Category: Provincial Politics

On Choosing Leaders.

by Peter Lowry

I’ve got a novel idea. Let’s choose the next liberal party leader for Ontario with an honest election. It might even be precedent setting. What I would suggest is an election where every paid-up liberal party supporter has a vote and that the process is not just a fund-raiser for the party.

To get the process underway, the party should cut off membership as of the date of the regulations being announced. Of course, they should let people who could prove they previously held a membership to renew. It just does not make sense to let the person who can sell the most memberships decide who the next leader should be. Quite frankly, the best sales pitch on membership is not what the party is looking for.

It is not as though you can cut much time off the leadership campaign. You need time for people to consider running, build a team and do their planning.

Once the candidates have declared, the party needs to run a series of candidate meetings in groups of electoral districts around the province. Your audiences are going to be looking for the candidates’ presentation on the platform, the appeal of the person and the appeal of their ideas.

The party should test these debates on the road and either pass the hat or run a 50-50 draw to cover expenses. It is also essential that rural issues be discussed and rural appeal of the candidates be tested. When the debates get to the cities, the party can charge a reasonable admission to cover costs.

The key at this stage is to build media coverage. The idea will be to do a thorough job in social media and gain recognition for what liberalism is and what it can mean for people across the province.

The voting process itself can be done on computer. By splitting the list alphabetically over a number of computers with a variety of firewalls, you can make any effort to steal the election a waste of time. By running the election over a few days, there will be time for multiple ballots. We should make every vote count and give the party a leader who can bring the liberal party back to giving good leadership for Ontario.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

Destroying Democracy.

by Peter Lowry

Is Canada a land that tolerates demagogues and populists and bigots? And do we know one when we see one? Demagogues are politicians who tell you what they think you want to hear. A populist is a demagogue who appeals to the lowest common denominator among voters. And a bigot is a politician who sorts the population into groups and tries to turn one group against another for political advantage. We would like to think of Canada as a land free of such chicanery.

But sorrowfully, it is not. And if we continue to let these people go unleased and brazen and with power, we could be signing the death warrant of our democracy.

No doubt you can add more to the list but let me name three of these people who are a serious threat to-day to democracy in Canada.

The first is MP Pierre Poilievre. This man has weaseled his way through the political systems of our country to the point where he is on the brink of becoming leader of the conservative party of Canada. He is a demagogue. He has used the frustrations that people feel in coming through a deadly pandemic to build a following of discontents.

He tells these followers that it is the present government—the one that brought us through the pandemic, so far, with fewer deaths than most advanced nations—is responsible for the current ‘world-wide’ inflation. He also lies about the Bank of Canada and lauds cryptocurrencies.

The second is premier Doug Ford of Ontario. This man has bluffed his way in politics. He poses as a populist. He makes promises for the simple minded. Nobody would vote for him who would think through all his promises. He has no compassion for the environment or for people. His party’s slogan in the last campaign was that the conservatives will “Get it done.” He forgot to add the words: ‘For their friends.’

The third of these politicians is premier François Legault of Quebec. Legault is a demagogue, poses as a populist and is a proven bigot. In pandering to the francophone population in Quebec, he discourages freedom of religion, fails to protect the rights of people who speak English and even wants Quebec’s language police (l’Office québécois de la langue française) to search without warrant.

I expect that democracy only becomes precious when you lose it.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

Can We Re-Invent Liberalism?

by Peter Lowry

With a small rump of liberals in the Ontario legislature and no leader, Ontario’s liberals have an opportunity to rethink the future of their party. We can plan on a clean palette. We can attract a leader who believes in where we want to take our party. We can attract new supporters.

Ideally, every riding in the province might have a public meeting, hosted by local liberals, to discuss possible directions, objectives, platforms and leadership possibilities. We need to rethink what we want for Ontario.

We already have a conservative party. We know what conservatives do for you. Nothing. Conservativism protects the past. It protects those with money. It is a constraint on new ideas. What it fails to do is to respect people. It fails those who cannot keep up with the rest of us. It lacks empathy.

We also have our home-grown left-of-centre party. Created in the time of the Great Depression, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation—now the new democratic party—continues to struggle with its need for leadership. It struggles also with long-term planning. We should invite local NDP to our meetings. We share many objectives with them. Maybe we could share with them a combined liberal-democratic party. The possibilities are there.

And we might lose some liberals along the way. The ‘blue liberals,’ who say they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal have been a drag on the liberal party over the years. Voters deserve a clear choice. They deserve a party that does care about people. They deserve a party that can act honestly on its promises.

Over the next couple months, I would like to invite fellow left-of-centre politicos to comment, share ideas, and help organize in their ridings and their provinces. I hope that what can be accomplished in the provinces can eventually be adopted by the federal politicians.

We are the progressives and I hope we can work together.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

Flying False Flags.

by Peter Lowry

There is a discomfort in seeing hockey stick-mounted maple leaf flags flying from pick-up trucks. Maybe the flags that simply say ‘F*ck Trudeau’ are a clearer message. In any case the flags that some politicians seem to be flying today differ strongly with the parties to which they tell us they belong.

Take the top four contenders for the federal conservative leadership. Front-runner, MP Pierre Poilievre flies under the flag of the freedom convoy. How he can pander to these extremists and run for the conservative party, while bad-mouthing the Bank of Canada and promoting Bitcoin, is something of a puzzle.

Former Quebec liberal premier, Jean Charest flies under the flag of the former Mulroney conservatives of 30 years ago. It seems he is finding that politics have changed.

Charest’s friend, Former MP and mayor of Brampton, Patrick Brown, is the retail politician who delivers down the middle of the road. In his campaign website, he describes himself as a successful businessman. That is a rather odd claim for someone who has never run a business.

The last conservative contender worth mentioning is MP Leslyn Lewis. She is probably the best educated in law and appeals to the anti-abortion side of the conservative party.

The most controversial of conservative flag wavers is the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford. Ford is a populist. His only flag is that of Ford Nation, a Toronto-based support group, in that he supports and they benefit.

The conservatives in Quebec fly many flags but the right-of-centre Coalition Avenir du Québec flies the confused flag of discrimination against those who wear religious symbols or speak English. As premier Legault is facing an election later this year, he is promising inflation bonuses of $500 each to Quebecers if they re-elect him.

Prime minister Trudeau waves the flag of environmentalism. He tells us how much less pollution there will be in the future despite his spending billions of taxpayers’ money to twin the Trans Mountain pipeline. The dual pipeline will be completed next year to take Alberta tar sands bitumen to Burrard Inlet to export to Asian refineries.

It would seem that we need to check and see exactly what flag our politicians think they are operating under.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

Cabinet Building for Dummies.

by Peter Lowry

It never takes premier Doug Ford long to display his ignorance. I expect whomever in his office reads the comics to him had to explain the meaning of ‘nepotism.’ Giving newly-elected nephew Michael Ford a cabinet post was not just the same-old Doug Ford but it was a finger in the eye for common sense. Not that common sense had any standing in Ford’s cabinet choices.

You have to consider keeping Caroline Mulroney in transport and Stephen Lecce in education as worse than nepotism. Neither minister has a background that would enable them to ask the right questions of their staffs. Lecce is the product of private schooling and a career in politics. Caroline Mulroney grew up in politics and was educated in the United States. Neither brings anything but loyalty to the conservative party to their jobs.

We should have some sympathy though for Sylvia Jones. This lady has been dumped into a can of worms in taking over health from Christine Elliott. Unless Ford gets rid of bill 124 (with its pay constraints) immediately, that lady’s hands are tied. Our healthcare system is going down the toilet so fast, you would swear that Elliott and the pandemic gave it one massive enema. The medical staffs are suffering burn-out and the non-medical people are all fighting for their jobs, while ignoring doing them.

But, back to nepotist and nephew: To suggest that the younger Ford’s experience is from stints on school board and at city hall in Canada’s largest and most polyglot city is a joke. Aside from the nephew’s inability to contribute anything useful in cabinet, I disagree with the shallow-minded critics who complain that a person of colour should have the job. A person’s colour or ethnic background should have nothing to do with it. I had been the go-to guy when the party wanted to have foreign language media at an event through the 70s and 80s. When they started hiring people of ethnicity or colour to do the foreign language communications, what they were often doing was putting someone into the role who would bring old-country prejudices to the job.   

As a sixth-generation Canadian of mixed-European origin, I had none of those prejudices and I got along very well with the foreign-language media. They turned out in droves for my party’s events.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

A familiar Alberta Tune.

by Peter Lowry

They are at again in Alberta. The lunatic fringe is getting worked up for a new conservative leadership contest. And they are playing familiar tunes for the crazies. I guess Jason Kenney was just not odd-ball enough for them. I thought Brian Jean, playing his John Wayne Quiet Man role, would make them happy.

But no. Now we have Danielle Smith with her Annie Oakley six-guns in for the fun.   If you are not familiar with Danielle Smith, she was a former leader of the Wildrose party and leader of the opposition, who crossed the floor of the Alberta legislature in 2014 with other members of the Wildrose to join the government conservatives. She could not get nominated in her own riding after that short walk.

But now she is back and considers her former escapades just water under the bridge.

The one thing you can say about Smith is that she is a skilled communicator and has been working for Global television and a Calgary radio station.

But wait until you hear her program for when she is premier. She is setting out to make the péquistes in Quebec look like lazy pussy cats. She is going to show them how to play the separatist card.

Smith tells us that, under her as premier, the legislature would make all federal laws invalid. The legislature would create a police force to replace the RCMP. She has no intention of letting those nasty feds dictate vaccinations for children or anyone else for that matter. She is going to establish a separate agency to collect taxes.

In looking at her plans, one gets the impression that there is something wrong with the rights and freedoms of Canadians.  She wants Alberta to be a sovereign state and able to ignore federal laws and court rulings.

I find this all very confusing. It was my impression from discussions in school that the original Rupert’s Land was sold to Canada in 1870 and it was the Canadian government that created Alberta by act of parliament in 1905. Much of the growth in population in Alberta was contributed to by the federal government encouraging immigration and settlement. What that all means is that nobody is going to separate any part of Alberta from Canada. It is a fixed part of Canada.

Ms. Smith can separate herself from Canada any time she likes. I would suggest that she has her pick of backward states of the United States to choose from.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

Here Comes Highway 413.

by Peter Lowry

Is this what Ontario voted for? Over the next four years, the Ford government is going to spend more than a billion dollars getting things ready to start building Highway 413. And once it gets started—if it does get started—it will likely take another ten years to build. You could get some long odds on it being Ford cutting the ribbon on that highway as premier.

Don’t be impatient. Even the 16.2 kilometres of the Bradford Bypass, that is already calling tenders for bridge construction, will be another four to five years. And don’t even try to compare it to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, that has been causing business failures over its 19 kilometres of construction across the top of Toronto for the past 11 years.

But building one solution to people movement always seems to demand more. If what they are calling the Ontario Line subway is not built as a relief line for the Young Street subway in Toronto, the Eglinton Crosstown will not do its job. If the expanded bridges are not completed through Barrie on Highway 400 in time for the increased traffic from the Bradford Bypass, there will be angry communications with whomever rules Queen’s Park at the time.

And forget trying to get infrastructure planning and financing and building arms-distance from the politicians. He who pays the piper calls the tune every time. Look at Metrolinx, the subway builder, that is supposedly out of reach of the politicos in Toronto city hall and Queen’s Park. That organization has more good reasons for being late and over budget than any provincial ministry could ever dream of.

There are always the citizens committees, the neighbourhood nags and energetic environmentalists running interference on building any infrastructure but even they can be squelched by determined politicians. And you can bet that premier Ford is determined. When he tells his developer friends that he will build that highway for them, he is going to try to keep his word. Forget previous planning, environmental concerns, and a highway there not being needed. Ford will get it done.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

“Another Fine Mess!”

by Peter Lowry

I like to think of the most recent election in Ontario as something like an ancient Laurel and Hardy short movie. It seems that having the liberal party leader leading from outside the legislature for two years before the election did not work out too well. Having him drive around Ontario in a delivery van did not encourage much enthusiasm either. And obviously, nobody was checking what he was saying out there to the media.

I, quite frankly, wondered what Steven Del Duca was doing in the run-up to the election. You would think he would have built up some momentum for him to win his own riding. He didn’t.

I thought the most ridiculous promise he made before the election was that, if elected, he would resign as premier if he did not change the way we voted in Ontario. I did not know that a premier could arbitrarily change how we vote. It did not sound very democratic not to check with the voters by referendum.

Of course, he got shafted by the conservatives. Here he thought he would have a full month of campaigning. What he got was 15 days of campaigning, before the advance polls opened. Here the conservatives had been campaigning hard over the previous three months, running advertising, making announcements, promising money for this and that. They were winding down their campaign before Del Duca got moving.

There was a nice story in the newspaper a while ago about liberals Ted Hsu, who won in Kingston and the Islands, and Mary-Margret McMahon, who won in Toronto’s Beaches-East York. They had been campaigning in their ridings for about a year. I had told friends in the Beach area of Toronto that Mary-Margaret was a good bet for a hard-working MPP.

I am not sure how well we will come out of another four years of Doug Ford’s inept management at Queen’s Park. Hopefully we will have a strong new leader for the Ontario liberals who, if not an MPP, will soon find his or her way to win a by-election. The liberals in the legislature might not be the official opposition, at this time, but they will find their voices. They have a party to rebuild.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

The Problems of Polls.

by Peter Lowry

It is amazing how easy we could solve all our problems if we just skipped down the street hand-in-hand with the Toronto Star. If the Star’s editors don’t have all the answers, they can buy opinions from a myriad of writers with the appropriate opinion.

The other day, the Star published an opinion from a gentleman who ran for the NDP a few elections back. It seemed the gentleman thinks that our addiction to polls was to blame for the poor turnout for our recent provincial election. He even had a few thousand heavy words in support of the opinion that publishing the polls was the reason for the problem.

If I had my druthers over the years of working with polls, I would have stayed with the opinion that polls should never be published. The only problem is that I also believe in disclosure and if media outlets want to pay for polls, they should report them accurately to their readers, listeners and viewers.

What I really object to is the aggregators who assemble random published polls, take the liberty of adjusting them for bias and then republishing them. It seems to me that they are really hardening the opinions in them as though they constitute a trend line—which they are not.  

Of course, the question as to whether polls are self-fulfilling always comes up. In the recent Ontario election, there was an obvious stagnation in the reported polls that would be reflected by voters. We have been seeing a trend to lower voter turnout in Canadian elections for the last 50 years. The media is just as responsible for that ‘what’s the use’ attitude as are the politicians. The political parties can forecast it in the malaise they find among their traditional volunteer base at the riding level.

We have knowingly destroyed the democracy in the parties in this country and our ultimate reward is the lethargy of the voters. When you take away the rights of the people at the party’s grass roots to choose their candidates, why should they want to work to elect the appointed candidates? When the benefactors, with the money, call the shots in politics, they also expect to be the beneficiaries. And if you tell the truth about our political parties, they treat you as toxic.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]

“What Fools These Mortals Be!”

by Peter Lowry

The hue and cry might now be more complete. The Toronto Star has discovered that only about 18 per cent of our Ontario electorate voted for the Ford government’s majority. And would not Shakespeare’s Puck agree? We did it to ourselves.

Not voting is also a political decision, of sorts. Does it really need a proposition on the ballot for “none of the above”?

And despite the clear proof that the majority of the electors said “a pox on all your houses,” the Toronto Star tells us we merely err in how we select our politicians. They blame first-past-the-post voting for the low turnout. And, just how, first-past-the-post voting is to blame for this low turn-out is never really explained.

The Toronto Star wants proportional representation. The greens and NDP have wanted it for years. Some liberals might agree. Let’s hear it, yay, yay for proportional.

Then it is settled. We will henceforth get people to pick a party instead of a candidate. Party leaders have been choosing candidates for some time anyway. So, why not?

But just a minute. If only 43.5 per cent of Ontario voters went to the readily available polling places in 2022, why would more go, just to vote for a party, in 2026? How would we be solving the problem?

Maybe we should be proud of the 2022 Ontario election. Once again, we have proved that any doofus can be premier of Ontario.

And we do not need the insult from the Toronto Star that discussions about changes in how we vote being dominated by political hobbyists. First of all, it is not true. The last full-blown discussion of voting systems was under the quite incompetent management of Justin Trudeau’s government in 2016. Those committee hearings were dominated by political scientists with rare rays of enlightenment to contribute.

Before that, in Ontario, we had a 2007 referendum on a proposal made by lottery winners that was soundly rejected by the voters. British Columbia tried twice to get a rather confused proposal through its voters and it failed both times.

I could also draw the Star’s attention to the ridiculous proposal of liberal leader Steven Del Duca that he would change the way Ontario votes after the recent election. Luckily, he is not in a position to do that.

-30-

Copyright 2022 © Peter Lowry

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

[email protected]