Three New Thoughts du Jour

Thoughts du jour:

1) Provincial Parti Quebecois and federal Conservatives seem to both be cruising toward majority governments. Harper makes the perfect foil for Quebec separatists, given his low popularity in that province. He contributes to their "winning conditions".

2) "It is essential to understand that the main challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud  but voter participation" --Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

3) If Russia successfully annexes Crimea and succeeds in violating international law and international treaties, three groups of actors will be encouraged and emboldened:

 First, China and Russia and some American conservatives will be encouraged to continue their traditional  "spheres of influence" thinking.

Second, Iran, North Korea and all rogue regimes will be encouraged to obtain and keep nuclear weapons, and not to foolishly surrender them as Ukraine did under the terms of the 1994 Budapest Treaty, to which Russia was a signatory.

Third, both prospective separatists in Quebec and actual occupiers in Israel will be encouraged by the trumping of international law by "facts on the ground".

B.C. Needs a More Centrist NDP

“B.C. doesn’t need two Liberal parties.” With those words,  B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix  made the announcement last 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.” This was in stark contrast to the calls by Ian Waddell, Bill Tieleman, Michael Byers and others for a much longer and more wide–open contest that would  stimulate party renewal and give every competent candidate a fair shot.   Dix’s initial insistence on a shorter time frame, with himself in control in the meantime, along with a thinly veiled swipe at the more centrist and business friendly candidates (Gregor Robertson?) invited some observers –myself included—to speculate that Dix  was perhaps allowing his own biases to influence the process too much. It was difficult to resist such speculation as long as his longtime friend and colleague John Horgan was the frontrunner to replace him.           

I am happy to report that the situation has changed somewhat. Last month the date for the leadership vote was set for September, which will mean that nearly a full year will have been allowed for the leadership race  to unfold.  Mr. Horgan decided not to run, saying more fresh blood was needed (evidently not an endorsement of Mike Farnworth). Mr. Dix still points to members of his caucus as the best people to replace him, but to be fair,  several are strong candidates and they do represent  a fairly wide range of backgrounds and viewpoints. The new schedule  is still awkward for the federal MPs (who must choose whether to fight the 2015 election) and the mayors of Vancouver and Victoria( who need to complete their terms of office) but is more reasonable than it first appeared.  It also gives us more time to reflect on Dix’s comment that “B.C. doesn’t need two Liberal parties.”

The statement assumes, first of all, that the B.C. Liberal Party is a liberal party.  Is it a liberal party in the same sense that Gordon Gibson and David Anderson used to imply that it was—a distinctly centrist alternative to either the NDP on the left or the Socreds/Conservatives on the right? Remember that until the early 1990s Gordon Campbell was clearly grooming himself to be a future Social Credit premier. With the sudden collapse of  Social Credit in the 1991 election, Campbell turned his attention to a takeover of the Liberal Party, openly saying that labels didn’t matter very much, openly speaking of Bill Bennett as one of his role models. He succeeded in taking over the party in 1993, bringing many former Socred supporters on board with him. Swingeing 20% across-the-board tax cuts, and attempts to shift revenue from progressive taxation onto carbon and sales taxes, were hallmarks of his time in office, even if he did change direction on environmental and First Nations policies when he needed to. The current premier ran the last provincial election with none other than Brad Bennett at her side as  a special advisor, running a classic Socred-style campaign that preyed on the economic fears of marginal voters. When she lost her seat in Point Grey, she was welcomed with open arms  by the Bennetts in their traditional Social Credit  Kelowna stronghold. She hopes Liquid Natural Gas will help her to avoid difficult decisions, and help to obscure her bad ones, while trying to frighten voters away from " the socialists". Is that what a Liberal is?

In two –party systems everywhere, both parties compete for the centre vote; those that do so from the left typically have a distinctly different set of priorities and base of support from those that do so from the right. For the NDP to  concede the centre  to the Liberals is to consign itself to Opposition most of the time, and to rely only on split votes and occasional government collapse in order to win by default.  And with the decline of the blue collar constituency as a proportion of the electorate, New Democrats cannot assume that history is on their side, as they often did in the mid-twentieth century. In this century, at least, it is in the interest of both the NDP and the public as a whole that it strive to represent a true majority of the electorate.  That means bridging urban and rural, business and labour, green as well “development” oriented voters —better than the Liberals have.  If that means "moving to the centre,"  then so be it--especially if  B.C. 's so-called Liberal Party continues to leave the NDP so much room to manoeuvre in the middle of the political spectrum.

How Good Have the Conservatives Actually Been for Canadian Consumers?

While the Harper government's degradation of Canadian democracy has been scary, I find its economic policies to be by far the most disappointing aspect of its record. This fact was underscored for me last fall when I attended a conference of academics in Banff, Alberta. I happened to be seated at the same table as an economist from the University of  Calgary, and we got into a discussion of the so-called "Economic Action Plan". (The economist in question mentioned that Stephen Harper had been one of his students and that he had even been one of Harper's examiners for his Master's Thesis. While Harper succeeded in demonstrating the basic competence needed for the degree, it was plain that this was the work of a future politician, not a future economist. )  Even at the university with the reputation of being the most conservative in Canada, and Harper’s alma mater to boot, there was little to cheer about.

A major point of  conversation was the government’s belated discovery of “consumer interest” after some political polling revealed a warm voter response to  Communications Minister James Moore’s plan to have “more competition” in the telecom industry by allowing American corporate giant Verizon into Canada.  There are, it was pointed out to me, a couple of big problems with this. First, I was referred to a study by another economist  named Jeff Church at Calgary’s Institute of Public Policy, which indicated that lack of competition was not a problem , that three is the standard number of  local wireless providers  and the rate of return in the Canadian industry is actually fairly normal.  In fact, allowing Verizon in could conceivably threaten the competitiveness of the industry in the long run.  Second, if the government wished to have a genuine “Consumers First” orientation, it would have to not rush into trade policies that will have the effect of increasing the cost of clothing and sporting goods coming from 72 Less Developed Countries. It also would also have to not rush into the  Canada-EU trade deal, which will have the effect of raising drug prices by at least $1 billion per year. 

Of course, economists are also keenly aware that the biggest single source of  Canada’s relatively healthy performance during and after the financial crisis  was not any conservative policy since 2006, but rather our avoidance of conservative policies before 2006. In the first Conservative budget in May of that year, Jim Flaherty tipped his hand: "These changes [i.e. sub prime and 40-year mortgages] will result in greater choice and innovation in the market for mortgage insurance, benefiting consumers and promoting home ownership," Mr. Flaherty said. Luckily, he only got us ankle-deep in financial deregulation by the time the crisis hit, and the looser mortgage rules were subsequently reversed. But, we may well ask, how deeply in trouble would we have been if the Conservatives had been enjoying a majority government since, say, 2004? Canada's consumers should be grateful that we never had to learn the answer to that question.

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.