In This Issue: |
Once again, it's time to…
Think Public and Vote for Quality Public Services
Canadians, including PSAC members, again find themselves faced with a federal election. As the political parties polished their campaign slogans, their paid political hacks studied poll after poll to figure out what issues concern Canadians the most, and then they got busy designing their strategies and crafting their platforms to address these concerns in a way that will make their party look like the answer to all our prayers.
And poll after poll most likely told them that among the top issues that concern Canadians are the economy, the environment and social programs, such as health care. The problem is these polls do not give a lot of details as to what concerns us about these issues and what we'd like to see our government do to address them. Instead, the parties will craft catchy sound bites and clipped statements that will define and frame these major issues for us.
We need to take back democracy. It is us, the voters, who must let the politicians know what we mean and what we want when we bring up these issues. We need to let candidates know that we don't see these issues in neat little boxes that are separate from each other and disconnected from our Canadian values of equality and inclusiveness. We need to make them hear that we believe that a strong economy eliminates poverty and inequality; that a clean environment is more than just about meeting obscure targets, but also means managing our natural resources responsibly; and that social programs must be maintained not just to keep us healthy and secure, but also to promote human rights and equality among Canadians. And we need to let them know that these cannot be accomplished by relying on the invisible hand of the free market. It is essential that we build and maintain strong quality public services.
This election, we must ask candidates the right questions. But we also need to become active in engaging the candidates to see the issues our way.
Elections are not just about choosing which party will govern Canadians. They are also about choosing the kind of Canada we want: One that benefits a few or one that benefits all.
A message from the PSAC National President
Sisters and Brothers,
Welcome to your tabloid for the upcoming federal election. The following pages contain information on key issues facing you as a worker and PSAC member. I hope you find this tabloid both useful and informative.
The economy, the environment, and social programs are issues that affect us all. The following pages contain information and arguments for why we need an economy that benefits everyone; the role we union members have in protecting the environment; and how to expand social programs to strengthen communities from coast to coast to coast. How we achieve these goals depends on quality public services, and putting human rights and equality at the forefront of the federal government's agenda.
PSAC's federal election platform is built on the belief that quality public services are essential; that public services should be enhanced and not reduced, to create a more inclusive and progressive Canada. Quality public services help to deliver human rights and equality to people across the country. They are a great equalizer, and I am proud of the work done by PSAC members to champion these important goals.
This federal election is an important opportunity to not only raise our issues and elect the government we want, but to elect the employer of many PSAC members. I cannot stress how critical this is; the government we elect will be the employer many of us face in collective bargaining, a government that sets policy and enacts legislation that impacts all members of PSAC. We must all work to ensure that a progressive federal government is elected – one that understands that human rights and equality are a priority, and recognizes the role of a well-resourced and respected public sector in delivering quality services to the public. Working together, I know that we can make this happen!
In Solidarity,
John Gordon, National President
Economy
Tax relief. Balancing the budget. Paying down the debt. Making our economy globally competitive.
During the run-up to the election, you'll hear some candidates spew out these buzz words when they talk about the economy. They will promise tax cuts and vow to use the surplus to pay down our national debt. You'll also hear these words echo in media headlines. Pundits will measure a candidate's chances on getting elected by how realistic and practical their platforms are in meeting these goals.
But these have little to do with how most working Canadians see the economy. To most of us, a strong economy means not having to dig in our own pockets for essential public services, like health care and education. It means quality jobs, economic fairness and a secure future.
Taxes: one of life's certainties
To paraphrase an old saying, "There are two certainties in life: death and taxes." But taxes spent wisely could mean a fuller life and a later death for all of us.
Many of us are working harder and longer hours and still live from pay cheque to pay cheque. Some political parties promise tax cuts to ease our burdens, but tax cuts may cost us more than we save.
Tax cuts lower government revenues, limiting its ability to spend on quality public services. Tax cuts made by previous governments have eroded our public services, programs and infrastructure. We may have saved a bit on our taxes, but, instead of having that extra cash in our pockets, we've ended up having to pay out more to cover “hidden taxes,” such as higher tuition fees, health care user fees, higher public transit fares and fees for library and public recreational facilities.
More insidious is the fact that tax cuts have benefited the rich more than working families and have contributed to the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us. Since 2001, federal corporate income tax cuts have been reduced by 25%, allowing companies to keep about another $10 billion each year in their private coffers. That money could have been used to improve public programs and services. Instead, in roughly the same period, we've seen an increase in homelessness, no improvement in child poverty and the deterioration or collapse of infrastructure.
Ignoring the interest and needs of Canadians, the Harper government continued to spend the $13 billion surplus to pay down the debt, while cutting $2 billion in social programs. It cut the GST by 1%, costing about $5 billion, which could have financed a universal early learning and care system for three to five-year-olds across the country. Cutting taxes also does nothing to make our economy globally competitive. According to the World Economic Forum, Canada ranked in 16th place in competitiveness in 2006, down from 13th the year before and 5th in 1999. Nine of the countries ahead of us have higher taxes, including the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland), which collect half their GDP in taxes.
There can be no economic stability where poverty and inequality exist
Eliminating poverty is essential to the development of the economy. It means a more productive and highly skilled labour force, more consumers for Canadian-made products and less strain on our public health care and other social programs. More importantly, eliminating poverty means upholding our Canadian values of inclusiveness and equality.
Unfortunately, economic disparity is growing and social exclusion is deepening in Canada. Despite continued growth, rising employment and strong job creation, poverty is on the rise as our social safety net disappears. Those most affected by poverty include women, children, Aboriginal people, immigrants, visible minority populations and people with disabilities. Nearly one in six of Canada's children live in poverty, and the 17.7% child poverty rate is likely to grow.
In First Nations communities, one in four children lives in poverty. Forty per cent of Aboriginal children off reserve live in poverty. First Nations children face terrible living conditions and are more likely to suffer health problems. One Aboriginal child in eight lives with a disability, double the rate of all children in Canada.
Among racialized groups, barriers to employment are made worse by discrimination. Workers belonging to visible minority groups earned on average $4,600 per year less than all other workers.
Among recent immigrants, a precarious labour market has led to high levels of poverty and exclusion. New immigrants are clustered in low-wage work with few benefits. Despite having attained higher educational levels on average, today's immigrants have undergone a sharp decline in living standards compared with immigrants from previous decades. In 2004, more than one in five recent immigrants of working-age were living in poverty, compared to fewer than one in ten for other Canadians (11.2% among earlier immigrants and 9.3% among those born in Canada).
Among racialized groups, barriers to employment are made worse by discrimination. Workers belonging to visible minority groups earned on average $4,600 per year less than all other workers.
Women still take home a fraction of the wages earned by men. In 2005, women earned an average of 70 cents for every dollar men earned. The gender wage gap is even worse for post-secondary educated women. They earn 68 cents for every dollar men earn. Two thirds of minimum wage earners are women.
This continued economic inequality makes many women, especially single mothers and seniors, vulnerable to poverty. Working women, especially recent immigrant women of colour, have suffered most from the failure of governments to maintain adequate minimum wages and employment standards.
The federal government has also been dragging its feet on implementing pay equity recommendations. Pay inequity hurts women and their families, making them more vulnerable to poverty, increasing their risk for disease and perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Will you still feed me when I'm 64?
Canada's aging population counts on a solid pension plan that will be there when it's needed, even if employers go bankrupt. Unfortunately, bankruptcy law in Canada protects the interests of suppliers and banks first, leaving current and retired workers out in the cold.
Existing federal protection for seniors, including Old Age Security, the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan, is insufficient to meet income needs.
The number and quality of definedbenefit pension plans are on the decline in Canada. More than half of all defined-benefit plans are facing a funding deficit, and only a select few pension plans are fully indexed to rise along with the cost of living.
Existing federal protection for seniors, including Old Age Security, the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan, is insufficient to meet income needs. For example, the CPP's maximum benefit level in 2007 was set at $863.75 per month, and it's been nearly 40 years since the last full review of income security for seniors.
It's time to demand stronger laws and regulations from the people we elect to represent us.
Ask candidates:
- Does your party support publiclyfunded and publicly-delivered quality public services that are universally accessible?
- What is your party's plan to make our taxation system fairer in order to reduce the growing income gap and to ensure we can improve and maintain our public services?
- What is your party's plan to ensure that corporations invest in Canada to create jobs and contribute their fair share to financially support our quality public services?
- Do you and your party support the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force, particularly the adoption of a new proactive pay equity law that will cover women as well as racially visible workers, Aboriginal workers and workers with disabilities?
- Will your party reinstate and implement the federal-provincial child care agreements negotiated prior to the Harper government's election and work to build a national child care system that is based on quality, affordability, accessibility and public funding?
- If your party is elected will it pledge to reinstate the Court Challenges Program and the Law Commission of Canada?
- Will your party reverse the cuts to Status of Women funding within and outside government and restore funding for women's groups who do research and advocacy work?
- Do you support legislation to double the benefit allowances of OAS, CPP and QPP?
- Will your party support legislation to give workers' pension funds first priority in corporate bankruptcies?
- Do you support calls for an employersponsored pension benefit guarantee fund?
- Does your party support tighter regulation of the mutual fund industry and caps on RRSP administration fees?
- The Federal Labour Standards Review Committee recommended an increase to the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour. Will you implement the committee's recommendation to raise the minimum wage?
Pouring oil on a slippery slope
There have been more recent government cuts to programs that ensure equality and help promote access to education and create employment:
- Major cuts and changes at Status of Women Canada, including cutting funding to women's groups for research and advocacy and cutting the Independent Policy Research Fund.
- Elimination of the Court Challenges Program (CCP), which funds test-cases initiated by individuals and groups to challenge federal laws and policies that violate their constitutional equality rights.
- Cancellation of the federal-provincial child care agreements, which would have provided much-needed child care spaces; they have replaced these agreements with a taxable $1,200 allowance per year for children under six.
- Elimination of the Law Commission of Canada, the arm of government that gives advice on how to improve Canada's laws.
- Cancellation of the Kelowna Accord, which would have gone a long way in closing the gap between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal people.
- Elimination of the First Nations Inuit and Tobacco Control Program, which aimed at reducing the 60% smoking rate in these communities, three times higher than the overall national smoking rate.
- Cuts of $17.7 million in literacy funding, $55.4 million in youth employment programs and $17.6 million in workplace skills programs.
Social Programs
The costs of social programs are rising and are unsustainable. In order to continue to provide these programs to Canadians, we must become open to alternative ways of delivering these programs. True or false?
If you said “true,” go to the back of the class. Unless you're already there… in which case, get out of the classroom.
Peer-reviewed studies by a McMaster University research group have shown that investor-owned, for-profit hospitals have 2% higher death rates and would drive up health-care costs to taxpayers by up to $7.2 billion a year.
No politician is obtuse enough to outrightly promote zero public funding for health care, universal child care, income supplements, education, and so on. What they dither over is how to deliver these social programs in a way that wouldn't place the government in a budget deficit.
The buzz phrase they use is “fiscal responsibility.” They want us to believe that minus signs or brackets around numbers in government accounting books are more devastating than thousands of sick, hungry, and undereducated children. Deficits, according to them, are so scary, we need to continue cutting social spending even when we've been enjoying budget surpluses for years. It's the business model of running government.
For most Canadians, however, our collective health and welfare is not about profit and loss. Canadians depend on social programs to enhance our quality of life and protect us against economic insecurity and illness. Public ownership and delivery of our social programs guarantees the best quality service possible because those who administer the programs are ultimately accountable to Canadians and not to shareholders.
Private profit or public health
For most Canadians, health care ranks first when speaking of social programs. So for opportunistic politicians, this becomes their favourite punching bag to show how tough they can be at controlling what they would call a funding-insatiable and ever-growing monster.
The tactic they typically use is to introduce the “free market” into the delivery of public services, arguing that private corporations are more cost-efficient at service and product delivery. On top of that, they'll beguile us with the promise that the free market will give us more choices. Their ploy goes by many names, including privatization, Public-Private Partnerships or P3s, and deregulation. It's nothing new. It just doesn't work.
The fundamental problem with private health-care providers is that they're more concerned about making profit and cutting operational costs than providing the best care possible. That's why they're usually referred to as “for-profit.”
Peer-reviewed studies by a McMaster University research group have shown that investor-owned, for-profit hospitals have 2% higher death rates and would drive up healthcare costs to taxpayers by up to $7.2 billion a year. Studies have also found that privatelydelivered health care doesn't improve access nor reduce waiting times.
Expand social programs
It's true that health-care costs are increasing. But this unsustainability is never blamed on a shrinking tax base that results from a series of tax cuts.
Furthermore, the rising cost is due in large part to the escalating costs of prescription drugs, an expenditure not covered by medicare. In fact, in the last 20 years, expenditures for doctors and hospitals have remained pretty stable, while drug costs rose by 63% from 1994 to 2004 alone.
Spending on prescription drugs has reached $20.6 billion and is increasing by more than 12% per year.
Establishing a national drug plan that includes a public, single-payer Pharmacare system would control these rising costs. That sounds a lot like the opposite of privatization and deregulation. And there are benefits.
According to Steve Morgan, PhD, of the UBC Health Services and Policy Research, freezing Canadian spending on prescription drugs for just one year would save enough to pay for 10,000 doctors.
Child care and early learning are other areas where more public funding and delivery are needed. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommends countries invest 1% of their GDP on child care. However, Canada's investment only reaches 0.3% of GDP, ranking it dead last among the 14 OECD countries surveyed (including France, UK, USA, Korea, Ireland).
Research shows that early learning affects the brain's ability to learn later on and that positive educational experience early in life is key to future success in school.
A report supported by Human Resources and Social Development Canada in 2007 also found that non-profit child care centres on average provided higher quality child care than for-profit child care centres.
Universal affordable child care is also good for the economy and can boost gender equality. It means that more women can join the labour force, expanding our tax base and narrowing the wage gap between men and women. An OECD research finds that the gender gap is lowest in countries that provide public child care like France and the Scandinavian countries.
Would your party direct the provinces to find public solutions to eliminate or reduce surgery wait times across Canada?
Ask candidates:
- Canada is obligated to provide adequate funding to the provinces for medicare and, in return, to demand that provinces abide by the Canada Health Act. Many provinces have turned to the private sector to deliver services, and the federal government has ignored those violations. Will you ensure that provinces abide by the five principles enshrined in the Canada Health Act? The five main principles are: Public Administration, Comprehensiveness, Universality, Portability and Accessibility.
- Canada's national child care program was scrapped by the Harper government in favour of the Universal Child Care Benefit, which pays a mere $100 per child under six. Will your government invest in a publicly delivered, national child care strategy to address the needs of families outside of Quebec?
- The cost of prescription drugs is skyrocketing in Canada as demand for them increases with an aging population, but increase in incomes have not been able to catch up. Do you support the development of a national drug strategy, financed and delivered by the public sector?
- Many people in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are referred south to other provinces for specialist care and advanced treatment. Privatization of these services could limit access. Will you fight to improve access for remote communities and support publicly delivered health care services?
- A recent report from Médecins canadiens pour le régime public (MCRP) found that several provinces have developed public solutions to reduce wait lists for knee, hip, eye and other surgical procedures without adding significantly to public health expenditures. Would your party direct the provinces to find public solutions like these to eliminate or reduce surgery wait times across Canada?
A passion for privatization and deregulation
Canada's national child care program was scrapped by the Harper government in favour of the Universal Child Care Benefit, which pays a mere $100 per child under six.
Attacks from all levels of government on our social safety net and infrastructure have been relentless: lower transfer payments to the provinces, downloaded services, weaker federal standards, privatization and cutbacks make it harder for Canadians to be able to rely on quality public services.
The next federal government should take note of the facts below and take leadership in defending quality public services.
- In 2001 Ontario announced a new civic hospital for Brampton, to be built as a P3 project housing 608 beds at a cost of $350 million. After a four-year legal battle, the Ontario Health Coalition has revealed documents showing costs rose to $650 million for just 479 beds. Once service costs are added in, the bill for the first P3 hospital will total more than $2.85 billion.
- As if this wasn't bad enough, about 40 more health care facility P3 projects have been announced to date across Canada.
- In 2003 the B.C. Liberal government announced plans to lease the Coquihalla Highway – one of the province's most crucial links to small communities – to the private sector, in return for $500 million. Tolls were scheduled to rise from $10-$13 per trip. The plan was scrapped after a strong public opposition and an intense campaign by the labour movement.
- PEI's Confederation Bridge, often cited as a successful P3, is estimated to have cost taxpayers $45 million more because it was financed privately.
- Canada's air navigation system was sold in 1996 to NavCanada, a regulated monopoly. NavCanada quickly began a series of cost-cutting measures, including layoffs, cutbacks, forced relocations, reduced system maintenance and demands for more flexible schedules and longer hours.
- In 2005 the B.C. Liberals broke a promise not to sell B.C. Rail and put northern economies at risk when it sold the rail lines to CN. Community and business leaders on all sides of the political spectrum opposed the decision, but the government went ahead with a deal that is still clouded by allegations of political scandal. More than 800 maintenance workers lost their jobs, two workers have died along the former rail line, many communities no longer have rail service and more than two dozen derailments have taken place.
- In Nov. 2007 Stephen Harper's Conservatives announced a $1.25 billion Public-Private- Partnership (P3) fund over seven years for ‘alternative financing' of public infrastructure. The plan was announced at Kicking Horse Canyon Bridge, the site of a major P3, where B.C. signed the cost-sharing deal, followed by Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The program includes a requirement to consider P3s on all projects that require a federal contribution of $50 million or more.
- The Conservative government introduced Bill C-39 in December 2007 to amend the Canada Grain Act. The bill would gut or kill several services and regulatory oversight activities of the Canadian Grain Commission, leaving producers severely disadvantaged in their dealings with big grain companies and undermining the quality and food safety assurance programs of Canada.
- In February 2007, the Conservative government announced that it intended to sell valuable real estate owned by the people of Canada and then lease it back.
Environment
Nine out of 10 Canadians rate the environment as one of their top concerns, and eight out of 10 Canadians believe that environmental protection should be given priority over economic growth. Politicians have narrowed this concern into a debate over embracing the Kyoto Protocol or rejecting it outright and implementing a “made-in- Canada” solution.
Rarely has anyone mentioned the benefits of fighting global warming: job creation in green industries, lower health-care costs and continuous agricultural production that will keep Canadians fed. And we extend humanity's existence on this planet to boot.
Despite widespread popular support, successive federal governments have systematically dismantled environmental programs and replaced them with rhetoric and little substance.
As a result, Canada has become an embarassment in the international community thanks to its performance in fighting climate change. Recent studies by the David Suzuki Foundation have shown that Canada has performed poorly in such environmental areas as greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and energy efficiency. Two recent evaluations of environmental performance ranked Canada 28 out of 30. Canada makes up less than one half of one per cent of the world's population, but we are the world's eighth largest producer of carbon dioxide, a chief contributor to global warming.
Canada makes up less than one half of one per cent of the world's population, but we are the world's eighth largest producer of carbon dioxide, a chief contributor to global warming.
Canadians are demanding the political will to create a national environmental plan and to turn Canada into a world leader in sustainability and environmental protection. And we insist that environmental programs be publicly delivered. We know all too well the record of the private sector in this area.
Not just about meeting targets
Often, the squabbling over Kyoto targets (which is a good and necessary step, but not the only step) shifts the public's attention away from more nefarious moves by governments that threaten our natural resources.
Canada's natural resources provide communities with safe water, foods, parks, energy, economic stability and building supplies. Many areas, especially in Canada's Northern regions, are ecologically sensitive. Canada's involvement in various trade agreements and a trend toward privatization are threatening public control of these precious resources. Governments have signed control away through multilateral agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
Canada, the U.S. and Mexico have agreed to develop a new regulatory framework for North America to remove barriers to economic and political integration, including access to natural resources. The SPP, under the advice of some of the continent's most powerful corporate leaders, was created to facilitate the negotiations.
If SPP initiatives are implemented, U.S. policy and security interests will prevail, bypassing the legislature and public debate, undermining sovereignty and leading Canada down a permanent path to privatization.
Resources for Sale: Canada's Water, Oil and Gas
According to Environment Canada, our country has about seven per cent of global renewable water supplies, an amount proportionate to our landmass.
Due to pollution, global warming and oil exploration, the world's supply of fresh drinking water is shrinking. Bulk water exports are currently exempt from trade agreements, but there is pressure from private operators to eliminate this barrier. If that happens, water becomes a commodity and is then subject to international trade rules, which means anyone can sell it.
In the UK, water services were privatized in 1989 to bring in private investment for infrastructure. Prices rose by 19-30% and are expected to rise even more dramatically by 2009.
Due to pollution, global warming and oil exploration, the world's supply of fresh drinking water is shrinking. Bulk water exports are currently exempt from trade agreements, but there is pressure from private operators to eliminate this barrier. If that happens, water becomes a commodity and is then subject to international trade rules, which means anyone can sell it.
Canada is also rich in energy resources, such as oil and gas, but governments have relinquished control over them through NAFTA and SPP. This will not only limit our access to these resources but will also be beyond the reach of Canadian government regulation, making environmental protection an impossibility.
Ask candidates:
- If your party is elected to form a
government, will you pledge to:
- support the re-instatement of adequate funding of federal environmental programs;
- support international initiatives calling for firm commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions;
- ensure that Canada lives up to its international agreements, including meeting or exceeding the legally binding targets agreed upon when Canada signed on to the Kyoto Accord?
- If elected, do you promise to protect Canadian water from privatization?
- Canada's future depends on control and ownership of our natural resources. The oil and gas industry has supplied major benefits to the Canadian economy to access a precious, non-renewable resource. But the companies are doing even better and companies pay more elsewhere in the world to access governmentowned resources. Would you end industry subsidies and execute a national energy strategy to protect resources and reduce environmental degradation?
- The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America wants to harmonize Canada's policies with those of the US and Mexico on everything from food to drugs and water supplies. Do you believe that North American integration is good for Canada?
The Conservatives decimated the budget for the National Wildlife Areas, a program that protects nationally significant habitats for wildlife and birds, from $1.9 million to zero.
Is it just me or is it getting hot in here?
Stephen Harper's and his party's position on the environment is… well, judge for yourself:
- In April 2007, the Conservative government unveiled a study to bolster their position that meeting Kyoto targets will cripple the Canadian economy. Nobody believed it. (Globe & Mail, April 19, 2007)
- Harper went into the G8 Summit in June 2007 with the position that Canada should be considered “special” when it comes to international agreements on climate change and touted a watered-down climate-change plan. The Summit failed to come up with concrete targets.
- After expressing a clear opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the Harper government's “viable” alternative, introduced in October 2006 by then-Enviromental Minister Rona Ambrose, was “intensity-based targets for reducing environmental emissions.” Essentially, this entailed a flexible target depending on the growth of an industry. For example, since the Alberta oilsands is experiencing rapid growth, they would have had higher emissions caps than other polluting industries.
- During their first two years in government, the Conservatives aggressively attacked quality
public services that were doing excellent work in monitoring and protecting the environment.
- They slashed 80% of the budget of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Network, which monitors changes in ecosystems.
- They cut half of the budget of the Migratory Bird Program, which monitors the health of bird populations.
- They decimated the budget for the National Wildlife Areas, a program that protects nationally significant habitats for wildlife and birds, from $1.9 million to zero.
- Devastation to the cod fishery on Canada's east coast has resulted in losses of 27,000 fishers' jobs. Millions of Sockeye salmon, whose normal habitat is B.C.'s Fraser River, have gone “missing” causing the closure of many fisheries. Yet, the Conservative government did nothing to address the chronic under-funding that has left the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) unable to meet its mandate of administering and enforcing the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act. •
- The Conservative government's deregulation and “Smart Regulation” initiatives also undermined the ability of DFO to carry out its mandate. It further introduced Bill C-45, The Sustainable Development of Canada's Seacoast and Inland Fisheries Act, which would increase deregulation, allowing for more activities and undertakings regardless of their harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
Your political rights: USE THEM!
One of the hallmarks of a healthy democracy is the ability of citizens to participate freely and actively in determining who they elect to govern and make decisions on their behalf. PSAC members are encouraged to take an active role in exercising their democratic political rights by:
- Signing a candidate's nomination papers.
- Wearing a party or candidate button in public.
- Placing an election sign on your property.
- Giving political opinions in public or elsewhere.
- Working as a canvasser for a political party or candidate.
- Working in a campaign office
- Participating in the formation of party or candidate policies
- Taking part in election-day activities on behalf of a party or candidate
- Attending peaceful demonstrations on political topics.
- Soliciting funds from the public for political campaigns and parties
- Attending a political convention as a delegate.
- Writing letters to the editor endorsing a candidate or party.
For some PSAC members – those covered by the Public Service Employment Act – some restrictions apply. None of the activities listed in the previous column should be carried out during your working hours.
There are also separate and special rules that apply if you wish to be a candidate in a federal, territorial, municipal or provincial election.
When determining how you want to exercise your democratic rights, follow some guiding principles.
- Don't conduct any political activity on the job.
- Don't identify yourself as a federal public sector worker when working on a campaign, e.g. canvassing, making phone calls, etc.
- Don't wear your uniform if you are required to wear one at work, or your government identification, at public meetings such as candidates' meetings.
- Don't drive a government identified vehicle when participating in election activities.
If you are disciplined in any way for participation in a political activity, this can be grieved. If you are disciplined, contact your Local/Branch or your Component for representation and advise your PSAC regional office. Any attempts by management to restrict your political rights should also be brought to the attention of the PSAC regional office.
Women's economic equality: Fact or Fiction?
Some politicians, particularly those in the Conservative government, would have us believe that women's equality is a done deal. A quick look at the facts proves otherwise.
- Women are more educated but still paid less:
- Women make 70.5% of the wages men make.
- University-educated women only earn 68% as much as men. Women hold the majority of jobs paying less than $35,000 a year.
- Men hold the majority of jobs paying $60,000 or more a year by a ratio of 2.5 to 1.
- Women have a harder time qualifying for Employment Insurance because the rules favour men's patterns of work.
- Pensions are lower because wages are lower.
- Over 40% of single-parent households headed by women are poor.
- The Conservatives $100-a-month ‘baby bonus' doesn't come close to covering the cost of quality child care and their tax incentives haven't created a single new child care space.
Obviously, some federal MPs, candidates and their parties need to understand the truth about women's economic reality. In the meantime, women are taking action through the Equality: Once and for all! campaign (www.onceandforall.ca).
Organized by the Canadian Labour Congress, its affiliated unions and women across the country, the campaign is making economic equality a priority using a range of activities designed to inform, mobilize and organize on a number of issues, including: child care, pensions, pay equity and violence against women.
The Quebec Federation of Labour is also organizing around four key issues: precarious work and working conditions of women, acceptance of foreign credentials and certifications, raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation, and women's work and role within the family.
During the election women will be grilling the candidates from all political parties about what they've done and what concrete steps they plan to take to improve economic conditions for women. Where do your candidates stand?
Home Site Map Contact Us Bargaining Search Join Our Union Français
Date Modified : 2008/10/07
Public Service Alliance of Canada | 233, Gilmour Street, Ottawa, ONTARIO CANADA, K2P 0P1, Tel.: 1 888 604-7722 (PSAC)