| October 31, 2020 -
No. 41 Restructuring
at Behest of Narrow Private Interests Provincial
Governments' Use of Pandemic as Cover for Anti-Social Actions
-
Barbara Biley -  
• Global
Pharma Attacks Public Opinion - K.C. Adams -
• Campaigns
to
Block New Direction for Pharmaceutical Sector
BC Election • The
Results •
The Problem of Empowerment of the
People Remains • The
Queen
Gave Them the Whole Bag -
Peter Ewart -
All Eyes on Mi'kma'ki!
•
Ongoing
Actions Vigorously Affirm Mi'kmaq Fishers'
Treaty Right to
Take Part in Lobster Fishery
Statements in Solidarity with
Mi'kmaq Fishers
•
Canadian
Union of Postal Workers •
Canadian
Teachers' Federation •
National
Farmers Union
For Your Information
• Marshall
Fact Sheet -
Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office/
Mi'kmaq Rights
Initiative -
Chilean People Vote for New
Constitution
• Massive Turnout in Plebiscite Sets
Course for
New Constitutional Arrangements
- Nick Lin -
25th
Anniversary of 1995 Quebec Referendum
• The
People's Struggle to Vest Sovereignty in Themselves
Remains
a Problem to Be Resolved -
Claude Brunelle and Christine Dandenault -
Restructuring
at Behest of Narrow Private Interests
-
Barbara Biley - Decisions taken by federal and
provincial governments ostensibly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic
have an aim other than protecting the well-being of the people and the
society. The "emergency measures" and legislation brought in since
March have nothing to do with building an independent self-reliant
Canadian economy based on meeting the needs of Canadians. Since March,
under respective provincial laws, the provinces have declared states of
emergency and enacted orders-in-council, ministerial orders and orders
of public health authorities to put measures in place to deal with the
pandemic.  In several
provinces, particularly Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, and in different
ways in other provinces, the pandemic has been used as a cover to
introduce legislation and methods of operating that significantly
restructure the state so that any public authority whatsoever is
eliminated. This is a continuation and ramping up of the anti-social
offensive of the last 30 years, the aim of which is to open space for
the most powerful oligarchs globally to directly rule society's affairs
in their own narrow interests. For example, over the last decades
governments have handed over huge parts of the health care sector
including hospital food services, housekeeping, IT, laboratory services
and more throughout the country to some of the biggest foreign
multinational corporations.
In long-term care and
assisted- and independent-living there has been a vast expansion in the
ownership and operation of residences by private, many foreign-based,
corporations. To this end, health care workers and their organizations
have come under unprecedented attack because workers' wages and working
conditions are considered a cost and therefore an obstacle to the
agenda of narrow private interests and the governments that serve them.
Using the pandemic as cover, governments are restructuring the state,
eliminating any vestiges of a public authority, in favour of direct
control by the most powerful oligarchs. Alberta
  
The
actions of the Kenney government in Alberta are a case in point. Since
the second session of the Alberta Legislature opened on February 25, 34
pieces of legislation have been passed, four dealing directly with the
pandemic. Most of the legislation is directed towards completing the
program of the United Conservative Party government to de-regulate
industry and privatize education and health care, to meet the demands
of the energy oligarchs.  The wide-ranging
legislation has been introduced so quickly, one anti-worker anti-social
bill after another, that it is difficult for the people's opposition to
keep up, and the Kenney government is using its majority to ram the
bills through the legislature.
The first piece of
legislation in this session was Bill 1, the Critical
Infrastructure Defence Act, which criminalizes anyone who
interferes with public infrastructure. The definition of public
infrastructure in the law is so broad as to allow authorities to
criminalize workers' strike struggles, youth action on climate change
and all manner of opposition. It was introduced in the legislature on
February 25 by Premier Kenney himself who made it crystal clear that
the legislation was specifically in response to the recent country-wide
actions in support of the Wet'suwet'en Land Defenders' fight against
the energy monopoly Coastal GasLink's pipeline that will cross their
traditional territory in northern BC, without permission. Since
then the government has threatened the Calgary School Board with
dissolution for its stand against cuts to education, and has passed
legislation -- including Bill 32, the Restoring Balance in
Alberta's Workplaces Act, 2020, to amend the Employment
Standards Code and the Labour Relations Code
in ways that trample workers' rights. Days after Bill 32 was introduced
the government launched a major assault on working people through the
review of two major pieces of labour legislation, the Occupational
Health and Safety Act (OHS Act) and the Workers'
Compensation Act for the purpose of preparing to make changes
that favour employers and violate workers' rights. In
July, the Health Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 30)
was passed, which is an omnibus bill that amends nine pieces of
legislation, and whose purpose is cutting services and privatization,
including contracting out in hospitals, making way for private surgical
clinics, and changing how doctors are paid.  On
October 13, the Minister of Health announced that the government will
be proceeding with the layoff of 11,000 health care workers and the
privatization of one sector after another of the health system --
including laundry, food and environmental services -- and will
continue to cut nursing staff through attrition until it declares the
pandemic over, and then proceed with layoffs to eliminate the
equivalent of 500 full-time nurses, which the United Nurses of Alberta
estimates will result in the layoff of 750 nurses.
This
assault on the workers and the incredible harm such measures will cause
to the capacity of the health care sector to deal with the pandemic is
of no concern to the Kenney government which is being directed by the
likes of Ernst and Young to make changes that favour the oligarchs and
remove obstacles, such as workers' rights and organizations, that stand
in the way. Ontario 
August-September 2020.
Rallies and pickets at offices of provincial members of parliament
across Ontario are organized by health care workers to demand
the repeal of Bill 195.
On March 17, the Ontario
government declared a state of emergency throughout the province in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the emergency powers which the
government granted to itself orders were issued regarding all aspects
of the functioning of the economy, social gatherings, closing of
schools and hospitals, and of long-term care homes to visitors, among
others.  Many of the
orders issued under the emergency powers state explicitly that despite
the existence of any collective agreement, employers can unilaterally
set staffing priorities, redeploy staff as required, change work
schedules or shift assignments, cancel vacations, hire part-time,
temporary or contract labour and use volunteers to perform bargaining
unit work. Grievance procedures are suspended for any matter referred
to in the order. Health care workers, despite their first-hand
knowledge of their workplaces, were completely excluded from any
decision-making with regard to how to deploy staff, what measures
should be taken to protect workers and those they care for, and,
particularly in long-term care, how to mobilize other forces including
families, volunteers, and health care workers from outside the care
home sector.
On July 7, the Reopening
Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020 (Bill 195),
was introduced in the Ontario legislature. The bill extends the
government's emergency powers while eliminating key oversight
mechanisms -- in the name of "flexibility." Bill 195 formally ends the
state of emergency (as of July 24) but allows the emergency orders
issued under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act
(EMCPA) to be continued by decree of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
(i.e., the provincial cabinet). While under the EMCPA emergency orders
had to be re-approved every 14 days, under Bill 195 they can be renewed
by cabinet for 30-day periods, for up to a year, and the powers of the
bill can be extended for a further year. Orders may also be amended to
apply to additional persons or groups. In the
meantime, what should have been done to ensure that the health care
system is in shape to handle a second wave, already underway, has not
been done. Quebec  
October 19, 2020. Quebec health care workers shut down bridges in
Montreal and Quebec City to demand action on their demands for the
conditions they require to carry their responsibilities to society.
A state of public health emergency was declared on March 13.
Among the first measures taken were ministerial orders issued on March
15 and 21, through which the government gave itself the power to
override health care and social service workers' collective agreements
and impose working conditions that violated negotiated agreements. This
was justified under powers claimed by the Minister of Health under the Public
Health Act. Nowhere in that Act is there any reference to
cancellations of collective agreements or changing of working
conditions and the Quebec government has offered no explanation of how
such draconian actions protect the health of the public. The
ministerial orders allow government to cancel workers' leaves,
including vacations, change workers' assignments and schedules, impose
extended work days of up to 12 hours and "suspend or cancel agreed
working time arrangements and refuse to grant new arrangements." These
orders have been renewed repeatedly and continue to be in effect.
While the government has gone to great lengths to permit
employers to act unilaterally in ways that put workers, patients and
residents of long-term care homes at increased risk, it has refused to
listen to the front line workers who know best how to organize the work
and what is needed to keep everyone safe. It has also blocked others
who want to be part of the solution, including student nurses who
volunteered to help out and whose offers were ignored.  On June 3, the
Legault government tabled Bill 61, An Act to restart Quebec's
economy and to mitigate the consequences of the public health emergency
declared on March 13, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The bill was a major state restructuring in terms of decision-making
power. It cited the public health emergency and the need to mitigate
its effect on the economy as justification for giving all power to the
government executive to cancel and violate existing laws and
regulations under the hoax of speeding up the reopening of the economy.
Bill 61 would have allowed the government executive to violate
provisions of the Public Health Act, the Environment
Quality Act, the Expropriation Act, and
the Act Respecting Contracting by Public Bodies
and, in addition, gave immunity from prosecution to government
ministers and others acting under the legislation.
A
main feature of Bill 61 was that any change that it made to existing
laws would be permanent. The government executive would have had the
power to make legislative changes without input from the Legislative
assembly or those directly concerned by the new provisions, giving full
power to the executive to enter into any arrangements with private
interests without public scrutiny. Bill 61 would
also have extended the public health emergency and the powers it gives
to the government executive for another two years. Because
of the massive opposition of the people, the Quebec government could
not pass the bill before the National Assembly adjourned on June 12 and
on September 23, the Legault government tabled Bill 66, An
Act respecting the acceleration of certain infrastructure projects,
a replacement for Bill 61. The new bill would grant the government
authority to override laws on environmental protection and
expropriation but does not include the power to override the Act
Respecting Contracting by Public Bodies or grant immunity to
government ministers or extend the public health emergency.  What is common in
the actions of the governments of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, as well
as others, are four things:
1) the actions being
taken further the restructuring of the state to serve private interests;
2) the rights of health care workers, including their right to
act collectively to defend their rights, are under attack; and
3) the entire polity, in particular health care workers,
patients and seniors who receive care, and families and others
intimately involved in the lives of patients and seniors, are shut out.
4)
these anti-social measures and pay-the-rich schemes to not have the
consent of the people and are facing increasing scrutiny and acts of
resistance and opposition from the working class and people.
Through
coercive measures, the Alberta, Ontario and Quebec governments are
trying to negate the experience of the people and the lessons learned
fighting the pandemic. These governments are using executive powers to
continue to impose a direction of the economy in which the entire
organization of society is based on increasing pay-the-rich schemes and
intensifying the concentration of power and wealth in fewer and fewer
hands. The workers are putting forward their demands based on the
collective recognition that this direction and the way the society is
organized have failed to meet the basic needs of the people.
- K.C. Adams -
Canadians' access to affordable pharmaceuticals is an
important aspect of affirming the right to health care. Working people
do not agree that their well-being can be held hostage to the
profiteering of global pharmaceutical cartels. Canada requires its own
public self-reliant pharmaceutical industry to provide Canadians with
the medications they require at minimal cost.  The need for
public control over a self-reliant pharmaceutical industry in Canada is
a longstanding concern that is again being brought to the fore by the
COVID-19 pandemic and the requirement for tests, vaccines to prevent
infection by the coronavirus, as well as other drugs to mitigate the
infection and decrease long-term effects and mortality.
Under
these circumstances, the Trudeau Liberal government is seemingly
"placing bets" on various private pharmaceutical firms to come through
with a working vaccine. An October 23 report from the Canadian Press
states: "Trudeau said his government signed a $173
million contract with Quebec's Medicago to secure the rights to buy 76
million doses of its vaccine, should it meet health and safety
standards. The funding will also be used to establish a production
facility in Quebec City, he said. "Ottawa is also
investing $18.2 million in a potential vaccine from British Columbia's
Precision NanoSystems. Meanwhile, the National Research Council is
spending $23 million to support other Canadian vaccine initiatives,
Trudeau said. "The prime minister said Canada has
signed six agreements with a number of companies taking part in the
global race to produce a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19.
"Two more American vaccine makers, Moderna and Pfizer, have
asked Health Canada to review their products, which are undergoing
clinical trials. "It's reasonable to expect that
vaccines will start to roll out at some point in 2021, said Trudeau,
but even then, supply will be limited, and high-risk populations will
be prioritized for inoculation. [...] "The prime
minister also said Canada has acquired 'hundreds of thousands' of rapid
test kits from medical company Abbott." The report
does not say what happens to any funds used to "secure the rights" to
vaccines should they turn out not to be viable. Are these yet more
pay-the-rich schemes being made under the high ideal of protecting
Canadians against the COVID-19 pandemic? The Need
for Self-Reliance and Public Enterprise to
Guarantee the
Right of All to Health Care It is amidst this
situation that the global pharmaceutical cartels are strengthening
their fight against a public opinion that demands a new pro-social
direction for the sector founded in self-reliance and public enterprise
to guarantee the right of all to health care. Global
pharma is using well-funded neo-liberal think tanks and agencies to
divert public opinion into fights over drug prices and availability,
and away from a new direction of self-reliance and public enterprise.
Its campaign denounces government regulations and price controls as
unnecessary and damaging to global pharma and attempts to drag the
people into this debate and away from discussing a new direction.
Global pharma uses people with rare diseases and conditions to
demand the government fund their drug treatment at high prices. The
campaign is tied in with its push for an expanded public-private
national pharmacare system in which governments use public funds to buy
greater amounts of drugs from the global pharma cartels.[1] The
proposed public-private pharmacare system is similar to the current
health care system, which private interests mostly dominate with
governments reduced to handing out public money for the construction
and maintenance of hospitals and to pay for privately produced supplies
and pharmaceuticals, and for the operation of private clinics and
long-term care homes. Within the present situation,
global pharma makes predominant the issue whether governments should
regulate the market price of drugs or leave pricing to the drug
suppliers, and whether a public-private national pharmacare system
should be introduced or not. Patients with rare diseases are brought
forward to denounce any regulation of prices, arguing that all drugs
global pharma distributes should be made available at the prices the
companies demand. People are nudged to take positions for or against
price controls and a public-private pharmacare system, with these
issues the ones to be discussed, rather than assessing the situation of
health care and pharmaceutical supply as it poses itself and discussing
a new direction that guarantees the right of health for all. Are
Drug Prices the Issue? The drug prices global
pharma demands include private profit, which it says reflects the price
of production, in particular the value of research and development of
new drugs. This assertion raises the questions as to who decides the
direction of the research, what should be produced, how drugs should be
distributed and what happens to the new value pharmaceutical workers
produce, which includes the added-value or profit. Should these
important issues be left with global pharma whose aim is maximum profit
and not to guarantee the right of all to health care at the highest
level the productive forces and science have attained? Global
pharma says governments through regulation of prices often set market
prices at or below the "cost of production," meaning the drug cartels
cannot make private profit. Without prices they declare necessary, the
cartels say they cannot continue their research thus restricting new
treatments or even production of enough drugs, such as seasonal flu
vaccines and other medicines, to meet demand.  But is the price
of drugs the problem and issue at hand? In fact, this problem of market
prices would not exist if the pharmaceutical sector were organized in a
self-reliant way as a public enterprise and service with a public
authority in command that the people could trust and hold to account.
The sector would exist to serve the people and the health needs of the
entire population and guarantee the right of all to health care. The
value created in a self-reliant publicly controlled and owned industry,
as well as the social product itself, would go towards enhancing the
health of the people and guaranteeing the right of all to health care
at the highest level. The public realization of drug value would allow
that value to flow back into the sector and economy to improve health
care outcomes and to enhance the scientific capabilities and capacity
to work of all those involved, thus benefitting the entire people and
society. In the present conditions, the value that global pharma seizes
from the sale of drugs mostly leaves the economy and country.
With a public pharmaceutical sector, no need would exist for a
public-private pharmacare system and market and the payment of huge
funds from the public treasury to the private interests in control of
global pharma. Research and development of drugs would exist and be
developed within the public health care system by its workers. The
growing knowledge, competence, expertise and scientific advances could
be exchanged with others around the world in a spirit of mutual benefit
and cooperation and not competition for private gain. Human medical
knowledge and advances would become universal and for the benefit of
all in the spirit that we are one humanity. The
added-value workers produce in a public pharmaceutical sector when
realized would be poured back into the research and development and
production of pharmaceuticals in Canada for the good of the people and
their health, not for the narrow competing private interests of global
pharma. How pharmaceutical value is realized would become an issue for
the people to decide within the overall principle that health care is a
right held by all equally. The value workers create from a completely
public health care system would be realized and stay in Canada and
result in a growing value of the capacity to work of everyone and an
increased general health of the people and their social consciousness
and ability physically to combat and overcome crises such as the
COVID-19 pandemic. Who Controls? What Is the Aim?
The issue, as throughout the socialized economy and all its
sectors, is who controls and with what aim: the working people
themselves with the broad aim to serve the people and society, or
global investment cartels that have the narrow aim of making maximum
profit to serve their private interests.  Global pharma
wants to destroy public opinion for a new direction towards
self-reliance and public enterprise in the pharmaceutical
sector and throughout the health care industry. Global pharma is
desperate to save its private control over the pharmaceutical sector.
It wants public opinion diverted into a dead-end debate over the prices
it charges for drugs and the availability of those drugs rather than
delving into the root of the matter as it presents itself: the
necessity to guarantee the fundamental right to health care for all and
how this can be accomplished in the modern socialized world.
Matters
involving the common good and the health of people and society need
public solutions and an aim to serve the people and society. The health
care industry generally requires a new direction and aim to guarantee
the right of all to health care. The outmoded direction and aim of
global pharma for maximum profit and the private control generally of
the health care industry are not consistent with the modern direction
and aim to serve the people and society. The time
is now for self-reliance and public enterprise throughout the health
care industry, including importantly the pharmaceutical sector, to
guarantee the right of all to health care throughout their lives.
Note 1.
In June 2019, the Trudeau Liberal government issued the 172-page Final
Report of the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National
Pharmacare, entitled A
Prescription for Canada: Achieving Pharmacare for All.
In the introduction to the report that presents
the Advisory Council's mandate, any mention of the pharmaceutical
industry is conspicuously absent. The report merely says:
"Prescription drugs are an essential part of
health care. However, unlike hospital and physician services,
prescription drugs are not covered by medicare except when they're used
in hospitals. That's left a crucial part of effective health care
inconsistently funded and unevenly available, and means too many
patients are at risk of not getting the medication they need. The
situation has only gotten worse with the emergence of a growing number
of high-cost specialty drugs used to treat chronic, complex conditions
such as severe rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and cancer.
These new treatments, along with a growing number of ultra-specialized
and expensive drugs for rare conditions, are threatening to overwhelm
both public and private insurance programs. "In
its 2018 budget, the federal government announced the creation of the
Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare (the
council). The council's terms of reference are included in Annex 2. Its
task was to advise the government on introducing a national insurance
program for prescription drugs -- known as pharmacare -- which would be
affordable for Canadians, their employers and governments. The
government asked the council to undertake a dialogue with Canadians and
issued a discussion paper that outlined a range of possible options on
how to move forward with national pharmacare and highlighted the key
issues the council should address in its work."
The term "pharmaceutical industry" comes up a
handful of times in the report, only insofar as the Advisory Council
recommends better regulation of the industry and limiting industry
funding of the health care system to avoid undue influence.
The pharmaceutical industry -- how it operates,
who controls it and whose interests it serves -- is left completely out
of the discussion and is not to be questioned. In this way, such
arrangements can only be to facilitate pay-the-rich schemes in which
public funds are used to pay private interests in the name of a
"national pharmacare program."
Global pharma is attacking public opinion for a new direction for the
sector to serve the people through self-reliance and public enterprise
under the control of a public authority that the people can trust and
hold to account. Global pharma attempts to divert discussion to the
market prices paid for drugs and the introduction or not of a
public-private pharmacare system, which would guarantee an expanded
demand and payment for its commodities.  The issue facing
the sector is not the price of drugs global pharma charges or how
Canadians should pay for them. The issue is global pharma's private
control of the pharmaceutical sector and aim of maximum private profit,
and the necessity for a new direction of self-reliance and public
enterprise under the control of the people with the aim to guarantee
the right of all to health care.
National Newswatch
recently carried an article entitled "Exempting COVID medicines from
new price controls: Ottawa hypocrisy," by Nigel Rawson and John Adams.[1] The item reads,
"The federal government intends to drastically transform the rules of
its tribunal that sets ceiling prices for new drugs and vaccines in
Canada in January. [...] Key elements of the government's plan have
been strongly criticized by patients, drug developers and analysts
since it was first announced in 2017. Concerns have increased during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Months before implementation, the plan has
already blocked access to new important medicines for Canadian
patients." The authors focus attention on the
government tribunal and the issue of drug prices and the effect this
may have on the production, availability and supply of pharmaceuticals.
They raise problems of "access to new important medicines" from the
point of view of the market for drugs that global pharma produces not
from the point of view of opening a new direction and aim for the
sector that serves the people and their right to health care.
The article insists, "Case studies have shown that the new
rules can require manufacturers to reduce prices to unsustainable
levels. Most importantly, clinical trials funded by drug developers and
the number of new drugs approved in Canada have decreased dramatically."
Alarm is sounded and people are encouraged either to jump to
the defence of global pharma or insist that the tribunal and price
controls are the way to go. The article continues
in this vein, assessing as "hypocrisy" the government's proposal to
allow global pharma to dictate prices for pandemic drugs but not other
medicines: "However, on September 17, Ottawa announced a special policy
to decrease the same tribunal's scrutiny of COVID-19 vaccines and
medicines, such as remdesivir, as part of a 'government-wide effort to
provisionally ease the regulatory pathway' for COVID-19 therapeutics.
"Manufacturers will be able to provide these products at their
own list prices unless the pricing tribunal receives a complaint from
any federal or provincial minister of health. It is good that Ottawa
has started to appreciate that elements of the pricing revisions are a
heavy regulatory burden on drug developers and a barrier to meeting
patients' needs." The authors appear delighted
global pharma will be able to make a killing on selling COVID-19
vaccines and medicines. The pandemic highlights how Canada is captive
to global pharma and the necessity for a new direction of self-reliance
and public enterprise in the pharmaceutical sector. The
article pleads global pharma's case for an end to price controls on all
drugs saying, "Canada is presently a commercially viable market for new
medicines and vaccines, despite the barriers created by federal and
provincial governments that limit, delay or deny access to new drugs,
especially costly ones. "However, the new federal
price controls will prevent many new medicines from coming to Canada at
all. Canadians with rare disorders will be particularly impacted."
 The authors
entice Canadians into complaining over the "red tape and price
controls" global pharma faces, which may restrict patients' access to
new drugs or on the contrary perhaps side with the government's
position that the tribunal and price controls are necessary measures.
This diverts Canadians from thinking about, discussing, planning for,
and embarking on a new pro-social direction for the sector outside the
clutches of global pharma altogether.
The article
gives an example of a global drug cartel refusing to sell a new drug
called Trikafta in Canada because of "uncertainty around the new
pricing rules." This use of specific cases is meant to emotionally
blackmail Canadians into bowing to global pharma's terms and acceptance
of its dominance, similar to the way big business charities browbeat
people emotionally into donating money rather than facing problems
squarely and solving them with a new direction. For
Trikafta and other new drugs, according to the authors, global pharma
apparently is "taking a wait-and-see approach. Since the regulations
were finalized in August 2019, a growing list of medicines have been
approved in the United States but not submitted to Health Canada for
evaluation." The authors accuse the Trudeau
government of adding "red tape that will decrease Canada's
attractiveness as a place to perform research and launch new medicines
that will reduce Canadians' suffering and extend lives." Canadians
should denounce this argument and direction, and accuse global pharma
of blocking and destroying the development of self-reliant Canadian
research and independent production and availability of medicines and
growth of scientific expertise through public enterprise. The
item concludes, "The pandemic has again demonstrated that our health
care system is a limited and fragile resource. Drugs contribute to the
sustainability of the health system and to patients' lives. The federal
government should recognize the value of other innovative life-changing
medicines and implement rational policies that allow Canadians to
benefit from these technological advances and that promote research and
development in Canada. To do otherwise is hypocritical." Our
"health care system is a limited and fragile resource" precisely
because of its control by the private interests of global pharma that
compete to dominate the sector, make maximum profit from it and block
independent Canadian development. To break away from health care's
"limited and fragile" state requires a new direction under the control
of the people with an aim to guarantee health care as a right for all
and not as a right for a few to make maximum profit. Note
1.
Authors Nigel Rawson and John Adams claim affiliation with the Canadian
Health Policy Institute and Best Medicines Coalition
Canadian Health Policy Institute writes in its
website that it is "focussed on health economics and policy issues
affecting patient access to innovative medical goods and services and
the cost-related issues of sustainability and value for money for
taxpayers." Best
Medicines Coalition says its goal is "Drug programs which deliver high
standards of equitable and consistent access to medications for all
Canadians." These goals
and mission statements are consistent with the aim of global pharma for
maximum profit from selling drugs and its continued control of the
pharmaceutical sector.
BC
Election
Preliminary standings based on the ballots cast on election day,
October 24, are NDP 55, Liberals 29, Greens three and no independents
elected. Elections BC predicts final results will be available around
November 16, due to the large number of absentee ballots (i.e. people
who cast ballots away from their constituency) and mailed ballots.
These standings may change on final count, but not enough to change the
NDP majority. Standings in the legislature at
dissolution were: NDP 41, Liberals 41, Greens two, Independent two and
one seat vacant. Elections BC reports voter turnout
was "at least" 52.4 per cent. Final numbers of votes cast, members of
the legislative assembly (MLAs) elected and standings of the parties in
the legislature will not be known until the final count is completed.
It was extended because of the large number of mail-in ballots due to
the pandemic. Numbers of ballots received are still changing daily.
To ease the pressure on polling stations and maintain Public
Health protocols, voters were encouraged to request ballots by mail
which could be returned by mail or delivered to Elections BC
offices in the constituencies. The number of mail-in ballots that had
been received by Elections BC and forwarded to constituency offices by
October 29 was approximately 525,000 which does not include ballots
dropped off directly at Elections BC constituency offices. Of the
1,827,201 ballots so far accounted for, 1,217,201 were cast at advance
polls or on October 24, with the remainder absentee and mail-in ballots.
In the style of all
the cartel parties, Premier-elect John Horgan claims that he has
received a mandate from the people of BC to rule as he sees fit even
though at best his government received only 45.08 per cent of the votes
(as of October 29) based on a paltry 52.4 per cent turnout of eligible
voters. His so-called mandate is thus based on the votes of 23.62 per
cent of eligible voters.  On top of that,
many voters in that 23.62 per cent disagreed vigorously with the
calling of the election in the midst of the pandemic, considering it
opportunistic and anti-democratic and nothing more than a power grab.
Both calling an election and the campaign showed a disregard and lack
of appreciation of the plight of the people as a result of job losses,
stresses on health care professionals and workers, teachers and
education workers, students and parents, homelessness and the
ever-increasing opioid crisis, and the very real fears of a resurgence
of COVID-19 and repeat of the tragic deaths, suffering and isolation of
residents in long-term care homes. Many voted with reluctance for the
NDP fearing that a Liberal government would be even more brutal.
This hardly constitutes having the consent of the governed for
the NDP program. Since it came to power in 2017 the
NDP minority government has shown itself a willing and able
representative of the international financial private interests that
covet the natural and human resources of British Columbia as can be
seen in the LNG Canada and Site C projects, amongst others. On October
22 the Globe and Mail reported on an interview with
Horgan in which he explained that his decision to call the election was
influenced by advice he sought from the President and Chief Operating
Officer of the Jim Pattison Group, the second largest private company
in Canada with interests in all of BC's major industries. Not even the
NDP executive, members, or the MLAs were involved in the decision to
call the election. The decision was made by the
Premier and a handful of unelected advisors. It is safe to say that
feelings of alienation from the political process amongst electors are
more widespread than ever, based on the election itself and the
marginalization of the polity from any say in matters that affect them.
This is most sharply felt by health care workers and families of
residents in long-term care, teachers and other education workers and
workers in the hospitality industry who have strenuously protested the
failure of the government to take social responsibility for decisions
announced. The working people have been completely shut out of
participating in responding to the pandemic and have just become the
target of orders from on high.  While some are
expressing hope that now that the NDP has its majority it can be
persuaded to act in the interests of the people and the environment,
the plans of the Horgan government were already outlined in the
"Recovery Plan" issued just days before the election was called.[1] It is a
continuation of the anti-social neo-liberal agenda according to which
security and prosperity for BC depends on paying the rich, propping up
private enterprise, and forging ahead with the projects that funnel
billions of dollars to the global monopolies, a course which has
already proven to be disastrous for the environment, for a self-reliant
economy, and violates the hereditary rights of the Indigenous peoples.
The vast majority of British Columbians were excluded from the
decision to hold the election, from any discussion of the problems
facing the polity and solutions that would favour the people. The
experience brings home, once again, the need for new arrangements, for
political renewal to put an end to the marginalization of the people
and for a new direction for the economy based on meeting the needs of
the people. Note 1."Economic
Recovery Plan for BC: Restructuring State Arrangements to Strengthen
Provincial Pay-the-Rich Economy," by K.C. Adams, TML Weekly,
October 3, 2020.
- Peter Ewart -
Once again, the October 2020 election in British Columbia
shows how distorted the current first-past-the-post electoral system is
and how it concentrates power in ways that go against the will of the
people. In the 2020 election, the NDP received just
45.08 per cent of the vote (figures based on unofficial counts with
mail-in votes yet to be counted). Under the first-past-the-post system,
despite having a minority of the provincial vote, it will now
constitute a majority government holding 55 of the 87 seats in the
Legislature (which amounts to 63.2 per cent of the seats). In effect,
it increased its seat total by 14 seats although its share of the
popular vote only increased by five per cent (from 40.29 per cent in
the 2017 election).  For its part, the
BC Liberal Party has obtained 29 seats with 33.3 per cent of the
popular vote, the Greens three seats with 15.3 per cent, the
Conservatives zero seats with 2.35 per cent, and other parties zero
seats with 1.9 per cent.
Under a Proportional
Representation electoral system, the results of the 2020 election would
look substantially different. With a proportional representation
system, the aim is to have the breakdown of the seats in the
Legislature approximate the results of the popular vote. For example,
in the 2020 election, with a proportional representation system in
place the NDP would not have a majority government. Instead,
in the 87 seat Legislature, the NDP would hold around 39 seats (rather
than 55), the Liberals around 31 seats (rather than 29), the Greens
around 13 seats (rather than three), and the Conservatives around two
seats (rather than zero). After this election, with
the existing first-past-the-post system, many voters in vast areas of
the province will not have MLAs who represent their political
preference. For example, it looks like the Liberals will be completely
frozen out of Vancouver Island's 14 seats despite a substantial number
of residents voting for that party. And the same is true for much of
the northeast and central interior of the province where the Liberals
dominate and the NDP, Greens and Conservatives are frozen out despite
substantial support. After his party won the
provincial election in 1972, former NDP Premier Dave Barrett quipped to
the press that "the Queen gave us the whole bag."[1] What he meant by
this was that, under the first-past-the-post electoral system, the
premier's office takes on great powers and that "once power is bestowed
[...] it is the government's prerogative to use it." Once a premier is
elected, he or she controls the cabinet, the government ministries, the
legislature, as well as the party itself -- and there is little or no
check on this power. As the late former Social
Credit MLA Rafe Mair pointed out, these political parties, whatever
their stripe, "love absolute power" and the authoritarianism inherent
in the first-past-the-post system, and "would rather wait until they
had 100 per cent authority than ever share power with the hated other
side." Yes, one day in every four years we get to vote. But for the
rest of those 1,460 days or so, we live under a kind of elected
dictatorship where people have no control over the decisions that
affect their lives. The point in all this is that
the voters of British Columbia are disempowered by the electoral system
and the domination of the cartel parties. Powerful interest groups,
including the huge globalized corporations, like this arrangement
because it allows them to knock on only one door to get their way.
Proportional representation does not solve the fundamental problem of
voter disempowerment but at least provides a better reflection of
voters' wishes. British Columbia has had a number of referenda on
electoral reform, the most recent being the referendum proposal in 2018
to adopt proportional representation (which was defeated). However,
whether one is for or against proportional representation, the problems
posed by the first-past-the-post system and the larger issue of voter
empowerment remain. Note 1. Barrett: A Passionate Political
Life by Dave Barrett and William Miller (Vancouver,
Douglas & McIntyre, 1995).
All Eyes
on Mi'kma'ki!  
October
24, 2020. Vancouver.
Stand With the Mi'kma'ki People!
Montreal
Sunday, November 1
Rally -- 12:00 noon; March -- 1:00 pm
Emilie-Gamelin
Place, 1500 Berri St.
Organized
by Kaiatanoron Lahache and Waieñhawi ahache
Facebook
Militant actions are being held across Canada
and Quebec to affirm the treaty and hereditary rights of Indigenous
peoples from coast to coast to coast, especially the Mi'kmaq fishers
who are affirming their right to take part in the lobster fishery in
Nova Scotia to earn a "moderate livelihood," as enshrined in treaties
signed between the British Crown and the Mi'kmaq that remain in effect
today. First Nations, various labour unions and the National Farmers
Union have issued statements in solidarity with the Mi'kmaq fishers.
People across Canada from all walks of life are likewise rejecting
attempts by the Canadian state to divide the people on a racist basis
and to incite racist violence against the Mi'kmaq and other Indigenous
peoples. The protests and solidarity actions put the blame for the
situation on the racist Canadian state, through its refusal to resolve
longstanding concerns of the Indigenous peoples and historical
injustices against them by affirming rights and rendering justice, as
it is duty-bound to do as party to the treaties.[1]
 Among these
struggles being waged by Indigenous peoples are those of the Algonquins
of Barriere Lake, fighting to protect the rapidly declining moose
population in La Vérendrye Wildlife Reserve; the
Haudenosaunee Nation and the 1492 Land Back Lane land reclamation
movement near Caledonia, Ontario; the Wet'suwet'en and their fight
against Coastal GasLink in northern BC; fight against the
Trans Mountain pipeline expansion by the Secwepemc Women's Warrior
Society, the Tiny House Warriors, the Musqueam, Tseil-Waututh and
Squamish Nations and others; the fight of the Kanien'kehá:ka
of Kanehsatà:ke to affirm their claim on the Oka Pine
Forest; as well as the Pekiwewin camp in Edmonton which provides safety
and security for over a hundred people who otherwise would be homeless.
TML Weekly calls on everyone to continue to
organize and take part in actions in support of the Indigenous peoples
to see to it that Canada has just relations with Indigenous peoples, so
that the just demand of the Mi'kmaq fishers, amongst many others, are
duly satisfied as required by the treaties Canada is a party to and in
conformity with Canada's obligations under international law.
Ottawa, ON
 
Windsor,
ON
Calgary,
AB 
 
Vancouver, BC
  
  
Island Highway, Vancouver Island
Note
1. See also coverage of All Eyes on Mi'kma'ki
solidarity actions in TML Weekly, October
24, 2020.
Statements
in Solidarity with Mi'kmaq Fishers 
CUPW
stands in solidarity with the Mi'kmaq lobster fishers asserting their
treaty right to fish for a moderate livelihood. CUPW also condemns the
hurtful and hateful actions by some non-Indigenous fishers and their
allies. Indigenous people are asserting their legal and traditional
rights to fish, should not be met with violence and hate. Reconciliation
with Indigenous people and communities is needed now more than ever if
we are to build a society based on fairness, equality, and justice. And
reconciliation requires us to respect treaties, understand the context
of situations, and stand against oppression and violence.  Indigenous people
took care of these lands for many years and welcomed many settlers. In
response, the settlers stole their lands and resources, sent their
children to residential schools, and denied Indigenous people basic
rights.
The Sipekne'katik First Nation people are
fighting for the right to fish, as set out in treaties their ancestors
signed with the British 260 years ago. CUPW recognizes that all Mi'kmaq
people have the right to fish for a moderate livelihood. This is
protected by the treaties and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1999
Donald Marshall decision. Treaty rights are also enshrined in Canadian
law through the constitution. Supporting the
Mi'kmaq people who are fighting for justice and the right to live in
dignity is part of our work to create a world where we are all equal.
It is part of reconciliation, which means building a new relationship
between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and following the 94 calls
to action that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released in
December 2015. We need to acknowledge the past
injustices that settlers imposed on Indigenous people and recognize the
present-day impacts of that colonization. We need to oppose those
injustices. We need to work on healing past injustices and move forward
towards a better future for everyone. It is in this spirit that CUPW
expresses our solidarity with the Mi'kmaq lobster fishers.
Here Are Some Things You Can Do
1. Donate Money
Frontlines: e-transfer to 752frontline@gmail.com
Sipekne'katik First Nation: e-transfer to monicah@sipeknekatik.ca
(paypal also). 2. Mail, email, or call your Federal
elected officials and tell them you support the Mi'kmaq
and you want the Government to take steps to protect the Mi'kmaq
fishers and to oppose violence against the fishers or criminalization
of the Mi'kmaq fishers. 3. Participate in an action
-- supporters are organizing events in many locations. 4.
Learn More
For non-Indigenous members, part of reconciliation is our
responsibility to educate ourselves and gain historical perspective.
Conflict over fisheries has been affecting the region for many years.
Learn about the Burnt Church crisis, for instance, that raged between
1999 and 2002. Learn about Clearwater -- the
company not only traps lobster to excess with government approval, but
it also does this outside of fishing seasonal parameters. Its CEO is
the wealthiest man in Nova Scotia. This
demonstrates quite clearly the colonial basis of our legal system, the
lack of government commitment to really engage in reconciliation, and
it flies in the face of conservation and sustainability. The
Supreme Court of Canada acted irresolutely in the matter of Treaty
Rights to fish for Indigenous people and helped to create a situation
where neo-liberal alliances between government and corporations would
flourish. And what of conservation and
sustainability? Clearwater fishes irresponsibly by using 6,500 traps,
exponentially more than what a Mi'kmaq livelihood boat would have (50).
But Fisheries and Oceans Canada says nothing.
 The Canadian
Teachers' Federation (CTF/FCE) stands with the indigenous peoples of
Canada as their struggle for justice continues on a daily basis, and
reaffirms its condemnation of racism, discrimination, intimidation,
acts of violence and all forms of hatred. In response to the recent
events in Nova Scotia, the CTF/FCE supports the Mi'kmaq people as they
exercise their inherent treaty rights, as affirmed in the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, to engage in a moderate livelihood in the lobster
fishery. This right was established in 1760-61 through the Peace and
Friendship Treaties and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada through
the Marshall decision in 1999.
In solidarity, we
ask our members in Nova Scotia and everywhere to act in harmony with
Indigenous peoples. In the spirit of Truth and Reconciliation, we call
for inherent rights in Mi'kma'ki to be defended, the law to be
maintained, and an immediate resolution to the unjust conflict
experienced by the Mi'kmaq people. Shelley
L. Morse, President
Canadian Teachers' Federation
The National Farmers Union (NFU) stands in
solidarity with Mi'kmaq fishers as they lawfully assert their treaty
rights to a moderate livelihood fishery, and strongly condemns the
ongoing racist, reprehensible acts of violence and hostility being
perpetrated against them. It is within the inherent and
constitutionally affirmed treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq people to hunt,
fish, and gather and we support their struggle to realize these rights
and the right to food sovereignty. The lobster fishing industry in the
Maritime provinces is dominated by one corporation (Clearwater -- one
of the world's largest seafood vertically-integrated companies), and we
demand that the legal right of Mi'kmaq fishers to access a livelihood
from these waters be respected. In 1999, the
Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Peace and Friendship Treaties
(signed between 1725-1779) through the Marshall Decision and stated the
right of the Mi'kmaq people to earn a "moderate livelihood." The
Sipekne'katik First Nation, as a sovereign nation, decided to exercise
these rights under a self-regulated fishery for the first time on
September 17, 2020. This decision was met with outrage and violence
from the commercial fishing community and inaction from the government
and RCMP. Violence continued to escalate as non-Indigenous fisherpeople
formed blockades, burned buildings, boats, and vehicles, and damaged
fishing gear in an attempt to restrict fishing -- all infringements of
legal treaty rights. On October 21, 2020 it was confirmed that an
injunction had been placed on those interfering with Sipekne'katik band
members' access to their fishery.  As farmers, we
are privileged to have a close relationship to the land and have the
responsibility to sustain its health for future generations. We, like
the Mi'kmaq fishers, strive to feed our communities and make a living
while protecting the land and water and work towards food sovereignty
in the face of corporate controlled food systems. It is in this common
interest that we stand in solidarity with their struggles. We call upon
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Minister Bernadette Jordan, and Minister
Carolyn Bennett to negotiate in good faith to ensure that the Marshall
Decision is respected, based on the inherent rights and treaty rights
of Mi'kmaq people to hunt, fish, and gather, as protected by Section 35
of the Canadian Constitution. This includes agreeing to self-management
by the Mi'kmaq, rather than continuing control by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. We also demand that all acts of violence and
criminal behaviour against Mi'kmaq fishers and community members be met
with strong repercussions. We are pleased that the Mi'kmaq have secured
an injunction against those interfering with their fishery, but we call
on Bill Blair as Minister of Public Safety and David Lametti as
Minister of Justice to be held accountable for equal application of law
enforcement and ensuring that the rule of law be upheld.
The
NFU urges all relevant government agencies at the provincial and
federal level to take bold and timely steps to ensure Mi'kmaq inherent
rights are respected and that the safety and security of Mi'kmaq
communities is prioritized. We are all treaty people.
For Your Information - Kwilmu'kw
Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office/Mi'kmaq Rights Initiative - 
September 17, 2020.
Sipekne’katik First Nation gathered in Saulnierville, Nova
Scotia, to celebrate the opening of the first
Mi’kmaq Moderate Livelihood fishery, 20 years after the R. v. Marshall
decision.
What Do the Marshall
Decisions Say? In September 1999, in the Donald
Marshall case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a series
of Treaties signed 1760-61 by Mi'kmaq and the British Crown are still
valid. Known as the Peace and Friendship Treaties,
they provide that Mi'kmaq have the right to harvest and sell fish,
wildlife, and wild fruit and berries to provide a moderate livelihood.
In a second decision, released in November of 1999, the Court
'clarified' its earlier ruling. Together, these two decisions are known
as Marshall 1 and Marshall 2.
What Is a "Moderate Livelihood"? The
most significant clause in the 1760-61 Treaties is the so-called
"truckhouse clause" which the Supreme Court said means, in the
present-day context, a right to a moderate livelihood. The "truckhouse
clause" promised Mi'kmaq (and Wolastoqiyik and Peskotomuhkati) that
government-run truckhouses or trading posts would be established for
Mi'kmaq to sell their goods such as meat, furs, feathers, fish. In
return, Mi'kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Peskotomuhkati promised only to trade
at the truckhouses. According to the Supreme Court,
the promise of a truckhouse and the promise to trade only at a
truckhouse is the equivalent of a right "to trade for necessaries" (the
European goods which, by 1760-61, Mi'kmaq had come to rely on) and not
a general right to trade for large economic gains.
"A
moderate livelihood includes such basics as "food, clothing and
housing, supplemented by a few amenities", but not the accumulation of
wealth..." (Marshall 1, para.59) Treaties
signed in 1760-61 by Mi'kmaq and the British Crown are still valid.
Are All Natural Resources and Foodstuffs Covered by the
Treaties? No. Mi'kmaq have the continued right
to harvest and sell whatever kinds of products Mi'kmaq had to trade in
the 1760s. Items which can be harvested and sold to earn a moderate
livelihood does not extend, for example, to logs. The Supreme Court of
Canada in R. v. Bernard; R. v. Marshall
("the logging case") found that when the Treaties were signed there was
so much wood available for lumber that incoming settlers would have no
need to purchase lumber from Mi'kmaq to build homes, barns, sheds, etc.
It found that while the Treaties protect Mi'kmaw rights to
harvest and dispose of some items, cutting and selling logs (commercial
logging) was not protected as a "logical evolution" of a traditional
trading activity. Where Can the
Moderate Livelihood Treaty Right Be Exercised?
While the Supreme Court spoke of
the 1760-61 Treaties as "local Treaties" exercised by individual
Mi'kmaq with community authority, the territoriality of the 1760-61
Treaties is unclear and the approach of the Assembly of Nova Scotia
Mi'kmaq Chiefs is that all Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq have the same rights
throughout the Province. Are There
Limitations on the Treaty Right to a Moderate Livelihood?  Yes. The Supreme
Court indicated that the exercise of Treaty rights, like the exercise
of Aboriginal rights, can be limited.
The Crown may
limit or infringe the right to a moderate
livelihood but there must be an over-riding public purpose for limiting
the exercise of the right -- such as conservation or public safety. Any
infringement must be the minimum needed to meet the public objective
and the Aboriginal group must be consulted before
the limitation on the right is imposed. Compensation must be provided
for infringement. This is known as "justification"; that is, the Crown
must demonstrate that the limits it places on the Treaty right are
justified because it is the only way to accomplish the over-riding
public purpose. Resources which are harvested to
obtain a moderate livelihood must be equitably shared with non-Mi'kmaw.
About the Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office
Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office (KMKNO) works on
behalf of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs in the
negotiations and consultations between the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia, the
Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. KMKNO
was developed by the Mi'kmaq for the Mi'kmaq. The
purpose of these negotiations and consultations is to implement our
Aboriginal and Treaty Rights from the Treaties signed by our ancestors
in the 1700s.
Chilean
People Vote for New Constitution - Nick Lin -
The Chilean
people's movement for change continued its momentum and carried the day
in the October 25 plebiscite on whether to replace the current
constitution imposed by the Pinochet dictatorship in 1980. TML
Weekly sends warmest congratulations to the Chilean people
for the decisive result, in which a record turnout voted more than 78
per cent in favour of having a new constitution. The people's movement
created the possibility of new arrangements that favour the people, not
the private and foreign interests permitted to dominate the country
since the coup by Pinochet and by governments that have carried on
neo-liberal wrecking since that time. This is all the more important at
a time when the pandemic has worsened the political and economic crises
facing the people.  The plebiscite
presented Chileans with two questions. The first concerned whether they
approve or reject the drafting of a new constitution. The vote in
favour of a new constitution was 78.27 per cent. The second question
presented voters with a choice between a Constitutional Convention --
comprised of citizens directly elected to this body -- or a Mixed
Constitutional Convention -- with half its membership comprised of
currently sitting members of parliament and the other half citizens
elected to the body. Chileans voted 79 per cent in favour of a
Constitutional Convention.
The composition of the
Constitutional Convention will be equal between men and women, with
either making up no more than 50 per cent plus one of the 155 members.
In addition, a certain number of seats, will be set aside for
Indigenous peoples who make up 12 per cent of Chile's population. It is
still to be decided by Chile's senate whether those seats will comprise
a portion of the 155 positions in the convention, or will be in
addition to those. This is the first time in Chile's history that
Indigenous peoples will be represented in a constitutional body,
teleSUR reports. The Indigenous peoples have further requested that
they be represented by an equal number of men and women and that their
participation be based on how they identify themselves as nations and
peoples on an equal footing, rather than being limited to the 10
Indigenous peoples officially recognized by Chile's National Indigenous
Development Corporation. The members of the
Constitutional Convention will be elected on April 11, 2021, the same
date as elections for mayors, councillors and regional governors.
The convention will then have a maximum of 12 months to draft
a new constitution. Once a text is agreed upon, a ratifying plebiscite
will be scheduled in which voting will be mandatory. The
Chilean Electoral Service (Servel) reported a turnout of 7,529,459
voters, said to be the highest number since the 1993 presidential
election, while the percentage turnout of 51 per cent is the highest
since 2012. President of Servel Patricio Santamaría noted on
October 26 the increase in citizen participation, especially by young
people, but also older adults, despite the fact that "there was an
important group that could not participate by order of the health
authority, because they were precisely in isolation due to COVID-19."
He also pointed out that more than 100,000 mining workers were working
that day and could not exercise their right to vote. Some 60,000
Chileans living abroad in 65 countries -- primarily in Argentina, the
United States, Spain, Canada, and Australia -- were eligible to vote.
More than 80 per cent of overseas voters gave their approval for a new
constitution. 
The Need for
the Chilean People to Remain Vigilant The need
for the Chilean people to remain vigilant was underscored on the
evening of October 25. President Sebastian Piñera, in a
speech from Moneda Palace, postured as if his government stands with
the people and will now accompany them through the rest of this process
of empowerment. "This plebiscite is not the end; it is the beginning of
a path we should all undertake together," he said. "Until now, the
Constitution has divided us," he added. "As of today, we should all
cooperate to make the new Constitution become one home for all of us."
He went on to say that "Today, citizenship and democracy have
prevailed, and peace has prevailed over violence," and "This is a
victory for all Chileans." What to make of these slick words from the
president whose regime has been violently opposing the people and their
just demands for more than a year? The same evening
that Piñera made his speech, the people celebrating victory
in Santiago at Dignity Square were once again met by violent repression
from the national police, the Carabineros. The police attack began
before the polls closed at 8:00 pm. Police surrounded the square then
attacked the citizens with water and tear gas, temporarily disrupting
the celebrations. The police later retreated and the people once again
took the square. It is reasonable to conclude that
the Piñera regime has nothing but treachery in store for the
Chilean people, with the president set to complete his term in March
2022 at which point the new constitution is scheduled to be ready for
ratification. In the face of the situation the
Chilean people will surely rely on the courage and tenacity that has
brought them this far, and with the support of the peace- and
justice-loving peoples of the world, prevail over today's neo-liberals
who defend the reactionary arrangements of the Pinochet era.
25th
Anniversary of 1995 Quebec Referendum - Claude Brunelle
and Christine Dandenault - 
October 25,
1995. Montreal rally for the "Yes" side in the Quebec
referendum.
October 30, 2020 marks the 25th
anniversary of the Quebec referendum. In 1995, the Quebec people voted
on sovereignty, under the difficult conditions of the time, where the
forces of the Canadian establishment made every effort to crush their
desire to assert their right as a sovereign nation. Twenty-five years
later, the problem remains. The British North America Act,
the so-called Constitution, is 150 years old and based on the royal
prerogative, the old colonial conceptions that deny the rights of the
Quebec nation, the Indigenous nations and the Canadian people.
Today, a profound movement exists among young people for a
modern and sovereign Quebec that defends the rights of all, protects
the natural and social environment, upholds nation-to-nation relations
based on equality with Indigenous peoples, the people of Canada and the
peoples of the world, and is a zone for peace. It represents the desire
of all those who live in Quebec and constitute one nation and work and
create wealth together. This objective independent movement inspires
hope, because it is a nation-building project that reflects the
aspirations of all for a modern society that recognizes that all are
human beings, that all enjoy the same rights and duties and participate
together as an organized force in the promotion of the well-being of
all. Many illusions are promoted about the system
of representative democracy when the people can see that this system
does not represent them. Under the current arrangements the people have
no control over decision-making. The democratic institutions in Quebec,
as in all of Canada, were established in the 19th century and kept the
"royal prerogative" and vested privileges in the hands of a tiny
minority. Whether this small minority is led by a monarch, president or
prime minister, the organs of power are either unelected or elected
through a process that prevents the people from participating according
to the principle "of the people, by the people and for the people."
This is all part of the lessons learned from the 1995
referendum. The 1995 referendum question,
formulated by the party holding the majority in the National Assembly,
the Parti Québécois, was: "Do you agree that
Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to
Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope
of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed
on June 12, 1995?" Just over five million people voted in the
referendum, which was 93.52 per cent of eligible voters, a record
turnout. The proposal was rejected by 50.58 per cent of the voters,
with 49.42 per cent in favour. The difference between the "yes" and the
"no" was 54,288 votes. The stated objective of the
bill referred to in the question, Bill 1, An Act respecting
the future of Quebec, was to give the National Assembly the
power to declare the sovereignty of Quebec and to claim "the exclusive
power to pass all its laws, levy all its taxes and conclude all its
treaties." It provided for a new constitution to be drafted for Quebec,
maintaining the current borders, the creation of Quebec citizenship,
the use of the Canadian dollar, and maintaining the laws and social
programs in force. It also provided for the government of Quebec to
propose a partnership treaty with the rest of Canada based on the
tripartite agreement signed on June 12, 1995 by the leader of the Parti
Québécois, Jacques Parizeau; the leader of the
Bloc Québécois, Lucien Bouchard; and the leader
of Action Démocratique, Mario Dumont. This agreement
contained certain proposals that a sovereign Quebec would make to
Canada to define relations between the two countries. Bill
1 passed first reading in the National Assembly and, in preparation for
the referendum, the government sent a copy to every household in
Quebec, along with a copy of the tripartite agreement. The
bill quickly found great support in Quebec society because the timing
was right and the conditions favourable for the declaration of Quebec
sovereignty. The progressive forces in Quebec and Canada also
recognized that there was an urgent need to establish a new economic
and political partnership between Quebec and Canada. The 1995
referendum was essential to break the deadlock created by Liberal
opposition to Quebec sovereignty and to democratic renewal generally.
Discontent with the constitutional arrangements had grown across
Canada, not just in Quebec. The 1990 Citizens' Forum on Canada's
Future, in which people participated in large numbers, showed that
Canadians did not trust politicians to write the constitution and
called for far-reaching changes to the political process. The need for
a modern constitution and new arrangements to replace the British
North America Act of 1867, which was based on the negation of
the nation of Quebec and the Indigenous nations, and the need to
empower the people to decide all the issues that concern them were on
the agenda then and still are today. The 1995
referendum was a bold gesture that followed nearly 25 years of talks on
Quebec's place in Confederation, so-called constitutional reforms and
initiatives from Quebec to assert Quebec's sovereignty, the failure of
the Quebec referendum of 1980 and the Meech Lake Accord of 1990, and
the rejection by Canadians of the Charlottetown Accord in the 1992
referendum. Not to be forgotten is the period of
the national liberation movement of the 1960s. The attempt by the
government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to crush the struggle of the
Quebec people's nation-building project by imposing the War
Measures Act on the territory of Quebec on October 16, 1970
failed. Student youth and other collectives resisted the military
occupation and were supported across the country. During
the period leading up to the 1995 referendum, federal Liberal leader
Jean Chrétien and leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec
Daniel Johnson, created every possible obstacle to calmly discussing
the needs of the Quebec nation and the need for a modern constitution
for Canada. They resorted to lies, distortion, threats and blackmail to
subvert any reasonable effort to have discussion. The No camp
repeatedly violated the Quebec
Referendum Act, especially with regard to spending limits.
November 3, 1995. Supplement to Le Marxiste-Léniniste
on the significance of the referendum results (click to enlarge).
| The
Anglo-Canadian colonial state backed by the entire Canadian
establishment, including big public and private companies like Via
Rail, Air Canada and Radio-Canada carried out a vile campaign of fear
and engaged in all kinds of illegal tactics to subvert the referendum
law to ensure the victory of the No vote. Money was given to
individuals and businesses to buy their support. There were all kinds
of "demonstrations of unity," including the final one -- the Unity
Rally on October 27 that was financed by corporate sponsors, most from
outside Quebec. Participants in the rally from outside of Quebec
received heavily discounted fares from Via Rail, Air Canada and others
and telephone companies from BC to New Brunswick offered free
five-minute calls to Quebeckers to encourage them to vote No -- in
violation of the Quebec legislation. There was also a concerted effort
to corrupt and buy the support of leaders in national minority
communities with promises of jobs, grants and other rewards. The
Liberals are masters of this sort of thing, not just in Montreal but
across the country. Much effort was made after the
1995 referendum to broaden the national independence movement and
"reach out" to national minorities. However, without resolutely and
emphatically embracing the modern definition of the nation, what
prevails is the "integration" model, the European or French model which
is the other side of racist Canadian multiculturalism. The Parti
Québécois has not been able to rise above the
"French" or "Francophone" nation. Even after coming to power with the
defeat of Jean Charest's Liberals in the 2012 election, due in part to
the repressive legislation against Quebec students in the spring of
2012, Pauline Marois' Parti Québécois maintained
this outdated and divisive vision of the nation on a linguistic basis
and later imposed its charter of values which, among other things,
banned the wearing of religious symbols and which led to its defeat.
The inability of the independence movement to throw off these
shackles which divide the polity on the basis of support for "left" and
"right" social policies, into a "yes" and "no" camp, etc., also
explains the failure to mobilize the vast majority of Quebeckers around
a common project for a sovereign and modern state and a Quebec that
defends the rights of all. In the aftermath of the
defeat of the 1995 referendum, it was obvious that everything should be
done to break free of the outdated definition of the nation. Many have
recognized this reality. A modern state is not built on the basis of
blood lines. A modern state is built on the basis of high ideals, one
of which in the modern era is the creation of a political system that
recognizes and guarantees the rights of all on the basis that all have
rights by virtue of being human beings. 
Today the
struggle to be a sovereign people can be seen in the battles being
fought by workers, youth, women -- the collectives that make up Quebec
society -- to be at the centre of the solutions to all the problems
facing society in order for there to be progress. This is the problem
that workers are facing and are solving in the heart of the pandemic,
right now, to assert their safety, that of their peers and of the
society. The old so-called democratic institutions, as well as the
cartel party system, are bankrupt and blocking them from becoming the
decision-makers in their workplaces, hospitals, schools and
communities. It is the same block that they face in asserting the
sovereignty of the people, their right to decide everything that
concerns them.  This week,
Dominique Anglade, leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, marked the
25th anniversary of the 1995 referendum by saying that "there is still
something unfinished in the place that Quebec must occupy within
Canada." The Liberal leader says that the Quebec government must claim,
among other things, its cultural sovereignty. She said that "Quebec is
master of its future, in a Canada where everyone must be able to find
their rightful place" and that "Quebec must not give up its legitimate
demands, or let federal power expand without limits."
So
for the Liberals nothing has changed. The current Liberal position
shows that they have not abandoned their backward conception of a great
British Empire which denies the right to sovereignty and the right of
the people to decide. It clings onto the old clichés of
power and rivalry between the provinces and Canada and denies the
objective need to address the wrongs of the past and the need for the
affirmation of Quebeckers' right to decide and to speak in their own
name.
(To
access articles individually click on the black headline.) PDF
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca | 