It must be exhausting

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for Pierre Poilievre just like I did with Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Scheer.

Him having to go full QAnon Trump on his twitter feed this past weekend followed by his capitulation in making the three MPs, who attended and had their pictures taken with a known neo-Nazi, suffer any consequences must be taking its toll.

All of the recent leaders of the CPC have had the same problem. They feel it is politically necessary to keep the most ardent MAGA Conservatives happy. They are a minority of the party and society but they are loud and they have the emotional maturity of a toddler. Really, if Mr. Poilievre does not constantly pay attention to them and their perceived needs and constantly validate their warped view of the world they throw a collective temper tantrum and make his life Hell. As an aside, it should be noted that they have not impacted Mr. Trudeau or his government one whit despite their best efforts. It is the CPC who they hurt the most and that is remarkable.

For some reason Mr. Poilievre and the leaders before him seem to go along with this and they do not even try to push back. 

I think the reason why is the misreading of the Harper victories. Remember that the CPC was only created in the early 2000s. They have gone through 7 elections and only won three of them. And two of those three were not very decisive victories. 

Finally, in 2011 Stephen Harper won a majority government for them. The way he did that was to throw red meat at his base for the first half of that election before pivoting to appeal to more moderate Canadians in the final three weeks. Helped along by an inept Liberal campaign and the collapse of the Bloc in Quebec, to the benefit of the NDP, and the CPC majority was born.

The CPC wanted to use the same strategy in 2015 but it was very apparent by the time they should have pivoted that victory was probably not going to be theirs so they just campaigned to save the furniture.

Both Mr. Scheer and Mr. O'Toole wanted to do the same in 2019 and 2021 but their efforts were always scuppered by their own followers.

The problem is the more rabid base of the CPC was not as big, loud and influential in 2011 or 2015 as it is now. Stephen Harper was able to pivot away from them during the 2011 election and subsequent government without too many problems. In short, the CPC was a different beast then.

Twelve years later the "right wing nut jobs" are the tail that wags the CPC dog. If Mr. Poilievre has any hope of hanging onto his job, let alone winning an election, he has to keep them happy, which is impossible when their whole political identity is to be profoundly unhappy. They are not going to let Mr. Poilievre pivot when it becomes necessary. 

And the situation is only getting worse. Mr. Scheer had this problem when he was leader but it was worse for Mr. O'Toole and it is becoming even worse for Mr. Poilievre. If an election does not happen until 2025 I can only imagine how much worse it will become for him.

Maybe, just maybe, he will push back and try to get a grip on the party. Then again, I have always questioned his political acumen so I am not so certain he will be able to do it. If he does not he could very well squander the opportunity to take advantage of a government that has been in power for a decade and for which many Canadians could be convinced to move on from if they like the alternative.

I imagine that the next few months and years are going to be even more exhausting for Mr. Poilievre.

Book Review: Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline

I finished reading this book which was written by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbotson. 

There are two major schools of thought around our species' demographic future. There is the "pessimistic" view which roughly states that the world population will continue to climb throughout this century until we hit 11 billion people by 2100, with all of the social and environmental problems that would come along with that. Then there is the "optimistic" view which argues that in fact our population will peak around 2050 or so at around 9 billion before dropping off to around 7 billion in 2100. This book, as the title implies, falls squarely in the "optimistic" camp.

The authors do a very good job of explaining the opposing point of view and they acknowledge that the main proponents of that point of view, the demographers of the United Nations, have a very good track record of predicting demographic trends. Even though they only spend a little time on it they still present a compelling argument for believing the "pessimistic" view could be our future.

Then the authors refute that point of view in a way that is rather unique when it comes to writing about demographic trends. They combine statistics with personal interviews. The authors traveled the world to speak to people. They spoke to rich Europeans, poor Brazilians in the favelas of Sao Paolo, professionals in Nairobi, Mexican migrants in the US and Aboriginals in Austrailia. This leads to them pointing to a possible correlation of low birth rates with increased urbanization, increased education and the usual increase in living standards that goes along with both. They rightly point out that in all regions of the world birth rates are coming down, including in India, China and Africa, the places many demographers point to to argue that we are facing a demographic bomb. 

Once they have established this they spend a good part of the book writing what the implications of it could be to the various parts of the world. In some places the implications could be dire as depopulation and the aging of what is left could make it very difficult for countries to remain prosperous and stable. 

Being Canadian the authors argue very persuasively for the Canadian approach to immigration as the model to follow to mitigate the impacts of declining birthrates.

The books conclusion very effectively pulls together the various arguments contained in it into a very plausible vision of what the world could look like in 2100 and what may happen between now and then. It is speculative but the speculation is largely backed up by the arguments and facts presented in the book. In just a passing sentence they suggest there might be a correlation between urbanization, female empowerment and and political and economic development. That would be something that might bear further exploration.

However, (there is always a however) I found the book somewhat lacking in three areas.

The first was the book does not break any new ground. Although their method of reaching their conclusions are rather unique the arguments they make and the conclusions that they draw from them are not new. Although breaking new ground was probably not the purpose of the book anyway.

The second is their assertion that the United States will probably go through the century escaping the most negative impacts of the decline in population. They base this argument on them believing the US will continue to take in immigrants, with all of the positive impacts that come from that. This book was written in 2018 so it was before COVID and before it became obvious that MAGA had metastasized out of the White House to the Supreme Court, Congress and many States but the two authors are political commentators so they should have at least considered such a possibility. As well, it is argued in the book that as birth rates goes down around the world and living standards go up the number of people actually wanting to emigrate to other countries, the US or otherwise, will be greatly reduced. That puts a spanner into their argument about the driver of the US's continued success.

Finally, while being plausible their view of the future may be a little too rosy. Certainly their arguments support their views but alot of things would have to go right in order to achieve that future, which cannot be safely assumed. Currently there are 7 billion people on this planet and we are killing off other species at a prodigious rate, emptying and polluting our oceans, denuding the last of the major forests on the planet and consuming other non-renewable resources, such as rare-earth minerals, at an unsustainable rate. Even the authors agree that the world population will hit 9 billion people in the next few decades, which will probably only exacerbate these problems. By the time we get to the 7 billion people in 2100 the only nature that may be left could be in those small areas of the world protected by governments. The rest of the world will probably be dominated by us and the plants and animals that we have domesticated. At the end of this century there may only be as many people living in it as there are now but those 7 billion people may be living in a much less hospitable world.

All that being said this book is well worth the time to read, especially if you only have a passing interest in the topic of the book. It is a very accessible. It uses statistics to prove its arguments without getting bogged down in them and the writing style is easy to understand and follow without resorting to dense science speak and jargon. It is a book you can start to read at 1pm and be done by suppertime and have a good understanding of the issues and arguments surrounding the future population of our species when you are done.

Pierre Poilievre has a NAZI Problem

Let us state right off the hop that Pierre Poilievre is not a Nazi or a fascist. He may be an opportunistic career politician with limited real world experience, with no idea of how to actually form policy, with extremely limited political acumen and completely lacking in political scruples but he is not a porn star...Sorry, channeling my inner Grandpa Simpson...but he is not a fascist.

However he does have a problem with them.

He is not unique. The old Reform Party always had a certain percentage of supporters who had fascist tendencies.  The were very much in favour of using the power of government to control everything from who you slept with to deciding what is art to only financially supporting the industries they favoured. They have always seemed comfortable in the Party and the Party really did not do a whole hell of alot to discourage them. The fact a very heavy white English Christian only thread ran through this crowd should surprise no one. When the Reform Party gobbled up the Progressive Party of Canada that wing of the party came along with it.

Stephen Harper knew this when he took over the Party as its first leader and he was at least adept at keeping them at bay. Let's be honest though, he made promises to them and then broke them as soon as he won government. Of course, when Stephen Harper was the leader we did not have social media and that wing of the party was much smaller and much less radicalized. Oh yes, Stephen Harper also did not have the Peoples Party of Canada stalking him on his right flank. It should be noted that Mr. Harper's betrayal of the more far right members of his base laid the groundwork for the creation of the PPC. His short term strategy to stay in power had longer term consequences for the party he left behind.

So Pierre Poilievre would not be able to do what Stephen Harper did even if he had the political smarts to do it. So now he has to deal with an ever radicalized and loud group on his right flank while also trying to convince more moderate Canadians that they are not what the CPC really represents.

That goal was complicated by the Convoy (you know what I am talking about). That event laid bare for everybody to see that there was an element of our society that does not believe in Canadian democracy. They parrot democratic rhetoric but that is only to cover up their fascist tendencies. It is to his ever lasting discredit that Mr. Poilievre rode the publicity generated by them and actively courted their support to win the leadership of the CPC. They have been a millstone around this neck ever since he won. Watching him trying to keep them in the CPC tent while also trying to entice more moderate Canadians to his side has been fun to watch, since he is failing at both to a certain extent.

What Pierre Poilievre might really need to do is to completely cut ties with this wing of his party. Doing so will certainly be a gift to the PPC but what he loses on the right might help him gain support in the centre, particularly as the Liberal government gets longer in the tooth. If he had any political instincts at all he would be working towards that.

That brings us to the dinner where an avowed fascist, representing an avowed fascist party in the European Parliament, was the guest of honour and where four members of the CPC were attendees of the dinner. One of those Members is a person who ran for the leadership of the party, twice, is a senior member of the shadow cabinet and who would probably be a senior cabinet minister if the CPC wins government. Some are saying that they did now know who the MEP was but she attended that dinner in Alberta so all of these MPs would have had to travel to attend it. All of that would be on the government dime which means the trips would have had to be planned. No MP is going to go through that effort unless they know exactly why they are doing it. So their protestations are bullshit. They attended this dinner because they agreed with the views of the MEP and thought it would be worthwhile to listen to her and meet her. To most Canadians this is unacceptable and it will further remind them of their unease with the CPC as being a home for Canadians with extreme right wing views, something that has haunted the CPC since its creation. 

However this event might also be a perfect opportunity to break with that wing of the CPC, if Mr. Poilievre had the political acumen and guts to take it. By removing all of these MPs from caucus and forcefully denouncing the views of the MEP he would create a sea change in the CPC and he would set up a shift of the Party to a more moderate conservative party. It could be that what he loses on his right he would regain in the centre.

Then again maybe not. It could be that the whole of the conservative movement in this country has grown more radicalized and the number of Conservative voters who would desert the party would be much higher than I am assuming. 

I am not certain at this point but I suspect that the CPC rank and file has grown more radicalized. I believe that "moderate" conservatives are a dying breed and that breaking with the really radical elements of the party would cost votes that could not be recovered from moderates.

In which case we can repeat that Pierre Poilievre really does have a NAZI problem.

Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics

Allegations of interference in the nomination of a Chinese Canadian Liberal candidate in Toronto, by the Chinese Government, before the 2019 election have surfaced.

On the face the allegations are hard to believe. First they are all based on anonymous sources, quoting documents that have not been released to the public and those anonymous sources are from CSIS. That is an organization where leaking operational data to the media carries heavy jail time if someone from that organization is caught doing so. Hell, people from CSIS are even forbidden from actually admitting they work for CSIS. Second, the meat of the allegations is a CSIS official briefed a senior member of the Liberal Party about suspicions of the candidate being supported by the Chinese government. It should be noted that a CSIS official would not brief anybody until it went through a rather comprehensive approval process and the particulars of that meeting would be recorded by both CSIS and the officials in the Party. Judging by the details in the news story it would not take long for both CSIS and the Party to figure out who was involved in that meeting, which means the journalist outed his source by publishing those details. I am no journalist but I am pretty certain that journalists are not supposed to do that and I am pretty certain that he would not do that. That sort of brings into question the verity of the whole scenario described by the journalist but he need not worry because neither CSIS nor the Party will produce any evidence to confirm or deny his allegations on national security grounds. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

That has not stopped Conservative supporters in a couple of media outlets from calling for a public inquiry into the whole thing. Such an inquiry would be pointless because the MP involved in the allegations would have the right to see the evidence against him, which is held by CSIS, and they will not release that evidence to a public inquiry. Of course, any inquiry could legally compel CSIS to release the information but that would severely damage CSIS's relationship in the Five Eyes, the partnership between the intelligence agencies of Canada, the US, Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand. That in turn would actually compromise Canadian security much more than what was described in the news story because it would cripple the ability of CSIS to gather intelligence but who cares if it would be an opportunity to own the Libs.

On the other hand some sort of public inquiry on the broader issue of foreign interference, all interference not just this one allegation, would be an eye opening exercise. After all I would bet my house that such interference has been going on for decades. That will not happen either because it would also be pointless. 

This story has been circulating social media for a couple of days but so far we have not heard a peep out of the CPC. You would think they would be all over this. The reason for this is they are probably aware that they have been receiving assistance from foreign actors for years. They did not invite it and there is really nothing they can do to stop it but with the state of Canadian politics right now people would assume the worst, which they do not need because many already assume the worst. That has not been helped by revelations that several CPC MPs, including a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet had dinner with an avowed fascist member of the European Parliament. (More on that in another post)

So here we are. Who knows where this will go but I am certain that a public inquiry will not be called and those very same Conservative commentators will scream cover-up, with the rubes eating it up. 

A word about Chinese interference in our politics. One of the issues exposed by this leak and the reaction to it is how petty and provincial is our politics. The Chinese do not care who is leading Canada because they consider the Canadian government to be largely irrelevant in the international community. There goal is not to influence Canadian policy. China is the second largest economy in the world, they are endeavouring to make it the largest and they are spending alot of money and effort to increase their military might. In short they are trying to become a superpower, if not the superpower, and the biggest obstacle to that is the Western democracies. They still set the agenda for international relations and China wants to change that. One way to do that is to undermine the political and democratic institutions of the Western democracies.

So the petty details of how they might have interfered in the nomination process in a single Federal riding are not relevant except in the context of their overarching goal. It is piecing together that bigger picture using these individual instances that we should be focusing on, or more precisely the Canadian intelligence community should be focusing on, and not going down a rabbit hole of a single instance.

The Ukraine War, One Year Later

If you would have told me this time last year that the Ukraine war would still be going on in a year I would have disagreed with you. While I did not believe Ukraine would just roll over I also did not believe that they would be able hold as long as they have.

A few months after the war started and when the Western media was saying that Ukraine was actually winning the war I stated in this space that they were probably overstating the case. Since then the Ukrainians have recaptured some territory but the Russians have still not gone away. Indeed, they have dug in for a long war.

Western media and many commentators are still saying the Ukrainians are winning and the Russians are losing. I am not so certain. From what I am seeing neither side is winning right now. It has descended into a war of attrition and the winner will be the one that can last the longest.

The Russians have the manpower advantage. They can keep calling up reservists and throwing them into the fray. Yes, their casualties will be high but so will be those of the Ukrainians, who do not have the manpower reserves of the Russians. The hope that the Russian people will grow tired of the war and boot Mr. Putin is probably false hope. If he is still there now he will probably be staying.

The Ukrainians have the money advantage. They are receiving financial and military support from the West that should allow them to hold out much longer than if they did not. The Russians on the other hand are short of both money and military equipment. I noticed in a non-western media report last week that the Russians are starting to deploy their third string tanks. That is the new units being formed to continue the war are going into battle in tanks that were obsolete when Pierre Trudeau was PM of Canada. Having them go up against Western first line tanks and modern hand held anti-tank missile systems is a recipe for much death and destructions amongst Russian tankers.

So it is a question of which one will no longer be able to sustain the war first. Will the Ukrainians just run out of men to fight? Or with the Russians just run out money and equipment? 

I do not know the answer but I can say that the longer this goes on the weaker the Russian strategic position becomes. That will not change regardless of the eventual military outcome of the war. Then again, the Ukrainians are not going to come out of this war in great shape either and I would bet a sizable chunk of money that if they do prevail the same Western governments that supported them militarily will be alot less generous with funds to help them rebuild.

Like I said I do not believe that either side is winning and in the long run both will probably come out losers of this war.

Die Media Die

I have stated in this space before that I believe it is time to rethink the idea of freedom of the press and it looks like they are in the process of eliminating themselves from the national landscape. The latest example is the layoffs reported by the National Post a couple of weeks ago. For a news organization that was bare bones before the layoffs we can now say they are cutting the bone now. They are not alone. Everywhere we look the media in this country is showing signs of distress and the only thing that is keeping them afloat is support from the government, the same government they have been assiduously trying to overthrow for almost a decade.

Of course the reason for their distress is simple. I have stated before that the media in this country cannot turn their backs on around 70% of their audience and readers and expect to be successful. But then again that is to be expected when you consider that all of our news media, with the exception of the CBC, is owned in part or in whole by American business interests. These business interests are pursuing the same business strategy as they are pursuing in the US, namely appealing to conservatives and nut jobs where it works somewhat because there are sufficient numbers of them to make such a strategy viable. These companies are trying to pursue the same strategy in Canada even though our political culture will not sustain such a strategy. They are doing this for ideological reasons instead of business reasons, hoping to make Canada more "conservative" but they are not succeeding and they are running their companies into the ground in the process. 

The Liberal government could accelerate this process by stopping all support to these companies. If faced with tons of red ink in their ledgers these American businesses will abandon the Canadian market pretty quick. Sure they may hate Liberals but they hate losing money even more.

Some would argue that such action would leave Canada without a news media. No, it would leave us with a changed news media. There is always demand for news. We need to be informed. If the current group of media organizations cannot make a go of it something will rise up to take their place. In fact, the competition for the Canadian media space would be so fierce that the replacement media companies would have to be innovative and develop business models that are completely different from the current legacy media, which still has not really adjusted to the current news environment, trying to maintain a centuries old model instead of really embracing the opportunities presented by the internet.

So, I wish the legacy media would just hurry up and die already and/or the government should facilitate that by eliminating support and subsidies for them. The sooner that happens the better off all of us will be.

The Findings of the Emergencies Act Commission Surprised Me

When the EA commission was doing its work last fall and everybody was building their preferred narratives by cherry picking the parts of the testimony that supported them I mentioned everybody was wasting their time and the final word would go to Justice Rouleau. I further stated that in the end the findings of the commission would be equivocal and that everybody would be able to spin them to their own advantage.

I was wrong. The final conclusions were quite unequivocal. The Federal government was justified in invoking the Act because the situation last winter met the very high threshold outlined in the act to do just that. End of story. I knew that the commission would come to this conclusion but I was expecting some nuance.

What this decision means is Justice Rouleau completely disregarded the testimony of the Convoy Organizers that testified at the hearings. They spent close to a week pushing their woe-is-me-we-were-just-peacefully-protesting schtick. He did not believe a word of it. Remarkable.

He also did not take anything the various law enforcement organizations said either. They all engaged in "cover your ass" operations on the stand and none of what they said appears to have been considered. The same goes for the testimony of the City of Ottawa.

I stated that the Federal government would not have invoked the EA if they did not have their ducks in a row beforehand. So I knew that the final report would find that they were justified in invoking the act but I always thought that finding would be tempered by the testimony of the convoy leaders and law enforcement as Justice Rouleau would be compelled by his brief to consider their testimony. He did and he rejected all of it pretty much out of hand. 

Wow.

The report is also not very good for the Provincial government. But then again the Premier never took the opportunity to put his side of the story into the record. He just sent a subordinate in the person of the Provincial Solicitor General to testify, which did not have the same impact as the Premier testifying. As I stated last Fall by not testifying Doug Ford essentially made the Federal government version of events the only version Justice Rouleau could consider. 

As for the Conservative Party of Canada they are not mentioned in the report so they will not be hurt by it. Throughout the hearings, whenever testimony contradicting the Federal government line was presented, the CPC surrogates in the media kept pushing the "Trudeau government overstepped" narrative but the silence of the CPC itself was deafening. The reason is they knew that if they did speak up they increased the chances of compelling Justice Rouleau to ask that they testify at the commission. That would not do so they kept their mouth shut. 

I did not see it but Pierre Poilievre did have a news conference today where he talked about the commission, after it had finished its work and could no longer call him, but I pretty much know what he said: "Trudeau bad". The guy really is a schmuck.

So this sordid chapter is now behind us. As expected the government was justified in invoking the EA, unexpectedly the commission was unequivocal in that finding, once again Doug Ford has been proven to be incompetent when it comes to actually governing and Pierre Poilievre is still a schmuck.

Not Afraid to Make the Hard Decisions

Word today that the Federal government has withdrawn a couple of amendments to Bill C-21 that were quite controversial. They had the effect of banning some weapons that could be used by hunters even though those weapons did not fall under the definition of "assault weapons" per se but they had some characteristics in common. Note that there are such things as semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have the primary purpose of being used for hunting. Looking at them they do not look like assault weapons, such as the AR-15. My father owned both a semi-automatic rifle and shotgun when he was alive. I had no problem with the amendments as I stated in my previous post but I also have no problems with their withdrawal either. To be honest I really did not care that much either way. I could see both sides of the argument for and against and I agreed with parts of both.

Of course, this will not stop the usual suspects from claiming that the Liberals "surrendered", capitulated" or "flipflopped" and of course they would be wrong.

It is actually quite rare for governments to give into pressure, especially when the policy they are pursuing is popular amongst the coalition that put them in power and they know that it will not hurt them because the people most effected by the policy would not vote for them any way. There were several instances where the Harper Conservatives found themselves in the same position and their reaction was to dig in and then spend alot of money on advertizements attacking the Liberals and/or the leader of the party. 

The current Federal government did not do that. They actually weighed the evidence and reconsidered their initial decision, despite knowing how it would play with their opponents, knowing that it would not help them one bit with those rural voters who already hate them and knowing that their gun control policies are quite popular with their voters. It was a hard decision and they made it.

One other thing. I have always said that we should ignore the polls and watch what the political parties are doing to gauge which way the political winds are blowing. If we are to believe the polls the Liberals are down, in relation to the Conservatives, but this decision would seem to indicate otherwise. Quite frankly, if the polls were correct the Liberals would not have taken this decision. They would be doing whatever they could to maintain the support of the coalition that put them in the government benches and their gun control policies are very popular with those very voters. Instead they took this decision, which will not help them one bit politically. A very strange decision from a government that pollsters are saying is in trouble. 

By the way, if you are one who does believe the polls I am looking for investors to build a bridge between Victoria and Tokyo Japan. If you are interested please leave your banking information in the comments to this post.

This government has shown that it is not afraid to make tough decisions, even though such decisions might be controversial. The two big ones were to finally pull the plug on the farce that was the Parliamentary Committee to examine electoral reform and the purchase of the TMX. But those two decisions were rather early in their time in government. The fact that they are still making tough decisions at this time is quite telling.

The Latest Gun Bans, Carey Price and the Stupidity of it all

I have written about gun control in the space before. I have very few problems with the latest round of gun bans proposed by the government.

Yes, it could very well impact hunters, instead of just those who want to buy and use assault weapons just for the sake of buying them. That is unfortunate but it should be noted that the proposed amendments to the C-21 may cause some hunting rifles and shotguns to be banned but not all of them. Hunters will still have plenty of options to buy weapons that will allow them to pursue their sport. So the overheated rhetoric we are seeing from the gun lobby and the Conservatives is just that. You would think that after the 2021 election they would be a little more circumspect about giving a full throated defence of gun ownership. It really is a losing issue in the parts of the country where the Conservatives need to pick up support in order to form a government.

And now it has been revealed that the government will review the amendment in order to make certain any impacts on hunters are reduced. Gee, it is almost like our Parliamentary system works, despite the rhetoric we hear from the Conservatives and their media apologists on a daily basis.

I am a fan of the Montreal Canadiens and I am a fan of Carey Price but him inserting himself into the debate, in such a high profile manner, just days before the anniversary of the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique is the most politically tone-deaf intervention I have seen in a long time. Further what he said is wrong, him being a First Nations Canadian, as he is exempt from the provisions of C-21. Now, he is doing the inevitable backtracking, through the Canadiens organization, and that backtracking is extremely ham fisted. By the way, if he wants to back track he should do it and not leave it up to the Canadiens. It makes me wonder about the sincerity of any reflection he may be undertaking. Instead it looks like damage control, and not very good damage control to boot.

Make no mistake, Carey Price has the right to state his opinion but those who disagree with him have the very same right and they are exercising it. If he believed he could jump into this debate, as a public figure, and not experience some backlash he is very mistaken.

Now this whole thing is stupid because the arguments never change. Periodically, this topic comes up and all of the same arguments are trotted out by the usual suspects on both sides. Neither have had any new material in over three decades. To the gun control opponents. Shut up. You lost the debate when that dickless wonder, whose name I will not mention, massacred all of those women in Montreal, in 1989. It was only a matter to time before the weapon he used and others like it would be banned. He guaranteed it and the events of Dawson College and Nova Scotia just made your arguments even less effective. To the gun control supporters I would tell you to shut up as well, unless you can come up with some original arguments. 

To the Conservatives, this issue is not the effective wedge issue you think it is but by all means keep pushing it. It cost you the 2021 election and it will cost you future elections as well. 

As for celebrities injecting themselves into debates I would say that it is a wasted effort where you are more likely to lose than win. The simple fact is no one is going to change their minds because a celebrity supports this policy or that policy. If you believe otherwise, you have a much inflated perception of your impact on the world outside of your celebrity. The most likely outcome of any intervention is the tarnishing of your reputation, brand and future legacy.

Some More Thoughts

I have not been paying too much attention to the Emergencies Act Inquiry because hanging on every word of peoples' testimony is pointless. The person who will have the final word is Justice Rouleau, in about four months. Until then trying to come up with conclusions based on a particular day's testimony is silly. That has not stopped Conservative commentators, both professional and amateur from doing so. However, it is interesting that Pierre Poilievre is not taking up the narrative being pushed by Conservative commentators. He is lying very low and I imagine the reason for that is he does not want to inspire, convince or compel Justice Rouleau to summon him to the Inquiry. I will let you decide on why that might be.

It is interesting that Mr. Trudeau had what can be described as a confrontation with Mr. Xi last week and Conservative commentators are condemning him for it, taking the side of Mr. Xi. I am old enough to remember when Conservatives made some political hay over some statements made by Mr. Trudeau before he became PM, where those very same Conservatives had nothing good to say about China. I am told that partisanship is supposed to end at the water's edge but I guess Conservatives no longer believe that.

Apparently around 11 candidates who ran for Parliament in 2019 received some support from the Chinese government. Now some people are demanding to know who these people are. Such silliness. First, if the Chinese did interfere in the 2019 election then the government would be investigating that and they will not make any findings public until that investigation is complete. That is just how things are done and I believe those braying for the name know that but they are counting on their followers not realizing that. The second thing is I cannot believe any candidate, of any political stripe, would knowingly accept support from agents of the Chinese government. It is not like some person went to these candidates and introduced themselves as an agent of China and then offered to provide them with funds and other supports for their campaign and then having those candidates accept. What probably happened is the funds or support looked like it came from legal and legitimate sources so the candidates accepted it. It was only after the fact that they would have found out the source. That is probably the focus of any investigation, with the candidates being targeted as being a secondary concern.

So Donald Trump lost the 2020 Presidential election, he cost the Republicans to lose the 2020 Senatorial elections in Georgia he probably cost the Republicans control of the Senate and big wins in the House in 2022. As I have stated in this space before he is just a gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats. Now he has announced his intentions to run for President which should help the Democrats in the Georgia run-off election for the Senate seat still up for grabs. As well, there are some rumblings that if Donald Trump does not win the nomination for the Republicans he will run as an independent. That would almost guarantee the Democrats retaining the presidency as many Trumplicans support Donald Trump and not the Republicans. If he runs as an independent millions of his supporters would follow him siphoning off voters from the Republicans in the swing states. Donald Trump knows this of course but he does not care. He is not a Republican and he has no loyalty to that Party. Then again they do not have any loyalty towards him either so it's all good.

Going around stating that Canada is broken is not a winning election strategy so please continue saying so Mr. Poilievre. Certainly, it might play well to the base but the last three elections have demonstrated that the Conservative base is not enough to win. They have to win over the non-aligned voters, who have voted for the Liberals for the last three elections, and they will not respond the same way the Conservative base responds to the Party's rhetoric.

The US Did not Step Back from the Brink...

But maybe it stopped there to decide what its next move will be.

That could be one takeaway from the 2022 mid-term elections. Part of the reason for making such a statement is the fact that all of the candidates for election officials who believed Donald Trump won the 2020 election lost. Perhaps that will prevent a "legal" coup in 2024 if the Democratic candidate wins the Electoral Collage vote.

Of course, some pessimism is warranted. The results in Florida, where the Governor is showing clear signs of being an illiberal democrat, are cause for concern. I have stated here before that the US could fall into authoritarianism in one fell swoop during a Federal election or one state at a time. Those who cherish democracy should begin to take that seriously. We certainly know that those who do not cherish it have discovered that the states can be used to advance their cause.

Oh well, we will have to wait until 2024 to see if Americans will actually step back from the brink or take that final leap. 

The Notwithstanding Clause and other Constitutional BS by the Premieres

I am old enough to remember the debate around the Repatriation of the Canadian Constitution and the creation of the Charter. True I was a teenager so my awareness was not that great but I did study politics in University from 1984 to 1988 so we got to study the process and the players soon after the fact.

One thing that needs to be remembered is the Clause was demanded by all of the provincial premieres and the Trudeau government agreed because it was the only way to get the deal done. None of the provincial premieres liked the idea of the Charter stopping them from doing what they wanted and the Clause was a way to make that happen. From the time the Charter was created it was inevitable that the Notwithstanding Clause would be used as Doug Ford is using it in Ontario. The only surprise is how long it took.

One other thing to remember about the Clause is the five year sunset provision. That provision means that any law that is maintained by using the Clause is automatically void after those five years, unless the government invokes the Clause again. So, statements that Mr. Ford is destroying the Charter are very overblown. Right now he is being raked over the coals by people who are against these actions. You can see it in his demeanor and in the demeanor of Mr. Lecce that they are feeling the heat. It might occur to them in the coming days and weeks that while they might win the battle against CUPE they may lose the war in 2026. So in 2027 when it is time to invoke the Clause again the Ontario government will probably let the opportunity pass.

There is an opportunity here if people would look past the overblown rhetoric. None of the rights and freedoms in the Charter are absolute. They all have limits. For example, you cannot incite violence against someone or yell "Fire" in a crowding room without facing consequences, despite your right to free expression. The Notwithstanding Clause is no different. 

Perhaps some enterprising lawyer could launch a lawsuit claiming the Ontario government is using the Clause in a way not intended by those who drafted the Charter. Right now the Clause is a black box and no one has tried to challenge its use or to test its limits. Any judicial decision could impose such limits. Of course, there would be a risk that the courts would find for the Ontario government but I do not believe so. I think our courts are smart enough and non partisan enough to realize that the Notwithstanding Clause is not a get out of jail free card for politicians who want to deny the rights of Canadians for political ends.

One last thing about what Doug Ford is doing. There have been some suggestions that the Federal government should use the disallowance provision in the 1867 British North American (BNA) Act to stop Mr. Ford. On the surface that seems like a good idea but it is not. First the provision has never been used in the history of Canada. Second, the drafters of the BNA Act intended the Federal government to be the senior level of government in Canada with the ability of override the Provincial governments and it listed a bunch of powers in Sections 91-93 as examples. Then a couple of decades later (before the beginning of the 20th century) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) decided that those sections listing the different powers were exhaustive lists and not just examples, effectively knocking the Federal government off as the Senior government. From that point forward the use of the disallowance power would have lead to a legal challenge for which the Federal government would have lost. The same is still true today. If we want to stop Doug Ford or someone like him in the future it will be done by the courts and the voters, not the Federal government.

A word on the stupidity of the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan regarding their "Sovereignty" laws. These laws violate the BNA Act so they are not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause. If these governments try to enforce their new laws the Federal government will take them to court and the provinces will lose. Of course, that is the point of all of this anyway. It is a tried and true tactic of provincial governments to create tension between them and the Federal government because it has been demonstrated in the past that doing so can garner votes. This is the usual kabuki play that we have been seeing between the Federal government and the Provincial governments for over a century. It should be treated as such.

The Emergencies Act Inquiry

Well the inquiry is unfolding as I expected.

As each witness testifies the talking heads, both the professionals and the amateurs, cherry pick the testimony that backs up their particular biases and many have already concluded the Inquiry's findings. Of course, we have only heard from some of the victims of the "Convoy" , the city government and law enforcement, who have been collectively engaged in a cover-your-ass operation since they took the stand. 

We still have some of the key players from the "Convoy" to come, who will have to testify under oath and we also have the Federal government representatives, including the PM and some Cabinet Ministers to testify. Then the Inquiry will have to sift through thousands of pages of documents.

In short, the inquiry is far from over. All of the testimony from witnesses has not been heard and none of the evidence has been considered by the Justice conducting the Inquiry and his team.

So coming to final conclusions at this time is pointless. The inquiry will have the final say in a few months.

Some observations:

1. The invocation of the Emergencies Act (EA) was not taken lightly by the government. They would have considered it for some time, including having government lawyers weighing in on the legality of doing so. If those lawyers would have stated that the government would have been on shaky legal ground by invoking it the government would not have gone down that road. All of that would have been documented and it has been entered into evidence.
2. Related to that the Justice running the Inquiry is only allowed to consider the evidence presented to him. Most of the evidence is going to come from the Federal government. The evidence from the Federal government will indicate a pretty compelling case for invoking the EA. The Inquiry will consider the evidence in its entirety. It will not cherry pick from it.
3. The Federal government handed over thousands of pages of documentation to all of the lawyers involved in the Inquiry, including those who would like to assert the government did not reach the threshold necessary in the Act to invoke it. If there was a "smoking gun" showing the government was not justified it would have been leaked by now. The same if true if those lawyers believed that the government held back documents.
4. So far they are only talking to witnesses and those involved in ending the occupation of downtown Ottawa. The Inquiry still needs to examine events that took place elsewhere in the country.
5. Having witnesses being cross-examined makes "cover-your-ass" operations very difficult. Any spin a witness puts on their actions or the actions of their organization is quickly revealed to be just that. I have not watched all of the testimony but I have seen some and more than a few witnesses have squirmed under that cross-examination. 
6. While I know that many would like the Inquiry to expose the Conservatives' role in the "Convoy" I do not believe it will and I have never believe it would. Unless witness testimony or something in the documents points to something which would compel the Inquiry to summon Conservative official to testify they will not testify.
7. If Doug Ford does not testify the Inquiry will only be able to consider the evidence from the Federal government in rendering its decision on whether the Federal government was justified in invoking the EA. See points number 1 and 2 to see what that would probably mean.

While I am not going to conclude that the Inquiry will find the invocation of the EA was justified I am going to say that I would be surprised if it did not. Also, I will not be surprised that the findings will contain all sorts of caveats and nuances because that is what judges do when they render legal decisions.

In the end there will probably be enough in the findings to allow all interested parties to cherry pick what they need to advance their particular agendas.

We Really Do Not Deserve Democracy Do We?

So the average voter turnout for the Ontario municipal elections was less than 30%. The turnout for the last Ontario provincial election was only around 40% and the last Federal election pulled less than 60% of eligible voters into the polling stations.

Pathetic!

In order for democracy to work the citizens of a democratic country have to minimally participate by voting. They should participate much more between elections but at least they should drag their asses to a polling station when they have an opportunity.

I know many believe that their votes does not mean anything. The powers that be have worked diligently over the last few decades to reinforce that perception but of course it is not true. 

I have mentioned in this space before that democracy is not the default form of government. Authoritarianism holds that distinction. The past 300 years have seen an impressive run for democracy in the West but it is showing signs of breaking down everywhere, some places faster than others.

Part of the reason why is ordinary citizens have given up on it while some who have embraced authoritarianism are hijacking the language of democracy to push their objectives. The trend could be reversed if citizens would reengage but that is not going to happen. Those who fear the power of voters have successfully convinced those same voters that they have no power.

If I live long enough it will be interesting to see these new authoritarian regimes butting up against the impacts of climate change in 20 years or so. I have also stated in this space that we could see revolutions, in the current democracies, before the middle of the century and it is realistic to assert that it will be triggered by the impacts of climate change and automation on peoples lives and livelihoods and the lack of the political relief valves that are a natural feature of democratic systems.

But I digress. What it comes down to is we have the ability to change our world because we live in democracies. The most basic way to make those changes is to vote when given the opportunity, which although it happens regularly it does not happen that frequently. Being involved in politics between elections would be even better but barring that people have to minimally participate in the process by voting.  If we are unwilling to do that then the fall of the democratic systems is the inevitable result and the people who decided not to participate will have no one to blame but themselves for it.

Brian Mulroney has still got it

He is still a master of speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

On the one hand he states that the Conservative Party is heading in the right direction and then he advises them to move to the centre. If they were moving in the right direction would they not already be moving in that direction? Would he have needed to give that advice?

I have stated in this space a couple of times, in the past month, that moderate Conservatives have no real home in the CPC. They just do not. It has been taken over by Canadian Trumplicans and they have absolutely no interest in moderating their views to make moderate Conservatives feel comfortable with the direction the Party is headed. I have also stated that the only way for them to maybe change the direction of the CPC would be for the Party to be humiliated in the next election. That is the painful truth. To think otherwise is wishful thinking and a recipe for losing any chance of influencing the direction of the country for at least a generation.

You would hope that they would look past the next election but Brian Mulroney has demonstrated that they probably will not. They just cannot bring themselves to do it. As I stated before they dislike Justin Trudeau just as much as the Trumplicans in the CPC they just do not want to see him hanged for treason. For many moderate Conservatives it seems beating Mr. Trudeau is more important that actually having real influence in Canadian politics and society.

My Jewish father-in-law has a word to describe such people: schmucks.

Subtle Change in Climate Change Deniers

It is becoming harder and harder to deny climate change and its impacts. In less than a week two very destructive hurricanes have devastated Florida and Eastern Canada. Here is Ottawa a freak May thunderstorm left a third of the city without power, many for over a week. In Europe droughts have impacted crops and dried up rivers and the list goes on.

Recently I have seen a subtle change in the arguments of those who have been denying climate change. While they are not admitting climate change is a problem they are beginning to assert that if it is then we only need to develop the right technologies to adapt to it.

So the argument goes, stop investing in ways to prevent climate change, because it is probably not real, but let's develop new technologies to adapt to it just in case it is.

With such an argument they can demand that the Federal Carbon Price program be eliminated while money should be spent on carbon capture technology and other technologies.

It is a convenient argument and it will probably be the focus of the Conservatives' proposals to "fight" climate change going into the next election. So, I hope their opponents are ready with the arguments against it when it comes.

Because of course they are wrong. Technology is certainly part of the answer. However, it is a simple fact that technology alone will not save us. We have to reduce ghg emissions as well. They will go hand-in-hand and there is not getting around it.

Look at it this way. We are in a boat on the lake and it has developed a substantial and worsening leak. We have a bucket to bail, which is keeping us from sinking but the hole is steadily getting bigger. For the climate deniers their solution is to use the bigger bucket, problem solved. Sounds stupid when you put it that way because, of course, the only real way to solve the problem is to patch the hole and then bail out the water that is still in the boat. 

That is where we are with climate change. We are bailing our asses off and staying ahead of the game but we continue to pump way too much ghg into the atmosphere and eventually it will get to a point where it will overwhelm the balance in our atmosphere with untold negative outcomes for our civilization and maybe our species. If we hope to have any chance to preventing that we need to reduce ghg emissions and develop new technologies that will allow us to adapt to the change in the climate that we are already experiencing. If we choose only one we are probably done.

I welcome climate change deniers at least acknowledging that something needs to be done but they still have some way to go. Hopefully, they get there when we still have the time or the concern about the climate and our future hits critical mass early enough and makes their denial irrelevant.

I continue to be pessimistic that we will either that happen before a global climate catastrophe befalls our civilization.

Is Mr. Poilievre flirting with touching the political third rail?

Last week, during successive Question Periods, in The House, the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada kept insisting that the payroll taxes used to fund Employment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plans should be reduced.

First, let's make one thing very clear. They are indeed taxes, more specifically payroll taxes, levied to fund specific government programs. Unlike other taxes, such as income taxes and the Goods and Services Tax, these payroll taxes do not go into the general revenue fund. They go into specially established pots of money to be used to fund EI and the CPP. As such, reducing these taxes would reduce the funds available for these programs. Eliminating them would have the defacto effect of eliminating both programs.

So, talking about reducing the taxes on either one can be construed by their political opponents as having a plan to significantly reduce or even eliminate these programs and make no mistake their opponents will be working hard to make those very connections when they believe it is to their political advantage.

Talking like that is stupid on several levels.

First, EI is used regularly by seasonal workers, who use that program to carry them through their off-seasons. They largely live in rural areas of Canada. Right now these very people seem to lean towards the Conservatives but that could change if they believe their livelihoods are threatened. This is particularly true in the rural areas of the Eastern provinces. It is likely that the margins of victory for Conservatives in rural Central and Western Canada would probably save them from losing many seats there but the same cannot be said about the Eastern provinces. Pissing off seasonal workers there will hand those seats to the Liberals. For the Conservatives to win they need to take at least net 20 seats from the Liberals while hoping that they do not pick up any seats from the Bloc or the NDP. That is a very daunting task and if they hand six to eight seats to the Liberals in the East it will be a near impossible task. But here they are making threatening statements about a program that many of their potential voters depend on. That does not seem smart.

With regard to the CPP that is even more of a danger area for them. It is a simple fact that every Canadian over the age of 45 is making retirement plans that assumes the CPP will be available to them. If it is not there those plans will be shot to hell. It is also a simple fact that the over 50 voter is still the most reliable voter amongst the electorate. If that demographic believes that the Conservatives are a credible threat to their retirement plans the Conservatives would be creamed in any election and I mean reduced to 2011 Liberal territory. Again it seems kind of stupid to take the risk of having their statements spun to their detriment.

As well, to make it worse, they said all of this in the House of Commons, where every word is recorded and published in the official record of the House, namely Hansard. So, their political opponents will be able to take those words and use them in the future to make life difficult for the Conservatives and they would be hard pressed to counter any of their opponents' claims because they are a matter of public record from a completely non-partisan source. They would be required to explain exactly what they meant and as the old saying goes: If you are explaining you are losing.

So why would the Conservatives take such a risk? My guess is they are not thinking past the end of the day. What I saw in QP last week was the Conservatives trying to "win" the daily theatre that is QP. It really does show a lack of forward thinking and long-term strategy. As Evan Scrimshaw rightly pointed out during the Conservative leadership campaign Pierre Poilievre never seemed to look past the current day. Every statement, action, social media post and meme was about winning that day, with no regard as to how it might impact him and the party in the future. The same seems to be happening now that he has secured the leadership.

It is a simple fact that Pierre Poilievre has said some really stupid and offensive things over the years and that it has all been recorded. The only saving grace for him is he can claim it was in the past. However, now he is adding to the hopper as the Leader of the Official Opposition and the erstwhile PM-in-waiting and he will not be able to claim it is not relevant once someone brings them up. And make no mistake they will be bringing them up between now and the next election and with the amount of time left until that election they will penetrate the consciousness of the average voter. 

If Pierre Poilievre really wants to be PM he has to change his mindset and start to think strategically. Unfortunately for him and the CPC I do not believe he actually knows how to do that and I also think that he has surrounded himself with advisors who are unable to do it either. As someone who never wants to see him as PM I am fine with that but if you are a Conservative supporter, who can live with some of the crap he has promised in the last 6 months, then you should be concerned.

As Expected Some are Writing the PM's Political Epitaph, Again

With the election of Pierre Poilievre many of the usual suspects in the Canadian media have asserted that PM Trudeau is finished. They confidently assert that he will lose the next election. And right on cue a couple of polls came out today seeming to "prove" their assertions. 

Of course, this is nothing new. These bozos have been saying  this since forever. Indeed it never seems to stop. It became ridiculous a long time ago.

As I have stated many times you have to ignore the polls and pundits to see how politics is going. My attitude towards the public polls is well known if you read this blog. As for the pundits there is a reason why they are providing their services to a media outlet and not a political party. They suck at political strategy and prognostication. Criminy, my amateur ass is better at it than they are. 

Then again that is no surprise. I attended Carleton U back in the day where I earned a Political Science degree. That is, I studied politics. The University has a journalism school and I met more than one journalism student in my classes. The thing is, they usually only took one or two of those classes as electives. Naturally, they spent most of their time learning how to be journalists and not observing and analyzing politics. I have noticed a few of these folks are now "Political Correspondents" for major news outlets and I always get a chuckle from their political "analyses".

At any rate, if the PM's and the Liberal Party's political fortunes are as bad as the polls and the pundits would have us believe we would see it. Governments have survival instincts as keen as any living creature. If they really feel threatened you can see it. Looking at the current government they are showing no signs of any political distress. Hell, I have watched political leaders who knew they were in trouble and although they put on a brave face you could tell they were troubled and we are not seeing that with the PM. In all likelihood, their internal data is indicating that they are still in good political shape. 

Make no mistake the current government is getting long in the tooth and the next election will be very tough for them. They could even lose it. However, that election is probably not going to happen for at least another year and possibly later. 

Eventually, Justin Trudeau's political career will come to an end. I would say after the next election regardless of the final outcome. Either he will lose and he will move on or he will win and decide not to fight a fifth election, leaving the PM's post a year or so after that election. Until then the pollsters and the pundits should stop asserting the PM will lose the next election until that election actually takes place. They are just making themselves look foolish.

No F*cks Given

Ok folks let's remember that no one becomes the leader of a G7 government without having very good to excellent political instincts. That person could have brilliant political operatives as assistants but if the leader does not have their own they will not succeed.

So when Mr. Trudeau decided to belt out a Queen song, while wearing a t-shirt, in the lobby of a public hotel he knew that it would come out and that in this day and age video of it would be made public. Further if he thought it would cause him political harm he would have not have done it.

He knew the usual suspects would bitch about it but they have been finding things to bitch about him since 2013 and some of them started when he eulogized his father way back when. These people do not and have never liked him because of his name, his politics and/or the fact he kicked the old Liberal guard to the curb when he won the leadership of the Liberal Party.

So when the time came he let himself be himself. 

Politics and the Gifts that Keep on Giving

Political gifts that keep on giving are those policies, laws, regulations, events or people that a political party can use to keep its base angry or motivated and/or they can use to continually bludgeon their political opponents. They are quite rare and they are a precious commodity.

Canadian examples are the old Long Gun Registry and Justin Trudeau. 

In the United States Donald Trump counts as one but the greatest gift that kept on giving was Roe v Wade. That particular decision was extremely useful to the Republicans for decades

Considering their usefulness political parties are very reluctant to change them, especially since doing so could have some unintended consequences.

You only need to look at the Long Gun Registry to see what happens when a political party surrenders such gifts. The Conservative Party of Canada bludgeoned the Liberals for years over that registry and the fact its implementation went way over budget. It kept their voters angry and motivated. However, when they won a majority government in 2011 they eliminated it. I realize they did not have much choice but when they did that they gave up a weapon they could use against the Liberals. So in 2015, when the Conservatives accused the Liberals of planning on bringing back the Gun Registry it was pathetic to watch. You could tell the party was really missing that particular gift. Then the Liberals won the election and instead of creating another Registry they just banned military style weapons. You see, the Gun Registry was a compromise to control the military style weapons without actually banning them. The message being you can keep your assault rifles but we want to know where they are. Of course, many gun owners believed the Registry was just a way to find all of the guns so that "the Liberals" could take them away and they fought against it and demanded a Conservative government eliminate it as soon as possible. So, the next time the Liberals decided to do something about assault weapons they just banned them, something they would not have done if the Gun Registry had still existed. So, by having the Gun Registry banned the outcome was the one most gun owners feared. Schmucks.

As for Roe v Wade, successive Republican presidents and politicians strung their supporters along for five decades. They railed against it but failed to actually do anything concrete about it. It never failed to fire up the base come election time. Then the Tea Party took over the Republican Party and they made the strategic mistake of actually nominating Presidential candidates that nominated judges who would overturn the decision. It finally happened and now they have provided the Democrats with a winning issue for the foreseeable future. You see, with Roe v Wade in place Republicans could not actually attempt or suggest a national ban on abortion. The law prevented it. With that decision overturned Trumplicans are going to demand such a national ban and that is trouble for the Republicans. You see, the reason why Republicans did nothing about Roe v Wade for so long is because abortion is not a winning issue for them. It is an issue to fire up the base but if they want to win the last thing they want to do is actually talk about a national ban. On the other hand the threat of a national ban is a boon for the Democrats. It is just such an issue that will motivate Democratic voters to vote. If you have been paying attention to the last four years you will have noted that during the 2018 midterms, the 2020 Presidential election and the 2020 special elections in Georgia, Democrats came out to vote in record numbers. In all cases they won. The math is simple. There are more Democrats in the US than Republicans. The Republicans know it, which is why they pursue laws and measures to suppress voting. Giving the Democrats an issue they can use to motivate their voters is a bad idea. And this is an issue that will just not go away. Say the Democrats win the House and Senate in November. They may pass a federal law protecting abortion, which would force the Republicans to promise to repeal such a law when they got the chance, providing the Democrats with the opportunity to use the threat of an abortion ban to motivate Democrats to vote 2024, 2026 and so on. In short, Republicans will be forced to propose a ban on abortions during every future election which for most strategically minded Republican is a nightmare.

Which brings us to Donald Trump and why he has not yet been indicted. It is simple really. In 2020 the fact he was President brought out Democrats to vote in unprecedented numbers. His reaction and actions after the 2020 election brought out Democrats in Georgia, allowing the Democrats to win control of the Senate. His presence and the stuff he has been saying and doing leading up to the 2022 mid-term elections are being used by Democrats to convince their voters that they need to vote in November, which when combined with the Dobbs decision could allow them to hang on to the House and gain full control of the Senate. In short, Donald Trump is now the gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats and they may be very reluctant to give him up by seeing him indicted. If his only alleged crime was he incited the January 6th insurrection they probably would not bother to indict him. The investigation would probably just drag on until after 2024. However, if there is evidence he kept nuclear secrets in his private home, after he left office, then authorities will have to act sooner but do not be surprised if they wait until after the mid-term elections are history.

Well Moderate Conservatives, what are you going to do now?

The results of the leadership vote for the Conservative Party of Canada should prove to you that you no longer have a home there. The guy that represented you did not even receive 20% of the votes and lost to the winner by around 40 points. Throughout the election campaign the winner kept stating that your guy was not even a Conservative, he said he was a Liberal. If you want further proof you only need to look to the reaction to the moderate conservative member from Quebec who quit the CPC caucus to sit as an independent. He has reported that he has received a ton of hate mail from Conservatives since his decision and non other that Ezra Levant has stated that he is not really a Conservative anyway so it is no loss.

So, I believe you have four choices.

One: Grit your teeth and keep voting for the CPC because we all know that to do otherwise is anathema to you and besides you do not like Justin Trudeau any more than Pierre Poilievre and his ilk. You just don't want him hanged for treason. Doing that of course could result in considerable hardship for countless Canadians, including yourself, because the CPC really has no interest in governing. They only want to tear down what has taken generations to build, pray at the alter of oil and gas, an industry in the twilight of its existence, allowing the opportunities presented by green tech and the the huge economic benefits of it to be taken advantage of elsewhere and implement their regressive social conservative agenda. You may believe that you can moderate the CPC from the inside but this weekend should put paid to that notion. If you vote for the CPC in the next election and they win any chance of you influencing that party in the future will be gone FOREVER.

Two: Form a moderate conservative political party. If you choose to do that good luck. You would probably be a thorn in the side of the CPC but like the PPC such a party would probably never be more than a nuisance to the CPC and it would also eliminate any chance of you influencing the CPC in the future.

Three: Grit your teeth even harder and vote for the Liberals. I know that such a notion probably gives you the heebee jeebees. Vote Liberal, NEVER!! However, maybe what you should do it stop thinking with your dick and start thinking strategically. As I have stated before if you really want to have a shot at taking back the CPC, the current party establishment has to be discredited and losing big to Justin Trudeau would do the trick. The humiliation of the Liberals in 2011 was a blessing in disguise because it allowed Justin Trudeau to come in, toss the party establishment into the dustbin of history and renew and refresh the party for the 21st Century. The humiliation of the CPC in the next election could have the same effect. Perhaps thinking past the next election is in order.

Fourth: Don't vote at all in the next election. I would advise against that because I would never suggest anybody not vote, even if they plan on voting for a party I would not like to see in power. However, this could have a similar effect to voting for the Liberals. One of the reasons why the Liberals were humiliated in 2011 was voter turnout for them was way down from the previous two elections. Or to put it another way, Liberals just decided not to vote. 

Whatever you decide, just remember that if you actually want to influence the direction Canada takes in the future you are going to have to find a political home and doing so will involve some tough choices and sacrifice. If you are unwilling to do that then you will be without political representation and influence for at least generation. 

Your move.

The Conservative Leadership Election

After yet one more Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, which had a few relatively minor oddities (the sudden disqualification of one of the candidates, representatives of one of the candidates handling thousands of ballots before they were counted) Pierre Poilievre won the post, surprising no one.

So what does it all mean? Who knows.

However, things are going to progress in a predictable fashion. He will try to begin the process of presenting himself as non-threatening and the media will let him because they are Conservative supporters themselves or they are afraid of being accused of bias by asking tough questions. Of course that is their main function in a democracy so if they are not willing to do that I again ask the question: "Is the concept of a free press still valid?" But I digress.

However, once the "honeymoon" is over he will find himself in the unenviable position of being the Leader of the Official Opposition and he will be there for a number of years before facing the voters. His overwhelming win is going to create high expectations for him going forward and one of those expectations will be to try to put the Liberal government off of its game. I don't know if anybody has noticed but that has not happened since they won power. If he is also unsuccessful he will have the same problems as his two predecessors. As well, Mr. Poilievre has said some things in the past and he will probably say some things in the future that could come back to haunt him. A compliant media will do what they can to shield him but his new found prominence will cause the more outrageous things he said to come out and people will pay attention. He is no longer a back bencher. He is the big cheese now so he will be scrutinized much more closely, despite the best efforts of his media friends. This is particularly true if the election really does not take place until 2025. Three years is a long time to hide some of the stupidly dangerous, offensive, and racist things he has said during an 18 year political career and it is sufficient time for it all to sink in.

Then there is the matter of leadership. Can he actually lead the Conservative Party of Canada, a Party with many factions, all of which will not water down their wine for the cause? That is the problem with leading a party of ideologues. They are all completely committed to their particular cause and if the Leader does not do his utmost to achieve their objectives then they will turn on him, even if that will deny the party power. You see ideologues believe that if the leader does not pursue their goals with single minded purpose they will be able to find someone who will and still be able to win a general election. If you do not believe me then I would point you to Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Scheer. The solution that his predecessors followed was to pander. It satisfied no one and lead to their ultimate political demise.

Ideally, he would use this time to renew and rejuvenate the CPC but that is not what he was elected to do. His job is to lead the Party created by Stephen Harper into the next election. To do otherwise is strictly forbidden. So he will follow the same strategy of Mr. Harper and his two successors. Throw red meat at the base to keep them angry and motivated and pivot to moderation when the time is right to shake loose enough voters outside of the base to eke out a victory. That strategy worked three out of the four times Stephen Harper did it but is was a dismal failure in 2019 and 2021. The Conservatives are hoping that Mr. Poilievre will be able to strike gold again using it during the next election.

Now of course the next election will be the fourth one for the Liberal government and the PM and the inevitable voter fatigue with a sitting government will be a factor in that election. However, things will be a little different from the last time the CPC replaced a Liberal government. Justin Trudeau is not Paul Martin, Maxime Bernier is stalking the CPC on the right, the stunning and decisive rejection of Jean Charest has demonstrated that there are very few moderate conservatives left in the CPC, and social media has completely blown up the ability of political leaders to control the message. Between now and the next election it is inevitable that he will have to deal with bozo eruptions from his caucus and prominent Conservatives. All of this will create drag on his efforts to replace the Liberal government.

Is it Time for the Federal Government be More Hands on with Healthcare?

It took awhile but the media has finally woken up to the fact that health care services in most of Canada have not been up to standard this summer. The media tried to ignore it for quite some time, instead talking about delays at Pearson Airport, Justin Trudeau's new hair cut and other banalities.

However, despite it going on for some time they could just not ignore the state of health care services any longer. As a result, health care has become the most pressing issue for Canadians, if you are to believe the latest public polls. 

The reason for the state of health care is the neglect of the system by Conservative provincial governments in this country of course. They all want to introduce some form of privatization into the system and they believe the best way to do that is to starve the public system so that people will accept more privatization as the solution. I do not believe that will actually work as they believe but they will still try.

One of the issues that has lead to this situation is the fact that provincial governments have taken funds from the Federal government, that were supposed to be used for health care, and used them for something else. It is probably not unreasonable to assume some of the $4 billion the Federal government transferred to the Ontario government paid for the licence sticker rebates before the last provincial election. Ontario was not unique but that has not stopped all of the provinces from crying poor and demanding more Federal funding to not spend on health care.

The Federal government is rightfully hesitant to throw more money at the provinces knowing full well that the money will be misappropriated. However that does not mean the Federal government cannot increase health transfers, they just need to skip over the provincial governments and transfer funds directly to health care providers.

In the next few months the Federal government should announce programs to do just that. The funding should be made available through Grants and Contributions programs, which are the most common way to provide funding to individual Canadians and organizations.

Such an approach would create a great deal of pushback from the Provincial governments but if the Federal programs are designed properly they would not have a leg to stand on. The administration of health care is the responsibility of the Provincial governments but that does not mean the Federal government cannot get involved in providing direct funding and assistance to health care providers. The programs would have to be designed so that they do not interfere with the Provinces' abilities to administer health care but it is doable.

Such as approach would also help the Liberals politically. Yes, the Provincial governments would have conniption fits but that is to be expected and it would have the same impacts on our politics as past Federal/Provincial disputes, namely none. With health care and its problems on everybody's minds proposing such programs would be widely appreciated by the electorate. The general sentiment would probably be "Finally, the Federal government is taking action to "save" our health care system". Such a proposal would put the Conservatives into a real bind. Their default position is to reject any proposal from the Liberals and to promise to cancel any program created by them. Having such a position with regard to programs designed to sustain and enhance the public health care system would turn off the very voters they would need to win an election. Even the Bloc would have a hard time opposing this for the same reason.

As for the NDP, I mentioned in my last post that the Liberals should move to vacuum up some of the centre-right voters, who currently do not have a political home, by proposing some policies that would appeal to them. Such a strategy could endanger the agreement the Liberals have with the NDP on money and supply motions in the House but the NDP would be hard pressed to reject them if it meant rejecting health care programs. They would do it if they believed the Liberals were in political trouble, we have seen that in the past, but if the Liberals are still in good political shape then they would not be able to bring down the government.

For decades Conservative provincial governments have been introducing privatization into our public health care system with impunity because they have been subtle about it. They have been nibbling around the edges. The pandemic has exposed the flaws these actions have created in the health care system, along with others that existed as part of the system to begin with, and it would appear that all of the Provincial governments have decided to be less subtle. Many Canadians are very worried about our health care systems, including Canadians who generally support conservative parties, so the situation is ripe for an intervention by the Federal government. If done right it could stabilize the system, wrong foot Conservatives across the country and help the Federal Liberals politically for the next few years.

The Centre-Right is there for the taking

Federal politics is in an interesting position in Canada right now. For the first time in all of the time I have been observing Canadian politics (almost 40 years) the centre-right is unoccupied by any of the Federal political parties.

The NDP would never move that far right. The current Liberal government has been the most progressive government since the government of Pierre Trudeau, meaning it has firmly planted itself in the centre-left, with some incursions into the centre proper. The Conservative Party of Canada, the Party you would expect to occupy the centre-right, has abandoned it and has moved far to the right, moving into populist, Trump, MAGA territory.

The Conservatives have a chance to move back to the centre as they are in the middle of a campaign to elect a new leader but the presumptive front-runner does not seem interested in that, one of the candidates that seemed to realize the opportunity was summarily disqualified from the contest and the other who seemed to realize the opportunity is a political has-been who probably has no chance of winning. There are still a number of weeks until the CPC announces the winner of that contest but it does not look like they will be electing a "moderate" conservative as their leader.

So, what are the Liberals to do?

I know that their instincts are to be progressive, to stay the current course. They have broken the old trick of campaigning from the left but governing from the right since 2015. However, they are a seven year old government, and counting, and they will be seeking a fourth mandate during the next election. The next election will be toughest one of all and they need to find a way to grow their support if they hope to win that fourth mandate. The Conservatives have given them an opening to do just that. 

Make no mistake there are many centre-right voters who would not vote Liberal no matter what. However, there are those who have voted Liberal in the past and would vote Liberal again if the party could find a way to appeal to them.

Most centre-right voters care about the economy and government spending and they are turned off by any kind of focus on social issues. With the economy seeming to be heading towards post-pandemic "normalcy" the government has the opportunity to address the economic and fiscal issues. Inflation appears to have peaked without the Bank of Canada raising interest rates too much. We will have to see but 2022 could just be the year of transition from the pandemic economy to a "normal" economy in 2023 and beyond. As well, as a result of this the government will be able to wind down the remaining pandemic relief programs, leading to less government spending and lower deficits. There are already signs that is happening with the government reporting a $10 billion surplus in the first quarter of this fiscal year. That will disappear in subsequent quarters but the surplus is something that can be used as a starting point for the economic update that will be delivered this fall and that can be expanded upon in the spring budget.

As for the social issues. The CPC is doing a good job of turning off centre-right voters by making them front and centre in their leadership election campaign.

Of course such an approach may alienate the NDP, which currently has a deal with the Liberals to support them in the minority Parliament but there is a way to deal with that, which I will write about in my next post.

For now, there are enough reasonable centre-right voters in this country, who are appalled by the direction that the CPC are heading and who would be looking for a political home during the next election. If the Liberals could capture their votes it could mean a rather convincing election victory for them.

You know what is really scary?

As I write this many of the historic and storied rivers in Europe are drying up. The Rhine, the Danube, the Loire and others are all reporting historically low water levels. I have a colleague who had to cancel her river cruise on the Danube in 2020 because of this thing call COVID-19. You may remember it. It was the talk of the town for a little while. She finally rescheduled for this Fall but now it might be canceled again or at least greatly reduced in duration and sites to see because of the low water levels of that river.

As I mentioned in my previous post one of the myths of climate change is the impacts would be felt in the lower latitudes first, because they are already the warmest latitudes in the world. Since most of the Third World is located in the Equatorial Region there were grand predictions of mass migrations from that region to the North and South temperate zones because it was believed that their climates would change for the better, increasing the size of the temperate zones as it warmed at the higher latitudes.

They were wrong. Less than a decade ago the average temperatures in the North began to increase dramatically, reducing sea ice in the Arctic to nearly zero, and causing the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica to melt at a prodigious rate, threatening the world with rising sea levels and changing ocean currents.

Now the impacts of climate change are being increasingly felt in the "temperate" latitudes. Prolonged droughts in the most agriculturally productive land on the planet are occurring everywhere. California, the great plains, the farm lands of Europe, the rice fields of Asia are all showing the impacts of these droughts and there appears to be no end in sight. We are already seeing the impacts of that with higher food prices, which were already increasing before the war in Ukraine and the latest round of punishing weather in the Northern Hemisphere.

So what is going to happen in the next decade or so? It was believed the impacts of climate change would start at the Equator and head towards the polls. Instead, it would appear they started at the polls and are moving towards the Equator. So it is very possible that the impacts predicted for the Equatorial Region are still going to happen, making an already very hot place even hotter, which could very well trigger the mass migrations that were predicted. Of course, those mass migrations are going to be people moving to the so called temperate zones, which will have been living with the impacts of climate change for almost two decades at that point.

That is the scary part. We may not be wrong in predicting the the Equatorial Region will become almost uninhabitable we we may only be wrong about the timing and about the fact that the so called temperate zones of the planet would be a suitable refuge for them.

The climate is a fickle thing so it could change again and the original predictions could come true. However, it is a little disconcerting to realize that it might not happen and we are heading for world that is much warmer and dryer everywhere. That is a recipe for disaster.

One Climate Change Myth Debunked

A persistent myth around global warming and climate change is that the earth and climate would warm and change for the worst at the lowest latitudes, such as around the equator, while more temperate and colder latitudes would become warmer, making countries such as Canada warmer and more livable.

The past few summers should make people rethink such myths. It has been remarkable that the places that have been feeling the greatest impacts of climate change have been temperate countries. Record heat waves in Europe and persistent decade long droughts in what was once prime agricultural regions of all of the continents is showing that our real time experiment with our climate is not working out as expected. Add to that the fact the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet and we can probably draw an initial conclusion that the original myths around climate change has been busted.

They got nothing

What can the Liberals talk about this week.

• Carbon Pricing rebate cheques are hitting bank accounts. 
• The economy is humming along nicely
• Unemployment has hit an historical low
• Gas prices are coming down, which should indicate we might have hit peak post-COVID inflation.

What are the Conservatives talking about:

• Justin Trudeau's hair.

Absolutely pathetic.