, and on the same day the International Monetary Fund said Canada will lead the G-7 in economic growth next year and avoid a recession. Nevertheless, Harper's don't worry, be happy tune hasn't done him any favours in the polls and he should have shown greater empathy toward those Canadians losing sleep or their jobs as a result of the economic downturn.

Before detailing the reasons we believe Harper and the Conservative party deserve to govern on the question of Canada's economic future, however, it is useful to first examine the Conservative government's record.

It would be troubling if Canadians chose their next government based on a five-week election campaign of smears and sound bites rather than focusing on the Conservatives' nearly three years of effective and competent governing.

The minority government led by Harper has made a significant mark in the area of foreign policy. Since coming to power in 2006, the prime minister has been consistent and coherent in his defence of human rights around the world. Several examples are noteworthy.

After the terrorist group Hamas was elected in Palestinian elections, Harper led the world in refusing to send direct aid to the radical Islamists intent on the destruction of Israel. Further, when Israel was attacked by Lebanese-based Hezbollah terrorists in 2006, and this after thousands of rockets from Gaza and hundreds of suicide bomb attacks since 2000, many in the Canadian establishment, media and in the state-funded broadcaster expected the prime minister to respond to Israel's invasion of Lebanon as Jean Chretien or Paul Martin would have responded: lay blame on both sides no matter the history of the terror Israel endured.

Instead, in July 2006, Harper said Canada was not "going to give in to the temptation of some to single out Israel, which was the victim of the initial attack."

The prime minister stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of abandoning Afghan women and children to a resurgent Taliban, which would have been the end result of what the other parties urged. But as has been symptomatic of a Conservative campaign left to constantly dodge minefields of unforeseen circumstances, a government report released Thursday showed the cost for the Afghan mission has skyrocketed.

Similarly, Harper has been resolute in his criticism of China, which surprised some (and disappointed others) who bizarrely thought a pro-market prime minister standing up for human rights was somehow contradictory. That Harper would draw a proper line was also evident when he, unlike previous prime ministers, met the Dalai Lama -- publicly and in his office. As well, Harper's tenacity in defence of Canadian values and sovereignty has also been evident in his willingness to spend money on the Canadian military and on asserting Canada's claim in the Arctic.

Beyond international matters, the Harper Conservatives have also been mostly prudent stewards of the public purse. While less spending would have been better, the reality is that Liberal claims they would have spent less since 2006 are highly suspect. After all, the Liberals vociferously opposed a minor $45-million cut to the arts; it stretches credibility to then claim that party would restrain spending.

On economic and tax policy, the Harper government has properly begun cutting corporate taxes, which will help free up capital to survive tough times, cut the GST to five per cent from seven, allowed income-splitting for low- and middle-income seniors, and this past week moved to abolish $350 million in tariffs on manufacturing equipment.

Also, in less than three years, the Tories have paid $26.2 billion towards Canada's debt -- which results in about $2 billion in debt-interest savings annually, or $65 million per month. Such tax moves are evidence of a prudent return of public money to the actual public who pay taxes. To some, such actions are evidence of an ideological government.

Hardly. The Harper government has busily delivered tax dollars to Quebec's aerospace industry, Ontario's automotive sector and to "regional development" agencies on the Prairies and in Atlantic Canada. We oppose such corporate welfare, but if partisan opponents think those expenditures are evidence of a Dickensian world, it begs the question of how much more money the Liberals or NDP are prepared to spend in power.

The Harper government has not been perfect, though it has been mostly scandal-free -- Maxime Bernier's approach to official documents and his choice in girlfriends notwithstanding. Compare that minor tempest to the multibillion-dollar gun registry, Shawinigate or the Adscam shenanigans under the Liberals.

Harper broke his promise on income trusts and on fixed election dates, though in hindsight, preserving corporate tax revenues through ending trusts' exemptions now looks prudent for government finances.

It is to that issue that we now return. The New Democrats under Jack Layton would spend Canada back into deficits, and introduce measures that reek of 1930s-style American protectionism, which helped plunge the world into the Great Depression.

The Liberals would be an improvement on the NDP, but Stephane Dion's "Green Shift" carbon tax program, even if revenue neutral (which it won't be for most people), would pummel Canada's resource sector, undoubtedly the most robust of industries in Canada. Also, Dion's action plan on the economy -- consult with economists and convene with premiers -- would do nothing to improve Canada in the midst of an economic crisis. Dion's dithering might well make things worse.

Canadians need a prime minister who will act with clarity, thoughtfulness and foresight. In the past week, Prime Minister Harper has been accused of lacking all three as the effects of the U.S. subprime crisis became clear.

The critics could not be more wrong. It was the Harper government that moved earlier this year to stop the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corp. from offering zero per cent down, 40-year mortgages. The Conservatives saw what was coming and moved to block problematic U.S. practices from being replicated en masse in Canada.

Thus, the choice is simple. The Calgary Herald endorses Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. They deserve to be re-elected based on their record, competence, and on the prime minister's steady hand as Canada heads into uncharted, choppy economic waters.

***

Prime Minister Stephen Harper may be, as we argued Friday, the sturdiest and most capable of the party leaders, but that doesn't necessarily mean voters, particularly in this traditional Tory wasteland, should back Conservative candidates.

In a peculiarity common to the Westminster system of democracy, Canadians vote for their prime ministers only indirectly. Canadians can only vote directly for candidates in their riding and commonly find that the best local choice might not belong to the same party as their favoured prime ministerial candidate.

This creates a dilemma of sorts, with voters having to weigh the need for effective local representation against their desires that a particular party win the election and assume power. This dilemma is even more confounding for Harper supporters in Windsor and Essex County, where votes for Tory candidates have long been lost in a deluge of support for NDP and Liberal candidates.

Proponents like the CAW of so-called "strategic voting" would have you forget the duality of Canada's electoral system by focusing only on the party rather than its candidates in individual ridings. By encouraging you to vote on the basis of which party you want, or, rather, don't want, in power, they are effectively writing off the importance of local representation.

But the fractured nature of Canada's political landscape, which is expected to yield another minority government, should serve to heighten rather than diminish the significance of constituency representation. This election is shaping up to be so close that one candidate in a key swing riding -- maybe even yours -- could wind up deciding the parliamentary balance of power.

Voting for federal NDP candidates, for example, has long been an exercise in futility because the left-wing party hasn't managed to grab hold of the keys to Stornoway, let alone 24 Sussex Drive. Brian Masse, the NDP MP for Windsor West, and Joe Comartin, the NDP MP for Windsor-Tecumseh, have vigorously represented the interests of their constituents.

Could they have accomplished more for them, though, had they been cabinet ministers or backbench MPs of the governing party? It is a fair question given the tendency of governments to blanket friendly ridings with funding. Many people accused the Harper government of playing politics with its recent announcement of funding for Ford's Essex Engine plant, but all parties play the game the same way.

Would that same funding have been forthcoming if Harper didn't need Essex MP Jeff Watson to hang onto his seat against Liberal challenger Susan Whelan and NDP candidate Taras Natyshak? Again, a fair question revolving around the issue of party affiliation local voters need to consider before Tuesday's vote.

Having a government MP can certainly pay dividends, but that doesn't necessarily mean voters should try and back a winner. The reality -- and this is one of the intrinsic weaknesses of strategic voting -- is that no one can say for certain who will win the election. Strategic voting can very easily backfire. The possibility of a coalition government this time around also raises the possibility, however remote, of NDP cabinet ministers or, an even unlikelier scenario, a Green or independent cabinet minister.

There are too many variables and unknowns for voters to focus on any calculus other than the issues they care about. They should vote for the candidate in their riding they feel can best defend their interests and fight for the interests of this community. If they don't like the leader of that candidate's party, they'll have to think long and hard before casting their ballot.

***

The Right Choice

When Canadians go to the polls on Tuesday to vote for a new federal government, it is unlikely that a majority of them will choose to re-elect Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

The reasons for that reluctance may be various and several, but the nature of Canadian politics means that it might not make much difference, that Mr. Harper could still be returned as the prime minister of another minority government or even of a majority, although the latter seems to be increasingly improbable if this week's polls are any indication.

One reason that Canadians are cool to the Conservatives is Mr. Harper himself. As a politician, he is not particularly likable. He is aloof and distant and his sense of humour rarely connects with that of ordinary people. He seems to lack empathy, his humanity breaking through only rarely and barely.

In a more perfect world, whether we like or dislike people personally would not affect our assessment of how they do their jobs, but as every election proves, our political world is far from perfect. A more serious concern than Mr. Harper's personality, however, is his obsession with secrecy.

Most Conservative cabinet ministers and MPs are forbidden, for example, to speak spontaneously in public about public policy or government business. This may be nothing more sinister than an effort to ensure that they are all reading from the same page, but it also serves to raise suspicions that there is something more to it than that. In the past, some Conservatives have embarrassed Mr. Harper and the party with comments endorsing a right-wing social agenda that is anathema to most Canadians. The party says there is no such agenda today, but secrecy is usually taken to mean there is something to hide. If Mr. Harper wants the trust of the voters, he needs to present to them finally a government that they believe they can trust.

There are other reasons why people may choose not to vote Conservative, some trivial (small cuts to arts funding), some worthy of serious debate (the cost and course of the controversial Afghan war). The most serious issue confronting the Conservatives, however, is the one that Mr. Harper appears to have hoped to avoid facing when he called an early election -- the current economic crisis.

The opposition parties have been making political hay with the economic troubles and the fears of a recession that have gripped the world. Canada is in a better position to weather this crisis than any of the other industrialized nations, but the Liberals and New Democrats argue that the Harper government has no clear understanding of its magnitude, no empathy for its victims and no clear sense of direction in how to deal with it. Polls this week record declining Tory popularity and a corresponding surge for Stéphane Dion's Liberals and Jack Layton's NDP, so those arguments may be finding resonance among voters.

The position of the major parties on the economic crisis is revealing of their nature under their current leaders. Mr. Layton embraces a socialism so anachronistic that it was abandoned decades ago by the European social democrats that Mr. Layton holds up as an example. The NDP blames big banks and big business and would tax and spend the country into an industrial backwater.

Under Mr. Dion, the Liberals have been largely ineffective in Opposition and their election platform reflects that, consisting, as it does, of a promise to hold next month the kind of meetings with economic experts that the government is conducting now, to raise taxes through a punitive new carbon tax and to increase spending on social programs.

Under the shrill cacophony of the opposition's cries for action, Mr. Harper's Conservatives have remained calm. Look at the last two years, the prime minister says, correctly claiming that he has offered generally competent government. In the face of this crisis, he promises more of the same. On Thursday, two major international financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Economic Forum, agreed with him, saying that Canada was on the right course to weather the storm. Mr. Harper's economic policy is clear and practical and worth supporting on Tuesday. To turn the old saying on its head, this time, hard times should be Tory times. As The Economist said Thursday, if Canadians reject the Conservatives, it would "set a dispiriting precedent that panic plays better politically than prudence."

There is another reason, political rather than economic, to vote Conservative on Tuesday. As it exists, the Canadian political system is either too monolithic -- two-thirds of the country places itself on the centre-left, but divisions on the left prevent it from having a voice proportional to its size; or not fragmented enough -- the centre-right is occupied only by the Conservatives. Canadians need more than that, either a two-party system or a true multi-party system that enables a variety of coalitions.

As this election has shown, the Liberals and the NDP will not come together willingly, even to defeat the Conservatives. A Conservative victory next week, however, would almost certainly mean the departure of Mr. Dion, forcing the Liberal party to intensely examine itself, and the probable departure of Mr. Layton, giving the NDP the opportunity to drag itself into the 21st century. More importantly, it would underline the need for a coalition of the left and a realignment of the centre, offering Canadians a clear choice in future elections. A vote for the Conservatives, in a sense, counts in two important ways for Canadians, today and tomorrow.

***

Canada has had a Conservative government for more than two and a half years now, and its record is, on balance, not bad. But making a choice in this election is more complex than it was in 2006, when the Liberals were a scandal-haunted shambles.

Federalists owe Liberal leader Stéphane Dion continued respect for his work on the Clarity Act and related puncturings of the sovereignist balloon. Although we have serious reservations about his Green Shift plan, he has worked with determination and dignity in this campaign even when his party seemed doomed. He has earned the late-campaign gains that polls suggest he has made.

On balance, however, we believe that considering the Conservative record and the goals, policies, and personnel of the other parties, it is the Conservatives who deserve to be re-elected on Tuesday. Amid all the unfair and misleading advertising of this campaign, one Conservative message is truer now than when the writ was dropped: Constancy and prudence with the country's finances are even more important when we're in the economic doldrums.

There is much to criticize in the record of Stephen Harper's government. But on the big issues - the economy, Canada's place in the world, and striking the right balance between Ottawa and the provinces, including Quebec - it has done well.

Obviously, however, the Conservatives have few prospects of winning ridings on or near Montreal Island. Accordingly we hope that Montrealers - and people across Quebec - will vote for the federalist candidate most likely to deprive the Bloc Québécois of members of Parliament.

Just a month ago many Canadians, and not least Quebec federalists, believed happily that this election would drive a stake through the heart of the Bloc. A new era seemed to be at hand.

The Conservatives in power were masterful in demonstrating openness to Quebec, in large ways and small. But two campaign platform planks popular in Rest-of-Canada - tougher youth criminal justice rules and cuts to some arts programs - poisoned the Quebec spring for the Conservatives. These inept moves have resulted in a Bloc resurgence. That party could even have the balance of power in Parliament at a time when the economy is at serious risk - plainly a recipe for damaging mischief.

Gilles Duceppe's wife Yolande Brunelle was quoted recently as explaining the real raison d'être of the Bloc: "Quebec, in voting for the Bloc, prevents Canada from having a majority government. The message? Here's a country that would be managed better without Quebec."

The real message of this cheerless revelation of motive is that this is a country that could be managed better without the Bloc. The actual "best interest of Quebec" would be full, able representation in the federal cabinet, and in the shadow cabinets of both opposition parties.

Jack Layton and his Quebec lieutenant Tom Mulcair have campaigned powerfully. But a number of NDP policies, from the abrupt abandonment of the Afghanistan mission to a sharp increase in corporate taxes, make little sense to us. The Greens, meanwhile, have in Elizabeth May a leader who is passionate and articulate - in English, anyway - but are clearly not ready for prime time.

Accordingly, we believe the responsible vote in many Montreal-area ridings is for whichever federalist candidate is best positioned to defeat the Bloc. In some ridings, of course, the Bloc is no threat, but in others, odd splits of the vote could lead to unforeseen results unless federalist voters are careful.

In the Montreal area, a number of incumbents, and a few challengers, have been or would be first-rate MPs and plainly deserve places in the next Parliament. They include Dion himself in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Conservative Michael Fortier in Vaudreuil-Soulanges; New Democrat Tom Mulcair in Outremont; and some other Liberals, notably Irwin Cotler in Mount-Royal and Marc Garneau in Westmount-Ville-Marie. And we admit to being deeply curious about how Justin Trudeau would comport himself in Parliament. We hope he is elected in Papineau.

Inevitably, every election is described by somebody as "the most important in our lifetime." In truth they're all important; this one too will set a path for the country in our troubled times. We invite every voter to think carefully and choose prudently.