Category: Federal Politics

The Tories have got it wrong again. An Alberta Member of Parliament wants to make it illegal to take part in a riot wearing a mask. As proposed, this is a draconian law. It provides for lengthy sentences and serious fines for wearing a mask to a riot. The only thing the proposed law does not seem to do is understand a riot.

But there is no question that many Canadians will agree with the objective of the bill. There is a clearly Canadian view that people who hide their faces from recognition are up to no good. And to be an effective protester, you have to show your face to be counted. Any police officer observing a peaceful demonstration should immediately be concerned seeing masked persons among the assembly. It is like seeing a masked person going into a bank. An experienced police officer calls for backup.

And Canadian law already has statutes that can cover the situation. Why police are so reluctant to approach a masked person and ask them to give an account of themselves is more to the point than waiting for the riot. Canada’s Riot Act seems better suited to aid rioters than to forestall the riot. The reading of the Act to the would-be rioters gives them 30 minutes to disperse. This is somewhat ridiculous when you realize just how much damage can be done in just 30 minutes.

In the G20 episode in Toronto in 2010, the police were absent without leave during the display of anarchy by a few troublemakers. The pathetic anarchists were the ones who should have been “kettled” (rounded up like cattle) at the event, not innocent citizens who came to gawk at the mayhem.

What fails to make sense is the exception the law’s proposer makes for religious garb such as the Hijab of Muslim women. First of all the Qur’an makes no mention of a mask or veil. Hijab refers to a modest style of dress and the use of veils has to do with tribal customs. Confusing religion and customs causes problems.

By failing to understand the nature of civic disturbance, this law does Canadians a serious disservice. There is little comparison between the Toronto G20 events and the Vancouver riots of the following spring. The Toronto event was a planned display of anarchy (which in itself is an interesting oxymoron). It was designed to take advantage of the situation and the bull-headed police walked into it. If the downtown merchants had any good advice, they would have included the police in their lawsuits for dereliction of duty.

Vancouver was the work of hooligans. It was a spontaneous result of a situation that, again, the police failed to read. There are no worse people to deal with than under-age drunks who think they have the right to be angry about events.

The police leadership are people who rose through the ranks and think they can build walls of uniformed police officers. Today, you have to be part of the mob. You have to find the points at which you can split and redirect its force. They do not recognize that leadership of a mob is fragile. It can be usurped.

It looks like the Harper government is going to pass this bill. Too bad, nobody has taken the time to tell them: ‘first understand, then remedy.’

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his federal henchmen are changing the rules again. After many successful years of bringing foreign workers into Canada when needed, the Conservatives feel that the rules do not allow for their business friends to exploit these workers. They are going to change that.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley announced the changes in the past week. The good news is that the government is promising to fast track the approvals for companies with a successful record in hiring temporary foreign workers. The bad news is that the government is going to allow them to pay as much as 15 per cent less than a Canadian worker might make in the same job. This pay scale information is wrapped in some ambiguity in the legislation but the intent seems clear.

Of the approximately 300,000 workers now in Canada on a temporary worker visa, there have been few problems, few reports of exploitation and few complaints from Canadians about the program. While most think of these people as doing the backbreaking menial work associated with the agribusiness, they were actually brought in originally because of a lack of skilled workers in occupations such as software development. The key to their acceptance by Canadians has been the promise that they will be treated the same as Canadian workers and paid the same wages as a Canadian would be offered. That is what the new legislation will change.

If you are the type that reads into the Conservatives right-wing objectives, you might just think that the Conservatives intend to use this to force down Canadian wages. And they will. By cutting off Canadians from Employment Insurance if they will not take the lower wages, they can drive down some salary levels even further.

The exploitation of new immigrants and visa workers has created serious trouble in Europe as racism and hatreds are fed by the extremists on the right. It is the trade-off for Canada’s Conservatives as they gain friends with deeper pockets who can exploit the foreign workers and also hire Canadians for less. It is cynical, brutal and inhumane but Harper’s people go where the money can be found.

Human Resources Minister Finley made the announcement of the changes in the program in Alberta last Wednesday. Where do you think Alberta is getting the oil-sands workers that are needed to fill those pipelines with crude oil?

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

The energy and pipeline company Enbridge is nothing if not determined. It is going to get Alberta’s heavy tar-sands crude to markets that need oil of any type. The company’s latest ploy is to start asking permission to reverse eastern pipelines. The first of these is a line that runs down from Sarnia to near Hamilton. By reversing the flow of oil, it can link to other pipelines to the East coast. These are pipelines that previously carried foreign oil from the coast to refineries in Ontario.

What concerns environmentalists is the higher risk of serious pollution occurring from the tar-sands crude. It is shipped at a higher temperature and under greater pressure to improve the flow. These changes increase the chances of a break in the line and the damage can be disastrous to a fragile environmental area. The heavy bitumen from the tar sands is the thickest form of oil and once spilt in a liquid form, it is almost impossible to remove from the soil. It can also leach into underground water sources and pollute the water with sulphur and a brew of other deadly chemicals.

Chemical experts are questioning why this form of crude cannot be refined to a state more like gasoline or home heating oil wherein it can be more safely sent by pipeline without the high risk to the environment. If it was at a stage where it floats, there would be a much easier task to clean up a spill.

Enbridge is now fighting the pipeline wars on three fronts. Its Northern Gateway Pipeline over the Rockies to Kitimat in British Columbia is getting pushed by the Harper government but the provincial government is waiting to see how the environmental hearings play out. Even with a federal fast-tracking of the hearings, it will take at least two years to reach a conclusion. And nobody thinks it will be positive for Enbridge.

Trans-Canada’s struggle for approvals of the XL Pipeline south to the refineries in Texas has become a political football in the election-year climate in the U.S.  Enbridge is quiet about its plans to cut into its east-west pipelines further east in the U.S. and then backtrack toTexas but the company must be playing a role in those machinations. And now with the East Coast attempt, they have gone every direction but north to try to move the heavy tar-sands product.

The Enbridge executives must be learning that no matter how much Prime Minister Harper loves you, life can still be a bitch!

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

Where is a body to turn for decent news coverage? We used to get such excellent Canadian and world news from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but generations of parsimonious politicians have cut the Corp to the bone. And Mr. Harper hates it anyway. There is nothing much to report from CBC headquarters these days other than some dying gasps of quality programming, the last fitful hours of our heritage Hockey Night in Canada and news anchor Peter Mansbridge fading to black.

What struck us the other day was that the CBC was not the only news organization being reduced to poverty. CTV is owned by Bell Canada, one of the cheapest corporations since Adam Smith invented capitalism. The cheapness regime now at CTV was expected and a deteriorating news service is going downhill fast with Bell holding the purse strings. Judging by the Toronto area news, you have an over-aged gang of newscasters, giggling over their inside jokes and doing little but promoting CTV’s commercial programs.

Mind you, Global Television appears to be no better. Self promotion is just one problem. Global gives you an hour and a half of evening news in Southern Ontario that is not only loaded with self promotion but every major news item gets repeated up to four times. Being somewhat fresher on the scene in Southern Ontario, the Global personnel are younger, more attractively coiffed and do not seem to waste time liking each other.

Viewing in Toronto has a little scope. For example, city-centric CITY TV is an alternative, of sorts. Having ignored it for some years now, we have not heard of any change. The news style was always breezy but it seemed that the reporter/camera people were afraid they would fall off the earth if they went north of Eglinton Avenue.

There are rumours that CTV2 has a television station here in Babel. It is so pathetic that when Babelites think of local television, they think of Rogers Cable’s community channel.

There is also Mr. Harper’s favourite, Sun Television. Never wanting to and with no such intention, we do not think we have ever watched it. Sun Media publishes the local newspaper in Babel. That is enough bias to stomach.

But the point is that Mr. Harper is to blame. He let Shaw and Bell Canada end up owning the major commercial English-language radio and television networks in Canada. He finally got rid of the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission chair who tried to do his job properly. He failed because Mr. Harper wanted friendly broadcasters. He got them.

But there is a pathetic addition to this disgraceful story. Watching Global Television news the other evening, we were treated to a news clip about the dear old Queen of Canada. She is having another birthday or something and the Royals were out trooping the colors with the guys in red coats and tall fur hats. At the end of the news clip on Global, we saw that it was provided to Her Majesty’s loyal Canadian subjects by the London Bureau of CBS News of the United States of America.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

The Harper Conservative government more or less ignored the anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17. Individual rights are not of paramount concern with conservatives. Nor are they in the forefront with socialists. Individual rights are of the most concern in liberal societies. It is the strong support for individual rights in Canada that convinces us that the Liberal Party of Canada has to better define its role and direction. It has to be better at leading.

The negative opinion of conservatives is best explained by the attitude of Brit Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet at the time of the Charter. Our brand of Rights and Freedoms did not sit well with the rank and privilege of British society. The Thatcher government knew they could hardly refuse to approve it but cabinet archives of the period now show that they seriously considered it. What obviously stopped them was the prospect of offending Pierre Trudeau, his cabinet and millions of Canadians.

Conservatives like rank and privilege. They contribute a large amount of the support to keeping the fiction of Royalty in Canada. Heck, Conrad Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to become a British lord. While the Harper Conservatives will probably let him visit Canada after he gets out of the American slammer, he should not expect a warm welcome from most Canadians.

Canada’s right-wing politicians have constantly complained about the Supreme Court being able to override politicians. They want Parliament to have the final word. Even the Justices of the Supreme Court might not want the responsibility for our rights but it is a responsibility that they accept to preserve the freedoms of Canadians.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is careful not to condemn the Charter but he puts Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s 1960 Bill of Rights ahead of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter was adopted because the earlier Diefenbaker version did not have the same enforceability.

A surprising left-wing objection was voiced the other day. An NDP politician made the suggestion that the Charter conflicts with the common good. This politician felt that society should not look on individual rights as entitlement. He was worried that the Charter could harm social programs. The example used was if there was a long waiting list for hip surgery, people might sue under the Charter to get payment for treatment in another country that did not have as long a waiting list.

He is probably correct that under a socialist regime, individuals would not be entitled to sue. And that is what is wrong with socialism. A healthcare system that puts the individual first is the ideal. And if someone wants to sue, as in that example, the system needs to fix the problem.

Canada is a better place because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We should protect it.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

It was puzzling to see a defence of attack advertising in today’s Toronto Star. They must have been reaching for that one but we wondered where they found the person to write it. After reading what this person had to say, the next step was to check out his blog. That was not too interesting but what he wrote about himself was. The following is what he put there about himself:

“Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant and writer who has been called a “political warrior” a “brilliant strategist” and one of the “canniest political observers in Canada.” He has worked as a consultant in both the United States and Canada and was formerly a senior officer in the National Citizens Coalition. A regular columnist with the Ottawa Hill Times, his work has also appeared in the Globe and Mail, the National Post and in the Sun Media chain; and he has appeared on countless TV and radio public affairs programs. He is the author of the book, Loyal to the Core, Harper, Me and the NCC.”

Wow. This new breed of communications consultant seems to have little use for modesty.

His problem in his article “In praise of negative ads,” is that he thinks positive ads are typically “emotionally manipulative and intellectually vacuous.” He is probably right—about positive ads by the Conservative party.

On February 15, Babel-on-the-bay had this to say about political advertising:

“The truth is that attack ads are the easiest to write. That is why politicians like to use them. All you do is take a seed of what people think about someone and plant it in enough muck to grow something bigger. These ads are for the lazy.

“The tough ads are the honest ones. They are where you, metaphorically, look the viewer in the eye and tell the truth. It is the type of advertising that has to reach out to the viewer and share a depth of understanding and empathy. The good ads have to be credible, believable, endearing, honest and open. And they do all that in 20, 30 or 60 seconds.

“Americans like to use attack ads because they have a two party system. The times when they have a credible third party running, they do not know what to do. If you try to paint a negative image of an opponent in a multi-party campaign, you might have no idea which of the remaining parties will benefit.”

Mr. Nicholls tells us in his article that attack ads often raise issues that people really care about. That does not explain the current flight of Conservative party ads attacking Liberal Interim Leader Bob Rae. The ads are scurrilous, untrue, sleazy and seem to have no purpose other than to defame an opponent. It is quite a stretch to suggest that people in Canada really care about that.

He concludes by asking “isn’t informing voters what political ads should be all about?” That would be a novelty from his political party!

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

It is likely that over the years we have disagreed with Jean Chrétien more often than agreeing with him. His support for the Charlottetown Accord in1992 was probably the most serious disagreement. Then he broke his word about getting rid of the Goods and Services tax when he was elected Prime Minister in 1993. (And he gave Paul Martin Junior the Finance portfolio where he could screw up a lot of Liberal programs.)

But all is now forgiven. Jean welcome home.

Tom Clark’s The West Block on Global Television ran an interview today with Chrétien in which the former Prime Minister endorsed the merger of the Liberal and New Democratic parties. The idea needed that level of support. Some people can laugh at this blog and say ‘that guy is just a socialist in liberal clothing.’ You can hardly say that about Jean Chrétien. He is at worst a populist. He never wandered far from the demands of his late mentor Mitchell Sharp and from successor Paul Martin. While he made it clear that he never really liked Paul Martin, he let him do his right wing thing to the point that the Liberal Party is now at its lowest ebb.

But it can recover. The road to recovery is down a long and difficult courtship with the NDP. The hidebound socialists such as Ed Broadbent will scream betrayal but it looks like Thomas Mulcair will understand. He might not be eager but he is unlikely to slam the door conclusively. He knows he would be foolish to do that. In the short term, it will cost the NDP some of their unionists and out-of-date socialists but that will not be too high a price.

What he can gain is greater. The NDP can hold the Liberal Party to a left of centre mode. It is where both parties belong. Call it social democrat if you wish but it is that broad spectrum of political thinking that serves people first. It is anathema to the Conservatives and completely foreign to the extreme right-wing Libertarians who put land and possessions ahead of people.

There will be some Liberal Party members who will also be more comfortable with the Conservatives than with a social democratic Liberal Party. It is a realignment that has been necessary for many years.

Listen to Jean Chrétien. He knew when he worked with Pierre Trudeau that a merger was the long-term direction for the party. He was just too damn comfortable with the majority Brian Mulroney handed him in 1993 to rock the boat. He went along with things and, in the long term, Canada suffered.

There is still a serious agenda ahead for Harper’s Conservatives and there will have to be a united front to remove the Conservatives and repair the damage after the next election. If we do not have that united front, our country will suffer. Our pride in Canada will suffer. Our people will suffer.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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

An hypothesis is simply the suspected reason for something. It is not based on the truth because you have no proof. It is on this reasoning that scientific minds supposedly go out to seek the truth. It also seems to be the basis used for finding what you want to find. This is the approach appears to be used by organizations with somewhat fixed ideas of what they want to prove. Two Canadian organizations that might have fixed ideas to prove are the Broadbent Institute and the Fraser Institute. Neither of these institutions appears interested in proving the other’s hypotheses.

Named for former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent, the Broadbent Institute seems rather fixed on proving left of centre political hypotheses. Conversely, the Western-based Fraser Institute offers a more right of centre bent. You know where these organizations are going before you read what they are currently saying.

Take the news release from the Broadbent Institute this week. It says that Canadians are concerned about income inequality in Canada. A telephone survey by Environics Research for the institute determined that Canadians would be willing to pay more taxes to protect our major social programs. That is not something that the Fraser Institute would wish to report. Paying taxes is anathema to the Fraser Institute. It seems to constantly pay academics to prove that Canadians pay too much tax on everything.

Anyone involved over the years in opinion research can tell you that how you ask a question is often the key to the answers you will get. That is why a survey by any particular political party showing that more voters intend to vote for them will be met by scepticism. It should be. That is also why the reputable research firms try to keep their distance from any appearance of bias.

At the same time, a blog such as this one makes no attempt at appearing neutral about anything. The objective here is to provide an opinion. Hopefully the opinion is a reasoned enough one that you can assess and take what you want from it. The material is based on years of experience in business, politics and the news media. The required reading has covered the political spectrum, a wide range of philosophies, business strategies and all the way to a daily dose of Dilbert and Doonesbury. Keep it readable, keep it light and have fun doing it. Writing a blog can be just like life!

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

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