We are All Complicit in Environmental Degradation

Recently I wrote a post about the chilling effect that the federal budget will have on charities, especially those devoted to environmental activism. Unfortunately, I chose to ignore another reality that is equally grim - the fact that all of us (forgive the sweeping generalization) are to blame both for the current dire environmental situation we are in and for the future horrors that will ensue from that complicity.

In today's Star, columnist Christopher Hume reminds us of a few 'inconvenient truths':

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s move to “streamline” the environmental review process and muzzle the environmental movement was deeply disturbing, but Canadians will happily turn the other cheek.

Licking our lips in anticipation of tarsands trillions, Canadians, let alone Canadian politicians, are cheerfully signing up as our corner of the planet is plundered beyond recognition....

We can no longer see beyond the next fix....

As shrill as the deniers might be, we all know that the current path leads to degradation and devastation. Despite mounting evidence, including our own winter that wasn’t, we prefer to keep our collective head buried in the tar sand....

His depressing assessment of our own shortsightedness notwithstanding, I hope you will find time to read Hume's entire piece.

The Departure of Mike Harris

Mike Harris, for whom I have everlasting contempt thanks to his divisive and disastrous time as Ontario's Premier, is leaving his directorship of Magna International under a cloud. I couldn't be happier.

Star Readers' Reactions To OAS Changes

In an earlier post I expressed both my bewilderment and disappointment at the muted 'person-in-the-street' reactions to the the Harper regime's change to Old Age Security that will require people currently under the age of 54 to wait until age 67 to begin receiving their benefits. That I may have been premature in expressing that bewilderment is reflected in some letters in this morning's Toronto Star, which I am taking the liberty of reproducing below. As always, Star readers' messages are both pointed and perspicacious.

Re: Tories add years to working lives, March 30

I “planned” for my retirement. I have been working since I was 17. That was until I became permanently disabled and unable to work five years ago. I receive a Canada Pension Plan Disability pension, which makes up 1/3 of my income, and long-term disability, which makes up 2/3 of my income. As a result of my disability, my income and benefits decreased to about 40 per cent of my pre-disability income.

I now spend thousands of dollars a year on medication and health-care providers delisted by the provincial Liberal government. I can no longer afford to live independently; I had to move in with my parents.

Tell me Mr. Harper, since my long-term disability benefits cease in 13 years at age 65 and my CPP-D decreases, how will I financially survive until the age of 67 when you are taking away OAS and GIS benefits for those two years?

Dawn Wylie, Mississauga

Increasing the eligibility for old age benefits from 65 to 67 is cruel at best. Most Canadians are living on low-wage jobs with no pension plans and struggle to pay the bills, let alone being able to contribute to RRSPs. Making Canadians work longer when some may be in dangerous jobs or have health issues is unfair.

As NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said, Stephen Harper informed Canadians last June that the Conservatives would not touch the pensions of Canadians and they misled us all. Although CPP was not touched, most Canadians rely on the OAS to top up the measly $12,000 a year the CPP pays out.

Jim Flaherty should have tackled the MPPs’ platinum-plated pension plan first and then looked at the OAS. Better yet, MPPs should live on the equivalent of CPP for a month to better understand the struggles of average Canadians.

Avery Thurman, Oshawa

Many Canadians do not understand what the change to the OAS means. It does not affect me now as I am too old but I understand what it means to people on a low income. Many single women and other Canadians who have no company pension to supplement the old age pension depend on the OAS. To take money away from this group of seniors is like taking from the poor. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty should be ashamed. This change is despicable and an eye-opener. It shows me finally what Harper stands for and who he really is.

Elizabeth Richardson, Toronto

The Harper Budget's Attack On Charities

Although hardly surprising, given both the ideological bent of the Harper regime and earlier warnings from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, there is little doubt that the provisions of the new federal budget authorizing an $8-million special audit by Canada Revenue Agency to see if charities are adhering to the 10-per-cent political advocacy limit is aimed directly at the 'enemies' of this regime.

While the charitable status of overtly political foundations such as the C.D Howe Institute, The Fraser Institute, and the Manning Centre for Building Democracy seem to enjoy a special immunity from scrutiny, those whose vision of Canada run counter to Harper's are undoubtedly in for a very rough ride.

Paul Waldie has an interesting piece on the implication of this new measure, suggesting that a kind of chill will now permeate environmental organizations, precisely the intention, I am sure, of the Harper regime that has no interest in respecting differences of opinion, an intolerance typical of extreme right-wing thinking and its refusal/inability to comprehend nuanced thinking.

Thomas Walkom's Budget Analysis

Earlier today I wrote a post congratulating The Toronto Star for its journalistic integrity and the crucial role it plays in helping to keep citizens informed of the important issues affecting our country. Columnist Thomas Walkom, who epitomizes that integrity, has written his analysis of the federal budget, reminding us all of the subtle yet undeniable strategy being utilized by the Harper regime in altering (my word would be 'perverting') the ideological landscape of Canada, elevating the interests of private profit over the collective good. It is an article I highly recommend.

Disappointing Reaction to OAS Changes

Yesterday, I was deeply disappointed while watching televised 'person-in-the-street' reactions to the changes in Old Age Security ensconced in the federal budget. One young person expressed his approval of the change, another said he never really expected a pension by the time he retires anyway, a middle-aged woman approved because people at the age of 65 are now healthier than in the past and should therefore keep working and, perhaps most surprising of all, a 61-year-old woman employed in a restaurant said it made no difference to her, since she will not be able to afford to retire when she is 65 anyway.

At first I attributed this strange reaction to a lack of critical thinking skills, combined with the power of Harper government propaganda, but that probably is only a partial explanation at best. Reading Rick Salutin's column this morning shed additional insight on that reaction, suggesting as it does that people under the age of 40 or so only know the neo-conservative agenda that has been so vigorously promoted since the time of Reagan and Thatcher, and therefore they lack a larger context within which to evaluate government policy.

I highly recommend the article, as it is the last column Salutin will be writing for awhile as he takes time off to write a series on democratic renewal.

Congratulations to The Toronto Star

Since jettisoning my subscription to The Globe and Mail, the self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record,' and replacing it with one to The Toronto Star, I have been consistently impressed with both the scope and breadth of the latter's coverage, coverage that has resulted in many important investigations and changes. I was therefore very pleased to read in today's edition that The Star now has more than 1 million readers per day, making it the most widely read paper in Canada.

I think a large part of its success is attributable to its mandate to cover social issues, as well as the fact that during a period of print journalism contraction, the Star is spending the resources necessary to cover the issues that people need in order to make informed decisions. Unlike the Globe, which promotes a very conservative agenda and seems to have a target audience of the corporate elite, The Star makes no apologies for writing to a broader audience with the goal of promoting the kind of dynamic debate, change and accountability that is essential to a healthy democracy.

I will close by saying that the existence of The Star and its socially responsible agenda provides me with at least a modicum of hope for a better future.