Flemming Holm's Blog

Letter to the Editor, Chronicle Herald

Dan Leger’s article in the February 9 issue is in my opinion an accurate and most succinct analysis of the causes of the present financial crisis. Were it not for human greed – the greed of a group of people, mostly millionaires, we would not have a depression today.

When a CEO makes twenty to a hundred times more than his humblest employee, that is exploitation. It is immoral and reprehensible and should be prohibited by law. Anyone guilty of such an offence, whether or not he has been granted a “bail-out”, whether or not he receives the benefit in stock options or as a bonus, should be jailed, like Conrad Black and other robbers. Individual incomes should be capped, especially in times when so many millions are in real need.

Bev Mullins (February 10) thinks the MLAs are paying themselves too much. Surely an MLA or MP has one of the most responsible jobs in our society, and should be paid accordingly. Most of them have to spend much time away from home and family, and some have to maintain two residences. They all have to have rhinoceros hides, for no matter what they do they will be criticized – and if they do nothing they will be castigated for that.

Sent to: The Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, Ottawa, ON

Dear Mr. Flaherty:

I hear that you are consulting widely prior to finalizing your budget proposals. I trust that you are giving adequate consideration to two groups of people: those whose life experiences and convictions are different from your own; and those who know poverty.

For at least the past thirty years I have been reading periodically that the poverty gap has been growing in real terms. Typically the information has stated that the 20% with the highest incomes have seen their average incomes rise by 20% or more over a 10 or 20 year period, while the incomes of the lowest 20% have remained the same or have dropped during the same period. This in spite of a unanimous resolution by the Commons to abolish poverty in Canada.

The numbers of the homeless have been growing in recent years. Many of these people are employable; many others are marginally so, but with proper support systems can become contributing members of society. More and more people – employed, underemployed and unemployed – are resorting to food banks, in a time when increasing numbers of us are financially unable to contribute to such voluntary organizations.

In the rural society of fifty years ago, we knew our neighbors and often cared for the needy through informal ways, and an unskilled or marginally employable person might contribute by tending a garden, chopping firewood or doing housework. Today, in our urban society in which we don’t always know those next to us, we have to organize and depend on government (at various levels) to support the needy.

Conditions on many Indian reserves have improved somewhat in recent generations, but the rates of unemployment, addiction, incarceration and suicide are still far higher than in the near-by majority communities. Settling of land claims proceeds tragically slowly, and industry takes advantage by developing on disputed land. The very progressive Kelowna Accord was garbaged by the Conservative government.

The average income of women who are working fulltime is still less than 70% of that for men; the situation has improved only slightly over several decades. Many single mothers are unable to get an education and so improve their lot, care adequately for their children and contribute fully to society; and another generation grows up, often ill equipped and disadvantaged.

Employment insurance has been largely decimated in recent years. We have heard recently of a couple, both of whom had lost their jobs, in despair and hopelessness entering into a murder and suicide pact; four lives were lost. I wonder whether these people would be alive today if EI had been maintained at the 1980 level.

I wonder also how many people have been robbed of the ability to contribute fully to society by the financial starvation of our educational and health care institutions and counseling services. We deplete our resources by our neglect.

In the meantime, we have more millionaires and billionaires than ever, taking more and more expensive junkets to distant places, and receiving exorbitant bonuses in addition to huge salaries. Surely no CEO needs to make more than fifty times the salary of his most humble employee. Such exploitation is tantamount to robbery and should be prohibited by law.

I am well aware of the need for a concentration of wealth and power if the wheels of industry are to rotate adequately. But surely such concentration can be achieved by other means. I am also aware that our largest trading partner – the elephant with us in the bed – does not have the levels of social programs that Canada has, and therefore is hard to compete with.

I do not have the knowledge and understanding to make concrete suggestions in this field, but I understand that there are some who do; that some world famous economists, such as Jeffrey Sachs, believe that we have the resources to feed the hungry and abolish starvation and save the planet, if only we have the political will. Over the years I have read recommendations by the Canadian Council of Policy Alternatives and other such bodies that criticize our system and make suggestions that sound good to me. And I am aware that about a dozen denominations of the Christian Churches in Canada cooperate in “Kairos”, an organization that studies and promotes social justice.

I am also aware that in Denmark, a land that does not have the extremes of wealth and poverty that Canada has, the population has recently declared its satisfaction with its country by a higher margin than any other population in the world, including Canada. (A well known Danish patriotic song, written about 200 years ago, holds up as an ideal a society in which “few have too much and fewer still too little.”)

I deplore the assumption that we have to bribe millionaires to get them to do their job. That is a shaky foundation for a society; witness the present economic depression.

We need to ensure that the most vulnerable are not made to bear the costs of the depression and of the mistakes and greed of the wealthy.

Sincerely yours,
Flemming Holm

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?

So, it will cost ten million dollars to renovate the Prime Minister’s residence at 24 Sussex Drive. This, while hundreds of thousands of Canadians would be happy to live in a two hundred thousand dollar house, and thousands more are homeless.

I have a suggestion. Buy or build a two or three million dollar home, and add a million dollars worth of security equipment. Then sell 24 Sussex Drive to the highest bidder.

The savings can be used to provide accommodation for the homeless.

Published in the Chronicle Herald, approx. May 2008

To: The Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, Ottawa

Dear Mr. Flaherty:

I am enclosing a copy of an article that appeared in today’s Halifax newspaper, stating that, of the Canadian people, “the top one per cent pay total tax rates as much as six percentage points of income lower than families in the middle. . . . the richest one per cent of families also now pay a lower tax rate than the poorest 10 per cent.”

Is this true? If so, what does it mean? Does it mean that we have to emulate the US in everything? Does it mean that Canada does not have economic freedom? Does it mean that you as Minister of Finance are dancing on a tightrope both ends of which are being held by the United States? Does it mean that we have to pay millions to a group of robber barons, bribing them to keep the wheels of industry turning and the masses in penury? Who constitute the real government of Canada?

If it is true, does it mean that government policy is more and more undermining the independence of the average person and forcing the poor to depend on foodbanks and secondhand clothing stores? It reminds me of France in the 1780s, and of the Roman bread and circuses. This in a time when the poverty gap is growing.

An article appeared in today’s Halifax newspaper, stating that, of the Canadian people, “the top one per cent pay total tax rates as much as six percentage points of income lower than families in the middle. . . . the richest one per cent of families also now pay a lower tax rate than the poorest 10 per cent.”

Is this true? If so, what does it mean? Does it mean that we have to emulate the US in everything? Does it mean that Canada does not have economic freedom? Does it mean that the Minister of Finance is dancing on a tightrope both ends of which are being held by the United States? Does it mean that we have to pay millions to a group of robber barons, bribing them to keep the wheels of industry turning and the masses in penury? Who constitutes the real government of Canada?

If it is true, does it mean that government policy is more and more undermining the independence of the average person and forcing the poor to depend on foodbanks and secondhand clothing stores? It reminds me of France in the 1780s, and of the Roman bread and circuses. This in a time when the poverty gap is growing.

The Hon. Judy Streatch, M.L.A.
Government of Nova Scotia

Dear Judy:

It was very kind of you to meet with our group at Grace McClung’s on May 25. I hope you got – and continue to get – some satisfaction on the subjects raised. I take for granted that for the most part our political representatives want to do the right and helpful things, but if they are to achieve their goals they need to know they have public support. I also believe that the wealthy and powerful can make their wishes known – but someone needs to make a special effort to speak for the common people. And you certainly gave us something to think about.

One problem you expressed had to do with letting the low income people know about the programs that were available to them. (Some people who are on low incomes tend not to do much reading. They may not have the necessary time nor education.) Some days after our meeting I was watching, on CPAC, a conference on medicare. I heard Tom Kent urge that the federal government should provide complete free pharmacare to all pre-school age children as a right, no matter what their family income. Then, he said, we could later raise the age limit to include all school children. Recognize the care of the children as a national responsibility, he said. It occurred to me that if all small children were entitled to the same benefits the word might get around better, a means test (always demeaning) would not be necessary, and the tendency to feel stigmatized because of poverty would be diminished. One might object that this would cause the tax burden to rise and that the wealthy could easily pay and would not need this benefit. Well then, we could retrieve the cost by increasing taxes on high incomes. We supply water, air, hospital beds, physician services and the protection of the law more or less equally and freely to all, as their rights as human beings and Canadian citizens, so why not prescribed medicines and other such benefits as well? This might solve your problem (and produce others.) Start provincially, and then, perhaps, involve the feds - as happened in the case of medicare.

As for the matter Grace outlined in her letter to you, that some employers seem to avoid paying benefits by hiring part-time workers, perhaps all employers could be required to pay benefits on all regular jobs, or on all jobs of over (say) 10 hours per week or paying over $80 per week. But if the barrier were set too low it would encourage the underground economy; I might try to avoid paying benefits to the boy who cuts my lawn once a week. The sooner the minimum wage is raised, the better.

Surely the two greatest and most shameful failings of the human race are war and poverty. It is a scandal that in this democratic and enlightened country some people have a hundred times the income of others; that speaks of discrimination and exploitation.

Anyone who accepts an income of a million a year while others are in want should be entitled to a stay in the hoosegow; or at least be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Everyone who can work should have a right to a decent-paying job, and anyone who cannot work should have a guaranteed income, large enough to live on. The climate of opinion needs to change before this can take effect, but there are many people who share this view.

(No, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of a communist party. But “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need” sounds good to me and should be approved by government and every CEO. It should be accepted as an ideal in an enlightened and mature democracy, whether or not it is enshrined in law. We in North America have for many years tended to be overprotective of our capitalist system because those who have the most influence over public opinion have wanted to be free to increase their wealth and power. Thus in the thirties and forties the CCF was vilified by big business as being communist.)

Foodbanks are not the answer to the problem of the poverty gap; they are evidence of the failure of society and of the greed of a few. The problem is systemic and cannot be fixed with bandaids. Atlantica is not the answer: as long as there is no common minimum wage among the participating states and provinces, we shall be forced to pay lower wages. The same is true of free trade.

A couple of generations ago Al Capp (creator of L’l Abner) had a character by the name of General Bullmoose who went around declaiming “What is good for General Bullmoose is good for the country”. I believe someone (Guess who?) had said that what was good for General Motors was good for the country. A trickle down economy doesn’t work to the benefit of the average joe or jill; too little trickles down – it trickles up instead – or pours up. The poverty gap is still growing, provincially, nationally, internationally.

One of the most important functions of government is to protect the vulnerable/poor against the rich. But it is difficult to compete with the United States as long as the Republicans are in power and are reducing the taxes on the wealthy. (By the way, I read some weeks ago that the Democrats would give away the farm to the poor, and the Republicans would give it away to the rich.)

While I have your attention I want to say that I have just gone through a pile of newspaper clippings that I had squirreled away, and want to comment briefly on a few of them.

Some headlines give me joy and hope:

“Welfare recipients get chance to attend university with no penalty”

“Raising minimum wage to $10 in 3-5 years proposed”

“Paying less than a living wage is exploitation”

“NSP salaries: private profit at odds with the public good”

Others raise disturbing possibilities:

“Private health care on the way?”

“A prelude to private health care?”

Private health care would mean higher costs. Of course. It is a matter of simple common sense. Produce and buy in bulk; one size fits all – up to a point. Cut out the billionaire who is trying to make his second or third billion; we don’t need to add to his profits. In the US the total spent on health care per capita is far above Canada’s total, and over 30% of the population there (the poorer third) has no coverage. We have room to expand and improve, while still staying under American total figures, and still maintaining approximate equality of service to everyone.

There was a little rich girl whose teacher required her to write an essay on a poor family. “She started, “This family was very poor. The father was poor, the mother was poor, the children were poor, the governess was poor, the chauffeur was poor . . . “

It is not that the wealthy are bad or uncaring, but when one has spent his life in luxury, measuring success in terms of stocks and bonds and comparing oneself with other wealthy folk, it is hard to think in more realistic terms. The whole climate of thought is affected. In the Middle Ages there was an expression used in theological circles: Invincible Ignorance”. It is still alive today. We can never avoid it entirely.

Someone has said that the success of a civilization is measured by the way the most vulnerable are treated. In Luke 4:16ff. we are told that when Jesus was starting his ministry he went to the synagogue in his home town and read the lessons at the service. According to custom, the passage from the Torah was mandatory. But he was free to choose the reading from the Prophets, and picked two passages from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

Three years later, according to the Gospels, Jesus was executed because he had championed the poor and criticized the domination (pyramid) system: he had criticized the greedy elite, and had interfered with the profits of wealthy business people who were exploiting the poor and who for business reasons had crowded the Gentiles out of “the Court of the Gentiles” – the only spot in Jerusalem set aside for foreigners to worship.

Some years ago, in Medellin, Columbia, a convocation of Roman Catholic bishops said in a statement that God had “a preferential option for the poor”. The term “Liberation Theology” is one that has great relevance for many people today. Its meaning is rooted in the escape from Egypt under Moses and in the realities of life for many millions of people in our world – including thousands of Canadians.

I spent eighteen years of my working life promoting “equality of opportunity” (Human Rights) a cause that was dear to the heart of Jesus.

Now you know where I stand.

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!

Yesterday I saw Jeffrey Sachs on CPAC, and was most impressed. He is Special Advisor to Kofi Annan on the subject of the Millennium Goals, and is with the Earth Institute of Columbia University. He expressed most eloquently some thoughts similar to those that I have already come across in church circles, and have read in The United Church Observer and The Christian Century – both of them award-winning church periodicals. (Sachs has recently written a book entitled The End of Poverty. If he writes as well as he speaks, it is worth a read. He made much sense.)

Sachs told how the International Monetary Fund made large sums of money available to some African countries for bed nets to be used in the campaign against malaria, but on condition that the program be privatized and the nets be sold to the individual recipients, and not donated. But nearly all the people who needed them were living in deep poverty, and could not afford the $5.00 price (it would have meant not eating for a week or more). So the effort failed, the mosquitoes prospered, thousands of people died, and a scourge which could have been eradicated rages on.

I understand that the same mentality rules in the case of loans or grants given by the IMF and World Bank for the purpose of securing potable water for the people of Africa and other places. The money is available, but only on condition that the program is privatized and the individual recipient or family pays for the water. The great majority simply do not have the money, so have to return to the polluted stream. Again, disaster results.

As long as the decisions in such matters are made by people in plush corporate offices, who have never known want, either in their own lives or in the lives of their friends and relatives, I suppose such results are inevitable. The decision-makers must learn to listen to people who have had experience with poverty.

There was a little rich girl who was given an assignment by her teacher: she was to write an essay about a poor family. She started out: “This family was very poor. The father was poor, the mother was poor, the children were poor. The chauffeur was poor, the cook was poor, the governess was poor . . . .”

Of course the decision makers are afraid that corrupt dictatorships in the Third World will misuse the assistance given. But there are other ways of ensuring fairness. And under privatization there is always the likelihood that some Black or Guite or Skilling will take advantage of the situation and exploit the poor. This is just as likely as a Somoza or a Duvalier depositing the profits in Swiss bank accounts. Corruption takes place in democracies as well as in dictatorships.

I am much disturbed by the tendency of our present government to follow the lead of the Republican government in the US. About a hundred years ago some Canadian leader (I can’t remember who) emphasized our membership in the Empire; if Britain went to war, he said, our Canadian response should be “Ready, aye, ready”. By 1930 we had won our independence. Now we seem to be falling, without thinking things through, into the same sort of allegiance to the US: an automatic “Ready, aye, ready”. Surely a greater independence, and perhaps a closer relationship to our European roots would be preferable. At least, we must think for ourselves.

It has been said of the Americans that the Democrats would give away the farm to the undeserving poor, and the Republicans would give it away to the undeserving rich. We Canadians seem determined to follow the Republicans – or to give our farm away to Walmart. Economic imperialism (by American business interests) rules much of the world, and governments have less and less power. No wonder, then, that there is bitterness and unrest in many places. If “free enterprise” means the freedom of the rich to plunder the poor, we do need to think for ourselves and not just follow the Republicans blindly.

American foreign policy seems to have been captured by three groups: the oil barons, the Zionists who believe that only they have a right to the Holy Land, and those Christian fundamentalists who believe that Armageddon must be fought before Christ comes back to establish his kingdom so the sooner the third world war takes place the better. The teachings of the Old Testament prophets that conquered people should be treated with respect and kindness, and that being God’s chosen people involves a high degree of moral and ethical responsibility are easily forgotten – by Jews and by Christians.

The Holy Land was occupied by Israelites for about 1500 years, from the conquest under Joshua until about 135 A.D., when they were scattered; then by Palestinians until the Zionist movement and the Balfour Declaration (1917). Since 1948 the Israelis (supported by the Americans) have shoved the Palestinians into smaller and smaller impoverished enclaves – much as we Europeans have done with the First Nations of North America. If we admit that the Israelis have oppressed the Palestinians, we must also admit that we have oppressed the Natives in Canada – a difficult admission to make.

On the basis of history then, both Palestinians and Jews have rights to the land, perhaps approximately equal rights. In an ideal situation, it should be possible for the moderates in both camps to work together to control the extremists. But the world is far from ideal.

Back to the matter of drinking water. Air and water have traditionally been freely available to all. They should continue to be freely available. Having to pay for either one can only result in inequality, with some people able to live and others dying of poverty. Both clean air and potable water should be in the public domain, not under individual or corporate or foreign control and therefore subject to exploitation. Nor should they be used as political cudgels.

Tragedy has already struck, with regarding to drinking water. Studies have shown that more than a billion of the world’s people do not have clean drinking water, and that by 2025 A.D. more than two-thirds of the world’s population will experience severe shortages.

We used to take for granted that whenever we used the water in the well it would be automatically restored in all its purity. That day is gone. Some of us have memories long enough to have seen the water tables drop and innumerable wells and brooks and rivers go dry. I have seen it happen in Nova Scotia and in Saskatchewan, and I know the same thing has taken place elsewhere. Desalinization will soon be necessary, and should be planned for. There is lots of water, of course, but it is increasingly seawater, polluted or salty or both.

If we continue to use and misuse our non-renewal resources, the days of the human race will soon come to an end. And if the poverty gap continues to grow, the poor will die first. We will have only ourselves to blame. We have the brains, the ingenuity, the skill, to turn the trends around. A Norwegian patriotic song says, of that northern and mountainous country, “Here is summer sun enough, here is fertile land enough, if only – if only – we have love enough.” Political will is needed.

It has been said that captains of industry seldom plan more than five years ahead. The same is true of politicians wanting to be reelected. Statesmen plan for the more distant future.

Many years ago I learned two aphorisms which I have tried to keep in mind on my way through life. One is: “Of the successful leader it will be said, ‘We did it ourselves’ ”. The other is: “We are so busy doing things to people and doing things for people that we forget to do things with people.”

Some fifty years ago when I was in Saskatchewan the provincial government was concerned about rural life and the rural economy. A series of consultations was organized, with a dozen or more mass meetings throughout the province. I attended the one in Assiniboia, along with several hundred other rural dwellers. In the afternoon we were divided into groups of eight, and each group was asked to list the half dozen most serious problems affecting agriculture and rural life. Over supper the steering committee collated the findings. In the evening we again divided into small groups, and each group was given one of the nine problems most often raised and was asked to try to find answers. (As I remember it, the question most often named was given to fifteen groups, and the ninth question was assigned to six groups.)

I can’t comment on the outcome of the exercise. I merely mention it as a way of “doing things with people”. An alternative might have been to establish a royal commission, with some high priced lawyers and successful business people who had never wielded a pitchfork or operated a combine. And could be counted on not to upset any applecarts.

I have some knowledge of the history of my native country. In Denmark, through most of the18th century, most of the land was in huge estates held by the nobility. Nearly all the peasants were for the first forty-five years of life bound to the estate on which they had been born. But the landowners found that farming was not as profitable as they would have liked, and many wanted to get out of it. Some of them read the French philosophers, Voltaire, Rousseau, etc., calling for opportunities and equality for the common people. The press was gradually given its freedom. And in 1788 (on the eve of the revolution in France) the government issued an edict ending the bondage in which the peasants had been held so they would be able to move freely and take employment where they could find it. At the same time many of the landowners, assisted by government, began to divide the large estates, and to make it possible for the peasants to buy the land at reasonable cost and start farming on their own.

The former peasants now began to take a greater interest in farming, and organized themselves into study groups, cooperatives and agricultural societies. The new opportunities produced optimism and an awakening throughout the country, and people clamoured for further government action to support their hopes and dreams. By the Education Act of 1814 each parish was required to have a school, and every child was required to attend. The Folk School movement sprang up, agricultural colleges were established and trades training was formalized. Literature flourished, and patriotic songs.

People took new pride in their country. In 1849, after much debate the king granted the people a democratic constitution.

Of course there was opposition. King Frederick VII, who died in 1839, is reported to have said, “We alone understand” (using the royal “We”). Many of the nobility bemoaned the loss of their status and power. Belief in “the divine right of kings” had been common throughout Europe. But in northern Europe it was coming to an end.

When barriers were removed and the common people were given the power and encouragement they needed, they rose to the occasion, and the golden age of Danish agriculture and industry began. The people were enabled to act for themselves without having to depend on the leadership of the oligarchy.

Much the same sort of development took place in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. But then the Americans forced/bought a “regime change”.

In Canada today there are many people in bondage – to poverty, illiteracy, hopelessness, poor health, limitations of many kinds. Hundreds of thousands of people who desperately want to be contributing members of society are caught in the poverty trap. 2000 years ago Seneca said that what people needed more than anything else was a hand let down to lift them up. In his time the Roman government was providing the poor with “bread and circuses”. Today we have food banks, which provide food for the body but impoverishment for the spirit.

The poverty gap is growing. One provincial finance minister is reported to have said, some years ago, “What Canada needs is more millionaires”. Well, Canada is getting them, and in the meantime more and more people are living in poverty. We espouse trickle-down economics, but more and more is trickling up. The poor are being squeezed, and if we squeeze a water hose not much water will flow through it. But if we raise the minimum wage and provide true freedom, the poor will take hope and contribute their enthusiasm and their support to society.

Government aid for literacy, I understand, has been cut. How are people to reach their full potential, how can they pull their weight in society, if they cannot learn to read? Many who are illiterate have learning disabilities and need special help. Give them a chance.

There is talk of scrapping the Canadian Wheat Board, despite its support by the great majority of western farmers. Like cooperatives and credit unions, it represents a movement of ordinary people, and a refusal to be dictated to by an oligarchy. Let us not “do things to people”, if we can “do things with people”. Listen to the grass roots.

Reinstate support for the Status of Women. Women do not yet have equality. Some years ago a study showed that taking into consideration time out for child rearing responsibilities, it was reasonable that women should, on the average, earn about 85% of men’s earnings. But in Canada the latest figures I have seen indicate that women working fulltime make less than 70% of men’s earnings. We still have a way to go.

Government efforts to support solar and wind power have been discontinued. We need to support such initiatives, for the sake of clean air and for the development of people. Don’t pay so much attention to the “captains of industry”. They have tunnel vision.

We need a practicable, workable environment policy, one that comes down hard on industry and forces the wealthy to pay their share. Not window dressing. Not cosmetics. Not a vague promise of “pie in the sky” fifty years hence, but results that will be evident in a year or two. Our government needs to recognize the reality of global warming. We are playing with our children’s health and with our grandchildren’s very lives. Of course big industry will object; the positions and wealth of the CEOs and board members depend on the profits they provide the shareholders.

I understand that there is still no avenue of appeal from decisions of Refugee Panels. Those panels are thus the only courts in Canada that have the power to condemn people to death without appeal – by sending them back to their country of origin.

There are tens of thousands of homeless people in our cities and in the rural areas. Many of them have mental or drug problems, or are simply so discouraged that they cannot raise themselves out of their condition. They need shelters, counselling and often medical help.

Strengthen public health care. Economies of scale make it reasonable that care can be given more cheaply under a public system than under a private one. And it is the only way of guaranteeing that everyone has equal access. If we open the door to private health care, we will have a triage system that will cost more and will benefit the oligarchy at the expense of the general public. Negotiate with the provinces to establish a common standard of entitlements across the country. Do what is necessary to make generic drugs available. We Canadians have been shown (in UN surveys) to be far more content with our country than Americans are with theirs. And a major part of the reason is that we are a more caring country and treat the disadvantaged among us better.

It seems to me that in the matter of the environment (and in other areas) the Harper Government has tended to throw out plans made by the Liberals just because they were Liberal plans. I think this is what happened to the Kelowna Accord.

Also, too much attention has been given to the oligarchy. I am far less interested in increasing Canada’s GNP than in securing the highest possible measure of equality for everyone. Is there any reason why any person should need a personal annual income in the millions while other families have less than twenty thousand? Ours is, as Harry

Bruce has said, a “culture of greed”. It is built on the assumption that if we put the sum total of human selfishness in one pot, add water and stir, we will have a gruel that will be maximally nourishing for everyone.

Another danger in listening too much to the millionaires is that they tend to have no appreciation of the reality of the poverty trap, and therefore blame the poor for their poverty. They are out of touch with reality.

I don’t mean to be totally negative. We had to do something about Liberal corruption, and electing a Conservative government seemed to be the only feasible alternative. At long last something is being done to compensate the Chinese Canadians for the headtax. And we are moving to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic. Good and necessary moves.

But we cannot expect the market economy to produce equality of opportunity or to look after the effects of global warming. Human selfishness will trump these goals every time unless government protects the vulnerable.