New – Page 217 – Babel-on-the-Bay

Creating conflict for city and province.

May 5, 2017 by Peter Lowry

They really cannot be doing it to ‘sell’ newspapers in this day and age. The Toronto Star has been busy building a supposed conflict between Mayor John Tory of Toronto and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. It is based on the recent Ontario budget that did not mention more funds for Toronto’s subways and other infrastructure needs.

This is a sadly silly scenario. We have seen photo opportunities, television appearances and headline stories of the mayor and the premier and even with prime ministers assuring Toronto that they will have funds. So much has been promised over the past ten years, you would expect that Toronto would have about three more subways besides that light rail line it has been digging across town on Eglinton Avenue for the past four years.

Frankly the Toronto Star is not helping people understand what is going on in their city. You would think the paper could keep a tally of all of these offers of money by the feds and province and remind the various treasurers that some funds are due. The poor mayor should hardly have to always be going around with a tin cup.

And he could hardly be expecting to do any better with that putz Patrick Brown in the premier’s chair. That is the same guy who tried to convince Wynne not to let the mayor charge tolls on the city’s portion of the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway. It was only when Wynne was convinced of the heat she would take from the Greater Toronto Area voters that she told Tory to forget road tolls.

And based on the average selling price of Toronto homes these days, Toronto could be collecting far more taxes. It might be tough to get a third more but when the average house can be sold for about $900,000, we know the city is getting a cut.

Mind you the unwieldy structure of city council makes it extremely difficult for the mayor to build any kind of consensus or consistency of direction. No provincial party has ever brought forward a workable plan for the city and would hardly ask for any suggestions. Keeping the city in short pants and under the provincial thumb is key to many seats in provincial elections.

The Toronto Star always seems to ignore this issue. Why? We will leave that discussion for another time.

-30-

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

In the Senate: “Some are more equal.”

May 4, 2017 by Peter Lowry

In George Orwell’s Animal Farm we were told that some animals are more equal than others. This makes it an appropriate analogy for the institution in Canada known as the senate. The senate was created 150 years ago as a chamber of sober second thought to rein in any excesses of the citizens elected to the house of commons.

But nobody ever thought about the possible excesses of the citizens selected to serve in the senate. Can the senate write its own rules as to who is fit to serve in the institution? Are some animals more equal than others?

And it is not just today’s controversial senator. The senate has had its rogues going back more than 100 years. When you give people carte blanche, you often get individuals who want to steal the carte! Greed and avarice are not just conditions of those deprived in life.

Are all senators pure of heart? What is the point of being a senator if what the senate really represents is entitlement? Whether it is creature comforts in the perks or sexual gratification, some will always go further than others in fulfilling needs.

And are we going to allow the senators to police themselves? When the power of appointment rests solely with the prime minister, how can the senate bar a member? The senator serves to age 75. There is no mechanism nor custom other than a failure to attend for a period of time to remove a senator from office. They are all honourable persons.

The only answer is to amend Canada’s constitution. The writer once discussed that with the prime minister and was surprised at the vehemence with which that option was rejected. As a child, Justin Trudeau saw his father struggling with the constitutional conundrum of Canada. He wants no part of dealing with the constitution.

It must be part of the reason the prime minister gave up on his promise to change how Canada votes. While the act of voting is one change that can escape our constitutional straightjacket, it would take constitutional change in how parliament functions to then make a voting change work effectively.

Constitutional change must happen eventually. With the imbalance of Canada’s provinces, the commitments to provincial rights and outdated religious school commitments, our constitution has to be rescued from the 19^th Century. The world keeps changing and Canada has to have a government that can deal with the issues of the times.

In these times, only an elected constitutional conference to find a new framework, can be considered. Even then, all citizens should have a say on what is implemented.

-30-

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

Speechwriters and old soldiers never die.

May 3, 2017 by Peter Lowry

This writer would have serious doubts taking on writing speeches for an old soldier such as Canada’s defence minister Harjit Sajjan. There are a series of problems involved, not the least of them being the mistake of trying to present an apolitical Sikh in the guise of a politician. There is no fit.

The first mistake most people make when a decorated military veteran is appointed defence minister is to assume he knows his job. No, he does not. It is a political job and, as it turns out, Sajjan is not all that political. His political career is at the mercy of the political people working for him.

Not the least of these political flunkies would be the speechwriters who have their own way of doing things. They would hardly be likely to have any understanding of the cultural divide faced by Canadian Sikhs. While conceit is considered one of the hated five thieves of their religion, Sikhs take considerable pride in their military history. And like many other sects, their oral history can be enriched with hyperbole.

But what Sajjan saw in politics was the day-in-day-out glossing over the facts. He saw how people would keep their more positive stories in the forefront and bury the less savoury. And we need to face the fact that to Sikhs, he was not just part of Operation Medusa in Afghanistan but the highest-ranking Sikh playing a key role. To a Sikh, the claim of his being an architect in the operation, became being the architect. He knew this was an exaggeration but was convinced that this is how it is done in politics.

So you have the combination of misconceptions about politics. First by the inexperience in politics of Sajjan and then by the misconceptions of speechwriters. And when you have speechwriters who might not understand the military chain of command in battlefield operations, you have the combination that caused the problems.

We should remember though that as soon as he was called on this as being inaccurate, Sajjan apologized. He made no pretense nor did he take the usual political defense of stonewalling the complaint.

As are more than a few of Sajjan’s cabinet colleagues, he is a neophyte in this field. To be fair, we need to cut him some slack. He should have had an easier introduction to politics and learned to be a politician in a different parliamentary job. He might become Canada’s first veteran to get PTSD in the House of Commons.

-30-

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

A hundred days in America.

May 1, 2017 by Peter Lowry

Marking his first 100 days in office, U,S. President Donald Trump told the media that he thought the job as president was easier. It is an admission that he has neither the training, nor experience nor temperament to handle the position. He has proved to the world that he is incapable of doing the job.

While marking the accomplishments of the first 100 days in office worked well for President Franklin Roosevelt in the heart of the Depression, nobody was eager for the actions of Donald Trump. It was a different time with different concerns. In a period of economic recovery, Trump’s attempts at imperial rule are counter-productive.

His actions in regards to the Middle East encompass bigotry, ignorance and none of the desired consequences. His executive orders fly in the face of his legal capabilities and cause little more than chaos.

His twits to the Trump troops cause confusion and consternation as a new news system supplants the more ordered news patterns of the past. It has become mantra that Trump lies, his press secretary lies and Trump’s media supporters lie. We all have our own truth.

What Trump does not understand is that the presidency is a responsibility, not a triumph. Even President Eisenhower let the job interfere with his golf.

Trump also fails to understand that the role requires that he calm the concerns of the world, not cause constant consternation.

Maybe the Chinese thought he was running a ruse in asking them to intervene with North Korea. The problem is that Trump has no idea of how to handle a lunatic such as North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

But then he is just as clueless when it comes to America’s friends. He has spent more than a year now vilifying the Mexicans. To turn and piss off the Canadians at the same time will go down as a classic in bad international relations. Any general can tell him if you want to win, you do not try to fight on two fronts at the same time.

Hell, Trump is not just a bad president. Neither Canada nor Mexico wants Trump’s America as a neighbour. What have been amicable relations for the past 100 years, Trump has destroyed in his first 100 days.

Neither the Canadian nor Mexican leaders have been saying very much but they are well aware of the anger that is building among their citizens.

Another 100 days like the first 100 and Canada and Mexico will build their own damn walls.

-30-

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

The piecemeal processes of Premier Wynne.

April 30, 2017 by Peter Lowry

“Ladies and gentlemen and children of all ages: Let me draw your attention to the left ring of our three-ring circus. Here for your entertainment and edification is our finance minister who has just passed the miracle of a balanced budget. Charles Sousa will now amaze you further by proposing a new pharmacare program to swamp the proposal of the NDP.”

And he did. In his geared-for-election budget, the Ontario finance minister proposed a piecemeal pharmacare program for Ontario residents under the age of 25. It is the same drug benefit program that applies to seniors and people receiving provincial support. The difference from what the New Democrats proposed is that it applies to the gamut of 4400 listed drugs as opposed to the more restrictive list of the most commonly used 125 prescription drugs as proposed by the NDP.

All it does though is remind Ontario voters of the penchant of the Liberal government for doing things piecemeal. When their banker advised them to sell off the electricity distribution system in Ontario, they broke it into small lots and started selling off a bit at a time. It helped remind Ontario voters each time that they will end up contributing to the profits for those buyers.

It was the same when the province’s banker advised them to sell wine and beer in grocery stores. They thought that was such a great idea that they announced it several times, added hard ciders for another couple media events and spaced the selection of stores over a couple years so that they could have lots more media events. And in the meantime, nobody knows which grocer is selling beer and which is not.

It is as though the Wynne Liberals have decided that if anything is worth doing, it can best be done many times. That will leave the final stage of having pharmacare for those between 25 and 64—that we should have had since the beginning of Medicare in Canada.

Since Ontario has 40 per cent of Canada’s population, the federal government will get into the act at some stage and make it universal in Canada.

Mind you, that genius Ontario PC Leader Patrick Brown complained about this program needing a means test. It will be interesting to see how he will apply a means test to children. He should hardly be concerned about the parents paying for them. They will anyway in their taxes but it will be much less because of the buying power of the government and the fact we will have healthier kids, more likely taking their prescribed medicines.

-30-

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

On being bullish on Brown.

April 29, 2017 by Peter Lowry

There is lots of laughter at the current argument among Ontario Conservatives about whether their leader Patrick Brown has policies. Some Conservatives think it would be nice if they knew where their party is headed. Others think policies should be kept secret so that the opposition does not belittle them.

They would if they could but Patrick Brown would not know a good policy talking point if it bit him on the bum. In more than 13 years in politics, this guy has never had a hint of an idea. Watching him over the years, you get the impression that the last person he talked to had the best ideas.

It was amazing in the last provincial election at a meeting at the Barrie Country Club in Brown’s riding, to see him strongly applaud a speech by then leader Tim Hudak. He jumped up after the speech to be the first to congratulate the then provincial leader for his brilliant new policy. It was the promise by Hudak to fire 100,000 Ontario civil servants. It was also the promise that cost Hudak the election and the leadership.

It reminds us of Michael Harris’ style when he was Premier of Ontario. The province endured a litany of bad policy and ill thought-out ideas under Harris. He was like an earlier less-urbane version of President Donald Trump in the United States—incompetent, erratic and dangerous. Harris might have been a golf professional but we always had the impression he might have done his best work on the 19^th hole.

Patrick Brown trained as a lawyer. He even managed to pass the bar in Ontario. He is not the type of lawyer you would want representing you in court. He is a backroom schemer. He made his mark in political organization. He is no leader. It is unlikely that he even likes people.

It was amusing recently to read that Deb Hutton has defended Brown’s lack of policies. As former chief of staff for Premier Harris and the wife of former Conservative leader Tim Hudak, she must know a lot about ignoring common sense. She thinks Brown should also ignore policy.

And come to think of it, he has survived this long with never having an idea. If Kathleen Wynne and her Liberals keep screwing up, maybe he will not need any policies.

-30-

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

Kevin O’Leary was never in.

April 28, 2017 by Peter Lowry

When TV personality Kevin O’Leary declared himself out of the federal Conservative leadership race the other day, it was a race he had never really been in. He came late to the party and left early. He brought nothing to it, he learned nothing from it and he left nothing behind. It was a was a waste of time and money.

O’Leary was another ill wind in the Conservative campaign. He left behind a bad taste and a kiss-off for candidate Maxime Bernier. He ignored all the party rules governing the race and gave Canadian politics the finger (Known as flipping the bird in his home-town Boston.) His support for libertarian, playboy Maxime Bernier was the ultimate insult.

If O’Leary was impressed with Bernier speaking French, it would be because O’Leary had no idea what was being said. What his advisers should have told him was that as definitely as he was making no traction in Quebec, neither was Bernier. If Bernier cannot win Quebec, what makes O’Leary think his endorsement will help?

And, by the way, O’Leary’s name is still on the ballot. That was just another rule he broke. Nobody is allowed to bow out at this time when voting is technically already in progress. Now he can be doubly embarrassed when the votes are counted. Did he really turn in 35,000 new members of the party? Did the people doing that for him spread that waste of money equally across 338 electoral districts?

Anyway, 35,000 memberships are not going to have much impact on the 250,000 federal Conservative membership. It is not like the provincial party in Ontario that was bought and paid for by Patrick Brown’s supporters. And if you do not think the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus of MPPs in Ontario do not already hate Brown, wait for the 2018 elections.

If Bernier thinks O’Leary supporters would vote for a candidate such as him, he is more delusional about Canadian politics than the guy he called a “loser” and a “bad candidate” just a month or so ago.

Some of O’Leary’s votes might go to MP Erin O’Toole from Ontario, but they would have to be thinking Conservatives as opposed to the usual thoughtless ballot marking sign-up. And the funny part of this is that those new sign-ups are unlikely to be told how to mark their second, third, etc. votes.

The computer program being used to pick the winner in this confused contest is beginning to look even more questionable when you consider how many people voting who might not even mark a second or subsequent choice.

Maybe Kevin O’Leary will come back when the party announces the winner. He can be loser number 13 in the kick-line.

-30-

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

Donald Trump has a plan?

April 27, 2017 by Peter Lowry

Heard any good conspiracy theories today? It is amazing how many pundits are writing about Trump’s real plans for world-wide dictatorship. They see Trump’s actions in the White House as part of a scheme. They think it is designed to keep outsiders confused.

But it should be obvious to everybody that Trump is the one who is confused. He is erratic, unprepared, unaware and badly advised. And if you can figure the conspiracy in that, good luck!

Just look at those decrees that he so grandiosely pens in the Oval Office. They are a sham. They are window dressing for his supporters to show that he is working for them. He could save time by sending the presidential decrees to the courts for vetting. Most make no sense. The ones that the departments try to implement such as the restrictions on Muslims coming to America are basically racist and cause nothing but problems.

And the promises he made to squash Obamacare were blocked in Congress by his own Republican Tea Party supporters. How he expects to get his budget passed might be the most serious problem he will ever face. He would need a new book on the art of the deal for that.

Judging from what we have seen so far, Trump’s idea of getting things done is to be the bully who shouts the loudest.

His version of foreign affairs is to trade insults with the crazies of North Korea and hold hands with the British Prime Minister. Now the poor lady is facing an election and that interaction with Trump could cost her job.

Justin Trudeau of Canada also had a friendly meeting with Trump and Canada has been dumped on ever since. Trump thinks it is Canada’s fault that the steroid-fed cows of Wisconsin are producing too much milk. Or maybe he thinks supply management is something his wife does when she is mad at him. Anyway, he does not like it and he talks about screwing around with or just dumping the North American Free Trade Agreement to get even.

At least the courts will settle his recent tax on soft wood lumber from Canada. That has become routine. The Americans impose a tax on Canadian lumber. It goes to dispute resolution and gets thrown out. They can hardly expect it to be fourth time lucky. In the meantime, the price of new homes in the U.S. has gone up. And the Canadian lumber barons are missing the peak buying season for home building in the U.S.

Does Trump really think he is the only person who can negotiate better deals. What he does not seem to realize is that the first thing to establish when negotiating between countries is good faith. That might be a novelty for him.

-30-

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

Buck Booking’s Blues.

April 26, 2017 by Peter Lowry

Some wonder how the time of the British Royals to visit the colonies is allocated across the British Commonwealth of Nations and other friendly countries. What if this was all funneled through a call centre at Buckingham Palace in London, England? Imagine a recently recorded call at the North American desk:

“Buck Booking, Harry speaking. This call is being recorded for quality assurance and legal purposes.”

“Hi Harry, this is Eloise at the Prime Minister’s Office in Ottawa. We need to book some royals for the July 1, Canada Day celebrations in front of our parliament buildings.”

“Oh, yes madam, Please excuse the way I answered your call. Most of our calls on the North American desk are from Americans wanting a royal to grace a dinner party or play some polo. They feel honoured for us to be breezy with them.”

“That is no problem Harry. Yet, your voice sounds familiar. What is your last name?”

“It’s Windsor, madam. And to save time I will have to admit that my grandmother insisted I do this job along with my regular duties as a penance. There was this lovely, young American tourist who wanted to make love at Buckingham Palace. I accommodated her on a balcony. If she had not been a screamer, it would not have mattered that it was the balcony off my granny’s bedroom. Mind you, it was worth it to see the expressions on the guards in the courtyard when they figured out where the screaming was coming from.

“But back to business, madam. That was July 1, you said? What year?”

“Well, this year of course. Canada will be celebrating 150 years of being a nation. Most of the bands, singers, entertainers and fireworks were booked by the previous government but they seem to have forgotten to book a royal for the occasion.”

“Au contraire madam. There is a note in the file here that that they booked my dear papa for the occasion. The Prince of Wales and his lovely wife Camilla are flying to Ottawa on May 29. And please do not forget that under the post-BREXIT rules, The Canadian government will be charged 20,000 pounds sterling per day plus expenses for their visit.

“But we want William and Kate.”

“You can’t afford them madam.”

Buck Booking hung up.

-30-

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

The myth of being Liberal.

April 25, 2017 by Peter Lowry

One of our respected progressive bloggers from British Columbia wrote recently something less than a paean (song of praise) about the Liberals in that province. His thesis is that B.C. Liberals are just Conservatives in sheep’s clothing and now the federal sheep have joined them. He insists that the Liberal ideal has vanished from Canada.

His is the logical conclusion. Canada’s three largest provincial governments have governments that are Liberal in name only. The Quebec Liberals are the successors to the right-wing Union Nationale and are interchangeable with the federal Conservatives. Ontario’s Liberals might pose as left wing but are hard-nosed and conservative when it comes to economics. They operate under the direction of Bay Street. The B.C. Liberals are in turn bought and paid for by business interests who see the beauty and majesty of the province only in terms of exploitation.

And each of those provincial governments are crumbling. British Columbia goes to vote soon with signs of switching governing parties. It will, hopefully, be to one that does not exploit the land for business interests and does not constantly leave itself open to possible charges of corruption.

Ontario will be next in the spring of 2018. The problem there is the leadership. Premier Wynne has lost support from voters and from within her party. The premier of Quebec probably thinks he is lucky to have no real opposition at this time but it will come.

The problem with the federal Liberal Party of Canada is that it no longer exists as a viable political party. There is a façade registered as a political party by that name but it has no paid-up membership. Instead it has a list of people across Canada that it can constantly pester for financial support. There is no real hands-on relationship between this list and any rights of party membership. Instead of policy, it uses a cult of personality in the person of the leader. The list has no rights or reasons to meet. Local liberals are denied the selection of their candidate for parliament. They have no real say on party policy. There is no future for federal liberals in Canada.

But the need for liberalism continues. Liberals have to be progressives, they have to support the rights of the individual in society as well as the need for dignity and freedom. Liberals seek cultural, economic and personal growth for all in a non-judgemental society. Life on this beautiful planet is a wonderful gift. We should leave it a better place for our having been here.

-30-

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