|
Ottawa is a culprit in Copenhagen climate fiasco
by Barry Weisleder
For
the Canadian government, the 12-day Copenhagen climate-change summit in
December 2009 was a public relations disaster—deservedly so, as the
Stephen Harper Tories slavishly followed Washington’s lead, even trying to
scupper the weak legacy of the Kyoto Accord.
Environmentalist
activists at Copenhagen ‘awarded’ the daily Fossil of the Day to
Canada, on its own, or as one of a group of countries, 10 times—more
than any other state present.
Toronto
Mayor David Miller, followed by Ontario and Quebec’s representatives,
condemned the Harper regime. A leaked cabinet document suggested the
emissions from Alberta’s oil sands would rise 165
per cent in the coming years. And an elaborate stunt by social media
pranksters exposed Ottawa’s perfidious position to
the world media.
Still,
Prime Minister Harper maintained that his government’s insistence on
‘realistic targets’ was vindicated by the bargaining process at Copenhagen. The result, of course, was
no enforceable agreement on emission reductions, and only offers of
inadequate aid to less developed countries, to be meted out via
imperialist financial institutions. It’s a case of finding
‘vindication’ in an elite-crafted failure. Canada is the only country to
ignore its international obligations under the previous Kyoto climate treaty. At Copenhagen it blocked all attempts to
reach a new treaty to significantly cut carbon emissions.
“Canada is the dinosaur at these
talks,” said Canadian David Cadman, president of ICLEI, Local
Governments for Sustainability, an international association of local
governments that hosted a Mayor’s Conference on climate change. “They
are all about protecting Canada’s fossil fuel sector
instead of protecting the interests of the Canadian public,” Cadman
told TerraViva.
Canada is “throwing a spanner into
the works wherever it can”, agreed Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki
Foundation, a Canadian environmental group. “They are even blocking
agreement on the use of 1990 as the base year,” Marshall said in an interview. It’s
not hard to understand why. Not only are Canada’s emissions 34 percent
higher than the 1990 baseline and rapidly growing, its massive Alberta
tar sands production is believed to be the world’s biggest single
industrial source of carbon emissions.
The
emissions cut offered by Stephen Harper’s government is just three
percent under 1990 levels by 2020—less than the Kyoto obligation of
cutting six percent by 2010. Scientists have repeatedly warned that to
have any chance of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius
(which is likely insufficient to avoid eco-catastrophe), industrialized
countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent by 2020 compared to the
baseline of 1990.
Canada also lobbied hard alongside
the U.S. to abandon the Kyoto
Protocol process entirely, to the outrage of developing countries. Ottawa expects them to make
significant emissions reduction commitments despite Canada’s unwillingness to live up
to its legal obligations from 1997. The poorer countries, represented
in a bloc known as the G77, want the Kyoto deal extended past its 2012
deadline. China, India, Brazil, and South Africa called on rich countries to
take on targets under an extended Kyoto plan that would cut
emissions by 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020.
New
Democratic Party leader Jack Layton said “despite the support of
Canadians for a real plan to cut emissions, Harper has sided with the
big polluters”. He’s right. Unfortunately, Layton’s solution is a
‘carbon trading’ scheme, which the British environmentalist author of
“Heat”, George Monbiot, says is like the
medieval Catholic Church selling indulgences. It might make some people
feel better about their sins, but it won’t reduce carbon emissions.
Representatives
of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia hit the mark squarely when
they argued at Copenhagen that the real obstacle to
the cutting of emissions is the global capitalist system, which profits
from the destruction of nature. Consider the scope and trajectory of
the problem. How can a system that has consumed more resources and
energy in the last 50 years than all previous civilization be made to
stabilize and reduce its rate of resource depletion and pollution
emission? How can such a wasteful, poisonous and unequal economic
system be compelled to introduce technologies, consumption patterns and
radical income redistribution, without which sustainability is only a
cruel joke?
The
reason there is no capitalist solution to climate change is simple.
Capitalism is made up of thousands of corporations, all competing for
investment and profits. There is no “social interest” in
capitalism—only separate interests. If a company decides to invest in
cutting emissions, its profits will go down. Investors will move
capital into more profitable investments. The ‘green’ company goes out
of business. “Grow or die” is the motto of the private enterprise
economy. Capitalist anarchy, its social irrationality, is not
accidental
It is not the product of a ‘market
failure’. It is the very nature of the beast.
The
solution lies in the direction of less, not more reliance on the
market. Society needs more social control, more economic democracy. Only
public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy makes that
possible.
The
place to start is the energy industry: Nationalize Big Oil. Then make
the corporations that produce greenhouse gases pay the full cost of
cutting emissions, end all subsidies to fossil fuel producers, and
re-direct the billions of dollars now being spent on wars and debt into
public transit, into retrofitting homes and offices, and into renewable
energy projects.
Changing
from fossil fuels to other energy sources will require massive
spending, which in the short run will be unprofitable. Carbon-emission
reductions must be global. Air and water do not respect borders. Change
must be all encompassing. In every economic sector, capital will
resist. Only the expropriation of capital, followed by the institution
of democratic economic planning by workers and communities, can
overcome the anarchy of production under capitalism.
Revolutionary
Cuba has shown that it is possible, even in a poor country suffering
under a 50-year embargo by the world’s dominant power, and even after
the loss of its major trade partner, to reduce the carbon footprint
while defending and raising health and education levels for the
population as a whole, and building an egalitarian and highly
participatory society. A century ago the great socialist leader Rosa
Luxemburg predicted the future for humanity would be “socialism or
barbarism”. In light of the fiasco at Copenhagen, and the deepening crisis
of climate change, we are compelled to revise the slogan to read:
“Eco-socialism or extinction”.
Pension ‘status quo’ not an
option — CLC
by
Barry Weisleder
Pension
plans and retirement savings have been hit hard by the downturn. The
security of many Canadians is at risk. Some companies even want to cut
defined benefit plans that employees paid into throughout their working
lives. (That’s a big issue in the United Steelworkers’ strike at Vale Inco.)
People
with Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs)
and other private pensions that invested heavily in stock and financial
markets have seen their investments lose much of their value. There is
an urgent need to expand public pensions and reduce reliance on
financial markets for economic security. Public pensions remain secure,
but they replace only a modest share of previous work-related earnings.
In
fact, 11 million Canadians (one-third of the total population) don’t
have a workplace pension. Some 1.6 million seniors qualify for
Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) benefits (and therefore earn less
than $11,300 per year).Employers use bankruptcy courts to shirk their
pension promises. In the Nortel bankruptcy case, retirees stand to lose
a third of their pension incomes. Average fees gouge a third of
workers’ RRSP earnings.
Thus,
pension reform is in the air. The New Democratic Party is pushing a
Canadian Labour Congress plan. The federal
Conservative minority government is resisting. The Liberal Opposition,
following the lead of British Columbia and Alberta, wants a CPP supplement to
which individuals could voluntarily contribute. The banks, fearing that
a beefed up CPP will cut into their lucrative RRSP business, are
notably hostile to the idea.
The
CLC proposal asks the federal government to:
Phase
in a doubling of payouts from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the
Quebec Pension Plan (QPP). (The average CPP payout is about $600 a
month.)
Immediately
increase by 15 per cent Old Age Security (OAS), which is about $500 a
month, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), which is about $450
a month for all retirees.
Create
a national pension insurance fund to ensure that workers’ defined
benefit pensions aren’t at risk when employers go under or speculative
bubbles go bust. (The United States has a pension guarantee
fund covering up to about $50,000 of pension income.
Working
people and nature are the source of all the wealth. It is appropriated
by Capital. Workers shouldn’t have to beg for crumbs in retirement. In
the face of the economic crisis we did not cause, and the bail-out of
banks and big businesses we did not approve, our demand is that, in
addition to doubling the CPP and QPP, the OAS and GIS be increased
sufficiently to ensure that no senior is condemned to subsist below the
poverty line (approximately $30,000 a year in large urban centres).
The
federal and provincial Finance Ministers met in Whitehorse in December, and will meet
again in May 2010. Several of them said there’s nothing wrong with the
existing pension set up.
So,
it’s time to start organizing. They need to hear the CLC’s message amplified many fold: The pension
status quo is not an option!
Political crisis boils over
Afghan occupation
by Barry Weisleder
For
the second year in a row, the Conservative minority government asked Governor-General
Michaelle Jean to prorogue, or suspend,
Parliament for the winter months in order to avoid political
accountability and a potential loss of office. Shamefully, the G-G agreed. Thus, all
Bills in process were abandoned, and a new session will begin with a
brand new budget on March 3.
Prime
Minister Stephen Harper’s refusal to release documents that would shed
light on Canadian Forces’ handling of Afghan detainees was set to provoke
a crisis on January 25, when the House of Commons was to return. On
December 10, the Commons ordered the government to produce uncensored
documents dealing with detainee transfers. But Harper refused, citing
‘national security’, troop safety, and relations with allies.
The
former number-two Canadian diplomat in Afghanistan, Richard Colvin, raised
concerns in 2006-2007 about prisoners being routinely beaten and
tortured by Afghan authorities. So did the Red Cross, Britain, Netherlands, the
media and human-rights groups. General Walter Natynczyk,
Chief of Defence Staff, confirmed that
Canadian troops did hand over a detainee in June 2006 to the Afghan
police, who promptly beat him, until he was taken back into Canadian
custody.
But
Ottawa continues to deny that a problem existed.
Instead, the Tories attacked Colvin’s credibility, made an issue of the
Opposition’s ‘patriotism’, and proceeded to boycott a special sitting
of the Parliamentary committee probing detainee abuse.
The
question arises: Why are Harper and company being so pig-headed? The
issue goes beyond parliamentary decorum, beyond the centralization of
power in the PM’s Office. The treatment of detainees has become a
lightening rod for mass popular opposition to the war of occupation in Afghanistan. It highlights the nature
of the corrupt regime of war lords and drug barons in Kabul which NATO, including Canada, sustains.
For
the Canadian ruling class, the treatment of Afghans is far less
important than the economics of energy pipelines and the politics of
western domination of the Middle East and South Asia. Tory intransigence in Ottawa is proving to be a costly
political impediment to the realization of larger imperialist foreign
policy aims. A major section of the Canadian business elite would
rather cut their losses in Afghanistan (where the 134th
Canadian soldier died on Dec. 23), make a superficial concession to
public opinion, and re-deploy troops to another theatre of neo-colonial
occupation, like Haiti.
Setting
aside all the hypocrisy about ‘the rule of law’, the supremacy of
Parliament, and the promotion of ‘democracy’ abroad, the division of
the rulers over the war is a good thing—and even better if it leads to
an early exit from Afghanistan and an early end to the Harper
government. But neither should be taken for granted, as the Tories seem
as determined to tough it out, as they are to make working people pay
for the economic crisis.
Quebec Solidaire Opts for
Independence & Sovereignty
by
Robbie Mahood
MONTREAL—Quebec’s small mass left-wing
party, Quebec Solidaire (QS), held its fifth
convention in a suburb of this city on Nov. 20-22. About 300 delegates
and observers gathered to further a process of political clarification
initiated by the leadership.
In
2008, QS managed to get one of its popular leaders, Amir
Khadir, elected to Quebec’s National Assembly.
However, its vote across the province has yet to pass 5%, even if polls
sometimes place it as high as 8%. The party has about 5000 members.
QS was formed in 2006, defining itself as “alter-mondialiste, fÈministe, Ècologique et de gauche”, a party representing
diverse social movements and dedicated to breaking the neoliberal straitjacket in Quebec politics. Anti-neoliberal, yes, but without an explicit
working-class or socialist perspective, although several left-wing
organizations were permitted to form political ‘collectives’ or
tendencies within QS.
QS has a history of avoiding controversy in favour of lowest common denominator consensus. The
leadership’s improvised public pronouncements have often fallen far
short of its own militants’ expectations—for example, on the Afghan war
or in response to community outrage at the police killing of a young
man, Freddy Villanueva, in one of Montreal`s
immigrant neighbourhoods.
Highlighted
at this convention were debates on the national question, and on secularism
in relation to immigrant religious and cultural rights—issues that are
controversial in Quebec politics as well as within
QS.
Socialists
in English-speaking Canada and the United States may question the obsession
with the national question in Quebec, or wonder whether the
Quebecois any longer suffer national oppression. After all, the
national and class agitation of the 1960s and ’70s led to significant
advances for the francophone majority in Quebec. Two failed bids for
independence in the referenda of 1980 and 1995 have led the sovereignist movement, dominated by the bourgeois
nationalist Parti Quebecois, to an impasse.
At present, sentiment for independence is at a rather
low ebb. Should the struggle for an independent Quebec any longer occupy the place
it once did in the strategic thinking of revolutionary socialists?
The
view that independence is passe takes little
cognizance of the national tensions that have been and continue to be a
decisive factor in Canadian politics. Regardless of their views on
independence (which fluctuate greatly depending on the conjuncture),
the Quebecois have a more clearly defined national consciousness than
ever before. The exercise of their national rights brings them
continually up against the power of the Canadian state and
constitution.
This
is most clearly seen in struggles around language and culture but
periodically broaches questions of economic control, defense of social
programs, and participation in imperialist wars. This unresolved
national problem continues to fester away at the heart of the Canadian
federation, undermining the stability of class rule exercised by the
Anglo-Canadian bourgeoisie and by its junior Quebec partner.
This
is the context that impelled QS to adopt a more coherent position on
this perennial question in Quebec politics. Up to this point,
the party had defined itself as “sovereignist”,
a term that leaves some ambiguity. After a vigorous debate over four
competing options, delegates opted for the use of “independence or sovereignity” interchangeably, narrowly edging out
those who argued for “independence” only. Two other choices, “sovereignity” only, and “neither independence nor sovereignity”, were decisively rejected.
At
the same time, the delegates recognized the sovereignity
of “the ten Amerindian peoples and the Inuit people who also inhabit Quebec territory”, affirming their
right to self-determination whether through independence or in the form
of self-government within Quebec. Delegates also repudiated
the ethnic nationalism increasingly promoted by the Parti
Quebecois (PQ). For Quebec Solidaire, the Quebec nation is “ethnically and
culturally diversified, with French as the common language”, and the
Quebecois are all those who “live in Quebec and participate in its
life”.
As
for how to achieve independence, Quebec Solidaire
proposes a democratic Constituent Assembly charged with conducting a
vast consultative process on Quebec’s “political and constitutional
future and the values and political institutions pertaining
to it.” This exercise in popular sovereignity
is in contrast to the narrow and elite-driven referendum strategy of
the Parti Quebecois (now placed in cold
storage by the party brass until so-called ‘winning conditions’
reappear).
Anti-immigrant
sentiment surfaced in a major way in the Quebec election of 2007 when the
right wing populist party, Action Democratique
du Quebec (ADQ), capitalized on latent
hostility to cosmopolitan Montreal, especially to its Muslim
and Hasidic Jewish minorities, to propel itself into official
opposition status in the National Assembly. Subsequently, the
Bouchard-Taylor Commission held public hearings on so-called
‘reasonable accommodation’ of new immigrants.
One
of the major achievements of Quebec’s “Quiet Revolution” in the
1960s was ending the Catholic Church’s control over education, health,
and social services. The secularization of Quebec society enjoys overwhelming
support in the population and is closely linked in the public’s mind
with advances in women’s and to a lesser extent gay/lesbian rights. But
these arguments for separation of church and state and against
patriarchal oppression are now being recruited to a xenophobic campaign
against religious or cultural minorities, targeting primarily
traditionally attired Muslim women. Most recently, debate has erupted
over whether public employees have the right to wear religiously
identified clothing or symbols.
Delegates
voted for a position that distinguishes between the state, which must
be secular, and individuals, who have the right to express their
religious beliefs. Government employees working with the public should
be able to wear religious “insignia” provided they do not proselytize
and are not as a result impeded in the performance of their duties.
This position clearly distinguishes QS from the PQ, which is seeking a
ban on religious apparel in the civil service akin to the coercive laÔcitÈ of France, where the hijab (head covering) has been prohibited in public
schools.
QS marked a step forward at this convention in more
clearly aligning itself with the perspective of Quebec independence, explicitly
acknowledging the sovereignty of aboriginal peoples and rising to the defence of religious and cultural minorities. At
the same time the party suffers from some important deficits.
In
general, the positions adopted are premised on the future election of a
QS government, lending them a rather abstract character (for example,
the constituent assembly) or similarly, posing solutions in
administrative terms, for example, qualifying the conditions under
which a state employee would be allowed to display personal religious
insignia.
Largely
missing from this convention were resolutions that would orient QS to organizing
struggles that are immediate and pressing, both in the electoral and
extra-parliamentary arenas. One exception to this was the unanimous
support given to a resolution in solidarity with the Palestinian
struggle committing the party to help build the global Boycott,
Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against the Israeli state.
Indeed,
there is a noticeable gap between QS’s
initial electoral success and its low or non-existent political profile
on the streets and in the movements—ironic for a party formed in large
measure by social activists. In this respect, the downturn in mass
struggles in Quebec over the last five years
has reinforced the party’s electoral preoccupation. The risk is that
with any resurgence of mass mobilizations, QS will be a passive
observer content to reap whatever benefits come its way in the polls.
Shifting
to a stronger pro-independence stance may lead to a broader and more
comprehensive programmatic debate on the measures needed to combat the
twin economic and ecological crises. Demands to nationalize the banks,
abrogate NAFTA, withdraw from NATO and NORAD, develop unemployment
insurance to provide a living wage and re-train workers laid-off in the
crisis, bring financially or ecologically bankrupt industries under public
ownership and re-orient toward green production, defend public health
care against Supreme Court authorized privatization—these and other
anti-capitalist measures imply not only mass mobilization within Quebec
but, more often than not, a confrontation and break with the federal
Canadian state.
Various
observers have noted that whatever its limitations, QS is a party in
formation. One must be patient and allow time for deficiencies to be
overcome. †But political differentiation, suppressed for the most part
up to now, is becoming more apparent. It would be
naive to overlook bureaucratic and reformist tendencies, nor should it
be surprising given the relationship of political forces within QS
since its founding and the impact of its modest electoral success.
The
weakness of “class” politics in QS is a reflection of the society
around it. Neither Social Democratic reformism nor Stalinism have ever
established a significant presence in Quebec, a reality that brings with
it mixed blessings. On the one hand, a labour
movement reknowned for its militancy has yet
to assert itself as an independent political actor. On the other hand,
there is an absence of hardened reformist currents exercising control
over working-class politics.
QS’s election campaigns have been endorsed by more
radical elements in Quebec’s labour
movement, notably the Montreal central council of the
Confederation des syndicats nationaux (CSN). But the relationship between the
party and the unions is tentative at best.
Certainly,
the working class has been given no particular strategic weight in the
party’s thinking. However, the notion that QS should limit itself to
being the political voice of a coalition of movements dedicated to a
more just and equitable society (superceding the struggle between
social classes) is being undermined by the depth of the current crisis,
which brings class contradictions in the broadest sense into greater
relief.
This
convention demonstrated that party militants are capable of vigourous debate and retain a certain independence
from the leadership. The role of socialists within QS in advancing a
class-struggle perspective around transitional anti-capitalist demands,
such as those listed above, will be very
important. To be sure, this task is not to be approached in a
mechanical way from the stance of bringing received wisdom from
outside, but rather in the context of discussions as they actually
unfold within the ranks of the party. But it is a task that must surely
be taken up.
Robbie
Mahood is a federal steering-committee†member of Socialist Action / Ligue pour l’Action socialiste. He was a Quebec Solidaire
candidate in Mont-Royal.
|