D8

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

10 Comment(s)

Consultations worked well

To The Editor:

Tuesday morning I watched with great interest as New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham and Minister of Education Kelly Lamrock, announced a new plan for the province's early immersion program.

The plan, in my view, offers a balanced approach to provincial objectives, suggestions from education experts and concerns expressed by parents.

I commend all the parties involved for coming together to make this summer's consultations productive.

I firmly believe that as Canada's only officially bilingual province, New Brunswick needs to set the example that a strong commitment to respecting and learning both French and English means a better future for our children. As a native English-speaker and parent of three elementary school aged children, I appreciate the fervour with which many English-speaking families have worked to whole-heatedly promote bilingualism.

This fervour reflects the spirit of the community that surrounds and informs me, Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe. This is a community whose uniqueness lies in fostering bilingualism and cultural appreciation. These are values that I am proud to represent and support.

After Minister Lamrock's announcement in March outlining the effective elimination of early French immersion, I felt, as did many New Brunswickers, a great deal of concern about the future of bilingual education in our province.

I also felt that the provincial government's apprehensions about resource constraints and overall academic achievement could not be resolved by limiting language learning opportunities.

That's why I set out to quietly lobby the provincial government to change its initial plan, and suggested Third Grade immersion as an option. In my mind, it was important that my children's education system reflect the unique nature and values of my community and that all New Brunswick parents have support and options to make the best decisions for their families.

All in all, these last few months have shown us that constructive citizen involvement, as well as open and accountable decision making should be goals to strive for, always.

We've also reconfirmed that important decisions, such as the education of our children, need to include various perspectives to be acceptable and workable.

I am confident that the accountability measures part of this new plan -- namely, the advisory committee and a formal review in 2015-16 -- will continue to seek and incorporate parent and educational expert opinions. I look forward to seeing this new plan develop with great success.

I would like to, once more, applaud all those who participated in securing New Brunswick's bilingual educational future.

Brian Murphy, MP,

Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe

Deregulation opposed

To The Editor:

There is a familiar saying that goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

So why then would the federal government call for a Canada Post Corporation Strategic Review (CPCSR) on April 21 of this year to be held during the summer months and ending early September?

And why will it not include public hearings but instead focus on the opinions and ideas of the "major stakeholders" or large volume mailers and competitors to Canada Post?

And why appoint Dr. Robert Campbell to head this review, an outspoken proponent of postal deregulation?

These are legitimate questions because what the public may not be aware of is the fact that Canada Post, a public institution, provides 54,000 Canadians and their families with good paying unionized jobs, and delivers reliable, secure and universal postal service to all Canadians at the third lowest postal rate among industrialized countries of the world. It accomplishes this while earning profits, paying corporate taxes and paying the federal government millions of dollars in dividends.

Not many postal institutions can make those claims. In fact Canada Post was awarded the World Mail Award in 2007 recognizing its best practice in the postal administration industry for new products, initiatives, and postal reform.

So the question instead could be, who benefits and who loses in postal deregulation?

We only need to look at those countries that have partially or fully deregulated their respective postal institutions to see the alarming results. Countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand and Germany have all suffered the negative consequences of deregulation.

The UK has seen plummeting operating profits and will be closing 2,500 post offices. In Sweden more than 16,000 jobs have been lost from 1993 to 2005 and the rate for an overnight letter increased by 90 per cent. In New Zealand wages of postal workers only increased by 18.9 per cent compared to the national average of 28.3 per cent. Finally, in Germany the Deutsche Post wants to close its remaining 750 post offices.

Deregulation in Canada will jeopardize a universal public postal service leading to job losses, post office closures, higher postal rates and fragmented service. The only ones to benefit are Canada Post's competitors and heavy volume mailers, at the expense of the individual Canadian, small business, municipalities and rural Canada. If Canada Post is to lose its exclusive privilege to deliver letters, it is very likely that it will not have the revenue it needs to continue providing affordable postal service to all Canadians even in remote and rural areas, where it is estimated to cost "six to 10" times more.

Opposing deregulation is all about protecting jobs, protecting a public Post Office, and protecting universal service to ALL Canadians. People can send submissions until Sept. 2, 2008 by visiting www.cpcstrategicreview-examenstrategiquescp.gc.ca/hw-eng.html or they can call or write their local MP.

Garry Knoetze,

Member, CUPW,

Moncton