>From: Communist Party of Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: People's Voice - May 16-31, 2000
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>PEOPLE�S VOICE ON-LINE
>
>ARTICLES FROM THE COMMUNIST PRESS IN CANADA
>
>(These articles below are from the May 16-31/2000 issue of People�s Voice,
>Canada�s leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the
>source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low
>income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers -
>$25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People�s Voice, 706 Clark Drive,
>Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>In this Issue:
>
>1/ INTERVIEW WITH CPC LEADER MIGUEL FIGUEROA
>2/ BILL 11 OPENS DOOR TO NAFTA NIGHTMARE - EDITORIAL
>3/ ENVIRONMENT POLICY 100: GLOBALIZATION MADE THE FEDS DO IT!
>4/ KEEP TORONTO HYDRO PUBLIC INTERVIEW WITH BRUNO SILANO
>5/ COP ATTACK PROMPTS CALLS FOR CIVILIAN CONTROL
>6/ VANCOUVER COUNCIL OPPOSES GATS TALKS
>7/ FAST FOOD WORKERS ORGANIZE IN REGINA
>
>********************************
>
>
>1/ INTERVIEW WITH CPC LEADER MIGUEL FIGUEROA: "THE LIBERALS ARE NO
>DEFENDERS OF MEDICARE"
>
>People's Voice recently interviewed Miguel Figueroa, leader of the
>Communist Party of Canada, about recent political and economic developments
>in the country.
>
>People's Voice: Could you comment on the political situation in the country
>generally in this preelection period?
>Miguel Figueroa: Certainly. But let me begin with a few words about the
>economy which, as always, impacts on the political dynamic.
> The domestic economy is still fairly buoyant, with sustained
>growth in GDP and low inflation. Even unemployment has crept down to around
>7 per cent, from the double-digit level maintained through most of the '90s.
> Of course, the official unemployment figures are grossly
>misleading. If you factor in the hundreds of thousands of workers women
>and older workers, and young people who have been driven from the labour
>market, and part-time, underemployed workers, then real unemployment still
>stands above 10%.
> Nor do these economic indices tell us anything about the loss of
>high-wage jobs due to deindustrialization, or the radical skewing of income
>and wealth. Recent studies have proven what working people already know:
>that the corporate elite have benefited most from the current boom phase of
>the capitalist cycle, at the expense of middle-income and low-wage workers,
>and those on fixed incomes, whose real living standards have stagnated or
>declined over the past two decades.
>PV: Still, there is no denying that the economy has been improving...
>Figueroa: Yes, the economic picture has improved somewhat, but at a
>terrible cost principally in terms of the erosion of the public sector.
>Health care and education immediately come to mind, but countless other
>vital services and programs have been systematically gutted or privatized,
>such as pensions, social assistance, environmental protection measures and
>standards, etc.
> All of these programs comprise the "social wage" of Canadian
>workers. For decades, these services were more or less free and universally
>available. But now they must be paid for through user fees, private
>insurance premiums, private pension plans, rising tuition, and so on.
> In fact, the corporate attack on the public sector and the social
>wage is nothing but a thinly-disguised means of lowering the real living
>standards for working people, and transferring wealth to the corporations
>and the rich.
> What's more, the current economic "boom" is far more feeble and
>artificial than many people suspect, since it is based on rampant financial
>speculation, inflated stock market values, and increased borrowing, not
>genuine growth in production and social assets. For instance, figures show
>that personal and corporate debt levels are rising four times faster than
>incomes.
> The continued growth in the U.S. economy to which Canada is
>inextricably tied is also being maintained through its increased pillage
>of wealth and resources from the "third World" countries and its rival
>imperialist blocs, Japan and the European Union. But the events in Seattle
>and Washington, and in countries like Ecuador and Bolivia, show that
>opposition to this imperialist plunder is intensifying.
> Most economists agree that this speculative, artificially-based
>"boom" has nearly exhausted itself. The latest available figures already
>show a decline in Canada's GDP. We don't know exactly when the bubble will
>burst, but a sharp downturn is clearly approaching. This is reflected in,
>among other things, the extremely high levels of "excess" capacity, soaring
>debt levels, and growing volatility on stock and financial markets,
>especially in the high-tech "dot.com" sector.
>PV: The ruling Liberals have been quick to take credit for the current
>"boom" and lower unemployment. They'll no doubt try to make this the
>centrepiece of their reelection bid.
>Figueroa: Certainly. But they know that another cyclical crisis is
>approaching. That's why they are anxious for an early election, possibly
>this fall but definitely by next spring. Chr�tien and the Liberals also
>want to take advantage of divisions within the right-wing opposition bloc.
> On the other hand, the Liberals are aware of growing public
>dissatisfaction toward their pro-corporate policies. Working people have
>every right to be angry as hell at this government, for several reasons.
> The devastating policies pursued by the Chr�tien government over
>the past two terms are now impacting on the vast majority of the working
>class and people. The elimination and privatization of services, the
>erosion of labour and democratic rights, degradation of the environment,
>Ottawa's increasing subservience to virtually every dictate from Washington
>and from international finance capital in general - all these are arousing
>broad indignation.
> The Liberals are desperately attempting to deflect responsibility
>for all this, but only with partial success.
> Take the crisis in public health care, for instance. The Liberals
>are trying to place the blame for the current crisis on the backs of the
>provinces. Without doubt, the assault on Medicare is being led by the Tory
>Klein government in Alberta, with its Bill 11 to legalize private
>hospitals, and the right-wing Harris government in Ontario.
> But for the federal Liberals to pose as the great "defenders" of
>Medicare is preposterous. This is the government which systematically cut
>billions in federal funding over the past seven years, and is now refusing
>to act against Klein's Bill 11. We're seeing an elaborate shell game. All
>of the big business parties are colluding in the corporate-sponsored drive
>to introduce "two-tiered" health care, at the same time trying to blame
>each other for the demise of the universal, nonprofit system. But the
>Canadian people are not so easily fooled.
>PV: So how do you explain the fact that the Liberals are still riding high
>in the polls?
>Figueroa: Simple, really. They enjoy continued support by default, because
>Canadians see no viable, acceptable alternative at the moment.
> The right-wing opposition camp is still divided. Preston Manning
>and the Reform Party hierarchy, with the support of powerful corporate
>interests, have reconstituted that party as the "Canadian Alliance" in a
>bid to reunite the Conservative and Reform forces in a new political vehicle.
> The launch of the new "Alliance" party got off to a rocky start
>when Frank Klees withdrew from the leadership race after exposing that
>powerful back-room forces wanted him to run only to wean small "c"
>conservatives away from the PC party, especially in Ontario. This
>"revelation" confirmed what many have long understood: that Reform/Alliance
>was never a populist, "grassroots" party, but rather one controlled by
>powerful reactionary and pro-corporate interests.
> It is now clear that powerful sections of big business are lining
>up behind this new "Alliance" hybrid to ensure a single right-wing
>alternative to the ruling Liberals. This struggle for hegemony with the
>right-wing camp is not yet over however, and may not be concluded before
>Chr�tien calls an election.
> The irony of the current situation lies in the fact that while the
>more extreme right-wing, neoliberal forces appear on the verge of reuniting
>their ranks, the mass appeal of their reactionary policies is in sharp
>decline among the Canadian people as a whole.
>PV: What about the New Democrats?
>Figueroa: The drift of the NDP leadership increasingly to the right has
>rendered that party virtually indistinguishable from the Liberals. The
>federal caucus recently adopted a variation on Tony Blair's "third way"
>line, a policy and ideological orientation which essentially negates
>traditional social democracy in favour of neoliberalism "with a human
>face." The NDP also alienated many supporters when it initially supported
>Canada's involvement in NATO's dirty imperialist war against Yugoslavia,
>and when the caucus backed Chr�tien's chauvinist "clarity" legislation
>directed against Quebec's right of self-determination.
> The anti-labour and neoliberal policies of NDP provincial
>governments have added to the internal crisis within their party. First,
>Bob Rae's "social contract" in Ontario, then the Romanow government's
>breaking of strikes by electrical workers and nurses in Saskatchewan, and
>most recently the similar actions taken against school support workers in
>B.C. all of these actions have sharply divided the NDP from its mass base
>in the labour and people's movements.
>PV: What are the prospects for the Communist Party in the coming elections?
>Figueroa: In today's conditions, there are improving possibilities for our
>Party, and for other smaller progressive parties. Recent polls have shown
>that a growing, though still small, percentage of Canadians are looking to
>the smaller parties for genuine alternative policies.
> Our Party has launched a public campaign to bring our "People's
>Alternative" to capitalist globalization to the attention of broader
>circles of workers and progressive Canadians, especially those active in
>labour and democratic struggles. Our views are getting a better reception,
>among a much wider audience, than they have for many years.
> "Cold war," anti-communist prejudices are receding, and our Party
>and its policies are winning many new supporters, especially among young
>people. This provides an important opening for our Party, one which we
>should not squander.
> The CPC is primarily an "activist" party. We direct most of our
>day-to-day energies in the extra-parliamentary struggles of our class. But
>we must also make maximum use of elections to present our positions and
>alternatives to working people.
> Of course, the undemocratic electoral system continues to pose a
>major obstacle to participation by small parties like ours. But our court
>challenge to the Elections Act has already resulted in the $1,000 candidate
>deposit now becoming fully refundable. This will make it much easier for us
>to field 50 candidates across Canada, and win back our official
>registration as a federal party.
> Running fifty or more candidates would be a massive undertaking.
>But it would also bring great benefits to our movement, both in terms of
>political influence and credibility, and in new members and supporters. The
>Central Committee will be discussing the question of our electoral tactic
>with all Party clubs and organizations in the months ahead.
>
>*****************
>
>2/ BILL 11 OPENS DOOR TO NAFTA NIGHTMARE - EDITORIAL
>
>
>NEED ANOTHER REASON to oppose Ralph Klein's plan to introduce private
>for-profit hospitals? Here's one: Bill 11 could bind future governments in
>any province to follow suit or face challenges under NAFTA and other trade
>agreements.
> A recent report by the Caledon Institute of Social Policy
>(available on the Web at www.caledoninst.org/full115.htm) raises many
>concerns about the bill's potential effects, including those related to
>current and future trade treaties. Despite Ottawa's assurances, health care
>is not safe under NAFTA, which protects only policies which are "maintained
>in force" after January 1, 1994. If a jurisdiction changes its laws (in
>this case introducing for-profit health care services), it cannot reverse
>them later without consequences.
> A future Alberta government could rescind the legislation, only to
>face challenges. Under NAFTA, companies denied access to the health care
>"market" could sue for expropriation of assets. As researcher Michael
>Rachlis points out in his review of the legislation, Klein's move could
>effectively bind succeeding Alberta governments to stick with for-profit
>health care.
> Canadians in other provinces could be affected by the legislation
>as well, and not just from neoliberal premiers who are watching Klein's
>actions and waiting to follow suit. Under NAFTA, a foreign-owned for-profit
>health care company could charge that the Alberta law had an impact on
>federal law and, therefore, the whole country was now open to for-profit
>hospitals. It could sue other provinces for blocking its access to the
>"marketplace." Any such challenges would be heard and judged by an
>international arbitration tribunal, with the decision not open to appeal.
> These concerns make the federal government's refusal to stop this
>bill even more criminal. We can't afford to "wait and see"; as soon as the
>legislation is passed, the NAFTA provisions are activated. It will be too
>late to roll them back. Since Premier Klein has invoked closure on debate
>of Bill 11, there is little cause for optimism.
> However, thousands Albertans have taken to the streets to defend
>public health care, and political pressure has caused Klein to back down on
>this issue on other occasions. We owe it to Albertans - and to ourselves -
>to do everything possible to demand that the federal government stop this
>dangerous legislation.
>
>*****************
>
>3/ ENVIRONMENT POLICY 100: GLOBALIZATION MADE THE FEDS DO IT!
>
>PEOPLE AND NATURE BEFORE PROFITS Column by Bill Morris
>
>THE SCENES FROM Seattle were dramatic. Not only the pictures of battles in
>the streets but the diversity of protesters and issues sharing those
>streets. But many people do not fully appreciate how global trade policy
>and environmental protection are related. Here's a quick primer on this
>connection.
> It will be no surprise to PV readers that the North American Free
>Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had a wide-reaching impact on all areas of
>life. Following the failed MAI negotiations, more Canadians waking up to
>the implications of trade agreements taking place under the World Trade
>Organization (WTO).
> All these international negotiations have the goal of striking
>down "barriers" to trade in services, good and investments. Environmental
>regulations, regarding pesticides, food safety, bio-technology and
>ecosystem protection, are seen as non-tariff barriers to trade. NAFTA and
>the WTO use the provisions of the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and
>Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) chapters to establish standards.
> Through the use of trade sanctions these agreements seek to modify
>a national government's activities. For example, responding to an American
>complaint, the WTO ruled that Canada's magazine advertising policies
>contravened the TBT, and moved to introduce trade sanctions against
>Canadian exports. The Minister of Heritage argued that the policy protected
>Canadian culture, and should therefore be exempt, but the panel still ruled
>against Canada.
> The single most important principle in these trade agreements is
>that of Most-Favoured Nation Treatment. Governments must treat "like"
>products from member countries equally regardless of the environmental, or
>labour, conditions entailed in that production.
> Here we find the principal weapon used against any forms of
>progressive environmental policy. First, the Canadian government is unable
>to use trade measures to influence foreign industries that are polluting or
>producing hazardous materials (or with poor human rights records). Second,
>Canadian industries use the fact that they are competing with transnational
>corporations, located in countries lacking the most basic environmental
>protections, to force the governments to weaken environmental protections.
> To calm citizen concerns, the federal government and various
>corporate apologists refer to Article XX of the WTO regime as a means to
>act in the public interest. Article XX "permits" countries to maintain or
>introduce standards necessary for the protection of "human, animal or plant
>life or health" and the "conservation of exhaustible resources." But, to
>quote a brief prepared by the Canadian Environmental Law Association:
> "With the implementation of the expanded trade law regime
>following the establishment of the WTO, an increased number of trade
>disputes have arisen in which environmental or health standards have been
>an issue. In every case, the domestic standard that was at issue has been
>found incompatible with GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) or
>the FTA leading to a requirement that it be rescinded."
> The fact is that the GATT/WTO negotiations have invariably led to
>the elimination of government options to regulate! It is doubtful that this
>pattern will reverse in the near future.
> It is important to remember that the Canadian government is no
>mere pawn to the dictates of global capitalism. Ottawa's track record in
>both the Committee on Trade and the Environment and the Review of Technical
>Barriers to Trade has been abysmal. In two recent cases, Canada
>successfully challenged the right of European countries to ban beef with
>hormone residues, and is attempting to force France to accept Canadian
>asbestos. Repeatedly the Canadian government has shown a complete disregard
>for the legitimate health concerns of foreign peoples.
> For all these reasons it is important to oppose the WTO and other
>international free trade agreements.
>
>**************
>
>4/ KEEP TORONTO HYDRO PUBLIC - BRUNO SILANO
>
>"I firmly believe that the hydro privatization issue could be the turning
>point on this whole privatization agenda, from health care to education to
>water services. We think that if we win the fight with utilities, it will
>give a big boost to keeping services public throughout the province." -
>Bruno Silano
>
> The Ontario Tories have made deregulation and privatization their
>watchwords, starting with the break-up and sale of Ontario Hydro. Now, they
>are pushing to sell profitable municipal utilities like hydro and water
>filtration operations. Many municipalities see hydro privatizations as a
>quick-fix solution to their financial crises. "For Sale" signs are
>appearing on municipal hydro utilities across Ontario.
> Some large transnational corporations want a toe-hold in this
>lucrative sector. These include the US-based Utility Corp. which currently
>leases Lindsay Power, the Houston-based Enron, and AEP Resources (American
>Electric Power), one of the largest coal producers in the US. Water
>filtration and treatment systems are being studied by the French
>transnational Suez-Lyonnaise, and by Southern. Laidlaw and the newly
>created Ontario Hydro Services Company are angling for disposal services
>and much more.
> Even worse, an announcement is imminent that the Bruce nuclear
>power station has been bought by a British-US consortium.
> The transnational Acres Management has been very active around
>
__________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki - Finland
+358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
___________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe/unsubscribe messages
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________
