March
21, 2012 - No. 39
Education Is
a Right!
• Attacking Public Education in
the Name of "Choice" - Kevan Hunter
Health Care
• Hospital General Support
Services Workers Reach Tentative Agreement - Peggy Askin
Refine It Where You
Mine It!
• People of Alberta Support First
Nations' Bitumen Upgrader Plan - Dougal MacDonald
Enbridge Northern
Gateway Pipeline
• Governments Are Responsible to
Uphold Public Right, Not Monopoly Right - Peggy Morton
REDress Project
• Art Installation Visually
Represents Issue of Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women
Education Is a Right!
Attacking Public Education in the Name of
"Choice"
- Kevan Hunter -
On March 14, the Alberta government introduced an
amendment to Bill 2, the new Education
Act. The amendment adds the
following to the Preamble of the act:
"WHEREAS the Government of Alberta recognizes
that parents have a right to choose the religious and ethical
traditions in which their children are raised; that a child's education
begins in the home; that parents play a foundational role in the moral
and spiritual formation of their
children; and that these principles are reflected in the commitment of
the Government of Alberta to provide parents with choice in education,
including public schools, separate schools, Francophone schools,
charter schools, private schools and home education programs."
In the name of upholding the rights of parents,
the proposed Education Act
has been amended in a way which undermines
the universality of public education. Its effect will be to weaken
public control over education in Alberta and expand the sphere for
monopoly control over education.
By making public schools one of many "choices,"
the Alberta government is in fact directly attacking the system of
public schools and the remaining public control of schools. School
boards have already been stripped of their authority to set their
budgets. The Act opens the door to
further dismembering public control of education.
The amendment is also an attack on teachers and
their unions, part of the all-out attack on workers and professionals
who deliver public services and their dedication and expertise. The
broad expansion of charter schools made possible and clearly
anticipated by the legislation is a
method to further undermine public control and open the door to the
whole range of corporate interests who want to take over the "education
market." Public control of education policy is undermined, providing
new opportunities for the monopolies to exert their dictate and make
the education
system subservient to private interests, not the public good and
overall needs of the children, the teachers and the whole society.
The preamble of a bill exists to set out the
spirit in which the entire act will be interpreted. What place does
such a clause have in the preamble to the Education Act?
In a modern society, an Education Act
must first and foremost start
with the recognition that education
is a right. Such an Education Act
would then be enabling legislation to
provide this right with a guarantee. Amongst other things, the right to
education means that the wealth or income of a child's family should
have no bearing whatsoever on the quality of their education. A modern Education Act
would
recognize not only the right of every child to education, but the role
of public education in raising the level of the whole society.
Instead, the starting point is the "recognition"
that parents have the right to choose the education their children
should receive. This sleight of hand is to deliberately confuse matters
of individual right, especially the right to one's beliefs, with the
responsibility of government to provide
the right to education with a guarantee. This is then used as the
pretext to reduce public education to one "choice" amongst many that
parents may make for their children, on an equal footing with private
and charter schools. Suddenly the responsibility of the government is
not to provide education,
but "choice." This is a straight-forward attack on the public system,
which is now just one of many options, all of which will receive public
funding.
The outlook underlying this amendment is that
people are not born to society, but to their families, which is part of
the anti-social offensive demanding that everyone fend for themselves.
Under the
modern conditions of mainly urban life, what does it mean to say that
people are born to families
but not to society? The modern family is not an economic unit capable
of providing for its members. Today we live in a society of modern,
large-scale industrial production dominated by the most powerful global
monopolies. People are dependent on society for their livelihoods, and
people are striving
to solve the problem of establishing a society which recognizes this
modern reality and the guarantee of the rights which belong to all
people by virtue of being human, including the right to education.
The Alberta government's "choice" amendment and
other aspects of the amended Education Act such as the
relaxed regulations for charter schools and the virtual guarantee of
their expansion show the intent to further open up education as a
"market" for private interests to profit,
and to degrade the public system. The people of Alberta should oppose
such underhanded attacks on the right to public education. The
implementation of the public education system was a big step forward
for society and it is a vital necessity for the further development of
the society in a direction
that favours the interests of the people.
Health Care
Hospital General Support Services Workers
Reach
Tentative Agreement
- Peggy Askin -
Hospital workers represented by the Alberta Union
of Provincial Employees (AUPE) have reached a tentative agreement. The
agreement covers 22,000 general support services workers in hospitals
across Alberta.
The tentative three-year agreement is retroactive
to April 1, 2011. It includes a wage increase of three per cent each
year for the life of the contract; shift and weekend premium rates
equal to other Alberta Health Services (AHS) union contracts by 2013; a
$600 flexible health
spending account in January 2013
and supplemental vacation equal to other union contracts with AHS. AUPE
reports that improvements to hours of work, statutory holidays, layoff
and
recall language, part-time definitions and classifications have also
been reached.
The general support workers carried out a one-day
wildcat strike on February 16 in 28 cities and towns across Alberta.
The strike spread quickly from its start at the Royal Alexandra
Hospital in Edmonton as workers expressed their anger at the "final
offer" from AHS. The workers had already rejected a mediator's report
by an
overwhelming 95 per cent, but the AHS returned with an offer even lower
than the mediator's recommendation. The last offer from AHS
provided no increase on the grid for the first year, two per cent in
the
second year and cost
of living in the third year.
All strikes of Alberta hospital workers and
professionals
have been illegal since 1982, and the February 16 action marked the
third action by general support services workers since that time to
defy the unjust law which deprives them of the right to decide on
wages, benefits and working conditions
acceptable to themselves.
The wildcat ended with an agreement to
proceed to mediation-arbitration and no discipline of the workers
who participated in the strike. The tentative agreement was arrived at
with the assistance of a mediator. The agreement will now go to the
workers for a vote.
"This group of mainly female staff -- who work
mostly part time -- kill deadly hospital bacteria, sterilize surgical
equipment, transfer patients, are therapy aides, unit clerks and much
more. They work very hard and this agreement's aim is to recognize the
essential roles they perform
in the delivery of health care to Albertans," AUPE President Guy Smith
said.
Through their February 16 action, the general
support services workers made it clear that they will defend their
rights and dignity and their demands for wages, benefits and working
conditions commensurate with the important work that they do. They made
it clear that they will
not accept the bullying and blackmail of the AHS and Alberta
government, and have won definite improvements as a result of their
courageous actions.
Refine It Where You Mine It!
People of Alberta Support First Nations'
Bitumen
Upgrader Plan
- Dougal MacDonald -
Aboriginal people and their allies continue to
express a storm of outrage at the Redford government's refusal to
support the Aboriginal First Nation Centre's (AFNC) plan for a $6.6
billion oilsands bitumen refinery. On February 8, 2012, the government
declared that the AFNC's proposed
bitumen refinery was "too risky" to receive provincial investment, even
though earlier government and third-party analysis showed that
the AFNC project was economically viable. A
spokesperson for Alberta Energy said the proposal will not be
negotiated further nor would the government
consider an independent third-party assessment review.
The proposal by the AFNC, which represents almost
50 First Nations, obtained conditional approval from the government
last year to participate in the province's Bitumen Royalty-in-Kind
(BRIK) program, which was designed in part to support upgrader
construction in Alberta. Approved
companies get a government-guaranteed supply of raw bitumen, which the
company upgrades, refines and ships back for sale to overseas markets.
The company then gets a cut of the profits. Over the next 20 years,
proponents estimated the AFNC proposal would have contributed $100
billion to
the Canadian
economy.
The AFNC plan called for building a refinery to
process 125,000 barrels of bitumen each day by 2017, producing
gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other products for export to India and
China, countries which have already shown great interest in and
contributed funds to the initiative. The
deal has been in the works for four years, with millions and millions
of dollars already invested. The refinery was to be located in Lamont
County on approximately 1,700 acres in the area known as the Industrial
Heartland, Canada's largest hydrocarbon processing region.
Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First
Nation accused the Redford regime of racism. "The Alberta government
has never ever put a red light on any projects that are being put
forward by any major corporation or company in regards to oil and gas
development. Because
it's the First Nations that come up with one, this is the only known
project that was ever given the red light," said Adam. "The province of
Alberta is racist to the First Nation people and it just goes to show
that they will never ever sit down at the table at the First Nation
level in regard to moving
forward."
"It seems like many in government don't want to
see First Nations progress," said Chief Ron Morin of the Enoch Cree
Nation near Edmonton. Morin said the province's BRIK program seemed
like a way to get First Nations involved in Alberta's oilsands
industry. Under the proposal,
AFNC would bring in $150 million per year. Morin also noted that some
of Alberta's oilsands sit on land that was never given up under
treaties, and that the crude oil the provincial and federal governments
are trying to extract belongs to First Nations. "We believe they're
stealing from us every
day of the week," he said.
The Redford government's arbitrary decision
clearly flies in the face of the wishes of the people of Alberta. A
recent poll suggested 80 per cent of Albertans want to see more
upgrading and refining happening in the province to keep jobs and money
from flowing down the pipeline.
The very apt slogan, "Refine it where we mine it!" has been coined and
taken up with enthusiasm to express this dominant public opinion. But
representatives of the oilsands monopolies, whose main aim is simply to
make big scores by shipping unrefined bitumen out of the province as
fast as possible,
are constantly spreading disinformation that upgrading and refining in
Alberta is "too expensive."
By killing the AFNC proposal, the Redford regime
continues to expose its dual shameful roles as the opponent of public
right and the opponent of the rights and aspirations of the First
Nations people. The regime has again upheld monopoly right by blocking
plans to build a value-added
bitumen refining industry in Alberta that would benefit the people,
especially the First Nations. The regime has also again notified the
First Nations that they will continue to be punished for fighting for
their hereditary rights, in particular, for their militant resistance
to the energy monopolies' nefarious
plans to ship massive amounts of raw bitumen out of the province
through the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines.
Enbridge Northern Gateway
Pipeline
Governments Are Responsible to Uphold Public
Right, Not Monopoly Right
- Peggy Morton -
The Harper dictatorship has
clearly indicated its
intent to smash the regulatory framework which the dominant monopolies
consider a block to doing whatever they please in the pursuit of their
own narrow interests. The Harper government has been trying to paint a
scenario that crucial
infrastructure projects which are vital to the national interest are
being delayed through unnecessary "red tape" and cumbersome regulatory
processes, which it is claimed harm the Canadian economy. In this way
preparations are being made for sweeping regulatory changes, as with
the leaked
proposed changes to the Fisheries Act. The
requirement and just demand of Aboriginal peoples for good-faith
consultation on development of their ancestral and unceded lands is
presented as one such "barrier" to speedy and efficient approvals. So
too
are the concerns of Canadians about
all the negative impacts of giving mainly foreign oil monopolies
control over all aspects of exploitation of the oil sands including the
living and working conditions of the oil workers and the shipping of
raw bitumen.
Documents obtained by the Edmonton Journal under
access to information laws reveal that Indian Affairs and Northern
Development informed the government more than six years ago that it
lacked the resources to conduct the kind of review expected by First
Nations and Métis. The
documents show that instead, the Harper dictatorship essentially
contracted out its obligation to consult to Enbridge. "The Crown has
actually made industry responsible for their due diligence," Melanie
Omeniho, president of the Métis Nation, Local 1886, Edmonton
told the Edmonton
Journal.
The government's own guidelines, "Aboriginal
Consultation and Accommodation: Updated Guidelines for Federal
Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult," could not be clearer. It
states: "The common law duty to consult is based on judicial
interpretation of the obligations of the Crown
(federal, provincial and territorial governments) in relation to
potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights of the Aboriginal
peoples of Canada, recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution
Act,
1982. The duty cannot be delegated to third parties."
BC's Coastal First Nations have taken a firm stand
opposing the Joint Review Panel of the National Energy Board and
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for the Enbridge Northern
Gateway Pipeline project and have called for it to stand down. They
point out that, among other serious flaws in the review process, the
Joint Review Panel does not fulfill Canada's obligations to a
meaningful consultation and accommodation process which addresses
Aboriginal rights and title.
According to the Edmonton
Journal, environmental
assessment agency spokeswoman Isabelle Perrault said the joint review
process "provides a fair, efficient, effective and reasonable means of
ensuring that all aboriginal groups have the same information as all
other parties and have
an opportunity to provide the government the best available information
with respect to the project and its potential impacts on the
environment and on potential or established aboriginal and treaty
rights."
This statement clearly does not meet the test of
the duty to consult and legal precedent has clearly established that
the government cannot off-load its obligation to engage in good-faith
consultation and accommodation to private interests. Furthermore, the
statement makes it clear that
the Harper government considers "consultation" to be a one-way street
--
a matter of an exchange of whatever information the government sees fit
to share and a process where people can express their concerns on
matters decided by the Harper dictatorship. It has nothing whatsoever
to do with
genuine consultation much less the right to decide. It is even more
fraudulent when this "consultation" is not based on upholding the
public interest, but claiming that whatever serves the most powerful
monopolies such as Enbridge constitutes the national interest.
It has been further revealed that Enbridge
lobbied the federal government to scrap the Pacific North Coast
Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), established to develop a marine
plan for the Pacific North Coast eight months before the government
withdrew from the agreement, effectively cancelling it.
When the federal government did so, it was without
any consultation with the Coastal First Nations. The fact that the
federal government acted as a direct result of lobbying from Enbridge
is being cited as a problem for the Harper government in the form of a
possible
legal challenge.
Tom Flanagan, Harper's former mentor and member
of the "Calgary School" of academics who provided the ideological
foundation for the Reform Party, recently weighed in on Harper's
actions. Flanagan's role has been to lead the attack on collective
rights, especially the hereditary
rights which belong to Aboriginal peoples. In an article in the Globe
and Mail, Flanagan stated: "In the 1997 Delgamuukw
case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that aboriginal title still
exists across British Columbia where treaties have never been signed.
That includes most of the
province except for the northeast, where Treaty 8 was negotiated in
1899-1900. The court ruled that aboriginal title had not been
extinguished by B.C.'s course of dealing with indigenous people, even
though the government had assigned them to reserves and granted to
others the lands on which
they used to live." Flanagan added, "Similarly, the Supreme Court
decided in Mikisew
(2005) concerning Treaty 8 lands that the government had a duty to
consult." He ignores the fact that Treaty 8 was not a treaty of
land surrender and that aboriginal title was not extinguished on
those lands
either.
Flanagan then provides both a warning and a clue
as to where Harper is headed. "Consultations must be full and thorough,
accommodation to first nations' concerns must be made where possible,
and compensation must be paid where interests are damaged." He then
goes on to argue
that in Delgamuukw the court was very clear that
"'the building of infrastructure can justify the infringement of
aboriginal title.' Consultation, accommodation, compensation? Yes.
Veto? No." Flanagan suggests that the courts have not laid down "clear
criteria for assessing
the adequacy of consultation."
Is Flanagan egging Harper on to try and force the
courts to provide a narrow definition of what kind of consultation is
required and what justifies infringement of aboriginal title? Flanagan
is a virulent assimilationist and advocate of introducing "fee simple"
arrangements on First Nations lands.
The Harper government together with the Redford
government in Alberta have politicized private interests on the basis
that whatever serves the interests of the monopolies must be done in
the name of protecting the economy and the national interest. The
Workers' Opposition together
with the First Nations are demanding their sovereign right to decide
and that governments must uphold the public good. Together they can
organize a broad opposition to nation-wrecking and in favour of
nation-building.
Rally
against the
Enbridge pipeline in Prince Rupert, BC, February 7, 2012. (Friends of Wild Salmon)
REDress Project
Art Installation Visually Represents Issue of
Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women
Winnipeg visual artist Jaime Black installed her
REDress art project drawing attention to missing and murdered
aboriginal
women by hanging empty red dresses along roads around the University of
Alberta campus and in the university's central quadrangle. The powerful
REDress art project, which was
displayed for two weeks in March, has already been shown in a number of
locations across Canada and has been well received.
The Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) reports that as of
March 31, 2010, it recorded information for 582
cases of missing or murdered aboriginal women. Nearly half of the
murder cases remain unsolved. Most Aboriginal and human rights
organizations agree that the
actual number of women and girls missing or murdered is much higher. It
is noteworthy
that the NWAC's data only goes until two years ago because that is when
the Harper
government's March 2010 budget ended funding for NWAC's Sisters in
Spirit research and
data collection project on the missing and murdered Aboriginal women.
Black said of the REDress Project: "I want people to
realize that all
women are valuable and all women deserve to be safe in our country. It
doesn't matter what they're doing and it doesn't matter what they're
facing, they deserve safety."
Read The
Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
