Category: Federal Politics

Measuring Mr. Morneau.

by Peter Lowry

Canadian Finance Minister Bill Morneau is a political newby. While he carries solid credits from the Toronto financial community, the gloves and all bets come off on March 22. First budgets are like that. He had better be wearing Kevlar undershorts as well as the traditional new shoes when he brings in that budget. He is already in a defensive mode.

His problem is that the expectations have already been set too high. And he is showing weakness in Ottawa’s children’s hour known as “Question Period.” It is rude, inane and repetitious testing and he has to suffer through it. He might wonder how his Teflon Leader Justin Trudeau slides through the questions but he is already grasping at straws.

Trudeau, with no financial credentials, can hardly step into the Finance Minister’s place and handle many questions for him. That buck stops with Bill.

Morneau’s only advantage so far is that he has far more personality and charm than Joe Oliver. In fact, Joe Oliver had neither in that job.

All the same, Morneau is going to take some hits for the team in March.

But he can hardly spin out his budget ahead of time in the hopes of making friends in the media. He can be assured that, in print at least, he has very few friends.

What he needs to do is prove that he is smarter. One of the things he might do is take the Bombardier file from the Prime Minister and make it his. He knows we have to be seen to be helping Bombardier survive—the company has already started some ritual layoffs to make it look more desperate. Companies such as Bombardier are always going to be going through lean and fat years in their economic cycle. Finance needs to launch a program of buying Treasury stock from the company in the lean years and releasing them to the market or back to the company in the fat years.

But that approach does not include buying into pipelines to aid Alberta’s oil sands exploiters. Alberta needs help diversifying its economy. Oil sands are anathema to Canada’s need for clean energy.

With the announcement of the budget date in four weeks, it means the budget has already been sent to the translators and it is being readied for the printers. It is not the qualities of the reader that are to be measured Mr. Morneau. It is the measure of the words.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Is Ottawa thinking outside the box?

by Peter Lowry

We should send an ‘Attaboy’ to the Trudeau Liberals in Ottawa. It seems they are trying to stretch the thinking in the Finance Department to find new ways to fund high- technology start-ups. They are giving serious study to a report recommending ways to support Canada’s weakened high technology sector. The hope is to move some of Canada’s nascent high-tech companies into the giant job creation capabilities of the billion-dollar successes.

Of note is the fact that the report was commissioned by the previous Conservative government. It is to the Liberals’ credit that they are accepting and using the report. In all likelihood, it would still not have seen the light of day with the bottleneck of the previous Prime Minister’s Office.

The report was prepared by the Centre for Digital Entrepreneurship and Economic Performance. It is referred to as an economic think-tank.

The key to the thinking today in Ottawa is the statement Prime Minister Trudeau made in Davos, Switzerland in his first months in office. He put down Canada’s resource-based economy in favour of a more resourceful economy. That was a hard left turn from the attitude of the Harper regime that watched silently as high-tech companies constantly moved out of the country while all efforts went into an oil and gas based economy.

One of the concerns with the Trudeau government was that it might have relied entirely on construction projects to keep the economy moving. While construction can have a long-term payoff, it lacks the ability to generate new profits such as those from high-tech companies and their spin-offs.

One of the key recommendations in the report is to involve larger corporations in the support capabilities for high-tech start-ups. These corporations have capital sitting idle and incentives could assist them in moving the money into the economy where it could do some good in terms of job creation and helping the start-ups.

The report also called on the government to demand better accountability and transparency in incubators that are assisting start-ups. Without a technology base behind the operation, it could not assess the potential of the firms it was aiding.

We will assume that Justin Trudeau was also talking about Ottawa when he told the world forum in Davos that Canadians were resourceful. We will hear how resourceful at the occasion of the Liberal government’s first budget.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

An Honourable Member from Barrie.

by Peter Lowry

In writing about the honourable members we elect to our legislatures and parliament yesterday, an image kept coming to mind of our new Member of Parliament for Barrie–Springwater—Oro-Medonte. It is not a positive image. The honourable gentleman who now represents the riding is an acolyte of Patrick Brown, the new leader of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party.

And nobody can draw the visceral hatred of a political foe as quickly and as vehemently as Patrick Brown MPP. The man is not widely loved in this his hometown. He spent nine years in the Harper Conservative government and did nothing for his country or city but vote Conservative. In the few times of a free vote being called by the Harper government, he voted against women’s rights.

But it is his stand-in Alex Nuttall, the new Member of Parliament, who assumed the cloak of Patrick Brown in Barrie—Springwater—Oro Medonte, The two Conservatives currently share the rural Springwater and Oro-Medonte townships in their federal and provincial ridings. In the next provincial election, they will have the same electoral district boundaries.

Brown is teaching Mr. Nuttall to be a ‘retail politician’ like himself. It is a position where you never have to explain yourself to voters. Nothing you do in the community is presented as political. It is all presented as serving the community, using community events, charity drives and family activities.

Frankly, Mr. Nuttall is more of a failure in politics than Mr. Brown. Throughout the overly-long federal election campaign, Mr. Nuttall appeared petulant, angry and was unwilling to debate his opponents. He was probably too much out of his depth. His responses in the few appearances, were he showed up, were waspish and included unnecessary attempts to smear an opponent.

In the recount after a very tight finish, you could see where Mr. Nuttall lost most of the Barrie polls. It was the overwhelming lack of knowledge of him in the rural parts of the riding that eked out a narrow Conservative win.

That is why Patrick Brown is back in town to take that boy in hand. It would never do to have the Liberals get smart and start building organizational strength in his riding over the next two years. Brown expects to have a safe seat ready for him in 2018 when he will want to spend his time trying to win the province.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Honourable Members All!

by Peter Lowry

A reader brought up what he considers a serious weakness in first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting yesterday. It is the assumption that we elect “honourable members’ to our legislatures and the House of Commons and select the same for our Senate. The member we elect with at least a plurality is assumed capable of representing all voters in the electoral district despite their political leanings. The reader points out that Stephen Harper drove a stake through the heart of that idealistic concept over the past nine years.

The reader explains that the unfettered partisanship of the Harper regime robbed Canadians of the primary checks and balances needed in our parliamentary system. Political assistants and Members of Parliament going to jail over carrying this partisanship too far is hardly the answer.

What voters seem to be failing in is the ability to assess our political candidates in anything beyond which party leader they support. Our political parties, in turn, are failing badly in demanding high standards among the party’s candidates. They seem to prefer fealty to intelligence. They also fail in building their party membership, facilitating policy development, promoting the party’s philosophy and developing new election workers. And our MPs and MPPs fail us as they act like rude undisciplined children in our legislatures and parliament while all initiatives come from the Premier or Prime Minister’s Office.

On today’s Internet, we are seeing the emerging centralized party structures of the future built around a charismatic ‘Big Brother.’ The party is told how to think, how to tithe to the central fundraising that gives no accounting of its receipts and expenditures to the citizens, contributors or Elections Canada.

For lack of answers to these problems, Justin Trudeau’s brain trust told us that the answer is to change how we vote. What that has to do with the quality of party candidates has not been made clear. Maybe it is like the elitist committee to recommend elite candidates for Senate appointments. It will make no difference at all but it will give the politicians someone to blame when we get a bad apple.

Stephen Harper has no one else to blame than himself for Senator Mike Duffy. Mind you, Justin Trudeau will have no one else to blame but himself when he finds how difficult it is to get his government’s legislation through his ‘elite’ Senate.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

But what if FPTP isn’t broke?

by Peter Lowry

You almost hate to ask the question. What is wrong with the way Canadians vote? There seems to be an assumption by some people that first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting is a failure. Does that mean you have to dump FPTP and take a flier on some other theoretically improved voting system? And why is it better?

The only people really dissatisfied with FPTP voting are the people who typically come third or fourth in the voting. This can be a very frustrating position, Despite being the choice of as much as 25 per cent of the voters, your party can end up with as few as ten per cent of the seats in parliament or a legislature. And the winning party can often win a majority of the seats with only 40 per cent of the popular vote.

Two of the simplest ways to correct that supposed inequity are a primary system that reduces the election to just two contestants per constituency or a run-off vote pitting the top two contestants against each other. And bear in mind that primaries or run-offs are very different from a preferential or transferable voting systems. In both the primary or run-off system, the voter has breathing time to consider the final outcome.

Another way to overcome the supposed inequity of FPTP is strategic voting. While many voters were disappointed in the seeming failure of strategic voting during the last federal election, it actually was working. It just works at a different level. There is a surprisingly large block of eligible voters in Canada who have no affiliation nor interest in politics. They are mainly young voters. Almost three million of these usually non-voters went to the polls last October. They mostly voted Liberal.

Those new voters were voting for the change that the Liberals under Trudeau were offering. There was no specific agenda item that caught their attention. It was the weariness with the Harper Conservatives and the failure of the New Democrats to ignite interest that let the Liberals win these new voters and gain the majority. And it is a unique feature of FPTP voting that took the Liberals from third party to a majority.

There is no harm done if study of FPTP voting and our democracy results in a better understanding. There could be harm done if the people involved in the study are committed to change. Canada might just have the best system of all: FPTP.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Justin marks a hundred days.

by Peter Lowry

The wife wanted to send our prime minister a Valentine card. She is a fan. Maybe we both are in our different ways. She only wants him to lose the rock-star role and start to look more prime ministerial. She is right in that. It is time he got down to the real job and stopped acting like a playboy.

And he could learn much from an honest assessment of where he is at and how he got there.

First of all, that was not a particularly brilliant campaign that his people ran for him. Opportunities missed were many. Delays were common. The mistakes of his opponents afforded him opportunities. The extended length of the actual campaign was only Stephen Harper’s first error. Thomas Mulcair ceded Quebec to Trudeau when he could not sustain the Orange Wave.

It is critically important to remember that the Liberals did not win over the older voters. It was the millions of new voters, overwhelmingly supporting change, who made the difference. What people considered a brilliant social media campaign was nothing more than self-indulgence. The real work should have been put into building the computerized lists of workers and supporters.

(This Liberal somehow kept getting all the e-mails from Beaches-East York in Toronto—a hundred kilometres from our electoral district of Barrie-Springwater-Oro-Medonte—which told us much about why the Liberals would win in Toronto and lose in Barrie.)

What the Liberals have done well in the first hundred days was to bring a steady flow of Syrian refugees to Canada without being overly concerned about the numbers. The gender parity of the new cabinet was a master stroke but is unlikely to be sustained over four years. Pulling out our F-18s was a necessary step but putting all our ground support with the Kurds could come back to bite us in the future. It might be a smart tactic but shows a lack of forward planning.

But promises such as putting the end to first-past-the-post voting are foolish. It is better to study a question first and then make promises.

And starting the day with tax cuts is just aping the Conservatives. The true definition of this administration will be in its financial strategies. They have yet to be fully defined.

We should send our Valentine’s wishes to our prime minister anyway. He deserves a fair chance. He got rid of Stephen Harper for us.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

A road without remorse for Rona.

by Peter Lowry

It was obligatory on Monday for the news media to check with Opposition Leader Rona Ambrose on Prime Minister Trudeau’s announcement of the change in Canada’s role in the partnership against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Rona gave them the obligatory Conservative position. “Shameful,” she said. The news media knew what she would say before she said it. You would think the media could save money by just prerecording a month of statements at a time.

But Rona seems to be enjoying her 15 minutes of fame as the Interim Leader of the Conservative Party. She is an Alberta Libertarian and she is as predictable as an annoyed skunk. She worships at the alter of St. Stephen the Harper—He who could do no wrong.

But St. Stephen is gone—waiting for his private sector reward. Rona has no mentor. She is on her own and on a slippery slope. Not even the last Bobbsey Twin, Calgary MP Jason Kenney, can help her as he wrestles with the questions of his own future.

Yet Rona was Stephen’s go-to girl when he needed someone to walk the walk and talk the talk for his Conservative government. She rode into the hot spots of Stephen’s Cabinet like a knight errant. She braved out an untenable position in Environment and sounded convincing in a mockery of Minister of Health.

As interim leader, she was interesting at first on the talk shows but it soon became apparent that she was not interested in the interviewer’s questions. She brought her own agenda and stuck to it. She made it difficult for the interviewer who tried to cut her off after over-staying her welcome. There are openings these days for more pleasant Conservative spokespeople who can address questions.

Rona is an experienced public relations person with a post-graduate degree in political science (from the University of Calgary, of course). She has over 11 years in parliament behind her and she does know how the place works. You would think she would take better advantage of the situation.

It was obvious on Monday that she resented the betrayal by Trudeau of the Harper position on bombing ISIL. She was judging by old surveys that bombing was supported and considered a safe option by most Canadians. Behind that lipstick smile is one determined politician.

– 30 –

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Should everyone have to vote?

by Peter Lowry

Many years ago a senior public relations guy gave a tongue-in-cheek speech to a service club about the people we elect to parliament. The theory he presented was that we should also have stupid Members of Parliament because stupid people should be entitled to representation. As politically incorrect as the message might have been, it came to mind when a reader accused us of having “distain” for “poorer socio-economic groups.”

It can come as something of a surprise to be accused of putting other people down. The subject under discussion was the extent of illiteracy in Canada and the people who come to the polls and yet are unable to perform the basic function of voting. It is insulting to be told you look down on them. Having worked in many elections for either Elections Canada or as a functionary of a political party, we have always been impressed by the accommodations Elections Canada will make for the voter. Canadians can be very proud of the Elections Canada tradition.

But we do have concerns with the admonition to people just to get out and vote. Would it not make more sense to say: “Think about it and then vote”? Many people lead complex and busy lives and are not in touch with politics. It is not that they have no interest in community or country but politics might not be as important to them.

The reason we are such a strong advocate of the ground game (canvassing and getting voters to the polls) in politics is because of the very critical need to talk to all voters. Canvassers in politics are asked to listen. They are given a basic statement for the voter at the door but then they need to listen to that voter and report back to the campaign headquarters with key comments. It is the sum of these doorway conversations that influences the wrap-up and sometimes the results of the local campaign.

But we will never be an advocate for making everybody vote. We will fight to ensure everyone has the right but there are people who are hard to motivate. Having a nephew who is mentally challenged, we rarely discuss elections with him. It is not something that interests him. It is more important to reassure him of his worth as a human being.

As a writer, you can hardly live in a vacuum. You listen to people about their lives and experiences. You encourage feedback (positive and negative) from readers. And you share your opinions. If you have no opinions, you have nothing to write about.

And frankly we do not believe in electing stupid people in politics. By us all paying a bit more attention, we can do better.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Can Trudeau open the sepulchres of government?

by Peter Lowry

Can Canadians have an open government? Do we want one? Can Trudeau deliver it? They are all good questions. The problem inherent in the questions is Justin Trudeau’s understanding of how Ottawa really works. He might be biting off far more than his limited experience can handle.

Of note is the fact that Justin’s father Pierre Trudeau was hardly as naïve as his son when he won the Liberal Party Leadership and the Prime Minister’s job in 1968. He had the advantage of having worked in the Privy Council Office and his close friend Marc Lalonde had been working in Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s office. As a young Marc Lalonde laughingly explained to us when Pierre Trudeau was chosen, he now had his work cut out for him as an ‘eminence gris.’ He was soon announced as Pierre Trudeau’s principal secretary. The young Trudeau has no such easy path to the knowledge of government processes.

Sepulchres and government buildings are most often built of native stone to survive the vicissitudes of centuries. Change can be glacial. And Ottawa has just been rescued from almost a decade of Conservative control. After that time of cuts, program curtailment, dismissals, constraint and ideological governance, the civil service is relieved but wary.

Nobody in Ottawa is ready to shift to being proactive. They are going to continue to keep their cards close to their vests and their resumes ready. The incoming Liberals might talk a good story about openness and accountability, but nobody in the long-beleaguered city is rushing to hold a Roman triumph for the jubilant Liberals.

And besides, delay, obfuscation and distrust had been built into the civil service DNA. Sure they know it is easy to fire them but then they just come back as consultants for three times the money.

And never forget that government openness only creates more work for public relations professionals. The much vaunted openness to citizen input hardly means that anyone is actually listening.

That very shallow program starring Peter Mansbridge, Justin Trudeau and ten “random” Canadians was one of the silliest and boring shows ever created by the CBC. It was supposed to be discussions face-to-face with the prime minister but it turned out to be concerns of Canadians and blandishments of Justin Trudeau. It was meaningless. We sincerely hope that the attempt to open Ottawa is not as meaningless.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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

Minister Monsef ‘s measure.

by Peter Lowry

How would you like to have a job based on proving your boss is right? It seems the same as Canada’s Fraser Institute that is always commissioning studies designed to prove the Institute’s right-wing theories. Now we have a cabinet minister trying to implement her leader’s campaign promise that Canadians will never again use first-past-the-post voting to elect a federal government. It was a rash promise and neophyte Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef might not measure up to the task of implementing it.

It is hardly her fault. Psephology (the study of elections and voting) is not a common topic at dinner tables in this country. Nor do civics classes delve deeply into the subject. And judging by what we read from published political science post-graduates, real expertise is rare.

But that does not preclude lots of opinions that people are quite willing to share. For all we know, Minister Monsef might be more knowledgeable than her leader. She might even be wondering how the government would explain a change in voting to Canadians.

While Prime Minister Trudeau leans towards preferential voting systems, Ms. Monsef has probably already figured out that that would be a really hard sell. Quite a number of amateur experts have already figured out that in the election just past, the Liberals would have even more seats if a form of preferential voting was in place. There were lots of Canadians who preferred the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens while the Conservative support was sliding. Best guess, the Liberals would have won about 30 more seats if being elected required a 50 per cent or more preference.

Conversely, a run-off vote in those electoral districts where nobody won a majority would likely have produced more victories for the Greens and NDP. It would be a clear indication that preferential voting is not the same as a run-off election. Since run-off elections can be much less costly when using Internet voting, that is something that needs to be considered.

And proportional voting is far more complex a question. There are many variables in proportional voting. And there are more things it does not do than it accomplishes. It does not ensure more women and minorities are selected. It does not often produce majority governments. It does not improve the transparency of government. And since proportional voting was designed for voters who are mostly illiterate, why would we need it in Canada?

Minister Monsef is an unusual choice to address such a complex question for the government. She might be very willing and adroit in the task but she is coming from a serious lack of experience in government. She is going to have to prove to be a very, very quick study.

-30-

Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry

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