Liberal Leader Mark Carney waves to workers gathered as he makes a campaign stop at a bus factory, on April 1, in Winnipeg.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Going, gone
Re “Liberals seeking new candidate after Chiang resignation, Carney says” (Online, April 1): Forget the fact Paul Chiang (eventually) did the honourable thing and backed out.
While Mark Carney’s financial chops are impeccable, this incident makes obvious to me his leadership chops don’t stand up as well. What a missed opportunity to show courage and leadership, independent of the crass political opportunism of saving a safe seat.
I won’t get started on the communications and organizational fiasco this incident exemplifies, with Mr. Chiang dropping out hours after Mr. Carney backed him.
Leo Quilty Brampton, Ont.
Loop the loop
Re “Let’s call Carney’s Brookfield Bermuda move what it is: tax avoidance, now no longer allowed” (Report on Business, April 1): Tax policy has two functions: One is to collect money to fund government, but a second is to incent behaviour in line with our societal values. (That’s what the retail carbon tax was about.)
At the same time, individuals and companies are not required to pay more than the law requires and may, or may have a fiduciary responsibility to, arrange their affairs to minimize taxes paid. If I use registered accounts, determine optimum times to realize capital gains or exercise the principal residence exemption, am I exploiting loopholes or optimizing my wealth within the law?
The term loophole has become pejorative and politicized. Let’s restrict its use to mean an unintended consequence in technical tax legislation, which has an effect different from the intended policy objective.
Then fix it, should we ever get back to a functioning legislature. Unfortunately, I’ve not yet found a snappy three-word slogan for this.
John Madill Oshawa, Ont.
Other two
Re “Green Party co-leader says Carney acting like a Progressive Conservative in campaign” (March 24): I am a multidecade Green Party supporter who has sat on provincial and federal local riding associations. I have knocked on doors for Green candidates. But not this time.
Despite entreaties to the party to make a strategic shift in this campaign by not running a full slate of candidates, I’ve encountered deaf ears. Yes, we need Elizabeth May and Mike Morrice back in Parliament, but running a full slate would only serve to split the centre-left vote – and guess who marches in up the middle.
Conservatives don’t seem to give a hoot about the environment and climate change, let alone having little credibility to deal with the likes of Donald Trump. Now more than ever, it should be country before party.
As much as strategic voting pains me and I’m sure others, until such time when proportional representation prevails, this time I believe it’s the right thing to do.
Graham Pett Pelham, Ont.
Re “The NDP’s anti-housing housing plan” (Editorial, March 30): I’m inclined to think it falls short of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation housing targets. However, this is my indictment of scale rather than method. It should go even further.
Housing is the bane of existence for anyone who didn’t buy their house for a spool of yarn and a penny (back when those still existed). Why shouldn’t an essential good such as housing become democratized? The privatized model isn’t working.
I believe co-operatives are the best avenue for the NDP to revive its progressive political values. After all, in Tommy Douglas’s day, the party was preceded by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.
If we maintain course, the housing market would become saturated with slumlords and invisible corporate boards, empowered to make unilateral decisions about other people’s housing.
Jacob Laybolt St. John’s
Meanwhile in Europe
Re “German automakers have the most to lose as Trump tariffs hit. Their share prices say as much” (Report on Business, March 28): Almost every auto industry observer is pessimistic about Germany’s future, with Chinese electric vehicle competition and U.S. tariffs looming. But in the larger picture, Germany and Europe are rearming heavily.
There is little unused arms industry capacity. But which industry is most easily adaptable to arms manufacturing? It is the auto industry, from plants to labour. I don’t think it would take long for Germany’s industry to start retooling.
It was no accident that during the Second World War, consumers could not buy new cars: The auto manufacturers were otherwise occupied.
Manuel Mertin Dean emeritus, Mount Royal University; Calgary
Re “Trump is right to fear a Canada-Europe team-up. But Canada must step up” (Report on Business, March 28): It is argued that Canada can forge a better relationship with Europe by quickly building the infrastructure to export liquefied natural gas. But even if regulatory approval for such infrastructure were given tomorrow, it is unlikely that a strong business case could be made for such projects.
By 2030, the demand for natural gas in Europe is expected to fall significantly as a result of regulations and the deployment of alternative energy sources. Europe is taking its responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions seriously. Canada should do the same.
Instead of investing in more pipelines, let’s ramp up the production of alternative energy, battery storage, energy conservation and an east-west hydro corridor. I believe investing money in fossil fuel infrastructure makes no sense economically nor ecologically.
Mark Hathaway Toronto
On balance
Re “Cancelled speech to legal society by Syrian-Canadian speaker causes uproar” (Report on Business, April 1): The criticism of the cancelled keynote speaker is interesting: not so much that he exercised his right to free speech in speaking out on Gazan suffering, but that he failed to speak out similarly on incidents involving Israeli suffering.
Hopefully the same criteria would apply to pro-Israel spokespersons, and that they would be cancelled if they failed to speak out on Gaza.
I am all in favour of balanced sympathy. Let’s see more of it.
Tom MacDonald Ottawa
More life
Re “United Nations report recommends Canada repeal MAID for people without terminal illnesses” (April 1): Too often, this far-off world body acts as a thorn in the side of conservative beliefs.
This time, it has produced a potentially life-saving rose.
S.K. Riggs Guelph, Ont.
I worked for more than four decades in the multidisciplinary Spinal Cord Clinic at BC Children’s Hospital, where we provided co-ordinated care for children and adolescents with spina bifida and spinal cord injuries.
Most mobility-restricted people needing wheelchairs do not see themselves as needing relief from suffering – they are living with disabilities for which they desire and deserve society’s optimal support.
It has been said that “the greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member,” and that greatness will never be achieved by killing them off.
Paul Thiessen MD, 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