CPC(M-L) HOME TML Daily Archive Le Marxiste-Léniniste quotidien

October 30, 2009 - No. 199

Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada Fields Candidate
in Hochelaga By-Election

Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada Fields Candidate in Hochelaga By-Election 
Four By-Elections 

Alberta
Premier's TV Address: Dragging Society Backward in the Name of "The Way Forward" - Peggy Morton
Significance of By-Election in Calgary-Glenmore: The People Want Solutions! The Wildrose Alliance Is Not an Alternative

Honduras
Preliminary Deal on Crisis Denied


Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada Fields Candidate in Hochelaga By-Election

The MLPC is pleased to announce that Christine Dandenault is running on behalf of the Party in the by-election in the riding of Hochelaga. Christine is promoting the Party's program to Stop Paying the Rich -- Increase Funding for Social Programs! and Empower the People!, which consists of the following elements:

- No Election Without Selection!
- Fund the Process, Not the Parties!
- Become Worker Politicians!
- Build Renewal Committees!
- Elect an Anti-War Government!


Christine Dandenault

The Hochelaga Renewal Committee is carrying out discussion amongst electors on the program and the need to change the political process to open society's path to progress. "Finally something new," say residents in the riding. "It would be good to change the political scene!" People are fed up with speculation, threats, blackmail and infighting amongst the parties of the rich which has been going on for months. Despite all the scandals, surprise announcements, challenges launched and sensationalist statements, it is very clear for the ordinary elector that all this is nothing more than a power struggle. The concerns of the people and the serious problems facing the society and the economy are not on the agenda of these so-called debates.

Such lowering of the political culture is making people angry, filling them with contempt and further intensifying the crisis of the so-called representative democracy. In the door-to-door work people are seriously discussing these problems. Some of the issues they raise include: Why raise such a fuss whether or not a general election will be held when nothing has been sorted out with the last three elections, other than the situation deteriorating for people and public funds being squandered? Although the parties of the rich are talking about the catastrophe of unemployment and the destruction of manufacturing, it is solely for political capital, to divert attention and create the false impression that the Canadian elite is preoccupied by the situation facing the workers and people. The trials and tribulations of the Conservatives and the Liberals over their Quebec "lieutenants" is supposed to prove that they have the interests of Quebec at heart, but it only proves the opposite. The new trend consisting of presenting their pay-the-rich schemes as concern for the environment, "green energy" and "green jobs" borders on the absurd. As well, there is now the crisis of fiscal deficits as the excuse to get ordinary people to pay more taxes and impose new fees and tolls of all kinds.

People are talking about the need to occupy the space for change and are discussing where to begin.

Within that context they appreciate the discussion on the MLPC program because it opens up perspectives. The program Stop Paying the Rich -- Increase Funding for Social Programs! stimulates the imagination and opens up possibilities. When the MLPC says that workers, those who produce all the wealth in our socialized economy, should decide on the direction of the economy so that it serves the people, it is what the vast majority of people are thinking. The call to elect an anti-war government and to oppose our youth being used as cannon fodder against youth and workers of other countries is greeted enthusiastically.

The proposal to finance the electoral process rather than the political parties also strikes a chord. It is a concrete proposal which goes straight to the heart of the problem with the present electoral system. It casts a shadow over the comfort zone the parties of the rich have created for themselves over the years through privilege and state subsidies. Parties should be funded through their membership, not by public funds. Public funds should be used to fund the candidate selection process, fully inform electors about all the issues and candidates and enable them to truly exercise their right to elect and to be elected.

For Us, Accountability Begins At Home! says Christine. It is time to change the situation by joining the work for political renewal, she adds. It means to establish new arrangements guided by the program of the MLPC. The renewal program merits serious discussion and reflection, she says.

Join the Hochelaga Renewal Committee to occupy the space for change!

To contact Christine Dandenault, write to hochelaga@mlpc.ca or call (514) 991-4388.

Return to top


Four By-Elections

On October 4, following months of speculation on whether or not Canadians would be subjected to a fourth general election in just over five years, Elections Canada issued by-election writs for four federal ridings. Elections are to be held on November 9 in Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley (Nova Scotia), Hochelaga (Quebec), Montmagny--L'Islet-Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup (Quebec) and New Westminster--Coquitlam (British Columbia) to fill vacancies in the House of Commons.

When a Member of Parliament leaves his or her seat, the government has 180 days to call a by-election. With the deadline for the calling of the New Westminster-Coquitlam by-election having almost been reached, by-elections were called at the same time for the four ridings.

Return to top


Alberta

Premier's TV Address: Dragging Society Backward
in the Name of "The Way Forward"

On October 14, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach gave a 17 minute televised address entitled "The Way Forward." This address was a negation of his government's social responsibility, a clumsy attempt to blackmail public sector workers and an admission that he will continue to govern by stealth and do everything to block people from exercising their right to provide solutions to the problems faced by the society.

In the speech Stelmach outlined a four point "economic recovery plan." The four measures outlined were:

1. Limit government spending and live within our means;
2. Use the cash reserves in the Sustainability Fund to cover revenue shortfall;
3. Continue to invest in public infrastructure; and
4. Make sure that our energy and other industries are competitive and attract the investment we need to develop Alberta's resources.

The essence of these four points is that the government's response to the crisis is to pay the rich, handing over billions to big oil and other monopolies while demanding "sacrifice" from public sector workers and savage cuts to health care, education and social services.

The first responsibility of the provincial government is to guarantee public services and social programs. Increased investments in health care, education and social programs are part of the necessary measures to deal with the current economic crisis. Alberta needs emergency pro-social measures to deal with homelessness, poverty and unemployment, protect our seniors and to turn the economy around. Blaming workers and demanding concessions is a total cop out from taking measures to stop paying the rich, increase investments in public enterprise and social programs and begin a trend of economic renewal towards manufacturing, self-reliance and nation-building.


Calgary, December 13, 2002: Demonstration by Alberta Coalition Against Poverty.

Stelmach announced that the salaries of 6,500 managers in the public sector would be frozen for two years. He then stated that he would be "asking" public sector workers to make wage concessions or face layoffs. Workers have bitter experience with this kind of blackmail. Concessions are not solutions and only exacerbate the crisis, leading to demands for more concessions. In the 1990s the unionized public sector workers were blackmailed into accepting a 5 percent cut to wages, supposedly to avoid layoffs. Then thousands of health care workers were laid off and without them health care could not be provided and the system could not function. Everyone in need of health care suffered as a result. The provincial government privatized many government services. Thousands of workers lost their jobs through privatization while a handful of companies got rich on government contracts to do the work. Not only did the workers who lost their jobs suffer, but the revenues from these services now went into the hands of those who got the contracts. Government revenues declined further, with the result that the Klein government used this as an excuse to keep slashing social programs.

The demand that workers "voluntarily" reduce their claim on the added-value created by the working class in order to hand it over to the rich is irresponsible. It distorts the causes of the crisis and presents concessions as solutions, which they are not. According to the owners of capital and the governments which serve them, workers are nothing but a cost of production. Workers are not a cost but the creators of added-value and the providers of services. This capital-centred perspective denies the reality that workers produce social product through transforming raw material and provide all those services necessary for a modern socialized economy to function. Workers are not a cost of production but the essential human factor without which society collapses.

Concessions are not solutions! Labour concessions do not solve a single problem. They take wealth from the workers and hand it over to the rich minority. The rich minority do not use this wealth for the benefit of society, but squander it on anti-social ventures. Not only does the rich minority demand more wealth to pursue a life of luxury and waste, they bring harm to the whole society through their greed. Monopolies do not have as their aim to create jobs, to look after the environment, to plan for a secure future, or to accept the rightful claims of the aboriginal peoples to their lands. Their aim is to grow their capital and concentrate wealth and power in their own hands.



Edmonton, September 12, 2007: Workers in the building trades carry out actions and shut downs at major construction projects across Alberta, particularly in and around Edmonton and Ft. McMurray to protest the anti-worker Alberta labour laws which violate their freedom of conscience, freedom of association and their right to decide and have a say-so in decisions which have a major impact on their lives. In 1988, the Alberta government enacted a new Labour Relations Code following a Legislative Review in 1987. Among the changes to the Labour Relations Code was what was called a consolidation of construction bargaining into a system of province-wide, trade-by-trade bargaining subject to co-ordinated strike or lockout action. Before a strike would be considered legal, a complex series of double majority votes are required.

The rich do not recognize any world beyond their own. They see everything from their own narrow and selfish, capital-centred perspective. To the monopolies, anyone who is not a part of the tiny minority of the rich is considered a problem and a cost to be cut, especially when it comes to their claims on the society. The fact that people are living longer is considered the "problem of an aging society." The fact that modern science and technology can make it possible to cure disease from which people would have died only decades ago is the "problem of soaring health care costs." The only thing they do not consider a problem is their own reckless greed and demand that monopoly right trump all other rights.

The response of the leader of the Liberal opposition who suggested that Ed Stelmach could show "leadership" by reducing his own salary, was just as shameful. What kind of "leadership" would this be? The next day, Stelmach announced a pay cut to his Premier's allowance which means his salary will only be 27.6 percent more than before the election in 2008. But even more important is who is supposed to follow this "example." Stelmach is taking aim at the workers and most vulnerable people in society. Neither good cop David Swann or bad cop Stelmach are telling the rich that they have to ante up and take less from the socialized economy and that Alberta cannot afford their lavish lifestyles and excesses. They are not saying that Alberta cannot permit more and more wealth to be gobbled up or transferred to the U.S. and elsewhere by U.S. and international oil barons and cartels. Instead they are attacking the workers and the most vulnerable people in the society.

The aim of reducing the claim of workers to the wealth they create and of cutting health, education and social services is to pay the rich. The Alberta government handed over $865 million to Shell, a company with an annual profit of $27 billion in 2007. This week it gave Transalta Utilities $779 million. Albertans are told that the royalty regime must be rewritten and royalties further reduced and the impression is given that this will mean more jobs. But the oil and gas companies are not restricted in any way as to how they will operate and to how many jobs they will eliminate. They see the economic crisis as an excuse to concentrate wealth and power in their own hands, at the expense of the workers and the public good. By the end of October, Suncor will have eliminated 1,000 jobs as a result of the merger with PetroCanada. Why is this being permitted?

Stelmach did not stop at attacking public sector workers, but attacked all Albertans for being afraid of change and of health care "reform." What this change will be, Stelmach will not say. To reform something means to redress serious wrongs or to make improvements. Calling the wrecking of the health care system reform is like cutting off a person's arms and legs and then calling it "trimming the fat." The dismemberment of long-term care, mental health services and acute care is all taking place with as much secrecy and stealth as the government can muster. It is an arrogant assertion that people have no right even to know what is going to be done to them, much less the right to deliberate and decide.

Ed Stelmach got one thing right when he said what we should fear the most is the consequences of not changing. We cannot afford to remain powerless and we cannot permit this wrecking of the social fabric of society. Workers and their allies have the responsibility to organize an effective opposition to challenge monopoly right! We must resolve to clear out the legislature and remove from office every politician who refuses to take up their social responsibilities!

No to Blackmail!
Concessions Are Not Solutions!
No to Stealth and Secret Deals to Wreck Health Care!
Stop Paying the Rich -- Increase Funding for Social Programs!
Whose Economy? Our Economy!
Who Decides? We Decide!

* Peggy Morton is the MLPC candidate in Edmonton Centre.

Return to top


Significance of By-Election in Calgary-Glenmore

The People Want Solutions!
The Wildrose Alliance Is Not an Alternative

At a meeting of the Alberta Regional Committee of CPC(M-L) on October 10, the significance of the provincial by-election in Calgary-Glenmore was discussed. The media, Premier Ed Stelmach, the Liberal opposition and others are drawing self- serving conclusions about its significance. This shows the need for workers and their allies to conduct their own inquiry into political affairs and draw warranted conclusions. Such work is essential for people to keep their bearings in the face of the anti-social and anti-worker onslaught of the rich. On this basis, a lively discussion on the significance of the by-election took place.

On September 15 the ruling Conservative Party in Alberta, which held 72 of 83 seats in Alberta's legislature, lost their Calgary-Glenmore seat in a byelection, placing a distant third. A total of 11,028 voters, or 40 percent of registered voters cast a ballot.[1] The seat was won by Paul Hinman, the retiring leader of the Wildrose Alliance with 37 percent of the vote, or 15 percent of registered voters. Hinman recently moved back to the riding, where he grew up. The Liberal Party candidate Avalon Roberts was in second place with 34 percent, or 276 votes fewer than the winner. The Conservative Party candidate Diane Colley-Urquhart came third with 26 percent. The NDP, Social Credit and one independent candidate each received 1 percent of the vote.

Conservative party candidates had received 51 percent of the votes cast in 2008, 50 percent in 2004 and 68 percent in 2000. This by-election is the first time in 40 years that the Conservatives have not won Calgary-Glenmore.

Calgary-Glenmore ranked 12th of 23 Calgary ridings in terms of the average income of its residents, with an average family income of $96,255 (2006). More than three quarters of the residents of the riding own their own homes. Just over half of the residents were born in Alberta.

The Wild Rose Alliance was created at a special convention in January 2008, by merging two other Alberta parties, the Alberta Alliance Party (founded 2002) and the Wild Rose Party (founded 2007). It had no seats in the legislature and no leader when the by-election took place. Danielle Smith was elected as the new leader on October 17. The Globe and Mail reported that membership has grown from 1,800 in June to nearly 12,000 as leadership candidates Danielle Smith and Mark Dyrholm made a final push for supporters. However only 8,200 people voted in the election for a new leader, with Danielle Smith receiving 6,295 votes.

The Wildrose Alliance campaigned on the slogan "Send Ed a Message."[2] Most commentators agree that a message was sent and delivered. But what was that message?

According to the Calgary Herald, Wildrose Alliance candidate Paul Hinman identified the most important issues as the "flawed health centralization and the government muzzling of medical workers and Tory MLAs." The Herald quoted Liberal candidate Avalon Roberts as saying that the most important issue was "getting the government's financial house in order so that Albertans receive the services they need."

According to the Wildrose Alliance, the message they asked voters to send was:

* Bring back the Alberta Advantage in Healthcare by eliminating the new Healthcare Superboard and scrapping the hiring freeze on new Alberta-trained nurses.
* Bring back the Alberta Advantage for seniors by guaranteeing a fair prescription drug plan for seniors and by treating Alberta's seniors with the respect and dignity they deserve.
* Bring back the Alberta Advantage for entrepreneurs and businesses by reducing business taxes to regain Alberta's competitive advantage and scrapping the new royalty framework.

The Calgary Herald, which had promoted the Wildrose Alliance during the election period, quickly concluded that the vote signalled a "right wing backlash."

The aim of the talk of a "right wing backlash" soon became evident. Within a day the monopoly media was reporting that Stelmach would "rein in spending" as a result of the by-election. The Globe and Mail reported on September 17: "What I read from it is all the votes seem to have gone to the right, so that means that people want to see more conservative budgeting as we prepare next year's budget," Mr. Stelmach said [...]. "And they're going to see that." Stelmach's televised address on October 14th made it clear that the Conservatives will step up their anti-social and anti-working class offensive.

In this way, the Wildrose Alliance win is being used to try to create an atmosphere amongst all who favour a pro-social program that they are alone in opposing the anti-social offensive, even though their direct experience tells them that this is not the case.

David Swann, leader of the Liberal Party in Alberta also concluded that the results indicated a "right-wing" reaction by voters. But his message was that Liberal supporters should console themselves that the Wildrose Alliance cannot sustain itself because "Albertans are fundamentally centrist." What is this middle ground if not conciliation with the anti-social offensive? The rich are demanding the wrecking of health care and further opening of senior care and health care as a market to the monopolies. The workers and people of Alberta want the opposition parties in the legislature to be worthy of the name and defend the right to health care and the right of seniors to security, comfort and dignity. The fight is between the old and the new. The forces representing the old say there is no alternative to the anti-social offensive where the assets of the society are put at the disposal of the monopolies and their drive to grow their profits. The new arises from the negation of the old and affirms that people have rights by virtue of being human. It is expressed in the pro-social program to Stop Paying the Rich -- Increase Funding for Social Programs.

When have Albertans every been wishy-washy middle-of-the-roaders? Certainly not when they took a stand against Bill 11 and Klein's Third Way for health care; certainly not when they said no to the entire establishment at the time of the Charlottetown Accord; certainly not in opposing the GST; certainly not when farmers resist the power of the electrical utilities or the proliferation of sour gas wells.

All these dogmatic assertions about the polity in Alberta being "right-wing" or "centrist" or a bunch of rednecks are self-serving and aim to divide. They divide the people between "left" and "right" to block discussion of the problems people face and how to solve them. Does the fact that the Wildrose Alliance won with 276 more votes than the Liberals with the Tories trailing in third place warrant such conclusions? Is it warranted on the basis of the issues raised by Hinman in his campaign? What about the fact that the winning candidate had the support of only 15 percent of registered voters? These issues need to be discussed.


Top: Edmonton demonstration for health care, September 25, 2009.

The vast majority of those who voted in the by-elections voted for candidates who said they opposed the cuts to health care and attacks on seniors. How is this proof of a right-wing backlash? Why is the conclusion not that people were angry about cuts to health care and attacks on the rights of seniors? Why is the conclusion not that people are totally disgusted that the Conservatives treat the electorate as the enemy and the target of its campaign of lies, disinformation, threats and bullying?

Everywhere people are speaking out and saying that they are angry and fed up with the concentration of power, the way the Conservatives exercise their dictate, muzzle opposition, and use threats and coercion against the people. People are discussing how they are disempowered. They want a say. Two-thirds of eligible voters don't even vote and the numbers go down with each election. People say their vote does not count and they have no say.

Can it be concluded that because the Wildrose Alliance campaigned for lower business taxes and royalties that this is a "swing to the right?" The working class and its allies are concerned about the economic crisis and the unemployment, erosion of retirement savings, bankruptcies, cuts to healthcare and education and the uncertainty about the future. Many workers in the oil patch and industries dependent on the oil patch have been laid off or face an uncertain future. Owners of oil and gas companies are self-servingly blaming the royalty regime for discouraging investment. They are demanding more concessions and incentives which they say will create jobs. Not a few of them, especially the smaller companies who are also at the mercy of the monopolies have helped finance the Wildrose Alliance. If the Wildrose Alliance attracted voters on this basis, why is the conclusion that these voters are a bunch of rednecks instead of acknowledging the problem that concerns them and discussing solutions?

Whose Economy? Our Economy! Who Decides? We Decide!

Where is the people's side in all of this? These dogmatic assertions that Albertans are "fundamentally conservative" or "fundamentally centrist" both push "one nation" politics in which the working class has no program and no interests of its own, but must accept that its success will depend on the success of the capitalists in its sector. It dismisses the real problems and concerns facing the workers.

Consider the question of health care. Not a single MLA from the parties of the "right," "left" and "centre" has taken a stand that health care is a right and the government is duty bound to provide that right with a guarantee. In fact all conciliate to one degree or another with the anti-social offensive which claims that there is a big problem that too much money is being spent on health care.

How does the issue of royalties pose itself? The owners of big oil profited tremendously from the sky-high energy prices of 2008 and the orgy of speculation and corruption which has left so many people with an uncertain present and future, but they do not accept any responsibility. The issue for them is to come out of the crisis with their capital intact, or to have expanded their capital and eaten up their rivals. Their motive is not to create jobs but to enrich themselves. For workers, the starting point is that any solution to the crisis must begin by defending the rights of workers as human beings and their specific rights as workers. This starting point is based on recognizing that all the wealth in the society comes from the hard work of the working class applied to the bounty of mother nature and that workers are not a cost of production but the creators of wealth.

These monopolies that made billions of dollars in profits in the boom should not be permitted to throw workers out onto the street. These companies benefit greatly from their ownership of a part of the socialized economy. They demand and acquire the monopoly right to treat public resources as their own private property and to receive large handouts from the public treasury. But they do not acknowledge any social responsibility for what they do with these public resources. The issue which needs discussion is what to do about these mainly foreign monopolies that are socially irresponsible and abuse their power and control of public resources. It is the question of who should exercise control and decide the direction of the socialized economy, so that the people are at the centre of the decision-making process and can restrict the monopolies and establish a new direction for the economy.

Are the Oil Barons Seeking a New Champion?

The monopoly media is full of discussion and speculation about how the Wildrose Alliance could replace the Conservatives, or at the very least take the place of the Liberals as the biggest party in opposition. The Conservative Party has held power in Alberta since 1971 when it defeated the Social Credit which had been in power for 35 years. At that time, the Alberta-based oil monopolies had lost confidence in the ability of the Social Credit to represent their interests. Following the discovery of oil in Alaska, the Alberta-based oil industry felt threatened. Today the oil monopolies are expressing doubts about the ability of both Stelmach and Harper to "sell" the continued expansion of the tar sands which is being strongly criticized for its impact on Mother Earth, on the well-being and right to be of the aboriginal peoples, and on climate change. As well the oil patch is uneasy about its continued access to U.S. markets.

Premier Ed Stelmach's challengers inside the Tory Party are coming out of the woodwork. Rumours are being floated that 10 MLAs are thinking of joining the Wildrose Alliance. In the leadership campaign to replace the retiring Ralph Klein as Tory leader, Stelmach was the compromise choice. Will his fate be that of Stéphane Dion who also shared that distinction? Whether the Wildrose Alliance can establish itself as an alternative to the Tories, whether it is being floated to bring about changes in the Tory party including a change of leadership remains to be seen.

The People Want Solutions!

As for the working class and their allies, the Wildrose Alliance is presenting itself as an alternative to the arrogant dictate of the Conservative Party, to the centralization of power such as the creation of the health superboard, and the muzzling of any opposition such as the "Code of Conduct" for health care workers and professionals. It is also calling for MLAs to be accountable to their constituents, not their party caucus. In its infancy the Reform Party also presented itself as an alternative to parties where their members had no say and promoted measures like recall and referendum. Reform also called for a greater role for individual Members of Parliament and so on. The Reform Party took over the old Conservative Party, crushed any and all opposition and emerged as a new Conservative Party now led by Stephen Harper. Not even an echo of the program which promised to give electors more say remains. Today the Harper government has become synonymous with concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and the sidelining of Parliament.

It cannot be otherwise with these parties of the rich because they are organized to keep the people out of power, not to organize people to empower themselves. The system where it is the parties themselves who come to power has been so discredited that two out of three electors in Alberta did not even vote in the last provincial election. How is it that Ed Stelmach and Ron Leipert can declare with impunity that they have a "mandate" for the wrecking of health care and opening up health care as a "market" for the monopolies to enrich themselves. Everyone knows that they swore up and down that they would never pursue Ralph Klein's "Third Way."

It has shown once again that the working class and its allies cannot make any headway by choosing between programs they did not work out and decide on themselves, and which they cannot enforce. The by-election in Calgary-Glenmore has shown that people are seeking solutions to the problems they face. They should go further and occupy the space for change themselves.

Notes

1. A note on voter turnout in Alberta provincial by-elections:

Historically the voter turnout in by-elections is much lower than in general elections. In the case of Calgary-Glenmore, the turnout in the by-election was very close to that in the 2008 election (2008 general election 41.3 percent, 2009 by-election 40.53 percent. However these official figures are quite suspect. In 2008 the number of eligible voters was 30,828 while the Elections Alberta reported only 27,212 eligible voters in 2009. No explanation was provided for the disappearance of more than 3,600 eligible voters in the riding. If the voter turnout was calculated on the basis of the number of eligible voters in 2008, it would be 36 percent.

Since 2000, seven by-elections have been held with a voter turnout ranging from 20.4 to 41.9 percent. Only one by-election during that period had a turnout over 40 percent. This was the by-election in Edmonton Highlands in 2000 which followed the resignation of the leader of the NDP in Alberta and the election of the new leader, Brian Mason, to the Legislature. In similar circumstances in 1998 following the resignation of the Liberal leader and the election of the new Liberal leader, Nancy Macbeth (who had unsuccessfully run against Ralph Klein for leadership of the Conservative Party) the turnout was 40.8 percent.

There were two by-elections in 2007. One was in Calgary Elbow, Ralph Klein's old riding, where a Liberal was elected. The Conservatives won the riding back in the 2008 election. In the 2007 election, 34.6 percent of registered voters voted, compared to 45 percent in the 2008 election. In Battle-River-Wainwright, where the Conservatives held the riding 34.6 percent of registered voters cast a ballot.

2. The Wildrose Alliance website contained this message under the heading "Why Paul is Running":

What This By-Election Means

This upcoming by-election in Calgary-Glenmore presents the perfect opportunity to send Premier Ed Stelmach a message.

It is time to bring back the Alberta Advantage that made our province the best place in Canada to live, work and raise a family.

For the first time in memory, Alberta is losing people to Saskatchewan, a province that under Premier Brad Wall is experiencing record economic surplus while Alberta, under Premier Ed Stelmach is experiencing record economic deficits.

Vote for Paul Hinman and Send Ed Stelmach a Message

* Bring back the Alberta Advantage in Healthcare by eliminating the new Healthcare Superboard and scrapping the hiring freeze on new Alberta-trained nurses.
* Bring back the Alberta Advantage for seniors by guaranteeing a fair prescription drug plan for seniors and by treating Alberta's seniors with the respect and dignity they deserve.
* Bring back the Alberta Advantage for entrepreneurs and businesses by reducing business taxes to regain Alberta's competitive advantage and scrapping the new royalty framework.

Together, let's send Ed a message.

In the Calgary-Glenmore by-election vote for your Wildrose Alliance Party candidate Paul Hinman.

Return to top


Honduras

Preliminary Deal on Crisis Denied

Representatives of Honduran constitutional President Manuel Zelaya denied on Thursday stories by the de facto regime on the existence of a preliminary agreement to solve the crisis caused by the coup.

"This is a move by the putschist regime. We have reached no agreement," said Victor Meza, head of Zelaya's delegation to the talks.

He explained that in the informal meeting both sides held with the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, Thomas Shannon, there was no deal, the parties simply presented their viewpoints.

For the constitutional government, the talks ended last week, when de facto President Roberto Micheletti refused to accept Zelaya's return to power.

However, Micheletti's spokeswoman Vilma Morales stated that in the meeting with Shannon, a preliminary agreement with some unfinished formalities had been reached, so that Congress can make a statement on Zelaya's return.

Zelaya's delegation considers those statements a new manoeuvre by the putschists to delay a solution to the conflict and warned that there would be no negotiating talks as long as there is no agreement on the president's reinstatement.

(Prensa Latina)

Return to top


Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca