Why We Fight: Well simply put there are Hefty Profits to be made in it

My previous post has made me very interested in watching the highly acclaimed movie Why We Fight . The 2005 movie on why we humans enjoy fighting ourselves, was awarded the Jury Prize at the recent Sundance Film Festival and has been effective at communicating why the US-method of fighting 'terror', will inevitably be our downfall. This movie and theme is one of the reasons why I am proud to be a Canadian, as we don't embrace war as much as others – let’s just hope it doesn't change...

So the movie showcases the following:

• how the tragic events of 9/11 can lead to the further privatization of wars and Ministries of Defense
  
• the US Dept. of Defense has an annual budget of... are you ready for this: $750,000,000 (and for all you fellow Canadians that’s USD!). Wow… imagine what you could do with that for education, health and housing… but instead it directly/indirectly goes towards killing fellow human beings.
  
• How taxpayers money is being wasted for the profits of any company doing business related to wars and defense. Contracted companies are making arms and war-related items and charging governments an arm and leg for their products. This is not acceptable and I am hoping will not happen in Canada.
  

Noam Chomsky, Stephen Lewis, and other respectable academics and world leaders have concisely alluded that War is a Business: hefty profits are made in killing innocent lives, whether it be civilians, animals or other forms of Mother Nature and destroying the Earth (for oil, forests, or natural resources). War is an industry I would rather not invest in; in business terms, the long-term return on investment (ROI) is not favourable as the ROI would 100%, that is a 100% demise of the world as we know it.

To the peoples/nations of the world - let’s stop being barbaric in our actions and try to achieve positive change. There are larger items on the agenda that need solving rather than killing one another for the sake of money.

The Changing Face of Canada – a change that is not Canadian

Our country has been evolving over the years and for the most part for the better. I am a proud Canadian because of the wonderful things that have happened. Which makes me think of the Tommy Douglas CBC movie that I watched last night. I knew of his visionary work for establishing public healthcare across Canada but didn’t know of his other society-benefiting initiatives (e.g., old age security, public car insurance, bill of rights for more refer to: Wikipedia). From this I have been able to accept change and embrace the idea of change being good. But Canada is getting a huge facelift and it’s not pretty. Since Harper has taken power (less than 2 months) there have been many subtle but significant changes to our country that is attacking our very own identity. Below are three that I want to highlight:

1. Being Unrelentless in Afghanistan
I woke up this morning to the 1130AM news and I heard that a recent poll (the poll’s accuracy itself is questionable) is suggesting that people in Canada are now supporting Canada being in Afghanistan for ‘peacekeeping’ efforts, even though we were supposed to be pulled out years ago. This is of course due to Harper’s (Canada’s current Prime Minister) recent visit to Kabul where he is providing moral support to our troops… Hmm doesn’t this sound similar to what Bush just recently did as a strategy for the troops in Iraq. Nonetheless this is troubles me for other reasons, as in the months prior I heard two things:

(1) I heard of all the killings and accidental deaths of Canadian soldiers which could have been avoided if we did not associate ourselves with the US-led mission or if we did the humane thing and actually pulled out - My heart goes out for the Canadians that are risking their lives and the their family members; and,

(2) I heard that there were huge percentages of Canadians from previous polling results wanting Canada to pull out.

As a Canadian, I love our real peacekeeping efforts and mentality. Sure some of our initiatives have not been as successful as others but overall on a international level what we have done is phenomenal for world peace and solidarity (take Suez Canal, Pakistan relief, South Asian Tsunami work etc). BUT I do not support the misleading information now being put forth that we should force ourselves into countries where we are not needed or welcomed (i.e., US in Iraq).

We should be supporting other peace-promoting initiatives and events, not our ‘occupation’ of countries. Things like the World Peace Forum (WPF) – where mayors from cities around are coming to Vancouver this Summer, should be further supported by all levels of governments. It is a sample initiative which will make the future of the Earth worth living for. On a related issue I should mention Vancouver’s current Mayor has not supported additional funding to the WPF as he doesn’t see it as a priority; but I don’t want to digress to far in this post.

2. Recent non-support for a UN Resolution
Another scary news tidbit that I read on the ferry going to Victoria I believe in the Globe & Mail is that Canada is one of only 2 countries which DID NOT support a UN resolution where Palestinian refugee women and children be allowed back into their homeland from Israel (something like 70+ UN countries favoured it!).

3. Abolishing the Ministry of Multiculturalism
When Harper announced his new Cabinet, he dissolved the Ministry of Multiculturalism. Okay this one makes no sense to me as data suggests Canada is needing this Ministry more than ever.

From the 2001 Census, 13% identifies to a visible minority group as defined in the Employment Equity Act*. That’s more than 1 in 10 people on average across Canada, and if you look at cosmopolitan centres there is even a higher proportion- where for example in Toronto, Vancouver & Montreal almost half the population is a visible minority! In addition, the visible minority group is growing at an alarming pace when compared to the rest of Canada; between 1996 and 2001, the total population increased by 4% while the visible minority population rose 25% (six times faster!)*.

And if recent Statistics Canada ethno-cultural population projections are true almost 1 in every 5 of the nation's population will be a member of a visible minority by 2017 when Canada turns 1501. This has huge implications and if there isn’t a Ministry to handle multicultural issues (cultural sensitivity to immigrant settlement, employment, housing, health etc) we are in big trouble.

My Conclusion
I have always embraced change as we wouldn’t be where we are on so many fronts especially in the past 5-10 years in regards to ethical research, sustainability, environmentally sound policies etc. But this is probably only time I would say this: I hope times are not changing in Canada. If they are, as exampled by these many subtle altercations, I do not want any part in it. Our country’s face is not getting transformed its getting deformed. If anyone out there would like to help me in getting our country back – Blog me!

P3s turn to P4s very fast

Hi everyone,

My apologies for the delay in writing I can’t believe its taken me this long to write – Oh my last posting was in August. Nonetheless the masalaman is back to add spice to your lives!

Today’s topic: Public Private Partnerships – first part in a mini-series on health care.

Public Private Partnerships (P3s in Canada, Private Funding Initiatives – PFIs in the UK).

This has been the new wave of health care reform, since governments aren’t willing to spend the time to find about the real problems in the health care system, they look to the private sector to find short term easy fixes. In the short-term having P3s may seem to be effective as private companies bring money, expertise and resources to the table. However, the return on investment for the government, taxpayers and society overall is dismal – actually negative in the long run as much money is lost to these companies who are only in the business to increase their share of the pie. Governments should learn from the mistakes made by the NHS (UK Health System) regarding these PFIs and not move forward in this path.

As we all know from a Business 101 type course – that the bottom line for any business is to make a profit. Not only is it to make a profit, but if it wants to continue to grow and become a larger player it needs to make more and more profit. Companies are only accountable to their shareholders, not the public. Shareholders only want to see increasing profits otherwise they will not invest in the company. So where does this profit come from in the case of P3s? That’s right you and me, the ordinary citizen has to pay unnecessarily to make shareholders and these companies profitable. If this profit was taken for some other commodity (e.g., cars) then the case could be made that it would be okay to take the money (as it is out-of-pocket expenses using health care terms). But this is for an essential human right and profit, particularly a supplier surplus, should not be made from it – unless the profit is defined as a consumer surplus whereby all of society would benefit not a handful of corporatites.

While companies are making larger and larger profits at the expense of taxpayers, governments will try to manage the costs in other methods:
a) either redistribute their expenditures (i.e., cut other departments monies like education and childcare to pay for P3s),
b) raise funds through additional taxation - not a public favourite, or
c) cut essential health services - most likely solution.

Here’s a highly probable scenario if P3 occurs: Government signs a 30 year contract with ABC company to provide laundry, food, management of the building and maintenance of the buildings, and many other non-essential services. At first much money it seems will be saved as the company will hire cheap labour to do this work versus government/union paid employees. The building quality and all services once it is built will be substandard as it is will be done by cheap unskilled labour. Yet as it is a 30 year monopoly style contract, company ABC can charge almost what ever it likes for their services throughout the contract. So if in year one of operation they ask for X, and then in year two they ask for X+10%, year 3 X+20% and so on. But the governments will not be able to do anything as they are tied down to the contract. And they are not able to terminate one of the contracted services (say food, if its costs go up as they have signed a contract that incorporates all contracts). So if they did try to terminate one specific service, they would have to terminate all of the services provided by company ABC. Since they can not terminate or control costs for these services they will have to cut from somewhere else or try to raise more funds to cover these unneeded rising costs. Essential services like nursing or other health-related staff could be cut or the hiring of unskilled and cheaper labour could be a result, jeopardizing the health of patients.

The Bottom line is a simple one: P3s lead very quickly to P4s, that is, never ending Public-Private Partnership Problems.

If governments are mislead into pushing forward with P3s (a business strategy) by increasing private/public pressure then they should definitely make decisions based off of other business principles. They should do the following for their own and the public’s safety:

(1) Ensure that the contract they sign for this P3 allows them to terminate the specific services if the quality is poor or costs are needlessly too much. If one service is poor, then the government can terminate it and look for other better and cheaper alternatives. This is a business concept of an open market where all businesses compete openly with each other for the contract. The one that provides the best service as the cheapest cost will win the contract. As a P3 is like a Monopoly, where only one company is allowed to provide the service there is no accountability. Only competition in this framework would ensure a healthy service being provided.

(2) Contracts need to be shorter in duration and should favor the government not the businesses. Long contracts tie governments in for unnecessarily lengthy periods of time. 30-year contracts are no good without adequate evaluation and review. Accountability is key and having a 30-year contract leaves none. Have year to year review of the services and if service level do not meet required level, then look for other companies to provide it.