No. 1
January 2025
Canada's Trauma in the Face of Trump's Threats to Impose Tariffs
• Unseemly Last Minute Running Hither and
Thither to Placate Trump
• Existential Dilemma of Canada's Elites:
United They Fail; Divided They Fall
• Quebec Premier's Worthless Pledge to "Protect the People"
• Ontario Dairy Farmers Underscore Need to
Protect
Supply
Management
From the Party Press
2017
• Arguments About Trade Must Not Be
Pitted Against
the Need for
Renewal!
1995
• Why the Working Class
Must Constitute the Nation
– How
the Issue Poses Itself
Canada's Trauma in the Face of Trump's Threats to Impose Tariffs
Unseemly Last Minute Running Hither
and Thither to Placate Trump
Some federal and provincial government ministers and officials are reported to be in Washington DC to attempt to stave off tariffs that the Trump administration says will be levied on February 1. The antics of those who are running hither and thither neither placate Trump nor enlighten Canadians in any way, shape or form about the significance of the issue of tariffs. The views of these public figures are muddled and they appear to feel no obligation to arm people with the truth about international trade. They bombard people with nonsense to obscure the real self-serving aims of their policy.
CBC
reports that at his U.S. Senate confirmation hearing, Howard Lutnick,
Trump's nominee for Commerce Secretary who will be responsible for
implementing the tariff policy, said that there will be two phases to
the tariffs, the first being an emergency action on February 1 to deal
with
the fentanyl crisis. In an exchange with Michigan Senator Gary Peters,
Lutnick said that drug labs in Canada are run by Mexican cartels and
that Canada should shut the border and end fentanyl coming into the U.S.
The CBC fails to ask, let alone answer, the obvious question: What does the importation of illicit fentanyl have to do with tariffs? Both involve cross-border movement of goods but the similarity ends there. No attempt is made by any of these public figures to explain why stronger enforcement of cross-border drug trafficking would be a good plan to avert tariffs.
Specifics of the second phase are not yet known. However, Lutnick made clear that the U.S. is looking at a broad range of tariff options which will be informed by a study Trump has ordered be completed by April 1. There will be "scores to settle with Canada," Lutnick said, specifically mentioning dairy and auto manufacturing. The aim, he said, is to bring auto manufacturing back to the U.S. from Canada and Mexico. He also made it clear that his preference is across-the-board tariffs, not sector by sector.
Fundamental questions on the issue of Canada-USA trade include:
Who owns the exporters that stand to be affected by tariffs on goods exported to the USA? Are they Canadian or are they branch plants of American companies? Who exactly would benefit from tariffs? And who pays?
What is the merchandise trade balance between Canada and the U.S., generally and in specific sectors? Is it, as Trump says, a huge imbalance in favour of Canada? Even if it is as he says, how much of the exports from Canada involves the plunder of unprocessed natural resources and how much is manufactured goods?
How does the merchandise trade balance compare to the imbalance on the services account? The huge amount owed on public debt to foreign investors is a big drain on the resources available to provide services to Canadians.
Without knowledge of these important aspects of the issue of trade, Canadians are left defenceless and unable to form a coherent view. This is exemplified by media accounts of what various public figures are doing in the final hours prior to Trump's expected February 1 imposition of tariffs on goods from Canada entering the U.S.
According to the CBC report: "Ottawa officials have been reaching out to various American counterparts, including Lutnick, and have heard little that left them reassured. One reply they've repeatedly received: They need to personally convince Trump with direct evidence of the security measures Canada has taken. To that end, Canadian officials have been cobbling together video footage to illustrate efforts to deter illicit movement across the border; they've been sending U.S. counterparts this footage in recent weeks, including a helicopter landing in snow.
The level of political discourse is lowered by making everything personal, episodic, its pertinence and aim eclipsed, as these reports show.
The CBC report continues: "Some provincial premiers are also involved: On Wednesday, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she invited a Fox News crew to the border at Coutts, Alta., to see border-control measures there and promised additional provincial police actions."
Canada's Ambassador to the U.S., Kirsten Hillman, is quoted saying "The administration is fully briefed on Canada's border measures .... But as Mr. Lutnick said in his testimony the administration wants to see that Canada is executing on our plan. We are. We have new equipment, including helicopters and surveillance equipment that is being deployed. We are mounting a Canada-U.S. strike force to fight organized crime and drug smuggling. We have reduced illegal movement from Canada to the U.S. by 89 per cent in recent months. We are laying out all of these results and more to the U.S. administration."
News reports also inform that Public Safety Minister David McGuinty went to Washington on January 30 to meet with U.S. officials to bring them up to speed on border security. McGuinty is said to have told reporters that Canada is actively sharing video footage with the U.S. to show Canada Border Service Agency personnel and RCMP officers at work along the border, CBC says. It says the video was not made public but showcases the new equipment and security measures detailed in Canada's $1.3 billion plan which includes leasing two Blackhawk helicopters from the U.S. and 60 drones, along with new mobile surveillance teams and new canine units that can sniff out fentanyl and track down the routes migrants are taking.
In other words, Canada continues to conciliate with U.S. violations of the fundamental rights of migrants, immigrants and refugees, and international law in the name of war on drugs despite all the reports which confirm CIA involvement in drug trafficking to finance counterrevolutionary groups to overthrow governments. "War on Drugs" is a well-known cover for committing crimes against humanity in myriad ways.
Also on January 30, an article by Federal Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, Anita Anand, was published in the Toronto Star in which she calls for the elimination of barriers to inter-provincial trade. Without a hint of recognition that Canadians should be involved in setting the direction of Canada's economy and matters related to the sharing of powers between federal and provincial levels of government, she writes that the federal government "has taken a number of steps to strengthen internal trade by harmonizing regulations relating to agricultural products, cutting red tape in transportation in the oil and gas field and helping fund the National Registry of Physicians to enhance doctor mobility," to name a few. "Cutting red tape" and "enhancing mobility" are well known code when implementing anti-social measures.
As concerns the health care system, Canadians are calling for increased funding to make sure the system is properly staffed with doctors and nurses. The letter, however, calls on the provinces to work with the federal government to, for example, change certificate recognition and licensing processes that would allow health care workers to move from province to province. Canadians are justly skeptical about phrases such as "enhancing doctor mobility" and changing "certificate recognition and licensing processing" as they have been used to push privatization. Changing regulations so that wine producers can sell their products in other provinces is presented as something everyone wants but in fact, without ending the control of the economy by oligopolies and international financial oligarchs, how do Canadians benefit from any of these measures?
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in a televised address on January 31, explained nothing. He responded to Trump's threats saying, "It's not what we want, but if he moves forward, we will also act." Trump threatens and the role of the government is to amplify the sound to make sure it reverberates through every cell of the society. "I won't sugarcoat it -- our nation could be facing difficult times in the coming days and weeks," Trudeau said.
Besides allotting $1.3 billion in last fall's economic statement, amongst other measures, to further militarize Canada's border with the U.S., Canadians have yet to hear any specifics of Canada's responses but they are sure to be reprehensible by working in tandem with the Trump administration to make sure impunity prevails. The border plan includes a joint strike force and an "around the clock" aerial surveillance unit for ports of entry, as illustrated in the video the Public Safety Minister is circulating. Militarizing the border and militarizing Canada to protect the interests of oligopolies and make sure the people play no role by advancing their own agenda and interests, are unacceptable.
"No one – on either side of the border -- wants to see American tariffs on Canadian goods. I met with our Canada-U.S. Council today. We're working hard to prevent these tariffs, but if the United States moves ahead, Canada's ready with a forceful and immediate response," Trudeau posted on X.
A government which integrates Canada into the U.S. war economy is not fit to rule!
Existential Dilemma of Canada's Elites:
United They Fail; Divided They Fall
Today, in the current historical conditions, it is necessary for governments to establish the aim of their actions. It is normal for the peoples to expect these aims to serve their interests and these interests would definitely be served if the aims expressed are coherent, rational and accord with their needs. These needs are those of the natural and social environment as defined by the people who comprise the polity. They are not the narrow private interests which have usurped the powers of the state, not only in the United States but also Canada, Britain, Germany, France and the countries they continue to dominate.
In the face of the threats of U.S. President Donald Trump to make Canada the 51st state, the only aim which seems to emerge from everything the government of Canada, premiers, leaders of the cartel parties and leading lights have to say is to preserve Canada-U.S. trade relations as they are. They claim it is all about the economy. When it comes to politics, according to everything that is said and written, the problem is Donald Trump and his extremist cabinet ministers who don't appreciate that Canada is their greatest ally, friend and partner.
Even when speaking about
Canada's economic
assets, it is done
to show Trump what more Canada is willing to give up to convince
him
we are good trading partners. The more Canadians hear talk about
the need to formulate a united response, the more
the clashes between the interests the different authorities
serve are evident. Despite the fact that at the end of the day
it is the federal government which deals with international
trade, the premiers stand divided, not united, as is also the
case with the different levels of authorities in the United
States. While trade deals
between the United States and Canada are said to ensure there
are no
barriers to free trade, which means, amongst other things, no
tariffs, barriers to trade
between the provinces and territories remain with little common
ground for lack of a nation-building plan which meets the needs
of Canadians today.
Most importantly, the clash between the federal and provincial and Quebec authorities, and the conditions in which the working class and people of this country and the Indigenous Peoples live, where they are considered disposable, are more evident than ever.
Currently,
the ruling class is experiencing trauma in the face of Trump's threats
to impose tariffs. The more the ruling class tries to impose this
trauma on the people of this country, the more the people can see that
it is they who must step up to the plate to advance a modern
nation-building project. Such a project humanizes the natural and
social environment by putting the interests of human beings and nature
at the centre of its concerns.
A review of what Canada's ruling class has to say about
Trump's
threats and how to deal with them shows that even when it comes to the
economy, some facts and figures about what Canada and the provinces
trade and with whom are randomly thrown out in a manner that in no way
goes to the heart of
the matter of the relations involved which would illustrate Canada's
subservience to the United States. Despite the terms used about "free
trade," "fair relations," "dispute resolution mechanisms," and the
like, the fact remains that the majority of what goes out is comprised
of Canada's raw materials and resources, given away for a song, and
what comes in are consumer products, many made from the very same
resources. A recent absurd example making the rounds is that
Ontario's blueberries, sold at a high price in Canada when fresh, if
they can be found at all, are exported to the United States, frozen and
then imported and sold as frozen blueberries!
It is significant that Canada has de facto
never been permitted by the United States to engage in manufacturing
based on the needs of its people for a self-reliant economy.
Far from Canada's economy being independent, unlike the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other developed capitalist countries, Canada does not produce its main means of production. During the COVID pandemic, the government would not even focus on supporting Canadian initiatives to make our own face masks, let alone vaccines and other necessities required to fight the pandemic. Its pay-the-rich schemes handed over billions of dollars of borrowed money to U.S. Big Pharma on which Canadians have to pay mounds of interest.
The privatization of health care, education, child care and private seniors' homes; the subsidies given to mining concerns, many of them foreign, for critical minerals; and the construction of communications, transportation, energy and security corridors are all at the expense of Canadians and their natural and social environment. In fact, the same is the case in the United States.
None of this is spoken about while a lot is said about the need to respond to Trump's threats and the measures he is expected to impose by defending Canada's sovereignty, its independence, its identity, its values and the like.
What does it all mean?
It
means that in both the U.S. and Canada it is a matter of who controls
the decision-making power which is not the working class and people. In
Canada, it is not the Parliament or provincial legislatures, or the
Quebec National Assembly either, nor the Houses of Congress or state
legislatures in
the U.S. What unfolding events reveal is that the problem is not, in
fact, economic but political. In both Canada and the United States, the
reason of state as enshrined in the Constitutions of both countries,
has always been to protect the supreme power from the people. This
supreme power has now
been usurped by the most narrow supranational private interests with
everything the peoples of the world have come to expect of a democracy
unravelling faster and faster.
This can be seen not only in the role Elon Musk, the richest billionaire in the world, and Jeff Bezos of Amazon, the second richest billionaire in the world, and their ilk, play in destroying governance as people expect it to function in the United States. This is also the case in Canada, where the narrowest private interests advise the Prime Minister how to set policy, adopt budgets and take decisions. This can be seen in the composition of the Council on Canada-U.S. Relations established by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in January to deal with Donald Trump's threats.
The fact that contestants for the Liberal leadership have to put up $350,000 to qualify for nomination, all of which goes into Liberal coffers, with the exception of $50,000 they get to keep for their own campaigns, speaks volumes about who rules in this country.
Silly responses to Trump's threats include claims that U.S. officials must be convinced that tariffs will harm both countries or imply that the dangers the U.S. faces do not come from Canada but from Mexico. (This is to ensure there is no discussion that dangers come to both Canada and Mexico from the U.S.) There are also those who give vapid lectures à la Elizabeth May which are stunningly uninformed when it comes to how precisely Canada's system of representation works. (She mocks Trump for not knowing that Canada's democratic system does "not elect Prime Ministers" – and ain't that the sure proof of democracy if ever there was one!)
None of what is said makes the least effort to inform Canadians of what the ensemble of relations which exist between humans and humans and between humans and nature reveal at this time in history. As are all countries, the United States and Canada are caught up in a turning point which requires a modern outlook on the basis of which their people and societies and countries can find their bearings and make decisions which favour them by humanizing the natural and social environment and humanity itself.
The reason of state and the forms of rule as they exist at present are facing a profound existential crisis because they no longer hide the anti-people aims and actions of the ruling class. The majority of its champions who enjoy positions of power and privilege cannot even express a thought which makes sense under the circumstances.
Yes, we
need to defend Canada's sovereignty but what does it mean?
The one which swears allegiance to the King of England or the one which
genuflects to the person of state in the U.S. who has declared himself
King of Kings?
In the absence of a state and forms of rule which can turn
things around in the peoples' favour, how will bickering over how much
more of Canada there is to give away, and for how much and at what
speed, make a difference? Trade wars lead to wars. Given the serious
competition between the oligopolies which have usurped the state power
in the United States, and that they act with impunity, and the fact
that this spills over into Canada's economic and political affairs, how
long should Canadians believe invasions can be staved off, of Mexico
and, why not, even of Canada? It is not reasonable to not
consider the reality as it is, not as we wish it to be. The working
class and people of this country must prepare now by taking measures
which keep the U.S. striving to take over Canada holus bolus in check.
In
this regard, "Buy Canadian" makes sense when talking about dairy and
poultry but even on that front of our own system of supply management,
Canadians are not informed about what is Canadian and what is not.
Significantly, the interests of agri-business are being put in place to
decide what constitutes "free trade" on every front. Canadian
small farmers have no say. Prairie wheat farmers know exactly what
happened to the best marketing board in the world when it comes to
wheat and so too on all other fronts of vital interest to Canadians.
Take the example of the "free trade" agreements between Canada and the United States. First came the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) "negotiated" by the Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1987, signed in 1988, with the alleged goal of eliminating all tariffs on trade between the two countries.
This was then superseded by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed into law by the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien in 1994. Despite the nationwide opposition by Canadians during the 1993 elections, Chrétien claimed the elections provided him with a mandate, whereupon he invented the "Team Canada" junkets around the world to make Canadian monopolies "number one" in the world. Without even bothering to inform Canadians what happened to that marketing campaign, the current Liberal government is again touting a "Team Canada" approach. What is the aim? What does it even mean?
NAFTA created one of the largest trade blocs in the world by GDP. Its purpose was also said to be to eliminate all tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and investment between the parties. Reports inform that it eliminated tariffs on all industrial and most agricultural products imported from the United States with few exceptions. Under the terms of NAFTA, tariffs and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) remain in place on dairy and poultry tariff lines.
In September 2018, under the first Trump Administration, NAFTA was replaced with a revised CUSMA/TMEC/USMCA agreement which was ratified in March 2020. Global Affairs Canada specifically said that "CUSMA maintains NAFTA's tariff-free market access for goods traded between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico."
A tariff is a tax on the import or export of goods between countries. Tariffs are a form of foreign trade regulation and a policy that taxes foreign products in order to promote or protect domestic industry. They are also specific to each trade relation between the country of export and the country of import.
Pursuant to CUSMA, Article 5.2, an importer is permitted to complete a CUSMA certification of origin in support of a claim for preferential tariff treatment. It is a complicated process to determine the country of origin of a product in terms of resource extraction and the manufacturing process (e.g. turning raw logs into furniture). (To see what the process entails, go to the Canada Border Services Agency page, "Certifying the origin of goods," click here.)
Given all that is said and done on this issue of tariffs, with all the threats and counter-threats, a legitimate question the government of Canada should be expected to answer would seem to be whether imposing tariffs is legal under the terms of CUSMA/TMEC/USMCA? If it is not, what are the legal recourses open to Canada and Mexico? Should an illegal imposition of illegal tariffs and a declaration of impunity not nullify CUSMA/TMEC/USMCA?
The Agreement included a mandatory review to take place in 2026. Specifically, the "review and term extension" clause established a 16-year life cycle that requires all three countries to sit down every six years to ensure all are still satisfied. If it runs out in 2026 without a consensus, it will trigger a "self-destruct mechanism," ensuring the Agreement would expire 10 years later.
Should the U.S. declaration of impunity not trigger the "self-destruct mechanism" effective immediately?
The way the government of Canada, politicians, premiers, pundits of all kinds and monopoly-owned media are approaching the entire issue of Trump's attempt to smash all barriers to acting with impunity comes under the rubric of how decision-making takes place in Canada (and in the United States for that matter). Who controls the decision-making process, in whose favour are decisions taken, what is the role of Canadian or U.S. citizens in this decision-making process? How does the system of representation make sure the working class and people have no role whatsoever in taking the decisions which affect their lives?
Trump's aim may be to force an early review of CUSMA/TMEC/USMCA for purposes of bullying Canada and Mexico to renegotiate the deal by giving up whatever the U.S. President says they must give up. But then this precisely underscores the fact that the main aim is to annex Canada and Mexico altogether. Trump says Canada must become the 51st state. This is misleading. What he wants is for Canada to become one more U.S. territory where, like Puerto Rico, the people are not bona fide citizens with equal rights when it comes to casting ballots or receiving benefits of any kind. "No burdens please."
The Need for a Modern Nation-State
While the repercussions of Donald Trump's threats appear to be economic, in fact the fundamental problem is political. Canadians and Quebeckers are saddled with old forms of representation which vest the sovereign decision-making authority in a person-of-state which does not answer to the people in any way, shape or form. The people require new forms of state organization beginning with modern constitutions which clearly vest the decision-making authority in the people so that they can take decisions in their own name, not ruling elites with privilege and power. No longer must the people hand over their decision-making power to others who act in the people's name but then betray the people's interests.
At this time those who call themselves peoples' sovereign representatives represent a fictitious person-of-state who rules over the people to advance the private interests of the ruling class, not the interests as defined and established by the people themselves. While the rulers speak of wanting to take a united position, their positions are divisive at a time when the political unity of the Canadian working class and people is needed.
The birth of a nation is a long process. Some aspects of it
are
consciously carried out, but it is mainly a spontaneous process
which concerns how peoples define themselves in the course of
tackling with life itself. The
birth of a nation-state, on the other hand, is a political act to
deal
with specific political conditions. At this time, the working
class and people find
themselves in
a situation in which the federal government along with the
provincial governments deny
their collective rights, along with those of Quebec to have its
own
nation-state and the hereditary rights of the Indigenous Peoples
to their own way of
life and rule, not subject to the decisions of the Canadian state.
In other words, what is required is the birth of the political power of the Canadian people and of the people of Quebec as collectives who wield their own decision-making powers and recognize the hereditary rights of the Indigenous Peoples. This will smash the chains imposed on the people of this country, including on the Quebec nation by the Canadian federal state, with the cooperation of those in positions of privilege and power throughout the federation who oppose the birth of the peoples' political power in Canada and Quebec.
The creation of a nation-state is an extremely conscious act. The founding declaration of such a nation-state must be based on and reflect the most advanced experience in nation-building. It must unite all those participating in nation-building and not divide them. A declaration about the formation of a political state must not be confounded with declarations about shared values, beliefs, social objectives and the like. The founding declaration of a nation-state is simply a solemn announcement by a collective that it is exercising its inalienable right to establish its own political power.
A
solemn declaration about the formation of the nation-state should
strictly be a legal political document, which describes the new polity
in terms of the fundamental principles which will guide all its laws,
including the fundamental law to be contained in the constitution. It
should speak
concretely and consciously about the legal process to establish a state
which will be sovereign and independent. At the same time, it should
provide a framework in which all people can decide what system they may
want to have. People may decide to have one system at one time and
another system at
another time. Far from decreeing what kind of system people must
espouse, a founding declaration, in its spirit and letter, should
provide freedom of conscience in the true sense of the word, the
freedom from which all other freedoms stem.
If the fundamental law recognizes that all members of society have claims on society by virtue of their being human, many problems -- such as the problems of poverty, homelessness, and the lack of access to a modern standard of education and health care -- will also disappear. A society consciously organized to create a human environment will protect the natural environment as a condition for achieving the former.
The significance is that the federal and provincial governments, cartel party leaders, cartel party politicians, pundits and media are using Donald Trump's threats as a means to provide themselves with legitimacy to do whatever the narrow private interests who direct them want. Workers should demand that this entire cabal desist from this path. Instead of building political unity on the basis of aims which serve the people, it causes divisions among the people. It will further incite trade wars which lead to wars, whether against Canada or other fraternal peoples, or wars which embroil everyone.
To empower themselves, the workers of Canada and Quebec should actively carry out their own program to build political unity and embark on nation-building. The need for political renewal is paramount at this time so that the people can deliberate and decide on all matters of concern.
Change the Direction of the Economy by Getting Canada Out of CUSMA, Now!
Manufacturing in Canada, Yes! Integration into the U.S. War Economy, No!
Safeguard Canada's System of Supply Management for Dairy and Poultry
and Reinstate One for Wheat, All Grains, Canola, Pork, Beef
and Everything Else Canada Produces!
Police Powers of Any Government, No!
Get Canada Out of NATO and NORAD!
It Can Be Done!
Quebec Premier's Worthless Pledge to
"Protect the
People"
Quebec Premier François Legault made a series of statements to counter U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to impose tariffs on Canadian goods and services. The most astonishing is his claim to act in the interest of the people of Quebec saying, "I want to send a very clear message to Quebeckers: no matter what Trump does, we're going to protect you no matter what and we're going to get through this together."[1]
The
statement shows more than anything else that it is high time that the
working class and people of Quebec speak in their own name and get on
with elaborating their own nation-building project. It is high time
Quebeckers reject the supreme political power being held in the hands
of a ruling
elite for whom defending the people means attacking their well-being,
undermining national sovereignty and integrating Canada into the U.S.
war machine.
Legault is swearing to protect the people at a time his government is engaged in an all-out campaign to cut $1.5 billion in health care financing through layoffs and service cuts of all kinds. Every day new cuts are announced despite the fact that the health care system is in deep crisis as a result of decades of anti-social divestment.
On housing, the CAQ government passed a law to make it more difficult for tenants to organize against big landlords who use their monopoly position to impose huge rent increases on new tenants. On January 1, the Administrative Tribunal on Housing, responsible for ruling on all housing disputes, announced that it will allow another 5.9 per cent increase for unheated apartments. This is a 30-year record high following three years of steep rent increases across Canada.
So too on the education front. Privatization has introduced chaos into the schools making learning conditions much worse, not to mention teaching conditions and those of education workers and school staff. When problems abound, the government uses "identity politics" to incite passions, sow divisions and criminalize conscience.
It is impossible for Quebeckers to reconcile their reality with the statements of the Premier and cartel party leaders. Their conception of what it means to "protect the people" is as ignorant and narcissistic as the statements of Donald Trump who life has proven has absolutely no idea what he is talking about most, if not all, of the time.
"We are well equipped" to protect the people, he reassured Quebeckers, explaining: "Critical minerals, natural resources, aeronautics, we have our assets to get through this." These are the assets he has been giving away for a song in his eagerness to prove what a good lackey he is to his southern capo. He acts as if Quebeckers don't know that the main direction of the Quebec economy is to provide for the U.S. war economy which they are, in fact, fighting against vigorously.
From hydro-electricity to
strategic critical minerals, to infrastructure and public funds,
all of
it is being handed over in the name of high ideals. This did not
start
with Trump. The Quebec government already came under the dictate
imposed by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA). Clothed in the garb of "green economy," it dictated to U.S.
trading
"partners" that they must not seek to diversify their trade and,
on the
contrary, must wager their future on the U.S. "partnership." On
January
20, even this IRA dictate was put on hold by an executive order of
the Trump
administration which
wants total control over Canadian decision-making, not just
cooperation.
In the face of the threats of tariffs, Legault said we must focus on purchasing made-in-Quebec products, tax maple syrup, and call on snowbirds to make fewer trips to the United States. He also mentioned helping businesses fiscally and accelerating infrastructure projects, including that of Hydro-Québec.[2]
And when Amazon announced the closure of all its warehouses in Quebec, throwing hundreds of workers out on the street, Legault simply declared that there was nothing he could do about it because it is the private sector. Where was this argument when he gave Amazon hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds as an "incentive" to open shop in Quebec. This includes using public funds to provide Amazon with hydro-electricity at reduced rates, and tax reductions. Legault also joined the government of Canada in giving Amazon privileged access to government tenders worth tens of millions of dollars for cloud-computing services.
Protecting the people and protecting the narrow private interests of oligopolies are not one and the same thing, Mr. Legault. Nobody except the super rich and their handmaidens are confused about this.
Notes
1. Premier Legault said this ahead of a caucus meeting of the governing Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) in Saint-Sauveur on January 21.
2. Hydro-Québec has been providing cheap electricity to the New England states since the 1980s. This U.S. region accounts for about half of the company's exports.
Ontario Dairy Farmers
Underscore Need to
Protect Supply
Management

Demonstration on
Parliament Hill in support of supply management, October 10, 2024
In threatening Canada with all sorts of reprisals if it does not agree to become the 51st U.S. state, Donald Trump said amongst other things that the U.S. doesn't need Canada's dairy products. What he omitted to say is that Canada does not need the U.S. dumping milk and cheese in Canada and destroying Canada's supply management system. More importantly, as Peter and Philip Armstrong, who have a dairy farm with 400 cows not far from Toronto, told the CBC: Trump does not understand the dairy industry either in the United States or Canada.
CBC interviewer Ellen Mauro pointed out that during the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) negotiated during Trump's first term as president, Canada gave up tariff-free access to 3.6 per cent of its highly regulated dairy market to the U.S. "Dairy always seems to be the sacrificial lamb and I think we are at the point where enough is enough and we are not going to give up anymore," one of the farmers told the CBC.
The
brothers
pointed out that even though Canada's dairy market is relatively closed
off to foreign competitors, the country still imports far more dairy
products from the U.S. than Canadian producers sell there. The farmers
explained that it is not Canadian dairy farmers who are dumping their
products in the U.S. and depressing the prices. "We are not creating a
problem," they said, adding that it sounds like Trump does not want to
negotiate, he wants to dictate. "We are going to have to stand firm,"
they said.
One of the farmers explained that supply management revolves around the domestic market and that they produce to meet the needs of the Canadian market. They said it gives them stability, they get a fair price, the processors get a fair return, and the grocers can make a profit as well. Reflecting their lack of control over decision-making, he also said they did not want to give up part of their market but were relieved it was only four per cent. They are very concerned and said they don't know what could happen with the next round of trade talks.
When asked by the interviewer what would happen if the supply management system did not exist, the farmers pointed out that if the choice was to import more from the U.S. a lot of jobs would be lost. In the worst case scenario, the Canadian dairy industry would be decimated which would leave us relying on the U.S., relying on Donald Trump.
We need to look after our domestic industry, the farmers said, because if we don't we are in deep trouble. Addressing what the next round of trade talks could bring, one of the farmers said, sometimes the government caves and gives up one industry over another. Politicians could use one industry, like oil, over dairy but that is not good for the economy or the country, they said.
Supply Management
Supply management is a national agricultural (dairy, poultry, eggs) policy that uses import controls, production discipline and producer pricing to make sure, in the case of dairy, milk supply remains secure and fairly-priced for farmers. It means Canadians can access high-quality milk, and farmers have a secure stream of revenue.
A benefit is that the dairy industry can better prepare for economic fluctuations. The system provides stability to processors (avoiding surpluses or shortages) and enables farmers to think more long term for the economy, the environment and their animals.
Dairy farming is the largest agricultural sector in Ontario. Dairy Farmers of Ontario, the marketing board which represents more than 4,000 dairy farmers in Ontario, explains:
Producer pricing
The Canadian Dairy Commission sets the price of milk based on how much it actually costs to produce. They factor in capital and labour costs, and take into consideration the state of the Canadian economy.
Production discipline
Canadian dairy production must equal the demand from consumers. Production discipline helps avoid overproduction and provides security for farmers, allowing them to invest their profit back into their farm.
Import controls
Tariff rate quotas allow a preset quantity of milk to be imported at a preferential rate. Not having any import controls can lead to overproduction and instability within the system.
From
the Party Press
2017
Arguments About Trade Must Not Be Pitted
Against
the Need for
Renewal!
The following article was published by TML Weekly Information Project, No. 16, May 6, 2017.
Since the mid-1980s, one Government of Canada after another has oriented its policies in their entirety in accordance with the demand of the most powerful sections of capital to be globally competitive. The purpose has been to ensure that the aims of Canada's economic development are subordinate to their aims and that all other aspects of life are brought in line with this. This demand led Canada to sign the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 1987, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 between Canada, Mexico and the United States. Canada also took other measures to ensure that the entire economic and other development is subordinated to the will of the economically most powerful.
The Communist
Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) vigorously opposed the FTA and
NAFTA. CPC(M-L) decried all attempts to divide the working class and
people for or against the trade deals in a manner that pushes the
people to choose one or the other side in the inter-monopoly fight. The
Party held
many meetings and seminars on the subject nationwide calling on the
working class and people to unite to change the direction of the
economy. CPC(M-L) also criticized the position taken by some opponents
of NAFTA who argued that it should be rejected because "it is not good
for Canada." An
enlightened and democratic position must take the conditions and
well-being of the peoples of the world into consideration, CPC(M-L)
pointed out.
Speaking at a seminar on political economy organized by the National Council for Renewal in February 1993, the Party's national leader Hardial Bains argued that not only would the Canadian economy suffer but that NAFTA was one more step in the destruction of the national economies of all countries carried out in the name of "globalization of the economy." This is why it should be opposed, he said. The scheme was to subordinate the national economies to international finance capital and provide every amenity for the big corporations to control the economies, Hardial Bains said.[1]
In October 1993, Hardial Bains further explained:
"... the nationalists are giving the view that we should do what is beneficial for Canada. But what is beneficial for Canada? For instance, there are some big monopolies in the resource section. Should Canadians stand behind these monopolies and say that they should be given favourable treatment in the North American Free Trade Agreement? Either there should be an agreement which favours the peoples of the three countries, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, or there should be no Free Trade Agreement. It is our policy -- and it is a matter of principle for the Marxist-Leninists – that trade should be mutually beneficial. There is no need to even have an agreement unless trade is carried out for mutual benefit."[2]
Hardial Bains pointed out that many groups speak about protecting our jobs and so on, but this way of posing the question does not clarify what issues are involved. "It is very important to awaken people that the same propaganda is carried in the U.S. and in Mexico," he said. "These are the kinds of things which go from trade wars to actual wars. We don't want this. We want to have the unity of the people of North America for their mutual benefit."
The "economic leitmotif," as the propaganda campaign to justify neo-liberal free trade was dubbed, was diversionary CPC(M-L) pointed out. In 1984 the federal government under Brian Mulroney started changing the aim of the economy from providing Canada-wide universality to making the monopolies competitive on global markets, the new aim officially proclaimed by the Chrétien Liberals when they came to power in 1993. During that period, Ottawa cut transfer payments to the provinces. For instance, the amount cut unilaterally to Quebec was $14 billion. In 1983-84, federal transfer payments to Quebec represented 29 per cent of Quebec's budget. By 1997-98 under the Liberals, they represented 13 per cent. Yet Quebec continued to pay the same taxes to Ottawa.[3]
In the 1990s, the Liberals were openly saying that the time of national sovereignty and national economies was a thing of the past. CPC(M-L) further opposed this in an Open Letter to Finance Minister Paul Martin. The letter rejected the propaganda campaign of the Chrétien Liberals that NAFTA was important to make sure "Canada can compete in the international economy." [4]
The inflammatory
propaganda to divide the people over the economy was such that Paul
Martin promised Ontarians two-and-a-half million jobs from joining
NAFTA. Did jobs materialize because of NAFTA? Of course not but that
did not stop the same Paul Martin from interfering in the Quebec
Referendum
in 1995 by declaring that if the people voted Yes! to Quebec
sovereignty, one million jobs would be jeopardized.
All of it shows that the so-called new international economy was based on the destruction of the nation-states in the sense of destroying their positive achievements, Hardial Bains said. He pointed out that nation-states were considered civilized to the extent that they assumed responsibility for the general health of the population, hygiene and sanitation, education, public works and so on. Instead of looking at these questions related to the state and its responsibility to society, a debate was promoted on the validity of two bankrupt theories, one was Keynesian economics and the other was Reaganite or Thatcherite economics.
"The key point that is skirted around is that both these economic theories could not defend the nation-state. The social-welfare state policies did not deal with the question of moving society forward from the achievements already made by the modern nation-state. The Reaganite policies followed by Mulroney, and now by the Liberals, advocate privatization and the state's abdication of responsibilities," Hardial Bains explained.[5]
Thirty years since the first free trade agreement was negotiated, the claim that it would eliminate the trade war between Canada and the U.S. has proven to be false many times over. In 1987, when the FTA was signed, Hardial Bains pointed out:
"It is generally said that trade wars are inherent in the present world economic order, and it is also well-known that trade wars lead to wars. The free trade agreement, which is labelled historic and which has incited such passions on both sides, is a signal that the trade wars have assumed a new dimension. The agreement does not put an end to the trade war between Canada and the United States, but raises it to a new and higher level. The financiers, the bankers, the monopolists – in other words, those economic giants who control the economy, have intensified their fights with one another. The concentration of production and capital, the mergers and takeovers and bankruptcies which ushered in the new period of concentration of production and capital since the crisis of 1981-82, have led to the clamour for markets. Ever-escalating trade wars were the inevitable consequence."[6]
It is now 2017 and the claim that free trade guarantees prosperity and eliminates trade wars, which are blamed on protectionism, continues to be made irrespective of the fact that free trade and protectionism are two sides of the same coin. The current disputes over the free trade agreements are in fact a reflection of the dangerous proportions which the trade wars have assumed. It is more urgent than ever to not pit arguments against free trade against the need to change the direction of the economy and for renewal. It is more urgent than ever to strengthen the unity between the working class in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to carry trade on the basis of the mutual benefit of the peoples of the world, not the molochs of finance capital fighting to concentrate evermore economic and political power in their hands.
Get Canada Out of NAFTA! Manufacturing Yes! Nation-Wrecking No!
Notes
1. "The Resignation of Brian Mulroney," TML Daily, February 27, 1993.
2. Hardial Bains, "What Are the Liberals Going to Do?," TML Daily, October 19, 1993.
3. Hardial Bains, "Desperation, Diversion and Morbid Preoccupation with Defeat," TML Daily, October 23, 1995.
4. Hardial Bains, "For a Progressive Social Policy, Against Retrogressive Pressure," TML Daily, January 23, 1993.
5. "Hardial Bains Accuses Liberals of Destroying the Canadian Nation State," TML Daily, October 22, 1994.
6. Historic Free Trade Agreement vs Self-Reliance and Equal Trade For Mutual Benefit, New Magazine Publishing Company, 1987.
1995
Why the Working Class Must Constitute the
Nation
– How
the Issue Poses Itself
The following article was published in TML Daily, Vol 25, No. 48, May 3, 1995.
First of all, it has to be acknowledged that the national question is a class question. This is because the very foundation of the modern European nation-state, which set the pattern for all present-day nation-states, was formed by the ascendant bourgeoisie at that time, as a territorial base, a resource base and a manufacturing base from which it could operate and enter into relations with other countries on the world scale. Its motive in doing this was determined by its aim to make maximum profits for itself.
The modern system of government, based on the notions of peace, order and good government, was forged in the course of consolidating these nation-states. Peace came to mean the consolidation of the colonies and the ability to suppress the colonial peoples. Order came to mean the forces of law and order at home, able to keep the people of the home country in line. Good government came to mean the perfected system of electing the political parties of the bourgeoisie to power and of cabinet rule. Properly speaking, good government refers to the system of government and the political process which safeguards the state power in the hands of the bourgeoisie and prevents it from falling into the hands of the people.
Thus, the world order was established on the basis of the existence of those nation-states and the relations they entered into with one another.
These nations were synonymous with the interests of the class in whose image they were created. In other words, the bourgeoisie literally constituted itself as the nation. The concept of the nation and the bourgeois class in power were, in a manner of speaking, one and the same thing. How could one speak, in concrete terms, of a bourgeoisie without taking into account that its existence was due to the existence of the nation itself? The one was, so to speak, the condition for the existence of the other.
Today, however, this same bourgeoisie is no longer primarily identified by the existence of the nation. The bourgeoisie is primarily identified by the fact that it is a financial oligarchy and today the base of operation of the financial oligarchy is international, not national as such. The constraints of the nation which initially rendered the bourgeoisie able to operate on the world scale, today block its ability to operate globally. If one looks into the situation one will find that international finance capitalists today are even citizens of several countries in order to be able to own property in those countries and other such things. Corporations are also incorporated wherever the tax breaks are the most advantageous, and so on.
The result is that the aims the bourgeoisie gave the nation during the period of its ascendancy and consolidation as the class in power are no longer of assistance to the bourgeoisie under the current conditions. For instance, at one time, the bourgeoisie needed infrastructure to be built within its own nation so as to unify the national market and link it to the international market, as well as facilitate the mobility of its armed and police forces throughout the territory. Even in its colonies, it required the infrastructure to facilitate getting resources to ports of export. Infrastructure projects, such as the building of railways, were extremely profitable for the bourgeoisie, which put the state treasury at their disposal while they reaped the benefits.
Today the building of such infrastructure is financed by entire nations which pay enormous rates of interest to the international money lenders such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The incurring of the kinds of loans which are involved and the payment of interest on such loans has become a huge drain on entire countries. In other words, while at one time building nations is what coincided with the interests of the bourgeoisie to make maximum profit, today the same profit motive has become extremely destructive of the very same nations.
Another interference and block to the aims of the bourgeoisie are the demands of the peoples of the various nations. The working class is reduced more than ever before to a mere productive force. Wage slavery is seen as never before, to be exactly what it is: slavery with not even the responsibility of those who buy the labour power to look after their slaves. There is a world supply of labour aplenty not only in terms of cheap labour in various countries, but immigrant, migrant and refugee labour. A huge brain drain is also occurring in Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as the countries of eastern Europe.
Today the bourgeoisie's quest for maximum profits has become the most destructive to the interests of the peoples all over the world and their nations. This is why the working class must constitute itself as the nation. It must come to the rescue of the people in this regard. It does so by carrying forward its plan to emancipate itself, in the course of which it will open the door to the progress of society. Not only will society be able to progress but so will the collectives of women, youth and all others which clearly cannot affirm themselves within the present conditions.
It is suggested that a good part of the significance of calling on the working class to constitute itself as the nation is that in modern political life the demand has been that people constituting themselves as the nation must be sovereign. According to this view, it is said that the question of who leads and who decides was answered by saying it is "the people" constituted as nation-states.
However, this really does not clarify the matter. As discussed in yesterday"s TML, the modern European nation-state, which set the pattern for all the present nation-states, was constituted by the bourgeoisie. It was the bourgeois class in power which led and decided, as is still the case today. The difference between then and today is that then, they defended their sovereignty like the apple of their eye, at a time this sovereignty was synonymous with the nation itself. Today, on the other hand, they satisfy their interests by betraying that sovereignty. The fact that they claimed that sovereignty on behalf of "the people" and ruled in the name of "the people" was then and is today merely designed to fool the people and give themselves credibility. Its material base was that by making the concept of a people synonymous with the nation-state, the bourgeoisie provided itself with productive forces at the disposal of its aims, as well as cannon fodder.
This shows us that when we speak of "modern political life," it is necessary to qualify what one means. If what is meant is that nowadays, because of being brought up in what are called democracies, people are imbued with the notion that a democracy is "rule by the people," then it is true that in modern political life there is an expectation that there should be rule by the people who should lead and should decide. But when did "the people" in Canada ever rule or ever decide matters which concern either the internal or the external policy of the nation?
In Canada this notion is only activated when decisions go in a manner which does not favour the people. In that instance, people get outraged and say that it is their society and decisions should favour their interests. However, even then it is a very limited form in which it is activated. It usually takes the form of discontent, of complaining, or protest. Only on the occasion of the Referendum on the Charlottetown Accord did it really find a true expression in the rejection of the Accord. In other words, it so turned out that the people were actually empowered to make a decision.
This shows that the explanation of the significance of the sovereignty of nations being that people lead and people decide does not help us to pinpoint what is required at this time. It is a very inadequate rendition of the issue, since it pays no attention to what is, in fact, modern political life, on one hand, or to what is, in fact, the sovereignty of the nation, on the other.
The word "modern" should not be used in a manner which gives it no meaning. If by modern is merely meant present-day, then it has to be acknowledged that today, in Canada, the main expectation people have, as a result of our political system, is that their elected representatives are elected to make whatever decisions and whatever leading is required. The notion people have is that they themselves are not political and that politics is a specific domain which it is beyond them to deal with or even comprehend. This is, of course, accompanied by notions which automatically connect politics with corruption and self-seeking aims.
Such a rendering of what is political clearly gives the powers that be a free hand to do whatever they like. It is one of the means in the hands of the bourgeoisie to safeguard their positions of privilege and power and keep the decision-making power away from the people. Since one of the major concerns of the people on the agenda for solution is to exercise control over their lives, including over the direction of the economy, one of the most fundamental issues which has to be dealt with is to ensure that a proper notion of what is political is rendered in the course of work.
What is political is all the affairs which pertain to how society is governed, how decisions are taken. The most crucial element is participating in arriving at decisions in order to guarantee that they are implemented. Without this, it is not possible to take control of one's life. Eventually, it will require ending the situation in which there is a legislative apparatus separate from an executive apparatus, not just in terms of ending cabinet rule on the level of governments but in all aspects of life.
When all is said and done, this will require dealing with the issue of the ownership of the means of production. This is because the relations people enter into are determined by the fact that at present the ownership of the means of production is private. This is what determines the kinds of relations people enter into in the course of production and in the course of daily life. It is what deprives people of the power to make decisions and exercise control over their lives.
However, just because in the end who owns the means of production has to be settled in favour of the working class and people, does not mean that one waits until this settlement takes place in order to participate in political life.
Since how decisions are arrived at imbues all aspects of life, not merely the field of national or provincial or local government per se, it becomes clear that this matter touches every aspect of life. It touches how one conducts oneself at the place of work, in the family and in political, social and cultural affairs. No organization at any level, including the level of the family, is immune. This is why great pressure is put on the people not to be political.
Often we hear the refrain that "we can only deal with local issues" because they directly affect us and we can "do something about them." This expresses the feeling that people can have direct control over matters which immediately affect them, but not over other matters.
In trying to deal with this position, the response is often to say that this attitude is parochial. The word parochial has come to mean narrow-minded. This attitude is described as being narrow-minded in order to say that people should be broad-minded. However, the point is missed. Narrow-minded this attitude may be, but not because it is parochial. On its face value, the word parochial means on the level of the parish. Clearly, then, if one considers the matter seriously, the problem which is identified here as parochialism is not the problem since people are not able to deal with problems on the level of the parish either. This means we have to go further to identify the problem. Even on the level of the family, the power to take decisions which affect the lives of family members and the family as a whole is beyond people. This is because all the decisions which affect families and family life are presently beyond their control. This is just as true on the level of the work-place, neighbourhood or at any other level.
Clearly, then, if one does not deal with the issue of what it means to be political and give a modern definition to the idea of political life, it does not matter which the concerns are, they will not be dealt with. The issue is not whether an individual or a group deals with the so-called larger issues facing the society, or local or immediate issues facing a collective. The dichotomy is not between parochial issues and larger issues.
In this vein, it is true that since sovereignty means self-determination, so long as the bourgeoisie is in power, it is the bourgeoisie which has the power to determine the future course of society and make all the decisions. But since the matter at hand is the sovereignty of the nation and the bourgeoisie is using its positions of power to sell that sovereignty, it can only be concluded that the bourgeoisie can no longer be entrusted with the sovereignty of the nation. Only when the working class empowers itself to make the decisions will that sovereignty be effective once again to defend the interests of society. However, when it comes to how decisions are taken, it is not a matter of waiting until the working class comes into power. It is an immediate issue.
In this regard, the immediate issue which has been put on the agenda by CPC(M-L) is to ensure that the working class raises its level of consciousness and organization by building the Groups of Writers and Disseminators. This is the first step in exercising control over their lives, since participating in arriving at the decisions of these groups, and implementing them are their starting point. These groups necessarily deal with their own concrete conditions, but this does not mean they are parochial in the sense of being narrow minded. It does mean they are political in the broadest sense possible.
(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca