SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
council of canadians
Canadians Cheer 'Big Deal' Plan for Single-Payer Pharmacare
However, at least two provinces—Alberta and Quebec—have said they would opt out, which critics called "outrageous."
Feb 26, 2024
Advocates of boosting Canadians' access to prescription drugs in recent days have cautiously celebrated forthcoming legislation for a universal national pharmacare program, which will begin with coverage of contraceptives and diabetes medication.
The supply and confidence agreement between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals and the New Democratic Party (NDP)—announced in 2022 and set to continue through the middle of next year—called for "passing a Canada Pharmacare Act by the end of 2023 and then tasking the National Drug Agency to develop a national formulary of essential medicines and bulk purchasing plan by the end of the agreement."
However, the parties last year agreed to push it until March 1. With that deadline rapidly approaching, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh on Friday confirmed to CTV News that the parties had struck a deal on "historic" draft legislation.
"I can proudly say that not only do we have legislation that specifically refers to single-payer, that refers to the Canada Health Act, and the principles and values, we also have secured commitments to delivering diabetes medication and contraceptives using a single-payer public model," Singh said in a Sunday appearance on CTV.
The draft hasn't yet been introduced, but Nikolas Barry-Shaw, the trade and privatization campaigner at the Council of Canadians, highlighted in a Monday analysis that "several leaks (if correct) have suggested the Canada Pharmacare Act will include plans to develop a list of essential medicines that would be covered by pharmacare and a bulk purchasing plan, as well as an 'implementation council' to advise on financing."
"This represents one of the biggest advances in Canadian healthcare in decades but it's nevertheless a fragile victory," Barry-Shaw declared. "The program would be life-changing for people who rely on birth control and diabetes medications, and after the legislation is passed we hope the formulary will be expanded so more people can have that life-changing access to medicines."
Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labor Congress, also welcomed the win, saying Friday that "this is a BIG deal" and "represents the most significant enhancement to our healthcare system since the creation of public healthcare in Canada."
"I have personally heard from workers unable to afford their diabetes medications, and parents faced with the heart-wrenching choice between feeding their children or providing them with essential lifesaving medicines," Bruske continued, taking aim at Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre, who said he wants to see the plan's details when asked about it on Friday.
"These are the struggles many Canadians face daily—not the fake outrage that Mr. Poilievre is talking about these days. The introduction of a universal single-payer pharmacare program is not just a policy change; it's a lifeline that will bring tangible improvements to the lives of countless individuals," Bruske stressed. "This achievement is a testament to the power of collective effort and advocacy."
While the plan, as Barry-Shaw detailed, would involve the federal government buying prescription drugs in bulk, so that everyone in Canada with a health card can get them without any out-of-pocket costs, "pharmacare will be delivered through provincial drug plans," which, as he the campaigner put it, is "a double-edged sword."
Global News reported that in a Sunday email, the office of Alberta Health Minister Adriana LaGrange, who belongs to the United Conservative Party (UCP), "said that if the federal government pursues a national pharmacare program, Alberta intends to opt out, and instead intends to obtain a full per capita share of the funding."
Blasting Alberta's UCP premier, Friends of Medicare executive director Chris Gallaway said Monday that "by preempting their decision on pharmacare even before the federal announcement is made, Danielle Smith's government has made it clear they would rather play politics than get things done to help Albertans. By doing so, they are siding with the profits of big pharmaceutical and insurance corporations over the health and well-being of Albertans."
"Canada currently pays some of the highest drug costs in the world, and millions are struggling to afford the medications that they need," Gallaway noted. "It is well documented that moving to a national, single-payer pharmacare plan would save governments, employers, Albertans, and our provincial healthcare systems billions of dollars per year. And most importantly it would save countless lives!"
"The fact is, Canada remains the only country with a universal Medicare program that does not include prescription medications," he added. "At a moment when so many Albertans are struggling with the cost of living, and access to the healthcare they need, it is outrageous to see our provincial government working to undermine this long-overdue expansion of our public healthcare coverage."
Alberta is not alone among Canada's 10 provinces and three territories. According to CTV, "Quebec has also said it intends to opt out, and British Columbia and New Brunswick said they're waiting for details before deciding whether to sign on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Poll Shows Canadian Majority Wants Water for People, Not for Profit
More than two-thirds of survey respondents want Nestle to sell contested well to local municipality
Dec 19, 2016
An overwhelming majority of Ontarians want their government to prioritize community drinking water needs over those of commercial water-bottling companies, according to a new poll which also supports the call for Nestle Waters Canada to sell a well it purchased this summer to the local municipality as its residents have demanded.
The poll (pdf), conducted by Oraclepoll Research on behalf of the Council of Canadians, surveyed 1,200 respondents between December 8-13, 2016. Its findings overall clearly demonstrate that "[p]eople do not want companies like Nestle to profit from water," as Maude Barlow, the group's national chairperson, declared.
Specifically, the poll found:
- 93 percent support the provincial government placing a priority on the drinking water needs of local communities over any pending applications from commercial bottling companies to acquire groundwater sources.
- 69 percent support the Ontario government holding a series of public consultations to determine how water use is prioritized in the province.
- 68 percent support the provincial government requiring Nestle to sell the Elora well to the Township of Centre Wellington.
- 65 percent support a permanent phase-out of all permits for bottled water takings (water bottling operations) by the Ontario government.
"Based on these numbers, the Ontario government needs to considerably strengthen its regulations on bottled water and work towards phasing out all bottled water permits, not just new or expanded permits," said Emma Lui, national water campaigner for the Council of Canadians.
"We're urging the Ontario government to act on these poll results by organizing public consultations and facilitating community debate on how water use should be prioritized in the province," she said. "For too long, the Permit to Take Water system has haphazardly been issuing water permits. This must stop, and the Ontario government must begin truly protecting water for communities."
The Elora, Ontario, well is quickly becoming a flash point in the fight over water rights in Canada, Mark Calzavara, the Ontario-Quebec regional organizer for the Council of Canadians, told CBC News. "It is the most important, or clearest contest, between a municipality and a bottled water company," he said.
Nestle purchased the well earlier this year, as Common Dreams reported, outbidding the Township of Centre Wellington and helping to spark a growing Boycott Nestle effort. Just last week, news outlets reported that Nestle was in fact seeking to develop a "partnership" between the company and the Township of Centre Wellington--causing local water protectors to bristle.
"Mayor [Kelly] Linton needs to make an immediate public statement that he does not support any 'partnership' agreement with Nestle," said Arlene Slocombe, executive director of Wellington Water Watchers, which claims such a deal would merely be an attempt by Nestle to get around an existing moratorium. "If he is engaged in discussions with Nestle he needs to end those discussions immediately, and respect the wishes of the community and say 'No to Nestle.' Water is for life, not for profit."
Slocombe's group and Saveourwater.ca are organizing an emergency public community meeting for Wednesday, January 4 in Elora to tell Linton and the Township Council to once again say "No to Nestle."
Keep ReadingShow Less
TPP's "Cardiac Arrest": A Lesson for the Challenges of the Trump Years Ahead
'Let the movement that stopped the TPP serve as a reminder to the powerful: we are many, and you are few'
Nov 12, 2016
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)--the corporate-friendly trade deal between the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim nations that sparked progressive outcry over its threats to everything from democracy to digital rights to climate goals --now appears to be "in full-blown cardiac arrest."
Not only is there the fact that President-elect Donald Trump campaigned against the deal that President Barack Obama vigorously pushed, multiple news sources reported Friday that the White House has now given up on its efforts to get approval during the "lame-duck" session of Congress.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, reported that the deal "effectively died Friday, as Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress told the White House they won't advance it in the election's aftermath, and Obama administration officials acknowledged it has no way forward now." Reuters reported that the administration said "Friday that the fate of the free trade pact was up to Trump and Republican lawmakers."
The Hill also reported:
"We have worked closely with Congress to resolve outstanding issues and are ready to move forward, but this is a legislative process and it's up to congressional leaders as to whether and when this moves forward," said Matt McAlvanah, a spokesman for the Office of the U.S. trade representative, in an email to The Hill.
A White House official acknowledged on Friday the difficultly of pressing Congress to pass the TPP because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said this week that "it's something that he's going to work with the president-elect to figure out where they go in terms of trade agreements in the future," according to reports.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had already signaled in August that the U.S. Senate would not vote on TPP this year.
The political newspaper added a statement issued Friday by TPP foe Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who said that "a strong coalition of members of Congress and labor, environmental, faith, and human rights organizations and activists worked diligently to stop this agreement."
That's exactly what some advocacy groups are saying--that the deal's apparent death should not be chalked up to Trump's victory this week but to the grassroots' effort.
"Let's make one thing clear," said Evan Greer, campaign director for digital rights group Fight for the Future. "Donald Trump didn't kill the TPP. We did."
The deal, she continued, would have "globalized Internet censorship, undermined civil liberties, and devastated our economy and our planet."
Instead, "[a]n unprecedented grassroots movement of people and organizations from across the political spectrum came together to spark an uprising that stopped what would have been nothing less than an outright corporate takeover of our democratic process. Together we sounded the alarm, and made the TPP so politically toxic that no presidential candidate who wanted to be elected could support it."
"As we enter a new stage in history, let the movement that stopped the TPP serve as a reminder to the powerful: we are many, and you are few," she continued.
Offering a similar observation on Saturday, Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, said in statement: "The TPP is in full-blown cardiac arrest, thanks to years of international campaigning against this toxic deal, including turning Senate and House elections into contests over rejecting the TPP."
But, according to Barlow, as well as Arthur Stamoulis, executive director at Citizens Trade Campaign, continued vigilance is necessary.
Barlow said that her experience "from watching trade agreements is that free trade proponents always try to resuscitate these deals under different names--CETA, TiSA, and others. We need to put a 'do not resuscitate' order on these corporate deals once and for all."
Stamoulis also acknowledged the "the cross-border, cross-sector, progressive 'movement of movements'" that brought the deal to what could be its very end.
And with the Trump administration--with its "cabinet of horrors"--approaching, Stamoulis writes that "people need to be reminded of their power."
"This victory," he writes, "will be one of the biggest wins against concentrated corporate power in our lifetimes, and it holds lessons we should internalize as we steel ourselves for the many challenges we face heading into the Trump years."
"Trump's vision of internationalism is not one of human rights, worker rights, sustainability, and improving standards of living. The President-elect is a man who, among other things, thinks that workers are overpaid, is hostile to unions, denies climate science, and embraces authoritarian regimes."
"We've all got a lot of work to do," he concludes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Following Public Pressure, Jose Bove, Noted Anti-Globalization Activist, Allowed to Stay in Canada
Bové, a member of Eureopean Parliament, was detained for several hours at Montreal airport Tuesday; then forced back to France Wednesday
Oct 12, 2016
Update: Canadian authorities have reversed their position, and will allow anti-globalization activist and member of European Parliament Jose Bove to stay in the country for seven days. According to a statement from the Council of Canadians, the decision from the Canada Border Services Agency came "[f]ollowing intense public pressure."
Bove, for his part, tweeted, "We can finally talk about CETA!"
Earlier:
Jose Bove, member of European Parliament, farmer, and noted anti-globalization activist, was held for several hours Montreal's airport on Tuesday and later forced to leave the country, proving, according to one observer, that a pending Canada-European Union trade deal is "direct attack on our democracy."
Bove was scheduled to speak at a public forum to discuss the controversial Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)--a deal he called "a Trojan horse for multinational corporations that seek to use it to bend rules as they wish."
He tweeted Tuesday after he had already been detained three hours, writing, "CETA opponents aren't welcome in the country."
According to Canada's Ici RDI, it ended up being nearly six hours he was blocked at the airport, where customs officials invoked his convictions for acts of civil disobedience, including dismantling in 1999 a McDonald's--an act for which he gained widespread fame.
CBC News adds that after hours detained by customs, "Bove was allowed to go to his hotel, but his passport was confiscated and he was told he would have to leave Canada on Wednesday afternoon, he said in an interview on CBC Montreal's Daybreak."
"He isn't a criminal. He is an elected member of the European Parliament. This is simply an extremely embarrassing situation," Bove's press secretary, Jean-Marc Desfilhes, said Tuesday night.
Bove maintains that his "unacceptable" expulsion was due to his CETA opposition, telling Ici RDI that "those who defend the accord can move around as they wish--I think the boss of Monsanto could quite easily come here. On the other hand, those who oppose it are treated like dangerous criminals [...] their passports are taken."
Desfilhes added, "No one has yet explained why [Bove was barred entry]. It's very curious. In Europe he is one of the most outspoken against the treaty with Canada and then he is blocked at the border. There has to be something political. He has no record, no problem with the law, is an elected member of the European Parliament, and he has a visa."
Bove's visit to the country would have coincided with that of French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. Bove said earlier that the French official "will be here to sell you a dream about a 'progressive' agreement, but that is simply not so."
According to Nick Dearden, director of the U.K.-based social justice organization Global Justice Now, Bove being denied entry to Canada "is yet another example of how serious a challenge to our democracy CETA is, and how desperate governments are to avoid scrutiny. When even elected representatives are barred from properly criticizing CETA, there can be no doubt that deals like CETA are a direct attack on our democracy."
"After a public outcry has brought the EU-U.S. trade deal TTIP to its knees, governments are taking increasingly drastic measures to protect its Canadian counterpart CETA," Dearden added.
Bove's slated visit to Montreal was hosted by a number of civil society groups including the Council of Canadians, an organization headed by Maude Barlow.
In an op-ed this week outlining their criticisms of CETA, Barlow and Bove wrote: "There is something profoundly wrong with the current form of economic globalization characterized and protected by corporate-friendly trade agreements like CETA. Too few are benefiting; too much damage is being done to the natural world."
"CETA must be stopped," they continued. "And we need to go even further. It's time to rethink an economic system that benefits only the one percent. It's time to put principles of cooperation and social justice at the service of a just, equal and sustainable vision for our collective future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Travesty': Nestle Outbids Another Town for Control of Local Water Supply
Council of Canadians launches new Boycott Nestlé campaign in response to company's continued water grabs
Sep 23, 2016
Corporate giant Nestle continued its privatization creep on Thursday as it won approval to take over another Canadian community's water supply, claiming it needed the well to ensure "future business growth."
Nestle purchased the well near Elora, Ontario from Middlebrook Water Company last month after making a conditional offer in 2015, the Canadian Press reports.
In August, the Township of Centre Wellington made an offer to purchase the Middlebrook well site to protect access to the water for the community. Consequently, the multinational--which claimed it had no idea the community was its competitor--waived all its conditions and matched the township's offer in order to snag the well for itself.
Those conditions included conducting pump tests to determine if the watershed met the company's quality and quantity requirements, the Canadian Press reports.
Moreover, Nestle has stated that the Middlebrook site will only be a backup for its other nearby well and bottling plant in Aberfoyle, where the corporation already draws up to 3.6 million liters (roughly 951,000 gallons) of water a day. The company reportedly plans to extract as much as 1.6 million liters (almost 423,000 gallons) a day from Middlebrook to be transported to its bottling facility.
All this comes as parts of southern Ontario and British Columbia face severe drought conditions amid dwindling water supplies and Nestle pushes to renew its permits for its Aberfoyle plant, the advocacy group Council of Canadians warned.
The organization on Thursday launched a Boycott Nestle campaign which states, "Groundwater resources will not be sufficient for our future needs due to drought, climate change, and over-extraction. Wasting our limited groundwater on frivolous and consumptive uses such as bottled water is madness. We must not allow groundwater reserves to be depleted for corporate profit."
Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow told the Canadian Press about the Aberfoyle plant, "Allowing a transnational corporation to continue to mine this water is a travesty, especially given that most local people can get clean, safe, and affordable water from their taps."
In her new book Boiling Point: Government Neglect, Corporate Abuse, and Canada's Water Crisis, Barlow writes that Nestle makes more than $2 million a year in profits from its Aberfoyle facility alone.
She also noted to the Canadian Press that the Elora well "sits on the traditional territory of the Six Nations of the Grand River, 11,000 of whom do not have access to clean running water."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As CETA Advances, Reports Warn Deal Will Ruin Economies, Cement Corporate Power
Germany's minority Social Democratic Party backs trade agreement despite 300,000-strong protest on Saturday
Sep 19, 2016
As the pro-corporate Canada-Europe trade deal notched another victory on Monday, a pair of new studies underscored how the health, rights, and livelihoods of people on both sides of the Atlantic will suffer under the pending deal.
Germany's minority Social Democratic Party (SPD) voted in favor of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), making it increasingly likely the trade deal will be approved by the country's Parliament. The backing came despite the fact that on Saturday over 300,000 people across Germany marched in opposition to the deal and its "toxic" sister agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
As Deutsche Welle noted, CETA "is scheduled to be signed by Ottawa and Brussels next month. However, each [European Union] member state would then need to fully ratify the agreement for it to come into force."
Critics say that the agreement will only increase corporate power and that its provisions will "water down or abolish environmental, health, and consumer protection regulations."
To that end, European campaigners Global Justice Now, Corporate Europe, and the Transnational Institute released a new report (pdf) on Monday underscoring how the deal's investor protections, including the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, "could dangerously thwart government efforts to protect citizens and the environment."
According to the study, CETA would "arguably grant ever greater rights to foreign investors than NAFTA, increasing the risk that foreign investors will use CETA to constrain future government policy."
What's more, the report points out that Canadian subsidiaries of U.S.-headquartered multinationals will also be able to use these provisions to sue European governments. Given that E.U., Canadian, and U.S. companies are already "among the most frequent users of investment arbitration...there is every reason to expect that they will use CETA to rein in government measures."
Commenting on the study, Nick Dearden, director of the UK-based Global Justice Now, said the agreement "would open up [E.U.] government to a deluge of court cases by North American multinational corporations and investors. It presents a threat to our ability to protect the environment, to protect the public, and to limit the power of big banks. It's thoroughly undemocratic and must be stopped."
But Europeans are not the only ones at risk.
Researchers with the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University found that the agreement poses a real threat to Canada's economy and puts more than 23,000 jobs as risk.
As the first independent, academic study (pdf) on CETA, its findings throw into question claims that the trade agreement will bolster the GDP of Canada and European member states and critiques prior studies, namely those commissioned by signatory governments, for relying on "flawed models containing neoclassical economic assumptions, which are biased towards market liberalization."
The report also found that CETA "will lead to a reduction of the labor income share." So as profits rise, the amount reaching workers will actually fall, with losses reaching as much as $2,656 per person over seven years.
Further, "CETA will lead to net losses of government revenue." As governments reduce corporate taxes to compete for investment, tax income will decrease by an estimated 0.12 percent of GDP while public spending will fall by 0.20 percent of GDP.
"There are a lot of myths about free trade and CETA. Here's an independent study that suggests that there aren't economic gains--only job losses, inequality, and the erosion of the public sector," said Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians.
"But that's only the economic part," Barlow added. "We haven't begun to quantify the damage to our laws, policies, and democracies through regulatory harmonization and corporate lawsuits challenging our environmental and social standards. Not to mention attacks on farmers and municipalities. So what are we getting out of this?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Yet Another Transatlantic Trade Deal Threatening Food Safety, Groups Warn
CETA will force European farmers to compete with Canadian imports with 'no animal welfare penalties and lower safety standards'
Aug 29, 2016
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a controversial trade deal between Canada and the European Union (E.U.), threatens food safety and other consumer standards, according to a new report by a coalition of advocacy groups.
Even as other global trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) fall apart amid failed negotiations, consumers and workers around the world still aren't in the clear. According to Food Safety, Agriculture and Regulatory Cooperation in the Canada-E.U. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (pdf), released by groups including the Council of Canadians, War on Want, and the Institute forAgriculture and Trade Policy, European farmers under CETA will have to compete with Canadian imports while contending with "no animal welfare penalties and lower safety standards."
Meanwhile, corporations will have the ability to address trade disagreements through mechanisms like the Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), also included in the TPP, which allows private companies to sue governments over projected lost profits.
"For the U.K. this is of extra importance, as under CETA's anti-democratic terms, we could still be open to being sued in corporate courts up to 20 years after leaving the E.U.," said War on Want senior trade campaigner Mark Dearn.
And these kinds of pro-corporate provisions will serve to perpetuate the same kind of problems as other trade deals, the Council of Canadians explained (pdf).
"This would be yet another blow for European farmers who will now be competing Canadian agribusiness with no animal welfare penalties and lower safety standards," said Maude Barlow, the council's chairperson. "Canada is not the pristine wilderness Europeans imagine with small farms dotting the landscape. Under NAFTA, Canada has shifted towards large-scale agricultural production with half of all food production coming from just five percent of farms."
Moreover, CETA was negotiated prior to Britain's decision to leave the E.U.; in the wake of Brexit, tariff rate quotas for Canadian meat would be "exceedingly high" and impact European farmers "already facing a crisis over low agricultural prices," the report found.
That's especially concerning because, according to the council, Canada is "the third-largest producer of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the world." The country also recently approved GMO salmon, which under CETA could be sold and eaten internationally.
"All over the world, people want more local, sustainable and healthy food, for our economies, our environment and our well-being. CETA takes us in the opposite direction--towards factory farms, unsustainable production, and questionable safety regulations," said Sujata Dey, Council of Canadians trade campaigner, who coordinated the report. "Food is an essential part of our communities and our values. Europeans must know how their regulations could be downgraded before they make a decision on CETA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Millions of People Yearning for a "Brexit" from Destructive Trade Deals
U.S. President Barack Obama's recent visit to Canada, against the backdrop of Brexit and the U.S. presidential campaign, had many opinion leaders trying to dismiss concerns about free trade.
Now, we're told, people who are against free trade are isolationists who want to entrench themselves in the past, in a parochial nostalgia for the nation-state. The ideology of free trade opponents can only lead to an inward-looking mentality that fosters wars and destroys the economy.
So say the free traders who have been fostering wars and destroying the economy.
Jul 31, 2016
U.S. President Barack Obama's recent visit to Canada, against the backdrop of Brexit and the U.S. presidential campaign, had many opinion leaders trying to dismiss concerns about free trade.
Now, we're told, people who are against free trade are isolationists who want to entrench themselves in the past, in a parochial nostalgia for the nation-state. The ideology of free trade opponents can only lead to an inward-looking mentality that fosters wars and destroys the economy.
So say the free traders who have been fostering wars and destroying the economy.
But is it that easy: a fight between free trade, on the one hand, and isolationism on the other?
This false binary construct leaves little room for a third choice: the progressive concept of "fair trade" and the aspiration to build economies and trading relationships that are based on social and ecological justice, on the primacy of democratic rights over the profits of transnational corporations, and on the free movement of people rather than capital.
Free trade is a fundamental tenet -- along with privatization, deregulation and austerity -- of the agenda that is driving deepening inequality around the world.
The "investment protection" clauses in free trade agreements are what allow transnational corporations to directly sue national governments that pass laws against fracking, pipelines and other climate crimes. These provisions also trample on indigenous rights and their ability to say no to major resource extraction projects. And it's the "intellectual property rights" in free trade agreements that allow highly profitable pharmaceutical corporations to secure the delay of cheaper generic and biosimilar drugs at the expense of human lives.
It is inexcusable for some politicians and newspapers to use the demagoguery of Donald Trump and the bigotry of Nigel Farage -- who led the Brexit campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union -- to obscure this valid progressive critique of the power free trade agreements give to transnational corporations and how those powers undermine our rights.
Opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other agreements is not "anti-trade." It is a rejection of "free trade" and the powers these deals bestow on transnational corporations over our democratic and human rights. This rejection of these destructive trade deals is part of a positive vision of "fair trade."
Far from antiquated, this sentiment is on the rise, highlighted by the recent Angus Reid Institute poll that showed only one in four Canadians support NAFTA.
This isn't about trying to return to some imaginary past before global trade, with white picket fences and no immigrants where "foreign ideas" are rejected. This is about shaping globalization in a way in which our cosmopolitanism and openness to the world is not shaped by corporate interests but by democratic impulses.
And while the votes for Brexit, and the support for Trump, may not always choose the best political framing, politicians and elites would be arrogant to dismiss the widespread discontent with the status quo.
We must reject the attempts to stoke racism as a way of misdirecting blame away from proponents of business as usual. It's not immigrants, refugees or racialized communities that have caused the sharp rise in economic inequality. The blame rests squarely with cuts to public services, privatization and the fallout of so-called free trade deals that have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
There is a massive wound in our economy. Free trade agreements in their current form are not going to fix it since they are a central part of the problem. There needs to be a massive shift in the way trade agreements are conceived and implemented so that the benefits of global trade are shared by all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Victory in Canada as Court Strikes Down Northern Gateway Pipeline
Opponents "said 'no' to Enbridge 12 years ago when it first proposed the project. And now that 'no' has the backing of the courts."
Jun 30, 2016
Environmentalists and Indigenous rights advocates celebrated on Thursday after a judge in a landmark ruling overturned the Canadian government's 2014 approval of a controversial pipeline project.
The court found (pdf) that the government had not done enough to consult with First Nations communities that would be impacted by building the Northern Gateway pipeline, approved under then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The decision "confirms that the environmental assessment of major pipeline projects was badly eroded by the previous government's dismantling of environmental laws," said Barry Robinson, an attorney for the environmental law firm Ecojustice, which brought the case.
Caitlyn Vernon, a spokesperson for the Sierra Club, told CBC, "Today is a good day for the B.C. coast, climate, and salmon rivers. By overturning federal approval of Northern Gateway, the courts have put yet another nail in the coffin of this pipeline and tankers project."
"First Nations, local communities, and environmental interests said 'no' to Enbridge 12 years ago when it first proposed the project. And now that 'no' has the backing of the courts," Robinson said.
The pipeline would have transported tar sands crude from Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. Opponents have long warned that it would expand the use of dangerous fossil fuels, delay the implementation of clean energy, and increase dangers faced by the environment and impacted communities, including possible violation of First Nations treaty rights.
Critics have also pointed out that Northern Gateway's parent company, Enbridge, has a history of environmental destruction, including a massive pipeline rupture that spilled close to one million gallons of crude oil into Michigan's Kalamazoo River and Talmadge Creek in 2010--eventually forcing the company to pay $75 million in cleanup costs.
Karen Wristen, executive director of Living Oceans Society, one of the plaintiffs in the legal challenge, said Thursday, "We know from Enbridge's own shoddy public safety record that tar sands oil spills have devastating consequences. Today's decision is a victory across the board: for the wildlife living in this marine environment and for the communities living at its shores."
The social advocacy group Council of Canadians congratulated the First Nations communities and all other groups involved in the court case. The organization's executive director, Maude Barlow, has previously called the opposition movement against Northern Gateway "one of the most important fights we have right now."
The court ruling also denotes an early victory for Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, who campaigned on a promise of ushering in climate-friendly policies, telling voters after a landslide victory in May 2015 that "change has finally come to Alberta. New people, new ideas, and a fresh start for our great province."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harper 2.0? Trudeau Says Canada Needs More Tar Sands Pipelines
The Liberal prime minister argues that building more pipelines to transport dirty tar sands oil is necessary to fund Canada's transition to a green future
Mar 03, 2016
Sparking outcry from environmentalist and Indigenous groups, Justin Trudeau took a pro-oil stance and argued for more controversial pipelines to carry Canada's dirty tar sands oil to coastal ports in comments at a sustainability conference in Vancouver on Wednesday.
"We want the low-carbon economy that continues to provide good jobs and great opportunities for all Canadians," said Canada's Liberal prime minister, as Elizabeth McSheffrey reported in the National Observer. "To get there, we need to make smart strategic investments in clean growth and new infrastructure, but we must also continue to generate wealth from our abundant natural resources to fund this transition to a low-carbon economy."
However, Green party leader Elizabeth May said at the same conference, "If you have an economic strategy for the oilsands that are premised on high volumes of export on the low-value product, you both ship jobs off-shore and drive up greenhouse gases. Those are inconsistent aims."
The Global Series 16 conference centers on sustainability and business, describing itself as "North America's Largest Environmental Business Summit." All of Canada's premiers are attending the talks on sustainability and business from March 2-3.
In contrast to the prime minister's attempt to make an economic argument for pipelines, social justice group the Council of Canadians noted that "the average renewable energy investment creates four times as many jobs as the same investment in the fossil fuel economy," as the group called for more renewable energy jobs on Thursday.
The prime minister's statements were made only months after he declared, "Canada is back, my good friends," to delegates at the COP21 climate conference in Paris in November. This signaled what activists hoped would be a transition to a more sustainable Canada as he signed the historic commitment to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Trudeau's party's campaign was built on the Liberals' opposition to his pro-oil predecessor, Stephen Harper, who heartily supported the nation's controversial tar sands industry that critics saw as primarily responsible for the country's failure to uphold the terms of previous climate change agreements.
During his campaign, Trudeau emphasized his condemnation of the Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have transported tar sands oil to the B.C. coast. However, activists still lobbied Trudeau to take a stricter position on pipelines after his party ousted Harper's Conservatives in October, as the young prime minister's stance was unclear.
Trudeau did announce harsher environmental reviews for the projects in December. Still, his promises appeared to lack teeth when a federal audit uncovered "systematic failures" within the country's National Energy Board that conducts the pipeline approval process.
The prime minister's talk in Vancouver this week marked a shift from the grand promises made in Paris: "The choice between pipelines and wind turbines is a false one," Trudeau argued, according to the Vancouver Sun. "We need both to reach our goal."
After his talk, the National Observer reported, Trudeau refused to answer reporters' questions about the growth in tar sands mining that would inevitably be fueled by the construction of new pipelines.
A Ricochet editorial charged Thursday:
The prime minister is wrong. Hard choices must be made, between the interests of fossil fuel corporations and the possibility of a decent collective future for Canadians and people all over the world.
First Nations also criticized Trudeau on Wednesday. According to the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN), Aboriginal leaders stormed out of a climate meeting with the prime minister after it "fell to shambles. " Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam lamented that "the meeting didn't include any talks of taking care of mother earth," APTN reported, and "instead, the focus was placed on economic development and transitioning to a green economy."
On Thursday, the prime minister will meet with Canada's premiers to create a national climate plan. A 350.org campaign manager argued that Canada can achieve a 100% renewable energy economy that honors Indigenous rights, but "only if the government listens to people, not pipeline companies and big polluters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy