'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, in hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there. The children were nestled all snug in their beds, when out on the lawn there arose such a clatter, I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.

Away to the window I flew like a flash, tore open the shutters and threw up the sash, when into the house my eyes would appear rushed Stephen Harper and his shiny veneer.

Now that’s a scary thought given that it was Stephen Harper who dismissed Canada as “a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term” when speaking to a 1997 gathering of the Council for National Policy, a right wing American think-tank, the same Stephen Harper who earlier this week, griped to a Quebec audience about the “outrageous spending power” of the federal government and promised to limit federal spending if he forms a government.

That would not be good news for New Brunswick.

This is the same gripe we used to hear from Western Canada’s Reform Party, the father of Harper’s Alliance Party and its more recent morphous, the Conservative Party. In his 1997 speech, Harper described the Canadian Reform Party as “populist in the sense used by the infamous Ross Perot”, U.S. billionaire, eccentric, twice fringe party candidate for President and founder of the U.S. Reform party.

It begs the question who and what is Stephen Harper and who and what is today’s Conservative Party.

In his Quebec City speech, Harper promised to give Quebec a place on the international stage by recognizing its provincial autonomy and the special cultural and institutional responsibilities of the Quebec government. He promised to develop mechanisms to allow the Province a greater role in its own jurisdiction as relates to the international arena.

He went on to say “We will work to eliminate the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces and monitor the outrageous spending powers that give rise to domineering and paternalistic federalism” (code for reducing the federal government’s spending power).

The fantasy in Harper’s provincial devolution promises (echo Joe Clark’s “community of communities”) is his pledge to spend billions of dollars on new federal programs, new Arctic patrol ships and new tax cuts, Harper clearly fancies himself as a magician or at least a clone of our good friend St. Nick, who some know as Santa Clause.

Perhaps, a more important issue in this election is Canada’s relationship with the United States.

The U.S./Canada issue is more than softwood lumber and beef exports. It’s more than an issue of Paul Martin’s critique of the Americans at a UN Conference on Climate Change and the subsequent “slippery slope” wrist-slap he received from U.S. Ambassador Wilkins. It’s about the future of the current U.S. Administration and how that future could unfold in ways that could be harmful to Canada.

The U.S. Congress has introduced a resolution creating committees to investigate the Administration on three counts: intent as relates to going to war in Iraq without congressional authorization, manipulation of intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq and the countenance of prisoner torture.

There are two other resolutions that censor President Bush and Vice-President Chaney for misleading Congress and misleading the American people regarding the decision to invade Iraq. Add to that, news from the New York Times that the President authorized illegal spying on American citizens and you begin to see the storm-clouds of impeachment.

Newsweek Magazine says the spying scandal goes far beyond sex and corruption scandals typical of Washington.

Vice President Cheney describes the presidential spy-authorization as a restoration of presidential authority. Bush defends his action by telling Americans the law governing domestic spying doesn’t allow the Administration enough agility in its fight against terrorism. The President goes further by arguing he has the constitutional authority to act without court orders.

In other words, he is convinced that he is the supreme law of the United States.

So why should we care?

We should care because the U.S. is our largest trading partner. We should care because like it or not, we are a military protectorate of the United States.

We should care because the United States is the world’s only superpower. If its leaders refuse to respect U.S. law, it’s not likely they would have much regard for the laws of another country.

We should care because if the Americans fail to impeach the president for such a vast array of blatantly illegal activities, then their claim to be a nation of laws loses its validity because the ideals for which Americans have long served and fought and died for become meaningless.

The last time a U.S. President and his Vice President were toppled was in 1973 when Spiro Agnew was forced to resign after a Justice Department investigation uncovered evidence of corruption during his years in Maryland politics and Richard Nixon was impeached for his Watergate cover-ups.

Fast forward to 2005/06, when the U.S. finds itself mired in Iraq, domestic spying and accusations of illegal confinements, torture and prisoner abuse. It’s not a pretty sight.

On Christmas Eve, it’s better we return to St. Nick.

I laughed when I saw him. A wink of his eye and a twist of his head, soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work.

He sprang to his sleigh and I heard him exclaim, as he drove out of sight,"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night."