It seems a bit strange that Canadians and Americans show surprise when a whistleblower reveals that the U.S. government and its NATO allies are monitoring all of their communications. This has been going on for years. Does anyone remember Echelon?
Here is a very brief description of the extent of this monitoring, from a chapter in my book, Creating a Failed State: The US and Canada in Afghanistan (2008):
National Security Intelligence
Paired with its new military deployment is the U.S. government’s attempt to enhance its ability to gather and use intelligence. Under the Patriot Act and similar legislation in other countries governments have expanded their ability to acquire information through wire taps. The U.S. government even monitors what books people borrow from libraries and the web sites they access while doing research.
The U.S. military finances several key organizations which specialize in high tech intelligence-gathering, including the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. The Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency do work in this area as well. In contrast to past systems of surveillance, there is no longer an emphasis on focusing on individual suspects. Today, the entire population is constantly under surveillance.
Telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, Internet communications, telegrams and telexes are all sent by communication satellites under the control of Intelsat, which is ostensibly an international agency but actually controlled by Lockheed Martin Corporation. The National Security Agency monitors all of this traffic. Communications utilizing short wave and very high frequency radio waves are monitored by a series of U.S. bases. Additional surveillance is carried out by the National Reconnaissance Office, under the NSA, which operates a series of spy satellites. These also send back photo information. To this has been added the Space-Based Infrared System satellites which are part of the anti-ballistic weapons system.
Using all of these capabilities, the U.S. intercepts all messages going through the copper cable and high-capacity optical fiber networks. The interception of fiber optic messages is done by a series of nuclear submarines. The United States also uses signals intelligence bases (Signit) to monitor communications. These are fields of antennas, satellite dishes placed at over 100 U.S. bases around the world.
Many people who use the Internet are familiar with Echelon, which developed as part of the official Anglo-American political alliance that was founded at the beginning of the Cold War. The intelligence agencies of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have a classified agreement for the exchange of all security information. It is also known today as the “UKUSA signals intelligence alliance.” On a daily basis the Echelon program scans millions of conversations and messages for traffic patterns and key words, which are then tagged and sent for further analysis and surveillance. It is not only used for surveillance of potential foreign espionage or terrorism but also for domestic individuals and groups. Echelon operates and monitors around 120 intelligence satellites.
The five countries not only share intelligence information; the agreement gives member countries the right to spy on each other and their respective citizens. No special advance permission is required. In one well-known instance, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had the Canadian Communications Security Establishment monitor the telephone conversations of her political opponents in the Labour Party.
President George W. Bush told Bob Woodward that he was “fascinated” by the ability of the U.S. National Security Agency to listen to telephone conversations around the world and to intercept a whole range of other communications.
Sunday, 16 June 2013
Saturday, 8 June 2013
Is there an alternative to the neoliberal regime?
We are now into the fifth year of The Great Recession. In all of the advanced capitalist countries economic growth rates lag and real unemployment remains high. Inequality of income and wealth steadily increases. This is the fallout from the neoliberal model of the free market and free trade. Margaret Thatcher insisted that There Is No Alternative (TINA). Is that true?
Great Britain, Ireland and the countries of Continental Europe show no signs of recovery. Governments all have consistently supported right-wing austerity policies. None of the major political parties have offered a different strategy. Surely, there must be a political alternative.
The new issue of Social Justice (Vol. 39, No.1) has some interesting articles on the struggles that are going on in Europe, “Conflicts within the Crisis.” There are several themes to these articles.
The European setting
First, capitalism in the advanced countries is now very much dominated by the FIRE sector: finance, insurance, and real estate. The central focus of the European governments, the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund has been to prop up the banks at all cost. That is, of course, to defend the private investors in the large banks. The bad debt that the banks took on through real estate and the derivatives markets has been transferred to the governments. The socialization of private debt. Government programs must be cut to pay off this sovereign debt.
Second, the various European governments have been hindered in dealing with the crisis partly because of the loss of sovereignty. The European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are strongly committed to defending the interests of capital and have significant powers over national governments. They are quite prepared to use their powers to punish governments which move to protect democracy and social justice.
Third, the social democratic parties and the leadership of the mainstream trade unions have adopted the same basic policies as the traditional right wing parties. Thus there is a monopoly of power in the hands of the ruling classes. It does not matter which of the major parties forms the government, the results are the same. Thus parliamentary government and electoral systems have lost legitimacy. This is reflected in the steady decline in voter turnout to around 50%.
Fourth, the existing governments have all adopted police state tactics, militarizing the police, using brute physical force against demonstrators, jailing dissenters, and moving to reduce historic civil rights and liberties. The same thing is happening in the United States and Canada.
The Crisis of Social Reproduction
The Great Recession has had an impact in Europe that has not reached North America. Unemployment has risen to levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Youth unemployment is now over 25% in the European Union and around 50% in some of the southern countries.
There is a crisis of care, as wages for many have been substantially cut. Pensions have been cut. Unemployment insurance has been reduced. Social services have been cut. The welfare state is being steadily downsized. Who would have believed that this could happen? Only in the former Third World, under the impact of the Washington Consensus, known as structural adjustment.
Is there a future for social democracy?
Across Europe, beginning in Great Britain and Ireland, social democratic parties have joined with the rich and powerful to bail out the banks and impose the neoliberal package. Thus the traditional major party of the left, which was created by the organized working class, no longer offers any alternative. As Margaret Thatcher once said, her greatest achievement as Prime Minister was transforming the British Labour Party into another conservative party, i.e., a party of pro-business neoliberals.
In Greece and Italy, the social democrats went so far as to form an alliance with the traditional parties of the right and impose unelected pro-austerity technocrats to run the government! Who needs parliamentary elections?
The leadership of the mainstream trade unions have also lost their legitimacy. They refuse to cut their ties to the social democratic parties even when their parties, in government, cut the programs that were enacted to provide security for those working for a wage and a salary. In Greece, the trade union leadership declined to support a general strike against "their government." The rank and file was forced to take the lead.
Struggling to find an alternative
Given the paralysis in the economy and in representative government, it is no surprise that in Europe the disaffected have turned to extra-parliamentary opposition. As we have seen in Greece and the other southern countries, mass demonstrations and general strikes have become the political opposition.
The other main political development is the grass roots movements, begun by young people, tied together by the social media. In Europe there was strong support for the street movements of the Arab Spring. A similar movement was prominent in Greece. The massive occupation of city squares across Spain, the 15M and the indignados, were another example. The call for a "Democratic Revolution" reflects the disaffection of European citizens with mainstream politics, representative government and the priority of the free market. “They call it democracy, but it is a dictatorship!”
The rejection of the current political system has resulted in the determination of the youth in particular to construct “new democratic organizations and institutions.” But there are limits to “leaderless resistance,” as we have seen throughout North Africa. There comes a time when grassroots democratic dissent has to shift to formal political organization if there is going to be change.
Great Britain, Ireland and the countries of Continental Europe show no signs of recovery. Governments all have consistently supported right-wing austerity policies. None of the major political parties have offered a different strategy. Surely, there must be a political alternative.
The new issue of Social Justice (Vol. 39, No.1) has some interesting articles on the struggles that are going on in Europe, “Conflicts within the Crisis.” There are several themes to these articles.
The European setting
First, capitalism in the advanced countries is now very much dominated by the FIRE sector: finance, insurance, and real estate. The central focus of the European governments, the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund has been to prop up the banks at all cost. That is, of course, to defend the private investors in the large banks. The bad debt that the banks took on through real estate and the derivatives markets has been transferred to the governments. The socialization of private debt. Government programs must be cut to pay off this sovereign debt.
Second, the various European governments have been hindered in dealing with the crisis partly because of the loss of sovereignty. The European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are strongly committed to defending the interests of capital and have significant powers over national governments. They are quite prepared to use their powers to punish governments which move to protect democracy and social justice.
Third, the social democratic parties and the leadership of the mainstream trade unions have adopted the same basic policies as the traditional right wing parties. Thus there is a monopoly of power in the hands of the ruling classes. It does not matter which of the major parties forms the government, the results are the same. Thus parliamentary government and electoral systems have lost legitimacy. This is reflected in the steady decline in voter turnout to around 50%.
Fourth, the existing governments have all adopted police state tactics, militarizing the police, using brute physical force against demonstrators, jailing dissenters, and moving to reduce historic civil rights and liberties. The same thing is happening in the United States and Canada.
The Crisis of Social Reproduction
The Great Recession has had an impact in Europe that has not reached North America. Unemployment has risen to levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Youth unemployment is now over 25% in the European Union and around 50% in some of the southern countries.
There is a crisis of care, as wages for many have been substantially cut. Pensions have been cut. Unemployment insurance has been reduced. Social services have been cut. The welfare state is being steadily downsized. Who would have believed that this could happen? Only in the former Third World, under the impact of the Washington Consensus, known as structural adjustment.
Is there a future for social democracy?
Across Europe, beginning in Great Britain and Ireland, social democratic parties have joined with the rich and powerful to bail out the banks and impose the neoliberal package. Thus the traditional major party of the left, which was created by the organized working class, no longer offers any alternative. As Margaret Thatcher once said, her greatest achievement as Prime Minister was transforming the British Labour Party into another conservative party, i.e., a party of pro-business neoliberals.
In Greece and Italy, the social democrats went so far as to form an alliance with the traditional parties of the right and impose unelected pro-austerity technocrats to run the government! Who needs parliamentary elections?
The leadership of the mainstream trade unions have also lost their legitimacy. They refuse to cut their ties to the social democratic parties even when their parties, in government, cut the programs that were enacted to provide security for those working for a wage and a salary. In Greece, the trade union leadership declined to support a general strike against "their government." The rank and file was forced to take the lead.
Struggling to find an alternative
Given the paralysis in the economy and in representative government, it is no surprise that in Europe the disaffected have turned to extra-parliamentary opposition. As we have seen in Greece and the other southern countries, mass demonstrations and general strikes have become the political opposition.
The other main political development is the grass roots movements, begun by young people, tied together by the social media. In Europe there was strong support for the street movements of the Arab Spring. A similar movement was prominent in Greece. The massive occupation of city squares across Spain, the 15M and the indignados, were another example. The call for a "Democratic Revolution" reflects the disaffection of European citizens with mainstream politics, representative government and the priority of the free market. “They call it democracy, but it is a dictatorship!”
The rejection of the current political system has resulted in the determination of the youth in particular to construct “new democratic organizations and institutions.” But there are limits to “leaderless resistance,” as we have seen throughout North Africa. There comes a time when grassroots democratic dissent has to shift to formal political organization if there is going to be change.
Saturday, 1 June 2013
Cameco uses dummy corporation to avoid taxes
.jpg) |
| Cameco's operation at Cigar Lake, SK |
This is nothing new. The collapse of energy giant Enron Corporation in 2001 revealed to the general public all the tricks of the modern transnational corporation. Indeed, executives from oil and gas corporations denounced U.S. government actions against Enron and its corporate officers, arguing that these practices were common to all in the industry.
Do Saskatchewan corporations dodge taxes?
What about the large corporations that have major operations in Saskatchewan? A few years back when I was researching Saskatchewan’s oil and gas industry I asked the provincial ministry of finance if any of our corporations used similar practices. I was given the brush off. This was a federal and not a provincial responsibility. No answers were forthcoming.
But now we have clear evidence that these practices are used by Saskatchewan based corporations. In early May of this year it was revealed that the Canada Revenue Agency has challenged the practices of Cameco Corporation. While this story made the national press, it seemed to escape the attention of the Saskatchewan media and our political leaders.
Cameco as a case study
In 1999 Cameco created a subsidiary, Canada Europe Ltd., and located it in Zug, Switzerland. Switzerland is well known as one of the favourite low tax hosts for corporations seeking to avoid paying normal corporate tax rates. Cameco “sells” the uranium it extracts in Saskatchewan to Cameco Europe at the very low prices that were set in 1999. Cameco Europe then sells the uranium at the market price. CRA reports that Cameco is allocating its profits to Cameco Europe and recording very low profits for its operations in Saskatchewan.
The Ontario media reports that over the past ten years Cameco has avoided reporting income of $4.9 billion which allowed it to save $1.4 billion in federal corporate taxes. The corporate tax rate in Switzerland is 5% compared to 27% in Canada.
The Globe and Mail (May 1, 2013) reports that a study of Cameco by Veritas Research Corporation concluded that Cameco in Saskatchewan “performed virtually all operating functions” for Cameco Europe. They concluded that all of Cameco Europe’s profits should have been declared in Canada and taxed at Canadian levels.
Why pay taxes in Saskatchewan?
In Saskatchewan the uranium industry enjoys very low royalties and taxes. In recent years annual uranium sales have exceeded $1 billion. But total royalties and taxes paid to the provincial government have averaged only around eight percent of sales.
Why should this matter? When corporations do not pay taxes to the provincial government, programs are cut or else revenues are raised by additional taxes on individuals. In this boom period for Saskatchewan, royalties and taxes on resource extraction are still among the lowest in the world, and our governments are cutting services.
It is most important for corporations operating in the area of extraction of non-renewable resources to pay high taxes. The reality is that all the large corporations operating in the resource extraction area in Saskatchewan have a majority of their stock held by people who do not live here. In fact, most of them are majority owned by shareholders who live outside the country. A system of low resource royalties and taxes on corporate profits means the surplus rent from resource extraction does not flow to the owners of the resource, the people of Saskatchewan, but flows out of the province and the country.
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
Is Another Potash Glut on the Way?
Leader-Post
There is a boom in the Saskatchewan economy, and economists all point to the increasing exploitation of our resource industries. A major factor has been the expansion of the capacity of the potash industry.
Over the past few years all of the potash corporations in the province have invested capital in their existing mines. These “brownfield” developments have brought thousands of workers to the province. The three existing potash corporations are presently adding new capacity which will total 14 million metric tonnes (mmt). The two new “greenfield” mines being developed by K & S Potash Canada and Western Potash will add an additional 5 mmt.
BHP Billiton has already spent $2 billion developing their Jansen Lake mine and is currently using state of the art borer machines to construct the two shafts. It is hard to believe that the corporation will actually put this development on hold. The first phase of this mine will provide 4 mmt, with capacity to be doubled down the road.
What does this mean for the Saskatchewan industry? In 2010 the existing capacity was around 20.7 mmt. Actual potash production was only 10.4 mmt in 2011 and 8.8 mmt in 2012. So why are the corporations adding another 23 mmt capacity?
This has happened before, during the administrations of T.C. Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Ross Thatcher. Ten corporations developed new mines, and given the world market, created significant excess capacity.
Why does this happen? Investment is enticed through government subsidies. These have included exemption from federal and provincial taxes, greatly accelerated depreciation rates, and very low royalties paid to the provincial government for the extraction and use of the resource. In the first round Saskatchewan taxpayers provided special low rates for electricity and natural gas and then built roads, a canal system to provide water, pipelines and a reservoir.
As economist Eric Kierans detailed in his famous 1973 study of mining in Manitoba, Canada has a long history of preferential treatment for this industry. The corporate taxes they paid were significantly lower than those of other Canadian industries. Nothing has really changed.
In 1969 farm prices fell on the world market, and farmers responded by cutting their purchase of fertilizer. A number of potash mines in Saskatchewan were on the verge of shutting down. Premier Ross Thatcher negotiated a classic cartel with the government of New Mexico: a floor price was set for potash and production shares were allocated to the different corporations. The cartel was managed by the Potash Conservation Board, now known as Canpotex, which has responsibility for all offshore sales by the existing Saskatchewan potash mines.
Today Canpotex forms an unofficial cartel with the three Russian and Balarus potash corporations. Uralkali and Belaruskali, linked through ownership, export through the Belarusian Potash Corporation (BPC). Canpotex and BPC control around 70% of world potash sales. In this arrangement the Russian and Balarus firms follow the lead of the Potash Corporation. The corporations in concert curtail production to follow demand. Pricing of sales is remarkably similar. Recently, the three Saskatchewan corporations and Uralkali paid fines to the U.S. government to settle anti-trust charges.
In recent years the world market for potash has been between 50 and 60 mmt. Russia and Belarus have had 30% of this market. Uralkali is expanding capacity by 6 mmt. Farmers around the world are hoping that the excess capacity will result in price competition. Already China and India have managed to reduce prices to around $400 per tonne. Further reductions can be expected, and this will put a strain on Saskatchewan mines. BHP has pledged that it will not be part of Canpotex and will engage in price competition to gain their share of the world market. In a few years the government of Saskatchewan will again have to face the problem of overinvestment in the potash industry.
John W. Warnock is retired from teaching political economy and sociology at the University of Regina. He is author of “Exploiting Saskatchewan’s Potash: Who Benefits?” published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in 2011.
There is a boom in the Saskatchewan economy, and economists all point to the increasing exploitation of our resource industries. A major factor has been the expansion of the capacity of the potash industry.
Over the past few years all of the potash corporations in the province have invested capital in their existing mines. These “brownfield” developments have brought thousands of workers to the province. The three existing potash corporations are presently adding new capacity which will total 14 million metric tonnes (mmt). The two new “greenfield” mines being developed by K & S Potash Canada and Western Potash will add an additional 5 mmt.
BHP Billiton has already spent $2 billion developing their Jansen Lake mine and is currently using state of the art borer machines to construct the two shafts. It is hard to believe that the corporation will actually put this development on hold. The first phase of this mine will provide 4 mmt, with capacity to be doubled down the road.
What does this mean for the Saskatchewan industry? In 2010 the existing capacity was around 20.7 mmt. Actual potash production was only 10.4 mmt in 2011 and 8.8 mmt in 2012. So why are the corporations adding another 23 mmt capacity?
This has happened before, during the administrations of T.C. Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Ross Thatcher. Ten corporations developed new mines, and given the world market, created significant excess capacity.
Why does this happen? Investment is enticed through government subsidies. These have included exemption from federal and provincial taxes, greatly accelerated depreciation rates, and very low royalties paid to the provincial government for the extraction and use of the resource. In the first round Saskatchewan taxpayers provided special low rates for electricity and natural gas and then built roads, a canal system to provide water, pipelines and a reservoir.
As economist Eric Kierans detailed in his famous 1973 study of mining in Manitoba, Canada has a long history of preferential treatment for this industry. The corporate taxes they paid were significantly lower than those of other Canadian industries. Nothing has really changed.
In 1969 farm prices fell on the world market, and farmers responded by cutting their purchase of fertilizer. A number of potash mines in Saskatchewan were on the verge of shutting down. Premier Ross Thatcher negotiated a classic cartel with the government of New Mexico: a floor price was set for potash and production shares were allocated to the different corporations. The cartel was managed by the Potash Conservation Board, now known as Canpotex, which has responsibility for all offshore sales by the existing Saskatchewan potash mines.
Today Canpotex forms an unofficial cartel with the three Russian and Balarus potash corporations. Uralkali and Belaruskali, linked through ownership, export through the Belarusian Potash Corporation (BPC). Canpotex and BPC control around 70% of world potash sales. In this arrangement the Russian and Balarus firms follow the lead of the Potash Corporation. The corporations in concert curtail production to follow demand. Pricing of sales is remarkably similar. Recently, the three Saskatchewan corporations and Uralkali paid fines to the U.S. government to settle anti-trust charges.
In recent years the world market for potash has been between 50 and 60 mmt. Russia and Belarus have had 30% of this market. Uralkali is expanding capacity by 6 mmt. Farmers around the world are hoping that the excess capacity will result in price competition. Already China and India have managed to reduce prices to around $400 per tonne. Further reductions can be expected, and this will put a strain on Saskatchewan mines. BHP has pledged that it will not be part of Canpotex and will engage in price competition to gain their share of the world market. In a few years the government of Saskatchewan will again have to face the problem of overinvestment in the potash industry.
John W. Warnock is retired from teaching political economy and sociology at the University of Regina. He is author of “Exploiting Saskatchewan’s Potash: Who Benefits?” published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in 2011.
Monday, 4 March 2013
How Can the NDP Get Back on Track?
Act Up in Saskatchewan
March 3, 2013
As everyone knows, the New Democratic Party (NDP) is no longer Saskatchewan’s “natural governing party.” In the 2011 election they won only 32% of the vote and today Brad Wall’s Saskatchewan Party government, in its second term, has an approval rating of around 70%. All four of the young men who have been seeking the leadership of the NDP have stressed the need for a serious renewal and revitalization.
So where should they start? With the disappearance of the provincial Liberal Party, the NDP will have to get close to 50% of the vote to once again form the government. In the past, how was it possible for the CCF-NDP to win 50% of the vote in a Saskatchewan provincial election?
The success of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF)
In 1944 the CCF, under the leadership of T.C. Douglas, won the election with 53% of the vote and won again in 1952 with 54%. The CCF was actually a vehicle for a broad democratic movement which included family farmers, the trade union movement, the co-operative movement, teachers and other groups. While in office they regularly consulted with community organizations before implementing new policies.
The CCF party through the Annual Convention, the Provincial Council and the Legislative Advisory Committee exerted considerable influence over the CC F government. Furthermore, the government itself respected and encouraged this co-operation. In addition, there were other links to the grass roots of the party. Within the CCF and then the NDP, the Saskatchewan Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation jointly met every year to co-ordinate policy approaches to present to the party and the government.
When the CCF formulated the platform for an election, they set forth policies they fully intended to implement, and they did so. In the election campaigns they would remind voters of what had been accomplished. Defend the family farm. Rural electrification. Build the grid road system. Hospitalization for everyone. A progressive social assistance program. Modernize the school system. Civil service legislation. A new Trade Union Act. Diversify the economy. And so on.
Following the 1956 election, where the vote for the CCF fell to 45%, the Douglas government feared that it was getting out of touch with its supporters. In 1958 they began a process of expanded consultation with citizen groups. As one example, they created the Rural Development Council to advise the government, with a broad membership representing rural organizations and the general public. Conferences were organized to engage the public on more specific issues. They actively sought presentations from organizations and community groups. To help them come up with programs, they created the Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural Life.
The key issue in the 1960 election was to be the introduction of a comprehensive government backed medicare program. An Advisory Planning Committee was appointed by the Douglas government with representatives from the government, the medical profession and the general public. It eventually held hearings, received briefs, and presented an interim report, although its activities were greatly hindered by the representatives of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce.
The political parties of the right, representing first of all the interests of big business and finance, have the advantage of access to extensive resources as well as support from the mainstream media. The only way the political parties of the left can effectively confront the power of money is through the mobilization of the broad public. Even in Saskatchewan, the CCF and the NDP have required a large body of committed activists in order to win elections. People are attracted to a party of the left when they agree with the policies they advance.
The CCF won the 1960 election with 41% of the vote and introduced the medicare program. In 1964 their vote fell to 40%; the Liberals also took 40% of the vote but won a majority of the seats in the legislature and formed government. There was a repeat in 1967, with the Liberals winning 45.6% of the vote and the CCF 44.4%. A party renewal was in order.
The NDP wins a major victory in 1971
In the 1971 election the NDP won 55% of the votes and 45 seats in the legislature. They won a solid majority of the seats in rural and small town Saskatchewan. Why did this happen?
First, it was a time of mass participation in political activities by citizens across North America. In the United States the civil rights movement was making great advances. There was broad popular opposition to the U.S. war in Vietnam, both in Canada and the USA. The women’s movement was on the rise. The Red Power movement was beginning to take form, even in Saskatchewan. There was strong public support for the anti-colonial movement in the Third World. The public mood was for the expansion of democracy.
In Canada political discussion focused on foreign ownership and control of the Canadian economy as well as American cultural domination. In 1968 the Waffle group was formed within the NDP, an organized caucus that advocated an independent, socialist Canada. The Waffle was quite strong in Saskatchewan. There was widespread debate on the key political issues of the day, both within the NDP and in the general public. Citizens were engaged in important political and economic issues.
The Waffle caucus, whose meetings were always open to all, had a major influence on the party in Saskatchewan. They contested for the leadership in 1970, won by Allan Blakeney. Through policy resolutions adopted by the party, they had a major impact on the platform for the 1971 election, A New Deal for People.
The Blakeney government (1971-82) is best known for the success of its policy of creating greater ownership and control over the natural resource sector, through Crown corporations in oil and gas, potash, uranium and the forest industry. With much higher royalties on resource extraction, the NDP government was able to introduce and fund new social programs, expand public housing for low income people, and increase services for seniors.
The Waffle was expelled from the NDP in 1971, and many activists left the party. Over the period of Blakeney’s government links with the party’s extra-parliamentary allies were weakened. The NDP was not only becoming an urban party, it was also shifting from a political movement towards a traditional political party. Part of the reason for its defeat in 1982 stemmed from a number of major conflicts with the trade union movement, a large group of traditional supporters.
March 3, 2013
 |
| Labour delegation meets with CCF government 1961 |
So where should they start? With the disappearance of the provincial Liberal Party, the NDP will have to get close to 50% of the vote to once again form the government. In the past, how was it possible for the CCF-NDP to win 50% of the vote in a Saskatchewan provincial election?
The success of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF)
In 1944 the CCF, under the leadership of T.C. Douglas, won the election with 53% of the vote and won again in 1952 with 54%. The CCF was actually a vehicle for a broad democratic movement which included family farmers, the trade union movement, the co-operative movement, teachers and other groups. While in office they regularly consulted with community organizations before implementing new policies.
The CCF party through the Annual Convention, the Provincial Council and the Legislative Advisory Committee exerted considerable influence over the CC F government. Furthermore, the government itself respected and encouraged this co-operation. In addition, there were other links to the grass roots of the party. Within the CCF and then the NDP, the Saskatchewan Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation jointly met every year to co-ordinate policy approaches to present to the party and the government.
When the CCF formulated the platform for an election, they set forth policies they fully intended to implement, and they did so. In the election campaigns they would remind voters of what had been accomplished. Defend the family farm. Rural electrification. Build the grid road system. Hospitalization for everyone. A progressive social assistance program. Modernize the school system. Civil service legislation. A new Trade Union Act. Diversify the economy. And so on.
Following the 1956 election, where the vote for the CCF fell to 45%, the Douglas government feared that it was getting out of touch with its supporters. In 1958 they began a process of expanded consultation with citizen groups. As one example, they created the Rural Development Council to advise the government, with a broad membership representing rural organizations and the general public. Conferences were organized to engage the public on more specific issues. They actively sought presentations from organizations and community groups. To help them come up with programs, they created the Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural Life.
The key issue in the 1960 election was to be the introduction of a comprehensive government backed medicare program. An Advisory Planning Committee was appointed by the Douglas government with representatives from the government, the medical profession and the general public. It eventually held hearings, received briefs, and presented an interim report, although its activities were greatly hindered by the representatives of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce.
The political parties of the right, representing first of all the interests of big business and finance, have the advantage of access to extensive resources as well as support from the mainstream media. The only way the political parties of the left can effectively confront the power of money is through the mobilization of the broad public. Even in Saskatchewan, the CCF and the NDP have required a large body of committed activists in order to win elections. People are attracted to a party of the left when they agree with the policies they advance.
The CCF won the 1960 election with 41% of the vote and introduced the medicare program. In 1964 their vote fell to 40%; the Liberals also took 40% of the vote but won a majority of the seats in the legislature and formed government. There was a repeat in 1967, with the Liberals winning 45.6% of the vote and the CCF 44.4%. A party renewal was in order.
The NDP wins a major victory in 1971
In the 1971 election the NDP won 55% of the votes and 45 seats in the legislature. They won a solid majority of the seats in rural and small town Saskatchewan. Why did this happen?
First, it was a time of mass participation in political activities by citizens across North America. In the United States the civil rights movement was making great advances. There was broad popular opposition to the U.S. war in Vietnam, both in Canada and the USA. The women’s movement was on the rise. The Red Power movement was beginning to take form, even in Saskatchewan. There was strong public support for the anti-colonial movement in the Third World. The public mood was for the expansion of democracy.
In Canada political discussion focused on foreign ownership and control of the Canadian economy as well as American cultural domination. In 1968 the Waffle group was formed within the NDP, an organized caucus that advocated an independent, socialist Canada. The Waffle was quite strong in Saskatchewan. There was widespread debate on the key political issues of the day, both within the NDP and in the general public. Citizens were engaged in important political and economic issues.
The Waffle caucus, whose meetings were always open to all, had a major influence on the party in Saskatchewan. They contested for the leadership in 1970, won by Allan Blakeney. Through policy resolutions adopted by the party, they had a major impact on the platform for the 1971 election, A New Deal for People.
The Blakeney government (1971-82) is best known for the success of its policy of creating greater ownership and control over the natural resource sector, through Crown corporations in oil and gas, potash, uranium and the forest industry. With much higher royalties on resource extraction, the NDP government was able to introduce and fund new social programs, expand public housing for low income people, and increase services for seniors.
The Waffle was expelled from the NDP in 1971, and many activists left the party. Over the period of Blakeney’s government links with the party’s extra-parliamentary allies were weakened. The NDP was not only becoming an urban party, it was also shifting from a political movement towards a traditional political party. Part of the reason for its defeat in 1982 stemmed from a number of major conflicts with the trade union movement, a large group of traditional supporters.
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
The Saskatchewan NDP Chooses a New Leader
Rabble.ca
February 19, 2013
The Saskatchewan NDP will meet in Saskatoon on March 9 to select a new leader. They are in dire straits. Lorne Calvert’s NDP government was defeated in the election in 2007 and received only 37% of the vote. Under Dwaine Lingenfelter they were defeated in the 2011 election and received only 32% of the vote. With the disappearance of the provincial Liberal Party, they now have to win close to 50% of the votes to form a government.
Support for the party has dropped dramatically since Roy Romanow’s NDP government moved steadily to the right to embrace the neoliberal agenda. Membership has fallen from 47,000 in 1991 to 11,000 in 2013. The vote for the NDP has fallen from 275,000 in 1991 to only 127,000 in 2011. In addition, the total vote in provincial elections has fallen from 540,000 in 1991 to 396,000 in 2011. The drop in vote has been greatest in the safest NDP ridings.
Following their major defeat in the 2007 election, the NDP had the opportunity to choose a new leader who supported a return to the progressive social democratic tradition of the past. The fact that the party caucus and a number of key trade unions backed Lingenfelter, Roy Romanow’s Deputy Leader, then from Nexen Corporation, and the majority of the remaining members chose him as the new leader, reveals a great deal about the state of the party.
The 2013 leadership candidates
Lingenfelter disappeared on election night in 2011. The party wisely took its time to select a new leader. In the end, four young men came forward. Not one woman stood for the job. Patriarchal traditions run deep in this province.
Trent Wotherspoon and Cam Broten are both elected members of the provincial legislature and are better known among NDP members. Ideologically, they have been in the mainstream of the party’s caucus. They have been seen as the front runners.
The strength of these two candidates is demonstrated by the long list of supporters they both have, mainstream active members of the party, members of the caucus and former members of the caucus. The vote for the leadership by all members is by preferential ballot. If most of the voting members rank these two candidates as either their first or second choice, I feel certain one of them will emerge as the new leader.
Ryan Meili’s energetic campaign
Ryan Meili is a progressive doctor from Saskatoon with a very good record of social justice activism. He has run a very good campaign with enthusiastic supporters. In the 2009 leadership race he finished second to Lingenfelter with 45% of the vote. His friendly and sincere way of dealing with people has won him high praise. His policy position papers have been very good.
Meili has had the support of the progressive wing of the party, those who have backed Nettie Wiebe from the National Farmers Union in recent elections. However, I can’t think of any case where the left in the NDP has received more than 45% of the vote in any major contest. In the 2001 leadership campaign to replace Roy Romanow, Nettie Weibe was only able to win 33% of the vote. Furthermore, as the vote in the 2009 leadership campaign demonstrated, the remaining NDP members are primarily the party loyalists. If Meili were to win, it would be a major upset.
The left and the NDP
Finally, there is Erin Weir. He has had the disadvantage of being the youngest candidate, and he has been working out of the province for a while. Weir is known as a progressive economist, has published excellent reports on natural resources, and is an impressive public speaker and debater. On the CBC and CTV as well as in the print media he has been a strong spokesperson for the United Steelworkers and the trade union movement. From the beginning it seemed to me his only hope for winning was to bring back the NDP members who had quit. That has not happened.
The trade union movement has supported the CCF-NDP since the beginning and formally became part of the NDP after 1962. But the movement has always been marginalized by the leadership of the party. In the past few years they have been preoccupied with the general attack on trade union rights by the Saskatchewan Party government. But in addition, the trade union movement has not been seriously involved in politics since the days of the Saskatchewan Coalition for Social Justice. In the current leadership campaign, the unions divided their support among the four candidates.
It seems likely that with either Trent Wotherspoon or Cam Broten as leader, the NDP will be in the opposition for a long time. They may not ever form government again. Times are good, and the Saskatchewan Party government now has an approval rating in the polls of around 70%, the highest in Canada. A revival of the NDP would require the economy to collapse or for the Saskatchewan Party to be caught in some major scandal. But the NDP will not get support from the voters until they can present a clear alternative to the pro-business neoliberalism we have had since 1982.
John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and political activist. He is author of Saskatchewan: The Roots of Discontent and Protest.
February 19, 2013
 | |
| Ryan Meili, Trent Wotherspoon, Erin Weir, Cam Broten |
The Saskatchewan NDP will meet in Saskatoon on March 9 to select a new leader. They are in dire straits. Lorne Calvert’s NDP government was defeated in the election in 2007 and received only 37% of the vote. Under Dwaine Lingenfelter they were defeated in the 2011 election and received only 32% of the vote. With the disappearance of the provincial Liberal Party, they now have to win close to 50% of the votes to form a government.
Support for the party has dropped dramatically since Roy Romanow’s NDP government moved steadily to the right to embrace the neoliberal agenda. Membership has fallen from 47,000 in 1991 to 11,000 in 2013. The vote for the NDP has fallen from 275,000 in 1991 to only 127,000 in 2011. In addition, the total vote in provincial elections has fallen from 540,000 in 1991 to 396,000 in 2011. The drop in vote has been greatest in the safest NDP ridings.
Following their major defeat in the 2007 election, the NDP had the opportunity to choose a new leader who supported a return to the progressive social democratic tradition of the past. The fact that the party caucus and a number of key trade unions backed Lingenfelter, Roy Romanow’s Deputy Leader, then from Nexen Corporation, and the majority of the remaining members chose him as the new leader, reveals a great deal about the state of the party.
The 2013 leadership candidates
Lingenfelter disappeared on election night in 2011. The party wisely took its time to select a new leader. In the end, four young men came forward. Not one woman stood for the job. Patriarchal traditions run deep in this province.
Trent Wotherspoon and Cam Broten are both elected members of the provincial legislature and are better known among NDP members. Ideologically, they have been in the mainstream of the party’s caucus. They have been seen as the front runners.
The strength of these two candidates is demonstrated by the long list of supporters they both have, mainstream active members of the party, members of the caucus and former members of the caucus. The vote for the leadership by all members is by preferential ballot. If most of the voting members rank these two candidates as either their first or second choice, I feel certain one of them will emerge as the new leader.
Ryan Meili’s energetic campaign
Ryan Meili is a progressive doctor from Saskatoon with a very good record of social justice activism. He has run a very good campaign with enthusiastic supporters. In the 2009 leadership race he finished second to Lingenfelter with 45% of the vote. His friendly and sincere way of dealing with people has won him high praise. His policy position papers have been very good.
Meili has had the support of the progressive wing of the party, those who have backed Nettie Wiebe from the National Farmers Union in recent elections. However, I can’t think of any case where the left in the NDP has received more than 45% of the vote in any major contest. In the 2001 leadership campaign to replace Roy Romanow, Nettie Weibe was only able to win 33% of the vote. Furthermore, as the vote in the 2009 leadership campaign demonstrated, the remaining NDP members are primarily the party loyalists. If Meili were to win, it would be a major upset.
The left and the NDP
Finally, there is Erin Weir. He has had the disadvantage of being the youngest candidate, and he has been working out of the province for a while. Weir is known as a progressive economist, has published excellent reports on natural resources, and is an impressive public speaker and debater. On the CBC and CTV as well as in the print media he has been a strong spokesperson for the United Steelworkers and the trade union movement. From the beginning it seemed to me his only hope for winning was to bring back the NDP members who had quit. That has not happened.
The trade union movement has supported the CCF-NDP since the beginning and formally became part of the NDP after 1962. But the movement has always been marginalized by the leadership of the party. In the past few years they have been preoccupied with the general attack on trade union rights by the Saskatchewan Party government. But in addition, the trade union movement has not been seriously involved in politics since the days of the Saskatchewan Coalition for Social Justice. In the current leadership campaign, the unions divided their support among the four candidates.
It seems likely that with either Trent Wotherspoon or Cam Broten as leader, the NDP will be in the opposition for a long time. They may not ever form government again. Times are good, and the Saskatchewan Party government now has an approval rating in the polls of around 70%, the highest in Canada. A revival of the NDP would require the economy to collapse or for the Saskatchewan Party to be caught in some major scandal. But the NDP will not get support from the voters until they can present a clear alternative to the pro-business neoliberalism we have had since 1982.
John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and political activist. He is author of Saskatchewan: The Roots of Discontent and Protest.
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Saskatchewan As a Mineral State
My immediate response to reading this analysis was what about Saskatchewan? How different is our province? Couldn’t we challenge Quebec as the top neo-colonial province?
How mining companies view Canada
On the other side of the issue, we could ask how the mining corporations themselves view the different Canadian provinces. One good source of information is the annual survey of industry executives made by the right-wing Fraser Institute in Vancouver. They are financed by big business.
In February 2012 the Fraser Institute released its annual survey of mining company executives. They report that 5000 companies were sent requests for opinion and 802 responded. The institute then uses these responses to create a Policy Potential Index, based on whether or not a political jurisdiction “encourages investment.” This survey passed judgement on 93 political jurisdictions which have a significant mining industry.
The Policy Potential Index covers 10 key issues including state regulations, environmental regulations, taxation, infrastructure, labour issues, geological support, and political stability. Canada was ranked very high. Of the 93 jurisdictions surveyed the results seem to indicate that Canada is indeed a neo-colonial mineral state: New Brunswick (1), Alberta (3), Quebec (5), Saskatchewan (6), Yukon (10), Ontario (13), Nova Scotia (15), Newfoundland and Labrador (16) and Manitoba (20). Manitoba was ranked (9) the previous year. The movement towards state ownership and control of mining in Latin America was singled out for criticism, reflected also in its falling ranking.
In 2010 corporate executives gave the province of Saskatchewan a 10 out of 10, the only province to get this high rating, for having the lowest cost system of regulations for the mining and mineral industries.
The oil industry loves Canada
In June 2012 the Fraser Institute released their latest survey of the oil and gas industry. It included reports from 623 managers and executives from 529 oil and gas companies operating in Canada. These representatives ranked Manitoba (5) and Saskatchewan (13) of 147 political jurisdictions as good places to invest. The worst countries listed had National Oil Corporations (state-owned and operated), high royalties and taxes, as well as most of the remaining untapped resources.
Manitoba and Saskatchewan were given high rankings because of their very low royalties and taxes, their overall pro-business policies, and their weak environmental regulations. In contrast, New Brunswick and Quebec were given significantly lower ratings, mainly because of broad public opposition to the relatively new horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracking for shale oil and gas. But all in all, executives from oil corporations love Canada and hate Venezuela.
Identifying a mineral state
Deneault and Sacher have identified eight key features which are characteristic of a mineral state. Here are the categories as I have applied them to Saskatchewan:
(1) A strong geological potential for extractible mineral resources. This would certainly apply to Saskatchewan where the mineral, oil and gas sectors now dominate the productive economy. While their revenues totaled $21.8 billion in 2011, they employed only 4.8% of the province’s labour force.
(2) Public institutions transfer public mineral wealth and profits to a minority of private owners and corporations. Royalties and taxes on the mining and mineral industries in Saskatchewan are minimal. In 2011 they totaled $2,413 billion, which was only 11% of industry revenues. This may be the lowest return in the world. It should be remembered that natural resources are owned by the people as a whole, a public asset.
(3) The state uses law and military force to guarantee that private investors have access to mineral deposits. The law in Saskatchewan emphasizes private property rights over public rights. Unions are relatively weak in the mining industry, and strikes are rare. There are few confrontations with local communities, and the necessity of using police power has been very rare. Since 1991 the major political parties and their governments have put business interest first.
(4) There is a network of infrastructure which guarantees access to human and material resources and facilitates movement of product to export markets. The province has always put a high priority on providing air transport, roads and bridges, public utilities and direct support for local communities in its northern mineral strategy. The province has actively supported pipeline construction. Reservoirs and canals were provided to serve the potash industry.
(5) It is easy for corporations to send profits abroad with little interference from the local government. There is no evidence that any government in Saskatchewan has been concerned about the flight of capital abroad or the use of intra-corporate transfer pricing and offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes. They have all welcomed foreign ownership and control of the resource extraction industries.
(6) Regulations and standards for working conditions and environmental protection are kept to the minimum. It is well known that the safety standards for workers in Saskatchewan are even weaker than in Alberta. Environmental regulation has always been limited. The history of the uranium industry is a good example of the determination of all the provincial governments to put economic development first.
(7) Extracting corporations are provided cheap access to energy and electrical power. A top priority of our Crown corporations, Sask Power and Sask Energy, has been to provide support to all resource developments. Rates for corporate consumption are set significantly lower than those for the general public, and they are secret.
(8) Mining industry has enormous influence over government officials and actions. When public policy on the resource industries is changed, and when regulations, royalties and taxes are modified, this is always done behind closed doors in consultation with industry representatives. The general public is always excluded. NDP governments have been no different than the formally conservative governments. Business rules.
Seems pretty clear that Saskatchewan is a mineral state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)