"From the Left"

The 1998 Guelph Tribune columns

November 04, 1998

The Conservative leadership contest didn't just fail to grab the attention of the Canadian people. It also failed to generate much excitement within the Party itself. On voting day, only about 53 per cent of eligible members bothered to vote. Nonetheless, the results, such as they were, do reflect a general world wide drift away from the politics of the right. The two most solidly right wing candidates were thrashed. Michael Fortier came in last, with 3.8 per cent of the vote, and Brian Pallister came fourth with 12.3 per cent. With 16.4 per cent, David Orchard had more support than both of them put together.

Some of Pallister's supporters whined about Orchard recruiting a crowd of environmentalist riff raff to vote for him, but these are really phony tears. The rules of the game were set by the Party, and agreed to by all candidates. The Pallister supporters are giving us a good example of what this column talked about two weeks ago. Rather than focus on the reality of the types of public policy Canadians are prepared to support, they are concentrating on the side issues of whether or not their process was undermined. The Orchard recruiting was as active here in Guelph as anywhere, but Pallister won the riding. He led 10 of Ontario's 103 ridings, while Orchard won four of them. This should tell Pallister supporters that there is more to it than their superficial analysis indicates.

The fact is that the political pendulum is swinging away from the right, drifting leftwards. It should get through the centre fairly quickly, then move over to the left for a while. We saw this in the recent by-election in the Sudbury area Nickel Belt riding. The Liberals led the polls at the start of the campaign, then collapsed into third place. The NDP confounded most pundits by winning. We can also see the pendulum swing in recent election results across western Europe. In Britain, France, Germany and other countries, alliances are being forged between social democratic parties, Green Parties, and Socialists to establish responsible governments that have taken power away from their Conservative predecessors.

Right wing politics has had its time in the sun, and people can now see it for what it is. Tory members soundly rejected the extreme, border-line Reform agenda that was proposed by Fortier and Pallister, opting instead for the policy-less middle ground occupied by Joe Clark. Even Preston Manning can see the writing on the wall, and knows he can never succeed without some kind of united right wing alternative. The reality is that even this won't get him into the Prime Minister's office.

This should give us some reason for optimism as we move toward the new year and a spring provincial election. The Harris government embodies all the rabid positions that were recently rejected by his own Party members in the leadership campaign. They can be just as decisively rejected by the wider electorate. This still requires a lot of work on the part of those who have been damaged by Harris, but the political atmosphere is out there to make it succeed. As one example, there are signs up and down our highways, and on schools and small town community centres calling on people to save the local school. The right can be defeated, and when we look for a strategic voting alternative to ensure it, we need look no further than the Nickel Belt experience.

go back to the table of contents 



October 21, 1998

The Ontario Conservatives just gathered in Ottawa for their pre-election policy conference. They seem to have conjured up a convenient bogey man to campaign against, something they hope will divert attention away from their sorry record of government. Their Party president, one Peter Van Loan, predicted that the next election will be "aggressive, political trench warfare." That, by itself, is not news. Harris himself dug the trenches three and a half years ago, when he slashed welfare rates, scrapped labour laws, dismantled provincial housing programs and embarked on a course of action that would close schools and hospitals all over the province. What Van Loan contributed to the cause is the declaration that the election will be between the government and the "public sector union bosses," with their " private planes and cushy expense accounts."

Never mind that not one of the leaders of OPSEU, CUPE, the Auto Workers, the Steelworkers or any other union with which I am familiar has a private plane. Never mind that their expense accounts pale in comparison with the norm among business leaders. The thing that matters is that the Tories will fight the election on empty rhetoric and overblown hyperbole. This is typical of the sorry state to which politics has fallen in these end years of the 20th century. It has become a game in which illusions obscure reality, in which appearances outweigh substance.

We see this all the time in American politics, both foreign and domestic. When Clinton needed to divert attention from his marital problems, he announced that a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was a chemical warfare manufacturer, and he ordered it bombed out of existence. After the fact, it became evident that the plant really did produce medical drugs. By that time, though, reality no longer counted. It was something that got in the way of a convenient illusion that advanced a political cause. After that, and other acts of aggression, what are the impeachment hearings all about? Not the reality of dead civilians around the world, but the appearance of a small stain on a blue dress. But, that's politics in the late nineties.

There was a time, when we were all a lot younger, when politicians were admired and respected, when politics was an honorable profession. People like Tommy Douglas could inspire people to follow by the force of their convictions, the strength of their arguments, and the power of their oratory. They have no place in these modern times. Instead, we get Jean Chretien bluffing his way through the APEC affair, dodging his responsibility for the pepper spraying of peaceful protesters last year. Or we get Mike Harris, soundly booed by 30,000 school children at the Sky Dome, turning the blame for his unpopularity onto the teachers. Or we get Peter Van Loan, who can tell an outrageous lie to his party members, and receive applause for doing it.

The next election, possibly the last one we'll have this century, will be fought aggressively by the people who have been hurt by Harris. It won't be just the unions, although they will be a big part of it, as they should be. None of the Tories' opponents will own a private jet. They will be fighting to end the sad decline of late 20th century politics, and to rebuild a political and economic system in which the reality of people's every day lives outweigh the smoke and mirrors of back room spin doctors.

go back to the table of contents 



September 23, 1998

A Credit Union in British Columbia, the Richmond Savings Credit Union, has developed an innovative and entertaining series of advertisements using the fictional "Humungous Bank." Using slogans such as "Your Money is Our Money" and "Customers Are Our Greatest Source of Profits" the Humungous Bank is portrayed as arrogant, greedy and contemptuous of the people who deposit money there.

Last week, with the release of the Report of the Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Services Sector, the Humungous Bank crept off the pages of a publicity campaign and into the reality of Canadian political life. It's going to have devastating effects on people throughout our country. Although there are a total of 124 recommendations in the report, some are worse than others. For example, the report calls for "the elimination, or modification of special capital taxes on financial institutions in order to make them more competitive." Now that's just about exactly what this country needs. Lower taxes on banks. They don't pay their fair share as it is, and now this task force wants them to pay even less! Other recommendations would ease up on domestic ownership rules, and make it easier for foreign banks to set up shop here. The task force report is infused with the idea that if the banks become bigger and more competitive, they will provide better service to customers. This is laughable. They already make obscene profits. Nothing prevents them from investing some of it into improved service, but they are doing exactly the opposite. Yet the report paves the way for them to merge and become even bigger. The obvious result of this will be job losses, and closures of bank branches. If the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal merge, does anyone really expect both branches on St. George's Square to stay open? Will they keep everyone currently employed in these branches? Not likely.

Paul Martin, the Finance Minister, now faces the task of implementing these recommendations in the face of general opposition among Canadians to the idea of giving more power and tax exemptions to banks. My guess is that he'll do it. He'll set up some sort of consultation process that will exclude the voices of most Canadians, then he will announce that the solution is to control the banks and empower the customers who use them. Then he'll give the banks exactly what they want. The Humungous Bank will become even more so. There'll be less branches and more service charges.

Fortunately, there is something we can do about all this. It's something I've been doing for over 25 years. Get out of their clutches. When the vultures' claws close in on your throat, move away. I haven't deposited any of my money in a chartered bank since I joined what is now the Guelph-Wellington Credit Union. Credit Unions are member controlled financial institutions. When you join, you get the right to attend general membership meetings, take part in the decision making process, and elect the Board of Directors. Credit unions are cooperative organizations rooted in the communities where their members live. Many workplaces have small credit unions. Because of this, they are much more responsive to the needs of their members than the Humungous Bank could ever be. Instead of sucking wealth out of small town Canada, credit unions invest locally and help build the communities in which they exist. As Richmond Savings says in its ads, credit unions are not banks. They're better.

go back to the table of contents 



September 09. 1998

Two of Labour Day's main messages converge this year. In most years, for most people, the Labour Day weekend marks the end of summer and the start of yet another school year. For others, it has been the time to celebrate the achievements of working people and their unions. In 1998, the unions receiving most of the focus are the ones that bind our teachers together, the ones that help set the standards and working conditions under which our children will learn. As many observers have noted, this is a pivotal moment in the evolution of the education system itself, and in the lives of our teachers, our children, and the government.

We should remember, as we examine the mess the Tories have created in our schools, that unions have lost none of their relevancy for all of us, no matter where we work. Unionized workplaces are safer. The effectiveness of joint health and safety committees is higher, as is the rate of compliance with laws and regulations. According to a report issued by Statistics Canada last week, full-time workers who are not in a union earn, on average, about 75 per cent of the wages of their unionized counterparts. Part-time workers who belong to a union earn twice as much as those who don't. Women in unions get about 90 per cent of the wages earned by men, while those who are unorganized get only 77 per cent. No matter which way you look at it, workers need unions just as much today as we ever did.

Besides negotiating collective agreements that protect workers from the uncertainties of economic mood swings, unions have a vital role to play in setting public policy, and protecting their members from the effects of bad policy. That is what the secondary school teachers unions, both public and Catholic, are doing now. Last fall, the government passed a law which dramatically restricts and interferes with the ability of teachers to do their jobs. Bill 160 took control of education out of the hands of those closest to its delivery, the parents and local school boards, and gave it to distant government bureaucrats. In a letter released just before the weekend, Education Minister David Johnson made matters worse by attempting to redefine instructional and non-instructional time. This is probably the central issue in school board negotiations around the province, and it should be settled at the table, not in Ministerial broadsides. If unresolved, teachers will not have enough hours during the school day to engage in extracurricular activities such as athletics, drama and others.

The teachers are fighting to defend what used to be a quality education system. It is a fight that can be won, and which has been won in some school boards. In the Near North, for example, an agreement was reached which meets the demands of Bill 160 while also allowing the teachers the ability to teach properly. This school board encompasses the provincial ridings held by Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. What is good enough for students in Harris's riding should be good enough for us.

Life could get fairly chaotic in Guelph high schools over the next few weeks, but it will settle down. Whether or not our children continue to receive the education they deserve after this fight is won or lost depends largely on the extent to which we support our teachers. As they always seem to do, they are putting themselves on the line for their students.

go back to the table of contents 



August 26, 1998

You may not have noticed, but the race to fill the leadership vacuum within the federal Progressive Conservative Party is now in full swing. The battle is on, but hardly raging, to become the big fish in a dwindling pond. There could have been more candidates, and the event could have been more colourful, had the Party establishment not thrown up a huge road block. A $30,000 registration fee kept out "fringe candidates." When nominations closed on July 31, five men were willing to cough up the cash.

The Conservatives have been in the throes of a leadership crisis since the mid-eighties, when former leader Brian Mulroney took them to record lows in opinion polls. He jumped ship, and left the sinking vessel in the hands of Kim Campbell. Between the two of them, they took the Party from a huge majority to near oblivion. The rout went down in history as the most severe drubbing any elected government has ever suffered, anywhere. After that, Jean Charest led them back from two seats in Parliament to the 19 they hold today. This was such a remarkable achievement that Charest was drafted to lead the Quebec Liberal Party in its battle against the separatists. Now two former cabinet ministers in Mulroney's government are competing to become premier of Quebec, and neither is leading the Conservative Party.

Of the five who do want to lead it, three have never been elected to public office, one has been in the Manitoba legislature for six years, and one is a former leader and Prime Minister. Joe Clark's currency among Canadians went up after he was dumped as leader by a revolt within his Party. He is highly regarded mostly because he is seen in comparison with Mulroney and Campbell, something that makes just about anyone look good. He is the front runner, with Hugh Segal coming second. Segal has big contacts in the engine room of the ship. He is a former policy advisor to Mike Harris and three former Ontario Tory premiers, dating back to Bill Davis. He was also an advisor to Mulroney, and an architect of the revolt that brought Clark down. Michael Fortier, a Quebec lawyer, wants to steer the Tories closer to the Reform Party, and is sympathetic to the idea of merging the two. Brian Pallister, a Manitoba cabinet minister, wants to adopt enough of their policies that Reform members will scuttle their ship and rejoin the Conservatives. At the moment, Pallister is in third place. Fortier is tied for last, and isn't given any hope of winning.

Neither is David Orchard, but he is a horse of a different colour. He is sort of the green candidate. As a co-founder of Citizens Concerned About Free Trade, he hasn't been endorsed by any of the Party's movers and shakers. He is, however, supported by the Ontario and British Columbia sections of the Green Party. Rumour has it that Green Party members are being encouraged to buy Tory memberships and vote for him in October. This is one of those bizarre aberrations that crop up from time to time on the left coast of the political ocean. Turn the opposition around from the inside out. It has never worked before, and it won't work now. Both Orchard and the Green Party could have kept their dignity and credibility intact by staying out of the Tories' affairs. That's what I intend to do. More or less.

go back to the table of contents 



August 12, 1998

Contrary to popular opinion, money is not the cause of all evil. The inequitable distribution of money is. Those who don't have any do what they can to get some. Those who have too much use every means available to keep it. That's where the conflicts begin. Of course, wealth has been distributed unfairly since long before any of us in Guelph have been alive, and it continues to be concentrated in the bank accounts of an easily identifiable group. For the most part, this does not include women, visible minorities, native Canadians or people with disabilities. These people tend to be stuck in low paying jobs, or in no job at all.

A Statistics Canada report released last June revealed that almost one-third of men who had earnings below the poverty line in 1993 moved to better paying jobs by 1995. Only 17 per cent of women, and just 12 per cent of single mothers, managed to move above the poverty line. Although the study doesn't mention them, people in the other disadvantaged groups had no better luck escaping poverty. Interestingly, it found that 32 per cent of the people who escaped poverty did so as a result of joining a union.

No government in Canada has ever confronted the cause of this disparity in wealth, but some have attempted to offset its effects through pay equity legislation. Under these laws, jobs are analyzed and compared. Those which require relatively equal skills, or which are of similar value to an employer must be paid at the same level. Not surprisingly, this analysis usually uncovers jobs performed by women that are undervalued and under compensated when compared to jobs performed by men. Such was the situation within the federal public service. Thirteen years ago, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union representing federal workers, launched a court action to force the federal government to abide by its own pay equity law. A couple of weeks ago, a Human Rights Tribunal ruled that 190,000 women were entitled to back pay estimated at being anywhere from one to seven billion dollars. At its high end, this averages out to about $2800 per year for each woman.

Early in the game, the Mulroney government tried to derail the Tribunal's work by throwing up repeated court challenges. In 1993, when he was opposition leader, Jean Chretien condemned these legal delays, and promised "a Liberal government would abide by the Tribunal's decision." Now that he is Prime Minister, he is searching around for reasons to appeal the decision and further delay its implementation. The Reform Party, needless to say, is urging the government to appeal. One of their MPs, John Williams, said pay equity "is a bureaucratic notion that fails to take market forces into account." Libby Davis, an NPD MP, welcomed the decision and urged the government to pay up. The few Tories in the House, probably remembering who got the government into this mess in the first place, are staying quiet.

This is a fundamental issue of justice. Had these jobs been fairly valued all along, the women workers would have been taking that money home in their weekly pay cheques. They could have paid off some debts, maybe saved a bit, and certainly paid out less in loan or credit card interest. It is clearly their money, and the Liberals should stop their shameful attempts to weasel out of paying it.

go back to the table of contents 



July 30, 1998

Small problems that are not dealt with properly do not go away. The longer they fester, the worse they get. Our police chief should have learned this a long time ago. Apparently she didn't, and a situation that could have been put to rest eight and a half months ago continues to cast a shadow over her department.

Last November 18, in the middle of widespread anger over Bill 160, the Minister of Education came to Guelph for a fund raising dinner. A couple of thousand teachers, students and parents turned out to let him know what they thought of his plans to gut the public education system. The Guelph police, bolstered by reinforcements from other communities, were obviously inexperienced and ill-prepared to deal with this crowd. They arrested protesters for actions which, at larger protests in larger cities, would have gone unnoticed. By the end of the night, the holding cells at the police station were full. This was a violation of an agreement reached with the teachers' unions, and the local labour council, not to hold people in custody. Those arrested were to have been brought to the station, charged with breach of the peace and released with instructions not to return to the protest. With no room left on Fountain St., seven women were sent to the Wellington Detention Centre on Stone Road where they were subjected to the gross indignity of a strip search. This was unnecessary, and wrong.

The police used the detention centre as an extension of their holding cells. The women, who shouldn't have been in cells in the first place, could have gone there under the same rules as apply at the police station. They would not have been strip searched downtown, and it should not have happened at Stone Rd. The police could have made this agreement with the provincial correctional officers. Having failed to do so, they should have apologized to the women and assured the community that similar lapses of judgment will not happen again. This would have resolved the situation. But the police missed the opportunity. They denied that a problem exists, and decided no corrective action was called for. They tried to stonewall the situation, hoping that if they waited long enough it would go away.

But it didn't. The women showed themselves to be more courageous and determined than the police had expected. As a result, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association became involved. Five of the women filed formal complaints. Now the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services has asked the Waterloo Regional Police to investigate the complaints. If there is any cause for concern in this, it is that the Waterloo police were on standby alert last November, ready to come in to Guelph if the crowd grew bigger, or became unruly.

The most important thing about this review is that it must be perceived to be impartial, open and fair. It cannot be seen as a whitewash of the Guelph force. Such an outcome would not do either the community or the police any good. There are many good police officers in Guelph. I've seen them deal with domestic matters sensitively and carefully. It isn't a stretch for them to extend this to matters of political and civil protest. It can be seen as part of the maturing process that people and organizations go through. One sign of maturity is knowing when to say "I'm sorry." For the police, that time is now.

go back to the table of contents 



July 15, 1998

Sometimes, a strike will take on an importance that outweighs the workers involved. We can see this right now in two disputes that, on the surface, bear little resemblance to each other. One is far away, the other is close to home. In Flint, Michigan, two General Motors plants are on strike. As the effect of the shutdown rippled through the auto industry, workers at other General Motors facilities and at parts suppliers began to receive lay off notices. Closer to home, 74 nurses are on strike against the Waterloo-Wellington-Dufferin branch of the Victorian Order of Nurses (VON). They are part of a wider strike, involving almost 600 members of the Practical Nurses Federation of Ontario (PNFO) and the provincial VON. The General Motors strike is important because of the effect the workers are having on the economy. The nurses' strike is important because of the effect the economy is having on workers.

In their press releases, the local branch of the VON is making much of an unresolved dispute about car allowances. They claim the dispute turns around an eight cent difference in the rate paid for use of a car on the job. The union counters this by pointing to a 25 per cent reduction in wages, statutory holidays, vacations, and bereavement leave. The employer has also won significant changes limiting the nurses' rights at times of lay off, recall, job security and contracting out. The nurses have reached the limit of their ability to give back hard won rights and benefits.

The issues behind this strike go deeper than the tough decisions each side must make during bargaining. The root of the trouble is the way the Harris government is changing our way of life. The community care givers who work for the VON and other agencies are on the edge of the drift towards a privatized, two tier health care system. For the practical nurses, the drift began when the government established 43 Community Care Access Centres across the province. At the same time, they brought in a new competitive bidding system in which established, non-profit organizations like the VON had to go head to head against new, privately owned and profit oriented organizations. In order to compete against these unorganized companies, the VON began slashing the wages and benefits of its workers. The first to feel the hits were non-union staff and some managers. A collective agreement protected the nurses, but now that it has expired they are also feeling the blows. Executive director Sandra Hanmer admits all this in a press release where she talks about the "significant loss of market share" they suffered through Community Care Access Centres. She also talks about lobbying MPPs to express her concerns about "the competitive model of service delivery." Under this model, the providers of the cheapest services win the contracts and go on to receive public funding.

Practical nurses go into people's homes and care for the sick, the injured and the dying. They work under conditions unsuited for proper patient handling, and suffer back injuries and other ailments. They face hazards from violent and dysfunctional patients and frustrated family members. These nurses should be the best available, not the cheapest. Competitive bidding may well have a place within the automobile industry, but not within the health care system. The monetary issues in this strike are not nearly as deep as are the political and social issues.

go back to the table of contents 



July 01, 1998

"It is wonderful to feel the grandness of Canada in the raw," Emily Carr wrote, "not because she is Canada but because she's something sublime that you were born into, some great rugged power that you are a part of."

The other day, I was listening to The Canadiana Suite by the Oscar Peterson Trio. It's a beautiful piece of music that captures the sublime power Carr was talking about. Most poets and painters, musicians and writers, playwrights and film makers who give life to the heart and soul of our country are able to feel what most politicians forget: Canada is a country of great wealth and enormous potential. To achieve our potential, though, we must be willing to redistribute our wealth on a much more equitable basis.

Peterson composed his Suite in 1964, when Canada had a minority government. Tommy Douglas and the New Democratic Party held the balance of power. Many of our social programs were born during this government. The Canada Health Act took socialized medical care out of Saskatchewan, where Douglas pioneered it while he was the provincial premier, and applied it to the country. It was also the start of unemployment insurance, the Canada pension plan and other programs.

Thirty-four years ago, people had confidence in the future of this country. We saw that government has a strong, positive role to play in setting social policy, and in enacting the measures needed to protect the weak and the poor. Some programs, such as UI, transferred income directly to individuals in need. Others were designed to transfer programs to poorer provinces. Put together, they were a recognition that a country is a community of citizens, not a business with shareholders and consumers. It wasn't a perfect country then. There was deep poverty. Racism existed. Women had few rights. Native people had even fewer. But there was hope.

Oscar Peterson understood the hope, and wrote it into his Suite. The son of a railway porter, he grew up in St. Henri, one of the poorer working class areas of Montreal. No doubt his vision of our country was aided by life on the road, playing in American jazz clubs during the forties and fifties. The problems of race and poverty down there have always been much deeper, more bitter, and more divisive than we ever experienced. We have a higher sense of collective rights, and of the common good, than they have. If our country seems so great, it is partly because we are always seen in comparison to the Americans. It is also, in a larger part, because of what we built for ourselves and our children.

This is why it is so frustrating to hear people decry our social safety net, and threaten to replace it with the American private enterprise model. They think nothing of borrowing money to buy a house or a car, yet are offended at the idea of borrowing to finance welfare programs. They are blind to the fact that it is precisely these programs that give security and peace of mind to a lot of people who would otherwise be marginalized. People who could be committing the crimes that make American cities fearful places to visit.

I choose to defend our social programs because, in the words of the beer commercial, I Am Canadian. As we celebrate Canada Day, we should feel its sublime grandness and dedicate ourselves to defending what is good, and changing what isn't.

go back to the table of contents 



June 17, 1998

Tomorrow, NDP members from across Wellington County will assemble at St. George's Church to choose their candidate for the next provincial election. This kicks off the local campaign to bring a measure of social justice back to Ontario. The three declared candidates, Phil Allt, Elaine Rogala and Bruce Abel, all bring a wealth of experience to this task. Allt and Abel are both high school teachers and active members of their respective locals of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF). Rogala is a community activist from the rural area of the riding. Their unique strengths make the outcome of tomorrow's nomination meeting anything but certain.

The one thing that is clear is that our incumbent Tory MPP, Brenda Elliott, will not be re-elected. She embarrassed her constituents during her sorry term as Minister of the Environment, and has been all but invisible ever since. A community as environmentally committed as Guelph is unlikely to send her back for another kick at the can. She knows this, and her local riding association knows it. Speculation is that she will cite "personal reasons" for not even seeking re-nomination. Then they will face the problem of finding a credible candidate to run in her place. Although financially healthy, with about $28,000 in their bank account, the local Conservative Association is suffering from organizational and political ineptitude. A bungled attempt to control municipal politics, ending last week with the sudden resignation of Lynda Prior, has destroyed their credibility.

Similarly, the Liberals locally are thrashing about in search of a candidate. The only person to declare so far is former Tribune columnist Maggie Laidlaw. If she is successful, her biggest problem will be reconciling her own environmental and social positions with those of Dalton McGuinty. The official Party line is that the only thing wrong with Mike Harris is that he is going too far, too fast. They don't disagree with the direction in which he is taking the province. If the Liberal establishment has its way, we won't have the chance to watch Laidlaw twist and turn as she attempts to deal with this obvious contradiction.

With the local Tories in disarray, and after the local Liberals turn their backs on a committed environmentalist and social activist, the field will become wide open here. Regardless of which candidate wins the nomination tomorrow, the NDP will have as good a chance as anyone of sending the next member to Queen's Park. In the last federal election, Rogala held onto the NDP vote in the face of a general decline in support across the province. In the 1994 municipal election, Allt came within 75 votes of defeating Dan Schnurr. Although untested in public elections, Abel has been waging an enthusiastic campaign to win the nomination. Put any of these three into a campaign, armed with the policies adopted at the NDP's recent "Dialogue for Change" convention, and anything can happen.

There was a time, back in the days of Alf Hales and Harry Worton, when Guelph voters were famously loyal to the incumbent. Now, things are different. Incumbents have a short political life expectancy these days. On top of this, I can't remember a time when Guelph sent the same Party to both Ottawa and Queen's Park. Those two facts alone should give Abel, Allt and Rogala good reason to crank up their campaigns for tomorrow's nomination.

go back to the table of contents 



June 03, 1998

Next Monday is the third anniversary of the election of the Mike Harris government. To mark the event, the labour movement will hold the eleventh, and last, single community shut down. This time, Kingston will be the focus of political protest against the excesses of this disastrous government. After that, the attention will shift to a general closure of workplaces throughout the province, probably for one day in October. At the same time, activists will begin preparing for the next provincial election. It is possible that one could be called as early as this fall. If not, then next Spring will be the time. Here in Guelph-Wellington riding, the New Democratic Party will nominate its candidate on June 18.

Over the past three years, the Harris government abandoned its responsibility to provide good government for the majority of our citizens. It turned its back on the problems faced by low income Ontarians. It downloaded expensive social programs to municipalities. It provocatively rolled back labour laws that had been in place for decades. Welfare families are still coping with the 21 per cent cut in benefits. Provincial non-profit housing development was stopped. Shelters for abused and battered women were cut. Environmental laws and regulations have been gutted. Hospitals are closing. The education system is in chaos. The damage list goes on and on.

Last week, a number of the people who have been hurt by these cuts attended a meeting at Knox Presbyterian Church. The meeting, organized by the Guelph Labour Council, the Guelph Coalition for Social Justice and the Ontario Federation of Labour, was for real people to tell real stories about their experiences in Ontario today. The stories were not pleasant, but they were all underscored by a determination to do something to prevent a repeat of the disaster that overtook us all three years ago. Similar town hall meetings have been held in many other communities across the province. According to OFL president Wayne Samuelson, similar grim stories were told in each and every one of them. For working and unemployed people in Ontario, these have been a hard three years.

As far as Harris is concerned, these people don't matter. They don't donate to his Party. They don't buy tickets to expensive Tory fundraising dinners. They don't sit shoulder to shoulder with other wealthy men in blue suits around corporate boardroom tables. They are not the movers and shakers. They are the stones from which he will squeeze another drop of blood. They are the almost empty wallets from which he will pull out the money needed to finance his tax cut.

But some good has come out of this waking nightmare. In all the 11 cities where "Days of Action" have shut down major employers, coalitions were built, alliances were forged, and relationships were strengthened. On a smaller scale, in the many more communities where town hall meetings were held, similar coalitions worked together organizing them. When the main events are over, the political commitment remains. Although the fire of protest may not appear to be burning as brightly as it did on that cold day in London when the first day of action took place, it is still with us. It flares up, as at the Holiday Inn last fall, then it cools down, but it is always there. This sense of common purpose will last until the people of Ontario reclaim our future and take back our province.

go back to the table of contents 



May 20, 1998

The Ontario government wants to portray itself as a kinder, gentler version of the Reform Party. After trying to bludgeon the surviving Dionne quints into even deeper poverty, Harris says he now wants to compensate some of the people who contracted Hepatitis C through blood transfusions. Of course, none of them have got any money yet, and we still don't know what hoops they'll have to jump through to prove they didn't get the disease through intravenous drug use or non-traditional family practices. Nonetheless, these individuals deserve justice, and we all hope they get it. If I were one of them, I wouldn't be holding my breath, though. A government truly interested in treating sick and dying people with compassion wouldn't be closing so many hospitals.

The government's image makers keep getting confounded by the policy makers, people who are incapable of being kinder and gentler at anything. Just take a look at two recent announcements for proof. For one, they recently deregulated tuition fees for medical and law schools. Universities can now charge as much as they like for these and other professional programs. For another, last week they introduced the Prevention of Unionization Act to try and stop workfare participants from joining unions. Both are mean spirited attacks on the rights of working people.

Over the past couple of decades, universities have become increasingly inaccessible to the sons and daughters of working families. Even though this education ultimately benefits all of society, we are gradually abandoning our social obligation to subsidize it. Now Harris has made it impossible for anyone but the already wealthy to become doctors, lawyers or business administrators. On May 12, Statistics Canada released a report of the 1996 census data on income levels. It showed that for most Canadians, 1995 earnings were lower than in 1985. It also compared the incomes of university graduates with non-graduates. Those who finished university reported average earnings of $42,054, high school graduates averaged $22,846, and high school drop outs averaged $19,000. Mike Harris, the kinder gentler premier, has denied working class kids the right to participate in that higher income group.

In case people fail to fully understand the kinder, gentler message, the Tories have decided that the best way to help the working poor is to keep them that way. Last week, Workfare Minister Janet Ecker introduced a law to prevent welfare recipients who are forced into workfare from joining a union. Many of the people working in anti-poverty and social justice groups have argued that workfare serves only two purposes. First, it is designed to make welfare recipients feel that it is their own fault they are poor, that poverty is not a necessary side effect of a free enterprise, market economy. Poor families just lack ambition. Second, it provides a ready supply of cheap labour that will drive down public sector wages. The government, on the other hand, says it wants to provide meaningful employment, and a sense of dignity, to welfare recipients. It is through union membership that workers receive this. All the other workers in Guelph have the right to join a union if they so choose. Where is the justice in denying this fundamental right to people who were, for the most part, forced onto welfare when their other employment opportunities closed down?

These are not acts of a kinder, gentler government.

go back to the table of contents 



May 06, 1998

Bob Runciman, the Solicitor-General of Ontario, resigned after a section of the provincial Throne Speech was found to be in violation of a federal law. About a week earlier, Dan Schnurr threatened to resign from city council after his influence on the finance and administration committee was curtailed. Unfortunately, he didn't. The two incidents, though, are connected. Taken together, they provide evidence that should give us all reason to worry about the judgment and credibility of right wing municipal and provincial politicians.

The Schnurr episode was particularly troubling because it erupted in the middle of an extremely emotional situation. Schnurr's two political allies on the finance committee, Linda Prior and Phil Cumming, had just been given the heave. Schnurr himself had been removed as chair of the committee. The three of them had the smell of sour grapes on their breath as hot words flew out of their mouths. One of the tests against which any politician should be judged is the ability to stand up to a crisis, to weather a storm. Regardless of political persuasion, they need to know how to accept political defeats when they happen, and how to move on to fight again. Maturity and honesty are important to the democratic political process. When they are absent, the public's cynicism about politics increases. These three failed the test.

They had no one to blame but themselves for their political rout. The three of them had consistently disrupted the budget process, to the point where council as a whole finally had to take it over. Instead of learning a lesson, the trio immediately turned their sour grapes into whine. Schnurr threatened to do us all a favour and resign his seat. One of the three, we'll probably never know who, then proceeded to make up a story that maligned one of the more sensible members of council. Whoever it was should now do the decent thing and offer Cathy Downer, and all the citizens of Guelph, a public apology. Then he or she should resign from council.

Blame for the Runciman affair should rest with Mike Harris. The Throne Speech is written in the Premier's office, and everything in it is checked and approved by him and his top aides. They decided they could score some political points by pointing to ordinary Ontarians who allegedly support what they have done. In trying to portray themselves as a kinder, gentler version of the people who brought in boot camps for young people, they violated the Young Offenders Act. The Solicitor-General's office supplied the name of a young offender, and the Premier's office identified the individual in the speech. The Act specifically prohibits anyone from doing anything that identifies a young offender. Just as Runciman had to resign from cabinet because of this, so should Harris. Whether or not the conservatives like this particular law, they are still obliged to obey it. If Harris's aides chose to break it, either out of ignorance or some misguided sense that it doesn't matter, then Harris himself has to wear the blame.

Harris, Schnurr, Prior and Cumming have all shown an inability to accept the consequences of their own actions. They have shown, instead, that they will cast about for someone to hide behind, someone who will deflect attention away from their own inadequacies. This is not the style of politics that I want for my city or my province, and I don't think anyone else does either.

go back to the table of contents 



April 22, 1998

Last year, over 750 Canadian workers died from injuries or diseases they received on the job. Over 200 of them were in Ontario. Already this year, one worker has died at work in Guelph. Thousands of others die from illnesses they contract at work but which are not recognized by the government compensation system.

There is only one way to stop this carnage. Working people must have the authority to act on health and safety issues. They must have a meaningful role on joint health and safety committees, and they must receive effective training about the hazards they face, and measures they can take to eliminate them. At the moment, all Ontario workplaces with over 20 employees must have a joint committee. That is the law, and it has been since 1979, when the Occupational Health and Safety Act was passed. It might not be the law for much longer.

The Ontario legislature resumes sitting with a Throne Speech tomorrow. This signifies the start of what most Ontarians hope will be the last session of the Harris government. Reliable information indicates that on Monday, they will introduce another of their infamous omnibus bills. This one will include a section that eliminates the mandatory requirement for joint health and safety committees.

If Harris succeeds, this will be an outrage of massive proportions. Health and safety committees will only exist in unionized workplaces. Other workers will have nowhere to turn for protection other than to the closest union organizer. Joint committees came from a recommendation of a royal commission set up to investigate conditions in Ontario's mining industry. Uranium workers in Elliott Lake, nickel miners in Sudbury, gold miners in Kirkland Lake were dying of cancer, or cave-ins, at alarming rates. The commission soon found that similar diseases and sudden fatalities were claiming workers in every type of industry, public and private. Is this where Mike Harris wants to return us?

Working people have three fundamental rights when it comes to protecting their health and safety. These are: the right to know about the hazards we face; the right to participate in the development and implementation of health and safety programs; and the right to refuse unsafe work. The foundation for these rights is the joint health and safety committee. If this bedrock is taken away, everything we have built upon it will fall. Our ability to protect ourselves from fatal or crippling injuries and diseases will be severely weakened.

In 1991, one out of every four deaths in Canada was caused by cancer. Now, it is one in three. The World Health Organization has found that 90 per cent of cancers are caused by environmental toxins, most of which originate in industrial activity. The quickest way to control cancer is to eliminate the workplace substances that cause it. If we get them out of the workplace, we will get them out of the environment. To do this, we need effective health and safety committees.

When Harris attacks our health and safety at work, he doesn't just threaten workers. He is also threatening our families and our communities. When this happens, we have no choice but to fight back. Next Tuesday, the day after the omnibus bill, is the national day of mourning for workers killed or injured on the job. The Labour Council will mark the event at 11:00 a.m. in front of city hall. Show up, and let Harris know what you think of his latest outrage.

go back to the table of contents 



April 08, 1998

In the early stages of urban development, towns and villages were built around a common space, often a field or a meadow. This "village green" was a place for townsfolk to gather in festivals and fairs, sporting events, theatrical performances and the like. It provided a centre for the town, and the citizens received a sense of community from their common shared experiences. Of course, that was all in a long ago time. The steady march of progress has given us wider roads, bigger buildings, sprawling cities and a population that often feels deprived of a sense of purpose and place.

Some cities have dealt with this growth more successfully than others. The cities that failed to manage their growth forgot about the principle of the village green. They allowed urban sprawl to run rampant, and neglected their cores. Without a central focus, their communities have no heart, no soul. A community without these things loses its vitality. Its spirit withers, and its people become fragmented.

To our credit, Guelph has managed to avoid many of the mistakes that other cities this size have made. Last year, we became the envy of community planners across Ontario when we successfully resisted the drive to locate big box chain stores on our northern and southern flanks. City council's move to keep them out was an affirmation of our downtown core. Now that the councillors have all but completed the budget process, they are faced with another decision that can strengthen the heart of the city. The choice of locations for the new stadium should be clear. It must go downtown, and the old Eaton's store is a good and imaginative location for it.

The River Run Centre and the new stadium can be the modern equivalent of a village green. Together, they will act as a magnet, drawing people into our downtown. We have already seen how the River Run Centre can be used as a site for community events. Last year's Labour Day picnic, located on the grounds outside the performing arts centre, was one of the most successful in years. The Co-operators Hall has been put to good use as a meeting place where city councillors can hear from citizens on issues of the day. The DuMaurier Theatre, serendipitously named after a cigarette brand that was named after an English stage actor, has already hosted a wide variety of world famous performers. Locating the sports facility across the road from it is a logical next step in the revitalization of the downtown.

This makes sense from both a community and economic point of view. The owners of the Emerald Inn have already stated that if the stadium is built in the Eaton Centre, they will invest up to $10 million in a new development project. Residential developers are talking about new or renovated housing units on Macdonell, Wyndham and Carden Streets. The innovative Matrix Centre has shown developers the possibilities that exist in this area. We already have a superb range of fine restaurants and pubs within easy walking distance of St. George's Square, the River Run Centre and the new stadium. They are all fine spots to meet before or after an event. The entire city will benefit from a vital sports and entertainment complex that links the Square to the River. If it is good for people, and also good for businesses, how could council put the stadium anywhere else?

go back to the table of contents 



March 25, 1998

In an overwhelming display of good sense, city councillors decided to take control of this year's budget process out of the hands of the Finance and Administration Committee. Only two councillors, Dan Schnurr and Phil Cumming, were opposed. They are both members of the committee, and wanted to use it to cut city services rather than increase taxes. Even their Tory cronies around the horseshoe recognize that there is no sense tilting at the taxation windmills after what Mike Harris did to them. But our two municipal Don Quixotes continue to do chase their impossible dream, refusing to recognize reality, even when it threatens to knock them off their horses.

A couple of weeks ago, Lynda Prior was one of them. Actually, she still is. She's just a bit subdued now as she recovers from a case of foot in mouth disease she caught after taking some bad advice. Prior wanted to throw a lot of hard working city employees out of work. She didn't really care about the devastation this would wreak upon their families, as long as her own property tax didn't go up. Prior is unrepentant about this callous disregard for the people who keep our city running, but she has abandoned the fight. She can see that the $2.5 million shortfall from provincial down loading is an insurmountable barrier. Prior has now set her sights on a 3.5 per cent tax increase. Even this can't be accomplished without further cuts to city services. Odds are that we will end up with an increase closer to 5 per cent.

This whole budget exercise shows the true results of the trickle down economics preached by right wing politicians and their financier pals. This theory, in its simplest terms, says that cutting taxes puts more money into people's pockets. This money gets spent. The spending results in increased employment in the manufacturing and service sectors of the economy. The increased employment puts even more money into people's pockets. It is a simple minded solution to complicated problems, and, not surprisingly, it doesn't work.

The only thing that has trickled down is pain. Any money that working families could have saved through Harris's tax cut will be lost through city taxes and user fees. In the meanwhile, child poverty continues to rise as families struggle with the cruel realities of neo-conservative economic policy. Instead of money trickling down onto the heads of the poor, it is flooding up to the already wealthy. While the poor become poorer, the rich get richer.

A tax cut could have been possible, if a fair taxation system had been put in place by higher levels of government. A measure as simple as the Tobin tax, devised by a Nobel prize winning Harvard economist, could have eliminated the deficit quickly and painlessly. This tax would put a 0.2 per cent levy on all international financial transactions. A tremendous amount of wealth is made in the international money markets, and none of it is taxed. With the Tobin tax, the bond traders would still do very well for themselves while being forced to contribute something towards easing the social chaos they cause.

Unfortunately, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have the political will to do this. As a result, our city councillors have to operate in an environment where they have very few options. Given the realities within which they must make their choices, a tax freeze is politically and morally impossible.
 

go back to the table of contents 



March 11, 1998

Guelph city councillors are finding out what it is like to live at the bottom of the food chain. For the past month or so, they have been trying to come up with a budget that doesn't increase taxes and doesn't reduce services. An impossible task, if ever there was one. The best they can manage so far is to reduce an anticipated 10 per cent tax increase to about five per cent. The big feeders at the top of the chain, in Ottawa and Queen's Park, haven't left many options open for municipal governments.

Government budgets are all about values, choices and priorities. Over the years, the federal government could have easily eliminated the deficit, and the accumulated debt, by implementing an equitable tax system. They could have taxed the banks, for example, or put a small surcharge on financial transactions. Either of these moves would have enabled them to maintain the social services that working and lower income Canadians rely on. But the federal Liberals' priorities lie elsewhere. Their election campaigns are funded by the banks and large corporations. When faced with the choice of inconveniencing corporate Canada or making the people suffer, we know where they went. As a result, unemployment went up, homelessness went up, child poverty went up, and bank profits went up. Similarly, the provincial Tories exposed their values when they stubbornly pursued an income tax cut for their wealthy friends. In order to finance it, they downloaded services onto municipalities. This eased the provincial tax burden, but put an unbearable strain on the cities. It was supposed to have been revenue neutral, but in reality it added about $2.5 million to the cost of running our city. Guelph councillors are trying to cope with this pressure.

We can see this fight over values and priorities being played out in the council chambers. A graphic illustration can be seen when we look at the issues of roads and transportation in the city. One of the decisions still up in the air relates to bus fares, and whether or not they should be raised to $1.75. Another decision which apparently has been made is to go ahead with the widening of Gordon Street from Hart's Lane to Clair Rd. Experience in Toronto and other cities has shown that transit use drops every time fares go up, and that these passengers do not return. It has also shown that widening roads is a self-defeating way to ease traffic congestion. Wider roads just attract more vehicles. Quite often, these vehicles are occupied by people who would have taken public transit, if it were available and convenient. When money is in short supply, as it undoubtedly is, we have to sustain, and even expand, vital services like public transit. It is clearly the most effective way to ease traffic congestion.

Every time I drive by the Hanlon/Wellington construction site, I have to grit my teeth at the sheer folly of this monument to poor planning. It is especially galling when you compare the expense of this project to the cost of opening the library on Sundays. We need better library and transit service. We can live without wider roads and overpasses. These are the types of choices facing city council. If the councillors choose wisely, their constituents will tolerate the accompanying tax increase.
 

go back to the table of contents 



February 25, 1998

As I write this column, news reports are coming in that the United Nations secretary-general has reached an agreement with the government of Iraq that could head off another Gulf War. The peculiar thing about the reports, though, is that we are still not sure if the deal will be good enough for the United States. Bill Clinton seems to be in the mood for a fight, and reluctant to recognize a solution when he sees one. Jean Chretien should recognize it, and pull our military back. It was an ill-advised decision to join this expedition in the first place, and we should take this opportunity to get out and stay out.

Seven years ago, it took the Americans six weeks to beat up a country that hardly fought back. In the intervening years, there have been numerous air strikes against the Middle Eastern country. The bombings, and a strict trade embargo, did nothing to change the government, but caused enormous harm to Iraqi civilians.

Last November, UNICEF released the results of a health study which found that "32 per cent of children under the age of five, some 960,000 children are chronically malnourished - a rise of 72 per cent since 1991. Almost one quarter (around 23 per cent) are underweight -- twice as high as the levels found in neighbouring Jordan or Turkey." Similarly, in October, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that before the Gulf War, Iraq imported two-thirds of its food requirements. "UN sanctions," this UN organization's report states, "significantly constrained Iraq's ability to earn foreign currency needed to import sufficient quantities of food to meet needs. As a result, food shortages and malnutrition became progressively severe and chronic in the 1990s. Widespread starvation has only been avoided by a public rationing system that provided minimum quantities of food to the population."

The only way to bring about a lasting solution to this problem is to provide the people of Iraq with the tools they need to take control of their own country. Walter Pitman, the Chair of Project Ploughshares, a well-respected organization based in Waterloo, pointed out in an open letter to our government that "military attacks destroy people, impoverish them and reduce them to struggling for survival rather than struggling for their rights."

"Enduring peace," Pitman says, "is built from the people up - it requires social, economic and political conditions that are inclusive, meet the basic needs of people, and respect basic rights. Peace-building approaches further understand that these cannot be supplied from the outside, but must be nurtured within."

If we want peace, we have to acknowledge that it is a fragile state of political existence at the best of times. In this day and age, weapons of mass destruction are all around us. The Americans, with their $2.2 billion per plane stealth bombers, have most of them. It is irresponsible to threaten their use and deliberately move closer and closer to an armed confrontation. We would help the Iraqi people much more if we were to make food, clean water, medical supplies and other non-military help readily available. We can empower them to exercise more control over the direction their country takes. Then, perhaps, a little sanity can be introduced into the often psychopathic world of U.S. foreign policy.
 

go back to the table of contents 



February 11, 1998

Last Wednesday, I went to a funeral service for a remarkable man. Bud Jimmerfield died, at 49 years of age, from cancer of the esophagus. His wife, his eight children, his union and his doctors are all convinced that the cancer was caused by his workplace. The Workers' Compensation Board - known since January 1as the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB) - refuses to allow his claim, even though his employer is not contesting it.

When he died, Jimmerfield was president of CAW Local 89. He was a health and safety activist and instructor who struggled to eliminate the injuries and illnesses that regularly devastate workers and their families. Last fall, after his doctors told him that chemotherapy was not working, he found the strength to march in the Windsor Day of Action. When I saw him there, he told me that he would spend his last months visiting other health and safety committees in the area to alert them to the dangers of cutting fluids. He was also working to protect apprentices in the metal working trades from the hazard that eventually cut him down.

Jimmerfield worked for 31 years with the same employer, a metal stamping plant in Amherstberg, near Windsor. He was a machinist, a skilled trades worker who was often exposed to mists from oily cooling fluids. He was also exposed to asbestos and silica dust from various grinding operations over the years.

In August 1996, the Occupational Disease Panel released a detailed report on their research into the health effects of oil based cutting fluids. "There is a probable connection between primary cancer of the esophagus and occupational exposure to metalworking fluids," the report said. The Panel recommended that the Compensation Board recognize the link between "grinding operations and primary cancer of the esophagus." Some of their research was based on a mid-eighties Harvard University study of 46,000 GM workers in Michigan. It found increased rates of laryngeal, rectal, esophageal and pancreatic cancer among workers exposed to metalworking fluids. Their risk of getting the disease is 12 times the national average.

The Occupational Disease Panel, an arm of the Ministry of Labour shut down by the government last year, was funded by the WCB. Its mandate was to research diseases suspected of having occupational causes, and to make recommendations to the Compensation Board. The Panel’s researchers were thorough, its reports detailed, and its recommendations well substantiated. Despite this, the Board denied Jimmerfield's claim, saying "a review of the current literature indicated there is weak evidence for a relationship between esophageal cancer and oil mist exposure."

Our workplaces have become killing fields, places where workers die from diseases that go unrecognized and uncompensated. Almost every known carcinogen was identified through the death certificates of workers. The International Agency for the Research of Cancer (IARC) recognizes 24 substances that cause lung cancer in humans. Twenty-three were found through mortality studies on blue collar workers.  It has always been difficult for workers and their unions to establish the occupational causes of diseases. Twenty-five years ago, it took a major campaign to prove that asbestos and uranium were killing workers, and many died before it was over. It now looks as though we will go through it all again as Harris turns the newly renamed WSIB away from prevention and towards claims management and benefit denial.
 

go back to the table of contents 



January 28, 1998

Mother Earth is feeling ill, and the symptoms are all around us. Last summer, Manitoba had the worst floods of the century. Just before Christmas, Alberta had unprecedented grass fires while Mexican resort towns had their first snow fall in over 100 years. Quebec and Eastern Ontario are slowly recovering from the worst ice storm in memory. We cannot ignore these warnings any longer. We have poisoned our environment, and we have to find an antidote.

We should begin by eliminating all the toxic chemicals we are dumping into our land, water and air. Most of them are proven carcinogens and are responsible for an alarming increase in the cancer rates over the last thirty years. The world will be better off without them. We must also increase our efforts to reduce the amount of waste we discard, to reuse as much of it as possible, and to recycle the rest. We have, as a community, done well in the reduction of solid wastes. The city took a leading role in promoting composting and recycling. Now we must concentrate on the reduction of our waste water.

Several years ago, Guelph 2000 undertook an innovative initiative, the Home Green Up Program, which resulted in a nine per cent reduction in household water use. This was accomplished largely through the promotion of simple household items such as water-saving shower heads and by reducing the volume of water in toilet tanks. When she was the Minister of the Environment, Brenda Elliott killed Guelph 2000, and we are now feeling the consequences. Water use is on the rise again. For the last year, water flow into the sewage treatment plant has exceeded the limit set by the province when it opened. The city is applying to the Ministry of the Environment for a higher capacity permit, although they would be better off reducing the flow rate. Council has put a freeze on new residential development because our sewage capacity cannot meet our current needs plus the projected load that new subdivisions will bring.

Steps are being taken which could bring a reversal of this water usage trend, and which may even save us the impending cost of enlarging the treatment plant. City council's Planning, Works and Environment Committee, chaired by Karen Farbridge, is calling for a comprehensive water conservation strategy. This would look at everything from toilet replacement programs to the use of rain barrels for lawn watering. As one example worth studying, Barrie reduced household water usage by 17.6 per cent through a toilet retrofit program. They now expect to save $27.6 million by deferring the expansion of their sewage treatment plant by five years. Some estimates are that if we reduced our water usage by 20 per cent, present sewage capacity would be sufficient for another 19,000 residential units.

A water conservation strategy is absolutely necessary for the future of our city, and our planet. Many years ago, people who called for recycling programs were seen as crazy left wing environmentalists. Now, recycling has become second nature to us. In fact, through the wet/dry facility, it has become a major revenue generator for the city. We now have to take the same approach to our water. Reduce, reuse and recycle. Our future depends on it. The world cannot take very many more storms of the century.

go back to the table of contents 


January 14, 1998

My understanding of hockey is on the same level as our police department's understanding of social justice. I am reasonably conversant about it, but when it comes time to actually play the game, I fall flat on my face. I do know a bit more about unions, and what working people need to do to improve their lot in life. These two subjects converged last week when a former president of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party got 18 months in jail for defrauding the National Hockey League Players' Association, its members, Hockey Canada and Labatt Brewery.

Like most Canadians of my generation, I remember the original Canada Cup series 25 years ago. Harold Ballard's refusal to let the Soviets play in Maple Leaf Gardens. Tretiak's goaltending. Bobby Clarke - deliberately, we found out later - breaking a Soviet player's leg. Paul Henderson's winning goal. I can also remember my astonishment  when the NHL players chose Alan Eagleson to lead their union. It didn't make sense to me then, and I have now been proven correct, to put a close friend of the Conservative establishment, and the league owners, into that position. The Eagle turned out to be a vulture, gorging on hapless hockey players while fattening himself and his friends.

In most traditional unions, both public and private sector, Eagleson wouldn't have had a chance of getting away with his massive frauds, his abuse of power, his blatant conflicts of interest. The democratic checks and balances built into most union constitutions keep crooks like him well out of the picture. Even more effective is the workers' own understanding of their basic interests. I have seen shop stewards lose elections because their members perceive that they are having coffee too often with the supervisor. As a union leader, Eagleson wouldn't have seen any ice time at all.

Under his leadership, hockey players were kept well behind the standards set for professional athletes in other sports. Major league baseball players led the way in establishing free agency and other benchmarks. It is no accident that when ball players began their union, they recruited a senior staff member from the United Steelworkers as executive director. Then they took on the owners through a series of grievance arbitrations, court cases, and strikes. The baseball players' union won every major fight they had with the owners. That is the route the hockey players should have taken, but Eagleson was too busy feathering his own nest to bother. Besides which, the owners were his personal friends. Fighting them, even on behalf of the players he was supposed to represent, was unthinkable.

Eagleson still holds his memberships in the Order of Canada and the Hockey Hall of Fame. If the people who run these organizations have any honour, they will revoke the awards. Whether this happens or not, though, is problematic. When you look at the list of influential people who entered character references for Eagleson after his guilty pleas, you have to wonder how much honour exists in this elite group.

There is a valuable lesson to be learned from this mess. As workers, we have to control our own unions. We cannot trust wealthy Conservatives to defend our interests. Not in our workplaces, and not in government. We have to do it ourselves.

go back to the table of contents