A combine harvests soybeans on Oct. 14 in Marion, Kentucky.Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images
Down in the dirt
Re “U.S. eyes high tariffs on Canadian fertilizer, subsidies for farmers” (Report on Business, Dec. 9): This would definitely hurt American farmers and also benefit Russia.
I worked as an agricultural economist in the sector for 40 years. It’s almost comical to me that Donald Trump’s justification is for the United States to become self-sufficient in fertilizer, particularly potash fertilizer, of which it has virtually no reserves.
Russia is one of the few major exporters of potash; the U.S. would simply import more Russian potash and nitrogen. No new U.S. potash mines would ever be developed.
Ironically, the U.S. is the biggest exporter of phosphate fertilizers to Canada. This seems to be about hurting Canada economically, not encouraging U.S. fertilizer production.
And in so doing, Mr. Trump would hurt U.S. farmers. It makes zero sense to me, but alas that is nothing new from this administration.
Richard Downey Calgary
What ails us
Re “The good, the bad” (Letters, Dec. 8): A letter-writer seems to think we should hurry up and get a new oil pipeline going – “use it or lose it” – before solar and wind technologies win the day.
Meanwhile, distinguished environmentalist Bill McKibben was recently quoted as being “giddy” with the “jaw-dropping” success of solar panels in China, Australia, California, etc., and how much cheaper energy is becoming in these places because of renewable technologies. With financial as well as environmental sustainability in mind, surely the long view should be to invest in solar, wind and geothermal energy sources rather than any more fossil fuels.
I suppose the subtext is that supporting the fossil fuel industry may be the only way for the government to remain in power. Score one for pragmatism, zero for the future of the planet.
But perhaps, as some analysts predict, informed investors will shy away from a new pipeline project.
Carol Lewis London, Ont.
Re “The inescapable economic logic of a bigger Canadian oil patch” (Report on Business, Dec. 9): In the United States, the Biden administration’s decision to not roll back the majority of Donald Trump’s first-term tariffs shows that even long-term economic logic often loses to political pressures. To appear on the side of workers keeps tariffs in place despite the costs they impose.
For Canada, this makes broadening markets more urgent. The recent Canada–Alberta agreement, then, is a significant step in the right direction. By linking export routes, low-carbon projects, data centres and Indigenous partnerships, it lays the foundation for access to Pacific markets and stronger economic resilience.
It is not a cure-all, and it brings hard choices and obligations. But it is a practical step toward ensuring Canada’s prosperity does not depend on the political winds in Washington.
Implementing it requires diligence, co-operation and a willingness to follow through, but it would also position Canada to safeguard jobs and grow new opportunities beyond our southern neighbour.
Chaminda De Silva Calgary
Workaround
Re “The losing bet of the lottery economy” (Editorial, Dec. 4): I have been mentioning to my wife for weeks that the Carney Liberals are just creating new laws to get around existing laws for moving forward major projects. How is this a successful economic strategy for improving the Canadian economy and our prosperity?
If they are looking for more major projects to move forward, they should head over to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. There are many projects stuck there in the bureaucratic equivalent of never-never land.
My wife is tired of listening. Remove laws that obstruct growth in Canada.
Bruce Chwartacki Winnipeg
Single out
Re “Who really benefits from proposed RRIF changes? Wealthy couples and the financial industry” (Report on Business, Dec. 4): Since society revolves around couples, and singles are so often left in the shadows, it’s no surprise to me that new registered retirement income fund withdrawal proposals ignore the plight of single retirees.
This group has been unfairly taxed for decades because of the following situations: no income splitting, earlier Old Age Security clawbacks, single tax-free savings account contribution limits and no successor transfer of RRIF and TFSA portfolios to a spouse.
A single person needs two-thirds of the income of a couple to match lifestyles, yet our tax system ignores this. Time to wake up.
Jane Robertson Founder, Single Seniors for Tax Fairness; Toronto
While these changes would clearly be nice to have for some seniors, and for the investment industry, they are definitely not “need to have” for most.
As previously argued by an increasing number of commentators, the “need to have” change is lowering the Old Age Security clawback point, increasing the rate of clawback and redirecting that money to the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors who are struggling financially.
Full disclosure: I do not have any registered retirement income funds and would be negatively impacted by more OAS clawback.
Ira Greenblatt Ottawa
Painfully close
Re “It’s time to rethink prostate-cancer screening” (Dec. 8): Welcome to my world: I have had high prostate-specific antigen scores for a few years.
Years ago I scored higher. My then-family doctor suggested we wait and see; it went down, so no biopsy.
Now I was referred to a urologist who sent me for a biopsy, one of the most excruciating procedures I have ever endured, with no sedative. No one wants that done for no good reason, believe me.
Nothing cancerous was found, but the urologist still referred me for an MRI, where there was a small shadow. I received an e-mail to access my health records and read a long technical report that concluded with “(very likely cancer.)” Lucky me to be notified this way.
Now I’m referred for a more focused biopsy, six hours away in Vancouver, some time in the future. Maybe this time I get a sedative.
Merry Christmas from the health care jungle.
Harry Jennings Williams Lake, B.C.
Shred it
Re “Controversial skip-the-lift-line pass offered at Blue Mountain and Tremblant ski resorts this season” (Dec. 3) and “Downhill from here” (Letters, Dec. 8): Non-premium skiers on a busy day at Blue Mountain will likely be reduced to six or seven runs, instead of the usual eight cited by a letter-writer, because premium skiers are cutting ahead in queue.
So non-premium skier will likely wait in line longer for fewer runs, yet pay the same amount as they always have.
I think the only real winner in this ostensibly zero-sum arrangement is the resort owner, who profits at the expense of the average skier.
Ross Hollingshead Toronto
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