McGuinty recently told an Ottawa audience that his “government will negotiate firmly to a result that keeps us on a sure and steady path to eliminate the deficit.” And, with that attitude, it will also be a sure and steady path to eliminate the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Yes, we joke about McGuinty and his pack as being Whigs—Liberals from 200 years ago. At the same time, we have to agree with many liberals who want to rebuild the provincial party. The difference is that we desperately need a liberal government in Ontario. We need a liberal party that will work for the rights of the individual in our society. That seems to be something that Whigs do not do.

We have no party working for us. This is serious. Hudak’s hooligans are not even conservatives. Their backbone is made up of mainly extremist Libertarians. Former Premier Bill Davis must wonder what happened to that civilized party he once represented. The New Democrats have some decent people involved but nobody wants a party that is under the thumb of the toughest of the labour unions.

There is wide-open space for a left-of-centre party in Ontario that could be liberal and here is McGuinty over in right-of-centre. His Whigs hardly fit the bill. Real liberals care about individual rights. Real liberals would do something about a Medicare that denies people the services of a family doctor.

Real liberals are not in Premier McGuinty’s wheelhouse. He thinks he has some God ordained role in paying off Ontario’s debt. Why is not clear. The people who voted for him last year had no such intention. They just wanted some decent, caring government instead of the Harris/Hudak rape and pillage style of government or a repeat of the fiasco of the Bob Rae NDP government of the 1990s.

It was not as though Ontario voters showed all that much confidence in Mr. McGuinty. Despite the loss of his majority, he is not in a bad situation. No party wants to rush back to the polls. Everyone would understand it if he just settled back and governed well for a few years. He could concentrate on fighting with Ottawa, not organized labour. He does not really have to impress us too much. If he could just stay out of trouble, keep his cabinet out of trouble and restore some confidence in his party, all could be forgiven. He could do it if he burns the Drummond Report and gets Treasurer Dwight Duncan a kindly, cherubic personality transplant.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

At the same time, the Pentagon sources tell us that the only thing that is on track in this program is that costs estimates look like they will probably double. That does not seem to worry our laconic Defence Minister. And it appears to be no surprise for the fat cop that Mr. Harper has fronting for the F-35 program. Mind you, just how credible Julian Fantino is when it comes to fighter aircraft, remains to be seen.

And who should know more? The Americans want up to 3000 of these aircraft in different configurations. The Harper government has ordered 65 in the stealth attack model. You would expect that the people who have ordered so many billions more of the aircraft would keep the closest eye on how things are going.

And just who the Conservatives want to attack with these aircraft remains a deeply clouded mystery. With 3000 or so of these aircraft in the United States compared to our 65, we would be damn silly to attack the Americans. There are very few countries in the world that would welcome us to bomb and strafe their military as did Libya.

It just shows you how little we know about military aircraft. Back in the days of the CF-100 and the AVRO Arrow, we understood that Canada needed long-range patrol aircraft to maintain the integrity of our Arctic and our coasts. What has changed? The Conservatives have ordered very short range aircraft that use stealth technology to sneak up on the enemy. What enemy?

If we sent one of these F-35s out to patrol the Arctic, it would have to take a refuelling aircraft with it. Refuelling aircraft are not very stealthy. For some reason, that does not make sense. And why would you want to be stealthy about patrolling. The very fact of patrolling is supposed to keep out the bad guys—whomever they might be.

But is it supposed to make sense? Maybe the Conservatives think they have to support whatever aircraft program the Americans develop. Mr. Harper thinks that will endear us to the Americans. Surely, Mr. Harper can find a cheaper way to do that.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

It seems that the dour, aging lawyer from Manitoba has ventured into the realm of the Internet on behalf of Canada’s ubiquitous Public Safety Department. The Internet is dangerous ground for ideologues. All he was trying to do was ram another law and order act through parliament to give police easy access, without a warrant, to the Internet activities of people of interest who might be using the Internet for illicit purposes.

It is not that the act is all that draconian. It demands more from the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) than they should really be expected to provide. Yet that is not what caused the ruckus. It was the mistake Toews made in the House of Commons when becoming frustrated with opposition demands, he said, people “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” That was a silly thing to say. It was the remark that launched a million twits.

What Toews should have done was equate the situation to that of ‘hot pursuit.’ If the police are trying to apprehend a person distributing child pornography on the fly, so to speak, they might be allowed to seek their warrant after the fact.

But, in a civil society, that respects the rights of individuals, a judge’s warrant for such intrusion should be a basic requirement. And people have a right to know if the police are snooping on their e-mails and Internet downloads.

In our system of justice, it is important to have the judiciary keep a rein on the police. Most judges would be loath to allow the police to have such broad fishing rights to demand information from Internet providers. And it would not work that well anyway.

Our ISP, for example, might be able to tell what addresses we seek out on the web but since the server for this blog is in New Jersey and all our e-mails are based in California, there would be serious gaps in the surveillance.

We carry no brief for those who choose to be anonymous on the Internet. By closing comments on this blog, we ask that comments come by e-mail and e-mails from people who choose not to tell us their name are automatically deleted.  Nor would we ever support a protestor who hides their face. Our freedom allows you to show your face without threat of reprisal.

Vic Toews is trying to defend a flawed law. It is not defensible. It has to be fixed.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

But it is a warming thought. It would be the best use for the drivel that Drummond tried to foist on us. If Premier Dalton McGuinty was trying to set up a bogeyman to take the blame for some austerity measures, he found the perfect scapegoat. All we need now is to hear from opposition leader ‘Tiny Tim’ Hudak that he agrees wholeheartedly with everything Drummond says. That would put the cap on a totally ridiculous exercise. You keep expecting the Premier to announce this report is to show people what Ontario would be like if the Conservatives win the next provincial election.

The worst part of the entire fiasco was when Drummond brought up the tragedy of the Greek financial crisis. To mention Greece in the same breath as Ontario is a travesty.Ontario does not have a financial problem. Ontario has a total debt of about $240 billion and a gross domestic product of more than $500 billion. That is not much for 12 million people to handle. It is the equivalent of a family earning $50,000 per year and owing $24,000 for house, car, cottage and other long-term debt. Drummond’s TD Bank will let you borrow a lot more than that.

But suppose you want to pay down some of that debt? Would you fire the gardener and the garbage man and cancel the Globe and Mail so that you could reduce the debt? Or would you forego the family visit to Disney World this year?

And that is what Don Drummond and his friend Dalton McGuinty do not seem to understand. If you want to save money, if you want to pay down debt, you cancel the foolish and frivolous—you do not throw people on the streets and pay increased welfare.

And while we hesitate to suggest this, the province has an ace-in-the-hole that a family does not always have. A government can raise its own pay. It can go to its taxpayers and say: sorry folks but we need a bit more money. And very few would be mad about it if the government just put a surtax on the rich. It would be great if they paid their fair share for a change.

And while the government is at it, it could reverse the trend in corporate taxes. Over the years, Ontario governments have reduced corporate income tax by more than 80 per cent. It makes you wonder why they even bother collecting it. If a business needs its profits to expand its business or to do research or hire more people, that is okay. The company that wants to send its profits off-shore or to buy its competition should be taxed to the hilt.

As you can see, there are options.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

In fact, at the end of his presentation, you were not sure if he was trying to discuss things sensibly or simply dissing Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Ontario.

Start at the beginning with the LCBO proposal. He told his audience he wants to sell that prime piece of real estate down by the Toronto Harbour that holds a wonderful liquor store where you can buy products from all over the world. And incidentally, the head office of LCBO is there. We always thought that store seemed to be a perk of working down there on Toronto’s waterfront.

But why just sell the land? Why not sell the LCBO?

Drummond has no concept of this aspect of government. He should stick to banking. The facts are that sooner or later, the Ontario government has to get out of the liquor business. The government is in it for the wrong reasons.  It milks the LCBO as a cash cow. The government restricts the business opportunity to appease long-dead temperance fanatics. It is not getting the money out of the business that it can and it is interfering with good marketing practices. How stupid can the government be? The truth is that private sector bidding for the store franchises would produce huge one-time amounts to pay down the deficit. And the ongoing tax revenue from those stores would easily replace current revenues. Dwight Duncan thinks he might get a couple hundred million for the headquarters.  He has no idea what the entire lash-up is worth. What a piker!

And while he is at it, Duncan can get rid of Brewers Warehousing. In any other jurisdiction a monopoly like that would be illegal.

And yet he wants to privatize Service Ontario! Maybe, he says. He does not seem too sure. By the wayDuncan, the operative word is “Service.” Sure, privatize it. Just make sure private operators also provide service to Ontario before you save too much.

Dwight’s third idea is the most hair-brained of all! He wants to cut off the subsidies for horse racing in Ontario? That might be alright but does that mean he is giving up the provincial share of the racing handle at the tracks? Is he giving the tracks more of the money they are making on slots? Is he going to let all those slot joints play with the big kids and become full-blown casinos?

Wow,Duncan forgot to mention privatizing them. We want to buy one!

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

Real reporters would keep digging. Real reporters would wonder what rules allow the Police Board chair to take a financial action that is not backed up by the board minutes. If the chair is allowed to pay over $7000 without any record, what is to stop him from paying us some of that free stuff? Is city council that trusting? The Police Board is there to represent the citizens and to manage the affairs of the local police. Should the board not manage them in a responsible manner?

This is not to suggest that the payment in question was wrong. It is perfectly acceptable for the board to decide not to embarrass the former mayor any further. He has been made to look silly for his poor grammar and other errors in the Globe and Mail advertisement that he ran on his own authority. It is appropriate for the board to end the matter.

The voters of Babel made it very clear what they thought of the former mayor’s actions. He is no longer mayor. The matter is settled.

But contrary to the opinion of the chair of the board—as reported in the Babel Backward–motions or directions of the board have to be recorded. Motions or directions that are not recorded are worth the paper they are written on. And the chair is usually responsible for the minutes of meetings that he chairs. To take a financial action that is not supported by the board minutes could be considered a breach of trust.

And that is where this whole silly business started.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

The Premier has asked me to thank you for your services to the Province of Ontario. He thought you might have some creative ideas to help him balance the provincial budget. Obviously you do not.

Your suggestions will be filed in the same place as Mike Harris’ schemes from the 1990s. They did not work then. They will not work now.

But that is not your fault.

Please submit your bill. We are currently figuring out how to tax all the money back from you.

But again, thanks. Try not to let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out.

A Secretary to Mr. Mcguinty.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

Unlike that really strange television campaign about kids that had Ontario voters very confused last year, the ‘Working Families’ ads were smart and mean and clearly aimed at defaming the leader of the Ontario Conservatives. The only thing that was wrong with the ads was that they failed to say ‘Vote Liberal’ at the conclusion. They also needed to say, ‘sponsored by the Ontario Liberal Party.’

And if those ads were not for any political party, they should be banned. If the ads are not by a party or candidate, they are then an attempt to interfere with the fairness of the election process.

The television broadcasters should also take some responsibility in this. By no measure does this type of advertising meet any standards of fairness, honesty or truth in advertising. Labor unions cannot hide behind a false name such as ‘Working Families.’ Using a false name is deception. It seeks to deceive the viewer. It is the same as the thief who wears a mask. They are hiding from you. They are hiding from the truth.

The guy who runs the advertising agency that wrote and produced those attack ads was very proud of his work and that award. He should not be. 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.

If people think the ‘Working Families’ campaign won for Premier McGuinty, they need to give that campaign some further analysis. Tiny Tim went into the October election the easy winner. The polls gave him the election. If he had never opened his mouth during the campaign, he might have won easily.

But he did open his mouth. He was erratic, unreliable, confused and left an inconsistent message. He alienated urban voters and turned new Canadians against him and his party. The only part of the province he won easily was the WASP band across the province that runs from Ottawa to Sarnia. It was the Ontario version of the American Tea Party, the Ontario Landowners’ Association, who won that for him.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

He has been resting up from his and Laureen’s long flight. (Not that they were flying steerage in that VIP personal A310, he buzzes around in.) He can now go read the riot act to the kids in the cabinet. After all, he goes out to eat a little Chinese and there is mayhem in the House of Commons.

We will not get into names here. They are not important and neither are the people involved. The thing is, you can hardly have a cabinet minister thumbing his nose at the Opposition in the House over torturing people. This is definitely not very classy. If the guy cannot keep a state secret, Harper will have to give him the old heave ho. There are lots more cannon fodder on the back benches just begging for a chance at getting the perks of a cabinet minister.

And there is the sad-sack back-bencher from Kitchener, Ontario who brings up the whole abortion thing as soon as Stephen leaves town. Where does he get off? He thinks that there should be a House committee to determine when life begins. All he is doing is trying a back door approach to a debate on abortion. This guy must have some cabinet support to try to pull a stunt like that. And why would they choose a man to bring this up? This guy looks like he posed for American Gothic. Stephen should stomp on him, quick.

And then there is that fat ex-cop Stephen put in charge of the F-35 fighter plane purchase. (Maybe that defence guy, Peter what’s his name, found that file was interfering with his honeymoon.) The ex-cop gets an easy lob type question in the House about delays in the U.S. F-35 development program. The ex-cop was obviously not paying attention. He stands up in the House and said everything is going along swimmingly. Obviously nobody had told him that the Americans had already announced that the program is being delayed because the new planes cannot survive endurance testing. The Pentagon is delaying the program and nobody tells the Canadians?

But Stephen is back. The visit to China obviously went swimmingly. Harper solved a a major problem in diplomacy—all you need to do is discuss human rights with the business people and business with the politicians and everyone is happy. Stephen’s advance people did a wonderful job whipping up enthusiasm and the Chinese looked very puzzled about that.

But we bet it was the Chinese who thought to dress Laureen in the plastic dress so she could hold the panda cub. They would lose face if that bear peed on her. Just think, for a million bucks a year plus special food, your zoo too can have a couple pandas on loan.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

You have got it wrong again Dalton. Take your time. Sure, former civil servant and bank economist Don Drummond might have some interesting ideas. They certainly should be considered. Our barber also has some interesting ideas. You should talk to him too.

Just who is telling you that you have a problem? Is it that young Mr. Hudak? We sometimes tend to forget that he took courses in economics. He is also a protégé of Mike Harris, one of the worst premiers in Ontario history. The two H’s, Harris and Hudak, are ideologues. That means that they put their theories ahead of people.  It means they put business wants ahead of what people might want. Hell, they might even put their right-wing creed ahead of people’s lives. These are not nice people. Why should you worry about what they want?

It seems you told that audience in Ottawa the other day that you are going to cut the wages of civil servants in Ontario. That does not sound very smart. If you are paying them too much, who is at fault? What has changed? Has the cost of living in Ontario gone down and we failed to notice? Is it their fault that Ontario has a deficit?

You really need to rethink this Dalton. That is kind of Harris-Hudak thinking to blame the civil servants for something they did not do. Ask interim federal Liberal Leader Bob Rae what happened to him as Premier when he blamed the civil servants in the 1990s.

You should really think about what caused the recent economic problems for Ontario. Obviously there is not much you can do about the American banks who screwed up the mortgage business in the U.S. You have to deal with things you can correct.

For example, we have lost a lot of jobs in Ontario to low-wage areas in the United States. Have you thought of ways we could penalize those companies who send jobs out of the country? Should you ever buy anything from such companies? Sure, we have to respect trading agreements but American states seem to have no problem finding ways to protect their jobs. What are you, a boy scout?

Dalton, you really need to rethink your basic strategy. Liberals are supposed to respect the rights of the individual in our society. If we have hurt your feelings calling you and your caucus Whigs, we apologize. After all, Whigs are just Liberals who are two hundred years behind the times.

If you want to move into the 21^st Century, we will be happy to analyze this Drummond report for you and show you how a modern Liberal would make sure that the proposals helped the people of Ontario—not penalized them for your government’s mistakes. And we will only charge a fraction of Don’s bill. Your new pal, Peter.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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