WHILE NEW cuts for corporations and the wealthy are being proposed by the Liberals, Tories, the Bloc, and even the Greens, the NDP has countered with a promise not to raise any taxes anywhere or anytime during the next Parliament.

     But these promises are guaranteed to hurt working Canadians. In fact the less you make, the more you're going to get hurt. And if you're unemployed or living on a fixed income, you're going to be seriously hurt.

     The Liberals' $30 billion plan to cut income taxes will generate just $69 a year for someone earning under $20,000, and only $240 for a two-earner family earning a total of $40,000 a year, or $375 for two earners with a total of $60,000 (or $309 for one earner with an income of $60,000). In exchange, Canadians are likely to lose universal Medicare.

     The Tories plan to cut the GST by 2% over five years. In the first year that would generate just $75 for someone earning under $20,000, just $191 for a two earner family earning up to $40,000, and $257 for two earners with total income of $60,000 (or $300 for a single earner with an income of $60,000).

     In contrast, the Tories want to raise the threshold at which businesses pay the corporate tax rate, to $400,000 from $300,000. Instead of paying the 21% corporate tax rate, these businesses will pay only 12%. This would cut tax revenue to Ottawa by $480 million annually.

     The Liberal government has already introduced cuts to the corporate tax rate in five steps, down to the single digits levied in the US. The Tories supported this huge corporate break, while criticizing the Liberals because the cut wasn't deep enough.

     So it's perplexing that the NDP has declared it will not raise or levy new taxes during the next Parliament. Why won't the NDP raise taxes on the corporations? Or levy new corporate taxes?

     Canada's social programs, public and post‑secondary education, public pensions and Medicare depend on corporate tax revenues to keep them afloat. If the corporations sign off on these programs, who will pay?

     It may be that the NDP is trolling for Liberal votes, but this policy is not revenue neutral, and it will have an immediate effect on the fight for Medicare and social programs in the next Parliament - and outside it.

     Whatever happened to the NDP's policy of going after the "corporate welfare bums"? It was a good policy 30 years ago, and it's an even better policy today. Neo‑conservative tax policies should be exposed and junked.

     The Communist Party calls for a radical redistribution of wealth in Canada, out of the pockets of the corporations and into the pockets of working people, the unemployed and the poor. Canada needs progressive tax reform based on ability to pay, which means putting the load on the corporations, and taking it off the backs of the working people.

     The corporate tax rate must be restored to a floor of at least 29%, capital taxes must be restored starting with the capital gains tax (at a rate of 100% of the gain, realized and unrealized). Wealth and inheritance taxes on estates over $750,000 should be immediately introduced, along with more progressivity in the income tax. The income surtax should be put back on the highest incomes, and a windfall profits tax should be legislated on the oil and gas industry (along with a two‑price system for exports and domestic use). Tax loopholes should be closed, and tax deferrals should be collected. New taxes on machinery and equipment should be levied, along with new taxes on resource extraction.

     For working people, the regressive GST and all sales taxes should be immediately revoked, and income tax on all income under $35,000 should be eliminated. Regressive user fees should be eliminated. Property taxes should be levied solely to reflect the cost of services to property, and cities should be given constitutional status, and the new wealth taxing powers. Not 2%, but 50% of all gas and road user taxes should be returned to municipalities.

     Canada is a vast and wealthy country that's being plundered by big corporations and their governments. It's time to put our collective interests first - for strong and well-funded universal social programs and Medicare. For tax policies that reflect the public interest. This is the people's agenda for Canada. 

     This is the Communist Party's agenda. Check it out at www.communist-party.ca.

     (Rowley is the Communist Party candidate in Scarborough-Southwest, and the Party's Ontario leader.)

By Sam Hammond

AN OLD FRIEND of my father, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War, used to say that if you saw a picture of infantry, you couldn't tell if they were attacking or retreating - they looked the same going both ways. But with cavalry you could always tell, because they never retreated with their sabres in the air. His point was that in politics there is a fine art to portraying a retreat as an attack. Remember CLC Georgetti's "We just have to keep winning"?

     The antics of Buzz Hargrove, and the majority support of the 900-member CAW Council, have been the talk of the town lately. The Canadian working class has been subjected to the degrading spectacle of the leader of a perceived militant Canadian union embracing a Liberal leader who has taken the policies of one of the worst cold‑war, union busting family corporations in Canada into the Prime Minister's office.

     Just a few examples of the Martin family's Canada Steamship lines: the McCarthyite destruction of the Canadian Seamen's Union, the importation of U.S. underworld thugs to accomplish same, the re‑registration of all ships in foreign countries and the exploitation of crews from third world countries, the attack on Australian maritime unions, and on and on.

     The current Prime Minister, Hargrove's hugger, has accomplished his family mission within Parliament. Martin's record includes his role in the Liberal NAFTA sellout; compliance with the WTO destruction of the Auto Pact; the repeal of Established Program Funding legislation that obliged provinces to spend federal transfers on the medicare they were intended for; slashing billions in federal contributions to medicare funding; refusal to enforce the Canada Health Act, thereby encouraging privatization; gutting Unemployment Insurance so that only 38% now qualify, and using the billions stolen from the unemployed to finance tax cuts to corporations which lay off thousands of workers; elimination of the Canada Assistance Program; and the elimination of low‑income housing.

     These accomplishments are not peculiar to Martin. They are the consistent values of his family, his party and his class. To endorse Martin is to endorse this legacy. On top of all this, Martin could still be sitting in Ottawa doing business in a secure minority government if he had kept NDP support by protecting medicare and moving some on tax breaks for the working people.

     This election is an attempt by corporate Canada to improve its political position so that Martin can carry out the neoliberal agenda. If Martin wins or survives, the corporations win; if Harper wins so much the better. They win, we lose. A Conservative majority would be even more dangerous because it would accelerate support for US war plans, the use of force to deny Quebec's national rights, privatize public pensions, bust unions, etc.

     For workers, the only logic is to get more progressives elected so the people can protect themselves. The Communist Party calls for the election of a large progressive bloc, including Communists, to stand as an island of protection and pave the way for a progressive majority next time around and real future reform. This is important because you can never achieve what you never fight for, whatever the odds. So what in the hell is Buzz Hargrove doing?

     There is a real danger that Hargrove's endorsation, under the guise of "Strategic Voting," will only be viewed and condemned from within the narrow electoral parameters of Liberal‑NDP competition and a departure of traditional labour support for the NDP.

     That is far from the case. The present has a history much bigger than Hargrove. It is actually part of a process of the developing ideological opportunism of important sections of labour leadership, and the resulting integration and "paralleling" with the capitalist class and the capitalist state. The absence of the Canadian Labour Congress from any meaningful political struggle in this country, the alienation caused by several provincial NDP right-leaning governments, and the aggressive stance of the Ontario Federation of Labour against any independent labour political action, are all part of this process.

     After all, if the working class political movement is reduced to parliamentary politics, what is left but parliamentary maneuvering? This robs working people of their historic trump card, the use of their labour power as a political weapon. This robs working people of the possibility of forging alliances in real struggle that would ultimately be reflected in parliamentary forces created by and dedicated to the needs of the people. What is surprising today is that Buzz Hargrove and the CAW, who were viewed by hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers as the "different union", the union who would fight rather than switch, have vaulted into the leadership of compliance, calling for a strengthened minority Liberal government with NDP support.

     This is strategic voting kicked up a rather large notch. Hargrove's recommendation to the CAW Council, which was adopted albeit with some very disgruntled delegates, ended with, "I recommend that the CAW press both the Liberals and the NDP to negotiate a more workable and stable relationship in the event of another Liberal minority government". This is what the members were presented with. But later on tour with Martin, Hargrove upped the ante even more and asked workers to embrace the Liberals. Okay, Buzz, exactly what does this mean?

     Does this mean that an NDP opposition in Parliament would see itself not as an adversary, using its clout to defend the working people and blackmail protection of social programs, independent foreign policy, etc., but rather as the "stabilizer" of a capitalist government already committed to "deep integration" with US imperialism and the corporate agenda? The danger is evident.

     In past articles we have noted two trends in the CAW. In our friendly but critical reporting on negotiations with the big three auto giants and on the CAW's emergency meeting over the looming crisis in parts manufacturing, we lauded, and still do, the militant "no‑concessions" programs and the fight‑back resolutions adopted. That is a trend of militant response in keeping with CAW tradition, the reason that so many workers prefer the CAW policies.

     The other trend is towards accommodation and so‑called efficiency programs mutually carried out with employers, towards negotiated job loss and programs that ultimately increase exploitation. This trend involves a developing tendency to talk about continental protection for auto manufacturers, instead of fighting for a made in Canada industrial policy to protect Canadian auto jobs and force the US companies to maintain production in Canada. The CAW started in this direction years ago, but more and more lately they have lobbied governments to hand out huge tax breaks and cash gifts to entice the automakers to keep producing in Canada. We have said that the CAW is trying to fight and embrace at the same time.

     Well folks, you observed the pictures of Buzz and Paul Martin. You tell us if that was a fight or an embrace. Apparently brother Hargrove has found a way to portray cavalry retreating with their sabres in the air. Quite an accomplishment, Buzz.

By Liz Rowley

CHILDCARE IS ONCE AGAIN on the agenda, but not the way most Canadians want to see it.

     In 1993, Jean Chretien campaigned to introduce a national child care program as part of the Liberal Red Book of election promises. The pledge was made in response to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Coalition for Better Child Care, and the labour movement, which had mobilized public opinion in favour of making child care the newest addition to Canada's universal social programs. The demand had the support of both women and men, workers and professionals, poor and middle‑income earners, English‑speakers and Quebecois/es, new Canadians and Canadian‑born.

     It was a sure‑fire vote‑getter for the Liberals, who won a huge majority in 1993. Then it failed because Liberal and Tory provincial governments were opposed on fiscal and ideological grounds, and because Paul Martin was busy slaying the debt and deficit dragons created by the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation.

     Twelve long years later, the Liberals desperately need the votes of women and working families. So child care is back on their agenda. But it's not the system of universal quality child care that NAC demanded in 1993. It's not even as good as the $7 a day, non‑profit child care currently being delivered in Quebec.

     Instead the Liberals are promising to put aside $10 billion over 10 years in transfers that the provinces may choose to spend on child care, but not necessarily public, non‑profit child care.

     Unlike 1993, child care spaces are about to expand in a big way with the arrival of US big‑box child care corporations. Never too shy, these corporations want a piece of the public funding pie. Like Ontario hospitals, they aim to be the new public-private-partnerships. They'll be happy to take public funds to deliver private, largely unregulated, for‑profit child care. For‑profit corporations make money by cutting the corners: cheap food, untrained and poorly paid staff, un‑cleaned or barely cleaned facilities. All told, this adds up to the warehousing of children.       Martin counts on the fact that most voters are so hungry for child care they won't look at the devil in these details. They'll find out when their children come home suffering from permanent diaper rash, injuries, and neglect.

     The Tories, on the other hand, promise $100 per pre‑schooler per month to families. Divided by four weeks in the month, that would buy a 2‑4 of beer, but not the popcorn to go with it. While Harper claims he supports child care "choice," in fact the only choice here is for women to stay home and use the money for kiddy lunches. It sure won't pay for Mum's wages. Assuming a 40 hour work week, $25 works out to 63c an hour. Isn't that illegal?

     In fact, faced with staying home or paying the equivalent of a second mortgage for each space in unsubsidized child care, many young adults are opting not to have children until their 30s when they hope they can afford them. Their experience over the past decades tells them not to count on the state for support.

     The NDP, which seeks the balance of power in the next Parliament, has the right idea: investing $2.5 billion to create 275,000 new spaces over 5 years in the regulated, non‑profit child care centres. They also propose a Child Care Act to set national standards for child care.

     Yet, waiting lists across Canada show that upwards of one million spaces are needed now. The NDP's plan will meet the needs of only one in four children in the next five years. What about the other 3?

     Only the Communist Party calls for immediate action to create a national system of universal, accessible, affordable, quality, non‑profit child care. It should be built now, to meet the needs of all those currently on waiting lists, including those who would apply if the lists were not already over a year long. It should be accompanied by a Child Care Act to guarantee standards for high quality child care, and to prevent the influx of US for‑profit corporations.

     The funds for such a system are already there in the huge surpluses accumulated over eight years in Liberal budgets. Using the surplus, reversing corporate tax cuts, restoring capital taxes, and adding wealth and inheritance taxes on estates over $750,000 will ensure that the funds will be there in the future - for quality child care, quality public education, tuition‑free post-secondary education, a higher minimum wage, and public investment in jobs for youth.

     The Communist Party - the small party with big ideas. Take a good look.

By Sam Hammond

WELL, BROTHERS AND SISTERS, get ready for the next chapter of the 23-month bankruptcy protection saga at the Steel Company of Canada (Stelco). This industrial soap opera might be the best entertainment going, if it wasn't for the tragedy involved.

     But tragedy isn't the only element of this farce. There is a lot of relief in Hamilton, where some happy people have neglected to look up at the sword hanging over their heads. Some people know that a robbery has taken place, but they are the sceptical left.

     This has all the makings of a show staged for the Canadian public by the aspiring dramatists of vulture capitalism, globalization and neo‑liberalism. There is one big difference, however. This farce has a future tense that is very dangerous for the working people, and an additional blow to the bruised and defiled sovereignly of our country. I guess this play has many acts yet to follow.

     Here's the public consumption version. There has been a restructuring deal made that includes TriCap Management, Appaloosa Management, Sunrise Partners Ltd, and the Ontario Government.

     TriCap is owned by Brascan, which has transformed itself into Brookfield Investments, operating out of offices in Toronto, London England and New York City.

     Appaloosa is a giant hedge fund operated by financier David Tepper, who made a cool $510 million (US) in 2003 from buying up bankruptcies, screwing workers, creditors and shareholders, and selling off corpses for a bundle. He is also the main player in the hideous Delphi bankruptcy foray that threatens well over 100,000 U.S. workers with wage cuts of about $15 per hour, and of course loss of benefits.

     The third player, Sunrise Partners LP, is another hedge fund bottom feeder operating out of New York. Finally, the Ontario Liberal government is along for the ride and to supply sweet loans at the taxpayers expense.

     Brookfield‑Brascan‑TriCap (choose your own moniker, it will probably change soon) will end up with 34.5% of Stelco, while Sunrise and Appaloosa will share 39.4%. That leaves 26.1% to offer to creditors as shares for their owed money. If the creditors prefer cash, the Sunrise‑Appaloosa boys will have the option of paying them and acquiring the shares, which means they could end up with control of the company.

     The Ontario government and the taxpayers get squat for the $150 million loan, which is destined for the pension plan deficit of $1.3 billion.

     In order to get all these goodies, Brookfield will give Stelco a $375 million loan, the three investors will pay directly $137.5 million, and the Ontario government will throw in a generous loan of $150 million that could be interest free if repaid within several years.

     The Steelworkers feel good because their pension has been addressed (sort of), and they haven't taken any concessions. The big winners are the bondholders who will be paid off (for sure) and the creditors who will get Stelco shares for their claims (maybe).

     The big losers are the shareholders, those vaunted investment legends of capitalist folklore and private enterprise, who will simply and coldly be wiped out. Some are big investors, but some of them are little people, pensioners and their widows who swallowed the company bullshit and put their lives in the shares of their employer.

     Here's the bad news if you are an ordinary citizen or a working class person. Just before this deal was made, Stelco sold off three very lucrative subsidiaries. Their combined profits could have helped pay off the pension deficit and helped finance future wage and benefit settlements with all Stelco's unionized workforce. They were sold to Mittall Steel out of Luxembourg, the world's largest steelmaker.

     It's all over Hamilton that Leo Gerard and one of his executive assistants sit on the Acquisition Board of Mittall, whatever that is. If this isn't true, a lot of steelworkers in Hamilton are wrong, and we apologise in advance for making the connection, but we don't wear earplugs when we're off shift. Also, and more importantly, the second largest steel producer in Canada is now owned and controlled by financial vultures whose capital and investment policy comes from outside our borders.

     These boys are short‑term‑high‑investment adventurers who specialize in the fast grab and the high profit conversion of hedge fund bottom feeding. This company could be back in bankruptcy protection soon, depending on how long it takes to starve it to death and what price corpses are fetching.

     The local business community are ecstatic about this seemingly miraculous economic metamorphosis. The fox is in the henhouse and the hens think the bag over his shoulder is full of cracked corn. The steelworkers have had their union to fight for them all through this fiasco. The union has done a good job, despite differences occasionally over tactics. That is their business. The positive aspect is that the local unions were there, they functioned well, and the workers have held the line. A very positive achievement under these circumstances.

     The largest steelmaker in Canada is Dofasco, also located in Hamilton. In a friendly Board of Directors-supported takeover, Dofasco has just passed into the possession of ThysenKrupp of Dusseldorf, Germany. This is just as alarming as the loss of Stelco to foreign ownership, although the circumstances are different. This also takes us into the competition of global capital and the competition of imperialist states at the feeding trough of the new world order. This needs a dedicated article. Please stay tuned.

PV Ontario Bureau

The Communist Party candidate in Ottawa Centre is Stuart Ryan, a 57‑year old single father of two who works for a local of the Canadian Union of Public Employees at Carleton University. As he says, "I arrived at Carleton in 1979 to get a one‑year degree, and I haven't left yet. I do have the degree, though." Stuart has been active in the labour, Central American solidarity and anti‑war movements during his 26 years in the riding. When he is not busy with his work and his politics, he enjoys taking karate and singing in an activist choir.

        "I have seen great changes at university since the days I went to school," says Stuart. "Students are coming out of university with huge debts, and some are not finding jobs in their chosen field. Ottawa Centre is full of people who end up in temporary jobs, sometimes trapped in dead‑end jobs. Chances of careers in the public service are declining with the move to take jobs out of the National Capital region, and with the restructuring of the civil service to crease a super one‑stop shopping service center for all federal departments.

     "We need the federal government pay the $4 billion that Martin cut out of federal transfers, which would allow the reduction, and final elimination of tuition, so that all Canadians, including the students of the working class, can afford the education needed in the economies of the 21st century."

     He sees Canadian foreign policy as a central issue in this campaign. "Canada is playing both a junior role in helping the US war in Afghanistan, but has been an imperialist country in its own right by helping to overthrow the democratically elected government of President Aristide in Haiti in February, 2004. The RCMP is training the Haitian National Police who attack the militants of the Lavalas Party, under the guise of targeting so‑called criminals in the poor districts. Canada, France and the US and UN mission should leave Haiti, and let the CARICOM nations bring back democracy to that country."

     Being close to Quebec makes the national question an important issue to Ottawa Centre. "We need to let people in Ottawa know that there is an alternative to the chronic crisis that dominates our politics. We need to have a new Constitutional Assembly that recognizes Canada is a country of three nations: English‑speaking Canada, the aboriginal First Nations, and Quebec, each with the right of self‑determination. A country with equal partnerships will make the Canadian working class and the Canadian people work together to build a better country."

     This is Stuart Ryan's third crack at federal elections for the Party. "I look forward to presenting the Party's views on key issues for the riding and for Canada as a whole," he says. "We are looking at more creative ways to present our message that Canadians need a people's alternative to the corporate agenda that has dominated our politics under both the Liberals and the Conservative governments over the last 20 years."

People's Voice Editorial, Jan. 1-15, 2006

Young people have made their voices heard in this election with the demand to lower the voting age to 16. Since they can drive and pay taxes at 16, youth and students are insisting on having input into the world they will inherit.

     Generally speaking, young people appear to be more progressive than their parents, perhaps because they are the first generation since the Dirty Thirties to be told they can expect to make do with less than their parents.

     The "good life" under capitalism is over for the majority of Canada's population. At 6.5%, the lowest unemployment rate in decades has institutionalized low‑paid McJobs as the permanent jobs of the future. The ability of youth to own their own homes, to purchase goods and services, and to reach the living standards achieved by their parents is gone.

     Young people are increasingly cynical about the political choices before them in Parliament and the Legislatures. During the election debate in December, not one of the four party leaders involved proposed that Canada get out of NAFTA, the cause of massive job losses and a great threat to medicare and Canadian sovereignty. Many young Canadians have demonstrated against NAFTA and the FTAA, against participation in US weaponization of Canadian air space, and against our government's shameful involvement in the overthrow of democracy in Haiti.

     Is it any wonder that the Communist Party supports extending the right to vote to youth at 16? Is it any wonder that in the last Student Vote conducted in Ontario, high school students voted 6% in favour of the Communist Party?

     Let's give 16 year olds the vote, and introduce proportional representation at the same time. It could change the future.

PV Vancouver Bureau

Nearing the third anniversary of the US/UK war against Iraq, the world's peace forces are preparing for a major show of strength. About 1,500 people took part in a one day international peace conference in London on Dec. 10, calling for huge protests on the March 18-19 weekend to mark the date of the illegal aggression.

     Convened by Britain's Stop the War Coalition, the meeting drew participants from the United States, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Canada, Poland, Greece, Italy, Spain and many other European countries. Some delegates were barred from entering Britain by the pro-war New Labour government of Tony Blair.

     Among the Iraqi delegates present were Sheikh al Khallisi from the Iraqi Foundation Congress, Hanna Ibrahim from the Women's Will organization, and Hassan Jumaa from the Iraqi Oil Workers' Union. The conference heard from Anas al Tikriti by telephone, who was in Iraq trying to obtain the release of kidnapped peace activists. Prominent US delegates included Cindy Sheehan of Gold Star Families for Peace, Judith le Blanc from United for Peace and Justice, Medea Benjamin from Code Pink and Justice and Phyllis Bennis of Institute for Policy Studies.

     Bennis described the current situation as "dual occupations posing in the name of democracy," referring to the occupation of Iraq and the Palestinian territories. She described the tremendous shift in U.S. public opinion with only 30 percent currently supporting President Bush on Iraq, three‑quarters not believing he told the truth regarding weapons of mass destruction and 60% wanting the U.S. to bring our troops home. Bennis concluded that a "partial withdrawal is not enough ‑ we must demand an end to the occupation, end to torture, and demand peace."

     A panel on military families and Iraq war veterans featured many prominent peace advocates. The British peace mother, Rose Gentle, described the death of her son, Gordon, as "a murder by my government." She says her "sons life is worth more than oil." Another British mother, Ann Lawrence, said her son Mark had a duty to serve his country but "their country and government had a duty to them and it brings us no comfort that Mark died for a lie in an illegal war."

     Kelly Dougherty of the U.S. group Iraq Veterans Against the War served in the Army National Guard for eight years in the Balkans and one year in Iraq. She spent a lot of her time in Iraq protecting Halliburton convoys, including protecting broken down Halliburton vehicles. She described how military convoys are ordered to never stop and how this results in Iraqi civilians being killed by convoys driving over them. Her friends coming back from Iraq are missing limbs, can't sleep, abuse alcohol and drugs, commit suicide because they cannot reconcile what they did in Iraq. She concluded: "Occupation does not make us safer. Our humanity is on the line. Freedom in Iraq cannot really start until the U.S. forces leave."

     The panel concluded with Cindy Sheehan who said "ending the Iraq war is so important, so urgent. There is no more important job than peace and bringing the war criminals at Ten Downing Street and the White House to justice."

     Hassan Juma, President of the Southern Iraqi Oil Workers' Union, described how union workers continue to fight for their rates despite abuse and incarceration; how they see the war is about the United States and Great Britain taking Iraq's oil saying "the U.S. has evil intentions and is willing to kill for its own benefit." Juma described Iraq oil as "a national treasure for Iraqis," and listed as their first objective "all occupation forces leave immediately and unconditionally leaving Iraqi people to decide their own fate, their own future."

     Walter Wolfgang, a small 82‑year old Jewish escapee from the Nazis, was manhandled out of the Labour conference on Sept. 29, 2005 for daring to yell "nonsense" at Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. To the roar of the crowd, Wolfgang proclaimed "many of those who supported the war but now say it was wrong also say `but we can't leave' ‑ now that's nonsense!" He concluded, "We cannot afford the world to revert to barbarism. We must win. We shall win. We can overcome."

     Judith LaBlanc of United for Peace and Justice described these as "times of great danger and great suffering, but also a great moment for this historic movement." She pointed to the AFL‑CIO urging an end to the war after local organizing showed widespread support in the labour movement. She also described the Dakota tribe showing their support for an end to the war by presenting Cindy Sheehan with a quilt made by 500 Dakota families. She said "our movement is only as strong as the international movement. And we cannot accept partial withdrawal. It must be complete withdrawal with no military bases left behind."

     Dr. Azzam Tamini of the Muslim Association of Britain called for peace both in Iraq and in Palestine. Those who occupy both countries, he said, "seek their victims to capitulate their lives and resources. The occupiers would pay billions for peace but money can't buy dignity. Millions are willing to stand up and die for dignity." He described truth as an essential for finding a real peace and asked "Why do Europeans and Americans continue to deny what they did to Palestinians and Iraqis. Millions are refugees because they want Israel to exist in my land."

     The final speaker, British MP George Galloway, said that "everything this great movement said about Iraq turned out to be true. Everything our enemies, not just the politicians but the corporate media, said turned out to be a lie. We've already had our first victory, Tony Blair will not be able to join Bush in any attack on Iran or Syria."

     Meanwhile, delegates at the recent 20th anniversary conference of the Canadian Peace Alliance gave strong support to plans for world-wide peace actions in March.

     A statement from the conference says, "March 18th, 2006, will be a global day of protest against the occupation of Iraq, marking the 3rd anniversary of the invasion. Let us make the March 18th day of action an opportunity to highlight Canadian complicity in the war in Iraq as well as the broad range of issues that the `War on Terror' has created. It will be the key priority of the Canadian Peace Alliance to mobilize fellow Canadians across the country for this day and to create a broader movement by mobilizing within our communities, our places of work and our unions to truly reflect the diversity of Canadian society."

     The Vancouver-based StopWar.ca coalition has already begun mobilizing for a massive rally at 1 pm, Saturday, March 18, at the Art Gallery downtown. For information on actions across Canada, check out the Canadian Peace Alliance website, www.acp-cpa.ca.

     (Prepared with files from a report by Kevin Zeese, director of Democracy Rising.)