All posts in Canadian History

Tinker, Sailor, Soldier, Spy … Jeffrey Delisle and the real betrayal of Canada

Tinker, Sailor, Soldier, Spy … Below: H.A.R. “Kim” Philby; Philby honored on a Soviet stamp; Sub-Lieut. Jeffrey Delisle.

Nowadays, Harold Adrian Russell “Kim” Philby’s betrayal of British and American military secrets to the beavering Bolsheviks of the Soviet security apparatus seems almost quaint.

But that’s only because even with their nuclear arsenal the Soviets’ Russian successors aren’t much of a threat any more – which they certainly were through the post-war 40s and 50s as Philby, an apparent upper class twit burrowed deep in the heart of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, forwarded Western secrets by the boatload to Moscow.

When Philby finally vanished into the Soviet Union in 1963, later to be trotted out as an honoured if not trusted Soviet citizen, a mighty brouhaha erupted. He was, after all, most likely the “Third Man” in the now-infamous Cambridge spy ring, even if he wasn’t a colonel of the KGB as he had imagined.

And he did it all for England, he later implied in his KGB-approved biography, My Silent War.

“My decision to play an active part in the struggle against reaction was not the result of a sudden conversion,” he wrote from Moscow of his university years. Nevertheless, “I left university with a degree and with the conviction that my life must be devoted to Communism.”

The Soviet Union wasn’t perfect, he conceded in 1968, and likely wouldn’t be for a spell yet, but he was building up “the inner fortress of the world movement” – thereby making ideology the 20th Century excuse for English treason, as religion was in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Today, Philby is long dead and no matter what you may hear from the retired colonels who appear as “analysts” on Canadian TV news channels, the leakage of military secrets to Capitalist Russia is unlikely to risk the defeat of the West. Au contraire, about all that’s in danger today is Canada’s place at the third table of the Espionage Club.

To arouse a similar rumpus in 2013, someone like Philby would have had to decamp in the night to Mecca, there to produce a tome called My Secret Jihad – something that his father St John, the renowned Arabist and convert to Islam, might have contemplated had he lived today.

Meanwhile, Canadian Sub-Lieutenant Jeffrey Delisle, who is expected to be sentenced in Halifax on Friday after pleading guilty to selling naval secrets to the Russians, is a pathetic piker by comparison.

Sub-Lieut. Delisle did it for the money, and not very much at that – which, as has been suggested in this space before, may have been his downfall.

Indeed, to have wrapped himself in the raiment of ideology, as Philby did and others will, Sub-Lieut. Delisle would have had to sell his country out for billions, not a few thousand and a dramatic end to an unhappy marriage.

The half-hearted attitude of the Russians – and the pittance the GRU was willing to pay – probably tells those of us who are not privy to the esoteric world of state security all we really need to know about the true value of the secrets at HMCS Trinity, notwithstanding puffed-up claims in the media this was “one of the biggest spying debacles possibly in decades.”

Rather than waste time on such piffle, let me remind readers of the wisdom of Sir John Harington, the first Queen Elizabeth’s “saucy godson” and inventor of the flush toilet, who famously observed: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

Real treason is afoot in Canada – the sale of our country’s sovereignty, not its picayune military secrets, to foreign powers who would dominate us forever.

But the people who are busy today selling out Canada do it from better addresses in the nation’s capital, and they do it in the names of globalization, the perfection of the market, and the notions of Freidrich Hayek and Ayn Rand.

In other words, they do it for ideology – an ideology not so far removed in time or nature from that of H.A.R. Philby – and in the service of literally billions of dollars.

So, if you look hard enough for the Canadian Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Men, and a good many more after that, you’ll likely find them, possibly in a comfortable retirement, but not in a murky corner of the naval dockyard in Halifax.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

B.C. Bitumen Busters! Who ya gonna call? Greg Selinger?

Alberta and British Columbia Sheriffs see who can stomp the highest at the increasingly tense inter-provincial border near the disputed town of Field. B.C. and Alberta peace officers, of course, may not be exactly as illustrated. Below: Just for someone completely different, Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger.

Who ya gonna blame? Thomas Mulcair? Pierre Trudeau?

Sorry, but that great regional block of market-fundamentalist premiers that was supposed to speed environmentally iffy projects like the Northern Gateway Bitumen Pipeline toward completion with a minimum of democratic fuss appears not to be performing up to specifications.

Here we are, less than a week after B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s secret visit to Alberta Premier Alison Redford, and Canada’s two westernmost provinces are snarling at each other like a pair of cranky Latin American republics. What’s next? Barbed wire in Banff? Small arms fire at the Great Divide?

Luckily, neither jurisdiction has troops of its own to move up to the border, unless you count Alberta’s Sheriffs, who are busy making up for the province’s pathetic resource royalties with speeding tickets on the road to Fort McMurray. For its part, B.C. hasn’t had it’s own armed forces since McBride’s Navy got taken over by the RCN in 1914, and it only ever had two boats and wasn’t even Constitutional.

Ms. Clark’s politically inescapable ultimatum to Alberta: no money, no pipeline. Make it worth our while or forget it. (Which means, in reality, “please give me something to wave at B.C.’s unhappy voters or I’m finished here, if I’m not anyway.”)

Ms. Redford’s response: Forget it! Canada’s all about free trade and Alberta won’t be cutting any cheques to sniveling British Columbians. (This is a good one in a country that was founded on tariffs, but never mind that just now.)

Plus, she didn’t bother saying, Alberta can hardly afford to offer danger pay to British Columbia for the greasy bitumen we ship to China via Kitimat since the royalties we charge are so staggeringly low here in the Richest Place on Earth that we can’t even balance our budget!

You want money, chimed in far-right Alberta Opposition Leader Danielle Smith, who would like nothing better than to see an Alberta budget unbalanced by the amount paid to British Columbia, go talk to the feds! You know, like our noted pan-Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper.

Indeed, with this outbreak of Western ill feeling, our poor old neo-Con PM finds himself on the horns of the proverbial dilemma. If he steps in to benefit his beloved pipeline project and his pals at Enbridge Inc. he’ll pay big time, and he’ll pay twice.

The first time will be in 2013 when B.C. voters put the NDP in power on the theory that’s the best way to slow the potentially leaky pipeline down and prevent their province from being turned into Michigan North. A B.C. NDP government won’t be shy about pointing out to everyone else in Canada at that delicate moment that Mr. Harper only works for Alberta’s advantage, either.

The second time will come in 2016 or whenever B.C. voters have the opportunity to deliver a direct rebuke to the federal Tories for the same sins – and that could turn out to be really serious if NDP Leader Mulcair continues to see things break his way elsewhere in the country.

Imagine! Even the neo-conservative “Liberal” premier of British Columbia insists that her voters get something in return other than the promise of a few dozen security jobs along the line for the huge risk the pipeline presents to the province – at least when she faces the prospect of a stinging defeat at the polls on May 14, 2013, which, to paraphrase Dr. Samuel Johnson, “depend on it, it concentrates a woman’s mind wonderfully!”

Worse, as Ms. Redford, Mr. Harper and the environmental Keystone Kops in the executive suite at Enbridge’s Calgary headquarters must surely know, short of forcing the line through by federal legislative fiat with God only knows what consequences, whatever British Columbia’s government demands now is probably the best offer they’re ever going to get!

Talk about an excess of democracy!

Well, maybe Enbridge will have to run the pipeline out to Sarnia, Ont., and keep the refining jobs in Canada. Prime Minister Tom Mulcair will probably go along with that, although there would still the small matter of Manitoba. And who’re ya gonna call about that?

Anybody got Premier Greg Selinger’s private number?

+ + +

Speaking of cheap oil for China, it’ll be interesting to see how the “Ethical Oil” set reconciles their instinctive tendency to favour foreign control of Canada’s petroleum industry or whatever else the local oil barons want with the fact one of the controlling governments could turn out to be, erm, run by Communists.

As you’d know if you’d been reading the Report on Business all day like I have, China’s state-owned CNOOC Ltd. wants to buy Calgary-based oil-producer Nexen Inc. for 15.1 billion of Uncle Sam’s Greenbacks – more than 60 per cent above what the Almighty Market says the company is worth, the ROB notes.

No reason the Ethical Oilers should object, I guess, except that they are essentially the same tiny group of full-time Twitterers and far-right Sun News Network bloviators who have been excoriating the few remaining moderates in Prime Minister Harper’s cabinet for putting money into an Ontario cottage country museum dedicated to Norman Bethune, the Communist Canadian physician who died in China in 1939 fighting alongside Mao Zedong.

Bad enough having to boycott bananas and suffer a potassium deficiency to support the oil sands, I suppose, but does this mean they’ll also have to stop driving their SUVs to battle Communism? The sacrifice!

There must be something easier and less painful they could do, say, just going along with the rest of us and voting NDP so we can add value to our resources right here in Canada!

Somehow I think they’d rather bend their already twisted logic into the shape of a pretzel to avoid that fate. Oh well, maybe we can harness all the hot air they produce to generate electricity.

Yes Minister MacKay! Perfesser Dave explains the French role in the War of 1812

One of our heroic French allies, armed with a bassoon, holds off a Russian soldier near Niagara on the Lake some time during the War of 1812 with the Russians and the Taliban. Below: Perfesser Dave; Defence Minister and amateur historian Peter MacKay. Was he overtired? Elmer MacKay, at right, with Karlheinz Schreiber. (Not exactly as illustrated, and not mentioned in the story, but so what? It’s my blog! I can do what I want!)

Some stories happened just too long ago for ordinary bloggers to explain. That’s when we turn to the expert knowledge of the historical record offered by academics like Perfesser Dave, the Canadian History Guy. Perfesser Dave knows practically everything there is to know about our country’s history. And when he doesn’t know something, he knows which cabinet minister to call for the answer! So if you have history questions, don’t just ask some blogger! Ask Perfesser Dave!

Perfesser Dave: Yeah? Who’s talking?

Questioner: Perfesser Dave?

Perfesser Dave: What? I thought I told you I was on vacation…

Questioner: I know, Perfesser. You did. I’m really sorry, but something’s come up. Something that’s just totally confusing. So I had to call. You are the Answer Guy, after all, and I’m just so confused. I really need your help. Can you illuminate my fuzzification?

Perfesser Dave: Sorry, Questioner, I’m not the Answer Guy any more.

Questioner: What? Since when?

Perfesser Dave: Since I got the history research grant from Parks Canada. They had to let a couple of park wardens go to pay for it, so you’ve got to know they were serious! So now I’m the Canadian History Guy ™. So, what’s your question, Questioner? This is sort of a busman’s holiday. I’m doing research, as a matter of fact. So … you were asking?

Questioner: That’s lucky, Perfesser Dave, because I’ve got a history question.

Perfesser Dave: Mmmmmm-hmmmm…?

Questioner: You know Peter MacKay, right? The defence minister?

Perfesser Dave: Yeah. Elmer’s boy.

Questioner: What? You say something about Elmer Fudd?

Perfesser Dave: Never mind. It’s just noisy in here. Yeah. I know him. Fine man. … a fine man….

Questioner: Well, he gave this speech on Bastille Day, at the French Embassy, and he said the French fought alongside the British in the War of 1812!

Perfesser Dave: OK? So what confuses you about that?

Questioner: But Perfesser Dave! The French fought on the side of the Americans! How could they have fought with us?

Perfesser Dave: You’re right. And Minister MacKay is right. The French fought on the side of the Americans. The French fought on the same side as us. What’s the problem with that?

Questioner: But Perfesser, we were fighting with the Americans!

Perfesser Dave: Yeah? I can barely hear you. Of course we were fighting with the Americans. We’ve always fought with the Americans. We’ve fought on the same side as the Americans ever since John A. Macdonald got back from the Civil War, you know, when he marched through Georgia with General Sherman…

Questioner: What!!!!??? John A, Macdonald didn’t fight in the Civil War! Did you hear me right?

Perfesser Dave: I can barely hear you. Germany was playing Italy on TV and everyone’s cheering because Germany just won…

Questioner: Germany didn’t win! But never mind that. I meant we were fighting against the Americans in the War of 1812.

Perfesser Dave: No we weren’t. We were all on the same side. America, Canada, France. Just like always.

Questioner: That’s ridiculous. And you call yourself the Canadian History Guy?

Perfesser Dave: No, Parks Canada calls me the Canadian History Guy…

Questioner: What, I can barely hear you. What did you say?

Perfesser Dave: I’m whispering, Questioner. You can’t be too careful these days. I said we were all on the same side in the War of 1812. The USA, Canada and France. Just like always.

Questioner: Oh, right! And I’m paying Telus long-distance minutes for this! So who were we fighting with, the Taliban?

Perfesser Dave: In 1812? As a matter of fact, I think it was the Taliban! Or maybe the Confederates. No, for sure it was the Taliban.

Questioner: No it wasn’t! I read Pierre Berton’s book on the War of 1812 when I was at J-School. It was good too. And we were fighting against the Americans. And the French were fighting with the Americans. And we burned down the White Hou…

Perfesser Dave: No you didn’t! That book’s been removed from the Carleton library. By Preston Manning… Wait! I mean that book was never there. Preston just took the Stats Canada reports and the old census forms. And we were all on the same side. Fighting the Taliban. And the Russians. Who were working with the Taliban. Just like always. Got that? Just work with me on this, Questioner…

Questioner: Are you OK, Perfesser? Are you in the bar? Have you been drinking again?

Perfesser Dave: Yes I am in the bar. I’m on vacation, for heaven’s sake. Like I said, sort of a working vacation. Like Bastille Day at the French Embassy, only with beer instead of wine, and American friends instead of French friends. I’m just saying though, we Canadians have a deep and abiding relationship with the French because we fought side by side in so many wars. If we hadn’t been allies in the War of 1812, we might be sharing this continent in a new light … a Soviet-Taliban light!

Questioner: You have been drinking!

Perfesser Dave: Only a little … there’s a deep and unique bond that exists between Canada and France based on shared culture, values, history, and defence …

Questioner: Awwwww! Perfesser Dave! That’s so lame!

Perfesser Dave: Look, Questioner, I see somebody I need to talk to…

Questioner: Where are you, anyway?

Perfesser Dave: Nice little resort. Up here on B.C.’s and California’s shared border. We can see the Russian bombers landing over at their base in Russia from here. Which is why we need to buy those F-35s! Hey! Sarah! How are ya? Is Condi gonna run for VP? Tell ’er Peter says hi!

Questioner: Why are you yelling? What’s going on Perfesser Dave?

Perfesser Dave: Sorry, Questioner. It’s way above your pay grade! In the morning we’re going to hike up Mount Baekdu to where Stephen Harper was born. By Crater Lake. If I told you any more, I’d have to shoot you. Yuk-yuk.

Questioner: Perfesser Dave! That’s not funny!

Perfesser Dave: Oh, quit being such a priss! Next thing you’ll be complaining to the government censors! … Questioner? You still there? Hello? Hello? … Students nowadays… Can’t take a joke! Hey bartender, pass me another Full Sail India Pale!

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Does Bizarre Bethune brouhaha signal ideological rift within Harper Conservatives?

Communist physician Norman Bethune, left, and a comrade from the Red Chinese Army speak with Canadian Treasury Board President Tony Clement, right, in a vignette as imagined by Sun News Network. Below: Dr. Bethune, looking weirdly contemporary with a fashionable goatee; far-right ideologue Rob Anders; the real Mr. Clement.

Is the bizarre brouhaha over who stood up for the Chinese national anthem and what its words are evidence of a serious ideological split within Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s ruling Conservative Party of Canada?

If you think stuff like that only matters in places like Communist China and North Korea, maybe you should think again!

Apparently public signs of an ideological spat can signal trouble among party cadres, not to mention the apparatchiks who support various party ideological factions, in pretty well any old secretive and authoritarian regime.

That said, it may require the services of a skilled “Kremlinologist” to get to the bottom of the battle within Mr. Harper’s CPC that began on July 11 when Treasury Board President Tony Clement attended a ceremony in his Ontario riding marking the reopening of a spruced-up museum honouring a Communist saint all but forgotten anywhere but China.

It does seem as if the fight between people associated with ultra-right-wing Calgary West MP Rob Anders and ideological moderates like Mr. Clement and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird over tax money spent on the museum may be a sign of deepening fissures within the CPC.

Alas, the mainstream media has paid scant attention to this seemingly silly affair, and that only to dismiss it as an insignificant and mildly amusing tempest in a teapot, not as the important indicator of internal struggle it may be.

Only Sun News Network, Mr. Harper’s semi-official state media, seems to be taking the storm with the kind of humourless gravity it deserves – leastways, if you happen to view neoconservative ideology as seriously as do the gang of four or so MPs closest to our Dear Leader, Mr. Harper. This group includes Mr. Anders.

Charles Adler, a Sun News commentator associated with the extreme neoconservative element within the Harper CPC, seems to have been the first to attack Mr. Clement, Member of Parliament for the well outfitted and brightly painted Parry Sound Muskoka riding. (No starvation among the peasants there, thank you very much!)

On July 12, Mr. Adler took issue with Mr. Clement’s role in the decision by the Harper government to spend $2.5 million upgrading the former home of Norman Bethune, the Communist Canadian physician who became a hero to millions of Chinese for fighting alongside Mao Zedong in the late 1930s. The “shrine,” as Sun Media keeps calling the well-appointed little museum on the site of Dr. Bethune’s former home, just happens to be in the general vicinity of the riding’s famous gazebo, sparkling public washrooms and glass-smooth sidewalks built for the G20 conference in faraway Toronto back in June 2010.

Now, it seems most likely given his record that the moderate Mr. Clement wasn’t thinking about ideology at all when he championed sprucing up the museum, which is said to be extremely popular with visitors from China. More likely he had in mind the ice-cream cones his constituents could sell to Chinese tourists and his well-known penchant for letting no local gazebo go unimproved if Ottawa is paying.

Nevertheless, Dr. Bethune’s Communist history provided the opportunity for party ideologues seem to have been waiting for to snipe at moderates identified as supporting the project.

Having pretty well eliminated the old “Red Tories” from the CPC after its takeover by the far-right Reform Party during what’s now known as the Invasion of the Party Snatchers in 2003, this may indicate the radicals now see an opportunity to purge the party of its moderates as well.

Dr. Bethune, who by all accounts wasn’t a very nice person at all, succumbed to his own sloppy surgical techniques in China in 1939 and soon after was raised to the status of official saint by that country’s ideologues.

Rather like the War of 1812 with the Americans, the Communist Dr. Bethune seems at first glance like an odd choice for a pro-American market-fundamentalist party like Mr. Harper’s. But that is before we remember that the prime minister’s commercial backers would very much like to see doors opened to more business with Mainland China. (The phrase “Mainland China,” by the way, is an ideologically freighted way of saying you understand the capitalist island of Taiwan is not part of Communist China, even though both Taiwan’s leaders and those of the mainland insist it is. Well, whatever…)

As Mr. Adler’s shouts subsided, Mr. Anders himself, one of the PM’s gang of four, appeared on the semi-official state broadcaster to condemn the project – although he was more circumspect about attacking Mr. Clement by name, leaving that task to his well-trained ideological attack dogs.

Speaking of whom, the fray was next joined by Ezra Levant, another Sun News bloviator with impeccable CPC ideological credentials and close personal connections to both Mr. Anders and the prime minister. On Bastille Day, Mr. Levant eviscerated Mr. Clement anew in one of his trademark TV tirades.

The sharply observant Mr. Levant, who can spot an ideologically suspect lapel pin at 40 yards, apparently noticed Mr. Clement smiling and nodding in time with the Chinese national anthem in a video clip of the opening of the renovated museum.

Mr. Levant owns the real scoop in this affair, because it was he who looked up the words to the Chinese anthem – presumably on Wikipedia, the principal source for Sun News’s crack research team. “It’s a war song,” he huffed. “Here’s what Clement was smiling along to…” And, indeed, as he observed, so goes the March of the Volunteers: “Brave the enemy’s fire, March on! March on! …”

Sun News was all over the Communist song’s lyrics, and the fact Mr. Clement stood up for it, like an angry bull to a red flag – no doubt holding in reserve for the moment the certain knowledge Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair, notoriously the holder of a French passport, has stood for that country’s anthem, La Marseillaise, which goes, “…Formez vos bataillons, Marchons! Marchons!…”

Another Sun News yammering head, Brian Lilley, also piled into the affray, but, frankly, there’s only so much of this stuff one can watch without requiring sedation.

While the full meaning of this dispute is not yet clear, it is evident the tag-team attacks on Mr. Clement by the PM’s tame commentators, and the defences mounted by other party moderates like Mr. Baird, not to mention defences by the Globe and Mail and elements within the Prime Minister’s Office, signal a widening of the rift between the CPC’s most radical cadres and its moderates.

Meanwhile, in the prime minister’s home city, another ideological battle erupted over the words of a different national anthem.

This time it was the bilingual Canadian national song, O Canada, a version of which sung at the Calgary Stampede included only the English words.

Perhaps the Stampede’s organizers were concerned the French version would needlessly arouse passions among the PM’s Protestant fellow believers with its Catholic-sounding war cry of “As is thy arm ready to wield the sword/ So also is it ready to carry the cross/ Thy history is an epic/ Of the most brilliant exploits/ Thy valour steeped in faith!”

Then again, maybe it was just that no one in Cowtown speaks French. Except for Mr. Mulcair, of course, and he was wisely only passing through.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

She’s no Charles Tupper: Alison Redford has been Alberta premier too long to be prime minister

A youngish Charles Tupper at his desk. “I knew Charles Tupper and Alison Redford is no Charles Tupper” – and a good thing for her, too! Below: Sir Charles as prime minister; Frank McKenna; Robert Stanfield in the photo that put paid to his political career.

Alison Redford has been premier of Alberta too long ever to be prime minister of Canada.

A columnist for a local daily newspaper recently made the suggestion Ms. Redford may harbour prime ministerial ambitions – a notion he presumably heard first in the same place everyone else did. While this may be true, and while there is also conflicting evidence to the contrary, the possibility of her realizing such an ambition is extremely unlikely whatever she wishes.

Indeed, with only one notable exception – and that one is so exceptional that it truly is the proverbial exception that makes the rule – no Canadian provincial premier has ever become prime minister of Canada.

There is a good reason for this, obvious on its face. To succeed, no national leader acceptable to sufficient portions of this very large and diverse country to become prime minister can be too closely identified with a single province’s interests.

So it is no slur on Ms. Redford’s truly formidable political abilities to say it is extremely unlikely she could overcome this liability sufficiently to satisfy prime ministerial ambitions, or indeed that, in the words of the Edmonton Journal’s Graham Thomson, “when Harper decides to quit, Redford might be ideally positioned to take a run at his job.”

Just being photographed in a cowboy hat presents a danger to any politician from Alberta with thoughts of a national role – a reality that is profoundly unfair since politicos from Ontario, Newfoundland or Quebec can wear the same ostentatious headgear without risk because everyone knows they don’t really mean it. (Calgary Stampeder Thomas Mulcair, c’mon down!) This is something our current sourpuss prime minister really ought to think about.

Regardless, as a corollary to the axiom above, no provincial leader who becomes a premier can succeed for long without clearly emphasizing the interests of her or his province to a degree that would make federal ambitions a problem.

What’s more, having been a provincial premier, especially an effective one, gives your opponents a track record at which to take potshots. This is no doubt the real reason Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae, a former NDP premier of Ontario, recently said to heck with seeking the permanent leadership of his party.

Never mind premiers so popular locally their supporters couldn’t keep from touting them as potential prime ministers even though they had no particular interest in the job (Peter Lougheed, Bill Davis), the road to Ottawa is littered with political corpses of former premiers who really would have liked to be prime minister – federal Tory leader Robert Stanfield, once premier of Nova Scotia and memorialized by Red Tories as “the best prime minister Canada never had,” and former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna, to just name two.

As an aside, as Mr. McKenna proved and Manitoba New Democrat Gary Doer confirmed, being a former provincial premier is no barrier to being appointed Canadian Ambassador to Washington – even if the appointment doesn’t benefit the prime minister’s grand scheme to create a regional block of sympathetic premiers in one part of the country.

So who is the exception that supposedly makes this rule? Well, that would be Sir Charles Tupper, who as merely the Hon. Charles Tupper was not-so-famously the premier of Nova Scotia from 1864 to 1867, when he led his province into the Canadian Confederation.

Nova Scotia became part of Canada on July 1, 1867, and Premier Tupper, a Conservative, turned over the reins of the premiership on July 4 of the same year to Hiram Blanchard. So, really, it has to be said that Sir Charles was premier of a Canadian province for only three days – which, it is noted here, is about the right length of time for a Conservative to hold office.

Later, in 1896 at the age of 74, Sir Charles was sworn in as prime minister on May 1 at the start of an election campaign and managed to hang onto that office for only 68 days until the election on July 24, which was clearly won by the Liberal Wilfrid Laurier.

Notwithstanding a brief attempt to hang onto power – which was met with steely lack of co-operation by the Governor General, the Earl of Aberdeen – Sir Charles would go down in history as one of the few prime ministers never to sit in the House of Commons while holding the top job. This unhappy precedent was followed more recently by Tory Kim Campbell and Liberal John Turner.

It’s possible, of course, that a Canadian prime minister may yet come to office who has been a premier for more than three days, but it seems unlikely for the reasons set out above, that she (or he) will be much more successful than was Sir Charles.

So if you’re looking for an Alberta Conservative who could replace Mr. Harper, in the unlikely event other Canadians are willing to consider an Albertan in that job after he’s finished with the place, don’t expect that person to be Alison Redford, even if she does manage to schedule a meeting with Mr. Mulcair.

A more likely candidate would be Gary Mar, which come to think of it, you also heard here first!

NOTE: The tempest in a teapot late yesterday over the mildly racy poster that appeared briefly on Jon Lord’s Facebook page is just that. It’s said here the former Calgary alderman and one-term MLA won’t win the Conservative Party of Canada nomination in the Calgary Centre riding because he is not a particularly strong candidate, and because there are more appealing candidates officially in the race, not because of the poster, whoever posted it.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.