THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

• FEATURES
• THIS & THAT
• ARTS & IDEAS
• FICTION & POETRY
• LETTERS
• BLOG THIS
•  
• SUBSCRIBE
• BACK ISSUES
• SUPPORT THIS
•  
• ABOUT THIS
• CONTRIBUTORS
• CONTACT THIS
• ADVERTISE
• SITE MAP

Letters from March-April 2007

Small consolation

Andrew Potter’s suggestion that it’s time for the left to dream small, not big, is a welcome breath of fresh air (“Small Ideas,” November/December). Activists have been flinging themselves at ideological windmills for too long, and don’t ask themselves often enough what it is they want to accomplish and whether their actions will lead—in the short run, not in some distant possible future—to that result. This disease is more properly apocalyptic than utopian (because it’s obsessed with the destruction of the existing corrupted world and rather vague about the perfect world to come), but, whatever you call it, it’s a problem for anything that claims to be a viable political movement, that wants power. Dreaming small is a very wise prescription.

That said, it’s not clear that Potter doesn’t need a dose of it himself. After decrying the left’s appetite for abstraction, he tosses out the provocative line that the future of the left lies with “the market.” Since when is the market—the imaginary place where rational agents pursue their selfinterest— not also, in its oh-so-humble and familiar way, a utopia? How does “the market” solve the “problem” of “individualist consumerism” that Potter identifies? Finally, if history is over and the market is the future (sic!), then why have a left at all? Historically, in times when the left has been a potent force in liberal capitalist societies, the answer has been that the market fails pitifully to provide a meaningful and abundant life for all citizens, and that some sort of other power needs to play that role. I would suggest that that is still the case, and that the refusal to concede to the sovereignty of the market is still a meaningful benchmark of what is, and is not, leftism.

Too cool

I picked up This Mag again after about 15 years of ignoring it only to find it has gone quite tepid indeed—starting with the “Because everything is statistical” column (November/December). It’s awfully self-congratulatory. But what the hell, eh?

That would be OK if you were actually leading the way in “early 1986,” for instance, when Mel Watkins itemized “10 reasons to oppose free trade.” I have a poster from a demo I played at in front of the Westin Harbour Castle to protest against Lyin’ Brian Mulroney and free trade. There was a crowd of people freezing their analyses out there before Mel ever got his into print. We just didn’t get ours into the “progressive” media.

My “Unemployee” song was written in September of 1985. There was also an anti-free trade rally that winter at Massey Hall, but no one played any overtly political songs except for Robert Priest (“Little Gun”). And his number had nothing to do with the topic of the night. I was unknown, therefore uninvited. Still am unknown, and uninvited!

And why exactly did you drop the name “socialist” (same page)? At least it meant something. “Progressive” is somewhat will-o’-the wisp, n’est-ce-pas? Then you added a lot of useful words to your “forbidden word list.” Allow me to remind you of a fine poster produced by Press Gang Publishers of Vancouver. With your forbidden word list you can’t even print this most sensible class statement: “Class consciousness is knowing which side of the fence you’re on. Class analysis is figuring out who is there with you.”

Now, just in case you have me confused with some socialist tendency, I’ll let you know I’m just a 60-year-old guitar-pickin’ Wobbly. And because I know the old protest songs, I must finish by saying the choices your columnist made for his “essential songs of resistance” seemed to me to be terribly weak. Maybe “Love Me, I’m A Liberal” was the only apposite one.

Tax talk

I feel that your coverage of potential income trust taxation changes could have offered greater insight than was in fact the case (“Trustworthy,” January/ February 2006). Since the surprise announcement last October, the media on the left seem to have fallen into line in depicting the move to tax income trusts as an attack on “Bay Street.” In fact, this is an attack on Main Street.

In our family’s case, my wife lost 20 percent of her life savings due to the unexpected policy move. She had no opportunity to arrange her savings differently in anticipation of these regulatory changes, as this government had explicitly pledged no changes in policy in this area.

The tax status of energy income trusts is a particularly sensitive matter, as the income trust structure in the energy industry was originated to encourage the development of stable and declining oil and natural gas resources that would otherwise be unattractive for energy company investment. By some analyses, the energy income trusts are already paying more taxes than the mainstream energy companies, as they have minimal involvement in tax-deductible exploration activities.

In our view, it is better in this case to tax savers after they receive their investment income than to tax income trusts prior to distribution. By changing the rules on our savings plans without prior warning, this government is punishing savers. As you know, saving anything at all is already difficult enough for most of us.

It should be clear then that this is not an attack on Bay Street, but on foresightful Canadians who are taking initiative to prepare for the future by setting aside savings for long-term purposes.

We are not “the elite.” We are ordinary Canadians behaving responsibly by deferring our present income for future needs. In my view, our government should be encouraging, and not actively discouraging, such prudent behaviour.

Please take caution that your analysis is not weakened by absolving the present government in its neglectful behaviour toward individual savers. The perception that this is an “anti-business” tax could not be further from the truth.

More big ideas

How about an expanded four-lane Trans-Canada Highway from St. John’s, under the Strait of Belle Isle, down the south coast to Quebec City and on across the country, with island-hopping bridges to Vancouver Island, terminating in Victoria? The highway would have an adjacent rail line right-of-way.

How about every Canadian high school graduate being able to fully function in French and English by the year 2025?

How about a large deep-water port in a major city on the Northwest Passage?

How about deciding now where our northern cities will be and planning them on an economic and ecologically sustainable basis? Geothermal energy to power the North.

How about an alliance-free, technologically advanced military, whose primary focus is on national security and securing our frontiers, à la Sweden and Norway?