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?

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.

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.

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.