|
February 15, 2012 - No. 18 Alberta Budget Desperate Attempt to Present Fool's Gold
|
On February 9, the Alberta
government introduced its
2012-2013 budget. For weeks leading up to the budget, the monopoly
media carried out a shrill campaign about the need to eliminate the
deficit, reduce spending on social programs and attack the wages,
benefits and working conditions of the workers who
deliver these services and programs. The minute that Finance Minister
Ron Liepert finished first reading of the budget, the monopoly media
deemed it a "pre-election budget" in which the government carried out
"record spending." The  Rally at Alberta Health Minister's office, April 17, 2009. |
The Conservatives are moving swiftly towards further privatization of seniors' care. In 2011-2012 the Affordable Supportive Living Initiative had a paltry budget of $75 million. This has now been cut to $25 million in this budget with no increase in the next three years. The government will continue to hand over public funds to private developers to make it sufficiently profitable to build seniors' housing, but private developers will be able to lift the cap which now limits "accommodation costs" for supportive living and long-term care.
To put the funding for social housing in perspective, the cost for a new remand centre to house people waiting to be released on bail or waiting for trial is more than $563 million while $25 million goes to social housing.
As in previous years, the government claims to be increasing funding for education while setting the stage for deteriorating conditions in Alberta classrooms. While claiming to provide "sustainable, and predictable" funding for education, the per-student base instructional grant to school boards will increase by a mere one per cent for 2012-2013, with an increase of two per cent promised for the following two years. Meanwhile, the government itself projects inflation will grow at a rate of 2.5 per cent and enrollments are also growing. Similarly, in 2011, the government claimed it was increasing funding for education, while the reality was that its "increase" was less than that required to maintain education at its existing level, resulting in cutbacks to teaching and support staff and to valuable programs.
After two years with no funding increases, the operating
budget for advanced education has only been increased by 2 per cent.
This is not going to stop the cuts, much less provide the necessary
expansion to reduce class sizes, and put an end to the constant
increases in tuition and ancillary fees.
On paper, the budget provides an increase of 2.3 per cent in funding
for post-secondary education. Everyone is supposed to praise this to
the skies because for the previous two years the increase was zero,
forcing cuts to the quality of university and college education across
the province. But what will such a minuscule increase, which does not
even take into account the natural population increase and inflation,
do to address the many problems faced by students, staff and faculty?
Tuition fees continue to rise and remain above the national average,
bogus ancillary fees -- the highest in the country -- continue to be
added and increased, and not a dent is made in the huge levels of
student indebtedness. Meanwhile, the cuts to teaching and support
staff, programs, courses and support services continue, all of which
further undermine the quality of education. And, as before, the
front-line education workers who are in the best position to know the
needs of the education sector, continue to be marginalized from the
entire budgetary process.
What are the Alberta government and the monopoly media up to when they present this as a "good news" budget that increases spending on social programs? One thing is for sure, it shows that the government is acutely aware that Albertans are not calling for cuts to social programs but are demanding that governments uphold their social responsibility. It serves the aims of the monopolies and their claim to more and more of the wealth produced by the working class. If oil prices are high in coming years, all the warnings about the need to "save for the future" will be used to oppose a pro-social agenda where more is invested in social programs. Instead, more public funds will be diverted and used as a source of capital for private interests. If oil prices decline, then it will be used to claim that there is "no choice" but to slash social programs. Either way, the aim is to keep the working people disempowered and to serve monopoly right over public right. Neither the working people as a whole who produce the wealth nor the public service workers who know best what is needed to strengthen the social fabric of society are permitted any role. Why this is the case and how to change it is an important issue for discussion.
Provide the Rights of People with Disabilities
with a Guarantee!
The announcement that payments under the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) program would be increased by $400 a month was front and centre in the budget address delivered by Finance Minister Ron Liepert. This brings the monthly income for a single person living on AISH to $1,588 a month, still far below the official poverty line. The 20 per cent of people on AISH who can work on a limited basis will now be able to earn $800 a month, up from $400 a month before their AISH payments and health benefits start to be clawed back.
This increase in AISH is a necessity for the more than 40,000 AISH recipients. Albertans with severe and permanent disabilities and their allies have fought and continue to fight for the right to live in dignity. Prior to 2004 AISH had not been increased for 10 years and the monthly payment was $850 a month. A concerted campaigns and actions by AISH recipients, their families, anti-poverty organizations, unions and many agencies and organizations that work with persons with disabilities achieved this increase to AISH and other small incremental increases since that time.
 Gathering of recipients of the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped and others on February 9, 2012 in expectation of the details of the Alberta Budget. (www.actionhall.ca) |
Even with the increased income exemption, those who can work on a limited basis will still be living below the poverty line. Furthermore it is often a battle to meet the criteria to receive AISH. Media coverage in 2011 highlighted the case of a woman with severe cerebral palsy who went through two years of doctors' visits, referrals and filling in government forms before she received AISH. Recipients of this income also have to send in periodic medical re-assessments to continue to "qualify."
Persons with disabilities must be guaranteed the right
to a Canadian standard income that enables them to live with dignity.
Far from going from one level of poverty to another, those living with
disabilities need to be guaranteed a Canadian standard wage equivalent
to what a worker in Canada earns. As well, they have a right to what
they require to meet their special needs. For those with medical needs
living on AISH, often special housing and a myriad of other supports
for daily living are necessary.
It is simply unacceptable that instead of taking up their social responsibility to provide Albertans on AISH and all those who are vulnerable with a guaranteed income commensurate with their needs, the Redford government congratulates itself for keeping its promise to increase AISH. How can it be that a right which belongs to someone by virtue of their being human is reduced to the manipulation of election promises by a party in power?
The whole experience of the fight for increases to the income of the most vulnerable shows the necessity for the workers and their allies to step up their fight for a human-centred alternative where rights can be provided with a guarantee.
Stop Paying the Rich, Increase Funding
For Social Programs!
Our Security Lies in our Fight for the Rights of All!
Disinformation Campaign to Attack
Public Sector Workers and Step Up Privatization
Fight to Defend Public Services All Over Again!
A paper entitled "Public
Sector Wage Growth in
Alberta,"
authored by Ken Boessenkool and Ben Eisen was published in the January
2012 research papers of the School of Public Policy at the University
of Calgary. The study purports to discuss the increase in the number of
public sector workers in Alberta
and their achievements in fighting for Canadian-standard wages and
working conditions which are acceptable to themselves. From the get-go,
any increase in the investments in social programs is considered ipso
facto to be a negative development which must be reversed. The
authors'
aim is to provide justification
for the attack on the right of workers to determine their wages and
working conditions, and call for attacks on public services and the
workers that provide them in the name of deficit reduction.
The study compares the years 2000 and 2010. It does so without providing any context. From 1993 to 1995, Alberta reduced investments in health care alone by 21.6 per cent (before inflation). Hundreds of hospital beds were closed and one entire hospital was actually blown up. Tens of thousands of public sector workers lost their jobs. Entire public services such as highway maintenance, registry offices and the liquor stores were handed over to private interests. This virulent phase of the anti-social offensive had a devastating effect not only on the workers who lost their jobs and the people who needed their services, but also on the whole Alberta economy. It prolonged the downward business cycle and created even more misery. Boessenkool and Eisen take 2000, when the effects of this offensive were still very much reflected in the numbers of public sector workers and their wages, as their starting point.
Boessenkool and Eisen have nothing to say about either the rights of the workers or the social responsibility of governments. Public sector workers have a right to Canadian-standard wages, benefits, working conditions and pensions. In Alberta, these workers started the decade -- which has seen increasing attacks on the rights of public sector workers across the country -- with wages below even the Canadian average and with a greatly reduced workforce under tremendous stress trying to provide the services people needed. Alberta's population has grown by more than 26 per cent in the past 10 years, greatly increasing the population in need of social programs and public services. At the same time, from 2000 to 2010, Alberta had the highest rate of inflation of any province in Canada, with compounded inflation at 33 per cent.
In order for public service workers to do their duty to society, they would require substantial increases in numbers, not only to meet population growth but to restore services. Their right to Canadian-standard wages, benefits and working conditions acceptable to their peers is a necessary part of providing these services. Increasing the number of public service workers provides a benefit to the whole society. So too do the increases to their standard of living. Not only does a Canadian-standard of wages and benefits contribute to peace of mind for these workers, permitting them to do their duty, but the wages of public sector workers are generally spent in the community, increasing demand for goods and services and benefiting the local economy.
Boessenkool and Eisen begin from a capital-centred outlook. Their basic premise is that owners of capital have first claim on all wealth created by the workers. The paper then distorts and misuses data to disinform and justify the predetermined conclusion that more and more wealth should be handed over to the rich.
The paper begins: "In recent years, Alberta's fiscal stance has shifted from large surpluses to deficits, and a large part of the blame appears to be due to rising public sector salaries." Then it makes entirely false claims about soaring public sector wages. The aim of the "study" is to attack the right of public sector workers to negotiate wages and benefits acceptable to themselves. But it does not provide information about the wages and benefits of the workers it is attacking. Statistics Canada provides this definition of what is included: "Wages and salaries include directors' fees, bonuses, commissions, gratuities, income in kind, taxable allowances, and retroactive wage payments...."
A study commissioned by the
Alberta Union of Provincial
Employees (AUPE) pointed out:
"A second issue arises in [Boessenkool and Eisen's] methodology. Just one example: they calculate the per-employee spending for provincial and territorial general government for 2010 at $83,326, based on 29,456 employees and a total wage and salary cost of $2,454,450,656. A decomposition of this information is instructive. According to government sources 29,556 were employed in 2010, a slight difference from Table 1830002 [Statistics Canada Table -- TML Ed.] Of these employees 21,082 were members of the Alberta Union Provincial Employees, and 8,474 were outside the union. The average salary for the union employees was $57,473 (considerably lower than $83,326). The spending on union employees' wages and salaries was $1,211,645,786. This means more than half the total expenditure on public employees (i.e. $1,242,804,870) was paid to the non-union employees. This amounts to an average salary per non-union employee of $146,661."
AUPE President Guy Smith points out: "Mr. Boessenkool and Mr. Eisen's paper obscures more than it illuminates. They claim Government of Alberta wages have increased by 103 per cent and say the public sector has grown faster than the overall population. As far as our members in front-line government jobs are concerned, both statements are false."
AUPE points out that the paper's claims about huge increases in the number of public sector workers are also completely bogus. For example, despite the fact that Alberta's population has increased by one-third over the past 10 years, the number of workers directly employed by the provincial government actually decreased slightly. The reality is that these workers are experiencing severe stress trying to provide services needed by a greatly increased population. AUPE points out, "The total number of employees in December 2010 was 28,496 compared to 28,579 in Dec. 2000. The average number of employees in 2010 was 29,457 compared to 28,870 in 2000. The AUPE bargaining unit remained at approximately 21,000 members over the same period." Boessenkool and Eisen are not interested in finding out whether increased workloads led to forced overtime, what problems the workers are facing and what is needed to provide the services which society requires.
The authors speak about the increases in the total "provincial wage bill" without even inquiring as to which services are included in 2010 that were not in 2000. For example ambulance services would not have been included until 2007 when Alberta Health Services took over ambulance services from the municipalities.
Similarly, they use
"average weekly earnings" as a basis
to make claims about wage increases. Average weekly earnings include
overtime. Average weekly earnings could increase without any increase
in the hourly rate of pay because the workers were working more hours,
either as overtime or because part-time
workers were working increased part-time or full-time hours. Nor is
inflation taken into account, further misrepresenting what is being
discussed.
This attack on public sector unions and the scapegoating of public sector workers is aimed at bringing down the standard of living of public sector workers and paving the way for the privatization of the public sector and the destruction of unions.
Now, as Albertans take up the fight waged in defence of health care, education and public services in the 1990s all over again, the experience from that time can be used to strengthen the fight for workers' rights today. An important aspect of that experience is the need to start from our own human-centred outlook. It means refusing to submit to the pressure from the rich and their apologists to accept their capital-centred outlook. This means discussing and arguing out why increased funding for social programs is essential.
Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Hearings
First Nations Declare "Our Land Is Not for Sale"
Rally in Haisla First Nation community Kitimaat Village, BC (located 11 km south of Kitimat),
May 28, 2010, (Ian McAllister)
The joint review process for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline does not meet the obligations of the federal government to good faith consultation and accommodation based on Aboriginal title and rights. Besides the fact that this so-called review process is a fraud from A to Z no matter which way you look at it, this is one of the important reasons why the First Nations oppose it. The Harper government's deceit begins when First Nations were not consulted at the time it decided on the mandate of the Joint Review Panel. Its terms of reference were decided unilaterally. They are not based on the recognition of the hereditary rights of Aboriginal peoples arising from the takeover of their lands and are in contempt of the rights established in law to good faith consultation and accommodation of the needs and interests of the First Nations.
Consequently, Aboriginal
peoples
are reduced to simply another "special interest group" who can present
their views along with everyone else, while only views on
matters which the panel has declared to be within their mandate
will be considered. For First Nations to exercise their right to their
own economic base and control over development of their territory
requires at the least a process of consultation in good faith
consistent with this right. Nowhere is impact on Aboriginal title and
rights contained in the mandate of the joint review process. In fact,
the only specific consultations with First Nations will take place
after the Environmental Assessment Report has been completed. The Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act limits assessment to impact on
current First Nations land uses and cultural heritage. This negates the
right of First Nations to their own economic
base and control over developments in their territories. Instead it
preserves the colonial policy of imperialist exploitation and plunder.
As the First Nations addressed the panel in British Columbia and Alberta, Chair Sheila Leggett lectured the First Nations that they should stay "on topic," that is confine themselves to the terms unilaterally decided by the review panel. Her response to Dene Grand Chief Bill Erasmus showed the extent of the colonial outlook which pervades the entire process. Erasmus' intervention centred on two questions: the fact that the First Nations have never ceded this land and the fact that governments do not uphold their social responsibility but permit the monopolies to act with impunity, damaging the natural environment and the health of the people. Leggett responded:
"While we understand that you're concerned about further development of the oil sands, we will not be considering these issues in making our decisions on this project. The Panel has outlined on a number of occasions why we would not include the environmental effects of oil sands development to the list of issues for the project.
"Among other reasons, we've previously noted that oil sands projects are subject to provincial regulation and many undergo an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. And there's not a sufficiently direct connection between the project and any particular existing or proposed oil sands developments to warrant consideration of the environmental effects of such activities under the [National Energy Board (NEB)] Act or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
"So we are here to listen to your oral traditional knowledge on the potential effects of the proposed project which is the Application in front of us and we would encourage you to direct your comments in that way."
This paternalistic and
colonial approach left no doubt
that the panel has no intention of addressing the real and valid
question raised as to the legitimacy of the authority of the panel
which does not recognize Aboriginal right and title. It made it clear
that it does not recognize the right of First Nations to develop
their own economic base and exercise control over development in their
territory. This right exists as a hereditary right arising from
Canada's takeover of indigenous lands and resources as well as the
rights which belong to all people by virtue of being human. This is not
a matter of privileges bestowed on those
who measure up to whatever standard the Harper dictatorship or any
other government decides. It is a right which can neither be given nor
taken away. This right is clashing with monopoly right and the
constitution of the panel further reveals the aim of the Harper and
other governments across Canada to 
expropriate
the wealth on Aboriginal lands, and to impose the dictate of the most
powerful monopolies as the "national interest."
There is no such thing as genuine consultation when one party can set the agenda and impose it unilaterally. This is not a matter of form. It is very similar to the approach that the monopolies are trying to impose on the working class, where in place of good faith bargaining the only thing that the monopolies want to "negotiate" is the terms of surrender to their dictate. It must not pass!
Stand with the First Nations in their fight to uphold their dignity and right to decide and develop their economy and put an end to the colonial legacy of poverty, genocide and oppression. Stand as one in fighting for a new direction for the economy which benefits the producers, not the monopolies!
Note
The NEB website makes the following statement in "Northern Gateway Pipeline Project -- Questions and Answers." In response to the question "How is the Panel assisting the federal Crown with respect to the Crown's duty to consult with Aboriginal people?" the NEB responds:
"The federal Crown's duty to consult with Aboriginal people is being coordinated by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The Crown will rely on the joint review process and the applicant's consultation efforts, to the extent possible, to meet the Crown's duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, on behalf of the Crown, will lead consultation if there are any issues related to the project that are beyond the mandate of the Joint Review Panel. The Crown will continuously monitor the adequacy or sufficiency of its Aboriginal consultation efforts throughout the Panel process.
"The Panel will receive and consider information from Aboriginal peoples related to how the project may affect potential or established Aboriginal and treaty rights, before it issues its report or makes recommendations and decisions.
"Aboriginal people or groups who have project-related concerns should make these known to the Panel through the joint review process. For more information on Aboriginal Consultation for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, please see the Aboriginal Consultation Framework for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project."
Rally against the Enbridge pipeline in Prince Rupert, BC, February 7, 2012. (Friends of Wild Salmon)
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca