Federal Politics – Page 132

Practicing polite politics.

November 9, 2015 by Peter Lowry

If there was a single fixed point of departure from the Harper era to the new Trudeau government, it would be in foreign affairs. The choice of former Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion was a clear criticism of Harper’s people and actions. And it all boils down to Dion being a gentleman.

If you know nothing else about Dion, you see him in action once and you know he is a refined, well-spoken, educated gentleman. He would never insult the leader of a country in the way that Stephen Harper insulted Russia’s Vladimir Putin. He would never place Canada in the position of being hated by the Arab world because of Canada’s support for Israel. He would never turn foreign affairs into a venue for personal tourism.

And he knows true diplomacy is never accomplished by closing embassies. It is never accompanied by the military. It is a profession based on honour and understanding. Sure, there are also the times when foreign affairs has to play hard ball and Dion also has the fortitude for those stands

It will be very interesting at the early December global climate change conference in Paris with Prime Minister Trudeau, his new Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna and the provincial premiers in attendance. It is protocol for Canada’s foreign affairs minister to head the Canadian delegation to the United Nations sponsored event. His advise to his cabinet colleagues will be highly valued.

At the same time, Minister McKenna will be expected to show her very considerable smarts as an international lawyer. As the only MP from Ottawa in the downsized cabinet, she will have long hours and tough challenges ahead of her.

But any time she can lean on the experience and intelligence of Dion will be worth it. His years in Ottawa, his knowledge of the environmental portfolio and his overall knowledge of the governance of Canada are as valuable as a library.

One of Dion’s first challenges after the Paris meeting will be to come up with a Canadian plan to reconnect with the United Nations. Canada has become something of a pariah there doing the Harper administration and there are serious repairs to be undertaken. Dion is the best bet to return Canada to its previous position of prestige.

-30-

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

Leave it in the ground says Obama.

November 7, 2015 by Peter Lowry

President Barack Obama has finally let the shoe drop on the Keystone XL pipeline. His rejection of the partially built pipeline was expected. It is now the answer to many other pipeline proposals emanating from the tar sands of Alberta. Keystone XL was just the stalking horse.

What the American President said was that if we are intent on preserving this planet “We are going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground.” He was saying that the bitumen derived from the tar sands is too polluting to be used to make synthetic oil.

And the people who want to exploit the tar sands for profit should be the losers. They have lied and denied and defied for too long. By no stretch of the imagination can Alberta bitumen be described as “heavy oil.” It is not oil. It is nature’s mistake in the creation of petroleum. It is the same pitch as the Phoenicians used to waterproof their galleys that plied the Mediterranean. It is the mortar that built ancient Babylon. It was only when crude oil is priced over US$60 a barrel that money can be made in tar sands exploitation.

One of the mistakes we make is to treat Venezuelan bitumen the same as Canada’s. The tar sands in Venezuela have a lower viscosity than Canadian bitumen. It actually is a heavy form of oil. This is mainly shipped to the Unites States where there are specialized refineries at the Texas Gulf ports that can work with it.

Diluting and heating bitumen slurry and pumping it under high pressure is the theory behind proposed pipelines such as Enbridge’s Gateway pipeline over the Rockies to Kitimat, the twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline over the Rockies to Burnaby or TransCanada’s Energy East or Enbridge’s converted gas pipeline to Saint John. All of these pipelines are guaranteed time bombs of disastrous spills that are almost impossible to clean up. On land a bitumen spill is a toxic fire hazard that leaches into the water table. On water, the spill gradually sinks to the bottom as the lighter diluting material washes away.

On the west coast the intent is clearly understood to have ocean-going tankers load the bitumen for shipment to countries that do not care about the pollution caused. The eastern destinations have refineries there but the intent is obvious to ship it and do the conversion to synthetic oil elsewhere in the world.

It is this hypocrisy of Canada’s tar sands exploiters that has earned Canada the enmity of people concerned about global warming. U.S. President Barack Obama just did Canada a big favour by stopping the Keystone XL pipeline.

-30-

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

Can this be Canada’s Camelot?

November 6, 2015 by Peter Lowry

They came out into the sunlight from Rideau Hall. They are the 15 women and 16 men who now serve Canada. They sit at the Round Table of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. And who will ever forget that when asked why the equal number of men and women in his cabinet, Justin Trudeau replied, “Because it is 2015.”

In two years Canada will be 150 years in the making. In this year, it has moved forward a century. It has moved from an oligarchy towards a democracy. It is returning to its world citizenship, to peace and caring and diplomacy. It will do its part to ease global warming. It will aid the refugees fleeing the mindless slaughter in Syria. It will return to its roll of the honest broker between nations.

This Trudeau cabinet is a challenge. It is a challenge to the status quo. It is a return to responsible, managerial government. These ministers will be hands-on. They will be accountable. They are among the best that Canada has to offer. Justin Trudeau chose them as a cabinet that looks like Canada and a cabinet that can serve Canada.

There is merit to this cabinet and there are cautions. There are those who were skipped over. A general was left out to accommodate a lieutenant colonel in defence. A police chief stays in the ranks of MPs while the controversy over his role in the 2010 G-20 remains unresolved. Other MPs will serve in parliamentary committees in the painstaking job of studying the bills that rule our country.

They will need to answer the Supreme Court’s request to respond to the need for action on doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. They need to fix the Conservative bill that makes criminals of men who need prostitutes and endangers the prostitutes. They need to fix or dismiss the Conservative’s ill-considered attempt to challenge terrorism. And there is much more work to be done.

These men and women of the Trudeau cabinet will have much more work to do than those they replace. They have to lead. Their ministry is their responsibility. They are not under the direction of the Prime Minister’s Office. They do the work, they choose the path and they earn the kudos or the complaints. And none of these ministers want to upset the citizens of this new Camelot or their Prime Minister.

-30-

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

Are Canada’s Conservatives worth saving?

November 5, 2015 by Peter Lowry

Is the Conservative Party of Canada figuratively dusting itself off and saying, “We’ll do better next time?” If they are, they should ask themselves some key questions first. The simple question would be if you were studying history fifty years from now what would be said about the political experience of the last nine years?

Did Conservative ideology—or Stephen Harper ideology—serve Canadians well? Did we fair better financially? Were our rights and freedoms protected? Did Canada gain in prestige with other countries? Did we protect our environment? Do we have better relations with the United States? Did we make any real gains in gross domestic product? Did we improve the lot of the poor and disadvantaged in our society? And how honest are your answers to those questions?

It is interesting that there is a broad field of contenders from the remaining caucus for the job of interim leader of the Conservative Party. The custom is that an interim leader is someone who does not intend to contest for the full-time job as leader. How many possible contenders are there in the weeds for the full-time job?

Okay, we all expect that Jason Kenney will make a stab at it. He will certainly be attractive to the hard-right fringe of the party. Mind you, the last thing the Conservative’s need is another Alberta leader at this time.

And would there be any point to a middle-of-the-road contender to give it a shot? With the Liberals and the New Democrats currently duking it out for the mushy middle ground of Canadian politics, is there any point to getting into three-way mud wrestling?

What is amusing about this is Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall positioning himself for that middle ground. Wall’s Saskatchewan Party is basically a rebranded Conservative Party supported by some right-wing Liberals. It’s only reason for existence is to keep the Saskatchewan NDP out of power. Wall had been in lock-step with the Alberta Conservatives until their ouster by the Alberta NDP earlier this year. It is hard to tell Wall from an Alberta Conservative.

The very real problem for the Conservative Party of Canada today is that it needs to shake the Reform-Alliance loam from its roots and understand the populism and rural roots of John Bracken, John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative Party. Individually they had their problems but added together they had some ideas about Canada that are still pertinent. Though they do need to catch up with the 21^st Century.

-30-

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

The New Democrats will not lead us.

November 4, 2015 by Peter Lowry

If the New Democratic Party (NDP) is expecting democratic renewal to be its saviour, it might have a very long wait. The party’s first problem is that democratic renewal is a cafeteria style lunch and you need to take some leafy green salad along with the starchy entrée. Balance is important. The second problem is how to convince the party in power to help move the ideas along. And finally there are the communications problems with Canadian voters. The NDP needs a large drawing board and lots of design help.

Let us say for example that the primary democratic renewal objective of the party is a mixed proportional voting scheme. It was one of those schemes that was offered to Ontario voters in the 2007 province-wide referendum. The plan was rejected by a vote of about two to one.

Proponents of this mixed approach say that Ontario voters never got a chance to understand it. Not that there is much to understand: you have larger electoral districts where you elect individuals and then you use the popular vote to appoint additional members of the parties. It seems likely that people voted ‘No’ because they did not want appointed members of the Ontario legislature.

Convincing the Liberal Party, now that is in power, that the NDP has its best interests at heart might also seem like a challenge. The thing is that if you want to convince a person or a party that they should support your cause, you need to use tactics designed to win friends. The simplest way to think of it is you have to give to get. There are books on that subject that party members can read. It would create a very different attitude in the Canadian parliament.

And then there are the communications problems with the Canadian public. There are probably too many books on this subject and many are in conflict with others. The basic principle is that you have to keep the message short and simple and easy to understand. And then you have to drive the message home.

Or you might consider the “Single Leaf” ploy. This was a simple parliamentary trick learned by the minority Liberals back in the great flag debate of 1964. The House committee appointed to choose a design for a new flag had come down to two designs: the flag with the three leaves was believed to be favoured by the Liberals and so the Conservatives voted for the single leaf. The Conservatives were somewhat surprised when the Liberals agreed. Canada had a new flag.

But before all the New Democratic members plan on conning the Liberals into their ideas of democratic reform there is just one other problem. Maybe Canadians prefer first-past-the-post voting. Maybe they do not want a change in how they vote. We will probably revisit this subject in the months ahead.

-30-

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

A slippery slope for the Barrie Examiner.

November 3, 2015 by Peter Lowry

Why do you get the feeling that the Barrie Examiner newspaper is like an over-age Junior-A hockey player due for his last trade? The newspaper currently sports identification of being part of both Sun Media (the previous Quebecor owner) and PostMedia (the new Toronto-based owner). Despite the various owners, the newspaper still appears to be impoverished, badly written and edited and an embarrassment to the City of Barrie.

In a discussion with another Barrie resident about the merits—or lack thereof—of the Examiner last week, the suggestion was made that we were setting the bar too high for this local publication. Maybe Barrie only gets what it deserves.

The discussion revolved around the two letters-to-the-editor published last Thursday (Oct. 29). It seems as though the publication is desperate for letters from readers that it can publish. One side of the argument was that these letters reflected the attitudes of people in Barrie and the other side was that the writers appeared ignorant and under no circumstances were most Barrie residents likely to share the opinions.

The first writer (Campaign leaves reader ‘disgusted’) was expressing her opinion that the campaign in Barrie-Springwater-Oro-Medonte was unfair to her candidate. She obviously disapproved of some anti-Conservative signs. We will stay out of that because we might not have seen the same signs.

But we were at Georgian College for the debate sponsored by the Board of Trade. This had been moved from City hall because the council chambers were undergoing renovations. She thought it was a location favouring the Liberal candidate.

She took umbrage to what she saw as disrespect for her Conservative candidate. Her calling the audience ignoramuses for reacting to the Conservative candidate’s feeble attempts at slandering his opponent is asking citizens for a somewhat lop-sided standard of conduct.

The second letter (Canadians know what Islam is) was more basic. This writer was complaining that, in his opinion, “Islam is a criminal enterprise seeking to enslave the world.” From there, the discussion went downhill. The debate we had with our fellow Barrie resident was something along the lines of “Resolved that the editor who allows that opinion to be printed unchallenged should share a padded room with the sender.”

In the end, the other guy promised to send a letter to the Examiner that reflected a better knowledge of world religions, erudition, grammar and syntax. This writer made some remark about casting pearls but we always get our metaphors confused. Maybe Paul Godfrey, godfather of PostMedia, reads Babel-on-the-Bay and will send the Examiner some help.

-30-

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

A simple argument for first-past-the-post.

November 2, 2015 by Peter Lowry

If there is no other reason for first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting it is that your Member of Parliament (MP or other elected person) represents your community, your neighbours and you. This is the single most prized advantage of FPTP voting. It uniquely individualizes government for the citizen. Our MP is our personal point of contact.

Political parties would much prefer that you only vote for the party. That way, you might carelessly elect the village idiot to parliament. And we do that occasionally. It is only embarrassing to us when others realize what an idiot the person is and blame the community that elected him or her.

But calling FPTP a democratic abomination is a bit silly. It is a system that has worked well for Canadians for about 150 years. The only reason that many other parts of the world do not use FPTP is that it requires a reasonable level of literacy among the voters to recognize the names on the ballot. In countries that require pictographs to make a choice, proportional voting is the only system that works.

Another option is preferential voting whereby the voter has to choose his or her preference of candidates in a one-two-three sort of lottery. We will leave it to more skilled mathematicians to lead you down and around the garden path on that one. The only question is why anyone would want to settle for other peoples’ second choice when you can have a run-off election? While there are all kinds of screams about the costs of run-off elections, they pale compared to the costs of elections themselves.

The more important question that comes up is how are we as a country going to determine any new system of voting? A writer the other day complained that we could hardly have a referendum because it was most likely nothing would change. This ridiculous writer suggested that since Canadians had never had the chance to vote on their own constitution they should not have a vote on what system they will use to vote. And when realizing the contradictions of his position, he fell back on the trite statement that he “did not give a damn.”

But we have to give a damn. Electing our political choices and deciding how this country should be run is far too important to be left in the hands of politicians and newspaper reporters. First we examine, then we propose, then we discuss and then we vote on a new method. That is the only acceptable process.

-30-

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

Democratic renewal has to start at the top.

October 31, 2015 by Peter Lowry

If you think the Trudeau Liberals will push democratic renewal very far, you need to learn what politicians mean when they say they will study something. Admittedly the Liberals never dreamed they would go from third-party status to a majority government in a single election. It is why Leader Justin Trudeau made the slip of the tongue that this might be the last election in which Canadians use first-past-the-post voting. There might be more steps to that change than Justin Trudeau realizes and you best not bet heavily on it happening all that soon.

And the truth is that democratic renewal has to start at the top. The most serious challenges to our democracy over the past nine years have originated in the Prime Minister’s Office. And the second worst have been from the offices of the leaders of the opposition parties.

Stop and think for a minute about why the leader of one party kicked two members of his own party out of the party caucus. They were accused of doing what young men have been doing when dallying with young women since the beginning of time. Without proof or a chance at a defence they were kicked out of caucus. This was the same leader who promised he would not interfere in ridings choosing candidates and then was picking candidates in Toronto.

At least the Conservatives were honest about running their party from the Prime Minister’s Office. There was never any pretence at democracy. And you can see the good it did them.

Even if Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau did suggest that this was the last time Canadians might use first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting, there are more than a few problems. First of all, getting a consensus from Canadians on a replacement voting system is unlikely. Both Ontario and British Columbia allowed their citizens to vote on change and both rejected the proposals. The Trudeau government would never get away with arbitrarily changing how Canadians vote. And it would be anti-democratic to try.

Some Liberals might think there is no difference between a ranked ballot (preferential voting)—where you mark your ballots for choice one, two, three, etc.—and FPTP but there is a very serious difference when you let the losers on the first ballot pick the winner. It is certainly not the same as a run-off election.

-30-

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

The small thinking of the railroader.

October 30, 2015 by Peter Lowry

It was a long time ago. When heading to Montreal for an important luncheon, we heard the Toronto airport had problems and instead of going west to the airport, the route chosen was south to Toronto’s Union Station. With one more passenger comfortably seated in the club car, the train started for Montreal. It almost got to Guildwood station (at the eastern edge of Toronto) before it stopped and started backing up. It went all the way back through Union Station and into the freight yards and there it sat—for more than an hour.

Somewhat concerned about the delay, we headed down the train looking for a conductor. Finding one he laughed and responded to our query about forward progress with “Missed your plane, did you?” He turned to some regulars he was talking with and said “Another frequent flyer!”

That was the last time we took a Via train unless we had a very good book and some down time to waste. In Canada the railroader’s definition of ‘on time’ is ‘what day?’

It is also why we have always been very impressed with France’s TGV and the Japanese Shinkansen. They are inexpensive, electric, fast, on time and Via Rail cannot compete.

But what really galls is that at the turn of the Twentieth Century, southern Ontario had a network of interurban electrified rail cars that carried parcels and passengers efficiently and well. We gave up that advantage for the pollution of the internal combustion engine and slower diesel trains.

This subject arises from reading that the CEO of Via Rail has a scheme to lay before the new Minister of Transport in the Trudeau government. He wants the feds to approve a $4 billion plan for Via Rail to have dedicated tracks in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal rail corridor. He wants to more than double the number of trips from each city each day. He thinks this would convince more commuters to switch from their automobile to the trains—as many as five million more passengers per year.

Like most railroaders, the Via CEO thinks small. Yes, we need dedicated tracks for passenger trains in the corridor. They should also be electrified and capable of handling speeds of more than 300 kilometres per hour. That speed would challenge air travel as well as the private automobile. Mind you, the trains would need to be on time.

-30-

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

The Social Democratic opportunity.

October 29, 2015 by Peter Lowry

New Democratic Party members have a rare opportunity over the next four years to create a political party for Canada’s future. They are uniquely based to change the NDP into Canada’s first social democratic party. It would be the kind of political party that the founders of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) were really contemplating when they wrote the ill-conceived and inflammatory Regina Manifesto.

The 1960 creation of the New Democratic Party (NDP) stepped away from some of the socialist rhetoric of the Regina Manifesto but still clung to the class-struggle as the union movement became a dominant force in the party. It was a major rekindling of the party but also created an on-going dichotomy between the socialists, unionists and progressives of the party.

In the subsequent 50 years of the New Democrats, some of the union support has been lost to the Liberals and the party has struggled with a more progressive stance and language. The party has been confusing the voters in some cases by seemingly running on the right of the Liberals. The fiscal conservatism promised by NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair in the last federal election hurt the party more than it helped. It enabled Justin Trudeau’s Liberals to offer ‘Real Change’ and make the idea stick.

But the truth is that Liberal Trudeau has yet to define where he stands in the right-left spectrum of politics. We will gain a much better idea of what his political stance might be over the next couple of years. Left or right is hard to determine when making promises but much easier to discern when managing those promises.

What will be learned over the next couple years will largely determine the direction for Canadian politics. We know now that the NDP certainly has to plan for a clearer view of the future. There is also a very large number of Canadian Liberals who fall into the progressive pot. It is that pot that needs to be stirred.

The question in two years will be: Do the New Democrats form a new social democratic party and invite progressive Liberals to join or do the New Democrats join the Liberal Party and help change it into a social democratic party? We should know the answer to that well before the next federal election.

-30-

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