Babel-on-the-Bay

The energy and pipeline company Enbridge is nothing if not determined. It is going to get Alberta’s heavy tar-sands crude to markets that need oil of any type. The company’s latest ploy is to start asking permission to reverse eastern pipelines. The first of these is a line that runs down from Sarnia to near Hamilton. By reversing the flow of oil, it can link to other pipelines to the East coast. These are pipelines that previously carried foreign oil from the coast to refineries in Ontario.

What concerns environmentalists is the higher risk of serious pollution occurring from the tar-sands crude. It is shipped at a higher temperature and under greater pressure to improve the flow. These changes increase the chances of a break in the line and the damage can be disastrous to a fragile environmental area. The heavy bitumen from the tar sands is the thickest form of oil and once spilt in a liquid form, it is almost impossible to remove from the soil. It can also leach into underground water sources and pollute the water with sulphur and a brew of other deadly chemicals.

Chemical experts are questioning why this form of crude cannot be refined to a state more like gasoline or home heating oil wherein it can be more safely sent by pipeline without the high risk to the environment. If it was at a stage where it floats, there would be a much easier task to clean up a spill.

Enbridge is now fighting the pipeline wars on three fronts. Its Northern Gateway Pipeline over the Rockies to Kitimat in British Columbia is getting pushed by the Harper government but the provincial government is waiting to see how the environmental hearings play out. Even with a federal fast-tracking of the hearings, it will take at least two years to reach a conclusion. And nobody thinks it will be positive for Enbridge.

Trans-Canada’s struggle for approvals of the XL Pipeline south to the refineries in Texas has become a political football in the election-year climate in the U.S.  Enbridge is quiet about its plans to cut into its east-west pipelines further east in the U.S. and then backtrack toTexas but the company must be playing a role in those machinations. And now with the East Coast attempt, they have gone every direction but north to try to move the heavy tar-sands product.

The Enbridge executives must be learning that no matter how much Prime Minister Harper loves you, life can still be a bitch!

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

Where is a body to turn for decent news coverage? We used to get such excellent Canadian and world news from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but generations of parsimonious politicians have cut the Corp to the bone. And Mr. Harper hates it anyway. There is nothing much to report from CBC headquarters these days other than some dying gasps of quality programming, the last fitful hours of our heritage Hockey Night in Canada and news anchor Peter Mansbridge fading to black.

What struck us the other day was that the CBC was not the only news organization being reduced to poverty. CTV is owned by Bell Canada, one of the cheapest corporations since Adam Smith invented capitalism. The cheapness regime now at CTV was expected and a deteriorating news service is going downhill fast with Bell holding the purse strings. Judging by the Toronto area news, you have an over-aged gang of newscasters, giggling over their inside jokes and doing little but promoting CTV’s commercial programs.

Mind you, Global Television appears to be no better. Self promotion is just one problem. Global gives you an hour and a half of evening news in Southern Ontario that is not only loaded with self promotion but every major news item gets repeated up to four times. Being somewhat fresher on the scene in Southern Ontario, the Global personnel are younger, more attractively coiffed and do not seem to waste time liking each other.

Viewing in Toronto has a little scope. For example, city-centric CITY TV is an alternative, of sorts. Having ignored it for some years now, we have not heard of any change. The news style was always breezy but it seemed that the reporter/camera people were afraid they would fall off the earth if they went north of Eglinton Avenue.

There are rumours that CTV2 has a television station here in Babel. It is so pathetic that when Babelites think of local television, they think of Rogers Cable’s community channel.

There is also Mr. Harper’s favourite, Sun Television. Never wanting to and with no such intention, we do not think we have ever watched it. Sun Media publishes the local newspaper in Babel. That is enough bias to stomach.

But the point is that Mr. Harper is to blame. He let Shaw and Bell Canada end up owning the major commercial English-language radio and television networks in Canada. He finally got rid of the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission chair who tried to do his job properly. He failed because Mr. Harper wanted friendly broadcasters. He got them.

But there is a pathetic addition to this disgraceful story. Watching Global Television news the other evening, we were treated to a news clip about the dear old Queen of Canada. She is having another birthday or something and the Royals were out trooping the colors with the guys in red coats and tall fur hats. At the end of the news clip on Global, we saw that it was provided to Her Majesty’s loyal Canadian subjects by the London Bureau of CBS News of the United States of America.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

The Harper Conservative government more or less ignored the anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17. Individual rights are not of paramount concern with conservatives. Nor are they in the forefront with socialists. Individual rights are of the most concern in liberal societies. It is the strong support for individual rights in Canada that convinces us that the Liberal Party of Canada has to better define its role and direction. It has to be better at leading.

The negative opinion of conservatives is best explained by the attitude of Brit Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet at the time of the Charter. Our brand of Rights and Freedoms did not sit well with the rank and privilege of British society. The Thatcher government knew they could hardly refuse to approve it but cabinet archives of the period now show that they seriously considered it. What obviously stopped them was the prospect of offending Pierre Trudeau, his cabinet and millions of Canadians.

Conservatives like rank and privilege. They contribute a large amount of the support to keeping the fiction of Royalty in Canada. Heck, Conrad Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to become a British lord. While the Harper Conservatives will probably let him visit Canada after he gets out of the American slammer, he should not expect a warm welcome from most Canadians.

Canada’s right-wing politicians have constantly complained about the Supreme Court being able to override politicians. They want Parliament to have the final word. Even the Justices of the Supreme Court might not want the responsibility for our rights but it is a responsibility that they accept to preserve the freedoms of Canadians.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is careful not to condemn the Charter but he puts Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s 1960 Bill of Rights ahead of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter was adopted because the earlier Diefenbaker version did not have the same enforceability.

A surprising left-wing objection was voiced the other day. An NDP politician made the suggestion that the Charter conflicts with the common good. This politician felt that society should not look on individual rights as entitlement. He was worried that the Charter could harm social programs. The example used was if there was a long waiting list for hip surgery, people might sue under the Charter to get payment for treatment in another country that did not have as long a waiting list.

He is probably correct that under a socialist regime, individuals would not be entitled to sue. And that is what is wrong with socialism. A healthcare system that puts the individual first is the ideal. And if someone wants to sue, as in that example, the system needs to fix the problem.

Canada is a better place because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We should protect it.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

It was puzzling to see a defence of attack advertising in today’s Toronto Star. They must have been reaching for that one but we wondered where they found the person to write it. After reading what this person had to say, the next step was to check out his blog. That was not too interesting but what he wrote about himself was. The following is what he put there about himself:

“Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant and writer who has been called a “political warrior” a “brilliant strategist” and one of the “canniest political observers in Canada.” He has worked as a consultant in both the United States and Canada and was formerly a senior officer in the National Citizens Coalition. A regular columnist with the Ottawa Hill Times, his work has also appeared in the Globe and Mail, the National Post and in the Sun Media chain; and he has appeared on countless TV and radio public affairs programs. He is the author of the book, Loyal to the Core, Harper, Me and the NCC.”

Wow. This new breed of communications consultant seems to have little use for modesty.

His problem in his article “In praise of negative ads,” is that he thinks positive ads are typically “emotionally manipulative and intellectually vacuous.” He is probably right—about positive ads by the Conservative party.

On February 15, Babel-on-the-bay had this to say about political advertising:

“The truth is that attack ads are the easiest to write. That is why politicians like to use them. All you do is take a seed of what people think about someone and plant it in enough muck to grow something bigger. These ads are for the lazy.

“The tough ads are the honest ones. They are where you, metaphorically, look the viewer in the eye and tell the truth. It is the type of advertising that has to reach out to the viewer and share a depth of understanding and empathy. The good ads have to be credible, believable, endearing, honest and open. And they do all that in 20, 30 or 60 seconds.

“Americans like to use attack ads because they have a two party system. The times when they have a credible third party running, they do not know what to do. If you try to paint a negative image of an opponent in a multi-party campaign, you might have no idea which of the remaining parties will benefit.”

Mr. Nicholls tells us in his article that attack ads often raise issues that people really care about. That does not explain the current flight of Conservative party ads attacking Liberal Interim Leader Bob Rae. The ads are scurrilous, untrue, sleazy and seem to have no purpose other than to defame an opponent. It is quite a stretch to suggest that people in Canada really care about that.

He concludes by asking “isn’t informing voters what political ads should be all about?” That would be a novelty from his political party!

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

It is likely that over the years we have disagreed with Jean Chrétien more often than agreeing with him. His support for the Charlottetown Accord in1992 was probably the most serious disagreement. Then he broke his word about getting rid of the Goods and Services tax when he was elected Prime Minister in 1993. (And he gave Paul Martin Junior the Finance portfolio where he could screw up a lot of Liberal programs.)

But all is now forgiven. Jean welcome home.

Tom Clark’s The West Block on Global Television ran an interview today with Chrétien in which the former Prime Minister endorsed the merger of the Liberal and New Democratic parties. The idea needed that level of support. Some people can laugh at this blog and say ‘that guy is just a socialist in liberal clothing.’ You can hardly say that about Jean Chrétien. He is at worst a populist. He never wandered far from the demands of his late mentor Mitchell Sharp and from successor Paul Martin. While he made it clear that he never really liked Paul Martin, he let him do his right wing thing to the point that the Liberal Party is now at its lowest ebb.

But it can recover. The road to recovery is down a long and difficult courtship with the NDP. The hidebound socialists such as Ed Broadbent will scream betrayal but it looks like Thomas Mulcair will understand. He might not be eager but he is unlikely to slam the door conclusively. He knows he would be foolish to do that. In the short term, it will cost the NDP some of their unionists and out-of-date socialists but that will not be too high a price.

What he can gain is greater. The NDP can hold the Liberal Party to a left of centre mode. It is where both parties belong. Call it social democrat if you wish but it is that broad spectrum of political thinking that serves people first. It is anathema to the Conservatives and completely foreign to the extreme right-wing Libertarians who put land and possessions ahead of people.

There will be some Liberal Party members who will also be more comfortable with the Conservatives than with a social democratic Liberal Party. It is a realignment that has been necessary for many years.

Listen to Jean Chrétien. He knew when he worked with Pierre Trudeau that a merger was the long-term direction for the party. He was just too damn comfortable with the majority Brian Mulroney handed him in 1993 to rock the boat. He went along with things and, in the long term, Canada suffered.

There is still a serious agenda ahead for Harper’s Conservatives and there will have to be a united front to remove the Conservatives and repair the damage after the next election. If we do not have that united front, our country will suffer. Our pride in Canada will suffer. Our people will suffer.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

An hypothesis is simply the suspected reason for something. It is not based on the truth because you have no proof. It is on this reasoning that scientific minds supposedly go out to seek the truth. It also seems to be the basis used for finding what you want to find. This is the approach appears to be used by organizations with somewhat fixed ideas of what they want to prove. Two Canadian organizations that might have fixed ideas to prove are the Broadbent Institute and the Fraser Institute. Neither of these institutions appears interested in proving the other’s hypotheses.

Named for former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent, the Broadbent Institute seems rather fixed on proving left of centre political hypotheses. Conversely, the Western-based Fraser Institute offers a more right of centre bent. You know where these organizations are going before you read what they are currently saying.

Take the news release from the Broadbent Institute this week. It says that Canadians are concerned about income inequality in Canada. A telephone survey by Environics Research for the institute determined that Canadians would be willing to pay more taxes to protect our major social programs. That is not something that the Fraser Institute would wish to report. Paying taxes is anathema to the Fraser Institute. It seems to constantly pay academics to prove that Canadians pay too much tax on everything.

Anyone involved over the years in opinion research can tell you that how you ask a question is often the key to the answers you will get. That is why a survey by any particular political party showing that more voters intend to vote for them will be met by scepticism. It should be. That is also why the reputable research firms try to keep their distance from any appearance of bias.

At the same time, a blog such as this one makes no attempt at appearing neutral about anything. The objective here is to provide an opinion. Hopefully the opinion is a reasoned enough one that you can assess and take what you want from it. The material is based on years of experience in business, politics and the news media. The required reading has covered the political spectrum, a wide range of philosophies, business strategies and all the way to a daily dose of Dilbert and Doonesbury. Keep it readable, keep it light and have fun doing it. Writing a blog can be just like life!

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

Everything we ever needed to know about government lobbying, we learned from the 1950’s Broadway musical L’il Abner. When driving around Ottawa on business over the years, we would often sing to passing motorists: What’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the U.S.A.

The intense lobbying effort today to ensure that Canada stays on track with the American F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is just part of the continuing effort to be sure Canada maintains its position in the procurement. Call it the trickle down effect or ‘crumbs from the table,’ Canada’s aerospace industry only gets work if Canada pays more. Out of a $29 billion cost of owning 65 F-35 fighters, Canadian industry can garner a maximum of maybe $12 billion worth of orders  It is not exactly quid pro quo.

And every one of those orders can only be won in direct competition with American sources for the same products. And some of those sources are the American head offices of the Canadian subsidiary. The Canadian operation only gets the business if the American source does not find it convenient to fill the order. Even those who get the design jobs have to submit competitive production bids once their design has been given to competitive bidders.

What some Canadians seem to find convenient to forget is that this procurement has been going on since the mid 1990s. It started when Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister. The design initiative (with around $300 million of Canadian money included) was undertaken for the consortium of countries (that is why it is called the ‘Joint’ Strike Fighter). The objective was to have a versatile fighter aircraft to meet everybody’s need. That way, when they went to war together the logistics for their fighter aircraft needs were so much simpler.

Mind you, they have been very quiet lately about one of the objectives. It was to save money because we would have the advantage of volume production. That part of the plan does not seem to be working.

The Joint Strike Fighter was probably doomed from the beginning because there were far too many conflicts in design needs between the different countries involved. There is absolutely no way, for example that a long-range reconnaissance aircraft suitable to Canadian needs would be the same as the British need for quick turn-around defensive aircraft. And to have both a vertical take-off and landing and an aircraft carrier version makes no sense at all.

And the Americans must have been smoking some illegal substance to think that all eight of the other countries would always want to go to war with them. We like Americans but they do get into some really stupid wars.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

It seems likely that any good poker player could clean Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a poker game. The man appears to have what poker players call a ‘tell.’ It is that little thing you do when you are bluffing the other players. It is why many of the poorer players have to wear a large brimmed hat or sunglasses when they are playing cards.

We have been watching Stephen Harper long enough now that some of us might just be able to know when he is evading the truth. He has been doing it for too long and too often. The best examples of his tell appear to be in the leaders’ debates in the 2008 and 2011 elections. We watched him do it in the House of Commons the other day.

Maybe Canadians are lucky as this indicates he is not likely to be a sociopath. A sociopath lies out of habit and since this type of person believes they are always right, it is almost impossible to find a tell. It still is not good news though to find that Mr. Harper just might be a compulsive liar. Sometimes thought of as pathological liar, a compulsive liar is someone who does not see the need to tell the truth but knows the difference. This person can develop a tell. They do it gradually and most people see it as just part of their persona.

While the objective here is not to start a debate on whether Stephen Harper is a sociopath, a compulsive liar or just a plain garden variety political prevaricator, the point is that he seems to wander far from the truth sometimes and Canadians should be aware of when he is doing it. Auditor General Michael Ferguson made it very clear the other day that the Prime Minister has been less than truthful to Canadians about the cost of the F-35 fighter aircraft for at least the past year. Throughout the 2011 election campaign and since then, he has repeatedly told audiences that the F-35 program will only cost Canadians about $15 billion. The auditor general says Mr. Harper’s government knew that the costs were close to double that figure. To lie about more than $10 billion might be about an incomprehensible amount of money, it is also one hell of a big lie!

Why do we believe Mr. Harper was not telling the truth? The answer to that is easy. He micro-manages parliament. He knows what is going on. When he is not jetting around the world at taxpayers’ expense, he is in constantly managing the minutiae of his government. He understands billions of dollars better than almost anyone else in his cabinet. Even Finance Minister Jim Flaherty must have to start counting on his fingers when he gets into that kind of money.

And what do we think is Mr. Harper’s tell? Canadians should share this information. If we are misunderstanding the signs, please tell us.  It seems to us that when Mr. Harper is lying, he does not look at the people he is talking to. His visage appears stony and his eyes appear unfocused. It has become more and more pronounced over the years. It is quite possible that he lies too much!

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

Auditor General Michael Ferguson has told parliament that the F-35 program promoted by the Harper Conservatives will cost $10 billion more than the amount claimed by Harper and his ministers. As usual, the auditor is the last to learn the truth. The only problem is that the auditor general has no way of knowing that the F-35 is the wrong type of aircraft for Canada’s armed forces.

Mr. Ferguson was well aware of the fact that the government was lying about the F-35 costs and questionable delivery dates. He was quite scathing of the unnamed officials of the Department of National Defence who supposedly provided the miss-information that the government used to defend the program. The auditor also said that Harper and some of his cabinet had to know about the real costs before the 2011 election.

For the opposition in parliament, this is one of those opportunities to demand—and get—the resignation of the cabinet minister involved. This could even be a “Twofer,” an opportunity to get two ministers at once. Peter MacKay and Julian Fantino shared the glory of the program. They can share the blame.

But we are being had in the process. We should realize that Mr. Harper has had an advance copy of the auditor general’s report. The Prime Minister and his minions have had plenty of time to devise a strategy to sweep everything under the rug. He was almost smirking when he rose in the House of Commons to tell us that he takes the report very seriously and he is taking the acquisition of the F-35s out of the hands of the national defence people, freezing the budget (we wonder which one?) and handing the procurement over to a new secretariat from Public Works and Government Services.

If you thought the defence people were screwed up, wait until this new secretariat gets going! How the hell would a secretariat from those departments of the federal government—the people being fired because there are too many—know a damn thing about fighter aircraft worth more than $100 million each. This is not only sad but a travesty. What are they going to do to fix things? The problems are between the American Pentagon and American manufacturer Lockheed Martin. No Canadian is going to get a look-see at what the design faults are in that aircraft. And what Public Works or Government Services know about aircraft is not worth discussing anyway.

Mr. Harper is having us on! And he is making Thomas Mulcair and Bob Rae look like idiots. They are screaming for the head of Peter MacKay. What are they going to do with it? Are they going to hang it over a mantel somewhere?

The key words were in the Auditor General’s report. The auditor said the entire process was flawed. He said there was no consideration given to alternative aircraft. That means we have to start over!

The Tories were buying the Joint Strike F-35 to fly with the Americans in their wars. The aircraft is useless for Canada’s defence and patrol needs. Mr. Harper and his friends do not care about Canadian needs!

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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