Extreme inequality: how we can reverse it and protect Canadian society

Jared Walker, Canadians For Tax Fairness Executive Director, joins Nikki and Tom to talk about C4TF's recent report detailing growing extreme inequality in Canada, province by province. Jared believes a wealth tax on fortunes of $100 million and more and a new income tax bracket on annual income over $1 million will reverse growing extreme inequality while providing revenue to end cuts to key programs, like healthcare and schools

Jared also outlines how we can put some money back in Canadians' pockets with a levy on the windfall profits oil companies are making off high pump prices during this US-Iran War. And according to C4TF research, unless repatriated by a windfall tax, most of that profit windfall from Canadian oil resources will flowing to investors in the United States. 

Nikki digs into some polling data suggesting wildfires across the world are pushing global warming up the priority list of Canadians and asks if the Mark Carney government or Avi Lewis' NDP will address that re-emerging concern.

Tom speaks with Toronto NDP MPP Chris Glover, who was in the trenches battling the plan by US bank JP Morgan to expand Toronto's waterfront airport. JP Morgan had Doug Ford's PCs and Mark Carney's Liberals onside. But Toronto City Council, community groups and the Ontario NDP fought the deal -- and for have won, for now.

Transcript

Welcome!

Tom Parkin 0:24

Welcome to Left East to West with me, Tom Parkin.

Nikki Hill 0:27

And me, Nikki Hill. It's August now, but July was a swirl of politics again across the country. And of course, every time Trump talks about Canada, we get another period of chaos. Well, we can definitely guarantee we're heading into a busy fall again. Hopefully, some of that drama and intrigue will calm down a bit, partly because we're going to take a break from the show next week. July also gave us wildfires across the country, and Trump even finding a way to go after us on that piece as well. So we're going to talk a little bit about shifting public polling on climate-related opinion, especially related to extreme weather we've all been experiencing in different ways in many communities. But first, our guest interview is Jared Walker from Canadians for Tax Fairness coming up, and we're going to jump into this week below the fold, tracking a couple of important news stories that maybe didn't make national headlines.

Nikki: Are wildfires driving rising climate change concern

Tom Parkin 1:42

You know, this intense heat in Europe through June, and then big wildfires and mass evacuations in Spain and France in July. Wildfires in Northern Ontario, now throughout the Pacific Forest. And you're looking at some polling suggesting people are very aware and increasingly concerned.

Nikki Hill 2:00

Yeah, I think it's interesting. We we do see sort of this seasonal bump when I often look at climate uh polls as well to see public opinion. But I think this what's coming out right now is a little bit more than a bump and a heightened concern. So I do think it's, you know, probably one of the most interesting political trends to watch in Canada is this re-emergence of climate change as a top public concern. And it and we're gonna talk a little bit about how it might create some challenges for Prime Minister Mark Carney. But I think, you know, I certainly observed in public policy in the last few years and through election cycles, it shows that I think rightfully so, Canadians are really focused, of course, on inflation, affordability, and then of course, in the last couple of years, economic threats from the United States, but what that means to affordability and their families and their jobs for the most part. So we're not seeing those issues, and I can't imagine we're going to see those issues fall away from top-ranking public concern. But and climate didn't disappear. It just sort of consistently moved down the list of priorities for Canadians as they were grappling with other issues that were in that daily impact, I think. So I think that's changing a bit. There's a new Angus Reed Institute poll just out that found that the number of Canadians who identify climate change as a top national issue has jumped from 14% in March, so just March, to 21% today. So it's a 50% increase in just four months, which I think is not a bump. That is um something to watch here. Yeah. That's that's definitely not just margin error stuff. Yeah, and and I do think like it's not unusual to, especially in areas that maybe are experiencing severe wildfire season for the first time. So, you know, we do see it in BC in particular, where we have wildfire season, you know, starting pretty early every year, where it climate does come up a little bit in public opinion polling, and then it does drop off. But this actually looks more like a shift. And and particularly, I think, as we are seeing as as you touched on to intro, Tom, Europe and other jurisdictions with this extreme weather and wildfires as well, and and and what impact that has, I think, on people's perception about climate change. So the interesting trend here to watch too is that the poll found that 15% of people who voted for liberal in 2025 in the federal election now say they'd actually support the NDP. And among those liberal to NDB switchers, climate change is twice as likely to be a top concern compared to liberals who still are in that Carney tent. And so I think that matters because you know, Mark Carney came into office, he was promising a really different approach to climate policy than Justin Trudeau. I do think a lot of people who are climate interested sort of parked or loan their votes to Kearney not having a sense about how different that approach to climate policy may be. You know, now we see a prime minister who's openly arguing that the previous liberal government's climate plan was too expensive and too divisive. So he's looking at a pretty entire shift here on climate policy. So and he's drawing into those affordability pressures and political polarization. And I think, you know, all politicians right now, I think, and we've talked a lot about the major projects plan and how provinces are tackling it as well, they see that affordability and jobs priority coming up as much as we do out here and what the public is pointing them to. But, you know, there has been a real um abandonment of some of the major pillars of the Trudeau era framework. So things like the consumer carbon tax, the oil and gas emissions cap, and I think that will likely continue, even though Carney's also acknowledging that emissions are going to be higher in the near future as a result of some of these policy changes he's making. And I think in the last you know few months we are really seeing where that expanding LNG exports focus is coming in, pursuing that pipeline, a pipeline to Canada's West Coast. One point I do want to make though is uh you know, I think we are seeing you know different pockets of climate policy emerge here. And particularly, I think we are still largely experiencing a pretty big shift in how Carney governs compared to how Trudeau governed in general. So it's not just on that climate policy piece, but there's been a significant focus here on the electricity grid, um, considering into where the path to economic competitiveness and lower emissions is coming in, investing in that clean power, transmission infrastructure, and electrification is sort of that more new, politically sustainable and perhaps supported form of climate policy. One of the things I did note lately, though, that there was a iPolitics report that talked about um frustration with environmental organizations who are saying that not only are key climate policies getting rolled back, but also that they're not actually having as many much ability to talk to the prime minister's office and ministers about some of the policy solutions that could be undertaken as we set out a new industrial strategy, set out this new path with Trump, and feeling in general that there's, you know, environmental voices just are not having as much influence or traction with the current Kearney government as they did under Tudeau. So I think that in itself is how we look at policy shifts as well and where that focus has been. So, you know, big political balancing acts. Certainly Kearney is not the only uh elected official right now trying to balance it. I often hear, you know, decision makers saying things like, well, when we're door knocking, for those that door knock, good on you, um, we don't hear from the public about climate. We don't hear it on the doorstep. You know, this poll may suggest that that's going to be a shift in what people are thinking about because it does impact their families' welfare and well-being. We do see people on mass evacuation orders across the country and really thinking about how uh climate change directly impacts them. But, you know, for Carney, and we touched on this um in previous shows as well, as he and especially last week talking about some of the changes in the prime minister's office. He's still really building this large coalition. It's got those moderate voters who are concerned about affordability, it's got progressive voters who park those votes and loan those votes to him for climate and environment reasons in particular. And then he's also still enticing conservatives over. So that's a pretty big tent to be trying to build with divergent interest here about climate, but also, you know, cost of living and economic challenges increasing and not really set as we see the impact of the of them on things like gas prices and and food affordability. So it's going to be interesting to see if that room to maneuver for him continues to grow or if it actually starts to shrink because the public's saying get back to the job as we understand it on climate change. So, you know, we might see those Angus Reed numbers as an early warning sign. Of course, Canadians are still deeply concerned about affordability and jobs and cost of living. It's what they feel every day in their lives. But they're also really increasingly being reminded that climate change isn't just a future problem, it's very much a current problem.

Tom Parkin 9:12

It's a no thing.

Nikki Hill 9:14

Yeah. So what about you, Tom? What are you tracking?

Tom Parkin 9:16

Oh, well, just if you don't mind, I think sometimes that um people over uh overestimated Kearney's interest in in the environment. And in a way, the conservatives sold that story because they wanted to create that story because they wanted to just like you're an environmentalist and so you're bad. Um and so people heard that and went, oh, okay, he's an environmentalist. Plus, when he was doing his financing stuff, he was very much talking about trying to mobilize capital to help green industries. But that was in the context of Joe Biden and the CHIPS Act and and trying to push money into green tech, green energy, and that made sense as a finance play or as an investment play. But I mean there's a difference between wanting to get into green tech because it's great ROI um and and just truly like in your heart, like we've got a you know, we care about the planet. Um just a different thing. So I don't know. I I honestly feel very uncertain about Mr. Kearney and where he fits in this on this issue. Yeah. Like I think in his heart, or is it just money?

Nikki Hill 10:28

Well, and I think it's interesting too, because you know, we had um a couple months ago uh Shauna Sylvester joined us, right, talking about some of the strategies around things like creating heat pump industries, which has something I've been in rooms where the Prime Minister has talked about that as a strategy, but we're also seeing other jurisdictions jump into that kind of policy faster since the war in Iran impact. So, you know, where we're seeing a little bit more of that push still on negotiating with Alberta on a pipeline. Where is the then pushing the electrification or or nature protection and some of the other policy there? Yeah, where's the drive there?

Tom Parkin 11:02

Where's the drive there?

Nikki Hill 11:03

Yeah, there's a lot of innovation around things like conservation finance and building out conservation economies. So I think those were also Trudeau era hotspots, but maybe some space there for Carney to look at those financing options.

Tom Parkin 11:16

Or somebody else, like you know, Avi Lewis to come in and say, well, this is the way we can mobilize capital to build green tech in Canada and to build green energy grid that Mr. Carney's we all know we need.

Nikki Hill 11:27

Yeah, he's leaving a lot of space space at the end of the day.

Tom Parkin 11:30

Yeah, there's policy space. I think it's good. Well hopefully. Um okay, now I want to

Tom: interview with MPP Chris Glover on the Toronto Island airport fight

Tom Parkin 11:36

tell you about what I was uh concerned about. Um you know there we've had a big fight in Toronto over this island airport.

Nikki Hill 11:44

We have heard, yes.

Tom Parkin 11:46

Yes, you've heard a bit about it. Okay, it's it's been it's been big news locally. I think it's been picked up a bit nationally. But there are a lot of little threads about it that are pretty uh pretty interesting, pretty detailed, and very much under the fold. So I um I connected with Chris Glover. He is the NDP MPP for the riding where this expansion was going to take place, and he really was he did a great job uh and he was really in the trenches for this fight. I caught up with him and gave him a quick interview uh to get his insights on you know how did that community campaign take off uh and how did it manage to overwhelm a very large lobbying effort from JP Morgan, the US bank that owns the airport terminal and was bankrolling the lobbyist effort. Chris, congratulations and uh welcome to Left East to West.

Chris Glover, MPP 12:32

Oh, thank you so much. Um, but I gotta say that congratulations may be a little bit early.

Tom Parkin 12:38

Well, you've called this a reprieve, not a win. Uh but it is a I'm gonna mark it as a victory, at least for the moment. And and thank you for the job you did very sincerely uh as a Torontonian. I appreciate it. But I know it was a lot of people doing a lot of different things. On one side, we had the airport terminal owner, JP Morgan, the Ford PCs, and the Board of Trade, and on the other side, you, the Ontario NDP, City Council, and community groups. Were there key moments in this fight that you think really swung the debate?

Chris Glover, MPP 13:10

I think uh w the focus was like the way the this what we found out uh is that you know, through committee hearings and everything, that this was all planned ahead of time. That the federal government, uh JP Morgan, uh, you know, the Ford government and the Toronto Port Authority, the federal agency that managed the airport, they'd been meeting for months and months beforehand uh to plan this strategy. And then so Ford came out in front of it, and what we found out just this week is that Doug Ford and Mark Kearney had a handshake secret deal that that Kearney would support the Billy Bishop airport expansion in exchange for Ford supporting the Alto uh high-speed rail project. Yeah. I would say, yeah, sorry, as as far as key moments go, I would say one of the key moments was changing the focus from Doug Ford to the Ottawa because airports are federally federally managed, and we took, we, we took a busload of people and a bunch of other people, drove up to Ottawa, and we lobbied all the liberal MPs from Toronto. Uh Heather McPherson, the NDP transport critic, asked a question of the federal minister of transport. And in his response at that time, this was back in May, uh, in his response, he actually said that uh this project is moving forward. You know, so that redoubled everybody's efforts. Like everybody was galvanized because literally this would have destroyed our waterfront.

Tom Parkin 14:44

Yeah. Okay, so JP Morgan had Ford and the PCs on side. And then, as you say, if we've as we learned, Ford had it Ford had a deal with Kearney that he would lean on his Toronto MPs, his little all his Liberal MPs in Toronto, not to oppose this. Uh the MPs said that they couldn't take a position until they'd seen a plan. But the Toronto Port Authority, a federal agency, had a plan. And and we know this because they offered to show it to Mayor Chow if she signed an NDA about it. Well, like did this just seems so convoluted. Do you think JP Morgan's team just underestimated the uh public opposition or or or overestimated their ability to silence everybody?

Chris Glover, MPP 15:25

I think a bit of both. Um, you know, I think they they did underestimate the opposition to this because we've been through this fight twice in Toronto. Uh, you know, David Miller became the mayor fighting a bridge over to the airport. And in 2015, again, we we've you know, the no jets to group managed to stop jets from landing at the airport. And so this is the third time that we're in this fight. People are ready for it. People knew a lot, we were a lot better prepared. So the no jets TO, Norm D. Pasquale, the leader of that group, he'd already been through this fight, and a whole team of people uh, you know, that were supporting him. We had tons of information. The big, I would say one of the big crucial moments was uh a month before Ford made his announcement, a freedom, a 10-year-old freedom of information request for an environmental assessment on the impact of jets that had been conducted by the Toronto Port Authority was released to the um waterfront for all. And that that that uh environmental assessment, it showed that if you extend the runways, you're gonna reduce the water flow through the harbor and the concentration of pollution in the harbor is gonna be much greater. It's it's just all kinds of things. It talked about the health impacts of having jets landing or taking off every two and a half minutes from the Billy Bishop Airport. So I would say the most crucial moment in this fight was that having that that environmental assessment that was actually conducted by one of the proponents for the project, the Toronto Fort Authority.

Tom Parkin 16:57

Kearney's announcement suspending federal support came uh under 48 hours before calling three a by-elections, including one in Toronto in the Toronto riding of Beaches, East York. Uh on one hand, I think numbers would say it would be tough for the federal NDP to win that seat in current circumstances, but on the other, this whole episode really shows how much Toronto is badly served by having no independent NDP voices in the Commons. Um but also provincially, has this strengthened the Ontario NDP? And I've also noticed you've connected to other regional fights. Has that helped?

Chris Glover, MPP 17:31

Oh, it's huge. I mean, this is it's the only way, if you crunch the numbers, they need $5 billion to expand this airport. We're already spending $3 billion at Pearson to expand it. So this is completely unnecessary. It's a complete waste of money. The only one that's going to benefit is JP Morgan. The ones that are going to lose is anybody who lives along or visits, you know, attends events at the Toronto Waterfront. The 20 million people every year who go to the Toronto Waterfront. Um, you know, and it's Canada's number one tourist destination. So, you know, it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. And I think people are going to be rethinking it. Like that Carney made the announcement two days, you know, that we're we're postponing the expansion two days before calling a by-election in Toronto at in East York, you know, it even in the Toronto Star, one of the liberal insiders said, yeah, the timing was deliberate. They don't want to be debating the expansion of the Billy Bishop during this this uh this by-election in East York.

Tom Parkin 18:31

Yeah. Well, I I think it's put some uh bounce into the step of the Ontario NDP. And yeah, and I and I've noticed, you know, even uh people from other um MPPs from other corners of the province have have sort of said like this just shows how Toronto weirdly Toronto focused for it is, and what about my region? Like, why aren't we getting double-laden highways? Why aren't we getting so an interesting spin-offs?

Chris Glover, MPP 18:56

Absolutely. I mean, you look at like Highway 11 was closed, and I'm not exactly certain of it is but like a hundred days, about a hundred days last year. Um, you know, they had road closures on Highway 11, which is the Trans-Canada route, right? So they're not spending the money to twin that highway, but they're gonna spend five billion dollars to expand the Billy Bishop Airport, which nobody wants. And that five billion dollars, that's nine hundred dollars per household in Ontario. So people in Northern Ontario, their households are gonna pay $900 of tax to expand an airport in downtown Toronto that the people in downtown Toronto do not want to expand it. Do not want, yeah.

Tom Parkin 19:35

The only people who wanted it were in New York. But Chris, thanks uh for this insider view on that political fight, and and thank you, very sincerely, thank you for being uh pulling, you know, being part of this effort. I I I very deeply feel this would have been a huge step backwards for our for our city. We've reclaimed so much of the waterfront, so much better than it used to be when I was a kid. Um, and this would have just been a huge step backwards. So thank you very much.

Chris Glover, MPP 19:58

To the listeners, come down to the Toronto Waterfront, walk along the waterfront, you know, grab a beer, take a ferry over to the to the islands, go to Build a Salgay Park. They just added another addition to Build a Salgay Park. It is honestly the best children's park I've ever been to. They've got you know uh zip lines, they've got not just sand pits, they've got water running through the sand pits, so you have mud pits, which is even more fun than just sand. So, you know, take your if you've got kids in your life, take your kids out to Buildasage Park and enjoy the water park.

Tom Parkin 20:32

Good advice. Okay. Thank you, Chris, and we're gonna take a quick break, and Nikki and I will be right back with uh Jared Walker.

Chris Glover, MPP 20:40

Thanks so much, Tom.

Tom Parkin 20:42

Okay.

Jared Walker: can we reverse extreme wealth inequality and protect Canada

Nikki Hill 20:54

Jared Walker, thanks for joining us on Left East to West. Welcome. Thanks for having me. It's great to have you here. So we want to dive right in. You're fairly new as Executive Director of Canadians for Tax Fairness. You're taking it in some interesting directions and making media impact. But you have a long history yourself already working on progressive policies and movements that you're bringing into the role, which I'm sure is bringing great expertise into the organization as you build out. Let's talk a little bit about some of your recent activities through uh Tax Fairness released a report on extreme wealth inequality in Canada from east to west, so fitting for our show, that was covered in most of the major media. So kudos to you on that feat. Can you tell us a little bit about where we're at on tax policy and the direction that you think that we're heading into in Canada?

Jared Walker 21:47

Yeah, Nikki. So this report um kind of uh came out of an experience that I've had. Um I know probably you know you and Tom have had working on a bunch of provincial campaigns, in particular. uh across the country. Um and usually we propose, we on the left propose a nice thing, um, and then reflexively um whether or not anybody actually cares or believes in the thing. The first question that is asked is how are you going to pay for that? A B we make uh some noises about the wealthy paying their fair share, um, but like really we don't have, frankly, the the we we don't have the information about who um living where would pay what in many of these cases. We kind of write it on the back of a napkin, slap it in the um in, in the uh in, in our, in our platform, and hope that the numbers all add up and then like that's pretty much the end of it. Yeah. And when I like came to to this position, this was one of the things that I was like, okay, well let's see if we can fill in the data here, right? Because we already nationally don't have great data on like where wealthy people live, on um on uh on on and on what it would look like to tax them. So the folks at BC Policy Solutions and our team um did some work on a federal wealth tax what that would look like um and then I asked Silas Schwerub our um our economist if we could dig into that stuff provincially um provincially and and this is what what came of that. So now we can say in every province this is where our 86 billionaire families live give or take this is where folks with um a hundred million dollars or or more in wealth live this is where folks with $10 million or more um in wealth live and this is what poverty looks like broad strokes in every province. And then based on that we sort of charted out a bunch of different wealth taxes both annual wealth taxes and then a one-time smash and grab um to be able to pay for some things that we would like to pay for. So that the next time there is a provincial election um and somebody gets asked that question on the left they can just point to the work we've done and that's the end of that right and so the folks at Quebec Solid, we've been in contact with them they've already sort of proposed their own wealth tax um and we're talking to folks um in opposition and in government across the country to just say hey look this is this is something that you can avail yourself of um and these are some of the things that we can pay for with with this money if we um basically um what amounts to a rounding error for somebody who's um worth a hundred million bucks worth a billion bucks um and and like this is how much healthcare you can buy this is how many schools you can fix right um and and so that's what this report does.

Nikki Hill 24:42

That's great and then given looking at you know deficits across the country and and progressive governments trying to figure out solutions instead of cutbacks that I'm sure you're getting some good traction there.

Jared Walker 24:52

Yeah absolutely and I mean like that's that's the piece of this right is that um uh there's just this constant refrain and that's part of our our neoliberal kind of uh ongoing situation that we can't pay for the things that we that we need and so you know we have to sell them off or cut the services and that's not true. What has happened is that a small group of people have basically uh decided that they don't want to be part of the social contract anymore and they don't want to pay for things um and they have insulated themselves from those costs and we've got to get that money back.

Tom Parkin 25:30

Yeah yeah and even last week the idea of who should get voting um who should be allowed to vote starts to come into the picture that's that's kind of peculiar. You you're also advocating not just on a wealth tax but also a new tax bracket for incomes over a million dollars a year. And and in a way I think this is kind of a back to the future like back in the 50s and the 60s the highest tax well I think the highest tax bracket I I don't know where it started but the rate um was above ninety percent in the United States and in the UK a little lower here. But that all kind of went away with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Jared Walker 26:10

How do you bring it back though? Yeah I mean like that's that's that's that's part of the the reason why we have advocated a wealth tax as well as part of this sort of thing. Linda McKe's new book is is sort of digs into this right and how this all happened. But but basically um we used to have in like the the whole point of income tax post the Gilded Age was to guard against obscene salaries. People you know right like uh against the robber barons to pull that to pull that back um and and for a while income tax worked right it was the means by which we made sure that people didn't pay themselves say $200 million a year like Tobias Luca who doesn't think your granny should be able to vote like the those those to to stop against those worst excesses. But in the past 50 years since yeah Reagan Mulrooney Thatcher the whole set of them these um corporate tax rates have gone down income tax has has not kept pace with the times and um and there's been all these carve outs uh and so we're we're trying to say well you know actually the top the top income back tax bracket is not that much money. I mean like un unfortunately these days right like uh it used to be you know you make a six figure salary and that you can you can buy a house and take care of a family and all those things now and like the six figure salary maybe you can pay rent in in Toronto if you're lucky. But we're we're basically looking at the tax system right now whether it's income tax whether it's capital gains whether it is the wealth taxes um and saying look how do we readjust this um so that we uh can return to a system where that that we that we've that we set up after we realize that it turns out like one or two percent of the people should not have the vast majority of the resources and the political power, right?

Nikki Hill 28:11

It's like how do we not do feudalism again basically yeah yeah which I'm sure is getting higher and on the public line of sight right now too in the last couple of years at least for sure. So let's pivot a little bit. So you've also been talking about uh our tax system as part of policy machinery to create jobs and industries so you know and I think really timely right now with with Trump wearing his head again on on trade policy but talking about protecting our sovereignty from Trump's attacks as well how can tax policy support industrial strategies that are aimed at jobs and strategy and sovereignty?

Jared Walker 28:47

Yeah so I mean starting back when the Kearney government um uh was definitely going to pass the DST and then like immediately rolled over on it um the digital sales tax yeah the digital sales tax which is basically saying hey um you know Meta Google Netflix these companies make uh mil um billions of dollars here in Canada um because of the way that they do their books they book all that profit offshore so they don't pay tax on it here um how can we make sure that they pay something um and uh Trump and his billionaire buds got really mad about that um Mark Garney uh gave it away without getting anything in return um and so together with a number of other civil society groups um uh people like um you know Adrian Clarkson and John Ralston and um the folks at Torstar um like really a uh Unifor like a broad cross section of of groups we got together started this thing called um Canadians for digital sovereignty which was like basically how do we make sure across the board not just on digital sales tax but on all of these sorts of things um that Canada uh actually has some say over uh the economy of the future right um and when we look at that or when we look at the economy that we have now for example when we look at our oil and gas economy um we did some research last year that showed that um the Canada's big four are um are about 70 75% uh foreign owned 60% owned by American shareholders so even our our biggest industry that we're supposed to you know build up to be able to to hold on to our sovereignty we don't own the the profits that come from that and those companies are not investing in Canadian communities um they're extracting profits and then sending that money to Texas right so um when we look at tax policy we've and and economic policy in general we've got to look at where these flows are are going and and hedge against things that are not working the way that we like and build and build a new economy that that works differently. Whether that is on the digital front um whether that is like where um where we where we invest whether that is in making sure that we still own our airports which is maybe something we'll get to later um yeah it's it's it it's a it's sort of tragic because um you have uh a government that was elected basically by saying we will not become the 51st state and their entire industrial policy is basically to make us in de facto the 51st state uh which seems to me to be a problem. I don't know. Canadians for Tax has also been talking a lot about high fuel costs uh how it damages our economic growth while the companies the oil companies are making off like like bandits uh during this uh Iran war situation is there precedent for the kind of windfall tax you guys uh are advocating and um how could that revenue from a windfall tax actually help make life more affordable for the people who are paying these exorbitant fuel prices to these you know uh gas station bandits yeah I mean so right now um the the the projections keep uh fluctuating because uh the strait is open then it's not then it's open then it's not um but you know the the estimate is that big big oil is gonna make about 90 billion dollars in windfall profits from this particular crisis for all our normies out there windfall profits are extra surprise crisis profits right it's like they're already gonna make um they're already gonna make a certain amount of profits they did not see this coming um and they are going to make 90 billion dollars in extra money they did not plan for um because of the cost of of of gas right um and and so what we're saying is if we put a price if we put a tax on that we can claw that money back we can um through and you can call it whatever you like call it a Canada strong dividend I don't care pay people back for what they paid at the pump right and then we can take some of the rest of that money and we can invest it into renewables so that the next time something like this happens we are a little more insulated. And other countries have done this um uh like for example the the Chinese in a different way have invested a lot of money in renewables to try and um insulate themselves more or less from this especially moving forward um but in terms of windfall taxes we had one um after world war two um that was in the 70s uh the the English have one right now the UK has a windfall tax um uh as well uh and so these these sorts of taxes they're they're not novel um we've done them before when we have realized oh gosh uh we need to hedge against the worst impulses of um of of these companies particularly in um parts of the economy where they have monopolistic or oligopolistic or cartel control over an industry um and and it's a thing that's that's good for everybody that keeps prices down um that's put that puts money back in people's pockets uh and and so it's it's something also um we did some polling on this that has the support of two-thirds of Canadians even I I was looking at the crosstats even in Alberta this has a majority of support so uh it's something we all can agree on yeah and then building on that too because you've got some interesting work done in-house on on Canada oil resources and revenue and so seeing and I noted this a little bit but how Canada's increasingly flowing to foreign investors uh the revenue from oil production not Canadian paychecks so can you expand a bit on what that trend looks like for those who aren't familiar with it yeah so in the last um in the last oil and gas boom basically um and and in the in in the one preceding that we had all of these companies come into the oil science they invested a lot of money to set up infrastructure um to and that's that's all the jobs that you hear um the advocates crowing about right all these jobs to to build things all these jobs to to get people to to set up the pipelines to build the infrastructure to man the infrastructure and what we found is that regardless of the fact that they keep like brandishing these particular um jobs uh as as as a positive for the industry what we've seen since then is that every year they employ less people right because this is what companies do right they they are trying to find efficiencies they are figuring out how to um how to uh how to work these resources work work the um this infrastructure with less with less labor so they hire less people um they pay people um they pay people less they contract out more um and then on top of that they are not building new projects right so regardless of whether or not you think good project new projects are a good thing um if if you do the oil and gas industry is not interested in investing in building new projects um and so kind of what we have right now um with the with the Kearney government and with the Smith government in Alberta is these guys coming along behind and putting public money into projects that the oil companies had no interest in building because they did not think they would be profitable. Right? So we're we're gonna do all of the legwork um in order for these companies as I said before which are majority American owned to then reap all of the benefits as I said before not pay these not pay workers more and then send that money to the US so so that's the sort of the situation that that we're in they they set up shop and initially they outlay some capital they outlay some um some labor costs but then the the trend line goes all the way down right yeah sure they they built the infrastructure that took a lot of manpower but then to run it obviously a lot less exactly but but also y you're tracking something about uh you know the the payroll's gone down okay we can see that but the but the but but the profits have have gone up and a lot of that profit is flowing out of the country even though kind of the spin is this is the oil sands are making us super wealthy but a lot of that wealth is really not going to Canada staying in Canada. So didn't yeah did you do some work you did some work on that yeah absolutely right so I mean the the piece about uh about who this wealth is going to um as I said we basically when I say 60% American owned what I mean is that the shareholders um that these uh dividends are going to are are located in the US right um and and in terms of of uh of the balance of well we're making more money off of these things um I think like what it's important for people to understand is both in this crisis where gas prices have gone up um and therefore oil company profits have gone up and the last time this happened which was when the Russians invaded Ukraine and um and oil oil prices spiked um what happens is these companies are then able to charge more um for uh for oil that it costs them no more to extract because obviously oil um is not under oil supply is not under threat here in Canada um as far as I know uh and then that that cost gets passed on to the consumer um and then the cost of that um gets then flowed to shareholders because as I said they are not reinvesting um they are not paying more in labor costs and they are paying more in dividends and in in um and in buybacks and and in these sorts of tools that basically allow them to take these profits and give them to the folks who invested um and when it comes to this particular crisis they have even said publicly that that is what they intend to do with this money right that they do not intend to reinvest it that they do not intend to build more infrastructure that they do not intend to hire more Canadian workers they do intend to um further enrich their shareholders and so so that's that's what happens and so basically we we as consumers have financed this wealth transfer um from our pockets to the pockets of a very small um group of of people mostly in the United States I was thinking about a new way of of kind of getting into this um because of some new news that just came out about the World Cup. So I don't know if if you folks can tell I'm a I'm a football fan uh but um for folks listening I am wearing uh a a a Jamaica football jersey right now um but the basically the FIFA World Cup um uh and Gianni and Fantino um Trump's bud who um who runs it um had this plan that they wanted to segment off the World Cup the Women's World Cup the Men's World Cup the Club World Cup um as a private entity to basically privatize the World Cup um and they were gonna bribe all the member countries with 20 million bucks to vote yes so that they could push it through um and who was going to um finance this Jared Kushner right so um but in the space of literally a day the European countries all got together UEFA they held an emergency meeting and they said absolutely not um we're not gonna do this then CONCACAF which is the um North American and Central American countries they all got together they said no they're all gonna boycott the World Cup if this happens right and the feeling that everybody who loves this sport felt in the pit of their stomach when they were like oh we're gonna take the World Cup and we're gonna sell it to private equity that is the feeling everyone should have every time the government says oh we've got this great idea we're gonna take Pearson and we're going to sell it to a foreign company right it's the same thing. It's the same neoliberal playbook every time the asset is underperforming what do we need capital infusion what happens we all pay more for fees because now we've created a monopoly that we don't control um and then that monopoly can charge whatever it wants and then whoever has to pay those fees passes them on to us and then we get worse service that we pay more for all of time. And who gets the benefit like a few dozen tech bros or a few dozen hedge fund bros um who are already fabulously wealthy. Right? And so that's what we're seeing the Carney government considering when it comes to airports and that's what we've seen um in healthcare privatization and bits and bobs in different provinces all across the country and it's what we've seen to catastrophic effect all over the place for example in the US like when it comes to prison privatization or God forbid ice detention privatization or all of these terrible things where um private equity owns things that no one should own um and then squeezes them as an asset for profit as if it were like a freaking smoothie shop.

Nikki Hill 42:23

Well thanks so much for joining us today I wish we had tons of time to dig into these but we do actually before we go want to hear a bit about what you're working on right now that we might see soon from Canadians for Tax Fairness.

Jared Walker 42:36

Yeah I mean well first I would say um you know you can follow us on uh on social particularly at Canadians for the number four tax fairness or go to taxfairness.ca um if you want to to follow our work and support. We're gonna be digging a little bit more into this sort of subnational stuff so the provincial stuff um particularly we are trying to round out our suite of um of policy offerings to say okay if we're gonna build a new tax um tax policy from the ground up what does it look like? So we talked about um income tax and changing that to make it make more sense in 2026. We talked about a wealth tax um and asking uh particularly people with a hundred million dollars in the bank or billionaires to pay a slightly more basically a rounding error so we can you know have healthcare and hospitals and things that we need to function. One other thing that we're looking at right now is our inheritance tax um situation because Canada is the only country in the in the G8 or G7 that does not have an inheritance tax. Right. So for example the Thomson family uh they're the wealthiest co um they're the wealthiest family in Canada now they were the wealthiest family in Canada in 1999 they were the wealthiest family in Canada in 1979. How does that happen? It's because um when one of these guys Dies, and it's always a guy, when one of these old guys dies, all their kids inherit their money, it's not taxed, and then that money grows, right? By the magic of compound interest and by the magic of investment. Um and when we look at what we could do differently, if we had what I'm calling a Nepo baby tax, because I want to be clear that this is not for this is not for, you know, all your all our family members, they, you know, you worked hard, you bought a house, and you want to leave it to your kids. Yeah. Um, this is not you we're talking about, you know, not your average voter. Yeah. Not your average voter. We're talking about people who are millionaires hundreds of times over, right? Yeah. And so if we look at how this might work, South Korea is a great example. They have an inheritance tax, um uh, and their wealthy people are at least are are at least seemingly happy to pay for it because um their culture has this thing called shame, right? So in Korea, the Samsung family just paid off an $8 billion inheritance tax bill. Oh, because the Samsung patriarch just died. Um and that's $8 billion US, right? So with that much money just from one family, from one patriarch passing along, um, that's enough money to run the Seoul Metro, which is one of the biggest metro systems in the world, for the next five years. Right? Just to give people a sense of like what's this, how much money is that, right?

Nikki Hill 45:30

Cover off our provincial deficit in there.

Jared Walker 45:32

Exactly, right? And so it's it's if we looked at, you know, when the next Thompson, the next Weston, the next Shulik, any of these rich families, when the next patriarch passes, we actually tax that wealth accordingly. We tax that inheritance accordingly, what we could do with this um to be able to pay for things that we all need. So an inheritance tax is another piece. And then we're doing um one piece that I actually think we might be able to get done from a political standpoint federally, because the field is a little fallow with this government right now, which is um uh uh something called PCBCR, which I hate, so I just call it corporate tax transparency because we don't need another acronym. Um but what PCBCR stands for is public country by country reporting. Right? Um they have it in Australia, they have it in the EU. It's basically if you are a big multinational corporation, you have to publicly put on the internet where you book your revenue, where you book your profits, so that people know, for example, i if you are meta and you made X billion dollars in Canada, um, but you then bought the services from yourself from a multinational in Bermuda, we know that, so that then we can all act accordingly, right? The CRA has this information, but they don't tell us the information, and the government does not particularly act on it. So what we've seen in countries like particularly in Australia where they do have this, is it has made really significant changes to the ways that corporations um act, and it has actually really created some interesting um incentives. So, like um in Australia, the banking industry right now is at the tech industry's throats because the banking industry now knows how much more tax they pay than the tech industry because they can't leave, right?

Tom Parkin 47:27

Yeah, it would be a real shame to see the bankers and the tech bros go at it. Right?

Jared Walker 47:31

And and so, but what the fuck is that?

Tom Parkin 47:32

Kind of like that would be the greatest fight of all time.

Jared Walker 47:34

It's great though, because what it means is the banking industry now is putting that money behind a push, both on the lobbying side, on the public side, to make sure that the government is in a place where they make tech companies pay their taxes too. Right, right? And so you have these weird um allies in this space. Like, wouldn't it be great if we had uh, you know, a progressive government that had the backing of TD and CIBC in making sure that uh that that Google and Amazon paid more tax? Like, what a world that would be. We might actually be able to get some stuff done. So that's the that's the last piece that we're looking at. Um we're working with the folks in Australia um and with multiple opposition parties. Um we've talked to folks in obviously in the MVP, we've talked to um folks in the block that are interested in this as well, and even some of the Tories um have have intimated that they would that they would pass this to put some Meg on Carney's face. Um so it like we we're hoping in the next parliament to get some legislation on the floor um to see if we can get this passed.

Tom Parkin 48:41

Okay. That sounds really interesting. So maybe a maybe a bill.

Jared Walker 48:46

Maybe a bill.

Tom Parkin 48:47

We'll call it uh it's not gonna be this good, so it would be like a transparency bill. Yes, corporate corporate profit shifting transparency kind of idea. Interesting.

Jared Walker 48:55

Yeah, exactly. Well Jared, thank you. Yeah, you know.

Tom Parkin 49:02

Comes back to that shame thing, doesn't it? Yeah, it's we're getting pretty shameless here in Canada too. Bring back shame. Yeah, bring back you know, a little bit of it is a is a healthy thing, I think. You know, I don't know. Um thank you for joining us and and sharing uh all your insights. And you've told us how you we can keep up with your um with with your your news bulletins. Uh but just also to mention you're obviously not a corporate backed group. You do rely on donations so you can keep making an impact, right? So you know, people might want to keep that in mind if if your kind of you know policy agenda is gonna continue to uh have an impact, um people have to pony up and and help out a little bit. So yeah.

Jared Walker 49:44

Thank you, Tom, for for flagging that. Um my team. That's kind of important. If I got to the end of the call and I didn't do that. Taxfare.ca slash donate. That's how you can donate. Even like five, even five bucks a month makes a big, big difference. Um, and it helps to pay for this research and and for us to talk to folks um and particularly to talk to everyday people about um the economy that they know is rigged against them and what they can do to make it better.

Tom Parkin 50:12

Okay. Alright, thank you, Jared. We're gonna take a quick break and we're gonna be right back with Love It or Heave It.

Nikki: politicians who travel to honour MAGA are going to get blockback

Tom Parkin 50:30

Before we wrap up, we've come to that part of the show we call Love It or Heave It about something you love and want to keep or something you'd like to heave and forever forget. What are you doing this week, Nikki?

Nikki Hill 50:42

Well, I think it I'm not sure if it's a a love. Um I think I feel like I'm constantly saying that. Do I love it or heave it? But it is something that caught my eye. And I think, you know, a lot of the theme maybe on today's show also is affordability and public spending. Um, and and I did this is probably why it caught my eye, in addition to the Team Canada approach. So, you know, we do know affordability pressures are continuing to impact Canadians, there, but there's also scrutiny associated with that. We talked with Merritt Styles last week about Doug Ford scandals on this, how public dollars are being spent. So in Saskatchewan, the spotlight has turned over to Premier Scott Moe because he used taxpayer-funded travel to head down to Washington, D.C. for the funeral of former U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham. And so Moe has been taking some heat, not just from the opposition party, the NDP, but also in the media and from the public to about spending money to do it. And he's been defending the trip, really digging in on Graham having been a longtime friend of Saskatchewan, who had ties with provincial leaders, supported discussions for them around trade, energy security, carbon capture, visited apparently in 2015. Um, so I think, you know, where the question comes in here from Saskatchewan's NDP and critics is whether public funds, therefore, should have been used for the visit, and they're calling on the government to disclose the full cost, and arguing that because Graham was a close ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, and we're of course seeing whose policies have been very damaging to Canada, then attending in his capacity as premier and using some of those dollars is a challenge to our relationship and our Team Canada approach as well. So on the flip side, the Mo government is maintaining that because he attended as premier and was using the trip to advance Saskatchewan's interests and talking through Canada-U.S. trade relations, which are of course hot right now, uh, that he also tied in meetings with Canadian and American officials. So I think, you know, as Canada heads into another likely turbulent period in our relationship with the United States, as if we haven't been turbulent all along, alongside debates on Western alienation and Alberta's referendum discussions coming up here, we can probably see political leaders having a lot more heightened scrutiny, not only about how they're spending public money that's not going into affordability measures, but also where they're showing up and who they're choosing to stand beside right now.

Tom Parkin 53:10

Yeah. You saw that Tim Houston also got nailed for expenses flying to London, staying at the Posh Hotel.

Nikki Hill 53:18

So this is it's not the right time, I think, for decision makers to understand, right?

Tom Parkin 53:24

Yeah, like uh yeah, that people don't want to see that. They want to see people who are frugal.

unknown 53:29

Yeah.

Nikki Hill 53:30

It's funny, you know, I couldn't I got a text a few weeks ago from someone saying, you know, I I know I I I can't remember they were not a they were not of our political strike. Um they were flying somewhere and they saw Premier David EB and it was like a small flight, and the premier was sitting in economy in a middle seat, and he was like, Right, that's a smart politician right now. And I'm like, if anyone knows he's a very tall guy, so sitting in economy in the middle is like there's where you get your public credit right now.

Tom Parkin 54:00

Somebody somebody should. There was that kind of famous um video of Bernie having a good sleep in the middle seat in row 27D, or I guess, you know. Anyway, yeah um that's interesting.

Nikki Hill 54:15

How about you, Tom? What's on your mind this week?

Tom Parkin 54:18

Um well, I

Tom: loving that Torontonians fought for their city and won -- at least for now

Tom Parkin 54:19

am loving that the people of Toronto stopped this really bad plan from JP Morgan to turn the island airport into a major international airport. I I've lived in the city most of my life, and for decades there has been slow but good work on rejuvenating an industrial and rail yard waterfront into a people place. And I and I am just loving that, at least for now, that good work over many years is not going to be undone. So I'm really pleased about that. I genuinely I I I do love my city, and I my children are in this city, and I want it to be a good city for them and for everybody else. I am also loving how dumb the PR from JP Morgan was. So they their big pitch was that the project was going to be good for the economy, but when people said, okay, let's see the business case, uh, we were told there wasn't one. So what backed up the claim? Um does JP Morgan asset do their asset funds regularly buy up lobbyists and make multi-billion dollar investments without a plan? Like it just didn't seem honest or credible. And and even as federal liberal MPs said they couldn't weigh in with a position because there was no plan, the Federal Port Authority offered to show this non-existent plan to Mayor Chow if she signed an NDA and kept the existence of it secret from voters. I I cannot understand.

Nikki Hill 55:39

In the pre-election period's smart.

Tom Parkin 55:42

I cannot understand how JP Morgan lobbyists thought Chow was gonna do that. Instead, she did the complete opposite. She revealed there was a plan and that it was being withheld from her and and and and it only was gonna be released to her if she withheld it and basically became a liar in public. You know, no, she's not gonna do that. Like, gosh. Suddenly, if federal MPs, federal liberal MPs, couldn't take a position because they hadn't seen a plan, that wasn't because Doug Ford was hiding it from them. It was because their own federal agency was hiding it from them. And then neither Prime Minister Carney or his transport minister did anything to make this mysterious report public. So it's just like turned into big PR chaos when everybody didn't, you know, just obey what JP Morgan said. Like we have Chris Chris Glover on here, we talked to Mart Sauz about it last week, Olivia Chow. I mean, they weren't just gonna click their heels like the other guys. Um I I love that. That's good. And it I love that it reminds people, I think here in Toronto reminds people that we do need NDP MPs in the House of Commons. We used to have Jack, we used to have Olivia, we used to have Peggy Nash's MPs from the city. They would be in opposition to the liberal majority in a way the conservatives never would. Um we need that. We need that back. Uh, but we're still a long way from that, unfortunately. But I think from the reaction of liberal MPs about this whole Toronto Island uh event, um the potential, you know, for for regrowing and re-electing or electing new Democrat MPs for the city to be a real different kind of opposition to the Liberal majority. You know, it's got its place. It has its need. You know? You know, if you have a need, the votes will come.

Nikki Hill 57:27

Is this where we need to do a little shout out to Shannon DeVine writing and the by-election coming up as well? There's an opportunity.

Tom Parkin 57:35

Absolutely. Yeah, Beach is East Yorker. It's a Toronto Waterfront riding. It's uh Shannon is the executive director of the uh Toronto Industrial Labor Council. She's been involved in the labor movement a lot over many years, very talented, very hardworking person. Um so I, you know, I I it obviously the NDP did not do well in 2025 in that riding. It's like seven or eight percent. Um but I think she's gonna boost that number a lot, and you know what? Maybe people will figure we do need a Shannon Devine, or at least somebody, you know, some new Democrat to be in Ottawa because having you know the red wall of silence on Billy Bishop was a very bad thing for the city. We need to have opposition voices, New Democrat. Opposition voices, and Shannon should be obviously she's the one who volunteered to do that job, so get out there and vote there and help her.

Nikki Hill 58:28

Well, I mean, as everyone knows, we don't send tons of love to Toronto from BC, but we send lots over. Nor does the rest of the country, but we send uh lots of good wishes over to Shannon and the other by-election candidates, which we'll talk about, I'm sure, in future episodes.

Tom Parkin 58:43

Okay. Well, you've heard from Nikki and me. You can email us at leftees to west at gmail.com. You can tell us about what you're loving or heaving. Uh, and also please tap the follow button on your podcast player to get reminders about our upcoming interviews. Break week next week, but the week after that we're with B. Bruss, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. Uh so lots of interesting topics to talk about right now, especially as we may have WestJet employees walk out of the job or be locked out, and then the government use Section 107 and that huge debate coming back. So we'll see what happens.

Nikki Hill 59:20

Stay tuned. Okay, have a great break.

Tom Parkin 59:23

Have a great week. Oh, great two weeks. Take care, Nikki.

Doug Hamilton 59:29

Thanks for joining Left East to West with hosts Nikki Hill and Tom Parker. We love to hear your comments, ratings, follows, and shares. It helps people find us. To become a Left East to West community member and to help us reach even more Canadians, subscribe using the link in the show notes. You can watch us on YouTube or listen wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Just search for Left East to West and subscribe. I'm Doug Hamilton signing off for Left East to West. We'll see you next week.