|
September 3, 2016 - No. 34
Labour Day 2016
Major Concerns
Facing the
Working Class Movement
Major Concerns Facing the Working Class
Movement
• Control Over Our Lives and Work Is a Major
Issue
- Rolf Gerstenberger -
• Trudeau Government's
Negation
of Workers' Rights
- Pierre Chénier -
Canada
Post
and
CUPW
Reach
Tentative
Agreement
• Postal Workers Will Continue to
Oppose Threats Against Them
and the Public Post Office
- Louis Lang -
Temporary Foreign
Worker Program
• Liberals' Proposed "Middle Ground"
Steps Up Low-Wage Agenda
- Peggy Askin -
• Alberta Federation of Labour President Speaks
Out
after Meeting with Federal Labour Minister
U.S.-Backed
Destabilization
Attempts
in
Latin
America
• Bolivarian Forces Take Decisive
Measures to
Prevent New Coup in Venezuela
• Bolivian Government Moves to Assert
Sovereign Control Over Resources and Stop Destabilization
• Violence in the Face of Sovereign Changes to
Mining Policy in Bolivia
- Camila Vollenweider, Centro Estratégico
Latinoamericano de
Geopolítica (CELAG) -
• Coup President
Installed by
Senate in Brazil
• Speech of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff
to the
Federal Senate
Major Concerns Facing the Working Class
Movement
Control Over Our Lives and Work Is a Major Issue
- Rolf Gerstenberger -
Seminar on the National and International Situation, Ottawa, August 14,
2016.
TML Weekly is publishing the presentation by Rolf
Gerstenberger delivered at the Seminar on the National and
International Situation organized by the Communist Party of
Canada (Marxist-Leninist) at the University of Ottawa on August
14, 2016. Rolf is the President of the Marxist-Leninist Party of
Canada, the name under which CPC(M-L) is registered with
Elections Canada. For 12 years he was also President of United
Steelworkers Local 1005 in Hamilton and spent 42 years in total
as a steelworker at Hamilton Works.
***
At this time the Party has
asked me to take up a very
important issue, speaking to workers across the country about the
need for the workers to put themselves at the head of a political
movement of the people by making sure the resistance movement to
the anti-social offensive is not smashed. In recent months we
have had discussions such as this in Montreal, Toronto and
Vancouver along with meetings in the regions and now we are in
Ottawa.
This has become even more urgent because of the way the
Trudeau
government is moving ahead with its electoral reform program to
eliminate any space for Canadians outside the narrow confines of
discussing the "choices" predetermined by the Prime Minister's
Office and cartel party system. They simply say we should favour
one of three options as to how ballots are counted and through
divination they will say which one people prefer and that is
called reform. We are calling on Canadians to reject this assault
on their consciousness and to do so by joining the battle for
democratic renewal, for a modern constitution, for arrangements
which permit the workers, the actual producers to exercise
control over their lives, society and economy.
For every single day of the last 150 years, the ruling
elite
have made the biggest effort not to involve workers and others in
politics but to discourage them and attack them if they dare
organize to express their views as individuals or in their
collectives. Whether it is in solving the economic problems in
their enterprises and communities or taking part in the political
process the workers are rebuffed and ridiculed and denied any
voice. The working class is referred to as a special interest
group.
It is no wonder that every attempt is made to keep the
workers out of politics because this is directed towards blocking
them from realizing their central role as the most
numerous, organized and advanced social class in history. This is
why we say the watchword of the Trudeau government is
anti-politics; all its efforts are directed towards keeping the
people out of politics and from having control over their lives
and blocking any resistance. This is particularly the case with
its efforts to portray Canadians as being consulted and involved
in the decisions made outside their control.
 The events in Canada in the
twenty-first century point to a
dominant issue: the Canadian working class does not have control
over the issues that affect the lives of workers. No matter what
the talk may be of how Canada is democratic, when things happen
that directly affect the lives of individuals and their
collectives, the people affected feel powerless to control the
events. When workplaces close; when collectives of workers are
downsized; when work is outsourced; when pensions, benefits and
wages are reduced or eliminated altogether; when employment and
post-secondary educational opportunities are blocked; when this
or that disaster strikes either individuals or collectives, how
can we speak of democracy for the people if the people affected
have no control or right to change the situation in any
meaningful way.
When the people have no control over the economy, over
their
work and other big issues in their lives other than to be told to
suck it up, fend for yourself and as an individual make the best
of a bad situation, then all this indicates in a forceful manner
the time is now for democratic renewal, the time to bring
politics and economics into the twenty-first century where
working people have control over their lives and work and are not
dictated to and controlled by a small clique of ruling
imperialist elite who act in ways to meet their narrow private
interests and not in the broad public interest for the greater
good of the people.
The big issues are easy to identify and most relate to
economic security:
- security of employment;
- security of
well-being when unemployed or unable to work for whatever reason;
- security in retirement;
- security of having quality food,
public health care, education and all the other social programs
and public services necessary in a modern collective society;
-
security of knowing that through work and contributing to one's
personal well-being through work in the socialized economy one is
also contributing to society and the security of all including
oneself under all circumstances. Without economic security of the
person and no capacity to affect the situation in a meaningful
way, then all talk of democracy and rights is empty chatter.
 Then there is security
which comes from having peace of
mind
that we are not headed for an inter-imperialist war between the
great powers in which Canada has hitched its wagon to the U.S.
striving for world domination.
Canadians live in cities of considerable size or in
regions
where natural resources are exploited. The economy is organized
as one huge collective with interrelated parts. How then can we
look at the individual workplaces as isolated from or unrelated to
other workplaces and the large collective of workplaces? The
ruling elite in control want the working class to think and view
the individual workplaces as being in competition with each other in
some
sort of wild desperate fight for survival of the fittest. But
this is not the Wild West; this is not the jungle. The economy is
a collective organism and each part of the organism plays a role
in strengthening the whole; and in that way, the parts of the
organism are strengthened making the whole greater than the sum
of its parts.
At least that is how a
modern socialized economy should work.
But it does not, because of the interference and obstruction of
the most powerful companies fighting to build their private
empires in competition with other empires at the expense of the
whole. The striving for empire weakens the whole and eventually
weakens most of the various parts as they fight with one another
instead of cooperating and sorting out how best to work together for
the greater good and success of the whole. The
result is individual tragedies of certain parts and recurring
general economic crises and war, where the people pay the price
for the anarchy and violence.
 The working class is the
only social force capable of
strengthening the various parts of the economy and their
relations with each other and with the whole for the greater
good. In this way, the working class can then mobilize the
collective strength of the modern socialized economy to ensure
the security, rights and well-being of all. The issue of gaining
control over the issues affecting our lives is one of organizing
to deprive those social forces of the power to deprive the people
of their right to control their lives and work. The working class
is the social force that can bring into being the forms and
relations necessary for individuals and their collectives to gain
control through the power to deprive the ruling imperialist elite
of their power to deprive.
This is what we have been dealing with at U.S. Steel
Canada,
the former Stelco, where steelworkers are fighting for control
over their lives and work and to contribute to the same for
everyone.
Current and retired steelworkers in Hamilton and Sault
Ste.
Marie are engaged in battles to defend their lives and work.
Global monopolies of the financial oligarchy have launched waves
of attacks on their workplaces and security in collusion with the
Ontario and federal governments.
The collectives of workers through their steelworker
locals
and retiree associations are fighting to gain some control over
the situation and deprive the ruling elite of its power to
deprive them of their rights. Currently, the ruling elite are
using the Ontario Superior Court through the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act (CCAA) to attack the steelworkers and pensioners
at the steel facilities in Hamilton, Nanticoke and Sault Ste.
Marie. We recently celebrated the 70th anniversary of the
founding of our union just prior to the great strike of 1946.
The celebration was well
attended. One of the guests from the
head office asked out loud how we managed to get so many workers
to attend our functions. We keep the link with the rank and file
workers, pensioners and their families because they are an
integral part of our decision-making. A nineteen-year-old girl
joined us at the celebration. She said both her father and
grandfather worked at Stelco and fought to establish the union,
pensions and benefits. She wished us well in our struggle and
said she would keep herself informed. She exemplifies the
experience we have with the youth. They come to us and say, this
is what we are doing and we need your support. We can do that.
Our experience shows that the youth want good industrial jobs and
a stable life. Our aims and culture attract them because we are
serious about fighting for what they need in life.
 For the event,
with the help of Voice of Steel Publications, we published a
special issue of Information Update, which was well
received. People took it home as a memento and to show others of
our struggle. We have called on our members and supporters to go
out regularly to distribute our paper and to talk with people in
the city which we have done without let up now for fifteen years.
The paper enables people to see through the spin that the elite
push by showing that the workers in opposition have convincing
arguments for their just cause. We also have an uncanny way of
predicting what is coming down because of an ability to analyze
we are acquiring from the Marxist-Leninist Party. We do not limit
ourselves by repeating dogma we pick up from the financiers and
their think-tanks. On the contrary, our starting point is to have
our own independent politics based on working out how matters
present themselves and where we stand on the issues. We know from
experience that if we are to agree to something, then our no must
mean something. Unless No Means No, what value does Yes have? It
has no value.
Globalization has caused a lot of suffering for the
workers
and has driven down their standard of living and trampled on
their rights and we are very aware that if it has done this to
unionized workers, the plight of the non-union workers is even
worse. When we say that Our Security Lies in the Fight for the
Rights of All we are convinced that this is the case. The people
have had enough. The ruling elite have pushed too far in their
methods to make fortunes off the backs of workers and to save
themselves from crises of their own making. If we define the
success we ourselves can achieve and organize to achieve it, we
can make headway.
Before USS went into CCAA,
their executive manager asked us
to agree to concessions voluntarily such as eliminating the Other
Post-Employment Benefits (OPEBs) for retirees, having a two-tier
pension system along with lower pension benefits etc. We of
course refused; we as steelworkers are not interested in going
backwards; we did not organize Local 1005 in the first place to
make life and work worse for old and young steelworkers.
 Some time before CCAA, the
company lawyer told our
union team
that if we did not agree to the demanded concessions, the company
would gain even more under CCAA. U.S. Steel then set about
fabricating a problem so that a CCAA judge would approve its
bankruptcy protection application and with that agreement in
hand, the court began to hammer away at us taking away our OPEBs
in October 2015.
The Province stepped in and instead of making the
company
live up to its obligations, it provided inadequate benefits to
the retirees through a Transition Fund. This has allowed the
company to abdicate its responsibilities and instead participate
in depriving the pensioners of the post-employment benefits they
earned while working, and which are theirs by right.
Steelworkers exchange their capacity to work during
their
working lives not just for wages but also for pension and benefit
guarantees during their entire lifetime. U.S. Steel refuses to
live up to the exchange, which brings into question the entire
system of workers exchanging their capacity to work for security,
importantly retirement security after they are no longer capable
of working. If companies are not going to live up to their side
of the exchange then obviously a different relationship is
necessary. We cannot sit idly by without any control over the
relationship and watch as the entire system fails us and falls
into disrepute. We have to do something to defend ourselves and
our rights.
This fight for our rights and OPEBs is being played out
in
public. The company is using the provincial transition fund to
have people go around saying how spoiled steelworkers are because
they want special treatment because most other workers do not
receive post-employment benefits, so why should public funds go
towards steelworkers to pay their benefits?
A local Hamilton newspaper recently ran a letter to the
editor that criticized the steelworkers for demanding the
reinstatement of their OPEBs. This caused a lot of discussion
among our members and retirees mostly denouncing the government
and company for deliberately causing this confusion. Many said
the benefits were promised to us in payment for our work-time.
Not to give us the benefits is paramount to theft or at least
fraud or breach of trust. We did our part by working and now the
company and government refuse to live up to their part of the
exchange. It's like you receive a good from someone using a
promissory note to pay for it later. You use up the good and then
refuse to pay. Is that not theft or fraud or breach of trust? How
is our situation any different except in the sense our retirees
desperately need the payment for their well-being, and the
company made a lot of value out of our work way beyond whatever
they paid or promised us, and could still make value out of
active steelworkers if they were interested in operating the
mills properly and sorting out the problems in the Canadian steel
sector.
 Other members said, if we
give up our benefits without a
fight just because most Canadian workers do not have
post-employment benefits then the working class would never move
forward as a collective. We want everyone's security guaranteed
in retirement not just ours. We should be working together to
pull everyone up not bringing certain sections of working people
down. When one section of the working class is attacked and
weakened through concessions, it drags down the entire working
class. We are in this battle together. Let's stand together and
fight for our rights, fight for the rights of all. When one
section of workers fights, it raises the issue in the public
domain and opens a path forward for all. That is how we won
public health care for all by fighting for it everywhere
especially at our workplaces. The original fight and strike of
Local 1005 in 1946 made a contribution to winning public health
care for all among other things. Just imagine if we had caved
into the snivelling remarks of some that those steelworkers just
want better wages and working conditions for themselves while
most Canadian workers back home from the war do not have jobs,
let alone any protection or guarantees.
These snivelling remarks also divert attention from the
real
issue that the government has to cover our benefits because we
are holding them to account. The federal and provincial
governments open Canada for business as they call it, promising
prosperity, giving them everything including the kitchen sink so
they should pay for the consequences of what they have done to
Canada. Why should we feel guilty when they are forced to do
their duty?
Gary Howe, the current President of Local 1005 informed
members that the Local is investigating our retiree membership
and finding real hardship cases and possibly deaths caused by
this denial of benefits. Two hundred and sixty member retirees
now live out of province and are not eligible for anything from
the Ontario provincial transition fund, which is only open to
those living in Ontario. Any of them or their spouses could die
for lack of medication and other support just as many senior
Canadians are in that difficult situation.
 Many steelworkers denounce
the Province for not holding U.S.
Steel and the CCAA judge to account. U.S. Steel or whoever it
says is its successor should be made to honour its obligations.
By the government picking up some of the tab through the
transition fund, USS is being let off the hook. Through
capitulating to U.S. Steel, the government is inciting these
letters to the editor and splitting the working class when it
should be united in defending the rights of all. By stepping in
with their publicly-funded Transition Fund without going after
U.S. Steel and forcing it to live up to its social obligations,
the Province is diluting our argument. It should not be the
government paying. They should demand the company turn the OPEBs
back on, period. We have every right to a claim on the steel
value currently produced. That is the arrangement we and the
company agreed to, which should be upheld not trampled in the
mud. Everyone should understand the hell workers across the
country go through with the attacks the monopolies are launching
against them along with the government in the name of fairy tales
about the need for flexibility of labour and other schemes to
defraud the workers. These companies and the governments in their
service have to be held responsible for breaking their agreements
with workers and Canadians.
One last point. This globalization should lead to
raising the
standards all over the world. Workers point out that you cannot
even buy steel nails anymore that are made at Stelco. They are
all imported. The high quality production of the past has mostly
been taken away and this means less and less value to go around.
This is a serious problem for an economy. No excuse exists for
Canada not to produce its own steel, other than pandering to the
narrow private interests of certain monopolies such as U.S. Steel
that say they can make more money by producing steel outside
Canada and shipping it here, or steel consuming companies that
want to profit from cheap imported steel. As an example of how
ugly this has become, we have this ridiculous situation in
Pittsburgh, which would be a big joke if it were not used to
undermine steelworkers' struggle for their rights.
U.S. Steel owns a joint venture steel mill in
Pittsburgh with
POSCO, a steel monopoly controlled in South Korea. The recent
U.S. steel tariffs against Korean imported steel make it
impossible to bring in the type of steel that the Pittsburgh mill
usually finishes. The South Korean directors of the joint venture
are screaming that the tariffs will kill the mill, while the USS
directors are screaming that the tariffs are necessary to save
the mill and they are having this huge public ugly fight. In the
end it will sort out no problem facing the steel sector because
each group is only interested in its narrow private interests at
the expense of the other and the whole. This is just one more
example of how the global monopolies control the economies almost
everywhere in their private interests while Canadian
steelworkers, U.S. steelworkers and others around the world have
no power of control over their lives and work and are supposed to
just wait until the hammer falls one way or the other. Either way
it means workers pay the price and no internal self-reliant
stable economy is ever built, just this global mess of competing
monopolies turning the world into a jungle of warring factions.
This must change radically for Canada and the U.S. to
move
into the twenty-first century and have a prosperous and secure
future and for the working people to have control over their
lives and work.
When the Liberal government issued its guidelines on
July 6
for how Canadians should discuss reform to the electoral system
it began by saturating people with claims such as "It's your
democracy and your government" and dogmas such as "Canada has a
strong and deeply rooted democracy" and "Federal electoral reform
is part of the Government's stronger democracy agenda."
 This is a time when
Canadians need to exercise control over
the decisions which affect their lives. This includes the
direction of the economy and matters related to wages, benefits,
pensions and working conditions. It also concerns all matters
related to the key problems of war and peace. The Trudeau
Liberals are taking the country from an unacceptable situation
which reduces the citizenry to voting once every four years, to
one in which they exercise no control whatsoever over the
decisions imposed on them by the elites in power. The government
is so pathetic that it declares, "The electoral system is more
than vote casting and counting -- it is a way for Canadians to
influence their future, give their consent to be governed, and
hold their representatives accountable."
This is precisely what the current political process
does not
permit Canadians to do and what the methods the Liberals are
introducing to consult Canadians also will not permit them to do.
The time for Canadians to rely on their own discussions and
efforts to establish the kind of democratic renewal Canada
requires is now.
The government's program on electoral reform aims to
prevent
discussion from taking place. All the so-called major political
parties currently represented in the Parliament reduce the role
of human beings to that of on-line shoppers who are to select
what they want from a list of predetermined choices that do not
serve them. Far from permitting this process to marginalize and
railroad them into irrelevancy, the people of this country can
make a real difference by working out their own opinions on these
matters amongst their peers in the workplaces, educational
institutions, neighbourhoods and where seniors congregate.
Trudeau Government's Negation of Workers' Rights
- Pierre Chénier -
The following was presented at the August 14
Seminar on
the National and International Situation held by the Communist
Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) in Ottawa. Pierre Chénier is
the Secretary of the Party's Workers' Centre. The Workers' Centre
can be reached at workerscentre@cpcml.ca.
***
It is important to address the
question of the
definition of
workers' rights that the Trudeau government professes in order to
disinform the workers' movement. It is known that the Harper
government had a confrontational approach with the labour
movement and unions; that he declared the struggles of workers
and unions to be enemies of the national interest that he alone
represented, in the service of the most powerful global monopolies
in the global imperialist system of States led by the United
States.
The Trudeau government
takes care to establish that it does
not have a confrontational approach with workers and unions but
that it wants to be their partner and include them in the pursuit
of the most powerful monopolies to be competitive on world
markets. Its so-called non-confrontational approach with workers
and unions is supposed to be based on its propensity for
dialogue, social consensus and inclusion, but not on the rights
that objectively belong to workers as the producers of social
wealth. In fact, "inclusion," "dialogue" and consensus are an
integral part of the parameters of the neo-liberal, anti-social
offensive, which are, in the language of the Trudeau government,
"maximum flexibility," "labour mobility," subordination to "the
labour market(s)," etc.
We just had an example with the presentation of the
mandate
of the Working Group and the Special Committee to study the
postal service and to make recommendations to the government.
While in the last federal election, Trudeau committed to
"preserving home mail delivery" and promised at a press
conference with the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, to "restore
home mail delivery," this commitment is now considered one of
"all options on the table," to be measured by the cost this
entails for the service. In other words, maintaining home mail delivery
will be the opportunity to demand
concessions from the workers or to further dismantle the services
under the guise of not imposing rigid rules on Canada Post.
Let's have a look at some examples of how the concepts
of
"maximum flexibility," "mobility of labour" and subordination to
the labour market operate as they are presented by the Trudeau
government.
The Example of Employment-Insurance
In his Mandate Letter to the Minister of Employment,
Workforce Development and Labour, Trudeau writes, on the issue of
Employment Insurance:
"In particular, I will expect you to work with your
colleagues and through established legislative, regulatory, and
Cabinet processes to deliver on your top Priorities:
"Improve our Employment Insurance (EI) system so that
it is
better aligned with the realities of today's labour market and
serves workers and employers."
Trudeau does not explain what he means by "that it is
better
aligned with the realities of today's labour market." However,
the C.D. Howe Institute is more specific about it. Justin
Trudeau's Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, was the president of
the C.D. Howe Institute from 2010 to 2014.
In 2011, two researchers for the C.D. Howe Institute,
Colin
Busby and David Gray, issued a document called Employment
Insurance Quilt: The Case for Restoring Equity .
 Note that equity or the
reduction of inequalities is a
central theme of the Trudeau government.
Here are some of the things we can read in this
document:
"Under the current Employment Insurance (EI) system,
long-lasting EI benefits are more easily accessed in regions with
high unemployment rates than in regions with low unemployment
rates where workers face tighter restrictions to access
short-lived benefits.
"This complicated screening procedure, Intended to
better
support the various circumstances facing unemployed workers
across the country, creates a number of undesirable consequences,
the most glaring being pockets of high, chronic unemployment.
"
One can see how the Trudeau government blames the EI
program
itself for problems linked to unemployment. The document goes
on:
"This Backgrounder argues that Canada's EI program,
instead
of providing clear and equitable access to benefits for all
Canadian workers, supports the preservation of regional labour
markets that are dominated by part-year employment. To the extent
that variable entrance requirements support persistently high
unemployment rates in a few Canadian regions, the program hinders
the convergence of wages, prices and unemployment rates across
the country.
"The EI program, therefore, undermines the economic
benefits
that stem from labour mobility in pursuit of higher wages and
more attractive work, the re-allocation of workers among sectors
and geographical regions, and a regional convergence in wages,
prices, and unemployment rates. Reforms to the EI program should
focus on removing barriers to mobility by creating uniform,
nationwide EI entrance requirements and benefit entitlement
periods.
"In fact, laid-off workers in low-unemployment regions
have
greater difficulty in qualifying for EI than otherwise similar
individuals in high-unemployment regions. This geography-based
policy contributes to incentives against mobility, thereby
reinforcing patterns of persistently high unemployment and
dependency among groups of seasonal workers who, by definition,
are inactive for much of the year. As a result, should there be
an increased global demand for commodities, for example, labour
shortages are more likely to occur in Western Canada.
 "Essential for a
well-functioning national labour market are
policies that facilitate and, at a minimum, do not deter labour
market mobility. In contrast, the current EI program acts more as
a provincial and sub-provincial level program through the
geographic variance in access and benefits. Hence, another good
reason for eliminating the [Variable Entrance Requirements (VER)] and
variable benefit durations is
because they work against the purposes of a national program,
with unintended consequences including persistent pockets of high
unemployment. The bulk of the Canadian labour market, through its
EI contributions, redistributes income toward seasonal economies
and industries.
"Furthermore, the EI program should not support the
preservation of rural labour markets that are dominated by
part-year employment."
This document does not go into measures that could be
implemented to supposedly better align the system of Employment
Insurance with the labour market and avoid giving benefits that
encourage regions with high unemployment and the unemployed who
are there to stay in their region.
In February 2016, the C.D. Howe Institute published
another
document that gives us a better idea of what might be in the
works. This document is entitled National Priorities 2016: Job
One is Jobs: Workers Need Better and is signed by Craig
Alexander.
It reads as follows :
"Regionally based eligibility criteria should be
replaced by
uniform, countrywide, employment insurance entrance requirements
and benefit durations. If regional differences are desired, the
federal government should hive off this responsibility to the
provinces to create a regional benefit top up or entrance
requirements (Busby and Gray forthcoming).
"Reforms to other income support programs -- including
social
assistance and disability assistance -- can help people not
covered by EI to reengage in labour markets. The rise in
long-term unemployed means that more displaced workers exceed EI
benefit durations. There is also a worrying increase in
individuals receiving government disability assistance -- at which
point the probability of them returning to the labour market is
low.
 "While the aging of the
population will tend to lead to
higher disability numbers, Statistics Canada's Participation and
Activity Limitation Survey is clear that aging only accounts for
part of the rise. Among the range of assistance programs (from EI
sickness claims to CPP disability payments), there has also been
a shift towards greater social assistance-related disability
expenditures (particularly in the provinces from Ontario westward
with the exception of Saskatchewan). In other words, disability
is increasingly being used for what was historically classified
as welfare. Given Canada's aging population and prospect of
slower labour force growth, social assistance and disability
programs should be geared to providing appropriate support to
those in need, but also be structured in a way to help
individuals return to labour markets."
What can we make of this? In ideological terms, it
could very
well mean that the Trudeau government is paving the way for yet
another major anti-social reform affecting the EI program based
on the following premises:
-that the current EI program enforces chronic
unemployment in
regions of the country where seasonal industries are dominant and
artificially keeps the unemployed on EI when they could go and work
elsewhere in the country if the regime was even more
severe towards them;
- that the unemployed are divided into two
opposing camps, seasonal workers versus non-seasonal workers;
-
that a number of workers, seasonal workers in particular, never
move and therefore don't really fit in the EI program, nor do
they fit in the ''labour market'' since they are part of a
captive market and have no mobility. They would therefore be
better off if they were part of other programs such as social
assistance seeing as they do not participate whatsoever in job
mobility. Obviously, an essential ingredient of the Trudeau
government's notion of equity is to pit workers against one
another so as to further destroy national living and working
conditions.
Disinformation about Maximum Flexibility Applied to
Pensions
The Trudeau government has the same approach to the
pension
plans. Before becoming Finance Minister, Bill Morneau was
president of the Morneau Sheppell group, which specializes, among
other things, in health and group insurance -- including the
management of health and group insurance, which covers management
of absenteeism and disability on behalf of large employers -- and
in administration and advisory services related to
retirement and pensions.
 Here also the issue of
maximum flexibility is raised in a
purely pragmatic fashion. The destruction of the existing pension
plans is considered to be a done deal while the role of agencies
such as Morneau Sheppell is to take this destruction as a
starting point to propose and manage pension plans which are
definitely inferior and offer no retirement security.
Here is how Morneau, as Chairman of Morneau Sheppell,
spoke
on the matter at a national conference on pensions in 2013. He
spoke about the disappearance of defined benefit pension plans,
especially in the private sector, and about solutions to this
problem:
"First of all, 'average Canadians' don't have a defined
benefit pension plan. About one in ten private sector workers
have a defined benefit pension plan. When you add the roughly 80
per cent of public sector workers who are in defined benefit
plans, about a third of Canadians are part of this lucky cohort.
Or, better put, two-thirds of Canadians are not in a defined
benefit pension plan.
"More importantly, we believe that this trend is very
likely
irreversible. We have thousands of clients across Canada. I would
be hard-pressed to come up with even one new defined benefit plan
in our client base (with the exception of dealing with mergers or
significant organizational changes) in the last decade. In fact,
we've done some analysis of the expected number of defined
benefit plans over the next decade, based on several scenarios.
None of them look positive.
"We figure, with about an 85 per cent probability, that
the
number of plans in existence in a decade will be from 18-70 per
cent fewer than today -- depending on your economic assumptions --
and almost all of that attrition will come from private sector
plans.
"I would put it to you that defined benefit plans, in
their
current format, in the private sector, are on a path to
extinction.
"We can hope for something different -- but hope is not
a
strategy.
"So, here's the question: what will the government do ?
"I would suggest to you that governments will only deal
with
the potential 'problem' in retirement income security by
encouraging people to save more.
"A modest CPP increase and/or the introduction of PRPPs
with
a default option to auto-enroll plan participants into a new
savings vehicle appear to be the likely solutions.
"So, what about defined benefit plans ?
"This is a public sector problem.
"Who believes that the average Canadian, without a
defined
benefit plan, and with the demonstrated capacity to save enough
to support their retirement, will, over the long term, agree to
continue to fund public sector employees' pensions at a level
that they can only dream about attaining themselves?
"Even the starting public sector employee, who should
reasonably expect to have several jobs in his/her career, won't
actually get the public sector defined benefit plan.
 "So, it's older public
sector workers versus everyone
else.
"Not a great place to be.
"Here's what I think will happen.
"We have two choices.
"Choice Number One: We can continue with an attempt to
fund
rigid defined benefit plans for the public sector, causing
decades of labour strife, reduced cash to employees in defined
benefit plans, and private sector/public sector and
intergenerational discord.
"Or
"Choice Number Two: We can introduce flexibility into
defined
benefit plans, considering ideas such as Target Benefit Plans or
Shared Risk Plans, so that there is risk sharing in the case of
lower fund returns, or unexpected longevity gains."
Once again, the notion of equity is wielded in a most
pragmatic fashion so as to declare that there is no alternative
to the anti-social offensive -- in this case, to the destruction
of pension plans -- and to pit workers against one another so as
to attack the living conditions of all.
We can see once again that the argument of maximum
flexibility, lack of rigid rules, aims ideologically to paralyze
and disinform the workers' movement, to the effect that there can
be no rights as far as the working class is concerned, that
defence of rights equals conflict among workers, inequity; and
that the parameters of the anti-social neoliberal offensive is
the only setting in which workers' actions can be conducted,
rather than defending principles and rights and organizing on
that basis.
Furthermore, not only are workers' rights non-existent,
but
the workers' struggles for their rights and against national
destruction are deemed to be ''rigid,'' ''inflexible,'' which in
turn makes the workers' actions harmful to the economy. These
notions put forward by the Trudeau government are paving the way
for a greater criminalization of the workers' struggles.
This is not widely known, but it was the Sheppel
Morneau
group and Morneau, himself, who were involved in the dismantling
of the pension plans of public sector employees in New Brunswick.
They used their advisory service department to replace defined
benefit plans with a defined contribution plan, which is called a
shared plan. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of
Canada and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (New Brunswick
Branch) filed a lawsuit against the Government of New Brunswick
for its attacks against workers' pensions. This is a
constitutional challenge as PIPSC and CUPE are arguing that Bill
11, which enacted the Shared Risk Plan is unconstitutional as it
violates Section 2d of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms by preventing free and fair collective
bargaining over an important term of employment (pension). It
seeks to strike down Bill 11 and, alternatively, to strike down
provisions of the New Brunswick Public
Service
Labour
Relations
Act that prohibits bargaining over pensions.
Here is how President of CUPE New Brunswick Daniel
Légère
described this Shared Risk Plan:
"However, simply calling a plan 'Shared Risk' does not
mean
that risk is actually shared between employers and members in
this new model. The plan documents reveal that active and retired
members will bear nearly all of the risk in a Shared Risk plan.
Employers, on the other hand, are largely shielded from risk.
"If a Shared Risk plan is underfunded, the only risk
faced by
employers is a very modest, and capped, increase in their
contribution rate. Plan members face this same risk.
"All additional funding pressure, if any exists, is
relieved
by automatic and unrestricted reduction of pension benefits,
including potentially suspending cost-of-living increases for
retirees, or even reductions of base pension benefits.
 "This is hardly a system
that 'splits the cost.' Employers
face a limited risk of paying a bit more in contributions. Plan
members face that same risk, but they also solely bear the more
serious and open-ended risk of receiving a lot less. This is a
complete upending of traditional defined-benefit plans... While
employers previously recorded pension liabilities on their
balance sheets in [defined benefit] plans, they will record no
liabilities under
the Shared Risk model, and many may try to completely write off
their existing liabilities when converting to Shared Risk.
"Government has repeatedly obscured this crucial point.
As
they sold a pension model that shifts risk to plan members, they
told plan members that conversion somehow made their pensions
'more secure' and that 'Shared Risk' provides 'much stronger
protection' of pensions.
The government did nothing to correct the oft-repeated
references in the media that the Shared Risk model features
guaranteed base benefits, that only cost-of-living increases had
been made conditional and that deficits are shared equally
between workers and employers. In fact, there are no benefit
guarantees (even for base benefits) going forward and risk is
primarily borne by workers.
"This is not a fix arrived at through moderate
tinkering:
this is the wholesale abandonment of the defined benefit model."
When the Trudeau government talks about maximum
flexibility
and maximum mobility of labour, it means that nothing should
obstruct the race for domination of the global monopolies within
the sphere of influence of the imperialist system of states led
by the U.S. and to be number one in the global markets; nothing
must hinder this, no law, no regulation that hinders the
empire-building of these monopolies nor their neoliberal free
trade treaties such as the neoliberal Trans-Pacific Partnership
or the free trade agreement with the European Union. Maximum
labour mobility is an essential element of this maximum
flexibility, and rules that still attach workers to an economic
sector or region should be abolished as obstacles to the growth
of the economy.
The struggle of the workers for their rights and for a
new,
pro-social direction for the economy is deemed rigid and dogmatic
whereas for the workers, defence of principles, of standards and
of rights is a guide to action so as to intervene practically and
transform the situation so that it is favourable to the people
and to society, thus solving the problems facing society.
Canada Post and CUPW Reach Tentative
Agreement
Postal Workers Will Continue to Oppose Threats Against
Them
and the Public Post Office
- Louis Lang -
Postal workers rally in defence of their rights, August 8, 2016 in
Montreal.
After more than 10 months of negotiations, Canada Post
and
the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) have reached a
tentative agreement. The settlement came as a result of a
marathon bargaining session over several days with a special
mediator appointed by Minister of Employment, Workforce
Development, and Labour MaryAnn Mihychuk.
Minister Mihychuk issued a statement congratulating the
two
sides for finalizing an agreement. Among other things she said,
"These tentative agreements, reached voluntarily by the parties,
are an important reminder for us all that a fair and balanced
collective bargaining process works and can achieve real results
for Canadian workers and employers."
 For its part, Canada Post
indicated that even though an
agreement was reached, many problems remain to be resolved. In
its statement August 30, Canada Post said it is still saddled
with "complex" issues around declining lettermail volumes and
rising pension costs, "but the two-year deal with the union will
buy some breathing room to hash out those problem areas."
CUPW expressed satisfaction with the tentative
agreement,
which it claims is the result of "remaining strong and
maintaining our strategy." Details of the tentative agreement
have not been released as the union is conducting a ratification
vote of its members across the country. What is known is that it
is a two-year agreement that expires on January 31, 2018. It
includes wage increases for the Urban Unit of 1% effective
February 1, 2016 and 1.5% effective February 1, 2017. Regarding
the pay equity issue for Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers
(RSMCs), a Pay Equity Committee will be established and a final
report issued in 19 months. Another important conflict
between the two parties over the present Defined Benefit Pension
Plan was not resolved. It will remain status quo for now but
Canada Post insists that it must be changed to a Defined
Contribution Plan for new employees.
Many other important issues have not been part of any
highlights released so far on the tentative agreement. These
include precarious part-time and temporary employment, no
improvements in staffing, and Canada Post's ability to close all
493 protected CUPW-staffed retail locations, which would
eliminate up to 1,200 full-time jobs.
CUPW announced that "additional details will be
provided" to
the membership as they vote to accept or reject the tentative
agreement. The union bulletin made it clear that "The negotiating
committee has unanimously recommended to the National Executive
Board that we accept these agreements in principle. The majority
of the National Executive Board has voted to accept these
agreements and are recommending that the membership ratify
them."
 Postal workers and the union
can be proud that in spite of
Canada Post's threats of lockout and the unilateral changing of
their working conditions, and the brutal methods used by the
corporation -- which refused to negotiate -- the corporation was
not able to impose the major rollbacks they wanted. It is clear
that the determination and unity of the workers forced the
Trudeau government to change its plans and not impose rollbacks
on the workers by force. But postal workers must remain vigilant
because they are not yet out of the woods.
Workers must have no illusions about the role of the
Trudeau
government. It wants to impose the devastating rollbacks on the
workers and since they were not able to do it through the
so-called negotiations process, other means will be used. Who is
the Minister trying to convince when she claims that the
government is for "a balance in collective bargaining" and
believes in good faith negotiations? Workers who have been
through 10 months of negotiations this time and many difficult
negotiations in the past know very well "balanced" and "good
faith negotiations" don't exist as far as Canada Post is
concerned.
The fact that what is being proposed is a two-year
contract
must be of great concern for the workers. It certainly does not
favour the workers and is a clear indication that the government
and the corporation will continue to pursue the attacks against
the workers through other means.
The focus will shift from negotiations to the Mandate
Review
process, which was established by the Trudeau government in the
middle of such an important round of negotiations. This makes the
government's claim that it doesn't interfere in negotiations ring
very hollow. As the Mandate Review proceeds with what it calls
"public consultations," postal workers and all Canadians can
expect more disinformation about the "dire financial situation"
of the corporation and the equally dubious "crisis" in the pension
plan, which will be repeated by the monopoly media
to prepare the ground to push the agenda of the corporation.
 The Mandate Review will
continue along the neo-liberal path
to pursue privatization and deregulation and hand over the most
lucrative parts of the postal service to private monopolies. This
is what is at the heart of the crisis and instead of changing
course, Canada Post and the Liberal Government are blaming the
workers and demanding that the workers take up the agenda of the
corporation and give up all their rights to decent wages and
benefits and any say in their working conditions.
The claims by the government that privatization will
not be
on the table at the Mandate Review cannot be believed when we
know that the Trudeau government intends to sign the Trans
Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), which includes serious
threats against the public post office. There is no doubt that
the TPP contains measures which will allow international
monopolies to interfere in the activities and mandate of Canada
Post.
It is clear that the main role of the TPP in relation
to the
post office is to entrench a neo-liberal model that seeks,
through deregulation and privatization, to limit public sector
postal services. The legal advice received by CUPW on the TPP
pointed out, "In large measure, these 'trade' rules reflect the
agenda of large transnational courier and express delivery
companies (the 'courier industry') that for over twenty years
have been engaged in a campaign to limit the role of public
postal services. While efforts to persuade governments to
deregulate postal services as a matter of domestic policy have
generally failed, the same objectives are being pursued through
trade negotiations."
What is most revealing about the direction of the
Trudeau
government in promoting the TPP is that, following in the
footsteps of the Harper government, they have failed to request
that Canada be exempted from provisions of the trade deal that
specifically target postal services in favour of the
international monopoly courier services. (See TMLW July 2, 2016 -- No
27 Dangers
Posed to Public Post Office by Trans-Pacific
Partnership Trade Deal)
Negotiations have ended in a stalemate but the Trudeau
government continues to try to impose its neo-liberal agenda. In
the coming period the resolve of the workers and the strength of
their organization will be tested again in defence of their
rights and against the drive of the ruling elite to destroy the public
post office.
Temporary Foreign Worker Program
Liberals' Proposed "Middle Ground" Steps Up Low-Wage
Agenda
- Peggy Askin -
  
In preparation for the release of a report by the House
of
Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social
Development on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, Minister of
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship John McCallum says the
government will take the "middle ground." He said, "What we are
seeking to find is a middle ground where there are legitimate
needs for temporary foreign workers in certain areas, certain
industries."
What exactly is this middle ground? McCallum suggests
that
the Conservatives went too far and, as opposed to the extremism
of the Conservatives, he will go for the "middle ground." In fact
he is proposing to allow employers to hire temporary foreign
workers without having to show that they have made any effort to
hire a Canadian citizen or resident.
"We're also going to reduce some of the barriers and
the
silly rules in order to give companies freedom to bring in the
best and the brightest," said McCallum. "We'll get rid of
many of these [required] labour-market impact assessments which
slow things down enormously."
 In areas such as Alberta,
McCallum said, there's a strong
demand for temporary foreign workers in the agriculture,
hospitality and meat-packing sectors. Does he not know that far
from a "labour shortage," the unemployment rate in Alberta is 8.6
per cent?
In 2014, Justin Trudeau criticized the Harper
government,
saying they brought in a large pool of vulnerable workers. He
called for tightening the approval process, to make sure that
employers first attempted to hire Canadians, and providing a path
to citizenship for temporary foreign workers.
This is not the agenda that the Liberals in power
intend to
implement. McCallum's remarks are basically a repeat of the
demands owners of capital made to the Committee. This includes
removing restrictions on temporary foreign workers in seasonal
industries. What McCallum did not say is that under the mantra of
"flexibility of labour" and "equity" the Liberals are hatching
plans to deprive Canadians who can only find seasonal work in
their regions of Employment Insurance (EI) benefits, forcing
people to leave their home regions.
In this "middle ground," the rights of workers are
completely
dismissed, and class privilege prevails. A vague suggestion is
made about a "path to immigration," with no explanation of what
if anything will change. The demand to scrap the Temporary
Foreign Worker Program and ensure that all workers have rights
from the day they come to work in Canada is not even
acknowledged. There is not one word about the brutal conditions
temporary foreign workers experience, and the testimony given by
the few temporary foreign workers and their allies who managed to
speak at the Committee hearings. Only the arrogant demands of the
owners of capital resonate with the government.
McCallum also fails to mention that in 2015 the
government
approved 180,000 work permits under the international mobility
programs which do not require a labour market opinion, with about
90,000 workers coming through the Temporary Foreign Workers
Program.
The Liberal "middle ground" is an attempt to legitimize
the
neo-liberal agenda of making the monopolies competitive
internationally and use of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to
achieve this aim.
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program must be replaced
with a
modern immigration system that upholds the rights and status of
all and serves the public interest, nation-building and Canada's
international obligations.
Alberta Federation of Labour President Speaks Out
after Meeting with Federal Labour Minister
Following a closed-door meeting with Immigration,
Refugees
and Citizenship John Minister McCallum, Alberta Federation of Labour
(AFL) President Gil McGowan sharply criticized the Liberal
government's plans regarding the Temporary Foreign Worker
Program. McCallum has been engaged in roundtable meetings across
the country during the summer.
 "(McCallum) made it clear
that the federal government is
seriously considering loosening the rules on the [Temporary
Foreign Worker Program] and making it easier for employers in
many sectors to use the program to bring workers into the
country," McGowan said.
AFL President McGowan reported that Minister McCallum
is considering
eliminating the labour market impact assessment almost entirely
for high-skilled workers in the tech sector, and for service
sector workers for certain regions like the mountain parks in
Alberta. McCallum has also indicated that another area where the
labour market impact assessments may be eliminated is the fish
processing plants in the Atlantic provinces. Eliminating this
requirement is "almost a guarantee" that some employers would
drive down wages and shirk their responsibilities to hire and
train Canadians, McGowan said, and one that should
not be abandoned.
"These are not 'silly' rules. They are important
safeguards
that exist to prevent companies from replacing Canadian workers
with exploitable, precarious, badly-paid workers from other
countries," McGowan said. "These safeguards are even more
important right now, when there are so many qualified Canadian
workers who are looking for jobs. We saw in the 2008 recession
that if they're allowed to, companies will turn to cheap
exploitable foreign workers regardless of the unemployment
rate."
The AFL pointed out that the committee heard primarily
from
business sources, refusing to hear from many labour groups,
including the AFL. "It's clear that on this subject, the
government has turned a deaf ear to the people speaking up for
the rights of workers, and has turned a blind eye to the numerous
examples of why these kinds of safeguards are needed," McGowan
said.
"It's outrageous that the federal Liberals are
contemplating
weaker [Temporary Foreign Worker Program] rules at the same time
that low oil prices have driven unemployment rates in Alberta up
and job vacancy rates down," McGowan said. "It was bad enough
that the previous federal government let employers use the
[Temporary Foreign Worker Program] to displace Canadians and
suppress wages, when jobs were more plentiful. It's completely
unacceptable to give employers the green light to do the same
thing during a recession. This is an extremely wrong-headed
policy."
U.S.-Backed Destabilization
Attempts in Latin America
Bolivarian Forces Take Decisive Measures to
Prevent New Coup
in Venezuela
On September 1, a mass mobilization of workers, youth
and other supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution took place in Caracas
to defend the gains of the revolution and in support of peace in the
face of new attempts by opposition forces to sow anarchy and violence
in order to carry out a coup. Similar actions were
held throughout the week. Actions also took place in Canada and
other countries on September 1, with the aim of alerting people
to new attempts by foreign-backed violent opposition forces to
destabilize the country as a prelude to a coup.
The mass mobilizations were called in advance of the
September 1 march called for by the opposition and
advertised as "The Taking of Caracas." That march was aimed at
creating anarchy and violence, particularly in Caracas and to,
among other things, disrupt the functioning of the National
Electoral Council (CNE), which is in the process of establishing
if and when a presidential recall referendum will take place, in
keeping with provisions in the country's constitution.
The National Electoral Council, has firmly stated that
a
referendum cannot be held before 2017 in order to follow the
proper process and fulfil all the requirements for holding a
recall referendum.[1]
Despite
this, the opposition, which holds a majority of the seats in the
National Assembly through a coalition of parties known as the
Mesa de la Unidad Democratica (Democratic Unity Roundtable) or
MUD, is demanding the referendum be held before the end of 2016
to force a new presidential election if it is successful.
The National Electoral Council announced the schedule
for the second phase of the process earlier this week. The opposition
then shifted its focus from demanding the release of the timetable to
demanding the referendum take place before the end
of the year regardless of what the Constitution allows.
In the end, thanks, no doubt to the firmness shown and
prudent measures adopted by the Bolivarian government and its
supporters, as well as their active mobilization, the two September 1
actions concluded without any major incidents. The opposition has since
announced it will continue holding street actions in the coming days
and weeks.
Efforts by Venezuela's opposition parties to remove the
Bolivarian government headed by President Nicolás Maduro, using
one pretext or another, continue unabated. In the lead-up to September
1, a number of arrests were made by the Bolivarian authorities as
evidence surfaced of certain opposition forces allegedly planning to
engage in violence as they had done in the short-lived coup against
President Chávez in 2002, and the attempted coup against
President Maduro in 2014 that left 43 Venezuelans dead and over 800
injured.
Information about a destabilization plan being put in
place in conjunction with the September 1 opposition action was
allegedly found in the possession of one of their leaders who was
serving house arrest for refusing to control violent opposition forces
in the city where he was the mayor during the 2014 street blockades
known as "guarimbas." This led to his transfer to prison and the arrest
of a number of other key opposition figures. One of these, an activist
with the Voluntad Popular party led by Leopoldo Lopez, was allegedly
found in possession of detonating fuses for explosives. Then just days
before the opposition planned to "take Caracas" President Maduro
announced that some 90 persons were arrested at a camp of Colombian
paramilitaries located just 500 metres from the presidential palace in
the centre of Caracas -- another indication of serious dirty work afoot.
A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department issued a
statement condemning the transfer of opposition leader Daniel Ceballos
from house arrest to prison and demanding his immediate release. The
statement accused the Bolivarian government of trying to "intimidate
and impede the Venezuelan people's right to peacefully express their
opinion on September 1." This blatant attempt to interfere in
Venezuela's affairs by the biggest foreign patron of the coup plotters
received the swift rebuke it deserved from Venezuelan Foreign Minister
Delcy Rodriguez and others.
Another attempt to add fuel to the fire came from
Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General Luis Almagro,
who makes no secret of his alliance with the forces of regime change in
Venezuela. He also issued a statement -- in the name of the OAS
Secretariat – that contained a shopping list of complaints and
slanderous allegations in an attempt to discredit and isolate the
Bolivarian government and the National Electoral Council. The statement
declared that the Secretariat would hold the government of Venezuela
responsible should there be any victims on September 1 given that it
had declined the offer of an OAS “observer mission.”
Almagro's dirty work using his position at the OAS was
already rejected at meetings of the organization this summer by many
Latin American and Caribbean countries that refused to support his call
for foreign intervention in Venezuela and its expulsion from the OAS
under its poorly named "Democratic Charter." (See TML
Weekly June 4, 2016 No. 23.)
Note
1. Earlier this week the Director of the National
Electoral Council announced the next phase of signature
collection and verification required to hold the recall referendum the
opposition is demanding, will take place
October 24 to 30. The initial phase that involves validating the
signatures of 1% or 200,000 eligible voters the opposition
was required to present to show they had support for soliciting a
recall referendum was announced as complete
on August 2. Over 600,000 of the more than 1.9 million signatures
submitted were ultimately declared
invalid based on a rigorous verification process that turned up
widespread irregularities, including signatures
of deceased or non-existent people, minors and others clearly not
eligible, suggesting the opposition's willingness to engage in
electoral fraud to get their way.
Under the Constitution of Venezuela, the next phase
requires the signatures of 20% of registered electors -- some 4 million
people -- to support the holding of the recall referendum. The National
Electoral Council has already made it clear that if there is to be a
referendum it cannot be held before January 2017 -- something
opposition forces
refuse to accept. The National Electoral Council points out that
the opposition delayed the process of submitting signatures at
the first stage, making it impossible for all the steps to be
completed before the end of 2016. Instead the opposition and
their foreign backers continue to demand the law be set aside so
that, by hook or by crook, a referendum can take place before the
end of this year. The time frame is significant as, under the
constitution, if a successful referendum is held before January
10, 2017, new presidential elections would be required. However, a
referendum held after that date, if successful, would lead to
President Maduro having to step down and the vice-president serving
out the remainder of his term.
Bolivian Government Moves to Assert Sovereign Control
Over Resources
and Stop Destabilization
The Bolivian government issued a number of decrees on
September 1 to assert the sovereign control of the government
over the mining sector amidst the use of what are called
"cooperatives" to undermine public control over mining licences
and extraction in favour of mining monopolies.
The activities of mining monopolies and various mining
"cooperatives" in Bolivia are similar to those of the big
agri-monopolies and the Harper government in Canada when they set about
destroying the Canadian Wheat Board, a public monopoly run by wheat and
other grain farmers for their collective benefit and the country's. The
Harper government tried to justify the destruction of the public
monopoly by claiming that individual farmers were being blocked from
selling their products directly to various monopolies and had to sell
to the Wheat Board and that this violated their freedom. Since the
Wheat Board's public monopoly has been destroyed the wheat and grain
sector has been opened up for takeover by various U.S., European and
other agri-monopolies. At the same time, the transport of grains, which
was previously organized by the Wheat Board, has been severely
compromised.
In the Bolivian case, mining cooperatives are
used by
private mining monopolies to undermine sovereign national control
of resource extraction by making deals with individual miners rather
than with the Bolivian government.
The government says the aim of the decrees is to allow
"real"
mining cooperatives to develop their activities in the framework
of a new mining law passed in 2014. Those enterprises "camouflaged"
as mining cooperatives in order to enjoy certain privileges under the
law,
but which are just "companies exploiting men and women" will have
their licences revoked, according to authorities.
The announcement comes a week after violent road
blockades by
some of these cooperative miners, led to the death of five
people including the Deputy Minister of the Interior, Rodolfo Illanes
who was kidnapped, tortured and murdered when he visited one of
the blockade sites. According to reports, the Federation of
Mining Cooperatives of Bolivia (FENCOMIN) had organized the
blockades to protest new provisions in the country's mining
law.
One decree passed by the Cabinet on September 1 bans
"cooperative miners" from conducting their own business with
transnational companies. "The first decree explicitly states that
signed contracts of lease and sublease between the mining cooperatives
and domestic or foreign private companies revert to the domain of the
state," Mining Minister Cesar Navarro said at a press conference.
Other measures passed by the government include one
that
gives more powers to the Mining Ministry. The state now has the
authority to check and reverse licences in areas currently under
the control of the mining cooperatives. "We will be able to
verify hundreds of areas scattered in several departments to see
if these areas have mining activity, but if there is no activity
the granting of licences and administrative contracts for miners
will revert to the Bolivian State," Minister Navarro said.
A third decree gives authorities the right to supervise
and
control cooperatives around the country. Cooperatives now have to
meet a series of requirements to justify their business
operations, such as providing information on the volume and value
of their production, their income and how profits are
distributed. Cooperatives must submit this documentation by Jan.
31, 2017. In addition, the government is requesting balance
sheets, details of management structures and up-to-date rosters
of partners and administrative staff. If any cooperative does not
comply the company will automatically lose its status as a
private enterprise.
The Minister for Labour Gonzalo Trigoso also announced
a
guarantee of worker rights for all workers serving in
cooperatives. "From today these citizens are under the protection
of labour legislation and the right to unionize is in full
force," Trigoso said.
The use of dynamite has also been outlawed in public
demonstrations. A law approving the use of dynamite in protests
was previously approved but has been reversed after miners
attacked police with dynamite during recent blockades. Anyone
found with dynamite in public could face a sentence of up to four
years in prison.
Violence in the Face of Sovereign Changes
to Mining Policy in
Bolivia
- Camila Vollenweider, Centro
Estratégico
Latinoamericano
de Geopolítica (CELAG) -
On the morning of August 26 in the town of Panduro,
Bolivia's Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, Rodolfo Illanes,
was found bludgeoned to death, with clear signs that he had been
tortured. He had been leading efforts on the ground to hold a
dialogue with the mining "cooperatives" engaged in a dispute with
the government. The escalation of violence also cost the lives of
two miners although the circumstances of their death was
unclear, according to official reports.
The conflict dates back to August 10 when 4,000 people
linked
to mining cooperatives began blocking roads in a mobilization
against sovereign changes the government of Evo Morales was about
to make to the Mining Act to prohibit private companies
from investing in concessions, improving upon twentieth century
laws that allowed anyone, even foreigners, to exploit mineral
deposits.
According to a document by the Bolivia Centre for
Documentation and Information (CEDIB) dating back to
2008[1], there is
significant social and economic stratification inside the
cooperatives. The members are those with greater decision-making
power and benefits, who often subcontract workers to exploit the
mines, making the cooperatives operate like businesses, based on
profit-making and the exploitation of labour.
The Mining Act, passed in 2014, gave the
Bolivian
state greater control over mineral resources, especially by
strengthening the historic Mining Corporation of Bolivia
(COMIBOL) as the sole agent authorized to enter into agreements
with private capital for the exploitation of deposits. Later,
negotiations with the cooperatives led to the inclusion of joint
ventures between the State and cooperatives for entering into
such agreements, subject to approval by the Plurinational
Legislative Assembly. However, the regulatory regime was never
fully accepted by the cooperatives.
Specifically, one of the most significant demands
FENCOMIN --
the Federation of Mining Cooperatives of Bolivia -- is pushing for
the amendment of Articles 132 and 151 of the Mining
Act . The first article requires the Plurinational
Legislative Assembly to be the party responsible for approving
mining contracts; the second prohibits mining cooperatives from
entering into partnership agreements with private companies,
whether the capital is Bolivian or foreign. According to records
in the Ministry of Mining and Metallurgy, there are currently 31
private companies that have lease and risk-sharing contracts with
Bolivian mining cooperatives. Two of these contracts are of an
indefinite duration, two are for 35 years, six for 25 years,
eight for 20 years and the remainder for less than 10
years.[2]
All the agreements were signed before the enactment of
the
new legislation, although according to the cooperativists, with
the new law they ceased to have effect. The main partners of the
individual cooperatives in recent years have been: Mining
Development Company, Manquiri SRL, Compañía Minera del
Sur, ASC
Filial Bolivia, American International Trading Incorporated-AITC
Inc. and Inti Raymi. The Government maintains that acceding to
these demands would mean Bolivia privatizing its mining resources
once again, like in the years of "gonismo" [referring to the
presidency of Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada -- TML Ed. Note
]
-- considering that the law covering their contracts, Law 1777 of
1997, was part of the Mining Code sanctioned by Sánchez de
Lozada.
The cooperativists also oppose the amendment to the General
Mining
Cooperatives
Act
which establishes
the
right of workers in the cooperatives to unionize, arguing that it
"distorts the nature of the cooperatives" and seeks to divide
them. On the contrary, the Government assures them that the
changes to the law do not affect the mining cooperatives, but
rather confirm the legality of unions that already exist in the
service companies, and open the possibility for members who
depend on the service cooperatives for work to have the right to
unionize. Mining cooperatives in Bolivia account for a lot of
labour power. However, behind them hide powerful "bosses" that
violate the miners' labour rights. This leaves many workers in
cooperatives without access to a stable salary, health insurance
or benefits such as vacations, bonuses and contributions to the
Pension Fund (AFP).
In this lower stratum there are thousands of workers
who are
not members, whose wages are extremely low and who must submit to
working in informal and precarious arrangements. With regard to
this, the Federation of Mine Workers of Bolivia, which brings
together all the wage-earning miners in the Plurinational State
of Bolivia, stated: "They say there are more than 150,000
cooperative members, but when we go over the list of those who
have health insurance, only 3,000 receive services from the
National Health Fund, showing that the vast majority of workers
do not have access to health care and that is another violation
of their rights"[3].
According to documents [of] the Unit for the Analysis
of
Social and Economic Policies of Bolivia (UDAPE) published in
2015, between 1990 and 2013 average annual mining exports were at
32.9%, ranging from US$407 million in 1990 to US$3,083 million in
2013[4]. Foreign markets,
especially Asia, the United States, Mexico and England, are
essential for this industry that sells raw materials without
added value. In this sense, mining carries a lot of weight in
Bolivia's production, and within the mining sector, the
cooperatives constitute a privileged sector with advantages in
terms of the taxes they pay and concessions from the state for
exploiting minerals without having to engage in competitive
bidding. In addition, when it comes to political forces they have
seven legislators, including deputies and senators[5]. The privileges they are
demanding, such as the possibility to partner with large
transnational mining companies, conflict with the principles of
the government of Evo Morales who affirms that the natural
resources belong to the Bolivian people and not corporations that
try to impose their agenda.
Notes
1.
See here.
2. See here.
3.
See here.
4.
See here.
5. Visit here.
The
article
is
published
here
Coup President Installed by Senate Vote in Brazil
On August 31, Brazil's Senate voted 61 to 20 to impeach
suspended President Dilma Rousseff in an effort to make interim
President Michel Temer the full president for the remainder of
Rousseff's term. Temer was appointed vice-president by Dilma
after her re-election in 2014, although he is not from her Workers'
Party (PT) under whose banner she won the election, but
from the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. Revealing the
illegitimacy of the whole affair, Temer has already been banned
from running for public office for eight years, after
being convicted of breaking the electoral law with respect to
election spending.
There were no abstentions in the Senate impeachment
vote. A
two-thirds majority threshold of 54 votes was required to confirm
the impeachment and remove Dilma permanently from the office of
president. Temer is now to remain in office for the remainder of
her term set to end in 2018. After voting to impeach her, the
Senate also voted on whether to suspend Dilma's "political
rights" to hold any public office for the next eight years. In
that vote, Senators voted 42 in favor and 36 against, with three
abstentions, failing to achieve the threshold required for it to
pass. Unlike the "new" president who is banned from running for
eight years, Dilma is permitted to continue to run
for public office.
 Temer's party unsuccessfully
contested the presidency of
Brazil in the last four elections. Despite its candidates being
repeatedly rejected by the Brazilian electorate Temer now is set
to stack the cabinet with members of his party and implement its
program of privatization and cuts to social programs instead of
the program of the Workers' Party that Dilma was elected to
implement.
Dilma had been suspended as President since May on
charges
that she allegedly spent money without Congressional approval and
misrepresented the state of the government's finances in the
national budget.
Many members of the Brazilian Congress who participated
in
the coup to remove Dilma are themselves implicated in serious
corruption and have been caught using her impeachment to shut down the
investigations into their own actions.
According to Tranparencia Brasil, an "anti-corruption
organization," some 60 per cent of the 594 members of the Congress
face major criminal charges, from corruption to electoral fraud.
Temer himself is reported to be implicated in major corruption
allegations, including bribery, over and above his conviction for
election law violations.
Speaking before the Senate, Jose Eduardo Cardozo,
Dilma's
legal counsel said the charges against her were trumped up to
stop the investigation she supported into corruption linked to
the national oil company Petrobras. Known as "Operation Car
Wash, "the investigation implicates many of Brazil's elite, including
members
of the Congress. Three of Temer's Ministerial appointments had to
resign when evidence emerged of their involvement, as well as
their attempts to impeach Dilma as a way to put a stop to the
investigation. Cardozo called Dilma's trial a farce and said
"History will treat her fairly. History will absolve Dilma
Rousseff if you convict her."
Speaking before the Senate in her own defence and
against the coup, Dilma called the "evidence" used to impeach her mere
pretexts: "... just pretexts to overthrow, by means of an
impeachment proceeding without any crime of responsibility, a
legitimate government, chosen in a direct election with a turnout
of 110 million Brazilian men and women.[1] The government of a woman who
dared to win two
consecutive presidential elections. They are pretexts to enable a
coup against the Constitution. A coup that, if carried out, will
result in the indirect election of a usurping government."
She also denounced the illegtimacy of the impeachment
trial: "There is no respect for due process of law when
those judging state that condemnation is just a matter of time
because they will vote against me anyway."[2]
In closing Dilma called for the people of Brazil to
be
allowed to decide in a new and immediate election rather than
permitting Temer to ride out the rest of her term. It has since
been made known that she intends to appeal her impeachment to the
Supreme Court despite the same body having denied previous
requests to stop the impeachment process.
TeleSUR reports that a recent poll by Datafolha found
that 60
per cent of Brazilians wanted snap presidential elections in
the event Dilma was removed rather than waiting for the next
scheduled election in 2018. It also reports that surveys continue
to show that Lula Da Silva, former Brazilian president and likely
candidate for the workers' Party in the next presidential election, is
the
favoured candidate.
Notes
1. Brazil's population at the
time was approximately
200
million.
2. Such declarations by
senators were made widely known
in
the media prior to the holding of the "trial" in which the cases
for both the defence and prosecution were to be heard, presumably
to inform the senators' vote on whether to impeach or not.
Speech of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff
to the Federal Senate
The following is the
translation of the speech that was
delivered by Dilma Rousseff, August 29, to the Brazilian Senate prior
to the vote
that removed her as
President of the Republic. It has been edited by TML Weekly for
clarity in English and explanations of key terms have been added.
***
 Your Excellency Chief Justice of
the Supreme Federal
Court
Ricardo Lewandowski, Your Excellency President of the Federal
Senate Renan Calheiros, Your Excellencies (Senators),
Women and Men Citizens of my beloved Brazil,
On January 1, 2015 I assumed my second term as
President of
the Federative Republic of Brazil.
I was elected by more than 54 million votes.
At my inauguration I pledged to uphold, defend and
abide by
the Constitution as well as comply with the law, promote the
general well-being of the Brazilian people, sustain the union,
the integrity, and independence of Brazil.
Upon exercising the Presidency of the Republic I
faithfully
respected the pledge I made before the nation and those who
elected me. And I am proud of that. I have always believed in
democracy and the rule of law, and have always viewed the 1988
Constitution as one of our people's great accomplishments.
I would never act against what I believe in or
engage in
actions that went counter to the interests of those who have
elected me. While on this journey to defend myself from the
impeachment, I got closer to the people and had the chance to
hear their acknowledgment, to receive their affection. I have
also heard strong criticisms against my administration, the
mistakes committed, and the measures and policies that were not
adopted. I humbly accept these criticisms.
Not least, because like everyone, I have my flaws and
commit
mistakes.
Among my flaws are not disloyalty and cowardice. I do
not
betray the pledges I make, the principles I stand for, or those
who fight by my side. In the fight against the dictatorship, my
body has received the marks of torture. For years I endured the
suffering of imprisonment. I saw brothers and sisters being
raped, even murdered.
At the time, I was very young. I had much to expect
from
life. I was afraid of death, of the sequelae of torture on my
body and soul. But I did not cave in. I resisted. I resisted
against the terror storm that had started to engulf me, in the
darkness of the bitter times the country went through. I did not
change sides. In spite of having to carry the burden of injustice
on my shoulders, I kept on fighting for democracy.
I have dedicated all these years of my life to the
struggle
for a society without hatred and intolerance. I have fought for a
society free from prejudice and discrimination. I have fought for
a society where there was no poverty or excluded people. I have
fought for a sovereign Brazil, in which there was more equality
and justice.
I take pride in that. When one believes, one fights.
At nearly seventy years of age, it would not be now,
after
becoming a mother and a grandmother, that I would abdicate the
principles that have always guided me.
Exercising the Presidency of the Republic, I have
honored the
pledge I made to my country, to Democracy, to the Rule of Law. I
have been intransigent in defence of honesty in the management of
public affairs. That is why, in the face of the accusations I am
charged with in this process, I cannot help feeling, again, in my
mouth the rough and bitter taste of injustice and
arbitrariness.
And that is why, as in the past, I resist.
Do not expect from me the obsequious silence of the
cowards.
In the past, with arms, and today, with legal rhetoric, once
again Democracy and the Rule of Law are being attacked.
If some renege on their past and bargain for the
largesse of
the present, may they answer before their consciences and before
history for their actions. I can only regret for what they used
to be and for what they have become.
And resist. Always resist. Resist to awaken the
consciences
that are still asleep so that, together, we may set foot on the
ground that is on the right side of history, even if the earth
shakes and threatens to engulf us again.
I do not fight for my office or for vanity or for some
attachment to power, as befits those who have no character,
principles, or utopias to conquer. I fight for democracy, for
truth, and for justice. I fight for the people of my Country, for
their well-being.
Many today ask me where my energy to proceed comes
from. It
comes from what I believe in. I can look back and see all we have
done. Look ahead and see all we still need to do and can do.
Most importantly, I can look at myself and see the face
of
someone who, though marked by time, has the strength to defend her
ideas and her rights.
I know that soon, and once again in my life, I will be
judged. And it is because my conscience is absolutely tranquil in
relation to what I have done, in the exercise of the Presidency
of the Republic, that I come in person before those who will
judge me. I come to see straight in the eyes of Your Excellencies
and say, with the serenity of those who have nothing to hide,
that I have not committed any crime of responsibility. I have not
committed the offenses I am being unfairly and arbitrarily
charged with.
Today, Brazil, the world, and history watch us and
await the
outcome of this impeachment proceeding.
Last year in Latin America and Brazil, whenever the
interests of the economic and political elite were hurt at the polls
and there were no legal reasons for a legitimate removal, conspiracies
were plotted that resulted in coups d'etat.
President Getúlio
Vargas, who left us the CLT [labor code] and the defence of the
national wealth, was relentlessly persecuted; the heinous plot
orchestrated by the so-called República do Galeão, led to
his suicide.
President Juscelino Kubitschek, who built this city,
was the victim of constant and failed coup attempts, such as took place
in the Aragarças episode.
President João Goulart, a champion of democracy,
workers
rights, and systemic reforms, managed to prevail against the
parliamentary coup, but was removed and the military dictatorship
was established in 1964. For 20 years, we lived the silence
imposed by arbitrariness, and democracy was swept away from our
country. Millions of Brazilians fought and won back the right to
direct elections.
Today, as the interests of the political and
economic elite are rejected at the polls, once again we see
ourselves facing the risk of democratic disruption. The political
standards prevailing in the world repel explicit violence. Now,
democratic disruption takes place by means of moral violence and
constitutional pretexts so as to lend an appearance of legitimacy
to the government that is assuming [power] without the backing of the
polls. The Constitution is invoked so that the world of
appearances may hypocritically conceal the world of facts.
The evidence submitted renders it clear and
undisputable that
the charges against me are mere pretexts, based on weak legal
rhetoric. In the last days, new facts have shed light on another
aspect of the plot that characterizes this impeachment process.
The petitioner who filed the charges being discussed in this
process with the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) was admitted as
a suspect by the Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court. We
have also learned, from the testimony by the auditor in charge of
the technical report, that he helped draft the same petition
he came to audit. The bias, the plot, is clear in the
construction of the theses he defends.
They are pretexts, just pretexts to overthrow, by means
of an
impeachment proceeding without any crime of responsibility, a
legitimate government, chosen in a direct election with a turnout
of 110 million Brazilian men and women, the government of a woman
who dared to win two consecutive presidential elections.
They are pretexts to enable a coup against the
Constitution.
A coup that, if carried out, will result in the indirect election
of a usurping government; the indirect election of a government that
during its
interim period, has had no women heading its ministries, when the
people, in the polls, chose a woman to head the country. A
government that can do without blacks in the composition of its
cabinet and has already shown utter contempt for the platform
chosen by the people in 2014.
I was elected president by 54 and a half million votes
to
carry out a program whose synthesis is recorded in the words "not a
single right less." What is at stake in the impeachment process
is not only my term. What is at stake is respect for the polls,
the sovereign will of the Brazilian people, and the
Constitution.
What is at stake are the accomplishments of the last 13
years: the gains of the population, of the poorest people and the
middle class; the protection of children; the youth getting to
university and technical schools; the valuing of the minimum
wage; doctors treating the population; making the one's-own-house
dream come true.
What is at stake is the investment in works that will
allow
coexisting with droughts in the semi-arid region, is the
conclusion of the dreamt-of and long-awaited São Francisco
integration process.[1]
What is at stake is, too, the great discovery in Brazil,
the
pre-salt [oil reserves].
What is at stake is the sovereign
participation of our country in the international arena, guided
by ethics and the pursuit of common interests.
What is at stake is the self-esteem of the Brazilian
men and
women, who have resisted the attacks by the pessimists on
duty regarding the country's capacity to, successfully, host the World
Cup and the Olympics and the Paralympics.
What is at stake is the accomplishment of stability,
which
seeks fiscal balance but will not give up social programs for our
population.
What is at stake is the future of our country, the
opportunity and hope of further moving forward.
Senators,
In the provisions laid down in our Constitution, it
does not
suffice to lose a majority in parliament to remove a president.
There must be a crime of responsibility. And it is plainly clear
that there was no such crime. It is not legitimate, as claimed by
my accusers, to remove the head of State and government due to
"the body of work." Those who may remove the president for "the
body of work" are the people, and only the people, in elections.
And, in the elections, the winning government platform was not
this one now being tried out and designed by the interim
government and defended by my accusers.
What the interim government seeks, if it is transformed
into
the incumbent, is a veritable attack on the accomplishments of
the past years.
Delinking retirement payments and pensions from the
minimum
wage will be the destruction of Social Security, the country's biggest
income distribution tool. The result will
be even more poverty, more child mortality, and decay of the
small municipalities.
Reviewing the rights and guarantees in the CLT labor
code and
prohibiting withdrawals from severance fund FGTS upon dismissal
of a worker are the threats hanging over the Brazilian people
should the impeachment without crime of responsibility
prevail.
Important accomplishments for women, blacks, and LGBT
communities are compromised by submission to ultraconservative
principles.
Our wealth will be at stake, with the resources of the
pre-salt [oil reserves], with natural and mineral riches being
privatized.
The most frightening threat in this impeachment process
without crime of responsibility is to freeze, for an unbelievable
20-year period, spending on health, education, sanitation,
housing.
For 20 years preventing more children, teenagers, and
young
adults from having access to schools; for 20 years keeping people
from getting better health care; for 20 years, families from
dreaming of owning their own house.
Mr. Chief Justice Ricardo Lewandowski and Senators,
The truth is that the 2014 electoral result was a
terrible
blow against sectors of the Brazilian conservative elite.
Since the announcement of the electoral results, the
parties
supporting the candidate defeated in the elections stopped at
nothing to keep me from being sworn in and my administration from
attaining stability. They said the elections had been rigged,
requested that the voting machines be audited, challenged my
campaign accounts, and after my inauguration, relentlessly
searched for any fact that might rhetorically justify an
impeachment process.
As is typical of conservative and authoritarian elites,
they
would not see in the will of the people a government's
legitimizing element. They wanted power at any price.
They did everything to destabilize me and my government.
It is only possible to understand the seriousness of
the
crisis that has befallen Brazil since 2015, taking into
consideration the acute political crisis that, since my
reelection, has characterized the environment in which investment
and the production of goods and services takes place.
No one sought to discuss and approve a better proposal
for
the country. What was permanently intended was the affirmation of "the
worse it gets, the better," in the obsessive pursuit of
undermining the government, with no care shown for the harmful
outcomes of such questionable political action for the whole of
the population.
The prospect of an impeachment became the central theme
of
the political and journalistic agenda only two months after my
reelection, in spite of the evident lack of a basis that
would justify this radical move.
In this environment of turbulence and uncertainty, the
permanent political risk caused by the activism of a sizable
portion of the opposition ultimately became a key element in the
slowing down of investment and the deepening of the economic
crisis.
It must also be underscored that the pursuit of fiscal
balance, since 2015, has met with strong resistance in the
Chamber of Deputies, at the time presided over by Deputy Eduardo
Cunha. The bills sent by the government were rejected, partially
or
wholly. Negative agendas, the "pauta-bombas," [Literally guided
missiles, referring to amendments to a government bill by the
opposition which if passed undermine the measures and intent of
the legislation itself and the government's ability to function]
were submitted and some of them approved.
The Chamber's standing committees, in 2016, only
started
working as of May 5, one week before the acceptance of the
impeachment proceeding by the Federal Senate Commission. The
Senators know that the functioning of these Commissions was and
is absolutely indispensable for the approval of matters that
interfere in the fiscal setting and in establishing a way out of
the crisis.
The desired political instability setting was thus
established, favoring the opening of an impeachment process
without crime of responsibility.
Without these actions, today Brazil would certainly be
in a
different political, economic, and fiscal situation.
Many voiced and voted against proposals they had
defended all
their lives, without thinking about the consequences their
gestures would entail to the country and the Brazilian people.
They wanted to take advantage of the economic crisis because they
knew that once my administration managed to rein it in, their
aspiration of access to power would likely be buried for yet a
longer period of time.
However, in truth the opposition forces only managed to
succeed in their intent when another powerful political force
joined them: the political force of those who wanted to avoid the
continuation of the "bleeding" of sectors of the Brazilian
political class, brought about by the investigations of
corruption and diversion of public money.
It is widely known that during my government and that
of
President Lula every condition was given for these investigations
to be carried out. We proposed important laws that endowed the
competent bodies with the conditions to investigate and punish
those found guilty.
I have assured the autonomy of the Office of the
Prosecutor
by appointing as Prosecutor General of the Republic the first
name on the list submitted by the members of that institution
themselves.
I have not allowed any political interference in the
activities of the Federal Police.
With that attitude, I went against many interests and,
for
the position I took, I have paid and am paying a high personal
price.
They have planned my removal, regardless of the
existence of
any facts that could justify it in light of our Constitution.
They have found in the person of the former President of the
Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha, the vertex of their
coup-driven alliance.
They have planned and succeeded in eliminating the
government's legislative majority.
Situations were created, with the overt support of
sectors of
the media, to build up the political environment required to
deconstruct the electoral result of 2014.
Everyone knows that this impeachment process was
started by
the "outright blackmail" of former President of the Chamber
Eduardo Cunha, as one of the denouncers came to recognize in
statements to the press. That lawmaker was demanding that I
intervene so that members of my party would vote against starting
his impeachment process.
I have never accepted threats or blackmail in my life.
If I
have not done it before, I would not do that in the capacity of
President of the Republic. It is a fact, however, that not having
bowed to this blackmail was the motive for accepting the crime of
responsibility petition and the start of this proceeding, under
the applause of those defeated in 2014 and those who feared the
investigations.
Had I become an accomplice in improbity and the worst
there
is in Brazilian politics, as many today seem not to have any
shame in doing, I would not be running the risk of being unfairly
convicted.
Those who become accomplices in the immoral and the
unlawful,
have no respectability to govern Brazil. Those who act to spare
or postpone the judgment of a person that is charged with enriching
himself at the expense of the Brazilian State
and
the people who pay their taxes, sooner or later, will end up
paying before society and history the price for their lack of
commitment to ethics.
Everyone knows I have not enriched myself in the
holding of
public offices, that I have not diverted public money to my own
benefit, or that of my relatives, and that I do not hold accounts
or real estate abroad. I have always acted with complete probity
in the public offices I have held throughout my life.
Curiously, I will be judged, for crimes I have not
committed,
before the former President of the Chamber, who is accused of
having engaged in very serious illegal acts and who has led the
plots and ruses that underpin the actions designed to remove
me.
Irony of history? No, not at all. This is a deliberate
action
that relies on the silence of sectors of the Brazilian media as
accomplice.
Democracy is violated and an innocent is punished. This
is
the backdrop that marks the judgment that will be issued by the
will of those who cast unfounded accusatory pretexts against
me.
We are one step away from consummating a serious
institutional disruption. We are one step away from a veritable
coup d'etat.
Dear Senators,
Let us go to the case records. What am I charged with?
What
were the attempts against the Constitution I have committed? What
were the heinous crimes I have practiced?
The first accusation refers to the issuing of three
executive
orders for supplementary credit without legislative
authorization. Throughout this process, we have shown that the
issuance of such orders followed each and every legal rule. We
have respected the provision set forth in the Constitution, the
goal established in the Budgetary Law
(LDO), and the
authorizations provided for in article 4 of the 2015 Budgetary
Law, approved by the National Congress.
All these legal provisions were complied with as
regards the
three orders. They simply offered alternatives to the allocation
of the same limits -- apportionment and financial -- established by
the executive orders setting expenditure limits, which were not
modified. Hence, they have absolutely not affected the fiscal
target.
Moreover, since 2014, by initiative of the Executive,
Congress approved to make it mandatory to include in the Budgetary Law that
any credit extended must have its execution
subordinated to the expenditure limitation decree (decreto de
contingenciamento), issued in conformity with the rules
established by the Fiscal
Responsibility Law. And that was
precisely respected.
I do not know whether it was incomprehension or
strategy, but
the accusations made in this process seek to attribute our fiscal
problems to these decrees. They ignore or conceal that our fiscal
results are the consequence of the economic slowdown and not its
cause.
They conceal that, in 2015, with the worsening of the
crisis,
we had a major fall in income throughout that year -- this was
$180 billion Reals [approximately CDN$72.68 billion] less than forecast
in the Budgetary Law.
They make a point of ignoring that, in 2015, we set the
highest expenditure limitation in our history. They argue that,
when I sent the request for authorization to reduce the fiscal
target to the National Congress in July 2015, I should have
immediately established another expenditure limitation. I did not
do that because I followed the procedure that was not questioned
by the Federal Court of Accounts or by the National Congress in
analyzing the 2009 accounts.
Furthermore, responsibility towards the population also
justifies our decision. If, in July, we had applied the
expenditure limitation proposed by our accusers, we would have
cut 96% of the total resources available for expenditures for the
Union. This would represent a radical cut in every budgetary
endowment of the federal bodies. Ministries would stop,
universities would close their doors, the Mais Medicos health
program would be interrupted, the procurement of medications
would be harmed, regulatory agencies would stop working.
Actually, in budgetary terms 2015 would have ended in July.
I say it again: by issuing these supplementary credit
orders,
I acted in full compliance with the legislation in effect. Not
one of these acts disrespected the National Congress. As a matter
of fact, this was the behavior I adopted in both my terms.
It was only after I signed these orders that the
Federal
Court of Accounts changed the position it had always had on the
subject. It is important that the Brazilian population be
clarified about this point: the orders were issued in July and
August 2015 and only in October 2015 did the Federal Court of
Accounts approve the new interpretation.
The Federal Court of Accounts recommended the approval
of the
accounts of all the presidents who issued orders identical to the
ones I issued. They had never raised any technical problem or had the
interpretation they came to have after I signed these
orders.
Am I to be condemned for having signed orders that met
the
needs of several agencies, including the Judiciary Branch itself,
on the basis of the same procedure adopted since the Fiscal
Responsibility Law came into effect in 2001? for having signed
orders that, added together, have not
entailed, as proved in the records, a single cent of extra
expenditure that might have harmed the fiscal target?
The second charge against me in this process is also
unfair
and fragile. It is stated that the alleged delay in the payment
of economic subsidies owed to the Bank of Brazil, concerning the
execution of farm credit program Plano
Safra, is equivalent to a
"credit operation," which is forbidden by the Fiscal
Responsibility Law.
As my defence and several witnesses have already
stated, the
execution of Plano Safra is
governed by a 1992 bill that assigns
to the Ministry of Finance the competence for its regulation,
including in relation to the role of the Bank of Brazil. The
President of the Republic does not practice any act whatsoever in
the execution of Plano Safra.
It seems obvious, in addition to
legally fair, that I should not be accused of a nonexistent
action.
The controversy as to the existence of the credit
operation
arose from a change in the interpretation of the Federal Court of
Accounts, whose definitive ruling was issued in December 2015.
Once again, there is an attempt to say that I committed a crime
before the definition of the thesis establishing the crime; a
thesis that had never arisen before and that, as all of you
Senators have learned in recent days, was devised especially for this
occasion.
I would also like to remind you of the recent decision
by the
Office of the Federal Prosecutor, who dismissed an inquest on
this exact same issue. He stated there was no ground for claiming
there was an offense against the Fiscal
Responsibility
Law
because occasional delays in the payment of contracts for the
delivery of services between the Union and public financial
institutions are not credit operations.
I insist, dear Senators: it is not me or my defence who
make
these allegations. It is the Federal Office of the Prosecutor who
has refused to continue the process for lack of a crime.
On the change in interpretation by the Federal Court of
Accounts, I remind you that, even before the final decision, I
acted preventively. I requested the authorization of the National
Congress to pay the liabilities and established by executive
order the calendar for the payment of the subsidies due. In
December 2015, after the Federal Court of Accounts' final ruling
and with authorization from the Congress, we paid off all the
existing debts.
It cannot be that, here too, one cannot see the
arbitrariness
of this process as well as the injustice of this accusation.
This impeachment process is not legitimate. I have not
attempted, absolutely not, against any of the provisions in the
Constitution that, as President of the Republic, I have sworn to
abide by. I have not practiced any unlawful action. It has been
proven that I have not intentionally acted in anything. The
actions taken were entirely devoted to the interests of society.
They have not injured the treasury or public finances. I state
again, as has done my defence all this time, that this process is
marred, from beginning to end, by a clamorous misuse of power.
Only this can explain the absolute weakness of the accusations
directed at me. It has been stated that this impeachment process
is legitimate because canons and deadlines have been complied
with. However, for justice to be served and democracy to prevail,
the form alone will not suffice. It is imperative that the
content of a sentence also be fair. And in this case, there will
never be justice in my condemnation.
I dare to say that at several moments this process has
clamorously deviated from that which the Constitution and the
jurists call "due process of law."
There is no respect for due process of law when the
condemning opinion of those judging is released and
reported in great part by the big press before the final exercise of
the right
to defence.
There is no respect for due process of law when those
judging
state that condemnation is just a matter of time because they
will vote against me anyway.
In this case, the right to defence will be exercised
only
formally, but will not be appreciated substantively in its
arguments and proofs. The form will only exist to lend an
appearance of legitimacy to that which is illegitimate in
essence.
Dear Senators,
In these months, I was asked several times why not
resign, to
shorten such a difficult chapter of my life.
I would never do that because I have an uncompromising
commitment to the Democratic Rule of Law.
I would never do that because I never give up a fight.
I admit to Your Excellencies, however, that the
betrayal, the
verbal aggression, and the violence of prejudice have overwhelmed
me and, at times, even hurt me. Yet these were far outweighed by
the solidarity, the support, and the readiness to fight of
millions of Brazilian women and men across the country. By means
of street rallies, meetings, seminars, books, shows,
mobilizations on the internet, our people were all creativity and
stamina to fight against the coup.
Over this period, the Brazilian women have been a
fundamental
bulwark for my resistance. They have covered me in flowers and
protected me with their solidarity. Indefatigable partners in a
battle where misogyny and prejudice have shown their claws, the
Brazilian women have expressed, in this combat for democracy and
rights, their strength and resilience. Courageous Brazilian
women, whom I have the honour and duty of representing as the
first female President of Brazil.
I get to this stage of this process committed to
fulfilling a
demand by the majority of the Brazilians: call them to decide, at
the polls, about the future of our country. Dialogue,
participation, and direct and free vote are the best weapons we
have for the preservation of democracy.
I trust that Your Excellencies will provide justice. My
mind is
at peace. I have not committed any crime of responsibility. The
accusations directed at me are unfair and improper. To
definitively impeach my term is like sentencing me to political
death.
This is the second trial I have been submitted to in
which democracy takes a seat with me on the defendant's bench. The
first time, I was convicted by a court of the junta. From that time,
besides the painful marks of torture, my image is captured in a photo
before my tormentors, at a moment when I was looking at them with head
held high while they hide their faces, afraid of being recognized and
judged by history.
Today, four decades on, there is no illegal arrest,
there is
no torture; those judging me got here by the same vote of the
people that led me to the Presidency. I have the greatest respect
for all of you, but my head is still high, looking in the eyes of
those who are to judge me.
Despite the differences, I suffer again with the
feeling of
injustice and the fear that, once again, democracy is to be
sentenced with me. And I have no doubt that, this time too, we
will all be judged by history.
Twice have I seen the face of death: when I was
tortured for
days on end, submitted to ill-treatment that makes us wonder
about humanity and the sense of life itself; and when a serious
and extremely painful disease could have cut short my
existence.
Today I only fear the death of democracy, for which
many of
us in this plenary room have fought with our best efforts.
I reaffirm: I respect those judging me. I do not hold
any
rancour for those who will vote for my removal. I respect and am
particularly fond of those who have fought so fiercely for my
acquittal, to whom I will be eternally grateful.
This moment I would like to address those Senators who,
though opposing me and my government, are undecided.
Remember that, in the presidential regime and under the
aegis
of our Constitution, a political condemnation mandatorily
requires the occurrence of a crime of responsibility, willingly
committed and fully proven.
Remember the terrible precedent this decision might
open to other presidents, governors and mayors: condemning without
substantial evidence; condemning an innocent.
I make a final appeal to all of you, Senators: do not
accept
a coup that, rather than solving, will worsen the Brazilian
crisis.
I ask you to provide justice for an honest president,
who
has
never committed any wrongdoing, in her personal life in the
public offices she held. Vote without resentment. What each
Senator feels for me and what we feel for each other matters
less, at this moment, than what we all feel for the country and
the Brazilian people.
I ask you: vote against the impeachment. Vote for
democracy.
Thank you very much.
Note
1. In order to ensure the
supply of drinking water to 12 million people in 393 municipalities in
Brazil's Northeast region, the San Francisco River Integration Project,
currently the largest water infrastructure work for multiple uses in
the country, integrates the Rio São Francisco River Basin with
the hydrographic basins in the Northeast region of the country.
Brazil's Northeast region contains 28 per cent of the country's
population but only 3 per cent of the surface water available (75
per cent of this is concentrated in the basin of Rio São
Francisco).
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
