Category: Federal Politics

Taking back our civil rights.

by Peter Lowry

You hate to have to remind our Liberal government in Ottawa that one of the basic tenets of liberalism is human rights. It is as though the cabinet members get elected and then forget what party supported their election. It is even worse when the Liberals on the parliamentary committee on public safety have to remind the minister to do his job.

And if we have to trample over conservative Ralph Goodale, minister of public safety, so be it. The Saskatchewan Liberal(?) is noted for his ability to obfuscate on any topic but this is a topic in need of real action.

The Conservative government of Stephen Harper challenged our civil rights when it passed what is known as Bill C-51—the purported anti-terror law. Under the guise of protecting our citizens, the Conservatives trampled on numerous rights of individuals in our society.

It has long been the fashion of fascists to say they are taking away your freedoms to protect your freedoms. That seems like a good way to end up with no freedoms at all.

The smart way to go would be to refute everything in Harper’s Bill C-51 and start over. Mind you, one cannot disagree with the parliamentary committee’s request for drastic changes to the act. And they had a long list of them.

The recommendations ranged from a specific agency to oversee the Canada Border Agency to a combination of groups overseeing our security agencies.

But rather than discuss the specifics of the committee’s report, we need to look at the principles involved. The committee’s tendency was to refer individual rights to the courts to decide between infringement of rights and the protection of society. This is not in line with liberal principles.

Frankly, it makes no sense to put up barriers to the freedoms of our society because an occasional crazed individual runs amok and hurts someone. You are in more danger of being run over trying to cross the road ahead of an inattentive driver. And when you see people lined up with their shoes in hand to be searched before boarding an airplane we seem to have reached the zenith of our own stupidity.

The objective of terrorists is to spread fear. Why should we want to cooperate with them?

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Conrad Black on Donald Trump.

by Peter Lowry

“He knows what he wants,” was the message by Conrad Black to a parliamentary committee examining the current situation on trade relations with the United States. The former Canadian and now an ex-convict and Lord Cross-the-Pond or some such title, was telling the committee about his friend Donald Trump who is currently President of the United States. He said “We are not dealing with a monster here. We are dealing with a reasonable person.”

In thinking about that claim of reasonableness, we need to consider who is making the claim. Since his childhood in Toronto, Conrad Black has been swathed in a context of entitlement. It was the same for a young Donald Trump growing up in New York City. Donald Trump devoted his learning to the horse-trading skills of the confidence man in the development business. Along the way, he tried various routes to gaining excessive wealth. He won some gambles and he lost others. He also pulled off some elaborate development schemes and made money.

In some ways, it was the same for Conrad Black. From the foot-hold he gained in Argus Corporation and its anchor Massey Ferguson, he fashioned a business empire that he then converted to a publishing empire. He raced against the clock building his media empire as the news business fell away behind him.

But for the vagaries of American justice and the time he spent in incarceration for fraud and obstruction of justice, Black would today be enjoying the perks of the British House of Lords. Instead, a non-citizen, he is sequestered in his ‘modest’ retirement home among the multi-millionaires’ mansions on Toronto’s Bridal Path.

But one must still put on the right attitude and do one’s bit for Queen and non-country. Conrad was pleased to share his knowledge of his friend Donald Trump with the Canadian parliamentarians.

He explained that in his business dealings with Trump, the man proved quite consistent in the positions he “ultimately takes.” One gets the impression from Black that Trump can take you on a rather violent roller coaster ride before you find out what he really wants.

Black assured the politicians that any suggestion of Trump being angry with Canada were overblown. He suggested that the current slamming of Canada’s supply management and the tariffs on soft-wood lumber were just Trump’s way of getting our attention.

It seems to work.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

In the Senate: “Some are more equal.”

by Peter Lowry

In George Orwell’s Animal Farm we were told that some animals are more equal than others. This makes it an appropriate analogy for the institution in Canada known as the senate. The senate was created 150 years ago as a chamber of sober second thought to rein in any excesses of the citizens elected to the house of commons.

But nobody ever thought about the possible excesses of the citizens selected to serve in the senate. Can the senate write its own rules as to who is fit to serve in the institution? Are some animals more equal than others?

And it is not just today’s controversial senator. The senate has had its rogues going back more than 100 years. When you give people carte blanche, you often get individuals who want to steal the carte! Greed and avarice are not just conditions of those deprived in life.

Are all senators pure of heart? What is the point of being a senator if what the senate really represents is entitlement? Whether it is creature comforts in the perks or sexual gratification, some will always go further than others in fulfilling needs.

And are we going to allow the senators to police themselves? When the power of appointment rests solely with the prime minister, how can the senate bar a member? The senator serves to age 75. There is no mechanism nor custom other than a failure to attend for a period of time to remove a senator from office. They are all honourable persons.

The only answer is to amend Canada’s constitution. The writer once discussed that with the prime minister and was surprised at the vehemence with which that option was rejected. As a child, Justin Trudeau saw his father struggling with the constitutional conundrum of Canada. He wants no part of dealing with the constitution.

It must be part of the reason the prime minister gave up on his promise to change how Canada votes. While the act of voting is one change that can escape our constitutional straightjacket, it would take constitutional change in how parliament functions to then make a voting change work effectively.

Constitutional change must happen eventually. With the imbalance of Canada’s provinces, the commitments to provincial rights and outdated religious school commitments, our constitution has to be rescued from the 19th Century. The world keeps changing and Canada has to have a government that can deal with the issues of the times.

In these times, only an elected constitutional conference to find a new framework, can be considered. Even then, all citizens should have a say on what is implemented.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Speechwriters and old soldiers never die.

by Peter Lowry

This writer would have serious doubts taking on writing speeches for an old soldier such as Canada’s defence minister Harjit Sajjan. There are a series of problems involved, not the least of them being the mistake of trying to present an apolitical Sikh in the guise of a politician. There is no fit.

The first mistake most people make when a decorated military veteran is appointed defence minister is to assume he knows his job. No, he does not. It is a political job and, as it turns out, Sajjan is not all that political. His political career is at the mercy of the political people working for him.

Not the least of these political flunkies would be the speechwriters who have their own way of doing things. They would hardly be likely to have any understanding of the cultural divide faced by Canadian Sikhs. While conceit is considered one of the hated five thieves of their religion, Sikhs take considerable pride in their military history. And like many other sects, their oral history can be enriched with hyperbole.

But what Sajjan saw in politics was the day-in-day-out glossing over the facts. He saw how people would keep their more positive stories in the forefront and bury the less savoury. And we need to face the fact that to Sikhs, he was not just part of Operation Medusa in Afghanistan but the highest-ranking Sikh playing a key role. To a Sikh, the claim of his being an architect in the operation, became being the architect. He knew this was an exaggeration but was convinced that this is how it is done in politics.

So you have the combination of misconceptions about politics. First by the inexperience in politics of Sajjan and then by the misconceptions of speechwriters. And when you have speechwriters who might not understand the military chain of command in battlefield operations, you have the combination that caused the problems.

We should remember though that as soon as he was called on this as being inaccurate, Sajjan apologized. He made no pretense nor did he take the usual political defense of stonewalling the complaint.

As are more than a few of Sajjan’s cabinet colleagues, he is a neophyte in this field. To be fair, we need to cut him some slack. He should have had an easier introduction to politics and learned to be a politician in a different parliamentary job. He might become Canada’s first veteran to get PTSD in the House of Commons.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Kevin O’Leary was never in.

by Peter Lowry

When TV personality Kevin O’Leary declared himself out of the federal Conservative leadership race the other day, it was a race he had never really been in. He came late to the party and left early. He brought nothing to it, he learned nothing from it and he left nothing behind. It was a was a waste of time and money.

O’Leary was another ill wind in the Conservative campaign. He left behind a bad taste and a kiss-off for candidate Maxime Bernier. He ignored all the party rules governing the race and gave Canadian politics the finger (Known as flipping the bird in his home-town Boston.) His support for libertarian, playboy Maxime Bernier was the ultimate insult.

If O’Leary was impressed with Bernier speaking French, it would be because O’Leary had no idea what was being said. What his advisers should have told him was that as definitely as he was making no traction in Quebec, neither was Bernier. If Bernier cannot win Quebec, what makes O’Leary think his endorsement will help?

And, by the way, O’Leary’s name is still on the ballot. That was just another rule he broke. Nobody is allowed to bow out at this time when voting is technically already in progress. Now he can be doubly embarrassed when the votes are counted. Did he really turn in 35,000 new members of the party? Did the people doing that for him spread that waste of money equally across 338 electoral districts?

Anyway, 35,000 memberships are not going to have much impact on the 250,000 federal Conservative membership. It is not like the provincial party in Ontario that was bought and paid for by Patrick Brown’s supporters. And if you do not think the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus of MPPs in Ontario do not already hate Brown, wait for the 2018 elections.

If Bernier thinks O’Leary supporters would vote for a candidate such as him, he is more delusional about Canadian politics than the guy he called a “loser” and a “bad candidate” just a month or so ago.

Some of O’Leary’s votes might go to MP Erin O’Toole from Ontario, but they would have to be thinking Conservatives as opposed to the usual thoughtless ballot marking sign-up. And the funny part of this is that those new sign-ups are unlikely to be told how to mark their second, third, etc. votes.

The computer program being used to pick the winner in this confused contest is beginning to look even more questionable when you consider how many people voting who might not even mark a second or subsequent choice.

Maybe Kevin O’Leary will come back when the party announces the winner. He can be loser number 13 in the kick-line.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Buck Booking’s Blues.

by Peter Lowry

Some wonder how the time of the British Royals to visit the colonies is allocated across the British Commonwealth of Nations and other friendly countries. What if this was all funneled through a call centre at Buckingham Palace in London, England? Imagine a recently recorded call at the North American desk:

“Buck Booking, Harry speaking. This call is being recorded for quality assurance and legal purposes.”

“Hi Harry, this is Eloise at the Prime Minister’s Office in Ottawa. We need to book some royals for the July 1, Canada Day celebrations in front of our parliament buildings.”

“Oh, yes madam, Please excuse the way I answered your call. Most of our calls on the North American desk are from Americans wanting a royal to grace a dinner party or play some polo. They feel honoured for us to be breezy with them.”

“That is no problem Harry. Yet, your voice sounds familiar. What is your last name?”

“It’s Windsor, madam. And to save time I will have to admit that my grandmother insisted I do this job along with my regular duties as a penance. There was this lovely, young American tourist who wanted to make love at Buckingham Palace. I accommodated her on a balcony. If she had not been a screamer, it would not have mattered that it was the balcony off my granny’s bedroom. Mind you, it was worth it to see the expressions on the guards in the courtyard when they figured out where the screaming was coming from.

“But back to business, madam. That was July 1, you said? What year?”

“Well, this year of course. Canada will be celebrating 150 years of being a nation. Most of the bands, singers, entertainers and fireworks were booked by the previous government but they seem to have forgotten to book a royal for the occasion.”

“Au contraire madam. There is a note in the file here that that they booked my dear papa for the occasion. The Prince of Wales and his lovely wife Camilla are flying to Ottawa on May 29. And please do not forget that under the post-BREXIT rules, The Canadian government will be charged 20,000 pounds sterling per day plus expenses for their visit.

“But we want William and Kate.”

“You can’t afford them madam.”

Buck Booking hung up.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

The myth of being Liberal.

by Peter Lowry

One of our respected progressive bloggers from British Columbia wrote recently something less than a paean (song of praise) about the Liberals in that province. His thesis is that B.C. Liberals are just Conservatives in sheep’s clothing and now the federal sheep have joined them. He insists that the Liberal ideal has vanished from Canada.

His is the logical conclusion. Canada’s three largest provincial governments have governments that are Liberal in name only. The Quebec Liberals are the successors to the right-wing Union Nationale and are interchangeable with the federal Conservatives. Ontario’s Liberals might pose as left wing but are hard-nosed and conservative when it comes to economics. They operate under the direction of Bay Street. The B.C. Liberals are in turn bought and paid for by business interests who see the beauty and majesty of the province only in terms of exploitation.

And each of those provincial governments are crumbling. British Columbia goes to vote soon with signs of switching governing parties. It will, hopefully, be to one that does not exploit the land for business interests and does not constantly leave itself open to possible charges of corruption.

Ontario will be next in the spring of 2018. The problem there is the leadership. Premier Wynne has lost support from voters and from within her party. The premier of Quebec probably thinks he is lucky to have no real opposition at this time but it will come.

The problem with the federal Liberal Party of Canada is that it no longer exists as a viable political party. There is a façade registered as a political party by that name but it has no paid-up membership. Instead it has a list of people across Canada that it can constantly pester for financial support. There is no real hands-on relationship between this list and any rights of party membership. Instead of policy, it uses a cult of personality in the person of the leader. The list has no rights or reasons to meet. Local liberals are denied the selection of their candidate for parliament. They have no real say on party policy. There is no future for federal liberals in Canada.

But the need for liberalism continues. Liberals have to be progressives, they have to support the rights of the individual in society as well as the need for dignity and freedom. Liberals seek cultural, economic and personal growth for all in a non-judgemental society. Life on this beautiful planet is a wonderful gift. We should leave it a better place for our having been here.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Is Justin the adult in the school yard?

by Peter Lowry

Has Prime Minister Trudeau been getting advice from psychologists on how to handle a bully? It is certainly to his credit that he is keeping his cool. Donald Trump continues to lob his ignorant taunts over the longest undefended border in the world and Canada’s prime minister just says, “We can discuss that.”

As angry as that loudmouth boor Trump makes most Canadians, it is important that our prime minister stay above the fray. As he says, Canadians will be pleased to discuss the problems with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). And to help, we have our own list of problems with the agreement ready for the negotiations.

When dealing with any irrational bully, you have find out what is behind the screaming and yelling. For you to scream and yell back at the irrational juvenile will do you no good.

For example, we really need to find out where this recent mention of the energy market came from. Many Canadians took exception to the American demand for full access to our energy reserves in NAFTA. They thought that was being too generous. And with what we now know about the pollution problems with tar sands oil production, there is growing pressure to leave it in the ground.

What is common knowledge on both sides of the border is that the Canadian milk producers have nothing to do with the disastrous over-production of milk in Wisconsin. When you consider that there are more steroid-fed cows in Wisconsin than there are cows in Canada, nobody but Trump would think to blame Canada. Wisconsin voted for Trump and helped put him in the White House. Now that he is there, he needs to play nice with the other world leaders—whether he likes them or not.

The one thing that we have understood from Trump’s tiresome tirades is the concern for soft-wood lumber on the west coast. That NAFTA argument has been in and out of the courts a number of times. How renegotiation would solve it is anyone’s guess. All we do know about this complaint is that the lumber kings of Oregon and Washington are going to be able to charge a lot more for their products when they do not have to compete with the lumber kings north of the border. Only the American home buyer will get screwed.

We do not always agree with Justin Trudeau but it is nice to see him handle this problem with Trump in an adult manner. He gets his handiwork stuck on the refrigerator for this one!

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Trump’s ‘Milk of Human Kindness.’

by Peter Lowry

“Once again unto the breach” (sorry Mr. Shakespeare) President Trump jumps into a situation of which he has absolutely no understanding. He is making a habit of it and this time he is trying to skewer the Canadians. He has pitted the free market, unfettered Wisconsin dairy farmers against what Trump calls the ‘unfair’ position of Canada’s farm marketing boards.

That must be what you get when you do something decent for people. The milk marketing board in Ontario is probably always under fire for its trying to balance the cost of production with the price at the farm gate for milk. What it is trying to do is to keep farmers producing while keeping the price to consumers at a reasonable level.

Americans should not knock it until they try it. Under the Canadian boards, a company that unilaterally cut off 75 farmers because it wanted to switch to lower world milk prices would be out of the milk-related business. A Canadian board would not allow that kind of disruption in the market.

But President Trump is telling the farmers in Wisconsin that we are just unfair. Tell that to the soft-wood lumber people in British Columbia. He really does not understand that you cannot have free trade agreements with other countries and then demand that federal and state governments buy American to the exclusion of your free trade partners.

What Trump does not understand is that the highly integrated North American market demands open borders to speed commerce back and forth. Canada exports far more raw materials to the United States for processing than the U.S. sends to Canada. We are probably America’s most reliable supplier. We are also the best customer that America has ever had.

Cooler heads in Washington had better start thinking seriously about where Trump is taking them. If he really starts building walls between countries that are his neighbours, he is liable to start something he cannot control. His approach to these concerns could throw North America into an economic tailspin that could ultimately create a world-wide recession. Will anyone want to ‘buy America’ then?

Donald Trump should start getting his information straight or shut up.

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

The saccharine sweetness of Andrew Scheer.

by Peter Lowry

After watching Conservative Party leadership contender Andrew Scheer M.P. on Global’s West Block program last Sunday, it felt like you were coming down from a sugar high. You wonder if that guy can ever rid himself of that grin. The wife liked him at first but after a full six minutes of it, she had tired of him. She realized that he had nothing to say.

This writer used to talk about the Bobbsey Twins of the Harper government. They were the cabinet twins of John Baird and Jason Kenney. The Bobbsey Twins of the post-Harper era are MPs Erin O’Toole from Ontario and Andrew Scheer from Saskatchewan. Both are from the far right of the party. Both would be equally at home among libertarians.

But in the current leadership race, they are cancelling each other out. Scheer is the darling of the Conservative caucus and Alberta and Saskatchewan Conservatives. O’Toole might be from Ontario but he has mined the easier ore bodies in Atlantic Canada and even won Peter Mackay’s blessing.

Neither is a leader. The reason they are in the top seven in the race is their blandness. While neither has to talk for long to position themselves, they are offering a short-term solution to the party. They are both more or less promising to do a balanced job through the next election, lose gracefully and then fall on their sword to make room for a real leader.

While both might have a substantial number of votes among people filling out their ballot down to the tenth choice, the counting might not get that far. This race should be decided by the time the computerized count gets down to dropping off the eighth losing candidate. Do not forget that this decision will be made by the accumulated second, third and fourth choices of the people who first voted for a loser.

And when you figure that the first four almost sure to be eliminated in the counting will be Rick Peterson, Andrew Saxton, Deepak Obrai and Brad Trost, you realize that they will not have many second and third votes to distribute to the remainder. It might not be until maybe nine of the original 14 have been eliminated that a winner emerges.

But before you do any more mathematics, you have to remember that each of 338 electoral districts has 100 points to share among its party membership. This is one of those “fair” voting systems that the special parliamentary committee rejected last year. And how much trust do you have in it?

-30-

Copyright 2017 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]