December 19, 2020
- No. 49
Out of
Control Pay-the-Rich Schemes
The
Arrogance of Monopoly Right
- K.C.
Adams -
• Government
Corruption
Beyond the Pale
•
Exposing
the
Fraud of the Canada Emergency
Wage Subsidy Program
Anti-China Motion in
the House of Commons
•
"Yellow
Peril"
Hysteria All Over Again
-
Pauline Easton -
For
Your Information
•
Anti-China Motion
United States
• Majority
of
Electoral College Votes Go to Biden
• Supreme
Court
Dismisses Texas Lawsuit Which Attempts to
Invalidate Votes in
Four States
-
Voice of Revolution -
•
Civil
War
Talk of Secession and Treason
- Kathleen Chandler -
• Pentagon
Funding
for War and Weapons Passes,
COVID-19 Relief for
Workers Does Not
•
Nineteen
Tragic Facts About the COVID-19 Economy
- Bill Quigley -
Matters of Importance
in Latin America and the Caribbean
• ALBA:
16 Years of Life
- Ángel Guerra Cabrera -
• Day
of the Titans and Heroic Guerrillas in White
Coats
- María
Inés Álvarez Garay -
• Mexico's
Water
in the Hands of Private Interests
• Concern
in
Peru Over Increasing Number of
Missing Women and Girls
COVID-19 Update
• Ending
the Year in the Red Zone and
Under Lockdown
• Note
to Our Readers
SUPPLEMENT
Who Determines What Constitutes a Threat to
National Security
• It
Is Up To Canadians, Not the Police, to
Decide What
Constitutes a Threat to "National Security
Out of
Control Pay-the-Rich Schemes
- K.C. Adams -
The global
oligarchs in control of the economy and
governments have doled out
billions of dollars in public money to themselves
using the pandemic as
an excuse. Instead of increasing investments in
social programs and
mobilizing the people to fight the disease, they
have marshalled public
resources into their own pockets to enlarge their
fortunes and
strengthen their class privilege and control of
the economy.
The
arrogance of monopoly right is such that the
oligarchs make no bones
about their "entitlement" to the wealth workers
produce and the public
funds collected by the state.
Alain
Bédard, Chief Executive Officer of the North
American
transportation cartel TFI International,
manoeuvred the federal
government's wage subsidy program -- Canada
Emergency Wage
Subsidy (CEWS) -- into giving his company $63
million. The amount paid
up to the end of September is still growing as the
government has
extended the pay-the-rich scheme into the new
year.
The
$63 million in public funds Bédard's company
received soon
disappeared into the accounts of his cartel
becoming indistinguishable
from the over $1 billion in annual gross income.
Despite the pandemic
and state-declared emergency and public money in
their coffers, company
funds flowed out to shareholders and executives in
the form of $45
million in stock dividends, $9 million to buy back
company shares, $20
million in stock options given to company
executives and, with a slap
in the face of the working class, the layoff of
1,600 TFI workers.
News of the
continuing CEWS government payments to TFI, the
share dividend, stock
buyback and options, strong gross income and
profits, and layoffs of
1,600 workers sent its stock price soaring on the
New York Stock
Exchange, increasing the paper wealth of its
owners. The situation for
the executives in control of the company and
owners of stock, unlike
the laid-off workers, was so positive that CEO
Bédard in the
fall increased the share dividend payout by 12 per
cent.
Rumblings
began to surface in social media that public funds
should not be going
to profitable companies or to those that simply
turn around and hand
the government cash to owners and executives or
use it to buy back
shares to increase the stock price. Reports
appeared that government
funds handed out to private interests were being
used to fatten the
pockets of the rich.
Such was the case with
long-term care operators Extendicare and Sienna
Senior Living. Upon
receiving $157 million in public funds, the
companies turned around and
gave their shareholders $74 million. Meanwhile,
workers and residents
in their facilities continued to suffer terribly
with reported deaths
from COVID-19 reaching 480 by early autumn.
Elsewhere,
the Financial Post (FP) discovered 68
major
companies had received $1.03 billion in CEWS
public payments during the
second and third quarters of 2020 but at the same
time paid out more
than $5 billion in dividends to investors. Many of
those companies,
similar to TFI International, introduced share
repurchase programs to
buy back millions of dollars in shares during the
two quarters, gave
out share options to executives and paid hefty
dividends to
shareholders.
Some
in the media and certain economists became
critical of the CEWS
pay-the-rich program implying that it was poorly
thought out and
presented, which left it open to criticism. Some
pointed to other
jurisdictions where the schemes of governments to
pay the wages of
workers on behalf of private enterprises were
better disguised and not
so easy to see through the corruption. The economy
is now openly seen
to be a pay-the-rich corrupt economy under the
control of the global
oligarchy and in need of a new direction.
Regarding
the CEWS pay-the-rich scheme, FP quotes York
University professor
Richard Leblanc saying, "Think about what's
happening: Taxpayers are
indirectly subsidizing payments to shareholders.
That is completely
unacceptable."
Another professor, Michel Magnan who
teaches corporate governance at Concordia
University said of this
particular pay-the-rich scheme and practice, "If
you buy back your
shares it's because you don't need the cash. So if
you don't need the
cash, why are you getting cash?"
Trickle-down
Theory of the Rich
TFI International CEO Alain
Bédard angrily responded to the criticism telling
Le
Journal de Montréal that we oligarchs "are
not
ashamed" to take $63 million in government money
and in the same
instance hand over $45 million to share owners as
dividends, give $20
million in stock options to executives and use $9
million to buy back
shares to boost the share price. "Not taking [the
government payout]
would be like refusing a tax exemption. It would
be like saying 'We're
more Catholic than the pope.' We're in business
for our stockholders,"
Bédard blustered.
Many in the media
and certain economists are loath to criticize any
pay-the-rich scheme
and instead jump to the defence of corruption and
monopoly right
because they do not want to be identified as
discussing an alternative.
One would think that with the recurring economic
crises and blatant
pay-the-rich schemes some economists would perhaps
look into the
situation a little more deeply and discuss a new
direction and aim for
the economy, which put an end to the recurring
crises and corruption.
But no, more often than not one finds in the media
those who
unashamedly promote the neo-liberal trickle-down
theory of paying the
rich as a so-called way to climb out of a crisis.
Social wealth must
first go to the rich before it trickles down to
those who produce it or
so the story goes. If those in control are the
ones holding power and
organizing the pay-the-rich schemes with the
supposed aim to eventually
benefit the people, then how could pay-the-rich
practices be called
corruption they argue, and besides they assert, no
alternative is
possible.
Yet reports swirling in the media suggest
that wealth currently is not trickling down to the
masses at all but on
the contrary flowing up to the global oligarchs
who have massively
increased their wealth during the pandemic. Share
prices of the biggest
cartels on most of the imperialist stock markets
have reached record
highs in 2020 while unemployment remains high,
poverty and food
insecurity are disturbingly widespread and many
small and medium-sized
companies are struggling just to survive.
Unprincipled
Line that the End Justifies the Means
The
words of Mikal Skuterud, a labour economist at
the University of
Waterloo, could identify him as an apologist for
monopoly right and the
unprincipled line that the end justifies the
means. He told CBC News,
"The No. 1 objective [for CEWS] was to get money
out there to shore up
the economy. To the extent that it didn't save
jobs, but it helped keep
some companies afloat -- I don't think that's
something that should be
criticized." In other words, in the case of
CEWS, the end result of
possibly some good coming from paying the rich
justifies the corruption
endemic to the program. Skuterud appears to
admit that not many jobs
were "saved" but that in the end the program
after all helped the
economy and such a good result justifies the
corrupt means.
Organize for a New Direction and Aim for the
Economy
Canadians
should take stock of the situation as it exists
and clearly raise the
political demand to Stop
Paying the Rich! Increase Funding for Social
Programs!
Those who are in control of the state treasury
and use it to increase
their wealth must not be permitted to get away
with it. The practice
should be illegal with governments held to
account as well for
corruption. A new direction and aim for the
economy to serve the people
and society is not only possible but necessary
and it begins by
stepping up the fight to Stop
Paying the Rich!
The only
way out of this mess is to develop the political
mobilization of the
people for a new direction for the economy and
politics which defend
the rights of all. It is necessary to build the
New in practical ways
to oppose the rulers' monopoly over
decision-making and the use of
force.
A CBC News investigation called "The Big
Spend" has found billions of dollars in federal
pandemic aid going to
corporations making what CBC calls "healthy
profits." Many of the
corporations receiving portions of the $240
billion pandemic aid are at
the same time doling out dividends to
shareholders, giving stock
options to executives and continuing to
expropriate added-value from
the new value their workers are producing. This
blatant pay-the-rich
corruption is now considered "normal" and a
"right" of doing business
in Canada.
One item in the
series examines the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy
program (CEWS). Up to
December CEWS has handed $50 billion to around
356,000 companies to pay
the wages of their employees. The program has been
extended into next
year with the total payments expected to exceed
$100 billion. According
to the government, the money was to assist small
retail and other
businesses to keep their workers employed. Smaller
retailers in
particular are in danger of going bankrupt as the
enforced COVID-19
lockdowns have hit them hard. Many of the most
powerful global cartels,
however, use it as a pay-the-rich scheme, leaving
a scam of tremendous
proportions in their wake.
The majority of the
companies receiving wage subsidies are not traded
publicly on the stock
market and according to private property right do
not have to reveal
their business accounts. CBC says almost no
information is publicly
available "about which companies received money,
how much they received
or what they did with it. Only publicly traded
companies have to
disclose their financial statements."
Of the
thousands receiving subsidies CBC News was able to
identify 213
corporations only because they are traded on the
Toronto Stock
Exchange. Those companies indicated receiving CEWS
payments in their
public filings.
"Even with their financial
statements, it is impossible for outside
accountants to determine how
many workers the subsidies have helped," CBC
writes while also saying
the Trudeau government has been completely
uncooperative in supplying
detailed information.
According to the government's
official figures, which do not identify the
companies, a total of 380
companies received more than $5 million each in
CEWS assistance, while
close to 3,500 businesses have received between $1
million and $5
million. The largest CEWS beneficiary of those
publicly reporting their
finances is Air Canada, which reported $492
million in wage subsidies
so far. Imperial Oil is second on the list at $120
million. Global auto
parts maker Linamar was third at $108.06 million.
The top 20 publicly
traded recipients of CEWS money identified by CBC
News have so far
received a total of $1.693 billion in government
assistance. Of the
company recipients identified, 32 received more
than $20 million each.
Fifty-three corporations received more than $10
million each
from the CEWS program. Those 53 companies at the
same time,
"collectively dished out nearly $2 billion to
shareholders between
April and September." At least seven of those
companies during the
summer also bought back stock shares to boost
their share price while
others handed out stock options to executives.
Thirteen of the
identified companies receiving subsidies increased
their year-to-date
net income during the pandemic when compared to
2019. Those 13 include
Leon's, which received $32 million from the CEWS
program and
Extendicare, which pocketed $82.2 million.
Extendicare is one of the
largest private for-profit long-term and home care
operators in Canada
with over 23,000 workers. Extendicare Inc. along
with another private
long-term care company, Sienna Senior Living Inc.,
has received more
than $157 million in federal and provincial
COVID-19 pay-the-rich
money. During the same time they received this
public handout, they
transferred a combined total of $74 million in
dividends to their
shareholders. "Meanwhile," CBC reports, "more than
480 residents and
staff have died of COVID-19 at the companies' care
homes in Ontario."
Another corporation given $29.4 million in CEWS
money is
janitorial company GDI with over 20,000 workers
throughout Canada and
the United States. The company reportedly is
"thriving amid increased
demand for cleaning services," CBC reports. The
company's gross income
has risen over 10 per cent during the pandemic
with a "record income
quarter" during July, August and September of
2020. GDI reported a net
income up more than 300 per cent compared to last
year and a stock
price "hitting an all-time high." Despite all this
"good news" the
government gave it almost $30 million "to help pay
its employees'
wages."
Billions of dollars from the government's
pandemic aid package is going to corporations
whose profits are up,
despite the overall economic downturn and collapse
of thousands of
small companies and massive unemployment and
social problems. The CEWS
program will pay out over $100 billion by the time
it wraps up next
year. The government says it is meant to help
businesses struggling to
keep employees on their payroll but refuses to
give details as to the
specific companies and the number of workers
involved. CBC says the
Canada Revenue Agency, which administers CEWS,
will still not release
the names of program recipients or any other
details, and that Federal
Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier and Finance
Minister and Deputy
Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland refuse to respond
to questions about
the program.
Under the guise of helping working
people keep their jobs and preventing small
businesses from going
under, the government has rolled out billions of
dollars in
pay-the-rich schemes while keeping the details
secret. The corruption
of the governments in Canada is beyond the pale;
they engage in these
practices despite broad demands to provide for the
people. The global
oligarchs and their private interests command the
show and governments
do their bidding. The monopoly media ensures the
people do not hear of
the resistance, but only the infighting of the
rich over who controls
the state institutions and how the spoils are
divvied up.
Only
the working people mobilized politically can put a
stop to this
corruption before it destroys Canada and the
entire world in unending
crises and war.
University of Toronto economist Michael Smart has
done a preliminary
analysis of the $50.6 billion the federal
government has spent so far
under the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy program
(CEWS). Right off the
bat, Smart points out, "It's important to
understand that these
payments are not going to individual workers.
They're going to the
companies. And I don't believe that they're saving
a large number of
jobs. That means the payments are going to
business profits."
A CBC investigation reveals that many of the
larger companies
that have received millions under the program have
spent lavishly for
non-payroll items such as dividend payments to
shareholders, share
buybacks, share options for executive compensation
etc.; all of which
are allowed under CEWS.
Businesses,
Smart explains, use the subsidy to offset wages
paid to employees. The
money ends up subsidizing all employees on the
payroll, not only those
in danger of being laid off because of the
pandemic. As a result the
government has ended up paying $14,500 per month
to businesses for
every job that is reportedly saved over a
four-week period, or about
$188,000 per job per year. Exactly how many jobs
have really been saved
is impossible to pinpoint because governments and
businesses refuse to
be accountable. The CBC and others say that
digging out information
from companies and the government as to what
specific jobs and how many
have really been saved is impossible as a wall of
silence shields all
information. Even though the programs and schemes
use public funds, the
governments doling out the money and the oligarchs
receiving it
brandish the right of private property to keep
their affairs secret to
stop any investigation and exposure of what is
really happening.
Smart doubts that the reported jobs "saved"
through the
program, at least with the larger firms, would
have disappeared without
the subsidies. "The problem is that CEWS payments
are paid for all
workers at affected businesses, not just those
facing the prospect of
earnings losses," he writes. "For this reason,
CEWS is an expensive way
of protecting vulnerable workers. Most of the jobs
funded by CEWS would
still exist in the absence of the subsidy."
As
proof of CEWS having little impact on employment
Smart analyzed the
reductions in subsidy rates which began in
September but were
subsequently abandoned. "While the September
reforms resulted in a
substantial decline in the average subsidy per
worker," he writes,
"there was no sharp drop in the number of firms
applying or workers
assisted. This evidence suggests the CEWS subsidy
is not in fact saving
many jobs and that the cost per job saved is
therefore high."
Smart argues, "If the subsidies play a
significant role in
preventing job loss, then the September cuts
should have led to an
increase in layoffs at assisted firms, and a
resulting decline in the
number of workers supported by the program
beginning in September. But
that is not what the aggregate data suggest."
His
study of the September reforms reveals that "a 10
per cent increase in
the subsidy rate leads to just a 1.1 per cent
increase in employment at
affected firms. Because the estimated impact of
the subsidy on
employment is small, most jobs subsidized through
CEWS would still
exist if the subsidy rate were reduced further.
He
then criticizes the government for "backing away
from those reforms,
freezing subsidy rates and extending the program
in 2021. The decision
to back away from the September reforms was a
mistake and a gradual
phaseout of subsidies should start again now."
With
the extension well into next year, "CEWS is now
the largest component
of Ottawa's pandemic response, outstripping even
the Canada Emergency
Response Benefit (CERB) and its successors. [...]
CEWS is a subsidy of
up to 75 per cent for eligible payroll expenses of
virtually all
Canadian businesses that have experienced a
revenue decline since the
beginning of 2020. The program has paid out over
$50 billion to 350,000
different businesses so far, and current spending
is running around
$1.2 billion per week."
It should be noted that a
"revenue decline" can be for one subsidiary of a
large company or even
one department while the rest of the company
continues to operate and
expropriate added-value from the value its workers
produce.
Smart
writes, "If CEWS funds are not saving many jobs,
that means they end up
in business profits. [...] We learned of one large
retailer that in
effect used its CEWS payments to fund a special
dividend to
shareholders this year." Smart is referring to a
November 23 article in
the Toronto
Star
with the headline, "Leon's received almost $30
million in government
handouts -- now it's posting record profits and
boosting the amount it
pays to shareholders."
Smart's assessment of CEWS
is that "it was not targeted to the jobs that were
most at risk during
the lockdown." This is putting it mildly to say
the least.
(Michael
Smart's complete analysis is available here;
News about CEWS -- Finances of the Nation; CBC
"The Big Spend" is here)
Anti-China
Motion in the House of Commons
-
Pauline Easton -
The
House of Commons is addressing a motion that
exudes hostility towards
the People's Republic of China. The cartel parties
are espousing the
ill-advised cause of opposing alleged Chinese
attempts to undermine
Canada's "democratic institutions." In the name of
"eliminating foreign
interference in Canada's political process" the
resolution will
criminalize Canadians and permanent residents of
Chinese national
origin and generally foment a hysterical racist
anti-Chinese climate.
It is, again, the racist, colonialist approach
which, at the turn of
the 20th century, accused people from Asia of
constituting a "Yellow
Peril." A dictionary definition describes "Yellow
Peril" as the power
or alleged power of Asiatic peoples "to threaten
or destroy the
supremacy of White or Western civilization."[1]
According
to Wikipedia it is "a colour-metaphor that
represents the peoples of East Asia as an
existential danger to the
Western world."[2]
The motion also deserves the attention of
Canadians for its
insidious modus
operandi.
The right of citizens and residents to express
their opinion on
international affairs is being turned into a
matter of people being
"dupes for a foreign power." The international
practice -- and right --
of countries to promote their economic interests,
as Canada does all
over the world, is considered proper for Canada
and the U.S. but not
for China. In the name of national security, when
Canada, the U.S., and
the other countries of the "Five Eyes"
intelligence agencies can
empower corporations such as Google, Twitter,
Facebook and others to
comply with surveillance of citizens it is
considered democratic, but
if China does it, it is considered dictatorial.
Similarly, the
domination of the cartel parties, all of which
serve the international
financial oligarchy, over governance in Canada is
considered
democratic, while the domination of the Communist
Party of China over
governance in China is considered a dictatorship.
The
power of the private interests dominates this
discourse, used to
determine Canada's national interest. These
private interests have
taken over the U.S. state, to which they have
subordinated the Canadian
state. They use their apparatus of disinformation
and budgets to put
the full weight of their states behind wiping out
their competition.
The peoples of the countries which comprise the
imperialist system of
states are supposed to take sides.
According to
David Vigneault, Director of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service
(CSIS), "As the world becomes smaller and more
competitive, nation
states are naturally seeking every advantage to
position themselves as
leaders in a lucrative global economy. As a result
of this competitive
thirst, hostile state actors seek to leverage all
elements of state
power to advance their national interests. This
threat represents the
greatest danger to Canada's national security and
can have a tremendous
impact on our economic growth, ability to
innovate, sovereignty and
national interest. That is why CSIS is now
routinely engaging with a
variety of stakeholders across the Government of
Canada and the private
and research sectors, to learn from and advise on
the nature of
potential threats so that they are better prepared
and can protect
their important work."[3]
This candid admission that Canada's "national
interests" are
served by the security services advancing the
interests of the
financial and economic oligarchs in their
rivalries to dominate markets
and spheres of influence confirms the extent to
which they themselves
are providing justification "to leverage all
elements of state power"
to the advantage of their side of the "competitive
thirst." It confirms
the profound danger posed to the peoples.
According to their modus
operandi, this rivalry can only lead to
aggression, war and
interference abroad, while suppressing the
movements of the people at
home and abroad. The peoples are fighting
for a new world
where economies are organized to fulfill the needs
of the
people, and international relations,
including trade, are
based on mutual benefit and conflicting
interests are resolved
peacefully.
Vigneault praises the Government for
passing the National Security Act, 2017
which
received Royal Assent in June 2019. This Act was
broadly opposed by
Canadians when it was first introduced by the
Harper government and
then adopted by the Trudeau government with
fraudulent amendments to
make it appear that rights were being protected.
Vigneault says that
while the new police powers have provided "some
new modern authorities,
there is still work to be done." More explicitly,
he calls for
increased police powers, stating that "the threat
environment we face
today and in the future requires further
reflection to ensure that we
have the tools required of a modern intelligence
agency."
One of the examples of "threat environment today"
the security
establishment is promoting as hysterically as it
possibly can, is
alleged interference in delivery of COVID
vaccines.[4]
Of
note is the dominant role in decision-making given
to the so-called
Five Eyes intelligence agencies which, by
definition, are covert. They
march to their own tune without the citizenry ever
being privy to what
they do and how. The decision-makers in government
also march to their
tune.
Imposing conceptions of security, peace and
democracy dragged out of the Cold War period
merely underscores the
fact that what they mean is self-serving. The
interests they serve and
those who serve these interests do not recognize,
let alone represent,
the members of the polity whose voices are not
heard; nay more, whose
voices are missing altogether in what is called
the discussion.
All of the parties in the House of Commons are in
cahoots with
the motion. They have been bickering over minor
details related to it,
such as whether or not it should be adopted before
it is reviewed by
the Special Committee on Canada-China
Relations, itself an
instrument for anti-China propaganda whose aim is
to hide how desperate
they are to wipe out China as a competitor.[5]
Notes
1. Collins
Dictionary.
2.
The term "Yellow Peril" was coined in Europe
following Japan's military
defeat of China in 1895 and was initially
applied to Japan to create
fear of invasion from rising powers in East
Asia.
The
fear of
invasion continued into the 20th century and was
bolstered by various
racist portrayals of "sinister Orientals" in
books and films. Prominent
amongst these was the English writer Sax
Rohmer's creation, the
insidious and diabolical genius Dr. Fu Manchu.
By
the outbreak
of WWI, the lack of any actual invasion usage of
the term "Yellow
Peril" began to fade, although in practice,
fearmongering about China
and immigrants from East Asia continued, couched
in other derogatory
terms, in support of racist immigration policies
at home and
imperialist aggression abroad.
3. CSIS
Public Report 2019, “Our Vision: A Safe, Secure
and
Prosperous Canada through Trusted Intelligence
and Advance,”
May 2020.
4. "CSIS warns of
threats to vaccine distribution chain,"
Catharine Tunney, CBC News,
December 17, 2020.
5. According to its
website, the Special Committee on Canada-China
Relations says its
mandate is "to conduct hearings to examine and
review all aspects of
the Canada-China relationship, including, but
not limited to, consular,
economic, legal, security and diplomatic
relations." Its website
further states:
"The ties between Canada and Hong
Kong are long standing and well known, notably
due to the many Canadian
soldiers who participated and lost their lives
in the war effort to
prevent the Japanese invasion during the Second
World War. Today, an
estimated 300,000 Canadians live in Hong Kong.
"Hong Kong's freedoms and high degree of
autonomy were enshrined in the
1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty
registered with the
United Nations. As the Special Committee has
been told, the
international community was asked to support the
'one country, two
systems' framework and cooperate toward its
successful implementation.
The Special Committee notes that, while the
framework is obliged to
endure until 2047, serious questions have been
raised by the National
Security Law that was enacted on June 30, 2020.
Furthermore, the
Special Committee reiterates that the freedoms
enshrined in the Joint
Declaration and Hong Kong's Basic Law, including
freedom of expression
and assembly, are guaranteed by the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which applies in Hong Kong."
Individuals and organizations that have appeared
before the committee
this year include the following:
December 8,
2020 (Meeting 12)
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and
Development
- Shawn
Steil, Executive Director, Greater China Policy
and Coordination
Embassy of Canada to the People's Republic of
China
- Dominic Barton, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of
Canada to the People's Republic of China
November 24,
2020 (Meeting 8)
As an individual
- Hon. John McCallum, Former Ambassador of
Canada to the People's Republic of China
- Robert Wright,
Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's
Republic of China
November 23,
2020 (Meeting 7)
Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade
- Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister,
Foreign Affairs
- Weldon Epp, Director General, North Asia
and Oceania Bureau
House of Commons
-
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of
Foreign Affairs
November 17,
2020 (Meeting 6)
Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade
- Shawn Steil, Executive Director,
Greater China Policy and Coordination
November 16,
2020 (Meeting 5)
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
- Natasha Kim,
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic
and Program Policy
- Dr. Nicole Giles, Associate Assistant Deputy
Minister, Operations
House of Commons
- Hon. Marco Mendicino, Minister
of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
November 9,
2020 (Meeting 4)
As an individual
- Bill Chu, Founder, Canadians for
Reconciliation
- Steve Tsang, Director, SOAS China Institute,
University of London
- Victor Ho, Retired Editor-in-Chief,
Sing Tao Daily, British Columbia Edition
National
Democratic Institute
- Adam Nelson, Senior Advisor for
Asia-Pacific
Vancouver Society in Support of
Democratic Movement
- Mabel Tung, Chair
November 2,
2020 (Meeting
3)
Consulate General of Canada in Hong Kong and
Macao
- Jeff Nankivell, Consul General of Canada in
Hong Kong
and Macao, Global Affairs Canada
October
26, 2020 (Meeting 2)
As an individual
- Angela Gui
- Nathan Law, Hong
Kong Activist, Former Legislator
For
Your Information
The anti-China motion was introduced in
the House on November 17 by Conservative MP
Michael Chong. Both the
resolution and the discussion underscore the
refusal to sort out
problems in international relations peacefully and
instead turn them
into a matter of factional fighting, promotion of
business interests
and a hysterical anti-China stance. It reads:
Given that (i) the
People's
Republic of China, under the leadership of the
Chinese Communist Party,
is threatening Canada's national interest and its
values, including
Canadians of Chinese origin within Canada's
borders, (ii) it is
essential that Canada have a strong and principled
foreign policy
backed by action in concert with its allies, the
House call upon the
government to: (a) make a decision on Huawei's
involvement in Canada's
5G network within 30 days of the adoption of this
motion; and (b)
develop a robust plan, as Australia has done, to
combat China's growing
foreign operations here in Canada and its
increasing intimidation of
Canadians living in Canada, and table it within 30
days of the adoption
of this motion.
Speaking
to the resolution Chong said that while the
Liberal
government
"has logged a number of foreign policy
accomplishments" such as
renegotiating the free trade agreement with the
U.S. overall, "foreign
policy has been a disappointment." He said:
It is on China that
the Liberal
government has been the biggest disappointment.
China is not upholding
its responsibility to the rules-based
international system. It is
ignoring its condition of entry into the WTO. It
is manipulating its
currency using state-owned enterprises to
interfere in other country's
economies, infringing on international property
and violating
international law in its treatment of Canadians
Michael Kovrig, Michael
Spavor, Robert Schellenberg and Huseyin Celil. It
violates
international law in its treatment of the people
of Hong Kong and in
its treatment of religious and ethnic minorities,
such as the Tibetans
and the Uighurs in China. In short, China is
threatening our interests
and our values. In that context, it is really
important that the
Government of Canada speak with a clear,
consistent and coherent voice.
Unfortunately, that is not happening. In January
of last year, the
Prime Minister said he was not going to intervene
in the judicial
proceeding concerning Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver.
The same week, former
Canadian ambassador to China, John McCallum, said
that the government
should intervene and trade Meng Wanzhou for
Canadians Michael Kovrig
and Michael Spavor. This inconsistency and
incoherence have continued
into this year. In July, the foreign minister told
the House that he is
looking into putting sanctions on Chinese
officials for their actions
with respect to Hong Kong. The very next day the
government told
Reuters that this was off the table. In September,
the foreign minister
told The Globe
and Mail
that the pursuit of free trade with China was
being abandoned, and on
the same day, Ambassador Barton, Canada's
ambassador to China, was in
Edmonton telling an audience, which included the
Chinese ambassador to
Canada, that Canada should do more in China and
expand trade with China.
These are just a few
of the
many, many examples.
The
government itself acknowledges implicitly that its
China policy is not
working. It has acknowledged it by its recent
change in rhetoric on
China this fall, and it has acknowledged it by its
announcement that it
plans to come forward with a new framework on
China this fall, by
December 24. That is why I have introduced this
motion today."
Any new framework on
China
must include two elements.
First,
it must include a decision on Huawei. In May of
last year, the
government said it would make a decision on
Huawei's involvement in
Canada's 5G network before the 2019 election. That
July it changed its
mind and said it would make a decision after the
2019 election. It has
now been more than a year since the last election,
and there still has
been no decision. It has been years since the
government first started
deliberating on this decision. The consequence of
these years of delay
and indecision on the part of the government is
threatening Canada's
national security. Because of the government's
delays on this file,
Telus, a major Canadian telecommunications
company, went ahead and
purchased Huawei's equipment for its network. It
installed it in the
national capital region, where most of Canada's
federal government
offices are, including the RCMP, CSIS, the
Department of National
Defence and other military installations, despite
having reached an
agreement with the federal government not to use
Huawei's equipment in
the region. Reports now indicate the federal
government is scrambling
to get Telus to remove its equipment, which has
now been installed on
some 80 towers and sites in the national capital
region. Under article
7 of China's national intelligence law, Huawei
must support, assist and
co-operate with China's intelligence activities.
The government's lack
of action
on Huawei demonstrates something else: the yawning
gap between its
rhetoric and reality. The government said it
believes in
multilateralism, but when given the opportunity
fails to act. Huawei is
a good case in point. Four of the Five Eyes
intelligence partners,
Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the
United Kingdom, have
banned or put restrictions on Huawei's involvement
in their networks.
Canada is unilaterally alone in failing to take
action.
It is long past time
for the
government to make a decision on Huawei. No
framework on China is
complete without it. Any new framework on China
must also include a
robust plan to counter China's subversive
operations here in Canada.
China, through its agents and foreign operations
here on our soil, is
threatening our national interests and values. It
is intimidating
Canadians, particularly Canadians of Chinese
origin. It is spying on
and cyber-attacking our citizens, companies and
the federal government
itself. It is spreading disinformation. It is
engaging in elite
capture: the provision of monetary inducements, in
sinecure, to retired
bureaucrats and retired politicians. It is
providing financial support
for research institutes that support Beijing's
positions, such as the
Confucius Institute. It is co-opting Chinese
language media and local
organizations on the ground to promote Beijing's
interests. It is
surveilling and organizing Chinese foreign
students at Canadian
universities to stifle on-campus debate and
threaten others, as it has
done at the University of Toronto and McMaster
University. It is
interfering in the Chinese community by mobilizing
political support
against those who do not support Beijing.
There are countless
examples of
China's influence operations here in Canada
documented by CSIS, the
RCMP, Amnesty International and the Special
Committee on Canada-China
Relations of the House. Any new framework on China
must include a plan
that does more to protect Canadians from China's
foreign influence
operations here in Canada as our allies, such as
Australia, have
already done.
The
government came to office talking about
responsible conviction. That
was jettisoned for Canada being an essential
country. We now get a new
framework on China. Any new framework must include
a decision on Huawei
and a robust plan to protect Canadian citizens and
interests from
China's subversive foreign influence operations
here on Canadian soil.
I have a final point
on the
timing in the motion. The motion calls on the
government to make these
two decisions within 30 days. The government has
announced for months
that it is coming forward with a new framework on
China by the end of
this fall, which ends on December 21, so the
timing of the motion's
provisions is very reasonable. That is why I have
introduced this
motion. I hope members will support it.
Speaking
for the Bloc Québécois, Luc Desilets
(Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) said his party
agrees, and only has some concerns about the time.
"Why
not wait until the Special Committee on
Canada-China Relations, which
the Conservatives themselves asked for, releases
its findings?"
Desilets said.
Speaking for the NDP, Gord Johns
(Courtenay--Alberni, NDP) thanked Chong for the
motion and asked:
I want to ask my
colleague
if he believes that Canada needs to bring in
legislation to combat
foreign interference from China and other state
parties here in Canada.
Chong said yes, "a new legislative framework to
deal with a
number of issues. For example, we believe that
former senior
politicians and former senior bureaucrats should
register their
contracts, if they are working for a foreign state
or an entity
controlled by a foreign state. We also believe
that there need to be
better enforcement tools available to law
enforcement to counter these
subversive Chinese foreign influence operations on
Canadian soil. These
are just two measures that we believe need new
legislation in order to
provide the tools necessary to counter these
activities."
On
behalf of the Liberal government, Minister of
Foreign Affairs
François-Philippe Champagne said:
Mr. Speaker, I was
very pleased
to attend the speech by my colleague this morning.
One thing he failed
to mention, and what I am inquiring about, is
Canada's leadership when
it comes to taking action.
Why
is the member not mentioning to Canadians who are
watching us that
Canada was the first country to suspend an
extradition treaty, between
Canada and Hong Kong? Why is the member not
mentioning to Canadians
that Canada suspended the export of sensitive
equipment? Why is the
member not mentioning to Canadians that we took
immigration measures?
I chaired the meeting
of the
Five Eyes, and I consulted with our British
counterparts at every step
of the way. Why is the member not mentioning that
we are continuing to
engage with our partners around the world to show
leadership, to take
action, and to stand up for Canadian values and
interests?
United
States
The slate of electors certified by each
state's election officials and signed off on by
the Governor met in
each state on December 14 to cast their votes for
president and
vice-president. Currently all states
designate electors based
on the votes cast in their state, with all but
Maine and Nebraska
giving all their electors to whoever gained a
plurality, not a
majority, of the votes. For this election, there
were 538 electors and
306 votes were cast for Biden and 232 for Trump.
Following the
vote Biden claimed, "The flame of democracy was
lit in this nation a
long time ago. And we now know nothing, not even a
pandemic or an abuse
of power, can extinguish that flame." Referring to
the Texas lawsuit
calling to vacate the vote in four states and
dismissed by the Supreme
Court December 11, he added, "It's a position so
extreme we've never
seen it before. A position that refused to respect
the will of the
people, refused to respect the rule of law, and
refused to honour our
Constitution."
Republican
Senate head Mitch McConnell, a main Trump
enforcer, also emphasizing
the importance now of defending existing
arrangements said, "Our system
of government has processes to determine who will
be sworn in on
January 20." He added, "The Electoral College has
spoken. So today, I
want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden."
He had not done so up
to that point. Trump, following the Supreme
Court's rejection of the
Texas lawsuit, tweeted, "We have just begun to
fight." He has so far
not conceded.
In Michigan, a state where Trump had
tried to have the vote vacated and had called on
the Republican leaders
of the Michigan House and Senate to seat a slate
of electors in his
favour, both instead spoke to upholding
existing arrangements.
House Speaker Lee Chatfield said that he "can't
fathom risking our
norms, traditions and institutions to pass a
resolution retroactively
changing the electors for Trump." He added that if
the Michigan House
were to cast a new slate of electors "I fear we'd
lose our country
forever. This truly would bring mutually assured
destruction for every
future election in regards to the Electoral
College."
It
is evident that there is growing concern that the
continuing conflicts
represented by Trump's refusal to concede have not
only put the
election in doubt but will further undermine the
existing
constitutional arrangements that guarantee rule by
the oligarchs. These
arrangements have proven dysfunctional, the
conflicts border on violent
civil war, yet upholding the Constitution -- which
did not prevent the
last Civil War -- is the only answer given.
Congress
still has to accept the vote by the Electoral
College. The Senate and
House of Representatives meet January 6 in a joint
session presided
over by Vice President Pence, as President of the
Senate. He is
responsible for counting the Electoral College
votes from each state.
If at least one member of each house objects in
writing to a particular
state's electoral votes, the House and Senate meet
separately to debate
the issue. Both Houses must vote to sustain the
objection, otherwise,
the votes get counted as intended by the state. If
there is a tie, the
vote certified by the Governor of the state
decides the outcome.
Republicans in Georgia met December 14 and
elected a slate of
electors in Trump's favour, though the Governor
there certified Biden's
win and the Electoral College vote went to Biden.
The Republicans have
not yet sent their slate of electors to Congress,
but they could. Other
individual members, such as those supporting the
Texas lawsuit, could
object as well. So far no Senator has come forward
and McConnell has
urged them not to, trying to avoid a vote that
could further split
Republicans. At least four Republican Senators
have said they would
oppose any such move: Patrick J. Toomey of
Pennsylvania, Susan Collins
of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney
of Utah. This would
be enough to block any effort to overturn the
Electoral College
results. Given this, Trump is more likely to
pursue other avenues,
though his supporters might persist.
- Voice of Revolution -
Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a
lawsuit December 7
directly with the Supreme Court calling on the
court to invalidate the
elections in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin, which would
put Biden below the 270 Electoral College votes
needed to win. The
lawsuit asked the court to vacate the votes cast
and instead let the
legislatures of each state decide the slate of
electors for the
Electoral College. On December 11, the Court
dismissed the case.
Unlike
the more than 50 other lawsuits filed, and lost,
by Trump and allies
claiming fraud, this one attempted to make it a
constitutional issue
which, as such, was a matter which pertains to the
Supreme Court. Given
that the case involved a dispute between states,
it bypassed lower
courts and went directly to the Supreme Court.
The
lawsuit argued: "The constitutional issue is not
whether voters
committed fraud but whether state officials
violated the law by
systematically loosening the measures for ballot
integrity so that
fraud becomes undetectable." It said it was not
necessary to prove that
fraud occurred, "it is only necessary to
demonstrate that the elections
in the defendant States materially deviated from
the 'manner' of
choosing electors established by their respective
state Legislatures."
It
is notable that changes made in the four states,
such as expanding use
of mail-in ballots, were also made in Texas and
most states across the
country. Furthermore, the challenge was only for
the presidential
election, not Congressional and state elections,
even though each voter
gets one ballot for all the elections. It is a
self-serving irrational
argument meant to draw everyone into an irrational
debate. Thinking
about a rational solution favouring the people is
blocked while various
divisions -- between states, between states and
the federal government,
and among the electorate -- are fomented.
While
other lawsuits involved claims of fraud in
specific states, the Texas
lawsuit directly served to pit groups of states
against each other. It
was joined by State Attorneys General from 17
other states, about half
southern states.[1]
In addition, 126 of the 196 Republicans in the
House of Representatives
also filed a brief in support.
The four states
targeted -- Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin -- all
challenged the lawsuit. State Attorneys General
from 20 other states
and Washington, DC filed a brief in support of the
four states. These
included North Carolina, Virginia, California and
New York.[2]
Lead Connecticut
Attorney General Tong said: "This is nothing less
than an attempted
legal coup that risks the destruction of the
union. This suit will
undoubtedly fail because it is a fact-free
disgrace to the judicial
system. But before it fails, it will cause immense
and lasting harm to
the legal profession and the community of
attorneys general..."
Pennsylvania wrote, "The court should not abide
this seditious
abuse of the judicial process, and should send a
clear and unmistakable
signal that such abuse must never be replicated."
Georgia's Republican
Governor and Attorney General, who have faced
threats and harassment
from Trump and his forces, said Georgia had done
"what the Constitution
empowered it to do."
Texas Republican Senator John
Cornyn rejected the lawsuit, saying he did not
understand why Texas is
seeking to dictate how other states run their
elections.
The
Republican Attorney General of Ohio refused to
support the lawsuit as
did Republican Governors of Utah and Wyoming. The
Governor of Wyoming,
where Trump won 70 per cent of the votes cast,
said he and his attorney
general, "Believe that the case could have
unintended consequences
relating to a constitutional principle that the
state of Wyoming holds
dear, that states are sovereign, free to govern
themselves."
In
this manner the role of the states, their election
laws, legislatures,
Electoral College electors, and federal government
is being raised,
with elected officials on both sides claiming
support from the
Constitution. As well, state Attorneys General are
sworn to uphold the
Constitution and state laws yet here they are
vying against each other,
often in an irrational manner that puts into
question the very laws
they are sworn to uphold. Their own system of
justice is in disarray
and threatening "destruction of the Union."
On
December 11, the Supreme Court did not allow the
case to be filed,
saying that Texas did not have standing to dispute
election law in
other states. Justice Alito, joined by
Justice Thomas, raised
a technical issue, saying the lawsuit could be
filed, but not that the
Court should agree to hear the case. Alito added,
"I would not grant
other relief, and I express no view on any other
issue."
Trump,
in support of the Texas lawsuit, said: "This is
the big one. Our
Country needs a victory!" and "We will soon be
learning about the word
'courage', and saving our Country." After the
ruling he condemned the
Supreme Court saying, "No Wisdom, No Courage."
Prior
to this, on December 8, the Supreme Court issued
another ruling in
which it refused to provide injunctive relief for
one of Trump's
Pennsylvania lawsuits. That lawsuit, also asking
for the state
legislature to decide the slate of electors, had
been dismissed by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It is rare for the
U.S. Supreme Court to
intervene in a state court ruling on state law.
Trump's
persistence in striving for federal intervention
into state-based
elections is indicative of the restructuring of
elections he and allies
are striving for. The lawsuits, even when lost,
are a means to promote
the need for greater federal control over
elections, including the
casting, counting and certifying of votes.
Trump
and allies are continuing their efforts to secure
the power of the
presidency. This includes issuing threats of
violence against state
officials, Republicans and Democrats alike. Trump
is also in a position
to foment violence using armed militias to attack
the people and try to
justify declaring a national emergency prior to
the January 20
Inauguration Day for Biden. Already, one of these
militias, the "Proud
Boys," has torn down and burned Black Lives Matter
banners at
African-American churches in Washington, DC.
Militia members are
roaming the streets there and attacking people,
with little
interference from police. The many who have been
fighting for justice
and equality and defending the right to vote
continue to stand ready to
act if Trump acts to more broadly foment violence
or refuse to leave
the White House.
Demonstrations in many
cities are already planned for December 31 and
January 20.
Voice
of Revolution is a publication of the U.S.
Marxist-Leninist
Organization.
Notes
1. States whose
Attorneys General supported the Texas lawsuit
include: Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.
2. States whose
Attorneys General
opposed the Texas lawsuit include: California,
Connecticut, Colorado,
Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, DC.
- Kathleen
Chandler -
The U.S. Civil War officially ended 155
years ago. Despite this, civil war talk mentioning
secession and
treason have become commonplace. The Texas lawsuit
which called on the
Supreme Court to vacate the votes cast for
president in Georgia,
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin pitted groups
of states against
each other, 17 in support and 20 against, with
both sides saying
constitutional issues were being raised.
On hearing
the Supreme Court ruling against the Texas
lawsuit, the head of the
Texas Republicans said: "Perhaps law-abiding
states should bond
together and form a Union of states that will
abide by the
constitution." In countering the lawsuit, state
Attorneys General said
it "risks the destruction of the Union," and that
it was a "seditious
abuse of the judicial process."
New Jersey
Representative Bill Pascrell sent a letter to
House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi on December 11 targeting the 126 Republican
House
representatives that supported the Texas lawsuit
as traitors. He
tweeted, "Today I'm calling on House leaders to
refuse to seat any
Members trying to overturn the election and make
Donald Trump an
unelected dictator." He cited a Civil War
amendment (Section 3 of the
14th Amendment), saying: the "Text of the 14th
Amendment expressly
forbids Members of Congress from engaging in
rebellion against the
United States." It was written "to prevent the
destruction of the
United States from without and within," he said.[1] Refusing to
seat
the 126 members would "cleanse from our government
ranks any traitors
and others who would seek to destroy the Union,"
he said. A petition is
now being widely circulated calling on people to
urge Pelosi not to
seat the representatives.
Pelosi has not responded
directly. However, in a letter to colleagues
December 11, she
referenced the 126 House Republicans and said the
Texas lawsuit
"violates the principles enshrined in our American
Democracy." She
referred to Pennsylvania's statement about
"seditious abuse of the
judicial process," and concluded saying, "As
Members of Congress, we
take a solemn oath to support and defend the
Constitution. Republicans
are subverting the Constitution by their reckless
and fruitless assault
on our democracy which threatens to seriously
erode public trust in our
most sacred democratic institutions."
This talk
from both sides of the divide in fact makes it
clear that the
Constitution carries little authority in resolving
disputes. Both sides
claim to have its backing. The ease with which
they throw accusations
of secession and treason around or claim to defend
"sacred democratic
institutions" attests to the fact that they are
going crazy unconcerned.
If the "sacred democratic institutions,"
including Congress
and elections, were functioning to resolve
disputes as intended when
they were conceived, nobody would be calling on
hooligan armed militias
or appealing to the Supreme Court to intervene in
state affairs or
making calls to secede and form a new Union or to
"cleanse Congress of
traitors."
These institutions do not accord with
today's conditions where the conflicts between
contending private
interests striving to profit from pay-the-rich
schemes are insatiable
and the times require people's empowerment.
Even
if Trump leaves office, which he has not yet
conceded, the conflicts
among the ruling factions border on open violent
civil war. Biden's
election will not make them go away. His agenda is
no less dictated by
the ruling financial oligarchy and its demands to
continuously pay the
rich. The section of the financial oligarchy which
seeks to dominate
does not tolerate limitations on its power posed
by different levels of
authority -- federal, state, city-based and the
like. This also
includes any expressions of national sovereignty
by countries which
refuse to kowtow to narrow foreign private
interests, especially those
of the U.S. Though Biden and those aligned with
him may express
themselves in ways which are different to those
used by Trump in
implementing the U.S. imperialist agenda, his ways
will also come into
even greater contradiction with the demands of the
U.S. working class
and peoples and the demands of the peoples of the
world. Subordinating
social needs to the demands of the parasitic war
economy is evident in
the fact that while Congress overwhelmingly passed
Pentagon funding of
$740 billion for war and weapons, it has not
passed COVID-19 relief for
workers and persists with its horrific threat of
government shutdown,
now set for December 21.
The open disgrace this
election brought on the U.S. "sacred democratic
institutions," as
Pelosi calls them, is sure to give rise to calls
for election reforms
so long as they do not serve to empower the people
and, on the
contrary, strengthen rule by the rich by
introducing greater federal
control of the electoral process. These may
include a direct vote for
president and elimination of the Electoral
College. Most of the Trump
lawsuits attack the current system of state-based
elections, including
how electors for the Electoral College are chosen
and who decides
disputes. Various officials in Georgia,
Pennsylvania, Arizona and
elsewhere are also calling for changes to election
laws. All are being
done in the name of preserving "our sacred
democratic institutions,"
"democracy" and "restoring the public trust."
Only the people,
by organizing themselves politically on the basis
of their own agenda,
can bring into being changes which provide for
decision-making by the
people from start to finish. This includes
people's assemblies for
setting policy and raising the claims the people
are entitled to make
by virtue of being human, and selecting
representatives from among
their peers so all have equal footing and
information on problems and
solutions.
The public lost trust in elections a
long time ago, with the general consciousness
being that they are of,
by and for the rich. The solution is not restoring
faith in the
dysfunctional institutions, but to give birth to
new ones. Developing
collectives and organizations where members are
equal and together make
decisions, implement them and take responsibility
for the results is
the way of the future.
Across the U.S.,
workers, women and youth of all national origins
and from all walks of
life are persisting in united efforts in the
interests of the people.
The battle for rights is a battle for empowerment,
the main problem
being taken up for solution, including demands for
decision-making
power and control of policing, budgets and health
care.
Note
1.
Amendment 14, Section 3:
"No
Person shall be a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of
President and Vice-President, or hold any
office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously
taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United
States, or as a member of any State legislature,
or as an executive or
judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion.
On December 11, Congress overwhelmingly passed
$740.5 billion for the
Pentagon, its weapons and wars. This is for one
year only. The vote in
the House of Representatives for the National
Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) was 335-78 and in
the Senate 84-13.
Both are enough for the two-thirds majority needed
to override a
threatened veto by President Trump. He has ten
days (not including
Sundays), which means by December 23, to veto,
sign or allow it to
become law without his signature.
Senator Jim Inhofe
of Oklahoma
and chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee made clear the
pro-war stand of Congress when it comes to public
funds: "There's a
reason this bill gets done every single year for
the last 59 years:
It's the most important bill we'll do all year."
The same is not true
for COVID-19 relief.
According
to Inhofe and the vote in Congress more generally,
it is Pentagon
funding "that makes our country more secure, and
it supports our troops
who defend it." The people, through their broad
and many
demonstrations, have raised that security is not
guaranteed through the
use of force and violence, abroad or at home.
Affirming the peoples'
rights, including rights to health care, housing,
jobs, safety and
peace, is what makes the country and world more
secure, not troops and
weapons.
The United States has by far the largest
military budget on the planet, more than the next
10 countries
combined. When funding for homeland security,
policing and
incarceration is included, it accounts for about
64.5 per cent of all
federal discretionary funds. Various additional
sources of funds for
war in the general budget means the Pentagon funds
are more than $1
trillion every year.
The
vote by Congress reflects the war economy and war
government of the
U.S., which the president necessarily safeguards.
Biden will do so,
just as Obama, Bush and others did before him. It
is an economy and
government that guarantee funding for war and
aggression and all kinds
of interference abroad, militarized policing and
violence at home,
while leaving the well-being of the people to
chance.
Horrific
Threat of Government Shutdown Continues
While
on December 18, Congress passed a two-day stop-gap
measure which
prolongs the threat of a full government shutdown
until Monday,
December 21, it remains unclear if agreement will
be reached Sunday,
December 20, for the omnibus budget bill or any
funding for COVID-19
relief.
Congress passed the the National Defense Authorization
Act
(NDAA) for the Pentagon but did not pass the
overall budget or any
COVID-19 relief. Instead another continuing
resolution was passed to
provide government funding until December 18, now
extended to December
21. While this averted a government shutdown on
December 11 and then
again on December 18, it does nothing to ease
the fears and
anxiety of the people concerning their jobs, let
alone funding for
COVID-19 relief. This would include prioritizing
funds for the people,
such as free health care for all in need, free
personal protective
equipment (PPE), testing and other aspects.
Actions
by health care and other frontline workers and
many community
organizations are also demanding a budget that
guarantees basic human
rights, not policing and more pay-the-rich schemes
of various kinds for
the giant monopolies. Were the budget to be
decided by the people there
is no doubt funding for the Pentagon would be
greatly cut, the
pay-the-rich schemes stopped and funding increased
for social services.
The estimated $300 billion needed to cover the
$1,200 cheques
previously issued to most adults, very
insufficient funding, would take
just half the Pentagon budget. Many other
countries provide monthly
cheques covering up to 80 to 90 per cent of wages.
Demands are also
being made to ensure everyone in need, including
the millions of
undocumented immigrants and their children, is
included in any cash
payments.
With an economy
as wealthy as the U.S., the problem is not a lack
of funds, it is the
direction of the country based on a war economy
and government. It is
private control of the wealth produced by working
people by a handful
of oligarchs for their own private interests.
Indeed, the country's 651
billionaires have gained so much wealth just
during the coronavirus
pandemic that they could fully pay for a one-time
$3,000 stimulus
cheque for every child, woman and man in the
United States -- and still
be wealthier than they were before the crisis.
Refusing
to address this reality of self-serving private
ownership and the war
economy, elected officials are making more threats
that no relief or
budget will be passed December 18, despite soaring
COVID-19 cases and
deaths, now more than 300,000, and hospitals
packed and unable to
provide for patients or workers. It is a crime.
Decision
making needs to be in the hands of the people.
Elected officials need
to get out of the way or join the people as they
step up organizing for
their right to govern and decide.
- Bill
Quigley -
87
million
87 million workers will lose
federally mandated COVID-19 sick leave at the end
of December unless
Congress acts to extend the law.
50
million
50 million people are now
facing hunger at least once a month, including one
in four children.
The rate of adults who sometimes or often do not
have enough to eat is
double in Black and Latino homes, according to the
Associated Press.
30 million
30
million people are facing eviction as of December
31, 2020 when the
current Centers for Disease Control moratorium on
evictions ends. There
has been a 70 per cent increase in the number of
people paying their
rent by credit card.
16 million
16 million unemployed workers have already lost
or
will lose their federal unemployment benefits by
December 26, 2020. 4.4
million people have already exhausted their
federal benefits and
another 12 million people stand to lose their
unemployment benefits by
December 26, 2020 unless Congress passes new laws,
according to the
Century Foundation.
12 million
As many as 12 million people who were entitled to
the $1,200 stimulus cheque never received it.
10
million
Two major national law firms
and several national restaurant chains received
$10 million dollars
each from the Paycheck Protection Program. More
than 25 per cent of the
$500 billion in aid went to just one per cent of
borrowers.
7 million
7 million more
Americans, about 11 per cent, now live in poverty,
than did months ago
when the $600 Federal Pandemic Unemployment
Compensation program was
operating. (NBC News)
2.2 million
Since January, 2.2 million women have lost or
quit
their jobs or are no longer looking for work
because mothers have been
forced to choose between caring for their children
and their jobs.
1.5 million
Of the
record high 1.5 million homeless children in the
U.S., over 400,000
have dropped off their school's radar during the
pandemic. (Education
Week)
1.4 million
One
million four hundred thousand children have tested
positive for
COVID-19. (American Academy of Pediatrics)
110,000
One hundred and ten thousand restaurants have
closed permanently, according to the National
Restaurant Association.
106,000
At least
106,000 nursing home residents and staff died from
COVID-19 as of early
December, around 39 per cent of the overall deaths
reported. (NBC News)
600 per cent
Failure
rates in math and English jumped 600 per cent
among low-income students
in some school districts recently in Maryland.
Nationally grade school
students are falling significantly behind in math
and the percentages
may even be worse because a large percentage of
students were not even
present when testing was done. Several states
report that many fewer
children enrolled back in school this fall than
were there a year ago.
400 per cent
COVID-19
rates are 400 per cent higher in state and federal
prisons than among
the general public and the death rate is more than
twice as high.
National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal
Justice.
400 per cent
Black, Hispanic
and Native Americans are four times as likely to
be hospitalized for
COVID-19 than whites. (CNN)
200 per cent
The risk of being exposed to COVID-19 at the
grocery store is twice as high in low-income
neighborhoods as in
high-income neighborhoods.
37 per cent
African Americans are 37 per cent more likely to
die from COVID-19 than whites; Asians are 53 per
cent more likely;
Hispanics 16 per cent.
31 per cent
There has been a 31 per cent increase in mental
health emergency room visits for children since
the pandemic began and
an overall 24 per cent increase in emergency room
visits for children.
(Centers for Disease Control)
16 per cent
College applications are down 16 per cent from
first generation students and lower-income
students.
13
In 13 states, the
unemployment benefits provided fall below the
federal poverty line of
$245 a week according to the Government
Accountability Office.
Matters
of Importance in Latin America and the Caribbean
- Ángel
Guerra Cabrera -
The
Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our
America-Peoples' Trade
Agreement (ALBA-TCP) held its XVIII ordinary
Summit virtually this time
on December 14, with the President of Venezuela
Nicolás
Maduro as moderator. The meeting commemorated the
organization's
founding in Havana, exactly 16 years earlier, by
the presidents of
Cuba, Fidel Castro, and Venezuela, Hugo Chávez who
conceived
of it as an anti-neoliberal, supportive,
non-competitive and popular
alternative to the absolute predominance of profit
and the market
promoted by the United States through the Free
Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA). The FTAA was defeated the
following year, in 2005, at
the Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, by
the joint action of
Presidents Chávez, Kirchner, Lula, Tabaré
Vázquez and Duarte Frutos, backed by popular
mobilization.
ALBA has benefited from important achievements
such as
Operation Miracle, which brought eye operations to
improve the sight of
more than 8 million low-income Latin Americans and
Caribbean people;
the eradication of illiteracy in Venezuela,
Bolivia and Nicaragua and
its appreciable decrease in other States of the
Alliance, and the
genetic-social clinical study of the population in
six member
countries. Of particular importance was the
creation in Cuba of the
Latin American School of Medicine and then a
counterpart of it in
Venezuela, which have contributed tens of
thousands of doctors with
humanistic training to remote places on four
continents where they had
never seen a doctor, including black communities
in the United States.
Maduro
said that the foreign ministries have been working
together on a set of
proposals and documents to greet the year 2021
with strength and
dynamism. He put great importance on the relaunch
of Petrocaribe and
its economic area, which could not be done in 2020
due to the
unyielding U.S. economic blockade under Trump that
prevents Venezuela
from exporting oil and the Caribbean states from
importing it. The
timing of the summit was a chiaroscuro, taking
place under the ominous
weight of the international health and economic
crisis caused by
COVID-19, during which the rich countries of the
West have shown
unparalleled selfishness, procuring health
services just for themselves
at a time when solidarity and cooperation are most
necessary. But, at
the same time, when the rebellion of the peoples
of Latin America and
the Caribbean against neo-liberal governments is
on the rise, as can be
clearly seen in Chile, Peru, Colombia, Guatemala
and Haiti.
At
the same time, the Bolivian people have resumed
their liberating path
after their resounding victory in the October 18
elections, which
brought Luis Arce and David Choquehuanca to the
presidency and
vice-presidency of the country. Together with the
return of Evo
Morales, it constitutes an important defeat for
imperialism, the
right-wing forces and the Áñez dictatorship. Less
than
two months later, the Venezuelan people spoke in
their momentous
elections of December 6, which renewed the
National Assembly, granted a
large majority in that body to the Great Patriotic
Pole and dealt a
sharp blow to the destabilization strategy of the
United States and the
international right against the Bolivarian
Revolution. Equally
important was the re-election of Ralph Gonsalves
and Timothy Harris as
Prime Ministers of Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines and Saint Kitts and
Nevis, veteran ALBA member states in the Eastern
Caribbean.
The
summit was mainly dedicated to analyzing the
regional political
situation, coordinating efforts among its member
states to strengthen
the fight against the pandemic, and assessing the
important
reincorporation of Bolivia as a member. The
president of Cuba, Miguel
Díaz-Canel, offered to provide epidemiological
advice to the
sister governments of the organization, share
experiences with them on
tackling COVID-19 and put at their disposal Cuba's
successful protocols
for combatting the virus with biotechnological
medicines. The
governments of Cuba and Venezuela were put in
charge of organizing a
common bank of medications and, mainly, vaccines
against the novel
coronavirus. The summit condemned the redoubling
of the blockades and
economic harassment of Venezuela, Cuba and
Nicaragua by the United
States.
In addition to those already mentioned,
some of the main agreements reached related to the
reactivation of the
Economic Council of ALBA, and of the Sucre as the
exchange currency,
the activation of cryptocurrencies, the
strengthening of Petrocaribe
and the ALBA Bank, which offers assistance and
financing to member
states. The Summit also agreed to elect as the
group's executive
secretary the renowned Bolivian diplomat Sacha
Llorenti, who was his
country's representative to the UN.
-
María Inés Álvarez Garay -
María
Inés Álvarez Garay is a professor and
collaborator of the Cuban Medical Brigade in
Gambia.
Latin American Medicine Day is celebrated in Cuba
and other countries
of the Patria
Grande
in commemoration of the birth of the wise Cuban
epidemiologist Carlos
Juan Finlay.
Finlay was born on December 3, 1833 in
Puerto Príncipe, Camagüey. His main contribution
to
world science was his explanation of the mode of
transmission of yellow
fever: the female of the mosquito species known
today as Aedes
Aegypti.
He earned universal gratitude, not only for this
work, but
also because he discovered and solved the terrible
problem of childhood
tetanus.
His example is an encouragement for those
who, like he did, dedicate their lives to science,
research, fighting
disease, and making health care an everyday right
of humanity.
Also in his honour, the government of Cuba
created the "Carlos
J. Finlay" Microbiology Prize that UNESCO awards
every two years to
researchers whose work on issues related to
microbiology (immunology,
molecular biology, genetics and others) has
contributed in a prominent
way to health. Its objective is to promote
research and advances in
microbiology.
At the event held for the 20th
anniversary of the Speleological Society of Cuba,
at the Academy of
Sciences in Havana, on January 15, 1960, our dear
Fidel expressed:
"The
future of our country must necessarily be a future
of persons of
science, it must be a future of persons of
thought, because it is
precisely what we are cultivating the most; what
we are cultivating the
most are opportunities for intelligence."
Today
Cuba has solid development in biotechnology
research. It has fostered a
strong scientific branch dedicated to the research
and production of
medical-pharmaceutical products obtained through
genetic engineering
and biotechnology, a solid industry of medicines
and equipment for
general medical use, in addition to currently
having four vaccine
projects against COVID-19 in different phases of
clinical trials.
It
is undeniable that there is no blockade or
material limitations that
can prevent the development of intelligence, when
you have the will and
the possibility of exercising thought. When, in
addition, there is a
social system that favors the full development of
the human person;
with a Revolution that has clearly expressed the
political will to
develop science, fostering the environment for it,
creating the
conditions and seeking the necessary resources;
and with a
Commander-in-Chief like ours, who was able to be
ahead of his time and
recognize the value of science for the development
of humanity and the
Homeland.
In the fight against COVID-19, the
current president of Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel
Bermúdez, acknowledged that the results that have
been
achieved in different areas "constitute a reliable
example of the
contribution that Cuban science is making to this
battle."
And
then there are our titans and heroic guerrillas in
white coats, who,
scattered throughout the world, tirelessly fight
against diseases, who,
fully engaging their humanistic consciousness and
solidarity, delve
into science looking for a better future for all,
defending the
everyday right to health.
Cuban medical team in
Gambia to assist in the fight against COVID-19.
The
Cuban Medical Brigade in Gambia is a continuation
of the example of
Carlos Juan Finlay, of the values we inherited
from our eternal
commander Fidel, our internationalist principles
and our unconditional
love to save lives and help those most in need
with altruism and
dignity.
Today we feel with pride that our path
through this African country is well-trodden with
actions and facts
that speak for themselves, hundreds of thousands
of people treated,
lives recovered, successful surgeries, successful
deliveries, dental
care, diagnostic tests performed, that have made
history in a mission
that has already been reaping the love and
gratitude of a people who
know how to value their work and who are eternally
grateful for their
collaboration for more than 24 years.
Congratulations
on Medicine Day!
The control over Mexico's water by wealthy
private
interests is an important issue facing the Mexican
people.
A
study entitled The Water Millionaires (Los
millonarios
del agua), authored by Wilfrido Gómez
Arias and
Andrea Moctezuma and published November 23 by the
Autonomous
Metropolitan University (UAM), gives an overview
of the situation
based on analysis of data from the National Water
Commission
(Conagua) based on the Public Registry of Water
Rights (Repda)
for the use of surface and underground streams.
The
report informs that 3,304 companies, civil society
organizations and individuals use concessions
totalling
13,183,000 cubic hectometres of water per year,
mostly drawn from
over-exploited aquifers. This amounts to 22.3 per
cent of Mexico's
water resources.
There are 6,247 users that each
have a concession to extract
around one million cubic metres, which represents
61.4 percent of
the concessioned waters throughout the country.
Among these are
Petróleos Mexicanos and the Federal Electricity
Commission,
the
report states, as well as breweries, steelmakers,
agro-industries,
mining companies, paper companies, automotive
companies, bottlers, among other sectors
across Mexico, especially
in central Mexico, the southeast, the
northwest and the
Yucatan
Peninsula.
The Mexican operations of ArcelorMittal
(the world's largest
steelmaker) use enough water each year to fill 100
and a half
Azteca stadiums (which have a capacity of 87,523
people). It
mainly extracts water in the Las Truchas common
lands, where it
has its largest open pit mine, and in the steel
complex located
in Lázaro Cárdenas, Michoacán. The
water is
primarily used for
the production of steel, with the magnitude of the
extraction of
this natural resource reflected in the constant
demands from
surrounding communities for the remediation of
lands affected by
mining and its contamination. The gold mining
companies GoldCorp
and Buenavista, both part of Grupo México, are
also major
consumers of water. Contamination of water with
arsenic, often
used in gold mining, a chemical which can cause
cancers of the
skin, bladder, liver, kidneys and lungs, is
also a problem in
numerous communities.
Kimberly-Clark is another of
the "water millionaires." It
manufactures and distributes cleaning, personal
care and hygiene
products. It has been denounced for polluting
rivers and springs
in Veracruz, Querétaro and Michoacán, and has a
concession of
27.3 million cubic metres of water per year.
There
are banking institutions such as BBVA, which has
water
concessions in over-exploited aquifers, with 1.6
million cubic
metres a year in the Atemajac, near Guadalajara,
and Banco
Azteca, with 2.2 million in the Mexico Valley.
"The growing
participation of banks as users of large water
concessions
continues to be a matter of concern" states the
report, noting
the possibility of the "creation of an
international water market
and control over water as a commodity becoming
increasingly
important, in the face of a future imminent
degradation of that
resource."
The researchers explain that there are
no legal limits
regarding the volumes of water that can be
concessioned to
individuals. This is due to the fact that in 1992
the Mexican
Congress approved a National Water Law in order to
give private
investors greater certainty about their water
rights. From 1993
to January 2020, Conagua has granted a total of
514,684 titles
and permits, distributed among 361,600 users.
The
National Water Law allows individuals to have
water that
is concessioned for different uses, which also
helps them save
millions of pesos in taxes by misreporting how the
water has been
used. In addition, one user might have concessions
granted in the
name of relatives, partners or representatives.
Companies like
Coca-Cola and Grupo Lala take advantage of this
loophole,
according to the investigation. "Hence, some
companies have
hoarded large amounts of water" to the detriment
of the quality
of the water and of the common good.
Regulations
are required to close these loopholes to avoid
"speculation" about the supply and demand for
water. This would
also allow Conagua to stop granting concessions on
over-exploited
aquifers and, likewise, guarantee the population
their human
right to water, the report states.
According to the
researchers, of the 653 aquifers that exist
in the country, 115 are over exploited. In 99 of
them, large Latin
American companies have concessions.
A study
published by the statistics portal Statista
highlighted that Mexico is one of the countries
with the highest
risk of running out of water. Based on data from
the 2020
Ecological Threat Register, the country's water
stress is one of
the highest in Latin America, mainly due to the
strong demand
that exists in domestic, industrial and
agricultural
consumption.
November 25, 2020. Women
march in Cusco, Peru on the International Day for
the Elimination of
Violence Against Women.
Peru's ombudsman's office
recently expressed its concerns about the alarming
increase in the
number of women and girls who went missing in the
country this year.
According to its latest report "What happened to
them?" published on
December 12, at least 5,016 women, girls and
adolescents have been
reported missing between January and November
2020.
The
office reported that 1,506 women and 3,510 girls
and teenagers have
disappeared during the past 11 months. In other
words, an average of 15
women a day, or one woman every two hours, become
victims of this
serious crime.
In November alone, 190 women and 390
minors were reported missing. The figures
represent an increase of 20
per cent and 12 per cent in disappearance of women
and minors,
respectively, as compared to the previous month.
The
report noted that Lima, Arequipa, Apurimac,
Callao, Cusco, and Piura
are the departments with the highest number of
missing women.
November 1, 2020.
Memorial to victims of femicide.
Furthermore, the
ombudsman's office warned about the connection
between the
disappearances and the other serious crimes of
violence against women.
The public official highlighted that of the 127
victims of femicide
registered in the last 11 months, 33 victims had
previously been
reported missing.
Likewise, the office pointed out
that so far in 2020, there have been 188 attempted
femicides and 50
violent deaths, which are still under
investigation.
Additionally,
there has been a significant increase in cases of
domestic violence,
rape and child sexual abuse this year.
According to
the Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations,
women's helpline #100
received over 11,000 calls to report sexual
violence from January to
November. Additionally, according to the Ministry
of Health, 994 girls
under 14 years of age were impregnated after being
raped during the
past 11 months.
December 14, 2020.
Tribute organized for women who were sexually
abused by police, who
have not been held responsible.
The rates of
femicide and violence against women across the
region of Latin America
and the Caribbean are at record highs. This year
the incidents of
violence towards women and girls have been
aggravated due to the
compulsory preventative home-quarantine to stop
the spread of COVID-19.
On the International Day for the Elimination of
Violence
Against Women, November 25, as well as on December
10, International
Human Rights Day, thousands of women, feminists,
women's rights and
human rights activists from across the region took
to the streets and
social media networks to urge governments to step
up measures to
address all forms of gender-based violence.
COVID-19 Update
Total
cases of COVID-19 in Canada as of December 19,
2020 -- click to
enlarge. (PHAC)
The COVID-19 pandemic is generally worsening
across
the country. The total case count has now passed
half a million as
records continue to be set in various
provinces for numbers of
new daily cases, amidst a situation where
neo-liberal governments
continue to equivocate on providing the necessary
health and safety
measures in health care facilities and long-term
care homes, or are
outright
attacking the workers and the public health care
system.
Canada's
Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam issued
a statement on
December 19, in which she gave an overview of the
COVID-19 pandemic
across the country. She explained:
"Since the start
of the pandemic, there have been 495,346 cases of
COVID-19, including
14,040 deaths reported in Canada; these cumulative
numbers tell us
about the overall burden of COVID-19 illness to
date. Though many areas
continue to experience high infection rates, it is
important to
remember that the vast majority of Canadians
remain susceptible to COVID-19. This is why it is
important for
everyone to continue with individual precautions
to protect ourselves,
our families and our communities.
"At this time,
there are 75,695 active cases across the country.
The latest
national-level data indicate daily averages of
6,653 new cases (Dec
11-17). COVID-19 is spreading among people of all
ages, with high
infection rates across all age groups. However,
nationally, infection
rates remain highest among those aged 80 years and
older who are
at highest risk for severe outcomes.
"Likewise,
outbreaks continue to occur in high-risk
populations and communities,
including hospitals and long-term care homes,
congregate living
settings, Indigenous communities, and more remote
areas of the country.
The downstream impacts of weeks and months of
elevated disease activity
continues to be seen in still rising numbers of
severe illness and death, significant disruptions
to health services
and ongoing challenges for areas not adequately
equipped to manage
complex medical emergencies.
"Nationally,
hospitalizations and deaths, which tend to lag
behind increased disease
activity by one to several weeks are still
increasing. Provincial and
territorial data indicate that an average of 3,194
people with COVID-19
were being treated in Canadian hospitals each day
during the most
recent seven-day period (Dec 11-17), including 650
of
whom were being treated in intensive care units.
During the same
period, there were an average of 115
COVID-19-related deaths reported
daily. This situation continues to burden local
health care resources,
particularly in areas where infection rates are
highest. These impacts
affect everyone, as the health care workforce and
health system bear a
heavy strain, important elective medical
procedures are delayed or
postponed, adding to pre-existing backlogs.
"This
week, we welcomed more exciting news on the
vaccine front, from the
first Canadians being vaccinated against COVID-19
to the prospect of
early delivery of doses of the Moderna COVID-19
vaccine, pending
regulatory approval assuring quality, safety and
effectiveness.
"Even as we move into this hopeful next chapter
of Canada's
COVID-19 response, our collective efforts to bend
the curve remain
crucial to our success. The latest longer range
forecasting, using a
model from Simon Fraser University, forecasts that
we could have over
8,000 cases daily by the beginning of January
2021. While lower than
last
week, these numbers are still significant and put
us on a trajectory
for a strong resurgence for the next two months.
This underscores that
the partnership between public health and the
public at large is still
vitally important to bringing down the infection
rate. Our continued
efforts are not only helping public health
authorities to quickly
interrupt
chains of transmission, they also assist the
broader health workforce
to plan for and roll out one of the most complex
immunization campaigns
in Canada's history.
"While we continue to prepare
the way for widespread and lasting control of
COVID-19 through safe and
effective vaccines, Canadians are urged to
continue with individual
practices that keep us and our families safer:
stay home/self-isolate
if you have any symptoms, follow local public
health advice and
maintain individual protective
practices of physical distancing, hand, cough and
surface hygiene and
wearing a face mask as appropriate (including when
you cannot
consistently keep two metres apart from people
outside your immediate
household)."
Opioid Crisis Exacerbated by Pandemic
Dr. Tam in remarks on December 18 highlighted how
the opioid
and drug overdose crisis has worsened during the
pandemic:
"National data released this week on opioid and
stimulant-related harms is a tragic reminder of
the broader impacts of
this pandemic, including the worsening of the
ongoing overdose crisis.
From April to June, there were 1,628 opioid
toxicity deaths in Canada,
which is the highest number recorded in a single
quarter since national
surveillance
began in 2016. Now more than ever, we must work
together to curb this
devastating trend, never forgetting that each and
every opioid toxicity
death represents a life cut short and a person
whose loss is grieved by
family, friends and community.
"The overdose
crisis, and substance use more broadly, is a
highly complex health and
social issue. We know, however, that there are
interventions that can
and do save lives. Prior to the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic, we were
seeing early signs that opioid toxicity deaths
were declining in parts
of the country. Sadly, as the latest data show,
we are now seeing a loss in these hard fought
gains, as COVID-19 and
associated public health measures have impacted
the toxic illegal drug
supply as well as the accessibility of substance
use supports.
"We can do more to save lives -- both during the
COVID-19
pandemic and beyond -- and must redouble our
collective efforts to
expand the availability of evidence-based harm
reduction services --
like supervised consumption sites and take home
naloxone programs --
and of treatment options, including safer,
pharmaceutical alternatives
to the
toxic illegal drug supply.
Vaccines
As concerns COVID-19 vaccinations, the Public
Health Agency of
Canada in a statement to CBC News stated that
"Based on current data,
by the end of Q3 2021, Canada projects having a
sufficient number of
doses to be able to offer a vaccination to every
Canadian." This date
is based on the fact that the Canadian government
has signed purchase
agreements with seven different pharmaceutical
companies for up to 418
million doses of the various shots under
development. This is said to
be hedging bets in case some vaccines do not pan
out as well as to give
the possibility of donations to other countries.
These companies are
Pfizer-BioNTech (U.S.-Germany), Moderna (U.S.),
Medicago
(Canada), University of Oxford-AstraZeneca
(UK-Sweden), Johnson
& Johnson (U.S.), Novavax (U.S.) and
Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline
(France-Britain).
Traditionally, anti-viral vaccines are based on
weakened versions of a virus that is used to
stimulate an immune
response to the actual virus and thus convey
immunity to infection from
the live virus. However, the Pfizer vaccine (the
first to be approved
for use in Canada) and the Moderna vaccine instead
carry the
instructions for making a
distinct spike protein on the outside of the
coronavirus in the form of
single-stranded ribonucleic acid (RNA). The spike
protein is then
produced within the human body to generate an
immune response.
The vaccines being tested by AstraZeneca and
Johnson &
Johnson are somewhat similar, except the
coronavirus spike protein is
spliced into another virus called an adenovirus in
the form of
double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). This
method was used to
produce a vaccine for Ebola. Techniques based on
RNA and DNA are said
to have
had a relatively shorter development time, as they
are based on genetic
sequencing of COVID-19 that was provided by China
in January.
The Novavax and Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline vaccines
contain a
coronavirus protein to stimulate an immune
response.
The
Medicago vaccine uses "living plants as
bioreactors to produce
non-infectious versions of viruses (called
Virus-like Particles, or
VLPs)."
Presently,
Canada has acquired 4 million doses of the
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,
which requires recipients to receive two doses 21
days apart for
maximum efficacy. The first doses were
administered on December 14, to
those deemed to be in priority groups. Every
province is responsible
for their own vaccine deployments. Preliminary
guidance from the
National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI)
says that key
populations to prioritize for vaccination are
"those at high risk of
severe illness and death from COVID-19" due to
"advanced age" and
"other high-risk conditions (to be defined as the
evidence base
evolves)." The NACI also advises prioritizing
vaccinations for "those
most likely to transmit COVID-19 to those at high
risk of severe
illness and death from COVID-19 and workers
essential to maintaining
the COVID-19 response," as well as "those
contributing to the
maintenance of other essential services for the
functioning of society"
and also "those whose living or working conditions
put them at elevated
risk of infection and where infection could have
disproportionate
consequences, including Indigenous communities."
With this issue, TML Weekly completes
its publication for 2020. It will resume on
January 30, 2021. We wish
you a safe holiday and encourage everyone to take
the time to consider
and discuss the serious developments taking place
in Canada and around
the world, and how to effectively intervene in the
new year.
Please
continue to send us your reports, photos and
views, and keep up to date
with the CPC(M-L) website and calendars of events
for important
announcements.
We
thank you for your support in 2020 and call on you
to consolidate it in
the new year by sending your reports and views and
also making an
effort to increase the readership of TML Weekly
and
other Party publications as well as by
helping to
fund this important work.
Wishing you all safe holidays and
all the best in the New Year.
Technical and
Editorial Staff of
TML Weekly.
(To
access articles individually click on the black
headline.)
PDF
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|