|
February 18, 2012 - No. 7
Agenda of the Harper Government
North
American Security Perimeter
Moving Swiftly to Implement the
Annexation of Canada into the United
States
North American Security
Perimeter
• Moving Swiftly to Implement the
Annexation of Canada into the United States - Enver
Villamizar
Pensions
• Relentless Attack on Public
Pensions - Jim Nugent
• A Retirement Free from Want for
All - Serge Lachapelle
• For Your Information: Marxist-Leninist Party
of Canada
Brief on Human Resources Development - Hardial Bains, Brief
to House of Commons Standing
Committee, March 9, 1994
Red Tape Reduction Commission
• Red Tape Reduction -- An Undemocratic
Makeover of Canada - Steve
Rutchinski
• From the Party Press: Ontario Red Tape
Commission -- Pernicious Attack on the Conception of a Democratic
Society - TML Weekly, February
23, 1997
Suppression of Scientific Research
• Muzzling of Canadian Scientists
Opposed at International Conference - Charlie Vita
• Open Letter to Prime Minister
Harper
Agenda of the Harper Government
North
American Security Perimeter
Moving Swiftly to Implement the
Annexation of Canada into the United
States
- Enver Villamizar -
 The governments of Canada and the
United States have
wasted no time in
implementing the Action Plans released on December 7, 2011 to establish
a
North American Security Perimeter. The pace with which new arrangements
are being put in place behind closed doors by the ruling elite of North
America
is cause for concern. The Canadian working class and people, the
working
class and people of the United States and the First Nations of North
America
have common cause in opposing these arrangements as they are only meant
to
benefit the largest monopolies and their demands for security and
maximum
profits.
Harper Government Appoints
Senior Advisor for Border Action
Plan
On January 3, the Harper government announced the
appointment of David Moloney as Senior Advisor to the Privy Council
Office,
responsible for Border Action Plan Implementation. Moloney had been the
Executive Vice-President of the Canadian International Development
Agency
since 2008.
Regulatory Cooperation
Council Holds Meetings
On January
30 and 31, Canadian and U.S. government officials who make up the
Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) -- the body charged with aligning
regulations of the two countries -- held meetings in Washington, DC
with the
political representatives of the biggest North American monopolies and
other
"stakeholder organizations." According to the Council, the aim of the
meetings
was "to advise on implementation and technical aspects" of the Action
Plan.
The agenda had participants provide advice in the following areas of
regulation: agriculture and food; ground; marine and air transport;
personal
care products and pharmaceuticals; nanotechnology; emissions standards
for
cars and locomotives; and workplace health and safety.
No official reports or results from meeting have been
made public from
either government, however, reports from the media indicate that 240
people
registered to take part in the talks. We are informed that from the
Canadian
government, participants included Industry Canada's senior associate
deputy
minister Simon Kennedy and the Treasury Board's assistant secretary in
the
bi-national Regulatory Cooperation Council's secretariat, Robert
Carberry.
We are informed that Leah Littlepage, the Canada-U.S.
and Transportation
Policy Director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce participated and
indicated that the organization was "really happy with the progress so
far."
Also participating was Birgit Matthiesen, the Senior
Advisor, U.S.
Government Relations, to the President for the Canadian Manufacturers
and
Exporters Association, who indicated that the meetings "got really into
the
weeds." According to Matthiesen, her association was hoping for a
strong
showing from the U.S. government to indicate their support for the RCC
and
they felt this was the case. U.S. government turnout was "very healthy"
according to Matthiesen, citing the example of the participation of
Cass R.
Sunstein, the administrator of the U.S. Office of Information and
Regulatory
Affairs inside the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Sorting Out Legal Problems
to Share Intelligence and
Integrate
Security Forces
 According to reports,
"stakeholder talks" for the
security side of the Action Plan, called the Beyond the Border Working
Group,
have not yet taken place. According to the Plan, the Working Group
was supposed to
"determine the way ahead" on how to share information and evidence
between
their police forces and intelligence agencies by the end of January.
Ian Trites,
a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade,
indicated that a series of lower level meetings have already taken
place to
tackle legal problems associated with harmonizing intelligence sharing.
"The
way ahead on information sharing related to national security entails
continued
bilateral dialogue on strategic issues and best practices. Progress
will be
reported to the Minister of Public Safety and the Secretary of Homeland
Security," he said in an e-mail to Embassy Magazine.
Trites also indicated that the Harper government intends
to table legislation
in the near future to make permanent the cross-border maritime policing
program known as Shiprider, that permits U.S. security forces to
enforce
Canadian law.
Empowerment of Regional
Bi-National Decision-Making
Bodies
The Canadian government has identified the Pacific
Northwest
Economic Region (PNWER), a bi-national provincial and U.S. state group,
to
bring in a plan to maintain Pacific commerce in the event of an
emergency.
PNWER includes: British Columbia, the Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and
the Northwest Territories, as well as the U.S. states of Alaska,
Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. It was established in 1991 through the
ratification of its articles by the states and provinces participating.
According
to its website, the mission of PNWER is to: increase the economic
well-being
and quality of life for all citizens of the region, coordinate
provincial and state
policies throughout the region; identify and promote "models of
success"' and
serve as a conduit to exchange information.
PNWER is overseen by a delegate council made up of the
premiers and
governors as well as legislators from the various provinces and states,
and a
private sector council made up of representatives of some of the
biggest
monopolies, especially in the energy sector such as ExxonMobil and BP.
PNWER also has an Executive Committee to oversee its day-to-day
operations
which consists of one legislator from each PNWER jurisdiction, one
private
sector board member chair from each jurisdiction, four
governors/premiers (or
their designee), and the PNWER Executive Director. The current
Executive
Committee is comprised of:
President -- Rep. Mike Schaufler, Oregon
Vice President, Canada -- Mr. Lyle Stewart, MLA, Saskatchewan
Vice President, U.S. -- Sen. Kevin Ranker, Washington State
Vice President, Canada -- Hon. David Ramsay, Northwest Territories
Immediate Past President -- Mr. Mel Knight, MLA, Alberta
State/Provincial Leads:
State Sen. Lesil Mcguire, Alaska
Mr. George Groeneveld, MLA, Alberta
Mr. John Les, MLA, British Columbia
Rep. George Eskridge, Idaho
Sen. Kim Gillan, Montana
Hon. Currie Dixon, MLA, Yukon
Private Sector
Representatives:
Neil Windsor, APEGGA
Canada Co-Chair, Jan Romerdahl, U.S. Bank
U.S. Co-chair, Matt Morrison, PNWER CEO
PNWER currently has 15 working groups which work to
harmonize
policies across the border. The working groups are: Agriculture,
Environment,
Forestry, Sustainable Development, Disaster Resilience, Energy I,
Energy II,
Telecommunications, Tourism, Trade & Economic Development, Invasive
Species, Innovation, Transportation, Health-care, Water Policy and
Transportation.
Changes at Canadian Airports
 The Canadian Air Transport
Security Authority recently announced that it is in the process of
placing U.S.
bomb
scanners in selected Canadian airports. According to a Canadian
government
official:
"Existing screening equipment is being replaced by the
latest technology,
which is also certified to meet U.S. Transportation Security
Administration
standards. Upgrades have begun and will continue over the next three
years."
In what is likely a pre-cursor to a North American
identity card, starting
February 15, Canadians who are part of the NEXUS Program for travel to
the
United States, will be able to use valid NEXUS cards for screening by
the
Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) at Canada's eight
largest
airports (Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary,
Edmonton
and Vancouver). Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and
Communities stated: "This change will make air travel from Canada to
the
United States more convenient, while maintaining a high level of
aviation
security.... I encourage Canadians to apply for a NEXUS card to
experience
the travel benefits it provides."
NEXUS is a binational Canada-United States program for
"pre-approved,
low-risk travellers" entering Canada and the United States at
designated air,
land and marine ports of entry. Participants in NEXUS undergo a
background
and security check. Successful applicants are known as "trusted
travellers,"
implying that all those without NEXUS are not to be trusted and treated
as legitimate
suspects until proven otherwise.
Pensions
Relentless Attack on Public Pensions
- Jim Nugent -
When Stephen Harper announced his government would be
making cuts
to public pension programs during his speech to the World Economic
Forum
in Davos, Switzerland, the result was increased insecurity among
retired
workers and older workers still in the work force. Many workers saw
this
announcement as the Harper government crossing a line in its
anti-social
offensive. In offering up seniors as fair game for cuts to social
programs,
Harper
has declared his government accepts no responsibility for ensuring the
right
of workers to well-being in old age. Once this line is crossed anything
goes,
the well-being of workers in old age is not guaranteed.
Although the Harper dictatorship has deliberately kept
its planned cuts
officially very vague, it has circulated its intention to start Old Age
Security (OAS) / Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS)
cuts
against workers who are currently between 51 and 56 years of age, who
would
expect to receive the OAS/GIS when they turn 65 between 2020 and 2025.
They would now have to wait until age 67. There are three million
people in
this age group. All kinds of other scenarios for cuts to public
pensions are also
being circulated in the media, creating a sense of insecurity among
older
workers, people already receiving public pensions and among workers of
all
ages.
 Among the workers in the age
group who would be first
affected by
pension cuts are over 900,000 people whose combined Canada Pension Plan
(CPP) / Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) and
OAS/GIS benefits would be at the current minimum for seniors. They will
be
heavily dependent on OAS/GIS in retirement because of the economic
chaos
they have experienced over the last 30 years, including three major
recessions and an average unemployment rate of almost eight per cent
during
this period. Many workers' CPP/QPP contribution levels are low. Company
pensions have been wrecked by plant closings and bankruptcy frauds.
RRSP
savings have been liquidated by market manipulation of the financial
oligarchy. Harper's message is that there will be no relief from this
lifetime
of insecurity in old age; seniors will have to fend for themselves.
Parliament opened shortly after the announcement about
pension cuts in
Harper's Davos speech and the Harper dictatorship acted as if this
attack
on public pensions was none of anyone's business. The government
refused to
answer any questions or enter into any discussion on the pension cut
announcement in Parliament. The Harper government's tactics are to
present
public pension cuts as a done deal -- the decision has been made and
notice
has been given -- without ever having to account for this decision.
In Parliament on February 2, Human Resources Minister
Diane Finley
simply repeated
Harper's assertions about the need for public pension cuts, "The
demographics
are such that we have to take action now for the long term. Looking to
the
longer term, that means that some programs, like OAS, will soon become
too
expensive and unsustainable if not addressed." But she refused to
commit to
details about the cuts being planned, "There are a wide range of
options but
none of the policies decisions have been announced yet."
Outside of Parliament, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty
provided the media
with details about the cuts, "The timing of what we do will involve
more than
one budget. We will announce some steps forward [in the next budget],
but we
certainly need to plan ahead and this is not for tomorrow morning. This
is for
2020, 2025." The Prime Minister's Office later issued a "clarification"
keeping
everyone confused about the government's intentions, that said
Flaherty's timeline was
not
official policy.
 Among the many questions
and criticisms about cuts to
public pensions the
Harper government refused to respond to in Parliament were criticisms
that the
"demographic crisis" used to justify public pension cuts is a fraud.
The Harper
dictatorship rejected out-of-hand any research and calculations from
inside and
outside government ministries that went against its messaging. Among
the
evidence the government refused to respond to were research and
calculations
by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) and the Ministry of Finance's
Research Working Group on Retirement-Income Adequacy.
The PBO is an accounting office with the stated purpose
of supplying
Members of Parliament with technical support to independently analyze
government revenue and expense estimates. On February 8, the PBO issued
a
report to Parliament which was highly critical of the government's
claim that the OAS/GIS
programs were
unsustainable at their present benefit levels.
The PBO report said that while it is true that the
number of retiring people
claiming benefits will increase program costs, these increased costs
will be
offset by the growth of the GDP and by increased government revenues.
When
all factors are considered, the report says, the OAS/GIS is not only
sustainable
at current benefit levels but these benefit levels could be increased.
The government also refused to respond to questions
about Ministry of
Finance-sponsored pension research by the Research Working Group on
Retirement-Income Adequacy. One of its papers concluded, "The analysis
suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial
sustainability
with its public pension schemes." Finance Minister Jim Flaherty set up
this
research group for the 2009 Federal-Provincial Finance Minister's
Pension
Summit. At that time, Flaherty needed research to prove "all is well
with public
pensions" to beat back widespread demands for expansion of the CPP/QPP.
Disinformation is produced as required to support the current
political spin and then discarded.
Harper's attack on the security of public pensions has
nothing to do with
demographic and fiscal calculations. Harper has made a political
calculation
that he can get away with moving forward the pension agenda of the
rich. This
agenda calls for the liquidation of pensions to make more funds
available for
private pension arrangements operated by the banks and financial
services
racketeers and to put massive pools of capital at the disposal of the
international financial oligarchy.
Workers are already fighting against employers looting
company pension
plans, bankruptcy frauds and attempts to impose two-tier
pension/benefit plans
with the spirit "The Pension Fight Must Be Won!" This is also the
answer to
Harper's attack on public pensions.
Protests of cuts to
public pensions were held at the constituency offices of 22
Conservative MPs on
February 9, 2012.
Pictured above, occupation of the office of MP Phil Coleman (Brant). (OFL)
A Retirement Free from Want for All
- Serge Lachapelle -
Not a week goes by without the rich telling us
through their monopolized media about the heavy burden the
current
retirement system places on public funding. The news reveals, however,
that thousands of workers
must
wage a constant struggle to obtain a retirement free from want.
A symposium entitled "Aging: Getting out of Fatalism"
held in October last year, sheds some light
on this issue. As part of this event, the
Institut de
recherche et d'informations socio-économiques (IRIS) published a
disturbing socio-economic report.
The report explains that between 1996 and 2008 there was
a
large increase
in the number of low-income senior citizens in Quebec. The figures
speak
volumes. This section of the population nearly tripled, rising from 4.6
per cent
to 12.3 per cent of the total population. This impoverishment is also
linked to
heavy indebtedness. In 1993, just one quarter of households of those
aged 65
years and older held debts. In 2010, this rate topped 60 per cent,
stressed
Ève-Line Couturier, author of the socio-economic report.
According to IRIS, this
impoverishment is the result of the present retirement system not
adequately replacing the salaries earned by individuals while they were
working. IRIS considers that, generally speaking, to
maintain
a comparable standard of living after retirement, retirees must aim
for a
replacement rate of 70 per cent of their income. According to the
Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, the average replacement rate
in
Canada is just 40 per cent.
 The pension system is a
hybrid public/private system. It includes public aspects within which
large sections of the population also expect some retirement
income from private sources such as private retirement plans and
registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) to complement the public
plans. However, the IRIS report points out there is a constant decrease
in the number of people covered by private
retirement
plans and that RRSPs are used adequately by only a minority of
people
as
a means of saving.
Referring to the position defended by former Liberal
Minister Claude
Castonguay, head of a research group whose 2011 study called for
mandatory RRSP-style contributions, IRIS stresses that by
forcing people to save
individually
for retirement, the question of retirement is turned into
an individual issue rather than a collective social one. Indeed, Claude
Castonguay
justified choosing this option above all because it did not include any
contribution from employers. Sweden opted for a wide
consultation on the issue which resulted in a public system that
allowed
replacement of 60 per cent of the average workers' income, thanks to a
mixed
fee structure of 18.5 per cent.
For the supporters of the anti-social system who
consider workers a cost
of production, providing a retirement system worthy of the name is seen
as an
economic burden.
For the supporters of the pro-social program, providing
a retirement free
from want for all those who have worked their entire lives for the
well-being
of society is a right that must receive concrete guarantees.
A Retirement Free from Want for All!
For Your
Information
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada Brief
on Human
Resources
Development
- Hardial Bains, Brief to House of
Commons Standing
Committee,
March 9, 1994 -
Canadians share a deep concern about social programs not
only because
they affect the vast majority of Canadians, but because they care about
what
kind of society they want to have. Surely in a society where fame and
fortune
may be a person's only sure guarantee of security as well as that of
his or her
offspring, the only security the vast majority of people can seek is
from
society. In this instance, the state is the sole representative of
society and the
social programs guaranteed by that state determine how far it provides
a secure
future for all.
One of the key differences and the point of departure
from medievalism
to modernism is that in the earlier times society only recognized the
claim on
it by the feudal aristocrats and their servants. Today, at least in
words, society
has to recognize the claims of all. How far a society is humane is
determined
by the extent to which it recognizes the claims of all over it.
If the above is taken into consideration, it is my
strong opinion that social
programs should guarantee life for all, from the moment they are born
to the
time they die, according to the standard of living that society is able
to
provide. This standard of living cannot be determined by a "poverty
line" which
is below what it takes to keep body and soul together. It has to ensure
that the
levels of development society has attained, including the levels of
education
and culture, are accessible to all members of society irrespective of
their
circumstances as individuals. Furthermore, if a society does not
provide
education, health care, jobs and social welfare for all, what means of
subsistence can its members provide for themselves?
The history of the system in Canada has proven that, in
the absence of
recognizing the claims of all on society, a tendency remains in which
the rich
become richer and the poor become poorer, along with a general climate
of
insecurity -- a problem which is not only chronic but becomes acute
from time
to time, as is the case at present. Unemployment has remained a fellow
traveller of this system and has gotten steadily worse from the time of
the
Second World War.
As it is quite well-known, a society can be considered
both humane and
democratic if it follows the universality principle in recognizing the
claims of
all on society. A society cannot just recognize the claims of the rich
to be rich
and damn others to a perpetual state of poverty while the vast majority
live in
a permanent state of insecurity.
In my opinion, any review of social programs should keep
in mind three
fundamental principles:
1. In relation to social programs, it is not the
universality principle which
should be modified or abandoned. On the contrary, measures should be
taken
to ensure that the system guarantees the well-being and happiness of
all and
not riches for the few and poverty for the many. In this regard, great
care
should be taken not to impose changes to social programs or levels of
programs such as to UI eligibility requirements in an arbitrary way [Unemployment Insurance, now Employment
Insurance (EI) -- TML Ed. Note],
as
is
presently
done
when
a
budget
is
presented
to
Parliament
or decisions
are made
which fundamentally affect the lives of Canadians. Canadians are
constantly
put into a position of having to adjust their entire lives to cope with
such
changes. Whether an unemployed person receives 60% or 57% of prior
wages
makes a vast difference when this is his or her only source of income.
The
same applies to all those who depend on social welfare or other social
programs.
2. Social programs necessarily deal with these areas
which concern basic
human rights to health, education, welfare, social insurance,
affordable
housing, pensions, and so on. Therefore they must be put at the centre
of
concern of a human society. Any attempt to consider these expenditures
as
merely an expense, rather than a basic social investment, should be
abandoned.
This is all the more true when the claims of the moneylenders on
society are
not questioned, but the claims of Canadians on society are.
3. Canadians have the fundamental democratic right to
fully participate in
making the decisions which affect their lives. Therefore, no decisions
should
be made as concerns social programs before submitting them first for
the
approval of those whose lives they will affect. The consultation
process which
is undertaken must, therefore, not be used, as has been the case in the
past, as
a means to legitimize a pre-determined agenda.
Finally, at this time, there are interests which
conflict with one another
because of the foundation of society and the way it is run. Individual
interests
run counter to collective interests and individual and collective
interests
conflict with the general interests of society. A broad program of
social
programs based on the principle of universality can go a long way
towards
harmonizing the individual interests with those of the collective and
the
individual and collective interests with the general interests of
society.
Society has come a long way from the days of
medievalism. Nonetheless,
the existence of disparities between rich and poor and the pressure
that society
must only respond to the claims of the rich, are pushing it to go
backwards
instead of making a clean break with medievalism and creating an
entirely new
society, in which the well-being of one will be dependent on the
well-being
of all. A system of comprehensive social programs will contribute in a
decisive
way to creating a really democratic and humane society, in which all
interests
will be harmonized in favour of opening the path for progress.
Since these views are merely presented in brief, I am at
your disposal to
expand on them and present specific proposals.
Sincerely,
Hardial Bains
National Leader
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
Red Tape
Reduction Commission
Red Tape Reduction --
An Undemocratic Makeover of Canada
- Steve Rutchinski -
Earlier this year the Harper government's Red Tape
Reduction
Commission issued a report of its review of federal government
regulations along with its recommendations for how to renovate the
federal regulatory environment. The follow-through on the Commission's
recommendations is by no means an innocuous
clearing away of bureaucracy. The Harper government is implementing
sweeping changes that impact everyone's lives and national sovereignty,
without Canadians ever having had the opportunity to consider, let
alone
decide on these changes.
The federal government is
responsible for roughly 2,600
regulations.
The Commission acknowledges that: "These regulations affect the
everyday lives of Canadians -- the products we buy, the services we
receive, the quality of our air and water, and much more. In general
they are designed to manage risks, set
a level playing field and protect society and the environment."
 Interestingly the Red Tape
Reduction Commission had
nothing to do
with evaluating the effectiveness of these regulations in protecting
the public interest on these matters. Instead, the first task assigned
the Commission was to "identify irritants to business that stem from
federal regulatory requirements." This
narrow mandate itself sets off alarm bells -- it indicates that the
private interests of one section of society -- "business" -- are being
politicized while the public interest is depoliticized and does not
figure at all in the aim, process or outcome of the regulatory review.
Furthermore it is not just any "business" interests that
the
Commission concerned itself with, but monopoly interests. The
Commission reports having carried "extensive consultations with
businesses and business groups across Canada." In fact it received
"almost 450 responses" to a web-based consultation
questionnaire entitled "Prosperity Restricted by Red Tape"; it held 15
roundtables "attended by 189 people in business or the associations
that represent them"; and finally it received "61 written
submissions [...] from business associations in federally regulated
sectors."
It is necessary to read between the lines of the
Commission's
recommendations because neither the problem being addressed nor the
expected outcomes of the recommendations are concretized. They are,
however, far reaching. Appendix B of the Report outlines "Specific
Departmental Recommendations to Cut
Red Tape" and are addressed to 19 federal departments and agencies,
including: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Canada Food Inspection
Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Environment Canada,
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada, Industry Canada, Transport Canada etc.
In the case of Health Canada, it has been
given some
22 recommendations to address "irritants to business" identified by
pharmaceutical companies, veterinary drug and livestock feed
producers, chemical manufacturers, food additive and fortification
industry concerns, as well as recommendations pertaining to the
regulation of
natural health products. These include implementing "streamlined
risk-based approach for regulatory approvals of low risk veterinary
drugs and flexible risk-based regulatory framework for food additives."
In other examples, Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada is
advised to review policies and guidelines related to "trucking industry
overtime pay requirements" and Transport Canada is to "harmonize
regulations that pertain to the National Safety Code," including hours
of service to eliminate unnecessary
compliance burden on inter-provincial truck commerce, etc.
The Commission describes its work as "part of a larger
agenda being
implemented by the government." It cites some examples, which confirm
that there is a lot more to these recommendations than meets the
eye. The destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board is cited as an example
of "red tape reduction"
"to reduce administrative burden and improve competitiveness of western
farmers in selling wheat and barley on the open market, to attract
investment, encourage innovation and create value-added jobs." Another
example the Commission cites is "Transport Canada's efforts to simplify
the regulatory framework and
better harmonize with international standards by proceeding with the
planned modernization of its Aviation Security Regulations, which
handed over to U.S. authorities the passenger lists of every flight
that enters American skies, regardless of where the flight is headed.
The creation of the "Canada-U.S. Regulatory
Cooperation Council" announced on February 4, 2011, which takes the
sovereign control of Canadian borders out of Parliament and into U.S.
dominated non-elected, international bodies, is cited as another
example of "red tape reduction."
There is indeed "a larger agenda" in operation. It is
the Harper
government agenda that depoliticizes and marginalizes the public
interest while politicizing private interests of the monopolies and
annexing Canada to the United States of North American monopolies.
From the
Party Press
Ontario Red Tape Commission: Pernicious Attack on the
Conception of a Modern Society
- TML Weekly, February
23,
1997 -
To
illustrate
the anti-people aims of the Harper government's Red Tape
Reduction Commission, consider the example of the Mike Harris
government's so-called red-tape commission, carried out as part of its
anti-social offensive in
Ontario,
dubbed
the "Common Sense Revolution." Reprinted below is a 1997
article from TML Weekly on
the
Harris Red Tape Commission.
***
 The so called Red Tape
Reduction Commission (RTRC), an
advisory body comprised of Conservative MPPs and senior staff liaisons
from each government ministry,
recently submitted its findings and recommendations to Ontario Premier
Mike Harris. These findings and recommendations are one hundred per
cent self-serving in terms of the extent to which they cater to the
interests of big business and their need to be competitive within a
global economy at the expense of the
legitimate needs of members of society. The starting point of the
so-called Red Tape Commission is not to open society's path to progress
in any way, shape or form, but to make sure that Ontario is Open for
Business, which is the stated agenda of the Ontario government in the
service of the financial oligarchy.
It is indicative that the RTRC came to its conclusions
with the help
of an External Advisory Committee of 30 business leaders. The Harris
government in keeping with the medieval anti-social dogma that
government regulations is an unnecessary interference for an unfettered
free market economy, has declared
that the removal of red tape is one of the keys to building a positive
jobs climate.
As a result all the findings and recommendations further
destroy any
notion of a modern society which is responsible towards its members and
goes a long way to bring in new arrangements which will put all members
of society into a position of fending for themselves and at the mercy
of "market forces." Most
of the government regulations which are the target of attack are
already extremely inadequate to protect the working people of Ontario
and the most vulnerable members of society. They are based on the
self-serving notion that various boards serve both employer and the
worker alike, whereas they rule according
to laws which are designed to protect the property interests of the
ruling class. Whereas the need of society is to establish a new
foundation, a new economic base and superstructure so that the claims
of the members of society are put in first place, the measures adopted
by governments at all levels are to get rid of
any fetters which restrain the making of maximum capitalist profit.
The spearhead of the neo-liberal anti-social agenda and
ideological
offensive of governments at all levels in Canada and around the world
is to destroy all the achievements of human civilization as concerns
the creation of a modern society. Because human beings in this day and
age are born to society, they depend
on society to provide them with a livelihood so that they can, in the
first place, provide themselves with food, clothing and shelter. Within
this framework, the notion of welfare programs is to ensure that those
who through no fault of their own are not able to work are provided for
at standards commensurate with
those of the society as a whole. These standards cannot be set at
levels of "dire need" or "abject poverty" but must be according to what
provides all members of society with access to the standards of living
attained by that society. What is the use of saying that Canada has one
of the highest standards of living in
the world if an ever greater number of people cannot access those
standards of living?
Secondly, the members of society depend on society to
provide them
with appropriate levels of health care. What is an appropriate level of
health care cannot be arbitrarily determined as governments at all
levels are currently doing, by privatizing all but what they claim are
essential services. A healthy present
generation is required in order to guarantee the future of society. A
modern society would first and foremost guarantee a health system based
on preventative health care as well as proper nutrition and all round
sports programmes for children and physical education for adults and
seniors. However, through cutbacks
at all levels of the education system even physical education has been
all but eliminated.
The education system can also not be geared to "free
market forces."
Even though no matter what the economic base of a society, education is
geared to the needs of society, it is only when the conception of
society is based on a meaning which incorporates its members, that this
makes any sense. The education
level determines the cultural level of society as well. An education
system which is driven by "free market force" is giving rise to an
every deepening cultural and spiritual crisis in which youth are the
main victims.
The propaganda surrounding the so-called Red Tape
Commission
completely diverts from these essential issues. Those who are serious
about opposing these unprecedented attacks on their living standards
will make advance only if they fight within the context of creating a
new society which puts the claims of
the members of society in first place.
Suppression
of Scientific Research
Muzzling of Canadian Scientists Opposed at
International Conference
- Charlie Vita -
On February 17, a panel was organized by Canadian
scientists
entitled "Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How to Re-Open the
Discourse" at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's
annual meeting, held this year in Vancouver. The panel brought together
science writers
and scientists who are opposed to the Harper government's
ongoing attempts to prevent government scientists from speaking to the
media. The panel's description read in part, "Across Canada,
journalists are being denied access to publicly funded scientists and
the research community is frustrated with the way government scientists
are being muzzled. Some observe that it
is part of a trend that has seen the Canadian government tighten
control over how and when federal scientists interact with the media.
As a result, media inquiries are delayed, and scientists are less
present in coverage of research in Canada."
The panel was addressed by writer Margaret Munro of
Postmedia
News,
Professor Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria and Francesca
Grifo of the Scientific Integrity Program for the U.S.-based Union of
Concerned Sciences.
Munro opened with a presentation entitled: "The Muzzling
of Canada's
Federal Scientists." In it she outlined her experience as a science
writer and how scientists are being muzzled. "It's pretty clear that
for federal scientists, Ottawa decides now if the researchers can talk,
what they can talk about and when they
can say it," she said, adding that the government currently employs
4,459 information officers, media handlers and strategists to do such
work. New rules to limit government scientists' ability to speak to the
media were put in place in 2007 by the Harper government. According to
reports, the new rules have resulted
in an 80 per cent drop in media coverage of climate change science.
"It's now become a very closed system, with government
taking media
and message control to sometimes quite incredible extremes," Munro said
of the rules' effects.
Professor Weaver added that many scientists are
frustrated, but
haven't spoken out with a collective voice for fear of being branded
"radicals" and losing their funding.
Two prominent examples raised were the case of Kristina
Miller, a
Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist, and that of David
Tarasick, an ozone researcher at Environment Canada. Miller has done
important work on emerging salmon diseases on the West Coast. She was
told not to speak to the media by
government minders, and even told not to attend workshops at which
experts were discussing issues related to her research. Tarasick and
other researchers at Environment Canada had reported on a large hole in
the ozone layer which has developed over the Arctic. His team's work
was published in the journal Nature right at the time it was
revealed that the
Harper
government was considering cutting Environment Canada's internationally
used ozone monitoring program. Tarasick himself had received a letter
warning of a possible "discontinuance of job function" as part of cuts
to
government spending. For months
the government would not grant the media any interviews with Tarasick
regarding his important discoveries. When it finally did, government
minders tried to limit the interview topics and even intervened during
the eventual phone interview when Tarasick was asked about the
government's
efforts to keep him from speaking.
Union of Government
Professionals Speaks Out
In a
statement coinciding with the panel, Gary Corbett, President of the
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the union
representing 23,000 government scientists and researchers, took a firm
stand against what is happening to his
members. "We believe that muzzling scientists who work for the public
good threatens the safety of all Canadians, undermines our democracy
and our country's ability to meet its full potential," he said.
"Government scientists are between a rock and a hard place -- their
ability to do their jobs and protect Canadians
is compromised by disappearing resources, a lack of support from their
employer and their inability to communicate. Our union does not need
government approval to speak up for public science and for the
Canadians whose safety depends on it," he added.
Open Letter to Prime Minister Harper
- February 17, 2012 -
The following letter was jointly issued by the
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and several
associations of scientists, science writers and journalists to coincide
with the
panel entitled
"Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How to Re-Open the Discourse" at the
American Association of Advancement of Science's 2012 meeting in
Vancouver, BC.
***
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
Over the past four years, journalists and scientists
alike have
exposed the disturbing practices of the Canadian government in denying
journalists timely access to government scientists. Open letters to
your government from concerned journalists have been followed by
editorials and public lectures calling for improved
access. Still, cases of government muzzling of publicly funded
scientists continue.
Last fall, Environment Canada prevented Dr. David
Tarasick from
speaking to journalists about his ozone layer research, work which had
been published in the journal Nature. And earlier, the Privy
Council Office stopped Kristina Miller, a researcher at Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, from granting
interviews about her work -- findings that had been published in the
journal Science on the causes of sockeye salmon decline in
British Columbia.
Despite promises that your majority government would
follow
principles of accountability and transparency, federal scientists in
Canada are still not allowed to speak to reporters without the
"consent" of media relations officers. Delays in obtaining interviews
are often unacceptable and journalists are routinely
denied interviews. Increasingly, journalists have simply given up
trying to access federal scientists, while scientists at work in
federal departments are under undue pressure in an atmosphere dominated
by political messaging.
After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve this
issue, our
organizations -- which represent science journalists and communicators
and scientists across Canada and around the world -- have agreed to a
joint campaign to push for timely and open access to federally funded
scientists. Our campaign will use a variety
of tools to draw public attention for this issue and to spur your
government to tear down the wall that separates scientists,
journalists, and the public.
We urge your government to implement a policy of
transparent and
timely communication, one similar to that introduced in the U.S.
recently by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
This policy now encourages scientists to speak to the media without any
intermediary. It even encourages
scientists to express their own opinions, provided they indicate that
they are speaking personally and not on behalf of the employer.
Many federal scientists are world-renowned experts in
areas such as
climatology, agriculture, environment, energy solutions, infectious
disease, nanotechnology, engineering, and health care. Their important
research in support of public health and security, environmental
protection, and economic development
costs taxpayers billions of dollars, and is valuable to scientists
worldwide. Clearly Canadians have the right to learn more about the
science they support and to have unfettered access to the expertise of
publicly funded scientists.
Prime Minister, we want freedom of speech for federal
scientists
because we believe it makes for better journalism, for a more informed
public, for a healthier democracy, and it makes it more likely that
Canadians will reap the maximum benefit from the research they fund.
Sincerely,
Association des communicateurs scientifiques du
Québec (ACS)
-- Mathieu Robert-Sauvé, President
Association science et bien commun (ASBC)
-- Florence Pilon, President
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
-- Arnold Amber, President
Canadian Science Writers' Association (CSWA)
-- Peter McMahon, President
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of
Canada (PIPSC)
-- Gary Corbett, President
World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ)
-- Jean-Marc Fleury, Executive Director
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
