FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Apr 30

What The Results of The Canadian Election Mean For Canada

by bcurry

By now, anyone who keeps informed about Canadian news events, including a few Americans, have come to realize how the final federal election results are more than just significant for Canada and its federal parties.  Federally, there are six federal parties: the Liberals, the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party (NDP), the Bloc Quebecois, the Green Party and the Peoples’ Party of Canada (PPC).  Moreover, the election became a two party race to win by either the Liberals, under Mark Carney or the Conservatives, under Pierre Poilievre.  The primary issue of the campaigns became that of Canada’s relationship with the U.S., more precisely with President Trump.  The Green Party has only one seat and the PPC has none.

In the end, the election results proved to be extraordinary with the Liberals winning enough seats in Parliament to form a minority government — its fourth consecutive term!  What is remarkable is the fact that the Liberals a few months before the election were more than 20 points behind the Conservatives in the polls.  Then suddenly, all that changed when Donald Trump got elected, Justin Trudeau stepped down as Prime Minister, and Mark Carney took over leadership of the Liberal Party.  The Liberals increased their position in recent polls to take the lead over Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives.  Then came the election itself, with the Liberals taking 169 seats to form a minority government.  Close behind is the Conservatives with 144 seats.  However, what is even more astonishing is that the Liberals gained most of their new seats at the expense of the NDP, a socialist party, with only 7 seats (a loss of 17 seats from 2021) and the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party, with 22 seats in Quebec (a loss of 13 seats from 2021).  Even more surprising, is the fact that Pierre Poilievre and the NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, both lost their riding seats.  Once an opposition party, the NDP no longer has official party status in parliament, which handicaps its ability to perform or contribute. 

While the popular vote was close, 43.7% for the Liberals and 41.3% for the Conservatives, Canadians favoured Mark Carney as the leader who could confront Trump over his tariffs on Canadian industries.  As a former head of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England and a former CEO, Carney is seen as someone with fairly qualified experience in finance, business, economics and international trade.  Canadians switched their support to the Liberals to support a strong opposition to the tariffs and political attacks by Trump who has frequently referred to Canada becoming a 51st state.

Now, Carney will have to start negotiations with the Trump administration with respect to an updated or new trade agreement, such as is governed by the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) previously signed by all three countries in 2018.  By introducing initial tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel, oil and gas, softwood lumber and automotive sectors, Trump has already broken that trade agreement.  The danger for Canada is that if additional tariffs are introduced by the U.S., the economic impact on Canada would most likely lead to a major recession similar to that in 2008-09.  Canada would have to retaliate with tariffs on American goods, leading to higher prices for Canadians.  Americans would also see similar inflationary pressures due to Trump’s tariffs.

The election also resulted in a clear split between the eastern provinces which largely supported the Liberals and the western provinces, especially Alberta and Saskatchewan, which largely supported the Conservatives.  The western provinces have long argued that the federal government under the Liberals has harmed the growth of their oil and gas industry, particularly because of environmental policies.  Some westerners have already claimed that they might potentially be better off by withdrawing from the Canadian federation in some manner.  The Prime Minister will have to attempt some form of compromise to assuage the western grievances and maintain a sense of unity among all ten provinces.  Canada needs to provide a common, strong and unified front in its planned negotiations with the Trump administration.  After all, we are talking about Canada ’s state of sovereignty as a nation.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Federal Election Federal Government Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Apr 15

Canada’s Version of a Mini-Trump

by bcurry

As the federal election moves forward to its April 28th voting date, there is one leader of a party who is increasingly portraying himself as Canada’s version of a mini-Trump.  That leader is Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  His discourse prior to the election call has on several occasions been similar in content and tone to that of Donald Trump.  He spoke of Canada being broken; of “woke” predominance among the current Liberal government and the New Democratic Party (NDP); of a need to be tougher on crime; of Canada’s need to “drill-baby-drill” when it comes to fossil fuels, most notably in crude heavy oil found in Alberta.

In recent weeks, Poilievre appears to be even more aggressive, primarily due to the recent polls which show that the Liberal leader, Mark Carney, is now leading: including being the preferred candidate for the position of Prime Minister.  This is a major shift from prior to the election and the resignation of Pierre Trudeau as PM, when the Conservatives had a twenty plus lead in the polls.  However, along came Donald Trump and his tariffs against Canada and all that changed.  Carney has a business, economic and international finance background.  This has led Canadians to believe that Carney can better negotiate some sort of new trade deal with the Trump administration.  In addition, many Canadians are now comparing Poilievre to a mini-Trump because of the Conservative policies and the ongoing slogans surfacing in his campaign. 

Most recently, Poilievre has pushed for tougher measures as they pertain to sentences handed out by the courts under Canada’s Criminal Code.  This included the idea of arbitrary “three strikes” vis-à-vis convictions, whereby one’s prison term will be automatic and potentially longer.  However, one only has to study the consequences of this approach in California where its use clogged up the justice system for years and resulted in extreme over crowding in its prisons.  The situation was so bad that many non-violent prisoners had to be released as a result of COVID 19 and the danger of widespread infection in these crowded facilities. Get ready to build new prisons!

Next, is Poilievre’s pledge to use the “notwithstanding clause” in the Canadian constitution (Section 33) to allow longer sentences for multiple murderers, something that the Supreme Court of Canada had in 2022 ruled against as a violation of an offender’s Charter rights.  Politically, this represents a groundbreaking promise and he would become the first prime minister to invoke the clause while in office.  As one expert noted, the extraordinary use of the “notwithstanding clause” would occur not in crisis situations, not judiciously, not after massive public debates and so on, but due to a majority government which for its own political reasons is playing to its base.  Sounds like something that Trump would do.  Both Liberal Leader Mark Carney and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh rejected using the notwithstanding clause.  In order to protect established rights, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, more than 50 organizations, human rights advocates and legal experts have openly urged all federal party leaders to commit to a public consultation on the notwithstanding clause within six months of forming a new government.  Without extensive prior-consultation within Canadian society at large, the clause’s federal use would establish a potentially perilous precedent with its first-time usage at the federal level.

Poilievre also appears to want to give carte blanche to the Canadian oil and gas industry to expand its production and exports in order to offset the American tariffs and grow the industry.  This of course would mean rapidly expanding pipeline construction from Alberta to the west coast, speeding up environmental reviews and consultations with indigenous peoples in the territories through which pipelines would go.  However, while this would certainly benefit the oil and gas industry in Canada
, one has to ask whether and by how much Canadians will benefit.  The Conservative base in Alberta
will certainly benefit, but how about the rest of the country?  In addition, many in the Conservative party tend to be “climate change” deniers.  Sounds familiar! 

All in all, Poilievre’s campaign has clearly had elements of Trumpism reflected in its content: something not lost on many Canadians.  Let’s face it, Trump is not too popular in Canada at this moment, and his unpopularity is definitely echoed in this election.

Canada Climate Change Donald Trump Federal Election Federal Government Populism in Canada Trade with U.S.

Leave a comment »
Oct 21

2024 Predictions For Key Canadian Political And Economic Issues

by bcurry

Predicting the eventual outcome of political and economic matters in any year is pretty difficult, and 2024 has been just as unpredictable in various ways.  Relations with Canada’s biggest trade partner and political ally are about to change as a result of the U.S. elections next month.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has stated that a second Trump presidency would be difficult for the Canadian government, as there are many issues on which he and former president disagree.  However, who would have guessed earlier in the year that President Biden would be forced to drop out of the presidential race in favour of his Vice President, Kamala Harris.  Should the outcome result in a Harris administration, things could certainly be different and hopefully perhaps less antagonistic. 

What is most troubling for the Trudeau minority government is the current state of the economy, particularly as it relates to high inflation.  While inflation has come down from a year ago, Canadians are still faced with continuing high costs associated with housing, food and fuels.  In addition, his government has lost the previous mandated support of the New Democratic Party which assured him of being able to withstand any non-confidence motions in Parliament and the need to call an early election.  However, both the Liberals and NDP cannot afford to have an earlier election at this time, particularly since the opposition Conservatives continue to hold a twenty point lead in the polls.  The Conservatives, knowing that general public opinion is unfavourable to Trudeau, would be more than happy to have a federal election sooner than later due to their expectation to form the next government.  In addition, Trudeau has recently seen several Cabinet ministers resign and will not run in the next election, as well as a revolt in the Liberal caucus seeking to replace him as party leader.  Among Canadians in general, he now faces the lowest approval ratings ever.

While the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre could become Canada’s next Prime Minister, he isn’t personally liked by most Canadians.  Some have compared him to Donald Trump, but this is somewhat an over exaggeration.  However, he does represent an increase in the presence in Canada of right-wing politics, similar to what has divided Americans politically — nothing out of the ordinary here.  What was hard to predict was the rapid decline in support for Trudeau and the increasing massive support for the Conservatives, whose platform remains much as it was a year ago — alluding to the high cost of living, crime rates and the carbon tax. 

The province of Quebec has itself moved away from past strong support for the federal Liberals and more toward dealing with its own political and economic issues surrounding greater protection of the French language, its lagging fertility rate, immigration targets and financial support for asylum seekers, many from the U.S.   Quebec Premier François Legault’s aggressive francophone-first policy has been controversial in Quebec, where business owners say the new requirements will add more barriers to hiring.  The current and future position of Quebec voters is difficult to predict.

The rapid growth of ultra-conservative movements in Canada, similar to those in the U.S., has surprised many political experts.  There is no doubt that the economic difficulties experienced by lower-income Canadians has certainly contributed to this outcome, especially as it pertains to the influx of immigrants and their impact on housing costs and social services.  Critics predicted, and rightly so, that Canada doesn’t have the housing, public resources or resettlement services to absorb the projected half a million newcomers in such a short period of time.  The war in the Middle East has also exacerbated the growing level of hate-related incidents against ethnic groups in the country.

What makes predictions next year for Canada even harder will depend on the outcome of the U.S.
elections, and the eventual policy changes that the new American administration will introduce.  One thing is clear is the importance of a more vibrant economy to both countries, despite the fact that inflationary trends appear to be on the decline.  Both countries will shortly have new administrations in power for 2025.

Canada Economy Elections Federal Election Immigration Policies Leadership Populism in Canada Presidential Election 2024 Quebec Politics US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Mar 25

Electorate in Both U.S. and Canada Appears to be Very Disgruntled. I Wonder Why?

by bcurry

George H. W. Bush Senior, going into his bid for a second term, was frequently told that it’s all about the economy stupid!  The U.S. economy went into a recession in 1990; the unemployment rate rose from 5.9% in 1989 to a high of 7.8% in mid-1991; and the debt percentage of total gross domestic product (GDP) rose from 39.4% in 1989 to almost 46.8% in 1992.  By the presidential election in1992, many conservative Republicans’ support of Bush had waned for a variety of reasons, including raising taxes and cutting defense spending.  Americans were less concerned with his foreign policy successes (e.g. Persian Gulf War victory over Iraq) than with the nation’s deteriorating economic situation.  Thus, despite having once been a relatively popular president, he lost to Bill Clinton.

Today, the primary issue among voters continues to be the economy, and especially the high rate of inflation and high interest rates affecting people’s mortgages and the cost of loans in general.  Yes, there is low unemployment and more people are employed today than anytime since the pandemic.  However, unfortunately for Joe Biden, the average American is struggling on a daily basis to make ends meet, especially since average wages have not kept up with increasing inflation over the last few years.  Many people and businesses are still recovering from the pandemic, which has created a real sense of insecurity and a general malaise within the population.

Taking all of this into account, and that people are not happen with another Trump vs. Biden election, there is a general mistrust with governance.  The same can be said for in Canada where you have a Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and a party that has been in power for over nine years.  The opposition is continuously harpooning about the high cost of inflation and high interest rates that average Canadians are facing.  There is also a good amount of discord over the government’s intention to raise the national carbon tax this coming April, despite it being only one element of several policies aimed at tackling climate change.  However, right now, climate change has taken a back seat to the economy.  A federal election will very likely be called next year in Canada, and all the government can hope for is that the economy will improve and inflation will come down.

Overall, these are tough times for governing parties.  There appear to be no win-win situations.  Government deficits have been climbing steadily, partly in earlier response to the pandemic, with no end in sight.  Wars overseas in the Ukraine and Middle East are not helping.  Funds are being allocated to support the Ukraine against Russia, Israel’s military and the plight of Palestinian refugees in Gaza.  The situation has placed both the U.S. and Canada in a difficult situation given the evolving humanitarian crisis in both conflicts.  In terms of foreign policy, domestically it is a no-win and highly emotive situation for both governments in terms of supporting one side or the other particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In addition, stability in the energy markets is constantly under threat as a result of the sanctions against Russian oil and natural gas exports and the general unstable situation in the Middle East.  As a result, there has been a measurable direct or indirect impact in the form of rising costs for gas and heating fuel in North America.

There is little doubt that we live uncertain times.  There is also little doubt that voters are concerned with the cost of living and continuing hard economic times.  This bleak outlook does not bode well for President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau.  The question then becomes whether their political opponents can take advantage of the situation?  I guess time will tell.

Canada Climate Change Economy Economy Elections Federal Election Federal Government Federal Government Foreign Policy Presidential Election 2024 Ukraine Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Sep 7

What’s Going On With All These Pollsters?

by bcurry

Pick up any newspaper today or read news articles online, and you can’t avoid seeing the most recent polls concerning the U.S. presidential primaries or the standings of federal political parties and their leaders in Canada.  The most interesting polls of course have to do with the potential impact of the recent indictments against former President Donald Trump.

However, support for Trump, may obscure a still varied Republican electorate. To better understand the party today, one pollster split Republican and Republican-leaning voters into groups, based on the results of its Times/Siena poll. The groups were defined by how Republican-leaning voters felt on the issues — not how they felt about Mr. Trump.  The results depict a Republican coalition that consists of different six groups.  Their support for Trump varies accordingly.

According to a poll commissioned by POLITICO Magazine and conducted by Ipsos in June, roughly half of the country believes that Trump committed the crimes alleged against him.  What should happen to Trump if he gets convicted?  The poll’s results show that forty-three percent said he should go to prison, but most were willing to spare him jail time.  Nearly a quarter of respondents said that Trump should incur no punishment at all (22 percent), while 18 percent said he should receive probation and another 17 percent said he should face only a financial penalty.  Interestingly, roughly one-third of respondents said that they are not particularly familiar with the allegations in the indictment cases.

Nationally, recent polls indicate that support for President Biden and Trump is about evenly split.  However, analysts note that should Trump win the Republican primaries, he would most likely loose to Biden. This despite voter concerns over Biden’s age and his low approval ratings.

In Canada, the political drama is far less evident than in the U.S.  Recent polls show that the current leader of the federal Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, has pulled ahead of Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.  Moreover, an Ipsos poll in December 2022 indicated that nearly half of Canadians want there to be a federal election in 2023, although the official deadline for the next federal election is 2025.  In addition, the poll indicated that, after over eight years in office, a slim majority of those polled are hoping one politician won’t be running in the next election: Prime Minister Trudeau.  Fifty-four percent of those polled said Trudeau should step down as the leader of the Liberal Party in 2023, although just 27 percent said they actually believe he’ll do so.  The Prime Minister’s approval rating has been coming down when compared to Poilievre’s.  However, with an election still potentially two years away, anything can happen as indicated by recent polls, and much will depend on the regional distribution of votes.

Polls are powerful – they can influence emotions and shape political fortunes. They can be used to drum up support for campaigns and reveal how closely aligned (or far apart) the general public is on consequential presidential or prime ministerial policies.  Recent national elections have reminded us how problematic it is when we think of polls as forecasts of the future rather than a glimpse at where people stand at a given moment in time.  Also, not all polls include a margin of error, including non-probability polls such as those you can opt into online.  According to Pew Research Center, participants for these polls self-select, or opt in, and there is a risk that “these samples will not resemble the larger population”.

Polling is a huge industry.  All political parties and many third-parties, including media sources, use polls to get an idea where the voters stand on certain issues and how much support is out there for parties’ platforms.  Past history has shown that the closer one gets to an election date, the more accurate certain polling can begun.  Unfortunately, polls released just prior to that date can potentially influence the way in which certain voters, especially the undecideds, may consider voting.  After all, everyone prefers to support a potential winner, notably if they are voting as independents.  Prior to the next American and Canadian elections, I’d be closely watching the potential impact of polling and whether the results reflect the final outcome of the election.

Canada Donald Trump Federal Election Presidential Election 2024 Republican Party U.S. Primaries US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Dec 21

Differences in Governance Systems in Canada and the U.S. Do Matter

by bcurry

Back in high school and in university we were introduced to the two systems of governance in Canada, Great Britain and the U.S.  Canada like the U.K is a parliamentary system, with the normal three levels of governance: the legislature, executive and judiciary components.  As a republic, the U.S. has a similar constitutional makeup, although how each of the members is selected varies greatly.  In Canada, the Prime Minister is selected by which party gets the most seats in the House of Commons.  The PM also sits in Parliament.  Sometimes, if a party doesn’t win the majority of seats to form a government, the party with the most seats can negotiate with another party to form what is referred to as a “minority government”.  Minority governments are tricky because they can be toppled by a “confidence vote” on critical motions such as a budget.  Canada currently has a minority government as a result of the last federal election in September 2021. The PM currently selects the members to Cabinet who are normally members of Parliament, unlike in the U.S. where the President selects Cabinet members who do not sit in Congress.

In the U.S., citizens vote separately for the President and for candidates to the House of Representatives and the Senate, often in what are referred to as “mid-term elections”.  Unlike in Canada where there are mainly five official parties, the U.S. only has two parties: the Democrats and the Republicans.  As a result, Congress can often see a split in control between the House of Representatives and the Senate, as is the case now with the Republicans controlling the House and the Democrats the Senate.  In addition, there are those members who are independents.  The Canadian Senate on the other hand is made up of appointed members (by the Governor General on the PM’s recommendation) who now do not have any party affiliation.  Compared to the American Senate, the Canadian Senate does not have much power, especially when it comes to financial matters such as the budget.  It examines bills referred from the House and can recommend amendments which the governing party can accept or ignore in the final reading before parliament.  While committee hearings before the U.S. Senate can make or break policies or federal appointments, the Canadian Senate’s committees can simply provide reports on selected subjects which the Government most often ignores and get shelved.

Appointments to the Supreme Court are a whole other matter.  In the U.S., such appointments are highly politicized and depend on which party the President and Senate members come from.  In recent years, the majority of Supreme Court justices have been appointed under Republican regimes, resulting in a prevalent conservative court.  In Canada, on the other hand, Supreme Court appointments are more or less apolitical and made to reflect regional, ethnic and affirmative action considerations.  Frankly, given recent decisions by the American Supreme Court (e.g. Roe vs. Wade), I must say that I prefer the more independent Canadian version when it comes to appointing jurists.

There will always be debates over which system is better.  The fact of the matter is that both have their benefits and flaws.  One major concern with the American system is how the President is elected and the role of the “electoral college”.  For example, in the case of Donald Trump, he had smaller percentage of the popular vote than Hillary Clinton and yet won the election.  In both countries, it is especially important to win certain urban and rural areas in order to be politically successful.  For this reason, parties target certain key states in the U.S. and certain key provinces in Canada.  One major difference is how candidates in the election process are funded.  In the U.S. there is no end to the hundreds of millions of dollars that candidates can gather from such sources as Super PACs (political action committees).  For example, this year’s midterm election was expected to set a new spending record, with over $9 billion being raised. This is significantly higher than the previous record of $7 billion, which was set in 2018.  In Canada, contributions to candidates are far less and are regulated by controls enforced by an independent agency, namely Elections Canada.

To change the current governance systems in both countries would require significant constitutional amendments which don’t appear to be on the horizon anytime soon.  I would suggest, maybe just maybe, the time is right for governments to re-examine the governance processes in light of our histories and the continuing changes in both societies.

Canada Conservative Political Groups Elections Federal Election Federal Government Federal Government Judicial System Presidential Election 2020 The Senate U.S. Primaries US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Oct 24

Canadian Federal Election Says A Lot About Canadians

by bcurry

Like the U.S., Canada is a country of many diversities — be they regional, cultural, urban or rural, or economic. The recent federal election results demonstrated once again a wide spectrum of diversities and issues among the Canadian electorate.  Firstly, we elected a minority government giving the incumbent Liberal Party another term in office.  Secondly, the division of the votes and seats was obviously split according to regional support, again a further recognition of diverse interests.  After all, Canada is formally a confederation of competing provincial entities. In addition, the majority of voters rejected populism and far right-wing and left-wing policies.  Most Canadians prefer to maintain a more centrist position.

One now has greater representation by a nationalist party, the Bloc Quebecois, in Quebec whose only platform is to federally support only those policies that benefit the province of Quebec. The western provinces, mainly Alberta and Saskatchewan, overwhelmingly supported the pro-pipeline Conservatives. In addition, rural areas in most provinces primarily supported the Conservatives while urban and suburban areas such as Toronto and Montreal supported the Liberals.

Having become disillusioned with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government over unethical behaviour and failures to fulfill certain 2015 promises, the electorate sent a clear message by voting for a minority regime. One part of the message was a concern that a Conservative government would proceed to cut services and programs to return to budgetary surpluses and reduce deficit spending.  However, Canadians are not prepared to support a government bent on a number of social and environmental policies promoted by the left of center New Democratic Party and Green Party.  Once again, voters preferred to make safer choices which maintain the ‘status quo’.

What is particularly interesting this time around is that all the political parties had more candidates representing women, minorities and indigenous persons. This reflected their adherence to the multicultural and socioeconomic elements of Canadian society.  The most populist-oriented party, the newly formed Peoples Party of Canada, made no significant inroads and won no seats.  Not surprising given their anti-immigration policies.

Yes, there is always a degree of dissension among certain regions over the outcome. Overall however, the election results gave Canadians the type of government that they preferred at this time, rejecting much of the negativity displayed during the campaigns.  A minority government will have to gain the cooperation of the other parties in order to legislate and to avoid being forced to call another election during its term.  In effect, the Prime Minister will have to display a greater degree of humility, something certainly lacking under his majority government.

Canada Federal Election Populism in Canada

Leave a comment »
Sep 25

Governments and Employers Have to Deal With the Implications of an Aging Population

by bcurry

According to Statistics Canada’s most recent population projections, by 2015 there would be more people in Canada over the age of 65 than under the age of 15. The number of seniors is expected to double over the next 25 years.  According to American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), today there are about 44 million adults in the United States who provide unpaid care for a loved one who needs support. The numbers of seniors are increasing every day in each country.  People are also living longer due to advances in medical and health sciences.  This has serious implications for society in light of issues surrounding elder care, an aging workforce, old age income security, long-term care, the increase in persons with health issues such as dementia and Parkinson’s, the impact on health care systems, etc., etc.

A 2017 survey by the U.S. National Business Group on Health, a coalition of large employers, found that 88 percent of employers think care giving will be a big issue over the next few years.  Surprisingly, it has been determined that the average age of care givers is 33 years old.  Many of whom are members of the so-called “sandwich generation”, whereby they have both children and elderly relatives to look after.  Many care givers are experiencing stress as a result of the dual responsibilities. In addition, we are already experiencing serious shortages in long-term care facilities for those seniors who have major health issues.

Many of the millions of baby boomers have turned 65 and their parents are living past 85, joining the fastest-growing segment of the population. The boomers who have retired must now not only look after their own costs of living and their own income security, but also have responsibilities for helping out their aging parents.  As the baby boomers themselves age, their children may also have to help them to cope with continuing to normally function in today’s society.  For those care givers still in the labour force, there are few companies that subsidize elder care benefits, have written policies about elder care or provide for paid elder care leave.

The lack of existing elder care policies in the private sector leaves governments with the responsibility to initiate new approaches to tackling the issues surrounding an aging population, as they did with child care in the past. Canada is in the midst of a federal election. It’s time that all political parties propose how they plan to deal with aging population issues, including old age income security, long-term health and home care, tax breaks for elder caregivers, labour standards directed at those providing elder care, universal drug and dental benefits, etc., etc.  Seniors represent about a quarter of all voting citizens, thus representing a major voting group which political parties cannot continue to ignore. They need to influence employers and future governments.

Canada Federal Election Health Care US

Leave a comment »
Nov 9

A New Younger Generation of National Leaders is Emerging

by bcurry

Guess what, as Baby Boomers our time has gone when it comes to political leadership. Take a current look at the recent arrival of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  He was born on December 25, 1971, and at 43 years old is one of the youngest Canadian Prime Ministers ever. Indeed, looking at the ages of newly elected Members of Parliament, it becomes apparent that fewer and fewer were born before 1965.  A new generation is emerging, representing more of those who make up what has become known as Generation X — those between that ages of 30 and 44.

Indeed, this transition is a good thing. Governments today have to deal with very complicated national and international issues.  These include the impact of globalization on our economic and social lives, work-live balance issues, climate change, rapid technological advances, renewable energy initiatives, etc., etc.  While Baby Boomers may have got the ball rolling, now a new generation of political, social and business leaders must carry the ball forward.  Experience may have been a key factor in the past, but energetic vitality and commitment will be more important attributes for current and future visionary leaders.

An older generation tends to be too preoccupied with the past and maintaining the status quo. What we need today are leaders who are willing to question the status quo and introduce new and more innovative ideas and policies.  They will need to question the existing establishment and the old ways of doing things.  They will have to reflect the views of younger generations raised in a totally new economic and social environment.  Instead of slow and mostly incremental policy development, more drastic and major policies will have to be quickly developed and implemented to tackle today’s most important issues.  Leaders will have to surround themselves with younger, savvy and more proactive advisors; thoroughly knowledgeable about such issues and interested in finding real long-term solutions.

Perhaps the emergence of Justin Trudeau is the first such significant case exemplifying a genuine changing of the guard. I sure hope so for all our sakes and for that of our children and grandchildren.  After all, it’s younger Canadians and Americans – Generation X and Millennials – who are in urgent need of advocacy.

Canada Federal Election Justin Trudeau

Leave a comment »
Sep 21

Should Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Ever Fly in Canada?

by bcurry

The answer is clearly a resounding “NO”. As a result of the current Canadian federal election underway, the governing Conservative Party is still defending its involvement in a plan to purchase F-35s to replace the current aging fleet of CF-18s. The problem is, Canada can’t afford it and there are several practical reasons why the F-35s don’t make any sense in the Canadian context. Both the New Democratic and Liberal parties have indicated that they would scrap F-35 purchases should they form the next government, and will look at cheaper and more suitable alternative aircraft.

The following are detailed concerns expressed by insiders and recorded by several media outlets in Canada, the U.S. and other countries:*

  • Right from the start, Pentagon officials were warned of the dangers of beginning to produce an aircraft before it was fully tested. (New York Times, 2012)
  • In 2010, Pentagon officials estimated that the planes could cost as much as $5 billion more than previously estimated. That comes on top of a $2.8 billion increase, which brought the total for development alone to $50 billion. (New York Times, 2010)
  • In 2011, S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler estimated the planes would cost around $148 million apiece or more. (Ottawa Citizen, 2011)
  • The Canadian military does not have the ability to conduct aerial refuelling of the F-35, a must for longer flights in our North. The Defence Department had listed air-to-air refuelling as a mandatory capability for any new fighter aircraft Canada (Ottawa Citizen, 2011)
  • F-35 would not be able to safely land on runways in Canada’s North as those are too short for the fighter. (Ottawa Citizen, 2011)
  • The Pentagon official in charge of the F-35 project said major cracks and “hot spots” had been discovered in the stealth fighter’s airframe, causing further delays and testing. (Postmedia News, 2011)
  • F-35s don’t have the satellite capabilities necessary for communicating in the Arctic. (Postmedia News, 2011)
  • The Pentagon grounded all of its F-35s after a routine inspection found a crack in one of the stealth fighter’s engines. (Postmedia News, 2013)
  • Lockheed needs more foreign orders to realize volume savings. In 2012, Italy cut its planned order 30 percent. Britain and Australia delayed decisions on how many F-35s to buy. Lawmakers in Canada and the Netherlands were questioning the costs. (New York Times, 2012)
  • Several countries, including Britain and Japan, have stated that they may have to cancel their F-35 order in view of the cost overruns, technical problems and delays. (Postmedia News, 2012)
  • Retired Canadian colonel Paul Maillet, an aerospace engineer and former CF-18 fleet manager, said the F-35 does not meet the needs of the government’s Canada First Defence Strategy, a key pillar of which is Arctic sovereignty. “How do you get a single-engine, low-range, low-payload, low-manoeuvrability aircraft that is being optimized for close air support . . . to operate effectively in the North?” he asked. (Postmedia News, 2012)
  • In 2012, Auditor General Michael Ferguson delivered a report highly critical of the Defence Department’s handling of the F-35 project. The auditor general’s report indicated Defence Department officials twisted government rules, withheld information from ministers and Parliament, and whitewashed cost overruns and delays afflicting the F-35 program. (Postmedia News, 2012)
  • The first F-35s were supposed to be delivered to Canada in 2015. The federal government quietly decided in the fall of 2015 to spend $400 million to extend the life of Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets past 2020. (Ottawa Citizen, 2015)
  • With all the delays — full F-35 production is not expected until 2019 — the U.S. military has spent billions to extend the lives of older fighters and buy more of them to fill the gap. (New York Times, 2013)
  • Mark Gunzinger, a retired American Air Force colonel who is now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, noted that the F-35 could be too sophisticated for minor conflicts, and its relatively short flight range could be a problem as the Pentagon changes its view of possible threats. (New York Times, 2012)
  • S. air force data demonstrates that single-engine jets have crashed more often. The manufacturer and the government have argued that improvements in technology have made the F-35’s engine more reliable and safer than its predecessors. A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Rideau Institute noted: “The single-engine versus twin-engine issue has not been resolved by improvements in the reliability of jet engines”. “Engine failures will still occur, and when they do so away from an airport, a second engine is the only thing that can prevent a crash.” (Canadian Press, 2014)
  • A 2014 government-commissioned report on the F-35 and its competitors shows little difference between the four warplanes when it comes to the vast majority of missions they will be required to perform. The only major exception is fighting against another country, though the report says such an event is “highly unlikely” to occur in the future, and even then, “the government is not obliged to undertake such a mission.” (Ottawa Citizen, 2014)
  • An Industry Canada report said that the four aircraft companies reviewed had all laid out plans for bolstering the Canadian economy with jobs and other benefits should their aircraft be chosen to replace the CF-18. (Ottawa Citizen, 2014)
  • In 2015, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that progress had been made on some of the problems that have plagued the controversial jet fighter’s development for years. These include designing a new pilot’s helmet and fixing an issue that resulted in cracks in the aircraft’s frame. But the GAO, which serves as Congress’s independent auditor, said “key gaps” persist that threaten to increase costs and put development even further behind schedule. Problems with the aircraft’s engine have delayed aircraft deliveries and testing. (Ottawa Citizen, 2015)

*In addition to Canada and the U.S., the original F-35 project included Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel, Singapore and Japan.

Canada Federal Election Federal Government Justin Trudeau

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.