We Canadians

Stephen Harper said yesterday, "To succeed, what the world must become in the future is what Canada is today."

I'd like to know how he expects that to work. If every person on the planet used the same amount of energy as the average Canadian, the world would need more than 5 times the energy it currently uses in a year. Somehow, I don't think the oil sands or all the fracking and deep-sea drilling in the world will ever make that a possibility.

Not to mention it would take numerous planets for every person on just this planet to have as much space per person that we enjoy. And where's all the food gonna come from? Other than our slightly plumper neighbours to the south, we're the fattest people in the world. 

We like to think of ourselves as a fair and just people. Is it fair or just for us to expect China to reduce its emissions before we do, when per person we use over 8 times the amount of energy that they use? I'm not saying China's emissions are acceptable. They're atrocious, actually. But who are we to say that the developing world doesn't deserve to live just like we do, or that they can't burn coal to get there, just like we did? Do we really expect the developing world to continue living in poverty so that we can continue to live in excess? I don’t think so...

So what are we supposed to do in order to give the developing nations a real chance to catch up? Business as usual isn’t an option. We’ll never have the resources to support a global population that lives as we do in the developed world. No matter how much bitumen gets forced through B.C. and onto tankers headed for China and India, it will never be enough to support their energy needs. And China and India are just the newest up and comers. What about the countries that follow them? How can we possibly hope to ever support the poorest countries on Earth in their struggle to provide their citizens a decent standard of living when our own standard of living isn’t even close to sustainable?

Will standards of living across the board just average out until we’re all living substandard lives? It’s a very real possibility that that is exactly what will happen if the developed nations of the world don’t stand up real soon and pave (or better yet, de-pave) a better route. We’re responsible for 76% of the emissions in the atmosphere. The U.S. alone is responsible for 29% of the total CO2 that humanity has pumped into the atmosphere since the mid-1800s. Can we really continue to lay the blame for the mess we’re in on China? I don’t think so...

We’re responsible. It’s up to us to find the solutions for the problems we’ve caused. We have the resources - the science, the technology, the finances, and more - to change the way we live without sacrificing our quality of life, while simultaneously providing a real example for the developing world to follow. 

Instead of cutting the funding for some of our most prestigious and internationally-recognized environmental projects and funneling it into resource extraction and fighter jets, we should be at the forefront of sustainability research and education. 

Instead of building more roads and expanding our suburbs, we should be rebuilding our cities to accommodate more people in less space, with an equal or even better quality of life. 

Instead of devoting countless acres of farmland to ethanol production and unnatural, unhealthy feed for livestock, we should be driving less to reduce the need for alternative fuel sources, and we should be eating less but healthier meat (grass-fed not corn- and soy-fed).

Instead of wasting our time maintaining front and back lawns, we should spend that time converting our lawns to gardens, providing both nourishment for our families and habitat for the very species our ecosystems depend on.

Instead of thinking only of ourselves, we should be thinking of the people struggling to survive in today’s world, and the countless more people that will be struggling to survive in tomorrow’s world if we don’t start changing today.

Open Letter to the MPPs of Ontario

Dear Members of Provincial Parliament,

I am afraid that the province of Ontario is making a grievous mistake by denying Ontarian's the right to choose for consumption, the foods that are best for them and their families. The persecution of Michael Schmidt for distributing raw milk to educated consumers has the potential to send food policy in Ontario further down a slippery slope that benefits none but industrial food processors.

I would like to know why it is that I, or anyone else, can legally purchase tobacco products, alcohol, and a myriad of food products laced with high fructose corn syrup, all of which pose detrimental health risks, but cannot legally purchase raw milk from a clean, local operation. I'm not entirely sure how my interests as a consumer are being protected through the vilification of a small-scale local farmer whose products have yet to harm a single person.

Please do not provide me with a history of raw milk contamination statistics. The number of reported illnesses associated with the consumption of raw milk pale in comparison to the number of reported illnesses associated with the consumption of products that government food inspectors and food policies have deemed safe. In the past month alone, I have personally had to return both walnuts and tahini to my local grocery store, because they had possibly been contaminated with e. coli and salmonella.

Regulations and inspections are not solutions for a flawed food system that puts consumers at risk. Food safety policy does more to protect industry than it does to protect consumers. Who is liable when tainted meat from a government-approved processing facility harms, or even kills someone? Industry is absolved of responsibility because, after all, they passed their inspections. There's no real consequence and no incentive for companies to implement cleaner and safer practices. True food safety and security can only be attained through the promotion of transparent, local food sources.

As a representative of the electorate, it is your responsibility to protect the interests of the public, not the interests of the private, industrialized food sector. Canadians are capable of making smart decisions for themselves and their families. Please protect our freedom to do so.

Thank you sincerely for your time,
Chad Roberts

Call Me the Taxman

I love taxes. I really do. Obviously, I would also love to have a bit of extra money in my bank account - wouldn't we all - but I would much rather help fund health care, education, and all the other tax-dependent services that make Canada one of the best countries in the world to live in. 

I'm frequently surprised, more so during elections, at just how many Canadians jump on the anti-tax bandwagon with no real idea of how lower taxes will impact themselves and society as a whole. You can't just lower taxes and expect to receive the same level of service you received when paying higher taxes. But we don't want the same level of service, do we? No, we want more and better service, and all for a cheaper price. We want shorter wait times at hospitals and more family doctors, smaller class sizes and full-day kindergarten, better roads, more long-term care spaces for the elderly, better environmental stewardship, the list goes on and on. The problem is you can't get more for less, without sacrificing quality.

Here's how our federal tax dollars were spent in 2010:

And our provincial tax dollars:

Both federally and provincially, income taxes are the biggest contributor to the tax base, followed by sales and corporate taxes.

One can argue that if taxes were spent more efficiently we could afford to lower them. As Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto has wonderfully demonstrated, this "gravy" is very much non-existent. If Toronto, the wealthiest city in Ontario, can't cut spending without cutting services like libraries and police, it's doubtful than many other municipalities, if any at all, can find this so-called "gravy," either.

Statistics show that the George W. Bush era of tax cuts in the Untied States has contributed more to the country's debt than the economic downturn, recovery measures (bailouts and economic stimulus), and the war for oil (oops...I mean on terrorism). The fact that economists denounce the reduction of the GST in Canada (which voters support), and support the HST (which voters denounce) is truly worrisome and indicative that Canadians' attitudes toward taxes are beginning to mirror those of our neighbours to the south. 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, based on estimates from Congressional Budget Office

Taxes are an investment in our future - in our children's and grandchildren's futures. Yet taxes have been continuously reduced in Canada for the past decade, while our provincial and federal deficits and debts soar. Health expenditures, as seen above, require the most funding from the tax base, and their share of the pie is only going to grow. Our society is aging, and our youth are experiencing more health problems now than they have in the past century. As health care costs consume more and more of our taxes, are we going to be willing to cut spending on education, justice, social programs, national security and sovereignty, and other essential services to keep up? I doubt it, but without a healthier tax base, that's precisely what will happen.

We need a better tax system. Corporations and the wealthy need to pay more. Carbon taxes should replace a good portion of income taxes. The GST needs to be returned to an appropriate level. The reduction of the GST (which reduces government revenue by over $13 billion a year) was nothing more than a bribe - one of Harper's many ways of buying votes. Any politician with half a brain knows that reducing sales taxes is not good economic policy. It's not only insulting, but it's downright deplorable that the Prime Minister of our country misleads Canadians and promotes political and economic ignorance by promoting flawed policies simply to improve his chances at election. Ask yourself this: who does sales tax reduction really help? It doesn't do much to help the average Canadian who can't afford to go shopping at the mall every week. A 2% reduction in sales tax does, however, mean a lot to an already under-income-taxed wealthy Canadian who can afford a $1000 pair of shoes and a $100 000 luxury sedan. Reductions in corporate and sales taxes help the rich more than the poor. Period.

Best Buds

Income disparity (the gap between the rich and the poor) is now growing more quickly in Canada than in the United States. While the average Canadian is very lucky to enjoy a better standard of living than the average American, as our social and economic policies continue to mimic American policies, our standard of living is quickly joining the Americans' in a race to the bottom. 

According to Alex Himelfarb, Director of the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs, at York University, former Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, "It is time to make some hard choices about the Canada we want, about what services we see as essential, about how much inequality we are prepared to tolerate, about our willingness to take back the future."

Coalition is Not a Four-Letter Word

Tim Hudak

Let the fear mongering begin...or continue, at least.

Tim Hudak is "worried" that if his party wins the most seats on October 6th, but doesn't win a majority, that the other two parties who, together, would represent the majority of Ontarians, will make a "back-room deal" and form a coalition government.

Do not let this tactic fool you. Coalition governments are not only a legitimate facet of parliamentary democracies, but an integral one. When one party does not win the confidence of the majority of voters, but a coalition of two or more parties would better represent the electorate, a coalition is a viable, and oftentimes, a preferred arrangement that can best serve the majority of voters.

Thanks to Stephen Harper's efforts to manipulate Canadians in the 2008 federal election, many of us now believe that there is something shady about coalition governments. I assure you that there isn't. Many countries around the world are governed by coalition governments, and many of them function very well. The UK currently has a coalition government, as do Finland, Germany, Belgium, and India, among others. Finland has actually been governed by coalition governments since 1917.

This really isn't about coalition governments, though. Before the election campaign began, Tim Hudak had been the frontrunner in every single poll for months. His election was all but assured. Since the campaign began, however, Hudak's popularity has plummeted, and in most polls, McGuinty is now slightly ahead. So what's a desperate Conservative politician to do? Pull out the coalition card, of course! Instead of appealing to reason, Conservatives consistently play to the very fears, biases, and misconceptions that they themselves have promoted, and in some cases, created.

Each and every Canadian should be insulted by this widespread effort to misinform us. How can we possibly trust a political party that actively seeks to limit our knowledge of the political process?