"From the Left"The 1996 Guelph Tribune columns"From the Left" opinion columns which appear every second Saturday in The Guelph Tribune, a twice-weekly newspaper published by Fairway Press (a division of Southam Inc.) These columns appeared in 1996. Table of Contents
December 21, 1996 When I watch television these days, I am reminded that this is the season for shopping. One commercial after another drives home the message that people are happiest when they are giving their money to a department store chain. Even the provincial government echoes this spirit of giving. They introduced a Boxing Day Shopping Act, allowing stores to open on December 26. During second reading debate of the bill in the legislature, a Tory MPP, Margaret Marland , said Boxing Day is "a day when a lot of people can go shopping together as a family with the money they've been given as gifts for Christmas." A shopping family is a happy family, I guess. If you don't have the cash to spend, you can make yourself even happier by running your credit cards to their limits. When the bills come in, with interest rates at anything from 17 per cent at the banks to 28 per cent at some stores, you will feel you have died and gone to heaven. Or you'll wish you had. I am coming to the point where I believe the ads. What they are telling me is that the true spirit of Christmas is the redistribution of wealth. I like that. But then I find that we are on two different sides of the distribution street. The TV commercials, and the government, want to redistribute what little wealth the people have into the hands of chain stores and financial institutions. Eatons already had lots of money before Christmas shopping kicked into high gear. They don't need a lot more as they move into the January sales period. The chartered banks made more than a billion dollars each this year, and still charge usurious rates on their credit cards. They've made enough money by now. Mbanx president Matthew Barrett is paid more in a week than most of us get in a year. He should eliminate interest rates on all purchases made in the month of December. That would redistribute a bit of their wealth in our direction and put his bank firmly into the holiday spirit. I don't expect he'll do it, though. The times haven't changed that much. Maybe spending wildly like a bunch of Tories at a convention isn't really the way to celebrate Christmas. Maybe we should put away our credit cards and debit cards and cheque books and Mondex cards and just take some time to be with our families. Of course, that's easy for me to say now that I've shopped myself into a state of near ecstacy. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I'll talk with you again in January. go back to the table of contents December 07, 1996 On December 6, 1989, 14 women were murdered in Montreal. A man armed with an assault rifle walked into an engineering school and shot them. He had no personal connection with the victims. He killed them for no other reason than that they were women. He called them "feminists" and opened fire. This horrific event, seven years ago, should have focused our attention on the violence directed at women every day of every year. At the time, there was a lot of hand-wringing in the media. Governments pledged to do something about it. Men began wearing white ribbons for one week a year. But, in all these years, very little changed. An average of 2 women a week still die at the hands of a husband or partner. An RCMP document, posted on their official Internet web site, suggests that "no fewer than 1 in 10 Canadian women are assaulted by their husband or partner. Family violence accounts for 60% of female homicides." Other sources claim the number of women assaulted in their homes is closer to one in seven. The RCMP report goes on to say that these statistics "only touch the surface of the spousal assault problem. Marital violence continues to be a largely hidden and denied problem. In fact, by the time an assault is actually reported, it can be assumed that several assaults have already occurred." When 10 per cent of Canadian women are being killed or injured at the hands of their partners, governments have an obligation to do something. At the very least, they must provide safe shelter for victims of domestic violence. They must be able to find a safe haven to heal their wounds and gather the strength to get on with their lives. Instead of doing this, the Ontario government slashed funding for women's shelters. They needed the money to finance a tax cut for rich men. Governments must take steps to ensure that women have the financial ability to live independent lives if they want to make that choice. Employment and pay equity laws were designed to help close the gender wage gap. Harris repealed these laws and abandoned women to the pink collar ghettoes that have kept them in poverty. On top of this, he cut support for the non-profit child care centres that allow women to get out of the house and into a job. If we are ever going to end this war on women, if we are ever going to learn anything from the Montreal massacre, we have to commit ourselves to positive measures that will end, once and for all, the inequality and poverty that women are forced to endure. go back to the table of contents November 23, 1996Like the bubbly Goldie in the Channel 17 beg breaks, Brenda Chamberlain may soon star in her own telethon. Call in with your $100 pledge, she will urge, and we will send you a Morningside fridge magnet. Her plan to have the CBC conduct fund raising membership drives would be funny if it were not so pathetic. Chamberlain, the invisible Brenda in Guelph politics, has been warming an Ottawa back bench since the 1993 election. Her achievements, by her own implicit admission, have been few and far between. Evidence of this is the fact that she issued a self-congratulatory press release announcing that Perrin Beatty, the CBC president and chief undertaker, had sent her a form letter. Beatty responded to her letter, saying that her suggestion "is among those being considered." A suggestion that CBC announcers should provide their own microphones would receive the same polite response. Politicians are never slow to pat themselves on the back. Usually they have something of significance to point to when they do so. Chamberlain puffed herself up over an admission of failure. Her press release is an admission that the Liberal's red book was a cruel hoax. It was nothing more than a well-crafted fishing lure used to hook a country desparate to rid itself of the Mulroney Tories. The red book promised to get rid of the North American Free Trade Agreement. After winning the election, the Liberals quickly signed the deal. The red book promised to get rid of the GST. When the Sheila Copps caper exploded, they shrugged their shoulders and admitted the GST is here to stay. The red book promised to create jobs. Unemployment has risen steadily to its present level of 10 per cent. The Liberals chose to fight the deficit and slash social spending. The red book promised stable funding for the CBC. Its budget has been cut so badly that most regional radio programs, and some network fixtures, such as Morningside and Gabereau, will not survive the current programming season. CBC radio is an essential national institution. It gives our playwrights a vehicle for important new drama productions. Canadian novelists find a voice and an audience. People in remote communities can hear music ranging from live symphony orchestras on the stereo network to great blues every Saturday night. Peter Gzowski helps us understand national political issues, and Vicky Gabereau shines her bright light on our cultural quirks. Brenda Chamberlain is ready to abandon all this, and reduce the CBC to the level of a panhandler. This may be the only way public broadcasting can feed itself in the cultural wasteland to our south. It is not the Canadian way. go back to the table of contents November 09, 1996If you spent any time at your doctor's office recently, you can be forgiven for not knowing we just passed through National Medicare Week. This was part of the Canadian Health Coalition's campaign to defend public health care against private greed. Although most attention is focused these days on individual doctors, there is a much larger appetite feeding on the system. Multinational drug manufacturers and health care corporations are taking bigger and bigger bites from medicare. Mind you, the doctors deserve some of the attention. Delegates to this year's Canadian Medical Association convention narrowly defeated a motion supporting a two-tier, private-public health care system. They passed two other resolutions calling for "core medical services" to remain publicly funded, with "non-core" services billed directly to patients. Doctors in Ontario are threatening to withhold some services if they don't get their way with the Harris government. This is an odd fight between two parties who both want to destroy medicare. Of course, neither side says that. The doctors say they want to "modernize" it. The government wants to "streamline" it. When they finish their spat, those who need health care will pay more for it. To understand the illness afflicting medicare, we should look at the federal government. Doctors and provincial governments are simply walking through a door opened in Ottawa. The free trade agreement, which the Liberals promised to tear up if they won the election, gave American health care corporations the right to operate in Canada. When Chretien broke that promise, he opened a floodgate that is eroding health care across the country. Last August, Sun Healthcare Group's vice-president of mergers and acquisitions said "we are interested in the transition of the Canadian marketplace from the public sector to the private sector and think we can use some of the things we have learned in the American market." Other multinationals such as MDS Health Group, the giant operator of private medical laboratories, have similarly targeted Canada for their next wave of expansion. Another broken Liberal promise is also costing billions of dollars every year. In 1991, the Mulroney government extended patent protection for the pharmaceutical industry. The Liberals 1993 Red Book campaign document promised to repeal this Mulroney give away. They didn't do it, and now we are all paying between four and seven billion dollars each year because cheaper, generic drugs are not coming onto the market. It is not good enough for provincial Tories and federal Liberals to say they want to save medicare while they are busy amputating its legs and removing its heart. Opinion polls consistently show that Canadians are staunchly opposed to privatizing medicare. As we begin gearing up for a federal election, we have to make this opposition heard. go back to the table of contents October 26, 1996A few years ago, Canadian singer Tom Cochrane told us that life is a highway. This is a good analogy for the current political climate. Provincial and federal governments have made the journey much easier for those already in the express lanes. Speed limits and other regulations have been removed so they can madly jockey for position, each trying desperately to get ahead of the other. At the same time, the people who built and paid for the highway are stuck at the on-ramps. About a week ago, Preston Manning rushed down the 401, announcing his new "fresh start" election platform. His tour brought him into Guelph where the Fresh Start Housing Centre already gives more help to low income residents than they will ever get from Reform. Maybe our own local Fresh Start could sue Manning for copyright infringement. Get him to change the name of his program to something more appropriate and reflective of the truth in advertising guidelines. Is it a fresh start, or just a stale fart? Reform's program is a tired rehash of Reaganomics. This didn't work in the United States or Britain, and isn't working in Ontario. Manning will eliminate the five per cent surtax on high income earners and cut capital gains taxes. Either proposal, taken alone, will help the rich grow richer. Together, they are a provocative slap in the face to millions of low income and working Canadians who struggle to make ends meet. We do not need more give aways. We need an equitable tax system in which wealthy Canadians and corporations pay their fair share. On the political highway, the Reform Party is very much like an accident at the side of the road. People tend to slow down as they approach. Some exercise added caution, to avoid becoming involved themselves. Others want to look at it, to see how bad it is and if anyone got hurt. As Manning and his provincial cousin, Mike Harris, stand beside their collision with Canadian values, we can see just how bad the accident was. We can count the injured. Fortunately, we are slowly getting past it. The latest Angus Reid poll of federal politics puts Reform dead last among Ontario's voters, behind the NDP and Tories. In provincial preferences, Harris fell eight per cent from August to September, while NDP support rose five per cent. The Liberals went up by two. We will clear away the carnage from this accident, and reopen the access ramps to life's highway. It's just a matter of time. As Cochrane wrote in his song, "We'll be there when the light comes in, tell ‘em we're survivors." go back to the table of contents October 12, 1996The strike against General Motors is of tremendous significance to workers all across the country. If the CAW wins its main bargaining issue, the economic security of each and every worker in Canada will improve. This strike is about corporate power over the lives of working people. Employers always have, and after the strike they will still have, the right to manage their affairs in a profitable manner. What is at stake here is the ability of workers to limit that right in a few small ways. The strike is about getting corporations to recognize that they have long term obligations to the people they employ. In 1995, GM Canada made the highest corporate profit in Canadian history - $1.4 billion. The Canadian division produces about 40 per cent of GM's entire world-wide profit. They want the right to earn even greater profits by squeezing workers out of their jobs, even though these workers' labour power created those profits in the first place. GM's Canadian operation is far more efficient than any other auto manufacturer, either in Canada or the US. In 1995, GM Canada employed 3.41 workers per vehicle produced. That is 15 per cent more efficient than their US average of 3.64 workers per vehicle. It is also better than either Chrysler or Ford. They make $900 profit per vehicle built in Canada, more than double what they make on a car built south of the border. Part of this is because of our more efficient work force, and part is because of the lower labour costs here. Because of the exchange rates, and lower health care costs here, GM's labour costs are about US$13 cheaper here than they are in the States. A model for "work ownership" language has already been negotiated with Chrysler Canada. GM can easily afford to match it. They say they won't because they have set themselves an internal target of five per cent profit margin, and 12.5 per cent return on net assets. What they don't say is that their Canadian profit margin is already at 4.5 per cent, seven times higher than Chrysler Canada's, and 90 times higher than Ford Canada's. They exceeded the 12.5 per cent return on assets in both 1994 and 1995. This strike is not about money. It is about workers' rights. This is no different from the strikes for union recognition sixty years ago, or for pension benefits fifty years ago. The CAW is fighting to establish the right of workers to negotiate guarantees that new jobs will be brought in when old ones are shipped down to the low wage regions of Mexico and the southern States. When they win, we will all win. go back to the table of contents September 28, 1996In case anyone was beginning to doubt Mike Harris's utter contempt for government, he made his position crystal clear this week. When he announced plans to reduce the number of provincial ridings in Ontario, he described the legislature in terms more suited for a corporate board room than an assembly of elected politicians. "I believe that a board of directors of 103 will be able to provide just as good or better government as 130,'' he said. Ontario is not a corporation, and the premier of the province is not the chairman of a board of directors. It does not surprise me, though, that he views his job in this way. It is perfectly consistent with, and goes a long way towards explaining, the ruthless cutting and slashing he is engaged in. The corporate community has been cutting and slashing for years. They began their weight loss program in order to protect profit margins while fighting off competitors. The net effect on profits was so uplifting that the program quickly became a disorder and corporations now suffer from anorexia. Harris, in his distorted view of the world, obviously thinks this sickness is a virtue. He has gone overboard and cut the size of government with tragic consequences. As one example, we need only look at the recent mess surrounding the distribution of child support payments to divorced and separated mothers. The province's Family Support Plan collects child support for 146,000 of them. The absent parent - usually a father who has fallen into arrears and has been hauled before a judge - pays the province, and the province forwards the money to the family. But the province closed eight regional offices and laid off more than one-third of the staff. For the past couple of months, there have been delays in getting the money transferred. In September, 7,000 families had to wait for their cheques. Charles Harnick, the Attorney General responsible for administering the plan, said "no one in this province felt worse than I did about the delay in those cheques." The children in those 7,000 families might disagree with him. This is what happens when a governing party refuses to believe in government. They fail to see that they have a real, and important, function to play in society. Unfortunately, they are not alone. The federal Liberals are just as delinquent when it comes to living up to their responsibility to provide essential services to Canadians. It was their refusal to make the necessary transfer payments to Ontario that gave Harris the ammunition needed to wage his war against the working and unemployed families of the province. Ironically, Harris is able to keep all his promises because Chretien broke all his. go back to the table of contents September 14, 1996Al McLean should resign as Speaker of the Ontario Legislature. He faces some very serious sexual harassment charges that cast doubt on the quality of his judgement. The nature of his position demands that other MPPs, Queen's Park staff, and the general public have confidence in his ability to administer fairly and impartially. That confidence has now been shaken for the second time in less than a year. Last March, he touched off a storm of opposition protests, and a parliamentary inquiry, when he ordered troops from the Ontario Provincial Police to clear picketers from the entrance to the legislature. They did so with an enthusiasm that shocked the province. It was clear then that he was using the authority of his office - supposedly an impartial and nonpolitical one - in a way that was blatantly biased and politically motivated. Now he faces an inquiry into complaints made against him at the Human Rights Commission. A great deal of credibility can be given to these latest allegations. A former aide says McLean repeatedly harassed her after she began working for him last March. Not surprisingly, McLean says he didn't. In most cases such as this, the harasser will deny it. Sometimes to try and get out of trouble. Sometimes because he just doesn't understand that the conduct was wrong. Occasionally, because it didn't happen. Very occasionally. McLean's problem is that this is the third time he has been called up on the carpet over sexual harassment charges. Ten years ago, it was a woman on the Tory staff who charged him. She withdrew the complaint after settling with him for $2,000. Five years ago, a woman complained that she was touched and propositioned by McLean at a Tory caucus party. That complaint was settled quietly, within caucus. Earlier this week, his lawyer announced that McLean had "passed" a lie detector test which proves his innocence. It is becoming obvious that the Speaker of the legislature intends to use the full force of his power and wealth to villify the complainant and paint her as a chronic liar. This again fits the stereotype of a man who would do the things he is accused of. Lie detector tests do not prove anything. They are unreliable, and not admissible as evidence in court. Particularly when administered by the private investigator the accused hired to undermine the complainant's credibility. In baseball, the rule is that after three strikes, you're out. Even when videotapes show that the pitch was off the plate. What is good enough for Joe Carter is good enough for Al McLean. Especially when the strikes against McLean are serious enough to call into question his ability to play the game. go back to the table of contents August 31, 1996As we celebrate Labour Day on Monday, it is useful to reflect on changes made in the labour market since last year. The Minister of Labour launched an unparalleled attack on working conditions, including dramatic changes to the Employment Standards Act, the Workers Compensation Act and the occupational health and safety system. In response, the labour movement conducted a series of protest actions, also unparalleled in the province. These included major shut-downs in London, Hamilton, Waterloo Region, and Peterborough. The next one is planned for Metro Toronto in October. Although the protests did not stop the Harris government's war on labour, they did slow it down in important areas. For example, the announced plan to introduce "flexible" employment standards has been shelved. Changes to workers compensation did not go as far as the government planned. There were other examples, and all show that protest gets results. Throughout the year, labour leaders said the corporate agenda is not about eliminating deficits. It is about eliminating government and the crucial services the public sector provides. Figures released this week by Statistics Canada prove that the unions were correct. A report released last Thursday says "the number of employees on business payrolls fell for a second consecutive month. Losses registered during the past two months totalled 80,000." Much of this was due to the lay off of temporary federal census workers, and to a large strike in British Columbia. Most of the permanent job losses are in the public sector. The report goes on to say "the declining trend in provincial administration also continued in June, with declines recorded in all provinces. In total, governments of all levels employed 19,000 fewer workers than a year ago." Most of this decline in government services occurred in the health care sector. "Health and social service industries reduced employment levels by 15,000 in June. This drop occurred in the context of a downward trend that began in February and was preceded by a period of no growth. This trend was particularly evident in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Alberta in hospitals and other institutional health and social services (such as homes for personal and nursing care)." It is no coincidence that these three provinces are leading the charge to take control of the health care system away from the federal government. They shouldn't get all the blame, though. Chretien and Martin encouraged this race to ruin by slashing funding for health care and other social programs. Provincial governments are cynically taking advantage of the opportunity to destroy what the feds have wounded. Have a happy Labour Day, and when you are judging the performance of governments, don't just listen to what they say. Look at the results. go back to the table of contents August 17, 1996Some effects of Mike Harris' income tax cut are starting to be felt. It is not quite the gift he portrayed it to be. Of course, those of us who don't live in the same ideological world as Harris are not surprised by this. We could see that any benefit achieved through the reduction would be eaten up by new fees necessitated by funding cuts. When the tax cuts were announced, one provincial cabinet minister said he would buy a new television set. Another was going to replace a couch. All were trumpeting the benefits to the economy that would flow from the new spending power they were unharnessing. Jobs would be created, and the economy would boom. All these tories were being dishonest. The truth of the matter is starting to reveal itself. As one example, my provincial income tax went down by about five dollars a week in July. This amounts to a savings of $130 for the second half of this calendar year. In return, thanks to the cuts in transfer payments to municipalities, I will need to spend $180 on bus passes between September and the end of the year. When the new school year begins, the school board will have new guidelines for providing transportation subsidies to junior high school students. Four years ago, when one of my sons went into grade seven, he was given a bus pass to get from home to King George school, a distance of about five and a half kilometres. King George school is the junior high school for all French immersion students in Guelph. This year, my daughter starts at that same school, but we are now told that we don't live far enough away to qualify for the bus pass. We can either let her walk, or we can buy her a bus pass ourselves. A student bus pass is $45 a month. We are still living in the same house. King George is still at the same location. The only thing that has changed is the provincial government. They promised to cut taxes while eliminating the provincial debt. During the last election campaign, candidates for the New Democratic Party said that this could not be done without seriously slashing social programs. They said that Tory figures just didn't add up. They were right. There will be more. Some cities have already begun charging for garbage disposal. North York charges non- residents who suffer a car fire while driving through that city. Parks, recreation facilities, libraries and other community services are all candidates for user fees. Now that the magnitude of the cuts is coming into focus, it is time to say "I told you so." go back to the table of contents August 03, 1996It is sickening to see how fervently the provincial government holds to its belief that victims must be punished. Cam Jackson, the Minister responsible for reforming the Workers Compensation Board (WCB), recently recommended a number of changes that punish injured workers while reducing costs incurred by employers. To deliver on their campaign promise of a five per cent reduction in WCB premiums, the Tories are about to cut Workers' Compensation benefits from 90 to 85 per cent of net earnings and chop the inflation protection formula. Jackson said the benefit reduction "is designed to reinforce the goal of early return to work, and is consistent with the principle that no worker should earn more on compensation than for working." Jackson must have gone to the John Snobelen school of arithmetic. Net income is the money you get after taxes, CPP and UI premiums have been deducted. It is take home pay. If you take home 90 per cent of net after an injury, you are not earning more. Next year, when you take home 85 per cent, you still won't be earning more than you did while working. In one of his more insidious recommendations, Jackson opens the door to the privatization of the workers compensation system. He suggests that employers could be responsible for paying the WCB benefits themselves for the first six weeks of a claim, and that they could purchase private insurance coverage for this period. Liberty Mutual, the American insurance giant that recently bought Blue Cross, is waiting anxiously for the opportunity to take over a privatized WCB. They now have the foot in the door that no previous government, regardless of Party affiliation, was ever willing to provide. Jackson's report makes for frightening reading. It is full of misinformation and twisted logic designed to convince us that the WCB is on the brink of collapse. For example, he does not mention that his own government's research found that Ontario employers already pay lower premiums than two-thirds of North American jurisdictions. He talks about the unfunded liability - the amount by which the Board would have to go into debt in the unlikely event that it suddenly had to pay out all the future payments owing under current claims. This is a red herring, and ignores that fact that the Board has $8 billion in the bank right now, and has never had to borrow any money. The figures prove that for all its faults, the Board is twice as efficient as the private insurance industry. Workers do not cause their own injuries, and do not live better because of them. Injured workers should not pay the cost of nonsensical Tory election promises. go back to the table of contents July 20 1996Today's senior citizens have endured many hardships during their lives. Many grew up during the depression, then went off to fight in the trenches of Europe or the jungles of Asia.What should have been the best years of their lives were spent at war, defending the country for those of us who would follow. They survived all of this, and suffered through cyclical periods of unemployment. Without jobless benefits, they stuck together, helped each other out, and kept their feet on the ground. When they were working, they built the unions that would raise conditions not just for themselves, but for all of society. They went on strike to win pensions. They worked for political changes that eventually, a little over thirty years ago, brought us the Canada Pension Plan. They worked hard and fought hard. They built this country, and paid their taxes. They contributed far more than they received. They can be forgiven for thinking that now, finally, their community will look after them. Now, finally, after a lifetime of giviing to society, a younger generation will pay them back, and even give them a pat on the back. They do not deserve the kick in the teeth that Mike Harris' juvenile, narrow-minded government just gave them. This week, as part of Harris' efforts to finance a tax cut for the wealthy, senior citizens began paying new user fees for prescription drugs. Those with an individual income of $16,000 or a family income of $24,000 will now pay for the first $100 of drugs and a $6.11 dispensing fee after that. Those with lesser incomes will have to pay a $2.00 dispensing fee every time they get a prescription filled. So will all the welfare recipients and their children. A Statistics Canada report released on July 8 showed that less than half the members of the paid work force today belonged to a pension plan at the beginning of 1995. This was a reduction of one per cent from 1994, and three per cent since membership peaked in 1992. This means that over half the people working today will rely on the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security when they retire. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that the vast majority of current retirees are even worse off. These are the latest people Harris has decided will feel better if they suffer a bit more. We have already seen how he plans to save the poor by making them poorer. It gives them the incentive to become wealthy. Perhaps making senior citizens poorer will give them the incentive to become young again. go back to the table of contents July 06 1996Last Monday evening, my wife and I joined tens of thousands of other Guelph residents in Riverside Park to celebrate Canada Day, and enjoy the fireworks show. All of us had a variety of reasons to be part of this great event, and all were proud to demonstrate our feelings for this country. Canada Day is not just an opportunity to reflect on what our country is. It is also a chance to think about what Canada could be, and what it should be. I got thinking along these lines after hearing an interview, and a short performance, by The Travellers on CBC radio. This is a folk singing group which has been performing since the very early fifties. They sang their version of a great Woody Guthrie song, This Land is Your Land. Hearing the song always brings a bit of a lump to my throat, and a small tear to my eye. Guthrie wrote the song during the depression in response to some patriotic jingoists who were spreading the false gospel that "what is good for General Motors is good for the country." All across North America, workers were unemployed and farmers were facing bankruptcy while corporations grabbed a strangle hold on different levels of government. Guthrie was telling the people that the country does not belong to General Motors, it belongs to the people. This includes immigrants, workers, farmers, shopkeepers, and the poor just as much as it includes the bankers and shareholders. He was not allowed to perform the song on television or in large concert halls in America. Nor was Pete Seeger, the great American folk singer who largely popularized it. They had been blacklisted. So they took their music into union halls, onto picket lines, and to labour rallies and community picnics. They gave a sense of pride and hope to people who were being beaten down by the stock exchange manipulators. By the early fifties, Guthrie was ill with a fatal disease. The Travellers took the song, wrote a Canadian chorus, and signed their performance royalties over to the Guthrie family. Money they earned from the song paid for Arlo Guthrie and his brother's university education. Now, forty-five years after The Travellers brought the message to Canada, we still need it. Canada does not belong to the New York bond traders who dictate the terms of federal and provincial budgets. Canada does not belong to Conrad Black, who controls most of what we read in papers and see on television. From Bonavista to Vancouver Island, from the arctic circle to the great lake waters, this land belongs to you and me. go back to the table of contents June 22, 1996Brenda Elliott just made it easier for municipalities to select new locations for garbage dumps. The Environment Minister should realize we are running out of precious space to waste on waste. The lack of available land, and the inconvenience involved in transforming it into a dump, focused our attention on alternatives to landfills. It makes far more sense to recycle as much dry waste as possible and compost the rest. Guelph led the way in this responsible approach to waste disposal. Our blue box program was ahead of most other communities. We were the first to recycle old phone books, plastics and other products. We moved further ahead when we brought in the wet/dry waste disposal facility. Rather than making it easier to open new dumps, Elliott should expand opportunities to eliminate waste. She has, in her own constituency, an experimental model to use around the province. She should use her Ministry's resources to solve problems in the wet/dry facility. She should pass regulations forcing businesses to abandon foolish and environmentally damaging excessive packaging. She should ensure that our wet/dry operation is placed firmly and permanently under public ownership. Some city councillors, and some staff, have been pushing for its immediate privatization.Some want to keep it under city ownership. Others want it running properly to increase its value when sold. Either way, a decision is not expected before next Spring. It will be wise for our community to use this time to mount an effective campaign to stop the privatization. We are all investing a lot of time and energy separating garbage into two streams in order to help the efficiency of the facility. We are not doing it to enrich a privately-owned company. Several waste disposal companies have expressed an interest in buying it. They know it can be run efficiently and profitably. It makes sense for us to do this ourselves. The wet/dry can provide good, well-paying unionized jobs for Guelph residents, and its profits can be used to ease the tax burden on all of us. This is better than seeing the money leave our community for the bank accounts of absentee shareholders. The dispute over the health and safety conditions endured by the non-union temporary workers at the facility is still unresolved. If the operation is turned over to the private sector, CUPE will not have automatic successor rights to represent workers and participate in their health and safety programs. Working conditions will go from bad to worse while the workers begin the lengthy process of reorganizing their union. Since it is unlikely that Elliott will intercede, city councillors should act decisively to protect the interests of Guelph citizens in this important environmental initiative. go back to the table of contents June 08, 1996All over the world, people hate the government. Here in Ontario, the feeling is mutual. The government also hates the people. One year ago today, voters bought a vague promise of more accountability at Queen's Park. Thinking that a little common sense could go a long way, they elected Mike Harris. He quickly went on the attack. Delivering a mixture of Tory pro-business attitudes and Reform Party slash and burn policies, his government became known in some circles as the Reformatories. This is an appropriate name for a gang who opened by stealing money from people, mostly women and children, who depend on social assistance for their livelihood. Then they stole affordable homes by halting the development of all new provincially funded co-operative housing projects. Then they stole the security from working Ontarians by shutting down the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and repealing the most sensible Labour Relations Act we have ever had. They stole money from working women by cancelling pay and employment equity programs. They are stealing the future health of our children by gutting laws that protect our environment. By doing this, and an awful lot more, they have transformed the face of Ontario. In 12 months, they have wreaked damage that will take much longer to repair. And they still have another three years of axe-wielding ahead of them. It has been said before in this corner that the Harris government is following a path that will make us look a lot more like the dog eat dog society of the United States than most Ontario residents want. The truth of this prediction became clear this week when an American security firm, Vance International, announced it was opening a branch office in Ontario. Chuck Vance, the former Secret Service agent who owns the company, was profiled in last Tuesday's Toronto Star. "Now that the Harris government has struck down the provincial law banning the use of replacement workers," the article says, "Vance expects problems on picket lines to increase, producing more need for his type of security." His security officers come outfitted in body armour and helmets, carrying shields and cameras. They already have had violent clashes with picketers in the States. This outrageous development, coupled with Harris' recent release of a 240-page "business plan" made up more of confused bafflegab than clear plans, shows the direction we are going. It is not the direction people chose last year. Against our will, we are becoming a society where the interests of living, breathing people become subordinated to the interests of cold, lifeless corporations. We should not allow this to happen. go back to the table of contents May 25, 1996Elizabeth Witmer claims that over the last 20 years, the Employment Standards Act "has become increasingly complex, more difficult to understand and administer, and more expensive to enforce." On May 13, she introduced changes she says will facilitate its administration and enforcement "by reducing ambiguity, simplifying definitions and streamlining procedures." As usual, she got it backwards. Her changes actually increase the ambiguity of the Act. Through one of her changes, unionized workers will be able to negotiate changes to established standards. Hours of work, statutory holidays, overtime pay, vacation pay and severance pay can all be changed, as long as "the negotiated standards as a package provide greater rights or benefits" than those in the Act. At the moment, the Act states that time and a half must be paid for all hours worked in excess of 44 in a week. Most union contracts require it to be paid after 40 hours. The Act defines eight days, such as the recent Victoria Day, as public holidays. Again, most union contracts go beyond this minimum number and allow a day off with pay on other days, such as Heritage Day or the August Civic Holiday. Now, employers are given the right to pressure their workers, through collective bargaining, into giving up some of these rights. For example, an employer could get away with paying overtime after 48 hours - previously a violation of the Act - as long as other benefits outweigh the loss, and the total package is still greater than the minimum standards in the Act. And, of course, as long as the union agrees to it. Unionized workers are reasonable people who, while they want decent pay and benefits, are not interested in seeing their employers go out of business. This mature attitude is all too often met by immature, whining employers who claim to be living on the edge of bankruptcy. Give a little here and there so we can stay competitive, they say. This amendment adds one more weapon to the employer's already well-stocked arsenal, while further handcuffing the union's right to fair and open collective bargaining. Who will judge whether the negotiated package is better than the legal minimum? Saying she wants "to encourage greater self-reliance in the workplace," Witmer is laying off employment standards officers, and getting out of the enforcement business. Bargaining unit members "will be required to resolve complaints through the grievance procedure." As standards for unionized workers decline, those for non-union workers will plummet. Witmer has done nothing to streamline the Employment Standards Act. She has, rather, turned it against the very people it was designed to protect. go back to the table of contents May 11, 1996Life in Ontario just became more of a gamble. By introducing the most irresponsible budget in memory, Ernie Eves took steps to ensure the rich get richer, and the poor stay that way. His tax cuts put far more cash into the pockets of wealthy Ontarians than into those of the rest of us. When these cuts work their way through the system, all of us - rich and poor alike - will have an equal opportunity to pay new user fees. Public libraries, recreation centres, colleges and universities, and many other services will have new, or increased, user fees. Bus fares will go up. Some Ontario communities are already implementing garbage collection fees. A person with a $25,000 annual income will get a tax break of about $400. There will be nothing left by the time the new fees are paid. A person with a $100,000 income will have lots left over after dipping into a $3500 windfall. After shifting the tax burden even further onto the backs of workers and the unemployed, Eves opened Ontario for gambling machines. Video lottery terminals will be installed in bars, restaurants and hotels across the province. Welfare recipients who had their payments cut and workers who see their tax cut clawed back can only dream of joining the pampered rich. Their fantasies can be played out in a contest with a one-armed bandit. And just as Harris and Eves have already done, the bandit will rob them again. The Tories tell us the budget is about job creation. But it has nothing to do with jobs. In fact, it is being implemented at the cost of necessary jobs in government ministries such as labour, environment and others. They say it is about prosperity. But it has nothing to do with prosperity when it is based on policies that have already cut the support services needed by the working poor. If low taxes and reduced government services were the key to jobs and prosperity, the Third World countries would be leading the world. The Tory agenda has been tried in the United States, and the divisions between rich and poor are now deeper than ever. People are turning away from the Doles and Gingriches there. It was tried in Britain, and unemployment soared. People there are turning to the Labour Party for solutions. It didn't work anywhere else, and it won't work here. That doesn't matter to Harris, because he doesn't want to make everyone prosperous. He wants to get rid of government, and give all the control to the corporations. Then the impoverished population will be even more at their mercy. To that extent, the budget will meet its true objective. go back to the table of contents April 27, 1996In the first two months of this year, 22 workers died in Ontario from injuries suffered at work. Almost 12,000 others had lost-time injuries. Last year, over 250 workers were killed and almost 118,000 were injured. These figures are based on claims allowed by the Worker's Compensation Board. They do not include another 6,000 estimated to die each year from cancers and other diseases caused by exposure to toxic substances in their workplaces. Tomorrow, we take some time to recognize the horrendous suffering of workers and their families and we commit ourselves to the prevention of these tragedies in the future. April 28 is the national day of mourning for workers killed or injured on the job. The date was chosen in 1986 by the Canadian Labour Congress to mark the anniversary of the day in 1914 when Ontario passed the first Workers Compensation Act in Canada. Communities across the country recognize the day of mourning in a variety of ways. Here in Guelph, we gather in front of City Hall for events which begin at 10:45 a.m., with a minute's silence at 11:00. The theme for the activities is: mourn for the dead, fight for the living. Fighting for the living means committing ourselves to meaningful prevention programs that identify workplace hazards and establish procedures to eliminate them. Comprehensive training programs must be made available to every worker in Ontario. They have a fundamental right to know about the dangers they face at work, to participate in the elimination of dangerous conditions, and to refuse to perform work that endangers themselves or others. These rights are threatened as employer associations lobby a government that shows itself all too eager to give them whatever they want. A major health and safety training program was recently cut from three weeks duration to seven days. Now Elizabeth Witmer, the Minister of Labour, has announced some changes she intends to make to other health and safety regulations. Sometime this year, probably before the legislature recesses for the summer, she will introduce amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. One will eliminate mandatory coroner's inquests into construction or mining fatalities. If common sense were ruling the province, these inquests would be extended to every workplace death. Coroner's inquests identify the conditions and events that cause fatal injuries, and they recommend ways in which these conditions can be changed. Internal workplace investigations are not nearly as thorough or as reliable. Tomorrow, we remember our sisters and brothers who have suffered. Then, we should flood the provincial government with letters, faxes and phone calls. We must convince them to stop gutting health and safety programs. It's a matter of life and death. go back to the table of contents April 13, 1996Guelph's new wet/dry waste recycling facility stands as a remarkable legacy of our brief period of New Democratic Party government. It is still experimental, but it shows how a community can learn to dispose of waste in a responsible manner. The NDP deserves a lot of credit for this innovative initiative. We can only hope our current MPP will one day share this commitment to the environment. But it looks like a groundless hope as she turns the clock back to cheap and easy fixes such as incineration. While the wet/dry facility has its good side, it is also presenting a number of serious problems for the people who work in it. Because of its experimental nature, the nature of the work inside the recycling facility is still under development. The City reached agreement with two union locals, allowing it to bring in workers from Kelly Temporary Services until they figure out how many people are needed to run the facility. The problem with this is that neither employer will accept responsibility for ensuring safe conditions for the Kelly workers. And conditions in there are decidedly unsafe. There is, for example, a machine called a Ballistic Separator. The name sounds ominous, and so it should. Every so often, people have to go inside and clean it. Were it to start up, these people would be killed. Normal safety procedures dictate that the machine be locked out, and everyone working inside have one of the padlock keys. But Kelly workers were told to go in, clean it, and trust someone else with the padlock key. Other Kelly workers stand at a conveyor belt, separating items that come from the wet or the dry garbage bags. Sometimes they sort medical waste from doctors' offices, or syringes tossed out by diabetics. There have been dead squirrels and other animals. One worker even claims a human heart came tumbling down the belt. The workers have not been properly trained to deal with these hazards, nor are they given adequate personal protective equipment. When they refused to work under unsafe conditions, they were told to be quiet or be gone. City supervisors did not comply with the proper procedure for following up on such a work refusal. They got caught up in the game of "responsibility hot potato" they are playing with Kelly. A Ministry of Labour safety inspector has been called in to investigate. There are a lot of questions to be asked, and the City has a lot to answer for. In the final analysis, the City is responsible for the administration of the wet/dry facility, and for the health and safety of everyone working in it. go back to the table of contents March 30, 1996On his way into work, John Baird tripped over the body of an unconscious worker. He dusted himself off and kept going. The body belonged to a law-abiding probation officer, clubbed by a member of the OPP goon squad. Baird was going into the provincial legislature, where he is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. This is the Ministry responsible for enforcing workplace health and safety laws. The person lying on the sidewalk, bleeding from a head wound, was engaged in a peaceful picket, still a legal workplace activity in Ontario. Baird could have shown concern for the injured man, but he didn't. He was in a rush to get about the business of this Tory labour ministry. Two days later, we found out what business they have in mind. The Labour Minister introduced a package of occupational health and safety reforms that could reverse years of progress. Elizabeth Witmer told the legislature that she was severely cutting back the most effective health and safety training program in North America. For the past three years, at least two members of every joint health and safety committee in Ontario have been required to take a basic core certification training program. The course was developed by a team equally composed of worker and employer representatives. Everything about the program, including its length of delivery, was decided through consensus. The course would take either one, two or three weeks, depending on the size of a workplace and the nature of its hazards. Tens of thousands of workers and managers took the course. Evaluations from participants were overwhelmingly enthusiastic. Nearly all thought the material was exceptional, and that more time was needed to cover it properly. As they became more aware of hazards, and learned about effective control procedures, workplace injury rates fell by 30 per cent. Workplace fatality rates were also dropping. Witmer responded to this by cutting the length of training to four or seven days, depending upon the hazards in a workplace. Much of the training material, developed so carefully a few years ago, will be thrown out. Control of health and safety programs will be given almost exclusively to employers. We recently heard graphic evidence of what can result from this approach. The Westray inquiry in Nova Scotia proves that workers cannot depend on their bosses to guarantee health and safety. The Ontario experience proves, on the other hand, that injury prevention programs are effective when they are developed and administered in a bipartite fashion by workers and employers. If Witmer is as committed to workplace health and safety as she claims, she will stop dismantling the most successful program Ontario workers have ever had. go back to the table of contents March 16, 1996The action is coming closer to home. At a meeting last Tuesday, leaders of all the unions in Ontario chose Waterloo Region as the site of the next protest against the Harris government. "Unions representing people from all walks of life," said Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) president Gord Wilson, "will continue to protest the provincial government's anti-people agenda by targeting employers, increasing political action to support the NDP, and supporting OPSEU strikers now in the third week of their first strike." This is exciting news for the growing number of Guelph residents who are fed up with the slash and burn agenda of the Tory government. Many I have spoken with hope the scope of the protest can be extended to include Guelph workplaces. If the organizers decide to keep it within the boundaries of our regional neighbour, they can still count on help from this community. The decision to shut down Waterloo Region makes a lot of sense. Its industrial base was devastated by two recessions in the eighties, both brought about by the policies of federal Tories. Shoe factories, shirt companies, automotive parts plants, a brewery and a distillery all fell victim to Conservative economic policy. Those companies that survived went on, through their trade associations, to bring us the catastrophic Harris government. Now they must understand that if they don't rein Harris in, they will pay a price in lost production. It happened in London, it happened in Hamilton, and it will happen again right next door. The message should soon sink into the grey matter that occupies space between the several pairs of ears around the cabinet table. If it doesn't, these protests will grow into a province-wide shutdown. The Harrisites should not underestimate the depth of the opposition to them. One out of every 100 people living in Ontario showed up in Hamilton last month. Never before in the history of Canada did such a large percentage of the population come out to protest against a government. "Premier Harris and his cabinet are running this province as though it were their own private enterprise," said Wilson. "Ontario voters won't stand for that. They want some say in how their province is run, and for the time being, our protests are the only avenue they have for voicing their opinions." As a past president of the Waterloo Regional Labour Council, I know that the region's workers are well organized in a wide variety of unions, both private and public sector. They have a lot of work to do between now and April 19. It is good work, and for a worthy cause. They'll get it done. go back to the table of contents March 02, 1996Over 100,000 taxpayers showed up in Hamilton last Saturday to give Mike Harris a simple message: they don't want his revolution. He didn't understand. Neither did the party faithful who gathered with him for a policy conference. In their blindness, they pretended that all is well with the world. That their schemes are unfolding as they should. That the screams of pain coming from the sidewalks below are the artificial noises of disgruntled "special interest groups." These blinkered, blustering Tories just don't understand. In the crowd were thousands of teachers. Respectable people who see the education system crumbling under the misdirection of a Minister of Education who couldn't even finish high school. They took buses to their first protest because they care. They care for the children and young adults they teach. And they hurt when they see that John Snobelen doesn't share their care. In the crowd were thousands of nurses. Respectable people who see the health care system crumbling under the misdirection of a Minister of Health who doesn't understand that sick people are not numbers on a budget balance sheet. They took buses to their first protest because they care. They care for their patients. And they hurt when they see that Jim Wilson doesn't share their care. In the crowd were thousands of provincial workers. Most of them work at ordinary clerical jobs. These jobs are not highly paid, but they keep the province functioning. They took buses to their first protest because they care. They care for the people who rely on them to process OHIP claims, to register house purchases, to clear snow from the highways. And they hurt when they see that the government doesn't share their care. They joined with thousands of other respectable people from churches and unions, women's groups, senior citizens and students. Working taxpayers and unemployed taxpayers. Now the teachers are back in their classrooms, the nurses are back in their hospitals, and the provincial workers are on strike. Harris still doesn't understand. He was elected in June. The legislature began sitting on September 27, with over 5,000 people demonstrating at Queen's Park. On December 11, over 15,000 rallied in London. On January 13, 37,000 teachers stood outside Queen's Park. On February 23 and 24, over 120,000 rallied in Hamilton, including 27 bus loads of concerned citizens from Guelph. There have been many other protests in communities all across the province. These protests will not end until Harris, and his obedient cabinet ministers, and his sycophantic back benchers, are swept from office. This will happen whether Harris understands it or not. go back to the table of contents February 17, 1996There is a serious move afoot, pushed by the business community and finding sympathy in government, to break Ontario Hydro into pieces and sell it. Mike Harris set the stage for privatization when he appointed one of his bagmen, Bill Farlinger, to head the utility. Brenda Elliott, our inept Minister of Energy, tipped the hand by selectively firing some of Hydro's directors. She wanted to remove privatization opponents, but a judge ruled she was violating the law. He reinstated them all. A piece of this puzzle was put into place last October when the government repealed labour laws that had evolved gradually over the past half-century. Successor rights were taken away from Crown mployees whose jobs are privatized. This means that new owners do not have to recognize the workers' union, do not have to maintain the same wages and benefits, and can pick and choose who will work for them. Messy details like seniority rights evaporate. The Power Workers' Union represents most of the people who work at Hydro. The two parties are now in contract negotiations. From all appearances, management is using collective bargaining to make Hydro even more attractive to investors. They are demanding "well over $80 million in concessions" the union says, "and they refuse to make a commitment of any sort on successor rights." Years of mismanagement nearly did Hydro in. An obsession with mega-projects ran up an enormous debt. While the corporation was floundering, no one came forward with offers to purchase it. Then, in 1990, we finally elected a government with the commitment to bring Hydro under control. They backed out of new nuclear development, restructured the corporate management, and froze average Hydro rates. When measured against inflation, our electricity bills will actually go down by 15% over the next five years. This will be a legacy of the Rae years, not a result of current policy. Ontario residential rates are lower than those in any neighbouring jurisdiction. Ontario Hydro workers are more productive than those working for any of the American privately owned utilities. Hydro's debt is now going down. If the trend begun under the NDP government is allowed to continue, the debt will be paid off by the end of this decade. Now that this public utility is profitable again, the business community is frothing at the mouth to buy it. They know it is a cash cow. But it is a cow with a difference. They will milk us to feed it. If it is privatized, expect the rate freeze to end, and Hydro bills to go up. It makes far more sense to keep it under public ownership, and use its profitability to pay down the debt. go back to the table of contents February 03, 1996Last Monday, Brenda Elliott stood up in the legislature and voted for Bill 26. After her colleagues had done the same, the Bill was passed, and 47 separate laws were changed. The government acted in unconscionable haste. Even cabinet ministers, people like Al Leech, Elliott, and Mike Harris himself, proved they did not understand the Bill, yet couldn't wait to get their dirty deed done. What, we might ask, was the rush? As soon as they were finished, they adjourned the legislature until March. Why not keep studying the Bill until then? Last Tuesday, Buzz Hargrove spoke in the Steelworkers Hall and provided some answers. Hargrove is the national president of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). The three CAW local unions in town brought him to Guelph for the day, and arranged for a public meeting in the evening. Bill 26 gave the government the power it needs to implement its cut and burn agenda. Hargrove described this as "a transfer of wealth from the neediest people in society to the greediest people in society." He pointed out that they implemented a lot of this agenda without facing the legislature. They cut the wage protection program, froze the minimum wage, chopped the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, and fired all the workers on the WCB board of directors. Incidentally, Elliott recently tried firing union leaders and environmentalists from Hydro's board, but a court order reversed her decision. Now the government can get at the rest of its plans before the legislature resumes. A big part of this involves cutting 27,000 government jobs, about one-third of its workforce. The lay offs won't take place before March, but the groundwork will be laid. Decisions will be taken. Part of the rush is the fact that they are in the final stages of negotiations with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), which represents most of these workers. There is a strong probability that by the middle of February OPSEU members will be on strike against the Harris government. These are the people who do workplace health and safety inspections, who process OHIP claims, who take care of provincial parks. They work in museums and nursing homes, in art galleries and jails. Some make our communities safer, others make them more vibrant. They have already been through severe staff cuts. They all deserve, our support in these difficult times. On Tuesday, we will have the chance to hear about life in the new Ontario from the perspective of the people who make it work. Leah Casselman, president of OPSEU, will speak at Knox Presbyterian Church at 7:00 p.m. go back to the table of contents January 20, 1996It is easy for Brenda Elliott to say she is committed to a healthy environment. Considering her position as Environment Minister, what else would she say? What she has done matters a lot more. Elliott is failing the environment badly. This is not just my assessment. It is also the view of a team of lawyers working for the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). CELA has been extensively involved in environmental assessment casework and law reform for 25 years. Last October, they accused the Ontario government of "working behind closed doors to seriously weaken (a) major law." "Elliott plans to completely exempt solid waste management planning and waste disposal sites from approval under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)," they said. A CELA spokesperson said this represented "the most significant roll-back of environmental legislation since the EAA was enacted by the Bill Davis government in 1975." About a month later, the Harris government introduced its Omnibus Bill 26 which modifies 47 separate pieces of legislation. Seven of them impact directly on the environment. On the same day, they passed a regulation which exempted it from section 15 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR). This is the section that requires a Minister to place all proposed polices and acts which could have significant impact on the environment on the EBR Registry for public comment at least thirty days before implementation. Harris effectively pre-empted any requirement to comply with laws protecting the environment. In an analysis of the Omnibus Bill, CELA says that "numerous amendments to at least seven provincial statutes have been identified which will result in a significant detrimental impact on the environment. By circumventing the requirements of the EBR, the government has blatantly undermined the integrity of the EBR and accountability in the government decision-making process." There isn't room here to outline all the damage the environment could suffer as a result of this Bill. It opens the door to the privatization of public recreational areas such as the Grand River Conservation Authority. It exempts mining companies from requirements to clean up after themselves. It is a far-reaching, ominous piece of legislation that deserves closer scrutiny. But the government is determined to pass it, largely unchanged, on January 29. That is a little over a week away. There is still time for you to help save the environment from Brenda Elliott and her Cabinet colleagues. Call her during the week (836-4190) or fax her a note (836-4191). Tell her that this Bill needs much more thought, and could need some serious changes. Common sense tells us that if something is worth doing, it is worth taking the time to do it properly. go back to the table of contents January 06, 1996The first column of the year is an opportunity to look ahead and foresee the happy events we hope lie in store for us. Winter began early, and a year's supply of snow has already landed. Perhaps we can risk the hope that spring and summer will also arrive early. Perhaps we can start thinking of warm days and our sun-screened bodies stretched out on a beach. This pleasant, mid-winter dreamscape is spoiled by a nasty cloud sitting on the horizon. The beach may not be so pleasant to be on. The provincial government, with the support of local environmentalist minister Brenda Elliott, has decided that it doesn't want to finance the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) program. CURB helped pay the cost of cleaning the waterways that flow to the beaches we sit upon on warm summer days. It was introduced by the NDP government, and it worked well. With those two strikes against it, CURB didn't stand a chance at Harris's cabinet table. When the program was dumped, Elliott said something about not solving environmental problems by throwing money at them. She used to think we could solve them by tossing our money into her cash register, but perspectives change. Now she tells the Toronto Star that "you can't have a healthy environment without a healthy economy." This is a frighteningly incompetent thing for an environment minister to say. There is, in fact, a direct relationship between the "health" of an economy and the danger to the environment. The environment needs to be protected from a "healthy" economy. It cannot protect itself. Elliott's job, as the minister, is to ensure that adequate measures are put into place and enforced. Whether she cares to admit it or not, it costs money to keep effluent from healthy factories away from healthy beaches. It isn't a problem that lends itself to volunteer solutions. We can't drag the kids down to the river's edge to scrub dioxins off the trout. It isn't fair to ask welfare recipients to pay for it, at least not until they are finished paying down the deficit. There is one source of funds that fits so logically, it is common sense to tap into it. Make the corporations who profit from a healthy economy pay the cost of protecting the environment. A corporate green tax to fund CURB and other environmental programs. Stiff fines for polluters. Will Harris and Elliott have the courage, or the good sense, to defend the environment? Judging by their record, and their "omnibus" Bill 26, the answer is no. Bill 26, in fact, will make matters worse, as we will see in the next column. go back to the table of contents |