October
15, 2012 - No. 128
Food Safety
Crisis
Points to the Need for a New Direction for the Economy
• No to Mass Layoffs at XL
Lakeside! XL Foods Must Immediately Recall All Its
Workers!
• The Dignity and Rights of
Workers and the Right to Safe Food - Peggy Askin
• Conflicting Aims at XL
Foods - Rita Soto
• Call for Overhaul of Federal Policy on
Meat Industry -
National Farmers Union
• "Too Big to Fail" - A Social
Policy Researcher
Organize to Hold the
Alberta Government
to Account!
• Balancing the Budget in
Whose Interests? - Dougal MacDonald
• Budget Consultations Aimed
at Blocking People from Solving Problems - Peggy Morton
Food Safety Crisis Points to
the Need for a New Direction for the Economy
No to Mass Layoffs at XL Lakeside!
XL
Foods Must Immediately Recall All Its Workers!
On October 13 XL Foods announced that it was laying off
2,000 of the
2,200 workers at the XL Lakeside meat packing plant in Brooks,
Alberta. The company announced that the layoffs were effective
immediately and workers were left completely in the dark as to when
they would be recalled.
The next day, on October 14, XL made a further
announcement that it would recall 800 of the laid off workers, leaving
1200 workers on layoff. The announcement came after the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) stated that it will only be able to complete
its review of the plant's procedures after work resumes. News reports
indicate that the 800 workers are temporarily being recalled for one
day so that XL can demonstrate that it is meeting the CFIA's
requirements.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) suspended the
plant's licence on September 27.
It has to date permitted only processing of the carcasses already in
the plant when it was shut down. Further review of the plant's
procedures and CFIA approval is required before the plant is permitted
to resume normal operations.
The layoffs are an intolerable action on the part of the
owners of
XL. The workers are not the ones responsible for the conditions which
gave rise to the Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak
at the plant. In no way should they or the public have to bear the
burden. Not
only did XL lay off the workers,
but there is every indication that XL's actions were those of a
hooligan trying to use the workers as a bargaining chip with the CIFA.
Lakeside strike in
Brooks, Alberta, July 2005. (UFCW)
|
Prior to the layoffs, the Lakeside XL workers were
already losing one day's pay per week for the last three weeks because
XL refused to provide a guarantee of full-time hours in the collective
agreement. Meanwhile, probationary
employees who are the most vulnerable have not been paid at all. Now
1,200 workers are still facing an uncertain future and the uncertainty
that XL could issue more layoffs in the future. Making the situation
worse, there is next to no
other employment in town. Furthermore, 700 of these workers are
temporary
foreign workers. They do not have the option to go and find another
job
as they can
only work for an employer who has an active Labour Market Opinion
(LMO). The layoffs also affect the community as a whole. Brooks has a
population of only 13,500 and with 2,200 of the people in the town
working at XL, local businesses
and the community are severely affected.
"I'm as shocked
as I'm sure the rest of the workers are," said Doug
O'Halloran, President of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)
Local 401 which represents the XL workers. "It's a very
difficult time
for them because most people live paycheque to paycheque," he said.
TML
denounces this act of brutality against the XL Lakeside workers and
calls on everyone to stand with them and demand that they be
immediately recalled. If the company were sincere about its apologies
and declarations about food safety, it would use
this period of time to organize meetings with the workers through their
union to hear from them about the changes which need to be made. It
would conduct further training on food safety and sanitation as the
union has proposed. Why does the CFIA not have the authority to direct
the company to take these measures instead of treating the workers as
expendable and making them pay for the company's irresponsibility? Why
does the CFIA not have the
authority to order XL to slow down the line to a pace where workers can
work safely and maintain proper sanitation? It is not acceptable!
The Harper government which also has responsibility
through its
refusal to properly fund the CFIA and provide the level of inspections
required must also be held to account for its refusal to defend the
workers and the community. So far its
only response has been to indicate that Service Canada workers will be
on site to help workers fill out EI forms.
This is not an acceptable solution. Why should EI pay and not the
company? The Harper government is responsible for holding the company
to account. It could do so by charging XL
for the entire expense of looking after the workers and providing their
full
wages. It should then amend the new Food
Safety
Act to actually address food safety, including a
requirement that in the event of a shutdown of a plant for reasons of
food safety, the monopolies will be required to continue to pay their
entire staff and use the time to address workers' concerns about
working conditions that impact food safety and to conduct training and
protocol reviews. A new Food Safety
Act should provide the authority to inspectors to reduce line
speed to ensure workers' safety and food safety.
No to Mass Layoffs at XL Lakeside!
XL Foods Must Immediately Recall All Its Workers!
Consequences of Monopoly
Right for Canadian Food Supply
The Dignity and Rights of Workers
and the Right
to Safe Food
- Peggy Askin -
On October 10 the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union (UFCW) Local 401 representing the 2,200 workers at the XL
Foods cattle processing plant in Brooks, Alberta held a news conference
to discuss the measures needed at the XL Lakeside plant to ensure food
safety. Doug O'Halloran, president of
Local 401 was joined by Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta
Federation of Labour (AFL) and Brian Mason, leader of the Alberta New
Democrats. The main theme that emerged from the news conference was
that the rights and dignity of the workers at XL are a crucial element
in ensuring a safe food supply
for Canadians.
Doug O'Halloran led off the news conference by
calling for a public inquiry. He commented that "We do not think the
government can conduct the inquiry. We think they are part of the
problem. We need XL to be more truthful and forthright. XL cannot self
regulate, nor can other companies. As far as the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency [CFIA] goes, we are not complaining
about the inspectors. We think the inspectors do a good job with the
tools they have. There are not enough inspectors, and the other problem
is, it appears they do not have the authority to shut down the line if
they think there is a case of
contamination... It is important that we recognize who the
culprits
are here. It is the federal government that has cut back funding and
continues to cut back funding. Under the present conditions the CFIA
cannot be trusted as well to do the job for food safety."
The union concluded that XL foods has consistently
refused to take responsibility for the danger to the health and safety
of Canadians and people all over the globe who purchase beef processed
at the plant. The union provided XL with a list of their concerns
including line speed, sanitation and training, as it has
done in the past. Once again, the owners of the plant, the Nilsson
Brothers, have refused every attempt by the union to meet with the
company to discuss these concerns which impact food safety.
O'Halloran brought out the reality of work at
Lakeside. A worker on the line makes 3,000-4,000 cuts a day. The line
speed is 300-400 carcasses per hour, which means a few seconds for
each carcass. The repetitive stress is very hard on workers' hands and
arms.
But it is also not enough time to ensure proper
sanitation. "You can replace all the aluminum and stainless steel you
want in a plant but if you don't give the workers the tools to perform
the job properly we are not going to solve this problem," he said.
"Lakeside you have one chance to get this correct. We think you have
the opportunity now and you are spending
lots of money but you are not listening to the people who are most
important when it comes to food safety -- the workers who are doing the
job....."
O'Halloran also called for whistle blower language in
the collective agreement
so that workers can come forward freely and state their concerns. He
pointed out that the union tried to get this language in negotiations
but the company would not agree to it at all. "We have whistle blower
language in the oil industry but we can't get it in
a packing plant."
Gil McGowan, president of the
AFL spoke about
changes that must take place with the employer and at the federal and
provincial government levels. "From our perspective after speaking
with the workers in the plant, the situation will not be fixed over the
long term unless there is a more fundamental change
in the employers' approach to food safety culture. The culture at XL is
to put quantity over quality and until that changes we are going to
struggle with these problems [...]." McGowan also emphasized the
need to address
line-speed, training, and workers' safety as well as whistle blower
legislation.
McGowan said his message for the federal
government and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is that "their cuts are
making us sick."
He also raised that, "The issue of food safety did not just start with
the Conservative government. It started with the Liberal government
before them, which moved the issue of food inspection from
the health department, where we think it should be, to the agriculture
department. The Conservatives moved one step further with a sweeping
approach towards self-regulation. The CFIA inspectors spend a large
amount of time doing paper audits, based on reports from quality
control staff who work for the company.
This is a conflict of interest. Government should be regulating in the
public interest."
Brian Mason, Alberta NDP leader concluded the
press conference by raising the issue that the Alberta provincial and
federal governments share a philosophy that less regulation is better
and that you can rely on self regulation by corporations as a means of
saving costs and still have the outcomes you want achieved.
What has happened at XL is a good example of how that philosophy has
failed, he said. "It has not only failed consumers but those who
work
in the industry,
workers in the plant, and those who work upstream and downstream and
also many small family farms, and many who work in the beef industry,"
Mason added.
He also
made the point that it is a serious error on the part of the premier of
Alberta to act as a cheerleader for the beef industry. While meat was
still being recalled, Alison Redford was telling people to buy and eat
Alberta beef. Standing up for the producers means insisting that the
federal government do its job and adequately
inspect beef so that this type of thing does not happen, he said.
Two days later, Redford rejected calls for a
public inquiry into the Escherichia coli (E. coli) food
poisoning and the international beef recall. Her comments came at the
same time as CFIA announced that limited processing would resume at the
XL plant. "Every single time that something doesn't go
well, we don't need to have a public inquiry," she said. Premier
Redford is
certainly not going to inquire as to the role of the Tory government in
handing over public funds to XL to further its domination of the beef
industry, or the failure of governments to restrain this arrogant
monopoly and defend the public good.
Conflicting Aims at XL Foods
- Rita Soto -
It is not every day that the representatives of the
workers are accorded more than a few seconds' sound bite on the
national news. But no sooner had the press conference organized by
Local 401 United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) representing the XL
workers concluded, and before people had
any time to reflect on the important issues they raised, an "expert"
was introduced to declare that the union's stand was just rhetoric.
There is no point in assigning blame or pointing fingers and saying
management is responsible, he said. But it turned out it was only those
who have the power who should not have
to endure any finger pointing. The Harper government, the Redford
government and the Nillson Brothers who own XL were the ones exempt
from criticism.
The "expert" then heaped blame on the production
workers and the inspectors. What is the "psychological" change that
happens when workers go from their homes to the plant where they do
things they would never do at home. Why don't the workers just work at
their own pace, he asked. The inspectors should
have known, they must have been complacent, and so on.
A true safety culture is when the workers have the
power, he said. But the very last thing the "expert" wanted to deal
with was the relations of production or who holds the power. Instead he
blames the workers who he said have an attitude problem! It isn't that
they are forced to work at a relentless pace to feed
the insatiable greed of the owners of capital. Never mind that 700 of
the workers are temporary foreign workers whose only chance for
permanent residency is through the company-driven provincial nominee
program. Or that many others are refugees from U.S.-led wars of
aggression and occupation. Still others
came to Brooks from all over Canada because their communities have been
devastated by neo-liberal globalization and the wrecking of
manufacturing, first when the cod fishery was destroyed by monopolies
seeking a quick buck, and then from all over Canada. Workers have
relocated and many have brought their
families to Brooks, a town of 13,500 where 2,200 workers are employed
at Lakeside XL. It's the only major employer in town.
The answer, the "expert" pontificated,
lies in
everyone working together. This is all very well, but what is the block
to "everyone working together?" Without identifying the block, such a
statement becomes meaningless. Is the block not that the workers,
farmers and Canadians who want a safe food supply have
contradictory aims from the owners of XL? For the owners of XL and all
the other agri-business monopolies, the only thing that matters is
their egocentric aim to become richer and grow their capital as fast as
possible. In this pursuit XL owners are pursuing greater ownership and
control over all aspects of beef
production. They demand an ever-increasing share of the added-value
created by the workers at the plant and by the farmers who raise beef
cattle. Only the organized collective resistance of the workers places
limits on the reckless speed up and reign of terror exerted on the
workers through constant firing of workers
and other means.
Workers have their own aims and objectives which
come into a fierce clash with monopolies like XL. They have rights
as the producers of wealth. But XL owners claim that the workers are
nothing but a cost of production and refuse to recognize their rights.
Why can a mutually beneficial arrangement not
be established?
Workers are demanding an end to the
temporary foreign worker program on the basis of opposing indentured
servitude and demanding equal status for all. Lakeside workers have
fought for wages
and working conditions commensurate with the
hard work they do and their right to live with dignity. Farmers are
also fighting the domination of monopolies like XL whose vision of the
countryside resembles Arkansas under Tyson Foods. They share a common
cause with the workers.
The solution does not lie in demanding that the
workers serve the aims of XL, but that these rapacious monopolies be
restricted. Far from handing over public funds to assist XL and others
to extend their stranglehold over an important aspect of the economy,
they must be restrained. Alternatives like farmer/worker
co-operatives should be established on the basis of recognizing the
rights of
all whose hard work creates the wealth.
Call for Overhaul of
Federal Policy on Meat Industry
- National Farmers Union -
The National Farmers Union is reminding policy
makers about its analysis of the beef sector, including 16
recommendations outlined in our 2008 report, The Farm Crisis and the
Cattle Sector: Toward a New Analysis and New Solutions. Problems
related to the beef sector that we identified then have only become
more severe.
News that E. coli
O157-contaminated beef sold by
the XL Foods plant has sickened people from Vancouver Island to
Newfoundland, and that the USA and Hong Kong are now recalling beef
produced at the plant, provides a clear message that Canadians need to
re-envision federal meat inspection and food safety
policies. We need to rebuild the system so that it works for farmers
and consumers.
A good place to begin is by implementing
recommendations outlined in the NFU report, such as:
- restraining packer power by reversing
concentration and decoupling vertically integrated packers;
- tailoring food safety regulations to encourage
local abattoirs that could serve markets in every region; and
- building collective cattle marketing agencies
that will ensure an efficient, fair and transparent market for both
buyers and sellers.
Federal policy focused on production for export
has encouraged high through-put plants that compete by cutting costs
and ramping up production. Most of Canada's regional meat packers have
shut down as the biggest companies grew via take-overs and by becoming
vertically integrated. The Competition Bureau
did not stop Cargill from purchasing Better Beef in Ontario in 2005,
nor did it prevent XL from taking over the plant in Brooks, Alberta
from Tyson in 2009, allowing these two companies to virtually corner
the beef market in Canada.
Today XL and Cargill process well over 80% of the
beef produced in Canada. Each company is able to exert control over the
price of livestock. On any given day, they can decide whether to buy at
auction, through contracts that allow the company to control both the
price and the timing of slaughter, or in the
case of XL, to just kill animals from its own herds. This is called a
"captive supply" system. Nilsson Bros. Inc., owners of XL Foods, also
owns most of the auction markets in western Canada.
The results? Cattle producers now have very few
options when it comes to selling. Consumers have little awareness of
how much of the beef they eat comes from just one plant, at least until
the recall shone a light on the extent of XL's market reach. Today's
highly concentrated beef processing sector makes both
farmers and consumers vulnerable, while the pursuit of private profit
takes precedence over protecting consumer health and public interest.
Canadians, including farmers, expect our food to
be safe. We are saying that it is time for a national debate on the
food system.
For more information:
Neil Peacock, NFU Board Member: (780) 228-9243 or (780)
833-6939 or
wotan1@xplornet.com
Iain Aitken, NFU Member: (403) 843-0094 or iaineaitken@gmail.com
(See The
Farm
Crisis
and the Cattle Sector: Toward a New Analysis and New
Solutions)
Farmers' Proposals to Address Beef Industry Crisis
In its 2008 report, The
Farm
Crisis
and
the
Cattle
Sector:
Toward
a New Analysis and New Solutions, the National
Farmers
Union (NFU) made 16 proposals to deal with the situation facing the
beef industry in Canada. They are:
1 . Ban packer ownership and control of cattle,
and require that all cattle go through independent auctions or be sold
by fixed-price contracts with full disclosure of terms.
2. Restrain packer power and reverse concentration.
3. Decouple vertically integrated packers.
4. Examine and restrain retailer and wholesaler
power.
5. Succeed in creating farmer-owned packing
capacity.
6. Tailor food safety regulations to encourage
local abattoirs.
7. Build collective marketing agencies.
8. Test for BSE and ban artificial hormones.
9. Dramatically reduce antibiotic use.
10. Develop markets for grass-finished beef within
Canada and North America.
11. Embrace country-of-origin labelling.
12. Focus on local food.
13. Reduce the Canadian herd to a size that better
matches Canadian demand.
14. Get public money into farmers' hands
immediately.
15. Give farmers a choice among cattle
organizations to fund.
16. Use government policy tools to encourage
appropriate-scale family farm production.
"Too Big to Fail"
- A Social Policy Researcher
-
There have been the usual stories in the press
recently about how terrible XL has been in communications/media
relations, how it's failed to manage its "brand," all the damage done
to its "reputation," etc. The CEO of XL is compared to Michael McCain,
CEO of Maple Leaf Foods. McCain is supposedly a hero
for his handling of the listeria crisis at Maple
Leaf Foods. The fact that 22 people died from listeriosis and many more
suffered serious illness is disappeared from the narrative. So is the
fact that as Bob Kingston, President of the Agriculture Union-Public
Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) has stated,
Maple Leaf was "given the responsibility to do their own sanitation
monitoring and once they were given that responsibility those machines
were never disassembled and cleaned again." All that is left is who
excelled at PR.
What is being revealed here is that voters'
opinions don't matter even to the politicians who are serving as XL's
spokesmen: federal and provincial agriculture ministers Gerry Ritz and
Verlyn Olson both told the public to go and buy beef right in the
middle of the recall that was expanding by the day, and there
was no serious reaction to this naked refusal to act in a responsible
manner.
Public opinion simply no longer has anything to do
with how XL gets and keeps its license to operate. XL is too big to
fail, in exactly the way the U.S. banks are too big, and Alberta Health
Services is too big, Exxon and Chevron are too big, and Walmart is too
big, etc. Too big to fail doesn't just mean you're
a dominant player in your market, it means you have the power to
capture government and manipulate your regulators, so that you no
longer need the consent of your customers -- i.e., voters -- to
operate.
Too big to fail is about democracy.
The XL disaster is the logical and planned result
of having two packing plants processing almost all the beef in Alberta.
Public funding has been handed over to XL and Tyson Foods before it to
assist in "restructuring" the industry.
Organize
to Hold the
Alberta Government
to Account!
Balancing the Budget in Whose Interests?
- Dougal MacDonald -
With the next session of the Alberta Legislature
commencing on October 15 and running for 11 days to October 31,[1]
the Redford government continues to heavily promote the importance
of Alberta having a "balanced budget." On October 11, speaking in
Calgary, Premier Alison Redford stated: "We
are fully committed to the commitment (note: to a balanced budget) that
we made in last year's budget." She acknowledged the deficit predicted
for the current fiscal year but said, "We are committed to our
long-term
fiscal forecasting." At another event in downtown Calgary, Finance
Minister Doug Horner told reporters,
"Our target is to have a balanced budget in 2013-14. We will show our
payments and our funding to the capital plan, we will show that our
operating revenue will exceed our operating expenses. That's the
commitment we've made."
The term a "balanced budget" has a positive sound
and seems to resonate with the reality of daily life. A budget is said
to be balanced when expenditures are equal to revenues. In an
individual household, revenues (e.g., wages, salaries, etc.) are a
certain amount and out of those revenues must come
food, clothing, shelter, power, heat, transportation, cultural and
recreational
activities and so on. To have a "balanced budget" means that household
expenditures are equal to revenues. Of course, circumstances may be
such that earnings decrease, e.g., a plant closes and someone loses
their job, as occurred when Devon Canada
closed its Coleman natural gas plant in April, or expenses may
increase, e.g., utility costs. Or, earnings may increase and costs may
decrease. Such changes in revenues and expenditures would require
changes in household budgeting in order to continue to have a balanced
budget.
The Redford government also has revenues and
expenditures but on the scale of the entire province. It would seem
likely that the government has in mind much larger budgetary goals than
just "making ends meet," but what are they? Analyzing what the Alberta
government really wants to accomplish
by balancing the budget first requires finding out what the
government's revenues and expenditures are. How is the government
obtaining its revenues and what is it spending its revenues on? Second,
analyzing what the Alberta government is really up to involves
investigating what the government plans to do with
its revenues and expenditures in order to balance the budget, and how
those plans might affect the people of Alberta who the government
claims to represent. The key question is, will the Redford government's
stated plan to balance the budget be in the interests of the people of
Alberta?
The Redford government claims that the amounts of
its revenues and expenditures are accurately stated in the provincial
budget. The March 2012 budget shows total provincial revenues of $40.3
billion. The top five revenue sources are: resources revenues 27.8 per
cent (mainly oil and gas), personal
income tax 23.1 per cent, transfers from the federal government 12.2
per cent, corporate income tax 11.1 per cent and other taxes 10.2 per
cent. What is of note is the high percentage of revenue obtained by
taxing individual workers who are already the source of all the wealth
created in the province. The budget
also shows expenditures of $41.1 billion, slightly higher than
revenues. The top five budget expenditures, which should more
accurately be called investments, are: health and wellness 39 per cent,
education 16 per cent, advanced education and technology 7.2 per cent,
human services 6.2 per cent, and seniors 6 per
cent. The Redford government continues to repeat that the difference
between revenues and expenditures means a deficit of $886 million and
hence that the 2012 budget is not balanced.
If the Redford government's claim that the
provincial budget needs balancing is accepted, how will it likely be
balanced? Many Albertans recall that in the early 1990s the same
Progressive Conservative Party, led by Ralph Klein, advocated a
four-year plan to eliminate the provincial deficit and balance
the provincial budget, which was implemented by forcing concessions
from workers and slashing much-needed social programs.[2]
This is why
so many people today are wary of talk of the need for "fiscal
austerity." It is also instructive to note that stealthy cuts to
Alberta social programs continue to be made today.
One is reminded of the saying "death by a thousand cuts." For example,
Alberta Health Services announced on September 24 that it must make
budget cuts of $185 million dollars. Some cuts will come from
"adjusting staff schedules," which has Alberta nurses concerned. To
give another example, all of Alberta's
publicly funded colleges, universities and technical institutes will
receive only two per cent increases in operating grants in each of the
next three years. University administrations say they need at least 4
per cent just to "break even." To give a third example, fees for
seniors in long-term care facilities have just been
raised 5 per cent which has met with firm opposition by seniors and
their allies.
It also needs to be kept in mind that under the current
political arrangements that deprive the workers and people of
decision-making power, the main purpose of the provincial budget is to
pay the rich, in
particular the energy monopolies. It is well known that the energy
monopolies are the real rulers of Alberta. As the champion of the
monopolies, the Redford government pays them in many
different ways to facilitate their plunder of Alberta's labour and
resources: reductions of revenue through royalty relief, tax credits,
standard corporate income tax deductions, special tax deductions, and
accelerated capital cost allowances; direct payments through subsidies,
exploration and development "expenses,"
and other ongoing pay-the-rich schemes; and "special programs" such as
the $2 billion Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Fund, the Alberta
Drilling Incentive Program which has already paid out an estimated $2.9
billion, and the $3 billion publicly funded energy research authority
called Alberta Oilsands Technology
and Research Authority 2 (AOSTRA 2) that will improve oilsands
technology on behalf of the monopolies.
Since the Redford government rules on behalf of
the monopolies, it follows that any balancing of the Alberta budget
will be done on the backs of the people, not by demanding that the
monopolies, which make their profits by seizing the added-value created
by Alberta workers, must turn over more revenue
to the government so that investments in social programs can be greatly
increased. Already
phrases like "cost containment" are being
tossed
around by the government and it is well known that these are code for
attacking workers and social programs, not for restricting the
monopolies. In fact, thanks to the Redford
government, the energy monopolies are thriving as never before. Suncor
and Exxon subsidiary Imperial Oil (which controls Alberta oil sands
giant Syncrude), were Canada's fifth and sixth most profitable
businesses in 2011, with Canadian Natural Resources (CNRL), Husky
Energy, and Cenovus not far behind. Yet,
the Redford government cries crocodile tears that it can only collect a
pittance in resources revenues from the monopolies because supposedly
they are in a recession.[3]
The question of balancing the Alberta budget
boils down to on whose behalf will it be balanced? Will it be on behalf
of public right or monopoly right? Will it solve any of
the problems facing the people, such as underfunded social programs, or
will it solve the "problem" of how the energy
monopolies can increase their profits? Will it be based on
attacking workers' rights and slashing social programs as in the 1990s
or will it be based on restricting the monopolies? If the budget is to
be balanced, the people want to see it balanced by increasing the
amount of revenue turned over to the government
by the monopolies, which grab all the added-value that they can steal
by exploiting the labour of Alberta workers and the resources that
belong to the people. This added revenue taken from the monopolies
should be used to increase investments in social programs. Such a plan
would achieve a balanced budget that
was based on restricting monopoly right and recognizing public right.
In other words, it would be a provincial budget that was balanced not
in the interests of the monopolies but in the interests of the people
of Alberta.
Notes
1. The Alberta Legislature does
not sit on
Fridays.
2. Klein's initiatives, beginning with
the
1993 provincial Deficit Elimination
Act, were followed by similar
austerity measures by provincial governments in other parts of Canada.
The real aim of such measures was to pay the rich who held the paper on
the deficit and debt.
3. In the fiscal year 2010/11, the
Alberta
government collected a mere $11.2 billion in resources revenues. Suncor
alone, just one of numerous energy monopolies operating in Alberta, had
net earnings in 2011 of 4.304 billion, up from $3.829 billion in 2010 (Suncor
Annual
Report
2011).
Budget Consultations Aimed at Blocking People
from Solving Problems
- Peggy Morton -
"Every Albertan deserves a voice in the 2013
budget" says the website of the Alberta Treasury Board and Finance in
promoting its "consultations" about 2013 budget. A voice is precisely
what the consultation is designed to deprive people of. The
process is designed to distract from any serious discussion
of the economy and its renewal, the resolution of social and economic
problems, and to wreck the social fabric of society.
The starting point of the budget consultations is
that the budget is not about determining revenues, but only spending.
The justification for this is that "There is only so much money to go
around." This is presented as the final say on the matter. The
government presents this process as akin to a family determining
its spending. Of course families do not operate in this way. Workers do
not passively accept that their income is a matter completely out of
their control. Workers organize collectively to fight for wages
commensurate with the work they do and their right to live with dignity
and to a Canadian standard living. Women
organize against unequal pay and discrimination. Even when a worker is
laid off and the family faces great difficulties, they do not starve
their children to "balance the budget" or decide they can only feed
some of their kids.
People want governments which stand with them in
their struggle to claim Canadian standard wages and benefits on the
social product workers produce. In the same way they want governments
to claim enough revenue directly from enterprises to guarantee the
rights of all. The absurd claim that there is "only
so much money to go around" is designed to cover up both who produces
the
wealth and whose claims on the wealth are being met. What is
actually being stated is that for the rich to increase their claim on
the added-value produced, the claim of workers and governments for
social
programs has to be reduced. This
is apparently the result of volatile resources revenues. If this is the
sorry state of affairs that comes from handing over all the resources
to private interests, then surely there is a need for real discussion
of public solutions and public ownership and control of the energy and
other resources.
All this mystery-making about revenues is being
widely opposed by workers through their unions and by social justice
organizations, who point out that governments are reducing corporate
taxes and royalty revenues and then screaming about a revenue shortage.
The issue here is that there are two sources of wealth --
mother earth and labour. Added-value created is claimed by the owners
of capital, the workers, and by governments for social programs. In
this perverse capital-centred outlook, only the claims of the private
monopolies are being recognized as legitimate, and everything else is a
"cost" to these owners of capital and
on the chopping block.
What happens when someone actually participates in
what is called the budget allocation process is very revealing. The
Alberta Treasury Board and Finance Department has created a website
called "Dollars and $ense," that supposedly simulates the effect of
changes to the funding allocations for various programs and services.
For
example, one can click on "health care" and decrease the
amount of the health care budget. But all gets is a simple calculation
of the new figures. Nowhere does it say how many
nurses and hospital staff will be laid off, how many beds will close,
or how much home care will be reduced by this "choice," or how
many can be hired if the allocation is increased. And of course people
are not
given a choice about whether
you want to pay private for-profit owners or hire more staff at
acceptable wage levels. According to the survey, this is how decisions
are made. If this is the case, it certainly shows that these
representatives of the rich are not fit to govern.
The "choices" presented are also extremely
misleading and designed to cover-up the real agenda of privatization
and smashing of social programs. For example there is no button to
click which says "providing a market for private interests to enrich
themselves." Then people could say we don't want to subsidize
private for-profit seniors care, health care or private schools. We
don't want to subsidize developers and landlords, we want social
housing that is publicly or co-operatively owned, and so on. Within
each category the funding which flows directly to private interests is
hidden.
The entire exercise reveals its contempt for the
workers who deliver public services and social programs. Not only are
workers considered a "cost," but teachers, nurses, health care workers
and many more are deprived of any say in providing solutions to the
problems in their sector. Society is deprived of their
knowledge, expertise and passion. Why is the human factor/social
consciousness not permitted to flourish and instead people are incited
to go after each other in the style of "not in my backyard."
This transparent attempt to embroil people in an
exercise to claim popular support for the anti-social, anti-worker and
anti-national agenda of the Redford government is not going to fly. The
outlook that everyone is an isolated individual, fending for themselves
and deciding what their personal priorities are stands
in opposition to the requirements of a modern society. People have
rights by virtue of being human and governments must provide these
rights with a guarantee.
Read The
Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
