“We need the CCPA to remind us that our dreams of a decent, egalitarian society are reasonable — indeed that with a little work, they are practical. And I love that practicality, that protection of the dream of the possible.”
— Naomi Klein
Virtually alone in the growing outrage over the federal government’s decision to scrap the long-form mandatory census, the Fraser Institute threw it’s support behind the government’s decision with its chief economist Niels Veldhuis arguing that “voluntary surveys will yield enough accurate information about the country and critics saying otherwise are members of ``vested interest groups.”
The Fraser Institute’s support for this policy stands in direct opposition to an almost unanimous consensus among business groups, academics, policy analysts and statisticians who recognize that the demise of the mandatory long-form will so fundamentally skewer and distort statistical data to render it effectively useless.
With such venerable voices as former Chief StatsCan statistician Ivan Fellegi remarking that the proposed changes will "seriously bias” data and Don Drummond, former chief economist for TD Bank and a member of the National Statistics Council, stating that these changes will leave Canada in a statistical “fog” for years to come, one might wonder how the Fraser Institute can possible defend the evisceration of social statistics that it also depends upon for its research.
That is until you realize that the Fraser Institute has been painfully allergic to evidence-based research since its inception. What does accurate data matter when you can simply manipulate it to suit your desired ends? Whether it’s flawed content analysis, grossly inflated tax numbers, disregard for socio-economic indicators, misrepresenting the HST, rigged hospital and school “report cards,” or bogus “Tax Freedom” days, the Fraser has always been “fact-averse.” The Fraser institute has never cared about the validity of social statistics before, so why should it start now?
With a voluntary long-form almost guaranteed to bias in favour of the affluent, the Fraser can end evidence of poverty, discrimination, and all the other social ills it has been trying to disappear from Canadians’ view in one fell swoop. For the factually challenged Fraser, it’s win-win.
Simon Enoch is Director of the Saskatchewan Office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He holds a PhD in Communication and Culture from Ryerson University.
In Saskatchewan, homelessness has become a grave concern and a serious reality for many women and children. Saskatchewan now has the highest rates of homelessness in the country with one in five people saying that they are homeless or at risk of being homeless. In the past 3 years in Saskatchewan the vacancy rate has been dropping with the rate for 2009 being 1.5%. Regina and Saskatoon have vacancy rates below 1%.
Homelessness is compounded by poverty. More than 41% of female-headed lone-parent families in Saskatchewan struggle to provide the basic needs of their families because they live below the poverty line. Saskatchewan has the third highest child poverty rate in Canada.
With sky-rocketing home ownership costs and a constantly decreasing availability of safe and affordable housing, the women and children of Saskatchewan who are attempting to exit abusive situations are faced with incredible challenges. If women cannot find adequate and affordable housing their chances of succeeding in leading lives free from violence are diminished.
While the causes and consequences of violence against women exist beyond housing, there is no question that without an adequate, suitable and affordable home to which one can escape, women are choosing to stay in violent relationships or return to abusive partners because they feel they have no other option.
To read the full PATHS report, visit here.
A look back at the spring sitting of the Saskatchewan Legislature with David Seymour of the Frontier Centre and Simon Enoch of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Saskatchewan office.
Listen to the podcast here.
Regina —The Saskatchewan office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ series "Transforming Saskatchewan's Electricity Future" was launched with the publication of "Sustainability is Achievable, But How Do We Get There?" by Mark Bigland-Pritchard and Peter Prebble.
The report – developed in partnership with Green Energy Project Saskatchewan – outlines how Saskatchewan can leave coal-fired electricity generation behind, and with it the vast bulk of our electricity-produced greenhouse gas emissions, while building a renewable energy system that includes rural and Aboriginal communities.
“With the best solar and inland wind resources in Canada, extensive possibilities for biomass energy production, reasonable hydroelectric potential, and a very low population density, Saskatchewan should be well-placed to lead the world in the inevitable shift away from fossil fuels,” the authors write, “Yet currently the province is heavily dependent on coal and is among the world's very highest per capita greenhouse gas emitters.”
Report author Mark Bigland-Pritchard states: "It is one of the urgent tasks of our generation to make this shift. It will require a major re-think of the way we do electricity, but the result will be less pollution, fewer health problems, more stable costs, more jobs and stronger communities".
"Two other provinces in Canada - Nova Scotia and Ontario - are making the transition away from coal and towards renewable electricity,” notes series co-author Peter Prebble, “the time has come for Saskatchewan to do the same."
Transition to a sustainable electricity system is a real possibility in Saskatchewan. As the report states, “none of the technical and economic barriers is insuperable: the questions to be resolved concern the best technical, legislative and logistical routes to take — and whether the province can find the political will to do so.”
Some of the highlights from the report include:
To view the full report, visit here.
The Saskatchewan office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is releasing University of Regina business administration professor S. Muthu’s study, Restoring the Bargain: Contesting the Constitutionality of the Amendments to the Saskatchewan Trade Union Act, a thorough analysis of the constitutionality of the province’s current labour legislation.
This study represents an important contribution to the current debate over the extent to which legislatures can limit workers’ rights and freedoms. The study also thoroughly evaluates recent Supreme Court decisions, with emphasis on the Dunmore decisions and Health Services et al v. B.C. to determine if recent guidance by the Supreme Court will uphold Bill 6.
Muthu concludes that Bill 6 amendments to the Trade Union Act S.11(1)(a) are in violation of sections 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, Muthu contends that these changes are not saved by the constitutional test under Section One.
Muthu argues that rather than representing a “rebalancing of powers,” as the government insists, instead “unions’ and employees’ freedoms have been infringed while employers’ freedom have been enhanced.” The effect of Bills 5 and 6 “provide the employer with a double barrel gun – freedom of speech enhancement at critical organizing moments and mandatory requirement of certification elections – with a lot of ammunition, resulting in practically an open hunting season on unions.”
With the current court challenge to the Wall government’s labour legislation by both the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL) and the Saskatchewan General Employees Union (SGEU), professor Muthu’s analysis offers a detailed background of the arguments and logic that will ultimately shape this important judicial decision.
View the full report here
“We need the CCPA to remind us that our dreams of a decent, egalitarian society are reasonable — indeed that with a little work, they are practical. And I love that practicality, that protection of the dream of the possible.”
— Naomi Klein