Flemming Holm's Blog

For me, there are two main issues in this year’s federal election.

1. One is the environment. In recent years we have had ample evidence that the climate is changing. We have seen it in the extreme weather and the melting ice caps and glaciers, and in the disastrous flood problems in Louisiana, the Philippines and Bangladesh. We know that there have been a number of ice ages in the past, and periods of warming between them. We may not be able to stop these changes, but we can prepare for them and prevent the most extreme damage. It is high time that we prohibit building on flood plains, that we pay attention to our endangered shorelines, and that we act globally and help the poorer nations in their distress.

But much of the environmental problem is man-made. Increasing pollutants in the air, fewer trees and other plants to cleanse the atmosphere, increasing instances of asthma and other respiratory diseases especially among small children, growing smog problems in our cities, expanding deserts, increasing dependence on non-renewable resources such as coal and oil, all alert us to the possibility that within the next millennium human beings could become as extinct as the dinosaurs.

Still, in spite of the warning signals, we continue to depend on coal and oil, drive gas-guzzling cars, convert vegetable matter into biofuel, smoke tobacco and marijuana, and generally act irresponsibly. And the Government takes only half-hearted measures. I am reminded of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938. He promised that there would be “peace in our time”. And of the false prophets crying “all is well” when destruction was at the city gates (Jeremiah 6:14). Denial is not an option.

Strong action is needed, and it may be that all the actions promised by all the political parties – cap and trade, green shift, carbon tax, mandatory emission reduction, taken together, will not be enough to stem the tide. In this campaign I suspect the politicians are afraid to admit the full extent of the danger and the necessity of strong action, for fear that they will lose votes. For the necessary action will be costly. Economic adjustment will drive taxes up.

2. The second issue is economic. I believe it was J.K. Galbraith who described our system as a ”horse and sparrow economy”: give a horse enough oats at the front end, and enough will come out at the rear to keep the sparrows happy. (I saw that picture played out many times when I was a boy, in the 1930s.) Another appropriate phrase is “a trickle down economy”. Our economic development is dependent on people who control large amounts of capital; the concentration of wealth enables the wheels of industry to turn; the benefits then trickle down to the masses.

Under today’s conditions this may be the best system available to our society, but I hate to think so. Unfortunately in a free market economy each business must compete with others, and this often means paying minimal wages and otherwise cutting costs. It means competing with other jurisdictions where the legislated minimum wage is lower or non-existent. Competition among powerful interests and powerful countries with other standards often makes it difficult for the most well-meaning managers to play fair with their employees and with their customers. It also interferes with pension funds and other benefits, whether these are employer or government related.

One function of government is to protect the poor and vulnerable against the wealthy and powerful interests. We do this in many ways: through the justice system, through free schools and health care, through disability and old age pensions, through laws governing minimum wages, and through human rights legislation. Such provisions are absolutely necessary, and the standards need to be raised. We need a Guaranteed Annual Income for everyone.

About 20 years ago the Canadian Parliament agreed unanimously to eradicate poverty. Since that time the poverty gap has increased; the rich have grown richer and the poor have lost ground. I hold that for any employer or CEO, or the head of any department or agency, to make ten times as much as his humblest employee is exploitation and sinful and should be prohibited. Nobody needs a half million dollar income, or a million dollar home; such affluence is shameful and obscene. I agree that effort and ability should be rewarded – but not to that extent.

Among the nations also, the wealthy countries have grown richer and the poor nations are poorer. To our shame. It is said that a billion of the world’s people have insufficient food and drinking water.

Whether nationally or internationally, we cannot depend on market forces – unbridled, profit-oriented capitalism – to eradicate poverty and build a better society. Our economy must be structured in such a way that everyone who can work will have a job at more than the present minimum wage, that those who cannot work will be able to live in dignity, that every child and youth can get an education and that everyone will have free and equal access to appropriate health care. The major cause of war and crime will then be eradicated.

I have read statements by world famous economists that it is possible to save the planet and humanity. But there will be a cost.

Environment and the equality gap – both can be fixed, if there is enough political will.

This is a difficult message to accept in this year of 2008. We are threatened in at least three ways. And when we are threatened, financially and otherwise, we tend to circle the wagons and protect ourselves and our kind.

For one, the crisis in the stock markets will result in losses, particularly for those who have investments.

Secondly, the recent tendency to extreme weather, particularly here in North America, means that someone has to pay the for the damages.

Thirdly, we are beginning to realize that the human race, and especially those of us in the western world, have been living beyond our means, and using up our resources faster than they can be replaced. One economist (Bill McKibben) is quoted as saying that if present trends of consumption continue, we will reach a level beyond the world’s capacity by 2050. He is quoted as saying that globalization has allowed people to live off others in far away places without having to absorb social costs. (Jon Magnuson in Christian Century, July 29, 2008). Other economists seem to agree. But from what I have read, they also agree that the world (and the human race) can be saved.

How will the cost be paid? How will the adjustments take place? I suggest we shall have increased taxation and belt tightening, and extension of a triage system which is already in operation. It will mean drastic changes and a reorganization of our social and economic system. This is no time to call for lower taxes.

One more thought: I believe it was Archbishop Romero who said that when he fed the hungry he was called a saint, but when he asked why they were hungry he was called a communist. He was assassinated. We too must ask why the poor are hungry.

Are we ready for the challenge? Do we have the political will?

The Chronicle Herald

The cartoon on your editorial page, June 26 was right on. It showed the oilsands producers polishing their carbon imprint through a PR campaign. Would it not be more beneficial to reduce the carbon imprint?

On the same page was an editorial about Nova Scotia’s “gambling czars” polishing their image with an advertising campaign. It would be better if they were to spend their profits providing help for the Province’s problem gamblers. They would also improve their image if they were to further reduce the number of Video Lottery Terminals. What is the chief purpose of the Lottery Corporation – to serve the people, or to make profits?

I have heard that at one time a woman came upon Abraham Lincoln shining his shoes. “Why, Mr. President,” she exclaimed, “Do you shine your own shoes?” “Why yes,” said the President, “Whose shoes do you shine?”

(Published in the Chronicle Herald)

Finance Minister Flaherty has promised us tax cuts. The recent surplus, and projections for the future, make such a promise possible. And many people and corporations are happy. But we would prefer to see more compassionate and progressive use of the available funds.

We want the federal share of health care costs restored to former levels to make it possible to reduce waiting lists and provide everyone with a family doctor. We want to see equality in health care guaranteed – one system for all, no two tier system and no privatization. We want to see universal pharmacare, initially at least for preschoolers. As one newspaper columnist has said, our national health care plan is not broken; it is broke.

We want more emphasis on restorative justice and the prevention of crime.

We want to hear our political leaders inspiring and challenging a fairer distribution of income – there is no reason why any family should receive more than five times the income of any other family, particularly when there is so much poverty in Canada and throughout the world.

There is a growing poverty gap within our country and among the nations. We want to see it narrowed. And we want to see the stigma of poverty removed through the use of universal benefits.

We want more money spent on waging peace than on waging war.

We want to speed up the settlement of land claims and thus reduce the gap between the Native people and the majority, in order to promote justice and peace and to prevent the sacrifice of more lives, both Native and Caucasian.

We want government at all levels to take seriously the prospect of global warming and to begin preparation for the changes that are coming. We want the federal government to restore its support of home owners as they install solar and other modern forms of alternative heating. We want to see an end to the use of fossil fuels in all government buildings. We want the erection of homes on flood plains prohibited. We want a carbon tax imposed.

We want anti-viral medication made available to AIDS sufferers in Africa at cost or less. We want a recognition that clean drinking water is as much a human right as is clean air; to treat it as a commodity to be bought and sold by the wealthy and available only to those who can pay – that is triage and tantamount to genocide.

We want to see greater government assistance to university education, so as to provide the poor with equality of access to higher education.

We want to see affordable housing provided for the poor, and better provision for those who are homeless due to mental illness and similar disabilities.

Nearly sixty years ago Canada formally agreed that:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 (1)).

We want Canada to take the Universal Declaration seriously.

If cancelling the federal government’s tax cuts will make possible one or more of the above suggestions, we will gladly forego our share of the surplus.

Excerpts of a letter to a Canadian politician

There is no question in my mind that we had to divest ourselves of the corrupt Liberal Government. Not that everyone at the top of the Liberal Party was complicit – far from it. But the climate of entitlement was far too prevalent, and we should have left such venality behind generations ago.

In some ways however we have merely gone sideways, into other kinds of stupidity.  Nearly every day I read of some inanity produced by the authorities, and I want to write someone about it. I have been quiet for months, so let me share my ignorance and indignation with you.

I am bothered by the emphasis on ethanol and the withdrawal of support for solar and wind power. Using ethanol as an energy source is in competition with food production, and therefore suspect in my view. And I understand fossil fuels will be necessary to convert it into energy. But I am not a scientist, so what do I know! However, it will be more expensive in the long run, as it will require government subsidies and will eat up agricultural resources. Meanwhile the sun is shining and producing free energy, and to use its heat in solar panels will surely reduce global warming; and the wind is blowing so it should be able to supply some 20% (so I have heard) of our energy needs. Sun and wind are free; we merely have to pay for delivery.

The maintenance of the environment is of paramount importance. I have a six year old grandson who is very aware that many species of animals and plants have become extinct over the past millions of years. The other day he voiced his concern that the human race might also become extinct eventually. It is a distinct possibility – indeed, a probability. Some climatic changes are inevitable, but let us not hasten the process! Someone has said that we do not own the earth; we hold it in trust for our grandchildren. If not Kyoto, then what? The government seems to be following that of the US in protecting big industry to the detriment of the environment and of the population of the world. We are going the way of the Scandinavians in Greenland in the late Middle Ages and of the native people of Easter Island in more recent times. Conservation is desperately important to the survival of our species. Erosion and deforestation, as you must well know, will cause lasting and cumulative shortages in the productive power of the earth, and if world population continues to grow the human race will be in deep trouble. It is bad enough now!

I have heard recently that over the past several years the top 20% of the Canadian population (incomewise) has enjoyed a 15% increase in real income, while the bottom 40% have seen their real income decrease. In other words, the poverty gap is growing. And I understand that the latest federal government budget includes a reduction in taxes for the wealthy and an increase for the poorest. The poorest nations also become poorer and the richest become richer. This is unconscionable! It is sin! But of course it is very difficult for Canada to do anything about it when the US Government refuses to acknowledge the injustice. I hate to inflict the words of a Liberal politician on you, but Trudeau’s remarks about being in bed with an elephant come to mind. (Foodbanks are not the answer – they are a sign of moral, financial and governmental bankruptcy.)

Isaiah railed against the concentration of wealth in his day (See Isaiah 5:8-13). And Jesus was put to death because he took the side of the poor against the powerful. The Babylonians conquered the little kingdom of Judah in 586 B.C., and Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 and 135 A.D. Direct results, in both cases, of poverty gaps, concentration of wealth and governmental ineptitude. Some things have changed very little over the centuries.

Is there any good reason why one family should have more than five times the income of any other family? Such disparity can only weaken the fabric of the nation. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work – too little trickles down, it trickles up instead!! Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us, and that to him who has will more be given – but he didn’t say it was right that it be so. An important purpose of government is the protection of the poor against the rich and powerful, and this includes economic exploitation. Under the Harper regime Canada seems to be following the United States and weakening the social safety net. Please prove me wrong!

Canada is desperately slow in settling Indian land claims. If we had moved more quickly, the debacle at Caledonia need not have happened. The water problems on a reserve in Northern Ontario (the name of the place escapes me) could also have been averted if action had been taken in timely fashion. The Kelowna agreement has been abrogated, nothing worthwhile has taken its place, and Native leaders are disgruntled. Again we neglect the disadvantaged, so that the rich and powerful may prosper.

In international affairs (as in internal matters) we cannot protect freedom by denying freedom. We cannot protect rights by denying rights. International law must be maintained; we fought for it too hard and too long to let it go now. Guantanamo Bay is a blot on the Western world. So is Abu Ghraib. So is Denmark’s Jyllands Posten with its caricatures of Mohammed. Let us take the high road!!

The Israeli government has a policy of acting unilaterally in dealing with the Palestinians. And it is being supported in this by the American government. The Zionists want to strengthen Israel to the detriment of other people who have lived in the same area for thousands of years. They are supported by millions of fundamentalist Christians who misinterpret the Bible to promote the belief that there has to be a major war between the Judaeo-Christian world and all others before Christ returns and the Kingdom of God begins. And the Government of the United States, in its effort to maintain power and avoid the charge of anti-semitism, bows to this coalition.

(“For not with swords loud-clashing, nor roll of stirring drums,
but deeds of love and mercy, the heavenly kingdom comes.”)

Still – we live in the best country in the world. We have much to be thankful for. And we have many to be thankful to. If you have any influence in such matters, please support the movement to award Stephen Lewis a Nobel Prize!

Yours for an even better country in an even better world!