Prime Minister Mark Carney walks with MPs Tatiana Auguste, left, Danielle Martin and Doly Begum as they make their way to a meeting of the Liberal caucus in Ottawa on Wednesday.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
Conservatives contracting
Re “Why Pierre Poilievre might quietly welcome the new Liberal majority” (April 15): Mark Carney does not need to apologize for the floor crossing that contributed to his majority.
Floor crossing is part of the parliamentary system. Pierre Poilievre is critical of it because Conservative members are jumping ship. He likely would not be if Liberals were crossing the floor instead. He should look at himself to understand the cause.
There is also no such thing as a weak majority. Have one more MP than all the other parties combined and that is a majority. It is no different than 10 more MPs.
David Bell Toronto
One or two things Canadians and the Liberal government will miss if the Opposition Leader leaves politics: the source of centrist, logical and nation-building ideas that magically become policy and law.
The Liberals were elected to a minority based on many Conservative policies. Day 1 of a glorious majority and they use Pierre Poilievre’s idea to cut taxes on fuel.
Ultimately, I believe the Conservatives will choose a new leader. For the sake of the Canadian economy, let’s hope the Liberals continue to shamelessly steal that leader’s ideas, too.
Clay Atcheson North Vancouver
Pity poor Pierre Poilievre, populist politician, perpetually passed over for parliamentary power.
Perhaps his personality, not his party, puts him past permissible for a preponderance of the population. But while polls plummet and plotters privately ponder poisonous plans, parochial provincial politics possibly position him for positive predicaments.
Potentially a prairie premier? But preposterous as prime minister.
Nigel Smith Toronto
Gas up
Re “Buoyed by majority, Carney predicts more ‘substance’ from Parliament, unveils temporary gas tax break” (April 15): The first act of our new majority government is to suspend the federal gas tax. And this is a move of “substance?”
This seems right out of the Doug Ford playbook. Mark Carney should know better than anyone that governments should tax consumption, not wealth. It is not the time (or climate) for gasoline tax reductions.
Now should be the time to put the GST back to 7 per cent, with a commensurate drop in personal tax rates and further protection for low-income families.
The bills are only going to get bigger.
Alex MacKenzie Peterborough, Ont.
Spending $2.4-billion to incentivize gas-burning vehicles is a terrible way to boost affordability. In five minutes we can devise a better policy, one that eases our financial burden but doesn’t fuel the climate crisis.
Ottawa could give money to municipalities to reduce transit fares and the cost of bike-share programs. It could subsidize locally grown fruits and vegetables (with an emphasis on organic). It could increase the tax advantages of donating to charities and protecting wilderness. It could incentivize the growth of renewable energy co-ops, so that Canadians can make money while supporting clean solar and wind power.
Mark Carney feels the urgency of high prices. Fair enough. But he should also feel the urgency of a climate emergency that threatens to burn down communities.
The good news is that wise spending can address both.
Gideon Forman Toronto
Risk-averse
Re “Canada must embrace a culture of ambition and risk-taking” (Opinion, April 11): Most entrepreneurs are people at the margins who have little to lose by taking risks, or who do not seek the submissive role of “finding a good job.”
Canadian society seems to seek safety, while the United States by contrast seems bent upon giving people no choice but to fight to survive. Likewise, investors in Canada seek safety for their money, while in the U.S. they are more willing to gamble with losses and failures for big wins.
The progress in research and development in Canada, where relatively safe academics can take gambles in research, isn’t translating to advancements in the economy, again due to risk aversion in business investment and government acquisition. This drives the ambitious, and their intellectual property, to the U.S.
The solution, then, is to create incentives for risk in private and public investment. The culture, however, is more resistant to change.
Pierre Mihok Ajax, Ont.
Two bills
Re “For two Muslim teachers, the saga of Bill 21 is personal as well as political” (April 14): The notwithstanding clause allows legislation to be enacted and implemented, but it does not enable legislatures to repeal the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any rights guaranteed by the Charter should continue to be guaranteed.
These two teachers and any others whose Charter rights are being infringed should be allowed to seek redress in the courts and entitled to compensation for the damage done to them. If legislatures knew they would have to compensate those whose rights are violated, they might think twice and only use the notwithstanding clause in situations that are urgent and extreme.
Dave Parnas Ottawa
Re “Senators narrow definition of pornography before age-verification bill expected to clear” (April 10): OpenMedia, one of the most influential lobbying organizations on internet matters on behalf of the public, raises concerns about Bill C-22, particularly that it “limits warrantless information demands to only telecom and internet service providers, not service providers like doctors and lawyer.”
As well, “a very thin layer of oversight has been added to secret ministerial orders” that strongly seem to be a matter of when, not if, they actualize into unacceptable breaches of basic freedoms in a civilized society.
It’s unclear to what degree they can be minimized, but it’s clear to me it will not be in proportion to how much they will not be vigorously and publicly examined and, at least in part, contested.
John Penturn Toronto
On MAID
Re “Ontario overhauls MAID oversight committee, critics say it’s to remove dissenters” (April 14): Safeguards removed? Does this mean it’s open season to terminate peoples lives without proper oversight?
Who is checking that the rights of individuals are being respected and protected? How can we be assured that processes and rules are being followed?
It seems to me that due diligence has gone out the window. Why?
Marilyn Minden RN (retired), RSW; psychotherapist, Toronto
Sign of the times
Re “I left engineering, but the Iron Ring never left me” (First Person, April 9): Some rings are designed as professional memory aids of obligations; others are designed as symbols that betoken loving commitments made.
Yes, they can be most effective reminders when their initial significance is allowed to “aid, comfort and restrain.”
Lynda Hayes Richmond Hill, 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