(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

Support June 29 protests! A statement from the Communist Party of Canada, June 1, 2007

The June 29 "National Day of Action" by Aboriginal peoples is an important expression of the growing movement for just settlement of land claims and other demands. This struggle has the full support of the Communist Party of Canada, which also condemns the racist campaign of threats and violence against aboriginal peoples who are organizing to win justice and equality. We also warn against government efforts to sidetrack this struggle by proposing a so-called "independent" body to deal with land claims.

     The Canadian state was founded on the theft of aboriginal territories and the brutal oppression of native peoples. Wherever nation-to-nation treaties were signed, the colonizing powers soon violated these agreements to further encroach upon aboriginal lands. While these lands and resources have been exploited to generate vast wealth for the domestic and foreign transnational corporations which dominate the Canadian economy, aboriginal peoples continue to suffer intolerable levels of poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and disease.

     Now, the time has come to pay the bill. The First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples are demanding an end to decades and centuries of refusal to reach honourable and just settlement of these issues. The Six Nations land reclamation at Caledonia, the CN rail blockade at Deseronto, the Grassy Narrows blockade in northwestern Ontario, the rising protests against Olympics-related resort development on unceded aboriginal lands in British Columbia - these are among the warnings that the racist and criminal denial of aboriginal rights will not be accepted.

     Leaders of aboriginal movements and grassroots activists alike are calling for a "summer of discontent", including cross-Canada protest actions on June 29. These mobilizations will be an historic step forward in the movement to build united actions by aboriginal peoples and their allies.

     In response, the federal Conservative government and other right-wing forces are warning of "crackdowns" against actions which may have a significant economic impact. In other words, protests which interrupt the flow of private profits may face attacks by the state through the police and courts.

     Such warnings follow the shocking revelation that a Canadian Armed Forces manual lists aboriginal resistance movements among so-called "terrorist" groups. While this reference has supposedly been removed, the ominous meaning of the manual remains clear: militant aboriginal activists are regarded as targets for military attack, not as members of nations which are resisting the occupation of their lands by the Canadian state and the transnational corporations.

     As well as this "stick," the federal government is also offering a "carrot" - a vague proposal to accelerate long-stalled land claims negotiations by giving the Indian Claims Commission the right to make legal rulings with regard to violations of treaties that have already been settled.

     We note that this plan is advanced by a Conservative government which has shown no genuine interest in resolving land claims. Instead of collaborating with aboriginal peoples and organizations to develop a nation-to-nation land claims process and to address aboriginal poverty, the federal government simply proposes to hand over certain powers to an existing body. Frankly, this appears to be an attempt by the Harper Tories to shrug off their responsibilities and to delay meaningful action to resolve the 800 outstanding land claims disputes across the country.

     The Communist Party condemns the "carrot and stick" tactics of the Harper Tories, and expresses full solidarity with the June 29 National Day of Action. We urge the labour and democratic movements to mobilize support and to help prevent attacks on aboriginal protests.

     We also restate our longstanding demand for relations of equality and justice among the nations in Canada. We call for a new, democratic constitution based on an equal and voluntary partnership of the Aboriginal peoples, Quebec, and English-speaking Canada, recognizing the national rights of Aboriginal peoples and Quebec to self-determination, up to and including secession. We call for swift and just settlement of Aboriginal land claims, including natural resource-sharing agreements, and for emergency action to improve living conditions, employment, health and housing of Aboriginal peoples.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Sam Hammond, Hamilton

Stanley Ryerson, the Marxist scholar and author of The Founding of Canada: Beginnings to 1815, astutely described the diplomacy and statecraft of the Iroquois Confederacy (Six Nations) in the 1700s as equal to any in Europe.

     It flows from this observation that their massive decline in land ownership, expropriation of wealth and general exploitation did not come about because of less social skills, inferior social and political structure, or an uncaring leadership.

     So how did the Six Nations, at one time military, social and political equals to the British, find themselves behind the eight ball, forced into reclamation struggles?

     The answer has to do with the ability of external capitalist, colonial and imperial forces to bring enormous economic and coercive force upon peoples and nations that were successfully hemmed in, and whose market and supply were controlled from Europe where they could not reach. The injustice brought upon our former allies was applied with sometimes clumsy, sometimes brutal and sometimes subtle methodologies. The main instruments of injustice and exploitation should be easily definable to any working class person, especially trade unionists who have been dealing with the same forces, albeit over a shorter historical period.

     Before continuing, it might be useful to jump to the present. Ever since the Six Nations were forced to occupy the "Douglas Creek Estates" (now more appropriately named Kanonhstaton, or protected place), the political tongue troopers and media wordsmiths have focused on what they call "two standards of law," one for "out of control native occupiers/terrorists," and another for the much harassed and abused non-native population.

     Close to the apex amongst the latter are the honest businessmen/developers, thwarted in their traditional capitalist mission to pave over the earth and Walmartize the last remaining parcels left to First Nations. This of course is in southern Ontario. The scenario in other places might be the last forests, mineral rights, fish and wildlife or water. Their rule of thumb is, steal whatever is there.

     The scenario should be familiar to every equity fighter still standing. After hundreds of years of being used and abused, people of colour, women, immigrants, etc. (mostly trade unionists) finally make some small headway in equity hiring and application of law.

     Then the boys on the top, who have been reaping the benefits of discrimination, nepotism, plain old racism, religious intolerance and a thousand other forms of applied bigotry, suddenly conclude that the only fair method in hiring and promotions is ability. They were probably thinking this for two hundred years, and it was only coincidence that the concept crystallized just when equity programs demanded priority status to make the adjustments necessary to right the wrong. Ever since, they have been weeping about discrimination against white anglo males. This takes on a slightly more aggressive stance when applied to the historic fifteen month reclamation of Kanonhstaton.

     Some legal wag wrote a letter to the editor of the Hamilton Spectator, calling the Six Nations the most litigious group in Canadian history. Yes, their very able and intelligent leaders have been trying for 200 years to use the British and Canadian legal systems to protect their nation and their lands. (Remember the above observation by Stanley Ryerson.)

     In response, the British and later Canadian governments have subverted their own system in order to expropriate and plunder without retribution. They illegally used their own appointees (Indian Agents) to sell off or lease native land and held the money in government trust (something like the Employment Insurance fund). Then they robbed the trusts to dig the Welland Canal, build the Law Society of Upper Canada, pay improvement fees to illegal poachers clearing Six Nations land for farming, etc. Raise money by selling or leasing the land, then steal the proceeds to invest in rail, water and power schemes to enrich developing capitalism, all the while squeezing native people into smaller and smaller plots surrounded by farmers and developers with a vested interest in all this skullduggery.

     In 1924 the Canadian government adjusted the Indian Act (itself an illegal violation of treaty rights), to prevent the Six Nations from retaining legal counsel. When you have the power you can legislate anything undesirable out of existence.

     Well, maybe not. There's a fly in the ointment, as we say. The First Nations resisted assimilation. Though badly mauled, they maintained their culture and are now after years of struggle actually increasing their numbers. This in itself is a big accomplishment.

     Today, First Nations are not prepared to stagnate in hundred year court cases. They are not willing to don leather and feathers for the entertainment of their oppressors and visiting royalty. The Oka dispute was an omen of things to come, a watershed. Even though it ended in yet another doublecross, it revealed the underbelly of the Canadian state to the whole world. It embarrassed the government, exposed the police, made the Canadian Army look as dumb as they were, and started the escalating process of pride and solidarity that progressive Canadian people express when they support justice for First Nations.

     Stephen Harper, Ontario's aspiring conservative premier John Tory, and Caledonia's neanderthal mayor Marie Trainer, are all whipping up the redneck backlash, criticising their own police for not punishing native protesters. They are screaming for equal application of law.

     Good idea. But let's have more than law. Let's have justice. Let's honour the treaties. Let's give back everything that was stolen. Let's open up the coffers of the state and allow First Nations people to use those billions to develop safe water, good housing, schools and hospitals.

     Like equity programs, this requires priority status for land claims with target dates for settlement. It requires a cross-Canada moratorium on any further development on First Nations lands without negotiation on the terms of First Nations people.

     Such an understanding becomes a very important part of everyone's struggle for social justice, for sovereignty, for the right to be born and live in dignity with access to the social wealth that makes this possible. Every Canadian citizen who is not a member of the ruling class, who does not have a vested interest in exploitation and robbery, should take a good look in the mirror. Looking back are the First Nations allies with the same needs: access to education, jobs, housing, public ownership of resources and wealth, the dignity to live as proud human beings in peace and friendship. This is the bottom line and the practical reality of solidarity, unity and social justice.

     Please remember this on the June 29th National Day of Action, and support the diverse activities and struggles of our Aboriginal sisters and brothers. Let's make all of Canada and the nations who live here Kanonhstaton, our protected place.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Kimball Cariou

Canadians are often surprised by the periodic renewal of visible indigenous resistance: the Oka summer of 1990, the Gustafsen Lake standoff in 1995, the Six Nations land reclamation at Caledonia. Schooled in the histories of European wars and U.S. presidents, many Canadians are only faintly familiar with the ancient record of aboriginal nations in the Americas, or during the five centuries since the time of Columbus.

     History is written by the victors, as the saying goes. The official story goes something like this: European explorers "discovered" the Americas, using their overwhelming firepower and technology to defeat the feeble resistance of the noble but backward inhabitants. Nasty things happened along the way, but that's in the past, we're all equal now, so there's no reason to make a fuss about who owns what.

     But this myth is shattered by examination of the facts, including the hard evidence of nation-to-nation treaties which were signed and violated by the colonizing powers. Present-day racists thunder against "race-based fishing and hunting rights" or land occupations; but would these same forces shrug and walk away if an invading power destroyed their homes and seized their possessions? Would they accept the argument that legally-binding agreements reached with such powers could be unilaterally nullified? Or would they use such agreements in the courts and to influence public opinion?

     As the corporate media and Conservative politicians ominously warn about a "long hot summer," Canadians would do well to study history from the aboriginal perspective. A good starting point is Stolen Continents, by the renowned author Ronald Wright.

     First published in 1992, this classic examines the myths of the "New World" through Indian eyes, quoting extensively from the voices and writers of several nations which resisted the colonizers: the Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, Cherokee and Iroquois.

     Key elements of the mythology are utterly demolished. Far from quaking in fear, aboriginal peoples largely regarded the white newcomers with a mixture of disdain and curiosity. As for "technological inferiority," Wright and many other researchers present a compelling record of highly-developed nations using science and technology which matched the advances of the Europeans.

     The real cause of the swift collapse was invisible: germs and viruses which spread diseases such as smallpox, for which the indigenous Americans had no natural immunity. Within a couple of centuries, epidemics had wiped out most of the population of this hemisphere, a process speeded by slavery and slaughter. Otherwise, the invaders would have met with far more powerful resistance, resulting in a shifting kaleidoscope of military and political alliances among European powers and aboriginal peoples, and a completely different map of the Americas today.

     Even so, the Europeans were frequently compelled to sign agreements and formal treaties with Indian nations. Wright's chapters on the Cherokees bring to life the story of that nation's relations with the Spanish and the British, and then the "Americans."

     Originally numbering over half a million, the Cherokee Nation's traditional territories included most of present day Kentucky and Tennessee, plus parts of the Virginias, the Carolinas, Georgia and Alabama. Their heartland was a series of large towns in the Great Smoky Mountains.

     While the "Trail of Tears" is remembered by some, the full story leading up to and following that tragedy is little known. In essence, the expanding United States relentlessly squeezed the Cherokees. Tens of thousands of land-hungry invaders poured into their territories, ignoring the 1785 Hopewell Treaty between the two powers. Unlike the "civilizing settlers," the Cherokee Nation had its own government, constitution, printing presses, school system, and much more. But they were ultimately driven out, with one-quarter of their remaining 16,000 dying in the 1838 removal to Indian Territory in the distant western plains.

     But even this genocide (as it would certainly be called today) could not destroy the Cherokee Nation. Despite their depleted numbers and internal divisions, the Cherokees reached a new treaty with the United States in 1846. They rebuilt their government, newspaper, and schools, regaining a measure of their stolen prosperity. Then, in 1890, the United States arbitrarily annexed the western half of Indian Territory into Oklahoma. When the Cherokee resisted a new invasion of settlers, Congress dissolved their national government and abolished indigenous land tenure.

     The tenacious Cherokees still refused to disappear or assimilate. In 1970, they elected a principal chief for the first time since 1898, and later adopted a new constitution. As Chief Wilma Mankiller said in her 1990 State of the Nation address, "We are going to do everything in our power to make sure that the Cherokee Nation continues to exist."

     The Iroquois have also never surrendered their national status. The Iroquois Confederacy (the Six Nations or Haudenosaunee, originally the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca, and later the Tuscarora) held most of present day New York state and parts of Pennsylvania, Vermont, Ontario and Quebec. Their "heartland" was the Finger Lakes region south of Lake Ontario, where the Onondaga served as Firekeepers in the Confederacy's widely-admired system of government.

     The esteem in which the Iroquois were held by thinkers and leaders such as Benjamin Franklin did not spare them from inter-imperialist wars between Britain, France, and later the United States. Strategically located between New France and the British colonies on the eastern seaboard, the powerful Iroquois were eventually divided by these conflicts.

     Those who sided with Britain in this complex struggle were rewarded with land grants: the Haldimand Tract (a twelve-mile wide strip along the Grand River, one hundred miles long from its mouth at Lake Erie), and land at the Bay of Quinte on the eastern end of Lake Ontario. The locations reflected the imperial strategy of the British, who hoped that the Six Nations aligned with the Crown would serve as military buffers against U.S. expansion.

     The Iroquois were forced onto "reservations", a tiny fraction of their original homeland, scattered from Allegany in western New York to Kahnawake, south of Montreal.

     Nevertheless, for two centuries, they have resisted the whittling away of their land base, as witnessed when a municipality tried to expand a golf course on unceded Mohawk territory at Oka in 1990. The original Six Nations government was never shattered, despite the Canadian government's 1924 decision that a "band council" would replace the traditional government at Ohsweken/Grand River. (Only 27 adults out of a population of 4,500 cast ballots to "elect" the new "band council.") For decades, the Six Nations have issued their own passports, conducted international diplomacy, and refused to accept that the Canada-U.S. border is a barrier to their movement.

     From this perspective, we can see that every ruling class attempt to deny the nationhood of the Six Nations is a denial of reality. This denial, multiplied hundreds of times, is the true source of the estimated 800 outstanding land claims and disputes across Canada. Instead of attempting to achieve "finality" by forcing aboriginal peoples to surrender their nationhood, the governments of Canada must be compelled to take a new and honourable direction, one which recognizes that genuine treaty-making can only be a nation-to-nation process between equal partners.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

Reprinted from Warrior Publications, March 2007 (slightly abridged)

The 2010 Winter Olympics, to be held in Vancouver-Whistler from February 12-27, 2010, is today a very real threat to Native peoples, the urban poor (many of whom are also Native), and the environment. While cutting social services, healthcare, education, etc., the BC Liberal government is at the same time providing billions of dollars to construction companies and other Olympic-related industries. The capitalists are making millions, while the poor are literally dying in the urban and reservation ghettos.

     Already, more land has been destroyed for the expansion or construction of highways, ski resorts, and Olympic venues. Billions of "public" money is also being spent on new bridges, port facilities, railways, as well as urban transit. Most of this work is directly linked to 2010, to improve transportation and other infrastructure in preparation for the games. Some of it forms part of a larger strategy aimed at capitalizing on 2010 and related tourism and trade, especially with Asia-Pacific (the International Trade and Investment to 2010 Strategy, as well as the $600 million Gateway project).

     All the expansion in transport infrastructure (highways, ports, railways, bridges, etc.) is meant to assist in greater resource exploitation, including ski resorts, mines, logging, natural gas, oil, etc. Since 2003, the BC government has been working to speed up the application process for these industries, making it easier for corporations to get projects approved. Premier Gordon Campbell has described these as "reforms to open up every sector of our economy" (BC Resort Strategy and Action Plan). The result has been huge increases in mining, gas and oil, as well as ski resorts.
Mountains Under Attack

"The mountains, pure and undisturbed, are essential to the survival of all people. Mountain ecosystems provide us Indian people with all of our physical, cultural and spiritual needs... the mountains are our shelter and protection... The most powerful medicines are collected in the mountains. The source of all water comes from the mountains. The mountains are the most spiritual place for us." - Elder quoted in "Our Elders Tell Us," Our Mountain Worlds and Traditional Knowledge, 2002

     Since 2000, the main Native struggles in the BC interior have been against the construction, or expansion, of mountain ski resorts. At Sun Peaks (Skwelkwek'welt) ski resort near Kamloops, over 70 arrests have been made of mostly Secwepemc youth and elders. They've blocked roads, occupied buildings, established protection camps and sent delegations to Europe, Japan, and across N. America. This is all part of their campaign against a massive $294-million expansion of Sun Peaks, including new hotels and condominiums, more ski hills and golf courses, all of which involve large-scale destruction of mountain habitat.

     At Melvin Creek, just north of Mt. Currie, the St'at'imc have established the Sutikalh camp to stop a planned $530 million ski resort. The camp was first set up in May 2000, and continues to be occupied to this day. It has served as a rallying point for community resistance to the resort, which also forced many chiefs and councilors to publicly oppose it as well.

     In Cheam, 2003, several Pilalt were arrested after blockading a train during protests over logging on Mt. Cheam, the site of a proposed ski resort by Resorts West. Plans include 20 ski lifts on eight different peaks, three resort villages, a golf course, and as many as 500,000 visitors a year.

     Two resorts are planned for Merritt (Nlaka'Pamux territory), along the Coquilhala Highway. At Valemount, Revelstoke and Blue River, new resorts have also been approved, while the Jumbo Glacier Alpine Resort (near Invermere), has been approved for a $450 million expansion (all of these are in Secwepemc territory). Near Kelowna (Okanagan), Big White and Crystal Mountain were both approved for over $100 million in expansion. And there are more.

     This sharp increase in resort development is largely due to government promotion of the industry, which included the establishment of a Ski Resort Task Force in 2004. The task force was largely comprised of members of the resort industry (including Darcy Alexander, Vice-President of Sun Peaks), and their primary goal was to increase ski resort development in the province.

     The group released a Resort Strategy and Action Plan in 2004, which made clear the connection between the industry's rapid growth and 2010: "The Resort Strategy links to the Spirit of 2010 Tourism Strategy and the International Trade and Investment to 2010 Strategy. All these strategies are designed to grow tourism throughout the province, maximize opportunities created by hosting 2010... and attract national and international investment."

     Expansion of the ski resort industry was accomplished largely through Land and Water BC Inc., a government agency that sells and leases "Crown" land. The LWBC streamlined the application process and made other changes to increase certainty for investors, improve transportation infrastructure, etc.

     Despite their portrayal as being eco-friendly, "low-impact" tourism, ski resorts cause large-scale ecological destruction to mountain habitat. If you think about it, building a resort town along with massive ski runs and chairlifts on top of a mountain obviously has a big impact on the environment. There is extensive logging for roads, ski runs, parking lots, town centers, golf courses, and townhouses. Then there's water, sewage, and electrical systems. On top of all this there is the operation of the ski resort itself.

     Besides the influx of millions of tourists into mountain resorts annually, their activities include not only skiing, but also heli-skiing, cat-skiing, and snow-mobiling. Most ski resorts also use fake snow that contaminates the land and nearby water (and many are beginning to use recycled "waste" water to make fake snow). In the summer there may be mountain biking, dirt-biking, festivals, etc. All these people and "sports" activities, in mountain habitats, adds to the ecological impact of resorts on wildlife, land, and water systems.

     Nor are ski resorts just about skiers and snowboarders; they are also major sources of money in real estate deals, the selling and leasing of land. Most mountains are claimed by Canada as Crown land, and it is the provincial government that is both the regulator of the resort industry, as well as its main promoter. The government and resort corporations are also the main beneficiaries, gaining huge profits from real estate deals.

     The government often leases out areas for ski runs, while selling land to be used for the resort town, far below market value. In turn, the resort corporation then re-sells or leases parcels out for condominiums, shops, hotels, etc. For the provincial government, selling land below market value encourages investment by corporations, and is a form of subsidizing them (like tax-breaks and building infrastructure such as roads). In the end, what's it to government? The land is stolen and represents primitive accumulation; that is, capital acquired at little or no cost, so it's all profit anyway!
Stolen Native Land

     BC is unique in Canada in that most of the province is unceded, non-surrendered Indigenous territories. According to British and Canadian laws, sovereign Indigenous territories were to be legally surrendered to the Crown prior to any trade or settlement. This was set out in the 1763 Royal Proclamation. In accordance with this, the British, and later Canada, carried out a series of treaties in its westward expansion across the prairies, and the northwest territory. These included the Numbered Treaties (such as Treaty No. 1, etc.).

     In BC, aside from a small number of treaties on Vancouver Island (the 1850's Douglas Treaties), and Treaty No. 8 in the northeast portion of the province, all of BC remains unceded Indigenous territories. In 1875, when the BC government passed a Lands Act to open land to settlement, the federal government issued the 1875 Duty-of-Disallowance, striking down the Act and citing the absence of treaties legally surrendering Native lands.

     In response, BC threatened to withdraw from Canada. The next year, the federal government passed the 1876 Indian Act, extending government control over all Natives, including those in BC. Natives were dispossessed of their land, which came under the control of the government. At the same time, the Indian Act imposed the band council, reserve and status systems, and authorized the relocation of Native children and youth into Residential Schools. It was also used to ban important ceremonies and traditional forms of governance.

     Despite this, Native peoples in BC remained aware of the illegal dispossession of their land, and continued to protest and lobby the government. In the early 1900s, several Native organizations devoted to land claims were established. Delegations were sent to England to petition the Crown to upheld British and Canadian laws. In 1927, the Indian Act was amended to outlaw land claims organizing, and many of these first Aboriginal political organizations ceased to exist.

     Today, most of BC remains unceded sovereign Native lands, over which neither the Canadian or BC governments have the legal or moral authority to govern. With current attempts to legalize the prior theft of Native land and extinguish Native title and rights (the BC Treaty Process), the ongoing dispossession of Indigenous peoples from their lands continues, and by itself constitutes an act of genocide.

Native Opposition to 2010

2010 Olympic organizers knew they had to gain the support of Native peoples in the region to avoid charges of racism as well as protests. They also saw Native culture as a good way to promote the Olympics and tourism overall.

     Their primary agents to accomplish these goals were the Indian Act band councils, primarily the Squamish and Mt. Currie, but also the Musqueam and Tseil-Watuth. In 2004, these bands formed the Four Host First Nations Society to "take advantage of all opportunities including economic, and establish a clear First Nations presence in the Games while protecting aboriginal rights and title." Chief Gibby Jacobs of the Squamish band is himself a board member of VANOC.

     In 2003, even before Vancouver was selected as the host site for 2010, the Squamish and Mt. Currie bands were given $20 million in money, land, and facilities, including a Native cultural and craft center to be built in Whistler itself. This was a clear move to buy off not only the band council, but also segments of the community with promises of jobs in construction and services. The deal committed the two band councils to participation and support for 2010.

     As part of its promotional work, VANOC has also begun sponsoring many Native events and seminars, including a February 2007 Vancouver hip hop concert organized by the Knowledgeable Aboriginal Youth Association (KAYA, a government-funded youth group).

     John Furlong, VANOC president and CEO, praised this collaboration, stating that the 2010 Games will "raise the bar internationally for building partnerships between Organizing Committees and Indigenous peoples." What he fails to mention is that these partnerships are the result of literally buying people off, to pacify and silence opposition.

     Despite Furlong's claim of "raising the bar", neither the Vancouver Bid Corporation, VANOC, or the International Olympic Committee (IOC), responded to submissions made by the Skwelkwek'welt Protection Center and the Sutikalh camp, in June, 2002, stating their concerns about the impact of the Olympics. In 2003, a Secwepemc delegation travelled to Switzerland to make a formal complaint to the IOC, informing them of ongoing violations of Indigenous and human rights in this country. Although the IOC has an official policy to not hold events in countries where human rights abuses occur, Canada's and BC's violations were ignored.

     Most Native political leaders - those in government-funded organizations - support the Olympics. Overall, they also support the government's plans to increase corporate access to lands and resources (neo-liberalism). This is because they are mostly capitalists who are themselves enriched through partnerships with government and corporations. Their promotion of 2010 is really an extension of their overall promotion of "economic development", which is capitalism.

     Due to their "leadership", as well as multi-million dollar Olympic propaganda, many Native people in general see the Olympics as a huge money-making opportunity (which is, after all, its real purpose). Some plan to mass-produce artwork, or t-shirts, or jewelry, or food, etc. for 2010 tourists. Others are already working in the construction industry.

     Aboriginal tourism is seen as another market that will benefit from 2010. The capitalists would applaud this "Olympic Spirit". But many Natives also see the Olympics for what it really is: big business at the expense of the natural world. Nor is it just the concern of the "four host First Nations", who may gain the most economically. As the Native Youth Movement has correctly pointed out, 2010 is a concern to all Indigenous peoples in BC:

     "Although the 2010 Olympics are planned to take place in only St'at'imc and Squamish Territories the negative effects of these Games will carry out onto other Indigenous territories of the area and the aftermath of this will create an invasion, not seen since the gold rush." (NYM leaflet, 2006)

     While a few benefit from jobs, and even fewer make millions in profits, the real Olympic legacy for future generations will be ecological destruction.

     That this is occurring now, even as the world faces a growing environmental crisis, reveals how short-sighted and greedy people can become through their long-term exposure to capitalist ideology. The land defenders of the Secwepemc and St'at'imc, along with NYM and Squamish elder Harriet Nahanee, have been the most vocal Native opposition to 2010.

Countdown 2010: Anti-Olympic Resistance into 2007

For the urban poor of Vancouver, which includes many Natives, 2010 has already meant hundreds evicted from low-income housing, more homelessness, criminalization, and increased police repression. Aggressive policing in the Downtown Eastside has also involved immigration officers targeting (mostly brown) immigrants. Organizations such as the Anti-Poverty Committee, Downtown Eastside Resident's Association, No One Is Illegal, Downtown Eastside Women's Center, and the PIVOT legal society, have been the most vocal and active in challenging these conditions. Since October 2006, over 20 arrests of members of the Anti-Poverty Committee have occurred during protests or occupations.

     In May 2006, two dozen protesters were arrested at Eagleridge Bluffs in N. Vancouver, for blockading expansion work on the Sea-to-Sky Highway. Many were middle-class residents, environmentalists, students and other concerned citizens. On January 23, 2007, Harriet Nahanee, a 73-year old Squamish elder and one of the first arrested at the blockade, was sentenced to 14 days in jail. Others were given fines of up to $5,000, as well as community service.

     In East Vancouver, community groups have formed to stop the expansion of Highway 1, including the Liveable Region Coalition and Gatewaysucks.org. They oppose a planned $1.4 billion project to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen Hwy. 1 from Langley to Vancouver (part of the Gateway strategy). Member groups of the LRC include the David Suzuki Foundation and the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation (SPEC).

Conclusions

If the 2010 Winter Olympics goes unchallenged, BC and Canada will indeed gain positive international exposure. This, in turn, will create greater international investment and corporate invasion, a process already underway and affecting many areas and communities. If opposition occurs, however, it can contribute to economic uncertainty, deter some investment, and limit the impact of 2010 on some communities and regions.

     While it is unlikely that social opposition will become so strong as to stop the Olympics from occurring, they can be disrupted. Due to the many diverse social issues and communities 2010 negatively impacts, there is potential for a strong anti-Olympics movement to develop. It can also be seen as a catalyst for new social movements and resistance to emerge from.

     Due to the diversity of social sectors and concerns, any anti-Olympic movement must include respect and tolerance for a diversity of tactics as a basic principle.

     Because 2010 is such a good example of corporate power and class conflict, anti-2010 opposition should incorporate anti-capitalist analysis in order to broaden understanding of this socio-economic system.

     The first crucial step is education to mobilize our people into action.

Further information:
Warrior-publications@hotmail.com
nymcommunications@hotmail.com

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

PV East Coast Bureau

As this issue of People's voice went to press, a march and rally on Friday, June 15 were among the events gearing up against a major business conference in Halifax.

     Corporate executives and government officials from the across the East Coast, south-eastern Quebec and the US Northeast, are meeting to discuss the "Atlantica concept." But community, labour and student activists have come out strongly against the Atlantica meetings, saying that its agenda really means writing a corporate constitution that eliminates national sovereignty, rolls back workers' social and economic gains, and rapidly erodes precious labour, civil and democratic rights.

     "Charting the Course" is the second Atlantica conference (the first was held in Saint John, New Brunswick in 2006).

     "A significant development since then is the attempt to co-opt movements and appear as if it is the state facilitating business," Jim Sacouman, a professor at Acadia University, told People's Voice. "The organizers invited spokespersons on the edges of various movements to work together [on this project], basically increasing the presence of US imperialism."

     Behind this year's Atlantica team is a "who's who" of the ruling class - Irving Oil, Nova Scotia Power, the Bank of Montreal, and the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS).

     AIMS has also put forward specific proposals, aggressive right-wing "slash-and-burn" policies that have become a focal point for Atlantica's discussions, including eliminating of mid-level government social programs; increasing the pool of easily exploited labour; radically cutting already low corporate taxes and levies, legislating a frozen regional minimum wage, and easing the decertification of unions.

     The centre-piece of Atlantica is a plan to turn Halifax into a super-port for Asian cargo. Container ships too large to pass through the Panama canal would travel from Asia via the Suez canal to Halifax, and then trucked across the United States using giant truck-trains, as long as a Boeing 747.

     The plan has been criticized as "implausible" by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), given new US-Canada boarder restrictions. Aside from creating a few jobs around Halifax, the wear and tear generated by the truck corridors on the roads would be a serious drain on the public purse.

     Critics also say that Atlantica's emphasis on energy exports is highly problematic. According to the CCPA, over the past decade, oil and gas exports have jumped from 24% to 54% of the Atlantic's total exports to the US. The East Coast's own energy needs, as well as the Canadian people's share of oil profits, are getting ignored.

     A secondary impact is that rising oil and gas exports are killing jobs in the manufacturing industry, by increasing the value of Canadian exports and forcing the dollar up. A report from the Canadian Energy and Paperworkers Union shows that government fiscal policy has allowed the dollar to be driven to becoming a "petro dollar." Today's loonie is at its highest level in thirty years, climbing since January 2002 to from 62.5 cents US to more than 90 cents US today, a 44% increase. As a result, the legacy of NAFTA has been that Canada has lost more than a quarter million manufacturing jobs. Many more jobs and industries are on the verge of disappearing.

     "We've created a poverty class [in Canada] that didn't exist 15 years ago through neo-liberal policies and free trade agreements," Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians said in a recent interview. "Atlantica wants to take this a whole step further."

     "A direct name for this process is US hemispheric imperialism," said Sacouman. "Working families and people on the East Coast face an economy of rapidly increasing impoverishment," Sacouman added, noting that former jobs in farming, fishing, and woodlot producing have rapidly disappeared, except in fisheries for the most highly priced species. "The result is that the real jobs here are call centres."

     The good news, says Sacouman, is that Atlantica is opposed by all of the movements, including the labour movement. "The Maritimes tradition of protest that was shown in St. John last year is a real expression of the grass roots resistance in this particular case. Mass independent labour political action, linked with community action, is the powerful and accessible counterforce that's needed to stop this attack now."

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

People's Voice Editorial, June 16-30, 2007

On June 4, all charges against Omar Khadr, the 20-year-old Canadian imprisoned by the U.S. at the infamous Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, were dismissed. Hours later, charges against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, allegedly a former driver for Osama bin Laden, were dropped on the same grounds.

     A military judge tossed out the charges (laid years after Khadr's capture in Afghanistan at the age of 15), because prosecutors accused him of being an "enemy combatant," rather than an "unlawful" combatant. As enemy combatants, Khadr should have been held under the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war, not locked up under horrifying conditions for years without adequate legal counsel or proper charges.

     In a classic "might makes right" reaction, the U.S. said it would appeal, and Omar Khadr was marched back to solitary detention. Any appeal must be to the Court of Military Commission Review - which does not even exist yet. Khadr could well face many more years in this Kafkaesque nightmare.

     Any country - including the United States - which has been the target of terrorist attacks has the legal right to bring charges against those responsible. But no country - not even the most powerful military force in history - has the right to trample on international law, torture prisoners for "information," launch illegal pre-emptive wars of aggression, and slaughter untold thousands of civilians.

     Omar Khadr was a child caught up in a whirlwind not of his making. Shame on the government of Canada for not demanding his release. But George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and other perpetrators of the "war on terror" stand accused by world opinion of the worst crimes against humanity since the dark days of the Third Reich. It is they who should be in the dock.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

People's Voice Editorial, June 16-30, 2007

Under capitalism, no advance gained by working people is ever completely safe from attack by the bosses. Shorter working hours can be lengthened, wages can be reduced, social programs can be eliminated - and even collective agreements can be annulled by governments.

      For decades, the Communist Party of Canada has called for a Labour Bill of Rights, to constitutionally enshrine the rights of workers to organize, bargain collectively, withdraw their labour, and take collective political action. Such a Bill of Rights would not be an iron-clad guarantee (after all, even socialist constitutions have been destroyed by capitalist counter-revolutions), but it would vastly improve the terrain for workers in the class struggle which defines our society.

     The June 8 Supreme Court decision on the Campbell government's Bill 29 does not go that far. But the Court did rule that the collective bargaining process is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Reversing earlier decisions, the Court now says the Charter's freedom of association guarantees public sector workers the right to unite and present demands, and that employers must negotiate. The government was given a year to remedy its actions, and nothing will change without further struggles. But the bottom line is that the courageous health care workers of British Columbia have won an enormous victory, with implications for private sector workers. For example, any attempt to copy the Trudeau government's wage controls of the 1970s could well be overturned by the courts.

     On this occasion, we salute the health care workers of B.C., who have stood up against the Campbell Liberals for the past six years. For the labour movement, the job now is to make sure that this legal victory is used to help win better wages and working conditions for the entire working class!

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Sam Hammond, Chair of the Central Trade Union Commission, Communist Party of Canada

On May 31, several thousand workers demonstrated in front of Parliament in Ottawa, part of the "Manufacturing Matters Campaign" led by the Canadian Labour Congress. The Ottawa demo was preceded by events in St. Catharines, Hamilton, Windsor and Oshawa.

     The Windsor demo gave a huge impetus to the campaign, drawing about 40,000 in a city that has been devastated by huge losses in auto manufacturing and spin‑off industries.

     The main movers in the CLC campaign include the United Steel Workers, Canadian Auto Workers, and Communication Energy and Paperworkers Union, with support from many smaller unions.

     The trade union movement has been criticized for not moving fast enough on the crisis in manufacturing jobs. Now, it seems to be shaking off some of its lethargy and moving into action. The CAW not surprisingly is the most well organized, and has spent considerable time and dollars organizing its locals in Ontario, especially in the auto sector. Where there is a combination of strong local leadership and threatened crisis the public has responded. Windsor is the outstanding example of this ability to mobilize, and shows the potential is out there for labour to build bridges and lead far beyond its membership.

     NAFTA and the entire neo‑liberal corporate agenda of resource exploitation and de‑industrialization have robbed Canada of 250,000 manufacturing jobs in the last five years - 150 each day and getting worse. Labour web pages are full of economic studies and data on manufacturing job loss, a valuable contribution to public awareness and good tools for campaigning.

     However, the debate on what is to be done is only starting and the possibilities for labour pose vital questions. The present crisis is not a traditional cyclical phenomenon that reaches across society, to be weathered until the next upswing. This crisis is during an upswing in production and profits. In fact, it is caused by the so‑called economic boom. The unprecedented profits and labour productivity, the technological re‑tooling of production equipment and the mindless rape of resources have been channelled into the deep globalized pockets of mega‑wealth corporations. This is the scenario of global poverty, famine, disease, environmental destruction and war. What is becoming more and more obvious is that we need a different kind of society, with entirely different values and goals.

     In the past, some unions have desperately tried to address the problems facing their members in different ways. There has been a mixed bag of concessionary bargaining, demands for massive public financial subsidies for manufacturers, and fear mongering towards the threat of emerging manufacturing in China and India.

     The problem is that other countries will advance, and have a right to do so. Moreover, seeding private enterprise with public funds strengthens private enterprise, the very force that brought us to this crisis.

     The abrogation of NAFTA, a new Auto Pact, tariffs and controls to institute Fair Trade, massive campaigning to re‑build urban superstructure with government investment and Canadian made products - these are all justifiable campaigns which should be fought. But of themselves, they will not raise the questions of what kind of world we need, and how we get there. In the process of fighting these campaigns, we will naturally have to defeat those class and political forces who stand in the way. We will have to forge alliances, coalitions and reforms that will transfer political power into the hands of the non‑corporate strata: the working class and its allies. The majority of the people.

     This is the challenge firstly to the Canadian left and to the trade unions. If we continue on the path of patching up capitalism, the more successful we are, the more we create and strengthen the monster that feeds on us and the more impoverished we will become.

     Today, this campaign of the labour movement is vital to kick‑start consciousness, to give expression to the feeling for change that is stirring amongst Canadian people. Hopefully the campaign will continue to pick up momentum as it sweeps west and east.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

PV Vancouver Bureau

Catching everyone by surprise, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on June 8 that sections of Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act passed by the Campbell Liberal government in 2002, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

     The ruling extends the freedom of association provision of the Charter to include the right to free collective bargaining, by striking down sections of Bill 29 which restricted and gutted the bargaining rights of health care workers.

     The Hospital Employees Union (HEU) called it "a decision that has widespread implications for unions across the country."

     The Court gave the B.C. government one year to bring the legislation into compliance with the Charter. But HEU secretary-business manager Judy Darcy said the crisis created by Bill 29 in health care should not be allowed to continue one day longer.

     "The verdict has been in on Bill 29 for the last five years - it's a bad law that's wreaked havoc in health care," said Darcy. "Hundreds of workers are currently facing termination in long‑term care facilities as a result of this legislation. In the interests of the continuity of care for seniors and fairness to workers we're demanding the government declare an immediate moratorium on these layoffs."

     BC Nurses' Union president Debra McPherson said the decision "restores important collective bargaining rights to health care workers regarding protection against layoffs and contracting out. Governments can no longer unilaterally rip up collective agreements in order to promote a privatization agenda that cuts services to the public and erodes employees' living standards. And for the first time it recognizes that collective bargaining is a right of all Canadians protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

     Up to 8,000 health care workers were fired in the B.C. Liberal government's first term as a result of Bill 29, which facilitated the most extensive privatization of health services in Canada.

     Cleaning, dietary and other hospital support services in the province's largest population centres were contracted out to multinational corporations which in turn slashed wages by half causing high staff turnover and undermining service quality.

     The legislation has also encouraged the chronic flipping of commercial contracts between long‑term care operators and their sub‑contractors as they seek to undermine collective bargaining and keep wages low.

     Health unions led by HEU, BCNU and BC Government and Service Employees Union (BCGEU) launched their charter challenge in 2002.

     In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that sections of Bill 29 dealing with the elimination of contract protections against contracting out and the rights of senior employees to bump more junior employees in the event of a reduction in the workforce interfered with the collective bargaining process.

     Earlier, the B.C. Supreme Court and the Appeal Court of B.C. ruled against the unions, but the Supreme Court heard an appeal in February 2006.

     The June 8 ruling came a week after 450 aides who provide personal care for seniors at three taxpayer‑funded facilities in the Lower Mainland were given termination notices.

     The notices were handed out by Simpe Q Care Inc. after it abandoned its commercial contracts with long‑term care operators in North Vancouver, Vancouver and Coquitlam. Just days earlier, the HEU, which represents the workers, had applied to the Labour Relations Board for mediation to assist in reaching a first collective agreement with the company.

     Earlier in May, 168 front‑line care staff were fired at Nanaimo Seniors Village by another sub‑contractor just weeks after a first collective agreement was signed. It was the third time workers at that facility had been fired in three years.

     HEU assistant secretary‑business manager Zorica Bosancic said that government labour laws giving special treatment to companies in taxpayer‑supported care facilities have created a near‑constant state of chaos in seniors' care, as contracts are flipped to bust union contracts and keep wages low.

     "The Campbell government has handed these for‑profit companies license to make a quick buck off publicly‑supported seniors' care," said Bosancic. "But it's seniors and their caregivers who will pay the highest price. The close personal bonds that are critical to good care will be sacrificed."

     Simpe Q is one of many sub‑contractors which sprung up in the wake of Bill 29 and Bill 94, a 2003 law that further expanded the exemptions of health care workers from key B.C. Labour Code provisions.

     The termination notices issued by Simpe Q will take effect on September 30. The care aides work at North Vancouver's Inglewood Care Centre, Vancouver's Windermere Care Centre and Coquitlam's Dufferin Care Centre.

     (With files from the HEU website, www.heu.org)

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Johan Boyden, Toronto

Single-tier, public Medicare is facing a renewed assault through a Charter challenge in Ontario by the Calgary‑based ultra-right Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), which launched a similar challenge last year in Alberta.

     According to the Ontario Health Coalition, CCF aims to extend the Supreme Court's 2005 Chaoulli decision (which ruled that laws prohibiting private medical insurance violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms) beyond Quebec, opening the door wide for two-tier Medicare, extra‑billing, user charges and out-of-pocket payment for medical care. The Ontario lawsuit, conducted in the name of Lindsay McCreith, challenges the province's Health Insurance Act, the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, and the Healthcare Accessibility Act. It seeks to have the court order the province to allow extra billing by doctors and companies for essential services.

     McCreith allegedly was diagnosed with a possible brain tumour but was told he would have to wait over four months before an MRI could be conducted to confirm the diagnosis. Instead, he went to Buffalo where allegedly an MRI confirmed that the tumour was malignant.

     "The CCF has begun an extremely disingenuous streetcar advertising campaign in Toronto which blames a `healthcare monopoly' - i.e. the public health system ‑ for almost killing a patient, despite evidence that wait times, or rationing based on urgency and supply, are not just products of public systems ... but occur in either public and private systems," the Ontario Health Coalition stated in a background release. "Ignored by the pro-privatizers, is the fact that there is no measurement of waits when there is no health system - when health care is treated as a private market for those who can afford it," the OHC adds.

     The CCF, a registered charity, copies right‑wing legal lobbies in the U.S. such as the Institute for Justice. According to research by the OHC, the CCF was founded in 2002 by Vancouver lawyer John Weston to fund James Robinson's legal challenge to the Nisga'a Agreement, the result of over a century of struggle by the Nisga'a First Nation in northern British Columbia. Even the Vancouver Sun has called this court battle "a stalking horse for ultra‑conservative ideologues with little support or credibility."

     When Weston left the CCF in order to run as a federal Conservative candidate in Vancouver, the organization relocated to Calgary and re‑launched itself in the summer of 2005. The CCF has also supported a successful challenge against a New Brunswick user charge on liquor sales in bars, and last year hailed the scrapping of the Court Challenges Program that funded legal challenges from oppressed communities (including the successful challenge for gay marriage).

     The current executive director of the CCF, John Carpay, hails from the far right. Carpay, who was Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation before leading the CCF, apparently has a picture of Margaret Thatcher on his office wall. In a 2006 Globe and Mail op‑ed piece, he described departing Alberta Premier Ralph Klein as "a liberal elitist" whose "actual policies should make a leftist happy".

     The CCF's board includes: Dr. Will Johnston, founding member of "The Conservative Council" and president of the anti‑abortion group Physicians for Life; Mark Mitchell, vice‑chair of the Fraser Institute's board of trustees; and Ezra Levant, publisher of the right-wing Western Standard. Until recently another CCF board member was Marni Soupcoff of the National Post's editorial board.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

The Communist Party of Canada is calling for mass mobilizations of labour, peace, environmental and other social and progressive forces to protest the Summit of PM Stephen Harper, U.S. President George Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, which will take place beginning on August 21 in Montebello, Quebec.

     "This summit is designed to accelerate the drive towards a `North American Union' and win further support for Washington's aggressive and militarist global agenda," Communist Party leader Miguel Figueroa said in releasing a June 12 statement from the party's Central Executive.

     "The labour and people's movements cannot afford to allow this Summit to pass in silence," Figueroa added. "It must be met by the most massive, united expression of popular opposition to the policies of these leaders, their governments, and the corporate interests they represent."

     The August Summit is a follow‑up to the March 2005 Summit in Waco, Texas when the three government leaders signed the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" agreement (SPP). That agreement charted a path towards full integration and "harmonization" of economic, policies, military, social and resource policies, placing both Canada and Mexico even more firmly under U.S. domination and control.

     "The SPP agenda - promoted by the Bush Administration and backed completely by the Harper Conservatives - is a monumental sell‑out of Canada's interests, eroding the last vestiges of Canadian sovereignty over our resources, and our country's economic, social, environmental and foreign policies."

     "PM Harper has no mandate to betray the interests of the peoples of Canada; this deal must be stopped dead in its tracks."

     "Our Party is encouraged by the number of organizations which have already joined in calling for public protests against the Summit. While preparations are still at an early stage, we urge all labour and social forces to unite their efforts to bring together women, Aboriginal peoples, workers, environmentalists and other concerned Canadians and Quebecers to speak in one united voice - No to the SPP! No to aggression and war!"

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Darrell Rankin, People's Voice, June 16-30, 2007

Two votes in the House of Commons at the end of April concerned Canada’s occupation of Afghanistan. The votes show that the Liberal party took an important step towards ending the occupation by setting a February 2009 deadline to end Canada’s combat role.

Of course, the minority Conservative government and its U.S. and NATO allies were most pleased by the defeat of the Liberal motion. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor and General Rick Hillier have stepped up their campaign to dismiss the idea of any deadline. They want Canada to stay “until the job is done.”

It would have been many times harder to launch this crude and deceitful pro-war campaign had the opposition parties all supported a deadline. What caused this tragic failure?

The votes show that NDP MPs cannot rise above narrow political opportunism in their effort to replace the Liberals as the main contender to defeat the Conservatives, a kind of single-note rivalry that elevates the Liberals to be the exclusive enemy. Such sectarian pettiness is giving the Harper Conservatives a free ride.

Despite this defeat, the tide of public opinion continues to turn against the war. The votes are not fatal to the main aim of defeating the pro-war Conservatives and pulling Canada out of Afghanistan, but they are making the struggle longer and more costly.

The danger is that the parliamentary opposition parties could hand the Harper Conservatives their most important political victory yet, a majority government, if they fail to act or commit more blunders on a pivotal issue such as Afghanistan.

Last year, Parliament narrowly passed a Conservative motion to extend Canada’s “mission” until February 2009, with the help of a divided Liberal caucus. This year, the Liberals, now led by Stéphane Dion took the initiative. The Liberal motion was to make February 2009 the deadline to end Canada’s combat operations in Southern Afghanistan. Not since 2001 when the Chrétien government first sent troops to Afghanistan have the Liberals had such a change of heart on the issue.

However, the NDP voted with the Conservatives to defeat the Liberal motion. Why? The reason given was that the Liberals failed to support an NDP amendment “to begin now to withdraw.” Then the NDP moved its own motion “to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces... from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.” The other parties voted overwhelmingly to defeat the NDP motion.

It is a crime of opportunism that the NDP voted with the Conservatives to defeat the Liberal motion. The obvious fact is that the Liberals changed and want to end the fighting in Afghanistan. The Liberals were already starting to change last year, when most voted against an extension to 2009.

Opportunism's heavy cost
Would it not have been better for the NDP to welcome division among the normally pro-war, big business parties? And while voting to set a deadline, remark that an immediate withdrawal would be better?

Yes, it would have. Canadian hostilities in Afghanistan would have ended early in 2009. It would have dealt a punishing blow against the pro-war Conservatives. A widely publicized deadline victory would have committed the Liberals to the policy. It would have isolated the Conservatives, painting them as the most pro-war party - one that can be beaten.

Instead, Harper is still controlling the agenda and we can expect thousands more Afghan casualties as the war continues.

The NDP opposed the Liberal motion because the Liberals were not good enough compared to the NDP. But what Canadians witnessed is that NDP MPs voted with the Conservatives not to end the occupation in 2009.

At issue is determining a principled position against the Afghan war and the minority government’s imperialist policies. Anything that moves Canada away from war and frustrates and divides the pro-war class and political forces must be pursued, including compromises and temporary alliances that weaken the pro-war forces. But rather than support the Liberal motion, the NDP put its short-term interests ahead of the long-term interests of the working class and all peace-supporting Canadians.

The NDP’s claim of a more principled position than the Liberals on Afghanistan is covering a deeper motivation in the NDP parliamentary caucus to grandstand and attack the Liberals. That objective – for the NDP – was more important than advancing the cause of peace. This led the NDP to collude with the strongest pro-war party, handing the Harper Conservatives a significant, but not fatal, victory.

The NDP fails to realize there is a difference between last year’s 30 month Conservative extension and April’s Liberal deadline of 18 months. This is like failing to see that there is a key difference in the United States between the Democrats who want a deadline for U.S. troops to leave Iraq, and most Republicans who want no deadline. I’ll bet most Iraqi people see a difference.

The Canadian Peace Alliance and the NDP
No other issue was more important to the U.S. peace movement than forcing the Democratic party to set an Iraq departure deadline. One would think that the Canadian Peace Alliance, Canada’s largest coalition of peace-supporting groups, would welcome the Liberal motion. Instead, the CPA accused the Liberals of supporting or “rubber-stamping” last year’s Conservative extension (Liberals Rubber-Stamp the Afghan Troop Extension. Commons Debate Shows Dion’s True Colours, news release of April 19).

Respectfully, the CPA’s position is a failure of political understanding. The CPA should see that the Liberals want to stop the Afghan fighting and that a deadline is not an extension. Focusing on Liberal motives and sincerity lets the Harper Conservatives get away with war.

It is easy to have a “pure” position of “troops out now.” That is the CPA and the Communist Party’s position. However, this should not stand in the way of welcoming positive developments in a usually pro-war party. It may be difficult to accept that the Liberal position on Afghanistan has improved, but that is reality.

A successful democratic and truly broad movement must learn to take advantage of divisions among the ruling class (big business) political parties. It must learn to work with the millions of people who are only beginning to break free of reactionary, imperialist thinking. The CPA should be finding ways to embrace millions of deadline-supporting Liberals, while at the same time demanding that the Parliamentary parties withdraw troops at the earliest date that can be arranged.

Surely, there can be some compromise between the Liberal deadline of February 2009 and the NDP’s call for withdrawal to begin now. A reasonable and mature political party could not refuse such a demand.

The NDP motion
Now let’s look at the failed NDP motion “to immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.”

NDP leader Jack Layton told Parliament that the motion called “for the immediate, safe and secure withdrawal of our troops from the counter-insurgency mission...” That is misleading. The motion did not call for immediate withdrawal, but to “begin withdrawing” troops. A Communist in Parliament would gladly vote for this motion, while offering some help to strengthen the motion to match Jack Layton’s presentation.

Let’s say that the NDP was in power and passed a law to “begin” withdrawing troops from Afghanistan when it is safe to do so. Most Canadians would understand “begin” is different from “immediate.”

Essentially, the NDP law would cause no trouble for the U.S. or NATO. Imperialism’s sordid history is full of examples where people are reassured that an occupation is “beginning” to end. For example, U.S. imperialism for several years “began” to withdraw troops from Vietnam - after starting to prepare a massive, puppet army. The U.S. and NATO have the same strategy in Afghanistan today.

The far right forces grouped around President Bush argue that U.S. citizens would be unsafe from terrorism if U.S. troops left Iraq. Regrettably, the NDP motion raises the same fear, that immediate withdrawal would create safety or security issues.

Most people have the view that the NDP is the most staunchly anti-war party in Parliament. Yet the NDP voted with the Conservatives, and now Canada has no deadline to leave Afghanistan. Consider how, despite significant membership disapproval, social democratic governments around the world (including the Manitoba NDP) supported various NATO aggressions.

Parliamentary motions have the force of law and must say what is actually intended. By this measure, the NDP Parliamentary caucus has clearly failed to uphold the spirit and intention of last September’s NDP Convention resolution for Canada to leave Afghanistan immediately. Given a choice between the Liberal deadline and the wording of the NDP motion, most anti-war groups would support the Liberal motion.

The NDP’s motion is now a part of that party’s mixed record of opposing imperialist threats and aggressions. For many years in the 1990s the NDP promoted increased military spending; it initially supported the genocidal sanctions against Iraq. At times the record has been positive, such as during the Vietnam war, during the 1980s U.S.-led nuclear arms build-up, or in the final stages of NATO’s 1999 aggression against Yugoslavia.

When the NDP’s largely working class and progressive base - and the broader left forces - are more militant and strong, it has a better anti-imperialist orientation. But the NDP’s opportunism and policies of class collaboration constantly take it in the other direction.

The NDP’s actions in Parliament over Afghanistan point to the need for a still stronger push by the labour, peace and other people’s movements to get Canada out of Afghanistan.

Set the date!
The occupation is a pivotal, burning issue. What Parliament and the peace movement say now on Afghanistan will greatly influence whether the Harper Conservatives’ dangerous attack on sovereignty, democracy and peace can be defeated in the imminent federal election.

Indeed, the motions in Parliament would not have happened without mass pressure on all parties. The Canadian Peace Alliance facilitated two cross-Canada days of action to end the occupation on October 25 and March 17. More than 10,000 Canadians connected to the “Ceasefire” website called on Parliamentarians to support a diplomatic solution to the war.

Parliamentary opposition parties need to agree on a compromise date to end the Afghan carnage. It would be a betrayal of Canada’s “peace majority” and a shameful abdication of political responsibility if they do not agree on a common motion before the next election.

Peace-supporting groups need to redouble their efforts to demand that Parliament stop Canada’s fighting in Afghanistan at the earliest possible date. It is time to end the war and bring the troops home - so let’s set the date!

Darrell Rankin is Chair of the Communist Party's Peace and Disarmament Commission. He is a former Co Chair and Treasurer of the Canadian Peace Alliance.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the June 16-30, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Jason Mann

     People are being gouged at the pump. Big time. That's the finding of Hugh Mackenzie of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

     Surging prices of gasoline amount to nothing more than monopoly price fixing. The recent price gouge is about 27 cents/litre in Vancouver, 15 cents/litre in Toronto and 14 cents/litre in Montreal.

     The findings were widely reported in the media, but it's only part of the story. The CCPA figures represent price rigging since 2005, but big oil companies have been fixing prices well before then.

     Crude oil that ends up in our tanks today doesn't cost one cent more to produce than it did in 2001, when the price at the pump was less than 60 cents a litre.

     Before then they were gouging; since Katrina, it's more like "super gouging." In three months after Katrina, Exxon made more profit than 492 of the S&P 500 made the whole year. It's the perverse logic of capitalism: a natural disaster which disrupted distribution and production made big bucks for big oil. It was the best thing that could have happened to them.

     Now, oil monopolies are on the defensive. They say they have nothing to do with the price increase.

     In a press release, Petro‑Canada argues "retail prices have increased because the commodity prices that retailers pay for refined gasoline have increased significantly."

     OK, the price retailers pay has increased. But who do Shell, Esso, Husky, or Petro‑Canada buy their refined gasoline from? They buy it from their own refineries! They charge themselves more, inflate prices (and profits!), and then try to claim that they are victims of rising prices just like you and me.

     Then Petro‑Canada claimed, "retail gasoline margins on a per litre basis have decreased over the past few years."

     This is a "sales dollar" argument, a trick designed to hide profits.

     A banker or oil executive doesn't measure profit in "retail gasoline margins on a per litre basis". They care about return on investment: how much profit can they squeeze out of every dollar of capital they put in. And for oil and gas, it's quite high.

     The "sales dollar" argument is a favourite of monopolies which engage in cartel pricing. The oil companies don't just own the retail stores; they own the transport networks, pipelines, oil fields and refineries, making a profit at each of these stages. They charge themselves inflated prices, and try to pass it off as high production costs, rather than high profits.

     It's amazing how many billions they spend trying to convince us how poor they are.

     I am all for prices which reflect the true social and environmental costs of oil, but this is just plain monopoly price fixing. The environmental crisis won't be solved by increasing the super profits of the oil cartels that created this problem in the first place.

---

---

---