Canadians show their patriotism as they watch a Canada Day parade in Cremona, Alta.Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press
Alberta advantage
Re “Alberta separatists should be careful what they wish for” (Opinion, Sept. 27): As an Albertan, I struggle with understanding the desire of those who want my province to separate from Canada.
Alberta is landlocked. If it separates from Canada, it would need to negotiate trade agreements with the provinces, state and territory that surround it. Alberta doesn’t hold the best cards in such negotiations.
If Alberta joins the United States, it would substantially reduce its relevance. By population and GDP, Alberta falls in about the middle of the existing 50 states. Would anyone in the U.S. really care about Alberta and its concerns?
There are some real grievances in Alberta regarding legislation which has restricted its development. They should be addressed sooner rather than later.
Ideally the best future for Alberta is one in which it retains its relevance, and that would only exist if Alberta stays within Canada.
David Weir Edmonton
Many Albertans seem to have an appetite for “MAGA” – make Alberta great again – which would require either a return to the days of Peter Lougheed, who in 2012 was voted the best premier in Canada in 40 years by Policy Options magazine, or to someone of his calibre in the present.
H. W. MacFadyen Canmore, Alta.
Judge of that
Re “It’s not about the notwithstanding clause – it’s about the Charter” (Opinion, Sept. 27): As flattered as I am by columnist Andrew Coyne’s critique of my views on the Canadian judicial system and the Charter, I do not understand what he thinks should be done in response to the judiciary’s war on parliamentary governance.
He suggests that having “more judicious judges” would help to roll back some of the inanities of Charter interpretation (never mind that the well of Canadian law schools is a poisoned one). But then he says “throwing out four decades of jurisprudence,” which is indeed what I propose, would be beyond the pale. But what is the point of having better judges if they are bound by the mistakes of the past?
If one truly believes in constitutional supremacy, one should believe the Constitution takes precedence over case law, no matter how well-settled. This seems to me the logic of Mr. Coyne’s own position, but one he refuses to accept.
Yuan Yi Zhu Oxford, England
Dead to us
Re “Canada’s carbon tax is dead. But it’s not dearly departed” (Opinion, Sept. 27): Two words, “revenue neutral,” are the core of any serious carbon pricing policy.
In 2008, British Columbia established the world’s first fully revenue-neutral carbon tax. By law, every penny of revenue had to be returned to taxpayers via direct fiscal subventions, income tax reductions and cash subsidies to residents in cold climes.
It was fiscally fair and successful; per capita greenhouse gas emissions fell 19 per cent relative to the rest of Canada from 2008 to 2012. The tax was internationally lauded as “a template for the world.”
The Trudeau government used the B.C. template, in part, but its approach was suboptimum, compelled as it was to satisfy differing provincial and territorial aspirations. The design failed the simplicity test.
Canada faces a choice: Help curb global warming via smart carbon pricing, or live with its severe consequences. Meanwhile, the B.C. revenue-neutral template awaits a revisit.
More importantly, it awaits readoption.
Thomas Pedersen Author, The Carbon Tax Question: Clarifying Canada’s Most Consequential Policy Debate; Central Saanich, B.C.
Since 2015, when the carbon tax was first proposed, the technical landscape too has changed dramatically.
Consumers can now choose cold-weather heat pumps for home heating. They can choose from a broad range of electric vehicles with ever-improving range. Lower-cost models are arriving for both.
The prices of solar and wind electricity have plummeted. Along with grid-scale batteries, they provide reliable, low-cost power for heat pumps and EVs. As production scales up, all these products continuously improve and become more affordable.
None of this was foreseen “way back” in 2015, so a broad incentive to buy cleaner products made sense. But now governments can steer consumers toward cleaner, cost-saving products and consumers can see product options rather than chaff under a climate measure known as a “tax.”
This, as they say, changes everything.
Marjory Loveys Ottawa
There is a widely acknowledged, fatal bullet that sent the carbon tax to its grave: the “carve-out” granted for heating oil in the Maritimes.
As is often the case in such shootings, it was fired by a friend and not a foe.
Terrence Daniel Edmonton
Stop the hate
Re “Ottawa’s new anti-hate bill is a mistake” (Sept. 27): Many Canadians are all too aware that the rate of hate crimes has doubled in the last five years, rising by one-third from 2022 to 2023 alone. They worry about hateful activity blocking their house of worship, hurling vitriol at them while dropping kids at school or threatening their lives at the grocery store.
Canada has long sought balance between speech that is open, but not limitless, and proven connections between hateful language and violent acts. While we already consider the promotion of hateful incitement and propaganda as criminal offences, the law has not kept up with hate’s expanded and brazen footprint; the new law would enlarge coverage to go where it is.
If that’s not enough of a reason, consider this: In this day and age, if the National Council of Canadian Muslims and B’nai Brith Canada both generally agree this bill is necessary, maybe they are onto something.
Adam Green Ottawa
Bad breakthrough
Re “I’m fully vaccinated against measles, but I still became Ottawa’s fifth confirmed case this year” (Sept. 27): I recently found out I was not immune to measles during a preventative health assessment last year.
This result is despite having two rounds of the usual measles, mumps and rubella vaccine at ages 1 and 4. Stranger, the results showed I am still immune to both mumps and rubella, just not measles. I am not actively taking medication, have no existing health conditions and am otherwise a healthy person in my late 20s.
After finding out, I made sure to book another two shots, five weeks apart. Hearing about the rising number of measles cases encouraged me to do this sooner rather than later.
The strangest thing about this? The pharmacist administering my new vaccines said the same thing happened to them.
Nicholas Richardson Vancouver
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com