Fight Poilievre ! Dump Trudeau & Singh !

Debt and inflation are crushing the population. Infrastructure is crumbling. Public health care and other social services are at a breaking point. Conditions for the working class in Canada are going backwards. Everybody knows this. The question is what to do about it?

The Liberals are in free fall and the government is on its last legs. Trudeau is desperately trying to reinvigorate support for his “sunny ways.” As long as they are propped up by the New Democrats, the Liberal government may be able to limp along until the fixed-date election in a year. But neither the Liberals nor their NDP allies have answers to solve the crises.

In fact, nine years of Liberal rule have made things worse for everyone. This is leading to a rise in support for the Tories, including among workers. Poilievre now stands at the gates of power, having positioned himself as the conduit for discontent. The blame lies with the leaders of the labour movement in the unions and in the NDP who have played a key role in propping up a government responsible for the growing misery of working people rather than fighting against it.

There is no doubt that Poilievre will only bring more misery. What he has in store for the working class with his “axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime” mantra is austerity, a deepening of the housing crisis, cuts to public services and an increase in state repression. The anti-worker legacy of Harper is what Poilievre will extend. But the only way to stop the advance of right-wing reaction and reverse the tide is for the working class to rely on its own forces to fight for its own interests. This means breaking with the liberal politics of the leaders of the labour movement.

The NDP is trying to shake off the stench of the Liberals. Singh has just broken the two-year-long formal coalition with Trudeau. He did so after the Liberals broke the national rail strike, an act which Singh condemned as anti-worker while still remaining in the coalition. This combined with the free fall of the Liberals made the NDP’s position untenable. Even Poilievre picked up on this and called on the NDP to help bring down the government to hold an election this fall. Faced with pressure from their base and for electoral calculations, the NDP tore up their deal with the Liberals. But this doesn’t reflect a break with liberalism. The NDP and trade-union tops have propped up this hated government because they are wedded to the worldview of Trudeau: Canada is a beacon of “progress” and “enlightenment.”

The situation cries out for a working-class opposition to the Tories and the Liberals. But the socialist left is disoriented and plays no role at all in this picture. Why? Because, whether inside or outside the NDP, they too are mired in the swamp of Canadian liberalism. This was shown when they rallied to “national unity” during the pandemic. And it is shown today over all the key issues facing workers and the oppressed: the economy, housing, immigration, Quebec’s national oppression, the wars in Ukraine and Palestine and more.

The Liberals and NDP claim that the increasingly threadbare social “safety net” can be patched together through the magic wand of government tinkering and public debt even as the economy stagnates and rots. They tout the state ideology of multiculturalism as a model for the world and use it as a cudgel against Quebec. They say NATO, Ukraine and Israel must be supported at all costs as key pillars of the alliance with U.S. imperialism while lauding Canada’s “special role” of promoting “freedom, democracy and human rights.” This is the political glue that held the coalition together.

The labour movement has been paralyzed by its support to this government. But even if it falls tomorrow, labour will remain hamstrung, weakened and unable to play a decisive role if it continues to be led by people who share the liberal values and politics that underpinned the coalition. What is needed is a completely different strategy, one based on a rupture with the pillars of Canadian liberalism and rooted in the principles of the class struggle.

Pandemic and Emergencies Act: Labour Leaders Betray

The disastrous situation facing workers today is the result of decades of attacks by the ruling class to keep Canada competitive in the liberalized, U.S.-dominated global economy. And things got worse during the pandemic, deepening the pre-existing economic problems and exposing the fault lines of society. The government’s pandemic response and the lockdowns created a social crisis that made life hell. Yet when the Liberal government came under attack for this, the NDP and union tops swooped in to rescue it.

In fact, throughout the pandemic the labour leaders forced the working class to swallow the lockdowns imposed by the Liberals and provincial premiers—i.e., the reactionary response of the ruling class which aimed to stave off in a cheap way the collapse of the decrepit health system. In B.C., it was the NDP government which directly imposed them. But what workers needed in response to the pandemic was more of everything—more health care, more infrastructure, more housing, more safety at work, more production to provide necessities. Yet there were no mobilizations to fight for these things. Rather, in the name of “saving lives,” the labour leaders aided and abetted Trudeau in shutting the population away to create stability for the ruling elites.

The result? An already overloaded healthcare system was pushed to the brink of collapse—and it is still getting worse. Children and young people are struggling with psychological and educational setbacks—and the schools are still underfunded and understaffed. Mass unemployment and grinding the economy to a halt was a heavy blow—and inflation, debt and the rising costs of living are still daily worries.

The anger and resentment against these conditions reached a flashpoint with the truckers’ blockade in 2022—a challenge to the government. This fissure in “national unity” should have been seized on to start a working-class fightback against the government’s vicious pandemic attacks. But rather than leading the opposition, the labour leaders and the socialist left spat on this legitimate anger. Why? Because they backed the government and its pandemic policies (while mouthing a few criticisms). This created a void and left the field wide open to right-wing forces and conspiracy theorists.

Hysteria against the truckers was whipped up precisely to save the government from the mounting anger. Singh and the NDP were among the loudest voices portraying this event as a quasi-fascist uprising led by U.S.-based forces against science. This provided the justification for a severe clampdown on dissent, culminating with Trudeau using the Emergencies Act (the rebranded War Measures Act). In spearheading this crackdown, the NDP rallied support behind Trudeau.

While some left liberals and the socialist left were critical of using the Emergencies Act, the “nuclear option,” they supported the path that led to it: the lockdowns and the vilification of the truckers’ protest. In fact, state repression has always been the teeth behind “progressive” liberal policies, bared sharply during times of crisis. When preaching about “democratic values” is not sufficient to tamp down opposition, the Trudeau Liberals resort to force. In defense of a united Canada, Pierre Trudeau wielded the War Measures Act in 1970 to crush the spectre of Quebec separatism. In defense of national unity behind the government’s pandemic response, Justin Trudeau wielded it to stamp out any opposition.

The reason for this is that the policies of the government serve the interests of the English Canadian ruling class. The vital interests of workers run up against the capitalists’ private ownership of the banks, factories and mines and their overall control of the productive forces of society—power which they will protect with the full force of their state. It is from this perspective that we argued in our article “Labour Must Defend the Truckers!” (21 February 2022): “What’s urgently called for is a communist opposition to the government, which means breaking with the current treacherous reformist leaderships and building a new, revolutionary party which can lead the working class to victory in its struggle for power.”

By not defending the truckers, the labour leaders betrayed. And it did not end there. Indeed, their support to Trudeau’s crackdowns resulted in the birth of a formal governing bloc between the Liberals and the NDP, supported by the top union leaders. Meanwhile, Poilievre capitalized on the truckers’ protest, taking the helm of the Conservative Party. Harper’s former attack-dog was allowed to posture as a friend of working people and the downtrodden because the labour leaders did not offer a left-wing opposition to Trudeau. It was their liberal politics that led to devastation for workers during the pandemic and the Liberal-NDP coalition continued the onslaught.

No to Liberal-NDP Economic “Solutions”—Labour Needs a New Path

Poilievre is gaining traction simply by hammering on the dismal economic situation and the housing hell in Canada. The Tory ascendance was marked by their byelection win in Toronto-St. Paul’s, a historic Liberal stronghold. Singh talks the talk about the NDP being the only party fighting for affordability, but he walks the walk of support to Trudeau. Poilievre’s success is a gift from the NDP and the union leaders who have been supporting the Liberals’ economic policies—a betrayal that has paralyzed the labour movement.

Multiple Liberal budgets have passed muster with the labour leaders. The most recent one in April was lauded by the union bureaucrats of Unifor for delivering on “social progress and jobs in the face of economic inequities, relentless affordability pressures and stubbornly high interest rates.” The more left-wing CUPE had a few tepid criticisms, including the “over-reliance on market-led approaches.” CUPE nonetheless endorsed it as “moving in the right direction,” which they credit to the NDP. And while the NDP may criticize both Trudeau and Poilievre for catering to “corporate greed” they voted up the budget, signing on to the Liberals’ plans.

To justify supporting the Liberals, the labour leaders argue that the Tory alternative is worse since steep public service cuts will be a sure thing. It is true that Tory austerity will hurt the working class and must be opposed. But you can’t do this with the Liberals whose economic “solutions” run completely counter to workers’ interests. Nor are the Liberals strangers to austerity measures. Trying to patch up capitalism with the Liberals (versus the Tories) is a dead-end for addressing the problems plaguing working people: inflation, economic decline, erosion of social programs and the housing crisis.

The rampant inflation hitting households across the country is linked to the Liberals’ response to the decaying economy—a reliance on high levels of government spending, financed by debt. Deficits were treated as permanently affordable because there was a long period of low interest rates. And the debt reached historic levels during the pandemic. Yet by pumping more and more money into the economy, the government fueled inflation. This strategy of printing money and racking up debt is making life unaffordable for working people.

Also, the Liberals are paving the way for more cuts to public services. The debt itself, including to fund public works and social supports, threatens to be the siphon to starve services. The central bank’s interest-rate hikes aimed to tame inflation have made debt much more expensive. The price tag has doubled, and debt servicing is one of the largest government expenses—leading a large section of the ruling class to demand major cuts.

And how have public services fared under the Liberals, have they been shored up? No, the social safety net—health, education and other crucial services—is collapsing. Transit, utilities and infrastructure are crumbling. And the few new services being built, from transit to health care, are largely union-busting privatization schemes. Not only have they done nothing to relieve the crisis, but they fatten the wallets of the banks and big corporations while undermining union power.

Everybody on the left knows that the current situation cries out for a massive public works program and investments in social services. The banks and corporations have the money—the working class must take it from them to fund public services. But the capitalists will not pay or build what is needed unless forced to do so. The question is, what strategy can achieve this?

The current labour leaders call on the government to “tax the rich, don’t borrow from them” (CUPE). They praise the recent Liberal increase of the capital gains tax as a way to “help fund our social safety net.” Don’t count on it. Quality public services require a productive economy. Taxing the rich, even at much higher levels (and even without massive tax evasion), won’t be enough to meet the needs of workers, because it can’t shore up a declining economy. Rather, for the economy to grow it must be re-organized on a planned basis, under workers’ control, and not left to the chaos that comes from the whims of the private sector and the banks.

The only way to start defending and expanding public services is to improve the balance of class forces in favour of the working class. The ruling class will only make concessions when it fears losing more. The balance of forces can only be improved by mobilizing workers to fight for what is needed. But this is not what the labour tops have been doing since they have been propping up the government.

The Liberals rely on deficits and tweaking the tax code to try and stave off a recession, which is a fool’s game. This is because the real economy is rotting. Labour productivity is directly linked to the standard of living—both of which have been declining for decades. Canada’s export sector is no longer a key driver of economic growth. Manufacturing has been gutted. Resources are a major component of the economy, but do not contribute to raising productivity. The national GDP only remains elevated through high levels of immigration.

And what does all this mean for workers? Economic growth won’t come without significant investments in infrastructure and technology. The capitalists don’t invest in productivity because money goes where it will make the most profit (like speculation and real estate). At the same time, the bosses seek efficiencies at the expense of workers. Even without a recession, a no-growth economy puts the squeeze on working people in the form of high prices, eroded wages, speed-ups and clawbacks. This is what it means to support the Liberals’ “progressive” economic policies.

More broadly, Canada’s productivity woes are the result of nearly 40 years of globalization carried out under the aegis of U.S. imperialism. The open liberalized economy was good for the Canadian ruling class, at the head of a resource-heavy and trade-dependent economy. This was due to a commodity boom and high prices for resources. But that boom was based on conjunctural factors of fast-developing economies (like China, India, etc.) in the post-Soviet period, resting on the unipolar dominance of the U.S. superpower. There is nothing in the global economy today that could serve as the impetus to repeat this. And now the U.S. hegemony on which globalization was based is in rapid decline.

Yet the Liberals bank their hopes for an economic revival on a re-stabilization of the U.S.-led world order. And union leaders, notably in Unifor, share this outlook and have been actively working with the government to implement its economic policies. Over the last two years, the Trudeau government has been handing out multibillion-dollar subsidies to corporations in the auto and EV industries. Effectively the Liberals are making high stakes gambling bets with borrowed money.

They do this to stay in line with U.S. industrial policy, particularly given that Canada’s economy is so thoroughly integrated with the behemoth. But the “reshoring” plans of the Biden/Harris Democrats—a highly protectionist response aimed mainly at China—are no more in the interests of workers than are free trade policies. And by supporting the economic plans of Biden/Harris and Trudeau, the Unifor tops are lining up Canadian workers with U.S. imperialism and against workers in other countries.

The union bureaucrats tell workers that partnering with Trudeau will strengthen the economy and protect jobs. They do this because they believe that liberal capitalism can meet the needs of workers. Unions like Unifor have immense power that could be mobilized to stop the flow of profits and bring down governments. But instead, the union tops use this power to carve out a spot for themselves at the table with bank heads, corporate tycoons and the government that represents them. The price of admission is labour peace for the capitalists which can only come at the expense of workers.

Last year, the Unifor tops sold out a historic opportunity for coordinated action between American and Canadian auto workers—one that could have made real gains and reversed decades of losses. There should have been joint strikes across the border. Rather, Unifor rammed through a series of deals with the Detroit Three even as UAW-organized workers in the U.S. were on strike. Supporting the Liberals’ economic policies and acting as a brake on class struggle are two sides of the same coin. When isolationist and protectionist measures come from the White House, Unifor draws the workers more tightly to Ottawa. When Trudeau pushes policies to make Canada more indispensable to the U.S., Unifor ensures there are no strikes to upset corporate interests.

Support to the Liberals’ budgets and economic policies has been a disaster for workers. Instead, the unions should stand for a fundamental re-organization of the economy—planned, collectivized and based on the needs of the working class. This requires confronting the Bay Street and Wall Street financiers around whom the economy is currently organized. It means striving for unity with the working class throughout North America and abroad rather than looking for “progressive” friends on Parliament Hill. This is the only way to undercut Poilievre’s appeal and improve conditions for working people.

Labour Celebrates Multiculturalism—Pillar of Canadian Capitalist Rule

With the economy sinking deeper into stagnation and decay, the multiethnic working class needs to wage a fight for its own interests in opposition to the ruling elites. A barrier to this is the labour leaders’ support to official multiculturalism, which divides and weakens the labour movement while tying the unions to the government. Trudeauist multiculturalism is a pillar of the pan-Canadian nationalism that serves the ruling class at the expense of workers and the oppressed. It is a cornerstone of capitalist rule that reflects both Canada’s place in the liberal order under U.S. hegemony and the drive to forcibly keep Quebec within a united Canada.

This is one of the most prominent pressure points in society, because to oppose official multiculturalism is to challenge the ethos of “progressiveness” of the Canadian state. Along with universal health care, multiculturalism is central to the modern Canadian identity. It is touted as the “distinctive feature” that makes Canada “exceptional” and a success story for welcoming mass immigration. So, liberal dogma declares that rejection of official multiculturalism must be equated with reaction, racism and anti-immigrant bigotry.

But as a liberal ideology and political tool, multiculturalism is not progressive. Rather, it is fundamentally a means to ensure “national unity”—i.e., stability for the ruling class. It pits various sections of the working class against each other to safeguard the capitalist profit system. It is the mask for bankrupt economic strategies that use mass immigration to artificially grow an economy that is rotting from the inside out. And, crucially, it serves to undercut and demonize the just national aspirations of Quebec.

Trudeau came to power on a mission to put multiculturalism back at the centre of Canadian politics, after it had been sidelined by the Harper Conservatives. To capitalize on the anger against the Tories, Trudeau postured as the one to reconcile with Indigenous peoples, fight racism, defend minorities, bring gender equality, ensure inclusivity for LGBTQ+ peoples, and so on. The basis of this was simply “because it’s 2015”—a vacuous statement which required no real changes. And sure enough, material conditions for the oppressed have not improved.

The main argument from left-wing labour leaders is that this is due to a failure to live up to the ideals of inclusivity and anti-discrimination that are enshrined in state policy like the Multiculturalism Act. The perspective they put forward is for more liberalism, less hypocritical policies and real government pathways to combat barriers to jobs, housing and education. But empty liberal sympathies elevated to a state ideology when the conditions of society are going downhill serve to set up oppressed groups as targets for reaction and backlash. This is why the liberal critique of multiculturalism reinforces the right-wing reaction to it, which in turn strengthens liberalism. This mutually reinforcing relationship creates stability for the ruling class.

This is what is happening with the housing crisis for which immigrants and foreign students are being scapegoated. The nearly half a million immigrants that come into Canada every year are not responsible for the housing shortage. The lack of affordable homes is due to speculation, financialization of housing development and profit-driven building initiatives. But a rapid increase to the population when there is not enough housing does exacerbate the problem. Of course, the right-wing points to this to push anti-immigrant racism. The left either puts its head in the sand to avoid the issue or pushes for more liberal tokenism in the name of multiculturalism.

Canada has one of the highest rates of immigration per population in the world. For the Liberals this is proof that it is an “inclusive” and therefore “progressive” place. This narrative obscures the reality that mass immigration has long been a conscious policy to shore up a declining economy. Since the capitalist rulers cannot truly increase economic productivity, relying on a constant flow of new labour ready to work at low wages is a way to grow the GDP minimally. But a stagnating economy and an increase in population put downward pressure on salaries and services and inevitably lead to social tensions.

In the wake of the global economic crisis of 2008-09, the capitalists’ immigration policy shifted to increase temporary migration. The ruling class needed cheap labour to keep Canada competitive and foreign students to serve as cash cows to fund higher education starved of public funds. The temporary workers and foreign students, like millions of other migrants, have sought a better life and refuge from social ruin driven by imperialist depredations and the declining global economic order.

If the economy were booming with quality jobs and a high level of productivity, integrating even huge numbers of immigrants would be relatively easy. But these social conditions don’t exist. Half a million new people yearly need jobs, housing and public services that the economy can’t deliver. Multiculturalism is then used as a club to beat down these real concerns and defend the economic and immigration model of the Liberals by labelling as “racist” any questioning of it. While Poilievre does not openly challenge this model and claims to defend multiculturalism, he seeks to tap into growing disaffection.

In response to growing tensions, the CUPE leadership put out “A Solidarity and Action Guide” (April 2024) to support temporary foreign workers in the unions and to combat divisions in the working class. But since it is rooted in the framework of liberal multiculturalism it can’t do either of these things. CUPE knows that the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) was established to meet the needs of employers, subjecting migrants to low wages and mistreatment. The bosses use the precarity of migrants to push down wages and attack seniority rights, which creates resentment among non-migrant workers. And migrant workers are accused of “taking our jobs.”

The CUPE tops claim the role of the union is to enforce the TFWP by addressing employers’ violations of migrants’ rights and contesting the labour shortage claims that permit employers to hire temporary workers in the first place. And how does CUPE aim to combat the bosses’ exploitation of divisions among workers? With a campaign of anti-racist education for union members. This is Trudeauist multiculturalism in action: support capitalist immigration policy with empty anti-racist platitudes. And without a strategy to address the material conditions of all workers, the divisions are reinforced.

Now that the unemployment rate is starting to rise, a campaign against temporary migrants is being whipped up. The working class must oppose such campaigns and other bans on immigration. But this does not mean that workers should support the alternative positive policies for immigration under capitalism. Workers, both domestic and foreign-born, have no interest in taking a side in the debate over “good” immigration based on permanency versus “bad” temporary immigration. Whatever the ruling class’ immigration policy is, it will always be driven first and foremost by their own economic interests: a lot of immigrants when they need them, stricter border control when they don’t.

The NDP and the union tops betray workers and the oppressed by supporting the Liberals’ economic and immigration model. Both anti-immigrant laws and support for mass immigration are against the interests of the working class. When the government’s policies have been challenged, the labour movement has acted as the shock troops to defend multiculturalism. This contributes to furthering the divide and rule tactics of the ruling class, pitting various immigrant groups against each other, “white” workers against “non-white” workers and Québécois against Canadians.

The situation will only get worse unless the labour movement mobilizes now to defend immigrants and minorities. The only way to cut against the divisions is by uniting in struggle against the government and the bosses. Straight away, this means the working class must fight for full citizenship rights for all. Additionally, a fight for wage increases across the board and organizing the unorganized is the way to improve the situation for all workers.

Only class struggle against the bosses can strengthen the unity of all working people and improve the conditions of Indigenous peoples, women, immigrants. This means combatting the liberal politics of multiculturalism. Instead, the labour leaders have been uniting sectors of immigrants and white anti-racist workers with the government against another sector of the population and against Quebec! The workers movement needs a new leadership, one that mobilizes for class struggle against the government, not “multiculturalism” with the government!

Labour in English Canada Must Support Quebec Independence

While the state ideology of multiculturalism is hyped as a model for the downtrodden around the world, it is in fact a tool to deny that Quebec is nationally oppressed. Over 50 years ago, it was ushered in by the senior Trudeau to crush the struggle for Quebec independence. The junior Trudeau came to power in 2015 championing Canada as the “first post-national state.” Today, multiculturalism is used to rally national unity around the government under the guise of “anti-racism”—particularly against the national aspirations of the Québécois. In refusing to champion Quebec’s national rights, the Canadian labour leaders guarantee their loyalty to the English Canadian ruling class. This is the central roadblock to advances for the labour movement and working-class unity in Canada and Quebec.

The NDP may raise alarms about the decline of French and the failures of the Trudeau Liberals in defending it. They may pass motions in Parliament to “recognize” Quebec as a nation. They may support Quebec’s right to protect French as the official language. But it is all in the framework of upholding the national oppression of Quebec—which is what their “asymmetrical federalism” is all about. The NDP aims to shore up federalism by acknowledging that Canada is a multinational state, to thwart the struggle for independence. Since the NDP seeks to keep Quebec in a united Canada, they uphold the pillars of Trudeau liberalism, multiculturalism and its twin, official bilingualism.

In Quebec, Trudeauist bilingualism and multiculturalism are opposed because they are an existential threat to the Québécois nation. In a “post-national state,” national rights have supposedly been transcended by the “inclusivity” of liberal Canada, a lofty and pretentious way of saying that Quebec has no rights. Only through the struggle for independence will Québécois national aspirations be met. But short of that, and while Quebec remains an oppressed nation in a united Canada, language laws and the right to control immigration are important for the defense of a francophone society in Quebec.

In the logic of liberal Canada, the Québécois are Canadians who happen to speak French. Language is no longer held as a collective right but only an individual right. This is absurd but it serves the political purpose of denying that Quebec is a distinct nation, which has rights. At bottom, this is what drives Canadian bilingualism.

This policy manipulates the linguistic minorities in both nations. In the name of defending French from coast to coast, historic francophone populations in English Canada are pitted against Quebec’s national rights. The lack of services in French shows the tokenism of official bilingualism, but its true purpose is to line up people behind the government as the alleged defender of language rights. And as for the historic English minority in Quebec, where services in English are orders of magnitude more of a reality, they are used as a wedge against Quebec’s language and national rights.

In English Canada, official bilingualism is widely viewed as a progressive asset. But in reality, it is directed against the Quebec government’s passing laws to defend French. It serves as an assimilationist tool to keep Quebec in Canada by undermining the use of French. Quebec is confined in an anglophone-majority federation with the U.S. superpower for a neighbour—this dynamic determines that English is the dominant language. Yet with a cynical twist, it is the language policy of the oppressor nation, official bilingualism, that causes French to be viewed as the “privileged” language and the Quebec language laws to be portrayed as reactionary.

For Quebec, the question of immigration is also inseparable from the continued existence of a francophone nation. The right to control borders is an indissociable attribute of sovereignty and Quebec can only acquire it by separating from Canada. Furthermore, for generations the Anglo-British and now Canadian rulers have sought to drown the French-speaking Québécois people in a sea of non-francophone immigrants. This is why concerns over immigration are always the strongest in Quebec.

And since the Québécois nationalists are often too spineless to wage a fight for independence, whipping up anti-immigrant sentiment proves to be an easier way to channel the legitimate national sentiment. That has been the strategy of the right-wing government of Legault. For example, even the measures to defend the French language contained in his Bill 96 and the modest immigration powers Legault is demanding from the federal government, while generally supportable, do not fundamentally address Quebec’s national oppression. Bill 96 is nothing more than a pathetic caricature of Bill 101, which itself never solved the linguistic oppression of the Québécois, despite real advances. But Bill 96 also places a ban on services in languages other than French for immigrants after six months, a racist provision that hinders immigrants’ transition from their mother tongue and further marginalizes them.

Such policies undermine the struggle for national liberation by dividing workers, further chaining “native-born” Québécois to their own bourgeoisie and driving immigrants into the arms of Trudeauist multiculturalism. In turn, the entire English Canadian establishment can rally around multiculturalism in denouncing Quebec as “racist”—thus helping to safeguard the unity of Canada. The result of the Trudeau years and its hypocritical “wokism” is that the national divide in Canada has been deepened. This in turn has led to a rise in support for the bourgeois-nationalist leaders in Quebec—the Bloc, the CAQ and more recently the PQ.

All the Liberal lectures about diversity, immigration and “progress” are geared at undermining Quebec’s position inside Canada. The NDP and union tops in English Canada have been complicit in this endeavour—a complete betrayal and the surest way to deepen national hostility between Canadian and Québécois workers. Rather than defending Trudeau, the labour movement in Canada should defend Quebec’s national rights—even the right to control its own immigration—while opposing Legault’s reactionary policies. And it should support Quebec independence. This is the means for the Canadian unions to combat distrust and demonstrate they are allies in the fight against the common enemy in Ottawa. It is crucial to oppose liberalism because it ties the English Canadian workers to their own rulers, and it serves to drive Quebec workers into the arms of the Quebec capitalists. Canadian workers have a material interest in supporting Quebec independence because such a struggle would rock the Canadian ruling class to its core, dealing it a blow which would open the road to its overturn.

Labour’s Support to U.S. Imperialism, Brake on Class Struggle

On the world stage, the Liberals trumpet Canada’s special role in promoting “democracy and human rights.” The NDP and labour tops push the illusion that these policies are a gain of the social-democratic tradition, particularly in comparison to the U.S. The corollary is that the role of the labour leaders and other social movements is to keep the Liberals accountable. But this is false to the core. The “humanitarian” posture of the Liberal government serves to protect Canada’s privileged position as a middle power in the world hierarchy of imperialism (which comes from being an adjunct to a superpower).

One way or another, the Liberals (and the Tories as well) aim to make sure that Canada remains an indispensable junior partner to U.S. imperialism. This means that Canada toes all the red lines drawn by the U.S.—browbeat China and support NATO, Ukraine and Israel. Defense of these key pillars of the strategic alliance with the U.S. are pushed in the labour movement by the NDP and trade-union tops. This runs completely counter to the interests of the working class, and acts as a brake on class struggle.

In fact, Canadian foreign policies flow from the global economic order led by the U.S. Ottawa takes its cues from Washington and defends U.S. imperialism because the interests of the Canadian ruling class are bound up with its American counterpart. Being in the orbit of a giant, Canada can move and tilt but never leaves the trajectory set by the U.S. The open liberalized economy of globalization was good for the ruling class of a trade-dominant economy like Canada. But now the world order grows more unstable as U.S. hegemony declines. In response, Canadian liberalism has become hysterical.

This is because the results of globalization—the growth of world trade, the industrialization of neocolonial countries, the development of China—are now undermining U.S. hegemony. And so, to shore up its position the U.S. aims to tear apart the basis of globalization—confronting China, upping pressure on the neo-colonies, raising tariff barriers and reducing the crumbs given to its allies. Canadian liberalism is geared at trying to shore up the world institutions that support globalization while also aiding the U.S. in tearing it down—an impossible balancing act.

Both Trudeau and Poilievre know that no matter who wins the U.S. elections in November, Washington’s use of subsidies and tax breaks to “reshore” manufacturing is here to stay. The Trudeau government has been waging a “charm” offensive to build north-south links with businesses and local governments to parallel its links to Washington. And since everyone knows that Canada can’t afford to increase its military spending enough to meet the demands of NATO, the Liberals try to stay relevant to the U.S. in other ways.

The NDP and trade-union bureaucrats complain that the global economic system is unjust, dominated by banks and corporations—which it certainly is. They seek to make it more democratic by getting the ruling class to treat workers as equal partners. In doing so they adopt the framework of the Liberals—to make Canada a “progressive” partner in the U.S.-led world order by propping up the institutions of liberal capitalism. Poilievre taps into discontent over this with his populist rhetoric against the “elites” and the World Economic Forum. Trudeau in turn uses this to dismiss any opposition to globalization as a conspiracy or right-wing reaction.

But the strategy of the labour leaders of trying to democratize and “fix” the liberal world order won’t bring progress. Developing the productive forces is essential for the working class across the globe but this runs up against the interests of the American imperialists, on which globalization rests. Furthermore, since this strategy is premised on supporting U.S. and Canadian imperialism, it prevents the unions from winning even the basics for which they are fighting (as seen with Unifor’s dead-end strategy for auto).

On China for example, Canada is in lockstep with the U.S. After a six-year freeze in relations, Canadian Foreign Minister Joly was back in China lecturing about its record on human rights. This is geared at aiding the U.S. in maintaining its hegemony. The “humanitarian” garb is the cover for pushing Washington’s protectionist economic measures and sabre-rattling against China. In the immediate sense, this is about current geopolitical dynamics. But it is also about fomenting the forces of counterrevolution in China, even as the Chinese Stalinist bureaucracy itself continues to push deadly illusions in the U.S.-led globalized economy. Canadian workers should oppose the anti-China imperialists, while supporting the struggle for political revolution against the sellout bureaucracy to defend the gains of the 1949 Revolution (see “The Class Nature of China,” Spartacist No. 69, August 2024).

In the Western world, Canada is practically the only country where there have been zero dissenting voices over Ukraine. Across the board—from the Liberals and Tories to the NDP and trade-union leaders—Zelensky is supported as a great “freedom fighter.” This includes “anti-war” unions like CUPE that oppose the conflict on pacifist grounds while still supporting the aims of NATO—which means defending the imperialist order.

With its 2022 invasion of Ukraine provoked by the NATO imperialists, Russia threw down the gauntlet to unbridled U.S. dominance. Ukraine is not fighting a just struggle of national liberation. A victory for Ukraine would mean further enslaving the country to the NATO imperialists and increasing the oppression of the Russian minorities. On the other hand, Russia is not fighting a legitimate war of national defense against imperialism but with the purpose of bringing Ukraine back into its sphere of influence and to oppress it.

Early in the war, the U.S. laid down a hard line to its allies: support Ukraine against Russia. Canada toes this line and is one of the loudest sabre-rattling voices. This is because it does not matter much for Canada—it is far from the war and does not have significant economic relations with Russia. Canada’s military is tiny and irrelevant and moralizing about Ukraine to the rest of the world makes for good relations with Biden and the U.S. (except when hailing a Ukrainian Nazi in the House of Commons).

The labour leaders, in defense of “liberal values,” channel these pro-imperialist politics into the working class. Rather, the labour movement here must support a revolutionary defeatist position on the war, that Ukrainian and Russian workers turn their weapons against both their own respective oligarchs, and to extend the revolutionary struggle to the imperialist countries. Workers cannot mount an offensive against the capitalists at home when their own leaders are serving as political foot soldiers in this war. What is needed are workers’ actions—strikes, hot cargoing arms shipments, etc.—against NATO and against the Canadian and U.S. imperialists.

On Palestine, there are cracks in social democracy over the Zionist massacre in Gaza. For taking a side with the Palestinians, unionists and labour leaders have been witchhunted. Sarah Jama was kicked out of the Ontario NDP caucus and Fred Hahn, the president of CUPE Ontario, has been hounded for his defense of Palestinian liberation, including by the national leadership of CUPE. But these leaders did not fight against the Liberal-NDP coalition that propped up a government that supports genocide. They prioritize unity with the social chauvinist right-wing NDP leadership over defense of the Palestinians. This is because they share the same liberal view, as seen with Jama’s touting Canada’s “history of peacemaking.”

The movement for Palestinian liberation is going nowhere because it relies on pressuring the Liberals, even while many on the left know that the Liberals are hypocrites—preaching democracy while supporting genocide. The tone of the Liberals has shifted from that of eleven months ago to be more “humanitarian,” including by calling for a ceasefire. Leaders of the Palestinian movement claim that this is a small success of the protests that can “end Canadian complicity.” The Liberals are making some criticisms of Israel, but they are no less committed to siding with it. Rather, the rhetoric, the promise to end future arms sales and the support for the International Court of Justice case against Israel are part of the global choreography of the U.S.—to buy time for the Zionist state to reach its genocidal aims in Gaza while minimizing the geopolitical impacts.

Against the liberal pacifism driving the movement to an impasse, there must be concrete actions organized to challenge the imperialist status quo. This means confronting the Liberal government and the NDP leadership. The working class is the decisive force that must be mobilized—to stop weapons deliveries to Israel, fight the vicious pro-Zionist repression and fight for Palestinian liberation. To do so requires a fight against the labour leaders who aim to pressure the Liberals with more liberalism. This has been the obstacle to mobilizing the labour movement behind the Palestinian cause.

This included the Ontario Federation of Labour’s call to unions to defend the student encampment at the University of Toronto on 27 May. OFL President Laura Walton railed against the political instability and violence in the region that “disrupts global supply chains” and can “drive up costs here at home.” This is perfectly in line with Biden’s and Trudeau’s views. And it is overt support for the liberal capitalist order.

Moral outrage aside, the bottom line is that the labour movement’s policy of support to the Liberals and the U.S. empire is completely against the most basic interests of the working class. Support to the liberalized economic order is leading to ruin. And instead of mobilizing the power of labour to impose its will on the capitalist class, the labour leaders limit struggle to ensure it doesn’t go too far out of the bounds that are acceptable to the bosses. So, they look for allies in the Canadian and American ruling classes rather than alliances with the working class in Quebec, the U.S. and worldwide.

The only way to win gains for the working class is to oppose the global domination and plunder of U.S. imperialism. This means building an anti-imperialist pole in the labour movement in opposition to the U.S. ruling class and its Canadian junior partner. The policy of the Canadian labour movement must be: No to the USMCA! Defend China! No support to Ukraine or Israel! Down with NATO! Down with U.S. imperialism and its Canadian lackey! For the liberation of Palestine!

The Labour Movement is Heading for Disaster—Prepare Now, Turn the Tide

Things are getting worse, and the political climate is shifting to the right. The labour movement is weak and divided by the politics of liberalism. Support to the Emergencies Act, to the Liberals’ economic strategy, to multiculturalism, to Ottawa’s anti-Quebec policy and to U.S. imperialism’s wars in Ukraine and Gaza: on all serious questions of our times, the leaders of the labour movement stand on the other side of the class line and are completely betraying the interests of the working class, leading it to defeat and disaster.

And it’s not like there haven’t been opportunities to turn the tide: in the last two years, there were a series of prominent labour struggles in English Canada—CUPE-Ontario, auto, PSAC, ILWU, rail. (There was also the potentially explosive Common Front strike in Quebec.) Any one of these could have changed the political landscape in favour of the working class. But instead, each ended in defeat or stalemate, sacrificed on the altar of the Liberal-NDP coalition. This was what brought the Ontario education workers strike to defeat, yet it is held up by the Marxist left as a model for combatting anti-union attacks.

Unfortunately, the socialist left has acted as a link in the chain of liberalism. They know that Trudeau must go; they know that the ruling elites are responsible for one crisis after another; and they know that the Liberal-NDP coalition is responsible for the rise of Poilievre. But they don’t have a program to break the hold of liberalism in the labour and other social movements. What we are putting forward is a program to wage a relentless struggle against liberalism and a perspective of struggle based on the most immediate needs of the working class in opposition to the bosses and their governments. We aim for this to be the basis for broader discussions within the left. In preparing in this period of mounting reaction, the role of Marxists should be to build a clear anti-capitalist alternative to the current labour leadership.

Because of the whole rotten course, the working-class leaders have discredited the trade-union movement, which now stands in the eyes of millions as a defender of the rotten status quo. The price paid has been the prostration of the labour movement. It has fueled the rise of Poilievre and social reaction more broadly. All of this done in the name of a pathetic dental plan!

Singh may have junked his formal pact with Trudeau, but the working class needs a fundamentally different program and leadership if it wants to advance its interests and be an active factor in changing society. We need a revolutionary workers party in this country. Forging one means a confrontation with the current union and NDP leaderships. Because if the working class remains led by spineless liberals and Trudeauists, there can only be more defeat and disaster.