Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in Calgary on Feb. 19.Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press
Devil may care
Re “Does Danielle Smith know we can all see and hear her?” (April 5): Does Danielle Smith care how the “rest of Canada” feels about her?
One might believe that she is so self-impressed and divorced from the rest of the country to tolerate the potential for damage to the economy outside Alberta.
Remember that Alberta voters elected her UCP government and, it seems, they do not express disappointment in her policies and statements.
Thomas Kane Vancouver
Liberal lookahead
Re “Mark Carney will not make Canada more prosperous” (Opinion, April 5): Contributor Jim Balsillie predicts that Canada’s economy under Mark Carney would continue to be among the worst performers within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. He makes a strong argument that Canada’s neglect of its intellectual property and digital assets are foundational to the decay of our national productivity.
However, one could forgive Mr. Carney, already branded as a technocratic “elitist,” for preferring to campaign on slogans such as, “We need to use a backhoe instead of shovels,” versus, for example, “Freedom to operate soars in its strategic relevance and explains why we are seeing a global race in IP and control of artificial intelligence and data across all sectors.”
Given that Pierre Poilievre hasn’t included ideas such as “higher valued-added outcomes” in his platform, should we assume that he doesn’t support Mr. Balsillie’s policy direction either? Or merely that he shares Mr. Carney’s messaging preferences?
Peter Stewart Ottawa
Contributor Jim Balsillie’s critique of Mark Carney’s economic plan as based on outdated 1970s ideas has the ring of dismaying truth.
Mr. Carney has at least recognized that Canada faces an unprecedented economic crisis. Meanwhile, Mr. Balsillie says old ideas are futile, so we need new ideas to confront the new reality.
Mr. Carney would be wise to bring in Mr. Balsillie and other bright minds to generate a new, winning economic policy.
Clive Cocking Vancouver
As an entrepreneur turned angel investor, I am concerned about our anemic productivity and growth. I agree that our economy has different assets and levers for productivity than in the past.
However, Mark Carney’s 2021 book Value(s): Building a Better World for All had a different effect on me. I saw judgment and situation-specific crisis management. Its themes are macroeconomic, because the crises Mr. Carney faced were macroeconomic. He gets that risk and reward must remain tightly linked, so that prudence delivers the stability in which entrepreneurial risk-taking can flourish.
Canada faces a crisis on the macro level – trade instability – and on the micro level: how to stimulate more of the kind of new ventures that employ 100 or fewer people, the sinews of our economy. Given what Mr. Carney has handled between the Great Recession, the pandemic and Brexit, I put my money on him to make this pivot.
Chris Stoate Oakville, Ont.
Tax comeback?
Re “Why it was wrong to axe the tax” (April 5): I have a strong hunch that if Justin Trudeau didn’t provide a carveout for heating fuel in Atlantic Canada, and carbon rebates were accomplished via prominently labelled cheques in the mail, then we’d still have the carbon tax and a vast majority of Canadians would be quite okay with it.
As it is, we now have to wonder if our grandchildren will ever forgive us.
Evan Bedford Red Deer, Alta.
What is a compelling set of messages for why Canadians should individually pay a carbon tax?
To all do our bit against climate change? To make us all cut back on fossil fuels, and therefore help us transition to renewables?
To show that Canada is not afraid to be a world leader in confronting the monumental crisis we face? To tell our grandkids we did the right thing?
Good messages, I think, but we seem to love our pickup trucks and SUVs too much to even make a tiny sacrifice. Sadly, we get the future we deserve.
When will we learn we can’t have it all? When it’s too late, I guess.
Nigel Smith Toronto
I agree that the carbon tax was a smart and bold idea. I believe Mark Carney getting rid of it was also a smart idea, because it was one of the few things the Conservatives had going for them. Unprincipled gamesmanship, maybe, but he is in politics now.
Mr. Carney vows to penalize “big polluters” because it will affect economic growth and trickle down to ordinary people. Ordinary people should realize they are going to have to pay for the results of climate change, one way or another.
Whether the solution is polluter pays, carbon capture, a carbon tax or letting oil companies “burn, baby, burn,” it would still mean higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, relocating costs, health costs, etc. – no matter what the politicians tell us.
Andy Ostime Regina
Have a cow
Re “Sacred cow: If supply management has to be killed, Canada’s dairy industry will have to follow New Zealand’s lead” (Opinion, April 5): A degree in economics doesn’t make me an economist, nor does 25 years on an Eastern Ontario diary farm make me a farmer. But I’ve always supported supply management.
The hypocrisy of the United States, Europe and others: Americans subsidize their large corn, soybean, wheat, cotton and rice producers, as well as dairy through various programs; a valuable European Union cornerstone since 1962 has been its common agricultural policy, which can be almost one-third of the EU budget.
As for New Zealand’s successful dairy industry, there is heavy foreign investment from China, the U.S., Sweden and others. This means profit and dividends flow out.
Then there’s corporate farming where, in some U.S. sectors, farmers have essentially become low-wage serfs. In Canada, our beef industry is dominated by U.S. and Brazilian corporations, with profit leaving the country.
We have greatly benefited from supply management, which has remained a Canadian industry.
M. R. (Mitch) Vlad Ottawa
Missed in most justifications for supply management is that decisions made to continually support it are most often political in nature and not driven by best business practices. Presuming that it is political suicide to dismantle it seems to serves no one but a few farmers.
I believe Canadians continue to pay more than they should for dairy, and our choice of dairy products from around the world is limited. Donald Trump may actually be right on this one issue.
David Harper Burlington, Ont.
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
Editor’s note: In a previous version, the first letter, subtitled "Devil may care," incorrectly stated that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pronounced support for U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs. This version has been updated to remove that incorrect statement.