> Among the resolutions adopted by the 160 delegates were a call for >childcare to continue to be a priority campaign of NAC, and a motion >affirming rights of lesbians, including creation of a vice-president on >lesbian issues on the NAC executive. > A resolution moved by the Communist Party's Women's Commission was >passed, condemning the Federal Government's Clarity Bill and calling for a >democratic solution to the national question; this resolution was read by >the NAC executive to each political party attending the May 29 Lobby at >Parliament. Other Women's Commission resolutions adopted were a call to >continue NAC's campaign against capitalist globalization, and an emergency >resolution against Bill 11, Alberta's attack on health care. > An important, but relatively unknown issue surfaced during the >emergency resolutions. During the struggle against Bill 11, the Alberta >Tories quietly introduced legislation that seriously jeopardizes women's >reproductive rights. (A story on this bill will be in an upcoming issue of PV.) > The parliamentary lobby proved both entertaining and frustrating. >Delegates hooted derision at Canadian Alliance MP Inky Marks (CA critic for >Status of Women) for his total lack of knowledge and hostile answers. A >group of young women led the delegates in satirical song and dance. The NDP >and Bloc Quebecois caucus turned out in large numbers and proved to be on >the whole knowledgeable and receptive. But the Liberal Government's lack of >respect for women's issues was reflected when only MP Sophie Leung and >Minister Hedy Fry attended the Lobby. > As outgoing President Joan Grant-Cummings said in her report to >the AGM, "None of our government's policies written and passed today are >done in a vacuum from economic globalization. Now, more than ever NAC, by >its leadership and the Canadian women's movement, must be discerning, >vigilant and uncompromising about analyzing all our positions through not >only a `gender' lens but a `race' lens, and a `class' lens. For some of us >there is no separation, for all of us there should not be." > NAC has much work to do building and activating its membership >base, and this AGM was a major step forward. > >(Jane Bouey is the new NAC regional co-representative for south-central >British Columbia.) > >******************************** > >6/ ENVIRONMENTAL HARMONIZATION: NICE SLOGAN, BAD POLICY > >"People and Nature Before Profits" column by Bill Morris > >There is a national organization comprised of 14 people who meet >periodically behind closed doors to decide the fate of environmental policy >in Canada. Sound like a conspiracy plot? Welcome to the Canadian Council of >Ministers of the Environment (CCME). > The CCME is meeting in Quebec City on June 5-6, but that is >virtually all we know about the gathering. Repeated efforts to see an >agenda or acquire background materials have been met with a bureaucratic >stonewall. It seems that they "don't provide the general public" with these >documents. When I asked what the ministers would be discussing, I was told, >"Air quality, water, global warming you know, those kinds of things." Not >surprising for a meeting of ministers of the environment, I suppose. > The provincial and territorial Ministers of the Environment have >been meeting with the federal minister at the CCME since the early '90s. >The principal goal was to "harmonize" environmental regulations across the >country. In January 1998, a Canada-wide Accord on Environmental >Harmonization and related Sub-Agreements on Standards, Inspections and >Environmental Assessment was signed. (Quebec did not sign the Accord.) > Harmonization has a nice ring to it. It evokes images of working >together, collaboration and singing from the same songbook. But when you >look closer you realize that it is a designed to address a nonexistent >problem duplication and overlap of environmental regulation. The CCME has >even had to admit that this is, at most, a minimal problem. You don't have >to think too hard to realize that an excess of environmental protection is >not the problem. The true purpose of the CCME is to shrink the federal >government while handing over more power to the provinces. > Under the accord the enforcement of federal environmental laws is >handed over to the provinces and territories, except for crown land and >along international borders. It also is mandated to look at existing >environmental legislation, with the goal to removing federal regulations if >similar provincial rules already exist. For example, in June 1994, Alberta >was exempted from four regulations of the Canadian Environmental Protection >Act on these grounds. > Here is where we get into the conspiracy aspect. On paper it looks >like a reduction in the size of government. In reality it creates a new >level of government outside the democratic process. All decisions on >environmental management will go through the CCME. > Answering directly to neither an electorate or legislature, the >CCME lacks public accountability. Using a "consensus decision-making >structure" means that the agenda will be controlled by the province, or >territory, that complains most about a proposal. Ontario and Alberta have >been gleefully gutting environmental regulation and enforcement; it is >doubtful that they will argue at the CCME to raise the standards. > This does not bode well, either for those workers in environmental >stewardship, or the general public. The downwards harmonization of >regulations and enforcement will result in public sector job losses. Many >provinces are actively considering ways to privatize their environmental >protection measures. > For the general public, this presents a frightening proposition. >As shown by the events in Walkerton, Ontario, lax standards of monitoring >and enforcement eventually risk public health and safety. > >******************************** > >7/ HEALTH CARE PRIVATIZERS EYE BC FACILITY > >By Hanne Gidora > >While all eyes have been on Alberta's Bill 11, other provinces are not safe >from the drive to privatize health care. The Simon Fraser Regional Health >Board (SFRHB) in British Columbia is hatching plans to close Cascade >Residence, the extended care unit of Burnaby Hospital. The idea is to >replace it with a smaller facility that may be run by a for-profit >provider. The region is accepting "expressions of interest." > Long term care in BC and elsewhere has been a two-tiered system >for many years. To put it simply, if you need round-the-clock nursing care, >and if you are wealthy, you can move into a private facility. If your "net >worth" is like that of most of us, i.e. zero until we die, you move onto a >waiting list. > In Burnaby, this waiting list now has about 700 names; in five >years, it is projected to climb to 2,000. Not a good time to close >facilities, or replace them with smaller ones, as the SFRHB was told at its >regular June meeting by a crowd of nearly 100 activists, residents and >employees of the region, unions and senior citizens' groups, and family >members of residents currently living at Cascade. > The fact is, long term care facilities are not like acute care >hospitals. People don't go to extended care to get better and go home >again; the facility becomes their home. Threats of closure or "replacement" >are like threats of eviction. Few of us actually enjoy moving, but for >elderly people, any kind of move carries the risk of deteriorating health >or even death. This has been proven over and over. Why, then, this sudden >taste for change? > The RHB argues the Cascade facility doesn't meet standards. That >is open to interpretation. The Hospital Employees Union says the part of >the building that is to be demolished is structurally sound and usable, >while another unit, which is twenty years older and should be replaced, >will remain open. > Since the SFRHB is calling for "expressions of interest" from >nonprofit as well as private providers, there seems to be another agenda at >play. The corporate sector is pushing relentlessly for privatization of all >public services. Often this is sold to the public in the form of >"public-private partnerships," also known as PPPs or P3s. > "Partnership" suggests a relationship of mutual consent and >benefit. PPP is an attractive notion for cash-starved provinces, >municipalities and health boards. The cuts in federal transfer funds, >combined with health care restructuring in B.C., have left many public >providers scrambling for money. > PPPs claim to be more cost efficient and therefore a savings for >the public purse. But since governments and private companies borrow money >under different rules and at different rates, PPPs end up costing the >taxpayer more. Corporations involved in PPPs also get additional tax >breaks, leaving individuals to make up for the loss of government revenue. >They do, however, enable government bodies to give the appearance of lower >debt loads. > Other concerns with PPPs are deterioration of services, loss of >public accountability, loss of jobs, and falling tax revenue as the numbers >of wage earners are reduced. This is only common sense; how else can >corporations make a profit? If they had to pay the same overhead as >government operations there would be no profit margin; so they cut back on >services, supplies or wages. Yet health care workers are suffering from >huge increases in workloads, leading to higher stress and an increase in >occupational illnesses and injuries. Health care is now the most dangerous >working environment in B.C. > Privatization of health care does not improve services to the >public by creating healthy competition. The corporations most suited to get >into health care are huge transnationals with the explicit goal of building >a monopoly for themselves. Imagine a pharmaceutical corporation as owner of >a long term care facility. Elderly people often take multiple medications >for a variety of ailments. Guess whose products would be pushed in such a >circumstance? > The way to improve long term care and health care in general is >not privatization. Regional Health Boards and Community Health Councils >must be held accountable as stewards of public service, not its >dismantlers. These bodies must be given the necessary funds, and held >accountable for their appropriate use. There must be full consultation and >disclosure of cost-benefit studies that include all costs, including user >fees and other charges that let the government bodies off the hook but are >detrimental to the public. > Canadians overwhelmingly say that health care is one of the most >important issues of the day. We must translate that view into action, by >supporting campaigns like the June 14 National Day of Warning against >privatized health care, organized by the four largest health care unions. > >(The author is a nurse at a long-term care facility, and a union activist.) > >******************************** > >8/ BC TREATY PROCESS HITS NEW SETBACK > >By Kimball Cariou > >The task of reaching just treaties for dozens of west coast First Nations >peoples hit a new snag last month, when the Sechelt band gave 90-day notice >of its intention to take its claim to court. > "The treaty process is on life support," Sechelt chief Gary >Feschuk told band members at a May 31 ceremony. "After today it might be in >dire straits." > Last year, the Sechelt were the first of 51 bands represented by >the First Nations Summit to reach an agreement in principle (AIP) under the >B.C. Treaty Commission process set up in 1994 by the NDP government. (The >recent Nisga'a Treaty was reached under a different process.) The latest >version of the AIP would have seen the 900 member band receive $52 million, >933 hectares of land, 14 commercial fishing licences, and a large gravel >pit operation. > In return, the Sechelt would surrender any future claims against >the Crown, and give up their exemptions from federal and provincial sales >taxes in eight years, and their provincial income tax exemption in 12 years. > The Sechelt have exercised a form of self-government for a number >of years, with powers similar to those of municipalities; that status was >not under discussion. > Feschuk said the Sechelt were not satisfied with receiving only >one percent of their traditional territory, in the Sunshine Coast area >north of Vancouver. More generally, the band fears that the AIP terms would >not ensure a secure economic future for its members. > The provincial BC Liberals and federal Canadian Alliance MPs, as >well as various right-wing media figures, were quick to declare the treaty >process "dead" or to demand that Premier Dosanjh's NDP government refuse to >offer any improvements in the AIP. > Typical was a June 1 Vancouver Sun editorial, which thundered that >"Chief Feschuk must understand that British Columbians will not support >treaties that smack of unfairness," and warned that popular support for >aboriginal rights is falling. > Given the constant attack against treaty rights in the corporate >media, that may contain a grain of truth, and the Dosanjh government may >back off from meaningful further negotiations in the Sechelt claim and >others working their way through the treaty process. As Aboriginal Affairs >minister Dale Lovick said after the Sechelt decision, "This proposed treaty >is as good as it gets." > If Premier Dosanjh does take a hard line, it won't be the first >time he has opposed aboriginal rights to gain political support. In 1995, >as the provincial Attorney-General, Dosanjh was a key figure in the >heavy-handed use of police and military forces against a small number of >aboriginal people and their supporters camped on Crown land at Gustafsen Lake. > One looming scenario may be a provincial election campaign in >which all BC's three "major" parties, in varying degrees, resist any >genuine progress towards resolving treaty claims. If only Green and >Communist candidates give strong support to aboriginal rights, it would be >difficult for any new government to return to the treaty process in the >near future. > An election along those lines would strengthen the growing >militancy among B.C. First Nations youth, and many elders, who are tired of >seemingly endless negotiations, despite several powerful legal rulings in >their favour. > "The First Nations of British Columbia have been forced to wait >far too long for justice, and the uncertainty over treaty settlements is >having a negative impact on our economy," says BC Communist Party leader >George Gidora. > "This issue must be a top priority for the current provincial >government and for whichever party is elected next spring. Those forces who >want to impose stingy settlements on the First Nations are simply fanning >anti-aboriginal views, and that's an extremely dangerous game. The fact is >that British Columbia's relatively high standard of living has been built >largely on cheap resources which were never ceded by the First Nations. The >reality of inherent aboriginal rights must be recognized, and the people of >B.C. must demand that our elected officials negotiate honourably for a >speedy and just settlement of all outstanding claims by First Nations." > >*************************************** >Communist Party of Canada >290A Danforth Ave., >Toronto, Ont. M4K 1N6 >416-469-2446 (voice) >416-469-4063 (fax) ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >http://www.communist-party.ca __________________________________ 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] ___________________________________
