Category: Federal Politics

Without it, how do you reform democracy?

by Peter Lowry

Minister Maryam Monsef has been heard from. The maybe minister of democratic institutions has announced a committee of MPs will spend their summer studying changes to Canada’s election system. What the minister does not seem to understand is that changes in our democracy have to be done democratically.

This is not a democratic committee. It will have 12 members and fully half of them will be Liberals. The other members will be three voting Conservatives, one voting New Democrat and one each from the Bloc and Green parties who will not have a vote. Green Leader Elizabeth May is the only eligible Green and she is wondering why her summer should be wasted when she cannot vote on the committee’s deliberations.

And is there any point to this undemocratic fiasco? We already know that the Greens and NDP want proportional representation in parliament, the Liberals want preferential voting and the Conservatives do not want either. This is not a subject suitable for classic political compromise.

The government is ignoring the host of variables in each choice. Even in the status quo there is choice. When you realize that the present system came down to us from our agrarian land-based ancestors, there are many ways we could change our first-past-the-post system. With today’s technology, voting need not be tied to a physical district, it frees us to consider voting blocs of trades or professions. What if all the doctors picked their own MPs? That idea would give the committee a bone it could really chew on.

Have we ever considered that a person’s chronological age has nothing to do with their maturity? Maybe we should consider a voting test in the same way as we test people for driving licenses. We could have bright 16-year olds voting and maybe dumb 25-year olds could have one more chance. And our dear senile granny might finally miss her vote this year.

But we should not be dogs in a manger over this silliness by the Liberal government. If the committee wants hold a town hall meeting in Barrie this summer to test the waters here, we should welcome them graciously. Heck, we could even invite them to a barbeque. Barrie is an hospitable little city.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Empathy for Alberta doesn’t include bitumen.

by Peter Lowry

Having fought forest fires as a young man in our Canadian military, we well understood the serious concerns for life and property recently in northern Alberta. The rapidly shifting winds that suddenly endangered the 80,000 citizens of Fort McMurray and gave them so little time to get out of town were well understood.

But the ugly scars on that once pristine and rugged landscape caused by open pit tar sands mining and the hundreds of hectares of tailings ponds are not forgiven. Premier Rachel Notley can beg for leniency and for us to ignore the environmental scourge all she wants but bitumen from the tar sands cannot be the answer to the failing Canadian economy.

Tar sands exploiters cannot expect thinking Canadians to ignore the shipping of seriously polluting bitumen to third-world countries as the answer to recovery in Alberta or Canada. Not after Canadians in all parts of the country have clearly shown their support and concern for the people of northern Alberta in this time of crisis.

There can be no back door in the Canadian conscience for pipelines that will push highly corrosive, diluted and heated bitumen at high pressure to tide water. It is too much to ask of our Canadian environment and our world’s environment. Canadians cannot save the world by themselves but they can certainly do their part.

The other day, Premier Notley announced that tar sands companies are working to get their employees back on the job. She pointed out that the production out of Alberta was down by more than a million barrels per day. She used the word ‘oil’ but made no distinction between ‘oil’ and ‘bitumen.’ When you think about it, she obviously meant bitumen. A person who cares about our environment does not make that mistake.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

We can also vote for stagnation.

by Peter Lowry

Sometimes humans argue just for the sake of a good argument. It keeps us alive and alert. A friend in Barrie, for example, loves to argue in favour of proportional voting. He knows that we consider the idea backward and a poor solution for Canadians. His answer to our objections is to refuse to read any of the papers written on the subject and yet he writes letters on the subject to the editors of publications that feed on controversy.

His most recent of these letters started with complimenting the editor for a good choice of editorial cartoon—ensuring a positive attitude towards his letter. This cartoon was based on the unraveling of some of the Harper regime’s actions by the incoming Trudeau regime. His point was that this wastes a lot of time and money every time there is a regime change in our parliament.

Our friend’s solution to this perceived waste of time and money is to have proportional representation in parliament. It is his opinion that proportional representation would eliminate the possibility of anyone having a majority in the House of Commons. This would force government to work with coalitions and prevent the need for unraveling unilateral decisions in the future.

What he fails to consider is that the major parties can then do nothing and blame the ‘other guys’ for the failure of the government to act on the needs of Canadians. Why would we want a system better suited for stagnation instead of a system suitable to run the nation?

When you consider that with proportional representation, there is a separation of the members of parliament and the voters, the voters have nobody to blame but themselves. They only vote for the party and its leader. All the other decisions are made by the party. Parliamentarians are appointed by their party according to the vote counts.

When you consider that proportional voting was originally designed for voting populations that were largely illiterate, it makes sense. It was easy for the voters to remember the party’s pictograph when it was time to vote.

Much of the political time in countries with lots of parties and proportional voting is wasted as smaller parties jockey for pet projects and special deals to pass the ideas of larger parties. In a country such as Israel that uses proportional voting, for example, the religious parties are given power far greater than their actual numbers as they will give their votes to non-religious parties that pander to their oppressive demands.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

The Tory’s terribly trying times.

by Peter Lowry

It is hardly the best of times for Canada’s Conservatives. Their former leader has gone on to his reward: oblivion. Oh sure, the Hair is still around but he is now a nonentity. His temporary replacement, Rona Ambrose rode her horse out of the west to try to humanize her party but it seems like a lost cause. The sputtering start to some sort of party leadership race offers no surprises and no superheroes.

The important thing to remember about this race is that it will not start in earnest until early in 2017. There is lots of time to test the waters, put together an organization and raise from $2 million to $5 million for expenses.

With as many as ten or eleven possible leadership candidates, the best service Babel-on-the-Bay can provide for non-conservatives is a capsule comment on each possible candidate:

Maxime Bernier is expected to serve as the token Quebec candidate and will be thanked at some stage for his service.

Michael Chong from Ontario wants to be the Bernie Sanders of the campaign. Most conservatives will find him too brash by half.

Tony Clement looks like he wants to rumble but the washroom-builder from Parry Sound-Muskoka is just a summer wonder.

Doug Ford of Toronto fame is thinking of investing some of his family’s money into gaining notoriety as a candidate. He would do better if he was a better politician.

Heavyweight contender Jason Kenney from Calgary might drop to a lower weight class for his run but he is not every conservative’s cup of tea.

Kellie Leitch from the next-door riding of Simcoe-Grey always reminds us of Leacock’s Sunshine Sketches of a Small Town. She is very small town.

You have to admit that Nova Scotia’s Peter MacKay is getting better publicity by saying he will not run. He should keep saying it.

Kevin O’Leary who was never our favourite dragon on the CBC show Dragon’s Den wants to be the Donald Trump of the Tory race. When he sees what happens to Trump in the U.S., he might change his mind.

Michelle Rempel of Calgary could add something to the campaign but it is unlikely to be depth.

And last and least is Brad Wall of Saskatchewan. The Liberal-Conservative or Conservative-Liberal premier is a great spokesperson for the pipeline people and no one else.

Oh well, maybe the Conservatives will do better in 2022.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Dignity is needed in Death Bill.

by Peter Lowry

Our parliamentarians need help with Bill C-14, the doctor assisted death bill. They should read On Death and Dying a book published in 1969. It was written by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and remains today as the principal textbook on the human reaction to death. As the times dictated, she did not dwell on doctor-assisted death. If written today, that would be a substantial part of the discussion.

What Kübler-Ross focused on in her book is the hope and will to live. If they understood human needs when faced with death, our MPs and Senators would never even consider that shallow and unworthy Bill C-14 that is now before parliament.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue a year ago as a human rights question. And that is as it should be. Is there any more important decision for the individual than the question of their life and death? And what right have we as fellow humans to question or set rigid parameters on that? Bill C-14 lacks empathy, humanity and recognition of the rights of the individual. People have to be allowed to choose ahead. Delays in the process can be inhumane. A person’s calendar years neither define maturity nor enjoyment of life. And cruel extensions of living horror need not be inflicted because the individual concerned is considered no longer competent.

Torturers over the centuries of man’s inhumanity to man could likely tell us that there comes a point in inflicting pain when the victim only wants an end. Only the extreme of sadists can continue on.

And we should also mention that Bill C-14 is also sanctimonious. What could possibly have caused the people preparing the bill to have included the stipulation that death must be foreseeable. Of course it is. Human life is finite. We are all destined to die. And we all want dignity in death.

Is choosing a time of death only for the strong? People drive their cars into bridge abutments and oblivion, they swim to the setting sun in western seas or they simply take an excess of pills to end their pain. The moral question is only theirs to resolve for we cannot inflict our scruples on their need.

Our parliamentarians have a responsibility to Canadians. They have to set aside religious doctrine, personal fears and reflect on the compassion needed for those who seek a peaceful end to pain and suffering. They cannot make decisions for us all. They have to honour people’s wishes—asked for today or set in writing when first diagnosed. They have to honour others’ wishes as they would want their own wishes to be honoured.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Carbon Tax or Cap-and-Trade?

by Peter Lowry

It looks like the carbon tax concept has been getting a bad rap. At a time when most people are unaware of the difference between cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes, these two approaches to trying to control carbon emissions need to be better understood. The most important thing to remember is that the consumer pays either way.

Most people who object to a carbon tax start with the objection to a tax. After all, who likes taxes? You have to bear in mind though that cap-and-trade is also a tax. You pay either way. Cap-and-trade costs are paid for by the manufacturer and are added to the manufacturers’ wholesale price. And remember that retail mark-up and sales taxes are added to this higher price.

The difference between the two approaches is that you know the price of carbon emissions with the product when you pay a carbon tax. All you know with cap-and-trade is that the product is more expensive by the time it gets to the consumer.

With a carbon tax, the bill starts out the same to all manufacturers. You put so much carbon into our environment, here is what is going to cost you. It is simple, open and honest. The challenge is to the manufacturer to reduce the carbon emissions and reduce the tax. If the carbon is reduced, the tax is reduced. It is easy to see what is happening and all the figures are there for the consumer to see.

It seems this is not so with cap-and-trade. Caps on carbon emissions are set by industry in negotiation with government. The consumers only choice is to buy or not buy the product. If a manufacturer can lower the emissions, the company can sell or trade the unused emissions with other companies who cannot reach their emissions targets. Whether it earns any profits from such trades is a matter between the company and its shareholders.

The main concern with this not so transparent cap-and-trade is that companies are actually encouraged to move difficult emissions problems off-shore. With a carbon tax, companies both domestic and foreign would be challenged equally to reduce their carbon emissions.

It is also important to note that a carbon tax creates a level playing field for our manufacturers. If they sell to a country with no carbon tax, the only pressure is from their own and international environmentalists who want them to do their part. Cap-and-trade leaves our exporters with a more expensive end product and a disadvantage.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

With only a little hypocrisy.

by Peter Lowry

There are sunny days and there are also easy days. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had one of those easy days recently. All our PM had to do was go to a sledge hockey game with Prince Harry. The Queen’s favourite grandson was here to promote the Canadian Invictus Games next year before going to the U.S. to help open the American Invictus Games for this year. It was all good publicity for Justin, for Harry, the Royals and the games.

But that was not without a tinge of hypocrisy on Justin’s part. Our PM is not really a monarchist. What makes him ambivalent on whether Canada should have a monarch is his trepidation on opening up Canada’s constitution. If it only means that he can occasionally get some publicity pictures of him with some of the more acceptable Royals, he can handle it.

And if there has been one smart move by Buckingham Palace in the past half century, it is Prince Harry’s patronage of the Invictus Games. It is one of the finest moves to have been made for our wounded and ill veterans in a long time and it serves to point out how much more needs to be done.

Even the name “Invictus” has powerful connotations as the word in Latin means “unconquerable.” It is also the title of the poem written in 1882 by William Ernest Henley that ends with the memorable lines: I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.

It certainly is easy to get publicity for the games when Harry’s grandmother collaborates with him in some silly social media communications with the Obama’s in Washington. How can the news media ignore that?

For Justin it is just another publicity cakewalk. If he could come up with as smart a solution to the Senate of Canada, his sunny days could continue. It is because he is afraid of re-opening the constitution that he has been trying his elitist solution of having a supposedly independent committee choosing candidates for him to appoint to the senate (as independents, of course). The only problem is that these independents might decide to be independent and not pass some of his laws.

But in the meantime, that looked like an exciting sledge hockey game. It was too bad the cameras could not bear to part with Harry and Justin. We could have enjoyed some of the game. Instead we get a cornball joke from Harry about Canadians wanting to do everything on ice!

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Waiting for the Left to shine.

by Peter Lowry

If you are old enough to remember hearing the 1960s Les Paul and Mary Ford recording of the World is Waiting for the Sunrise, you might also be wondering when the New Democrats are going to be old enough to know when they are going to shine. And with the success of the federal Liberals passing them on the left last year, few observers are surprised at the current discontent among the NDP rank and file. There does not seem to be an historical memory in the party.

You would think a memory could be retained for at least a year. In 2014 in the Ontario provincial election, the same mistake was made. Nobody learned from it. There were the usual left of centre concerns and promises but the provincial NDP leader was completely caught off guard by the Liberal’s offer to improve pensions for Ontario residents. The campaign came to the obvious conclusion when the Conservative leader made a desperation promise to fire a 100,000 civil servants. What he did of course was threaten the jobs of a million voters. The Conservatives bled votes, the NDP had confused the voters and the Liberals romped to a majority.

If you could have believed the pollsters last year, for the first half of the campaign the federal NDP and the Conservatives were duking it out, each with hopes of at least a minority government. It was those politicos that had been paying attention to the campaign style of Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, who knew where to place their bets.

It was when the pollsters started to get readings on the younger voters that they began to see the inevitable. And yet Mulcair and his inner circle seemed to ignore what was happening. They assumed something of a bunker mentality and kept on believing their earlier statistics.

It was that hope for power that fooled the NDP those two elections in a row. The party believed it was due to inherit again what the New Democrat Bob Rae had won in Ontario in 1990 and was torn from his hands after one short term: power. They saw it as redemption.

But there was no sunrise for the NDP in 2015. Back in third place in Canada’s parliament Thomas Mulcair found himself evicted from office at the party’s first opportunity.

And that is where the NDP sits today—waiting for the sunrise.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

When controlling media, look like you’re not.

by Peter Lowry

The other day Lisa LaFlamme of CTV News was actually gushing when she said she was reporting from Northern Iraq. She was flattered and delighted to be reporting from just down the road from where the dreaded Daesh, or ISIL or ISIS, or pretenders at being an Islamic State are holed up in the Iraq city of Mosul. She had been selected for this honour by the Department of National Defence. CTV and the Toronto Star were following the chief of the defence staff on a tour of Canadian operations in Northern Iraq with Kurdish peshmerga army troops.

It was the best piece of self-serving media manipulation we have seen recently. You can only conjecture on what the military were selling to want to be baby-sitting reporters that close to a war zone.

And inviting experienced media people such as LaFlamme and Bruce Campion-Smith has other risks. These are not kids just off the rewrite desk. They know what questions to ask and they can be persistent.

And what has Defence got to sell? The only thing that seems to be in flux at this time is the question of rethinking the dumping of the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter. Some people are saying that National Defence wants the F-35 back in play. The over-priced, attack fighter hardly fits any of Canada’s defence needs and is the last aircraft that Canada should be considering.

But Defence’s top sales guy was there to carry the message. The reporters were treated to an extensive briefing by the chief of the defence staff. Lieutenant General Jonathan Vance said a few things that caught our attention. While he said we would be arming some of the elite Kurdish forces the Canadians have been training, there is to be no attempt to upgrade the equipment of the regular peshmerga soldiers–which means the Kurds will be on their own in confronting the confused leadership in Bagdad after the Daesh forces in Iraq have been destroyed.

And Vance bravely said Daesh would be destroyed. That is a strange promise for a general who is not going to allow his Canadians to enter Syria.

It seemed to be no secret that the peshmerga are to be used to mop up the Daesh fighters when they try to escape Mosul by heading north to the Syrian or Turkish borders. That seems to be on the assumption that the Iraqi forces (with their American ‘trainers’) are able to chase them out of Mosul.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Meeting ordinary Canadians at Kananaskis.

by Peter Lowry

You have to hand it to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He really knows how to get out there and meet with ordinary Canadians. And when your cabinet needs to discuss further fixes in Employment Insurance, what better place than another luxury resort.

Nestled in a cradle of the Canadian Rockies, Kananaskis is the jewel of Marriott’s Delta hotels. With rates between $150 and $300 Canadian per day, you can be assured that our federal cabinet will have all the luxury and pampering they desire during their ‘meet the hoi polloi’ trip west.

While waiting for ordinary Canadians to show up, they had a Welcome Wagon arrive driven by the local premier, Rachel Notley. The lady wanted these visitors to know that the province is having a tag day for the executives at Enbridge, Kinder Morgan and TransCanada Pipelines. And she wanted a lot of loonies in her collection box for them.

This improbable socialist, told the cabinet members that she is as green as the next person but pollution hardly matters when all of Canada has to get behind the cause of getting the output of those Alberta tar sands to tide water. She wants to blame the foreigners who process the bitumen into synthetic oil for the pollution it will cause.

But Premier Notley was just a one-day wonder. The cabinet came for some of that brisk mountain air, fine dining and the pampering of the spa.

And, yes, there will also be some discussion of some of those very silly promises made by the Prime Minister when he still did not think he would win the election last year. Luckily nobody can really define what it means to be middle class so he does not have to worry about those people too much. He is already getting a taste of what is going to happen with his right-to-die law and he is starting to realize that everyone might just have their prayers answered when his elite Senate sits on it instead of passing it.

And he did very foolishly say that 2015 would be the last time Canadians use first-past-the-post voting to choose their MPs. His improbable choice of minister to look after this portfolio must be wondering if she should use an Ouija board to find an answer that might work.

But what the hey? What other job would take you to the best resorts the country has to offer?

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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