|
May 26, 2018 - No. 20
Urgent Need to
Renew the
Democratic Process
Liberals Limit
Debate on
Amendments
to Electoral Law
- Anna Di Carlo -
PDF
• Undemocratic
Talk about Political Party Privilege
• State Funding Makes Political
Parties Appendages of the State
Major Agenda Item
for
NAFTA Negotiations
• Fueling the U.S. War Machine
- K.C. Adams -
Matters of Concern for
the Workers' Movement
• Rio Tinto Group Concerned with
"Resurgence
of Resource Nationalism"
- André
Bédard -
• Criminalization of Quebec Construction
Workers -- Anti-Worker Outlook of Parties in Government and in
Opposition
- Pierre Chénier -
Dangerous Escalation
of
War Preparations
• Largest Troop Movement in Ontario
Since the Ice Storm of 1998
• U.S. Navy Refurbishes Second
Fleet to Control
Caribbean and North Atlantic
• U.S. Increases Its Military
Presence in Scandinavia
• New York
State Funds Drone Corridor
• Military Contractor Opens New
Facility in Buffalo, NY
Urgent Need to Renew the Democratic
Process
Liberals Limit Debate on
Amendments to Electoral Law
- Anna Di Carlo -
On May 23, the Liberal government used its time
allocation powers to limit debate in the House of Commons on Bill C-76,
An Act to amend the
Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential
amendments. The bill was referred to the Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs (PROC) on the same day, having been subjected to no
substantive discussion at second reading. The exchanges in the House of
Commons focused primarily on questions about why the Liberals
introduced the legislation at such a late date, the failure of the
Liberals to implement their promise to end the first-past-the-post
system, and the debate limitation. Having limited debate at second
reading, the Liberals say they look forward to "robust discussion" in
the 10-member PROC.
Commenting on the limiting of debate and the failure of the Liberals to
bring the other cartel parties into the drafting of the legislation,
NDP MP Robert Aubin stated: "I unfortunately feel like I am acting in
an old movie because the government seems to be assuming it does not
need a consensus. The government is using our old parliamentary system
to its advantage since that system allows the political party that
holds a majority in the House to bulldoze -- and I do not think that is
too strong a term -- its agenda through, rather than striving to reach
a consensus."
 The Conservative official
opposition introduced a motion to decline second reading. The motion,
which was defeated, argued "the Bill fails to address the high error
rate in the National Register of Electors, and the high rate of
erroneous Voter Identification Cards, reported at 986,613 instances in
the 2015 election, and does nothing to deal with foreign interference
in Canadian elections because the Bill proposes to double the total
maximum third party spending amount allowed during the writ period and
to continue to allow unlimited contributions in the period prior to the
pre-writ period."
The Conservative opposition to the Liberal Party's
restoration of pre-Harper voter identification requirements is
serving as a foil for the Liberals to present themselves as the
defenders of democracy who listen to the people. They dare to do
this notwithstanding their about-face on ending the
first-past-the-post system so as to make the voting system more
representative. Acting Minister of Democratic Institutions Scott
Brison had the gall to tell the House of Commons, "The Harper
Conservatives did not listen to reason. [...] Unlike the
Conservatives, we are listening to Canadians. We want Canadians
to be able to participate in our democracy."
Brison made this claim after citing self-servingly
examples
of opposition to the 2014 Fair Elections Act. He noted
that 160 academics signed a National Post editorial
stating that the Conservative legislation would "damage the
institution at the heart of our country's democracy: voting in
federal elections." He quoted then Chief Electoral Officer Marc
Mayrand who stated that it would "undermine [the electoral law's]
stated purpose and won't serve Canadians well." He referred to
five Globe and Mail editorials which called for the
withdrawal of the Fair Elections Act.
Brison was conspicuously silent about editorials and
comments against Bill C-76, particularly concerning its lack of
any amendments that would require political parties to respect
privacy standards, starting with the standard of obtaining
informed consent. As concerns this matter, in a Huffington
Post interview, former Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand
questioned the refusal of political parties to subject themselves
to privacy legislation: "How can they pretend to impose all sorts
of rules on Facebook and Google and all other social media when
they are declining to have them apply to themselves?" Mayrand
said that there are "universal principles about privacy" that the
government is ignoring. Referring to the robocall scandal in the
2011 general election where a Conservative Party list of
non-supporters was used to steer them to wrong locations for
voting, Mayrand said "Robocall was a breach of privacy when you
think about it. It's somebody downloading a list from the
database of a party, so that was a significant breach." He said,
"We've all heard about people signing petitions and suddenly
finding their way into the database of political parties, I don't
think that those people signing a petition necessarily meant to
consent to have their data collected and being used by political
entities." On the matter of privacy, Acting Minister Brison told
the House of Commons that he hopes that PROC will revisit the issue of
"privacy and
political parties and provide recommendations on the issue." Less
than a year ago the committee studied the matter and "recommended
no changes," he said. "I think all members would recognize that
the ground has shifted on this issue and that it bears revisiting
by PROC. PROC represents all parties, so it makes a great deal of
sense for it to be the vehicle to do a deeper dive into this," he
said.
Bill C-76 will introduce the requirement that political
parties post their privacy policies on their websites in order to
attain registration. However, the problem of privacy and how data
about electors is used will not be resolved through Bill C-76,
nor through the introduction of more stringent regulations
subordinating political parties to privacy laws, such as the Personal
Information
Protection
and
Electronic
Documents
Act. The problem lies in an electoral process dominated by a cartel
of state-financed political parties, each striving for power for
themselves. They depoliticize the people and target them for
manipulation as they try to win against their rivals. Requirements for
stronger privacy policies will only become another avenue for the
cartel parties to attack one another as well as marginalize and
criminalize small parties and independent candidates for one thing or
another.
The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada bases itself
on the principle that political parties should not come to power
at all. Their aim should be the politicization and involvement of
the people in political affairs and making decisions about what
happens in the society. Canadians are more and more disgusted by
these self-serving antics and recognize that something different
is required to get out of this morass.
 The Liberals' notice of
closure of debate on Bill C-76 and
their suggestion that PROC is the right place for the bill to be
scrutinized, is another ill-advised attempt to get away with
their habit of making sure those things they do not want
Canadians to see are simply made to disappear. They hope that
simply denying the existence of a problem will make it go away
even though that never happens.
For example, in Ontario the provincial Liberal
government
sought to prevent debate on the reforms to Ontario's electoral
laws it brought forward in 2016 by moving the changes to
committee even before second reading. After this, public debate
on the legislation was effectively quashed and only now are many
of the anti-democratic changes coming to light as working people,
their unions and independent candidates seek to make their voices
heard in the election. They face much more stringent limits on
how they can participate and raise funds under threat of
violating the law, while the cartel parties have given themselves
public financing in the form of a per-vote subsidy to the tune of
nearly $20 million![1] In this
respect, the participation of small parties and independent candidates
in elections deserves everyone's attention and support. The experience
in Ontario is showing how important
it is to oppose any electoral reforms which strengthen the power
and privilege of the cartel parties while expanding police powers
over the participation of the people, small parties and
independents. By supporting those who are fighting to ensure the
voice of the working people is heard, a definite statement can be
made against what the Trudeau government is attempting to do.
Note
1. In Ontario a per-vote subsidy
was brought in beginning in
2017. In 2017 alone the parties in the Legislature and the Green
Party received a total of roughly $12,873,915. The amounts each
received were based on the number of votes they received in the
2014 Ontario election. The Liberals, PCs and NDP agreed to
consult on the legislation with the Green Party so as to make it
appear democratic. Meanwhile the other 17 political parties
registered in Ontario were given no say.
Undemocratic Talk about Political Party Privilege
"[P]olitical parties play a unique role within Canadian
democracy, educating and mobilizing the electorate" says one of
the Liberal government's backgrounders on Bill C-76, An Act to
amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain
consequential amendments. This abridged rendition of
the role
political parties are supposed to fulfill in a system of party
governance is so token it stands as an example of how the cartel
parties do not educate the electorate. It is also cowardly
because it omits to mention that the only thing for which the
establishment parties mobilize the electorate is to vote.
Having asserted the unique role of political parties in educating and
mobilizing the electorate, the backgrounder implies this role would be
impeded if they do not have special privileges in regard to collecting
data about the electors:
"Historically, political parties have relied on
information
provided to them by voters, and by Elections Canada, when
communicating with Canadians about issues, events, and engagement
opportunities. C-76, if passed, will ensure political parties are
doing their part to protect Canadians' personal information,
resulting in greater transparency about the ways political
parties collect, secure and use data," the government backgrounder
says.[1]
 The information provided in
this backgrounder is so
paltry as to raise the question of whether it even intends to be
taken seriously. But, given the contents of Bill C-76, the
government seems to think that it can in this way justify the
untrammeled privilege of the establishment parties to compile
data about the electorate and to stand above the law on this matter.
The political parties, the biggest violators of the right to informed
consent, will be transformed into
the protectors of personal data. Meanwhile all political
parties, even those who do not build elector data-bases and
engage in voter surveillance, will be subjected to regulation and
monitoring of their political affairs. Bill C-76 will require political
parties to
file privacy statements with Elections Canada and publish the
statements on their websites.[2]
In the 1970s, official doctrine on the role of
political parties started to be elaborated. At that time, when the
political parties had fallen into disrepute, they started to be given
legal recognition. It had become clear that the political
parties could not raise enough funds on the basis of their own
members to get themselves elected and they started lobbying
for changes to electoral laws in a manner that would
accord themselves an array of privileges. This included free
broadcasting time and reimbursement for election expenses from
the public purse, preferentially allocated to parties in the
service of the establishment.
Here is how the role of political parties was defined
in the
British parliamentary system in the late 1970s: "Without
[political parties] democracy withers and decays. Their role is
all pervasive. They provide the men and women, and the policies
for all levels of government ... The parties in opposition have
the responsibility of scrutinizing and checking all actions of
the Executive. Parties are the people's watchdog, the guardian of
our liberties. At election times it is they who run the campaigns
and whose job it is to give the voters a clear-cut choice between
different men and different measures. At all times they are the
vital link between the government and the governed. Their
function is to maximize the participation of the people in
decision-making at all levels of government. In short they are
the mainspring of all the processes of democracy. If parties
fail, whether from lack of resources or vision, democracy itself
will fail."[3]
In Canada, in 1992 similar statements were made to
argue the need for increased state funding of political parties.
Increased state-funding for political parties was proposed as the cure
for the people's low opinion of the big parties and a means to restore
the credibility of the so-called representative democracy.
A study by the 1992 Royal Commission on Electoral
Reform and
Party Financing noted the failings of Canadian parties in the
education and mobilization of the people behind a vision for the
society and suggested this was due to lack of resources. "If the
parties do not have resources to think about their concepts of a
liberal, conservative or socialist society, who will do such
thinking? To have a rich political debate we need intelligent
party platforms. Public subsidy of party activity should
therefore extend beyond the election period to include the
regular activity of the parties. In particular the 'thinking' or
policy roles of parties should be emphasized, by ensuring that a
larger portion of the annual public subsidy is directed toward
party foundations whose main activity would be to think about
policies, rather than organize ridings."[4]
Notes
1. "Empowering political parties
to better protect Canadians' Privacy," Backgrounder, Minister for
Democratic Institutions, April 30, 2018.
2. The government
backgrounder states:
"If passed,
C-76
will require that political parties have a publicly available,
easily understandable policy for the protection of personal
information containing the following:
- a statement outlining how and what information is
collected;
- a statement on how the party will protect personal
information;
- a statement informing Canadians on how the party will
use
personal information and under what circumstances personal
information may be sold;
- a statement on employee training regarding the
collection and
use of personal information;
- a statement on the collection and use of personal
information
from online activity and the party's use of cookies on its
website; and
- the name and contact information of a designated
person to whom privacy concerns can be addressed.
"C-76 will also require
political parties to submit their
privacy policy as part of their application for registration with
Elections Canada and [they] will have to maintain it to keep their
registered status. They will also have to make it publicly
available on their website."
3. Report of the Committee on Financial
Aid to Political Parties, Great Britain, 1976.
4. Issues in Party and Election Finance
in Canada, Volume 5, Research
Studies, Royal Commission on
Electoral Reform and Party Financing.
State Funding Makes Political Parties
Appendages of the State
The Canada Elections
Act sets out the requirements and regulations governing the
registration of political parties. The Liberal amendments to the
electoral law introduce a new requirement: political parties must file
privacy statements with Elections Canada before they can be registered.
The other requirements remain unchanged. All parties must have 250
members, a leader, an official agent and an auditor, and meet financial
reporting requirements, including reporting on all contributions over
$20. The starting point, however, is that to be registered a political
party must have an electoral aim. The Canada
Elections
Act requires a political party seeking official status
to declare that "one of the party's fundamental purposes is to
participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members
as candidates and supporting their election." A political party that
has any other aim, such as educating and mobilizing the members of the
polity to represent and empower themselves, would not qualify for
registration and, to participate in an election, would have to register
as a third party.
Once registered, all political parties are supposedly
equal
before the law. In practice, the Canada Elections Act
favours those parties that have a chance of forming a majority
government on the basis of a framework of prejudices set behind
the backs of Canadians. It divides the parties into "major" and
"minor," and further categorizes them as "fringe," "extremist"
or simply irrelevant. Those accorded "major" status are permitted
into the sanctum of the privileged. Individuals and
organizations that agree to promote these prejudices are also
permitted into the inner circles of the elite, which is collectively
working to deprive the polity of its own outlook. Others are relegated
to the sidelines on the basis of declarations such as those of Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau who effectively said he could not end the
first-past-the-post system because it might lead to a breach of this
inner sanctum.[1]
All the corruption we see in the political sphere stems
from
this aim set by the state for political parties. The corruption
begins with state-funding of the "major" parties. This was
instituted because the parties could not raise enough money to
finance themselves without depending on wealthy donors and
corporations or on trade unions and this was viewed as a
corrupting influence. This public financing of political parties was
presented as a
way of enhancing the democratic process and opposing corruption.
It continues to be presented in this way, even though
corruption
has only worsened and taken on new forms. Various schemes have been
enacted to transform the major parties into dependants of the
state. While tax credits are provided for donations to all
registered political parties, other schemes of direct financing
were established in such a way that only the parties of the
establishment could ever access them. These range from generous
and constantly increasing election campaign reimbursements
through to per-vote subsidies. Public resources include not only
funds from the state treasury but the use of publicly subsidized
airwaves which are presently regulated by the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
Because the state funds the parties, the state makes
them account for themselves to Elections Canada based on criteria set
by the state. Elections Canada, which administers the registration of
political parties and the disbursal of funds to them, is expected to
ensure that frivolous parties or organizations masquerading as parties
do not get access to state funds. It administers how political parties
fulfill their registration requirements which permit a party to issue
political contribution tax-receipts, have its name on the ballot and
receive state funds, if it qualifies. The law sets out, for instance,
how many members a political party must have to qualify for
registration. It falls upon Elections Canada to verify the membership
submitted. This includes sending out letters to party members asking
them to confirm that they are in fact members of the party. For a
variety of reasons this is offensive and intimidating and goes against
the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and freedom of
association free from state monitoring.
The more political parties have become entrenched in
election law as the holders of special privileges, the more state
interference in the internal affairs of political parties has grown.
Examples of this abound. For instance, when a registered
political party elects a leader, it is required to report to
Elections Canada, while party leadership contestants must file
financial returns with Elections Canada. Contributions to party
leadership contestants, totalling millions of dollars, are
tax-deductible and all donors over $200 must be reported and made
public. All of this interference in the internal
affairs of a political party is justified on the grounds that the
leader may become the prime minister of the country and the
political parties are more than willing to accept such
interference because of the privileges they receive. Modern
democratic organizational principle dictates that a political
party should be accountable to its membership, not to outside
interests, especially, one might add, the state. In any case, the
process by which an individual can become the prime minister of a
country by virtue of being the leader of a party which holds a
majority of seats is anathema to a legislative body which claims
to be democratic. Its leader should be elected by its
members.
All of this interference and regulation of political
parties
and its members violates the democratic principle of
freedom of association and non-interference by the state in the
affairs of political parties. It stems from the fact that the
political parties of the establishment have become appendages of
the state, heavily reliant and dependent on state financing. Even
though it is generally only the "major" political parties that
enjoy the privileges of state-funding, the impact of the rules
and regulations and state interference in the internal affairs
affects all political parties. It underscores that political
freedom of association and organization needs a system in which
public funding is provided for the electoral process, not
political parties.
So long as public resources are provided to any
registered political party, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada thinks
the key democratic principle to be upheld is the one which stipulates
that all candidates are equal and thus public resources should be
provided on an equal basis, not on the basis of a self-serving formula
decided by some parties which provides those same parties with more
funding than
others.
What exists in Canada is a system of hierarchical
preferences
given to the political parties in the House of Commons, through a web
of electoral laws and broadcasting rules and regulations
that they themselves have enacted. The political parties with
seats in the Parliament enjoy privileged positions. The fact that
they can use these privileged positions to make self-serving
decisions to provide themselves with greater resources than
others is rejected with contempt by Canadians who suffer the
abuse of privileged positions of power every day of their
lives.
 The fact that this
democracy is called representative is to
cover up who precisely represents whom. The facts belie the
implication that candidates and elected representatives and
governments represent "the people." Any impartial inquiry into
who sets the agenda, what issues are given priority, and how the
concerns and problems of the people and their aspirations for
social progress are blocked from taking their rightful place in
the public sphere and being given the importance they merit, will
reveal the truth of the matter. At the end of the day, the facts
show that Canadians are not equal under the law in Canada. For
purposes of elections, they are divided into those who are
governed and those who are slated to be governors and, when electors
cast their vote, they hand over their authority to make decisions
to representatives of the "Sovereign."
In Canada, the "Sovereign" is not "the people" or their
legislatures for that matter, as people are led to believe. The
"Sovereign" is the one who wields the Sovereign Power through the Royal
Prerogative. This refers to the discretionary powers
wielded in the name of national security, the national interest
and Canadian values. These are actually incorporated into what is
called the person of state, nominally the Queen of England, but which
are in fact supranational private interests, mainly in the camp of the
Anglo-American imperialists, fighting over control at home and abroad.
These discretionary powers are also known as "police
powers."
It is the discretionary powers in the hands of the executive --
the prime minister and cabinet ministers and appointees of all kinds,
as well as the Supreme Court of Canada which issues judgments that
interpret the Constitution. These police powers set policy, especially
the definition of rights, the direction of the economy and Canada's
participation in matters related to war and peace, as well as
regulations and information. When it comes to the people's
participation in the affairs of the polity, they set what constitutes
"reasonable limits" on rights and activities of all kinds. So too when
it comes to the activities of rivals they seek to eliminate.
Note
1. Explaining why promised
electoral reforms would not be
implemented, Prime Minister Trudeau said, "If we were to make a
change or risk a change that would augment individual voices --
that would augment extremist voices and activist voices that
don't get to sit within a party that figures out what's best for
the whole future of the country, like the three existing parties
do -- I think we would be entering a period of instability and
uncertainty. And we'd be putting at risk the very thing that
makes us luckier than anyone on the planet." When questioned, he
said: "If you have a party that represents fringe voices, or the
periphery of our perspectives and they hold 10, 15, 20 seats in
the House, they end up holding the balance of power. The strength
of our democracy is, we have to pull people together into big
parties that have all the diversity of Canada, and who learn to
get along. You don't learn to amplify small voices, you learn to
listen to all voices. And that's why we have a system that works
so well."
Major Agenda Item for NAFTA Negotiations
Fueling the U.S. War Machine
- K.C. Adams -
Further integration of North American energy
infrastructure and resources under the control of the U.S.-dominated
energy monopolies is a major agenda item for the NAFTA
renegotiations. NAFTA already obligates Canada to maintain energy
exports to the U.S. in proportion to total energy production.
This guarantees the U.S. access to Canada's energy resources so
long as NAFTA remains in force. Essentially, this obligation
under NAFTA reserves oil sands bitumen as a secure source of
supply for the United States and its ever-expanding war machine.
How the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain bitumen pipeline fits into
this NAFTA commitment is being hidden under talk of new markets
in Asia and lessening Canada's dependence on the U.S. market.
 How the oil sands should be
developed to serve Fortress North
America, wage war against global competitors and destroy those
who will not submit to U.S. dictate has already been decided
through secret agreements dictated by the most powerful
imperialist private interests. In 2006, two secret summits took
place, one in Houston, Texas and another in Banff, Alberta to
discuss and decide Canada's role in defending "North American
energy security."
In Houston, U.S. and Canadian oil executives and
government
officials set a program to achieve a five-fold increase in
Alberta oil sands production. Amongst other things, the oil sands
would replace Venezuela's supply to the U.S. Gulf Coast
refineries. The Banff meeting later in the year brought together
top oil and other executives and the military establishment of
the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Both these secret meetings set an
agenda for the economic future of Canada, where decisions were
made to divert billions of dollars from the socialized economy
for investments in the oil sands to secure energy supply for
Fortress North America and U.S. imperialism's war
preparations.
The U.S. West Coast, a key location of military bases
and production of weapons of mass destruction, is not linked through
pipelines to the main U.S. oil fields in Texas and North Dakota. Its
traditional sources in California and Alaska are in decline. California
in particular relies on imports from West Asia and South America for
the majority of its oil. While the U.S. has doubled its oil production
in the past ten years mainly from the fracking of tight shale oil, this
increased production is centred in Texas and North Dakota. With oil
production on the West Coast in decline, the existing Kinder Morgan
pipeline and its expansion provide access to the Alberta oil sands.
The U.S. military itself is the single largest consumer
of
energy in the world. This is so without even considering the
additional massive oil and other energy required to produce its
weapons, military vehicles, war planes and ships etc. The U.S.
military under the rule of exception for national security and
classified information has a blanket exemption in all
international climate agreements and its carbon footprint cannot
be counted.
The U.S. war machine and the production of weapons of
mass
destruction are significant factors in energy consumption on the
U.S. West Coast, particularly in California but also in
Washington state. California is second only to Virginia in total
official military spending at $49.6 billion a year, and
Washington is seventh at $12.6 billion a year.
 California and Washington
state are home to major naval bases
including a shipyard in Washington. San Diego and Puget
Sound are amongst the most heavily militarized centres in the
world. Major war production also takes place in both states,
including fighter jets and ballistic missiles with monopoly arms
manufacturers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman
and others having sprawling facilities on the U.S. West
Coast.
The 2018 National
Defense Authorization Act allots
$700
billion for the U.S. war budget, up from $619 billion the
previous year. This includes new navy ships, warplanes, vehicles,
missiles, bombs and ammunition that further increase the demand
for oil both in war production and active duty.
The decisions made behind the backs of Canadians and
Albertans to divert billions from the Canadian socialized economy
to provide raw resources and energy security for the U.S. war
machine within an integrated Fortress North America do not serve
a Canadian nation-building project or the right to decide of
working people and the Indigenous peoples.
Within this political annexation and subservience, the
Canadian state at all levels guarantees the profit of the big oil
companies with grants, exemptions from taxes, the seizure of
Canada's raw material, the provision of educated and skilled
workers and necessary infrastructure. The Trudeau government's
plan to indemnify Kinder Morgan from any potential losses from
building and operating the Trans Mountain expansion project is
yet another pay-the-rich scheme and is an indication of what
really goes on in NAFTA renegotiations as well. Powerful private
interests decided in secret on the direction of Canada's energy
sector. The federal government has been mobilized to enforce that
decision using its authority and police powers. Opposition to the
direction and specifically to the Kinder Morgan pipeline
expansion is being criminalized with Trudeau declaring that the
project is in the national interest.
 Canadians' outlook is
disinformed into believing that
governments formed by different parties make policy to serve the
national interest, making it difficult for people to grasp the
essence of what is happening in the energy sector, the economy
generally and what role the pipeline expansion is designed to
play. The media use their power to promote what the private
interests have decided and to depoliticize public opinion which
is not allowed to coalesce around a new direction in opposition
to war, war preparations and annexation into U.S. imperialism's
system of states.
But Canadian working people are not powerless in the
face of
the situation. They can build their own independent institutions
and voice. They can unite with one another in discussion and
actions with analysis to oppose what they see as wrong and find
out what needs to be done for the country to step out in a new
direction of self-reliance and nation-building in defiance of
U.S. imperialism, where through democratic renewal the people
have the power to decide and Canada is made a zone for peace with
an anti-war government.
Matters of Concern for the Workers'
Movement
Rio Tinto Group Concerned with "Resurgence
of Resource
Nationalism"
- André Bédard -
Graphic on Quebec United Steelworkers facebook page points out that ABI
lockout deprives
Hydro Quebec and the people of Quebec of $604,464/day.
The global financial/industrial cartel Rio Tinto
together
with Alcoa have locked out 1,030 aluminum workers from their
smelter in Becancour Quebec. The two companies are pressuring the
workers to make concessions on a host of issues but that is not
all. The lockout is also directed at squeezing the Quebec
government for even lower prices for state-supplied electricity
and other concessions and at limiting the supply of aluminum on
world markets in the short term to force higher prices.
The Rio Tinto Group is no minor imperialist oligopoly.
"Last
year, Rio Tinto was responsible for half of the total cash
returns across the mining sector," CEO Jean-Sebastien Jacques
recently boasted. Always on the prowl to enlarge its empire, Rio
Tinto engages in such nefarious activities as the lockout in
Quebec and threats against governments everywhere to toe the
company line or face unspecified consequences.
Rio Tinto expropriates the value workers produce and
then
uses it in part to defend its private interests in opposition to
the people's interests. Politics is the concentrated expression
of economics and, where Rio Tinto's private economic interests
reside, so must those it supports and finances as its political
representatives. And if that proves insufficient, it can call
upon the military and espionage services of the Anglo-U.S.
imperialists and their mercenaries to engage in violent regime
change to remove anyone, or any political force, that seeks a new
direction or even to improve the well-being of the people and
guarantee their rights, such as the right to benefit from their
own land, resources and work.
Speaking at a Bank of America Merrill Lynch conference
in Miami on May 15, Rio Tinto CEO Jacques expressed concern with "a
resurgence of resource nationalism" and the efforts of certain
governments "to get a greater share of their mineral wealth -- most
times to the detriment of private companies."
 "From the [Democratic
Republic of the Congo -- DRC] and South Africa to Mongolia and
Australia,
[resource nationalism] is gaining momentum," he said, but added that he
was "optimistic that common sense in all those cases would prevail."
He told the Bank of America conference that major
private
mining companies, including Rio Tinto, operating in the DRC,
Africa's top copper producer and source of over 60 per cent of
the global cobalt supply, "are vigorously fighting a new mining
code." He said the fresh legislation strips away a stability
clause protecting existing investments from changes to the fiscal
and customs' regime for 10 years, introduces a 50 per cent
windfall profits tax and gives powers to the mines minister to
hike royalties on minerals considered strategic.
"It all began in Indonesia," the CEO said, "which
imposed new
rules on the exports of unprocessed ore early last year. Tanzania
followed suit imposing two months later a ban on exports of gold
concentrates. Something similar happened in South Africa, which
last year unveiled a revised mining code that would have imposed
a one per cent tax on mining companies' revenues -- as opposed to
their profits, as is common."
He called on other imperialist resource cartels to
unite in
ever larger, more powerful oligopolies or a sort of "United
Nations of the mining industry to tackle rising resource
nationalism" and forcefully confront certain "challenging
jurisdictions." The reports from the conference did not go into
details as to what battle plans Jacques and others were plotting
to defeat the "resurgence of resource nationalism" but the
threats were palpable.
The CEO failed to mention that global cartels such as
Rio
Tinto rarely pay any corporate income tax and only minimal
royalty fees. The oligopolies hire hundreds of tax accountants
who are expert at moving gross income around within a cartel's
hundreds of company holdings to reduce the apparent particular
company profit to near zero. In some cases, a cartel will borrow
at generous interest rates from one of its own lending
institutions located outside the country sometimes in a tax
haven. In imperialist accounting, the interest profit
expropriated from the new value workers produce is calculated as
a "cost" to the equity owners and taxable in the country where
the loan originates.
The Rio Tinto CEO went on to denounce the government in
Mongolia, which claims that Oyu Tolgoi, a copper joint venture
run by Rio Tinto, should pay more for state-supplied electricity and
owes $155 million in unpaid taxes. The cartel refutes the tax
claim and refuses to pay, and similar to the situation in Quebec,
demands state-supplied electricity at subsidized rates below the
price of production.
It should also not be forgotten that on May 9 Canada
launched a new military mission to Mali where Canadian mining companies
are demanding the government back down on changes to its mining code
which would hit the companies' long term rights over its resources. See
"No to
Expanding Canada's Military Presence in Africa," TML Weekly, April 7, 2018.
Note
Bank of America owns a large stake in the Rio Tinto
Group so the words of CEO Jacques at the bank's conference are of
particular importance to its private interests.
Criminalization of Quebec Construction Workers --
Anti-Worker Outlook of Parties in Government
and in Opposition
- Pierre Chénier -
The Quebec National Assembly is currently in the process
of adopting Bill 152, which amends various labour-related
legislative provisions to strengthen the criminalization of
construction workers who defend their rights. After two days of
parliamentary hearings, Bill 152 was unanimously adopted in principle
on February 22. The Committee on Labour and the
Economy held a clause-by-clause study of the bill for three days
and adopted all its clauses with only slight amendments. The
Committee submitted its report to the National Assembly on May 10
and the National Assembly is now proceeding towards the bill's
adoption.
Bill 152 and the Assembly's deliberations reveal the
extent
to which the ruling class is intent on depriving Quebec construction
workers of the ability to uphold their rights in practice.
Assembly members are shamelessly going all out in the service of
construction employers to criminalize workers and their
organizations.
The bill and Assembly deliberations reveal several
striking
features:
- No reference is made to the working conditions and
terms of
employment of Quebec construction workers. No material or
historical context is made of the construction industry and the
human factor involved in producing value, and the long class
struggle to defend the rights of the working class and establish
norms and standards regarding terms of employment and conditions
on worksites.
- No reference is found of the extremely hazardous
conditions
on Quebec construction sites. No mention is made that the
construction sector has the highest number of annual workplace
fatalities, injuries and health-related problems.
- No reference
exists to the fact that construction workers have no job security
from jobsite to jobsite making them vulnerable to arbitrary
dismissals; to a situation where they are not called for work at
another site if they defend their rights; where they are often
paid under the table with no legal paycheque showing deductions
for EI or pensions, suffering truncated work hours, varied
working days with no overtime paid and often no record of even
having worked etc.
These phenomena are well known and documented.
Construction
workers and their organizations have been fighting for years to
bring about changes that would improve their working conditions
and benefit the construction sector itself. None of this is
referred to in the bill; nothing emerged during deliberations or was
even mentioned in passing by any party member in government or
opposition. One could say the bill and Assembly members
disappeared the reality of the construction industry, especially
the actual conditions for the human factor.
The overall theme of Bill 152 and all the talk in the
National Assembly centres on "intimidation." It became clear that
"intimidation" in the minds of the government and opposition
members is the organized struggle of construction workers to
change the conditions mentioned above, and specifically the
practice and actions of the workers and their unions to defend
their rights on construction sites.
The government shamelessly invokes the Charbonneau
Commission
to attack construction workers. In fact, the Commission was
supposed to have been about fighting corruption and the presence
of organized crime in the awarding of public construction
contracts and the link between this corruption and the financing
of many of the same political parties now pushing Bill 152.
Instead of dealing with the Commission's mandate, it appears the
Assembly members, in fear perhaps of being tainted with
corruption, introduced Bill 152. This has deflected all talk away
from their own involvement in the awarding of government
contracts to the accusation that construction workers are using
intimidation to defend themselves and to equate their trade
unions with organized crime.
What a leap, but leap they did, from criminal
intimidation in
the awarding of government contracts to the activities of workers
defending themselves against owners and managers that give
themselves the right to do whatever they want. This management
right often degenerates into the Wild West outside any law on
construction sites endangering lives and creating chaos in
workers' lives and the sector. The Charbonneau Commission showed
real instances of the Wild West of corruption and intimidation in
capturing government contracts and then handing over money to
certain political parties in power and opposition, but this does
not appear in Bill 152.
The real intimidation of organized crime and
corruption,
even
involving political parties, has disappeared in Bill 152. Instead,
the Assembly members and parties have invented a fiction to
attack workers and their collectives, and deflect attention away
from themselves and the actual conditions workers face and which
they attempt to correct through their organized struggles.
Look at the shameful words of Minister of Labour
Dominique
Vien who presents herself as an indignant employer wanting the
powers of King Canute to hold back the tide of workers' rights to
be made real through the exercise of police powers:
Right now, you have to
understand that it is forbidden for
anyone to impose on an employer the hiring of a construction
worker ... you must always put yourself in the context as well,
... that even if these articles are not necessarily a request
from Commissioner Charbonneau, we are still in the same process
that the Charbonneau Commission followed, which gave rise to a
report in 2015. What we want to do ... is to specify, because the
Quebec Construction Commission needs it, these clarifications. So
we are not going to merely talk about not imposing, we are going
to add the notions of threats, we are going to add the notion of
intimidation, and I mean, not only in the hiring of staff, but
also in the whole issue of management rights, and this, this is
new, in the whole issue of management rights of an employer in
the construction sector. This means that you will not be allowed
to use intimidation, you will not be able to make a threat to,
for example, play with management rights, be it a dismissal, a
disciplinary action, a displacement of workers. Thus, we are no
longer limited to the concept of hiring, but we expand to other
situations that may occur, basically, that's what we are
doing.
Wow! What a leap from corruption in awarding government
contracts to advocating a full-blown police regime against
construction workers to serve the narrow private interests of the
very construction companies that were said to be involved in
corrupt practices. Let them get away with the injuries, deaths
and mistreatment of workers! If you and your collective object to
the injuries, deaths and mistreatment of one of your fellow
construction workers you are guilty of intimidating the person
accused of committing these crimes and abuses. The members of the
Assembly will not allow construction workers to defend their
rights, lives and livelihoods because they stand with the
employers through thick and thin. From accusations of corruption
in the awarding of government contracts, they shift to the breaking of
construction norms and standards and terms of employment. They
swear to uphold "management rights" and will not allow management
and employers to be intimidated by the workers fighting for their
lives and livelihoods.
All the parties in the National Assembly support
criminalizing construction workers. Representatives of the
Liberal Party, Parti Québécois and Coalition Avenir
Québec spoke
at length during the clause-by-clause study, supporting the
attacks against the construction workers under the hoax of
fighting intimidation and disruption on worksites. Some suggested
the bill goes too far in terms of the scope of the
criminalization, but only in the matter of degree, and they did not
object in principle or do anything to oppose the bill.
No differences emerged in the basic position of all
parties
that the organized struggle of workers amounts to intimidation of
employers and represents a threat to production, the economy and
the private interests of construction companies. The fourth party,
Québec Solidaire, did not have a representative on the
Committee. However, it voted in favour of the bill in principle. Its
co-leader called the bill a "legislative effort" to
clean up practices on construction sites, to put an end to
corruption and intimidation. He referred to workers' actions as
"out of control," while criticizing the bill for targeting
freedom of association of workers. This is common liberal talk of
workers' rights in theory but to oppose the exercise of workers'
rights in practice and to denounce workers' actions in defence of
their rights as intimidation of their employer and a restriction
of trade.
The National Assembly and its Committee on Labour and
the Economy refuse to recognize the actual working conditions in the
construction sector and the necessity for construction workers to
organize themselves in defence of their rights, lives and
livelihoods. The Assembly wants to deprive workers of their
rights through the use of the state's police powers in the
service of the construction companies' narrow private interests.
This attack will not deter workers from organizing and
defending their rights because to do so is to give up on life
itself and succumb to the tyranny of the rich oligarchs and their
political representatives. To deprive workers of their rights is
untenable in modern society and will only lead to intensified
class struggle and disruption. Equilibrium in the class struggle
can be found, but it requires those who buy workers' capacity to
work to recognize that workers will only work if they can reach
terms of employment acceptable to themselves and that those terms
are respected and adhered to in practice.
Dangerous Escalation of War Preparations
Largest Troop Movement in Ontario
Since the Ice Storm of 1998
The City of Greater Sudbury was visited April 30 by a
convoy of 37 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) vehicles, mainly LAV-6
light armoured vehicles and 200 troops. Based in Petawawa, the
troops were on their first overnight stop of a six-day, 1,300 km
trip in preparation for their NATO deployment to Latvia in July.
They travelled from Petawawa, through North Bay, detouring
through Temagami and then to Sudbury. They continued to Peterborough,
Kingston, Toronto and ended up at Meaford. It was the largest troop
movement in Ontario since the ice storm of 1998.
One reporter made light of the convoy's visit to
Sudbury, joking that the reason was to train in the conditions of the
city's infamous potholes. In response, a CAF spokesperson likened the
exercise to a tourist and public relations trip, showing the flag in
different communities, and allowing urban residents to see military
equipment that is normally confined to rural and isolated areas. He
also quipped that the troops were looking forward to their mission
because Latvia is a hockey nation.
Questions of war and peace are not laughing matters.
The
Canadian government of Justin Trudeau, like that of Stephen
Harper before him, is acting like a lapdog of U.S. imperialism in
Eastern Europe. This visit to Sudbury and other communities by a
CAF convoy is part of the war preparations of U.S. imperialism in
its efforts to dominate the world. Sudburians want an anti-war
government to keep Canada out of war preparations and to act as a
force for peace.
U.S. Navy Refurbishes Second Fleet to Control
Caribbean and North Atlantic
Protest against warships in Halifax harbour, May 29, 2012.
The U.S. Navy is reestablishing its Second Fleet to
control the North Atlantic, navy sources report.[1] It will be operational by July 1
and headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia. According to reports,
U.S. plans are to increase its fleet, including reactivating the Oliver Hazard Perry-class
frigates. The lives of the ships
already in active service could be extended in order to meet the
goal of a 355-strong navy. There are plans to install vertical
launch systems on at least six San
Antonio-class landing ship
docks and six auxiliary vessels, in order to increase the navy's
missile strike capability.
The Second Fleet was disbanded in 2011, as nothing
challenged
the
U.S. Navy in the Atlantic Ocean at that time. However, the 2018
National Defense Strategy lists the mission to counter Russia and
China as a top priority and the U.S. Navy's announcement makes it clear
that the competition between the world's leading
naval powers is back on again. Russia's modernization efforts
have made its navy a formidable force for the U.S. to reckon
with, military sources report. U.S. ships and aircraft have
recently stepped up their activities in the Atlantic Ocean and
the Baltic Sea.
 The proposed NATO Joint
Forces Command (JFC), also operating
out of Norfolk, Virginia, will be responsible for much the same
region. Protecting sea lanes to transfer troops and equipment has
become a mission of paramount importance. In this regard, the
U.S. is also reactivating and modernizing its naval aviation base
at Keflavik, Iceland, which includes renovating a hangar to
accommodate P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft that are
designed to hunt Russian submarines. Iceland is essentially an
unsinkable
aircraft carrier. A military presence there makes it possible to
control the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap, which Russia's
Northern Fleet surface ships and submarines have to cross on
their way to the Atlantic Ocean. Roughly 300 U.S. Marines are
based out of Norway.
An analysis published May 8 by the Russian-based
Strategic Culture
Foundation
says:
Having crossed the Atlantic,
the Second Fleet
ships will join the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. The Harry
S. Truman carrier strike group entered the Sixth Fleet's area of
operations on April 18, which was a change from the previous plan
to operate in the Persian Gulf. This is the first time a carrier
has been deployed in the Mediterranean Sea since July 2017. It
looks like from now on, a flat top will be present in the region
permanently, just like back during the days of the Cold War.
After all, any forces that are based in Europe could easily move
to other theatres, if need be. The carrier group is being drawn
into combat operations on Syrian soil. The Sixth Fleet has
considerably boosted its firepower. Today it can launch about 90
flat top-based aircraft and over 1,000 ship-based long-range
surface-to-shore cruise missiles.
After Crimea joined Russia
in 2014, the U.S. substantially
increased its military presence in Europe by deploying an
armoured brigade combat team supported by a combat aviation
brigade. The Army has also prepositioned equipment for another
armoured brigade.
Since 2015, four
Aegis-equipped guided-missile destroyers
have been based out of Rota, Spain, as an element of NATO's
ballistic missile defence. They can always move to the
Mediterranean. Meanwhile, the bloc has stepped up its naval
training activities in the region.
The U.S. Navy has doubled
its deployments to the Black Sea.
NATO has followed suit.
The Military Sealift Command
(MSC) is increasing its
logistics support of the Sixth Fleet as more warships are
deployed to counter Russia. Last year the command transported
twice the ordnance, three times as many critical parts, and 33
per cent more cargo to Europe and Africa than in 2016. This is a
very important fact that illustrates a trend.
According to Chief of Naval
Operations Admiral John
Richardson, the Navy is "spending a lot more time in the European
theatre." It is "working the Russian presence problem' there. The
U.S. Naval Institute is sounding the alarm, claiming that those
poor Europeans have been left grappling with 'aggressive' Russian
operations. And the U.S. Navy has to reluctantly do something
about the impending 'Russian threat.'"
In reality, the revival of
the Second Fleet is part of a
well-planned preparation for possible war against Russia that
could take place on the land, on the sea, and in the air. It is
offensive -- not defensive -- operations that the U.S.-led bloc
is getting ready for. The West is engaged in a multi-front and
multi-domain campaign against Moscow. It has just taken another
step down that path. With so many problems threatening its
existence, it needs someone to unite it and distract the public's
attention from those other problems that Russia has nothing to do
with. An imaginary threat justifying all the steps that have been
taken to boost its military capabilities fits that bill
nicely.
Note
1. The Second Fleet played a crucial
role during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and invaded Grenada
in 1983.
U.S. Increases Its Military Presence in Scandinavia
Demonstration against military exercise "Arctic Challenge" in
Rovaneimi,
Finland, May 23, 2017.
The U.S., Sweden, and Finland entered into a new
military
alliance on May 8 when defence ministers signed a trilateral Statement
of
Intent (SOI) to expand defence
cooperation on
all fronts. Both Sweden and Finland have previously finalized
separate defence SOIs with the U.S. Now they have signed a joint
document to unify those previous agreements and enhance their
interoperability, news agencies report.
The agreement emphasizes the countries' combined joint
exercises and streamlines the procedures that have been
established to manage them. By transforming bilateral agreements
into enhanced trilateral cooperation, a new U.S.-led defence
alliance has been created which skirts the issue that
neither Sweden nor Finland have joined NATO due to opposition by
their people.
 Other issues covered by the SOI
include regular trilateral
meetings at all levels, the exchange of information (including
about weapons systems), increased practical interaction,
cooperation in multinational operations, improved communications,
and the promotion of the EU-NATO strategic partnership. The
latter issue will transform the two Scandinavian countries into a
connecting link that will eliminate the chance of any European
deterrent that could operate with any real independence from the
U.S. One of the U.S. aims is to make sure that the Permanent
Structured Cooperation Agreement which is part of the
European Union's security and defence policy will not protect
Europe's defence industry from U.S. companies.
Sweden hosted the Aurora military exercise in September
2017,
the largest such event on its soil. The U.S. supplied most of the
visiting troops. The American military has also taken part in a
number of drills in Finland recently. Finland will host a
large-scale NATO exercise as early as 2020 or 2021. The U.S. has
already been invited. The militarization of the Scandinavian
Peninsula is moving full speed ahead.
The analysis provided by the online journal Strategic
Culture of these developments expresses concern that "the
increased tempo of exercises anticipates a larger U.S. presence.
It has far-reaching implications. With American military
personnel rotating in and out of Sweden and Finland, any
offensive action against one of those states would officially be
an attack on a NATO member. It would trigger a response as
envisaged by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Russia considers
any American military presence there as provocative. The U.S. is
not a Scandinavian country. If an incident took place that
resulted in a clash between Russian and U.S. forces, the two
Scandinavian nations would be pulled against their will into a
conflict they may have nothing to do with. The American soldiers
on their soil will never be under the control of their national
commands. More U.S. presence means less sovereignty and more
risk."
Anti-NATO demonstration in Gotenburg, Sweden, September 16, 2017.
Strategic Culture points out that, in fact, since
Sweden and Finland are EU members "they don't even need Article 5 [of
the Washington Treaty], because Article 42.7 of the EU treaty
also contains a binding mutual-assistance clause. France invoked
it after the 2015 Paris terror attacks." Strategic Culture says
further:
Last year Sweden and Finland
joined the UK-led Joint
Expeditionary Force (JEF). All other participants in the
nine-nation formation are NATO members. It means that in an
emergency their armed forces will operate under NATO command,
becoming parties to a conflict they could avoid if they were
really neutral. The two also cooperate with Washington through
the Northern Group (NG), which consists of 12 countries, although
Sweden and Finland are the only non-NATO participants. That
organization holds its own dialog with the U.S. Another venue is
the five-nation Nordic Countries group that includes these two
non-aligned members.
In reality, Sweden and
Finland have already
joined NATO through other groups and agreements. They did so
informally, avoiding referendums and the relevant parliamentary
procedures at home. This should be viewed as part of a broader
picture. In early April, the first-ever U.S.-Baltic States summit
took place in Washington. It was an unprecedented event that
somehow was kept out of the media spotlight.
The U.S. already has forces deployed in Norway and
Poland and
is now considering rotating American troops through the Baltic
states as well. Poland and the Baltic states are a focus of
NATO'S strategy to encircle Russia and prepare for war despite
the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act (1997), which states
that no substantial forces should be deployed in the proximity of
Russia's borders. That document has already been breached by
NATO. Furthermore, Lithuania began importing liquefied natural
gas (LNG) from America. Poland has also built an LNG terminal to
expand the shipments of U.S. gas to Europe, which compete
with Russia's energy supplies.
The new military alliance between the U.S., Sweden and
Finland is to strengthen U.S. hegemonism in Europe at a time
France and Germany are taking their own measures to increase
European defence interoperability on their own. "Northern Europe
is being turned into a hornet's nest, with its good-neighbour
policy gradually being replaced with confrontation that benefits
the U.S. but makes the region less secure," Strategic
Culture concludes.
New York State Funds Drone Corridor
There is an unmanned aircraft system traffic management
(UTM) corridor in Central New York. It runs from Central New York
to the Mohawk Valley. The most advanced drone testing corridor in
the United States, it is the first of its kind.
On May 1, New York Governor Cuomo announced that "The
state-supported Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research
Alliance Gryphon Sensors, a world leader in intelligent drone
detection, and Raytheon, a technology and innovation leader
specializing in defence, civil government and cybersecurity
solutions, have both received awards to complete the UTM
corridor. The overall project will consist of the system
planning, design, implementation, commissioning, and operational
support of a state-of-the-art UTM research, development, test and
evaluation infrastructure."
Coumo boasted that the "multi-million dollar corridor
creates
unparalleled drone testing capability." In the name of
"strengthening the economy," the corridor will mainly serve drone
warfare and drone spying and police use inside the country.
The development of the drone corridor is a
multi-million
dollar project with significant funding by New York State. Its
development is part of "Central New York Rising" through which the
state has already invested more than $4.7 billion since 2012.
This includes $500 million through the Upstate Revitalization
Initiative, announced by Governor Cuomo in December 2015. Another
$30 million in state public funds were provided in 2016
specifically for development of the 50-mile flight traffic
management system between Syracuse and Griffiss International
Airport in Rome, New York. While there are potential commercial uses
for the drone corridor, Raytheon's participation indicates it
will largely be used to further develop the military's drone
warfare and use of drones for "public safety" -- meaning spying
on and disrupting protests, strikes and similar organizing.
New York is already home to two military bases that fly
drones, one near Syracuse. Certainly it is no accident the drone
corridor is in this vicinity. Niagara Air Force base near Buffalo
is also involved in drone warfare. Drones are illegal weapons of
war, as they are used to carry out aggression against many
countries in the Middle East and Africa, like Yemen, that have not
attacked
the U.S. and pose no threat. Indeed the Niagara base
is currently also being used for re-fueling missions for
U.S.-supplied Saudi planes that are bombing Yemen and committing
massacres and other war crimes against the people there.
Raytheon is one of the largest military monopolies,
with
sales of $24 billion in 2016 alone. It is yearly provided with
guaranteed Pentagon contracts -- meaning guaranteed payments of
public dollars for war. It also is a weapons manufacturer and
involved in sales of weapons of war abroad. Now Raytheon and
Gryphon Sensors are getting public dollars at the state level to
do their war-making research. No doubt New York's universities
will also contribute free researchers, development and trained
engineers.
Military Contractor Opens New Facility
in Buffalo, New York
On April 26, New York's Governor Cuomo announced that
military contractor Research and Engineering Development, or
RED-INC. will open a new facility in Buffalo. His statement said,
"Since 1998, RED-INC has provided expert research, engineering
and development services for military weapons systems and
warfighter solutions in the fields of conventional and irregular
warfare. The new division, known as Team 2, develops new and
emerging technologies that include Augmented Reality, Virtual
Reality, Artificial Intelligence and other solutions," for
military purposes. This war company will provide some 40 jobs
while it takes advantage of the free training and educational
development provided by University at Buffalo. Most of their
employees are graduates of the University.
The statement also makes clear that RED-INC is a main
contractor for the Navy, that it develops technology for war and
its employees, some of them former military, will be engaged in
supporting war. It explains, "RED-INC has ... positioned itself
as a valuable resource for Department of Defense customers and
commercial companies alike. The new employees will be experts in
areas such as product development; physics; numerous engineering
disciplines to include computer, software, mechanical and
aeronautical; and will be former military operators with specific
and relevant mission experience. They are presently working on
tools and systems to support the United States Navy's MQ-8C "Fire
Scout," which is a combat proven, autonomous helicopter system
that provides real-time Intelligence, Surveillance,
Reconnaissance, and Target-acquisition (ISR&T), laser
designation, and battle management to tactical users without
relying on manned aircraft or space-based assets."
Governor Cuomo also promised to continue to attract
high-tech
companies like RED-INC, meaning potentially more military
contractors will be going to Buffalo.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
