New – Page 366 – Babel-on-the-Bay

Nobody said Marc Garneau had to go.

March 14, 2013 by Peter Lowry

All the elements of a race for the federal Liberal Party leadership have ended. We are ending up with the coronation that nobody wanted. The crown now goes to MP Justin Trudeau by default. He has no competition.

Sure, MP Joyce Murray is still there and she has a loyal following because of her willingness to challenge. She wants the Liberals to recognize the need to work with other progressive parties to defeat Mr. Harper. She wants to take a hard look at how we vote. She does not see anything wrong with smoking the occasional joint of marijuana. Some people think she might know more about marijuana than voting systems.

But other than the two Members of Parliament, there is nobody else left. We knew that David Bertschi and George Takach were wasting our time from the first debate. Karen McCrimmon would need a putsch that involved all our military and cadets to get her a seat in the House of Commons. Former MP Martin Cauchon promised us something from the left of the party but has never delivered. And if Deborah Coyne has some better ideas for running this country, we have never heard any of them.

And then there is Martha Hall Findlay. She has always reminded us of a character from the musical Damn Yankees. You know the one: Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets… While we wanted to kick her off the island a few times, you have to admit that she has added something to the Liberal race. She has run an edgy and tough-minded campaign. When you realize that the same guy is working on her campaign as worked wonders with Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s last campaign, you get an idea of why she is probably standing at about five per cent with Liberals. She might just be running for Stephen Harper’s job next time.

The toughest part about liking MP Marc Garneau was the fact that he is a right-wing Liberal. Some of that is understandable in that he is part of the Quebec Caucus. That is hardly a hotbed of reform. Justin Trudeau is not as influenced by the right-wing Liberalism in Quebec because of his broader identification with the country and being born into a political environment. He is quite comfortable discussing the need for constitutional change in Canada among Liberals and takes some fairly firm stands.

But, in reality, we wish that Marc Garneau had not dropped out. No real liberal would criticize him for his showing. He did a valuable service for the party by giving Justin Trudeau some serious competition and asking tough questions. It earned him our respect.

-30-

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

Timmy Hudak wants casino referenda.

March 13, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Ontario Conservative leader Tim Hudak is as firm and decisive as ever about casinos. He still wants citizens to have referenda on whether to have them. Where he stands on the question, we do not know. Timmy also says he wants gambling to be turned over to the private sector while government collects the taxes and does the regulating. If you get the impression that he wants the tax money, you might mark him on the pro side of casinos.

But there is no forgiving his ignorance. Tiny Tim is asking for referenda that are inappropriate in a democracy. What he is doing is implying that the people who want to have a casino are doing something wrong. Why do you need a referendum to enable something that is legal and regulated? Have we reached the point when we have to have a referendum every time someone wants to open a bar?

We are a society that believes in the rights of the individual. We show this everyday in our acceptance of gay rights and same-sex marriage. Gays are a very small segment of our society and yet we are broadminded and accepting of their choices. That is not as common around the world and there are still a few in our society who oppose our allowing people those rights.

And what people cannot argue against with logic, they will sometimes argue against with falsehoods and half truths. After listening to and reading the claims and counter-claims of those fighting the supposed casino monster, one gets the impression that nobody knows what they are talking about. Gambling can be fun. It is just another form of entertainment. There is an adrenalin rush to winning. From your first bingo game in a church basement to the share the wealth ticket you bought to help a worthy cause, there are people who like to gamble.

And yes, there are some gambling addicts. If our alcohol and drug addicts were as well looked after as the relatively few gambling addicts in this province, we would have a very healthy society.

But let us have the gambling without the hypocrisy. If we must have the hypocrisy in our politics, do not wrap it in phony paternalism. Good government respects the citizens. Referenda are an ideal solution to matters that impact us all. It is how we choose our governments and decide on how we will vote and address our constitution.

-30-

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

Enquiring readers ask about Harper’s hair.

March 12, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Ever vigilant to see what our readers want to know, it was intriguing to see that Babel-on-the-Bay reached new heights in readership yesterday. Imagine the embarrassment when much of the added traffic was found to be people with questions about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hair. For a writer who likes to believe he gives serious depth to the political concerns of the day, this is embarrassing.

But there are going to be some slow news days for political observers. These are the times when the devil finds work for idle hands. You sometimes address those questions that strike you as funny rather than the ones you think the reader will find insightful.

But for gosh sakes folks, it was six years ago that Harper hired make-up artist Michelle Muntean away from CTV. She has been travelling on the public nickel ever since to keep Mr. Harper in perfect picture-ready condition. His hair is really an old and tired joke. Is it all real? Who cares? It is just too damn plastered to his skull, too perfect to be pure Harper, too immobile and has not aged with him.

Vanity, your name is Harper. Real men from our generation do not wear make-up for picture opportunities with world leaders. They let their hair be a bit wind-tossed when doing an outdoor announcement. They do not continually have backdrops added to naturally interesting location shots. They do not corral the news media to prevent cameras from getting behind the PM for back shots. The guy is just a prime minister, not God.

Mind you, he traverses the world as some kind of potentate. You would think that Airbus A300 was his own personal aircraft. It is likely that his staff and Cabinet enjoy his travels as when he is home in Canada, he micromanages the business of his government. And Mr. Harper does not micromanage well. The only people who are worse managers are those in his cabinet.

And would you believe the other day at the big Reform Party Rodeo in Ottawa, people were promoting the Cabinet’s own Jason Kenney and Tony Clement as potential new leaders of the party after Harper’s departure. Clement is a Neanderthal who Harper let destroy Statistics Canada. Kenney is just the saddest example we could think of as a Neanderthal with training wheels. Either of them as leader of the Conservative Party is almost as sad an event as dear old Preston Manning giving the Conservative Party a lecture on preserving the environment.

See what we mean about a slow news day?

-30-

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

Stephen Harper’s Canada is foreign to us.

March 11, 2013 by Peter Lowry

For some time now, writers in the United States have been noticing changes in Canada. And they do not like what they are seeing. These writers are looking at Canada and seeing it becoming as arrogant as America.

Americans are no longer looking north and seeing those quiet, polite Canadians. They are seeing a far more aggressive country with more internal conflicts. They are seeing a far more war-like country seeking to show a fighting spirit. They are seeing a country that was gradually weaning itself from being a British colony re-insert the royals back into the military and other institutions. They are seeing a Canadian government that puts a price on its friendship.

Americans are surprised how hard the Canadian Government, Alberta and Saskatchewan are arguing for the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline to the Texas Gulf ports. They have also been caught off guard by the governments’ efforts to send bitumen to Canada’s east and west coasts. They were disappointed that Canadians did not really want to sell them bitumen slurry from the tar sands for a $20 a barrel discount. Those greedy Canucks want full world price that they know they can get from the Chinese.

Americans refer to the Canadian tar sands product as dirty oil and they are right. The stuff can be refined into synthetic oil and oil products but the cost is high in processing and increased carbon emissions. And the thought of that slurry going through a pipeline that could foul the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska had environmentalists in a hell of a flap.

Many Americans had admired Canada for not participating in the Gulf Wars that had been arranged by the Bushes (père et fils). Canada’s eager participation in one of the most dangerous regions of the Afghanistan War corrected that impression. Canada’s military was under new management.

The new, more aggressive Canadian military wanted fighter jets and what better than the proposed F-35 stealth fighter of the American military. Just why Canada would want to use a short range attack fighter to maintain its authority over the vast reaches of the Canadian Arctic made no sense to many Americans and Canadians.

This is a new country to the north of the United States and Stephen Harper and his friends are not going to let us forget it. At least not until Canadians come to their senses and get rid of the Harper Conservatives.

-30-

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

This federal race is no place for punters.

March 10, 2013 by Peter Lowry

If you are one of those who enjoys putting down the occasional $2 bet on an interesting horse race, you are hardly going to bet anything on the federal Liberal leadership. Is there even any point in establishing a morning line in such a limited race? You already know who will win.

And you certainly know who the real losers are! While insisting that anyone who wants to comply with the rules, has a right to run for the leadership, this blog has been regularly dismissing those who contribute nothing to the race and act as sandwiches of plain bread to dull the real flavour of the race. Takach and Bertschi were dismissed out of hand after their pathetic showings in Vancouver. Karen McCrimmon fell off the turnip wagon going through Winnipeg. Martin Cauchon had disappointed us to such a degree that he was dismissed after the Mississauga effort and Deborah Coyne had run her course by the time we got to Halifax. We have a present for the person who lets us down in the Montreal event later this month.

The good news in this race is that Justin Trudeau has grown. He has matured throughout the race. He is obviously getting better advice and—unlike his father—following the advice. And that is one thing that people should always remind themselves of: Justin Trudeau is more like his mother than his father. He is better looking than his father, he is more sensitive than his father and he does not have the snobbish intellect of his father. That could add up to being a better Prime Minister of Canada than his father.

Since Justin will win, Marc Garneau will come second and Joyce Murray third. Mind you, Martha Hall Findlay could challenge Joyce Murray’s position but we certainly hope not. Joyce Murray was the only candidate to bring concrete ideas to the race in terms of where the Liberal Party of Canada is heading and how to get there. Where she let us down was in her debating skills. She is not a leader.

In that sense, Marc Garneau showed himself to be much more than a flyer of jet-assisted space objects. More to the right than we like, he proved to be more aggressive and more of a quick thinker than we previously knew. Marc seems to need refreshers on political trends in the 21st Century. He appears to have been stifled by the Quebec version of Liberal politics. He needs to re-examine his stands on some critical issues.

-30-

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

Star Wars versus the Killer Casino.

March 9, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Do you not wish that you could be part of the great casino adventure? The Toronto Star has even brought in its own Princess Leia from Vancouver to show you how to defeat Darth Vader Godfrey and the Killer Casino. The excitement keeps on growing.

First, we need to update the scene. It seems that Darth Vader Godfrey and his people from the Casino dark side have brought in a death star to be built by MGM and Cadillac Fairview. The plan is for this vast $3 billion casino to take over the entire Exhibition Place Grounds. This dastardly plan was only revealed last Wednesday after city officials and key councillors had secret showings of the scheme at the hotel across Queen Street from City Hall.

The Toronto Star had determined that there was no suitable Princess Leia character among the thousands of actors struggling to make a buck in dear old T.O. The Star brought in a ringer heroine from Vancouver. It seems she had helped found a movement to help stop another (larger) casino in Vancouver. The movement was called Vancouver Not Las Vegas.

Since nobody really wants another Las Vegas, you would think that sensible people would discuss the issue sensibly. Or is that asking too much? It seems that the pseudo Princess Leia was dealing in opinions rather than facts. That is convenient if nobody has any facts but we hope that city councillors leave their biases outside the council chamber when dealing with the issue.

But you really wonder just who MGM and Cadillac Fairview are working for when they promote such a hair-brained scheme? Why would Toronto citizens ever want a casino resort to take over their beloved Exhibition Place? Is there no other place for it in Toronto? Is Toronto that short of development lands?

But the key question is why would Toronto want a resort casino complex? Toronto is already a destination. People come to Toronto for many reasons. It is a city with theatres, entertainments, fine restaurants, year-round activities, hundreds of conventions, fine art galleries and hundreds of attractions. A casino is just another entertainment. What is needed is a casino—that is perfectly legal—and will help complete the mix of activities that are available in an exciting, open-minded and vibrant city.

Princess Leia’s only argument seems to be hearsay evidence about gambling addiction. The only problem with the argument is that if you continue to send addicts to illegal gambling facilities, they will never get the help they need.

-30-

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

Of course, pollsters are always right!

March 8, 2013 by Peter Lowry

When determining where MP Joyce Murray got her information about two-thirds of Canadians wanting proportional representation, the light dawned. Nothing beats exaggerating an already questionable poll. Anyone who has ever been involved in polling—especially political polls—knows that the context of a question as well as how you word it can produce different answers. Our advice to Joyce Murray is to never trust a single poll. Look for trends not certainties.

And the distrust of polls is growing. Cell phone usage has changed telephone coincidental polling for all time. If you cannot contact large blocks of voters, how can you use the figures you do get? Mind you, anyone who would believe these polls where you press one if you believe in this candidate or press two if you think the moon is made of green cheese has no idea what the owners of the telephones think of those calls. In an area of predominantly young families, those selections could be made by three-year olds.

Today’s campaign manager has many challenges and understanding polls is just one of them. Sure, you need polling, but it is just another tool. Nothing beats getting out in the field and sampling voters yourself. You have to listen to what these voters are interested in. You have to listen carefully. No poll can tell you more than a relaxed voter chatting on his or her own front porch. Of course, the sample needs to be large enough. The demographics have to be matched to the voting population.

But the Forum Poll taken last October that said that 56 per cent of Canadians approved of a proportional representation electoral system is not credible. While there is no point in arguing that the poll might have had 56 per cent say they wanted proportional representation, the facts are that 56 per cent of the Canadians have no idea what you mean by proportional representation. It is not something that they have actively learned about unless they were involved in voting in countries that use the system.

When the people at Fair Vote Canada get their bias supported by polls such as this, they will milk it for all it is worth. It is like their use of Arendt Lijphart, who writes to prove the point that he prefers proportional representation. So what? The Democracy Papers that are archived in this blog were not paid for by anyone but the author and they refute every claim that Lijphart and Fair Vote Canada make. Which leads to our advice to Joyce Murray that she study both pros and cons of the question.

-30-

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

Joyce Murray MP has odd statistics.

March 7, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Where do these statistics come from? In the Halifax debate between the Liberal leadership candidates, MP Joyce Murray said that two-thirds of Canadians want proportional representation. That is an unlikely figure.

It is very surprising when you consider that Ontario voters rejected proportional representation by about two to one in 2007. And British Columbia voters rejected a change from first-past-the-post voting twice in referendums. As writer who follows voting systems and trends very closely, we can assure you that there has been no groundswell of support for proportional voting systems or proportional representation.

This blog cheered MP Joyce Murray when she first proposed change in our voting system as it showed a willingness to change. We need that kind of open mindedness in Canada. We need to be willing to examine our shibboleths—those things that distinguish us as Canadians. We also need to open our constitution to the realities of the 21^st Century.

How we vote and choose our governments is part of a much large series of questions. To change the way we vote without addressing the underlying institutions would be a very foolish and careless approach. MP Justin Trudeau was quite right when he told Joyce that proportional representation actually increases political partisanship.

You need to remember that proportional representation was developed for voting by people who were mainly illiterate. They were influenced to vote for a party symbol that they could understand. It was a step towards democracy but in no way did it resemble the depth of direct democracy that we enjoy in North America. We have learned that direct democracy means that you select the actual people who represent you. That is a giant step forward from just voting for a political party.

One of the great disappointments in politics in Canada is the number of people who vote for a leader without considering the qualifications of the actual candidate in their electoral district. We have too many members in parliament today who are not making a contribution. They are not speaking to the issues, they are not contributing ideas, they are just voting the way their party leader tells them. To willingly increase that type of representation in parliament would be an ignorant and destructive step.

Yes, Canadians need to look into change. We need to re-evaluate our institutions. Nothing should be done though in isolation. It is all part of our future and everybody has to have a voice in building that future.

-30-

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

Let’s let Timmy have his election.

March 6, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Ontario Conservative Leader Tim Hudak wants a provincial election and everyone seems to be advising him against it. Actually it might be a good idea. With the three major provincial parties at a virtual tie in the public opinion polls, a volatile minority legislature and the economic pressures facing Ontario, we really need to make up our minds. This province needs stability, leadership, vision and jobs and an election would be well worth the cost.

There is no question that the Tory’s Tiny Tim has reached his ‘best before’ date and by having an election, the voters could help the Conservative Party get rid of him. While he has a hard core of supporters for his politics of division, he will make the more progressive voters think carefully about their vote. There are more than enough serious voters in Ontario who remember the days of Hudak’s mentor Michael Harris and that is more than enough to get them working against Timmy.

And the voters also have to make a decision about Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne. She is a premier without a mandate from the voters. After that mish-mash of a throne speech she foisted on the public and an upcoming budget that promises little, she needs road testing. Ontario has to understand where she is going. If she really wants to make the deficit an objective, we might as well elect Timmy. At least with him, you know he will attack the deficit and everyone else he hurts will just be collateral damage.

If Wynne is as progressive as some say she is, it is damn well about time we heard what she is progressive about. And sexual orientation counts for nothing.

What everyone needs to look out for is the third party in this legislative ménage à trois. Those few points difference in telephone coincidental polling are meaningless. There are three parties in this race and best you do not forget it.

While nobody has high expectations of New Democratic Leader Andrea Horwath, she could be the safety valve for the voters who are sick of Conservative and Liberal lectures on the economy while doing nothing. If she actually came out with a plan that made sense to the voters, there could be trouble for both Hudak and Wynne.

And yes, elections cost money. We pay it to ourselves. It keeps the economy working. We need this election.

-30-

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

Pipeline battle is a war of words.

March 5, 2013 by Peter Lowry

The escalating public relations war on pipeline naysayers has certainly won adherents. Just last evening, we were treated to Global’s regular 6:30 pm (EST) national news program coming to us from Calgary that was an unabashed commercial for the tar sands producers. And this morning we note that the Toronto Star editors have been visited by a coterie of Enbridge crusaders reassuring Ontario of their good intentions in reversing Enbridge Line 9 to send bitumen slurry through Toronto and across Southern Ontario. It is a clever quiver of words they use to carry their message.

The Enbridge experts have realized that Ontario motorists (most of us) are pissed about being gouged on the price of gasoline at the pumps. They tell the Star editors that the solution to this is to have Ontario and Quebec refineries use cheaper oil from bitumen. If the Toronto Star editors buy that story, they might also be interested in some swamp land you have for sale.

Up front, industry experts know that the eastern pipeline reversal plan is a way of getting bitumen slurry from the tar sands to Saint John, New Brunswick and Portland, Maine where it can be loaded into tankers. The slurry can then be shipped to countries that do not care about the increased damage to the environment in making synthetic oil out of the bitumen.

What these wonderful people from Enbridge seem to forget to mention is that Enbridge Pipeline 9 is an old pipeline that was designed to carry normal foreign crude to the refineries at Nanticoke and Sarnia from the east coast. To run bitumen slurry through the system, it has to be heated to higher temperatures and pushed through at a greater pressure. When we find the weak points in that pipeline, we will certainly hear about it—as well as smell it and live with it. Nobody can assure us of 100 per cent safety and reliability of the line.

These public relations people from Enbridge are about as subtle as a crutch. One of them is quoted by the Toronto Star as saying it is in the interest of Ontario drivers to keep the Montreal area refineries in business. One suspects that if they had to, the Montreal refineries could—at greater cost and much higher carbon emissions—process the bitumen from Alberta. They would certainly not want to pay world prices for it.

The good news is that some members of Toronto City Council have heard about this pipeline change. They also realize that it runs across the city. The fact that it crosses the two main water courses and could foul Toronto’s drinking water has also been noted. Maybe they will do something about this. The Toronto Star does not seem to be worried.

-30-

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