After a week of being utterly vilified by not only the media but by most of the delegates of the other nations attending the Bali Climate Conference, Canadian Environment Minister John Baird has been vindicated.

Touted by many as an embarrassment to Canada and an anchor to progress, Stephen Harper's man made it clear from the outset exactly what Canada would need to see to sign on to any sort of binding targets for cO2 emissions, and wisely so.

Canada's argument, as well as that of the Americans, was that having binding targets for most of us and letting the biggest populations on the planet go unchecked was simply ludicrous and did nothing but punish the nations which have thrived thus far. No matter what your political posturing, you would have to be totally ignorant of any level of economic knowledge to disagree.

The argument has been that if we do not act now, then our economies will suffer draconian setbacks anyway. This is alarmist rhetoric and an argument that doesn't hold water, nor make sense. What this says is that if we don't act now, we will all suffer. If I were a politician representing my nation, I would rather see everyone suffer at the same price than sign a document curtailing our standards of living while the nations rising up were allowed to accelerate theirs, even though their actions would be as detrimental as ours are said to be.

The argument to exempt nations such as China and India from any type of binding targets is simply not sound. Consider the following scenario: A factory is poisoning a river. It has been operating for 20 years and is a huge success. That success, however, came at a price. The fish are dying. No one realized what was happening, but studies show that the factory must stop pouring sulphuric acid into the river immediately or soon there will be no fish. That being said, there is another factory on the same river, but it has just started out.

Would it therefore be okay to allow the new factory to pollute into the river the same way for 20 years so that it can catch up to the success of the first factory? Or would it make more sense for the new factory to have to adopt some newer technologies and rules to save the river?

That, in a nutshell has been Canada's argument, and it is sound. If we are killing the planet with our emissions (an argument by the way which I STILL do not subscribe to), then does it make any sense to exempt almost half of the planet's population from binding targets? Of course not. If half the planet is excused, then what difference will curtailing our living standards accomplish? Absolutely none.

If those who are on the save-the-world bandwagon think that the West is an evil, self-serving polluter, just wait until the new economic juggernauts really get going. Emissions will soar. That is, unless the world stands firm and demands that China and India also play by the same rules.

Thankfully, Canada is no longer alone. It seems that Europe's demand for North America to instill punitive rules against itself is losing steam. Some in the United States are now saying publicly that even under a Democratic government, there would be no hope of passing legislation unless 'the big ones' were subject to the same stringent rules. Australia has done an about face and has stated that unless China and India are to play the game also, then count them out to any binding targets. Add to those nations Britain, and Japan. It might be noted that Japan is home to the city of Kyoto.

Once again, Canada has played a lead in some sort of sane and rational thinking. For those who criticize John Baird as a hindrance to success, you may have to rethink that stance with so many other nations finally having the courage to stand up and state that they feel the same way.

Back to Top

Well, well. It would seem that Canada has taken another step in the right direction.

First we elected a government that was proactive and began to rebuild our armed forces and once again give us some pride. Then we strengthened our laws and armed our own border guards, and finally told Canadian murderers that we will not sweep them away from harsh final sentences should they kill in foreign lands. Now it seems that our very own Supreme Court is using wisdom. It has been a very long time since that occurred.

In a ruling today that shocked many and pleased the rest of us, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the plea of a group of traitors deserters that had fled the United States to avoid putting in their time in the War in Iraq.

Citing a feeling of moral wrongdoing, several high profile deserters fled to Canada in 2004, stating that they were refusing to fight on moral grounds. Their argument was that the War in Iraq was an illegal war and was an atrocity against civilians. The two most known in our media, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, now face the bleak prospect of being returned to the United States, where they will be swiftly picked up by the Pentagon and dealt with.

Hinzman and Hughey no doubt believed that they were heading to the mecca where so many of their compatriots fled during the 1960's as Vietnam loomed large in the American consciousness. It is estimated that some 30,000 to 50,000 Americans fled to Canada from their civic responsibility in those days. At the time, the Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson did little to stem the tide.

It would seem that the deserters that are now in our midst may be guilty of not only treason, but of a severe case of bad timing. Were Martin, Chretien, et al still in power, there would have no doubt been a swift legislative response to the Supreme Court's decision to grant them some sort of legal status, but that is unlikely given the fact that there is now real leadership in this country.

I find it encouraging that these men were denied refugee status. To myself and many Canadians, it just seems like a gross misuse of the word refugee. That term should be reserved for those who are indeed refugees. It is time to reel in the definition to where it rightly belongs, and this is a good place to start.

Jeffry House, the counsel for the defendants, stated that he believed that his clients should not be sent to jail. "(My clients) are basically taking the same position as Canada did regarding the war," House said. "There's a strong chance that they will be sent to jail if they return to the U.S. and people should not be sent to jail for standing up for what they believe in." (It is not surprising that this is Mr. House's view. He is, after all, a draft dodger himself. He fled to Canada during those Vietnam years we mentioned above.)

I am afraid that while that may sound like a reasonable statement to many, it is errant and shows a very real lack of a grip of reality. I am sure that every spy ever caught really believed in what they were doing. That did not lessen their guilt of espionage. This is the case also for those who fled their military duty. They gambled and hoped that Canada was still being run by insane bureaucrats and political lunatics.

Not today, sorry.

Back to Top

For years now, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has cast a negative shadow on all things Conservative. From his arrogant tenure on Parliament to his questionable relationships in his business life, he has left a bad taste in the mouths of many a Canadian voter; this one included.

He is still walking amid the halls of power in this country and his friendships include many of today's top Canadian politicians, including our present prime minister.

I have chagrined whenever I watched Brian Mulroney cozy up to some of the people that I respect and admire, one of them being Stephen Harper. It was to me as if a pallid glow had been cast upon the new Conservative Party by the deficiencies of the old.

This view, of course, put me at odds with many a Conservative, and I was often berated on forums for my 'un-Conservative' opinions. It seems that some in the fold consider it blasphemy to question someone of Mr. Mulroney's (former) stature. I think very differently.

I believe it is incumbent upon us all to seek the truth, especially when it pertains to the public trust. This must be done regardless of who is in question. To suggest that someone should be out of the reach of this searchlight simply because of who they are or because of their position is simply folly and a danger that we should work concertedly to avoid. To worship somebody as infallible shows a great degree of ignorance, naivety, and ineptitude. Blind allegiance is as evil as complicity.

There have been questions surrounding the former prime minister and the suggestion of shady transactions for years. After watching the Liberal Party self-destruct with its corruption, and rightly so, it is with great relief that I watch our current prime minister unwilling to sit around and watch the same thing happen to his party.

For years now, one German businessman named Karlheinz Schreiber has been casting a shadow on the conservative power base. It is a festering wound and one that ought to be cleansed and dressed. It is now about to be done.

After warning the Liberal caucus last month what would happen were we to start digging up bones, Prime Minister Harper has done an about-face. Some may find this to be a political weakness, but I believe that it shows uncommon character and integrity. It has become apparent by the sworn affidavit of Mr. Schreiber that there may be some hidden truths regarding past dealings between Mr. Mulroney and himself. The allegations now swirling around include charges of bribes, perjury, and corruption. They should at least be looked into. For the Prime Minister to deny these allegations exist any longer would simply have reduced his capacity to govern with any moral superiority over the opposition.

Mr. Harper has suggested that he will appoint an impartial third party to review all of the information, past and present, and the allegations against the former PM, and that this person will then advise the Prime Minister's office of what course, if any, they should pursue.

While this decision must be painful, it is the right thing for our Prime Minister to do. It is courageous and terrifying at the same time, but as a Canadian first and a conservative second, I believe that anything less would simply diminish the credibility of this or of any ruling government.

And we all know that we have had enough of that.

For now, and presumably until the close of this affair, the Conservative ranks have been told to have no contact with Mr. Mulroney.

While I know not whether Mr. Mulroney is guilty of any crime, I believe that while there is a possibility of such or even a question of impropriety, a sincere effort must be made to either prove or dispel the allegations. Anything less would simply smack of a cover-up and with voter participation waning more and more, this is something our nation cannot afford to have on its consciousness.

As for my views on Mr. Mulroney; so far I haven't had to change my mind one iota.

Back to Top

A national poll of a number of Canada's CEO's has indicated that while still far above their liberal counterparts in an overall rating system, Canada's Conservative government ministers are losing some of the respect and high hopes that so many had for them.

The poll, conducted on behalf of Financial Post-BDO Dunwoody, has discovered that there is a wariness with the 'new' Conservative caucus. COMPAS founder Conrad Winn had no qualms about it. He stated that the general consensus is that this is a Liberal government in Conservative's clothing. On many fronts, I would agree with him to a point. There is, however, absolutely no likeness between the two when it comes to getting things accomplished.

It would seem that right-wing Canadians believe they no longer have a voice, not on a great deal of fronts.

The current government seems hell bent on getting a majority government, and it would seem to me that they are compromising some of their principles to achieve that, although it is being done ever so cautiously. Take the environment for example. Before the election, the Conservatives were adamant that the Kyoto protocol was a useless document and the prevailing speech coming from the Conservatives was that the planet was in no danger. Instead of sticking to this correct assumption, they immediately threw in the towel and began on the road to reduce the effects of global warming. Even today there is new evidence that global warming is nothing serious. What the Conservatives are doing is catering to the polls. History would show that this is disingenuous and rarely convinces people to vote for the party that does so. On a positive front, the Conservatives have not abandoned a clean air policy. I feel that this is far more important than the global warming issue is.

When it comes to issues of morality and faith the current government, and indeed all four major parties, have no stand at all. While base Conservatives were promised to have the redefinition of marriage revisited, the efforts on that front were simply enough to allow them to say "See, we tried.". Try they did not. The rights of the unborn have been completely discarded as the current party is too afraid to even mention the issue. It will only remain a dead horse until somebody has the courage to start beating it again.

On party defections, this government has accepted many floor-crossers; something that has outraged their conservative base for a long time, well before Mr. Harper came to office. His acceptance of these betrayers of voters has done himself irreparable harm.

In the area of finance, I believe that there were too few tax cuts and too many new spending programs. Having said that, I realize that a minority government cannot always pursue its own agenda. The increase in military spending is welcomed and far overdue.

As for the flack with the media at the beginning of his first term, I believe that Mr. Harper did himself a great service by setting the tone. While some accused him of not being able to accept criticism, I believe that the prime minister has earned the respect of many in that circle. You will notice that the cries of hidden agenda have all but disappeared from our news headlines. The media seems more intent to now weigh in on policy as opposed to character attacks.

On other fronts, the Conservatives have been a breath of fresh air and there is no comparison whatsoever to their Liberal peers. On the scandal front, there has been absolutely nothing to write about. Not yet at any rate. Let us hope that continues, for the good of the country. (On a side note, today Liberal Sen. Raymond Lavigne was charged with fraud in connection to misused office funds.)

On military matters, Stephen Harper has been decisive and unwavering. He seems to have an understanding of international politics and cause and effect that his Liberal predecessor lacked, as does the newest leader of the Liberal Party. His stand against terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers reeks of a political courage this country hasn't seen in decades. Our military is finally receiving some respect in the areas of funding and in the attention given it. Our sovereignty is being protected with action and not rhetoric as the government has just announced two new Arctic bases for our military. NDP leader Jack Layton isn't even worth mentioning on this topic.

In crime and punishment, the Conservatives have done much, most notably to this writer the raising of the age of consent to protect our children from predators and to give our crime fighters the tools they need and have asked for for years to be able to stop them. On our borders, our border guards will no longer have to hide under their desks when the bad guys approach, as they will now be armed and no longer the laughing stock of their U.S. counterparts. As well, new laws toughening the sentences for crimes involving firearms will mean longer times off the street for those who would use our communities as shooting galleries. This is a stark comparison to years of Liberal promises that never happened or the $2 billion dollar absolutely useless long gun registry.

In the area of finance, all claims that the Conservatives are in bed with big business can safely be put to rest after the cessation of the income trust movement, thanks to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. While indeed going directly against campaign promises to leave these trusts untouched, I believe that Mr. Flaherty came to realize the dire consequences for the nation should our biggest corporations find a way to stop paying taxes on a large scale. Such an erosion would have placed a horrific taxation burden on the rest of us and would have created an untenable situation. The Conservatives have felt the wrath of many in the financial community, but I believe that anyone who places Canada ahead of their own greed would agree that this decision had to be made.

As for our future, Mr. Harper is the first leader in decades, perhaps in my lifetime, to lend support to those who wish to stay at home and raise their own children as my mother did, and as my own wife so selflessly chose to do. That is not to say that women who must work are any less of a mother, but it is high time that somebody stood up and said that women who choose to stay at home are no less women than their career oriented counterparts. The Harper child care subsidy is a world above any universal daycare scheme that would have mainly helped those in large urban centres and would have forsaken far too many other parents. While many mention the $100 stipend with disdain, for many others, it is the help that is needed to be able to remain at home.

Is the current government all that I would like it to be? Not on all fronts, but I will say this: Prime Minister Harper has earned my praise and is so far ahead of the ilk that resided at 22 Sussex Drive previously that it is like night and day.

Overall, this government gets a passing grade of A-.

Back to Top

GUEST COLUMNISTS

Nathan Tabor Takes A Second Look at the War on Terror

"The Mid East Crisis Is Rife With Anti-Semitism" by Terry Pearson

"Age Of Consent" by Bill Nevey

MySpace.com: The Latest Danger In Cyberworld by Nathan Tabor

MORE