National Day of Mourning

April 28 is the National Day of Mourning, a day set aside by the Canadian Labour Congress to recognize workers injured, disabled, or killed on the job, and to bring awareness to the issue of occupational health and safety. This year marks the 24th annual observance of the National Day of Mourning. It was made official by the Workers Mourning Day Act in 1990.

In 2002 more than 900 people died in Canada as a result of work-related accidents or illnesses. This means that, on average, close to four workers are killed every working day. Close to 360,000 others were injured seriously enough to prevent them from reporting to work for at least one day. It is estimated that over one million work-related injuries and illnesses are reported each year in Canada.

In 2002 workers in all age groups under 50 years were equally likely to be injured while on the job. For the same year, the number of time-loss work-related injuries for men was also more than twice that for women.

Work-related accidents are very expensive. The total of compensation paid to work accident victims or their families and of other economic costs of work-related injuries each year are estimated at more than $12 billion. These figures do not take into account the pain and suffering of the victims and their families, which are incalculable.

More at the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference website. Also, here's a link to CLC President Ken Georgetti's Day of Mourning statement.

Edit: It's been pointed out to me that the Workers Mourning Day Act was moved by NDP MP Rod Murphy (Churchill). And since I'm so darn partisan, I figured I might as well tip the ol' hat.

Edit: Fixed formatting.

Bill C-484

I don't have a lot of interest in federal politics. I've said it before in this blog, and as much as I try to keep my nose out of it, I'll likely say it again. It's not that I'm trying to get involved, it's that the clowns at the federal level try to pull the same shit as their provincial counterparts.

So this time, I'd like to take a moment to rail against Bill C-484, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act". It's a private member's bill introduced by Conservative MP Ken Epp (Edmonton Sherwood Park), and it's just passed Second Reading on March 5. While ostensibly a bill to amend the Criminal Code to allow separate homicide charges in attacks on pregnant women resulting in the death of a foetus, it's really a backdoor to criminalize abortion and subvert a woman's right to choose.

The bill is constructed specifically to grant a kind of personhood to a foetus, in spite of the conflict this causes with the current provisions in the Criminal Code (Section 223[1]). The bill uses anti-choice language, specifically "unborn child", and continually refers to the foetus as a "child". The kicker is Section 238.1[5], which reads "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being."

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has an excellent page of talking points for this bill, along with a number of links to news sources discussing similar laws in the US and their consequences:

14. We can impose harsher penalties for attacks on pregnant women: Double homicide convictions result in concurrent sentences in Canada, so this bill will not mete out any greater punishment for perpetrators, making it rather pointless. Measures to achieve better justice in these tragic cases already exist. Prosecutors can recommend more serious charges, such as first degree murder or aggravated assault. Judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators. We could even pass a law mandating greater penalties for attacks on pregnant women, as has been done in 13 U.S. states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873). Alternatively, harsher penalties are already mandated under the Criminal Code's hate crime law, which would cover attacks against women because they are pregnant. Any of these measures would provide justice, while avoiding the abortion controversy and protecting the rights of all pregnant women.

If you care at all about a woman's continued right to choose, please take some action. Send your MP a letter opposing this bill (a sample letter can be found here). You can also sign the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's online petition.

A Rocky Path

Mandryk's column today dumps a number of Sask Party skeletons from their closets. Or more appropriately, from the "Hidden Agenda" vault they left when vacating their offices:

After all, if labour money can buy off the NDP, why wouldn't we assume that the Saskatchewan Party's $668,016 in corporate donations has influenced its policies? Wouldn't we also assume that the tens of thousands of dollars the Saskatchewan Party has received over the years from implement manufacturers (who demanded changes to the union certification laws) or from former media baron Conrad Black (who loved to crush unions) is the driving force behind Bills 5 and 6?
(Leader-Post - April 18, 2008)

Good questions, Murray. Thanks for pointing this out. And thanks for going further and speculating about oil royalty rates and Big Mouth Billy Bass. Your dig at the CFIB falls a little flat, though, because while the budget doesn't really address property taxes, Wall's one-eighty on municipal funding could be tied to this very issue. His change of mind was so abrupt that it even took Hutch, the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs, by surprise. The CFIB, meanwhile, are too busy swooning not over the budget, but over the Premier they have in their pocket.

But for me, the best part about this column wasn't the blunt message to Tim McMillan that he should just shut the hell up and return to his job of warming the backbench, or Mandryk noting that the Sask Party took in two-and-a-half times the NDP's union donations from their corporate pals, or even the not-so-subtle reminder that the Kathy Youngs (and the Tom Lukiwskis) of the world don't change their stripes. Instead, it was the following:

Here's a simple solution to the Saskatchewan Party government's concerns over the undue influence union donations are having on the NDP: ban donations from all unions and corporations.

Indeed, some forward-thinking New Democrats raised this very issue at convention. It was voted down, of course, because people get stuck in their ways, and worried about cash flows, and can't see the big picture. But some of us -- Mandryk included, apparently -- want to see a democracy run by the people -- not by businesses, and not by organizations. The shift will be another rocky path, but with enough people on side it won't be too hard to clear the stones.

Edit: Fixed typos.

Regina Labour Forum

I've just been told that there will be a labour forum in Regina in discuss the impact and sweeping powers of Bills 5 and 6.

The forum is scheduled for April 21 at 7:30 p.m. at the Ramada Hotel (the corner of Broad and Victoria). No word yet on which Sask Party officials will ditch this time, but Premier Wall is kindly not even responding to his invitation, so that's a good start.

Tell your friends. Tell the people at your constituency associations. Tell your federal NDP candidates. Tell the Liberals and the Greens -- they don't have any love for the Conservatives either. The more people that show up, the stronger our voice becomes.

Reaching Out to Labour

However, Wall told reporters Friday that a Sask. Party government would "reach out" to labour. "We want them to join in the Enterprise Saskatchewan model," Wall said.
(Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Oct. 27, 2007)

In yet another example of how the Sask Party is reaching out to labour, officials listed only as "two high-ranking government bureaucrats" have pulled out of a public labour forum. Of course, they've done this on the day the forum is to take place, and after confirming their attendance.

This is no different from the antics of the Sask Party during the election, when candidates ducked public debates in Regina and Moose Jaw. So although it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that the Sask Party is still pulling this bullshit, it's very disappointing that ducking public forums, public debates, and stakeholder consultations is how little Bradly Wall intends to honour his committment to "reach out".

The labour forum is still going to take place, even without government representation. Anyone interested in labour issues or how Bills 5 and 6 will affect the current labour climate should definitely be in attendance. The stronger labour's presence is, the less government can continue its tactic of avoidance and indifference.