Federal Politics – Page 191

Flaherty’s gravy-train wreck.

March 22, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty does not seem to care where he steals his ideas. Struggling through the smoke and mirrors of this most recent federal budget, you wonder where he got some of those ideas. And then it dawns on you that the gravy train might have ended for tax evaders but the nightmare has just begun for the Conservatives. They have just climbed aboard Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s gravy train.

Surely you remember Rob Ford’s gravy train. It was the one that got him elected and then got him vilified. We all found out that Rob Ford was the guy driving the train. It only existed in his imagination.

That is like the $550 million that Jim Flaherty is going to recover for us by ending the federal gravy train. He is going to get this money from people who move their money off-shore or from bogus charities and the list goes on. There are many urban legends of where the money is hiding. Heck, we all know where the Irving money is located. Jim Flaherty should just ask nicely for the Bahamas to send it back to Canada.

But what Flaherty forgets to mention is that for every loonie that is returned to Canada, it will probably cost us $1.10 in legal fees. This is not to say that we should not close loopholes in the federal tax structure. After all, the money the Irving’s have taken out of New Brunswick was done with all observances to Canadian law. We allowed the late K.C. Irving to rip us off. Closing loopholes like that is something that is long overdue.

Tax cheats in the name of charity are also a serious problem. Solving that problem will not only take time but will cost far more than what will be recovered. The objective has to be to save us money in the future. Today’s Canada Revenue Agency hardly has the staff or power to check for all the phony tax receipts issued or to stop the exorbitant salaries being paid to people running supposed charities.

What is obvious about this most recent budget is that it is only a warm-up to the election year budget of 2015. By then, Stephen Harper will probably have a new, more credible Finance Minister in place. The promises of that year’s budget will make poor Jim Flaherty look like a piker. The deficit will, of course, be defeated and Canada’s future in selling resources will be assured by all the pipelines to the seas.

-30-

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

Stephen Harper is the message.

March 20, 2013 by Peter Lowry

The Harper rule must be that the larger the lie, the larger the advertising budget has to be. And if the federal government only spent $21 million to lie to us about The Economic Action Plan in the past fiscal year, think of how much they will ramp it up for the election two years from now. Can Canadians afford it?

And it is not just the paid advertising. The big lie of The Economic Action Plan is seamlessly applied to all government announcements, ministerial speeches and planned appearances of Stephen Harper. Those exposition backdrops put up as background for the speech or remarks make sure that the theme is clearly visible in every camera shot. And all speeches are carefully vetted to ensure continuity of the theme. Is there a schoolchild in Canada who does not know that the bountiful Harper Government has an “Economic Action Plan” to benefit all Canadians?

What is particularly disturbing is the increased concentration of ownership of Canadian media—particularly among friends of the Harper government. Nobody seems to want to question this increasing mind control. And judging by the quality of the Conservative MPs in the Harper government, few seem capable.

Introduced in 2009, The Economic Action Plan theme has become better known than the Conservative Party’s stylized “C.” In that first year, the Harper government spent $41.3 million on advertising and has come close to doubling the figure every year since. It hardly matters what the government is promoting but some of the less subtle messages are extremely annoying.

Have you noted the new oil tanker in one of the most used versions of the television commercials? After reducing staff in maritime inspection, you have to wonder what the government is promoting in the way of tanker safety. And including foolish tax cuts from more than five years ago is hardly part of any sensible economic action plan.

Initially The Economic Action Plan was used to promote the government’s desperate use of municipal infrastructure programs in the face of the world economic crisis of 2008. While the stability of Canadian banks saved us from being hit as hard as other countries, the Harper government’s providing extra funding for municipal programs was gratuitous, ill-advised and the wrong thing to do. It has left us with municipal taxes that are outrageously high for what we getting today and a serious lack of industrial employment for our young people. The sad reminder that Stephen Harper was trained as an economist is a very bad joke.

-30-

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

Getting Jean Chrétien at his best.

March 17, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Anyone in Canada interested in Canadian politics has to start the week with Tom Clark’s West Block on Global Television. Tom is older than he looks but he was also weaned on Canadian politics. It is in his blood. His father Joe Clark was one of the great Canadian public relations professionals, a founder of Canada News Wire and one of the smartest communicators who ever worked with the Liberal Party. That means when you put that background together to interview former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, you have the elements for dramatic television journalism.

And it is fun. There was a glint in the eye of the former Prime Minister as he led on his interviewer. When interviewing Chrétien, it is always a question as to who is in charge.

And with Jean Chrétien there is that wiliness that has always been his trademark. You can be furious with him one day and the next he has you laughing. He always found people willing to do the nasty jobs and he could attempt to keep his hands clean. It was as though he would not want to dirty his hands destroying Unemployment Insurance or squeezing the provinces on Medicare costs but he was quite willing to let Finance Minister Paul Martin carry the can for those actions.

If you ever wanted to understand the difference between Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien, it was there in the comments about keeping Canada out of the Iraq War. Chrétien handled George W. Bush with ease and kept us out of the foolish act, while Harper wanted to go to war. Since then, Mr. Harper has put Canadian military in harms way and the damn fool is proud of it.

Chrétien has always been a conundrum to many people because they think he is politically to the left of centre. The truth is, he is a populist—a man of the people. Like Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker of an earlier era, he was loved by the Canadian people. With people like that, the voters can feel that they care.

With the exquisite timing of both Chrétien and Tom Clark, they teased with the idea that the former Prime Minister was going to comment on the policies of likely Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. While you thought the older statesman was going to criticize the younger politician, he turned it around to positive in that Trudeau did have policy and that was to defeat Stephen Harper and that was a policy of which many would approve.

It was great to see M. Chrétien looking so good.

-30-

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

Mulcair rides pipelines to Washington.

March 16, 2013 by Peter Lowry

New democrat leader Thomas Mulcair took the pipeline route to Washington last week. He agreed with President Obama that global warming is a real issue. He also told the Americans that he does not want to export 830,000 barrels of Alberta bitumen slurry a day to the Texas Gulf coast. He said that represents 40,000 Canadian jobs.

And if we keep those 40,000 jobs in Canada, there is no way in hell we would ever be able to do anything to stop global warming or to reduce our carbon emissions. Mr. Mulcair wants it both ways. He will blame the Harper government for the carbon emissions while showing Canadians that he will secure a ten-year supply of oil products for Canada.

The conundrum for President Obama is that if someone points out to him that the bitumen slurry can be loaded on tankers in Texas, to be shipped elsewhere in the world, he will not have to worry about the carbon emissions refining it. Mind you if someone also points out that bitumen slurry has to be piped at higher temperatures and at higher pressures, he might realize there is far more likelihood of a serious spill that will destroy some of America’s farmland.

But Canadians should also worry. Mr. Mulcair is in favour of reversing Ontario and Quebec pipelines to send the bitumen slurry down to Maine and New Brunswick oil tanker terminals. Luckily NDP MP Nathan Cullen is from B.C. and must have talked to his leader about the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline plan. Mr. Mulcair came out flatly against that scheme. Obviously Ontario and Quebec need better advocates in the NDP.

Where Canadians are over the barrel on all of this is the need to meet our own energy needs. We are hardly going to shut down the oil sands. It is a viable source of hydrocarbons. At oil pricing of over C$90 per barrel, it is viable for mining and processing. If the scientists can just find a way to convert it into synthetic oil without destroying the environment, it would be safe to send by oil pipelines wherever it is needed for Canadian, North American and off-shore users.

What people need to realize is that this must be a federal government initiative. It is not just for the benefit of a single province. Canada’s strong economy was built on the mines and the manufacturing of Ontario and Quebec. Canada needs to retain that memory and belief in working together. We have become a much more complex and accomplished country over the years but we can only continue to grow by working together.

-30-

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

Nobody said Marc Garneau had to go.

March 14, 2013 by Peter Lowry

All the elements of a race for the federal Liberal Party leadership have ended. We are ending up with the coronation that nobody wanted. The crown now goes to MP Justin Trudeau by default. He has no competition.

Sure, MP Joyce Murray is still there and she has a loyal following because of her willingness to challenge. She wants the Liberals to recognize the need to work with other progressive parties to defeat Mr. Harper. She wants to take a hard look at how we vote. She does not see anything wrong with smoking the occasional joint of marijuana. Some people think she might know more about marijuana than voting systems.

But other than the two Members of Parliament, there is nobody else left. We knew that David Bertschi and George Takach were wasting our time from the first debate. Karen McCrimmon would need a putsch that involved all our military and cadets to get her a seat in the House of Commons. Former MP Martin Cauchon promised us something from the left of the party but has never delivered. And if Deborah Coyne has some better ideas for running this country, we have never heard any of them.

And then there is Martha Hall Findlay. She has always reminded us of a character from the musical Damn Yankees. You know the one: Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets… While we wanted to kick her off the island a few times, you have to admit that she has added something to the Liberal race. She has run an edgy and tough-minded campaign. When you realize that the same guy is working on her campaign as worked wonders with Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s last campaign, you get an idea of why she is probably standing at about five per cent with Liberals. She might just be running for Stephen Harper’s job next time.

The toughest part about liking MP Marc Garneau was the fact that he is a right-wing Liberal. Some of that is understandable in that he is part of the Quebec Caucus. That is hardly a hotbed of reform. Justin Trudeau is not as influenced by the right-wing Liberalism in Quebec because of his broader identification with the country and being born into a political environment. He is quite comfortable discussing the need for constitutional change in Canada among Liberals and takes some fairly firm stands.

But, in reality, we wish that Marc Garneau had not dropped out. No real liberal would criticize him for his showing. He did a valuable service for the party by giving Justin Trudeau some serious competition and asking tough questions. It earned him our respect.

-30-

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

Enquiring readers ask about Harper’s hair.

March 12, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Ever vigilant to see what our readers want to know, it was intriguing to see that Babel-on-the-Bay reached new heights in readership yesterday. Imagine the embarrassment when much of the added traffic was found to be people with questions about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hair. For a writer who likes to believe he gives serious depth to the political concerns of the day, this is embarrassing.

But there are going to be some slow news days for political observers. These are the times when the devil finds work for idle hands. You sometimes address those questions that strike you as funny rather than the ones you think the reader will find insightful.

But for gosh sakes folks, it was six years ago that Harper hired make-up artist Michelle Muntean away from CTV. She has been travelling on the public nickel ever since to keep Mr. Harper in perfect picture-ready condition. His hair is really an old and tired joke. Is it all real? Who cares? It is just too damn plastered to his skull, too perfect to be pure Harper, too immobile and has not aged with him.

Vanity, your name is Harper. Real men from our generation do not wear make-up for picture opportunities with world leaders. They let their hair be a bit wind-tossed when doing an outdoor announcement. They do not continually have backdrops added to naturally interesting location shots. They do not corral the news media to prevent cameras from getting behind the PM for back shots. The guy is just a prime minister, not God.

Mind you, he traverses the world as some kind of potentate. You would think that Airbus A300 was his own personal aircraft. It is likely that his staff and Cabinet enjoy his travels as when he is home in Canada, he micromanages the business of his government. And Mr. Harper does not micromanage well. The only people who are worse managers are those in his cabinet.

And would you believe the other day at the big Reform Party Rodeo in Ottawa, people were promoting the Cabinet’s own Jason Kenney and Tony Clement as potential new leaders of the party after Harper’s departure. Clement is a Neanderthal who Harper let destroy Statistics Canada. Kenney is just the saddest example we could think of as a Neanderthal with training wheels. Either of them as leader of the Conservative Party is almost as sad an event as dear old Preston Manning giving the Conservative Party a lecture on preserving the environment.

See what we mean about a slow news day?

-30-

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

Stephen Harper’s Canada is foreign to us.

March 11, 2013 by Peter Lowry

For some time now, writers in the United States have been noticing changes in Canada. And they do not like what they are seeing. These writers are looking at Canada and seeing it becoming as arrogant as America.

Americans are no longer looking north and seeing those quiet, polite Canadians. They are seeing a far more aggressive country with more internal conflicts. They are seeing a far more war-like country seeking to show a fighting spirit. They are seeing a country that was gradually weaning itself from being a British colony re-insert the royals back into the military and other institutions. They are seeing a Canadian government that puts a price on its friendship.

Americans are surprised how hard the Canadian Government, Alberta and Saskatchewan are arguing for the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline to the Texas Gulf ports. They have also been caught off guard by the governments’ efforts to send bitumen to Canada’s east and west coasts. They were disappointed that Canadians did not really want to sell them bitumen slurry from the tar sands for a $20 a barrel discount. Those greedy Canucks want full world price that they know they can get from the Chinese.

Americans refer to the Canadian tar sands product as dirty oil and they are right. The stuff can be refined into synthetic oil and oil products but the cost is high in processing and increased carbon emissions. And the thought of that slurry going through a pipeline that could foul the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska had environmentalists in a hell of a flap.

Many Americans had admired Canada for not participating in the Gulf Wars that had been arranged by the Bushes (père et fils). Canada’s eager participation in one of the most dangerous regions of the Afghanistan War corrected that impression. Canada’s military was under new management.

The new, more aggressive Canadian military wanted fighter jets and what better than the proposed F-35 stealth fighter of the American military. Just why Canada would want to use a short range attack fighter to maintain its authority over the vast reaches of the Canadian Arctic made no sense to many Americans and Canadians.

This is a new country to the north of the United States and Stephen Harper and his friends are not going to let us forget it. At least not until Canadians come to their senses and get rid of the Harper Conservatives.

-30-

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

This federal race is no place for punters.

March 10, 2013 by Peter Lowry

If you are one of those who enjoys putting down the occasional $2 bet on an interesting horse race, you are hardly going to bet anything on the federal Liberal leadership. Is there even any point in establishing a morning line in such a limited race? You already know who will win.

And you certainly know who the real losers are! While insisting that anyone who wants to comply with the rules, has a right to run for the leadership, this blog has been regularly dismissing those who contribute nothing to the race and act as sandwiches of plain bread to dull the real flavour of the race. Takach and Bertschi were dismissed out of hand after their pathetic showings in Vancouver. Karen McCrimmon fell off the turnip wagon going through Winnipeg. Martin Cauchon had disappointed us to such a degree that he was dismissed after the Mississauga effort and Deborah Coyne had run her course by the time we got to Halifax. We have a present for the person who lets us down in the Montreal event later this month.

The good news in this race is that Justin Trudeau has grown. He has matured throughout the race. He is obviously getting better advice and—unlike his father—following the advice. And that is one thing that people should always remind themselves of: Justin Trudeau is more like his mother than his father. He is better looking than his father, he is more sensitive than his father and he does not have the snobbish intellect of his father. That could add up to being a better Prime Minister of Canada than his father.

Since Justin will win, Marc Garneau will come second and Joyce Murray third. Mind you, Martha Hall Findlay could challenge Joyce Murray’s position but we certainly hope not. Joyce Murray was the only candidate to bring concrete ideas to the race in terms of where the Liberal Party of Canada is heading and how to get there. Where she let us down was in her debating skills. She is not a leader.

In that sense, Marc Garneau showed himself to be much more than a flyer of jet-assisted space objects. More to the right than we like, he proved to be more aggressive and more of a quick thinker than we previously knew. Marc seems to need refreshers on political trends in the 21st Century. He appears to have been stifled by the Quebec version of Liberal politics. He needs to re-examine his stands on some critical issues.

-30-

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

Of course, pollsters are always right!

March 8, 2013 by Peter Lowry

When determining where MP Joyce Murray got her information about two-thirds of Canadians wanting proportional representation, the light dawned. Nothing beats exaggerating an already questionable poll. Anyone who has ever been involved in polling—especially political polls—knows that the context of a question as well as how you word it can produce different answers. Our advice to Joyce Murray is to never trust a single poll. Look for trends not certainties.

And the distrust of polls is growing. Cell phone usage has changed telephone coincidental polling for all time. If you cannot contact large blocks of voters, how can you use the figures you do get? Mind you, anyone who would believe these polls where you press one if you believe in this candidate or press two if you think the moon is made of green cheese has no idea what the owners of the telephones think of those calls. In an area of predominantly young families, those selections could be made by three-year olds.

Today’s campaign manager has many challenges and understanding polls is just one of them. Sure, you need polling, but it is just another tool. Nothing beats getting out in the field and sampling voters yourself. You have to listen to what these voters are interested in. You have to listen carefully. No poll can tell you more than a relaxed voter chatting on his or her own front porch. Of course, the sample needs to be large enough. The demographics have to be matched to the voting population.

But the Forum Poll taken last October that said that 56 per cent of Canadians approved of a proportional representation electoral system is not credible. While there is no point in arguing that the poll might have had 56 per cent say they wanted proportional representation, the facts are that 56 per cent of the Canadians have no idea what you mean by proportional representation. It is not something that they have actively learned about unless they were involved in voting in countries that use the system.

When the people at Fair Vote Canada get their bias supported by polls such as this, they will milk it for all it is worth. It is like their use of Arendt Lijphart, who writes to prove the point that he prefers proportional representation. So what? The Democracy Papers that are archived in this blog were not paid for by anyone but the author and they refute every claim that Lijphart and Fair Vote Canada make. Which leads to our advice to Joyce Murray that she study both pros and cons of the question.

-30-

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

Joyce Murray MP has odd statistics.

March 7, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Where do these statistics come from? In the Halifax debate between the Liberal leadership candidates, MP Joyce Murray said that two-thirds of Canadians want proportional representation. That is an unlikely figure.

It is very surprising when you consider that Ontario voters rejected proportional representation by about two to one in 2007. And British Columbia voters rejected a change from first-past-the-post voting twice in referendums. As writer who follows voting systems and trends very closely, we can assure you that there has been no groundswell of support for proportional voting systems or proportional representation.

This blog cheered MP Joyce Murray when she first proposed change in our voting system as it showed a willingness to change. We need that kind of open mindedness in Canada. We need to be willing to examine our shibboleths—those things that distinguish us as Canadians. We also need to open our constitution to the realities of the 21^st Century.

How we vote and choose our governments is part of a much large series of questions. To change the way we vote without addressing the underlying institutions would be a very foolish and careless approach. MP Justin Trudeau was quite right when he told Joyce that proportional representation actually increases political partisanship.

You need to remember that proportional representation was developed for voting by people who were mainly illiterate. They were influenced to vote for a party symbol that they could understand. It was a step towards democracy but in no way did it resemble the depth of direct democracy that we enjoy in North America. We have learned that direct democracy means that you select the actual people who represent you. That is a giant step forward from just voting for a political party.

One of the great disappointments in politics in Canada is the number of people who vote for a leader without considering the qualifications of the actual candidate in their electoral district. We have too many members in parliament today who are not making a contribution. They are not speaking to the issues, they are not contributing ideas, they are just voting the way their party leader tells them. To willingly increase that type of representation in parliament would be an ignorant and destructive step.

Yes, Canadians need to look into change. We need to re-evaluate our institutions. Nothing should be done though in isolation. It is all part of our future and everybody has to have a voice in building that future.

-30-

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