Category: Federal Politics

Poilievre Doesn’t Do Economics.

by Peter Lowry

The most ridiculous statement from the boy conservative, MP Pierre Poilievre this week was the promise that he made about new legislation. He said that, if he was prime minister, he would introduce legislation to offset every dollar of new spending with a cut to old legislation. What he was, in effect promising, was guaranteed recession. He was allowing nothing for growth in the economy.

Poilievre compared his approach to that of many families. He said that when they spend more on one thing, they had to spend less somewhere else. That makes sense in family budgeting but makes less sense for governments. Governments have to spend money on infrastructure that can last many years into the future.

When asked about the Poilievre plan, former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page politely said that “it’s difficult to compare government spending to what Canadians do every month.”

Page went on to point out the differences on plans for the public good. A good example would be a program such as the day care program that is currently being rolled out across the country. While billions are currently being spend, the returns in the economy will make the early expense look like a small investment.

And as Page points out, government can borrow money at much lower rates.

But Page also notes that it is good to hear a conservative talk about fiscal responsibility. He must have been thinking of the foolish tax cuts and growing debt during the years of the Harper government. The more recent and larger deficits have been spent on COVID-19.

Where Poilievre is completely off base is to blame the Trudeau government for the current inflation in Canada. The fast-growing world-wide inflation is serious but Poilievre is hardly been cloistered somewhere where he is not aware of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine in which Canada is committed to help arm the Ukrainians and assist their refugees.

Pierre Poilievre studied international relations at the University of Calgary. He should have done a minor in economics. It would certainly have helped.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

In Profit We Trust.

by Peter Lowry

Welcome to the Empire Club of Canada—over 100 years of pandering to profit. It is where Canada’s finance ministers go to seek approval and deny progress. It is where the leaders of banking, business and industry gather in mutual admiration. I have always thought the Empire Club served as a rent-a-mob for Canada’s elite. It is where deputy prime minister and finance minister Chrystia Freeland went last week to report nothing—and her audience was pleased.

The minister’s staff had told the media that it would be an important speech. It was not. Freeland summed it up herself when she reportedly told the media: “The measures that we have set in motion already, I think, do a pretty good job of reaching precisely those people in Canada who have the biggest challenges with affordability.”

I have often wondered what sort of finance minister, Freeland would be. Now we know: a nothing finance minister. She does what her department tells her to do. She seems to have no concept of what the real powers of her department could achieve.

Did she, for example, address the unconscionable profits of the oil companies while they drive up inflation? Did she question the huge profits being reported by the big grocery chains? Admittedly, the government does get a small cut of those profits but it also has the power to tax excessive profits. Has her government done a damn thing to control the profits of the big three telecommunications companies in this country?

The answer is no, on all counts.

You tend to wonder if she is really afraid of those unthinking conservatives who accuse her of driving up inflation by printing money? You can hardly blame all the inflationary pressures on the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

You can tell that her main influences are on the right wing of economics. She thinks it is a big deal that her government is helping poor people with a tax credit. The last time I checked, you had to have some taxes to pay before you could get a tax credit.

And isn’t her department the one that is taking money from people getting just $1169 per month in Ontario who mistakenly thought COVID-19 benefits included them?

Oh well, to be fair, she must have wowed all those rich and wannabes at the Empire Club. She is one of them.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

The Poison of Poilievre.

by Peter Lowry

It’s a poisoned chalice. It could tear apart the conservative party of Canada. And it would benefit nobody. It would be Pierre Poilievre winning the leadership of the federal conservative party.

And this is not a partisan concern. Canada needs a healthy conservative party. It does not need one built on disrespect for law and order. It does not need one built on endorsing cryptocurrencies over the concerns of the Bank of Canada. It hardly needs the nastiness and lies that Poilievre so regularly brings to our parliament.

His supporters can call it hyperbole if they like but Poilievre has disgraced his party in parliament. The truth of the matter is that good government requires a strong and reasoned opposition. It doesn’t need the catcalls and insults across the floor. Yet that seems to be what Poilievre encourages and wants to lead.

And if he really has more than 300,000 temporary conservatives signed up to support his candidacy, do conservatives who have supported the party over the years really want these people deciding who should lead the party into the next election?

Was it just to show these temporary supporters that he is willing to pass a law against mandatory vaccination that he recently presented a bill to parliament to that effect? I seriously doubt that such a law would be approved by many of Canada’s conservatives. To deny the success of mass vaccinations—that have virtually eliminated some of the most serious children’s diseases in this country—would be ludicrous. If that private member’s bill comes up for a vote in this current parliament, it is unlikely many conservative MPs would support it.

While Poilievre might represent Carleton electoral district just down highway 417 from Ottawa, he was born, raised and educated in Calgary. He reflects the same environment-be-damned attitudes of most Alberta conservatives. He is a global warming denier. He preaches the usual hard-right conservatism of small (uncaring) government and small taxes. His rigid right-wing approach to economics is more Ebeneezer Scrooge than Milton Friedman.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

Trumping North.

by Peter Lowry

We have obviously been underestimating Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre. He has paid attention to the style and successes of former U.S. President Donald Trump. Along with many other political observers, we failed to see the ability of Trump to utilize the ‘deplorables’ as Hilary Clinton described them. Clinton was criticized for calling them deplorable but Trump won the U.S. presidency in 2016 because of them.

Poilievre is the first mainstream politician to recognize we have the same angry, dissident dogs of discontent here in Canada. They are not just Trump’s bikers and right-wing crazies. It took the truck convoy to Ottawa and the border barricades earlier this year for Pierre Poilievre to realize their counterparts in Canada could be used. He welcomed them to Ottawa with open arms. He let them know that he was their leader.

It was the marriage that Poilievre needed and they needed. He needed hard core numbers. He might not swamp the membership of the federal conservative party with these people, but he will be in a damn strong position because of them in September.

And they needed him. They needed a leader who knows how parliament works. They needed direction for their anger. They might not all buy what he says to them but enough could stay long enough to vote for and give him the leadership of the federal conservative party.

But they will hardly play nice with the rank and file of conservatism across Canada. They are anathema to conservatism. They don’t trust any elites. They are jealous of the rich and look down on the poor. Nor do they like people who are different. They disagree with immigration. They distrust people of colour. And do not try to take away their guns. Their rallying cry is “Freedom” and don’t ask them to define it. They wave the Canadian flag but do not respect it. They will support Pierre Poilievre but do not understand him.

But it is mutual. Poilievre has grasped the nettle. He has been on a quest and has found a key. He wants to rule this country that is impossible to rule. It is country that requires endless negotiation. Pierre Poilievre will fail to negotiate, to navigate the waters or to take Canada into a dystopian Poilievre future.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

Patrick Provokes Pierre.

by Peter Lowry

All is not too friendly in the federal Conservative camp these days. Patrick Brown is bad-mouthing Pierre Poilievre. And this is not friendly banter between two gentlemen who both served their party in Stephen Harper’s conservative government.

In fact, if the conservatives manage to arrange another leadership debate, they might have to keep those two from getting physical about it. Brown has already said that if Poilievre wins the leadership, Brown will not return to parliament in the next election. Mind you, Poilievre might not sign his acceptance of Brown as a conservative candidate, in any event.

Despite both being career politicians and knowing little of real life, the two men have never been that friendly, Brown must have been very surprised when Poilievre claimed to have beaten him at Brown’s specialty of signing up temporary conservatives. With Poilievre’s team claiming more than 300,000 new sign-ups to Brown’s 150,000, Poilievre could have a chance at a first-round win.

There is no way of knowing where the candidates really stand until they can see what electoral districts the new sign-ups are from. There is also the opportunity to challenge sign-ups that might not have paid their own membership or are known members of another political party. And postal codes should not be for a cemetery.

Patrick Brown has stated flat out that he won’t run for the federal conservatives if Poilievre is leader of the party. He made it clear though that he would be on board if Jean Charest or Leslyn Lewis were leader. Since it highly unlikely that Lewis could win, that shout-out to her was in aid of getting second vote consideration from her social conservative supporters.

If Poilievre does not win on the first complex ballot count, it will quickly come down to second vote considerations. Even if Poilievre leads but does not get a majority in the first three counts, it is hard to say where he would get any second vote support.

As it stands today, the Brown-Charest alliance is the only possible combination that might beat Poilievre. Brown is probably right that Poilievre would never be the darling of the Greater Toronto Area. Nor would Brown, despite his being popular with the South Asian diaspora community in Brampton.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

“What Fools These Mortals Be!”

by Peter Lowry

The hue and cry might now be more complete. The Toronto Star has discovered that only about 18 per cent of our Ontario electorate voted for the Ford government’s majority. And would not Shakespeare’s Puck agree? We did it to ourselves.

Not voting is also a political decision, of sorts. Does it really need a proposition on the ballot for “none of the above”?

And despite the clear proof that the majority of the electors said “a pox on all your houses,” the Toronto Star tells us we merely err in how we select our politicians. They blame first-past-the-post voting for the low turnout. And, just how, first-past-the-post voting is to blame for this low turn-out is never really explained.

The Toronto Star wants proportional representation. The greens and NDP have wanted it for years. Some liberals might agree. Let’s hear it, yay, yay for proportional.

Then it is settled. We will henceforth get people to pick a party instead of a candidate. Party leaders have been choosing candidates for some time anyway. So, why not?

But just a minute. If only 43.5 per cent of Ontario voters went to the readily available polling places in 2022, why would more go, just to vote for a party, in 2026? How would we be solving the problem?

Maybe we should be proud of the 2022 Ontario election. Once again, we have proved that any doofus can be premier of Ontario.

And we do not need the insult from the Toronto Star that discussions about changes in how we vote being dominated by political hobbyists. First of all, it is not true. The last full-blown discussion of voting systems was under the quite incompetent management of Justin Trudeau’s government in 2016. Those committee hearings were dominated by political scientists with rare rays of enlightenment to contribute.

Before that, in Ontario, we had a 2007 referendum on a proposal made by lottery winners that was soundly rejected by the voters. British Columbia tried twice to get a rather confused proposal through its voters and it failed both times.

I could also draw the Star’s attention to the ridiculous proposal of liberal leader Steven Del Duca that he would change the way Ontario votes after the recent election. Luckily, he is not in a position to do that.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

Poilievre’s Plaint.

by Peter Lowry

Writing about Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre the other day, we failed to resolve the key question. How can he expect the anger of his ‘Convoy’ followers to co-exist with the tenets of conservatism?  They do not seem to be the kind of people Canada’s real conservatives might want to hug to their bosoms.

Poilievre, himself, seems to have the instincts of a wild ferret. He might seem cute and cuddly but the teeth are very sharp. He might be trainable for rabbit hunting but, like with a falcon, heavy leather gloves are needed.

And how could the conservatives—as we know them—live in harmony with a guy who attracts crazies to the conservative fold? And it’s not just the confused demand of the convoy crackpots to take over the government. How would conservatism, as we know it, come to terms with a leader who obviously wants to politicize the Bank of Canada? How can a true conservative promote crypto currencies that rely on fiction and greed to create wealth?

Not that we have not seen something like this before. After all, how could Donald Trump—the Antichrist incarnate—lead the born-again Bible-thumpers, Baptists and Holy-Rollers of the Republican Party in the United States?

Does Poilievre intend to lead the conservatives in Canada with lies? Is he making peace with Maxime Bernier’s libertarians in the People’s Party?

He might be the favourite of the conservative caucus in Ottawa but have they realized that he might also be capable of destroying the conservative party? And that could be why many liberals and NDP are cheering him on in this quest for the leadership of the conservative party.

What conservatives voting in this year’s conservative leadership race have to ask themselves is does this man represent their values? They might also ask themselves if they want a party leader who has no life experience other than worming his way into our country’s politics?

Canadians vote for people they trust. Conservatives should take note.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

Freeing Poilievre.

by Peter Lowry

“Freedom” is the clarion call from Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre. ‘“Freedom’ from what?” you ask. And now we know. Poilievre had promised his followers in the protest convoy, that came to Ottawa this past winter, that he will put an end to government vaccine mandates. He even presented a bill to parliament the other day to do just that. It is not likely to pass.

But it will be interesting to see who in parliament supports the bill. Up to this point, Poilievre was believed to have the largest share of conservative caucus support. This will be the public test of their support. Just how many conservatives will want to align themselves with their fellow MP on this, is the question?

In a parliament controlled by the liberal/NDP agreement, the bill is not going to pass anyway. Poilievre has challenged his own support. A few might find a believable excuse to be absent but for the rest, it is decision time.

And maybe Poilievre can win the leadership without federal caucus support. Selling more than 300,000 memberships in the conservative party does not guarantee a win but it sure gives you a leg up. How that number spreads out over 338, supposedly equal, electoral districts is the next question?

But it also poses a problem for Brampton’s own Patrick Brown. As the stalking horse for retread conservative Jean Charest, Brown needed to be the third candidate when the race came down to just Poilievre, Charest and Brown.  While it is understood that Brown as a stalking horse was bringing all those votes to Jean Charest as second choice, that might not work with the way the conservatives count their ballots.

The first problem is that Brown has collected fewer new sign-ups than Poilievre. While 150,000 is not to be sneezed at, it is only half as much as Poilievre. And Brown’s South Asian diaspora contacts are largely urban while Poilievre’s extremists would be more equally spread between urban and rural. The conservative party managers are already admitting that the normal 250,000 membership of the Conservative Party of Canada is liable to exceed 700,000 when all the new memberships are counted. The good news in Ottawa is that the conservative party is hiring additional summer staff.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

No Lament for Liberalism.

by Peter Lowry

Liberalism is still with us. It is a concept of governance that will not go away. People around the world have fought for it. It lives on as despots die. It is progressive. It braves the future and gives it substance.

In some countries, liberalism exists as a way-station between conservatism and socialism. It emphasizes the rights of the individual over the rights of property and the rights of the collective.

In Canada, liberalism has existed for the past two centuries. It predates confederation. It has mostly traded governance with conservatives and populists. The rights and freedoms of Canadians have been under constant attack from both the right and the left.

Liberalism, as do most political strategies, requires leadership. When it is strong, we move forward. When it is weak, we regress. When the COVID pandemic required it, we had the leadership. Our present prime minister stepped into the role. He enjoys the role, as he is but an actor on the world stage. He enjoys the envy and admiration of the rest of the world. He has bargained with the socialists to keep his left-of-centre government in office.

The success of Canada’s liberalism has been the envy of the world. Canada is a multi-lingual country that works. It is a haven for those fleeing the quarrels of countless countries. Canada speaks the languages of the world. It carries on many of the customs. It is a vibrant country, prone to argue. To the rest of the world, we look like the United States of America. Yet, we cherish the differences.

Canada looks with concern on the problems of the Confused States of America. It is a country with hardened attitudes on politics, religion and aggressive capitalism. We look to our politicians to run our country, not just those with money. We negotiate our trade and treaties with America and other friends. We stand apart in our liberal attitudes. It is because of our liberalism that we can build a strong future.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

Run-off Elections are Best.

by Peter Lowry

An acquaintance was berating me the other day for preferring first-past-the-post voting. The truth is though that I would really prefer run-off elections in every electoral district where needed. It would be simple and cost less than it does now if people learn to trust computer voting.

In any electoral district where a candidate has more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, you have a winner. In ridings where no candidate achieves 50 per cent, you have a run-off election a week later between the top two vote getters.

The first thing you have achieved is a politician is elected who represents the majority vote from your electoral district. They represent you—not just their party. They answer to you when the next election is called.

And I cannot emphasize enough the value of having someone representing you and your community in parliament or the legislature. It is the tension created by the possible conflict between the wants of the voters and the wants of the party. For too long now we have been witnessing the actions of parties that put political dogma ahead of their concern for the citizens.

All these various types of proportional representation are based on putting people into power who are not elected. These people sit in judgement of us without our agreement. They answer only to the leader of their party. I think people are damn fools if they want to give party leaders that much power.

There is a different problem with preferential voting. When there are just two or three candidates, you often find there is little difference from first-past-the-post voting. When there are many candidates, you reach a point where people have no knowledge of some of the candidates and yet think they have to rate them as to preference. What, in effect, happens is that the voting drills down to what might be the least objectionable candidate—without really knowing much about the individual.

It should be noted that a properly managed string of hundreds of secure computers would be needed for a national Internet vote. There are more than just a few ways of encrypting the network to ensure that any hackers are wasting their time.

And we can also count on reducing the costs by limiting voting to our phones and computers, as well as at libraries and government offices.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]