June 12,
2012 - No. 87
Alberta
Speech from the Throne
• Throne Speech Defends Monopoly
Dictate - Peggy Morton
Stop Paying the Rich!
• No More P3 Schools for Alberta! -
Kevan Hunter
Health Care Is a Right!
• All Out Support for the Hardisty
Nursing Home Workers!
Criminalization of the Right to
Resist and Organize
• Denounce the RCMP-led INSET Team
in Alberta - George Allen
Harper Dictatorship's Wrecking of
Agriculture Canada
• Oppose the New Wave of Cuts to
Agriculture in the Western Prairies - Dougal MacDonald
Alberta Speech from the
Throne
Throne Speech Defends Monopoly Dictate
- Peggy Morton -
The Throne Speech delivered to the first session of the
28th Alberta Legislature on behalf of the Redford government on May 25
reads like an ode to monopoly right. One can almost hear the Tories
(and Wildrose) bursting into song -- "Praise the global monopolies from
whom all blessings flow, praise them ye creatures here below..."
"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," the Throne
Speech says. It leaves no doubt that the Progressive
Conservative government led by Premier Alison Redford is a dictatorship
of the monopolies which will trample public good and politicize instead
private interests.
This idea that government
should not "interfere" in the lives of Albertans is a theme running
through the Throne Speech. Repeated again at the conclusion, the point
is driven home that everyone
will be left to fend for themselves.
"And, most importantly, it [the government] will get out of Albertans'
way so they can unleash their creative potential and build a prosperous
province, one that is not only rich in resources but in opportunity,
and a quality of life that uplifts everyone it touches."
The fact that these resources belong to the First Nations and Metis and
the people of Alberta and Canada and that governments are duty-bound to
uphold public right, not monopoly right, is completely obscured, as is
the reality that it is the working people who produce the wealth and
they have first claim on it to meet their needs and those of their
families and the future generations. This is the case because they are
born to society and depend on it for their living. For the government
to guarantee the private interests of the monopolies and provide
self-serving justifications for trampling the rights of the
people underfoot will not do.
The Redford government puts forward libertarian principles of small
government and fending for oneself in the name of liberty and
prosperity. Despite this, it sets out to distinguish itself from the
kind of government proposed by the Wildrose Party by
presenting itself as non-insular. It will not limit the prospects of
the monopolies in
Alberta with firewalls or conceptions of sovereignty which fetter their
room to manoeuvre within the worldwide and North American
inter-monopoly and inter-imperialist competition and striving for
domination.
"The people of this province have declared that they are not content to
gaze inward and build walls. They want to look outward and build
bridges. They seek to engage with the world around them and, through
investment and innovation here at home, play a leading role in making
our world a better place," the Throne Speech says.
The Redford government is telling us that what is good for the
oil monopolies is not only good for Alberta, but good for Canada and
for the
world as well. The vast energy resources of Alberta have always been
put at the
disposal of the U.S. imperialists' to plunder and hold as reserves in
their wars of aggression and occupation. Selling out the resources to
the global monopolies has been the basis for the fortunes of the
Alberta-based energy sector. The real issue is how this is to be
accomplished today, within the complexities that present themselves as
the monopoly interests clash and each monopoly seeks to come out on top.
The Alberta Tories share with Wildrose and the federal Conservatives a
determination to push through pipelines to export bitumen and oil.
Redford is sending a message here that success has several
requirements. One is that anything standing in the way of getting
bitumen to market and handing over Alberta lock, stock and barrel to
the global oil cartels will be swept out of the way by whatever
means necessary. To this end, the Throne Speech tells us: "the
regulatory enhancement project, which combines multiple bodies into a
single regulator for upstream oil, gas, and coal, is a critical part of
this plan. Your government will simplify the system and give energy
firms the nimble, responsive regulator they need to stay competitive."
Second is an increased role for the Alberta government in providing
research and technology to the energy monopolies. It is another
gigantic pay-the-rich scheme. To this end, the Throne Speech announces,
"Your government will partner with industry on research and
development through a second Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research
Authority to maintain a competitive, world-class resource economy for
the 21st century, grow the marketplace for clean energy, and protect
the jobs so many Albertans depend on."
During the provincial election campaign, Redford promised $3 billion
for the revived agency.
"Results-Based Budgeting" for Social Programs
The Throne Speech also confirms its "results-based
budgeting approach" for social programs, the disastrous
consequences of which the people have come to know. To couch this
in
palatable terms, the Redford government assumes an allegedly urbane and
sophisticated sales pitch, based on its cynical idea
that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Speaking about public services, the Throne Speech promotes what it
calls "fiscal restraint and foresight, spending wisely and saving
intelligently." It states that "to enforce unprecedented
discipline in public spending, this government is pioneering
results-based budgeting" in which every single part of the government's
operations will be scrutinized on a three-year cycle. To achieve this
the government needs to provide a justification for attacking
public services and the workers who provide them. It is thus going
to put in place yet another phony consultation process which will
give the impression that people have been consulted but in fact reach
predetermined conclusions. It is part of the depoliticization of the
people who are left with no link to the political power and no way to
have input into how their society is governed.
In this regard, one can appreciate the bad conscience of the Redford
government which has to appeal to a popular legitimacy even as it puts
all of Alberta's resources at the disposal of the monopolies. During
the election, the PCs claimed that they were "not your father's PC
Party." Now, in the Throne Speech, Albertans are told: "Every one of
those [Conservative] governments was distinct, and each put forward the
right vision in response to the issues Alberta confronted. Each was
suited to its time and place and pursued the right course for the right
circumstances in sync with Albertans' values."
This is said to confuse people about what the Redford government will
do. If past governments have done what was necessary in their time, it
means Ralph Klein was right to devastate health care, education and
social programs and privatize public services. Despite this, Albertans
are to believe that the Redford government will keep these services
public. Ed Stelmach, who tried to raise royalties and encourage
upgrading of bitumen in Alberta, incurred the displeasure of the oil
patch and was forced to resign, opening the door for Redford to become
Premier. How did he do the right thing for his time?
The Throne Speech does not in fact explain what changes have been
brought in over the years and how they favour the interests of
Albertans. The catch phrase "economic prosperity" is used to confuse
everything but nonetheless assuage the monopolies that their interests
will drive the government agenda.
Redford's pragmatism begins with the assertion that the role of
government is to ensure that Alberta is the most "economically free"
jurisdiction in North America and that everything is organized for the
expansion of private wealth and the success of the Alberta-based owners
of capital. Thus there can be no block to the uncontrolled development
of the oil sands.
"Economic freedom" for the rich means expanding their capital no matter
what the consequences for nation-building, the social and natural
environment and the well-being of the workers who together with Mother
Earth are the source of the wealth created.
Redford's program means that where she makes conflicting claims --
maintaining public services and "bringing new fiscal discipline to
budgets;" safeguarding the environment and streamlining the regulatory
process; and even a "balance between progressive and conservative
thinking," the direction will be determined by the balance sheet of the
oil monopolies and their requirements.
What it means to be "progressive" and "conservative" is to argue the
necessity for "fiscal discipline" -- another word for austerity -- in
order to attack public services, the living and working conditions of
workers and the public good. The issue of whether government is big or
small is to divert attention from who it serves. "Small" government is
promoted merely for purposes of concentrating more and more power in
the hands of fewer people who contract private corporations to run the
state in their own service. Demanding "austerity" of the people is
for purposes of channelling monies from the state treasury to
pay-the-rich schemes. Governments have become straightforward
kleptocracies -- governments of thieves.
To avert the disasters
which lie ahead at the hands of the Redford government, the working
people of Alberta must step up their work to insist on a new direction
for the economy which resolves the crisis in their favour, not those of
the rich. Governments are duty-bound to uphold public right, not
monopoly right. The working people and their youth, the First Nations
and Métis are answering this agenda with their own vision of a
society that upholds their rights based on a new direction for the
economy. Twenty-first century nation-building must serve the needs of
Canadians and engage in trade on the basis of mutual benefit so that it
serves the peoples of the world engaged in their own nation-building
projects which also uphold rights by virtue of being human, not
monopoly right which destroys Mother Earth and human beings. In place
of the of the dominant monopolies' pragmatism of the bottom line, the
working class vision puts the human factor/social consciousness
in command.
The Throne Speech makes it clear that the clash will continue in
Alberta between the interests the Redford Government represents and
what the people of Alberta stand for. Now is the time to prepare by
discussing the measures the government is putting in place to trample
the peoples' rights in the mud.
(See also: "Financial Oligarchs and Their
Representatives
Gather for Bilderberg Group Summit," in TML Daily, June 8, 2012 - No. 86)
Stop Paying the Rich!
No More P3 Schools for Alberta!
- Kevan Hunter -
During the recent Alberta election, Progressive
Conservative leader Alison Redford pledged to build 50 new schools and
renovate 70 others if elected. At the time, Redford stated "There is a
choice for Albertans to make in this election, a clear difference of
priorities. My priority is schools for children." If this
is the case, then Alison Redford's government must immediately reverse
the policy of turning schools over to "public-private partnerships" or
P3s which take funding from the classroom and other investments in
social programs to pay the rich.
Across Canada and Quebec, people are taking a
stand against such pay the rich schemes. In Quebec students are
fighting to provide the right to education with a guarantee, while the
Charest government has refused to consider their proposals and instead
has enacted the draconian Bill 78 which deprives students
of their civil liberties and criminalizes the youth and all who support
their just demands.
In the Alberta government's P3 school model, a
private-for-profit consortium designs and constructs the new schools
and then has a contract to provide maintenance for the schools for a
period of 30 years. At the end of the 30-year period, full
responsibility for the schools is transferred over to the government.
Studies have shown that the building schools as P3s increases the cost
of the school by as much as 50 per cent. (See TML Daily,
January 18, 2012) Furthermore,
while the monopoly responsible for running the schools is required to
leave the school "in good condition,"
it is anyone's guess as to what this means. In 25 years, will school
boards find themselves liable for scores of schools where major repairs
are just around the corner?
The first schools in Alberta built as P3s opened
up in September of 2010; additional schools opened in September 2011,
and more are expected for September of this year. As the government
builds P3 schools, teachers and other education workers as well as
students and parents are gaining practical experience
with what it means to have a P3 school, especially the loss of public
control.
Parents of students at Annata Brockman school in
the Hamptons neighbourhood in Edmonton went into action to demand that
their students go to school in the community, rather than be bussed to
schools outside their neighbourhood. Annata Brockman opened as a
Kindergarten to Grade 9 school in September
of 2010. Built for 600 students, the projected enrollment for next
September is 810. The school board's request for portables was
initially turned down when the Minister of Education said it would have
to re-negotiate the contract with the P3 owner, and that the school
core was too small to handle more students. The community mobilized,
and the government backed down on its refusal but nonetheless shifted
the cost of the portables onto the school board instead of providing
the funding.
The government claims that by building schools as
P3s, it saved 29 per cent in the case of the first 10 schools that were
built. In a study done by the Government of Alberta, it is said that
cost savings results from: "economies of scale, allocation of the risks
to the sector best able to manage them, fixed cost contract,
and construction process efficiencies."
What sort of nonsense is this? Of course it will
be cheaper to build schools according to an identical design. But
everyone but the Minister of Education knows that schools in different
communities with different needs might actually require different
designs. Nowhere is it even considered that a publicly-run construction
enterprise dedicated to building public infrastructure could achieve
the same economy of scale by making bulk purchases of the required
materials and parts. And nowhere is the amount handed over to the P3
consortiums for profit from initial construction and ongoing
maintenance contracts ever discussed.
TML spoke with staff in
other P3 schools, confirming that it is a common problem that already
the new schools are over capacity. Some classrooms literally burst at
the seams, with tables stretching out into the hallways. The students
most affected are the most vulnerable, the ones who have special
needs. Teachers are being asked to give input on how schools can deal
with the situation of overcrowded schools, for example how
non-traditional instructional spaces can be used for teaching. Students
face the prospect of moving from their old school only to find out they
cannot remain at the new school and must
move again. Parents frustrated with the whole process begin to consider
charter schools as an alternative.
Teachers, support staff, parents and students are
raising important questions. Who builds a new school without the
capacity to support the number of students in the community? Why should
brand-new schools be forced to resort to holding classes in the
cafeteria or in the front foyer? Are the "savings" being claimed
a result of building schools too small to accommodate their student
populations and of ignoring the individual needs of the communities
they serve?
Teachers in P3 schools report that P3 management
takes a sense of ownership away from those who use the school space on
a daily basis. The caretaker is disempowered and becomes more of a
property manager. Where the school caretaking staff used to resolve
issues in a timely manner, they must now wait
on Honeywell, the authority responsible for building maintenance.
Running jokes abound that start with the question "How many calls to
Honeywell does it take to change a lightbulb?" Issues sometimes take
months to get resolved. Schools have experienced extremes of heat and
cold as boilers are adjusted and fine-tuned -- one day the school will
be boiling hot and the next the
students will need to wear jackets.
Alberta
teachers rally for investments in education. Calgary, May 7, 2011.
|
Even the most basic functioning it taken out of
the hands of those who are in the space on a daily basis. There are
rooms without light switches, that instead run on automatic sensors.
The lights come on when the room is occupied and teachers cannot
control the lighting. Sun shades run on timers, programmed
to come down when there is a certain amount of light, without regard to
anything that might be going on in the classroom at the time. Teachers
are forced to apply for a permit to use tape or tacks on the walls.
When portables do arrive, they come with their own
drawbacks. While it is common place especially in elementary schools to
have sinks, these may or may not exist in portables and they may or may
not actually be attached to the school's plumbing. Adding portables
does not create extra space in the gymnasium
to accomodate the mandated daily physical activity, nor does it create
space in the library, boot rooms, extra lockers, or any of the other
necessities of a modern school building.
Major flaws in school design are evident, such as
drainage which drops water directly into play areas, creating floods in
spring and icy conditions in the winter. Teachers also pointed out that
new schools typically do not include playgrounds. It is up to the
families in each community to fundraise to build one.
Teachers and staff who work in the schools,
educating the younger generation and generations to come know clearly
what infrastructure is required to enable them to do their work. They
know first hand the impact that the learning environment has on
students. In a public education system, it is they who should
decide how schools need to be run, and not a group of powerful, mostly
foreign, monopolies. The government should be held to account for the
failure to build adequate facilities, for their pay-the-rich schemes,
and for allowing these corporations to exert so much control over the
functioning of schools. It's time to
put an end to taking funding out of the classrooms to pay the rich.
Teachers and staff in the schools must take the lead together with
parent councils in demanding increased funding for education, and an
end to P3s and all these pay-the-rich schemes.
Health Care Is a Right!
All Out Support for the Hardisty Nursing Home
Workers!
(AUPE)
Workers at Hardisty Nursing Home in Edmonton have
been on strike since May 21 for a first contract. Hardisty is a private
long-term care facility owned by Park Place which owns 13 nursing
homes, assisted living and seniors' residences in B.C. and Alberta. TML
spoke with the workers, who are
represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) on the
picket line.
The workers are on strike for a first contract
that gives them wage parity with public and not-for profit long-term
care facilities in Edmonton. The starting rate at Hardisty is about
$3.50
a hour lower than the industry standard. Most of the workers have two
jobs in order to make ends meet.
In an attempt to get a first collective
agreement,
the workers agreed to fight only for wage parity. This leaves them far
below the industry standard when it comes to sick leave, shift
differentials, benefits and pensions. For example, sick time only
accumulates to 24 days and there is no short-term or long-term
disability. But despite two mediators' recommendations, Park Place has
arrogantly refused to negotiate in good faith. Instead Park Place
provoked a strike and is now trying to run the facility with scab
replacement workers.
On June 5, workers at Revera Riverbend Retirement
Residence in Edmonton also began strike action and strike votes are
scheduled in other facilities across the province as well.
Private owners of long-term care and assisted
living facilities receive long-term contracts from the public health
authority. Alberta Health Services states that long-term care may be an
appropriate option for a small number of seniors or people with
disabilities who can no longer be cared for at home or in
supportive-living facilities. It states: "Long-term care is provided in
a hospital-like model to individuals with complex health needs that may
require supervision and unscheduled Registered Nurse assessment 24
hours a day." It cites people with complex end of life care needs,
complex medication management, complex nursing
care and inconsistent or unstable behaviour that places the individual
or others at risk as suitable for placement in long-term care. Yet
private owners are not required to provide proper staffing and other
necessities for residents to live in dignity and comfort.
Workers on
the picket line were eager to smash the silence on their working
conditions and the living conditions of the residents. Seniors and
workers pay the price for the profits of the owners, the workers told TML. The private owners are
publicly funded at the same level as public institutions. They cut
wages, refuse to provide pensions and benefits, and lower the level of
staffing and care in order to line their pockets. The company has
bought several new facilities in the past three years and it is
expanding its empire to provide sub-standard care at even more
institutions.
Even when fully staffed, personal care aides are
responsible for the daily personal care of eight to nine residents.
When
short-staffed, they will be taking care of up to 14 residents. With
high turnover and unwillingness of the management to pay overtime if a
casual staff member is not available, short-staffing occurs
frequently. Even with full staffing, less than one hour can be spent
with each patient, for bathing, grooming and dressing, and other
personal hygiene activities, feeding patients and everything else
needed for their comfort and dignity. Residents have to wait for help
instead of receiving it when they need it, and have
to spend longer in bed each day, for example getting put to bed early.
Poor quality food is another problem facing the
residents. Residents are charged a monthly "accommodation fee" of
approximately $1,500. Yet they have almost no fresh fruit in
their diet, are given powdered drinks instead of fresh juice, the
cheapest cuts of meat and so on.
Basic facilities such as an adequate number of
fully wheelchair-accessible bathrooms do not exist. Supplies such as
incontinence pads are restricted, and workers must report and justify
using more than the daily limit. If a resident needs someone to
accompany them to a doctor's appointment, the resident must
pay for the service and is charged a surcharge of $6 an hour more than
what
the worker who accompanies them is paid.
Too few cleaning staff is another problem,
compounded by the fact that housekeeping staff are not expected to
follow proper isolation techniques, because this takes time. As a
result, staff told TML, flu and
antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections spread through the facility.
Staff noted that the negligence
of the private owners impacts the public system as well, as the
residents end up back in acute care hospitals.
The dedication and care of the staff for the
residents was evident on the picket line. It could be seen in the
affectionate greetings exchanged with family members coming to see
their loved ones and well wishes expressed to the strikers.
There can be no doubt that the rights of the
residents and the workers are interdependent. Workers on the picket
line spoke not only of their own rights which are being violated by
Park Place, but the terrible impact on residents and staff alike of
allowing profiteers to run long-term care institutions. The Hardisty
strike shows once again that there is no place for profit in health
care.
All out support for the Hardisty workers! Join them on
the picket line. Visit the ICare4HardistySeniors website at www.icare4hardisty.com for
more information including picket line hours.
United Nurses of Alberta members join Hardisty workers on the picket
line, June 1, 2012. (UNA)
Criminalization of the
Right to Resist and Organize
Denounce the RCMP-Led INSET Team in Alberta
- George Allen -
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced on
June 6 that an Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET)
will be set up in Alberta. Offices have already been established in
Edmonton and Calgary. The RCMP website states: "The RCMP-led INSETs are
multi-agency teams made up of specially-trained
members of the RCMP and other law enforcement and national security
partners at the federal, provincial and municipal levels who
investigate all national security criminal threats. The INSET in
Alberta is composed of employees of the RCMP, Edmonton Police Services,
Calgary Police Services, Canada Border
Services Agency and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. By
working together, the RCMP and its partners are well positioned to
prevent, detect, deny and respond to criminal threats to Canada's
national security."
The four other known INSETs are in Montreal,
Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver, and were established following the
events of September 11, 2001 in the United States. All INSETs have been
set up supposedly to "fight extremism and terrorism," "protect Canada's
national security," and "keep Canadians
safe." This is code for their real purpose, which is to suppress
whatever the Harper dictatorship sees as a threat to monopoly right by
attacking the right of the people to resist and organize in defence of
their rights. If INSET is really protecting national security, why does
it continue to ignore the very real threats,
such as the Harper dictatorship's ongoing service to U.S. imperialist
war aims? In the case of the Alberta INSET, the RCMP is specific that
its aim is to clear the path for the energy monopolies to further
plunder Alberta's petroleum resources: "The reallocation of resources
for an INSET in Alberta with offices in
Calgary and Edmonton was prompted by factors such as a growing
population, a strong economy supported by the province's natural
resources, and the need to protect critical infrastructure."
Remarks by RCMP assistant commissioner Gilles
Michaud confirm that the establishment of INSET in Alberta aims at
criminalizing the right to resist and organize. Michaud, accompanied by
Edmonton Conservative MP Laurie Hawn, who is Parliamentary Secretary to
National Defence Minister Peter MacKay, told a news conference that
Alberta, with its oilsands and
pipeline projects, is supposedly becoming a target for "violent
extremists." Michaud added that INSET initially concentrated on
"foreign threats," but has broadened its focus to include "domestic
terrorism," including "left and right wing extremists"
and "environmentalists." Interestingly, Michaud gave as an example of a
"domestic threat" the unsolved gas well bombings in northeastern
British Columbia which were not even in Alberta and which some think
were carried out by agents
provocateurs to provide an excuse for
increased state surveillance. Michaud
pledged that INSET will gather intelligence on any individual or group
that poses a "threat," whether religious, political or ideologically
based. He added that there must be violence attached to a group or
individual's activities to gain the attention of INSET, but also said
that the INSET team will be gathering intelligence
on "non-violent" groups before they "become violent." INSET, which is
essentially a formalization of already existing links between police
forces and intelligence agencies, is setting up in Alberta because
Alberta is a centre of opposition to the energy monopolies'
unconstrained exploitation of the oil sands and other
petroleum resources. It is also no accident that the establishment of
INSET in Alberta closely follows other provincial and federal measures
to criminalize the right to resist and organize, such as the Charest
dictatorship's Special Law, Bill 78, in Quebec. Bill 78 makes the
protests of the defence organizations of the
students illegal and there is the distinct possibility that it is
setting the groundwork for the defence organizations of the students,
as well as workers and others, to be equated with "criminal gangs."
Workers have pointed out that this Special Law is similar to other
provincial and federal laws which seek to criminalize
workers' defence organizations and the rights of all to resist and
organize in defence of their rights. Recent examples are the Harper
dictatorship ramming through back-to-work legislation to end the
strikes of the postal workers, the Air Canada workers, and the CP Rail
workers in order to stop them from effectively
putting economic pressure on the monopolies to force them to negotiate
in good faith.
Police misconduct
at the G20, Toronto, 2010.
|
Another example of such criminalization is the
clear orientation that the Harper dictatorship gave to police forces at
the G8 and G20 summits in Muskoka and Toronto. The aim was for the
forces of the state to target all those who opposed the G8/G20 members'
neoliberal agenda, claiming that such
dissenters are prone to violence and must therefore be treated as
criminal elements and subject to preventative arrests in the name of
preserving public security. Those who organize and resist are thus
branded as criminals solely based on their political beliefs, before
they even act, which is a savage attack on their
right to conscience. It also seems no coincidence that a private
member's anti-gang bill was introduced in Parliament on February 13 by
a member of the Conservative caucus -- Bill C-394, An Act to amend the
Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization
recruitment) -- and is currently in
second reading. These and other related events lead again to the
conclusion that the primary purpose of establishing INSET in Alberta is
to criminalize individuals or political organization that stand up to
oppose the agenda of the energy monopolies and their willing agents in
the provincial and federal governments.
Harper
Dictatorship's Wrecking of Agriculture Canada
Oppose the New Wave of Cuts to Agriculture
in the
Western Prairies
- Dougal MacDonald -
The Harper dictatorship's April budget is
predictable in its attacks on Canadians and its refusal to solve any
problems facing the people, such as mass unemployment, poverty, and the
wrecking of manufacturing. One focus of the attacks, all of which are
solely in the service of the private monopolies, is the wrecking
of the livelihoods of workers in the federal public sector where 19,200
livelihoods are to be eliminated. All federal departments have
apparently been asked to force through cuts regardless of their
workloads and existing and projected responsibilities. The biggest cuts
are in the very important Department of Agriculture,
with a reduction of slightly over nine per cent of its current budget.
Just one example of Harper's new wave of agricultural destruction is
the wiping out of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA)
branch, which was created in 1935 to rehabilitate drought and soil
drifting areas in the western provinces,
and to develop and promote improved practices within those areas. The
PFRA will no longer be a government agency, and, within a few short
years, will cease to exist.
The Harper dictatorship's attacks on agriculture
aim at wrecking public institutions which have long been crucial to the
economy and life of farmers and rural Canada, especially in the western
prairies. Such destruction is the "logical" next step following
Harper's recent shock and awe dismantling of
the 65-year-old publicly-controlled Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) against
the vehement protests of the farmers, workers and their allies. Also at
grave risk for some time, due to potential free trade agreements, are
the many provincial supply management systems organized long ago by the
agricultural producers to
market their agricultural products. Alberta alone has 14 public
agricultural commissions and seven public marketing boards. If the
Harper dictatorship carries out its stated intention to join the
Canada-European Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA), every
supply management system will be on
the chopping block, leading to elimination of self-employed farmers,
loss of many other livelihoods, increased economic security, unstable
and rising prices, decline in production and quality, and a further
opening up of the food-producing industry to foreign takeovers.
One important example of Harper's new wave of
cuts to agriculture is the elimination of the Community Pastures
Program. There are 2 million acres of community pasture in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and in the Suffield area in southern Alberta where more
than
3,000 patrons pay to graze over 200,000 cattle.
The community pastures are a mix of crown, provincial and municipal
land. The Public Service Alliance of Canada points out that the loss of
this program is a major blow to the cattle producers and their
communities: "There are so many cattle producers who rely on the
pastures for critical grazing. Cattle producers
in this country have weathered bovine spongiform encephalitis, Anthrax,
Anaplasmosis, closed
borders, floods and droughts all in the last ten years....Now they are
told their summer grazing will disappear. They will be expected to sell
their livelihood, or go purchase property to replace the grazing they
have been utilizing, relying on and paying
for, for years." The fate of the community pastures themselves is being
treated like a state secret. What plans the federal government has for
them is not known but one possibility is that they will be opened up to
expropriation or lease by private interests.
Another important example of Harper's new wave of
cuts is the elimination of the Shelterbelt Program, centred in Indian
Head, Saskatchewan, which provides free seedlings to farmers in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace River area of BC. An
independent study prior to 2010 estimated
that trees provided through the program since 1981 have enhanced the
public good by as much as $600 million. Trees planted in just one year
will sequester an estimated 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 over the
following fifty years. Ed Sagan, National Farmers Union (NFU)
Saskatchewan
Regional Coordinator, commented in
an April 16, 2012 news release: "The federal government is about to
hack down the 111 year-old Prairie Shelterbelt Program. This
short-sighted destructive move will have negative consequences for
prairie farmers, their crops and livestock, soils, wildlife and the
climate...Talk about a scorched earth policy!...The
Shelterbelt Program has not only provided trees to buffer the effects
of wind, heat and snowfall, but has created unique knowledge and
expertise about how to plan, maintain and nurture trees on the prairies
for the benefit of farmers and the broader public." Added Terry Boehm,
NFU President. "As stated on Agriculture
Canada's own website, shelterbelts have many, many benefits including
reducing wind, which prevents soil erosion and reduces moisture
evaporation, providing wildlife habitat and thus increasing
biodiversity, improving crop yields, reducing livestock stress and
improving animal health and feed efficiency, as well
as beautifying farmyards and reducing heating and cooling costs for
farm buildings. To end this program is to say that we as a society do
not value these benefits any more, and that is shameful."
A third example of Harper's new wave of cuts to
agriculture is the closing of the Cereal Research Centre in Winnipeg,
an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research facility that investigates
cereal grains. The Cereal Research Centre studies wheat and oat
breeding, as well as improves the quality of
cereal grains, including their ability to resist diseases and pest
insects. Historically, cereals research played an important part in
nation-building. The research branch developed Marquis wheat in 1909,
the first high quality early maturing wheat for baking and milling. By
1920, 90 per cent of the wheat in western
Canada was Marquis. Today most varieties of wheat grown on the Canadian
prairies were developed in one of the Cereal Research Centres, and
their work established Canada's reputation for producing high-quality
wheat, a reputation already at risk through the wanton destruction of
the Canadian Wheat Board. The
Saskatoon Research Centre was responsible for the development of Canola
in the early 1970s, which has added a new crop for 60,000 farmer
decision-makers and developed value-added industry through thirteen
processing plants in five provinces employing over 2,800 people. The
canola industry contributes more
than $13 billion annually to the Canadian economy.
A fourth example of Harper's new wave of
agricultural wrecking is the attack on the Co-operative Development
Initiative (CDI), including the elimination of two-thirds of the
positions in the Rural and Co-operatives Secretariat. The National
Farmers' Union explains: "The CDI gives communities the
resources to develop new co-operatives which become successful
businesses in rural Canada. Rural co-operatives increase employment,
build local skills and knowledge, and provide needed goods and services
-- and their activities support other businesses in local economies
across the country. By draining the gas
out of this proven community development engine in rural Canada, the
federal government is undermining the economy and putting rural
Canadians at a disadvantage." NFU National Women's President Joan Brady
pointed out that the United Nations has declared 2012 the International
Year of Cooperatives: "The
UN resolution specifically notes the potential role of co-operative
development in the improvement of the social and economic conditions of
rural communities. But instead of celebrating and building them, the
federal government is poised to abandon Canada's proven rural
co-operative development programs in 2012."
Many more examples of the Harper
dictatorship's new
wave of agricultural wrecking can be given. Each and every cut
threatens the well-being of the Canadian people because the cuts weaken
Canada's agricultural system and undermine people's livelihoods and the
social fabric, leaving people at the mercy of the vagaries of market
forces and the insatiable greed of the monopolists. All of the programs
under attack
have been part of the vast system of public enterprises that have long
served the interests of the people. Now they are being shamelessly
destroyed to serve the profit-making interests of the private
monopolies. The content of the cuts is to deliver control over
agriculture to private monopoly interests and politicize
those private interests with the financial and other power of the
state. The cuts fly in the face of public right and the necessity for
the people and their public institutions to control their resources and
benefit from their use. The new wave of wrecking also attempts to
obscure the fact that the very existence of public
enterprise, shows that the people do not need owners of capital in the
production and delivery of services. "To produce and deliver services,
workers do not need owners of capital. Public enterprise has long
proved that reality of the modern economy. If workers do not need
owners of capital in production and delivery
of services then they also do not need them in running the country and
importantly do not need them to tell workers what to think or how to
organize and manage our own affairs, resistance and politics (TML Daily,
May 9, 2012, No. 67)." The new wave of cuts to agriculture in
Alberta
and the prairies must
be opposed!
Read The
Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
