The silliness of slagging Sorbara.

March 25th, 2017 by Peter Lowry

This could have run Wednesday but there is really no point in running more than one commentary per day. The problem here is that it does not matter if someone has managed war rooms or washrooms there is absolutely no point to slagging former Liberal MPP Greg Sorbara for telling the truth.

This writer has never been a fan of Greg Sorbara. To us, Greg always seemed autocratic, right-wing and elitist. That is a tough mix for a guy who calls himself a liberal.

But never knowing him that well, we have kept our feelings muted.

After listening very carefully to what Greg said on TVO’s The Agenda show last Tuesday, we could not understand the fuss. He lauded the Wynne government for the growing Ontario economy, its accomplishments in governing and what he saw as good government. Frankly, it came across as apple polishing. Yet what he is being criticized for is suggesting that there is some dissatisfaction with Kathleen Wynne. Her service does not seem to be overly appreciated.

Well, we are certainly pleased that some other scapegoat has noticed. This commentator has been calling for her resignation for quite a while now. It was bad enough that she won the Ontario leadership through deceit and duplicity but she is entirely the wrong kind of premier for this time in this province. Ontario does not need a grandmother. It needs a leader. It hardly needs to rejig failed Conservative plans like selling off Hydro One. It does not need the water torture method of bringing beer and wine to grocery stores.

The province definitely does not need a premier who governs by moving from one mea culpa to the next. She has apologized far more often than she has been pro-active.

A year ago, the Ontario Liberals needed to take stock. They needed to look at their position and what this province needed. They needed to realize that the inadequacies of their opponents are no justification. There is no excuse for providing bad government just because your opponents would give worse.

But if Greg Sorbara was as honest as he could be, he should have advised Kathleen Wynne a year ago to go. She needed to be told that when you are no longer doing anybody any good and your time as premier has expired.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

You want Trump to go? And then what?

March 24th, 2017 by Peter Lowry

There seems to be a growing consensus among mental health professionals that Donald Trump might be crazy. After all, he thinks he is President of the United States. How crazy can that be?

And the man does seem delusional. We all saw it early in his campaign. He would preen himself in front of his crowds of followers. He would rant outrageous lies about his opponents and the previous President. And he is still doing it. Even after being told he won, he wants to stay in the campaign mode. He keeps on having victory rallies just to hear the cheers of his fans.

So, what if the man really is paranoid? There are people who want to see him removed from office. They start with his Vice President and half the Trump staff. It must be a nightmare for the Secret Service protective staff.

But look at the nightmare he is putting the world leaders through. Angela Merkel must have gone home to Germany after meeting Trump and doubled her protective staff. Trump has Canada’s Justin Trudeau and his government so traumatized that they are afraid to do anything that Trump might dislike. They are acting like tensed up ball boys in the Trump one-man tennis match.

And then there is Kim Jong-un of North Korea—there is a match for Trump made in Hell. The world watches while these two crazies argue about who has the biggest missile. Even China is reluctant to get in between.

But if Congress impeaches Trump as a nut-case, what do you get? You get the Tea Party’s darling and Koch Brothers’ lap dog: Mike Pence. This guy was famous in Indiana when as governor he tried to restore 19th Century bigotry. He had to retract when industry leaders said the they would leave the state if he did not back off. Now he is busy running around assuring people that the situation in the White House is not as bad as it looks.

If Congress is able to impeach Trump, Congress would then own President Pence. It would be a situation where the President did everything Congress wanted. He would send them the bills they wanted and would sign them into law without question. The One Percent would be embarrassed by a plethora of tax cuts.  Congress would simply fire the remaining staff of the Environmental Protection Agency. The military would get anything they asked for. Nothing would be left of Obamacare or Obama’s legacy.

But the Trump followers, the losers and the malcontents, the generations technology has left behind, are going to miss him. He cared about them. When they realize he is gone, they are going to riot in the streets. They will be looking for another saviour. We will likely feel that we should have left that Mr. Trump alone.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Kenney is running on ‘Empty.’

March 23rd, 2017 by Peter Lowry

The new and unsurprising leader of the Alberta Conservatives is taking a trip to nowhere. He tells Albertans he is there to unite the right but there are two rights and those two rights do not necessarily make a new right or even a better right. And neither of the possible leaders, Jason Kenney or Brian Jean, are worthy of taking Alberta anywhere.

Nor does either have a slam dunk case to get chosen leader of a combined right. There was nothing new about Jason Kenney’s effort to win the Conservative Party leadership to enable him to dissolve the party. It was the same old Alberta-centric hokum that Alberta knows best—wrapping up carbon taxes and deficits and the new Democrats and disposing of them.

Frankly neither Jason Kenney nor Brian Jean bring anything to the table. Neither is a leader. They bring no new ideas, charisma or following to the job. Jason Kenney was nothing more than a ‘Yes-man’ for Stephen Harper. Brian Jean’s success is as a good constituency M.P. and M.L.A. They are henchman and ward healer.

The scary part is that they are both extremists. Jason Kenney is an anti-abortion ideologue on the extreme of the religious right. Brian Jean is on the far right as an economic extremist. Neither felt at home in Ottawa going along with Stephen Harper’s middle ground conservatism of the Conservative minority governments.

What Brian Jean knows and Jason Kenney does not seem to understand is that a race between the two of them for the leadership of the Wildrose and some party-to-be-named-later is going to be for a party dominated by Wildrose. It will be no centre-right party. It will be drained of many of the progressives who will be trucking over to the revived Liberals and the New Democrats. Jason Kenney has already demonstrated his suffrage of women in politics in the treatment of the two women in the Conservative leadership.

Two years ago, Alberta was bloody lucky that there was a viable party available to help save the province from itself. While the voters will deny it, Notley has taken herself and her party to the limits of catering to voters who seemed to have no understanding of the economic mess the province had created. Alberta has been in living high off the hog of resources for too long.

The truth is, Jason Kenney and Brian Jean are pitching a pipe dream.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Branding the PC’s Patrick Brown.

March 22nd, 2017 by Peter Lowry

The Ontario Progressive Conservatives are trying to sell Patrick Brown. Since few Ontario voters know the Conservative Leader, they think it is important to introduce him. They call a recent series of YouTube ads, ‘Brand Brown.’ Mind you they want to paint him as something other than we know him in Barrie.

Brown is a person who has devoted his life to politics. And we are sorry to note, his is not an altruistic quest. Brown is a user. He tells you what he thinks you want to hear to support him. He does not seem to like women. They certainly appear to be uninterested in him. During the time he represented Barrie in Ottawa, he kept his name in front of voters by using taxpayer paid mailings to promote different charities. The few speeches we heard him give over that time were obviously written for him by various writers in training.

But how does a political party introduce a leader who took over their party through deceit? Do they run ads saying: ‘This is our Leader Brown. Let him lie, cheat and steal for you too!’?

It seems they are trying to humanize him. It is sort of like saying: ‘Brown may look like a nerd. Just give him a chance. He will prove it.’

One thing you will find out about Brown: this boy is always campaigning. He is always running for something. You might wonder who is chasing him?

If you hear the news from Queen’s Park these days, you will know that Brown has the answers to everything. He will of course solve all the problems with Ontario Hydro and he will reveal his plans for cheaper electricity for the province after he becomes Premier. He will lower taxes and pay doctors much more. He will throw out the sex curriculum from schools so that teachers can concentrate on teaching the three R’s.

It is interesting to note that Brown started out in the Ontario Conservative race with the support of the extreme right-wing Ontario Landowners Association. These are rural voters who hate wind turbines, government and taxes. He was also the darling of Campaign Life. Since then, it seems the anti-abortionists have declared war on him. It is hard to say what the Ontario Landowners are thinking of him and his party after seeing pictures of Brown and some of the Conservative caucus in Toronto’s Pride Parade.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Kevin O’Leary meets a real reality.

March 21st, 2017 by Peter Lowry

Welcome to Canadian politics, Kevin O’Leary. You have brought a few laughs to an otherwise dismal contest for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. Though you would think someone from reality television would know what to expect? Did you really think leadership races are run within some foolish rules? And that anybody pays for someone’s membership in the party without knowing how they will vote.

Kevin, you have a lot to learn; besides French. Blowing the whistle on a fellow candidate is pretty amateur stuff. You cannot be that naïve. You have embarrassed the party by making the officials dump a bunch of memberships. (Did the people being dumped get their membership fee back?) Now all the memberships remaining are on the up and up. Sure?

Kevin, you should have run for the Ontario party leadership last year. Did you know that schmuck Patrick Brown swamped the provincial party membership with close to 40,000 new sign-ups? The provincial officials took the memberships and took the money and nobody ever heard a word of complaint. And did you really think all those recent immigrants from India and Pakistan who Brown had signed up in the provincial party paid their own membership fee?

But, Kevin, you would hardly expect a few thousand ‘instant’ members are going to make a big difference in the federal race? The way the voting is structured for the national leadership, it is virtually impossible to buy the leadership. You would need at least 60,000 instant members spread fairly evenly across 338 electoral districts. The problem is not the more than $225,000 for the memberships but the organization needed to collect your member’s ballots and mail them in for them. And then you would still need those second votes from all the other losing candidates to be sure.  The federal party did not want to make it too difficult but they certainly did not want a schlemiel like Brown walking away wearing the leader’s tiara.

Kevin, you might have done Maxime Bernier a favour. Even if you did not name names, he might have told his supporters it was his memberships that were tossed. If he can afford to lose that many first votes and laugh about it, this race might be more confused than we thought.

Kevin, this might seem odd to you but the decision in this race will be made by 13 losing candidates. Yes, you are one also. Every candidate wants those losers to tell their supporters who to support second. And that will decide the ultimate winner.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Shell bites the bitumen bullet.

March 20th, 2017 by Peter Lowry

This story takes us back to the 1970s and a lengthy discussion with a board member of Royal Dutch Shell. He was a “works committee” member of the board and our discussion was enlightening. He represented the employees of Shell on its board and was a highly-respected university professor. He was in Toronto visiting his son who was also a professor at York University.

At the time this writer was giving lectures at universities across Ontario on the social responsibility of business. We had been intrigued by the then current agreement with the union for Shell Canada’s workers at the Sarnia refinery. It was an intelligent document that recognized the responsibilities of both the workers and the employers. In effect, it seemed to say ‘we are all adults here and we need to carry out our responsibilities in a mutually respectful manner.’ That was not the usual preamble in other union agreements at the time.

To the European professor this did not seem unusual. He was more intrigued with the problems North Americans create with their more adversarial industrial relations. At the same time, he was interested in the concept of good citizenship for international companies in the countries where they operated. At the time, we recognized pollution from petroleum-based products as a mainly urban problem but was not yet being addressed as a world-wide problem. We were only starting to learn about recovering oil from tar sands.

But more recently the concern has been: What is a responsible company such as Royal Dutch Shell doing in the Alberta tar sands? Shell even had the Quest Carbon Capture project that was burying a million tons of carbon per year from upgrading tar sands bitumen to synthetic crude oil. Despite this and other efforts, Shell finally said “No” to the tar sands. It took a loss in the billions. It bought out minority investors such as Marathon Oil and sold out at billions less than cost to Calgary-based Canadian Natural Resources.

It cost the Canadian conglomerate close to $13 billion but at the bargain price from Shell, it can make money at prices for crude of less than $50 per barrel.

But to make back the billions it cost, Canadian Natural Resources needs those pipelines to tidewater promised by Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

What will an Ontario pilot prove?

March 19th, 2017 by Peter Lowry

The possible acceptance of a pilot project in Ontario of the idea of government providing a basic guaranteed income to its citizens is long overdue. There have been previous pilots—opened with great ballyhoo and then quietly dropped when the political will failed us.

But like all such pilots, they are dramatically over-managed, over-promoted and are virtually guaranteed to fail to meet over-inflated expectations. What is important to realize about these programs is that they replace a myriad of government band-aids for the unemployed, the unemployable, the handicapped, the marginalized and those families locked in a cycle of poverty because of mental or physical health.

One of the keys to simplifying the program is to have the individuals and families to be assisted make their own application. In some cases, this application might be made on their behalf by a government agency or a non-government charitable agency. Those not needing some or all of the support money will have it taxed back to the government. Ideally this type of program allows for graduated taxation on earnings to encourage self-help.

One of the more interesting results noted in the Manitoba “Minicom” guaranteed income test years ago was the reduction in hospital visits and stays. Keeping people from worrying about money seemed to help keep them out of hospital.

But, by any measure, a guaranteed income makes a dramatic change in attitudes for the entire population. It redirects a major part of the government social services agencies that interface with the public, enabling them to do their jobs more effectively and providing better service to the public. Over time, it could also reflect in a realignment of these agencies and cost savings.

There are the usual arguments going on across Ontario about this test. The main concern is that the guaranteed amount has to be high enough to sustain an individual or family in today’s society. Welfare rates in Ontario today are a disgrace and we have to get ahead of the poverty curve. You cannot expect an Ontario resident to have any quality of life today on an income of less than $1500 per month along with full medical and dental coverage. If the government thinks it can do the test for less than what people can live on, they are only doing the test to ensure failure.

We will be watching.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Could Chantal Hébert be so diabolical?

March 18th, 2017 by Peter Lowry

Is it whimsy or a diabolical intent? Is Toronto Star political guru Chantal Hébert really that devious? She recently proposed that Rona Ambrose, the federal interim leader for the Conservatives as the ideal person to step in and take over the reins of the combined provincial Conservatives in Alberta.

That is a wonderful proposal and we should all get behind it. Maybe we could excuse New Democrat Rachel Notley for not participating but Conservatives and Liberals can appreciate the irony. It would be justice writ big.

First of all, it would relegate that blow-hard Jason Kenney to the position of second fiddle. That is the most he deserves. And what would really feel good would be the fact that a woman put him in his place. After what happened to the women in the Alberta Conservative leadership race and the way they were treated by Kenney’s supporters, he deserves to be walked on by a lot of very sharp high heels.

And surely nobody is going to shed a tear for Wildrose Leader Brian Jean. Where the Hell is he taking that bunch of malingering malcontents? While we might have had a lot of sympathy for the Wildrose leader last year during the wildfire in his electoral district, it is time to face the facts. He would be taking on far more than he could chew to fight Kenney for the combined party leadership. He would need a lot of help to take on Stephen Harper’s go-to guy.

And we would strongly advise anybody to not take on Jason Kenney down some dark alley. He has probably never heard of the Marquis of Queensbury’s or any other rules of engagement.

But the suggestion of getting Rona Ambrose to challenge both Jean and Kenney for the combined conservative leadership is delicious. Rona is far tougher than either and she has proved it in her handling of the Conservative Party of Canada since the 2015 rout in parliament. She calls it as she sees it and she has kept the Liberals’ feet to the fire in an otherwise docile House of Commons.

And while we all know that polls taken today will be meaningless down the road, an Ambrose versus Notley battle for Alberta might just be a fair fight. What would make it even more interesting would be the resurrected Alberta Liberal Party with the fallout of progressive conservatives from a more right-wing Conservative Party.

We all need to face the facts that the days of narrow-minded Alberta-centric governments is coming to an end. All of us, as Canadians, have a responsibility to the entire country. We have to live together and build together. We have to care together. We have to share responsibility for our environment. It builds our future.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Is Trudeau fighting out of his weight class?

March 17th, 2017 by Peter Lowry

The reason why boxing promoters will not allow a lightweight boxer to take on a heavyweight is that the lightweight might not last two minutes. The lightweight might be fast on his feet but the heavyweight only needs to land one punch. That is why Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs all the help he can get to take on U.S. President Trump.

The most urgent problem today is the proposed cuts in the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trump hardly gives a damn about the environment. He has shown that with his decisions on pipelines and coal mines. Maybe he did not know that the EPA is responsible for U.S. federal support in keeping the Great Lakes clean and fit to provide water for millions of Americans. Those Americans include those in some states that were key in winning the presidency for Trump.

And it is not as though it is a matter of talking Trump out of some of his positions or getting him to like Justin Trudeau. He forgets. Even in his recent speech to Congress, he made several conflicting statements. He is erratic. He does not give a damn about Canadians. They are just like Americans to him. Only they seem to want to live where it can get cold.

One of the biggest mistakes Trudeau might have made is the Canadian ambassador in Washington. Of course, the choice of David MacNaughton as ambassador was made before the Trump disaster happened. No doubt with a Clinton presidency, MacNaughton would have been right at home. As it is now he is going to need constant hand-holding by the trained diplomats. He is no political problem solver. He proved that when he was Justin Trudeau’s point man for Ontario in the last election. The appointment was his reward for the Liberals winning, That was despite his being so obviously out of touch with what was really happening in Ontario.

To make matters worse Trump has Trudeau buffaloed as well. Trudeau thought he made the right impression when he and Trump met. Trump forgot the Canadian’s name as he went out the door. And how does he think he will handle Trump’s reopening of the mid-term emissions controls for new automobiles? It looks like an attempt to release all auto manufacturing controls in North America and is in direct conflict with Canada’s objectives.

Is Trump the Darth Vader who takes Trudeau over to the dark side.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Airing the rants of the Right.

March 16th, 2017 by Peter Lowry

Canadians are too politically correct to accept a politician such as right-wing Geert Wilders who has been running in the Netherlands for that country’s parliamentary elections yesterday. At one point the pollsters were suggesting that the right-wing anti-Islam, anti-EU politician’s Freedom Party could get as much as 20 per cent of the popular vote. And in Holland, with proportional representation, that means 20 per cent of the seats.

But the question needs to be raised in Canada as to whether it is better to air those opinions or suppress them?

First, we know that Wilders and his party will not be able to be part of the government. The Dutch Liberals under Mark Rutte with more than 25 seats will be putting together the coalition that will rule for the next four years. There is no way that they would invite Wilders to be part of that coalition.

From the sidelines, Wilder will be shrill in his ongoing message of hate.

But does that not give us more time to refute the garbage he spouts?

And you should bear in mind that, compared to Wilders, President Trump is a diplomat.

Our home-grown right, such as M.P. Kellie Leitch have to use code words for bigotry or they would face the wrath of their own party.

The problem in Canada is that with our first-past-the-post electoral system is that the major political parties have to take the “big tent” approach to gather the voting support for a majority. You get the Liberals running with a broad left-wing appeal and then ruling with right wing gusto. The Conservatives never seem to mention their denials of women’s and gay rights during an election but you know the pressure is always there. And the New Democrat’s attempts at right-wing promises create their own nemesis.

Our failure in North America to face these issues directly could be part of the reason that so many of us were wrong in calling last year’s American election. From Hillary Clinton on down the chain, we failed to see the real strength of Trump. He was feeding the chauvinism, he was building a wall of ignorance, he believed in the bigotry. And he told the biggest lies.

We have to accept the blame. We have to block bastards like Trump. Their lies must be exposed. Their causes challenged.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me