October 29, 2012 - No. 136
In the
Legislature
• Changes to Education
Act Fail to Address Problems Facing Youth - Kevan Hunter
• Redford's Legislative
Agenda to Pay the Rich
Enable Electors
to Exercise Their Right to Select and Elect
• Questionable Donation
Underscores Need for Democratic Renewal of Election Financing
- Dougal MacDonald
Health Care Is a
Right
• Inquiry into "Improper
Preferential Access" Begins in Edmonton - Peggy Morton
In the Legislature
Changes to Education Act Fail to Address
Problems Facing Youth
- Kevan Hunter -
On October 23, the Alberta government tabled Bill 3,
the Education Act, in the Alberta legislature. The Education
Act
is the main piece of legislation governing the school system in the
province. For the government, one of the main selling points is that
this legislation will
create the strongest measures to stop bullying in schools. In
introducing the Education Act,
Education Minister Jeff Johnson said he was "proud
of the focus we've put on ensuring our schools are safe, welcoming
places for our children, places where diversity is respected and
bullying is not
tolerated."
Canadians are very concerned about suicides amongst the
youth as
well as other problems which are being widely discussed and attributed
to bullying.
The problems facing the youth, particularly of social isolation are not
the fault of the youth themselves and the glib attempt by governments
to dismiss any
serious discussion is a grave disservice to the youth.
The new Education Act is a case in
point and shows how deep
the crisis in education has become as the government refuses to
recognize
that education is a right or take up its social responsibilities to
provide the youth with a bright future. If education were recognized as
a right, then the Education Act would be legislation designed
to
provide that right with a guarantee. Instead, the proposed Act renders
the problem as a matter
of attitude on the part of school boards, teachers, and students.
Children are born to society and have claims on the
society to
ensure their well-being. Any serious discussion of the problems facing
the youth must
first of all acknowledge this modern reality.
At a bare minimum this means providing the resources
needed by
students with special needs, dealing with classrooms bursting at the
seams, providing
the sports and cultural facilities that youth need, and providing
teachers with the resources required to actually address problems such
as bullying. The social
responsibility of governments is to ensure that the rights which belong
to people by virtue of being human, including the right to education,
are provided
with a guarantee.
But instead of actually taking up the problems facing
the youth,
especially the consequences of the neo-liberal anti-social offensive,
or even identifying
what needs children and youth have that are not being met by society,
the youth are attacked as having an attitude problem and teachers and
school authorities
as negligent. The Harper dictatorship uses bully tactics as its modus operandi. It engages in
aggression, violence and war as means to resolve disputes on the
international level and to exercise the dictate of the United States of
North American monopolies into which it has drawn Canada. This is
the example it sets for the youth and declares this represents
"Canadian values." As for the Redford government, rather than take up
its social responsibility,
it simply declares that school boards, teachers and students must stop
bullying, and then applauds itself for having dealt with the problem.
The legislation being put forward by the Redford
government may
simply be to permit the government to wash its hands and declare that
it has done
its bit or, more likely, the legislation is intended to criminalize the
youth and use punitive measures, whether suspension, expulsion or even
criminal charges,
and impose harsh measures and penalties for activities which take place
beyond the school, turning the social problems facing the youth into
law and order
matters. The new Education Act states that a student's
responsibilities include to "refrain from, report and not tolerate
bullying or bullying
behaviour directed toward others in the school, whether or not it
occurs within the school building, during the school day or by
electronic means."
Those who work in education have
first hand experience that to
address bullying requires resources. It is a matter of building
positive relationships to
address the underlying causes of bullying behaviour and create an
atmosphere where students feel free to come forward when the actions of
a student are
harmful to others. Meanwhile, the government has budgeted an inadequate
one per cent instructional grant increase this year, followed by a two
per cent
increase in the following two years -- less than the rate of inflation.
Far from addressing bullying, by depriving the school system of funds,
which will lead
to larger class sizes and fewer specialized supports, the government is
creating the conditions for all kinds of problems to proliferate. When
they inevitably
do, what solution is put forward? To throw kids out of school or throw
them into the criminal "justice" system?
Teachers themselves are bullied by the government, which
has said
time and again that their salaries are the cause of large class sizes.
They are bullied
by a government which passed Bill 44, which requires teachers to notify
parents where "courses of study, educational programs or instructional
materials,
or instruction or exercises include subject matter that deals primarily
and explicitly with religion, human sexuality, or sexual orientation."
Teachers report
that this has had a chilling effect on the classroom, where teachers
fear that by merely answering a question from a student about sexual
orientation, they
will end up before a Human Rights Tribunal.
The new Education Act shows how important it
is for teachers,
school administrators and school boards and students to discuss how
issues
facing the youth pose themselves so as to determine how they should be
taken up for solution. The starting point must be not to permit the
problems facing
the youth to be used as a means to criminalize them.
Redford's Legislative Agenda to Pay the Rich
The First Session of the 28th Alberta Legislature
resumed on October 25 and will sit until December 6 with one week off
during that time. Ten government bills and two private members' bills
have been introduced, to be dealt with at breakneck speed.
The legislative agenda is consistent with the
pledge made in the Throne Speech opening the 28th Legislature which
stated that:
"This province is the most economically free
jurisdiction in North America. Nowhere else do businesses have so much
room to operate without interference and adapt to market conditions.
Your government will further these freedoms and find new ways to
simplify regulatory burdens so businesses continue to
drive our prosperity."
Oil sands projects currently in operation
mine and
drill 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. Projects under construction
will bring this to more than 3 million barrels per day. Projects which
have
been approved but where construction has not started will add another
2.2 million barrels/day. Nevertheless, the Alberta government
claims that approval is too onerous for the oil cartels and must be
"streamlined." Everything is geared to selling out the resources and
getting them to market, and it is all carried out in the name of the
highest ideas such as "protecting the environment." The agenda also
includes legislation aimed to provide a human
face to the annexation into the United States of North
American Monopolies, which in no way restricts the monopolies. For
example, the claim of stiffer penalties for occupational health and
safety legislation violations is meaningless given the wrecking of any
serious inspection and enforcement.
Redford's legislative agenda makes it clear that
in Alberta the clash will continue between the interests the Redford
government represents and what the people stand for. TML
will provide more information on the proposed legislation in coming
issues to contribute to discussion on the measures
the workers and people of Alberta can take to defend their rights at a
time the government is putting more measures in place which trample
their rights in the mud.
Bills Introduced
Bill 1 -- Workers' Compensation Amendment Act,
2012 The bill was brought forward from the spring sitting and
will mandate
presumptive Workers Compensation Board coverage to some first line
responders who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
"Presumptive coverage" means that these first responders will not have
to
prove their PTSD is work-related to qualify for coverage.
Bill 2 -- Responsible Energy Development Act.
This Act will establish one
regulator for oil, gas, oilsands and coal in Alberta. The new body will
take over the regulatory functions of the Energy Resources Conservation
Board, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. The
government states that the bill will provide "increased flexibility
for the regulator to receive and process applications in a way that
supports effective and fair decision making." Energy Minister Ken
Hughes stated: "If you're trying to start a large oilsands plant in
northeastern Alberta there can be a couple of hundred applications you
have to fill out.... Today, it's a single window."
The Act is consistent with
the Harper dictatorship's "21st century regulatory system" and the
subordination of public right to private monopoly interests.
Bill 3 -- Education Act. The government has
presented a new version of the Act
which was introduced and then withdrawn in the spring sitting. This is
the third version of the bill. The Act includes
measures which purport to address bullying in schools and the role of
parents in the school system. It will raise the age
of compulsory attendance from 16 to 17 and extend the period
during which students can receive public education to the age of 21.
The Act
will also require each school board to establish
an audit committee and empowers the Minister of Education to regulate
school fees.
Bill 5 -- New Home Buyer Protection Act. The
bill will require builders to provide home
warranty coverage for all new homes built in the province starting fall
2013. New home buyers will bear an additional cost estimated at about
$2,000 to pay for the home warranty.
Bill 6 -- Protection and Compliance Statutes
Amendments Act. Bill 6 amends three pieces of legislation: the Safety Codes Act,
the Fair Trading Act and the Occupational Health and
Safety Act with regard to administrative penalties and fines for
violations of the acts.
Bill 8 -- Electric Utilities Amendment Act.
In 2009 the PCs introduced legislation to allow
cabinet approval of four transmission infrastructure projects with
oversight from any regulatory authority. This bill returns regulatory
authority to the Alberta Utilities Commission.
Bill 9 -- Alberta Corporate Tax Amendment Act.
The
main
change
in
the
bill
involves
a
pay-the-rich
scheme
providing
an increase
to the scientific research and
experimental development tax credit, a refundable tax
credit to corporations for research and development in Alberta, and
an increase in the annual credit a company can claim of $25 million.
Bill 10 -- Employment Pension Plans Act. In
moving the bill, the government stated that it is a complete rewrite of
the current law. "These revisions to the
act will help modernize it and provide more flexibility as employers
and plan members look for alternative ways to manage their pension
plans. This will help ensure that the benefits promised
under these plans can be delivered.... Overall, the new Employment
Pension Plans Act makes Alberta's private-sector pension plans
legislation stronger and more in tune with the way that pension plans
need to work in our changing times."
This anti-social rendering of the question of
pensions completely negates the right to dignity and security in
retirement and instead introduces code words such as "our changing
times" which are being widely used to justify the unrelenting offensive
against workers' rights and claims that defined-benefit pensions
are "obsolete."
There are two private members' bills on the
fall agenda which were introduced and given first reading in the spring
sitting:
Bill 201 -- Scrap Metal Dealers and Recyclers
Identification Act
Bill 202 -- Public Lands (Grasslands Preservation)
Amendment Act, 2012
Enable Electors to
Exercise Their Right to Select and Elect
Questionable Donation Underscores Need for
Democratic Renewal of Election Financing
- Dougal MacDonald -
Documents made public by Elections Alberta on
October 24 reveal that Daryl Katz, billionaire drugstore chain owner
and owner of the Edmonton Oilers hockey team, gave Alberta's
Progressive Conservatives nearly half a million dollars during the
spring election that brought the PCs to power with 61 seats and
a large majority. This single donation represented about one-third of
the party's
total fundraising, with the PCs raising
a total of $1.522 million for the election.
According to Alberta's election laws, no individual or company is
allowed to donate more than $30,000. Splitting
donations is allowed for under some circumstances. The Opposition
parties are now calling for the chief electoral officer to investigate
the donation.
For some time, Katz has been embroiled in trying
to close a controversial $450-million deal to build a new hockey arena
with the City of Edmonton with both private and public funding. The
arena budget is not finalized, but has always included a $100-million
contribution from the provincial government.
Last week, Edmonton City Council unanimously voted to end negotiations
with the Katz Group after the Oilers owner failed to appear at a
meeting to explain why last year's framework funding deal was no longer
viable and why the Katz Group would need to be given more concessions.
Political parties such as the PCs in Alberta
represent and advocate the specific policies and interests of certain
economic and financial interests. It is well-known in Alberta that the
PCs, since their election in 1972, have represented the monopolies --
especially the energy monopolies -- as well as other
corporate groups. The point is that the PC Party does not represent the
collective interests of Albertans; it is a special interest group. Thus
it is not surprising that it is financed by its supporters such as
monopolists like Daryl Katz, just as other parties are financed by
their
supporters. This
should surprise no one.
While the
issue of election financing related to the Katz donation is being
questioned,
what is not raised is the need to ensure the participation
of Albertans in the decision-making process and for the broad
participation of the people in solving the
economic, political, social, environmental and cultural problems in
Alberta. As long as special
interest groups dominate the political process and the people's
participation is reduced to casting a vote once every four years, the
vast majority of Albertans are alienated from decision-making and
remain, dissatisfied, on the margins of the political
process. This is reflected in statistics such as low voter turnout,
especially among
workers and youth. Will this disempowerment
be reduced if, for example, the amount of individual contributions to
political parties is reduced from $30,000 to $20,000? In any case,
ways are found around
such limits, for example, by attributing donations to others linked to
the donor, e.g., family members, business associates and so on.
An election can be divided into three
main stages: selecting candidates, campaigning and voting, with the
selection of candidates being of primary
importance. The basic principle is that people will support the
decisions of their elected representatives when the people themselves
have selected them on the basis of merit. For example, instead of
selecting some unknown special interest candidate who parachutes in and
makes false promises to work in the interests of the electorate, people
will select those who are known and trusted and who already have a
proven track record in serving the
collective interests, e.g., someone who has fought for the rights of
workers. Selection also requires the right of recall of any elected
members who stray from their mandate and do not represent the will of
those who selected and elected them. This is how the people can both
select, help elect and retain power over
their representatives and can enforce their mandate.
In view of the fact that every party strives to
advance its own special interests, including through financing, how
will this selection process be organized and financed? The proposal is
that it will be financed by the province and organized by constituency
committees. Anyone who wishes to put forward
a bid to be a candidate presents him or herself and the province funds
the entire process. Constituency committees, established under the
control of the Chief Electoral Office of Alberta would be responsible
for making accurate information about every candidate available to
everyone in the constituency, e.g., through
postings at the place of work, in educational institutions and seniors'
homes. Further, constituency committees would be responsible
for organizing debates and discussions and all-candidates meetings in
which every candidate in that constituency could participate, not just
the candidates of the so-called "major
parties." Candidates could be selected by everyone from workers in a
factory to political parties. In the end, the people of the
constituency would have to select a small number of candidates, perhaps
three, to run in the election.
A key point is that those who are selected as
candidates may or may not be members of a political party such as the
PCs. Along with everyone else, party candidates would have to win the
confidence of the constituents by presenting their views and debating
along with everyone else. Members of political
parties would have no special status but would be on an equal footing
with
other candidates. Thus, whether a candidate has big money or not, he or
she would have an equal opportunity to stand for election. The current
situation, where the size of a party or candidate's war chest
influences the outcome of an election,
can only be changed when the whole process of selection is financed
through public funds.
Note
This article draws on material in the
presentation made by Hardial Bains, National Leader of the Communist
Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) to the Royal Commission on Electoral
Reform and
Party Financing, September 20, 1990.
Health Care Is a Right
Inquiry into "Improper Preferential Access"
Begins in Edmonton
- Peggy Morton -
The Health Services Preferential Access Inquiry
got underway in Edmonton on October 15. The Inquiry's website states:
"Allegations have been made that some Albertans
can obtain or have obtained improper preferential access to publicly
funded health services. In response to these allegations, the
Government of Alberta has announced a Public Inquiry to investigate
such a possibility. An Order in Council establishing
the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry has been issued by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council to that effect."
The government of Alberta and the Alberta
Health
Services (AHS) superboard have intervenor status and their costs will
be publicly funded but are not included in the estimate. The Alberta
Medical Association and the Consumer Association of Alberta have also
been granted intervenor status but no
funding.
The Inquiry is
taking place at a time when the
federal government has announced that it recognizes no social
responsibility for the health of Canadians and will reduce federal
transfers to the provinces for health care, while provincial
governments are also slashing public health care and stepping up
their privatization agendas. This exacerbates the problem which
concerns Canadians right across the country of access to health care
when they need it. A public health care system which has the resources
needed to provide high quality health care to all when they need it
does not have an access problem. For years
governments have been "managing" wait lists instead of working to
eliminate them, providing highly profitable opportunities for private
interests to drain even more resources from the system with their
"management tools."
Instead of dealing with the need to provide the
right to health care with a guarantee, the Redford government has
organized a $10 million dog and pony show to investigate if
there is "improper preferential access" to publicly funded health care
services. This is a revealing choice of words. The
PC government and the Wildrose "Opposition" have nothing against
preferential access to health care based on ability to pay. In fact
they are all for it. The PCs have a secret agenda to bring in new
legislation to expand private health care, while the Wildrose openly
embraces increased privatization. They are, they
say, against "improper" preferential access. Pay-the-rich schemes which
serve private interests through a privatization agenda and divert
funding from health care into the pockets of the rich are considered
"proper."
Albertans
rally outside Premier Alison Redford’s office in Calgary to protest the
closure of the Little Bow Long Term Care Centre in Carmangay, AB.
August, 2012. (AUPE)
|
Of course no one doubts for a second
that the
rich have better access to health care, whether publicly funded or
private. It doesn't take an inquiry to know that the Premier, cabinet
ministers and rich donors aren't going to lie on a stretcher in the
hallway in Emergency for two days waiting for a bed. "Preferential
access" is being fought by seniors organizations, workers and
their unions and social justice
organizations where
long-term care is being handed over to private interests while the
publicly-funded level of care is reduced, leaving many seniors without
basic care and depriving them of their right to dignity
in retirement. The fact that one after another public long-term care
buildings are being torn down and replaced by private, for-profit
"assisted-living" which reduces the level of publicly-funded care,
while increasing the burden on seniors and providing guaranteed profits
to the
owners is not considered a matter of "preferential
access to health care" either. The monopolies benefit from the
creation of a "market" in which to sell their health care services, and
the decreasing claim on the wealth created by the working class
for social programs, and the increasing claim of the owners of capital.
The Redford government is not against class
privilege, and openly declares that Alberta is open for business
and everything is to be put at the disposal of the monopolies, so the
inquiry is not going to look at how funding is being drained from
patient care to pay the rich.
Despite the many other
examples worthy of serious inquiry, the
"discussion" is carefully managed so that the fact that health care is
a right is not discussed. This is why only the issue of costs is raised
and even then certain costs but not others. For instance how much
health
care funding
has been paid to consultants like the U.S.' McKinsey and Company, to
global monopolies to provide electronic health records and so on is
never discussed. If health care were recognized as a right, then these
issues would be taken up in a context which makes sense to the people
and the problems facing the health care system could be sorted out in
favour of the people. The problem is not lack of money since the
amounts paid to the rich are enormous. The money is there. It is the
fact that the right of the monopolies is recognized but not the right
to health care per se. It is
therefore not a problem of funding but of
who decides where the funding goes and what is or is not proper.
The Inquiry can have several possible
outcomes, none of which will have anything to do with providing the
right to health care with a guarantee or ending the dictate of private
interests sucking funding from health care to grow their capital.
Either some scapegoats will be found and public anger
directed against them, or the inquiry will find that the allegations
are unfounded. In either case, a possible outcome is that AHS will
move further towards putting what amounts to a provincial health
management organization (HMO) in
place, which will provide contracts to one global monopoly or another
to
"manage"
access. HMOs are widespread as part of private medical care in the
U.S., where the main objective is to minimize "costs"/use of services
and
to maximize profits.
The aim of all of this is not to solve problems,
but to further the austerity agenda and it is part and parcel of the
attack on public services, the workers who deliver them and public
right. It shows the necessity for health care workers and professionals
to become the decision-makers on behalf of their
patients and the need to uphold their right to wages and working
conditions which are consistent with the important contribution they
make to society.
Read The
Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
