"Loose Lips Sink Ships"

Whispering in the Wind (WITW 80) June 17, 2015

“Loose Lips Sink Ships” was first used on political propaganda posters during World War II.  The posters warned military personnel and the general public that even the most innocent, unguarded comment could be used by the enemy to sink ships.  The slogan that was so effectively used seventy years ago to fight a tyranny has, in a strange way, re-emerged with less dire consequences? 

Mayor Don Iverson

Last week, in a tearful news conference regarding the murder of Constable Daniel Woodall, Mayor Don Iverson offered a comment that created a severe reaction from Ottawa’s political elite.  Mayor Iverson’s comments were in part political when he observed:  “I do have concern regarding gun violence and I will say that the long gun registry may be related to this….I think every opportunity our police have to have knowledge of where firearms are in the city would be to their advantage.”  The reaction from the federal government was immediate and severe.  Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay blurted out that the mayor’s comments were “ill-timed” and “absurd” because the Woodall shooting was still under investigation.  The federal Minister of Public Safety, Steven Blaney opined that his anti-terrorism legislation “will reduce the likelihood” of such murderous events.  Mayor Iverson quickly apologized and said his comments were “premature”.  As to whether the mayor’s comments were too political for the news conference is still an open question?  From my perspective Mayor Iverson made a point that will resonate with many Canadians and the question he posed needs an answer from those who wiped out the long gun registry.  As to whether Don Iverson’s comments were loose talk, I think not.  If there was a disappointment in Mr. Iverson’s personal feelings and actions, his apology was disappointing.

Mike Duffy

As Mike Duffy’s criminal trial continues there is absolutely no doubt, the trial has become a never ending exercise in postponement and delay – at least until after the October federal election.  With last week’s release of Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s audit report on “all” Senators expenses, a new dimension has been added to the Duffy trial and the question remains, was Mike Duffy a victim of political maneuvering and cover up or was he just part of a culture of entitlement in the Senate?  In the Auditor General’s report it is quite clear that the rules regarding the Senators’ expenses were virtually non-existent – and for the future, Mr. Ferguson recommends that expenses for all Senators need much more discipline and definitely proper oversight.  At present, the audit report bodes well for Mike Duffy’s defence against the 31 charges placed by the RCMP, but the trial is not half over and the most damaging charges have yet to be presented in court.  As to whether the “Loose Lips Sinks Ships” slogan applies to Mike Duffy and his circumstances is a question that can’t be answered until his defense is fully presented.  Whether the Mike Duffy trail ends up destroying any “ships” in the process is another open question but there is no doubt, things in government are going to change, big time. 

Justin Trudeau

If there is one political figure in Canada who has regularly shown that he has “loose lips” it is Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.  The list of his gaffs and miscalculations is long and offers a lot of ammunition to his political opponents who continue to suggest that he is not experienced enough to be Prime Minister.  Personally I find Mr. Trudeau’s approach to politics refreshing, human and honest – traits that are lacking in his political opponents.  As to his gaffs, I thing one stands out and is worth mentioning – and in my view is reflective of his 21 century thinking.  Last October, in an interview with Don Newman Justin Trudeau was proposing major humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq as Canada’s contribution to the USA led consortium against the ISIS insurgence in Iraq.  Prime Minister Harper was structuring an air offensive contribution to the US consortium.  Mr. Trudeau glibly offered his party’s position:  “Why aren’t we talking more about the humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in, rather than trying to whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are?”  Mr. Harper’s response to Trudeau’s remark was short:  “It just doesn’t work like that in Canada.”  As to the big question for this column, did Trudeau’s off-colored remark leave any lasting impression on the Canadian public?  I doubt it will, but it might have left an impression with some uncertain voters that Mr. Harper was/is being far too aggressive and too macho when it comes to Canada’s role in international affairs, particularly when humanitarian aid was more in the style of Canadian support in areas of military conflict.  As to the question of using his “loose lips” talk to his political advantage, it is time for Mr. Trudeau to take off the gloves and use his honesty and his humanity to his political advantage.    

Healing or Provocation

Whispering in the Wind (WITW 79) June 10, 2015

With last week’s release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report Justice Murray Sinclair has clearly established a stage for an excited population seeking immediate action on the report’s 94 recommendations.  The reaction by the aboriginal community to the report’s recommendations can only be labeled astounding, if not revolutionary in a country that has always prided itself on being a nation that is inclusive, multi-cultural and tolerant.  Said another way, have Justice Sinclair’s recommendations gone too far in the wrong direction?

Putting Truth and Reconciliation in Perspective

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was established in June, 2008 and a part of the court-approved Residential Schools Settlement Agreement – an agreement negotiated between legal counsel for former students, legal counsel for the churches, the government of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and a number of other aboriginal organizations.  The Residential Schools Settlement Agreement was a class action law suit that included the distribution of close to $1.9 billion to about 80,000 former “eligible” students.  As well, out-of-court settlements saw the distribution of a further $1.7 billion in compensation agreements in private settlements.  My understanding, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was the non-financial component of the overall Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and yet, the financial implications of the TRC initiative far outweigh the money already distributed.

The TRC, a Provocation or an Exercise in Healing?

The release of Justice Sinclair’s 94 recommendations and his 388 page summary document (and a 260 page list of references document) suggests that a great deal of study is going to be required if Canadians are to understand the true scope and implications of Justice Murray Sinclair’s presentation, including his statement that Canada’s experience with residential schools is an experience in “cultural genocide”. 

The final report has yet to be released – my understanding, it will end up being six volumes and will be translated into six aboriginal languages.  As to the 94 recommendations that have been posted in English, it might be premature to offer comment without having seen Justice Sinclair’s detail analysis.  Nevertheless I would like to offer some view on two areas that I feel require balanced clarification.  First the recommendations that deals with EDUCATION and specifically, recommendation number 10 that requests new education legislation for Canada’s aboriginal peoples.  I’m sure Justice Sinclair is aware that there is proposed federal legislation and is still in limbo.  The legislation was developed by Prime Minister Harper and Shawn Atleo (at the time, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations).  My understanding, the legislation is still available for discussion.  Why Justice Sinclair doesn’t make reference to the Harper/Atleo initiative is an open question but it might be in the yet to be published detail reports?  My second comment deals with recommendation 43 and 44, recommendations that deal with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the apparent need for the federal government to endorse this unbinding UN declaration – my understanding is that Prime Minister Harper made such a declaration in late 2010.  I await the publication of Justice Sinclair’s final report and can only speculate how it might play out in the upcoming federal election?  As to the 94 recommendations, and whether these recommendations are a guide, a pathway toward healing and reconciliation, I think Justice Murray Sinclair missed the mark.    

Canada Needs a Political Wave, But Which Color?

Whispering in the Wind (WITW 78) June 3, 2015

Alberta’s May 5 election experience clearly revealed that judging the mood of an electorate in uncertain times is a dicey undertaking.  Jim Prentice, considered one of Canada’s most experienced, sophisticated political minds, totally misjudged Albertans and he paid the price.  The results; at least one political career was destroyed and a party put in jeopardy.  What has been described as uncanny event in Alberta is now being paralleled at the national level.  There is a penetrating question being asked in many coffee bars around the country, can and will the nation’s election this fall reflect another wave of support (or dissent) with the status quo?

The National Campaigns, Just Starting

As the country copes with uncertain social, economic conditions, Canadians are coping with another uncertainty, the infamous election campaign.  Actually the campaign began months ago with party leaders offering many promises and commitments.  Nevertheless, in the next few weeks political contenders will be out in full force, having calculated (or being told) the best way to win the hearts and minds of a fickle electorate.  At the same time, pollsters and pundits are already using their polling techniques to judge the mood of the electorate and assess the factors that could influence an apprehensive voter.

The Polls Reflects Uncertainty

The most recent national political opinion polls have placed the three major political parties into a virtual tie.  In terms of the latest snapshot of public support for the parties; the Conservatives have a 31 percent approval rating, the Liberals have 29 percent support and the New Democrats are at 27 percent.  Viewed on a regional basis the Conservatives are well ahead of the other in the prairies, as are the Liberals in Atlantic Canada.  The New Democrats have a not-so-defining lead in Quebec and British Columbia.  My perspective, the battle ground in this election campaign is going to be Ontario and British Columbia where 163 seats are at stake.  The polling data also suggests that if an election was to be held tomorrow, the Conservatives would form a minority government in the 338 seat House of Commons – the data does not reliably predict which party would form the Official Opposition.  Another poll worth mentioning is the annual poll undertaken by the Nanos Research group on government performance.  The latest Nanos poll concludes that Canadians are disappointed in the Harper government’s performance – 56 percent of those surveyed feel that the Harper government is going in the wrong direction with 45 percent indicating the government performed poorly or very poorly.  Nanos’ 2011 survey reflected a much different picture with 64 percent of Canadians feeling that the country is moving in the right direction. 

Party Leadership, Key to Winning

Prior to any federal election, I have always asked the voter to consider the party itself and its purpose, the party’s platform and its campaign promises, as well as the individual candidates and party’s leadership.  This election appears to be all about the leaders, their integrity and their management style.                                                                                                    Stephen Harper has been identified by a number of close associates as controlling, sly and secretive.  From what I have observed and read, I would add that Mr. Harper has shown little regard, or respect for the Westminster style of parliamentary governance, a dangerous disposition if you are a prime minister governing with a majority.  As to Mr. Harper’s major achievements there is one worth mentioning and in my view, was a true effort on the part of Mr. Harper to do some Nation Building.  Bill C-33, “The First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act”.  Bill-33 was a collaborative effort in early 2014, between Mr. Harper and the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo.  Bill-33 was deemed unacceptable by a number of First Nations leaders and remains in limbo, a clear sign that there are big problems ahead for Canada, no matter who leads the country.                                                                                    Thomas Mulcair has rightly been identified as a superb parliamentarian.  Unfortunately Mr. Mulcair hasn’t had the exposure in English Canada that would identify him as a possible prime minister in waiting – although the recent NDP win in Alberta could change his standing, big time.  It is worth noting that in the early days of his political career, Mr. Mulcair was the single NDP member in Quebec’s National Assembly.  After the 2011 Quebec election the NDP caucus grew to 58members, some of the credit for the Quebec “orange wave” was bestowed on Tom Mulcair.  Mr. Mulcair is known to have fits of anger; behind closed doors but in the House of Commons and when he is before the TV cameras he consistently demonstrates an acute command of his role as leader of the Official Opposition.                                                                                               Justin Trudeau has been leader of the Liberal Party of Canada for just about 26 months and in those two plus years he was placed on a steep learning curve by a party that is very strong and has lots of experience in governing Canada.  As well, the party retains a good number of seasoned politicians who are used to government leadership and are fully behind their leader.  Two things worth mentioning about Mr. Trudeau’s management style and his youthful political approach:  first, he believes in engagement and consensus building, a style that offered “hope” for change in Ottawa’s way of doing business – the idea went over well with the public and his ratings sored.  What was a new way of doing government business in Ottawa was foreign to most politicians and Mr. Trudeau was ridiculed for his youth and inexperience.  Second point and put in the simplest of terms: Justin Trudeau’s training days are over and it’s time for campaigning for the country’s top job.  It means that the leader, Justin Trudeau, will need to confidently present a platform of ideas that will need promoting and if somebody snipes at him, then he has no choice he has snipe back with vigor.

A Closing Comment

I end this column with a comment on the question I posed at the beginning of the article – can and will a wave of support (or dissent) emerge in the campaign?  In my there are dozens of issues that could trigger Canadians to move on mass toward one of the three leaders.  In the weeks to come I intend to elaborate on at least three issues that could easily cause waves:  the Economy; the Truth and Reconciliation Report; the Senate Scandal and the Duffy Trial.

Canada"s Leadership Debates in Limbo

Whispering in the Wind (WITW 77) May 27, 2015

The political upheaval three weeks ago in Alberta has many still shaking their heads in amazement – some have called the Rachel Notley, NDP win, revolutionary.  As to the cause of the “Orange Wave” there is no doubt, the people of Alberta were simply fed-up with the status quo, entitlement politics being exercised by the leaders on the “right” side of the political spectrum.  What is equally amazing is the impact of the NDP win on national politics, and that leads to a pair of imposing questions:  can and will the Alberta experience be repeated in another election that is less than five months away?  Following is my take on an issue that has gained a lot of attention in the press.  The issue, public argument and debate in an election setting is exposing a cunning strategy that could backfire on the prime minister, and the possibility of arrogance being the trigger that generates a wave of public dissent against the status quo? 

The Debate on the Debates

Mr. Harper had to be astonished by the NDP win in Alberta and particularly the Rachel Notley’s win over Jim Prentice at the leadership debate held less than two weeks prior to the Alberta election.  In my view, the Alberta experience was a major wakeup call for Mr. Harper that required significant, immediate changes to the Conservative Party re-election strategy.  It was announced:  Stephen Harper would not be appearing at the major TV debates put on by the major TV broadcasters, a major shock to a tradition that started in 1968 and historically garnered an estimated 10 million viewers.  Mr. Harper, through his party machine, is proposing a very different structure for the debates – covering narrow, very specific topics and issues.  How this debate issue sorts itself out is anybody’s guess, but the major TV broadcasters have made it clear, they will proceed with their traditional debates, with or without the prime minister.  My thoughts on the debate issue:

If Mr. Harper had his way, there would be no public debate on what could or would challenge his record as prime minister.

One of the more telling features of Mr. Harper’s management style is his determination to control any agenda on any issue that might beset him.  For the present, Mr. Harper’s controlling attitude is working, to the chagrin of his political adversaries.

Following the Harper format for the debates, he would disallow subjects and questions that aren’t specifically related to the agreed to, narrow subject being debated.  Mr. Harper appears to have agreed to two debates using his format; one on the economy and the other on foreign policy – subjects where Mr. Harper feels he has the advantage?  Subjects that deal with issues before the courts; actions that are deemed unconstitutional; issues that are considered “internal management” practices would not be raised or allowed in the debate, by agreement with the debate organizers.

As to the reaction by Stephen Harper’s main adversaries, Thomas Mulcair is willing to debate Stephen Harper anywhere and everywhere.  Justin Trudeau hasn’t made up his mind or he is holding back on his decision for unknown reasons.  Mr. Harper, he has sparked a controversy that reveals an arrogant, controlling approach to politics – it might be the spark that triggers a wave?