Federal Politics – Page 197

Being thankful for democracy.

October 8, 2012 by Peter Lowry

Putting some things away today, we came across a scroll (suitable for framing) signed by Pierre Trudeau, 40 years ago. The scroll was in recognition of Canada’s democratic heritage. It extols the creativity, strength and vitality of our institutions because of our political parties. The political parties continue today and we can be thankful that we have institutionalized this aspect of our democracy.

The only people who seem to disagree with the strength and importance of our political parties are the news media. At various times, both print and broadcast media have written off all our major parties as the tissues of previous years. And yet the parties refresh, rebound and renew with amazing ease, despite these doomsayers.

The New Democrats have been written off so many times by the news media in Canada, the party has a permanent underdog attitude.

As recently as 1993, the Conservative Party was given last rites by a non-repentant media clique. Down to two members of parliament, the party came fifth after the dominant Liberals, the new Bloc Québécois, the Reform Party and the NDP. While many see the Conservative Party as absorbed by the Western based Reform Party, it was the much larger membership list of the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada that brought the muscle to the endeavour. It was this much larger base from the East that finally enabled Stephen Harper to defeat Paul Martin’s right-of-centre Liberals.

It was these right-of centre party people who needed two leadership vacuums to finally install Michael Ignatieff as Liberal Party leader in 2008. It was the combination of a branding Ignatieff as right-of-centre, a poor Liberal campaign and the demise of the Bloc Québécois in Quebec that finally gave Stephen Harper a majority government in 2011.

With the Liberal Party of Canada electing only 34 members to the House of Commons, the media hounds were baying of the death of the Liberal Party. While this might seem a low ebb for Liberals, it is hardly a death knell.

It is a time of introspection for Liberal Party members. The leadership of the party will be determined in April of 2013. The direction of the party will be determined in the process of choosing a leader. The one thing that is clear is that the old directions failed us and failed Canadians. We are not here to mark time but to lead.

And to lead, you must accept challenges, have ideas and determination. That scroll we were talking about earlier talks about a greater number of citizens wanting to become involved in the political process of our country. They want to be part of the process that leads Canada into a new era of realisation and progress. That is what the Liberal Party of Canada can offer.

-30-

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

Trudeau and the Justin Society.

October 6, 2012 by Peter Lowry

In the 1972 federal election, Pierre Trudeau told us he was going to have a ‘conversation with Canadians.’ He told Canadians about the ‘Just Society.’ If he had anyone other than the patrician Conservative leader Robert Stanfield as his main opponent, he would not have won the minority government that he did. After that Pierre paid attention to the party apparatchiks. So should Justin.

Justin Trudeau announced his candidacy to lead the Liberal Party of Canada, as expected, last week, and claimed he was going to have a conversation. He tells us he intends to listen. We sure hope so.

With few exceptions, most Canadians would agree that, if pressed, they think of themselves as middle class. And liberals, more than anyone else, identify as middle class.

But we have to get away from the clichés. Sure, giving voice to Canada’s middle class is of critical importance. Without substance behind that though, we are caught in the same trap as President Obama in his race for re-election in November. The promise in Canada has to be more than rhetorical.

In a country bleeding high-technology jobs in the east and gaining resource-based jobs in the west, someone has to start talking about the need for a government that can see a balance that can work for all Canadians.

And, in that regard, we need a government that does not pit region against region for its own electoral benefit.

And why continue the current government’s hypocrisy of restoring the snobbery of the word royal everywhere in a country that has moved so far beyond its colonial past?

This country needs a future far more than it needs its past. It is a country of people from many lands who see it as a land of promise and opportunity.

We have to work on the opportunities. We have to set targets. The goals must be worthy of challenge and the hard work of Canadians. And Canadians must all benefit from them. The challenges can be expanding Medicare to include drugs and dental care. It can be free education to all who can make the grades. It can be better retirement for all.

Justin Trudeau can formulate his own ‘Just(in) Society’ and really be the leader that Canada needs. As we all want to be more than a name.

-30-

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

Who told Brown how to vote on this one?

September 29, 2012 by Peter Lowry

In the House of Commons this past week, Babel MP Patrick Brown stood up to vote. As we hear very little of what Mr. Brown does in Ottawa, his vote was noted. He was one of more than half the Conservative caucus who voted in favour of the Commons studying if a fetus is a human being before the moment of birth. This was believed by all sides to be an effort to reopen the abortion debate.

But Babel voters are well aware of Mr. Brown’s seeming lack of interest in anything important in Ottawa. They expect that, as usual, someone has told him how to vote on this motion. It could be as simple as advice from Tory House Leader Peter Van Loan, whose riding of York Simcoe abuts the Barrie riding. Mind you, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would never have allowed Van Loan to order all Conservative MPs to vote for the motion. Maybe the odd one who needs extra help would be allowed.

There is also the possibility of his vote being encouraged by Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney. Kenney is now considered the leading social conservative in the Conservative caucus and that might explain the low state of affairs for that type of conservative these days. Kenney has so few leadership qualities, it is not likely he could lead a group of drunks to the local bar.

Some people might think it was Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose who told Brown how to vote. This is unlikely though as she kept her voting intentions close to the vest, so to speak. With womens’ groups now screaming for her head, Ambrose was not about to broadcast her intentions.

Somebody told the media in Babel a couple weeks ago that Brown would like some help in deciding how to vote on this motion. Despite being raised as a Catholic, Brown probably did not have a cozy chat with the parish priest on the issue. Many of his constituents would have told him to vote ‘no’ on the issue if only he had really asked.

But Brown finally stood up on an issue with a vote that is likely to make most women mad at him. Many of these women have voted for Brown in the past because they wanted the smooth Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. It seems when you vote that way, you do not always get an MP that you would want to take home to meet the family.

-30-

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

“Ready, aye ready, Mr. Harper, sir.”

September 28, 2012 by Peter Lowry

We have a tradition in Canada that the military serves at the will of the civilian authority. It means that currently Prime Minister Harper and his defence minister are the boss as far as Canada’s military is concerned. There are times though when you wonder what is behind it when the military brass appears to be too obsequious. Maybe it is the only way they can make a point.

Obviously the Defence Minister’s minions have been slow at the switch and have yet to give the right talking notes to Canada’s new air force chief. He seems to be well behind the curve in how to talk about the acquisition of F-35 fighters for his pilots. At a time when the politicians are pulling back from their earlier confidence in the purchase, the new head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Lieutenant-General Yvan Blondin is still sounding gung-ho for the F-35 fighter.

It is not that we would accuse a lieutenant-general of being a suck-up but he does seem to be trying a bit too hard. To admit that the F-35 is already costing far too much and its delivery dates continue to be pushed into the future is really saying that the ultimate purchase might not happen. And that would be the good news for Canadians.

Blondin’s funniest comment to the news media at his swearing-in ceremony in Ottawa was that the lighter, single engine F-35 was better than a heavier twin-engine craft. He explained—with a straight face—that the lighter craft can carry more fuel and have greater range when patrolling the Arctic. And well it could—if it carries no armament.

But the truth is that to effectively patrol the Arctic, the general knows very well that these stealth fighters would require air-to-air refuelling and there goes the stealth benefit.

Mind you Blondin seems to understand that his political masters want him to be ready to attack, not defend. Stealth fighters such as the contemplated F-35 are supposed to be on the enemy without warning. That means the most vulnerable enemy for the Canadian air force would have to be New York State. Mind you, that might cause the other American states to be annoyed with us and they have far more planes and bigger weapons.

But to go around the world hoping to find more people to bomb and strafe such as in Libya is not the role Canadians prefer for their air force. Hopefully the government that replaces the Harper government in a few years will find a more suitable aircraft to replace our air force’s aging F-18s. How about a modern version of the Avro Arrow?

-30-

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

Keep them laughing Justin.

September 27, 2012 by Peter Lowry

The news media announced MP Justin Trudeau’s candidacy for the Liberal Party leadership yesterday. He had to smile his way past the cameras, microphones and pencil-pushing pundits, even if he was just going to the washroom. We are told the real announcement is supposed to be next week.

Somebody will have to tell them that the news media do not select the Liberal Party’s leader. The party members and supporters do that and we have until next April to come to a conclusion. This is not a coronation the party is planning. His father had no shoo-in 44 years ago and the son does not have the credentials that his father had.

Name recognition might mean a lot for the news media but Justin can hardly run on just his family name. He must campaign for the job as Justin, not as Pierre. When Pierre Trudeau announced his candidacy back in the fall of 1967, we already knew how smart he was and he had already made his bones as Minister of Justice in Mr. Pearson’s cabinet.

Justin has yet to tell Canadians where he stands. Having a boxing match with a Conservative senator is hardly the credentials needed to warrant any support for the job of leader. While he could suggest it might help keep a future cabinet in line, it is outside the usual guidelines.

The key is where he wants to lead the Liberal Party. Leading needs policy direction and to date, we have little knowledge of his policy priorities. Just being opposed to Harper’s Conservatives does not cut it. Canada’s embattled middle class needs a champion and that requires a left of centre policy position.

That means that Justin will need to explain more than just his position vis-à-vis Stephen Harper. He is also going to have to establish his position in relation to Thomas Mulcair. He will have to be far more radical in his approach than he has previously been in the House of Commons.

Ideally Justin needs to box Mulcair into the position of a merger of the New Democrats with the Liberal Party. He will need a brain trust to help him do that.

There is no question that Justin has the charm, glibness and savvy to win the leadership. The question from the party keeps coming back to where he wants to lead it?

-30-

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

Harper needs more discipline in the nursery.

September 26, 2012 by Peter Lowry

The Bobbsey twins are getting harder and harder for Stephen Harper to manage. These kids are out of hand. With Foreign Minister John Baird (Bobbsey number one) and Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenny (Bobbsey number two) running roughshod over Canada’s reputation abroad, they are now emboldened to screw up things at home as well.

Kenny is so bored with handing out Canadian flags at citizenship ceremonies that he offered to take part in the debate about when a fetus becomes human. This is a back door attempt to bring abortion back to parliament and there are even some Conservative members upset about it.

You need have no concern about any enlightenment that Kenny might bring to the discussion. He was educated at Roman Catholic institutions in Saskatchewan and went on to broaden his education at a Jesuit college in San Francisco.

Luckily the debate on this issue lost by about two to one. We can give this question a rest for a while. This will give Jason Kenney time to read a book on the subject—hopefully not one recommended by his parish priest.

John Baird brings a different set of problems to the Harper cabinet. His brand of conservative fervour is more in the Mike Harris mode. He made an appearance on Tom Clark’s West Block show last Sunday and the wife, who likes Tom‘s show most of the time, finally snorted and left the room. She figured she had better things to do with her time than listening to this guy.

And he does sound programmed. He sounds like he has the sound bites he wants to use stored on analogue tapes in his head and you seem to see him searching for the right bite—and they are all on the right politically.

But when you put all those sound bites together, they do not seem to make sense. His explanation of why the Iranian Embassy personnel were told to leave Ottawa makes little sense. He alludes to activities that he then says he cannot tell us about but when you think that through, you wonder if there are not a number of other embassies that should be kicked out of Ottawa.

And John Baird’s deal with his British counterpart is probably the most foolish step back to colonialism that the Harper government has ever made. The judgement of these two cabinet members is obviously amateur hour in Ottawa

-30-

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

Failed history for our foreign minister.

September 25, 2012 by Peter Lowry

George Santayana wrote about 150 years ago that: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Maybe Canada’s Foreign Minister John Baird missed those history lessons about the time when Canada’s embassy needs were provided by the embassies of Great Britain. Baird is working with the Brits on a plan to combine British and Canadian embassies in some countries, taking us back to the past.

That is one easy way to comply with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s edict that there be a large picture of the Queen at every embassy.

But it is hardly going to save us half the cost of the photocopying machine.

Canadians have been mistreated at British embassies in our colonial past and hardly need to have the past repeated. It was in the 1925 that Prime Minister Mackenzie King brought Professor Oscar Douglas (OD) Skelton from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario to Ottawa to create a foreign affairs department for Canada. The move was long overdue.

The Brits often forgot their colonials in dealing with world affairs. A particular example was at the Paris Conference after the First World War. The Treaty of Versailles was delivered to the Commonwealth representatives only to be signed as part of the British Empire. Canada had lost more than 64,000 military personnel in the war and we were treated as lesser people.

What Baird does not seem to understand is that embassies and consular offices around the world play a vital role in assisting Canadian business to sell Canadian products and expertise. The trade experts at these offices provide briefings for business wishing to win contracts or sell products in the country and provide introductions to likely customers.

Maybe nobody has told Minister Baird that Brit businesses often compete with Canadian business people for the same customers. If he knew more about the business world, he might know why competing companies do not want to share the same office.

Maybe, he is under the impression that embassies just hand out student visas and tell people how wonderful it is to live in Canada. It might even surprise him that embassies only get a few Canadians coming in to ask what to do about the passport they lost.

-30-

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

Defending democracy.

September 20, 2012 by Peter Lowry

The most precious inheritance we Canadians pass to our progeny is our democracy. Yet we do not pass to them a robust democracy. It is more of an acquiescent availability. It seems to lay in wait to be used. It is not in your face. It should be.

While much of our governmental systems were inherited from our country’s European roots and the British parliament, our democracy is home grown. It developed over the years to meet our needs, to deal with our concerns and to meet our expectations. Our close proximity to the United States of America has also contributed to our democracy—and not always to the good. There are times when America contributes false expectations and challenges.

One of the yardsticks—right or wrong—used to measure the strength of our democracy is our participation in the opportunities to vote in federal, provincial and municipal elections as well as the occasional referendums and by-elections. And the declining statistics in that regard is simply bad news.

Maybe this why there is no ongoing outcry at the outrageous democracy-destroying robocalls used in the last federal election to suppress voting. It was exemplified by the Prime Minister needlessly proroguing parliament twice to prevent the dismissal of his government. This also pointed out the dismal failure of our appointed Governor Generals to stand up for Canada’s citizens.

Prime Minister Harper is no friend of our democracy. He is elected to the highest office in our country and he sits there and sneers at us. He runs an empirical presidency with no strings or safeguards. He spends money like it all belonged to him and yet tells us we must conserve. He flies about the world on his VIP-configured Airbus A310-300, with his hairdresser, telling the world how to conserve. He proposes huge omnibus legislation to confound and confuse parliament and Canadians. He flaunts his disregard for our environment as he panders to oil companies and their pipeline deals. He pads the Senate with cronies to feast at the trough of salary and pensions.

Stephen Harper in his perfect toupee smirks at Canadians and their concerns for their country. He is no shepherd, leading his flock. He is a Judas goat, leading us on his dogmatic journey of destruction.

But beware Mr. Harper. There is a time of the end of despots. Democracy is more than just an ideal. It is there to be used. Democracy will not be denied.

-30-

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

Mr. Mulcair misses the mark.

September 18, 2012 by Peter Lowry

The media is making much now of Thomas Mulcair as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Summer is over and the House of Commons is back in session. And Thomas Mulcair is proving just how inadequate he is to take on Stephen Harper.

The Opposition Leader’s first question in the much anticipated question period was on the economy and it rolled off Harper’s back like a light summer rain. Harper ignored the inadequate question and turned it back to attack the NDP leader’s policies.

It is easy to see and understand Mulcair’s frustration and anger at the attacks the Conservatives have been directing at him. They are the same kind of personal attacks that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff never seemed able to handle. To simply call the attacks lies though is not going to work.

Too bad Mulcair is not under the tutelage of Liberal interim leader Bob Rae. Now there is a guy who has been attacked on so many fronts for so many years that he practically has to wear a suit of armour to walk the dog. Rae’s only problem is that he did so many things wrong as NDP Premier of Ontario in the 1990s, Harper’s people had a surfeit of real things to accuse him of and he just laughs all of them off.

As a politician of some experience, it comes as a surprise that Mulcair seems to have no idea of what is called ‘coffee money.’ This is the method used by smart politicians to address serious economic issues. Millions and billions of dollars are lost on just about all of us. We hardly think in those terms in our daily lives. That is why politicians try not to waste their time arguing over those millions and billions.

But politicians know that everyone understands when you deal with economic issues in terms of the cost of a cup of coffee at Tim’s. For example, what Canadian does not feel abused by the oil companies charging more than $1.30 for a litre of gasoline? And what enrages them is that the price is set not by the greed of our Alberta oil sheiks but the American refineries in Texas.

Mulcair obviously has much to learn. He also needs to see what is happening with what he thinks is the third party. The Liberals in parliament have more important things to do these days than posture for the media in the House of Commons. They have a very serious leadership race coming up and we have to recognize that it will set the course for Canadian politics for many years to come. We need to do it right.

-30-

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

Liberal leadership for losers.

September 17, 2012 by Peter Lowry

On Tom Clark’s West Block show for Global Television on Sunday, Senator George Baker suggested that former Quebec Premier Jean Charest should run for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. George was talking with Tom and Assistant Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University at the time and you could see where both were temporarily stunned by the idea. And neither is the type to ever be at a loss for words. In a remarkable and lengthy career in politics, it had to be the worst idea George had ever articulated.

For a parliamentarian who has represented Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa for more than 35 years, this was almost as silly as his suggestion a few years ago that Newfoundland and Labrador needed its own version of the Bloc Québécoise. To his credit though, George preceded his suggestion of Jean Charest with stating his desire to see Members of Parliament Justin Trudeau from Quebec and Dominic LeBlanc from New Brunswick in the leadership race.

But every race needs losers and George just might have something here. There could be a special reduced rate category for losers in the federal leadership. After his dismal showing in the recent Quebec election, Jean Charest’s first problem would be to establish some credentials as a federal Liberal. A former Conservative cabinet minister under Brian Mulroney, Charest came second to Kim Campbell in the Conservative leadership race to replace Mulroney. Why he wanted the job at the time was never clear as everyone knew that the Conservatives would be soundly defeated in the upcoming election.

Another potential loser candidate is Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. After losing his majority government in last year’s provincial election, Dalton is guaranteed his loser status after his despicable treatment of the teacher groups who previously supported him. He lost a lot of friends with that.

We could also have Liberal Christy Clark from British Columbia, if she just moves up the B.C. provincial election a bit. Everyone expects her to lose in B.C. She could move up to federal politics and also be a loser there. Just think of the cumulative knowledge of losing between these provincial politicians. They could provide an excellent crash course in the pitfalls of Canadian politics for the eventual winner and fellow losers.

But there is one fiendish thought that comes to mind. What would happen to the Liberal Party of Canada if one of these provincial losers accidently won?

-30-

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