Politics-Federal

Well it seems the Island of Sanity will be having a Luau on April 20th celebrating the 50 years Lowell Green has been in the business.  The event will actually be a roast of the CFRA weekday morning host who tackles topics from the municipal level all the way up to the federal level with the zeal of men a third his age.

The event is actually a fund raiser and all proceeds of the $100 tickets will be used to provide the Ottawa Food Bank with a boatload of Eastern Ontario beef.

You can pick up tickets and find out more by calling 613-745-7001.

I have been a bit busy to read around but with the ongoing hype around a recent report on what mothers in Canada want, I always find Sara over at ChoiceForChildcare a good source. She has a great post outlining the public funding that was received by various lobby groups that promote public daycare.

It’s quite interesting to see how much we pay these groups to hit us up for our money.

Here’s a few

• Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
  Ottawa Ont — $204,526
• Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care
  Toronto Ont — $110,000
• International Child Care Canada Inc
  Mississauga Ont — $286,458
• Alberta Centre for Child, Family & Community Research
  Alberta– $100,000
• BC Aboriginal Child Care Society
  West Vancouver BC — $820,132

This is just a few from a list which totals almost $4.7M dollars. How’s that for buying access to your wallet?

The Quebec daycare system with 30 odd thousand on the waiting list that is so highly touted by the Liberals and NDP isn’t what we want. Is it? A month or so ago there was the story about the child left outside in the cold, asleep for hours. Then just the other day we have two more workers fired for leaving a child in the facility after they closed for the day and locked up. How would you like to be THAT mother showing up to pick up the child and finding the lights off and building closed.

Sometimes in an attempt to appear self-righteous, the glaring “foot in mouth” disease makes an appearance. It is times like this when one needs to bring up the past to emphasize the values of those making the self-righteous statements.

Stephen Taylor has a couple of great posts here and here which knock the wind out of the NDP and those who would defend Bernard Shapiro’s decision to investigate the PM on the floor crossing of David Emerson.

Below are a couple of choice excerpts:

Consider that the NDP (again the 3rd party) didn’t ask for an investigation into the floor-crossing of Belinda Stronach into government (the NDP needed their budget amendment passed, didn’t they — how ethical) UPDATE: They now have… but it’s still long after the ‘NDP budget’ was passed. Perhaps the Ethics Commissioner should look into this delay in the NDP asking for a Stronach investigation? Consider that the NDP Vancouver-Kingsway opponent Ian Waddell supported the notion of floor crossing when he was a member of the BC Provincial legislature. Consider that the NDP tried to get Sheila Copps to defect from the Liberal party to join the NDP. Consider that the NDP tried to get Charles Caccia to defect from the Liberal party to join the NDP. Both Copps and Caccia were facing losses of their Liberal nominations during Paul Martin’s polarizing power grab and the NDP offered both secured nominations with the NDP. Consider that former NDP leader Ed Broadbent says that the Ethics Commissioner does not enjoy the confidence of Parliament. Consider that current NDP leader Jack Layton is pushing for Shapiro to investigate. In fact, consider that the NDP tabled a non-confidence motion in Shapiro at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That was then, the NDP has confidence in him now that he’s investigating Emerson and the Conservatives.

and

Now, let’s deconstruct Jack Layton’s partisan silliness about what is supposed to be a non-partisan officer of Parliament. Jack should be working towards matching Broadbent’s legacy. “I don’t want to impugn his honesty but the way [Shapiro] has handled the office, it leaves open the clear question of his impartiality because of what he has decided to do or what he has decided not to do” — Ed Broadbent, Edmonton Journal, May 11, 2005    Is Jack “shocked” at Broadbent’s criticism?  “He should seriously think about [resigning] … Mr. Shapiro has not performed well. This is a serious political position he’s in, and it’s a complex position. But he … demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about what ministerial accountability means.” — Ed Broadbent, Globe and Mail, June 3rd 2005    Ed thinks Shapiro should have resigned long ago…  “I think it’s totally, utterly, completely unacceptable and Mr. Shapiro should resign … On decision after decision, he’s made simply the wrong decision” — Ed Broadbent, Ottawa Citizen, June 18th 2005

Damn, I must have just fallen off the turnip truck, because I just saw that our PM is in Afghanistan.

But I must say, you noticed that he didn’t show up until Tim Horton’s agreed to set up shop.

The hot topic of the day happens to be the NDP requesting an ethics investigation into the floor crossing of Belinda Stronach.  Although it was a year ago, I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

On this topic, I would like to point out a few things.

1)  PM Harper appointed a non elected member into the Senate
2)  PM Harper asked David Emerson, a Liberal, to join the Cabinet
3)  PM Harper has told the ethics commissioner, Bernard Shapiro to stuff his investigation on the basis that Cabinet appointees are strictly the prerogative of the Prime Minister.  I agree that if Shapiro succeeds in making Harper look bad in the floor crossing, it would be a serious overstepping of the position of the ethics commissioner.

Everyone and their brother has said that these are things the Accountability Act was supposed to stop.  Well DUH!!  Do we have an Accountability Act in place yet?  No.  Do we have elected Senators in place yet?  No.  So until it is passed, why would a PM not do whatever his prerogative allows?

Should the Act not get passed, then all of these things will STILL be allowed without question.  i.e. PM Harper is not sparing the rod to spoil the child.  He is clearly making a statement of somekind to the opposition.  If I had to guess it would be something to the effect of “Pass the Accountability Act or I will continue to use every power the Liberals beat us over the head with, which is completely within my right.”

I like it.  Firm, yet fair.  Both legal, yet giving indication that change is needed.  But, ultimately, these decisions to put a Quebec Banker in charge of Public Works which should make Quebecers feel better, to put representation in Vancouver with the key to the softwood lumber dispute, and to show an unqualified, biased ethics commissioner the door, are all good for Canada.  They may not be perceived well in the public, but they should be respected for being good decisions for Canada.

In either case, I think Stephen Harper has clearly indicated that whether or not the Accountability Act is passed, he will use whatever power his office holds to ensure Canada is served well.  No matter what the cost.

What more could we ask for in a leader?

Justice Marshal Rothstein will be sworn in tomorrow.

I don’t have much to add. I just thought some might like to know.

The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, announced today that The Honourable Marshall Rothstein will be sworn in as a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday, March 9, 2006 at a private ceremony. The official welcome ceremony for Justice Rothstein will take place at 10:00 a.m., on Monday, April 10, 2006, in the Main Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Canada. On this occasion, it is expected that there will be remarks by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, and representatives of the Government of Canada, the Government of Manitoba, the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of Manitoba. Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, on March 1, 2006.

Scott Brison is stewing in his own juices today. I wonder if Jed Clampett is up for boiled weasel?

Yesterday Scot Brison told the Globe and Mail he did not recall ever sending an email regarding the Income Trust expectations.

“No…your asking me something in terms of communication that I don’t remember. I don’t recall anything.”

Today Scott Brison held a news conference clearing the air and admitting that he did, in fact, send an email to a CIBC bank employee saying that he would more than likely, be pleased with the result which would probably come later in the week.

In Brisons’ defence, he said he did not know about the Income Trust announcement when he sent the email, but Brison was a Cabinet Minister at the time. Regardless of his position or knowledge, Brison, who himself was an investment banker should have known better than to say something that could affect the markets.

We all know about the RCMP investigation into this leak and the big spike and level of trading that took place three hours before Ralph Goodale made a decision which favoured buying Income Trusts.

This doesn’t look good for Brison’s bid for the Liberal leadership.

CTV just reported Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro’s days are numbered in his position.  The Accountability Act, which the Tories expect to pass in April will probably end his tenure.

Apparently, the Tories have been snooping around for a replacement for awhile.  Rumour has it Ed Broadbent was one offered the post but turned it down.  With his wife fighting cancer, this is understandable.

The decision to investigate Harper and Emerson aside, Shapiro turned down a request to investigate Tony Valeri’s land deal.  For me this was the last straw, as I am sure it was for most.  I can’t say I will be sorry to see him go.

Buh-Bye Bernard!

When I had first heard about the plight of Gurbaj Singh Multani, the Orthodox Sikh high school student who was challenging the schools decision to ban his Kirpan, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that a knife is a knife is a knife and, although I had never commented on it, I was pretty much against the carrying of any sort of weapon in a school environment.

But I am not that closed minded that I would be the unreasonable type, not willing to investigate this a bit further.

First some facts.

• A Kirpan is a knife which Orthodox Sikhs are obligated to wear at all times. This article displays the photo of one, but I will note that Kirpan’s come in various sizes and appearances. One thing I found consistent was the artistic effort put into these religious items is incredibly detailed and as much, if not more, for visual appearance, than for utility.
• The restriction by an educational institution on these items is not limited to this case. A similar situation occurred in the United Kingdom.
• Knives are not allowed in school. Just as guns and swords and longbows are not allowed in school. The thinking behind this is to protect our children from harm. i.e. a safety concern.

But in my research I came across some things that made me rethink my view. The following excerpt being one of them.

The scholar Jit Singh Uberoi has persuasively argued that the kirpan should be viewed as being constrained by thekara or steel bangle, and it follows, as he says, that the kirpan is “a sword ritually constrained and thus made into the mark of every citizen’s honour, not only of the soldier’s vocation.”[1] A sword that is “ritually constrained” is a sword that is bound to do only the work of justice, to be drawn on behalf of the oppressed and the weak, to be offered only in defense. The sword can be employed only when all other avenues have been explored and exhausted, and indeed failure to do so at that time would be tantamount to complicity in acts of evil and oppression.

When the kirpan is sewn into its’ sheath and blunted as those arguing for this allowance in our school system state, I do think that I might be changing my one-sided view.

This is not due to the recent Supreme Court ruling in favour, but in light of several hours of reading and research I did (because of recent ruling).

I haven’t abandoned my feeling that school is not a place for a weapon, but I do want to give religion the benefit of the doubt and hope that Orthodox Sikh parents teach their children very early the meaning of a kirpan.

I, myself, wear a cross (for lack of a better word) religiously. I can’t remember the last time it was not within a few feet (or in the case of swimming in an ocean) a few dozen yards from me. I do know that if someone told me I could not wear it in school I would have been offended. But on the same token, I was required to remove it from my neck for the safety of other athletes when I played high school basketball.

If I sound like I am being wishy washy, it’s because I am. As the title mentions, I will probably wrestle in my own mind with this one for a long time. I welcome your comments and points of view on this subject.