He Said He Would But He Did’t…Didn’t What?

Of all the words that have been bastardized over the years I believe that ‘transparency’ is the one that has been treated the worst. Any time someone says that they want things to be more transparent or they will work tirelessly to be more transparent my B..L S..T meter goes nuts. I do not trust anyone who talks about how they want more transparency.

A quick re-cap:

-Mr. Harper always talked about (certainly while campaigning) senate reform being a ‘must’ but never made a move to do anything about it. But then again where would he put all those folks he owed.

-Prorouging parliament-twice-ignoring the will of parliament and therefore the citizens of Canada.

-Pushing through Bill C-59 and going against the recommendations of the Federal Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, to retroactively change the access-to-information law that will, eventually, absolve the RCMP of breaking the law with regards to the abolition of the long gun registry. Like the sly fox he is he had the bill buried amongst the minutiae of an omnibus bill that few really cared about anyway and I’m sure the thinking was that few would notice.

-Election impropriety (robo calls) could become a non issue and therefore a much greater threat and concern. Aren’t elections and the electoral process the backbone of our society? Just askin.’

Contempt for Democracy

Ethical and Transparent Politics?  Secrecy and control have been the name of the game

One of the most important issues in Canada is healthcare, yet I struggle to remember any meaningful discussion had about that portfolio in the last 5 years.  Transparent politics under Harper has meant discussion of issues on his terms, and his terms only.

Muzzling the Press

Harper restricted media access to parliament and the government in unprecedented ways- again this from someone who pledged to increase transparency.   He declared he would no longer take questions from journalists, refused to allow the media to participate in ‘scrums’ after cabinet meetings- a time when journalists ask candid questions of politicians (questions said politicians have not been able to rehearse and censor).  It’s clear that Harper’s main priority in office has been control, and muzzling the media has been a major part of that.

Senate Reform

Recall that a major policy platform of Harper’s previous campaigns was senate reform, such that senators would no longer be appointed for political favoritism, but would rather be elected.  Doesn’t ring a bell?  Harper apparently forgot all about it too, immediately after taking office.

Here’s a quote from Harper, addressing the senate. On senate reform.

“As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform – on their way to the top. The promises are usually made in Western Canada. And these statements of intent are usually warmly received by party activists, editorial writers and ordinary people. But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government’s agenda. Nothing ever gets done.  And the status quo goes on.”

Senate reform didn’t happen.  The conservatives appointed a record 32 senators, all of them Tory backers there to ensure Harper’s bills were passed, and to squash those he doesn’t support. Environmental concerns are consistently discussed as important to Canadians, yet the Harper government did absolutely nothing about it during his 5 years in power.

 National Post (Andrew Coyne) – A telling 24 hours in Stephen Harper’s world

(A damning piece by a columnist who is not known to be anti-Harper.)

If one were to draw up an indictment of this government’s approach to politics and the public purpose, one might mention its wholesale contempt for Parliament, its disdain for the Charter of Rights and the courts’ role in upholding it, its penchant for secrecy, its chronic deceitfulness, its deepening ethical problems, its insistence on taking, at all times, the lowest, crudest path to its ends, its relentless politicization of everything.

Toronto Star (Editorial) – The high price of speaking out in Ottawa

Forthright government watchdogs have a way of disappearing in Ottawa. They are quietly replaced. Their mandates are terminated or not renewed. They are suddenly found to be unqualified.  Seven government watchdogs and three senior bureaucrats have been stifled or impugned since the Conservatives took office. 

What did Mr. Harper not do that he said he would do. . . he hasn’t done a thing to create a greater transparency in what is supposed to be a democratic institution. I think this word has lost it’s credibility now. I guess you get what you elect.

Anyways, that’s how I see it–all the best–Jim

 Let me know what you think-pro/con by contacting me at jim.lifechoice@gmail.com or through my web page: jimcloughley.com

Are We Governed By Nature Or Nurture? Big Pharma Says It Should Be . . .

Smiling Politician

“I don’t trust people who smile all the time and I don’t trust anyone who suggests that I should trust them.”–jc

Years ago when I first became interested with the ‘nature vs. nurture’ debate I was fascinated to see how many folks believed that behaviour and such was completely driven by the nurturing aspect of our lives. The researchers and the scientists said that parents and society were solely responsible where ‘little Billys’ behaviour was concerned. But then numerous studies were undertaken to show how boys played with trucks and girls played with dolls if left to their own devices and that’s the way that nature had planned things. Case closed. Then supervising people such as parents and/or other care givers were asked to switch the toys and reward altered choices, interests and behaviours and so on. This was supposed to prove definitively that behaviour was nurture driven.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon how you look at it, the pharmaceutical industry has really taken over the drive to make some sense of this whole debate. They have the money and the expertise to do it but they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy at the best of times and selfish beyond compare. Have they funded or been responsible for amazing breakthroughs? They sure have. Have they put out huge sums of money? Yes they have. They have also profited in a huge way. I understand wanting to recover the costs of research and development but immediately upon release? One begins to question the presence of an ulterior motive? I doubt that pharmas’ generosity is strictly about benevolence. What of those who can’t afford thousands of dollars a month to stay alive? The rich can pay but the poor can’t so they die? Not a great social business model. But there they are standing out in front of us on TV every day extolling the benefits of the newest drug to hit the market with a list of side effects as long or longer than the symptoms that will be relieved when you take their medication. It is all presented to us by folks with big happy smiles on their faces asking us to trust them and their latest concoction. I find it difficult to trust anyone who smiles all the time now. My first reaction is ‘what are they hiding?’

The pharmaceutical industry has always been involved in the addiction/mental health debate. For years the two camps have managed to stay clear of each other in terms of treatment modalities, theories, approaches and funding but with shrinking budgets in the health care field the need to save money has become the driving force in the type of treatment that clients receive. The debate is now driven by no other reasonable hypothesis. For the last few years the move has been to ‘combine’ the two fields and thus save a great deal of money on duplicate services, office spaces, office staff, less need for ER services–now it’s called ‘urgent care’. You may have an urgent need but that doesn’t translate into receiving urgent care. Good luck with that one.

I will admit that when the debate about whether or not mental health services and addiction services should be amalgamated into one ‘umbrella service’ I was on the side that said that does make some sense certainly from a fiscal point of view. Having worked for a lengthy time in the addiction services field I have changed my mind. There is the chicken and the egg thing going on here that is becoming more difficult to reconcile especially with all the ‘new’ medicinal treatment options available for our mental health clients. Does someone have a mental health disorder and then start to abuse drugs and alcohol because of that disorder or does the disorder ‘develop’ because of the alcohol and drug use? The DSM, which is the ‘bible’ used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental health disorders has grown substantially over the last ten years and now includes an addiction as being classified a mental health disorder. There are pills now to help alleviate some of the symptoms. The point is treatment for an addiction is becoming more of an issue to be treated by taking a medication than a problem that can be treated without the use of medication and have as much success. Do we treat the disorder and then the addiction or the other way around. Some say both at the same time but that troubles me some because that means that a client is trying to get used to a new medication that may of may not work well and at the same time we are expecting that client will be able to remain abstinent. Well if he could remain abstinent he wouldn’t need to be treated with medication for an addiction. If he/she uses alcohol during the time they are taking their medication for the mental health disorder that, in itself, poses a serious health risk. The other question is how much of the ‘mental health’ disorder is created by the stress, anxiety, lack of sleep and trauma caused by the substance use and would it begin to dissipate if/when the use was dealt with successfully?

These are questions that have no clear cut answers as yet. I don’t believe that we need to be making judgements regarding the quality of peoples lives without more substantiated proof beyond the acknowledgement that it makes fiscal sense and therefore we should do it. Pharma should not be the driving force. Obviously their influence in the debate is tainted a bit by their desire to have it become a medication based treatment approach. I would like to see a day when treatment for mental health disorders are treated chemically, if needed, and the addictions component is treated using a CBT-Cognitive Behavioural Treatment approach meaning more Life Skills Training and behaviourally directed approaches with less chemical intervention. But the system has been there and the pharmaceutical/medical field didn’t want to stay there so here we are with neither side of this getting anything close to what they really need to make a difference in the quality of their lives. The focus needs to be on functionality and not just existence and symptom management.

So when management comes to you with a smile, asking you to trust them and they are talking about encouraging transparency (it has become another word for duplicity) in the system, be sure to check your BS meter before jumping in.

Anyways, that’s how I see it–Jim

As always comments are welcome. You can connect with me at: jim.lifechoice@gmail.com OR jamescloughley.com


Author Jim Cloughley's 
Brand New Blueprint For Learning