Who Really Pays?

 

Although I haven't had a great deal of time lately to write, I always have time to think about things that affect our country. One of those things is the immense amount of money the Carney government is committing to, and spending on, defence and nation-building projects.

Given the obvious threat posed by an increasingly belligerent and imperialistic America, a compelling  argument can certainly be made that such expenditures are necessary. I fall into that category, but the question that bedevils me is who will wind up paying the bill? The obvious answer is the taxpayer, but that answer is perhaps too simplistic. Yes, the bill will always come due, but it would seem with Mr. Carney's latest inducements to investors means the corporate sector will be exempt in sharing that bill.

"Our goal is simple — to make Canada the most attractive place in the G7 to invest," Prime Minister Mark Carney said at the summit.

The program is an expansion of the government's earlier productivity super-deduction outlined in last year's budget, which initially extended to a limited selection of investments in things like equipment, machinery and technology. That meant only about 15 per cent of possible investments were covered initially, but the prime minister said the expansion means two-thirds of assets will now be eligible.

That now brings Canada's business marginal effective tax rate down to 6.4%. The G7 average rate, excluding our country, is 26%. This change rate reflects a huge loss in government revenue, one that cannot be replaced unless the government intends to raise tax rates for the rest of us. And that doesn't seem likely, given politicians' aversion to overtly antagonizing the people. One remembers the abandonment of changes to the Capital Gains Inclusion Rate as a useful example. 

No, the much more likely scenario is a cutback in various federal supports and programs. Please check this link to look at some of the things being 'deprioritized'. For additional information, please click here. Clearly, the cuts described will be substantial, all in the service of the government's announced priorities: defence and nation building, as discussed above. And, of course, what is on the cutting block disproportionately affects our most vulnerable. A quick overview of measures relating just to health render a vivid portrait:

The current Liberal government is in the process of making deep cuts to a long series of other federal health initiatives.

Among the health programs on Carney’s chopping block are: 

• the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC); 
• the National Strategy for Drugs for Rare Diseases; 
• the Emergency Treatment Fund, which provides assistance to Indigenous communities and municipalities to deal with the opioid crisis; 
• a 10-year $6 billion federal contribution to home and community care; 
• and the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy. 

There is, of course, much more involved, as you will see with the above links, but the inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that Mr. Carney's nation-building program leaves little room for the development and maintenance of non-tangibles; concrete, steel and pipelines are the only things that seem to matter here.

So what is the answer to declining government revenues that will mean the gutting of much-needed programs? Unlike The Globe and Mail, which advocates for more income tax cuts and an elevation of the GST to 18%, a move that would, again, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable,  there is an elegant and simple solution to increase government revenues. It would modestly affect those most able to afford it: a 0.25% charge on stock and bond trading. Such financial transaction fees are hardly rare in the world, as this link illustrates.

How much revenue would this raise? Given the Canadian volume of trade in stocks and bonds, in theory it could be as high as $70 billion, but likely less for those who would perhaps move to other jurisdictions to avoid the fee. Nonetheless, it would be a substantial source of revenue for a government spending well beyond its means and also provide cash for people's programs that are being reduced or ended. And the beauty of the measure is that it would apply to those most able to pay it. For example, someone buying $100,000 in stocks would pay a mere $250 for the transaction,.

Sadly, I doubt such a move would be considered by our government, which seems to have mega-project stars in its eyes while being blind to the needs of the people who elected it.

 

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.

Trying To Understand The American Mind

 

Sometimes when watching my daily half-hour allotment of American network news, I find my curiosity turning philosophical. One of the questions that recur repeatedly is why the American people chose the moronic Trump to lead their country not once, but twice.

In writing about the acolytes of both Trump and Pierre Poilievre, Stephen Maher offers his thoughts, but I am not sure they are the entire answer.

As support for both Trump and Poilievre has diminished — they both have approval ratings of 32 per cent — I am starting to think that their remaining supporters are — how to put it? — not as intellectually inclined as other voters. 

He considers the commonalities of the Conservatives and Trump, and observes that because Carney has definitely moved the Liberals to the right, 

Poilievre is left with the cognitively impaired, the anti-vaxxers, the social conservatives and permanently outraged. 

Those characteristics could also be applied to Trump's supporters, of course, if we add in their innate racism and strong belief in American exceptionalism, two touchstones the President has regularly exploited.

Again, however, I am left with a sense of incompleteness, leading me to speculate in what ways Trump might be a manifestation of the national character. Certainly, we know part of that character embraces rugged individualism and unbridled capitalism, and one thinks of a quote, attributed to various people:  

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. 

I wonder if there might be a corollary to this. Is it possible that lurking within the American breast is a dark, hidden, grudging admiration for people who employ 'sharp' practices? In other words, do many of Trump's fanbase admire conmen that both profit from their cons and offer an 'easy way' to riches for themselves, even at the expense of others?

The evidence for my thesis is, at best, circumstantial.

Consider, for example, the long list of evangelical conmen who succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. 

Few will remember him, but the progenitor of the prosperity gospel was a man known as Reverend Ike. His catchphrase, "You can't lose with the stuff I use," promised abundance to those who followed his formula. Essentially this entailed congregants offering up their scarce dollars in the expectation of monetary blessings in return. When he took up the offerings at his services, I remember him saying he didn't want to hear the clang of coins but the rustle of bills. He was also famous for saying that money is not the root of all evil, but the lack of money is.

If you want to see more of Ike's 'philosophy', just look up his sermons on YouTube, but he was essentially an early proponent of 'manifesting' one's reality rather than working hard for success.

And, of course, variations of that message became mainstays of the 'theology' of frauds like Jimmy Lee Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and Benny Hinn, all who profited immensely from their cons. And even when they encountered scandal, they were able to reinvent themselves with some success.

The Jim Bakker Show Launch

Central to the resurrection of his ministry was the return to the airwaves. The Jim Bakker Show began broadcasting with a significantly different tone than the PTL Club. While still utilizing the medium of television, the production moved away from the variety-show format of the past. Instead, it focused on daily discussions regarding Biblical prophecy and current world events. This new platform allowed Bakker to speak directly to a niche audience that remained loyal despite his previous controversies.

Now, instead of hawking salvation, Bakker pushes survivalist paraphernalia in anticipation of the Apocalypse.

Have I proven my thesis? Of course not. Everything from the above could simply and clearly demonstrate Stephen Maher's observations, expressed another way via the ignorance, credulity and rudimentary thinking skills. of the marks faithful and the cultists. 

But that these conmen can flourish in America surely suggests that there is something within their culture nurturing this kind of exploitation. It would seem the American psyche has many dark corridors.

A Note Of Caution On Privatization

Here is Canada, we have had enough situations over the years to know what can happen when privatization prevails. There was the tainted water Walkerton disaster. There were many deaths in for-profit nursing homes during the COVID crisis. Let's face it. When investors enter such sectors, they expect and demand profits, often at the expense of safety, staffing, and, worst of all, the people these utilities and facilities serve. 

Given that the Carney government seems to be pursuing a course of privatization, at least in terms of national airports, we need to be reminded that those who invest in our assets are motivated only by one imperative: stakeholder profit.

Although the following story is from the United States, it serves as a sobering reminder that the cost of privatization may be one too high to pay.  

Guest Post: The Deadly Embrace Of Trump

 

Here is the latest from The Mound of Sound. Thanks, Mound:

When will Americans come to their senses? When the pandemic hit, Trump gave false assurances that there was nothing to worry about. It wasn't worse than a bad bout of the flu. When spring arrived it would disappear.

Many Americans listened to him and paid for it with their lives.

A study published in The Lancet: "Assessments published around early 2021 concluded that U.S. mortality would have been roughly 40% lower had the country matched the average performance or per-capita death rates of other wealthy G7 nations, accounting for roughly 200,000 preventable deaths during the peak phases of 2020.

"Broader Comparative Analyses: Extended epidemiological evaluations and congressional investigations argued that a robust national strategy involving standardized testing, consistent mask messaging, and coordinated federal guidelines could have averted upwards of 400,000 deaths as the total toll climbed through late 2020 and early 2021.

The 9/11 attacks claimed 3,000 lives. Compare that to Trump's 400,000.

Now that the United States is getting hammered by climate breakdown - severe storm events of increasing frequency, intensity and duration, droughts and floods, Trump's response is to denounce climate change as a hoax. It's a figment of your imagination.

So we turn to the dangers of runaway artificial intelligence. The best and the brightest warn that it could destroy our civilization. They call for the rapid implementation of guardrails to prevent AI from going rogue and turning on humanity.

Trump's response - it's another hoax. Ignore it.

Is this your Thelma & Louise moment? Wake up America. He's killing you - and perhaps the rest of us also.

Trust, But Verify

In these troubled times, when existential threats force Canada to undertake bold, new initiatives, it is sometimes difficult to fully exercise our critical thinking skills. We have a prime minister taking our country into new realms as he seeks to bolster both our resilience and defence against deep hostility from the United States, a country still inexplicably in the thrall of a madman, and I applaud him for many of those undertakings. He is surely the correct person to be leading us at this time.

However, as expressed in my previous post, I think he is making a big mistake in his plans to privatize the operations of four of our major airports: Montreal, Torotno, Calgary and Vancouver. And I am hardly alone in those misgivings.

The Star's Althia Raj offers her thoughts:

Airports are cash cows. Mostly monopolies, they are fantastic investments, where new investors are often able to set prices on everything from passenger charges to parking fees and force them upon a captive audience. 

On the CBC, economist Jim Stanford warned, “This is going to be Highway 407 of the skies.”

Highway 407 was built north of Toronto using public money, then turned over on a 99-year lease to a private consortium, which steadily increased tolls to the point where it is now one of the most expensive tolled highways in North America. 

Even Liberal caucus members are divided on the issue, likely fearing that such a sale will mean only one thing for passengers: higher costs to park, higher costs from airport concessions, higher costs to fly.

Australia serves as a cautionary tale:

Australia privatized a number of its major airports in the late 1990s and early 2000s. While the government was able to get a good price for those sales, consumer costs went up, according to Rod Sims, former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

"They removed the regulation on the airports prior to privatizing them. That meant those buying the airports knew they had a free rein more or less to do what they wanted," he told CBC News.

The Canadian Labour Congress has a similar warning: 

“Private investors don’t put billions into airports unless they expect to make billions back. The government is pointing to Australia as its model, and we’ve already seen the results there: higher costs for passengers and airlines, pressure on workers, and more airport revenue flowing to private investors.

Those who drop off passengers may be in for a rude surprise, if the privatized Heathrow Airport is any indication:

A £7 charge applies at Heathrow every time a vehicle enters the terminal drop-off areas*. Drop-off areas are located right outside each terminal, making for the easiest and quickest way to drop-off passengers.

And, as always, there is the voice of the people: 

A reminder that from the end of the Second World War through 1975, between 20—25 per cent of Canadian public debt was financed and held by the Bank of Canada. During that period, federal government capital expenditure funded highways, bridges, schools, hospitals and yes, even airports. The government did not go begging for cash from hedge funds.

But today, Prime Minister Mark Carney plans to sell off Canada’s major airports and recycle the proceeds for other infrastructure. In other words, investors will get up-and-running projects with established cash flow (where prices can easily be jacked up), whereas Canadians will carry the heavier risk and less profitable investments until mature enough for private owners to buy.

Modern capitalism in action: Corporations get the rewards; Canadians pay the charges and take the risks.

Larry Kazdan, Vancouver, B.C.

 

Privatizing airports is a big mistake — just look at Hydro One

Prime Minister Mark Carney says he is selling our public airports but keeping the land beneath them. That’s like selling an art museum with millions of dollars in art for a bargain price but keeping the land the museum sits on. Carney says he is “unlocking” the value of our public airports. Then says he is going to reinvest that money in other important infrastructure.

We heard the exact same argument and plan when then Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne privatized Hydro One and sent hydro rates through the roof. It used to be, privatization was only done by Conservatives. Now our public assets will be used to maximize profits for corporations. There is no free money, investors expect a good return.

Given the failures and dismal record of public asset privatization here in Canada and around the world, it is astonishing that Carney continues to promote privatization of public assets and infrastructure. Carney is engaging in public relations propaganda to pretty up profit, selling the myth it’s a beneficial way to finance infrastructure. The privatization of long-term-care homes where many died from neglect during the pandemic and Highway 407 and Hydro One has left the people of Ontario with no appetite for any more privatization of public assets. The privatization of Connaught labs by then prime minister Brian Mulroney also hurt us severely during the pandemic.

The privatization of rail, electricity and water and hospitals along with Brexit has made the UK’s economy a complete disaster.

During both World Wars and the Great Depression governments did not privatize public assets. They wisely kept them and we worked our way out of those terrible times with a robust public sector and non-profit public enterprise.

Carney and his Liberal caucus need to be reminded that the provincial Liberals were sent to the political wilderness for three elections in a row for their sale of Hydro One and the resulting rate crisis. Privatizing airports is a really big mistake. The same goes for seaports.

Paul Kahnert, Marham, ON

 What could private investment mean to Pearson airport and Toronto travellers? Here’s what the experts say, Sept. 16

This article mentions a $19 drop-off-fee at London’s Gatwick Airport. Gatwick is privately owned. What could that look like here? If you took the UP Express train to Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, would you be charged a drop off fee? What if you took the TTC Express bus to Pearson, would you be charged a drop off fee? What if you wanted a drink from the water fountain at Pearson, would you be charged a fee? What if you wanted to use the bathroom at Pearson, would you be charged a fee — and extra for toilet paper? 

I have been at privately-run airports where it cost $5 for a bottle of water and at another where you had to pay to use the restroom and pay extra for toilet paper.

I reluctantly voted Liberal in the last election because I believed Mark Carney was the best candidate to defend Canada, but if they follow through with this ill-conceived idea, I will vote against them in the next election.

Gerrard Weedon, Toronto 

Debate is healthy, and one of the backbones of a well-functioning democracy. Let us all hope Mark Carney respects that fact. 

 

So Many Questions

 

I have avoided posting anything thus far about Mr. Carney's economic summit and his trip to Europe in which Canada has been offered "associate membership" in the European Union. The main reason is I am still reading about and digesting these developments. However, one large, billowing red flag is the prime minister's intention to sell long-term concessions (think Ontario's privatized Hwy 407) in four major major airports (Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver). Its putative purpose is to raise capital for improvements at other, smaller airports,  

This decision has nothing to do with asset development and everything to do with enriching the rentier class. In our rush to escape the slimy tentacles of Trump and his disciples, we may be giving far too easy a ride to schemes such as this, but the threat is not going unnoticed.

The following letters to the editor raise some very valid concerns:

Look what happened when they privatized Highway 407

Carney government will allow private investments in Canadian airports, Sept. 15

As much as I like Prime Minister Mark Carney’s approach in welcoming foreign investment, losing control of our airports really scares me. Just look at what happened to the privatization of Highway 407. That was a huge mistake and one I personally can’t forgive.

Norbert Hibbeln, Oshawa, ON

How to keep Canadian ownership and control 

Instead of selling off another asset to investors, I would suggest the following: Establish a direct link between Toronto Pearson International Airport and John C. Munro International Airport in Hamilton. Busses to start and a rail link to follow. Think the UP Express. Designate Pearson as the main international hub and Hamilton the main domestic hub. Pearson could be 70 per cent international and 30 per cent domestic flights with Hamilton 70 per cent domestic and 30 per cent international. Offer discounts on landing fees to airlines willing to use John C. Munro over Pearson.

This solution would reduce congestion at Pearson and make better use of an already existing but under utilized asset in Hamilton. It would also ensure that Pearson remains under Canadian ownership and control.

Peter Smith, Ajax, ON 

Question for the PM: Who is supposed to get rich here? 

When it comes to the privitization of public assets, the only real question I have for Prime Minister Mark Carney is “who is supposed to get rich here?” Or should I say richer?

John Gavin, Toronto

So, Canada is for sale?

When U.S. President Donald Trump wanted to “buy” Canada by declaring Canada as the 51st state of the U.S., there was outrage across Canada.

Now “Canada for Sale” is being considered by Canada itself, and its starting with the sale of Canadian airports. After airports, what comes next? Trump will be first buyer in line with top bid. Let us see what happens next after we sell off Canadian airports.

Qasim Abbas, Mississauga, ON

Then there is this Globe and Mail missive from a former airport authority chairman:

Ain’t broke

Re “Ottawa to announce steps toward opening up airports to more private investment, sources say” (Sept. 15): I believe any rationale for airport privatization falls short when weighed against the financial successes and positive economic impact of Canada’s not-for-profit, community-based airport authorities.

Under the 1990s National Airports Policy, about 20-plus major and regional airports were transferred to local arm’s-length authorities. Since then, these organizations have financed tens of billions of dollars in improvements through landing fees, concessions and airport improvement fees.

Local governance allows airports to respond to regional needs with boards that include business leaders, municipal representatives and labour voices. Why sell strategic assets, possibly to foreign investors, when they already generate stable public revenue and community benefits?

Privatizing airports would shift priorities from regional development to shareholder returns. A fragmented hybrid system, with some airports community-run and others privately owned, would weaken co-ordination, partnerships and the seamless airport connectivity Canadians rely on.

Mark Carney should abort this harrowing flight before it leaves the runway.

Gerry Gallant Former chairman, Charlottetown Airport Authority; Souris West, PEI

Transportation Minister Steve McKinnon is going out of his way to reassure Canadians about this development, saying that Ottawa will protect consumers from "unjustified price increases" The devil is in the details, of course, and I seem to remember similar assurances about reasonable tolls on the 407 when that was sold off by the Mike harris government in a 99-year lease. Today, it has, I believe, the highest tolls in North America.

Trust, but verify, as the saying goes. That can only happen if and when Canadians doff their rose-tinted glasses and begin to examine Mr. Carney's moves in the harsh light of day.

Sometimes, A Cudgel Is Needed

Some will probably find the lack of subtlety in the following anti-racism short from France disappointing, but it is this kind of bluntness that might penetrate some racists' heads. 

Guest Post: AI And The Precautionary Principle

The headlines have been alarming indeed, essentially warning that unrestricted ongoing development of AI has a 10% chance of destroying all of us by the end of this decade. The Mound of sound offers his thoughts on this this:

Oh, damn! The United States has not recognized the "precautionary principle." If the AI warnings are right, we may all pay dearly for that lapse. In fact we, all of us, might need the protection of the precautionary principle more than we do at this moment.

What is the precautionary principle? It's not new and has been stated and restated in slightly different ways but the Wiki summary of it will suffice for this discussion.

"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

"This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result."

Better late than never the precautionary principle has been recognized as the law of the land in Canada in both the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 2015, the Federal Court of Canada upheld the precautionary principle as part of the substantive law of our country. The Supreme Court of Canada has also applied the precautionary principle.

Can there be a peril more urgent than runaway artificial intelligence? The best and the brightest in that field from both academia and industry are warning that it could escape human control and actually turn on mankind. We've been warned by people like Geoffrey Hinton who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on artificial intelligence. He's the AI Nobel laureate. He admits the state of artificial intelligence today terrifies him.

And if you don't think societies will ignore existential risks read Jared Diamond's excellent book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed." Put it this way, this is not our first existential rodeo, although there's a possibility it could become our last.

Guest Post From The Mound Of Sound -The Implications Of Global Debt

 

It's my pleasure to present another guest post from The Mound of Sound. I miss his blog because he often wrote of things I hadn't thought of. Global debt is one of those things:

You think you've got problems. The US debt clock just passed $40 trillion. That's a per capita debt of $114,285. Every man, woman and child and the clock is ticking.

But let's not stop there. The global debt stands at $350 trillion. Per capita that's a more manageable $43,750 although a fair percentage of those people are impoverished. Taken collectively the total debt represents 305% of global gross domestic product.

We're embarking on a very difficult time from the ravages of climate breakdown to water shortages, food insecurity, on and on and on.

What if we agreed that this is no time to be carrying 305% of GDP in debt. This is where we need to become a little creative.

I invoke the ghostly spirit of Solon. Sol who? Solon was an Athenian lawmaker. In 594 BCE, Athens had a nightmarish debt crisis. The lower orders were defaulting on their debts. Debtors and their families were being slung into prisons, some sold into slavery. Their creditors, the merchants, were in their own predicament. Too many of their traditional customers were in jail. You can't sell stuff to a guy in jail.

Solon's solution was a purge to cancel debt. "Seisachtheia (meaning "shaking off of burdens"), a revolutionary debt relief reform that canceled all debts, banned loans secured by personal freedom, and freed citizens enslaved due to debt."

I realize I'm digging pretty deep into the past on this yet this crippling measure of debt with the challenges that we cannot avoid could make paupers of all of us if we don't see the unmanageable debt as the threat.

Humanity is coming in for a crash landing. Now we must decide if it will be survivable

What Is A Proud Canadian?

 

Of late, I have been thinking about Canadian pride and patriotism, and how it is so different from the shallow, reflexive and exaggerated displays the Americans are so fond of. Instead of being loud and brash, we express our loyalty to our country in quiet yet assertive ways. Many of us, for example, shun travel to the benighted land south of us; we go out of our way to minimize the purchase of American produce and products whenever possible; buying Canadian has become the default position of many consumers.

There are those who say our identity is largely defined as not being American. And to that there are elements of truth, especially in these times when American values and culture have degenerated into a kind of Bizzaro World state, where cruelty and the denigration of others, where the attack on former friends and allies, reign supreme. All of that has led us to think more about what is important to us, and we've rediscovered something important: we are steadfast in the conviction of our values, values that embrace the collective over the individual, where kindness and compassion remain strengths, not weaknesses to be exploited, where common decency remain defining characteristics. Indeed, they have become more important than ever.

Mark Carney's Labour Day message exemplifies some of those values:

As mentioned, our way has traditionally been a quiet way, at least up till now. The relentless attacks on our character, on our very nationhood, are wearing us down to the point we are speaking up loudly when insulted, no longer willing to play a passive role in defence of our country. 

Many say, and to an extent I agree, that we should not take the bait of American provocation. Consider Doug Ford's recent comments that Trump could "kiss my ass." Personally, there was some satisfaction in hearing that, even though such a truculent and crass display of umbrage likely sinks to a Trumpioan level of insult we would be better to avoid.

But I admit that my pride as a Canadian is often deeply offended by American insult and condescension. They go out of their way to belittle us in ways that demand a reaction. Consider this recent interview of Scott Bessent by Lara Trump:

I rather liked this AI-generated response:

I will not bother talking about the juvenile, crass posts by Pete Hegseth who, with each foray into social media, proves he is not a real man at all. Nor will I deign to discuss Howard Lutnick, an especially vile mouthpiece of the Trump administration. It is sufficient, perhaps, to dismiss all of them as agents provocateurs of their deranged master.

So on this Labour Day I reflect on the things that make me Canadian, and I am proud. The day itself demonstrates many of the reasons for that pride. And for me, and I hope many other Canadians, that is a sufficient balm for the times we find ourselves living in.

No Indication Of Change

In my previous post, I discussed a myriad of incompencies and corruptions within the Doug Ford government in Ontario,  expressing the hope that the three byelections would convey a message of discontent. Unfortunately, with a turnout of about 25%, (having them at the end of summer was no accident, I am sure) the status quo was maintained.

With a provincial general election in the relatively distant future, we can be sure Ford and his ilk will view these results with pleasure, emboldening them to ever greater heights of ineptitude and backroom deals. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon those who are able to remind people that this is a government with a rather abject contempt for democracy as we know it, not to mention egregious hypocrisy. Some letters to the editor serve that function.

Doug Ford calls Donald Trump a ‘loser’ now, but he was a fan not so long ago, Aug. 29

I’d like to thank Robert Benzie for reminding us that Ontario Premier Doug Ford was caught on a hot microphone indicating that he had favoured U.S. President Donald Trump to win the 2024 presidential election. I guess his support for the Republican ticket in 2020 is more defensible, as Trump wasn’t a fully known quantity yet. But Ford’s continued support in advance of the 2024 election is much harder to understand. By that time, Trump was already a convicted felon and had lost a civil lawsuit to a woman who’d accused him of sexual abuse.

When Ford’s presidential preference became known, more journalists in Canada should have been asking tough questions about his support for a man who had already been exposed as a lawbreaker and miscreant. His answers might have revealed something important about Ford’s character and helped inform Ontario voters in the 2025 provincial election.

John Connolley, Aurora, Ont.

Ford and Trump are cut from the same cloth. Both are bullies; both make uninformed, reactionary decisions; both like to put down journalists; and both enjoy bloviating. Ford’s words in defence of Canada may sound good, but let’s not forget his actions. For one thing, the premier keeps giving tax dollars to companies based in the United States. The best current example is the $750 that Ontario teachers will receive to purchase school supplies, which they will have to spend at Staples, an American corporation. When I was teaching, I mostly bought my supplies at Dollarama, a great Canadian company. It was also much more cost-effective. Go figure.

Astrid Budd, Toronto

Ford is and always has been a Trump clone, whose policies have proved time and time again to be just as destructive and foolhardy as the U.S. president’s.

Sophie Tanel, Vaughan, Ont.

That Ford was an ardent Trump supporter is embarrassment overshadowed only by the fact that so many Ontarians voted for him, twice, despite his clearly being a bad judge of character. Hopefully this huge red flag will be waved — in addition to the Maple Leaf — at the next provincial election.

Julia Bowkun, Toronto

Hopefully, as the years wind down on Ford's mandate, more people will begin thinking for themselves and realize a drastic change is necessary.