Amidst The Tumult

 

Amidst the tumult of the trade war, it is easy to suspend one's critical thinking and simply join in the national fervour of support for Mark Carney and his initiatives. As I have written before, while I find much to applaud in the Prime Minister's initiatives, it is easy to forget that a blanket endorsement in not in anyone's best interests. 

The following letters to the editor point out a few of things we should be pondering.

A healthy economy comes from everyone paying their fair share

Doug Ford applauds Mark Carney’s new ‘mega’ deduction despite $2-billion hit to Ontario tax revenues, Sept. 16

It is correct corporate welfare isn’t working.

But why does the idea persist corporations should be taxed less?

Low corporate taxes can be seen as another form of corporate welfare. Why should Canadian individuals bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden?

This is a fallacy that needs to be challenged.

Corporations are not entities that need to be coddled. Their fundamental purpose is to generate profit. But they also depend on people — as workers, consumers and members of the communities in which they operate. They cannot generate profits without them.

Meanwhile, wages for ordinary workers have stagnated while executive compensation has risen dramatically over the past several decades. That raises a broader question about who is benefiting from the economic growth that corporate tax policy is intended to encourage.

The Fraser Institute is right that corporate welfare deserves scrutiny. But so does the assumption that keeping corporate taxes low is inherently good for society.

The real question is simple: Who should bear the tax burden, and what is a fair contribution from those who benefit from our economy?

If we’re serious about creating a prosperous economy we should be asking everyone who benefits from it to contribute their fair share — corporations and individuals alike.

Martina Wood, Mississauga

Writers from The Globe and Mail, in response to an editorial, chime in on the Carney attitude toward labour:

You applaud the Building Canada Strong Act because the legislation “rebalances” the power between unions and employers. Needless to say, employers are unanimously in favour of these reforms.

The new law would empower the government to terminate a lawful strike and impose arbitration by ministerial fiat, from behind closed doors. One would have thought any “balance” of interests would start with the fact that the government proposes to curtail a Charter right in favour of business efficiency and profit.

Moreover, the government already has the power to enact back-to-work legislation in Parliament after full public debate and discussion. Surely the existing parliamentary process brings far more transparency and accountability rather than a minister’s direction initiated by an employer’s initiative.

To borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister who proposed this new law: Charter rights are not “written in pencil” to be negated by government upon the request of big corporations.

Paul Cavalluzzo CM, O.Ont, LSM; Toronto

In your support for the government’s proposed labour law reforms contained within Bill C-39, you argue that they would “only apply for disruptions with significant national impact.” Therein lies the rub.

Who gets to determine whether a strike has “significant national impact?” Presumably, the federal government will define “significant” as it sees fit.

That you cite, with approval, measures to limit the right to strike in the United States, where successive administrations have for decades rolled back the rights of both unions and workers, is downright scary.

David Bright St. Catharines, Ont.

It is easy to overlook things we don't like when we are in a battle against a deranged United States. The above letters suggest giving our government an uncritical pass is hardly in the national interest.