Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre rises during Question Period in the House of Commons earlier this month.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
Back to business
Re “Conservatives persist with cute legislative tricks, while the government tries to run a country” (Dec. 10): Pierre Poilievre’s “cute legislative tricks” do more than merely tarnish his party: I believe they poison Parliament and the values of democracy itself.
When the opposition adopts a platform believed to be in the better interests of the country, and the government agrees and adopts it, reasonable people might expect the opposition, for the good of the country, to support it.
Mr. Poilievre’s partisanship is just another example to me of parliamentarians placing party gamesmanship before loyalty to the political system they are sworn to uphold. When we watch elected officials disavow their own policies in order to topple a government enacting them, we are tempted to throw up our hands and damn the whole system.
This, perhaps, explains the otherwise inexplicable elections of our American neighbours: They seem to have given up. Have we?
Scott Gardiner Southgate, Ont.
Mark Carney has been visiting our allies and even less-friendly countries to advance trade. Similarly, his ministers have met with companies here and around the world.
Some people may wonder whether this has been successful. In your Dec. 9 paper, there are at least six positive examples:
- “Microsoft vows to protect ‘digital sovereignty’ in $7.5-billion Canadian data-centre expansion”
- “Ottawa weighing tax reforms to attract foreign capital for Canadian real estate developments”
- “Australia’s IFM Investors opens Toronto office to back infrastructure investments”
- “New report backs Canada’s ambition to be energy superpower as Ottawa, B.C. tout LNG”
- “Plan in the works to save hundreds of Algoma jobs, union says”
- “Federal government to partner with City of Ottawa to build up to 3,000 affordable homes”
Living in Canada at this time makes me forget about the wolf who tried to blow our house down a few months ago. What a remarkable turnaround.
Peter Fedirchuk Ottawa
Go electric
Re “The moment of truth has dawned for the electric-vehicle industry” (Report on Business, Dec. 8): Really? I would think the “moment of truth” will arrive when the 100-per-cent tariff on high-quality, more affordable Chinese electric vehicles are lifted. Given how quickly EV sales are growing and dominating car markets where punitive tariffs don’t exist, I expect that similar growth would occur here.
Give Canadians access to more EVs, without subsidies, and, who knows, maybe increased demand would encourage what’s left of our domestic auto industry to better innovate and compete.
David Ross Canmore, Alta.
Ending purchase rebates for electric vehicles indeed will lower sales in the short run, but they still have undeniable attributes: superior performance and creature comforts, laudably low operating and maintenance costs and longer lifespans measured in decades.
Financial operating advantages reinforce consumer satisfaction as time goes on. Initially, gas savings alone can form a large part of a lease payment.
For the purchase price premium, consumers have options. The used market is where more than half of car buyers go each year, so why not for EVs as well?
For automakers, there should be a rethink of strategies that electrify behemoth SUVs and monster pickups in favour of smaller vehicles that fit into affordable budgets and modern parking spots (and need fewer batteries).
Which North American automaker will lead the way?
John Stonier President and principal consultant, Electric Advantage Systems; Vancouver
To advocate for the “free” market to determine the success of electric vehicles in North America does not consider that internal combustion engine vehicles depend upon an oil and gas industry continuing to benefit from tens of billions of dollars in subsidies.
To transition to renewables, necessary for a livable planet, the EV industry should have some subsidies to level the playing field. Rebates on sales, improved charging infrastructure and continued renovation will be necessary to make it viable and increase consumer demand.
That is why EVs are so successful in China, Norway and beyond. China is making high-quality, well-priced EVs because of massive government backing, leading to global industry dominance.
We don’t need supports on that scale, but our oil and gas subsidies far outweigh those for EVs. This disparity should change.
EVs provide significant economic benefits for owners, mitigate climate change and improve public health.
Victor Dorian Edmonton
The reason governments should subsidize the electric-vehicle industry has little to do with supporting innovation or industrial restructuring. The reason is that “free markets” do not include all the mounting costs that result from internal combustion engines.
Air pollution causes thousands of premature deaths and billions of dollars in respiratory disease, employee absences and health care costs. Carbon emissions drive more frequent and severe storms and extreme weather, which contribute to rising home insurance premiums and prices for foods such as coffee and beef as regional droughts cut production.
Car buyers do not pay for any of these costs. So governments should tax fossil fuels and internal combustion engines, thereby reducing their use, and also subsidize alternatives, including EVs.
Instead, Canada does the opposite: We subsidize fossil fuel production and tax affordable Chinese EV imports. Then we complain about low productivity and high cost of living.
Stephen Tyler Victoria
High bar
Re “Ontario might eliminate the bar exam. The legal profession has bigger problems to tackle” (Dec. 8): A licence to practice law is simply the first step, only requiring the necessary funding and learning. There are challenges for individual candidates, but those successful in rigorous exams are entitled only to “practice.”
The foundational skills required to achieve “professionalism” – writing, advocacy, negotiation, civility, ethics and, above all, wisdom – come only through experience in practice. They cannot be acquired in a course.
I agree with my former colleague at the Ontario Bar Association and Attorney-General Doug Downey when he says “the job of the law society is to protect the public, not to promote lawyers.” If the law society’s current bar course descends further, it would simply turn out knowledgeable widgets.
Sean Michael Kennedy LLM (retired); Oakville, Ont.
Surprisingly there is no mention of articling, the mandatory postschool training period for aspiring lawyers, involving full-time work under a supervising lawyer to develop real-world skills.
Its absence here suggests to me that this pretense has been abandoned and the real rationale is to provide an abundant source of inexpensive, highly motivated labour for law firms.
John Reilly Barrister and solicitor (retired), Victoria
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