On Feb. 18, Unifor, Canada’s largest private sector union, released its most detailed plan yet to “defend our economy against Trump’s attacks” and to protect Canadian jobs. The statement, authored by Unifor president Lana Payne, shares positions taken by many of Canada’s other major trade union leaders on the trade war. In that sense, Payne’s statement can be considered as the platform, not just of Unifor’s leadership, but of much of Canada’s union officialdom.
In the statement, the reader finds a nine point program that opens with a call for a “robust worker-led industrial response.” Who could possibly disagree with that? However, as one reads further, the actual role of workers and their unions ends up playing second fiddle to the actions of politicians and corporations.
In point three, the longest in Payne’s statement, the reader finds a call for retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., as well as a suggestion to hand government contracts for things like infrastructure to Canadian companies. “Made in Canada matters,” according to Payne.
There are a few problems here. First, in what sense are tariffs and awarding contracts a “worker-led” measure? Do workers get to vote on and design tariffs? Do workers decide which companies receive government contracts? These are not “worker-led” measures, but measures designed by politicians and corporations in which the ordinary person has no say or control.
Nor will these measures benefit workers or save jobs. Retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods will not stop factories closing or prevent layoffs. Their purpose is to protect the market share and profits of Canadian companies—the same companies which were laying off their fellow Canadians even before Trump returned to office. In addition, by raising the cost of U.S. imports, workers here will be forced to pay more when they go to the store. “Made in Canada” procurement policies are no better, and will only ensure that more contracts go to corrupt and inefficient companies like SNC-Lavalin (now rebranded as Atkins Realis) that have shafted Canadians for decades.
In point six, Payne presents the need to “secure investments and increase our value-added production,” adding that “In this regard Unifor has been working continuously with governments and industry.” This last point refers to the estimated $57 billion in government subsidies and tax credits handed out to auto and battery companies to set up new plants in recent years—decisions which Unifor’s leadership endorsed and helped to negotiate.
This so-called “industrial strategy” is another name for corporate welfare. Its main purpose is to help pad the profits of the companies receiving them, while the jobs created are usually minimal when compared to the size of the payout. In the case of handouts to auto and battery companies, it has been estimated that each job will cost the taxpayer up to $4 million.
In some cases, jobs may not be created at all. In February, Stellantis said it was “pausing” work on its Jeep Compass at its facility in Brampton, despite it receiving billions from the government to increase production. This is no doubt positive for the companies in question—less so for ordinary people who will have to foot the bill and those in need of work. In her statement, Payne suggests that these handouts were not only necessary, but that they should be continued and expanded.
In interviews, Payne has also defended the idea of “industrial supports” for existing companies such as steel producers. This is politician talk for corporate bailouts. The COVID-era “wage subsidy” has been floated by some as a potential model for how these bailouts should be designed. However, in many cases, those funds were simply pocketed by executives while their workers were laid off anyways. In the case of Air Canada, one of the largest recipients of the “wage subsidy”, its management still laid off half its workforce, while also refusing to reimburse customers for cancelled flights and paying themselves handsome bonuses.
In point eight, Payne writes that “if there is to be increased spending in defence, then let it be to defend our sovereignty as a nation and make sure it benefits Canadian workers.” However, in an earlier part of her statement, Payne lambasts “those who think Canada should roll over and give in to Trump’s demands,” concluding that “The answer is not to give in to the demands.” Major increases to defence spending are one of Trump’s main asks. Did Payne herself then “roll over” in the time it took her to write a few hundred words?
The consequences of meeting this demand would be severe. Increasing defence spending to even two per cent of GDP would mean spending an additional $20-billion more a year—meaning deep cuts to things like healthcare and other social programs. In point two, Payne argues for the “need to make improvements to our inadequate social safety net,” something which few people could disagree with. However, by acquiescing to Trump’s demands on defence spending, those same programs like EI would be undermined for lack of funding. Payne’s statement not only contradicts reality—it contradicts itself.
Class collaboration
Protecting jobs is a real concern for Canadian workers as trade war looms. However, Lana Payne’s proposals do no such thing. Instead of a “worker-led” response, the reader is offered measures designed and implemented by Ottawa and Bay Street. Instead of policies meant to benefit workers, the reader is offered bailouts for big Canadian corporations. Notably, those same corporations escape serious criticism in Payne’s statement, while the Trudeau Liberals—who just months ago broke a strike of postal workers—are not mentioned at all. In that sense, Payne’s statement serves not as a guide for Canadian workers, but as a left cover for Canada’s political and corporate bosses.
Payne’s statement should come as no surprise. In recent years, union leaders have pursued a policy of establishing friendly relations with the anti-worker Liberals, while placing a lid on militancy in their ranks. This reached its final crescendo after the re-election of Trump, as union leaders joined the Council on Canada-U.S. Relations—an alliance dominated by capitalist politicians and major business groups. Payne herself is a member of the Council, alongside figures like Flavio Volpe, President of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, and the hated former Quebec Premier and former federal Conservative Party leader Jean Charest. In a post to X, Payne reflected on the first meeting of the Council, stating that “when you are in a fight it helps to have friends. And make new ones.” This is class collaboration in its highest form.
But Canadian bourgeois politicians and business leaders are not our friends. Canadian CEOs were our enemies yesterday, and remain our enemies today. Measures like tariffs, “Made in Canada” policies and subsidies are designed to serve those on top—not the average Canadian worker. These corporate policies serve to handicap workers in the fight to protect jobs and therefore have no place in the trade union movement.
Instead, the movement should argue for a truly “worker-led response,” including occupations of workplaces slated for closure and opening the books of any company that uses the trade environment to justify mass layoffs. These methods have served Canadian workers before and can do so again. True, these are not simple things to achieve. But faced with a crisis of this proportion, they are the only realistic way to save jobs.
