Commentary by Miguel Figueroa, leader of the Communist Party of Canada

A spate of recent polls confirms what has been publicly acknowledged for a long time - that a clear majority of Canadians oppose a snap federal election this winter. And yet that is what all of the sitting parties in Parliament - including the Martin Liberals - seem intent on provoking.

     The distinct lack of enthusiasm for an election arises not so much because of election "fatigue" or the many problems associated with holding a general campaign in the dead of winter. And most certainly, it is not because the current Martin Liberal government enjoys widespread support among the people. On the contrary, public trust in the federal Liberals is running at an all‑time low, especially in light of the Liberals' crass opportunism and corruption exposed by in the sponsorship scandal.

     That said, most Canadians do think that the current minority government has worked rather well, contrary to the rantings of the Conservative opposition and much of the corporate‑controlled media. It has been precisely the vulnerability of the minority government which has opened up wider possibilities to press for a softening and even reversal of the vicious neoliberal policies which have predominated for well over a decade. In fact, some rather positive social legislation and budgetary decisions have been enacted over the past 18 months, largely because the Martin cabinet has been forced to manoeuvre in order to survive.

     The Liberals have had to grant a number of policy concessions to the NDP to avoid defeat in Parliament - increasing social spending on housing and much‑needed transfers to municipalities, postponing generous tax cuts and giveaways to the corporations, etc. Even though these measures were taken for opportunist and insincere reasons (and therefore remain extremely vulnerable) they nonetheless constituted significant (if temporary) gains for working people. There is wide public appreciation of the fact, given the current balance of political forces in the country, that the current minority government situation is much preferable to a new majority government led by either of the big business parties - Liberal or Conservative.

     And that is precisely why monopoly capital is anxious to rid itself of this vexing situation as soon as possible.

     Of course the strategists in the Prime Minister's Office and at the Tory headquarters are busy doing their own separate calculations and manoeuvring, each hoping to emerge victorious at the polls. But from the point of view of big business, the most important outcome of an early election will be to restore "stability" to Parliament Hill through a new "majority" - either Liberal or Conservative - to better serves its class interests.

     Jack Layton and the NDP caucus deserve credit for what they have managed to extract from the minority government situation up until now. But in the wake of Martin's rejection of any further concessions, the NDP has had no choice but to withdraw its support lest it be accused of continuing to prop up the discredited Liberals.

     This makes an early winter election all but a done deal. The Martin crew is already campaigning on the themes of "good government", a "healthy" economy, etc. ad nauseum, while desperately striving to distance themselves from the stench of scandal and corruption. They are even trying to take credit for the minor progressive reforms they were forced to enact to preserve themselves in power.

     The Harper Conservatives on the other hand are attempting to restrict debate almost entirely to the corruption issue, hoping like hell that Canadians will forget their own record while in government.

     One thing is certain: both will do everything possible to steer clear of the most urgent issues facing the country, and studiously avoid any critical examination their own pro‑corporate and anti‑working class agendas. As the most reactionary, pro-imperialist party of big business, the Conservatives in particular will lie through their teeth to conceal their real program from the people.

     In such circumstances, it is crucial that once again working people exercise their wise judgement by denying either of the two big business parties a working majority in the new parliament. This can best be accomplished by electing a solid bloc of left and progressive MPs, including NDPers, Communists, and others opposed to neoliberal and pro‑war policies, and committed to:

* defending and extending public healthcare, education, pensions and the other social rights and services for all Canadians;

* ending all involvement in, or complicity with, U.S.‑led imperialist wars and aggression in Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq  and elsewhere around the world;

* nationalizing the oil & gas industry, ending monopoly corporate control over this key resource, a vital prerequisite to reducing reliance on fossil fuel consumption and protecting our environment;

* reversing the erosion of democratic rights, the principal victim of the so‑called "war on terrorism"; and

* defending Canadian sovereignty and opposing the drive for complete integration with (i.e., subordination to) with "fortress America" under the banner of harmonization.

     For its part, the Communist Party of Canada will participate in the election, campaigning to inform as many Canadians as possible of the views of our Party and the "people's alternative program" which we advance. We will also support efforts to unite all labour, democratic and progressive forces to prevent the election of a Liberal majority, and an even more dangerous Tory majority, and work to elect the largest possible bloc of progressive candidates and parties.

     To accomplish this goal, we will field a number of candidates in ridings across the country. Despite our limited resources, we are planning an ambitious, comprehensive campaign, with special emphasis on outreach through electronic and internet‑based technologies.

     In the coming days and weeks, the CPC will unveil its full platform and political analysis on the coming election, and present its slate of candidates. We invite all left and progressive activists to consider our policies and platform, support our candidates and overall campaign, and vote Communist!

By Sam Hammond

Faced with pressures to surrender concessions, the Canadian Auto Workers have come out fighting.

     On Nov. 11, the CAW held an Emergency Auto Parts Conference in St. Thomas, Ontario. This conference has to be viewed in the environment of massive UAW concessionary bargaining with General Motors in the United States, where demands for $17 to $20 per hour wage cuts, plus pension and health care cuts, loom over 100,000 workers employed at Delphi Corporation. These concessions are under the corporate tool of court bankruptcy protection which, in the United States, has more authority to cancel or re‑write collective labour agreements than in Canada.

     If Canadian workers hadn't broken years ago with their parent union and formed the CAW, concessionary adjustments to the corporate agenda would be a given. Indeed, this is exactly what caused their departure in the first place. This time around the Canadian workers have their own organization and that organization has come out swinging.

     To quote the preamble to the No‑Concessions Statement & Resolution: "The demand for back‑breaking concessions at Delphi is just the beginning. If Delphi attains those concessions (either through bargaining or court order), it will lead to an incredible wave of attacks on unionized auto parts plants on both sides of the border ‑ and that conflict will inevitably spill over into Big Three Facilities as well."

     There is no doubt that General Motors, which used to own Delphi outright, has orchestrated the situation by dumping their majority shares in the company, demanding cheaper parts, and driving the company finances into the red. This sets the stage for seeking bankruptcy protection, where an anti‑union crusade is orchestrated by pro‑corporate judges who have the authority to legislate massive concessions or even nullify the collective agreement. Once the main blow is struck against organized workers, the ripple effect becomes a tsunami of wage cuts, bankrupt pensions and impoverishment across an industry where the unorganized have no life jackets at all.

     The emergency CAW Conference is a reaction to this phenomenon. How can the tidal wave be stopped at the border? The CAW is determined that American conditions will not be imported to Canada. The CAW has always opposed the NAFTA deal that deprived us of the Auto Pact. They make much of a situation where we are swamped with imports from countries that we cannot export to.

     The union has adopted a seven point Action Plan that is an amalgam of resistance and olive branch. The plan contains such headings as "Resist Concessions at all Costs... Early Warning System... Fighting for Fair Trade... Saving Our Pensions... Expanding Union Production."

     The Action Plan states that financial losses of companies will never justify concessions, but it also dangles a small carrot when it says, "the CAW will seriously undertake to examine the challenges of distressed companies and consider sustainable workplace changes (such as technology, innovation, productivity measures, and work practices) that could contribute to a genuine solution." Fighting and embracing at the same time.

     There is a real danger that when unions go down the road of helping management rationalize production, the resulting efficiency means speed‑up and an increased rate of exploitation. The CAW may feel that it must play this game to mount an aggressive campaign for public support. There is a certain logic to this, but it is a dangerous game. Perhaps they will be adroit enough to pilot their way through these rapids. We sincerely hope so and of course we laud their militancy and "no concessions" stance.

     "Expanding Union Production" means organizing the unorganized - a commendable and necessary part of a fightback program. The best incentive for unorganized workers to unionize would be the sight of a very public fight by the CAW for their jobs. What is sadly lacking here is the absence of the CAW as full members at the OFL Convention, where their militant no‑concessions stand would have dominated discussion. If they intend to fight publicly, they should recruit all labour to their campaign.

     The Emergency No‑Concession Statement and the Seven Point Action Plan set the stage for the No-Concessions Resolution. (All three documents can be viewed in their entirety on the CAW web page.)

     The success of the CAW is important to every working woman and man in Canada, especially in Ontario. There is no excuse for anyone to sit on their hands as this Union goes into action. There is no excuse for the CAW not to open discussions with the Ontario Federation of Labour for a united front supporting their struggle. This is not about executive positions or political differences. This is about the welfare of the working people and a major part of the fight for Canadian sovereignty.

By Liz Rowley

TORONTO ‑ A smaller than usual convention of the Ontario Federation of Labour opened Nov. 21 with an action plan to fight Public‑Private‑Partnerships (P‑3s). The plan excluded demands from several unions and the left‑wing Action Caucus to include a "one‑day, province‑wide, community/workplace Day of Action on a weekday date in 2006".

     The resolutions, submitted by CUPE locals, the St. Catharines District Labour Council, and the Kingston Labour Council, pressed the OFL to put some muscle behind the papers presented to the delegates outlining the threat posed by P3s to universal medicare and the whole public sector. The OFL papers present a fully researched and easily understood expose of the P‑3 Trojan horse of privatization that has already deeply penetrated health care and municipal services in Ontario. But the OFL leadership was moving in another direction: public education and media campaigns, combined with government lobbying, and electoral support for the NDP in the 2006 federal and municipal elections, and the 2007 provincial election.

     While delegates supported the call for public education, there was not much confidence that this plan of action would roll back the tide of P‑3s about to flood Ontario's public sector, especially hospitals. It was reported that there are now 85 P‑3 deals in the province, up from three only 30 months ago. Far from reversing the P‑3s introduced by the Harris Tories, the Ontario Liberals have pushed ahead to include the whole public sector in the deals.

     Under NAFTA rules, it will be impossible for a future government to eliminate the private for‑profits operating in the public sector. "We need to abrogate the trade deals", said the St. Catharines labour council vice president, who also proposed to refer back the Action Plan back to include the call for a province‑wide Day of Action.

     But while several delegates spoke in favour of including the Day of Action, the votes weren't there, and neither was a significant sector of the trade union movement.

     One delegate inadvertently summed it up when he called on delegates to develop "your own personal campaign" against P‑3s. He meant individual involvement at the local level through letters to the Editor, etc. But the message that workers are on their own when it comes to anything harder than lobbying was sent and received. This OFL leadership will not lead workers into the streets in defence of medicare or anything else. 

     Most affiliates sent token representation to the convention, confident that without the CAW there would be little chance of a change in direction at this convention. And they were right. The Executive ran unopposed and was acclaimed, not because they had the confidence of the shop floor or the Locals, but because no alternative was presented. 

     In large part, the CAW leadership is responsible for this by virtue of its refusal to re‑affiliate to the OFL. As a result, the leadership is content to leave things as they are. That's why there was little energy in the convention, and fewer delegates than ever before.

     CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan attacked unnamed unions who support the P‑3 deals, whom most understood to mean the construction unions that will build many of the hospitals handed over to the private sector. Ryan also went after representatives of the labour movement who sat on Pension Plan boards such as OMERS and voted to invest pension plans into P‑3s, because the returns (at up to 19%) were juicy.

     "If we can get these unions on board, we can defeat these agreements", he said, noting April 7th was the date for a Hemispheric Protest against the privatization of health care.

     CUPE Ontario Vice President Brian O'Keefe said labour was asleep in Britain when the Blair government introduced P‑3s, a key part of the neo‑liberal agenda "that we've got to fight or public services will be devastated".

     Tying the cuts to social programs to the current spate of youth deaths from guns in Toronto, one delegate said that youth are at risk today because of the gutted social services delivered by the Harris government. Social and economic polarization has created huge pools of poverty and desperation across the province.

     A resolution proposing to amend the OFL constitution to allow Labour Councils to send youth delegates to OFL conventions in future was passed, but not without a debate. Those opposing claimed the move was token, but had no proposals to make it more meaningful. Young delegates, supported by Labour Council delegates, said the OFL and labour had to start somewhere if they wanted to connect at all.

     One young delegate said the choice was that young people could either learn from labour, or from the corporations; there would be no vacuum. 

     "There's got to be some fruit on the tree", said a Labour Council delegate pointing to the age of many of the delegates, and the aging of the labour movement overall.       

     Another resolution from IAM called on the OFL to develop an industrial strategy and fight to save industrial and manufacturing jobs in the province. Coincidentally, GM announced that 15,000 jobs would be lost in North America, 4,000 in Ontario along with the closure of three plants.

     John Humphrey, USWA delegate from Toronto, told delegates about his own experience with plant closures, and saluted Stelco workers in Hamilton "who refused to roll over in face of global corporate pressure" for concessions.

     "This is the neo‑liberal agenda," he said. "We need governments that build and protect (industrial jobs in Canada)... and we need public tribunals that can impose penalties on corporations that close without just cause."

     OPSEU President Leah Casselman, who followed Humphrey, took issue with his statements. What workers need, she said, is an electoral strategy that can elect the NDP. She cited the example of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and called on delegates to get active locally against Wal‑Mart. "We're a community", she said, in one of the odder speeches at the convention.

     The resolution, which had no demands other than that the OFL should educate the public, passed unanimously.

     Look for more coverage of the OFL convention in the next issue of People's Voice.  

By Kimball Cariou

Just as suddenly as it began, Vancouver's venture into progressive civic government is over. When the votes were counted on Nov. 19, the right-wing Non Partisan Alliance was back in office, taking the mayoralty and five council seats, as well as majorities on School Board and Park Board. The main reason appears to be the lack of a coherent strategy to unite left and centre forces against the NPA.

     The election was a squeaker, with the NPA needing a suspiciously-named candidate for mayor to help win a majority on council. The NPA's Sam Sullivan is the new mayor, thanks to a 3,747 vote margin over Vision's Jim Green - less than the 4,273 votes cast for "James Green." The latter, with a history of shady business dealings, appeared out of nowhere a couple of months ago to get a spot on the ballot just ahead of Jim Green.

     In the council race, the well-financed Vision campaign succeeded in electing four candidates, including incumbents Raymond Louie and Tim Stevenson, both of whom backed outgoing mayor Larry Campbell's split from COPE last winter. The only COPE councillor is now David Cadman, who (along with defeated COPE incumbent Ellen Woodsworth) advocated cooperation with Vision to block the NPA machine.

     The cooperation strategy was backed by the Vancouver and District Labour Council, which issued a joint slate card for the two organizations. But that tactic was undermined by COPE incumbents Fred Bass, Tim Louis and Anne Roberts, who all went down to defeat after refusing to urge voters to also back Vision candidates for council.

     The consequences will be very negative. For example, the NPA plans steep property tax increases on homeowners, to allow for tax cuts to businesses. Progress on social housing and other anti-poverty measures will grind to a halt, although Sullivan says the Woodwards project will proceed. The very limited COPE attempts to rein in the city police budget will go down the tubes, and any hope of Vancouver calling at the regional level for a freeze or rollback of transit fares has evaporated.'

     The bitterness at council level impacted the school board race, where COPE's defeat surprised most observers. The city's mass media almost completely ignored the school board campaign, leaving many voters in the dark about the starkly different policies of the outgoing COPE-Green Party majority and their NPA challengers.

     Late in the campaign, the real NPA platform was revealed to a small group of parents at a closed forum in the wealthy wide side of the city: cutting the number of teachers, increasing class sizes, dropping advocacy for adequate provincial funding, and setting up a corporation to seek private funding. If those policies (leaked by an angry parent) had been given any media coverage, COPE would likely have won another majority, instead of just three out of nine trustees.

     As it turned out, COPE incumbent Jane Bouey finished 10th with 47,876 votes, 286 behind the NPA's Clarence Hansen's 48,162. Next was Angela Kenyon, another COPE trustee, who trailed Hansen by just 1,704 votes. The COPE trustees and Vision's Jim Green had announced mutual support for each other's campaigns, but this was also ignored by the media. COPE trustees Allan Wong and Al Blakey were re-elected, along with new candidate Sharon Gregson, but the Green Party's Andrea Reimer fell about 3,700 votes short. It seems clear that a COPE/Vision agreement at the council level would have helped the COPE/Green trustees retain control of the VSB.

     This outcome probably means a sharp attack by the NPA on the teachers' unions, which campaigned heavily for the COPE trustees. That would shatter the growing unity of most B.C. school boards against education underfunding by the province.

     Bouey, who led a highly successful push to establish groundbreaking policies to support LGBTQ students, also fears that homophobic views expressed by some new NPA trustees indicate that this progress will be stalled or even reversed.

     COPE managed to keep a toehold at Park Board, re-electing Loretta Woodcock and new candidate Spencer Herbert. At this level, the COPE slate was about 3,300 votes short of retaining a majority.

     How did the COPE victory of November 2002 end this way? A more detailed analysis will take time, but the COPE majority at city council, most of whom barely knew each other when elected, never did mesh as a team. In contrast to the COPE trustees, the city councillors were quickly divided over some key issues. Virtually all observers on the left put the blame for the split squarely on Mayor (now Liberal Senator) Campbell and his staff, who preferred to cut deals with the NPA and developers rather than carry out the COPE platform.

     But matters got complicated as that split hardened. Instead of focussing on preventing an NPA return to power, several of the remaining COPE councillors aimed most of their fire at the mayor and his centrist allies. Last July, this group led the rejection of a cooperation agreement negotiated with Vision by the COPE executive. By the time a similar agreement was approved by COPE members two months later, it was too late to mount a strong campaign, and even the Labour Council's efforts were undercut by the anti-unity group.

     The Labour Council itself unfortunately played another anti-unity card, by refusing to endorse Green trustee Andrea Reimer's re-election bid. That left her name off the VDLC poll card, against the wishes of the eight COPE candidates. As a result, an unknown but possibly significant number of voters may have filled in the ninth trustee spot with an NPA name.

     During the campaign, efforts by COPE to focus on key issues were weakened by careless comments, such as Tim Louis' statement to the Vancouver Sun editorial board that the problem of violence against sex trade workers should be tackled by setting up a city-owned non-profit brothel. The merits or otherwise of the proposal notwithstanding, the concept was not even discussed by COPE members during policy sessions earlier this year. His blunder was gleefully seized upon by the pro-NPA media to deep-six coverage of the COPE platform, to the dismay of candidates and campaign workers.

     Not surprisingly, COPE now faces an uncertain future. The city's trade union movement is also now divided between Vision and COPE. In upcoming issues, we will look at some of the debates over what happens next for Canada's oldest progressive civic coalition.

By George Gidora

These are interesting times for the labour movement in British Columbia, to say the least. Organized labour has been in the forefront of the battle to defend living standards and social gains for all working people. Our struggles at this time may well determine whether the neoliberal economic agenda will remain the dominant political force in BC in the years to come. This is the challenge facing delegates when the BC Federation of Labour conference opens on Nov. 28 in Vancouver.

     Even before the Campbell liberal government came to power in 2001, we witnessed the incredible pressure that corporate forces were able to exert on the NDP, which eventually lost their mandate and unable to return to power last spring. Even though the Liberal mandate was significantly curtailed with the election of 33 NDP MLAs, they have stubbornly refused to retreat from their program.

     Over the last five years union after union has tried to grapple with this beast, with varying degrees of success. Until the BCTF took them on in September, the arrogant Liberals had been determined to proceed full speed ahead, cutting social programs, gutting legally bargained agreements and using the full force of the state to enforce their regime.

     What was significant about the teachers strike was their refusal to bow to unjust laws and legislation. They drew a moral "line in the sand" and refused to back down. Make no mistake about it - this was mainly a political dispute after the government passed Bill 12. The BCTF took on the government over a political issue, and ultimately won a victory by forcing them to halt and reverse the trend of steamrollering unions.

     At the behest of their corporate financial backers, the government is providing a clear path for private sector employers to follow. By establishing a legal precedent for attacking the collective bargaining process, the Liberals are clearing the way for private sector union-busting employers such as Telus. The government's agenda has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, considering their massive tax breaks for the rich and their recent attempt to pass a shameful 15% pay raise for MLAs. Quite troubling in this latter development was the initial complicity of the NDP MLAs. There was no danger that this legislation would not pass due to the Liberal majority, so what did the NDP have to lose by making the point that public sector workers deserved raises? Such an approach certainly would have instilled more confidence in the workers.

     This kind of muddled thinking led the BC Fed Executive to pull back from the Oct. 21 day of action called by CUPE in defense of their sisters and brothers in the BCTF. Instead of ending the strike on a high note with rock solid unity and solidarity throughout the labour movement, the comments from President Jim Sinclair on behalf of the BC Fed executive council sowed distrust and bad feelings between the public and private sector, with several notable exceptions such as the ILWU and CAW.

     Are the leaders of the labour movement in BC afraid to enter real political action by standing up to government in the face of unjust and unfair legislation? Do they really think all it will take is to re‑elect the NDP to make everything rosy and cozy? If the answer is "yes," we are in big trouble, sisters and brothers.

     The BCTF showed the forward, unity in solidarity in defense of workers rights, in defense of retaining the legal concessions that the past labour movement fought and died for, free collective bargaining being the main lynch pin in this group.

     The labour movement in BC should follow the example displayed by Jinny Sims and the BCTF. Stand on principle, do not bow to bullying and strive to build the broadest possible unity and solidarity. It has never been an alien concept in Canada that workers can take on governments directly without contracting their responsibility to any political party. The On‑to‑Ottawa Trek and the struggles of the unemployed in the 30's, the fight to stop the raiding against Canadian Seamen's Union, and many others come quickly to mind.

     We cannot be afraid of the consequences as long as we move forward together with a clear head and maximum unity. The Chilean slogan El Pueblo Unido jamas sera vencido (The people united will never be defeated) is a maxim that we should never forget.

     Best wishes to the delegates at this 2005 policy conference of the BC Federation of Labour!

     (George Gidora is the BC Provincial Leader, Communist Party of Canada)

By James J. Brittain

The province of New Brunswick has seen both righteous times in the struggle of the working class, and devastating attacks against the organized unity of workers. The famous Saint John Street Railway Strike in July 1914 presented the tenacity and power of workers to mobilize against capitalist class interests.

     The great struggle of Local No. 663 of the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway Employees depicts this classic fight. In the summer of 1914, workers belonging to the newly formed Local 663 were fearful of their union becoming defunct under capitalist and state pressures. In response to this threat the streetcar workers went on strike on July 22. The strikers not only demonstrated the ability of the working class to coordinate proletarians in solidarity, but also to unite peoples in opposition to dominant class interests. Within 24 hours, several thousand Saint Johners lined the streets of the port city, in solidarity with the workers. The streetcar strikers demonstrated incredible fortitude by standing up to the economic exploitation of the St. John Railway Company owners and the coercive arm of the state trying to maintain order.

     On July 23, thousands of striking railway workers and proletarians flooded the downtown of Saint John to stop scab-operated trolleys from maintaining their routes to continue profits for the owners. In support of the capitalist class, the state had the Royal Canadian Dragoons (armed cavalry) attack with flat-edged swords all those (including children) lined in and alongside the streets.

     The workers did not disband in chaos or fear, but responded in organized resolution. Their unified mobilization resulted in one of the most important acts of working class counter‑violence ever seen on the eastern coastline. As a result, the cavalry (and the militia called in on July 24) could not withstand the railway strikers' power. On July 25, the strike was over, in favour of the workers!

     After citing this win in the history of working class struggle in New Brunswick, we have, as of late, seen a shift in state and capitalist aggression and coercion. Recently, dominant class aggression has been carried out through subjective changes which favour owners as opposed to the workers.

     It is important to note that no one region or province is relieved of capitalism's expansionist structural need for increased profits. But if there was ever a province that expresses the growing social, political, and economic polarization between the working class and the wealthy elite, it is here in New Brunswick.

     New Brunswick's cornerstone city, Saint John, is an excellent and disturbing example of this class polarization. Recently, the port city was cited as one of the most impoverished cities in the country. One out of four people in Saint John live in poverty, and 60% of all single parent families strive to scrape by.

     Yet in the midst of these disturbing realities, the Common Council of the oldest incorporated city in Canada recently allowed one of the wealthiest families (and economic empires) in the country to obtain a tax agreement ‑ arranged behind closed doors ‑ that has and will continue to reduce localized tax revenue for the next quarter‑century, while dramatically increasing the company's surplus income through non‑unionized labour.

     Last spring, the Common Council agreed to a locked 25 year property tax‑cap of $500,000 per annum, instead of the anticipated $5 million a year that would have been received through property tax collection. The state‑induced tax relief for Irving Oil is in part due to the anticipated construction of a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal. (In addition to environmental devastation, construction of the terminal will greatly hamper regional lobster grounds for local fishers.) If one does the math and includes an estimated rate of inflation between 2% and 3%, the total loss of taxable revenue, to be carried by the workers, is over $121,500,000 by 2030.

     The same city Council recently raised energy rates for the working class, while openly stating that it is fiscally unable to cover millions of dollars in pension funds for already retired city employees. Presently, the city faces a $4 million shortfall in pension returns for its retired workers, with a future deficit that could be as high as $80 million. The Common Council has ironically stated that it may once again have to raise taxes for the working class if provincial aid does not "save the day." Such a statement begs the question: where is the province (which supported the LNG tax‑break) supposed to acquire the income? The answer: on the backs of working people!

     The Council has added further heaps of salt to the wound and agreed to support Irving Oil's plan to build a (second) road to the new LNG terminal site. The city has arranged to put up roughly $2 million toward the road's construction, while the company covers the remaining portion of the estimated $10 million bill.

     The most upsetting aspect of this additional agreement is that the Common Council proposes expropriation to procure the lands needed for the road, from those who hold title to property in the area. Communists are not opposed to state expropriation of private ownership for the betterment of the majority. But in this case the state will seize land from working class and working poor New Brunswickers, only to give it to the wealthiest, most powerful and largest landowning family in the region.

     These are but a few of the realities facing New Brunswickers. It is with the Communist Party of Canada that we, as workers, can stand in solidarity with one another in opposition to class exploitation and work for a better future. Organized and committed, we can send the message that a socialist society will bring about a more equitable and just Canada.

     (The Communist Party of Canada is currently working to establish a new Party Club in New Brunswick.)

People's Voice Editorial, Dec. 1-31, 2005

The recent gathering in Venezuela of "Worker-Recovered Factories" (see page 7) is one of the most exciting developments yet in the upsurge of revolutionary movements across Latin America.  This movement's significance lies in its fundamental challenge to the sacred rule that under capitalism, all wealth is created through the collective efforts of working people, while the means of production and the profits are owned privately. The dominant ruling class argues that this is the way it's always been, and must always remain.

     That lie was disproven by the experience of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, including Cuba. Under socialism, the socialized process of producing wealth is matched by the social ownership of the means of production, allowing the working class to decide its own priorities and destiny.

     Unfortunately, the imperialist-driven demise of the Soviet Union gave the bosses a golden opportunity to undermine the consciousness of workers. But as we said at the time, this shift would be temporary. In response to the deepening economic crises affecting their countries, workers from Argentina to the Caribbean are seizing control of workplaces abandoned by capitalists seeking higher profits. In many cases, these occupations have saved jobs and brought benefits to the community. Now, this movement is assuming a broader, more organized form, with the encouragement of the revolutionary government of Venezuela.

     The lesson is clear: the bosses cannot exist without workers, but the working class can certainly produce and distribute wealth without the bosses, leading workers to conclude that socialism is a viable alternative to unending capitalist oppression. The forms of the new socialist society emerging in Latin America will no doubt differ from previous pioneering attempts to build a lasting new society, but the content is the same. We salute the achievements of the worker occupation movement, which points to the future society based on freedom and emancipation, not exploitation!

By Kimball Cariou

A Toronto teenager will soon face trial on charges of murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, and aiding the enemy. The trial will take place in a foreign country, on the opposite side of the world from the scene of the alleged crimes, in a military base where he has endured terrible conditions for several years. During that time, he has been denied the normal legal protections set out by the Geneva Conventions, with virtually no assistance from the government of Canada. The teenager's prosecutors will also be his judges. Many of his fellow prisoners have endured years of torture.

     This sounds utterly scandalous - and it is. The teenager is Omar Khadr, accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was just 15 years old. Now 19, he has been a captive since then in the U.S.-occupied Cuban territory of Guantanamo, where hundreds of prisoners have been on hunger strikes.

     As Amnesty International stated earlier this year, "The detention camp at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay has become a symbol of the US administration's refusal to put human rights and the rule of law at the heart of its response to the atrocities of 11 September 2001. Hundreds of people of around 35 different nationalities remain held in effect in a legal black hole, many without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits. As evidence of torture and widespread cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment mounts, it is more urgent than ever that the US Government bring the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and any other facilities it is operating outside the USA into full compliance with international law and standards. The only alternative is to close them down."

     U.S. prosecutors say that Omar received Al Qaeda training in Afghanistan in 2002, spied on U.S. troops, planted mines and killed U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer with a grenade during a firefight in which Khadr was shot.

     Aged 15 at the time, Omar was a classic "child soldier." He says he was "dropped off" at the Al Qaeda camp by his father shortly before U.S. troops surrounded it and the firefight began.

     As Toronto Star columnist Linda McQuaig recently pointed out (Nov. 13, 2005), when top White House aide Scooter Libby was indicted for perjury, George W. Bush pointed out that "(i)n our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial."

     Scooter will get his fair trial, assisted by legions of the best lawyers the Republican Party can buy. But Omar Khadr will not benefit from due process.

     Given his age at the time of his arrest, Khadr is entitled to legal protections for children set out in a U.N. protocol, but ignored by the United States. The Canadian government has asked Washington to avoid the death penalty - but nothing more. McQuaig reports that Canadian security agents even took advantage of Khadr's captivity by questioning him in Guantanamo.

     Ottawa has not protested Khadr's military trial, in which the prosecutors are also the judges and jurors. These military commissions allow evidence to be withheld from the accused, and information from unlawful coercion (i.e. torture) is admissible. There is no right of appeal or independent judicial review.

     According to Dan McTeague, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, "Khadr is a Canadian citizen who is entitled to due process, the right to his choice of American or Canadian counsel, and consular visits." But it appears that even those minimal rights will not be granted without strong pressure from Ottawa.

     The reason for the Martin government's inaction is obvious. This is a government which places a higher value on cooperation with the U.S. authorities than on the rights of Canadian citizens. In this particular case, the outcry has been stifled in part because of the Khadr family's reported links to Al Qaeda.

     But that is no excuse for the government's refusal to follow up on a 2004 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that Guantanamo detainees can challenge their detentions in U.S. courts. In early November, the Supreme Court announced that it will consider the constitutionality of military commissions such as the one set to conduct the "trial" of Omar Khadr.

     There were alternatives to this tragedy. The federal government could have demanded that Khadr be brought before a court in Afghanistan, where his alleged crimes were committed, or an international tribunal or even a Canadian court, where observers could monitor the proceedings. He could have been released on humanitarian grounds, after spending years in one of the worst prisons on the planet.

     But the U.S. "war on terror" has a different logic, trampling human rights and liberties across the planet. As an occupying force in Afghanistan, Canada is a party to this imperialist project, which aims at securing resources, territory and cheap labour for the transnational corporations.

     Everyone concerned about civil rights and democracy should call upon the Martin government to protect the rights of Omar Khadr. Canadians must also continue to demand an end to all participation in U.S. imperialist wars and occupations. The most dangerous war criminals in today's world are not the prisoners of Guantanamo - they are the politicians and generals responsible for the illegal aggressions against Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and other countries. Let Omar Khadr receive a fair trial, and put George W. Bush and Tony Blair in the dock for their crimes!