Brian Lee Crowley

iPolitics – Rage and rebirth: The way forward for First Nations

In a new op-ed for iPolitics today, University of Saskatchewan Professor Ken Coates and I discuss the way forward for governments and First Nations.

 

Rage and rebirth: The way forward for First Nations

By Brian Lee Crowley and Ken Coates, iPolitics, December 20, 2012

Recent protests organized by the Idle No More movement and angry statements by some Western Canadian aboriginal leaders reflect real frustration among indigenous Canadians.

At the same time, several impressive agreements between aboriginal groups and businesses point to a burst of job creation, joint ventures and revenue-sharing the likes of which Canada has rarely seen. Which model — anger or cooperation — provides the best window on the future of indigenous relations with other Canadians?

Both do. The collaborative arrangements are very real. The recent agreement between Pinehouse First Nation and uranium companies Cameco and Ariva is truly impressive. Cameco, a leader in engagement with First Nations and Metis communities, has a workforce that is 50 per cent aboriginal and contracts 70 per cent of its supply work to indigenous firms. Comparable developments with Syncrude and Suncor in the oilsands have shown great promise. On an even larger scale, Inuit participation in the huge Baffinland (Mary River) mine is truly precedent-setting.

Most of the best aboriginal-business partnerships in the country have been signed in the last ten years, promising a pattern of job creation, indigenous business development and community benefits that seemed beyond reach just a decade ago.

The anger, however, is neither phony nor manufactured. The hardship and suffering in many First Nations communities is as real as it is painful. Schools are underfunded. Housing in many communities is totally unacceptable. Add in serious problems with addiction (including the scourge that is OxyContin), violence, welfare dependency and entrenched poverty and the rage felt by so many indigenous people becomes all too easy to understand.

This is, therefore, the best of times and the worst of times.

The Government of Canada, pursuing policies of equalizing opportunity, not circumstance, is providing policy tools (like the power to tax, reforms to property holding, heightened requirements for transparency) and investments that support those communities willing to commit to economic engagement and to take bold steps to improve socio-economic conditions among their people. The business community is more willing than ever to support these self-help initiatives. First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities looking to engage with the resource and industrial economy or to otherwise assume responsibility for their future direction are finding strong support.

Many communities, however, are not there yet. Sometimes individual and community dysfunction is too overwhelming. In other instances, the best will in the world cannot conjure jobs and growth in First Nations communities located too far from opportunities. And in other cases there is still the passive expectation (embodied in the now-defunct Kelowna Accord) that the Government of Canada will swoop in and make everything better through massive spending.

The idea of government-led improvements, popular in the 1970s and 1980s, falls short on two grounds. First, the Government of Canada believes that building on opportunities, not increased transfers, is the best way forward, and in this they are surely correct. Secondly, non-aboriginal support for more government transfers appears very low, especially among new Canadians. Indeed, there is mounting evidence that such support is declining, not rising.

The emergence of these divergent models of indigenous revitalization — opportunity-driven versus transfer-driven — creates enormous challenges. There is no greater stain on Canada’s reputation and conscience than aboriginal people living in abject poverty, condemned by poor education and community dysfunction to a life of hardship and marginalization. As a practical matter, however, prosperity cannot be conferred — it must be earned. The government can hardly be faulted for wanting to break with the old, paternalistic model of massive but poorly-conceived spending, passively received.

Given the diversity of circumstances in aboriginal communities, however, neither model answers the need alone. The government needs to articulate its “equality of opportunity” approach and to be clear about the tool kit that aboriginal communities will have at their disposal. The tool kit is substantial, including education, self-government, economic development, housing and improved infrastructure. But the obligation cannot be one-sided.

Ottawa also needs to articulate precisely what is required from individual communities — transparency to the community and government, a commitment to good governance, community support for education, and openness to commercial opportunities — if First Nations wish to capitalize fully on these measures and truly be Idle No More.

Most of all, aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians need to be frank with each other. Governments need to tell all Canadians what is on the table. Indigenous communities have to be invited to the table not as supplicants (an old model that is as patronizing as it is unproductive) or even as insistent and occasionally truculent bargainers (the current plan for many communities).

Instead, governments and First Nations have to come together as full partners, with a shared vested interest in the long-term improvement of prospects for aboriginal people. This is the only real foundation for meaningful reconciliation and shared prosperity.

 

Scridb filter

Huffington Post Canada: Hard bargaining over real opportunities key to Aboriginal future

Aboriginals can and should bargain hard as they increasingly consider real development, including pipelines. Read my latest op-ed co-authored by Ken Coates below.

 

Is this community ready for the Enbridge pipeline?

By Brian Lee Crowley and Ken Coates, Huffington Post Canada, December 18, 2012

The Haisla First Nation live in one of the most beautiful spots on Earth, on the west coast near the aluminum town of Kitimat. The town’s massive smelter has long been a sore spot among the Haisla, dropped into their traditional territory in the pro-development 1950 without consultation or substantial compensation.

Now, the Haisla find themselves on the front lines of one of the most important Canadian environmental and development debates of the 21st century, but they are no longer the powerless victims of a half century ago.

If Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline proceeds, it will terminate on Haisla territory. If having oil sands bitumen piped through the Haisla homeland and loaded onto ships headed to Asia were not enough, Kitimat is also the planned site for major natural gas liquefaction (LNG) and shipment. With Kitimat sitting at the end of the picturesque Douglas Channel, and with the vital ocean resources of the Northwest Coast at risk of possible tanker spills, it is hardly surprising that the Haisla would be front and centre in the controversy about the latest Western Canadian mega-projects. They were part of a broad coalition of groups opposing the Northern Gateway, but active proponents of the LNG initiative.

In early December 2012, the Haisla shifted their position. Following extensive consultations with developers and Ottawa, the Haisla withdrew from the Coastal First Nations, a high profile opponent of Northern Gateway. While Haisla Chief Councillor Ellis Ross made it clear that the First Nation has serious questions about the proposed development — and equally about the ability of companies and governments to keep their promises — he also indicated that the Haisla were open to further discussions. Pipeline and LNG project opponents, including other First Nations and environmentalists, are not amused.

While there may be surprise and disappointment for some at this turn of events, it was entirely foreseeable. Environmental groups and other opponents found much solace in Aboriginal opposition to the pipeline and used the common cause with the First Nations to bolster their cause politically. Many Canadians, for their part, still harbour the suspicion that Indigenous peoples automatically oppose resource development, thus obstructing prosperity for the country as a whole. Those of us who follow First Nations engagement with resource extraction, however, have seen a very different and welcome pattern emerging.

That pattern looks something like this: opposition, extensive and often heated discussions, openness to negotiations and, in a growing number of cases, approval of development projects.

The initial reaction is not cynical posturing or simple politicking. A major development carries enormous risks for First Nations, traditional livelihoods, and local environments. Add to this an often unfortunate history of resource activity in remote regions, with First Nations too often left to clean up an environmental and social mess and precious little in the way of financial or economic returns to show for it. Caution comes naturally in such situations.

But that justified caution does not mean First Nations aren’t interested in genuine opportunity. They know full well that the Supreme Court-imposed duty to consult and other legal victories stop well short of giving them a veto over development; they have the power to slow projects, to challenge, and to negotiate, but not the authority to kill most resource activities. Most follow a logic close to that of the Haisla, whose website, under the heading “Purpose,” includes this clear statement: “We support environmentally responsible development that creates opportunities for our community.” After careful study and much debate, for example, the Haisla supported the Kitimat LNG plant proposal, largely because of the anticipated economic benefits for the community.

The Haisla situation offers some key lessons in how natural resource development goes ahead in modern Canada. First, Indigenous peoples are not automatically opposed to development, nor are they naïve unconditional defenders of a “pristine” environment which is also devoid of economic opportunity for their people. They increasingly understand their authority and use it to extract appropriate economic and environmental concessions from resource companies and governments.

Secondly, companies have found many mutually beneficial ways to work with Aboriginal groups, primarily through some combination of training and employment, revenue sharing, joint ventures, and specific community benefits. Third, collaborative arrangements have been working quite well, creating Aboriginal jobs, businesses, joint venture operations and revenue streams for Indigenous communities. What a change this has been from arrangements only a few decades ago.

There is a larger point that needs to be remembered. Aboriginal governments and communities are frustrated by the poverty, cultural loss, unemployment, social challenges and lack of optimism among their people. The vast majority of Indigenous leaders understand, too, that dependence on Ottawa is no long-term solution. They want the political means and resources to control their future. Remote communities — the majority of the First Nations and Inuit villages in Canada — know that there are precious few opportunities to create lasting jobs or to secure substantial revenues for their communities. Resource developments, properly done and with a fair return to the Indigenous peoples, are one of the very few opportunities available to Indigenous governments wishing to control their own destiny.

In this context, the Haisla stance on the Kitimat LNG and Northern Gateway projects makes a great deal of sense. This First Nation has only a handful of opportunities to set themselves on course for meaningful autonomy, with the jobs, businesses and revenue needed to respond to community needs. If the Kitimat LNG plant were to disappear, and if the pipeline project is killed, the Haisla will have lost a rare Indigenous opportunity for sustainable prosperity.

The Haisla, like other First Nations, will proceed. Hasty deals and ill-considered concessions will be largely a thing of the past. They will, quite properly, bargain very hard. They could, in the end, walk away from the deal if the environmental protections are insufficient or the financial returns too meagre. But the Haisla, like many Aboriginal groups, are willing to talk. It is here, in the openness of Aboriginal leaders and governments to reasoned economic give-and-take among equal partners, that the future of Canada’s economy almost certainly lies.

Brian Lee Crowley (twitter.com/brianleecrowley) is the managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an independent non-partisan public policy think tank in Ottawa (www.macdonaldlaurier.ca). Ken Coates is the Canada Research Chair in Regional Innovation at the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan.

 

Scridb filter

Brian Crowley discusses Canada’s prison reforms after the latest comments by Conrad Black in the Toronto Star

In the September 5th, 2011 issue of the Toronto Star, Brian discusses the latest comments by Conrad Black against the government’s tougher sentencing bills, prison expansion plans, and prisoner control programs. In the article, Crowley said Black is unlikely to sway the debate in Canada “partly because…he’s in kind of a conflict of interest in talking about how people are treated in the prison system because he’s now in it.” He said that several of Black’s criticisms of the American system are correct, but that Black is not correct to suggest that Canada is going down the same path. For example, he said that individual states embarked on costly prison construction projects, and punitive “three-strikes-you’re out” laws increased prison populations, with people who are “a pretty marginal danger to society.” Alternatively, he argued, Canada is embarking on reforms to deal with the small number of repeat offenders who commit the largest number of crimes in Canada. He concluded, “To the extent that he’s saying to Canada ‘don’t make those mistakes,’ I think his observations are perfectly in order.” However, Black is “allowing his feelings about the American system to influence his view about Canada, not looking at what’s happening in Canada on its merits.”

To read the full article in the Toronto Star, click here

Scridb filter

Brian Crowley in Vanguard Magazine: Rethinking the Canada-U.S. border

In the August issue of Vanguard Magazine, MLI Managing Director Brian Lee Crowley discusses the importance of rethinking the Canada-U.S. border. Crowley says, “The time has come to create a joint committee of Congress and Parliament charged with the oversight of the Canada-U.S. relationship, holding hearings, issuing reports, and taking their newly acquired knowledge and relationships back to their respective bodies.” Read the entire article below:

 

Rethinking the border

Vanguard Magazine, Issue 5, August/September 2011

by Brian Lee Crowley

Just as generals are usually fighting the last war, officials on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border are usually trying to agree on how to administer a border that doesn’t exist anymore.

I am not saying the border has disappeared; only that “the border” evolves quickly and quietly in ways that government officials often grasp only dimly.

Take the notion that what holds up progress on relieving pressure at the border is the exclusive American focus on terrorism in the post-9/11 world. Canadians in this narrative are focused solely on the economic imperative of border opening, as befits a country that exports roughly half of everything its private sector makes, with four fifths of that going to the U.S.

But in the post-post-9/11 world things are more complicated. America has gone through a devastating recession and jobs have been slow to recover. The political consensus is that President Obama got heartily smacked by the electorate in the recent mid-terms for failing to focus on the economy. He is now trying to make up for lost time.

At the February meeting of Obama and Prime Minister Harper in Washington, negotiations were announced to reduce impediments to trade at the border. President Obama now understands that a congested border is hurting North American prosperity. Ford Motor Company estimates that border delays are adding $500 million in costs to North American produced cars that have to cross the border as many as six times at different stages of production. Japanese and European cars get imported once. The difference costs jobs on both sides of the border.

President Obama isn’t the only one who gets that. In recession-savaged Michigan, the new governor, Rick Snyder, campaigned aggressively to get a new bridge built between Detroit and Windsor on the grounds it would be good for U.S. workers. Not so many years ago then-U.S. Senator for New York, Hilary Clinton, was repeating the old canard that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada. Today, New York Senator Chuck Schumer demands of senior U.S. border security bureaucrats in Senate committee hearings that they strive for pre-clearance of every truck crossing the Canada-U.S. border.

On the Canadian side you might think that we have focused on market opening and worried about security issues only to the extent we have been forced to by our need to placate Americans. You’d be wrong.

We’re spending $785 million arming customs agents at the same time that we let major border crossings like that at Lacolle, Quebec crumble. If you compared the U.S. crossing at Champlain, a few yards away, you’d think it was America that was preoccupied with border efficiency, not Canada.

Ninety-five percent of land border crossings into the U.S. from Canada are now equipped with radio frequency identification systems, allowing trusted travelers to enter the U.S. quickly and seamlessly. The Canadian proportion of lanes so equipped is feeble in comparison. The U.S. has established customs preclearance at nine Canadian airports, allowing the vast majority of Canadian air travelers to enter the U.S. as domestic passengers. The number of such Canadian facilities in the U.S.? Zero.

Does all this mean that the U.S. is now beating down Canada’s door asking to open the border? Of course not. Canada still has more at stake than the U.S. in removing impediments to trade, and the relative seniority of those heading the Canadian and U.S. teams in the current perimeter border negotiations are just one measure of the higher priority Canada sets on success.

Canada’s pleas to move freight from trusted shippers seamlessly through the border are meeting big resistance at the officials’ level. U.S. money politics are still allowing the owner of the Ambassador Bridge, Manny Maroun, to buy political opposition to another bridge and preserve his cash cow for a few more years.

But that just proves my point about generals fighting the last war. We are still stuck thinking that border-thinning negotiations are the preserve of administration officials on both sides. The time has come to talk, no longer about administrative incrementalism, but bold steps to give new momentum to our nascent North American institutions.

If, for example, American politicians are finally cluing in to the  importance of an open border to their own workers, the time has come to  create a joint committee of Congress and Parliament charged with  oversight of the Canada-U.S. relationship, holding hearings, issuing  reports, and taking their newly acquired knowledge and relationships  back to their respective bodies. Give a human face to their relationship  with Canada, and a context in which they actually are constrained to  learn about it, and they will help to batter down the resistance of the  backward-looking generals at the gate.

Brian Lee Crowley is managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an independent non-partisan public policy think tank (www.macdonaldlaurier.ca).

Scridb filter

Ottawa should focus on promoting interprovincial electricity

In the June 21, 2011 edition of the Moncton Times & Transcript, Managing Director Brian Lee Crowley and Toronto-based electricity consultant Tom Adams discuss how “Canadians should be entitled to an open national electricity system where no province can hold its neighbours hostage and where power can be bought and sold freely.”

The commentary coincides with the recent energy ministers meeting in Kananaskis, AB and has appeared in publications across the country such as in the Truro Daily News, Saint John Telegraph-Journal, Surrey Beacon, and Calgary Beacon.

Read the commentary below:

Ottawa should focus on promoting interprovincial electricity

By Brian Lee Crowley and Tom Adams, July 21, 2011

OTTAWA – Federal taxpayers are on the hook for an explosion of liability payments to fund provincial electricity misadventures, the worst of which are undermining Canada’s international trading reputation.

And a federal-provincial energy conference, in Kananaskis, Alberta, which runs until July 19, threatens to up the ante.

For example, last week Texas energy titan T. Boone Pickens launched a $775-million NAFTA challenge alleging the Ontario government has discriminated against his privately-owned wind energy company.

It is the federal government, however, that Pickens is looking to pay up.

The federal government is also defending protectionist elements of Ontario’s controversial Green Energy Act against a challenge Japan has launched with the support of the United States and European Union at the World Trade Organization.

But Ontario is not the only province with electricity initiatives undermining Canada’s trading reputation, with the bills going to Ottawa.

Last August federal taxpayers were obliged to pay $130-million to settle a claim for damages under NAFTA by the industrial firm AbitibiBowater after the government of Newfoundland and Labrador confiscated its electricity generation assets.

Far from holding the Newfoundland government responsible for shafting federal taxpayers, however, Prime Minister Stephen Harper then agreed to provide loan guarantees for a Labrador power megaproject to build submersible transmission lines, even though the economics are dubious.

By offering the subsidy, Harper effectively both rewarded Newfoundland’s government for confiscating AbitibiBowater’s assets and impaired Canada’s trade reputation in an unsuccessful bid to win seats on the Rock during the last election (although the Conservatives did pick up a seat in Labrador).

Newfoundland justifies its power megaproject on the basis that provincial power costs are going to soar anyway, eventually making pricey Labrador power relatively cheap by comparison.

Most of the new Labrador power, however, is earmarked for the Maritimes and potentially New England, which, unlike Newfoundland, already have access to North America’s glut of natural gas, a key factor driving down average power rates across the U.S.

The subsidy is also likely to attract yet more trade complaints from electricity generators in New England, particularly those now selling significant amounts of power to the Maritimes. International competitors of export industries in Atlantic Canada may also complain.

The Newfoundland government estimates that the federal loan guarantee will cut local power costs by six or seven per cent. Unfortunately, cost over-runs, which are likely, could push the value of the federal guarantee much higher.

The Kananaskis meeting provides a platform for provincial governments and lobby groups to push the federal government deeper into provincial electricity matters. Many of them, including the governments of Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, have demanded that the federal government subsidize interprovincial transmission projects.

Ontario is also demanding federal subsidies for its nuclear expansion ambitions.

Even if the federal record in the electricity business was solid, and it isn’t, any federal spending in provincial energy affairs will not only annoy our trading partners but also promote inefficiency and create jurisdictional confusion.

It would be better if the federal government focused its involvement in the electricity sector on its core constitutional responsibility of promoting interprovincial trade and commerce.

The best way to make Labrador power truly competitive against abundant natural gas is to achieve the best possible economies of scale with more affordable transmission over land rather than under water.

To reach markets in Ontario or the U.S. Northeast, Labrador power has to pass through Quebec, which has its own electricity export ambitions. If those provinces cannot negotiate a mutually agreeable solution, the federal government should act to ensure the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of interprovincial trade. Ontario and Newfoundland should not require Quebec’s approval to move electricity, any more than Alberta needs Saskatchewan’s permission to move natural gas to Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

While Quebec will not welcome another big hydro-power competitor, particularly while market prices are low, to maintain its access to electricity markets in the United States it already accepts the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s non-negotiable rules compelling them to open their market to electricity imports. The constitutional powers that the U.S. relies upon to promote highly successful inter-state trading are similar to our own federal government’s constitutional authority, which Ottawa has always been reluctant to exercise in the electricity sector.

Canadians should be entitled to an open national electricity system where no province can hold its neighbours hostage and where power can be bought and sold freely.

* Tom Adams is a Toronto-based electricity consultant. Brian Lee Crowley is the Managing Director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an independent non-partisan public policy think tank in Ottawa (www.macdonaldlaurier.ca). This column is distributed by the Troy Media Corporation.

 

Scridb filter

Lower Churchill pledge is mostly political

The Toronto Star asked me what I thought of the recent Conservative promise to help the Lower Churchill hydro-electric project in Newfoundland and Labrador:

The mega-project will transmit power generated in Labrador via two sub-sea transmission cables, first to Newfoundland, across the island, and then across the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Nova Scotia for distribution to lucrative North American markets.

Some suggest Harper has made a “political calculation, not an economic” one.

“I think this ‘green’ stuff is a total fig leaf,” said economist Brian Lee Crowley of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an Ottawa-based think-tank.

Crowley said there are other cost-efficient clean energy alternatives, with natural shale gas projects coming on-stream and prices dropping.

“This is the Tories signalling to Newfoundland that they will help them in the decades-long battle to the death with Quebec over control of hydro resources in Labrador . . . It’s about using Newfoundland nationalism in order to get back in the good graces of the Newfoundland voter.”

Scridb filter

It’s no time for bad policy

My oped in the Moncton Times & Transcript on the planned cuts to Canada’s corporate income taxes is available here.

As federal and provincial governments struggle to keep public finances on an even keel, prominent Canadians, including a number of federal opposition party leaders, say we should halt, or even reverse, planned cuts in Canada’s corporate income taxes.

They’re on the wrong side of this argument. Canada must stay on the path established by Jean Chrétien in 2000 and followed by every government since.

Scridb filter

Big government isn’t always best

I was asked to speak to the Maine Municipal Association in September. The topic: Would amalgamation of towns and school boards save money and improve administration?  It’s an issue that is front and centre in the State of Maine as State elections loom and the Executive of the association turned to an outside expert for some unbiased counsel. The advice I provided appeared earlier in October in an Op Ed that ran in the Maine Sunday Telegram and the Kennebec Journal.

Three weeks later, we see the message spreading digitally up and down the coastal regions of the State on Seacoastonline.com in a guest editorial, Big government isn’t always best. The medium is different, but message is the same:

“Maine politicians and voters would do well to remember that academic research and experience in Canada and elsewhere show there are good reasons for thinking that bigger government is less efficient and responsive than smaller governmental units.”

Scridb filter

Help housing market by luring high-value newcomers

Here is an Op Ed that appeared in the October 10th Buffalo News. Along with Dori Segal, Vice Chairman of Equity One Inc., I suggest that Americans make some non-obvious connections in thinking about dealing with their housing crisis. In particular we point out that immigration could be a powerful tool to restore demand and shore up housing values undermined by the sub-prime mortgage crisis:

With the prospect of a double-dip recession, continued stagnation in the housing market and little money in the kitty for more stimulus, it is the ideal time to rethink one of today’s most emotive political issues: immigration. America remains very attractive to the world’s best and brightest; entrepreneurial (and legal) immigrants could be put to work immediately solving the current crisis in return for a chance to be part of the American Dream.

How? Simple. The United States should immediately offer fast-track immigration to those willing to do two things: Buy a house in the United States for at least $250,000 in cash up front or of an area of 2,500 or more square feet and put another $250,000 cash in a government-insured account with a U. S. financial institution, or spend at least $250,000 cash to create a business in the United States employing a minimum of three U. S. citizens.

For this idea to work quickly, up-front entry requirements should be dramatically simplified. In exchange for documented proof of health status, absence of a criminal record and the recommendation of a financial institution or government agency in their home country, they should automatically be granted a green card good for three years during which the U. S. government would do a full due-diligence background check on them. And their green card should automatically become permanent when the three years is up—but only if the authorities do not find terrorist connections, fraudulent claims in the entry documents or other substantive grounds for rejection.

During this time these newcomers would not be allowed to rent, sell or mortgage their new house; they could only withdraw up to $50,000 a year from their account as a living allowance while they get themselves established, or they could use the money to create a U. S.-based business. They would not be eligible for welfare, unemployment benefits or any other government entitlement. And they would pay Uncle Sam taxes on income earned abroad as well as at home.

Suppose 1 million new immigrants (less than one third of 1 percent of the U. S. population) responded to this opportunity. They would make a deep commitment to America, bringing significant capital and ultimately becoming citizens while injecting $250 billion into the housing market without adding any strain to the financial system. Money placed into financial institutions would add $250 billion to their coffers, making them far more willing to begin lending to small businesses again. Or immigrants creating businesses would would create new jobs. Either way, the United States would gain.

This could pour half a trillion dollars into America along with some of the best and brightest people on the planet. All at no cost to U. S. taxpayers.

Scridb filter

Fearful Symmetry in the Hill Times

The September 20th Hill Times in a wide-ranging interview with HT Editor, Kate Malloy. The topic? Fearful Symmetry: The Fall and Rise of Canada’s Founding Values.

The interview touches on the book’s main messages, welfare reform, immigration, the Canadian Forces and big government, to name a few. It makes for a timely read for our politicians who have just returned from their summer of working back in their constituencies. In fact on re-reading the interview it was driven forcefully home for me the extent to which Fearful Symmetry is still relevant to understanding modern Canada, even though it has now been out for over a year.

You can order Fearful Symmetry here.


Scridb filter

Next Page »

Brian Lee Crowley