Category: Federal Politics

Is this fair? Here is the Hair having a relaxed prorogation vacation and he is being harried by his supposedly tame news media. Damn it all, you give the television network owners everything they ask for and they still do not control those pesky news people who work for them. And to make matters worse, the pit bulls you hire as communications directors keep embarrassing you by not managing the news the way you tell them.

But what can the Hair expect? Nobody can match the Hair at managing the media. He is the confident Mr. Cool. After all, does he look like a marijuana user? With his up-tight suits and his perfect tie and never a hair on his head out of place, the Hair is the perfect Prime Minister. If things do not start running properly around him, the Hair is going to rethink his offer to be Prime Minister for Life.

And where the hell did that cameraman from his favourite CTV News get off? Here the Hair was busy impressing some business people in New York and this damn cameraman asks him a question about the legal troubles of his friend and former parliamentary secretary, Dean Del Mastro. “Off with his head!”

And the Hair is hardly finished with his former friends from CTV. After all, they still owe him for superannuating to the Senate their super stars Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin. How was the Hair to know that super stars at CTV seemed to be allowed unlimited expense accounts? When you come from one venue of privilege, you simply carry on in the new venue of privilege.

Not being from the lofty heights of talent such as Duffy or Wallin, the cameraman was just trying to do his job. He even checked with his boss in Toronto to see if he should ask the question about Del Mastro. He got the ‘go’ and the next thing he heard was from the new pit bull communications director in the Prime Minister’s Office that he was off the Hair’s plane for the trip to Kuala Lumpur. Boy that took some fixing. The Hair relented. The Hair’s A310 VIP flight with the Hair, hairdresser, communications director and CTV cameraman and sundry other lackeys left Thursday and if the cameraman and communications director behave as the Hair wants, they will not be left in Malaysia.

But that leaves the Hair with his on-going problem with communications directors. They seem to have a great deal of trouble running the news media the way the Hair wants. The problem is that a communication director has a responsibility to keep the boss from looking like a raving dictator. That means that sometimes there is the need for you to tell the politician that this is the way it works. It means doing your job.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

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

Do you remember the old children’s song If you go down in the woods today, you’re sure of a big surprise? If you are expecting a teddy bear’s picnic, you will be wrong. Today, you are more liable to be shot. We live in a country where the government thinks any idiot should be allowed to have a gun. And a lot of those idiots go out in the woods and pretend they are sports shooters.

The Conservative government has made both our woods and our streets less safe by listening to organizations such as Canada’s National Firearms Association and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. These organizations were so emboldened by the government ending the long gun registry for them that they are now lobbying Foreign Minister John Baird not to sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. It is an insult to all Canadians to besmirch our country’s reputation by not signing it.

When you realize that the United States of America and another 90 countries have already signed the treaty, you really wonder what this government is thinking.

But Foreign Minister Baird says that the Treaty reminds him of the long gun registry. That must be at the suggestion of the pro-gun lobbyist organizations in Canada who do not want us to sign the treaty. On further examination, you find that the gun enthusiasts are concerned that the treaty might impact the costs of guns for Canadians. Since the treaty has to do with weapons of war, that seems to be a bit of a stretch.

The good news is that this country cannot seem to sustain a domestic arms industry. We should be pleased at that but the lobbyists do not want anything to slow down getting their guns across borders.

What is even more confusing about this is we could not find where the American lobby group, the National Rifle Association complained about the United States signing the arms treaty.

And if Foreign Minister Baird caves in to these Canadian gun nuts, you can expect a lot more loosening of gun laws in Canada. They will be particularly eager to open up all avenues to carrying your handy little concealed weapon by people eager to impress their friends and neighbours. And do not be surprised as the United Nations treaty takes effect and lower cost assault rifles become more readily available to the avid gun collector. They will be very pleased at the new lower prices for AK-47s.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

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

Are you as weary as everyone else with the heavy-handed TransCanada Pipelines television commercials? All the company wants to do is convert its main gas pipeline to a heated, high pressure line for bitumen slurry and extend it across Canada to Saint John, New Brunswick. And if you think the television commercials are expensive, you should attend one of the dog and pony sales pitches the company is doing for the locals along the pipeline route. What matters a few millions when potential profits are in the billions?

But the rub is that you would have some sympathy for their objectives if they were just honest with Canadians about what they are really doing. While it is true that pipelines have a better safety record than rail transport on a per barrel shipped basis, pipeline spills can be even more catastrophic. Sensors can tell the pipeline company that they are spilling into the environment, but it depends on where the leak is and how fast they can get people to it that determines the extent of the problems.

They will tell you that oil sands crude is no more corrosive than regular crude oil. They have very artfully changed the subject. They are right: bitumen from the Alberta tar sands refined into synthetic crude oil is no more corrosive than normal crude oil. Tar sands bitumen mixed with polymers to create a slurry for shipment by pipeline is still much more viscous material and it has to be heated and pushed under considerable additional pressure to move it through a pipeline. The ability to completely remove corrosive and wearing materials from the bitumen remains of concern.

They also say that cleaning up oil sands synthetic crude poses the same challenges as any crude. The difference with bitumen slurry is that in a waterway, the polymers carrying the bitumen float and carry the spill with the current—until enough of the polymer has evaporated to let the bitumen sink. That is why more than 40 kilometres of the Kalamazoo River and tributaries in Michigan are still not cleansed of bitumen after three years of effort after a pipeline spill.

And if you think this entire bitumen exercise is to make sure you get gas for your family car, they have really got you conned. Whether any or all of these new pipelines makes it to Kitimat, Vancouver, the Texas Gulf ports, Saint John, Quebec City or Portland, Maine, the objective is to ship it offshore to countries that do not care about pollution. Caring Canadian refineries do not want to convert to handling bitumen because they do not want the pollution problems.

It is amazing to observe—as something of a footnote—that they are building a new refinery in Alberta so that the province can have its own super-polluting solution as to what to do with bitumen.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

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

It is the risk of appearing academic or pedantic (book-smart) that usually precludes any discussion of what liberalism is all about. It reminds us of an old friend—a law professor who was an authority on torts law—who wanted to entitle his most recent work: Fuck Torts. He thought it might gain more attention for the otherwise dull subject. We sympathized with him but advised against it. We thought he needed to be more positive. And we need to take our own advice about liberalism.

But the concern is that liberalism is falling into disrepute these days. The major problem is people who call themselves Liberal who might be anything but liberal. One problem if you go to any so-called Liberal website today is that you will find no information there that tells you what being a Liberal means. Sending $10 to a political party does not make you a liberal.

For some time, Babel-on-the-Bay has been dismissing the leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party as an unreformed bunch of Whigs. These people seem to think they have inherited the mantle of the Family Compact that ran Ontario in the early 1800s. They have not changed much. Whigs faded out in the early 1900s after the heyday of the party under David Lloyd George in Great Britain. The successors in that country were supposed to be the Liberal Party.

One of the major problems today in defining Canadian liberalism is the Internet. It is no help. The bulk of information on the World-Wide Web is obviously not Canadian and this country has developed its own version of what is sometimes called modern, new or social liberalism. What too many of the right-wing Canadian Liberals of today forget is the Canadian Liberal Party had its roots in the  reform movement of Toronto in the mid-nineteenth century. Those reformers were supported by the Clear Grit farmers of southwest Ontario and they built a country.

Along with the radical Parti Rouge of Quebec, the reformers from Upper and Lower Canada joined with like-minded citizens who became part of this new country. They supported leaders such as Laurier, Mackenzie King, Pearson and Trudeau. Liberals led this country for most of its first 140 years. Their leadership gave Canada strength, prestige, unity, pride and a deep understanding of human rights. And they gradually defined our Canadian liberalism.

The basic tenet of to-day’s new liberalism is the individual right to freedom, health care, education, shelter and sustenance and self realization (to reach for our potential) in an egalitarian society. It is not a society that expects you to climb over others to reach your objectives but a society that cares and expects you to help others along the way. It is a socially conscious society. And there is much more to be done to become the better Canada, the society this promises.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

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

It is something of a dry run. If Justin Trudeau is going to make a difference as Liberal Party leader in the federal election expected in 2015, the Liberals have to win the yet to be called Toronto-Centre by-election. It is the electoral district made vacant by the resignation of the Liberal’s recent interim leader Bob Rae. You would figure that the Liberals already have a leg up but you have to recognize that the New Democrats are just as determined and they also have a star candidate. It will be no cakewalk.

Toronto-Centre is the heart and soul of Toronto. It is written big. It is Yorkville, Moore Park and Rosedale, St. James Town, Cabbagetown and Regent Park, Moss Park, Trefann Court and The Distillery District.  It is streets such as Parliament, Sherbourne and Jarvis and Yonge and Bay. It is Church and Wellesley which is its own domain under the rainbow flag. It is citadels such as the Masonic Temple, Maple Leaf Gardens, The Eaton Centre, the ghost of the long-gone Mutual Street Arena, Massey Hall as well as the Anglican’s St. James Cathedral and the Catholic’s St. Michael’s Cathedral, Metropolitan United and Holy Trinity. It is St. Michael’s Hospital and the City Morgue.

Nobody runs just one campaign in Toronto-Centre. It is many campaigns. And be very careful of assumptions about any of the communities that make up this urban melange. You have to listen very carefully to all communities. And lots of luck to any party that tries to bring in anyone from somewhere else to manage its campaign. It has to be people who know the taste of these streets.

And you can count on the New Democrats to know that. They like to think they own Toronto’s downtown. They consider Toronto-Centre to be their domain as well as the adjoining ridings. They can turn out the troops from across the city and flood the riding. They will canvas not just to identify their vote but also to proselytize.

Some observers are suggesting that the NDP will be running a nastier campaign but in downtown Toronto, they have never been very friendly to Liberals anyway. There is also the possibility of a Conservative candidate acting as a political stalking horse to drive some of the Conservative vote toward the NDP. The Liberals have to be prepared. They have to be smarter.

You have two strong women candidates and they are up there with some of the smartest candidates we have ever seen go head to head. Either one will be a powerful asset in Ottawa. If the Conservatives pick some sacrificial guy, he is likely to be ignored.

But we will discuss the candidates once the by-election is called. You can never review the play until you have seen the actors speak their lines.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

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

Thursday nights on CBC’s National News there is an excellent panel of pundits, usually monitored by news reader Peter Mansbridge. The panellists are Chantal Hébert of the Toronto Star, Andrew Coyne of the National Post and Bruce Anderson of his own consulting firm, Anderson Insight. Their topic last Thursday evening was the supposed demise of the company known as Blackberry. The only concern of this viewer was that the funeral might be premature.

This can happen when you pull a panel of experts out of their field of expertise. With Andrew Coyne’s sardonic view from the political right, he is no apologist for Stephen Harper but he has little sympathy for the other political parties. He looks at the world through political glasses.

Similarly Bruce Anderson frames the world of politics in the mysterious numerology of research. He understands the origin of the numbers so misused by politicians. He brings a greybeard’s credibility to the panel.

Chantal Hébert’s expertise is in bridging Canada’s language divide. In both her writings and her commentary, she disguises her personal feelings well and you get a relatively dispassionate discourse. And she is most often right.

But all three were teetering on the brink trying to discuss how Canadians feel about the fiasco at Blackberry. The former Research in Motion rose fast, lived hard and appears to be dying young in the volatile world of telecommunications. Those of us unable to type with our thumbs lost out on the experience.

The only problem is that we should consider putting off the eulogies until there is something to embalm. If we had buried Apple every time the business pundits said it was dead, we would have had to attend a lot more funerals.

And while the CBC panel had interesting points, they had no real expertise in the question of whether Canadians need Canadian business success stories. While they might give you a comfy feeling, you would really rather the Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup.

Remember that the two greatest business success stories in Canada’s history are the Canadian Pacific Railway and Bell Canada. And lots of Canadians hate those two companies with unrestrained passion. In more than a few years in public relations for business in Canada, we have found that people care more about companies acting as good citizens than their origins.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

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

Nobody wants to reveal their plan too early. The key is to take ownership of the major issue(s) at a time when your opponents are already committed and can only respond. At this time, there are probably three issues from which to choose and use with different emphasis. They are the economy, the environment and renewal.

While all are obvious and all parties will touch on them, it is building that basic pillar of each party’s campaign that will need to be credible, doable, understandable and visionary. And then you have to know how to market it to voters.

The economic pillar has been the mainstay of the Conservative’s last three election campaigns and that party has eroded its credibility over time with the excessive advertising of its meaningless economic action plan. It would also be a difficult subject for both the Liberals and the New Democrats if not linked to a specific program. It is therefore the economic program rather than the broad brush of economic action which has to be communicated and sold to the voters.

Judging by the Conservatives current efforts to sell themselves on environmental issues, their opponents might be overconfident of their own bona fides. It has already been determined that nobody understands carbon taxes (or any other kind of taxes) and you are best to stay away from them. The only problem is that the Conservatives have been lying about what kind of oil they want to ship out of Alberta for so long, there is a constituency that believes the propaganda. Nobody wants to bomb Alberta’s ambitions but we really need to find an alternative to the horribly polluting tar sands.

Renewal is the least clear policy pillar as it offers more minefields than easy targets. It is far more than just getting rid of the non-elected Senate. It is renewal of our democracy, our constitution, our country’s reputation around the world, our friendship with America, our relations with Great Britain, our use of the English monarchy, the role of the non-elected Governor General and the need to take a look at our country after 150 years.

While the Conservative party will have defined itself over the past four years of power, that can be both a positive and a negative. It is the presumptions about the Liberals and New Democrats that will cause the most problems for those parties. The Liberal Party of Canada really needs to define itself better than the vague BS that is used today. And the New Democrats have to decide if they are unionist socialists or some kind of social democrats. Both parties need to understand that what they decide they want to be needs to be credible.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

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