CANADIAN POLITICS-ONTARIO:

STARVING HEALTHCARE-FEEDING CORPORATIONS:

The following opinion piece was written by the President of the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union and published in the online news journal Public Values. I reprint it here if only because there seems to be a need of periodic reminders of how good Canada (and the rest of the civilized world ) has it in terms of health care when compared to the USA. Through the thunder of their (often mindless ) debate down there on the proposals to reform their healthcare system one can discern the almost comical ignorance that many (most ?) Americans have about how their system compares unfavourably with almost all developed and even a few underdeveloped countries. They spend more money and get fewer results. Not the least reason for this inefficiency is that a good proportion of the funds available are skimmed off as profit by the insurance companies, amongst others. Whatever the inefficiencies of other systems at least other countries don't have to apportion money to this class of parasites.

Up here our health care system is under attack and underfunded. Governments, such as those of Ontario, as mentioned in the following article, would much rather spend the money on corporate handouts. Not that our system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Molly has expressed her own preferences here at this blog before ie a system of community clinics and mutual cooperative insurance. The beginnings of such a system could easily be initiated even under our present system, with the mutual insurance covering things not presently covered by medicare. The single payer system would have to be retained until such time as non-government methods of social insurance were more fully developed. That process would have to be gradual to avoid unnecessary suffering. In the process of such a "withering away of the state" the first thing to go would obviously be grants to the corporations. The last thing to remain would be corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy.

Until this process begins, should it ever begin, it can easily be demonstrated that the Rube Goldberg American system is demonstrably inferior to not just that of Canada but also to that of most of the developed world.

Here's the article.

HCHCHCHCHCHCHC

Canada spends one-half per capita on health than US does, yet we are healthier:
Government pleads poverty, yet proceeding with tax cuts to Ontario corporations.
by Warren (Smokey) Thomas
How sustainable is health care? Opponents of Medicare regularly question the public sector's ability to pay the bills as health care creeps up as a share of provincial budgets. New data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) suggests health care costs may be more sustainable than we think.

Affordability is best determined by looking at health costs as a percentage of our overall economy, not by the size of government. The CIHI data suggests that health care costs have escalated roughly in step with the economy, whereas the size of government has been getting dramatically smaller.

Health care accounted for 10 per cent of our economy in 1992 – the last period of recession. In 2009, health care is expected to be 11.9 per cent largely due to a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP), not rising costs. In 2008 it was 10.8 per cent, less than a percentage point above the 1992 levels. This hardly indicates a lack of sustainability.

"As a share of the overall health pie, hospitals have been shrinking. In 1975 hospitals accounted for 44.7 per cent of health expenditures. Today it’s 27.8 per cent."

There is no question we are living longer and better as a result of the investments we have made. From 1996 to 2006 our average life expectancy was extended by three years – the biggest leap in mortality rates since they have been kept.

Federal funding to reduce wait times is having a positive impact, particularly for hip and knee replacements as well as cataracts. This is something Canadians all said we wanted and were willing to pay for.

According to CIHI, money has also been invested in tailored drug therapies, diagnostic technology, training health care professionals and to increase class size in medical and nursing schools. These last investments are necessary if we hope to replace the soon to retire legion of baby boomers serving as professionals within our health system.

While spending as a percentage of our economy has nudged forward over 20 years, it has not been entirely in lock step. In the 1990s governments dramatically slashed funding to health care, leaving present governments with a major infrastructure deficit. It is far more costly to play catch-up than it is to keep the system on an even keel. Finance Minister Dwight Duncan admitted this when speaking to the Ontario Hospital Association Conference last fall.

Hospitals always appear the target of restraint, but are hardly to blame for rising health costs. As a share of the overall health pie, hospitals have been shrinking. In 1975 hospitals accounted for 44.7 per cent of health expenditures. Today it’s 27.8 per cent.

"Total public sector spending used to account for about half the economy. Today it is closer to one third."

In 2009 Canadians are expected to spend $5,452 per capita on health care – both public and private. That’s slightly less than France, Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. It's much less than the United States, which spends almost double per capita and yet leaves 45 million Americans uninsured and many more underinsured. On almost every objective measure, Canadians do better with their health than Americans, from infant mortality to our overall longevity.

In the past year there has been an attempt to divide the progressive community by portraying health care as an insatiable monster crowding out education, housing, transportation and even poverty reduction.

The McGuinty government continues to shrink the pie and is happy to see us all fighting over the scraps. Total public sector spending used to account for about half the economy. Today it is closer to one third.

While the government cries poor, it is stampeding ahead with a series of tax cuts, including a $5 billion reduction to Ontario corporations.

We need to defend all our social services, including health care. When we start pitting our sectors against each other, we all lose.
In solidarity,


Warren (Smokey) Thomas,

President
Links and sources Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) site

CANADIAN LABOUR:

PROTECTING PENSIONS:

Molly has blogged on the matter of pension protection in the case of corporate bankruptcy before, particularly in the case of Nortel retirees- the most egregious recent case in Canada. The following is another entry on this subject, this time from an open letter on the part of two labour organizations to the last Finance Ministers' meeting last December. What I found more interesting about the following is the glancing reference as to how Canada's bankruptcy laws can actually be used to not just dodge legitimate debts but even to make money. Now I have always associated 'living off bankruptcy' with the usual low flying scam artist type, but it stands to reason that the high fliers can make money off this as well-in much bigger batches. Here's the story from the online progressive Canadian newsjournal Public Values. People interested in following this issue might consider checking in now and then with the Congress of Union Retirees Canada.

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

Unions tell finance ministers of social, economic risks of failing to support retirees:
Companies hiding behind bankruptcy courts to reduce pension benefits.
On the eve of a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers' that was held in December in Whitehorse, two groups sent a letter urging them to fix the pension system that is allowing companies that go bankrupt or that are sold to discontinue benefits to retirees.

The letter, signed by Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEC)( CEP Union actually-Molly ), and Don Sproule, national chair of the Nortel Retirees and former employees Protection Canada (NRPC) pointing out the social and economic risks of failing to provide support for seniors while companies hide behind the protection of bankruptcy courts.

"As a result, tens of thousands of pensioners are facing drastic pension benefit reductions. Retirees are particularly vulnerable people as they cannot replace their benefits by re-entering the workforce or further reducing their living costs. Most of them are already living on a tight budget, many are in ill-health and these cuts will drive them into poverty and despair."

The letter expresses concern that pension funds be financed at a solvency level and that the funds should come from the assets of bankrupt companies, not the taxpayer. It further examines how Canada has outdated bankruptcy laws that can sometimes be manipulated by bondholders to trigger failure in order to collect insurance and other payments. As well, they are uncomfortable with the thought of pensioners having to suddenly manage their own pensions in a difficult market.

Before the same meeting, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) issued a press release stating how they were "appalled" with the C. D. Howe Institute's Pension Paper released in time for the meeting. Fearful of the influence of right wing commentators, PIPSC pointed out how public sector pensions are actually "deferred salary" where members contribute between 8.4 and 10.15 per cent of their annual salary.

David Gray, CGA and vice-president of PIPSC, wrote: "The data presented includes total debts for the public service pensions but only includes the amounts paid in from 2000 forward. It fails to include the $30B paid in by public service employees, or the $62B set aside by the employer as its contribution. Finally it fails to mention the additional $30B pension surplus that was seized by the government in 1999 and used to pay down the national debt."
Links and sources

Full text of CEC/NRPC letter

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada press release

LOCAL POLITICS-WINNIPEG:

THE DOOR TO PRIVATIZATION:

The issue discussed below may, to be punish, seem like "water under the bridge" now that Winnipeg City Council has voted to create its "arms length utility" that is predestined to enter into private/public partnerships with corporate interests interested in expanding into the municipal utility field. It is, however, useful to bring it up just for the record, and it may be especially useful should any of the municipal politicians who voted for this measure receive any "favours" from interested parties in the future. Here's Maude barlow and Meera Karunananthan on Winnipeg's "privatization by stealth" from the Public Values website.

LPLPLPLPLPLPLP

Municipal privatization: What Winnipeg can learn from elsewhere:
Corporatizing utilities brings risks to public, but rewards private interests.
by Maude Barlow and Meera Karunananthan, for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – Manitoba
July 21, 2009 — On July 22, the city of Winnipeg will be voting on a proposal to create an arms-length corporate water utility. (already passed-Molly)As far as Mayor Sam Katz and his allies on city council are concerned, the decision on the new corporate utility was made before the public ever had a chance to weigh in.

The city invested $1.25 Million to explore the idea and put $250,000 toward a public relations campaign to promote the creation of an arms-length corporate water utility.

Supporters on city council had committed to the issue even before hearing the concerns of the general public. Many participants in the so-called public consultation have reported that it was designed to promote the proposal rather than record public input.

Yet experience from around the world shows that the model being rushed through is likely to have detrimental impacts on access to water and public control over water services and resources.

The corporatization of Winnipeg's water and waste utility is the first step toward greater privatization. An arms-length corporation would limit the ability of elected representatives to oversee operations and make decisions in the public interest. Experiences in other cities like Edmonton have shown that corporate utilities whose primary function is to make profits can lead to the sale of public assets, a loss of public control and transparency, rate hikes and lower quality services.

It is time to slow things down and examine the serious threats posed by the proposed model.
Mayor Sam Katz sticks to the soundbite that the utility is 100 percent city-owned while downplaying the fact that the city is seeking partnerships with private corporations for water and waste services.

The corporatization of electric and water utilities in Edmonton have proven to pave the way for the sale and privatization of vital services.

There was a blurring of lines when councillors acted as shareholders rather than as protectors of the public interest by hatching a deal to sell off $5 billion of publicly-owned assets behind closed doors. Rather than maintaining the public interest, the mandate of Epcor, the arms-length corporate utility is to increase profits. This has had impacts on communities outside Edmonton as the corporation makes its profits through the privatization of utilities in communities throughout the continent.

Similarly, in Europe, "Municipal Corporate Utilities " were first sold as a compromise between fully public and fully private control of water systems. Big water companies used their public utility assets to raise money to move into poor countries in the global South where they operate on a for-profit basis, charging high rates and denying service to those who cannot pay. Human rights and social justice organizations in the global South argue that some of the worst private water companies operating in their communities are tied to so-called public utilities in Europe and use this status to gain access to water contracts in the South.

The City is also seeking partnerships with corporations for waste-water plant upgrade.

Experience in other parts of Canada and the rest of the world show that these arrangements mean that the public takes all the risk while the private corporations use their contracts to leverage capital accumulation for private investment and expansion.

It is important to note that many of the companies bidding for the Winnipeg contract are big transnationals whose sole motive is profit and growth.

One company, American Water, is the largest investor-owned US water and wastewater utility. The corporation has a history of imposing exorbitant rate hikes on communities where they operate. In Hingham and Hull Massachusetts, the corporation doubled rates over a five-year period claiming the funds were needed to build a new treatment facility. Evidence has shown that the costs of the facility were inflated by American Water to increase profits.

Another company, Black &Veatch, is an American engineering giant which claims to be in the "Top 500 Largest Private Companies in the US.." They have a huge water division and claim that "20 percent of the world's population served by community systems drinks potable water through systems designed, constructed or supported by Black & Veatch".

If the City of Winnipeg chooses an American company, that company will have rights under NAFTA to sue for compensation if a future city council decides to return to a public system or bring about legislation that would restrict its profits.

Also on the list is Veolia Environment - the "environment" arm of the French giant Veolia - which has 272,000 employees, 70,000 of whom work only in water and has annual revenues of US$34 billion, and with Suez, controls almost two-thirds of the global private water services sector. Veolia is very controversial in the global South, where, along with Suez, it has jacked up water rates, broken contracts and cut off water to people who cannot pay.

These big corporations are for-profit, private companies required to find profits for their shareholders and will be forced to raise water rates for this purpose.

Councillor Harry Lazarenko's motion to ensure that privatization is not sought without a referendum does not allay concerns about the loss of public control over water services, hikes in water rates and the global impacts of creating a for-profit utility. The potential harm should be carefully weighed and publicly debated - not rushed through without full public consultation.
Ed. note: on July 22, Winnipeg City Council voted in favour of forming an arm's length corporate utility. See links below for more information.

Maude Barlow is the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, Senior advisor on water to the President of the UN General Assembly and the author of 16 books including Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water.
Meera Karunananthan is the national water campaigner at the Council of Canadians
Links and sources

Winnipeg city council votes 10-6 for water utility, by the Council of Canadians, July 23 2009 City council approves new utility, by Bartley Kives, Winnipeg Free Press, July 22 2009 Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Council of Canadians - Water

CANADIAN LABOUR-SASKATCHEWAN:

SASKATCHEWAN WORKERS FIGHT BACK:

Ah, "good" old Saskatchewan, Molly's home province, left long ago and very rarely missed. Time was when Saskatchewan was in the vanguard of socialism in North America, but that time is long passed- mostly Molly feels because of the excessive and single minded devotion of socialists there to the party politics road to socialism. The inevitable happened. The CCF and then the NDP became the be-all and end-all of what socialism meant. The ideology failed to change with the times as the NDP travelled an inexorable trajectory to the right, urged on by so-called "realism" at every step. The only response of "the left", pathetic as it usually was, was to either engage in futile attempts to capture the party or in even more futile, and quite frankly usually ridiculous, attempts to build an electoral sect to the left of the NDP, hampered, as may be expected, by the usual mishmash of Marxists worshipping some foreign power. All this stuff failed, of course, and in the end the electorate began to shift strategically between a corrupt party of the right and a corrupt party of the left. Politics as "revenge".

Since 2007 the governing party in Saslkatchewan has been the (creatively ????) named 'Saskatchewan Party', an ill suited conglomeration of conservative forces patched together to escape the opprobrium of the name of the (stupendously more than usual) corrupt former Conservative party. Since coming to power the SP has done its duty to its class by vicious attacks on working people in that province.

People in Saskatchewan, however, are beginning to fight back, as the following article from the Public Values website details. Needless to say I, as an anarchist, don't agree with the general politics of the Public values site, whose social democracy is exactly what misled socialists in my home province down their long disgraceful road. What I hope, but have little expectation of, is that the "years in the wilderness" will convince unionists and others in Saskatchewan- and elsewhere- to not put all their eggs in the social democratic basket and to build and retain networks that are truly independent of party politics. Still, the Public Values website, along with its sister sites such as the Harper Watch and Straight Goods, are often valuable sources of information. Here's one such example. Go to the original website to view the video associated with this article.

CLCLCLCLCLCLCL

Saskatchewan public servants fight back:
by Ish Theilheimer
A political sea change in Saskatchewan is forcing public servants there to fight back. With the election, November 2007, of Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party, organized labour has had a war on its hands.

"Since 2007 we have seen the introduction of some very regressive pieces of labour legislation," said Barbara Cape, in a YouTube video interview for Straight Goods News. She is President of SEIU-West, a recently-formed amalgamation of SEIU locals in Saskatchewan.

"On the face of it they may sound appealing to the public, but quite frankly the government has declared war on trade unions in Saskatchewan."

She says four pieces of legislation are particularly troublesome. These include:
-- the Public Services Essential Services Act, she says, is "probably the most appealing one to the public in Saskatchewan. The problem is men and women who work in health care in Saskatchewan have always ensured there were essential services in the event of a strike. We are being painted by this government as not caring for our patients, clients and residents. That is 100 percent not true. Health care workers in the province are a special breed of people who would never contemplate taking job action without ensuring that there was some safety for their patients, clients and residents.
-- changes to the Trade Union Act. "Previously we had had card checks for organizing. And Saskatchewan had real good union density (proportion of workers that belong to unions) at 33 or 34 percent. With this legislation, not only do we have to have cards signed by our members, but then we have to go through a vote. (Very much to revert the system of unionization to the thuggish regime prevalent today in the USA, a regime that proponents of the 'Employee Free Choice Act are attempting to change down there-Molly)The government has said a vote is democratic. Our argument has been a vote is democratic, but we use the democratic form of card-signing. People have the opportunity to make their choices in the privacy of their own home. There was no pressure. It was organizing, in the pu rest sense of the word.
-- changes to the Construction and Trades Union Act that "open the door quite widely" for the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) to organize in the trades and in health care. Cape joins with most others in the labour movement in calling CLAC an "employer's union."(Even worse in Molly's opinion. The CLAC is more than just a corrupt union. It resembles communist or fascist "trade unions" more than it resembles the old Teamsters) She says the legislation "lowers the standards for working people across the province."
-- the Trespass Act, which "says that nobody, no union, no organization shall be allowed to gather on Crown property without permission in the province of Saskatchewan. What that does is it takes away our right, as citizens of the province, to gather an assemble on our land, our Crown land. The penalties are quite stiff in all circumstances," $2,000 a day for individuals, $50,000 a day for unions.

"With this kind of legislation, they're pushing our members up against the wall," says Cape.

"Health care workers are going to seeing some dark times ahead in Saskatchewan."

Fightback campaigns
In response, her union has organized campaign such as one called "Essential 365 Days," in support of health care workers. Most recently has come the You've Got Mail campaign. "We marched to the Saskatchewan Party caucus office at the Government of Saskatchewan, and we delivered over 6,000 pieces of mail," said Cape. These were generated in 30 days from workers and concerned citizens. "That's significant," she says. "It has had an effect. We've heard from the Minister of Health that he wants us to redouble our efforts at the bargaining table, and he is challenging us to get a deal sooner rather than later."

Cape says the Wall government has been clever in how it has marketed the changes it has introduced. "Initially when the legislation was introduced, on the face of it it seemed pretty innocuous, however when you read the legislation it has absolutely put our members' backs up. The way that it's written and the punitive nature of it, has really angered our rural members, our long-term care members, our acute care members, people are just shocked that our government, which is supposed to be leading our province, that this is a war they're willing to take on health care workers."

Wall was in Toronto for the launch of SEIU's Member Action Program (MAP), which she sees as "an extension of the kind of work we've been doing right now. Our members are about to see, with the response from the government of Saskatchewan, are already seeing the ability of government to respond to those 6,000 pieces of mail.

"All it took was a signature. You see the immediate action, and you want to go further. And I think our members are going to be really impressed by how quickly we can see some payoff for our efforts in the political realm. Because bargaining is no longer just about sitting at the bargaining table anymore, you need to have some other pieces of the agenda, and I think MAP's been helpful to that."

................................
Ish Theilheimer has been Publisher of the leading, and oldest, independent Canadian online newsmagazine, StraightGoods.ca, since founding it in September 1999. He is also Managing Editor of PublicValues.ca.
Posted: July 02, 2009
Public Values (PublicValues.ca) is a project of the Golden Lake Institute and the online publication StraightGoods.ca

CANADIAN POLITICS:

SELLING THE GRAVY,KEEPING THE BONES:

Molly has blogged about the underlying issue here before, the possible sale of portions of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to the private sector. The following article from the Public Values website points out exactly what this will mean in the current situation in Ottawa. Yes, as expected those parts that stand a chance of making a profit will be portioned out, very likely to entities that have some shady connections to the Conservative Party. After all, if it could never make a profit why buy it, unless, of course Ottawa decides to subsidize the profit by becoming the main customer. One wonders how this could be mistaken for saving taxpayers' money. Same expenses as before, except that now an additional layer of profit has to be tacked on.

As I have averred here before AECL would actually be a great candidate for privatization...providing, of course, that everything was on the table. Not just the potentially profitable sections of AECL but also its liabilities. Following the Conservative plan the liabilities will still be held by the Canadian public while the potentially offsetting revenue from profitable portions of the enterprise will be replaced by additional expenditures. I have no great and overbearing attachment to state ownership in itself, but neither do I have a touching faith in so-called "private enterprise" (which is a joke if the only customers are public institutions). Anyways, here's a thorough discussion of what the Harper plan for AECL actually means.

CCCCCCCCCCCC

AECL's viable assets to be sold:
Taxpayers will be on hook for liabilities and toxic assets.
by Ish Theilheimer
OTTAWA, June 1, 2009, PublicValues.ca, with YouTube videos(Please go to the Public Values website to see the videos-Molly) — The Harper government has announced its intention to sell of the most profitable and successful parts of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) at "fire sale" prices while retaining control of the Crown corporation's toxic assets and liabilities.

The government plans to divide the company in two. Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory, which currently employs 2,900 people, will be managed privately with no requirement that it continue manufacturing medical isotopes at the site. Currently, isotope production has stopped due to repeated problems at the plant.

Reporters and critics questioned the timing of the announcement, amidst alarm over the sudden cut-off of isotope production. In December, 2007, when the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ordered the Chalk River reactor that produces the isotopes be shut down for repairs, the government recalled Parliament, citing the life-and-death nature of the situation. Stephen Harper even fried the Commission's chair, Linda Keen, over this.

On Thursday, at the privatization announcement, NDP natural resources critic Nathan Cullen pointed to the government's efforts to pass legislation shielding the nuclear industry from liability in case of accidents as proof of its intention to sell off the industry. He said it is poor management to sell off the company's best assets and proprietary research in a poor market while keeping the most risky assets in the public domain.

"They've just had a budget where we've seen a bunch of sales of Crown assets they weren't going to name. Now we're seeing what's going to be sold off. And to sell it off when prices are incredibly low is not sound fiscal management. Mr Flaherty's credibility with Canadians for managing the economy through this recession is out the window, and the growing concern is 'What next? What else is up for sale?'"

He said Canadian taxpayers will be "on the hook for the majority of costs in the event of a nuclear accident," because of proposed legislation "to limit liability in Canada in the event of a nuclear accident." In the US, he said, nuclear companies have to pay into a $10 billion pool for liabilities.

Natural resources minister Lisa Raitt said the newly-privatized company would be regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, "which does have an independent view of the entire nuclear industry in Canada and will be managing it regardless of the restructuring here."

When asked by Straight Goods News "Can you call it independent when you're able to politically fire and hire chairs of the Commission, as happened in the case of Linda Keen?," Raitt said, "The CNSC absolutely has its own mandate and it continues to regulate the industry for its health, safety and security of Canadians."

The political meddling that kept the old reactor going, and periodically leaking heavy water, since the crisis, concerned reporters and critics. "Sixteen months ago, your government took pretty extraordinary steps, fired the nuclear safety regulator and ordered the startup of the NRU because, in the words of your government, 'people will die'," said Greg Weston of Sun Media. "Now we have a situation where the NRU is going to be shut down for months. Some are saying it will never come back online and we can't even find your Health Minister. What has changed? And was the government exaggerating the last time or does it just not care this time?"

Raitt downplayed the danger of the current isotope shortage. She was repeatedly grilled over apparent lack of government action to secure isotope supply in the 18 months since the 2007 crisis.

"What have they been doing, what have they been thinking?" asked Liberal natural resources critic David McGuinty. "There have been three unscheduled shutdowns. There have been four heavy water leaks, contained or otherwise, and we have no final knowledge of what the status of those containments are. We don't know if there are other leaks."

Raitt dodged repeated questions about whether lives are in danger now, saying repeatedly the government plans to hire outside experts to help find answers both to the isotope and privatization questions, but not naming any of the experts she plans to hire.

Ish Theilheimer has been Publisher of the leading, and oldest, independent Canadian online newsmagazine, StraightGoods.ca, since founding it in September 1999. He is also Managing Editor of PublicValues.ca.
Posted: May 31, 2009
Public Values (PublicValues.ca) is a project of the Golden Lake Institute and the online publication StraightGoods.ca

CANADIAN POLITICS:

HARPER'S BUDGET FALLS FLAT:

Molly has presented several other opinions, and made her own ideas known, on the subject of the recent federal budget. Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the federal Liberals, has decided to give Harper a pass, and thus what you see is what you get in terms of Canada's response to the economic crisis. Here's yet another opinion on the matter from the pages of the Public Values website.

.............................

Half-hearted budget won't help the hard-hit:
by John Baglow
The just-tabled Conservative budget resembles a magic show. It's all about appearance and psychology, the fostering of illusions in the public mind. Stimulus packages are like that, of course: they are intended to inspire confidence in consumers and investors by injecting a little oil into a seized economy. But some packages are better than others.

The heavy emphasis on tax cuts — the voluntary renunciation of tax revenue — means less to spend on childcare, education, health and social security, all of which need more, not fewer, resources in a deep recession.

And the actual spending program, which as one commentator puts it "attempts to scratch every political itch," scatters the money so widely that its local effects may be minimal.

There is $200 million this year and next, for example, earmarked for social housing for low-income seniors. Nicholas Gazzard, of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, said he was pleased to see money for this sort of thing, plus social housing retrofitting and the like. But at $50 K per unit, this amounts to a mere 4,000 units each year, in a country of 35 million with an aging population.

Education and research are also ill-served by the budget. Katherine Giroux-Bougard, speaking for the Canadian Federation of Students, was "underwhelmed." While the new US president is busy unveiling a wide and comprehensive plan to support post-secondary education, she said, this budget focuses narrowly on graduate students and summer jobs.

James Turk, Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, agreed. For him the budget overall was "very disappointing, filled with half-hearted measures." Funding for post-secondary education doesn't meet the needs in that sector, he said. There is no core funding for colleges and universities, and no new money for the provinces to provide it.

And, in contrast to Obama's planned expenditure of $12 billion on research, Harper's budget offers a paltry $137.9 million over three years. The net result, says Turk, will be a brain drain, as talented academics head to the US, encouraged by Obama's research-friendly approach.

Student debt is now a staggering $13 billion, yet there's no new money for undergraduates. And the money for 500 doctoral and 1,000 master's students ends in three years.

$2 billion is set aside for post-secondary educational infrastructure. But projects will require matching funds from the provinces, which are getting no additional money for post-secondary education, while experiencing shrinking revenues, or from the institutions themselves, which simply have no money to give.

The public sector is not faring well either. True to form, the government is engaging in a little union-bashing, suspending collective bargaining with imposed wage settlements. Unsurprisingly, PSAC National President John Gordon, many of whose members settled just a few days ago, isn't happy. 30,000 of his members, employees of the Canada Revenue Agency, may find themselves subject to an actual wage rollback, while other groups are still in negotiations.

Canadian Labour Congress President Ken Georgetti was exasperated, wondering aloud how cutting back on wages will encourage people to spend, one of the objectives of a stimulus budget.

The President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Michele Demers, was more sanguine. She liked several aspects of the $40 billion stimulus package. The extension of EI support will ease things for the unemployed, she said (although nothing has been done to relax eligibility requirements — most people paying into EI still won't be able access it when they need it). She believes that some of the proposed infrastructural stimulus project money will be injected into government departments, and her members will benefit.

Yet, she says, those very members, who will be instrumental in helping these projects along, are under attack yet again on the collective bargaining front. "We're still being treated as part of the problem, not part of the solution," she said. "We need respect and the tools and resources to get the job done." More of her members' jobs are on the line with an on-going "strategic review." 1,500-2,000 of them face an uncertain future. Layoff? Relocation? No one knows.

The budget is not kind to women. Pay equity in the federal public service is being gutted. The current complaint-based system will disappear: to be replaced by union-employer negotiations, in a framework yet to be determined.

Unions have, certainly, been frustrated by the lengthy delays under the present system. But there is little cause to celebrate its demise. Pay equity, once a principle enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, will now be something to be negotiated, with one side holding all of the legislative cards. And even that promise of negotiation may be an illusion. Gordon points out that job classification, the source of so much of the historic pay inequity in the federal public service, cannot legally even be brought to the bargaining table.

His Program Administration group, 85,000 strong, did win some contract language recently that allows pay equity issues to be addressed in a joint classification review. If that doesn't pan out, the matter can now be grieved. But to a neutral third party? Maybe, maybe not. Other members involved in on-going pay equity disputes have even less hope to cling to.

Beverley Jacobs, President of the Native Women's Association of Canada, pointed out that Aboriginal women aren't even mentioned in the budget. She foresaw an uphill battle trying to access any of the funds set aside for First Nations to use in projects and ventures that will benefit women on the reserves.

Jody Dallaire of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada noted that women need a comprehensive national childcare program to allow them to access training and participate in the job market.

Yet the budget, she said, allows Canada to remain in last place among industrialized nations with respect to early childhood learning and childcare.

Contrary to recent comments by former Clerk of the Privy Council Mel Cappe, the budget is indeed a political and ideological document. Its emphasis on "tax relief" and corporate handouts at the expense of social spending, and its light sprinkling of minor benefits to all and sundry, combines classic Conservative doctrine and political expediency in an uneasy mix. Whether the concoction proves to be stable and curative is, at this point, anyone's guess.

John Baglow is a former Executive Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. He is currently pursuing an advanced degree in anthropology, and works in his spare time as a writer and a consultant in the fields of public and social policy [www.firstwrite.ca]. You can read his blog at the URL below.
Links and sources

Dr Dawg's Blawg

Firstwrite.ca

CANADIAN POLITICS/AMERICAN POLITICS:

CONSERVATIVE STATISM:

The following is from the Public Values website, and it points out an important fact-so-called conservatives are hardly the shining knights of freedom from government that their rhetoric would imply. What they actually are champions of another form of government interference, and they are just as vigorous in its pursuit as left wingers are in theirs. Molly doesn't necessarily agree with the "it's inevitable so lay back and enjoy it and pick a different partner" implications of the following, but it's important to note just how statist conservatives are.

................................

Deregulation? No such thing.:
The only question is, who benefits from government intervention?
by Dean Baker, Boston Review
The extraordinary financial collapse of recent months has been commonly described as a testament to the failure of deregulation. The events are indeed testament to a failure — a failure of public policy. Blaming deregulation is misleading.

In general, political debates over regulation have been wrongly cast as disputes over the extent of regulation, with conservatives assumed to prefer less regulation, while liberals prefer more. In fact conservatives do not necessarily desire less regulation, nor do liberals necessarily desire more. Conservatives support regulatory structures that cause income to flow upward, while liberals support regulatory structures that promote equality. "Less" regulation does not imply greater inequality, nor is the reverse true.

Framing regulation debates in terms of more and less is not only inaccurate; it hugely biases the argument toward conservative positions by characterizing an extremely intrusive structure of, for example, patent and copyright rules, as the free market. In the realm of insurance and finance over the last two decades, calls for deregulation have been cover for rules tilted starkly toward corporate interests. And the recent change in bankruptcy law, hailed by conservatives, requires much greater government involvement in the economy.

False ideological claims have circumscribed the public debate over regulation and blinded us to the wide range of choices we can make. Without these claims, what would guide regulatory policy? What kinds of choices would we have?
* * *
Patent and copyright protection are good examples of government policies obscured in the debate. They are forms of regulation, not elements of a "free market.". . .
To read further. . .
Dean Baker is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Policy Research and author of The Conservative Nanny State.
Links and sources Free Market Myth, by Dean Baker, Boston Review, January 2009

CANADIAN LABOUR-SASKATCHEWAN:

PROVINCE PLOTS P3S IN SASKATCHEWAN:

Ah, the province of Saskatchewan, Molly's birthplace and old stomping grounds. Once the "golden socialist utopia" of North America, the old social base of the CCF-NDP, the small farmer, has been eroded practically to the point of vanishing. Nowadays the province is ruled by the neo-conservative Saskatchewan Party, and, like all such outfits they are plotting to privatize large portions of the public economy via the setups known as P3s, "public private partnerships".

Not that Molly would have great objections to "de-stating" the public services, provided that the new entities were self managed producers' cooperatives. That, however, hasn't been on the agenda of any government that has undertook privatization anywhere in the world. The Saskatchewan party is moving cautiously, one might even say by stealth, to open up the public coffers to their business friends. Like cats licking their lips at a horde of mice, I'm sure that there are numerous entrepreneurs waiting to get their hands on their reward for supporting their political friends. Here's the story from the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, via the Public Values website.

..................................
Gov't explores public-private partnerships:
New secretariat to evaluate proposals:
By James Wood,

The StarPhoenix

The Saskatchewan Party government is setting up a secretariat to explore the possibility of private sector companies being involved in large-scale infrastructure projects such as roads, schools and health-care facilities.

But while infrastructure dollars are slated to flow from the provincial and federal governments as part of an economic stimulus package, Government Services Minister Dan D'Autremont said the province will proceed slowly when it comes to the public-private partnerships dubbed P3s.

"All of the advice we have received is, 'do not rush,' that you need to have a very clear understanding of what you're looking for and what it is that's being offered and not to be precipitous," the minister said in an interview Tuesday.

At its last meeting two weeks ago, cabinet moved associate deputy minister Mike Shaw from health to government services as the head and first employee of the new P3 secretariat.

The cross-ministerial body will develop the criteria for judging private sector proposals and will have the final say, except for cabinet, on the projects.

The government has set $25 million as the minimum cost of projects for which private sector involvement will be considered, he said.

The Sask. Party government committed $1 billion in this year's budget for infrastructure and has pledged $1.5 billion for the year ahead. Premier Brad Wall recently told reporters the government may accelerate spending as part of stimulus measures, with some of next year's planned dollars potentially being booked into this budget year.

That would also help balance the 2009-10 budget without the government having to dip into reserves.

D'Autremont said he thinks private sector involvement in that sped-up spending would be unlikely, especially since much of it may end up done in partnership with the federal government.

"What they're looking for is projects that are basically close to being ready to go, that they could start on in the near term and P3s in this province would certainly not qualify for that," he said.

P3s have been controversial in any case. The Saskatoon Public School Division's recent musings about the possibility of a company building, owning and operating a school and leasing it back to the division in the Willowgrove neighbourhood drew fire from the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Tom Graham, president of the union in Saskatchewan, said CUPE was heartened to learn from a recent freedom of information request that only two school divisions --
Saskatoon's public and Lloydminster's Roman Catholic -- had expressed interest to the government in P3s.

But he said in a recent interview he's concerned about any dalliance with public-private partnerships. While they are potentially a threat to union members' jobs, the bigger issue is that they are more expensive.

"Someone dreamed them up as a good way to make money for a private company but it's not a good way to provide a public service. It costs more. . . . They just don't really pass the test," said Graham.

A poll, commissioned by CUPE Saskatchewan last month, found 73 per cent of respondents believed facilities such as schools and hospitals should be publicly owned and controlled.

D'Autremont said P3s have a mixed record. British Columbia, which has been in the lead when it comes to such projects in Canada, has seen long-term savings and quality from the public-private Sea-to-Sky Highway, he said.

A P3 school in Nova Scotia, however, failed to meet expectations, said D'Autremont.
The minister said that there are various models for P3s, although the most common would probably see a private company design and build a facility and then charge rent.

With the government services themselves carrying on as normal, there would be no displacement of unionized workers under such a model, he said,

D'Autremont said another use of P3s that would be potentially controversial -- toll roads -- won't happen in Saskatchewan because they simply wouldn't work even if someone wanted to do it.
jwood@sp.canwest.com

CANADIAN POLITICS/LABOUR/CONSUMER AFFAIRS:

IS "SELF-POLICING" A GOOD IDEA IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY ?:

As the following article from the Public Values website says, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has begun a campaign to end the practice of self-regulation in the food industry of Canada. The problems with such practices have recently been exposed by events such as the listeriosis outbreaks this summer. The Professional Institute has a pdf pamphlet on this matter available at their website (see above).

...........................

Federal scientists launch campaign to end self-policing in food industry:
Research, regulation, power to act in the public interest need to be restored.
OTTAWA, November 3, 2008 — in the wake of the listeriosis tragedy and as Canadians face a continuing crisis with tainted foods and unsafe products, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the union representing 55,000 government professionals and scientists is launching a campaign to defend Public Science.

A series of government actions and policy decisions have seriously undermined both the capacity and the reputation of public science which is intended above all else to be independent, non-partisan and committed to advancing the public interest.

"Playing politics with science is a dangerous game," says Michele Demers, President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. "Too many Canadians have been affected by tainted food. It's about time we put public health and safety first."

"With its gag orders, firings and accusations of partisanship levelled at scientists and regulators, this government has done incalculable damage," adds Demers.

The national campaign launched today features radio advertisements running in markets from coast to coast, transit shelter and bus ads, and a Web site — www.publicscience.ca — which allows visitors to send targeted messages to Members of Parliament. The campaign draws attention to the harm deregulation and underfunding are doing to public scientists' ability to protect Canadians, their environment and their economic prospects.

"Listeriosis is only the tip of the iceberg of the dangers deregulation is opening up in this country," says Demers. "By eliminating rules and handing responsibility for safety to industry in sectors like transportation, food and consumer products, the federal government is playing fast and loose with Canadians health and safety."

In addition to other food borne bacteria and toxins, industry self-policing is also threatening Canadians in the transport sector, as the federal government moves to hand off responsibility for air safety to the airlines having previously done the same with rail safety.

Deregulation has gone hand in hand with cuts to resources ranging from the closure of weather offices and defunding climate research, ending food inspection programs and privatizing federal laboratories.

"Government regulators, inspectors and researchers are working with their hands tied behind their backs. They don't have the mandate, the time or the resources to do their jobs," says Demers. "Worse yet, they don't have the legal tools they need to get dangerous products off the market and punish companies that break the law."

Through the Public Science campaign, the Professional Institute and its members will work with allies in the scientific community and beyond to highlight the importance of public science and to press the newly elected Parliament to reverse the government's course. The campaign will advocate for an immediate end to industry self-policing, adequate resources for important research, and new powers and resources for independent regulators to enforce laws to protect all Canadians.

"The public good depends on good public science," concludes Demers. "Our campaign will make sure that Canadians are aware of the achievements and contributions of public science and how we can't afford to do without it."

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada is a national union representing 55,000 professionals and scientists across Canada.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

MORE SERVICES ON THE BLOCK IF HARPER WINS:

While, given the polls, it is becoming exceedingly doubtful that the Harper Conservatives will win a majority mandate (though it is still possible) one should look at what Sneaky Stevie has been able to "accomplish" with a minority. It is doubtful that even the present economic crisis will persuade the Conservatives to abandon their George Bush-like commitment to the same policies that brought the world's economy to its present state. Here's an article from the Public Values.Ca website about how the recent listeria outbreak is merely the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of what Harper's goals are.

..............................

CFIA problems are the tip of the privatization iceberg - food inspector Bob Kingston:
Seventeen other departments could face potentially deadly cuts like CFIA did due to a pro-privatization ideology.
OTTAWA, October 8, 2008 — The listeriosis outbreak that has killed 20 Canadians could be "the tip of the iceberg" both in terms of food safety dangers and risks from other federal cutbacks, according to Agriculture Union President and food inspector Bob Kingston.

At the official launch announcement of PublicValues.ca, Kingston said that CFIA cutbacks, which contributed to the outbreak, were more moderate than those planned by the Conservative government for other departments.

"I'd suggest there are 17 other documents floating around just like" the one detailing CFIA cuts that biologist Luc Pomerleau was fired for releasing.

"What the Harper Conservatives are all about is deregulation and privatizing," said Kingston. "But beyond the privatizing part of it, it's the self-policing. That nonsense — that it's in the company's best interests to put out good products, so basically, why do you need regulation! If that were true, we wouldn't even be in a financial crisis."

He predicted more tragedies ahead if the federal government goes ahead with across-the-board departmental cuts. "It really is the tip of the iceberg. It's a tragedy that 20 people had to die before this government even paid attention. They still tried to bury it as an election item, saying they were going to have an inquiry."

He says the Harper government is driven by extreme pro-privatization ideology, pointing to their actions to strip the Canadian Wheat Board of its marketing powers. Giant companies have been pushing for years to take these powers away from the Board.

"Along comes the Harper government. It's the first government that's actually listened to them," said Kingston, "and blindly followed what they said. We're seeing that sector by sector. They have a belief that corporations are intrinsically good and the profit motive will always lead you to ultimately the best result... I think it's deadly, obviously, when it's acted out in real life."

He said the government is driven by "pure ideology and they tolerate no resistance." He said Harper fired agriculture minister Chuck Strahl for saying the government needed to talk to farmers after the government lost a court ruling over the Wheat Board. "Within two hours he was fired and Harper had gone on national TV and directly contradicted him. That's how Gerry Ritz got the job."

Here is an excerpted transcript of Kingston's remarks at the launch of PublicValues.ca:

..........................

I mention this as the tip of the iceberg. I don't think that could be overstated. The whole issue around food safety and the deregulation - it's been going on for a while but it came to a head of course this summer with the listeria outbreak. Leading into it was the release of a document that outlined this government's plans for the slaughterhouses. What they have already done, in terms of the self-policing of the food industry, has taken place within the processing end of it. Their next target was the slaughter plants, where the risk is even greater.

That's the document that a member got fired for bringing to the attention of their union. That's the one you can still see on our website, that FoodSafetyFirst website. What people need to know, that was part of the strategic review at CFIA. CFIA was only one of 18 departments that was in the same boat. And CFIA was actually treated kinder by this government, believe it or not, than the other 17 departments that were being reviewed.

I'd suggest there are 17 other documents floating around just like it. And that was only year one of the strategic review initiated by the Harper government. Every year they take a quarter of the public service and they do the same analysis of their work and that means these strategic review documents are now in play for the second round of departments, and on and on it will go. They're not asking departments to justify what they do... What they're saying is, you have to identify the lowest 5 percent of what you think is your priorities. It's hard to tell that to CFIA, because of course what they deal with, everything they deal with most people would consider somewhat critical. But they had to identify their 5 percent lowest priority and reallocate funds. Treasury Board told them flat out, the Harper Treasury Board told them flat out that if they didn't it would be done for them. That's what all the departments are facing.

So it really doesn't matter whether the lowest 5 percent in a given department might be the top 5 percent in any other department. That's irrelevant. They just want to see cuts, cuts, cuts. I know they keep talking about pumping more money into it, but you can take a look at any year's spending plans that this government has in place and you will see the next two years always, always, without exception, are about cuts and cuts and cuts. No matter what kind of nonsense they keep saying about increasing spending.

What the Harper Conservatives are all about is deregulation and privatizing. But beyond the privatizing part of it, it's the self-policing — that nonsense that it's in the company's best interests to put out good products, so basically, why do you need regulation? If that were true, we wouldn't even be in a financial crisis.

It really is the tip of the iceberg. It's a tragedy that 20 people had to die before this government even paid attention. They still tried to bury it as an election item, saying they were going to have an inquiry...

We're doing everything we can to keep [these issues] in the public eye during the election. We hope that other people take up the issues of privatization, self-policing, etc., as well and hold these guys accountable. Because right now they are so ideologically bent toward this stuff it is scary. There's no rhyme or reason. There's no rational discussions you can have with these folks.

Take the Canadian Wheat Board, for example. They say they consult with farmers. Well, the Minister had a meeting here in Ottawa where he had what he considered industry representatives. It was something called Western Canada Barley Growers Association. When they had to file documents in court in Calgary, when the farmers took Harper to court, this Western Canada Barley Growers Association had about 140 something members and most of them were corporations, not even growers. And the 10,000 barley growers that are out in the west — I don't think would honestly feel this is a true representation of their interests.
But the National Farmers Union, which does represent about 10,000 members, were totally shut out of the meeting. They even showed up in town here and asked to attend, and it was a secret meeting. They wouldn't tell them where the address was. So this is the way Harper's government has been running. I mean, they're locked onto an ideological path and no amount of logic seems to sway them. So it's only public outcry that I think will eventually do the trick, and launching a site like this, I'm hoping, will help get us there.

We have legislation in place since 1912 - the Grain Act - to protect small farmers in this country and basically a way of life and to oversee a system where everybody could profitably exist. It was put in place, as I said, specifically to protect small producers from large international companies.

The companies we're talking about, Cargill, Dreyfus, etc., they're the largest private companies on the planet. Between a handful of them they control about 80 percent of the world's food supply. They have been lobbying successive governments since 1912 to change that act and get rid of it, because it protected farmers from them. And they couldn't control the farmers in Canada the way they do in many other countries.

Along comes the Harper government. It's the first government that's actually listened to them, and blindly followed what they said. We're seeing that sector by sector. They have a belief that corporations are intrinsically good and the profit motive will always lead you to ultimately the best result...

That seems to follow every decision they make with respect to deregulation — the profit motive will eventually get us to some perfect place. I think it's deadly, obviously, when it's acted out in real life and they just don't seem to get it. But we're convinced it's pure ideology and they tolerate no resistance.

As a matter of fact, when they lost their first court case in Calgary, before they appealed it in Winnipeg — this is when the farmers all took them to court when they tried to deconstruct the Wheat Board — and the courts actually said, this organization belongs to farmers. You need to talk to farmers. One of his ministers at the time, Chuck Strahl, was asked: what does this court case mean? And he said, maybe it means we need to talk to farmers. Within two hours he was fired and Harper had gone on national TV and directly contradicted him. We're not talking to farmers, period.

And that's how Gerry Ritz got the job. I mean, this guy will tolerate no opposition... I've been around for a while and I've never seen a leader of this country so ideologically bent in one direction.
Links and sources

Food Safety First website

CANADIAN POLITICS:

WHISTLEBLOWERS WANTED:

(CANADIAN ELECTION TRIVIA PART 2)

Being as this is an anarchist blog it should be obvious that Molly is not a supporter of any of the present political parties. It brought a great smile to my face to find out that ex-Prime Minister Joe Clark is of the same opinion (see a future item on this blog). I've always had a soft spot for Joe in my heart. He actually has a self-deprecating sense of humour, and, in the old Tory tradition that is now pretty well dead in this country, actually held to at least a few principles. What a bizarre fantasy...Joe Clark declaring for anarchism. It would be so pleasant if it were possible. If I were able to make a trade I'd give 15,000 goofy black blockers for one Joe Clark. The 15,000 would be replaced in 20 minutes by a much better class of recruits. But this is a fantasy...

The reality is that Molly will certainly hit out at all the political parties during the course of this campaign. but, as in the past, my main venom will be held in my fangs for the so-called Conservative (they intend to conserve nothing) Party. Not that the Liberals, the NDP, The Bloc and the Greens are not also hypocritical. Not that the election of a Harper government will mean concentration camps for gays, feminists, trade unionists and generally anybody left of the neo-cons. It is just that, in a competition for the crookedest of all political parties the federal Conservatives win hands down. Molly has expressed this before in her opinion of P3s as "regularized theft" rather than the "sneaky theft" usually engaged in by other parties.

It is in light of this that I present the following appeal from the Straight Goods family of websites. Yes, i am certain that SG and I disagree about many points, but their call for whistleblowers is a call that could apply to any political situation. It is especially needed now, given the heavy atmosphere of secrecy that the federal Conservatives have surrounded their actions in. But it is a call that should be echoed when Liberals, the PQ, the NDP or even the Greens (an obvious fantasy at the present time) would be in power either federally or provincially.

Here's the appeal.

............................

PublicValues Whistleblowers wanted‏:
As you know, the future of many of Canada's most important public services hinges on the outcome of the federal election. You may be able to play a role.

Do you know of a threat to the well-being of the Canadian public due to cutbacks, privatization, deregulation or the sell-off of public assets? If so, PublicValues.ca wants to know. If you are or if you know a public servant with a whistle to blow, or if you're just a concerned citizen, please share your story with us. There is no more important time than during a federal election campaign for this this debate to happen.

If you have a Public Values story to share, please contact me - ish at straightgoods.com - or phone 613-757-7777. If you know someone who may have one, please forward this message to her or him. Canadians will thank you for this, as will I.

- Ish Theilheimer

Publisher, the Straight Goods family of news websites

www.StraightGoods.ca

www.HarperIndex.ca

www.PublicValues.ca

www.Valeurspubliques.ca