BC Politics with Hubert Beyer

TIME TO TALK ABOUT GLOBALIZATION

Details

Hits: 1245

VICTORIA – Where is Premier Glen Clark while the Brave New World of FTA, NAFTA and soon MAI are undermining Canada’s standard of living and threatening provincial and national autonomy?

While Clark has been hammering the Americans in the fish war, with the deserved support from most British Columbians, a far greater danger is looming.

Hailed as the way to a prosperous future, the free trade agreements and the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment are doing little more than transform the world, and Canada with it, into a giant pool of cheap labor to be used at their whim by ever-more powerful and richer multinational companies.

If this sounds like the rant of an unrepentant trade unionist, which I am, and a Luddite, which I am not, consider some of the facts.

Chrysler Canada recently announced that by the year 200 it plans to manufacture its popular minivan in Mexico, resulting in the loss of several thousand jobs in Eastern Canada.

Why would Chrysler move it manufacturing facilities to Mexico? Because of the cheaper labor costs. Those labor costs are cheaper because Mexican workers are usually glad to have any job at all, regardless of working conditions which are not only unacceptable by Canadian standards but often inhuman.

Two Mexican workers came to Ottawa a week ago to talk about the plight of their fellow workers.

Salvador Bravo used to make Jaguar gear shifts for Custom Trim, a Canadian factory in Olvera Puente, Mexico, ripping apart leather and dipping his bare hands in varnish. His salary: 71 cents an hour. Bravo and 27 of his co-workers were fired for demanding better conditions and higher wages.

By comparison, workers performing similar tasks at Custom Trim in Ontario earn $12 an hour, not exactly a princely wage either, and they have superior safety equipment.

So, rather than bringing Mexican workers closer to an acceptable wage level and giving them better safety equipment, they fired them. Knowing a good thing when it sees one, Chrysler, is now moving the manufacturing facilities for one of its most successful products to Mexico for the same reason: save money through exploitation.

Sad to say, I bought one of the minivans before Chrysler announced that it would no longer build them in Canada. Failing a reversal of Chrysler’s plans, it will be the last one I bought.

Ever since Canada signed the first Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and, subsequently the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which includes Mexico, Ontario lost more than 20 per cent of its manufacturing jobs.

I wonder whether former prime Minister Brian Mulroney had any idea of what he was doing when he flogged the agreement as if it were the greatest thing since sliced bread? For that matter, I wonder whether we would have elected Mulroney had we known what was in store.

If the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment is ratified by Canada, we’ll be in for an even greater shock.

Negotiations involving the MAI have been going on in relative secrecy for nearly two years. Aside from Canada, 29 other countries are part of the negotiations. Ratification of the agreement has now been postponed until next year.

If and when it comes into force, multinational corporations will be able to move their money without regard to local laws. Governments would not be allowed to attach conditions, such as the creation of local jobs, to any investment.

That would, for instance, mean the premier’s much-touted Jobs and Timber Accord will go into the dumpster. Clark knows that, and that’s why I cannot understand that he’s so quiet on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment issue.

Clark should be shouting about this proposed agreement at the same decibel level he has been reserving for the fish war. And instead of waxing boastful of creating jobs, he should be warning British Columbians that whatever jobs they now have may well be in jeopardy in this game called global economy.

UNITY PANEL DRAWS MIXED REACTION

Details

Hits: 1929

VICTORIA – It’s a pity politicians have such difficulty climbing out of the morass of cheap politics. No sooner had Premier Glen Clark appointed a 22-member unity panel to hear the views of British Columbians on how to tackle the question of Canadian unity, than Liberal opposition leader Gordon Campbell started attacking the process.

The process lacked leadership, Campbell said. It was too much like the Charlottetown approach, he said.

I don’t know how he comes to that conclusion. The Charlottetown Accord was hammered out by the first ministers behind closed doors. Canadians objected more to the secrecy than they did to the actual accord and rejected the deal.

How much more open can a process be than sending 22 people on the road to find out at public hearings what British Colombians really want in terms of Canadian unity, putting up a website, and conduct province-wide polls? Whether the process leads to anything is another question, but don’t compare it to the Charlottetown Accord, for Pete’s sake.

The road show gang comprises 22 people with varying degrees of qualifications and will be jointly chaired by forest executive Jake Kerr and Delta teacher Alice McQuaide. Ten citizen members and 10 federal and provincial politicians will serve on the panel.

Some of the panel members on the political side would seem to be eminently qualified. Liberal MP Ted McWhinney is considered a foremost constitutional expert. And provincial Alliance leader Gordon Wilson is no constitutional slouch either.

But Campbell said he doesn’t know yet whether he’ll fill the two spots reserved for provincial Liberals. He doesn’t like the mix of laymen and politicians.

"I’m not in favor of a combined political-public panel," the opposition leader said. "I think it’s very seldom where the public will tell a politician what to do when they’re in the same meeting."

That’s not only bad syntax but wrong thinking. The public loves to tell politicians what to do, especially when they’ve got them cornered in a room. Where has this man been?

I suspect that Campbell’s reluctance to get with the program is rooted deeply in political caution: if nothing comes of it or worse, if it backfires, his behind is covered. And just in case he wants to come on board after all, Campbell left the door ajar. He’ll discuss the matter with the chairmen of the committee. That’s some leadership from a guy who decries the lack of it in Clark.

Just what would Campbell have Clark do? The premier was at best lukewarm towards the idea of entering another round of constitutional talks, but when his first-minister colleagues at the recent Calgary meeting insisted, he had little choice but to play along.

Mind you, the premier doesn’t appear to believe that British Columbians are hot to trod along the path of constitutional change, but he said he is convinced that they recognize Quebec’s uniqueness.

"I hope there’s a very strong message to the people of Quebec that British Columbians feel passionately about their (Quebec’s) role in the federation."

The drive for renewed constitutional talks has been fuelled by the sceptre of another Quebec referendum, but if the latest polls are any indication, Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard may well hold off on forcing another showdown.

A Globe and Mail poll last week showed that support for independence in Quebec has dwindled to about 45 per cent, still worrying, but a far cry from the near-death results of the 1995 referendum.

It would be dangerous, however, to let the issue of constitutional change die just because Quebec’s appetite for separation is waning. Indifferent adherence to the status quo has been the main fuel that fed separatist fires in the past, and it will do so again.

The panel appointed by the premier may not come up with the silver bullet that will take car of separatism, but it should be given a chance. And instead of playing political games, Campbell should appoint two of his caucus members to the panel immediately.

A CASE FOR YEAR-ROUND ELECTION CAMPGNS

Details

Hits: 2829

VICTORIA – I’ve never liked recall legislation, but it seems a lot of people do, particularly in the ridings of Skeena and Prince George, where some folks are trying mightily to end the political tenure, short and unpredictable as it is to begin with, of NDP MLAs Helmut Giesbrecht and Paul Ramsey respectively.

For all those friends of recall, I have an even better idea: why not do away with general elections altogether? We’ll have one last general election slugfest, and from then on, we’ll knock ‘em off as we see fit. Recall the rascals one by one if we don’t like what they’re doing, which is most of the time.

Think of it as democracy carried to new and dizzying heights. No longer could a party sneak into office because the other side split the vote. No politician would ever be able to feel safe again, not even for the three of four years it now takes between elections. Nor would they have time for the shenanigans the majority of the public feels they’re always up to.

Just fighting off the never-ending recall attempts would keep politicians busy round he clock. Political arrogance would be a thing of the past. And there would be other benefits:

The taxpayers would save a lot of money because we’d make the malcontents who get such a thrill out of recalling politicians pay for it. And we’d have elections year-round which would make political junkies like me delirious with joy. The scheme would beat cable TV six ways to breakfast for sheer entertainment value.

All right, maybe it’s not such a good idea, but then, neither is recall. Originally intended to give voters an opportunity to unseat, between elections, a politician for grave misconduct, the legislation is actually being used to fight the last election over again.

Not that those involved in trying to kick Giesbrecht and Ramsey out of office would admit to partisan reasons. Lorne Sexton, the chairman of the committee to topple Giesbrecht, admits he has always hated the NDP, but claims that the recall campaign is based on the MLA’s poor performance.

I suppose performance is in the eyes of the beholder, but I do know that Giebrecht was working his butt off on he Skeena Cellulose bailout. And his supporters will tell you that he’s one of the hardest-working MLAs they’ve ever had in Victoria, something that’s hard if not impossible to admit for sworn enemies of the NDP.

Also involved in the campaign to unseat Ramsey s the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, whose leader, Troy Lanigan, insists that recall is a tool of accountability.

Recalling an MLA in this province was facilitated under the Recall and Initiative Act, passed in 1995 by the NDP government under Mike Harcourt, who had promised during an election campaign to bring in the appropriate legislation.

The promise was based in naked political expediency. Both the Reform Party and the Liberals had built recall in their election platforms, and Harcourt felt he had no choice but to follow suit.

The legislation the Harcourt government produced was actually a joke, making it improbable to succeed in recalling an ML. Under the legislation, an MLA can be recalled after 18 months if 40 per cent of the eligible voters in a riding sign a petition to that effect. Improbable but maybe not quite impossible

In Ramsey’s case, the recall committee had 60 days to collect about 8,900 votes, 40 per cent of the eligible vote in the riding. Alfredo Lavaggi, who started the campaign to oust the education minister, says he’s got about 160 volunteers, which means each volunteer has to collect about 54 signatures by November 28. Again, improbably, but not impossible.

Given the volatile mood of voters these days, it’s quite conceivable that the committees collect enough signatures to recall the two MLAs, forcing two byelections. The outcome of those byelections could, in turn, bring down the government, which has only a slim three-seat majority.

Now, I wouldn’t want to spoil their fun if the committees actually succeeded in bringing down Giesbrecht and Ramsey and subsequently the government, but there’s a tiny fly in the ointment: whatever party gets in next time, will face the same music from its opponents.

Maybe my idea of scrapping general elections in favor of year-round recall isn’t hat far-fetched after all.