Despite being demonized by the federal Liberals, Tory leader Stephen Harper didn't seem to have much trouble walking on hallowed ground earlier today. Speaking to reporters at Mount Saint Marie's hospital, a Victoria long-term care facility run by the Sisters of Saint Marie Madeleine Postel, Mr. Harper made a play for the over 55 vote by promising to throw the book at criminals who prey on senior citizens and fight against the New Democrat's inheritance tax proposal. The following are some of Public Eye's notes from that event.
- Mr. Harper delivered a couple good laugh-lines at the news conference. At one point, he said a Conservative government would be eliminating mandatory retirement because he would "never want to prevent Paul Martin from serving as the leader of the Opposition." But another quip seemed somewhat out of season: "It's been so cold everywhere I go that I've been seeing Liberals with their hands in their own pockets." According to an article by Times Colonist reporter Cindy Harnett, the Conservative leader said the same thing during a pre-election stop in Parksville on May 18. But the country has heated up quite a bit since then. The mercury hit 31 degrees in Toronto today, prompting the city to issue its first heat alert.
- Mr. Harper drank deeply from the bottomless well of media questions for 32 minutes, prompting a nearby wag to wonder "will this (news conference) never end?" By comparison, when Grit bubble boy Mr. Martin visited Victoria's Broadmead Lodge earlier this month he took just five questions from journalists with no follow-ups.
- Prompted by Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca candidate John Koury, Mr. Harper reiterated his promise to lower gas taxes - not surprising since many voters in Mr. Koury's riding drive sports utility vehicles and/or commute into Victoria.
- While responding to a question from Ms. Harnett about environment minister and Victoria Liberal incumbent David Anderson's opposition to offshore oil and gas development, the Conservative leader fired broadsides at both the provincial New Democrats and the federal Liberals. According to Mr. Harper, British Columbia "went through a decade of NDP government here that put this province on the edge of have-not status. And the federal Liberals now want to slow development left right and centre. I think we obviously always want to be sensitive to environmental concerns. But I think absolute bans on development in British Columbia's offshore is just a disadvantage imposed on this province by Ottawa and something the province does not want. So I think the federal Liberal government and Mr. Anderson and that government would be disastrous for the economic development of this province."
- A gaggle of eight 20-something protesters showed up to heckle Mr. Harper on abortion issues. When Public Eye asked them whether they were associated with the Liberals, the protesters didn't respond except to say they found out about the event via a University of Victoria listserv. But thanks to Young Conservative campus club president Erik Beker and his keen eyes, we know most of those pro-choice demonstrators were actually Young Liberals in disguise, including Mr. Beker's Grit counterpart Lorne Phipps.
Permanent link
Hmmm. If we drill and burn offshore BC oil and gas, it would result in 6 billion tonnes more CO2 into the atmosphere. Mr. Harper's home province of Alberta is literally drying out since glacier melt won't water the people and soil there for much longer due to climate change. Does that mean all those Albertan's will move out here? We need a firewall around BC right now!
Regarding the recent NP article, "The least we owe Canada's natives", readers should know that the argument that aboriginal lands should be
tradable - entirely transferable - property for the use of all Canadians is the same argument that led to the expropriation of aboriginal title over the past 500 years. And, the arguments used then, as now, are based on racist
assumptions.
Consider the foremost principle that defines us as Canadian. Canadian land is communally held in trust through the Crown for the use of Canadians. No patriotic Canadian would ever dream that our communal claim to Canada is
wrong or needs justifying. For example, if an American buys Canadian land, the land does not become American. The land remains communally Canadian - as it should - regardless of how the property is traded or used. Our communal
claim to Canada is what defines us as Canadian.
Likewise in fact, aboriginal land is held in trust for aboriginals via the Crown in exactly the same way Canada is held in trust for Canadians. And, regardless of how aboriginal land is used or traded, it remains communally
aboriginal.
Nevertheless, the NP article attacks aboriginal title because it is communally held property. The editorial argues that aboriginals should not
have a communal claim to their land - despite the very common knowledge that communal property is the very foundation for Canada being a nation and for Canadians being a people.
Subtly though the NP editorial, the underlying belief that Canadians are a people with a common land is being championed, and the claim that
aboriginals are a people with their own common land is being denied. That double standard is exactly what has been applied to aboriginals for
half a millennium. Double standards directed at one group of people is generally understood to be racism. I think centuries of racist based
arguments should end.
On a more mundane point, the NP article also claims that aboriginal land cannot be traded because it is communal land. In fact, aboriginal land is frequently traded. And just like land that is traded in the rest of Canada,
the property rightly remains communal land. Communal land, held in trust, can be traded, just not legally separated from communal claims. Accordingly, trading land is common in both Canada and on aboriginal land.
For some reason, the NP article assumes one standard for Canadians but applies a different standard to aboriginals and makes factually incorrect claims to support the double standard. Sadly, for the article's recommendation to be
implemented, one must deny the aboriginal right to be a people and communally own their land while at the same time claim that Canadians can
communally own Canada and be a people. On what foundation is such a double standard advocated?
Eugene Parks
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Allan Warnke
At the Rockpile
Bob Russell
Broken News
Creatures of Government
Fighting Words
From the Gallery
Letter from the Editor
Loose Lips
Off the Hill
Public Eye Radio
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
Copyright © 2004-2006 Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks. Public Eye is graciously hosted by TransitionalMedia. Content management services courtesy of Ian King. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design, Victoria, BC.
This site is powered by Movable Type.