Hazel Henderson, in Building A WinWin World, identifies the common definition of sustainable development as “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
The model dominating political econo-mies today – world wide – becomes less and less sustainable, as the needfor sustainability grows – ever more clearly, ever more urgent!
We are living through a critical moment. Until our response is informed by a significant paradigm shift, we put our very survival at risk.
In The Great Transformation, The Politi-cal and Economic Origins of Our Time, Economic Historian, Karl Polanyi, celebrated the passing of the self-adjusting market economy.
In its concluding chapter, Freedom in a Complex Society, he argues that, “the true criticism of market society is not that it was based on economics – in a sense, every and any society must be based on it – but that its economy was based on self-interest,” and that, “if industrialism is not to extinguish the race, it must be subordinated to the requirements of man’s nature.”
The chapter essentially identifies and compares two very different paradigms. On the one hand, “planning and control are being attacked as a denial of freedom”; “free enterprise and private ownership are declared to be essential to freedom”; “the freedom that regulation creates is denounced as unfreedom.”
To the contrary, he supports a paradigm that recognizes that, “freedom’s utter frustration in fascism is, indeed, the inevitable result of the liberal philosophy, which claims that power and compulsion are evil, that freedom demands their absence from a human community. No such thing is possible; in a complex society this becomes apparent.”
Alas, the former paradigm has frustrated Polanyi’s expectation and made all too apparent the truth of his analysis.
Joyce Nelson’s argument that the Site C Dam Project “epitomizes the Liberals’ vision for Canada’s future,” could certainly account for their relentless, desperate efforts to persuade Wilson-Raybould to change her mind.
That the Trudeau government would “award federal permits over the opposition of First Nations in the area” and instead, accelerate Site C’s construction is a clear expression of its priorities, and supports Nelson’s argument.
A paradigm capable of spawning a vision that “jettisons ‘reconciliation and the environment, in favour of damming the country and then draining it,’ is – at best – questionable!
It was Wilson-Raybould who factored law and principle into the equation. She testified that even after the courts and a judge was being asked to look at the Director of Public Prosecution’s discretion, she was subjected to a long meeting with Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques from the PMO’s office, who argued that “there were options,” and that [she] “needed to find a solution.” Whereupon, she “took them through the DPP Act, section 15, section 10, and talked about the prosecutorial independence as a constitutional principle and that they were interfering.”
Throughout the struggle over SNC, Wilson-Raybould was arguing from a paradigm rooted in principle.
The Prime Minister and his staff consistently ignored her arguments. Their responses had nothing to do with what was right or wrong in law; they never challenged her arguments – their arguments were pragmatic assertions about unfavourable political and economic consequences.
Judy Kennedy dives to the core of the is-sue: “sanctioning the criminal behaviour of those who headed the corporation.”
In taking issue with “[permitting] those responsible for criminal acts of bribery and corruption to bypass the consequences of a conviction under the regular process, in favour of a mere ‘hand slap’ and a fine, available only to big corporations,” she focusses attention on the basic problem of a severe lack of accountability in our political and economic systems.
Kennedy explains that SNC didn’t qualify for a DPA, “because of one of several factors that the prosecutor [must] consider,” whereby, “clearly, the corporation did notqualify for the DPA.” This she points out, “has now been confirmed by the Federal Court.”
“So why,” she asks, “did the PMO and associates persist in trying to change the AG’s decision, defying the Conflict of Interest Act?
Good question!
The following excerpts from WilsonRaybould’s testimony both corroborate her contention and raise questions about the broader import of the SNC “scandal.” (Questions like: why would governments go to such length to protect corporations like SNC-Lavalin whose name appears on the world banks list of offenders 101 times – and what are the ramifications of that practice?)
Following a brief summary of events, up to and including her November 22. meeting with Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques, Wilson-Raybould affirmed her position and its rationale. Her account traces development up to her “shuffle.”
At that point she paused “to comment on [her] own state of mind” and, in exaspera-tion said:“
We either have a system that is based on the rule of law, the independence of prosecutorial functions and respect for those charged to use their discretion and powers in a particular way, or we do not…“
The consistent and enduring efforts, even in the face of judicial proceedings on the same matter and in the face of a clear decision of the director of public prosecutions and the attorney general to continue and even intensify such efforts, raises serious red flags in my view.“
Yet this is what continued to hap-pen….”
December 18, 2018:From a transcript of the report by Raybould’s chief of staff, regarding a meeting with Gerry Butts and Katie Telford: “Basically, they want a solution, nothing new. They want external counsel retained to give you an opinion on whether you can review the DPP’s decision here and whether you should, in this case.“
I told them that would be interference. Gerry said: ‘Jess, there is no solution here that does not involve some interference.’“
At least they are finally being honest about what they’re asking you to do….”
December 19, 2018:
“I was asked to have a call with the clerk….“
He said he wanted to pass on where the prime minister is at….
“The clerk said that the prime minister is quite determined, quite firm, but he wants to know why the DPA route, which parlia-ment provided for, isn’t being used.
“‘I think he is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. So he is in that kind of mood and I wanted you to be aware of it….’“
You know, he does not want to do anything outside of the box of what is legal or proper. He said that the prime minister wants to understand more, to give him advice on this or give you advice on this, if you want to feel more comfortable you are not doing anything inappropriate or outside the frame.
“I told the clerk that I was 100 percent confident that I was doing nothing inappropriate. I again reiterated my confidence in where I am, and my views on SNC and the DPA have not changed.
“I reiterate this as a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.
“I warned the clerk in this meeting that he was in this call, that we were treading on dangerous ground here. I also issued a stern warning because, as the attorney general, I cannot act in a manner and the prosecution cannot act in a manner that is not objective, that isn’t independent.
“I cannot act in a partisan way and I cannot be politically motivated. This all screams of that…
“He said again that the prime minister was in a pretty firm frame of mind about this and that. He was a bit worried. I asked what he’s worried about.
“The clerk then made the comment about how it is not good for the prime minister and his attorney general to be at loggerheads.
“I told the clerk that I was giving him my best advice and that if he did not accept that advice, then it is the prime ministers prerogative to do what he wants, but I am trying to protect the prime minister from political interference or perceived political interference or otherwise…
“The clerk said that he was worried about a collision because the prime minister is pretty firm about this…
January 7, 2019:
“I received a call from the prime minister and was informed I was being shuffled out of my role as minister of justice and attorney general of Canada….
“I believe the reason was because of the SNC matter.
“They denied this to be the case.
January 11, 2019:
“The Friday before the shuffle, my former deputy minister is called by the clerk and told that the shuffle is happening and that she will be getting a new minister.
“As part of this conversation, the clerk tells the deputy that one of the first conversations that the new minister will be expected to have with the prime minister will be on SNC-Lavalin….”
In her concluding remarks, Raybould makes it clear to the committee that she is concerned that she is still not allowed to speak freely.
She ends her testimony with a mov-ing explanation of the paradigm that has informed her response to the SNC-Lavalin matter.
“I must reiterate to the committee my concern outlined in the letter to the chair yesterday, that is, Order-in-Council #20190105 addresses only my time as the attorney general of Canada and therefore does nothing to release me from my restrictions that apply to communications while I proudly served as the minister of veterans affairs and in relation to my resignation from the post or my presentation to cabinet after I resigned.
“This time period includes communications on topics that some members of the committee have explored with other witnesses and about which there have been public statements by others….
“I hope that through my narrative today, the committee and everyone across the country who’s listening has a clear idea of what I experienced and what I know of who did what and what was communicated.
“I hope and expect the facts speak for themselves…
“It has always been my view that the attorney general of Canada must be nonpartisan, more transparent in the principles that are the basis of decisions and, in this respect, always willing to speak truth to power…
“Indeed, one of the main reasons for the urgent need for justice and reconciliation today is that, in the history of our country, we have not always upheld foundational values such as the rule of law in relations to Indigenous Peoples.
“And I have seen the negative impacts forfreedom, equality and a just society this can have first-hand.
“So when I pledged to serve Canadians as your minister of justice and attorney general, I came to it with a deeply ingrained commitment to the rule of law and the importance of acting independently of partisan, political and narrow interests in all matters.
“When we do not do that, I firmly be-lieve and know we do worse as a society…
“I was taught to always hold true to your core values and principles and to act with integrity. These are the teachings of my parents, my grandparents and my community.
“I come from a long line of matriarchs and I’m a truth teller, in accordance with the laws and traditions of our big house.
“This is who I am and this is who I always will be.”
So much for transparency, environmen-tally consciouspolicies, “reconciliation”!
Today’s dominant paradigm – neoliberalism– is one whose priorities dictate a very different agenda. Joyce Nelson, in Bypassing Dystopia: Hope-filled challenges to corporate rule, outlines that agenda, in a list she advis-es readers to think of as, “the dirty dozen”:
- Deregulation
- Open borders for Capital
- Small government/Big State
- Tax cuts for multinational corporations
- Austerity budget
- Union-busting
- Privatization of public assets
- Corporate rights (or “free trade”) deal
- Tax havens
- No limits to growth
- Central bank “independence
- Privatization of the money-creation func-tion
This is an agenda almost guaranteed to effect the level of ignorance and desperation that renders a populace susceptible to fascism’s false promise of security.
Neoliberalism didn’t just happen; it was carefully planned and activated over several years. In Democracy in Chains, Nancy MacLean discusses its history.
It began as a reaction to the dismantling of segregation in public schools. Colgate Whitehead Darden Jr., president of the University of Virginia, and a brilliant econo-mist, James McGill Buchanan, embarked on a mission to resist desegregation.
MacLean’s history of its extraordinary success reveals the astonishing paradigm behind it. She defines “what this cause really seeks” as “a return to oligarchy, to a world in which both economic and effective political power are to be concentrated in the hands of a few.” She recognizes that “the first step towards understanding what this cause actually wants, is to identify the deep lineage of its core ideas.” What follows is an authoritative and stunning narrative that explains the remarkable success of the neoliberals in implementing these ideas.
In consequence, she points out, we face an ineluctable choice between neoliberalism and, democracy, and warns that “if we delay much longer, those who are imposing their stark utopia will choose for us.”
In Debt or Democracy, Public Money for Sustainable and Social Justice, Mary Mellor argues that without economic democracy, political democracy is impossible.
In Talking to My Daughter about the Economy, Yanis Varyoufakis, former minister of finance in Greece, argues the need for authentic democracy, asserting that “it’s im-possible to talk about the economy without talking about politics.”
