Carney, Canadian Sovereignty; US Power, and NATO Defense Spending

 

 

Mark Carney’s Leadership Amidst Structural Constraints

Mark Carney assumed leadership at a time when Canada’s long-standing, deeply integrated relationship with the United States was under unprecedented strain due to Trump’s transactional, coercive trade policies. Carney’s mandate was to defend Canadian sovereignty and chart a path toward economic diversification and resilience. Despite his business acumen and diplomatic skill, Carney’s options have been sharply limited by Canada’s structural economic dependence on the US, legal constraints from trade agreements like USMCA, and corporate realities where Canadian firms prioritize shareholder interests over national loyalty.

Carney has been forced to back down on key policies—most notably the digital services tax—under threat of US tariffs and suspended negotiations. His role has largely been defensive, mitigating damage rather than reversing the fundamental power imbalance.

The Abandonment of the Rules-Based World Order

For decades, the US championed a rules-based international economic order, emphasizing multilateralism, predictable trade rules, and mutual benefit. This system allowed smaller economies like Canada to prosper under agreed frameworks that limited arbitrary power.

Under Trump, this order was abandoned in favor of an overtly unipolar, power-based, and transactional economic strategy:

• The US now pursues bilateral negotiations leveraging its economic dominance, imposing tariffs and threats to extract concessions.

• It exploits asymmetries rather than seeking mutual gains, monetizing its power advantage by treating trade deficits as evidence of “unfair” deals.

• The US has undermined multilateral institutions like the WTO, making trade relations unpredictable and subject to US discretion.

This shift has left close allies like Canada exposed to unilateral US pressure, with little recourse.

Why Close US Allies Are More Vulnerable Than Less Integrated Economies

• Deep Economic Integration: Canada sends over 75% of its exports to the US, with supply chains, regulations, and investments deeply intertwined. This integration, once a source of stability, now means US policy changes cause immediate economic harm.

• Legal and Institutional Lock-In: Trade agreements restrict Canada’s ability to diversify or engage with alternative markets, limiting its strategic options.

• Limited Retaliatory Power: Canada’s smaller economy and dependence on the US market mean retaliation risks self-harm.

• Corporate Realities: Canadian companies often relocate or align with US interests if threatened, accelerating economic annexation sector by sector.

• Less Integrated Economies Have More Flexibility: Countries with more diversified trade portfolios can pivot more easily to alternative alliances and markets.

The Waning US Unipolar Order and Its Impact on Allies

• US global dominance is declining amid the rise of China, India, and regional blocs.

• Trump’s transactional diplomacy accelerated the erosion of US alliances and leadership.

• Close allies, deeply tied to the US system, face the greatest risk as the old order fragments.

• Alternatives to US dominance exist but are slow to develop and cannot yet replace the scale of US economic power.

NATO Defense Spending: Economic Leverage Beyond Military Threats

A crucial but often overlooked dimension is NATO’s evolving defense spending commitments:

• NATO members, including Canada, have increased their defense spending targets from 2% to 5% of GDP, with 3.5% dedicated to core military capabilities and an additional 1.5% for broader security-related infrastructure (roads, ports, cyber-security).

• This increase is less about responding to direct military threats and more about channeling hundreds of billions of public dollars into the US economy, primarily through the US Military-Industrial Complex (MIC).

• The “interoperability clause” requires NATO members to align their military infrastructure and procurement with US standards and suppliers, effectively guaranteeing US defense contractors a massive, captive market.

• Canada’s defense spending—though modest compared to the US—is part of this broader economic funnel, representing a significant transfer of public funds into the US economy beyond tariffs and trade policies.

• This dynamic reinforces Canada’s economic dependence and limits its sovereignty, as defense commitments become another lever of US economic and political influence.

Final Synthesis

Mark Carney’s leadership reflects a struggle for Canadian sovereignty in an era where US power is exercised through economic coercion and institutional leverage rather than direct confrontation. The US’s abandonment of the rules-based order in favor of a transactional, power-driven approach has left Canada and other close allies exposed and constrained.

The deep economic and institutional integration that once underpinned prosperity now limits Canada’s ability to resist or diversify. This vulnerability is compounded by NATO defense spending commitments that funnel vast public resources into the US Military-Industrial Complex, further binding Canada economically and politically to the US.

As US unipolar dominance wanes, the closest allies—Canada foremost among them—face the greatest uncertainty and risk. Carney’s challenge is to navigate this complex landscape, defending sovereignty where possible while managing dependence and seeking new partnerships in a shifting global order.

--with the collaboration of Perplexity  AI 

1. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-nato-defense-spending-as-a-share-of-gdp/
2. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/what-is-natos-new-5-defence-spending-target-2025-06-23/
3. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
4. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm
5. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/criticism-nato-ignores-its-economic-benefit-us
6. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/nato-us-interest-washington-summit/
7. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-1-3t-in-nato-defense-spending/
8. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/25/nato-countries-budgets-compared-defence-vs-healthcare-and-education

 

Trump and the Impending New World Order

The End of the End of History

For weeks now, we’ve watched Canadian politicians, at all levels of government, fall all over themselves and each other in their desperate and disparate quests to get Trump to back off on his plan of imposing 25% tariffs on all Canadian goods. Some think that he can be cajoled into backing off if Canada gives him things he says he wants from Canada: tighter borders, especially concerning illegal immigrants and fentanyl; increased NATO spending; etc. Much has already been done in this regard, and there are plans to do more. Almost everyone seems to agree that these tariffs will be very harmful to American Industries and consumers, as well as to Canadians. Some, assuming that Trump must be unaware of this, set out to educate him. Some think the best way to convince Trump of this is by imposing countermeasures and tariffs of our own on American imports. Others think that countermeasures might anger Trump, and make an already bad situation worse, and that perhaps reminding Trump of the longstanding friendship and history of cooperation between our two countries might do more to win him over. And there are also those who think he might be persuaded to exclude particular commodities like oil from the tariffs. Others think that, rather than appealing to Trump directly, we should lobby Americans and American business interests, who would also be adversely affected, to get them to persuade Trump to drop the tariffs. There is no consensus on which strategy is best. Most favour some combination of the these strategies. All are genuinely alarmed by the deleterious effect a 25% tariff would have on the economy of the entire country and its provinces. 

All of these strategies assume that Trump wants a deal that will strengthen the hand of Americans in negotiating deals with trading partners. But what if that is not his goal at all? What if he intends to make America great by reinstating and implementing his own version of the Monroe Doctrine?  Of incorporating Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal into a greater America? Hasn’t he said as much? Such a notion may be unthinkable to most Canadians, but that doesn’t mean it’s unthinkable to Trump. On the contrary! As likely as not, the 25% tariffs are a first step in his plan to economically annex Canada. The Panama Canal can easily be taken over militarily, as the military invasion to remove Noriega in 1990 makes abundantly clear. Details of the plan to annex Greenland aren't spelled out, and may involve some negotiation and perhaps a form of payment. Canada, unfortunately, is very much vulnerable to economic annexation, and it is the prevention of that contingency that Canadian politicians should be focusing on and prioritizing. 

First of all, let’s begin by acknowledging that Trump is well aware of, but not in the least perturbed by, the negative effects his tariffs will undoubtedly have on American consumers and businesses. He wasn’t perturbed during his previous term in office, and he isn’t going to be now. On the contrary, he is planning on putting even higher, even more disruptive tariffs on even more goods. Any adverse consequences this may have are sacrifices he seems willing to make to position himself for the annexation of Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. Next we should examine the precariousness of Canadian sovereignty. Canadian politicians and governments have long been serving corporate interests. The outsized influence of the oil and gas lobby is probably the most salient example of this. Corporations finance the electoral campaigns of candidates and political parties. Once elected, these parties and politicians, beholden and indebted to their corporate sponsors, do their bidding: they lower taxes, deregulate and subsidize industries, serve court injunctions against indigenous and environmental protestors, shield corporations from the legal consequences of criminal actions (as exemplified by the deferred prosecution agreement granted to SNC-Lavalin), etc. Many of the politicians involved are later rewarded with lucrative positions in these corporations when they leave office, often sitting on the boards of directors of multiple corporations. But what would happen to this mutually beneficial arrangement between corporations and public servants if neither federal nor provincial governments seem capable of preventing a 25% tariff on Canadian exports? Would corporations then try to retain and protect their access to US markets by changing their loyalties to the US? At home and abroad, corporations have consistently demonstrated that their first loyalty is to their shareholders, not to their national hosts. Corporations cannot be counted on to oppose the annexation of Canada by the US. Not if dividends to shareholders are likely to be higher by changing alliances. Furthermore, many corporations operating in Canada are now wholly-owned subsidiaries of American and other foreign corporations. 

So, if not the private sector, who then will provide the glue to hold Canada together in the face of threats to our national sovereignty? It’s not going to be NATO, whose continued existence is itself in question if Trump makes good on his promise to stop protecting members who aren't allocating enough of their GDP to defence spending.  He has just upped the recommended target of 2% of GDP on defence spending to 5%. In any case, NATO wasn't designed to protect its members from each other, and our best friend and allie has turned against us. Let's not oblige Trump by further enriching the military insustrial complex.

What about the population in general? Are they unified by a commitment to defend Canadian sovereignty at all costs? Our federal government is both unpopular and in disarray. The relationship between the federal government and some of the provinces is strained, to say the least. So are the provinces’ relationships with each other, some of which are far more reliant on unfettered access to the US market than others, and for different reasons. As a whole, most Canadians feel at least some loyalty to both their nation and their respective provinces, however, members of some provinces have at times flirted with the idea of separation. Can we be sure that some provinces, to avoid an economic crisis, wouldn’t opt to join the US? If Trump were to pursue a divide-and-conquer strategy, would now not be a very auspicious moment to do so? Would he find enough fissures within the country to drive wedges into? The tariffs amount to a virtual siege. How long can we maintain a united front against this aggression?

Whatever happens, it is not going to be just another chapter in the long history of the US Empire. The sort of empire that Trump envisions bears little resemblance to how the US Empire was structured in the past century. While it is likely to employ many of the tactics of neoliberalism, its aim will not be to convert the entire world to a universal neoliberal socio-economic development model. Nor will it promote free trade or use other institutions–the World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc,-- to ensure access to the resources it wants. Instead, it will rely on power: hard and soft power, economic and military power. Ideological proselytization belonged to the previous era. The new order doesn’t subscribe to any ideology whatsoever, nor will it encourage others to do so. Its focus will be entirely on the accumulation and consolidation of wealth and power. It makes no distinction between these two. In this scenario, whether Ukraine is under Russian or European control is of no consequence, nor is anything else that doesn’t interfere with the US's ability to accumulate and consolidate wealth and power. European countries will no longer be protected by the US, so they will have to defend their own territory at their own expense. The US will not invest in anything unless they are guaranteed good returns on their investments. Initially, at least, most of the focus will be on the Western Hemisphere. 

Most citizens of this new empire should not expect to share in the bebefits of this great amassment of wealth and power. As is obvious to citizens on both sides of the border, the tariffs will hurt people on both sides. The benefits will accrue primarily to Trump, Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, and a small cohort of centi-billionaires --a cartel of sorts. It will maintain its populist veneer, and rhetorically string along its un-woke base for as along as long as possible. 

Two things will greatly facilitate this task. First and foremost, near absolute control of the narrative. Now Meta, like X, has abandoned even the pretense of protecting its users from misinformation. Their excuse is that efforts to do so would amount to censorship, and they're committed to protecting freedom of speech. This means that a combination of AI and bots posing as users can post anything they want, as often as they want, on these social media platforms without any constraints whatsoever. Secondly, near absolute control over the US government. On at least two occasions so far, one before Trump even took office, they have blocked the passing of a bipartisan bill for funding of the federal government. Republican senators that weren't cooperating were quickly brought into line. We are also witnessing the systemic dismantling of the civil service. Entire agencies are being defunded, thereby increasing the reliance on, and power of the executive branch --part of the Heritage Foundation's plan 2025, which Trump claims he never read. As their power increases, so does their wealth, and vice versa. The Commander In Chief will probably co-opt, rather than dismantle the military. Meanwhile an unelected centi-billionaire --Elon Musk-- is put in charge of government spending (Department Of Government Efficiency), complete with an office in the White House.

Maybe Trump will even reach the end of his term before his populist support base has its rude awakening. Meanwhile, Elon Musk has been actively proselytizing fertile ground among ultra-right populist groups in Europe, probably in a preemptive attempt to reduce resistance from the EU block. 

To be sure, there will still be other global players on the board, but that will not distract the cartel from its objectives. The objective and expectation is no longer converting all the world to free market economics; it is simply to accumulate wealth and power in a self-reinforcing feedback loop. This may well culminate in global hegemony, but that is not the main objective in the short or medium term. I don't even rule out hammering out a deal with China, in some kind of an agreement on how to divide up their respective spheres of influence, much like France and Britain did under the Sykes-Picot agreement at the end of WWI (In which their Arab and Palestinian allies, who were promised independence, were thrown under the bus). It is looking more like a reincarnation of the Monroe Doctrine, with the initial focus on hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Canada may well be betrayed and dispossessed, as the Palestinians and Arabs were at the end of WWI. The fact that the tariffs being placed on China are only 10 %, while those on Canada and Mexico are at 25 %, seems to corroborate this theory.

In short, the imperative of globalizing the neoliberal socio-economic development model is no more. It is being displaced by something even more sinister --might makes right. 

P.S. Most of this was written over a week ago, but nothing that has happened since has alleviated my concerns. On the contrary.

THE SUBTERFUGE OF USING THE GDP AS A MEASURE OF ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

Meet Mr. GDP. He claims to be the definitive measure of the health of our economy. He's not very good at subtraction, but he really excels at addition. What most citizens would consider to be catastrophic losses, according to Mr. GDP's calculations are actually really good things. Mr. GDP treats  increases in public and private debt, oil spills, tailings pond breaches, floods, forest fires and tornadoes and the like the same as he would economic activities that actually add to and increase the number of  available goods or services. He makes no distinction between replacing a burnt down house and building a new one. That little accounting trick really makes our economic growth rate look good! Our elected officials really love his way of doing math because it makes the economic growth rate look higher than it actually is. And higher economic growth rates make politicians  and their economic policies look much better than they actually are. 

 

 

This way of calculating the Gross Domesdtic Product (GDP) should never be used as the only, nor primary way of measuring a nation's economic well-being. It is in large part subterfuge. Nevertheless the GDP has become the primary, often the only, measure used by governments and financial institutions across the globe to calculate economic growth and decline. This practice masks many very serious problems. It paints the citizens of any country with a far rosier picture of reality than warranted. The image is grossly distorted because all expenditures, for whatever reason, are assumed to contribute to economic growth and the creation of wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is how GDP and economic growth rates are calculated: 

GDP = Consumer spending  + Government Spending + investments + Net Exports.

Economic growth is calculated  from  changes in the GDP over time: 

Economic growth =  ( GDP2  -  GDP1)  /   GDP1   

Here are but a few of the reasons that the use of the GDP and economic growth rate derived from the GDP give us a very distorted image of improvements or declines in the economic health of a nation:

1. GDP and Debt: The GDP makes no distinction between expenditures financed through debt (both public and private), and expenditures financed by savings and the spending or reinvestment of profits. Therefore an increase in the debt load of individuals and/or governments is misconstrued as economic growth and therefore desirable and encouraged. Governments often misleadingly portray an increase in private borrowing as an indicator of improved consumer/investor confidence. Many households are but two paychecks away from bankruptcy. Yet the GDP discounts the possibility that even a small down-turn in the economy may result in many of these borrowers unable to finance their debts. Never mind the number of devastating bankruptcies something like a global pandemic might cause! Yet the GDP puts volatile debt-financed expenditures on par with the investment of savings and the reinvestment of profits/earnings.

2. GDP and Destruction: Another major shortcoming of measuring economic growth using the GDP is that something citizens consider to be a catastrophic event –for instance a flood, a forest fire, a hurricane, an oil-spill, or a war-- registers as a positive economic boom by the GDP; such catastrophes result in major expenditures to rebuild and replace everything that was destroyed. Despite the jobs created by the clean-up and reconstruction efforts, most reasonable citizens experience all this as a net loss to the country. At best they might recoup much of what they had before, but reasonable citizens would not consider themselves or their nation to be further ahead, however much the GDP may have increased as a result.

3. GDP's Failure to Distinguish Between Wasteful and Useful Spending: Perhaps the most poignant way to illustrate this point is to use the example of the US criminal justice system. The US has one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet. Instead of spending money on providing supports for drug addicts, homeless people, education, programs to help offenders reintegrate and reduce recidivism are all eschewed in favour of investing in mega prisons. The annual cost of incarcerating a male is roughly $100,000 per year, and a female often twice that amount. Most of these prisoners on the outside would have earned and spent and contributed less than $20,000 per year to the GDP. Once incarcerated they are worth five times that much! It is in the interests of both the privately-owned mega-prison lobby and the government to spend the money on incarceration rather than social programs. The former reap the profits while the latter can boast economic growth based on the resulting increase in the GDP. The same can be said of preventative medicare vs. treating ill patients, private vs. universal healthcare, private vs. universal drug plans, etc. In all cases the former may be more cost effective and produce more desirable outcomes, but the latter contribute more to the GDP.

4. GDP's Failure to Include the Contribution of Unpaid Household Services: The GDP completely disregards unpaid work. Using strictly the GDP as an indicator, the unpaid work of stay-at-home home-makers, care-providers, garden-growers, all volunteers in whatever capacity, contribute absolutely nothing to the economic well-being of a nation. Nothing.  Zilch. Hiring a maid, or paying a daycare centre for these very same services, however, does contribute to the GDP.

5. GDP's Complete Indifference to the Distribution of Wealth Created. There is an increasing awareness that wages and income of the majority of citizens have stagnating or are in decline, despite a steady increase in the GDP. People are cluing in to the fact that national economic growth is meaningless if they don't have a share in it. Similarly an increase in the GDP will result in an increase in the per capita income even while people's incomes have stagnated or are in decline. Here we see that the errors in using GDP as a measure of economic well-being are compounded when used to calculate per capita income. The increased profits of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bazos are more than enough to offset the decline in wages of everyone else, so the GDP and per capita income continue to climb. Absurdly we are expected to celebrate and consider the increase in the already obscene profits of 1% of our fellow citizens as an improvement in our personal and national economic well-being. In fact per capita income and GDP figures tell us very little unless the are accompanied by distribution of wealth data. (The genie-coefficient is a very good tool for measuring wealth distribution.)

6. The GDP vs. the True Basis of the Economy: Every economy, regardless of ideology, has its base in the biosphere. Domestic as well as foreign products are produced by the processing of raw materials we find in nature. The GDP disregards the value of natural wealth until it is extracted, processed, and can be bought or sold. A pristine lake has no value unless you can attract tourist and fishermen to it, or convert it into a tailings pond for some mine, or allow Nestles to “buy” the water, or until an oil spill occurs in it and it has to be cleaned up. In its natural estate it contributes nothing to the GDP and is therefore, like a mother looking after children and making a home, not considered to be of any value at all. Air is of value if it can be compressed and sold; water is of value if Nestle sells it to you; land, along with everything growing on it or buried beneath it, is of value only if it can be fenced off and the resources contained in it bought or sold. For these reasons governments are reluctant to pass or enforce laws that protect our natural environment. Taking away DaBeer's tailings pond would hurt the GDP, and therefore the economy.

Decision making and government policy based on the distortions of reality resulting from the continued use of the GDP as the measure of economic well-being has caused, is still causing, and will continue to cause a lot of short-sighted, ill-conceived, often destructive policy and investment decisions that will detract from, rather than contribute to an increase in our collective and national economic and social well-being.

________________________________________________________

For more detailed information on the the GDP and the limitations and shortcomings of using GDP as a measure of economic well-being I refer you to the MSG website “Common Sense vs. GDP”.

 

 

COVID 19: Whose bubble will be the first to burst?

"We are all in this together" we are repeatedly told. It is true that the COVID 19 virus doesn't discriminate on the basis of nationality, race, gender, or class. In the early stages it seemed that relatively wealthy business travellers, international tourists, and cruise ship passengers were more likely to be infected than those who lacked the means to travel. Snow Birds, returning from their southern winter homes, tourists and business travellers were the primary carriers responsible for the rapid global spread of the virus. A slow and sometimes reluctant response, further exacerbated  by a lack of PPE, undermined efforts by countries to trace, isolate and quarantine all likely carriers in order to prevent community spread of the virus. Healthcare systems were quickly overwhelmed, unable to cope with the large numbers of critically ill COVID 19 patients. Most governments responded with lock-downs, shutting down all but the most essential businesses and confining people to their homes in an effort to curtail the rapid spread of the virus --in an effort to flatten the curve. Economies ground to a halt. Countries with enough credit to do so, Canada included, introduced multi-billion dollar quantitative easing programs to sustain industries, businesses, and newly unemployed individuals during lock-downs.

But, although the virus itself didn't discriminate on the basis of class, the measures to control the spread certainly did! Most countries unable to finance quantitative easing, implemented and enforced lock-downs nonetheless, resulting in a dual crisis --the novel corona virus and a food security crisis for the majority of their citizens no longer able to buy food because they were prevented from going to work during the lock-downs.

Even in wealthier countries it quickly became apparent that the virus was spreading far more quickly among the most vulnerable sectors of the population --the aged, the homeless, those in long-term care facilities, those living in overcrowded substandard housing, foreign workers on farms or in the meat-packing plants. Low-income front-line workers in grocery stores, public transit, healthcare professionals and support staff, personal support workers (often forced to work at two or three part-time jobs in different long-term care facilities and/or private homes to earn a living wage) were all far more exposed and vulnerable than those able to social distance and safely work from home. While the virus itself didn't discriminate on the basis of class, wealthier individuals were certainly far more able to socially distance themselves from the high risks of exposure to which much of the workforce  employed in the essential service sector were subjected. Consequently the latter was far more frequently infected. 

But while more privileged citizens are better able to limit their exposure to the virus, they are nevertheless not immune to the economic impact of the virus. Much of the economic impact is due to a sharp decrease in global demand for the goods and services produced by formerly lucrative sectors of the economy in the pre-COVID 19 world; sectors like tourism, fossil fuel production, hospitality, air-travel, food services, etc. Even extractive industries, livestock producers, etc. have suddenly found themselves without buyers, while fabricating industries suffered interruptions in overseas supply lines. Governments portray this decline in demand as something temporary, attributing it to the lock-downs. They insist that once lock-downs are lifted, and people are free to resume their  former activities, they will once again flock to restaurants, travel to tourist destinations, book flights, burn fossil fuels, etc., and the economy will rebound. Our leaders seem inclined to see their task as building a bridge, an overpass of sorts, that will allow us to transcend this pandemic until it passes and things return to the way they were before, ostensibly complete with all its gross inequities, disregard for vulnerable populations, and climate crisis.

Here in Canada, as elsewhere, governments are now easing lock-downs. Despite low levels of testing, and the relatively recent discovery that screening people based on symptoms may miss 50% or more of contagious asymptomatic carriers, governments are confident that they can shut things down quickly enough to avoid a second wave that would once again overwhelms the healthcare system and further decimate the economy. While many business owners, alarmed by the prospect of losing their investments are eager to reopen, many of their workers are far less confident that the safety measures in place will adequately protect them. They don't want to be the expendable canaries in the coal mine, and may need a lot of persuading. Here in Canada PM Trudeau recently unveiled his plan for such persuasion.

By disqualifying people who prefer getting EI benefits or $2,000/month CERB benefits to returning to their high-risk service-sector minimum-wage jobs, they will be left with no choice but to return to work. People who somehow miraculously manage to pay their rent and buy groceries with a mere $2,000/month may be unwillingly to return to work and unnecessarily expose themselves and their families to  higher risks of COVID 19 infections. Especially if their pay-cheques wouldn't amount to much more, or in come cases even less, than what they are receiving under EI or CERB benefits. Such workers must, therefore, be subjected to the same harsh options as poor people living in poor countries --the option of staying at home and watching their families slowly starve to death; or assume the risk of going out to work in the hopes that they won't take home and pass on the virus to family members and loved ones. In most cases it is highly unlikely that any Canadian who can both buy groceries and pay rent with a mere $2,000/month can afford accommodations that allow for much social distancing anyway. It may seem unjust, but in most cases their risk of exposure in the workplace can't be that much worse than futile attempts at social distancing in cramped, often substandard and overcrowded housing --the only standard of housing that a total income of $2,000/month will afford them.

Sure, it may be a misnomer to refer to most service sector jobs as essential.  Imported goods and clothes from far away places, hair styling, manicures, restaurant  meals and coffees are things most fellow Canadians. even those from the relatively privileged work-from-home crowd, can live without. But those unaccustomed to their newly acquired work-from-home duties, what with doing their own childcare, home-schooling and all, really miss the contributions of the service sector. They don't have time to prepare their own food, and despite everything must still appear competent, presentable and in control during their work-related Zoom calls. In addition to ordering skip-the-dishes take-out food, some may even want to venture out once in a while! After all the slight risk of being exposed to one vetted waitress/waiter/hair-stylist/store clerk or whatever in a well PPE equipped facility is almost negligible when compared to the risks assumed by the service providers themselves who are exposed to dozens of customers every day! A little relaxation of social distancing rules is okay if one is careful not to unnecessarily mingle socially with the service-sector class. A visit to the hair stylist should be a brief sortie, not unlike a fleeting encounter with the native chambermaid who changes your bed sheets in a tropical island resort.

In any case, even those services provided by service sector workers that are more appropriately described as desirable rather than essential, in a country were 70% of the workforce is employed in the service sector, even non-essential service sector jobs are essential to restarting of the economy! Flattening the curve was never about eliminating the risk; it was about reducing the spread to a numbers that our healthcare system can cope with. It just so happens that it is easier to reduce the risk for the work-from-home crowd than for service sector workers. But we are all in this together! The economic futures of both service sector workers and the work-from-home crowd are at stake!

So, since we cannot reduce the level of risk for service sector workers to that of the work-from-home crowd, we must at least put in safety measures to mitigate that risk. Service sector workers reticent to return to work need to be convinced that with new safety measures in place continuing to provide them with EI and CERB benefits can no longer be justified. However, there is one remaining impediment preventing may service sector workers from going back to work: the lack of childcare. For that reason, regardless of risk, daycare services and schools must also be reopened.

It is totally unrealistic to expect children –especially very young children-- to adhere to the rules of social distancing. Children want and need to touch each other or the physical reassurance and/or help from their care-givers and teachers. While the majority of children infected with COVID 19 will not get very sick --some will remain completely asymptomatic, they can and some will nevertheless become carriers and spread the virus to more vulnerable people they come in contact with --their teachers and childcare providers, siblings, parents, grandparents and whoever else is part of their household bubble. And some children will become sick with inflammatory syndrome, usually some time after previously having contracted and developed antibodies to the COVID 19 virus. Screening for and reducing the risk of spread where children are involved is going to be far riskier than other workplaces where only mature adults who fully understand the need for and rules of social distancing are present. Nevertheless too many of our service sector workers cannot return to work if there is no one is looking after their children. Therefore restarting the economy leaves us with no choice but to put both service sector workers and childcare providers in double jeopardy. If the service sector workers themselves don't unknowingly bring the virus into their home, there is still a good chance that their children will have caught the virus from an asymptomatic classmates and bring the virus into the house! 

Be that as it may, given that 70% of Canada's workforce is employed in the service sector, they must go back to work. Lending billions of dollars to failing airline and oil industries that in all probability will go into bankruptcy long before they can repay these loans may be an extremely foolhardy investment on economic grounds, but  it is nevertheless a wise investment in the political futures of elected representatives. But that does not extend to giving free money to service sector workers minions so they can stay safely at home and sit on their duffs! An economy cannot be restored if people forget their proper place in it! Fortunately the problem of childcare too can similarly be solved by ensuring that daycare providers, school teachers, school bus drivers, etc. will also find themselves without any source of  income should they fail to take up their yoke and choose to continue safely social distancing with their own children in their own homes.

Decision-making power was never the purview of the lowly underpaid service sector workers. Much care has been taken to maintain the pecking order --to ensure in the post-COVID 19 economy it continues to be the employers, not the employees, who retain decision-making power. That's why whenever possible, instead of directly providing an income to unemployed workers, governments choose to subsidize employers in exchange for them keeping unemployed workers on the payroll. Similarly, rather than providing individuals and businesses unable to pay their rent with money, governments instead encouraged landlords to apply for subsidies with the expectation that they would pass on their savings to tenants. (Many landlords who had long wanted to get rid of their tenants so they could increase rents turned down the subsidies.) Thus it is the employers, not employees, who will determine whether or not the benefits of reopening up for business outweigh the risks. Once employers feel that they have put enough safeguards in place to keep their employees “reasonably safe" as stipulated by government guidelines, they will be allowed to re-open. Former employees who refuse to return will suddenly find themselves ineligible for EI or CERB benefits, and therefore obliged to return regardless of whether they feel it is safe to do so or not. Workers who think their working environment is unsafe can appeal. If they live long enough for their appeal to be heard, and if they and their legal team manage to convince the province that they were indeed exposed to an unreasonable amount of risk, and if after all that they are still being exposed to unacceptable level of risk, their benefits will be reinstated. Until then they and all those who share their household bubble must accept whatever level of risk their employers deem to be acceptable under the circumstances and in accordance with their interpretation of government guidelines.

"We will get through this" is refrain we often hear from our leadership. And undoubtedly most of us will. But there will be a few bubbles burst before this pandemic is over. Bubbles based on false assumptions that former levels of demand for tourism, air travel, fossil fuels, restaurant food, hotels, office space etc. will be restored; Bubbles based on the assumption that the economy will recover in time to fend off a recession and an unprecedented increase in declarations of bankruptcy; Bubbles based on assumptions that governments and society have learned their lesson and will henceforth place a higher value on the welfare of its most vulnerable citizens, and acknowledge and properly remunerate the contributions and sacrifices of their most essential workers will also deflate, succumbing  to pressure from the usual more influential decision-makers in the economy. But these won't be the only bubbles to burst. Nor will they be the first.

The first bubbles to burst will we the protective household social-distancing bubbles that for a short while protected the working poor, primarily employed in the service sector, from disproportionate risk and exposure. Their protective bubbles are about to be deliberately burst by the state in an effort to force them back to work. This group includes racial minorities, foreign workers, personal care providers, and indigenous peoples. They and their children and households, much like Greta Thunberg and her generation, will be sacrificed on the alter built to that old but omnipotent and increasingly demanding God --the God of economic growth.

It will be thus. We are all in this storm together, but we're not all in the same boat. Some of us are treading water, clutching to a plank like a refugee in the Mediterranean. Others are social-distancing in their mansions complete with swimming pools and gymnasiums.

Unless we seize this opportunity to build a new, just, sustainable and inclusive economy on the rubble left by this global pandemic; an economy that values the lives, safety, health and rights of workers no matter what their nationality or where they live on this planet; an economy rooted in the abundance provided by a healthy, appreciated, respected and well cared for planet; an economy that prioritizes our collective and universal well-being and seeks to promote our collective opportunity to thrive. An economy that rejects and has completely abandoned the unsustainable annihilating environmentally destructive perpetual pursuit of economic growth .