Are Quebec Amazon Warehouse Closures akin to Union Busting?
In a move that has sent shockwaves through Quebec’s labor community, Amazon recently announced the closure of all seven of its warehouses in the province, resulting in the loss of approximately 1,700 jobs. The company claims this decision is part of a strategic shift to revert to third-party delivery services, aiming to offer greater long-term savings to customers. But if this move is truly about savings, why is it only happening in Quebec and not across Canada or in other regions where Amazon operates? This narrative is met with skepticism, especially considering that just last May, workers at Amazon’s Laval warehouse successfully unionized, marking the first such victory in Canada. The optics are that the closures are a direct retaliation against unionization efforts.
This scenario is eerily reminiscent of Walmart’s actions in Quebec two decades ago. In 2005, after employees at a Walmart store in Jonquière unionized, the retail giant abruptly shut down the location, citing economic reasons. The Supreme Court of Canada later ruled that Walmart’s actions violated Quebec labour laws.
These incidents underscore a troubling pattern among major corporations: a willingness to undermine workers’ rights to unionize, even in jurisdictions where labour laws are designed to protect such rights. The closures devastate the livelihoods of the affected employees and send a chilling message to workers elsewhere about the potential consequences of organizing.
Big Tech Is the Medium—and the Message
Adding another layer to this complex narrative is the role of Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos. In the lead-up to President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, Amazon donated $1 million to the inaugural fund and planned to air the event on its Prime Video service, an in-kind donation valued at an additional $1 million. This move raised eyebrows, especially given Trump’s previous criticisms of the Washington Post, which is owned by Bezos. Furthermore, reports emerged that Bezos influenced the Post’s editorial decisions last fall, including preventing the endorsement of Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, a move that led to internal turmoil and significant subscriber loss.
In a move that has raised significant concerns, Meta, under CEO Mark Zuckerberg, which already banned Canadian news content on its platforms in response to Canada’s Online News Act, has overhauled its content moderation policies. The company has ended its fact-checking program and relaxed restrictions on hate speech (in the name of free speech), particularly concerning gender and sexualidentity, aligning its approach with platforms like X and the preferences ofPresident Trump. Critics argue that these changes could lead to an increase inmisinformation and harmful content, disproportionately affecting marginalizedcommunities. Notably, Zuckerberg, like Elon Musk, secured a million-dollar seatat Trump’s inauguration, highlighting the close ties between tech oligarchs (the tech bros) and political power.
These actions highlight a broader issue: the influence of billionaires on media and politics, often at the expense of workers’ rights and democratic principles. The cozy relationship between corporate titans and political power can lead to policies that favour the wealthy while undermining the rights and welfare of the working class. How much more wealth and power does a billionaire really need—and at what cost? The price of their unchecked influence is chaos for ordinary people on both sides of the border.
Tariffs and Economic Warfare
President Donald Trump’s recent assertions linking Canada to issues of illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking are misleading. Data indicates that less than 1% of fentanyl seized by U.S. authorities originates from the northern border, with the vast majority entering through the southern border. Similarly, illegal immigration from Canada constitutes a minimal fraction compared to entries from Mexico. In response to these concerns, Canada has proactively invested an additional billion dollars to bolster border security, demonstrating its commitment to addressing cross-border challenges.
Regarding trade, President Trump has cited a trade deficit with Canada as justification for imposing tariffs. However, this perspective overlooks critical nuances. The apparent deficit is primarily due to U.S. imports of Canadian energy products. When energy trade is excluded, the United States actually enjoys a trade surplus with Canada. This indicates that the broader trade relationship is more balanced than portrayed, and Canada’s energy exports play a vital role in supporting U.S. energy security.
These facts underscore the importance of a nuanced understanding of U.S.-Canada relations, highlighting the need for policies based on accurate data rather than misconceptions.
The recent imposition of tariffs by the Trump administration on Canadian goods, coupled with inflammatory rhetoric suggesting that the tariffs won’t stop until Canada becomes the 51st state, poses a direct threat to Canada’s sovereignty and economic well-being. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has rightly condemned these actions and emphasized the need for a united Canadian response. In his recent speech, Trudeau stated, “We will always defend our workers and our industries. Canada’s sovereignty is not up for negotiation.”
In response to President Donald Trump’s imposition of 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced retaliatory measures. Canada will implement 25% tariffs on American goods, totaling 155 billion Canadian dollars (approximately $116 billion USD). Initially, tariffs will be applied to 30 billion Canadian dollars’ worth of U.S. goods starting February 4, 2025, with an additional 125 billion Canadian dollars’ worth of tariffs to follow after 21 days. These measures target a wide range of products, including alcohol, orange juice, clothing, appliances, lumber, and plastics.
Perhaps Canada should consider, as Chrystia Freeland suggested, action against Trump’s most significant supporter. Elon Musk has actively supported right-wing parties internationally. In Germany, he endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, stating on X (formerly Twitter), “Only the AfD can saveGermany.” He further participated in an AfD campaign event, urging Germans to “move on” from “past guilt,” a reference to the country’s Nazi history. This involvement has been criticized by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who labeled Musk’s support as “completely unacceptable.” Additionally, during President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, Musk made a gesture that many interpreted as a fascist salute, sparking widespread criticism.
Elon Musk has recently expressed support for Canadian Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, particularly through his platform, X (formerly Twitter). Musk shared a video of Poilievre discussing fiscal policy, praising the Conservative leader. Given Musk’s interference in international politics and support for right-wing movements, a logical response would be to impose a 100% tariff on Tesla vehicles. As Canada is a significant market for electric vehicles, this measure would send a clear message against foreign influence in our political affairs.
Moreover, it’s imperative for Canadian political leaders to present a united front. Mark Carney, a front runner within the Liberal Party leadership race, has demonstrated a commendable stance on defending Canadian interests. In contrast, concerns have been raised about Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s connections, with reports indicating that nearly half of the Conservative Party’s governing body comprises lobbyists for oil companies, pharmaceutical firms, and anti-union associations. Poilievre’s chief strategist is also noted to be a lobbyist for Galen Weston and Loblaws. Poilievre appeared uncomfortable in a recent speech when addressing Canada’s sovereignty. His so-called solution? Repeating his familiar *”axe the tax”* mantra—offering no real plan beyond rhetoric. Reciprocal tariffs on U.S. goods are already in place, and his suggestions to provide financial assistance to affected Canadian businesses and explore alternative international markets simply reiterate existing strategies by the Liberals and NDP without introducing anything new.
In times of economic conflict, it’s crucial for all federal leaders and provinces to align with Canada’s national interests. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, for example, must prioritize the country’s collective well-being. Failing to do so could be perceived as undermining national unity. With Canada being a key energy supplier to the U.S., leveraging our vast oil and gas resources as a bargaining tool in a trade war could serve as a powerful countermeasure against American economic aggression.
Canada has consistently stood by the United States in times of crisis, demonstrating the deep bond between the two nations. During the devastating California wildfires, Canadian firefighters and resources were deployed to help battle the blazes, just as they have in previous wildfire seasons. After the 9/11 attacks, Canada welcomed thousands of stranded airline passengers in an operation known as Operation Yellow Ribbon, providing shelter and support during one of America’s darkest days. Historically, Canada and the U.S. have fought side by side in both World War I and World War II, with Canadian troops making significant sacrifices on battlefields across Europe. Also, in Korea and Afghanistan, we stood in solidarity with the U.S. These acts of solidarity highlight Canada’s unwavering commitment as an ally—one that deserves respect, not economic aggression.
As former United States President John F. Kennedy once remarked, “Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies.” Now, more than ever, Canadians must rally together to uphold these shared values, defend workers’ rights, and protect the nation’s sovereignty against external pressures and internal divisions.
In conclusion, now more than ever, Canadians must take a stand—not just in words, but in action. Supporting local businesses and choosing Canadian-made goods over Amazon’s convenient online options is a patriotic duty. Our economic independence is the foundation of our sovereignty, and diversifying our trade partnerships will help safeguard us from external pressures. At the same time, we must recognize the growing geopolitical threats in the Arctic from Russia and China, as well as the economic aggression from the United States. We must strengthen our military, and we must do so quickly. Strengthening our military isn’t about provocation—it’s about deterrence. Canada is a nation built on diplomacy and respect, but we will not be bullied into submission. Our way of life, our independence, and our future depends on our resolve to defend them.
