Canadian Political Musings

The Investigative Hearing provisions under Part II.1 of the Criminal Code are central to the success of any police force, in particular the RCMP, in preempting a terrorist attack. However, recent antics in Parliament [precipitated by a Vancouver Sun newspaper article] cast a dark shadow over some of the provisions of Part II.1.

The Vancouver Sun identified Darshan Singh Saini as being on a list of potential witnesses for the Investigative Hearing into the Air India case. He is MP Navidner Bains' father-in -law. The article was followed by Prime Minister Harper's deliberate attempt to smear MP Navinder Bains and his family's reputation for political gain.

Political gain at the expense of someones reputation was not the reason why Part II.1 was created. For that reason, perhaps it's time for the sun to set on the Investigative Hearing provisions.

Source: Kim Bolan - Vancouver Sun, February 21, 2007 and Hansard

Labels: Air India Inquiry, Harper, RCMP

So, the RCMP and CSIS refuse to hand over many of their documents to the Air India Inquiry for reasons of national security.

National security? Whatever national security issues remain today after more than 20 years since this terrorist attack likely pale in comparison to the victims' need for answers.

The overriding motive for the RCMP and CSIS to thwart this public inquiry will be found in their desire to avoid public embarrassment for their own failures.

Labels: Air India Inquiry, CSIS, RCMP

Conservatives should not underestimate Stéphane Dion, a man who remains true to his integrity and principles.

Notice he has not stooped to Conservative gutter politics in response to the desperate Conservative TV ads.

Notice Dion's beliefs do not vacillate in tune with ever changing public opinions. Sadly, the same cannot be said of Harper. Example: the environment.

The worst case outcome in the next soon-to-be election would be an extreme right Conservative majority government imposing their Christian fundamentalism and idealogical views on a multi-faith and multi-cultural Canadian society.

Labels: Conservatives, Dion, Harper, Liberals

Income Trusts employ over 250,000 people in Canada. A large junk of those jobs could be in jeopardy should the anticipated foreign buying spree of the trusts come to fruition. Although the proposed sale of Great Canadian Carbon Income Fund* should not have any significant impact on Canadian jobs since most of its people are employed outside Canada, other Canadian based income trusts may not fair so well in the weeks and months ahead.

I highly doubt Finance Minister Flaherty gave much consideration to the loss of jobs when he conjured the excuse to kill existing trusts. This should not come as a surprise coming from a man who ran for the leadership of the Ontario Conservative Party a few years ago on a platform to jail homeless people.

*Canadian Press, Globe and Mail, February 5, 2007

These past few days have, if nothing else, shown that "Canada's New Government" has no more interest in environmental issues than Palaeolithic cave dwellers. This was evident in the Bill C-30 hearings and during a CBC interview of Prime Minister Harper.

In the hearings, Environment Minister John Baird was asked if he knew the difference between a "carbon credit" and a "carbon tax". Baird stammered, stumbled and bumbled his way through his response until he suddenly realized he didn't know what he was talking about - then he went on the attack in an attempt to divert attention from his own stupidity. While many people may not know the difference, Baird should have known. He's the Environment Minister. The two terms are basic concepts fundamental to current environmental discussions.

During the Prime Minister's interview, he was asked if he had ever watched "The Inconvenient Truth". "No", Prime Minister Harper responded, but he would like to watch it, just to see what the "hype" was all about. Then, the PM was asked what he does personally to improve the environment. He said while living in Calgary he used to be involved in Saturday recycling projects with his kids.

Scary, indeed.

Labels: Baird, C30, environment, Harper, Inconvenient Truth

Finance Minister Flaherty's intransigent position on Income Trusts was cemented on January 31, when he was quoted in the media as saying: "I am not prepared to sacrifice the interests of millions of hard-working Canadians who pay their taxes and play by the rules so that a select group of special interests can enjoy a tax holiday,..." *

By implication, Mr. Flaherty has accused those who invested in income trusts (a million or so people) of not being hard-working and part of a group of special interests who enjoy a tax holiday.

While such a supposition is nothing short of arrogant and ruthless, not to mention untrue, it should come as no surprise when Mr. Flaherty, in the not too distant past, advocated the jailing of homeless people.

*Globe and Mail, January 31, 2007

Labels: Conservatives, homelessness, income trusts, Jim Flaherty

Congratulations to Garth Turner on his move to the Liberals! While Turner may be criticized for "crossing the floor", people need to remember he crossed the floor as an Independent to the Liberals, unlike Belinda Stronach, David Emerson and Wajid Khan who crossed from party to party. At the end of the day it will be the people in Halton who have the last say on this move.

A couple of days ago, Parliament Hill reporters asked several Conservative MPs if they believed in climate change. The MPs scurried off refusing to answer the question.

Today, the Paris report on the environment is out. The news is not good. Greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for climate change. The planet is warming at a faster rate than previously thought. Yet, Stephen Harper's response to the Paris report didn't instill confidence in the public that the government had a plan for immediate action to begin reduction of greenhouse gases.

I wouldn't get too excited at the prospect of the Conservatives actually doing something about emissions in the near term. At least not until they arrive at a consensus on the Copernicus and Galileo theories. If they do, perhaps then we can all move forward.

Labels: environment, greenhouse gases, paris report