CANADIAN BUSINESS/CANADIAN POLITICS:

DOGGIE DOO ON MANITOBA:

This matter has been a long running item here at Molly's Blog ie the construction of the new Greyhound Terminal way out west by Winnipeg's Airport, a far distance from the old downtown location, one that was, of course far more convenient for the average low income Greyhound customer. Well the deal was over and done in mid-August to the tune of (amounts are somewhat uncertain) about $6.3 million dollars worth of construction on the part of the Winnipeg Airport Authority (read "the taxpayer"). Greyhound Canada was to lease the facilities on a 40 year term. Using Molly's little kitty cat calculator this would have resulted in a yearly payment of about $157,500 and a monthly payment of $13,125. Leaving aside the possibility of any "interest" on this lease/loan (a very likely possibility-but the public will never know) which would increase the cost and also assuming that Greyhound has no cargo business this would leave a cost recovery of $13.13 per travel customer assuming only 1000 passengers per month. On what is still probably an underestimate of 10,000 passengers per month this equals a cost recovery of about $1.31 per customer. To say the least even the monthly figure of $13,125 would probably be in the running for the cheapest commercial real estate rate anywhere in the developed world. In actual fact to get the same square footage for an equivalent price you would probably have to go to one of the goat markets in a minor city in Outer Mongolia, and even there it would be cheap. It was a sweet deal.

But some people are just never satisfied. Today's news is that the Dog has threatened to close down all service in Manitoba and North West Ontario unless government coughs up a new $12 million subsidy for this year. Our dearly beloved federal government responded with such alacrity that one would be quite gullible to assume that they were not forewarned. What they said was that they were against the blackmail of provincial governments by Greyhound. Translated into English this says simply and plainly, "kiss my ass, I'm not paying a penny for it". This was directed much more to the provincial (and territorial as the Dog has threatened to "review" their service in Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, the Yukon and the NWT as well, and the Dog is much more essential in the North than down here) governments than to Greyhound. The province has yet to respond, perhaps because, unlike the federal Conservatives, they only got the news via the TV or radio. Even the Winnipeg Airport Authority was slow off the mark, claiming that they were only informed this morning and that they were assured by Greyhound that the cargo aspect of the business would continue. Maybe yes and maybe no, but only "Sneaky Stevie" and major contributors to the Conservative Party (whoever "they" may be) know for sure.

Here's the bare bones story from the CBC., along with some comments that they have gathered.

CPCPCPCPCPCPCP
Greyhound cuts rile some, alarm others:

(But nobody thinks it is a good idea-Molly )
Greyhound Canada said Thursday that unless it receives $15 million in government aid, it will shut down bus service in Manitoba and northwest Ontario over the next months, and look at closing transit lines in across the West and North.Residents of many communities across Canada rely on Greyhound for long-distance transport. (CBC)

The company says government rules force it to operate unprofitable rural routes that have put it in "dire" financial straits, but politicians called the Greyhound announcement a ploy to get taxpayer subsidies.

Greyhound operates in 700 communities across the country, in nearly every province and territory. In many of those area, the bus line is the principal provider of long-distance transportation.

Politicians, community leaders and travellers reacted with a mix of dismay and dismissal to Thursday's news. Here's what some of them had to say.
Bob Hykaway, vice-president, Amalgamated Transit Union, Calgary
Should bus service be discontinued in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, it could have major impacts on people living there, said Bob Hykaway, a Calgary-based vice-president with the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents Greyhound Canada drivers.

"For the people up in the North — people using the [bus route] for medical runs, their drugs and things like that — this is going to stop, and that's a big impact. That's very severe for us," he said.

Hykaway said the union is talking with territorial ministers and deputy ministers on the issue.
"They're trying to get together, they're talking to the federal government to try and do something," he said.
Sam Nabi, university student, Winnipeg
"It's the cheapest option a lot of the time," Sam Nabi, a 19-year-old university student, said in Winnipeg of riding the bus. "I'm familiar with this system now that I've been using it for a while. It's usually my go-to option."

Nabi is from Whitby, Ont., and was making his way back home on Greyhound after spending the summer in Alberta.

"I am very surprised. I thought it was always there. There are signs in some of the terminals saying, 'Greyhound here for 75 years,' and I don't know what other options there would be."
Governments at all levels should do whatever they can to stop the bus line from pulling out, he said.

"It should be a priority. If the federal government needs to take ownership of Greyhound to keep it alive, then I think that's totally appropriate."
Jim Bradley, transportation minister, Ontario
"The motor coach industry in Ontario is regulated by the Highway Transportation Board under the Private Vehicles Act," Ontario Transport Minister Jim Bradley said in a perfunctory statement issued Thursday afternoon. "Under existing legislation, to discontinue service, Greyhound must comply with the requirements under the PVA.

"Greyhound has fulfilled its obligations under the PVA to provide advance notice of service discontinuance. We recognize the current economic downturn has impacted passenger volumes on many services offered by public transportation operators.

"Greyhound has advised that it is working with other companies to provide replacement services. We are hopeful that another private sector carrier will seek the opportunity to provide bus service in this corridor."
Glenn Andersen, mayor of St. Paul, Alta.
Many residents of St. Paul, Alta., a community of 5,400 people, rely on the Greyhound bus for trips to Edmonton, 200 kilometres to the southwest, Mayor Glenn Andersen said.

"A lot of people do. The ones that can't afford a vehicle, single people or somebody who just doesn't drive. They don't drive to the city, they take the Greyhound," he said Thursday. "And a lot of shipping from Greyhound through from larger centres to St. Paul. comes that way, as a more economical way of shipping, and that would be devastating to St Paul.

"Anytime you lose something, that's not good for your community and that would be a loss to not only to St Paul but the whole northeast region."
Lionel Cloutier, mayor of Ignace, Ont.
Lionel Cloutier, mayor of Ignace — a town of about 1,400 people 250 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay — said the route closures are "very distressing, very bad news for northwestern Ontario."

"A lot of people rely on the Greyhound bus for not just transportation, but also for parts and emergency stuff that we need," he said.
John Baird, federal transport minister
"Greyhound is a Texas-based multinational. Their actions are heavy-handed and clearly an attempt to bully the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario," federal Transport Minister John Baird said in a media scrum. "They're seeking tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers money as a subsidy."

Baird said the regulatory problems are a provincial issue.

"The [federal] government has been out of this for 50 years," he said. "And we've certainly got our hands full with aviation and with Via [Rail]."
Stuart Kendrick, senior vice-president, Greyhound Canada
"The decision to cease our operations in northwestern Ontario and Manitoba was a very difficult one. We have repeatedly asked the federal and provincial governments to change the existing legislative and regulatory regimes that govern intercity bus operations," Stuart Kendrick, senior vice-president of Greyhound Canada, said in a statement Thursday.

"Our financial situation is dire and we are no longer in a position to absorb losses that are almost solely attributable to government policies."

Kendrick said Greyhound is forced to operate unprofitable routes to remote communities and to subsidize those routes with income from profitable lines and the company's parcel delivery service.

"Despite numerous attempts over the years to adjust this business model in order to gain a profitable footing, Greyhound Canada has now run out of options," Kendrick said.
Bill Swan and Jesse House, passengers, Edmonton
In Edmonton, passenger Bill Swan said his daughter travels frequently to the city from northern Alberta.

"Greyhound is basically the only way for people to get from town to town," he said.

Jesse House, a kidney transplant patient, said he uses the bus to get to medical appointments from Grande Prairie, Alta. He pays $79 for the bus trip, but a plane ride would cost almost $500.
"The bus is the only affordable way for me to come for my medical appointments. I can't drive because of my condition.

CPCPCPCPCPCPCP

Newcomers to this blog and even many "old timers" may be unaware of what this blog actually promotes. I've seen this blog described as various different things ie a "unionist blog", an anarcho-syndicalist blog", a "working class blog", a "platformist fellow traveller blog" amongst other things. All of these are correct as far as they go. What this blog actually is, however, is an anarchist blog in a specific tradition that is part of anarchism ie that tradition that is not revolutionist but rather sees the potential for a more free and more equal society as always present in any society and sees the opportunity to gain such things as always possible. this tradition began with Proudhon and those French unionists who took his ideas as an inspiration. Its more modern incarnations have been expressed by such people as Paul Goodman in the USA and Colin Ward in Great Britain. In an "expansive" definition of this tradition one could say that the largest anarcho-syndicalist organization in the world today, the Spanish CGT, has pretty well come over to this idea.

Look back in this blog as to "anarchism" to see what I mean or travel forward in the future in the time left to Molly. To the non-anarchist readers of this blog (the vast majority) what I hope to present is an alternative way of seeing the word "anarchism" that is not so demanding of change, but is also open to the sort of change that serves their immediate interests. Hence my own 'Utopian Essay(s) and Practical Proposal(s)' (with apologies to the original essay by Paul Goodman).

Let's begin with an obvious statement. Bus service to rural Manitoba (and Northwest Ontario) is an obvious essential public service. There are communities in rural Manitoba where 40% of the population consists of senior citizens who are often unable to afford any other transportation than the bus, and who are absolutely dependent on the bus service for the delivery of medications. We will leave aside, for the moment, (even if we shouldn't) the dependence of many sectors of the rural economy on the bus delivery of various goods. The latter is an "economic emergency". The former is a "public health emergency", and "essential services legislation" has been evoked for far less in the past across the country. If you want a "counter threat" to that of Greyhound this is it. The buses will run just as regularly under an emergency services order, with the government both paying the bus drivers and taking the fares. The buses, of course, would be deemed "essential" under such orders in council.

That is "stage one". Make a counter threat that Greyhound would have a hard time ignoring. The long term solution- get rid of the bastards. While Greyhound is hardly the only bus service operating in either Manitoba or Northwest Ontario(see THIS LINK for a list of others operating in Manitoba). What is unique about Greyhound is that they have been granted a monopoly over certain routes under the expectation that they would operate other routes for the public good. Well they obviously want to rat on this agreement, and by implication their sweetheart deal about their new terminal is also null and void. Turn that matter over to the provincial lawyers to argue the case in court for the next ten years. In the interum continue the bus service under essential services legislation. Unlike most (all ?) situations where such legislation is evoked the Greyhound union would be likely quite agreeable to such a thing. If anything there would be better public service.

OK, that's the immediate stabilization. Molly, however, is not of the opinion that a government utility is the best way to operate anything (that's why I am a "libertarian" socialist rather than a straight "socialist"), let alone a bus service. While Greyhound and the provinces argue the matter in the courts the first thing that Manitoba and Ontario should do is repeal any legislation that gives any company any monopoly over any route.

That is clearing the decks, a minimal reform. Some are of the opinion that that would be sufficient, and perhaps it would be to "get the attention" of Greyhound. Free market ideologues are of the opinion that simply removing the Dog's monopoly would be enough to stimulate enough competition on the part of "small bus companies" to replace the services that Greyhound presently provides. Maybe so, but a) you can't depend on it and b) this is a very long term solution. The more immediate solution would be to apply the $15 million dollar subsidy that Greyhound is demanding for one year as "seed money" for "municipal cooperatives" run by RMs along each present line that Greyhound runs. We are probably taking at least a year to get the agreement off various RMs along various routes. In the interum the bus service would be run under emergency legislation. Is the cooperative form the best one for the final management ? Quite frankly I hope so, and I can give the example of dozens of rural rail lines that are now being operated in western Canada under farmers' coops when the rail companies decided to abandon the lines. Is this the best model for rural bus lines where communities d9iffer greatly in size (and therefore cost and need) ? I would prefer a co-op model, but a simple municipal subscription company would be an obvious improvement over what we have today.

There it is. There is a simple and achievable way for people here in Western Canada (and Northwest Ontario) to preserve what is very much an essential service. It is a way that doesn't depend on giving more money to a corporation that has already shown its bad faith,and it also a way that would eventually lead to more local control (via RM meetings) over an essential service. All of this is within the realm of possibility without any great change in our political system. All that it requires is public will.

HUMOUR/INTERNATIONAL LABOUR-NEW ZEALAND:

RONNIE COLLECTS CORPORATE WELFARE:

There's one thing about getting older that seems strange to me, and that is the bizarre assumption of many people that each year of sucking oxygen leads one to the conclusion that "there is nothing new under the sun". Personally I think this is due to a gradual sclerosis of the mind that goes along with increasingly poor eyesight and hearing, but is nowhere near as inevitable. For myself, as I approach the Geritol Generation, I continue to be amazed on an almost daily basis by the weirdness of the world. I don't know who said it, but the quote runs something like this, "the world is not only stranger than we imagine; it is actually stranger than we can possibly imagine".

Thus comes the following item from New Zealand via the Anarkismo website. The author is a "Barrie" who is a member of the New Zealand platformist group the Aotearoa Workers' solidarity Movement. The subject, you guessed it, McDonald's has managed to cash in on the present economic crisis by leeching "stimulus funding" from the New Zealand government in terms of subsidizing its hiring of workers at minimum wage. The whole idea is breathtaking in its stupidity from the point of view of everyone but McDonalds. One would be really hard put to try and imagine a greater waste of government money in terms of "value added". It actually goes beyond the image of digging holes and filling them in again because the expenditure is not "new money" but rather shifting disbursements from individual welfare or EI to the McDonald's corporation. It makes no sense from a Keynesian perspective, and it makes no sense from the perspective promotion of industry that has any multiplier effect or potential for innovation. Quite frankly the only thing I could compare it to in terms of sheer silliness would be the ranting that we anarchists all too often hear out of the USA by some down there who think that "civilization should be abolished". No doubt there is a certain amount of financial profit to be made out of that as well, but it pales beside the spectacle of Ronnie collecting welfare.

Here's the item from Anarkismo which approaches the matter in the only way that it could possibly be approached- by humour.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Burgers & Circuses:
The New Zealand Government has announced that it will subsidise the Mc Donalds fast food chain for taking on young unemployed workers. In effect therefore the company is receiving corporate welfare, with the government acting as its Human Resources Dept. Below is a satirical response.

BURGERS & CIRCUSES

(Note: This is the script of a movie due to be played in your town in the near future.)

Scene: Clown in a loud suit stands outside a windswept and much repaired tent. The tent has a broken sign on it labeled ‘Job Circus’.

Promoter: “Roll up folks, roll up! Are you young and unemployed?”

Unemployed Youth: “Um yeah, I guess that would be me”

Promoter: “Looking for an exciting career with a stable and dynamic employer? Need some help getting started?”

Unemployed Youth:” Stable and dynamic eh? That sounds good. The help thing would be great too.”

Promoter: “Step this way. Enter the tent and wonders await you”

Scene: The unemployed youth enters the tent. The promoter smiles as a government car pulls up.

Promoter: [laughing]: “Pulled in another sucker”

Government Minister: “Great! Here’s your $16,000. You’re doing a great job there Ronald…keep it up mate”

Scene: Inside the tent. The youth is given a uniform, name badge and mop.

Promoter: “Ok kid, get pushing on the mop, it’s your new friend so use it well. Anybody out front sees you, don’t forget to smile, this is show business remember! If you do well, we’ll have you out on the counter selling cheap nutritious circus food in colourful packages in no time.”

Scene: Next day at a Parliamentary media conference.

Government Minister: “In these difficult times the government appreciates the need to maintain productivity and has a commitment to investing in the future. We want a well trained and highly skilled workforce that can compete with the rest of the world. We have therefore entered into a partnership with a great circus promoter. We will give them money, they will employ new staff and the economy will get a boost. Everybody wins!”

Skeptical Voice: “But do we really need more circuses? Wouldn’t we be better off with new schools, hospitals, roads and stuff? Why does the circus need our money to do it anyway? They aren’t exactly poor!”

Minister: “We’re all in this together and you can’t get circus monkeys without paying for peanuts you know! Anyway, moving on…”

Scene: 89 days later inside the tent.

Promoter: “What do you mean you want a living wage, the work is repetitive and unrewarding, you are rostered to work at odd times and the food is crap anyway? You’re not a team player are you? How can we keep this place stable and dynamic with your negative attitude?!”

Youth: “Well, um, this circus stuff isn’t exactly what you made out it would be”

Promoter: “Yeah, unhappy eh? Hit the road. You’re outta here! And don’t steal the mop or touch the cycling monkeys on the way out!”

Scene: Outside the tent it’s cold and windy. A governmental car speeds by with its occupants in good spirits.

Government Minister: ”Nice one Ronald. Would you like to upsize your champagne? Need more money? Need more suckers?”

Promoter: “Don’t mind if I do. Anything to help the economy you know!”

Window winds down as the car speeds past newly unemployed youth. Minister pulls out megaphone.

Minister: “Hi! Don’t forget, we’re working for you, so remember to vote next election!”

Mud splashes upwards into youths face.

Screen fades to black.

END

CANADIAN POLITICS:

EMISSIONS FOR THE POOR, SUBSIDIES FOR THE RICH:

The following article is reprinted from Straight Goods, an independent Canadian leftist online magazine. This magazine provides regular updated commentary and news with a Canadian and progressive slant. To subscribe see the website above. The following article describes, as if it needed any more description, one more example of "corporate welfare". It stands to reason. No matter what anti-government noises conservatives make they, as Molly has remarked before on this blog, seem to inevitably increase government expenditure. What "tax breaks" they provide are only for their corporate friends. Anyways, here's the article....

Emissions for the poor, subsidies for the rich
Latest budget continues the Harperite pattern of tax breaks for large-scale Green House Gas emitters.
Dateline: Monday, March 03, 2008
by Albert Koehl

The Harper government is sometimes accused of favouring the rich while ignoring the poor — even cozying up to wealthy oil barons at the expense of regular Canadians. Consider the climate change file alone. The government's recent budget effectively assured wealthy oil and gas corporations that all of the federal tax breaks they currently enjoy, amounting to about $1.4 billion each year, would remain in place until at least 2010.

In stark contrast, one of the Harper government's first acts in office was to abruptly eliminate a $500 million program, the Energuide for Low Income Households, designed to help poor families do home retrofits to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The federal government continues to match, virtually dollar for dollar, subsidies to oil and gas corporations that produce GHG emissions, with spending on programs to reduce GHG emissions.

There is no doubt that low income households (and many middle income ones for that matter) need help to reduce energy use. First of all, energy bills are on the rise. The poorest Canadian households already spend 13 percent of their income on energy bills, compared to about 4 percent of income for other households. The inability to pay energy bills is the second leading cause of tenant evictions.


Globally, the cancelled EnerGuide program would have helped 130,000 low income households achieve potential GHG reductions of 3.4 tonnes annually per home. Green Communities Canada, a group that delivers energy efficiency programs, estimated that the $500 million government investment would have produced $1 billion in energy savings, retrofit jobs, and other benefits — not to mention the obvious environmental payback.


Although the EnerGuide program was introduced by the previous Liberal government, partisan politics alone cannot explain its elimination. The Harper government also scrapped another energy conservation program directed at higher income households, but quickly re-introduced it under a different name.


Ironically, the low income fund was likely to pay the biggest GHG reduction dividends, since poorer families often live in leaky homes and can't afford energy efficiency improvements without outside help.


Oil and gas corporations don't need federal handouts. In 2006, the industry made $31 billion in profits. The price of a barrel of oil today hovers near $100. And while the industry gorges itself on record profits, its out-of-control tar sands projects disgorge massive amounts of GHGs and also poison the water, land and air.


At first glance, the 2007 federal budget seemed to finally acknowledge the absurdity of spending taxpayer money to promote oil and gas projects and associated GHG emissions. The budget actually included the phase-out of the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance (ACCA), a generous subsidy for tar sands projects, noting that "this preferential treatment is no longer needed."


Although these words suggested a new direction, the fine print largely confirmed business as usual.


Tar sands projects that were started before March 2007 would continue to benefit from the ACCA while the slow phase-out for other projects would not even begin until 2011, and stretch to 2015. (By that time, government subsidies that the industry has begun demanding for carbon capture and storage projects might well dwarf current handouts.) The Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based think tank, calculates that 90 percent of tar sands projects currently on the books will therefore receive substantial federal subsidies.


Finance Minister James Flaherty devoted numerous pages of his budget to comforting oil and gas CEOs about the eventual phase-out of the ACCA. In fact, the budget — perhaps borrowing from Depression-era programs — called the phase-out conditions "transitional relief."


If the inequality in the government's treatment of rich polluters and poor households indicates government priorities, then the future is bleak for Canada's most vulnerable. Global warming will affect them first, and most dramatically. Hurricane Katrina made this clear.


As the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently commented: "It is the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit."


The overall federal spending numbers are not promising either. We estimate that for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 fiscal years the Harper government will spend almost as much on oil and gas industry tax breaks ($1.4 billion annually) as it does on all climate programs combined ($1.6 billion annually). In other words, the federal government continues to match, virtually dollar for dollar, its subsidies promoting oil and gas corporations, and their GHG emissions, with spending on programs to reduce GHG emissions.


Unfortunately, the Harper government squandered an opportunity in its recent budget to change its spending priorities, even show up the Liberals who also greased oil and gas corporations with taxpayer subsidies when they were in power.


Instead it decided that providing "relief" to billionaires with generous tax breaks was more important than giving a helping hand to the poor, and to fighting global warming.



Albert Koehl is a lawyer with Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal), a Canadian environmental law organization.
In November 2007, Ecojustice and KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, a church-based social justice organization, demanded that Canada's Auditor General investigate the government's oil and gas subsidies and the cuts to programs for poor households.

THE CONSERVATIVES AND NUCLEAR POWER:

AN ANALYSIS AT THE HARPER INDEX:

The Harper Index, your microscope on the bacteriological world of the Harper government, has a recent article on the efforts of the Conservative government to resurrect the nuclear power option in Canada. If successful this will, of course, result in many billions of dollars in corporate welfare available at taxpayer expense to government subsidized industries that would be totally unprofitable if they actually had to finance the projects themselves. Perhaps it might even convince many corporations that their donations are better given to the Tories than the competive business party, the Grits. As the article points out the development of the nuclear option is also important for the continued (over)development of the Tar Sands, and also is a golden opportunity for the Conservatives to "appear" to be doing something about carbon emissions. The full article 'Energy endorsement may be linked to tar sands and climate change pressure' can be seen at http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0057