History Lessons - The Commonwealth Fund

The Following link provides a pertinent perspective on Obamacare and the ridiculous treatment it has been receiving from right-wing media in the United States (and, I am sorry to say, in Canada as well).

History Lessons - The Commonwealth Fund

Top 5 MPs of 2013

{Below is a version of column I submitted to several B.C. Interior newspapers in late December 2013.--MC}

Allow me to start the New Year  on a positive note by presenting my choices for the Top Five MPs thus far in Canada’s 41^st Parliament. If  a majority of MPs were anything like these people, our democracy would be experiencing a renaissance.

1.      Michael Chong (Conservative – Wellington Halton Hills). Mr. Chong is not your typical Conservative backbencher.  In November, 2006 he resigned from the Harper Cabinet on a matter of principle—to  protest Prime minister Harper’s motion recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada. He sensibly supported  the Kyoto Protocol in 2004.  Since then, Chong has also been one of this country’s leading advocates of parliamentary reform: his Private Member’s Bill, entitled The Reform Act, 2013, would restore the historic role of MPs and bring Canada more into line with other parliamentary democracies   by enabling party caucuses  to trigger leadership reviews, make decisions about membership in caucus,   and choose the chairs of party caucuses. The bill would also take away the prime minister’s power to veto riding nominations. 

2.     Thomas Mulcair (NDP—Leader of the Opposition). As a McLean’s Magazine cover story once declared,  “ Stephen Harper has Met his Match”.  When Mulcair demanded answers about the de-regulatory and de-funding decisions taken by the federal government that led up to the Lac Megantic tragedy, the only people who complained were Liberal and Conservative politicians.  But it was his skillful skewering of the prime minister over the Senate Scandal that was his finest hour. According to  CBC’s At Issue panelist Bruce Anderson, “Tom Mulcair has owned Question Period”. Rex Murphy adds that compared to Justin Trudeau, “Mulcair looks like a man ready for a step up.”  I agree.

3.     Elizabeth May ( Leader—Green Party of Canada).  Ms. May has until recently had the  luxury of leading a caucus of one (herself), but she has long tried to facilitate cooperative behavior across party lines, for the sake not only of the environment and climate change, but for the sake of democratic reform as well.  Her MP newsletter makes good reading, because it is not simply toeing a party line or trashing opponents.  Mclean’s Magazine—which asks every MP to vote for their top picks—named her Parliamentarian of the Year in 2012, and Hardest Working MP in 2013. The Hill Times, which uses a survey of political pundits to pick its winners, recently named her runner –up as most Valuable MP.

4.     Craig Scott (NDP—Official Opposition Critic for Democratic and Party Reform).  I knew Mr. Scott when we were both Rhodes Scholars at Oxford University in the mid-1980s.  Since then I have watched him become one of the leading experts of  International Law in Canada, a professor at Osgoode Hall, and then step into Jack Layton’s shoes in Toronto-Danforth. He has been the perfect person to carry the file on parliamentary and electoral reform, which has become an urgent priority because of  the way that our current government has made evasive prorogations, omnibus budgets, suppression of science and taxpayer-funded propaganda all-too routine. 

5.     Stephane Dion (Liberal-St. Laurent Cartierville).  Respect for the Constitution and respect for the Environment  have been the twin hallmarks of Mr. Dion’s parliamentary career.  Like Michael  Chong, he has been a strong opponent of appeasing Quebec separatism, and like Mr. Chong, he has been working hard recently to make up for the democratic shortcomings of his leader. After  Justin Trudeau announced  that he favoured  an electoral reform that would do little to make everyone’s vote count and little to help national unity, Dion went to work behind the scenes to promote a more genuinely democratic alternative. 

The Development Centre of Yi Women and Children In Liangshan

I was deeply moved by a CBC news story about families affected by the AIDS epidemic in Liangshan, the home of the Yi  (or Norsu) people,  in rural villages of Sichuan province.  There are about 25,000 reported cases of AIDS among the Yi, although that is likely a gross understatement.  The problem arises from men migrating to the cities in search of work, getting involved in the drug trade,  sharing dirty needles (out of ignorance and poverty), then returning  to infect their wives and children. 

CBC reporter Andrew Lee interviewed Nui Nui and her grandmother Zi'er in a village in Liangshan, where 10% of the population has AIDS.  Nui Nui has lost both of her parents and lives with her aunt La Nui, who also has AIDS.  Although the problem of AIDS orphans of course exists on a more massive scale in Africa, the tragedy in Sichuan is magnified  by the comparative lack of penetration of the area by western aid agencies, the  greater apparent indifference on the part of the Chinese government, and the timing--in a world that has been aware of AIDS for 30 years , these poor people wandered into a trap that they couldn't see coming, but one that the rest of the world, including the Chinese government, could have seen coming.

I wish to support the work of the Development Centre of Yi Women and Children in Liangshan, who have provided some help to Nui Nui, Zi'er and La Nui , but who have not been able to keep them from being ostracized and bullied by other villagers. This NGO  appears to be virtually the only lifeline that they have.  If I could help to pay for their drug treatments, and to educate people into letting AIDS victims back into school, it would help to ease their misery and fill a big gap in the world's public health and development efforts.

the missing mother

"Nui Nui"

Why the Conservative government Must Be Defeated in 2015

1.  The millions of taxpayers' money spent on partisan propaganda, the personal attack ads between elections, the "anything you can get away with"  attitude to parliamentary democracy, the avoidance of any press scrums or federal-provincial meetings that the prime minister cannot control, the awful Senate scandal, the first prime minister in Canadian history to be found in contempt of Parliament--all of these are extreme examples of autocratic, ham-fisted rule that are without precedent in all of Canadian history, at least in peacetime.

2. Simple logic tells us that it is not necessary to degrade our democracy in order to improve our economy. Any government that appears to assume otherwise is behaving badly. And if this government is rewarded with back-to-back majorities, all politicians will learn the lesson, and the damage to our institutions will have become permanent.

3. Any advantage Canada has enjoyed economically in the past decade, other than commodity prices that are completely beyond anyone's control,  has derived from the fact that the Conservatives inherited a more stable financial industry and a more independent monetary policy than other G7 countries--a fact that the Conservatives themselves deserve no credit for, and  to which in fact the Conservatives presented the greatest existential threat of all the Canadian political parties.

4. In any event, simple math shows little or no actual growth or efficiency dividend clearly flowing from the government's "economy first" downgrading of social and environmental priorities.    In fact, the Conservative government's record is becoming a textbook example of  how such a simple minded "great leap forward" in building pipeline capacity  and reducing environmental and safety regulation is jeopardizing projects rather than facilitating them.

5.  Therefore, the Conservatives' game is not worth the candle.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{By way of further explication, here is my latest column for November issues of Anahim-Nimpo Lake Messenger, the 100 Mile Free Press, and a number of other interior B.C. newspapers.}
                      ............

What can you say about a government that jeopardizes the Keystone XL pipeline because of its poor environmental record?  And delays the Northern Gateway because it antagonizes First Nations people and environmentalists? And talks about unbundling our cable channels, even as it bundles together controversial and  uncontroversial bills in order to evade accountability?  That deregulates railway safety at the same time that it quadruples the amount of oil and gas being transported? That appoints the most aggressively partisan people it can to the Senate and then acts shocked when they behave as expected?  That continually throws people under the bus without any notion of due process or respect for Parliament?

The Canada-EU Trade Agreement is starting to look better than it had once appeared, providing greater access to a huge market. But does it really outweigh all the contradictory and self –defeating political manoeuvres of this government? A last ditch effort to engage First Nations people on the issue of oil pipelines,  described by one representative of First Nations  as "too little too late," comes after after  20 months of aggressive campaigning to  vilify opponents  of the Northern Gateway Project as "radicals"  and "hijackers"  funded by "foreign interests;"   changes to the National Energy Board Act to limit public participation in hearings; and   repeatedly antagonizing First Nations with unilateral changes to the Indian Act and environmental regulations as part of an Omnibus Budget bill, sparking the Idle No More movement. 

Similarly,  Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's   recent overtures to the U.S.  indicating that the Government of Canada  is "ready to partner on tackling climate change" , including an un-typically rapid  acceptance by the government of the latest scientific meta-study from the University of Hawaii,  comes after six years of downplaying climate science, five Fossil of the Year Awards, pulling out of both the Kyoto and UN desertification treaties, and generally damaging Canada's international reputation in regards to the environment.

If the government were really serious about a "Consumers First" strategy, it would be opening the domestic market in airlines, agriculture and banking; It would reverse the recent decision to increase tariffs on  72 less developed countries, which will raise the cost of clothes and sports equipment. It would open the telecom market to everyone, not just a multinational corporation like Verizon that made $40 billion in profits last year in the U.S. while paying no taxes. 

Of course, the government will do  none of these things. Unbundling cable channels and tackling high cell roaming fees are popular moves and are safe politics. Aside from a few regulatory changes related to telecom, cable and credit cards, (mostly nicked from the NDP) this is just a shift in the propaganda winds.  We should  be keenly aware how much these initiatives represent public relations band-aids for self-inflicted wounds. 

Mark Crawford is a former public servant and now teaches political science at Athabasca University. He can be reached at markcrawf@gmail.com.

For Thanksgiving: Lots of Conservative Turkey

How much do we really have to be thankful for in the federal government's recent spate of policy announcements? All the good news is getting hard to digest.

 A last ditch effort to engage First Nations people on the issue of oil pipelines,  described by one representative of First Nations  as "too little too late," comes after after  20 months of aggressive campaigning to  vilify opponents  of the Northern Gateway Project as "radicals"  and "hijackers"  funded by "foreign interests;"   changes to the National Energy Board Act to limit public participation in hearings; and   repeatedly antagonizing First Nations with unilateral changes to the Indian Act and environmental regulations as part of an Omnibus Budget bill, sparking the Idle No More movement. 

Similarly,  Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's   recent overtures to the U.S.  indicating that the Government of Canada  is "ready to partner on tackling climate change" , including an un-typically rapid  acceptance by the government of the latest scientific meta-study from the University of Hawaii,  comes after six years of downplaying climate science, five Fossil of the Year Awards, pulling out of both the Kyoto and desertification treaties, and generally ruining Canada's international reputation in regards to the environment.

And then there is the  new centerpiece for Turkey Day: the government's sudden discovery that a "focus on the economy" means attending to consumer interests as well as producer ones. What an epiphany!  This  apparently springs from the good polling numbers that James Moore got when he made a consumer-oriented pitch for more competition in the telecom industry.   (Not to mention the low polling numbers that came from the prime minister's Senate scandal.)

 If the government were really serious about a "Consumers First" strategy, it would be opening the domestic market in airlines, agriculture and banking; it would scrap that Canada-EU trade agreement--a "producers first" document if there ever was one, which will probably boost the cost of drugs by $2 billion per year. It would reverse the recent decision to increase tariffs on less developed countries, which will raise the cost of clothes and sports equipment. It would open the telecom market to everyone, (not just a multinational corporation like Verizon that made $40 billion in profits last year in the U.S. while paying no taxes).  And if it really wanted to prove that it cared more about consumers than the NDP or Liberals, it would tackle the thorny issue of supply management for dairy and poultry products--a move that would likely scare many voters in farming districts into Opposition hands.


Of course, the government will do  none of these things. Unbundling cable channels and tackling high cell roaming fees are popular politics and are safe. Aside from a few regulatory changes related to telecom, cable and credit cards, (mostly nicked from the NDP) this is just a shift in the propaganda winds.  We should  be keenly aware how much these initiatives represent public relations band-aids for self-inflicted wounds.  Obviously, the past six years of aggressive, heavy handed privileging of corporate interests in the energy sector have been counter-productive. If anything, they have only resulted in further delaying the Northern Gateway pipeline, and  jeopardizing  the Keystone XL pipeline--to say nothing of the harm it has done by frightening First Nations people, setting back the environment,  hurting our seniors and giving Canada a global black eye.

If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, this government is offering nothing but  costly late  interventions to un-poison the well with First Nations, consumers, the United States, and the international community. Each of these departures contains a tacit admission of failure and recognition that the government has been anything but steady at the helm. That the government continues to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers  money on advertising to feed us an illusion -- that this is all part of Canada's continuing "Economic Action Plan", is an insult to our intelligence and requires a level of doublethink that is unprecedented in Canada, even on Parliament Hill.   

But doesn't Canada get credit for having one of the healthiest economies in the world since the Financial crisis hit in 2008?  Doesn't Canada have the best financial and fiscal conditions in the G-7?  Sure it does. But that is because the minority Liberal and Conservative governments between 2004 and 2008 were in no position politically to implement the bank mergers and financial deregulation being urged upon them by the largest banks and small-c  conservatives in several right-wing think tanks across the country.  (The "best" Jim Flaherty could do was to bring in sub-prime mortgages for a year, in his first budget in 2006).  I shudder to think what would have happened if the Conservatives had formed a majority government a decade earlier.  

That they did not is one thing that we can all be truly thankful for.

Adrian Dix Does It Again

{An edited version of the following post has also been submitted as a guest op-ed in the 100 Mile Free Press, Anahim-Nimpo Messenger, and the Omineca Free Press--MC}

Shortly after the NDP’s stunning defeat in last May’s provincial election,  former NDP MLA and political pundit David Schreck argued  that  “the party would be wise to change leaders in 2015 or 2016 to get a boost before the next election.”  UBC professor and  former federal NDP co-campaign chair Michael Byers added this thought on July 15: “Instead of a cosmetic paint job, the party needs to be knocked down to its foundations before rebuilding begins again. A leadership race is needed to turn the public memory away from the recent loss, to revitalize and grow the membership, and to get donations flowing again. .. [Dix] should step down in favour of an interim leader, who would serve until a new person is chosen to head the BC NDP.”   At the  end of  July,  long-time NDP MP Ian Waddell offered similar advice: “If Adrian Dix decides to step down as leader at its convention in November, the party should choose a respected interim leader who does not intend to run for the leadership. … Then, in 2015, the BC NDP should run a wide-open leadership race looking to a new generation of candidates.”

 Yet Dix announced on September 23 that he was going to hold the reins of the party leadership until a leadership vote could be taken “by mid-2014 at the latest.”  So why did he deliberately ignore the calls of so many prominent senior New Democrats and other commentators to allow for a longer lead-in under an interim leader and a more wide-open process?  Dix is nothing if not a consummate political insider.  He knows that  candidates who are currently MLAs—in particular his good friend (and best man at his wedding) John Horgan, will be most advantaged by the process he prefers.  He knows that Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson  has more than a year left in his mandate and will have difficulty making a decision and pulling together a winning campaign in this time; as will other potential “outside” candidates such as  Victoria mayor Dean Fortin and federal MPs Nathan Cullen and Peter Julian.  Dix’s concerns about these outsiders  no doubt motivated his subsequent remark that “B.C. doesn’t need two Liberal parties”.  

Not that I find Dix’s attitude  to be extraordinarily selfish or evil. Rather, I find it to be all-too-typical.  When there is a range of reasonable-sounding arguments available to a politician, they usually choose the ones most congenial to their world view and their interests.  The difficulty in this case is that, in presuming that the existing caucus and party do not need to undergo an extensive renovation, the NDP  may fail to assuage the concerns that many marginal voters and taxpayers have about an aging, insular, and hidebound party representing an overly-entitled and   self-serving public sector .  If the NDP fails to grab the centre from the left,  as Vision Vancouver has successfully done in civic politics, it may concede too much of the middle ground to the Liberals. And if as a result the Liberals win in 2017, they may once again be able to thank Adrian Dix.   

 

Who Killed Betty Belshaw?

It is impossible to reach the conclusion that Cyril Belshaw killed his wife ... One day the murderer will be known and you will be relieved and proud to have acquitted Cyril Belshaw."     ---Eric Stoudmann,  defence lawyer  for Cyril Belshaw, in his summation at  trial.

Back in the late 1970s Beryl Young suggested to her friend, Victoria writer Ellen Godfrey, that she write a book about the sensational murder  trial of celebrated UBC Anthropology professor, Cyril Belshaw. The result was By Reason of Doubt: The Belshaw Case (Vancouver: Clarke, Irwin, 1981).  I have just finished this book, and can heartily recommend it as an interesting treatment of how a mountain of apparently inculpatory evidence-- the supposed disappearance of a wife in Paris (though nobody  was found who could definitively swear that they saw her there) , the husband leaving for Vancouver  without searching for his wife in Switzerland, a deceased wife's mangled corpse turning up within driving distance of the husband's Swiss residence,  and the deliberate alteration of her dental records by the husband -- can, through resolute insistence by the defendant  concerning his own innocence, support from the accused's friends and relatives, re-consideration of facts through inter-cultural and Swiss legal lenses, and one or two arguably exculpatory facts -- lead to an acquittal.  Not the pure "not-guilty" verdict, however--which is provided for in Swiss law, though not in our own--but by reason of doubt.

Thirty years later, we can ask whether advances in forensics, such as DNA analysis, would have led to a different conclusion.  We can also ask whether, even by the standards of the day, a less well-heeled suspect would have escaped conviction under the same circumstances. And it is always interesting to ask whether the Swiss legal system, which initially looked stacked against the accused, ultimately worked in his favour.

But most of all, it is interesting to ask, after thirty years of this cold case, and advances in DNA testing, whether we can  ultimately answer the question once and for all: Who Killed Betty Belshaw?