EDUCATION >
IS A RIGHT

In the first week of October, Hu-
man Resources Minister Lloyd
Axworthy released a document en-
titled “Agenda: Jobs and Growth -
Improving Social Security in
Canada”, his discussion paper (oth-
erwise known as “The Green Book”)
on what the Federal government
refers to as “Social Policy Reform.”
Axworthy’s portfolio covers Educa-
tion, Social Services (Welfare and
UIC), and Health Care. This docu-
ment was written in response to Fi-
nance Mininster Paul Martin’s de-
cree that Axworthy be prepared to

look at making cuts to programs .

such as Unemployment Insurance,
Canada Assistance Plan, Child Tax
Benefit Program, Canada Student
Loan Program, Established Program
Financing for post-secondary edu-
cation, and a variety of others. Ba-
sically, every Social Services pro-
gram other than Health Care. These
programs represent $38.7 billion of
the Human Resources budget - al-
most $19 billion of which is spent
on UIC.) The Federal budget is to
be released in February of 1995 and
will reccomend how and where the
cuts are to be made. Legislation
based on the budget’s recommenda-
tions should start passing through
Parliament sometime in spring.
Around the first of December
or so, ads appeared in several local
newspapers imploring us all to
“Have Your Say” with a drawing of
a hand writing the words “I think
that...” I responded to the ad, talked
to a polite young man named
Maurice who answered the phone
“Hello, Bonjour. Social Reform,
Reforme Sociale.” I described to him
the information that I wanted and
he said it would take two or three
days to process my request and
then, what with it being Christmas
and all, it would probably take a lit-
tle over a week to arrive. “But that’s
OK because you’ve got until Janu-
ary 16 to return it.” Thanks,
Maurice. And Merry Christmas.

The proclomation by govern-
ment of “Cutting the deficit = jobs =
growth” is something we’ve heard
before (Where? Preston Manning?).
It’s part of a series of social changes
that have been brewing for some
time and that we’ll likely see the re-
sults of in the coming year. In or-
der for us to be able to oppose short
sightedness in the form of the de-
struction of social programs, we
must know what it is that we are
opposed to. There are a lot of catch
phrases blowing around here, so I’ve
tried to break them down into some
categories.

Our friend Maurice works for
the government in an office which
refers to itself as “Social Reform.”
Does he work for the Reform Party?
No, this is a “Liberal” Party make
work project which has been set up
specifically as a public relations de-
vice to inform Canadians on the Hu-
man Resource Department’s ideas
on social reform which will be im-
plemented in the budget.

So what do they mean when
they talk of “social reform”?: Here’s
the opening paragraph of the Green
Book’s introduction:

Canada’s social security
system is a hallmark of
our nation. Through it,
we have defined ourselves
as a country that aspires
to give our children the
best possible start in life,
to enable all Canadians
to meet their basic needs,
and their families to live
with dignity. It is a system
dedicated to supporting
the most vulnerable in
our society, while creating
opportunity for all
Canadians to improve
their lives. Social security
embodies the values of
justice, tolerance and
compassion that mark
our country.

The intro sort of rambles on
about how proud we should be to
live in a country which espouses
values of compassion and tolerance,
how we’ve built up over years cul-
tural institutions that make being

Canadian better than being, oh say,
American. The last paragraph starts
with the word “But” and describes
the forces which have driven the
current government, now that we’ve
built all of these vital programs, to
tear it all down or, as they say, “to
build a social security system for the
21st century.” With the populist rise
of folksy rhetoric spinners like Pres-
ton Manning, the buzzword for the
role of government in general has
been - DEFICIT - less and less to pro-
vide services for the citizens of a
country and more and more to col-
lect taxes in an effort to pay off a
deficit for which the mere interest
payments represent a third of fed-
eral spending. The basic rationale
behind conservative economic
structures is to allow maximum
room for individual entrepeneurs
and multinational corporations to
do good things for the economy. If
the economy is doing well, there’ll
be more jobs (JOBS, JOBS, JOBS), and
the deficit will disappear. Even the
“Liberals” are so in favour of corpo-
rate society, that unpaid corporate
income tax accounts for 70% of the
deficit. Why don’t we tax our cor-
porations and upper income earn-
ers more rigourously? Because
they’re “good for the economy.”
Whose economy? Is renting your-
self out to a multinational corpora-
tion for minimum wage your idea
of “good for the economy”?

Oh, did I mention that spend-
ing on social programs accounts for
2% of the deficit? In 1950, the fed-
eral revenue was composed of 50%
corporate tax, 50% individual tax.
In 1990, it’s 10% corporate and 90%
individual. So, faced with these fig-
ures, one inevatibly has to ask one’s
self, “Whose deficit is it, anyway?” I
would be a poor citizen to com-
pletely deny my share of responsi-
bility for the state of this country’s
finances but look at it this way: The
Royal Bank of Canada made $1.6 bil-
lion dollars in revenue last year and
paid virtually no tax. When the gov-
ernment pays off the interest on
Canada’s deficit, who does that
money go to? Banks! When the gov-
ernment cries out a national emer-
gency, “Deficit! We have to cut
back!” where do they look to make
cuts? Social programs. That’s what
is meant by “social reform”.

NATIONAL STRIKE DAY

EDUCATION
IS A RIGHT

In the first week of October, Hu-
man Resources Minister Lioyd
Axworthy released a document en-
titled “Agenda: Jobs and Growth -
Improving Social Security in
Canada”, his discussion paper (oth-
erwise known as “The Green Book”)
on what the Federal government
refers to as “Social Policy Reform.”
Axworthy’s portfolio covers Educa-
tion, Social Services (Welfare and
UIC), and Health Care. This doct
ment was written in response to
nance Mininster Paul Martin's de-
cree that Axworthy be prepared to
look at making cuts to programs
such as Unemployment Insurance,
Canada Assistance Plan, Child Tax
Benefit Program, Canada Student
Loan Program, Established Program
Financing for post-secondary edu-
cation, and a variety of others. Ba-
sically, every Social Services pro-
gram other than Health Care. These
programs represent $38.7 billion of
the Human Resources budget - al-
most $19 billion of which is spent
on UIC.) The Federal budget is to
be released in February of 1995 and
will reccomend how and where the
cuts are to be made. Legislation
based on the budget's recommenda-
tions should start passing through
Parliament sometime in spring.

‘Around the first of December
or so, ads appeared in several local
newspapers imploring us all to
“Have Your Say” with a drawing of
a hand writing the words “I think
that...” responded to the ad, talked
to a polite young man named
Maurice who answered the phone
“Hello, Bonjour. Social Reform,
Reforme Sociale.” I described to him
the information that I wanted and
he said it would take two or three
days to process my request and
then, what with it being Christmas
and all, it would probably take a lit-
tle over a week to arrive. “But that's
OK because you've got until Janu-
ary 16 to return it.” Thanks,
Maurice. And Merry Christmas.

The proclomation by govern-
ment of “Cutting the deficit = jobs =
growth” is something we've heard
before (Where? Preston Manning?)..
It’s part of a series of social changes
that have been brewing for some
time and that we'll likely see the re-
sults of in the coming year. In or-
der for us to be able to oppose short
sightedness in the form of the de-
struction of social programs, we
must know what it is that we are
opposed to. There are a lot of catch
phrases blowing around here, so I've
tried to break them down into some
categories.

“SOCIAL REFORM”

Our friend Maurice works for
the government in an office which
refers to itself as “Social Reform.”
Does he work for the Reform Party?
No, this is a “Liberal” Party make
work project which has been set up
specifically as a public relations de-
Vice to inform Canadians on the Hu-
man Resource Department's ideas
on social reform which will be im-
plemented in the budget.

So what do they mean when
they talk of “social reform”?, Here's
the opening paragraph of the Green
Book's introduction:

Canada’s social security
system is a hallmark of
our nation, Through it,
we have defined ourselves
as a country that aspires
to give our children the
best possible start in life,
to enable all Canadians
to meet their basic needs,
and their families to live
with dignity. It is a system
dedicated to supporting
the most vulnerable in
‘our society, while creating
opportunity for all
Canadians to improve
their lives. Social security
embodies the values of
justice, tolerance and
compassion that mark
our country.

The intro sort of rambles on
about how proud we should be to
live in a country which espouses
values of compassion and tolerance,
how we've built up over years cul”
tural institutions that make being

Canadian better than being, oh say,
American. The last paragraph starts
with the word “But” and describes
the forces which have driven the
current government, now that we've
built all of these vital programs, to
tear it all down or, as they say, “to
build a social security system for the
21st century.” With the populist rise
of folksy rhetoric spinners like Pres-
ton Manning, the buzzword for the
role of government in general has
been - DEFICIT - less and less to pro-
vide services for the citizens of a
country and more and more to col-
lect taxes in an effort to pay off a
deficit for which the mere interest
payments represent a third of fed-
eral spending. The basic rationale
behind conservative economic
structures is to allow maximum
room for individual entrepeneurs
and multinational corporations to
do good things for the economy. If
the economy is doing well, there'll
be more jobs (JOBS, JOBS, JOBS), and
the deficit will disappear. Even the
“Liberals” are so in favour of corpo-
rate society, that unpaid corporate
income tax accounts for 70% of the
deficit. Why don’t we tax our cor-
porations and upper income earn-
ers more rigourously? Because
they're “good for the economy.”
Whose economy? Is renting you
self out to a multinational corpora-
tion for minimum wage your idea
of “good for the economy”?

‘Oh, did T mention that spend-
ing on social programs accounts for
296 of the deficit? In 1950, the fed-
eral revenue was composed of 50%
corporate. tax, 50% individual tax.
In 1996, it’s 10% corporate and 90%
individual. So, faced with these fig-
ures, one inevatibly has to ask one’s
self, “Whose deficit is it, anyway?” T
would be a poor citizen to com-
Pistely deny my share of responsi

lity for the state of this country’s
finances but look at it this way: The
Royal Bank of Canada made $1.6 bil-
lion dollars in revenue last year and
paid virtually no tax. When the gov-
ernment pays off the interest on
Canada’s deficit, who does that
money go to? Banks! When the gov-
ernment cries out a national emer-
penicy, “Deficit! We have to cut

rack!” where do they look to make
cuts? Social programs. That’s what,
is meant by “social reform”.

NATIONAL STRIKE DAY