Fire Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr

I'll be the first to admit it - I liked Erin O'Toole, the Veterans Minister under the Conservatives. He came in like a breath of fresh air into a dump. Before he arrived Veterans Affairs was a nightmare to deal with. He didn't have time to clean up all the trash, but he certainly made as big a dent as he could. There was no question who he was minister of. He was a retired air force officer looking after veterans - his troops if you will. He was minister full-time, all the time,  sincerely, and unapologetically so. I miss Erin O'Toole.

Trudeau gave us Kent Hehr. Why I wondered when I quickly noted the guy had zero military experience. Trudeau did have several veterans in his cabinet he could have chosen, but no, he gave us a Calgary lawyer. It seems that Hehr's real qualification may come from the fact that he's disabled (in a wheel chair) and the thinking was he would understand what veteran's are going through. Bit of a misnomer there though. For starters, not all vets are disabled in any way. In fact, the vast majority are not. So, unless they're now lawyers, he has nothing in common with them. Those of us that are disabled due to our service could theoretically relate to a minister in a wheel chair and visa versa. That's only in theory though.

As time has marched on since Hehr became minister I've grown more and more disillusioned by his performance. In the very beginning he seemed to be quite interested in veterans, but now he refuses to converse with them on social media. Instead, he goes to the odd dinner here or there with the Royal order of this, that or the other thing and shakes hands. Mostly, though, he likes to take selfies with himself and just about everyone - other than veterans. I follow him on Twitter, and he followed me back. We exchanged a few private messages. I gave him some ideas on how to better help injured veterans. He thought the ideas were good and promised to have his staff contact me to follow up. That was nearly five months ago. Never heard from his staff, and he no longer answers on social media. He's entered the Ottawa bubble. As I follow him on Twitter, I'm amazed at just how much he tweets about that has nothing to do with veterans affairs. In fact, if you didn't know better, you wouldn't know he was minister at all.

I became so agitated by his lack of a veteran presence I decided to count his Twitter broadcasts (Tweets). Not so shockingly I discovered of the 772 tweets he's made since January 1, 2016, only 159 have been military related in some way - that's a measly 21% of his social media activity. Most of his public presence is apparently consumed with meeting movers and shakers, and doing absolutely nothing for veterans. Here's an example of a recent tweet - many are similar in nature:

FYI, this one is from the Junos.

Apart what I'm going through as an injured veteran, another incident recently highlighted my concern with Hehr. Robin Brentnall, former airbourne soldier and severely disabled veteran has just been forced to undertake a hunger strike in Gander, Newfoundland. Why? Well, Veterans Affairs Canada refuses to qualify him for a $70,000 payout that he's qualified for under the new critical injury program. In fact, Robin has even had a stroke. He is severely disabled, although he does keep his fighting spirit. But here it is, the man is on a hunger strike because Veterans' Affairs are up to their old tricks - delay, deny, die. Minister Hehr was notified of the situation and his office sent a standard reply letter saying there was nothing the Minister could do as the Appeal Board had made their decision. That's simply a lie. In fact, the Minister has the power to make any award at his discretion according to the Act. When Hehr's office found out that Robin was going on a hunger strike they sent him a letter requesting he not do it as it could make his health worse... like they care. More like, "don't do it, we don't want the bad publicity - especially if you die". Disgusting.

Here's Robin with a chest full

In my opinion, Kent Hehr doesn't have the right to shine Robin's boots. He's a hand shaking, baby kissing, elbow rubbing, selfie taking,  do-nothing politician - who happens to also be disabled. He didn't keep his promise to veterans over their life-time disability pensions, nobody knows when the Liberal's budget promises will come into effect - least of all the veterans. Just really, really disappointing. It seems like the new minister is really nothing more than a Fantino without the arrogance. He certainly is no Erin O'Toole, and he most definitely should at least come to the aid of fellows like Robin Brentnall - wounded warriors that amde a real difference.

Canada's New Camelot

Justin Trudeau is the new Prime Minister of Canada - "designate" until official on November 4, 2015. He came to power on an upset, come from way behind wind for one reason - he promised to run deficits to make Canada more the Canada it once was. NDP leader Mulcair refused to permit a deficit in his campaign. By mid-September the NDP base, and soft support became quite agitated by his stand, and by September 29th the NDP's nose dive began. Mulcair was in essence out NDP'd by Trudeau, and people decided to vote for the "new NDP".

Trudeau's acceptance speech used colourful phrases like "hope", "positive change", and "sunny ways" which eerily echoed the dying days of much loved NDP leader Jack Layton. Strange days indeed. Be that as it may, Trudeau is being framed in a John F Kennedy - like light. Young, brash good looking, beautiful wife, beautiful children, even Catholic, and most of all "all things can be better in Canada". The question remains: "Can Trudeau be the JFK of Canada that the press is already framing him as?", although he is certainly laying that ground work himself. The young man who defeated the Nixon-like Prime Minister Harper.

He certainly has the personal capacity to be so. Wealthy, good looking, charming, and surrounded by a young and beautiful family. No question all those parts are there. He even has the spirit of his father over his shoulder. Pierre Trudeau remains a legendary personality in politics here - even in death (perhaps more so in death). The young man who grew up at 24 Sussex while his father Pierre made headlines at home and abroad as Canada's "happening PM", now returns to those hallowed halls where his own children will spend at least 4 if not 8-10 years growing up as he reigns over the country. The ghostly hand of Shakespeare could hardly pen a more expectant scene.

But, there remain major pitfalls for the young leader that he will have to wisely avoid in order to not meet that all to common tragic Shakespearean fate. The first is himself. It seems clear that statesmanship, or leader-like maturity, may be lacking. Flippant remarks that he will "tell Putin face-to-face " that he ought to but out of Ukraine. It's just an example of massively over playing your hand, and making yourself look foolish in the process. That type of bravado must be absolutely avoided at all costs in the future. Being a Prime Minister is serious business, not boxing in a ring.

Secondly, the people around him. Trudeau has made very public signs that he will delegate "deciding" to his ministers. Coincidentally, no doubt, the same leadership style his father championed - which is by the way our system of ministerial responsibility is meant to be conducted. He has for instance a number of military veterans in his caucus that can be Minister of Veterans Affairs. The retired General is the most high profile, and assigning him to the post would show his seriousness of addressing the veterans issues he promised to during the campaign. A serious stumble with veterans can be deathly - ask Mr. Harper.

Another potential problem for Mr. Trudeau is avoiding the hard line, ideologists in his party. One such person, who has had a high profile ride is Chrystia Freeland. A right wing, or "blue Liberal", Freeland goes way over board in her criticism of Russia - particularly in regard to Ukraine. Her vitriol borders on extremism. It is the kind of behavior that appeals to the Conservative base, but alienates and annoys average Canadians. Mr. Harper had a number of those in his caucus, and he paid for it dearly.

Finally, Trudeau has to get the cash from somewhere to pay for the promises he made during the campaign. No doubt he may look to the past and appoint Saskatchewan's Ralph Goodale to Finance Minister. That would make sense. A "Flaherty-like" character, Goodale would provide stability and comfort for the average Canadian. BUT, if the thought of increasing the GST back to 7% crosses the minds of Trudeau's brain trust - beware. At a time of recession, diminishing markets, etc, Canadians will be reluctant to take such a hike - especially in the "alienated" West. That could give rise to "another Trudeau is screwing us" and all that entails.

While Justin Trudeau aims to be the next JFK, knowingly or not, Camelot is a very hard thing to achieve and keep. JFK never had social media and 24/7 news to deal with. It was a different era in human history. Attempting to paint a modern Western country with that brush is possible, but fraught with complications. In any case, all the best to Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party as they attempt to return Canada back to the future, where most Canadians would like to be.  

End of Days for World Order

Our world today didn't happen in the last few months, or even years. It's the natural consequence of a financial system that in many ways can be understood as a "ponzi scheme". A ponzi scheme starts with a basic assumption that wealth can be built from nothing. The first into the scheme benefit the most, and as the scheme grows the returns diminish until finally there is not enough money going in to pay out those that are owed - and it collapses. That in a nut shell is the nature and state of our world wide financial system, and thus our civilization.

Every national currency represents a "right to consume". There are limited amounts of resources the earth can produce, so the limit to consuming them is represented by currencies. Since World War II national and international economics have been driven by debt - a promise to pay currency at some point in the future for resources consumed today. In effect the promise to pay, as opposed to actually paying,  has allowed nations to live far beyond what they can produce compared to what they consume. In other words, debt has fueled and allowed the ponzi scheme to continue. In other words, debt has become currency, and currency has become a tool to measure debt.

The greatest enabler of debt, and the supreme master of the ponzi scheme is without doubt the US stock market. As it goes, so goes the national banks in each country - and area banks like the European Central Bank. The killer if you will is that the stock market has become addicted to cheap debt from central banks. With that cheap debt the wheelers and dealers of the market place can leverage, buy, sell, and make currency. Without that cheap debt profits shrink and investors can't meet interest payments. Without that cheap debt the system collapses as company's earnings don't meet margins required to pay their debt obligations. In other words, there isn't enough revenue coming in to cover the interest costs of their debt, and they collapse.

This is where we are at today - on a world scale. The ponzi scheme is living out its last days. Central banks have lowered their prime borrowing rates to below 1%, and in many cases a half or quarter of that. Some call that "quantitative easing". "Easing" meaning the lessening of pressure to repay currency for debt. In other words, staving off the inevitable pay the piper day. The logic is that the cheaper the prime rate set by central banks, the cheaper the interest rates set by banks, which allows consumers and corporations to continue consuming at an unabated pace - and therefore allowing the world economy to do the same.

However, what happens when individuals, corporations, and countries become so leveraged with debt that they can no longer borrow to finance their consumption - no matter the interest rate? That is the proverbial "tipping point". The point of no return. Very recently the Bank of Canada, and even the European Central Bank cut back their prime lending rates - in Canada's case to .75%. What happens when it goes to zero and yet can no longer spur or maintain economic growth? It has to go to zero. There is no other way. At this stage of the game debt is so high that it would take individuals, corporations and countries decades of non-borrowing to reverse the need for cheap debt. If that were to happen for even a year the world economy, led by the stock market, would collapse into depression. Hence the end of the ponzi scheme.

We are very close to that day now. Any significant event will trigger panic in the stock market and international debt markets. A major war or a default could quite likely be the trigger point. Greece for example could be that trigger point. So could Ukraine. Both are European countries so to speak, and both are members in some way of the European Economic Community. Without a massive debt infusion within a month Ukraine will financially collapse. Its currency has already collapsed. Greece has already been bailed out, and forced into that position of non-borrowing that I mentioned above would be necessary to avoid a collapse. They're in it now, and they're looking for a way out. Will they accept a kinder, gentler bailout from Russia or China? It's quite possible. Will they leave the Euro, or be forced to leave the Euro? That's even more possible.

The thing with Greece is it represents the future for us all. At some point we are all going to reach the position Greece is in. If Greece defaults on its debt the message becomes debt is not a guarantee to control consumption. And, if it can't really control consumption, or responsibility for over consuming, then in reality it is meaningless as a control mechanism. That is where we reach the trigger point. If the guarantee to pay one's debt for currency used, and goods consumed, becomes meaningless then so does the world economic order. In reality, that is what Greece represents. The geo-strategic question remains - will Russia and/or China bail out the current world economic order by bailing out Greece, or will they let Greece implode to foster their own currencies as the bench mark?

Both China and Russia have minuscule national debts compared to almost every country in the world. They are positioned to pickup the pieces of the ponzi scheme from what can only be imagined as a desperate world. How will they change the nature of economic order? What discipline will they impose on consumption and debt to ensure a similar collapse does not happen again? All this is yet to play out, but it will. That you can take to the bank.

   

Liberal-ly speaking

I've been wanting to write this post for along time. How to say it? When to say it? The time seems right now. In 2011 I left the PC party as the government it represents was so corrupt I could no longer bare associating myself with it. Others will say it was poor sportsmanship. Some have suggested political opportunism, as if leaving a Party at 75% in the polls for a Party at 14% in the polls was opportunism. No, the real reason was as stated - principle. Then the poor old Liberals looked like a rag tag band of warriors at best. Fighting the good fight, but hopelessly outgunned by a PC machine flooded with corporate donations, and generally ridiculed by the provincial media. That was then and this is now.

Three years later, and five leaders later, the PC Party twists in its death throws as it desperately avoids the fate of all tyrants. Now, the Liberals are the top guns and the media ridicules the PC's. So is the circle of life I suppose. But, what does the Liberal Party hold for the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador when the inevitable election day comes next year?

My father was a life-long Liberal - to be sure. He campaigned to Liberal prime minister Louis St. Laurent for a unique Canadian flag. He submitted his own design for the same under Liberal Lester Pearson. He loved Pierre Trudeau. My family was a truly Liberal family. However, I've often wondered what he would make of the "modern" Liberals.

Gone are the days of the "Just Society", or important constitutional matters and nationhood. Gone is the focus on individual rights and freedoms. Missing in action is Canada as the friendly broker between combatants. Hopelessly ignored are the right of the Aboriginal peoples. All these things that once defined being Liberal have been discarded for "being a better Tory than the Tories". There is no word of a just society, or respect of the individual. There is primarily one focus - out doing the Tories as "managers of government". ie: who can spend the least. In an onslaught of extreme right wing ideology, the Liberal Party is now suffering an identity crisis. It is no longer what makes the Party Liberal. It's now about what makes the Party not Conservative. It has allowed its own identity to be dictated by its foe.

The provincial Liberal Party appears to be no different. Three years since 2011, and three leaders later, the Liberal Party's identity here is hardly distinguishable from that of the ruling PCs. Gone are the days of just three years ago when the Liberals stood in their place to fight Muskrat Falls tooth an nail. Gone is the determination to stop the project, and protect the average person from the impending financial assault the project necessarily would bring. Now it is simply a matter of managing the assault apparently. Barely visible among the Liberal candidates are the determined group that fought so hard to bring real change for the people. Real change being a definitive change to the corrupt political culture in the province, and the resulting responsible government that would bring. Instead, we have Nalcor bred candidates like Cathy Bennett (who has been promoted to Finance critic), and Grand Falls-Windsor Mayor Al Hawkins who the Tories appointed to Nalcor's Board only a short while ago. We have perennial establishment hangers on like Siobhan Coady ( big promoter of Alderon), formerly rabid PC and anti-Liberal Paul Lane, and so on and so on.

Instead of being the Party to transform Newfoundland and Labrador, the Liberal Party is looking much like the one it aims to replace. That may seem unduly harsh, and it may in fact be too harsh as the days are early, but the signs are not promising. It reminds me of the last election when, as a Liberal candidate, I found myself face to face with a salt of the earth man in the lower ends of Random Island. His main question to me: "Are you blue or red?". At the time I remember thinking surely their must be more on this man's mind than what colour my party is. Surely he must be concerned about the difference beyond the colour of our flags, but he wasn't. Perhaps therein was a pearl of wisdom.

With a now closing window before the next election, and by-election win tallies replacing serious vision, the question is are the Liberals to be any different than the Conservatives? Is it to be "Liberal Tory, same old story?" I don't know is the honest answer. My heart says no, but my brain is leaning yes. And, that really angers me. At a time in our history when we need a principled and visionary approach, the same old "pragmatism" appears to be reinventing itself. Where are the declarations on democratic reform by the Liberal Party? Where is the policy to eliminate the practice of corporate and union political donations that corrupt our democratic process? Where is the policy to determine how to halt Muskrat Falls until all the legalities are dealt with, not the least of which include: the Water Management Agreement; the Hydro-Quebec lawsuit; the Nunatsiavut lawsuits; and the Nunatukavut lawsuit. Where is the very real question of provincial debt and structural deficits? Where is the duty to our fishers. Where is a coherent, and humane approach to the fastest aging population in the western world - ours?

It's the silence that disturbs me. The silence and the familiarity of the actors entering the stage. Not many would expect the provincial Liberal Party to be "Trudeauesque". The federal Party isn't managing that yet. However, their should by now be a very clear vision toward the critical issues. The prevailing thought should not be: "silence is golden". The prevailing visual should not be a party consumed with winning, but rather a Party confident in winning based on its vision and principles - not on winning by default. Not winning, because we are not them. Not winning simply to replace one set of actors with another. The greatest betrayal of all is the Party that purports to be change, but simply carries on in the same manner - ie: Obama.

My hope and prayer is the Liberal Party defines itself, and commits itself, to being the agent of change that fundamentally improves the lives of its people - both politically and economically. Perhaps it is just that - a hope and a prayer.

Up the NDP

So Thomas Mulcair is the new leader of the federal NDP. Like Dick Cheney, and on the same day, the NDP received a heart transplant. The fiery Irish/French politician, lovingly known in Quebec as the "Grizzly Bear", puts an air of combat into a Party best known as a forum for the feel good.

On a strategic note, Mulcair ushers in a historic new era to Canadian politics. Last year the NDP took second party status from the Liberals based on a near complete victory in the province of Quebec. An accurate analysis of that victory is Quebecers got tired of being on the outside looking in as was the case with the Bloc Quebecois. Being perhaps the greatest pragmatists in Canada they decided to instead capture an otherwise weak federal Party, and get themselves back into the power equation federally - on their terms.

Having captured the traditional home base of the Liberal Party, Quebec, and having placed a Quebecer in charge of the Party, Thomas Mulcair, the NDP are now within striking distance of becoming the new Liberal Party federally. To be successful they will have to make further inroads in Atlantic Canada, and Ontario. They are positioned to do that. Take the one small example of Jack Harris. Harris is a strong personal and professional confidant of former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Danny Williams. He backed Mulcair's leadership bid, and the ex-premier himself gave a videotaped tribute to the late Jack Layton. During his tribute he singled out the work of his old buddy Harris - who just happened to be backing Mulcair. And so it goes.

Bottom line is Mulcair's NDP will be a much different breed than Layton's NDP. This NDP will be aggressive, relentless, and determined. It will target the old Liberal territories to form a new power base that will challenge Harper's Ontario/West power base. Expect to see Newfoundlanders like Ryan Cleary and Jack Harris taking on a far more public profile in the government. Look to see the NDP focusing on issues of importance to Quebec and Ontario. Look to see Mulcair woo soft Liberal or small "L" Liberals over to the NDP by naming them as "progressives." Hard to argue that title: "I'm not a Progressive! I'm a Regressive!"

Quebec politicians in general have always understood exactly how the ebb and flow of Canadian politics work. They above all other Canadians have a sense of it all, and they know how to work it. Mulcair is no different. Look for him to make the Liberals in the House of Commons look like the retirement club. Will the Liberals react properly? Can they reach within the ranks to discover a politician that can lead them back to victory in their traditional base of support? Hard to say. One thing is certain though: The NDP has put a man in charge that can do that, and is aiming for all the Liberals traditional support base. As a partisan that is not NDP I find the obvious facts unfolding on the ground disturbing. As a political observer I have to say that this historical move appears underway. For better or for worse.

Should the federal Liberals join the NDP?

All federal political parties had a historic night on the 2nd of May, 2011. The Bloc was nearly wiped out, and it's Leader lost his seat. The Green Party elected it's first member of Parliament - it's Leader. The Harper Conservatives finally were awarded with a majority after several minority governments. The NDP reached historic new heights with 102 seats, and were able to secure the Office of the Official Opposition - also for  the first time. The Liberals suffered their worst loss ever, including the loss of their Leader's seat, and Official opposition status. Historical night all around.

The question immediately came to the fore: Should the Liberals amalgamate with the NDP to form a new unified left? The pundits all seemed to fall in line with that idea. The night of the loss they called for a new "Liberal Democratic Party" as it were. Bob Rae came on TV that night and seemed to endorse the idea of giving it at least some consideration. I believe, however, that entire idea, including it's premises, is completely wrong.

First of all, Liberals are not socialists. If they were socialists they would already be in the NDP or some such movement. They are traditionally the menders of conflict between Quebec and the rest of the country. It is in this way they really earned their title " Natural Governing Party". At times it required them to take a tough, and politically unpopular stand in Quebec, like the Clarity Act. They wrapped themselves in the flag, and were proud to declare they were not the "waiters to the provinces". They championed social justice and the "Just Society" - enshrining such in our Constitution. At the same time they were a Party of business ensuring Canada remained a player in the world. Jean Chretien, by way of example, led many trade missions throughout the world and signed free trade agreements. His Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, made tough and unpopular decisions to eradicate the deficit that was a main stay point of contention with the then populist Reform Party. In general, they were viewed as the Party of balance. The national interest was safe in their hands.

Contrast that with the NDP. They share in some ways a social justice message with the Liberals, but beyond that a common thread is hard to find. Proponents of a Liberal Democrat merger argue it would end vote splitting as if this were the reason for the Liberals loss. That the two Parties shared the same constituency, and their individual existence doomed them to split their own vote forever. They argue it represents the same problem the Reform and the Progressive Conservatives faced a decade ago. This logic is flawed.

Firstly, the Reform and PCs were from the same family. It was not so much a unification as it was a reunification - a burying of the axe if you will. A marriage of the Harris Ontario Tories and the Harper Reformers. The fallout was directly related to the historic PC loss that resulted in going from the largest majority ever to two seats nationally. A catastrophic loss that wiped out the PC base from coast to coast - despite the efforts of Jean Charest to reverse it's effects.

Secondly, and far more importantly, the NDP are not here to stay in these numbers. Their victory in Quebec centered around their leader Jack Layton. A man who has committed not to run in another campaign, and who's advancing years and poor health would seem to rule out another run. They have a caucus that is now dominated by Quebec. Many of these Quebecers are dedicated to Quebec sovereignty. The Party born of prairie populism is now dominated by people who wish to see the destruction of the country. Their own long term MPs, and some new ones like Ryan Cleary, will find themselves in a Party they can no longer recognize. The new Quebec wing will dominate the NDP. The NDP itself is actually in danger of a catastrophic split. If all these new MPs, 60% of all MPs in the NDP now, decide to leave they would form the Official Opposition. In terms of power politics you can be sure that fact has not escaped their French lieutenants. A new, and powerful position for separatists within a federal party. At the very least, inexperience and separatist leanings are bound to create ongoing political chaos for these folks.

It's time for the Liberal Party of Canada to take a deep breath. What they suffered was a political loss. Bad to be sure, but not fatal. Every Party suffers a loss from time to time. They need to take time to see why they have failed. I, for one, believe the answer is fairly obvious. The big losses started happening with poor leadership choices. Sorry, but that is the history. If you want to be real then you have to get real. Poor leadership choices resulted in loss of political discipline. Loss of political discipline created a perception of weakness, which resulted in a massive loss of credibility. At a time of choice people are going to turn to the Leader who they perceive has credibility. They consider the perception of the Leader as the primary factor in their decision. Just look at Duceppe vs Layton in 2011. It was Jack mania and Gilles is a dinosaur. The key for any Party is that their Leader is not perceived as yesterday's man. That is the political reality facing the Liberal Party of Canada. It needs to choose the Leader of tomorrow, and not an appendage of the past. Then it needs to rally around that Leader and exercise sound Party discipline around it's founding principles. The ship of sensibility in the stormy waters of right or left fanaticism. The Canadian people will look to them again for prudence in the not too distant future.