Federal Politics – Page 212

Canada’s Liberal Party, moving right or left?

December 4, 2011 by Peter Lowry

The following first ran January 29, 2010. It has been changed a bit to recognize some of the players are no longer with us. The thoughts and ideas remain the same.

The Toronto Star ran a series on liberal philosophy in January of 2010 that ended with a summation by the late Tom Kent, the guru of the 1960 Liberal conference in Kingston Ontario. In advocating major social reform such as medicare, the Kingston Conference fit the tenor of aggressive social action of the times–50-years ago.

The question is what is the tenor of our times in 2010 and now at the end of 2011? First of all, there is the anger and frustrations people feel. Betrayed by the sanctimonious right and then left in the lurch by the left wing of the political spectrum, why should the voters trust them? The growing distrust of politicians has lead to both lethargy and perfidy in voting. Lower turnouts, confusing choices and destructive voting can leave politicians equating the voters with unruly children.

And why should the voters not take it out on the politicians. Banks betray them. Business lies to them. Churches castigate them. Family ties have become more tenuous, easily broken. Who do you trust? Why do you want to trust them? Because in life, we need trust. We need trust to live. Hedonism is lonely. There is no such thing as the truly self-sufficient person.

People used to believe in their church. They used to accept the doctrines but today it is much safer to be born again and connect directly with your God. Priests and pastors used to be there to help you find God but you found out in recent times that there are priests who fondle little boys and pastors who fondle the organist. Connect directly to God and you cut out the weak go-betweens. Unless you think your priest or pastor is God and that leads to all kinds of problems.

It is the same with business. If you put your trust in a company today, it will put you on tomorrow’s bread line.

Are you going to trust a political party that reads the polls and then tells you what you want to hear? Are you going to tell a pollster anything? Least of all, the truth?

Be honest, would you not rather have friends with benefits than a spouse? You will only change that course when you find someone who can hopefully share a family and, at least some, of a life together.

And that explains only a small part of the problem. The political party that wants to connect with voters today has to exhibit leadership, direction, confidence, excitement and look good while carrying out its program. And yet, Barack Obama, who excited voters in the United States, is dropping in the polls in a post-coital period of blues. Sustaining the expectations in today’s society is a monumental and, maybe, an impossible task.

Michael Ignatieff challenged Liberals to think of the party’s future but, he also needed to have the party recapture some of its past. For example, it needed to go back to the Kingston Conference to rethink the social issues that the party saw at that time and why the party chose that direction.

It was a different party. It was a party with strength and drive across Canada. It was a truly national party that was built from the ground up. It was not the centrally directed and controlled party of today. It was a party with strong riding organizations, effective regional and provincial organizations, solid policy development at what was referred to as the grass roots. It was a party that recognized the rank and file member as the very essence of the party’s existence.

Regrettably, that old Liberal party is gone. Not that we want to be maudlin about its passing but we do have to be disappointed with the weak, sham of a party structure that has replaced it. It is the same with all parties. They are all run today from the top down.Stephen Harper revels in the God-like control he has on the Conservatives. Even Jack Layton could not believe the control he had of the union organizers who always had such control of the old, more contentious NDP.

Maybe one of the problems Michael Ignatieff had is that the Liberal party apparatchiks around him were from the right wing of the party. Trying to find some left wing liberals in Ottawa today is a tough job. People like John Manley who took over the right-wing role of president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives are among those around John Chrétien and Paul Martin who opened the door to Harper’s neo-conservatives. They have left our country floundering in the hands of a failed economist.

It will only be a rebuilt Liberal party that will enable Canadians to once again have a confidence in politicians. There is a long road ahead……….

– 30 –

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

An age of arrogance.

December 2, 2011 by Peter Lowry

What has brought Canadian politics to its current level? We barely have our nose above the slime but we are well positioned to smell it. We have a majority government in Ottawa acting as though it is a besieged minority. And its answer to all its critics is an appalling degree of arrogance.

Our ready answer might be that we import this type of politics from the United States where slinging mud is a natural tendency of the political breed. And yet for all the rudeness and prevarication in their politics, Americans have some basic rules that people do not cross without universal condemnation. Crossing the line cost President Richard Nixon his office. Crossing the line brought President Bill Clinton before Congress where he barely escaped impeachment. The voters even had the decency to toss aside the vice-presidential candidate who could see Russia from her back porch.

Much of the problem in Ottawa has to be laid at the door of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He thinks he is emperor of some imperial oligarchy wherein he commandeers a military Airbus 300 to take him on his round of world meetings to expound on Harper economics. He leaves his underlings to ram omnibus bills through parliament that even his MPs do not understand.

Harper’s Treasury Board President, Tony Clement, who is something of an expert at spending government money, continues to block parliament from finding all the details of his spending of money designated for border upgrades on new public washrooms in Muskoka.

Harper’s Minister of National Defence, Peter McKay takes note on how the Prime Minister does things and orders up a military search and rescue helicopter to return him from a fishing trip. His flip answer to opposition queries is that the military wanted to show him how it works.

Meantime, for sport, the Conservatives on the Hill with nothing to do ravage after the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation like a cackle of hyenas.

In all their actions, the Conservatives in Canada’s parliament are as unsure of themselves and their tenure, as freshmen during a badly planned frosh week. There is no maturity or trust, no sober second thought, no olive branch and no conciliatory effort. Canada has a sad parliament.

-30-

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

Denying devolution.

December 1, 2011 by Peter Lowry

In biology, devolution is the return of a specie to an earlier form. In politics, it is the return of power to its original roots. It is what the Liberal Party of Canada has to do to become an effective power again in federal politics. And it will—if the people who think they run the party would just get out of the way and let it happen.

But they do not seem to be willing. Whether from obduracy or ignorance, the powers that be in the Liberal Party are resisting the changes in party governance that are desperately needed to revitalize the party. These people want to keep a top-down management of the party until the last Liberal leaves the Parliament Buildings.

By far the most widely discussed resolution slated for debate at the party’s biennial conference, slated for January 13 to 15, is the resolution on democratic renewal of the party. It has been obvious to Liberal Party members for quite some time that the basic problem is the top-down management of the party from Ottawa. It simply does not work. This top-down approach has destroyed three party leaders in a row. It has destroyed almost 100 riding associations across Canada and more are heading for trouble. Never before has it been so obvious that management of the party from Ottawa does not work.

And yet, party management is trying to delay democratic reform. This resolution they wrote for the party to vote on in January would stall any change in how the party functions for at least three years. In three years, the party will have chosen a new leader and be heading into a federal election against Harper’s Tories. Defeating Harper will take precedence over party reform. Another report on reform will be shelved.

The answer is that if people want to debate the issues, no more than a year should be allowed for all discussion. An all-member Internet vote can then be held on any proposed changes. And, if all else fails, party members have to make it clear to all candidates that they will only vote for a leadership candidate who makes a pledge to only use the power to appoint candidates where there is no active electoral district association.

There are few periods when a party can truly renew itself. The Liberal Party has that time while Mr. Harper shows Canadians his real intentions. It is giving Liberals a chance to examine where they are going and how they want to get there. They might be surprised at the answers.

-30-

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

The Babel Whigs are vanquished.

November 30, 2011 by Peter Lowry

Writing about “Politics in Babel: Strange happenings” (Nov. 20, 2011), it was noted that the former Member of Parliament as well as former Member of Provincial Parliament—and our favourite Whig—was running for the presidency of Babel’s local federal Liberal association. Not only was it the largest Liberal Party gathering we have ever seen in Babel. It turned out to be the longest.

The former MPP and her coterie function in a manner similar to a pride of lions in the wild. It is the lionesses who are the most vicious and determined. The males in the pride are just there to shake their manes and look good. And those she lions came to the Liberal meeting for the blood sport.

But they miscalculated. They were hard, fast and strident on the challenges but these were obvious delaying tactics. They had the chair—who was from another riding–confused and perspiring as he tried to figure out what was going on. When the Whigs started arguing about a proposed new constitution for the local party organization, older Liberals in the crowd, who had been through those arguments before, groaned. They had visions of the meeting lasting into the next morning.

But that was the reason. The Whigs knew they did not have the numbers and felt that they could hold their voters longer and counted on the newer federal members being less able to stick with it. It would have worked if they had more supporters and better arguments on the constitution. As it was, the chair finally put the constitution to a ballot vote to be counted at the same time as the executive ballots. Mind you, people were so confused on the constitution, most of them probably voted “no” when they meant to say “yes.”

There was no confusion on the executive vote. The only contested positions were those for the president and vice-president, fund-raising. The former MPP was running for president and her husband for the fund-raising job. They both gave strong speeches.

The key was the nominators. The current president had asked one of the members of the revitalized youth wing to nominate him. The former MPP had a long-time employee nominate her. If the nominator had not been one of the more strident objectors on the constitutional argument, she might have got a better hearing.

While there was some concern about the former MPP’s husband being an easy winner in the fund-raising spot, they should not have underestimated his competition. There were many people there who felt that the attack on the federal association was really an attack on the candidate the party had as a standard bearer in May of this year. As there is not much you can do about an ex officio member of the board of directors, it was his girl friend, running for the fund-raising spot, who was their target. They forgot that she is a school teacher who travels around the world working for charities. She handled that mob as though they were a class of grade four children.

The disappointing speech was the one by the former MPP. She talked about the job as though she was running for Member of Parliament. It was a political speech but had little to do with the job for which she was running. The only challenge she threw at her opponent was that she made a better spokesperson for the party. As that is rarely the role of a riding president, that appeal failed.

The Whigs failed. By about two to one, the votes rejected the former MPP and her husband. The lions went home to lick their wounds.

-30-

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

The economics of Social Democracy.

November 27, 2011 by Peter Lowry

The late Tom Kent was practically raised to sainthood by the Liberal Party of Canada. It was Kent’s ideas that fuelled the rebirth of the party in the 1960s. His ideas also spurred the growth of the left wing of the party. And it was the growing and vocal left wing of the party that pushed through Medicare and welcomed the leadership of Pierre Trudeau.

Yet we never thought of Tom Kent as a social democrat. That idea is being promoted by former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent. It seems that Kent wrote a paper on the future of social programs for the Broadbent Institute. What is unusual about the paper is that it advocates refundable credits in federal income tax to combat poverty and further other social democracy objectives. He uses the example of the Baby Bonus cheques that went to the mothers that were replaced by the supposedly more sophisticated child tax credit in the federal income tax.

But the monthly child credit still goes mainly to the mother or to her bank account. The tax system is then used to claw back the money from families with better incomes. Not even Stephen Harper has been able to find a more effective system to distribute these funds. And it is hardly an example of the use of refundable credits in the tax system.

Refundable credits are the ones where the taxpayer spends the money and then claims the refund in the subsequent year’s income tax. That system was used for the home repair credits in Harper’s economic stimulus plan and seemed to do no more than ensure people got receipts and paid the GST for their home improvement expenditures instead of keeping them hidden. The real amount of economic stimulus was probably limited.

The most serious basic social need in this country is a guaranteed annual income for every person. This is a basic income to keep a roof over their head and a proper diet on the table. It is neither generous nor fun but it does ensure survival and an opportunity to earn more. It is not something that can be paid in the subsequent year, based on your failure to earn an income this year.

That is what a Liberal believes in: basic dignity for the individual in our society. That is also what a social democrat should believe in.

We are not too sure what point Ed Broadbent is trying to make with Tom Kent’s paper. The way it was said in the version we saw, the refundable tax credit system was a roundabout way to make social programs work under our current government system. The time is long overdue to change that system.

-30-

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

Tony Clement: An ideologue in Parliament.

November 24, 2011 by Peter Lowry

The federal New Democrats do not seem to like Treasury Board President Tony Clement. This dislike might be because of Mr. Clement’s hard right wing stance, his distain for any opposition and his seeming lack of concern for taxpayers’ money or taxpayers. Since his days at the University of Toronto, Clement has shown a propensity for annoying people who might be more fair-minded than himself.

We first heard about him at the U. of T. when he tried to promote a debating event with the South African Ambassador, at the time, a known advocate of apartheid. It was more an attempt to goad than to promote free speech.

That chip on his shoulder seemed to reveal what was probably a deep-seated inferiority complex during his political career. An Ontario politician, Clement, allied more with the Western Canadian Alliance, wrote policy for Michael Harris’ program-slashing plans in the early 1990s under the strange title of the “Common Sense Revolution.” He was elected provincially in 1995 and in 1997 became part of the Harris Provincial Cabinet and its successor government headed by Ernie Eves, until defeated along with the Eves government in 2003.

Clement won election to the House of Commons in Parry Sound-Muskoka by 28 votes in 2006 and was appointed to the new Harper Government as Minister of Health. He was immediately in hot water because of a drug company conflict and then his stand on providing AIDS-related drugs to the Third World. He went on in that portfolio to cause a Supreme Court ruling on safe injection sites for addicts. This was in addition to his trying to enforce draconian treatment of drug users instead of going after drug dealers.

After two years of annoying people in Health Care, Clement was moved to the supposedly safer Industry Ministry in 2008. In this role, he made many controversial remarks. The most note-worthy that applied to his job for Harper was to refer to the danger of the City of Sudbury becoming a “Valley of Death.” His interference in Statistics Canada being able to provide assistance to Canadian industry led to the angry resignation of the Chief Statistician.

The G8 $45 million spread-the-wealth fiasco that he arranged for his own riding in 2010 was a classic of pork barrel politics. It certainly got him re-elected with more votes this time. His only problem is that he keeps trying to correct things he has said and, if he had a Pinocchio nose, it would be a foot long by now. The NDP opposition smell his fear and have now accused Clement of falsifying parliamentary records.

Prime Minister Harper is watching his minister squirm. Harper has a majority now and he knows that Clement is disposable. Fix it or fail, Tony!

-30-

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

Politics in Babel: Strange happenings.

November 20, 2011 by Peter Lowry

Writing about politics is fun. Being part of the game is hazardous. You never know from where the next missile will come. That thought was present the other day when we found out that the upcoming annual general meeting of the Barrie Federal Liberal Association would not be as uneventful as these events usually can be.

Instead of just considering dull constitution changes, there will be a contest for the party presidency. The role of president is no easy job. It requires a lot of work, a considerable amount of time and dedication. When you get a good one, you like to keep them for at least a few terms. It helps build a strong association.

And the local party has a good one at this time. He has been in the job over the past year. He helped bring the party together. He provided strong organizational support during a tough federal election campaign in the spring. He has been doing an excellent job in building the riding executive. He not only worked hard through the federal election but he helped ensure good support to the new provincial candidate this fall.

And now he is being challenged—not by a newcomer–but by a former Member of Parliament and the now retired Member of the Provincial Parliament. Why she wants the job is not clear.

She hardly needs the position of riding president to be influential in Barrie. It is actually a step backward. She would never put in the work that the current president is doing.

And where was she during the federal election earlier this year? The federal candidate could have used her help.

When people run for a position such as president of the riding association, you expect them to explain why. When they decide to run against someone who has been doing a good job, you expect them to have a very interesting explanation.

To help her campaign for the party presidency, the former MPP has enlisted her husband to run for the association position of fund-raising chair. The riding association would have sent a brass band to welcome one of Canada’s more prominent lawyers if they had known he was willing to do that job.

But what is her agenda? She should explain.

-30-

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

Liberal demise: A premature report.

November 19, 2011 by Peter Lowry

Peter C. Newman has done it again. As the lead drummer and chronicler of the Conrad Black Memorial Marching Band, Peter has again announced the death of the Liberal Party of Canada. Peter has been wrong before. He is no prophet.

The first problem with Peter’s report is that his conclusion was based on interviews with former party leader Michael Ignatieff. One can well understand that Michael is a bit down at this time on the future of the Liberal Party. We can only hope that Michael will be the last person chosen to lead the Liberal Party without knowing where it wants to go.

There is no question but the Liberal Party of Canada does have some self-destructive tendencies. As does any political party. It is a safety mechanism for the voters. Our voting system of first-past-the-post also provides wild swings in party representation. In comparison, proportional voting would provide glacial change and the country would stagnate politically.

As gloomy as Michael and some others might be about the Liberal party, its current condition is really an opportunity. Political parties have to be able to renew themselves. New ideas, new solutions are available to those who seek them. An open and democratic party can not only refresh its direction but lay out a better future for Canadians.

What the Liberal Party might never find is a way to rid itself of those who would hold it back. To admit that naysayers are necessary is to admit that you need internal checks and balances on your arguments for a future. And you accept the inevitable. You let them stay because you need the early warnings on the arguments of your enemies.

But they have to be open to change. That is part of being liberal. Liberalism should never be a fixed target. It moves with the times. It has to be in the current century. While liberalism in Canada might have its origins in the muddy streets of 19th Century Toronto, it has embraced a country stretching from Labrador to Vancouver Island.

In his book When the Gods Changed, Newman concludes that Canada no longer needs a Liberal Party. In the same manner, one can also conclude that Canadians no longer need a Conservative Party. And while Canada very much needed a Tommy Douglas, the union-dominated New Democratic Party has proved itself an anachronism.

We certainly need a new Liberal Party.

-30-

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

Is fear alone derailing our future?

November 16, 2011 by Peter Lowry

Franklin Roosevelt said it best in his 1933 inaugural address that the “only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” That certainly helps explain the pitiful excuses from both Ottawa and Queen’s Park to again shy away from high-speed train service in the Windsor–Quebec City corridor. These so-called politicians do not serve us well.

When something is so vital to the political and economic future of our country, why are we letting it be blocked by the callow, the myopic, the self-serving and the ignorant? “It’s time for us to pause and reflect,” says Ontario Premier McGuinty in answer to questions from reporters about the high speed train service. If he had told Ontario voters that, during the recent election campaign, he would have been doing his reflecting today back in his law practice in Ottawa.

Neither Prime Minister Harper nor Ontario’s Premier understand that, in times of adversity—such as today’s economic problems—the country needs clear, non-partisan direction. It needs determined and understandable leadership, not ideology. It needs bold moves forward, not quavering inaction.

They think of high speed trains down the Windsor–Quebec City corridor as train tickets. They have little understanding of how those rails of steel can hold this country together. If they keep letting Quebec isolate itself from the rest of the country, they will never notice when it leaves. It is important to remember that the Quebec government also wants this high-speed rail service. We have to build for togetherness, not separation.

Today, we know that the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal part of the scheme is doable, economically viable and essential to our nation. The only people who will hate it are the people who own Porter Airlines.

The right of way exists, the train stations exist, the dire need exists. All this country really lacks is leadership.

And with all the electricity that the two provinces generate, the trains have to be electric as an example of Canadian engineering to the world. At 300-plus kilometres per hour, Canadians could even learn to enjoy on-time rail service

-30-

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

Defining 21st Century Liberalism.

November 14, 2011 by Peter Lowry

Liberal Party of Canada President Alfred Apps is a brave guy. In his paper Building a Modern Liberal Party, he tries to define modern liberalism. He roots around in the muddy middle ground of politics attempting to assemble a representation of the big red tent of Liberalism.

When you consider that this is the party of Mitchell Sharp, Bill Graham and Paul Martin Jr. on the right as well as Herb Grey, Lloyd Axworthy and Paul Martin Sr. on the left, you can be excused for thinking the party covers a broad spectrum of ideologies. Today, this broad spectrum is the party’s weakness.

It is our opinion that Canadians are getting tired of the Liberal Party posturing in a fictional middle ground. We need to pick a path to the future.

Apps touches on where we should build on our strengths when he says, “We believe in the ‘servant state’.” There is an entire philosophy to be built around that statement. It is one that we need to believe in beyond anything else. And yet Apps is wrong when he says, “We are capitalists, not socialists.” To be an effective servant, you must be both.

To serve, to engage and to lead is a long road that liberals need to travel. It has little to do with modern technology and has much to do with our beliefs. Believe first. Earn the trust and then the mechanics are easy.

Alf needs to learn that there is no such thing as a “balanced middle road.” The question always has to be: Are we effectively serving the needs of our people?

Liberals are not the natural government of Canada. That is arrogant. You have to earn the right to be the government. Or you could learn how to lie and steal and cheat your way into government the way the Conservatives have learned to do it. If you can earn peoples’ trust, you could come up with programs people want to make life better. Or you could just run scurrilous attack ads against your opponent and not offer anything positive.

Alf admits that he does not understand the emotional rationale of how people vote. It is probably just as well that he is not likely to run for the party leadership in 2013.

-30-

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