NEWS AROUND THE LOCAL DECEMBER 2006
[RETURN TO MAIN NEWS PAGE]

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED

The Bethlehem Project is a community housing project to help serve those that face poverty, abuse and family breakdown. The plan is to build a 40-unit apartment building on James St. in St. Catharines.

Our Local Union is a co-partner in this endeavor and as such has committed to providing free labour to make the project a reality. We are now in the process of recruiting volunteers to help with the construction. Our contribution is similar to that of a Habitat for Humanity project but on a much larger scale.

We know our members have an enormous amount of skill and talents and we need you to lend them to us to make this housing project come true. We are not looking for specific skills but for all those wishing to help those less fortunate in our community. Even if you have never participated in a project like this before now is your chance to get involved.

All volunteers are welcome and needed. We need all those with a green thumb (landscaping) to sore thumb (carpentry) and everyone in between. So don’t be bashful, sign up today to get involved in a project that you will remember your entire lifetime.

For further information or to sign up call Malcolm Allen, (905) 682-2611; or email: mallen@caw199.com

APRIL 2006 ISSUE

The following is an OHC summary of Bill 36 the LHIN legislation:

In Bill 36 the ministry of Health and Long Term Care has given itself major new powers to order health system restructuring and contracting out.

The legislation covers hospitals, certain psychiatric facilities, long term care facilities, (public, non & for profit) homecare, community mental health and addiction agencies, community health service providers, community health centers and others by regulation. It does not include family doctors, chiropodists, dentists, optometrists, independent health facilities, labs, public health and certain corporations of health professionals. If the purpose of the legislation is to create an integrated health system, it is impossible to see how this could be done without the inclusion of the major providers of primary health care.

The legislation centralizes - rather than regionalizes - control over the health system. The Minister shall issue a strategic plan for the health system. The LHINs are appointed by cabinet and will be provided with funding from the Ministry at the Minister’s discretion. They will be bound by Accountability Agreement to allocate that funding and find integration opportunities following the direction of the Minister’s strategic plan. In turn, in their regions, the LHINs will come to Service Accountability Agreements with the health providers covered in the legislation. These Service Accountability Agreements will be required to comply with the direction of the strategic plan set out by the Minister. They will be backed by court order. The legislation overrides current provisions for democracy and community control over health provider organizations. The legislation mandates the LHINs to seek opportunities to transfer or merge services, to coordinate interactions and create partnerships (between non-profits or for-profits.)

The most recent major round of health restructuring through the cessation of the Health restructuring Commission in 1996 covered only hospital services and did not include the extensive powers and scope set out in this legislation.

This is a very complex piece of legislation with many implications that will no doubt lead to much legal wrangling if it is passed. Some of the major issues of interest to patients, caregivers, care workers, health professionals and providers are covered in our analysis. However, the full implications of the legislation’s provisions pertaining to powers to transfer property and services, the funding arrangements and implications for hospitals with deficits, and the amendments to other legislation cannot be covered here.

There are some significant dangers in this legislation. While the legislation specifies how the LHINs, Ministry and Cabinet can exercise their powers to order restructuring and indemnifies them from liability for those decisions, it is short on provisions for democratic control, public input, public notice, and principles to guide this health restructuring. For those of us who support an enhanced and strengthened public non-profit health system, this legislation does nothing to extend the public health system or promote non-profit health care. In fact, the legislation promotes privatization in several ways and facilitates the spread of competitive bidding through the hospital system.

DECEMBER 2005 ISSUE

Our Hospital is a Privatized, P3 Hospital

That is true from the perspective of the title because the McGuinty government calls the new initiative "AFP". The real truth is that these hospitals are privatized hospitals by the accepted academic and industry standards.

The term "P3" or "public, private partnership" was created by the P3 lobby to brand their product. The term has been picked up and used by academics, governments, etc. It refers to the transfer of ownership, operation or financing of public non-profit assets and services to the private for profit sector. In P3’s there remain some public elements of public sector involvement through contract, title or other mechanism and importantly public subsidy. There are several generic categories containing sub categories in the continuum of P3 privatization options set out by the industry. Which include two of the following:

· Operation and Maintenance Contract (O & M) private operator operates a publicly owned asset for a contracted term.

· Design Build Finance Operate (DBFO) the private sector designs, builds, finances and constructs a facility under a long-term lease and operated the facility during the term of the lease.

Our local hospital is a subject of the DBFO category with the title remaining public, which means it will be designed, built and financed by the private sector. That means we will pay the mortgage at a much higher rate for the private financing than we would have if the government had secured the financing.

The other justification for using this option is that government projects are always over budget. The reality is it is private companies that do the actual construction not governments and it is the private companies that pass on the costs. This latest idea of signed contracts with no cost overruns will encourage the private companies to charge a risk premium which could add 30% to the original cost. So in the end the private companies will make their profit no matter what we think.

We have been assured that these latest incarnations of P3s will be transparent, accountable and have the public interest at heart. In fact virtually all the important information about the P3 hospital and the P3 policy has been hidden from the public. There is no legislation to bring in privatized hospitals for transparency, public interest or value for money. There is no legislation introduced that would insure that the public’s right to access information would override commercial secrecy in the P3 contracts.

There is no argument that we need hospital infrastructure, the only argument is how much do we pay for it. Under the present proposal we will pay for more than we need to. There are other alternatives that would see the same infrastructure built at a lower cost all that is needed is the political will to embrace these alternatives.

For additional information:
· www.P3watch.ca · www.web.net/ohc

As we look around our communities, we see the need for infrastructure renewal. From roads, sewers, water distribution, hospitals and recreation facilities are all in need of replacement or refurbishing. The cost to the taxpayer is staggering at first glance. When we actually look deeper into the issue, we see that we do have the financial capabilities to renew our infrastructure.

Historically, the federal government had the most flexibility to finance public infrastructure. The federal government also has the largest revenue base (all Canadian taxpayers) of any government in Canada. In fact, there is a fiscal imbalance (and still growing) between the three levels of government; federal, provincial and municipal. The federal government has reduced its investment in public infrastructure from 34% of total cost down to 22% of cost. At the same time as it was contributing fewer dollars directly, it gave smaller transfers (dollars) to the provinces. Thus exacerbating the financial difficulties of the provinces. This resulted in less major capital projects being undertaken during the last 20 years.

The difficulty we face is a backlog of infrastructure renewal that is now before us because of the short sighted decision of the 1990’s. We understand that our infrastructure must be upgraded on a continuous basis if it is to serve our present and future needs. Since this was not done, we are now playing catch up that makes it look like we cannot afford it. The truth is we can afford it financially but what we can’t afford is to allow our infrastructure to further deteriorate.

A return to a level of funding that was common during the 1960’s and 1970’s is more then adequate to finance the renewal of our infrastructure. So it is not only practiced but essential that we publicly finance our public infrastructure. To do it any other way , will cost us billions of dollars more.

We have seen the bright side of humankind that we all know existed. Unfortunately it took a horrific event (Tsunami) to galvanize the global community to action to help those whose plight is so desperate. The outpouring of financial and human aid is unprecedented in recent history. Aid organizations have been taken aback by the scope of the generosity of Canadians. That aid must not be short term but must continue to flow to the affected areas so that there is a future for all those that survived.

Beyond the cameras eye there are many other areas that are deserving of our attention. It is because of our awareness of issues that we continue to help those that need it most.

Therefore it is imperative that we do not forget those people that continue to suffer. It is most important that the media not be pre-occupied with the sensational but inform us of the needs of humankind so that we do not lose track of those in need.

The Darfur region of Sudan, Aids in Sub & Saharan Africa, de-mining throughout the world are but a few of the areas that are deserving of our attention and our humanity. The media needs to keep the light on these and other deserving areas so that they are not overlooked during this period of humanitarian giving.

We all need to be congratulated for our efforts and support of those less fortunate. But we must force our Federal government to increase aid to those less fortunate once this crisis has subsided. We as Canadians were once at the top of the list of aid donations for governments, unfortunately we have slipped badly because of our government’s budget reductions. The message is loud and clear we as Canadians individually believe most passionately about helping those in need and our government should heed the message and immediately restore its aid budget. As we move forward the governments aid budget should be increased so that we are at the top of the list of humanitarianism worldwide. It is crystal clear that we as a people believe it is now our government must act.

To all who gave to this disaster and all who continue to give of their time, energy and resources the next time you see yourself in the mirror give yourself a big smile, you deserve it. Well done.

As we approach the Christmas Season we are bombarded with advertising that promotes buying. We are prodded, cajoled and guilted into buying more than we can afford and almost certainly more than we need.

Retailers are more cognizant of our wants and desires and have become the masters of promotion. They unabashedly promote products that they know are produced in sweatshops. They have no regard for how the products are made or under what conditions workers were forced to endure as long as the price is low.

Unfortunately many of us have forgotten those workers who toil for slave-like wages in abysmal conditions. We need to remember those workers and demand that they receive livable wages and working conditions that we expect for ourselves. It may seem like it is impossible for a single person to change the whole system but that is how all change happens, one person at a time taking action on behalf of another.

As this holiday season approaches lets take the truly important gifts of life, family and friends. But lets also take the time to remember that there are also many less fortunate than ourselves. No matter what circumstances we find ourselves in, there is always someone somewhere worse off.

Remembering them is a powerful gift because it lets them know that we acknowledge their plight and wish to end it. So our next gift must be the gift of hope that we will correct the injustices that they suffer. It will be a long arduous process but it is possible to succeed if we as a community want it to succeed.

So, during this holiday season spend a moment reflecting on how we can make life more hopeful for those that have none. But also take the time to enjoy your family not just during this holiday season but all year long. We all need to take a deep breath and slow down and enjoy the ride of life.

Wishing all of you and your families a safe and happy holiday season.

APRIL 2004 ISSUE

I was fortunate and privileged to present a brief to the standing committee on Finance and Economic Affairs as well as the standing committee on Healthcare Accountability. It is unusual to get two opportunities to articulate our message to legislative committees.

During both days of hearings all the presentations had the same theme that our present healthcare system needs reform but more importantly it must remain publicly controlled not privatized. The evidence is overwhelming that private (P3) services cost more than publicly delivered healthcare. Not only does the P3 private system cost more it actually results in less service than the public system because a profit has to be made even at the expense of service.

There are numerous studies that have been done in the United Kingdom and Australia where P3s have been utilized all came to the same conclusion that they (P3) are more expensive than the public system and offer less service. The British Medical Association Journal as this to say about P3s:

· Compared with public hospitals in Scotland service delivery has been reduced.

· The planning targets and increase in clinical activity in acute specialists in the P3 hospitals has not been achieved.

· There is evidence of an independent "P3 effect" on hospital downsizing and bed reductions which has resulted in severe capacity constraints across all acute specialties.

· Further hospital and community service downsizing may be required to meet the financial deficit which is primarily due to the high costs of the P3s.

As this prestigious medical journal report says P3s are bad public policy not only in terms of less service but ultimately it will cost more for the taxpayer. For more information or to join the Niagara Healthcare Coalition call (905) 641-1646 or email scdlc@niagara.com

DECEMBER 2003 ISSUE

The following letter was sent to George Smitherman from the Ontario Health Coalition.

We are writing this open letter in response to Premier McGuinty’s comments as reported by Caroline Mallan in the Toronto Star on Friday regarding the for-profit hospitals (P3s) and MRI/CT clinics:

"McGuinty said the deficit will also be a factor when it comes to his party’s promises to scrap the MRI and CT scan clinics set up across the province by the Tories and to bring planned privately owned hospitals in both Ottawa and Brampton into the public system.

On the private clinics, McGuinty now says his government is looking for "wiggle room" in the sign deals with those private operators. On the privately owned hospitals, the Liberals have said all along that they will assess and move based on the cost to taxpapers."

As you can imagine, the Premier’s comments have sparked a flurry of very concerned emails and phone calls to us. Community members in Brampton and Ottawa are exceedingly concerned about your plans, as are people across the province. For this reason, we are issuing this correspondence as an "open letter". We wish to point out several points missed in the Premier’s remarks:

1) As your party noted in the lead-up to the election, the co-called "saving" to the public purse by privatizing the finance, operation and ownership of hospitals is, in fact, a false economy. The worldwide evidence is clear. As public audit offices in Britain, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Australia and as the former director at the Auditor General’s office in Canada have found, P3 hospitals do not save money, they cost more. The off-book accounting that characterizes P3 schemes may hide the debt from public scrutiny but it does not erase the debt for the next generation of Ontarians. This type of accounting has been entirely discredited by the Enron fiasco.

2) Not only do P3 hospitals cost more, the high costs associated with this model of redevelopment on the capital side lead to cuts to operating and clinical budgets, including, on average, 26% staff cuts and 30% bed cuts, according to the British Medical Association Journal. The hospitals are smaller, have shown up poorly in inspections, lead to new user fees and two tier healthcare and remove democratic control accountability.

3) A report was released last week by several eminent Canadians including Arthur Donner, Douglas D. Peters, Monica Townson, Armine Yalnizyan and Lewis Auerbach calling for immediate cancellation of the P3 deals and public finance of new hospital infrastructure. Their arguments about increased costs and loss of accountability in the P3 hospitals echo those that we have been making over the last two years. They noted that these hospitals are a threat to the future of Medicare. They also note that your government could move to an accrual accounting system to eliminate the systemic bias against public investment in infrastructure and that low interest rates make it a good time to invest. This report provides the viable public option your government seeks for funding new hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa.

4) As you must be aware, there are few or no penalties associated with canceling the Brampton and Ottawa P3s and replacing them with public hospitals.

5) The contracts for the MRI/CT clinics and the project agreements for the Brampton & Ottawa P3s still remain secret and shielded from public scrutiny. We hope that you will move to immediately disclose the terms of these contracts and agreements, and that you will work to bring the scanners into public hospitals as promised in the election campaign.

We sincerely hope that you consider the voices of the patients, healthcare workers and caregivers of Ontario who have opposed the loss of public control over our hospitals and clinics as you are making your decision. We look forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience about these issues.

In December 2001, Ontario Health Minister Tony Clement announced the first two PPPs for hospitals in the country. These for-profit hospitals are planned in Brampton and Ottawa. The deal is this: a for-profit company or consortium builds the hospital and owns and runs all "non-clinical" services. They lease it back to the province under an approximately 30 year lease. After the end of the leasing period, the private company owns the hospital.

The problems? The first is that PPPs are expensive, way more expensive that building hospitals publicly. In Ontario, the full cost will not be revealed to us for quite some time. In Britain, a journalist George Monbiot, reported, "Between the first proposal for a hospital replacement or refurbishment and the conclusion of the final deal with private consortia, the British Medical Association has found the cost of the schemes has risen by an average of 72%. Vast sums of money went to profit, consultants, lawyers and more private borrowing. With a thirty-plus year lease, we are bound into this expensive deal for an entire generation. After we pay more to build the hospital, give the private consortium prime real estate and boost their profit margins, we have nothing to show for it. They own the hospital at the end of the leasing period.

The PPPs proposed by Clement are a very risky deal. Giving the private consortium control of all "non-clinical" services puts profit seeking corporations in control of key hospital functions. In Britain, private hospitals have resulted in a 30% reduction in beds. Profit is found through reducing costs: laying off staff, reducing numbers of beds, using the cheapest construction and design techniques.

In Ontario, the conservative government in the mid-80’s planned for profit hospitals in Mississauga and Hawkesbury. They pulled out when it became public that the scheme would cost the public $3 million more for the corporate profit.’

In PEI, the government pulled out of its for profit hospital project after it discovered that it would cost more than if the hospital were kept public.

Nova Scotia experimented with for profit, leased back schools. Again, the provincial government withdrew from these projects after it realized there were no cost savings to be had.

We need to be vigilant locally to ensure that a "P3" privately funded hospital is not built in St. Catharines.

"PPP"S (P3) PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

In December 2001, Ontario Health Minister Tony Clement announced the first two PPPs for hospitals in the country. These for-profit hospitals are planned in Brampton and Ottawa. The deal is this: a for-profit company or consortium builds the hospital and owns and runs all "non-clinical" services. They lease it back to the province under an approximately 30-year lease. After the end of the leasing period, the private company owns the hospital.

The problems? The first is that PPPs are expensive…way more expensive than building hospitals publicly. In Ontario, the full cost will not be revealed to us for quite some time. In Britain, a journalist George Monbiot, reported, "Between the first proposal for a hospital replacement or refurbishment and the conclusion of the final deal with private consortia, the British Medical Association has found the cost of the schemes has risen by an average of 72%. Vast sums of money went to profit, consultants, lawyers and more private borrowing. With a thirty-plus year lease, we are bound into this expensive deal for an entire generation. After we pay more to build the hospital, give the private consortium prime real estate and boost their profit margins, we have nothing to show for it. They own the hospital at the end of the leasing period.

The PPPs proposed by Clement are a very risky deal. Giving the private consortium control of all "non clinical" services puts profit-seeking corporations in control of key hospital functions. In Britain, private hospitals have resulted in a 30% reduction in beds. Profit is found through reducing costs: laying off staff, reducing numbers of beds, using the cheapest construction and design techniques.

TRIED AND ABONDONED

In Ontario, the conservation government in the mid-80’s planned for-profit hospitals in Mississauga and Hawkesbury. They pulled out when it became public that the scheme would cost the public $3 million more for the corporate profit.

In PEI, the government pulled out of its for-profit hospital project after it discovered that it would cost more than if the hospital were kept public.

Nova Scotia experimented with for-profit, leased-back schools. Again, the provincial government withdrew from these projects after it realized there were no cost savings to be had.

We need to be vigilant locally to ensure that a "P3" privately funded hospital is not built in St. Catharines.

The following pledge is from the Niagara Health Care Coalition:

• Restore the federal share of health spending to at least 25% and ensure health spending goes to healthcare.
• Cover homecare, rehabilitation, diagnostics & pharmacare with the principles of Medicare.
• Protect Medicare from trade agreements.
• Promote non-profit community health centers.
• Control the costs of drugs & get cheaper generic drugs to market faster.
• Improve conditions in nursing homes & provide supportive care at home for seniors & those with disabilities.
• Plan for the future to meet population need for healthcare workers.

• Stop for-profit hospitals, MRC/CT clinics & labs & redirect funding to public hospitals and clinics.
• Ban queue-jumping – ensure waiting lists are based on need not wealth.
• Stop the privatization of nursing homes & increase public control over them.
• Reinstate non-profit homecare.
• Stop delisting medically necessary OHIP services.

I pledge to support only those election candidates who will work to implement these goals to save and strengthen Public Medicare.

Call 905-641-1646 to obtain a pledge.

FEBRUARY 2003 ISSUE

The Romanow commission released its report in November on the future of Medicare in this country.

The report rejected for profit two tier Medicare in favour of a publicly funded universal plan. Over 80% of Canadians are in support of the Romanow recommendations. We need to implement the reports recommendations now before it is to late to restore our public health care system.

The following questions and answers illustrate why for profit health care does not solve healthcare problems.

Questions and Answers About Public Medicare

Q. Is for profit health care cheaper?

R. Evidence from around the world shows us that for profit health care costs more than public care. Just look south of the border. Per person, the US system costs more than double the Canadian system - yet 43 million people go without any health coverage. And 500,000 Americans are bankrupted each year by medical expenses. In Canada where we spend far less on health care all citizens are covered and health outcomes are among the best in the world.

Q. Won’t private health care serve people better?

R. Those who promote for-profit health care will tell you privatization will ease pressure on the public system. But the opposite is true. Privatization draws resources such as health care providers out of the public system and creates a shortage of front-line caregivers and clinical staff. Driven by the profit motive, the private sector will pick up only the easy treatments that deliver big returns. The public system will be left to provide more complicated, long term and costly care.

Q. Won’t private health care shorten waiting times?

R. Privatization only shuffles the queue instead of getting rid of it. If you can’t afford to jump to the front of the line, the queue will become even longer. Healthcare will go to those who can afford to pay the most first, and those who might be in more critical need will be forced to wait. In fact, studies in Alberta comparing private and public waiting times for cataract surgery show that patients not only waited longer for operations at the private clinics, they were also hit with hefty user fees.

Q. What about user fees?

R. User fees shift the cost of health care from the healthy and the wealthy onto the shoulders of the sick and the poor. Studies show that people avoid health care when they are afraid they can’t afford it - especially women, seniors, poor people and the chronically ill. As a result, they get sicker and often wind up in hospital. This drives up costs, and it flies in the face of Medicare’s most fundamental principle - that health care will be available to everyone when we need it, not just when we can afford it.

Q. Is privatization the only solution?

R. Not at all. In fact, privatization is a big part of the problem. Medicare is public for a reason - because a publicly funded healthcare system provided on a not for profit basis provides the best care possible for everyone. It’s the reason that Canadians’ health improved so much after we created Public Medicare. When we privatize health care we pay for it in many ways. First, we pay more out-of-pocket - if we can afford it - when we’re sick. We pay more for the profit motive, more for administration, more for advertising, lobbying, high executive salaries and a whole host of things that have little to do with patient care. We can see these things in our health care system already. The solution is less privatization, not more.

NOVEMBER 2002 ISSUE

The founding principles of hydro in Ontario was to provide Ontario with electric power at cost. If this was such a good idea why did the Tory government change direction and make hydro a market driven commodity. It seems when we (the citizens) benefit the Tories decide that what’s best for us would be to pay more by allowing the private sector to run our hydro. The decision to privatize is based on the false promise that the price of hydro would go down. We knew better and told the government that they were wrong. The government refused to listen and now we have the Independent Electricity Market Operator.

All of us are now aware of what the real plan was for hydro. Sell it off to the private sector and have you and I pay more for something that we used to own. The latest astronomical increases in our hydro bills (summer air conditioning) was supposed to be a one time upsurge. But wait until you get your September bills, the actual cost of hydro is higher for September than it was in July and August. So much for the price going down when demand went down. Now the excuse is that too many hydro producers have to do maintenance on their generators which will reduce supply thus pushing prices higher to meet the demand. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to know if the repairs are legitimate or are the generators being taken off line to create a shortage to drive up the price. The IMO is investigating a possible gaming situation where generating capacity was removed from the grid to push prices higher. So it is no longer a theoretical question about what if the supply is manipulated but rather what will the government do to protect consumers from price gouging.

The most recent announcements from the IMO indicate that we face possible brownouts or blackouts just like California. It is simply amazing that with 6 months of Hydro privatization we face a shortage of electricity yet the Tories told us that we would never experience what California did because we had a surplus of generating capacity. It seems to me that someone is not telling the truth. We need to demand that the Tory government return hydro to its proper owners the citizens of Ontario. Since we are the ones paying off the hydro debt we should be the ones that own it. Call your local MPP and demand that hydro be Public.

SEPTEMBER 2002 ISSUE

The hazy, lazy days of summer are all but a memory except for the price hike in your hydro bill. Remember the Tory government telling us that rates would be lower if only we privatized hydro. Well check your bill, not only were rates higher but we actually had to import electricity from the US at higher prices yet.

Minister Stockwell said we would have plenty of hydro under the Tory plan. He clearly did not do his homework. In fact the government was pleading with us to cut down on our hydro consumption during the hot spells that we had during the summer.

The government was telling us to use electricity in off peak hours (after 8:00 p.m.) to save money. The truth is it does not matter when you consume electricity the cost is the same. The reason is that we pay the average price as determined by the Independent Market Operator. So although the wholesale price might be lower at night we, as consumers do not benefit from the lower price because of the blended price.

As always it is we the public that end up paying for the governments mistakes. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric, we can keep hydro public if we keep the pressure on this government.

WHERE IS THE MONEY

The conference board of Canada has written a report that says that the Federal government will have budget surpluses for the next 20 years. In fact, the surpluses could reach as high as $85 billion/year. That is more than enough money to fund all our social programs. So the next time you hear that we cannot afford Medicare or public education, remember the surpluses that Ottawa has. The money is ours, the social programs are ours, and Canada is ours all we need to do now is tell the federal liberals that we are in charge not them. That Canada and its cherished social programs belong to us and that we want them enhanced and strengthened not dismantled and the money is there to accomplish it.

JUNE 2002 ISSUE

THE G-8 WHO ARE THEY?
The G-8 is an exclusive grouping of the Wealthiest advanced industrial nations U.S., UK., Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Canada and Russia. The G-8 controls 68% of the world’s economy but is composed of only 14% of the world’s people.

The G-8’s main agenda is to push global neo-liberal policies. This means forcing the global economy to favour private and corporate interests instead of democratic and collective interests. What this means in real terms is that privatization, deregulation (reducing or eliminating environmental health and labour standards). Capital mobility (removing currency and investment controls) and the erosion of our ability to control our own economy.

The next meeting for the G-8 is in Kananaskis, Alberta this June. The location was chosen not for its beauty but because of its inaccessibility. Protesters will not be permitted to go to Kananaskis, which is contrary to what democracy stands for. It is our right to protest peacefully if we choose to do so since the government has decided to take that right away. The question we must ask ourselves is why do they have to hide from us if what they are doing is supposed to be good for us.
The main items on the agenda are:

• Economic recovery
• Terrorism (especially the US/Canada border issue) and
• Africa particularly the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) and the so called Africa Trust Fund which Canada initiated by committing $500 million in its December 2001 budget.