Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2016

“On March 21st, members of Sanctuary Health, a network of healthcare workers and organizers, met for a vigil in front of the Fraser Health Authority Offices, one of BC’s largest health-care providers, in Surrey. They were there to honour the victims of a practice which puts migrants without permanent residency status at risk within the healthcare system.

Undocumented immigrants are often afraid to access services, like healthcare, because they’re likely to be referred to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and deported. A Freedom of Information request made by the community group revealed that between January of 2014 to October 2015, staff at Fraser Health’s facilities made 558 referrals to the Canada Border Services Agency. Fraser Health says they contact CBSA to determine billing rates since nonresidents are charged more. But doing so keeps many people away.

The FOI also showed that Fraser Health’s policy was to have staff – physicians, nurses, and social workers – work with the financial department in facilitating deportations of undocumented patients.

Knowing this, many avoid getting care. There are reports of people with expired tourist visas being visited at their hospital bedside by CBSA officials.

“We started to get phone calls from construction workers,” says Byron Cruz, a member of Sanctuary Health in an interview with Rankandfile.ca: “They say “I had this situation with my arm and I don’t want to go to the hospital because they’ll call immigration.””

Sanctuary Health was formed to deal with such situations.

“With some clients, we give direct nursing care such as dressing changes, wound care, assessment or just comforting them through a difficult time,” Sarah Reaburn, a nurse volunteering with Sanctuary Health said. The volunteers do this work while depending on free clinic space and supplies. Sanctuary Health volunteers also let people know about other places they can receive care, continuously connecting patients with trusted healthcare workers.

“We send a message to our network explaining the situation, then any of the nurses or healthcare workers can respond and say they can see the patient at the clinic, outside of the system,” says Cruz. “We had a construction guy with an eye injury who we arranged to meet a doctor at the corner of a street. We had another situation with a guy who needed stitches. We sent a message to the network and the first person who answered was a veterinarian.””

– Daniel Tseghay, “Hospitals are not border checkpoints,Rankandfile.ca. March 30, 2016.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

“An Ottawa man is being told to pay more than $190,000 in back taxes despite an arrangement through an outsourcing company that he and thousands of other indigenous employees believed made them exempt from paying personal income tax on income earned off-reserve.

Miche Jette received a notice from the Canada Revenue Agency last week informing him he owes $191,471.97 in income tax for work in Ottawa that began more than a decade ago.

“It’s urgent. It eats at me. I can’t sleep. I’m miserable. I’m depressed. I cry a lot. I’m angry. I’m sad. And I want it dealt with,” he said.

Jette was hired through the outsourcing company, Native Leasing Services, to work at the now-defunct advocacy group Aboriginal Healing Foundation in 1999.

As part of the O.I. Group of Companies, the outsourcing company’s head office is based in Six Nations of the Grand River, a First Nation near Brantford, Ont.

Off-reserve tax exemption

Because status Indians are exempt under Section 87 of the Indian Act from taxation on income earned on-reserve, the company’s objective was to offer First Nations people the same incentive to work for indigenous organizations off-reserve.

It seemed like an ideal situation to Jette, who grew up in Ottawa and is a member of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation in southern Ontario.

The Canada Revenue Agency notified Miche Jette that his wages would be garnisheed to pay more than $190,000 in back taxes.

“If it’s all aboriginal, then it’s tax-free,” he said. “So was I down for it? Yeah.”

But after a series of court challenges in the early 2000s, CRA started targeting individuals like Jette, demanding taxes on income earned off-reserve, even if they were working for aboriginal organizations.

He learned that his current wages as a receptionist and front-line worker at the Centretown Community Health Centre would be garnisheed until the debt is paid off. He makes roughly $2,000 a month.”

– Waubgeshig Rice, “CRA orders First Nations man to pay $190K in back taxes,” CBC NewsMarch 29, 2016

Read Full Post »

The plastic we discard into the ocean often makes its way into the mouths and stomachs of sea creatures.

A post-mortem of the creatures, found ashore near the town of Toenning in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, showed their stomachs were full of plastic.

This plastic included a 13-metre-long (43-foot-long) fisherman’s net and a 70-centimetre (28-inch) piece of plastic from a car.

The sperm whales probably didn’t die by being poisoned by plastic, however.

Scientists thought it was likely they perished from heart failure due to starvation.“

These findings show us the results of our plastic orientated society,” Schleswig-Holstein environment Minister Robert Habeck told the Daily Mail.

“Animals inadvertently consume plastic and plastic waste which causes them to suffer and at worst, causes them to starve with full stomachs.”

– Helena Horton, “Post-mortem on thirteen dead sperm whales finds their stomachs full of plastic,” The Telegraph. March 29, 2016.

Read Full Post »

“Pikangikum — which has one fire truck, but no water to make it useful — is in a state of shock, said Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, and “trying to come to grips with the magnitude of the tragedy” that occurred Tuesday night in the fly-in reserve about 500 miles northwest of Thunder Bay.

While police have not released the exact number of victims, Robert Nault, a local member of parliament, told the media the death toll on one family had reached nine. Three of the victims were children.

The deaths are devastating for the already embattled community, which has made headlines over the past few years because of its high youth suicide rate.

Politicians, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, offered their condolences to the community on Wednesday.”

– Tamara Khandaker, “A Fire Killed Nine People on a Canadian Reserve With One Fire Truck, But No Water,” Vice News, March 30, 2016

Read Full Post »

“On the morrow of the putsch, the Ruhr stood in the van of the armed struggle
and the organisation of workers’ power. In a number of places, a network of
workers’ councils and action committees had taken power. The action
committee in Hagen was a genuine revolutionary military leadership which
could call on 100,000 armed workers. The workers’ units went on the attack
on 18 March, and the Reichswehr pulled back its scattered forces, one of
which left behind for the workers of Düsseldorf 4,000 rifles, 1,000 machine-
guns, cannon, mortars and ammunition. Although the workers in the Ruhr
appeared to be the masters during the following week, they were so far ahead
of their comrades in the rest of the country that they were dangerously isolated.
Social Democrats, Independents and even Communists everywhere else had
willingly or unwillingly accepted the situation created by the return to work
and the breakdown of the discussions about forming a workers’ government.
The delegates from the Ruhr, Wilhelm Düwell on 21 March, and Graul on
the 23rd, described to the Berlin strike committee the situation in their region
and the danger created by the shortage of food. On 23 March, the Zentrale
sent Wilhelm Pieck to the scene. 

Political divisions ran deep. The committee
in Hagen was formed of Majority Social Democrats, Independents and two
Communists, Triebel and Charpentier. However, their party had just disavowed
them, because they agreed to open negotiations without being mandated to
do so. In Essen the executive committee, which was under Communist
influence, reacted to Hagen’s support for negotiations by considering how
to outflank its committee.
On 18 March, the action committee in Hagen called on workers who were
not armed to return to work. On 20 March, it made known its demands in
respect of the Reichswehr to General von Watter, who had waited until 16
March to dissociate himself from von Lüttwitz: these were that the Reichswehr
be disarmed and withdrawn from the whole industrial region, and that a
militia be formed under the control of the workers’ organisations. In the
meantime, ‘public order would be ensured by armed formations of workers’. Bauer replied by telegraph that these conditions were not acceptable, because
von Watter and his forces had not taken the side of the putsch. The Ministers
Giesberts and Braun came to the support of Severing, the Reich’s Commissioner,
in negotiations aimed at an agreement based on the ‘nine points of the trade
unions’. 

The talks opened in Bielefeld on 23 March in the presence of a vast
gathering of representatives of the councils in the principal cities, several
mayors and the representatives of the workers’ parties and trade unions,
including Charpentier and Triebel, the two Communist members on the Hagen
action committee. A small commission drew up a statement which all the
participants finally approved on 24 March. The representatives of the
government confirmed in it that they agreed with the programme of the trade
unions, and that they accepted a temporary collaboration between the military
authorities and the workers’ representatives whilst the terms of the agreement
were fulfilled. Josef Ernst was attached to Severing and General von Watter. It was expected that, in a first stage, the workers would retain under arms a
limited number of men whom the authorities would control, and who would
be recognised as auxiliary police. Most of the workers’ arms would be handed
in, and fighting was to stop immediately. 

These agreements were not respected in practice. Nonetheless, Wilhelm
Pieck, who learned that they had been signed when he arrived in Essen,
insisted that an armistice must be enforced which would enable the workers
to retain their arms, and to organise solidly the militia which had provisionally
been conceded to them. But he failed to convince the members of the
executive council in Essen, who did not regard themselves as bound by an
agreement in which they had had no say. Moreover, the men from Duisburg
and Mülheim, on the Left of this committee which the KPD(S) controlled and
under the influence of the opposition Communists, together with the members
of the powerful local new ‘unions’, amongst whom anarchists had real influence,
denounced the ‘traitors’ who had signed, and called for the struggle to be
continued. There was a crowd of rival revolutionary authorities, six or seven
‘military leaderships’, and each was trying to outflank the others.

On 24 March, the Essen executive council met in the presence of Josef Ernst
and of a ‘front-line’ delegate from Wesel, where the workers were attacking
the barracks. The representatives from Mülheim condemned any armistice
in advance, but admitted that they were short of ammunition. The council
refused to recognise the agreements, at which point the Hagen committee
declared that it was dissolved, and repeated its order that fighting must end.
This decision was ineffectual. On the next day, 25 March, a meeting was
held, again in Essen, of delegates of seventy workers’ councils in the Ruhr,
with the principal leaders of the ‘Red Army’. Pieck spoke to emphasise that
the agreements offered no guarantees, and he suggested that the workers
should retain their arms in the meantime, although he warned against
provoking fights. The assembly elected a central committee formed of ten
Independents, one Majority Social Democrat and four Communists. Pieck
said: ‘We have not succeeded in convincing the front-line comrades that it
would be better to stop fighting.’ 

Two days later, however, the central council in Essen decided, against the
opinion of its military leaders but in the light of the general situation, to
demand that the government open armistice negotiations.  The next day,
there was a conference in Hagen of delegates of the three workers’ parties.
Pieck spoke there to the effect that the situation was not ripe for a conciliar
republic, but that they should fight to arm the proletariat, to disarm the
bourgeoisie, and to reorganise and re-elect the workers’ councils.  The decision
was taken to negotiate, but also to prepare to resume the general strike in
the event of an attack from the Reichswehr. A second meeting of the councils,
which was called for the 28th by the Essen central council and at which Levi
was present, confirmed this position.  But on the same day, Hermann Müller
told the central council that he demanded as a precondition for any negotiations
that the illegal authorities be wound up and the arms be handed in. 

Fighting continued during these days, and the central council did not
succeed in imposing throughout the industrial region sufficient authority to
make its policies effective. In Wesel, the barracks had been under siege for
several days, and the ‘Red Army’ chiefs in Wesel issued fiery summonses
to battle which the central council criticised as ‘adventurist’. In Duisburg
and Mülheim, ‘unionist’ elements threatened to sabotage the industrial
installations and to ‘destroy the plant’ in the event of an advance by troops. 

A revolutionary executive committee, installed in Duisburg under the
authority of the ultra-leftist Wild, decided to seize bank accounts and all
foodstuffs, and called for the workers’ councils to be elected exclusively by
workers ‘who stand for the dictatorship of the proletariat’. Incidents began
to break out between workers of opposed tendencies, supporters or adversaries
of the armistice, and partisans or opponents of sabotage. A member of the
opposition, Gottfried Karrusseit, issued inflammatory proclamations, and
signed them as ‘Commander-in-Chief of the Red Army’. Pieck treated him
as a ‘crazed petty bourgeois’. 

The central council in Essen was in no better position to guarantee a cease-fire than the Hagen action committee had been a few days earlier. General
von Watter took advantage of this disunity and the internal differences in the
workers’ camp. He demanded from the Essen leaders that within 24 hours
they hand in to him four heavy guns, 10 light guns, 200 machine-guns, 16
mortars, 20,000 rifles, 400 boxes of artillery shells, 600 mortar bombs and
100,000 cartridges. If the arms and ammunition were not handed over to him
within the time limit, he would regard the workers’ leaders as having refused o disarm their forces, and having broken the agreement. The Essen council
replied to this provocative ultimatum by calling for a general strike. 

On 30 March, delegates from the Essen council were in Berlin, where they
took part in a meeting which included the leaders of all the trade unions and
workers’ parties, including Pieck and Levi. They unanimously decided to
demand from the Müller government that it take measures to ensure that the
Bielefeld agreement was respected, and that the military authorities were
rendered harmless. Five representatives, including Levi, were received by
Chancellor Müller, and demanded from him that General von Watter be
recalled.129 Their effort was in vain. The Chancellor replied that the agreement
had been one-sidedly broken, and he used the robberies, seizures of bank
accounts and threats of sabotage to justify ‘the maintenance of order’.

When Pieck returned to Essen, he found a state of extreme confusion. A
majority of the members of the central council had gone to Münster to negotiate
with Severing, and nearly all of them had been arrested by the army on the
way. Nonetheless, another general assembly of the councils for the industrial
region was held in Essen on 1 April, with 259 representatives from 94 councils. Pieck, an Independent, Oettinghaus, and the representative from Mülheim,
Nickel, reported on the events in Berlin, and the assembly adopted a position
on the armistice conditions. It issued an appeal to defend and develop the
network of workers’ councils. 

On 3 April, von Watter’s troops began their advance. They met only sporadic
resistance because the confusion and disagreement between different leaders
paralysed every slight attempt at coordinating the defence. The behaviour
of the soldiery when they were reoccupying the coalfield was such as to provoke the anger even of Severing himself. Soon, military courts were
passing heavy prison sentences on militant workers accused of crimes or
misdemeanours which were really requisitions or measures of struggle. A
month after the putsch had been crushed by the general strike, the accomplices
of the putschists took ample revenge in the Ruhr. 

The events of March 1920 were to have far-reaching effects. The Reichswehr
had restored order, and the crisis in the workers’ movement seemed to be
reaching its peak. The Zentrale’s vacillations, its evasions and its turns had
prevented the KPD(S) from reaping the rewards it might have expected from
the event. However, it was to try to deepen the crisis which surged up again
in the Social-Democratic Parties.”

– Pierre Broue, The German Revolution, 1917-1923. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006, pp. 372-377.

Photographs all show the ‘Red Army’ of the Rhineland during the March 1920 fighting. Sources are, from top to bottom: 1) The Rhineland during the World War. 2) RF News. 3) South German Photo Archive. 4) Getty. 5) Otto Dix, “Streetfighting.” Photo of destroyed 1920 art. Art for a Change.

Read Full Post »

“Marie Henein’s brother and Justice William Horkins’ son work at the same firm, Cassels Brock, CANADALAND has learned. To our knowledge, this relationship was not publicly disclosed before the Ghomeshi trial began.

Lawyer Peter Henein is a partner at Cassels Brock and is a part of the firm’s Advocacy Group. Lawyer Chris Horkins is an associate in the same group. The firm itself has “more than 200 lawyers based in Toronto and Vancouver,” according to its website.

According to a senior partner at Cassels Brock, Chris works “with and for Peter.” He said the Advocacy Group includes 39 or 40 lawyers.“I guess we prefer to say ‘with him,’ but he works with and for him,” the partner said.

As a Cassels Brock partner, Peter Henein assumedly has influence over the future of Chris Horkins’s career at their firm, as any of the firm’s partners would.  

Some don’t think this is an issue. “This relationship is too tenuous to require acknowledgement or to create any problems,” said Clayton Ruby, a lawyer who deals with criminal law. Others we spoke to echoed this sentiment, and said entanglements like this are very common in Toronto’s small and interconnected legal community.

David Tanovich, a law professor at the University of Windsor who writes about ethics said, “No person looking at these facts realistically and practically would conclude that there is the slightest chance the judge would be unable to decide the case fairly simply because his son works in the same large law firm as defence counsel’s brother.” He added that in his opinion to publish a story that would inform the public about this relationship would be “irresponsible.”

But a Toronto lawyer, who asked that his name not be used, said these common overlaps between lawyers and judges is themselves a problem. He is concerned about the optics of the relationship. He feels it should have been disclosed.

“I don’t actually think this affected Justice Horkins’ view of the case, his judgement, or the way he decided on the case, but I do think lawyers and judges have an obligation to the public for there to be an appearance that justice is being done and there’s an appearance justice can be done in a neutral and fair way,” he said.

He also said “every time the judge allowed Henein to pick away at complainants a little bit over Crown objection, someone could have been wondering, ‘why is he letting her do that?’ I think the victims would have like to know.”

He recognized conflicts are an issue lawyers have to deal with all the time but said especially in a high-profile case like Ghomeshi’s, “When you have a situation that puts a justice in a potential conflict or a potential apprehension of a conflict, that’s a problem.”

– Jane Lytvynenko, “Ghomeshi Judge’s Son Works for Marie Henein’s Brother,CANADALAND. March 30, 2016.

Read Full Post »

The Liberals have no plans to make Canada’s employment insurance fund independent of the federal government, Finance Minister Bill Morneau said Thursday.

“I think the current system works,” he said in a round-table interview with The Canadian Press.

Morneau said new measures to help the unemployed are included in his recently tabled budget.

The NDP and Bloc Quebecois, however, have long wanted the fund to be independent to prevent governments from using surpluses to reduce budget deficits or pay down debt.

Employment insurance surpluses were $3.5 billion in 2014 and $2.2 billion in 2015, with the money going directly into government coffers.

The government predicts an EI surplus of $1.2 billion in 2016 and a deficit in 2017 when the Liberals plan to introduce a reduction in premiums.

Contributions to the EI fund will be lowered that year to $1.61 per $100 earned from $1.88 — a sharper decrease than the Liberals promised during the election campaign.“

– The Canadian Press, “Bill Morneau rejects making employment insurance fund independent,” CBC News, March 24, 2016

My pal Doug Nesbitt’s comment:

“Liberals and Tories continue to plunder our EI program for their pet projects. The EI surplus was $3.5 billion in 2014 and $2.2 billion in 2015. Only 40 percent of unemployed are now eligible for EI benefits compared to about 80 percent before the Liberals gutted eligibility in the early/mid 1990s. Those E surpluses are being cycled into general government revenues and are now financing Trudeau’s “middle class” tax cuts: the income bracket benefiting is higher than about 63% of Canadian workers’ incomes.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »