Don't worry. This is not one of those bromides on how to live a long and happy life. It is, however, a realistic recipe for social cohesion and progress. The letter, from Joy Taylor of Scarborough, was published in today's Toronto Star:
Today I turned 91. My friends and I celebrated with laughter, and good food. How lucky I am to have had such a good life. I wish that everyone could be as lucky as I.
I often think of the working poor. I think of their struggle to try to make ends meet. I think of the children not having enough to fill their stomachs and no second helpings at mealtime. Of going to bed hungry. Living in places that should be condemned. No TV, no sports or hobbies of any kind to help overcome the sadness and dreariness of their lives. They struggle with education. Some turn to crime.
I think of CEOs and bankers and wealthy people in general. They lack for nothing. Their interests lie in money. Making it, saving it and how to avoid paying taxes.
Many of them admit that they could never exist in the lives of every day people. They are not aware of how some people live — they avoid thinking about them. I cannot avoid thinking of them.
Is it a fantasy or could all Canadian families be given a chance at a decent life. Working people could earn a wage that allows them a decent place to live, good food and education for the children. Those unable to work could be well looked after and not despised by society.
If everyone paid their fair share of taxes and worked together with a major plan, just think that we could become the most perfect country in the world. The envy of people everywhere. It is possible.
Maybe this is what we were intended to do before it is too late. If not, perhaps a meteorite will carry us off to begin again until we get it right.
Millions of dollars is such a waste, lying offshore when it could be helping Canadians realize that there is a better living for us all. Why don’t we try it. We may learn to like it.
The prospect of real tax reform in Canada just got a lot dimmer. Today's release of the Paradise Papers suggests why.
CBC News is reporting this about Justin Trudeau's chief fundraiser, Stephen Bronfman:
In the early summer of 2015, Justin Trudeau was the star attraction at a private fundraiser in Montreal hosted by philanthropist and financier Stephen Bronfman.
Bronfman, an heir to the Seagram family fortune and a close Trudeau family friend, was revenue chair of the Liberal Party. That day, according to news reports, the two men raised $250,000 in under two hours.
Within weeks, the Liberals would launch their federal election campaign, sweeping to power on a "Real Change" platform that focused on the middle class and a promise to tax the rich.
"Our government has long known — indeed, we got elected — on a promise to make sure that people were paying their fair share of taxes," Trudeau said shortly after his election victory. "Tax avoidance, tax evasion is something we take very seriously."
But an investigation by the CBC, Radio-Canada and the Toronto Star has found that Bronfman and his Montreal-based investment company, Claridge Inc., were key players linked to a $60-million US offshore trust in the Cayman Islands that may have cost Canadians millions in unpaid taxes.
It's a 24-year paper trail of confidential memos and private records involving two prominent families with Liberal Party ties that experts say appear to show exploitation of legal tax loopholes, disguised payments and possible "sham" transactions.
In Ontario, we noticed the long federal reach of divisive partisan politics during our recent election. Joe Oliver, our alleged finance minister, interposed his views, lamenting the fiscal state of Ontario that, according to him, is bringing down the rest of Canada. Of course, the disingenuous Uncle Joe denied trying to interfere in our electoral contest. Indeed, he kept up his unsolicited advice post-election, suggesting the following to Premier Kathleen Wynne:
“We hope that her government will follow our lead toward a balanced budget,” he said. “Canada cannot arrive at its potential if the biggest province remains in difficulty.”
In her column today, The Star's Carol Goar offers a pungent rebuttal and some advice to the minister and his government:
He ignored the fact that Ontarians had just rejected his formula, championed by defeated Conservative leader Tim Hudak. He ignored the fact that Ontario is struggling to replace its manufacturing base. And he ignored the fact that Ontario, unlike Ottawa, doesn’t have resource revenues pouring into its coffers.
Compounding the problem, observes Goar, is the fact that the Harper regime is doing nothing to help the province regenerate its economy. In my view, this sad state is the result both of partisan prejudice and a paucity of ideas from the regime's braintrust, Nonetheless, The Star offers some suggestions that we can be certain will be ignored:
- Close the multitude of tax loopholes that allow the country’s wealthy elite to stash income in shell companies that pay low corporate taxes; hide assets in offshore tax havens; write off personal expenses and exploit all the tax credits, deductions, refunds and allowances in Canada’s 3,236-page Income Tax Act.
While the late Jim Flahety closed some loopholes, much more needs to be done.
- Restore Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.’s original purpose.... If the federal government made it clear that CMHC’s first job is to make housing affordable, it would alleviate the need to build social housing, remove some of the risk from the real estate market, encourage residential construction and boost employment — all of which would benefit Ontario.
- Pay as much attention to Ontario’s mineral wealth as Alberta’s oil reserves.
While the regime can't do enough to promote and develop the tarsands, it has shown no interest in helping Ontario finance the infrastructure needed to mine the Ring of Fire and its rich chromite reserves.
- Fix Ottawa’s unfair equalization system.
Oliver ignored Ontario’s claims that it was being shortchanged by hundreds of millions under the convoluted formula Ottawa uses to ensure the financial burdens of all the provinces are comparable. But now Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette has confirmed Ontario is being underpaid by $640 million this year. That revenue would allow the province to knock 5 per cent off its deficit.
I expect that little attention will be paid to these sensible suggestions. As we have all learned over the years, Harper and company have developed a long list of enemies. Given its ideology and its resounding recent rejection of Harperesque medicine through his surrogate, Tim Hudak, there is little doubt that Ontario has a prominent place in that pantheon of distinguished Canadians.
As you likely know, Jeff Bezos is currently searching for a second headquarters for his company, Amazon. And much to the delight of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Mayor John Tory, Toronto has made the final cut of 20 cities being considered. Whoever lands the company is promised upwards of 50,000 well-paying jobs as well as bragging rights as a destination city. However, there is a dark side to this ostensible corporate munificence.
Indeed, if you click on the link embedded in the above excerpt, you will wonder whether the term 'cutthroat environment' does justice in describing the working conditions at Amazon.
The IRS is pursuing the company for allegedly owing $1.5 billion in unpaid taxes, the European Union in October hit the company with a $294 million tax bill, and last month Amazon had to pay $118 million to settle an Italian tax probe.
In response to this article, the always thoughtful Star readers have offered their own insights, two of which I reproduce here:
Thank you, Eric Starkman, for speaking the unspeakable. No, we definitely don’t want Amazon in Canada. The jobs it might bring are not respectful to workers and Jeff Bezos has made it clear he’s not interested in paying taxes and contributing to the communities in which he makes his billions — $2.8 billion in one day and a net worth of more than $100 billion.
His contributions to charities, which only came after public shaming, are a pittance compared to the amount of money he is putting in his own pocket and hiding in offshore accounts.
He has made public statements that “the mission of Amazon is to become not the number-one retailer in the world, but the only retailer in the world. Imagine what that would do to small business. Yes, we would still be able to buy products, all from Jeff, but it would change the fabric of our society. What would our streets be like if there were no small businesses? No more storefront windows to look at, no opportunity to browse, no way to touch the clothes before you buy, no advice from someone who is knowledgeable?
And what would happen to all the people who no longer had an opportunity to put their creativity into their livelihood? I believe this is a greater threat than Walmart and other big-box stores, which have already had a huge negative impact on small business.
And do we really want to put all that power in one individual? Remember, we all vote with our pocketbooks and how we vote makes a difference. I for one am going to think long and hard before I put any more money in Jeff Bezos’s pocket. I hope you do the same.
Robin Alter, Toronto
The history of Amazon’s rise as a powerful online monopoly and its practices are largely unknown to people. What the average person knows about Amazon is an internet retailer that provides cheap goods with fast delivery. However, cheapness and speed come at a cost.
Amazon is not a retailer like any other we have seen before. It is a vast 21st-century digital monopoly that has skilfully manoeuvred around the U.S. antitrust laws and, with a predatory pricing system, spread its tentacles far and deep. Amazon accounts for more than 40 per cent of online retail sales in the U.S., with more revenue than the next top 10 online retailers combined.
Any move that Amazon makes has a long-term strategic element, with the idea of extending its power with little regard to the interest of citizens of the community. No city like Toronto, with caring neighbourhoods and communities, should want an Amazon headquarters in its backyard. The interests of those who advocate for an Amazon headquarters in Toronto are not necessarily the same as the interests of ordinary Torontonians and businesses. People of Toronto should carefully study both sides of the argument and decide.
Ali Orang, Richmond Hill
The allure of a wealth of high-paying jobs is a siren call few can resist. However, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. Given what is now known about Amazon, it is advice apparently well-worth heeding.
Much has been written about the Harper government's obsession with concluding a variety of trade deals; probably one of the most worrisome in terms of its implications for Canadian sovereignty, jobs, environmental protection and culture is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) that Canada is pursuing with the European Union, about which I have written previously.
As reported in the news today, Harper has just addressed both British Houses of Parliament advocating for it:
“It remains our hope that we will soon achieve a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, Canada’s second-largest trading partner after the United States,” Harper said.
“For Canada, and for Great Britain as a member of the EU, this will be a historic step — a monumental one, in fact: A joint Canada-EU study has shown that a commercial agreement of this type would increase two-way trade by twenty per cent.
But like so much else about the cabal that currently rules us, I believe there is an underlying truth about Harper's fervour that his rhetoric seeks to obscure. The fact is that such deals, while they will open up new markets for business and thus help to fatten corporate coffers, will also make it easier for those very same corporations to continue to ignore their responsibility to create good-paying jobs in Canada.
Consider an obvious truth. In the old days, there was an understanding, a 'social contract' if you will, that good profits and good jobs went hand-in-hand. Pay your workers a good wage and they will buy your products. That premise, many would argue, has steadily eroded with freer trade, with job losses outpacing job creation, and a growing gap in inequality within Canada.
It is no secret that the middle class is dwindling, the same middle class that used to buy the bulk of goods and services produced domestically. Now, however, with outsourcing and the steady erosion of domestic manufacturing, that domestic market has shrunk. But it doesn't have to be that way.
In today's Star, Jonathan Power has a piece about the rapid growth of prosperity in the developing world. One of the most important observations he makes is the following:
The most important engine of growth of the developing South is their own domestic markets. The middle class is growing at a pace like never before. Within a dozen years the South will account for three-fifths of the 1 billion households earning more than $20,000 a year. Between 1990 and today, the South’s share of the world’s middle-class population expanded from 28 per cent to 58 per cent. Even in the poorer parts of India or Africa, mobile phones, motorbikes and contraceptives are fairly common. Phone sales are up to a cumulative 600 million in Africa — and climbing fast.
So, of course, these emerging markets are much coveted by the corporate agenda, further relieving them of their former 'burden' of job creation in order to expand their profits. And while the corporate press will continue to promote the propaganda of freer trade prosperity, we would all be wise to bear in mind that the prosperity it talks about is not to be found domestically, as they would have us believe, but rather, offshore.
Ultimately, the critical thinker has an obligation to educate him/herself. To simply accept government 'assurances' that all is well is to surrender the responsibilities inherent in being a citizen in a democracy.
HARPER SAYS: CETA and free trade deals do not allow foreign investors and foreign companies to challenge Canadian laws and regulations.
WE SAY: NAFTA’s chapter 11 protections for foreign investors have allowed corporations to challenge dozens of Canadian laws and regulations simply because they interfere with profits. Canada is the sixth most sued country under the investor-state dispute settlement regime, which exists in around 3,000 bilateral investment treaties globally. Those corporate lawsuits have attacked environmental assessments, the failure to get approval for unpopular or environmentally dangerous quarries and dumpsites, measures to reduce the use of pesticides, research and development payments from offshore oil and gas production, the way hunting and fishing licences are distributed, and local content quotas in Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Canada has had to pay out or is on the hook for over $200 million in settlements or losses to investors under these extreme investor rights which countries such as Australia are now avoiding in their trade deals.
HARPER SAYS: CETA has been the most open and transparent trade negotiation in Canadian history.
WE SAY: So why did it take the government three years to try to explain the agreement to the public? The fact that the provinces are negotiating a trade deal for the first time says nothing about transparency since the provinces are being even more tight-lipped than the Harper government. There have been and will not be any opportunities to see or modify CETA before it is signed, perhaps as early as this winter. Once it is signed, the Harper government will block attempts to modify it in parliament. This is the antithesis of transparency. If CETA and agreements like it are supposed to be 21st century or “next-generation” free trade deals, they should be negotiated in 21st century ways — openly, transparently, and with broad public input.
Recently, I wrote a post about CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; part of it examined the double-speak of Chrystia Freeland when she talked about both the protection of investor rights and the benefits of the deal that will redound to Canada. To me, the two are mutually incompatible, especially since the former allows for the virtual abrogation of our sovereignty rights over any issue that could adversely affect corporate profits.
Reading this morning's Star, I was glad to see that others are rightfully suspicious of our International Trade Minister's claims. Here is what reader Mary Crosato of Burlington had to say:
Re: Canada-EU trade deal could take effect in 2017, March 1
International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland says, “This is a gold-plated deal. It’s going to bring tremendous benefits to Canada.”
Please show us in black and white what benefits Canadians will receive from this agreement. What manufactured goods are we going to be exporting to create more jobs here, in our country? Are we just going to keep importing substandard products and clothing, some of which are made by underaged children in Third World countries?
We must start taxing companies that choose to manufacture goods offshore and continue making billions of dollars to increase their bottom line. We have to create a level playing field for companies that want to manufacture in Canada.
I hope Ms Freeland will not be bullied into accepting any agreement that is not fair or beneficial to Canadians.
I'm not so sure it is bullying that we have to worry about so much as the seduction of Ms. Freeland by the siren call of neoliberalism.
Amongst the latest Statistics Canada findings, the following facts are worth noting:
There were 554 homicides in 2010, down 56 from the year before. The decline in the homicide rate was largely driven by a decrease in British Columbia, where the rate hit an all-time low.
There were 693 attempted murders last year, down from 801 in 2009. This resulted in the lowest level in more than 30 years.
Nearly 93,000 vehicles were reported stolen last year, representing a 15 per cent drop and continuing a downward trend that started in the mid-1990s.
Nearly 153,000 youth between the ages of 12 and 17 were accused of a crime in 2010, almost 15,000 fewer than a year earlier. The youth crime rate declined by 7 per cent.
Three cities had increases in their crime severity index, which measures the seriousness of crimes: St. John’s, Sudbury, Ont., and Peterborough, Ont. The cities with the lowest crime severity indexes were Guelph, Ont., Quebec City, Toronto and Ottawa.
Of course, before we make the mistake of feeling reasonably safe, I suspect the Harper regime will remind us of the 'fact' of unreported crime lurking beneath the statistics like a great white shark trolling offshore for the unsuspecting - that is, if they even bother to comment after having achieved a majority in the last election with their wealth of scare tactics.
Given that it is a government with a well-known contempt for openness and democracy, the Harper regime rarely shocks me anymore. Its vilification campaigns of those with opposing views, its use of government power to muzzle the voice of science, its almost demonic obsession with resource extraction at any cost has left me pretty much inured to any emotional reaction other than disgust.
Yet even I was both shocked and appalled at what I learned reading The Toronto Star's editorial this morning.
The headline tells it all: Drilling for oil in the Gulf of St. Lawrence without a clue:
Buried within the more than 400 pages of this spring’s federal omnibus budget bill is an invitation for resource companies to open a new frontier in Canadian oil: the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
The gulf, which touches the coastlines of Canada’s five easternmost provinces, is the world’s largest estuary. It’s home to more than 2,000 species of marine wildlife — an ecosystem integral to the health of our Atlantic and Great Lakes fisheries.
Now, due to measures deep in the federal budget, that ecosystem may be under threat. The bill explicitly highlights the region’s potential for petroleum extraction and includes amendments to the Coasting Trade Act that give oil companies greater access to exploration vessels.
The editorial reveals that a company called Corridor Resources Inc. has applied to drill the first-ever deep-water well in the gulf, a development with dire environmental implications. Even without an oil spill, the seismic drilling will have profoundly negative effects on marine life, and to compound the environmental crime, there will be no way to measure those effects:
The budget rescinded the requirement for environmental assessments of exploratory drilling and crippled the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research, the federal agency best equipped to deliver such assessments.
In a world already in the midst of the biggest disaster ever experienced by humanity, climate change, the Harper regime is unbowed in its headlong rush to give the corporate sector every opportunity to 'live for the moment," something it has historically proven to be very adept at.
In her latest iPolitics article, Kady O'Maley offers the view that the revelations of The Paradise Papers do not constitute a scandal for Justin Trudeau and his government. And while the Scheer-led Opposition is making every predictable effort to connect non-existent dots, few are suggesting that Trudeau had any personal knowledge of the alleged offences committed by chief fundraiser Stephen Bronfman, who has stoutly denied any wrongdoing.
However, to assert Trudeau's blamelessness in all of this is to look only at the immediate situation, one that Justin undoubtedly made worse with his unseemly and ready acceptance of Bronfman's innocence, about which I posted last evening. The larger implications of the ease with which the ultra rich transfer their money to jurisdictions beyond the reach of the tax man constitute the real threat to our democracy and our way of life.
The revelations now in the public arena thanks to the collective efforts of hardworking journalists reinforce a perception that many, many people have held for a long time: the tax system is gamed, and talk of tax fairness is simply convenient posturing that ultimately means nothing. This perception/reality is very damaging to public morale; those who believe in paying their taxes are now being shown that they are, in fact, the patsies for their betters.
Nothing could be worse for those who believe in a society where all of us pay to maintain a social safety net, programs to help the disadvantaged, and a public medical system where no one is turned away because their wallet is too thin. Just more fodder for the rabid right wing, and governments have no one but themselves to blame.
... tax havens have proved so embarrassing that they put the entire government revenue-raising machine at risk.
The cost to Canada’s federal treasury of offshore tax havens is estimated at between $6 billion and $8 billion a year. While that may seem a lot of money, when compared to the roughly $300 billion that Ottawa pulls in each year, it is relatively small.
Most tax revenue comes from the broad middle-classes — people who are willing to pay as long as they deem the system fair. Revelations, like those in the Paradise Papers, which detail at an individual level how the wealthy and well-connected get special treatment, break that trust. This threatens the entire fiscal basis of the state.
Put succinctly, no one wants to be played for a fool. And it is that fact that makes the cossetting of the utra rich by governments so dangerous.
The latest revelations from the leak of the Paradise Papers raise troubling questions, not only about government’s failure to collect what’s owed, but also about the power of money to subvert our democracy.
They serve as a reminder that those who can afford to hide income from the taxman can also afford to hire the very best lobbyists to help ensure that, whatever the public interest, governments don’t close the loopholes that allow tax avoiders to get away with it.
There is, of course, a solution to all of this, one that I am not holding my breath waiting for:
The Paradise Papers are doing nothing to soothe those who worry about the unseemly intertwining of money and power in politics or about the extent to which the economy is rigged by the few against the many. The government can do something about that. It can, for instance, close unfair and ineffective tax loopholes and collect what’s owed. Or it can sit back, defend the current arrangements and watch the cynicism grow.
It would be nice to believe that The Paradise Papers will lance the massive carbuncle of complicity that exists between government and business, but like its predecessor, The Panama Papers, it will likely last only for a few more news cycles before being replaced by a feat of political legerdemain that suggests we just move along, as there is nothing to see here.
“We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”
-Leona Helmsley
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
- Mark 10:25
This morning's Star gives comprehensive and very comprehensible coverage of the latest peak behind the tax curtain controlled by the ultra wealthy, and it is not a pretty picture, unless you think that greed and tax evasion make for a pleasing tableau.
Distilled to its essence, if I understand the situation correctly, the Bronfman family, through trusted consigliere Leon Kolber, established an offshore trust in the Cayman Islands in Kolber's name. All monies sent were deemed to be 'loans' by the Bronfmans, thereby allowing them to invest in Israeli interests tax free. Kolber's son Charles, now a citizen of Israel, handled things from that end and was rewarded lavishly for those efforts through trust disbursements.
Some will insist, as do the Bronfman lawyers, that there was nothing illegal about this but merely an astute use of extant tax loopholes. However, that explanation doesn't wash because the decisions about the trust (i.e., investment decisions) were made in Canada, not the Caymans, and thus should have been taxed as a Canadian trust.
Why should any of this matter to us? Well, the obvious reason is that our federal coffers were denied much-needed tax revenue, but unfortunately the implications of this scheme, no doubt practised by many of Canada's elite, go well beyond lost tax revenue. What the Paradise Papers essentially show is that the days of the Family Compact are far from over, and that the real levers of power are still being exercised behind closed doors.
To get a sense of that power, one has to go back to the nineties, when Edgar Bronfman was allowed to take $2 billion out of Canada tax free:
...a controversial tax ruling by Revenue Canada in 1991 ... allowed the Bronfmans to move more than $2 billion worth of Seagram Co. stock, held in two family trusts, to the United States without paying capital gains tax. The decision allowed the family to avoid as much as $700 million in taxes.
If you go to the 39-minute mark on last night's National, the disturbing mechanics behind this scandalous ruling are revealed, as Revenue Canada's efforts to block the deal gave way to pressure from the Bronfmans, who threatened to "go over their heads." The stench of political interference and corruption by the Mulroney government of the day is hard to ignore:
The revelations now in the public arena thanks to the collective efforts of hardworking journalists reinforce a perception that many, many people have held for a long time: the tax system is gamed, and talk of tax fairness is simply convenient posturing that ultimately means nothing. This perception/reality is very damaging to public morale; those who believe in paying their taxes are now being shown that they are, in fact, the patsies for their betters.
Nothing could be worse for those who believe in a society where all of us pay to maintain a social safety net, programs to help the disadvantaged, and a public medical system where no one is turned away because their wallet is too thin. Just more fodder for the rabid right wing, and governments have no one but themselves to blame.
I began this post with two quotes. The one by Leona Helmsley encapsulates something far too common amongst the monied: an abject contempt for the larger society within which they prosper, and a complete absence of any sense of obligation toward that society. They really believe that they are our betters.
The second quote, from The Bible, is reflective of the distance that great wealth can create from "the kingdom of God," that kingdom, in my interpretation, being a state of spiritual attunement with our fellow human beings. If we are not aligned with other people and have a sense of shared humanity, we cannot hope to have access to transcendent reality, whatever it ultimately is.
The ultra rich may have great wealth, but in other ways they are deeply and fatally impoverished.
Ed Broadbent recently wrote on the need for real tax reform, calling for an end to the various favours our government bestows on the ultra rich. His thesis was compelling:
Tax avoidance and evasion by the rich ultimately undermines democracy: it starves social programs and public services, increases after tax income and wealth inequality, and further concentrates economic resources in the hands of a few. The overall message to a majority of Canadians is that the rules of the economic game are rigged against them.
He went on to excoriate the Trudeau government for its hypocritical failure to pursue real tax reform:
The Liberals promised change. In their 2015 election platform, they promised to “conduct a review of all tax expenditures to target loopholes that particularly benefit the top 1 per cent.”
But there has been no broad public review in which citizens could participate. And action to date has been limited to stopping abuse of some private corporation rules. Minister Morneau has said he will impose higher taxes on the small number of private corporations that shelter investment assets of more than about $1 million, which is an action that should be supported.
While I did not agree with all of his suggestions, I doubt there would be many who would dispute Broadbent's thesis. In today's Star, readers offer their views on his piece as well as the sickening truths made evident in the recently-released Paradise Papers. Here is but a sampling of their thoughts:
Ed Broadbent writes, “The case for taxing investment income on the same basis as employment income on the grounds that ‘a buck is a buck’ dates back to the Carter Commission of the 1960s when another Liberal government failed to act on it.”
The problem is the ultra-rich are Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s personal friends and he prefers to run defence for them than to do what is right for the public good.
Former finance minister Allan MacEachen tried to reform the tax system under then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau but, like Carter before him, the government of the day distanced itself from any idea of true reform and let both of these truly honourable men get practically eviscerated by all the real (rich) powers. It’s all about the Golden Rule: “Them that’s got the gold makes the rules.”
Jennifer A. Temple, Welland, Ont.
After decades of tax avoidance by Canada’s wealthy, we now have the exposure in detail of the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers.
Our current federal government assures Canadians it will restore the principle of tax fairness. Why should Canadians believe this promise? It is the political process and our elected MPs that preserve this economic injustice.
As the Star reported, Parliament and those who bankroll them control the law. It is highly unlikely the wealthy will forfeit their advantage simply because Canadians think it’s unfair.
Talk is cheap and the government won’t move until pushed. I challenge all Canadians to organize a Canada-wide tax boycott. Until tax fairness is achieved, we should refuse to pay any taxes owing, beginning April 2018.
And every MP should be lobbied to support an immediate tax overhaul. Tax fairness can only be achieved by law, not mealy mouthed promises by those concerned only with preserving their own self-interest to the detriment of the rest of us.
Gordon Wilson, Port Rowan, Ont.
Ed Broadbent shines a bright light on the biggest issue of our time: tax reforms that will cut through many complex aspects of our socioeconomic system.
A progressive and clearly defined tax system would address many issues we have been struggling with since the dawn of the 21st century.
We need a tax system that encourages savings and productive investments, while it shifts the tax burden from working people to the wealthy and big corporations. For many years, the middle- and lower-class have been paying taxes while the rich have been taking advantage of it.
A reformed tax system will prevent the creation of generations of wealthy individuals and corporate monopolies, which have taken advantage of societal privileges without paying their fair share. The wealthy have made their money on the backs of the working people.
The Paradise Papers show how the rich, with the help of law firms, have parked 12 per cent of the world’s wealth in offshore accounts, which does nothing to improve the economy. The sheer number and diversity of people and corporations involved in these tax havens is frightening. It is truly like discovering a galaxy of hidden money that public officials have a hand in helping hide away.
Reforming the tax system is possible if there is political will.
While "Let them swallow tainted pharmaceuticals" seems to be the motto of both Health Minister Rona Ambrose and Health Canada, always-vigilant Star readers take issue with such deference to the corporate agenda. Here is just a small sampling of their reactions:
Good thing we have the FDA and the Star to look after our best interests with regards to clinical drug trials. Health Canada appears to just run diversion tactics for the medical profession and big pharma.
Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough
I really appreciate all of the hard work that David Bruser and Jesse McLean are doing to enlighten and inform us about the irresponsible practices of Health Canada. I’m sure it has been next to impossible to obtain salient information from the government organization that is in place to supposedly protect its citizens but instead have to rely on the FDA.
It begs the question as to why. Are they under-staffed or are they protecting the corporations known as Big Pharma? Like the majority of Canadians I resent and abhor that the products we consume are being produced offshore with apparently little or no quality control. At our peril, the corporations’ only consideration is profit. The eroding job market and our health is of little consequence when their insatiable greed is paramount. It’s obscene.
As a citizen, I don’t know how we fight for accountability. Health Canada exists because of our taxes, this practice is unacceptable. Or are the corporations really the body governing our country?
Vivien C. Buckley, Burlington
Looking at the failure of Health Canada to inform Canadians of the shortcomings of part of our pharmaceutical industry, one comes to two conclusions about Health Canada: it was putting the health of Canadians at risk; and it might as well not have done their regulatory work at all. Exactly the same might be said of the Canadian government agency in charge of inspecting meat processing plants.
How about the work of government scientists studying forestry, fisheries, climate, water quality, economics, environment, national statistics, etc? The Harper government appears to have suggested that their work was solely to inform cabinet decisions. If so, that may explain why the “Harpies” do not allow government scientists to speak publicly about their work.
From my point of view, the tax-cutting Tories would be well advised to close all our scientific establishments. Since they largely ignore the scientific work available to them, and will not let the public see the results either, why do it at all?
Clearly, one should never let the facts trump a good ideology.
Peter Bursztyn, Barrie
The Star has informed its readers of the incompetence by Health Canada in keeping the results of their investigations into pharmaceutical companies a secret from the taxpayers they work for.
Health Canada has become another whore in the Harper government, playing along with again a secret policy of giving information to the public only if it is of benefit to federal government.
......
When the next Prime Minister replaces this dictatorship after the next election, I hope that he would fire every single manager at Health Canada, no matter what the management rank is, and replace them with contractors hired from the FDA. It seems that only then will we get what we are paying for.
Robert Knight, Toronto
As well, the Star has an editorial in today's issue that offers a good overview of this scandalous issue.
Given its abundance of tar, I'm betting that some Harperites, along with a generous helping of Albertans (often one and the same) would like to apply a liberal dose of bitumen and feathers to columnist Heather Mallick in light of her column today.
Entitled Calgary byelection should rise above old quarrels, her piece skewers the sensitivity of souls that take such umbrage over comments offering criticism of the oil-rich province which, in my post yesterday I described as our version of Israel (criticize at your peril.)
Mallick offers, among many others, the following observation:
Albertans know perfectly well they haven’t had a premier worthy of their province since Peter Lougheed left office. Ontario had the same problem. Recall Don Getty, Ralph Klein, Frank Miller, Ed Stelmach, Mike Harris, Ernie Eves. What a roll call of sophisticates.
Her thesis is that the recently uttered and earthed criticisms of Alberta offered by David McGuinty and Justin Trudeau, respectively, are justified, and that, of course, the reaction of the Harperites is strictly political, given the closeness of the impending by-election in Calgary-Centre.
In proof, she offers the following:
Alberta, a famously lucky and beautiful province, mismanaged its oil and its tar and allowed itself to be bullied by multinationals for a handful of coins compared to what Norway, for example, a tiny country of five million people, demanded for its offshore oil. As Alberta caved, Norway grew stubborn.
That’s why Norway’s savings account will hit a trillion dollars this decade. Alberta has $15.9 billion in a piggy bank its mom broke open years ago. Will it even be doubled by 2020?
Mallick has much more to say, including an excoriation of the Liberals' grovelling apologies after McGuinty's
'misstep.' I hope you will take a few moments to savour the entire column.
As I tried to suggest in my post the other day, rich people really are different from us, and people like Justin Trudeau, part of that rarified group, have no desire to really disrupt their status quo.
While it might seem reductionist, in my view that fact goes a long way toward explaining the inability of the Canada Revenue Agency to recoup taxes that have been sheltered in off-shore havens. If you believe that the CRA acts without political interference, you need only remember how Harper sicced them on non-profits that were active on environmental issues, often embarrassing the prime minister in the process. The same thing is happening under the Liberal administration; it is just taking a different form.
And people are noticing the CRA's apparent impotence:
Five years, 200 audits, zero charges, Oct. 5
Aside from hearing how the wealthy continue to evade paying taxes in this country, what is even more infuriating is reading about how the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) does very little to recoup this money or charge these people for this kind of criminal activity … all the while charging hundreds, even thousands of dollars in penalties and fees to small businesses or average citizens for filing our taxes late or not making our payments on time.
Heidi Bigl, Toronto
Heidi Bigl is not the only one. Writes Terry Glavin:
As for Canada’s diligence in capturing tax revenue — it’s not much to boast about. It was only after the ICIJ’s Panama Papers bombshell in 2016 that the CRA dropped a court fight intended to prevent the Parliamentary Budget Officer from releasing estimates on how much the treasury was being effectively bilked out of revenue by individuals and corporations resorting to secret offshore accounts. That was just one minor impact the Panama Papers had on government policies worldwide, but Canada remains a laggard in corporate transparency.
And the same laxity seems to apply to money-laundering:
For years, Transparency International Canada has been campaigning against what it calls “snow-washing,” a kind of money-laundering that allows foreign investors to hide dubiously sourced capital in Canadian assets, notably real estate. It was only earlier this year that the federal government promised to introduce a searchable “beneficial ownership” registry in the House of Commons.
The adverse impacts of snow-washing in real estate is most noticeable in British Columbia, where a provincial expert panel reckoned in 2018 that in that year alone, money-launderers had sunk $5.3 billion into real estate investments, mostly in Metro Vancouver. It’s a racket that’s been going on for years, causing dramatic distortions in the city’s house prices, and it has spurred B.C. to introduce a beneficial ownership registry of its own.
The promise of a federal registry to identify the real owners of corporationsinvesting in Canada was made in the Liberal budget that was introduced in the House of Commons last April. The registry is supposed to come into effect within five years. But a federal election has since come and gone. So will Ottawa finally act to clean up Canada’s reputation and start collecting taxes on the super-rich with the same rigour the CRA applies to the rest of us?
We’ll see.
The view from Olympus can be dizzying, and it is a great height to fall from. Hubris and nemesis, anyone?
In some ways, it is hard to believe that the old Liberal propensity for corrupt coziness with corporate chums has reasserted itself so quickly, barely three years into Mr. Trudeau's tenure. In other ways, it is not hard to believe at all. After all, old habits die hard.
Th latest allegation is that Trudeau tried to influence former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to help SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal prosecution for bribery of Libyan officials in order to secure business contracts. It is an allegation the Prime Minister stoutly denies, but the fact is that Wilson-Raybould was recently demoted to Veterans Affairs.
Cause and effect? The smell of a smoking gun is in the air.
First, there is what has been described as Trudeau's legalistic denial in response to reporters' and House of Commons' questions:
“The allegations in the Globe story this morning are false,” Trudeau told reporters Thursday in Vaughan. “Neither the current nor the previous attorney-general was directed by me or anyone in my office to take a decision in this matter.”
The new justice minister, David Lametti, repeated Trudeau's words in answering the charge of interference in the House.
So, are we simply jumping to judgement, based on little or no evidence? The Toronto Star doesn't think so.
And what communications, if any, did members of Trudeau’s office have with Wilson-Raybould and her office on this issue? These are questions that can’t simply be waved away with a carefully worded blanket denial. The Globe reported that the company lobbied federal officials more than 50 times since 2017 on “justice” and “law enforcement” issues, including 14 times with Trudeau’s closest advisers in the PMO.
What exactly did they discuss? Did it include the possibility of SNC-Lavalin benefitting from a so-called remediation agreement that would allow the company to avoid a criminal trial on serious fraud and corruption charges (and therefore remain eligible for lucrative government contracts)?
And what communications, if any, did members of Trudeau’s office have with Wilson-Raybould and her office on this issue?
These are questions that can’t simply be waved away with a carefully worded blanket denial.
... she didn’t have a thing to say in the wake of the Globe and Mail’s explosive story of how the former justice minister reportedly stood in the way of a deal to let SNC-Lavalin detour around prosecutions that could have blocked it from receiving government contracts for years to come.
“That is between me and the government as the government’s previous lawyer,” Wilson-Raybould was quoted as saying in the Globe’s scoop, as well as a cryptic, “I don’t have a comment on that,” in reply to more pointed questions about how she handled the SNC-Lavalin case.
Pro tip: “No comment” only works as a clever misdirection in fictionalized political journalism. In real life, it is often regarded as confirmation.
Did she speak truth to power?
Delacourt attended a Robbie Burns dinner last week in which Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes took jabs at her own government:
One of those jabs was aimed squarely at the ouster of Wilson-Raybould from the justice job, and a joke about how an Indigenous woman lost her post for doing it well and unsettling the “white man.”
None of which 'proves' these allegations. However, it is worth noting that SNC-Lavalin, a Quebec company, has had a long relationship with the Liberal Party of Canada, even when it was out of power:
SNC-Lavalin, many were reminding us on Thursday, was the same firm that was detouring around election laws for much of that decade to put roughly $110,000 in the party’s pocket in those lean years.
And so, an old pattern re-emerges. Coupled with Trudeau's stout defence and dismissal of allegations regarding his good friend and fundraiser Stephen Bronfman over what was revealed about offshore accounts in the Panama Papers, as well as the CRA foot-dragging in going after the big corporate cheats who operate such accounts, one can justifiably wonder whose interests the Prime Minister really is protecting.
This may rankle those who believe a Liberal government should never be criticized, given the poor alternatives, but to take such a position is to be willfully and woefully ignorant.
An age-old question without a firm answer, it is one I find myself regularly pondering as I continue striving toward an ideal I know I'll never attain, that of being a consummate critical thinker. Bombarded by information as we are, it is often difficult to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff and arrive at satisfactory conclusions. And of course, there is always one's own biases to contend with as major filters of that information.
Take, for example, my deep antipathy toward the Harper Conservatives. So used to their tactics of denigration, disparagement, denial and deception am I that part of me strongly believes truth in any form is alien to them, that their actions are driven not by any concern for us as a nation, but only as the subjects of a grand neo-conservative experiment.
But to interpret everything they do according to that restrictive framework is also to deny true critical thinking and is simply to be as reactionary as the right-wing.
And so, in the spirit of honest inquiry, I seek to make an honest assessment of the changes to Employment Insurance announced yesterday by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley. Is it, as Star columnist Tim Harper suggests, a reform that curiously dovetails "with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation view that a bunch of lazy layabouts are milking the system and forcing more ambitious offshore workers to do the work they won’t do" ?
Or is it "all about matching Canadians hungry for work with employers hungry for employing Canadians instead of foreign workers," as the government insists?
Another question: what commitment does Ottawa have to improving and expanding access to retraining programs for those seeking to upgrade their skills? And how do the E.I. changes affect them?
Like all policy conducted in secrecy instead of collaboratively with the public, this legislation invites the worst of interpretations, whether or not those interpretations are wholly warranted. Such is the price to be a paid by a regime committed to restricting the flow of information and treating those it 'serves' with palpable contempt.
That kind of philosophy of government certainly doesn't make it easier to be a critical thinker these days.
Re: Two richest men as wealthy as poorest 30 per cent, Jan. 16
It is telling that this news report was not a front-page headline in the Star.
As if the world needed any more data on the abject failure of capitalism and the neoliberal free market experiment, Oxfam has released yet another report once again documenting the egregious and unconscionable wealth of a minuscule number of individuals in Canada and around the world.
Report after report has documented the skyrocketing expansion of inequality around the globe and the inexorable march of wealth to the top of the social ladder. If capitalism were a new drug being developed to cure cancer and it failed in all but a few cases out of billions it would be abandoned immediately but we continue to prescribe the economic thalidomide of capitalism to the world’s population without remorse.
In fact, with the election of Donald Trump in the United States, the American public has decided to firmly put on its rose-coloured glasses and double-down on the neoliberal nightmare of “cancer capitalism.”
Despite this political St. Vitas Dance, there is a desperate need for a government regulated, moderated and managed economic system that is actively structured to serve the needs of all in society as the historian and economist Karl Polanyi asserted. Such a system places clear limits on wealth accumulation and claws back excess wealth and profits through progressive taxation.
If we were smart enough to invent capitalism, we are smart enough to invent its replacement.
It is time to radically change our global economic system to serve the needs of humanity, not a few humans.
Robert Bahlieda, Newmarket
Do you find it amusing that we the public anxiously follow the media to be aware of the daily interaction between nations, cultures, religions, terrorists, politics and, oh yes, economies? Such a multitude of players in mankind’s unfolding history and future.
But perhaps there’s really only 16 – based upon the knowledge (and fact) that eight men own half the world’s wealth. Perhaps there are 16 players served by millions who accommodate them for reward while billions of others live in war and death and poverty and the rest of us are relegated to being blocks of pieces on an endless series of game boards that lead to millions of winners and billions of losers — just sayin’, perhaps.
But history says nations fade as empires rise. And our supposed representatives in governments are silenced by their parties who serve the players and their accommodators. Global democracy with globalization is sadly our “paradise lost” because globalization without global democracy is the globalization of poverty.
Ask yourself this. When it comes to big banks, big business, big oil, big money (non-pursuit of offshore accounts) and big talk, is Justin Trudeau really that much different than Stephen Harper?
