Category: Federal Politics

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]

Pierre Poilievre Pivots.

by Peter Lowry

Canadians laughed at Prime Minister Mackenzie King during the Second World War when he said “Conscription, if necessary…but not necessarily conscription.” Any serious student of Canadian politics understands what the old fakir was saying. In order to govern Canada, you have to have it both ways. And those divergent paths are those of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

And we see the evidence today of the continued vacillating. It is like the fan that moves in an arc to broaden its range of moving the air. It is a political tactic that is practised by many a politician. Take MP Pierre Poilievre…please.

Poilievre must have learned his French from his adoptive parents. In the French-language debate the other evening, he decided he was in favour of Bill 21—the Quebec law banning religious symbols on people of authority. While he had previously been opposed, he changed his mind when speaking mainly to Quebec voters.

There is nothing wrong with a politician changing their mind. It is less honourable when the only reason for the change is on which side of the Ottawa river you are speaking. This was the wrong time to pivot. Especially when opponents such as Jean Charest and Patrick Brown were there to comment.

(By the way, Patrick Brown has obviously been working on his French. Now, why do you think the mayor of Brampton, Ontario needs to brush up his French? He might just be plotting his return to Ottawa in support of his old friend Jean Charest.)

But it was Poilievre’s turn to be pilloried for his inconsistency. It is hardly likely that anyone really knows where Poilievre will end up on any issue. Anyone who seeks the approval of law-breaking convoy thugs, challenges the freedom of the governor of the Bank of Canada, belittles our Canadian currency does seem to be at odds with what Canadians understand as conservatism.

Maybe he got his strategy and tactics from Donald Trump in the United States. Trump has a peculiar distaste for truth. We can hardly expect Poilievre to waste his time with it.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

The Death of Conservatism.

by Peter Lowry

It dies with a whimper, not a scream. It collapses from within. It was unwieldy at the best of times. It never was the big tent in which few believed. It dies in Alberta as it does across the country.  Ottawa area MP Pierre Poilievre has crafted a eulogy.

When Poilievre embraced the “convoy to Ottawa” in the winter, it was the death knell. He picked the wrong side. When Jason Kenney found he could not control the far right, his days were numbered. The rift in the supposedly united conservatives in Alberta was down the middle. Even in Ontario, the pegs of the big tent have been pulled on populist Doug Ford and the wind is rising.

The annual federal conservative leadership contest is mired in Pierre Poilievre’s poison of the blame game. The divide between Jean Charest and Poilievre is too wide for one party. Leslyn Lewis and the also-rans stand apart as background to the game being played. Rancour rules and Patrick Brown’s legions of the sub-continent’s diaspora wonder in what farce they have signed conservative party memberships.

Ontario has started to vote and we find the progressive conservatives of our history and gentler times have passed on. Instead, we have the selfishness and uncaring of a rapacious cabal, calling themselves ‘conservative,’ seeking our votes. An ignorant Doug Ford said repeatedly on the province’s leaders’ debate the other day that he thinks the purpose of education is to get “good jobs.” This man who has been controlling billions earmarked for education in this province is obviously ignorant of the purpose of our education system.

It is really too bad that Mr. Ford only attended school long enough to want to be a sticker salesman. Many more of us want to be part of a better society. While knowledge is always very useful, we want education that encourages our children to use the power of their minds to learn, to analyze, to plan, to socialize and to care.

At least, in Ontario today, we have recourse. We have two choices. We can vote the Ford’s uncaring cabal out of office or we can suffer the consequences.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

Brits Begone.

by Peter Lowry

Charles and his lovely wife Camilla are in Canada and the news media are dishing out their usual orgy of coverage. Not that the coverage will be anything like the more in-depth stuff being prepared for the Pope’s visit during the dog days of summer.

You have to admit that the Roman Pope has far better heralds (public relations professionals) than the Brit royals. And the Vatican must be far richer than Buckingham Palace—and in obviously better repair. (Though I really suspect that the Vatican would be better off with a woman’s touch.) The other serious failure of the Vatican is that they tend to appoint their popes when they are past their prime. No pope has ruled for 70 years like Charlie’s mum.

Maybe the real difference is in the tithing. The Roman Pope has an outreach around the world. He has adherents who kick in cash flow. The Royal’s must make a few quid off their ponies and estates but other than that, they are on the dole. The Brits earn it back from tourism.

I hardly think we Canadians have to apologize for kicking out most of the colonial traces. Continuing the fiction of the royalty in this country is something of an embarrassment. It reflects the inability of our governments of all colors and stripes to grasp the nettle of our constitution and fix it.

As it is, we are having to rid ourselves of royalty in the same way we are dealing with the Roman Catholic Church. More and more of us have learned to ignore it. It worked in Quebec. From a time when the church’s ongoing ignorance interfered with women’s reproductive rights and human rights, Quebec has led the way in assuring abortion rights and medical assistance in dying.

In the meantime, you can curtsy and bow to the royals all you like. If they ask me, I’d probably tell them to get a life.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

Poilievre’s Peeve.

by Peter Lowry

Ottawa area MP Pierre Poilievre has something to complain about. After his carefully choreographed campaign for the conservative leadership has led the field, he is starting to see his basic error. He is puzzling about it. His campaign must have been based on the premise that he could win the leadership on the first ballot.   His cockiness carried him off. He burnt his boats. He alternately alienated or ignored his opponents. He seems to have finally realized that he might have to have some second votes.

It was a classic mistake. I doubt very much that he has bothered to listen to his campaign team. He was fooled by those early rallies with his “convoy” friends. He thought their sign-ups would be all he needed.

But even if Poilievre actually signed up a thousand here and a thousand there, he must have realized by now that Patrick Brown is bringing in the new sign-ups by the tens of thousands. And even Brown could not swamp the federal membership as he did in Ontario. What Brown is doing is working as the stalking horse for Jean Charest. He is providing the balance for Charest to win on the third or fourth count of the ballots.

The reality is that Poilievre probably has, at most, 50 per cent of the 250,000 of the already qualified members of the conservative party of Canada. He does not have the same share of the new voters being signed up by June 3. The experts are forecasting that the final tally will be about 400,000 signed up members of the party.

From past experience with these affairs, we know that there will be 300,000 to 325,000 ballots to enter into the computers. Scott Aitchison and Roman Baber will be first and second off the count and nobody will gain enough second votes to go over the top. Assuming that the third person dropped is Leslyn Lewis, it leaves the field to Brown, Charest and Poilievre.

And here is where the Brown-Charest alliance comes into play. Charest’s efforts were concentrated in Quebec and east. Brown’s sign-ups are heavier in in Ontario and B.C. Poilievre might dominate in the Prairies but the treatment of all ridings as equal drops the leadership in Charest’s lap.

If it is any consolation to Pierre Poilievre, he might have won if all votes were equal. It will only be when the conservatives realize that not all ridings are equal, they will stop having an automatic leadership contest after every federal election.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

Fighting for Fairness.

by Peter Lowry

Thank you, thank you, to the federal Competition Bureau. It has acted where the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has not. The CRTC let Canadians down. It, quite frankly, lacks the balls to do its job. It had the chance to denounce the acquisition of Shaw Communications Inc. by Rogers Communications. It did not.

The current CRTC acts as though it works for the big three communications triumvirate of Canada; Bell, Telus and Rogers. The commission has failed to show anything but favouritism for those three companies. It is appointed to serve Canadians. It has obviously forgotten why it is there.

But the federal Competition Bureau has acted. The bureau has locked itself into a court fight in that Rogers will fight to the last shareholder’s nickel to make the company the dominant supplier of broadcasting, telephone and Internet sales in Canada.

What the court will hear is the problems Rogers has faced in finding a buyer for Freedom Mobile—an off-shoot of Shaw Communications that has previously been doing some innovative and cost saving promotions for the Canadian market. After all, who would want to buy an independent cell phone service, with narrower margins, that could be crushed at any time by the big three companies that rule the Canadian market?

What would give any regulator pause in approving this deal is that both Rogers and Shaw have lost their entrepreneurial management in the persons of the late Ted Rogers and JR Shaw. It was a serious time for both the families involved. The Rogers shares are now controlled and directed by Edward Rogers. The Shaw family decided to divest themselves of Shaw Communications while continuing to keep control of Corus Entertainment.

While all I can tell you about the nepotism of both families is that political smarts and entrepreneurial skills do not necessarily pass along with DNA. We saw how badly managed the Rogers empire is when there was a recent bit of a management skirmish at Rogers. At least the Shaw family seem to keep that kind of thing in-house.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

Voices From the Past.

by Peter Lowry

It was an acrimonious and irrelevant session for this year’s federal conservative leadership contest in Ottawa the other night. The event was part of the annual ‘Canada Strong and Free Networking Conference’ sponsored by the right-wing former Manning Institute. What was achieved was questionable.

The only contestant for the leadership remaining mostly unravaged by opponents was Brampton mayor Patrick Brown. He wasn’t there. He was on his usual quest for ethic group sign-ups for the conservative party. They have come up with a name for Brown’s leadership campaigning. They call it ‘diaspora manipulating politics.’ Only Pierre Poilievre took a swipe at Brown. Poilievre is an equal-opportunity swiper who complains about everybody else.

But in true blue conservative fashion, the remaining contestants spent their time defaming each other. They seemed locked in the past. They haggled about abortion. If it was not for the recent leak of a proposed reversal of the Roe versus Wade abortion ruling in the United States Supreme court, most would have ignored the question.

Of course, answering questions never is Poilievre’s strong suit. He is happier on the attack. He was particularly outraged by Jean Charest accusing him of supporting the truckers’ convoy to Ottawa. (Which he did.) He retorted “that truckers have more integrity in their pinky finger” than Charest’s entire “scandal-plagued (liberal) cabinet.”

Charest declared that his experience as premier of Quebec made him the best qualified of the candidates to keep the country unified. Judging from the crowd reaction to the entire proceedings, unity did not appear to be on the agenda.

The only person who was having a good time was social conservative Leslyn Lewis. The best hit of the hour and a half event was when Lewis accused Poilievre of supporting the truckers for a photo-op.

But, typical of Canada’s conservatives they remained mired mainly in the past. Nobody on the stage seemed to have any idea of what Canada might be.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

The ‘Don’t Care’ Politicos.

by Peter Lowry

It’s election time in Ontario. And nobody cares about the environment. Oh sure, what’s his name, the green party guy is expected to complain a lot but even his seat in the legislature isn’t guaranteed. Did you hear that one of Doug Ford’s goodies, promised last week, was a nickel off the provincial gas tax? Wow, the price is reaching $2 a litre and Ford wants us to vote for him for five cents.

The only environmental agreement between the opposition parties is that they will all put an end to Ford’s highway 413. They seem to agree that the highway is a threat to the environment and hardly needed. To lose all that good farm land and wetlands makes little sense—for a highway that is going no where.

And don’t bet on the federal government to save our world. The Trudeau government is still pouring billions into twinning that damn pipeline across the Rockies to carry Alberta tar sands bitumen to the Burrard Inlet for overseas shipment. And all this time, they have been pushing their environmental plans for 2030 and, I guess, keeping that pipeline secret from Mr. Trudeau’s environment minister Steven Guilbault.

Minister Guilbault is supposed to be some sort of climate activist. That seems like a lonely position these days as the federal conservatives keep coming on strong with no climate solutions in that party’s future. There are two greenies in Canada’s parliament. They do not seem to be doing any persuading.

Even Quebec is having an election this year and the ruling Coalition Avenir Québec is mainly ignoring the environment. The opposition in that province is scattered over a number of parties with slim hopes. The last time I checked, it looked like the Parti Québécois had the best environmental plan. And that party is certainly not going anywhere.

With everyone worrying if the conflict in Ukraine is going to lead to a world war, climate change has taken a back seat. Yet, every day we are hearing about climate change and extremes of weather. Mother Nature might not wait until we humans get involved in saving our planet.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

The Muddy Middle.

by Peter Lowry

The conservative party’s current leadership contest is muddying the question of where the party sits in the political spectrum. The party has tried right of centre with Andrew Scheer, somewhere in the muddy middle with Erin O’Toole and just where it is headed with the current batch of candidates is a good question. Maybe it should be an important question for candidates to address in the upcoming leadership debates.

Frankly, I have never been satisfied with the picture of Canada’s major political parties posing as ‘big tent’ parties. It is really more of a copout than a workable political solution. I joined the liberal party back when it was running under the banner of Medicare. It came as a shock to me to find that there were opponents to Medicare still in the party.

And then when Paul Martin Junior practically destroyed Medicare running out of control as Jean Chrétien’s right-finance minister, I was left wondering what was a passionate progressive’s position. Like many caring progressives, I could find no alternative.

Confusion was complete in my mind when Tom Mulcair backed the new democrats into the crowded middle ground in 2015. It led to his downfall as leader two years later and his departure from politics. Mind you, in comparison to Jagmeet Singh, Mulcair at least knew where he wanted to go.

With both Patrick Brown and Jean Charest heading for the muddy middle in this year’s conservative leadership, you can understand why Pierre Poilievre is making good use of a populist approach. He is spouting right-of-centre dogma of limited government and lower taxes. Whether he would actually do that would be a matter of conjecture. He can ridicule Brown and Charest as light liberals, all he likes, but there is a strong faction within the conservative party that despised the truckers’ convoy and did not approve of Poilievre embracing the participants.

Despite the mistake he might be making, if I was on Pierre Poilievre’s team, I would argue strongly to stay with the present tack. It is beginning to look like his only chance is to win on the first ballot. He is burning his boats for second choice votes.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]