Ontario Premier Doug Ford, fifth from left, answers questions from the press during a press conference at the meeting of the Council of the Federation, where Canada's provincial and territorial leaders meet, in Halifax, on Nov. 6.Kelly Clark/The Canadian Press
All good things
Re “We must spur businesses to drive our economic growth” (Opinion, Nov. 6): We all should know that nothing can grow forever. The economy can’t, population can’t and consumption can’t.
At some point, we should develop a circular economy that doesn’t depend on ever-increasing production, consumption and population growth. It is killing our planet.
Cancer keeps growing and eventually kills its host. The parallel seems obvious.
Patty Benjamin Victoria
Back off
Re “Watch out, premiers: Accountability creep is pushing politics farther away” (Nov. 13): “Jurisdictional creep.” “Push accountability.” What ridiculous terms to use in society today.
Perhaps politicians, when elected, should sign a waiver indicating that they will not blame other levels of government or meddle in other areas of responsibility. Because it’s all our money that is at issue.
Robert Morrow Hamilton
Tax implications
Re “If we’re not going to use carbon taxes to reduce our emissions, it may be better to do nothing” (Opinion, Nov. 11): No one really wants to pay taxes. So I am not surprised that when opposition parties want to “scrap the tax” on heating fuels, the notion gains immediate popularity.
Our country decided that carbon taxes would be one of our pillars to reduce carbon emissions. Why is it so difficult to grasp the enormity of climate change caused by these emissions?
The food that we eat and the trees that give us shade may all disappear. The water we drink may become poisoned by algae. Forest fires, floods, drought and famine may be the legacy that we leave our children.
Canada cannot afford to change our carbon emissions program every time we change governments. Stay the course and accept the tax.
Make personal decisions on how one can reduce the carbon tax paid by using fewer fossil fuels.
Ken Stock Port Hope, Ont.
Since 2011, our population has increased at the highest rate in the G7. To reduce emissions by 40 per cent would require huge per-person reductions.
Heating, transport, agriculture, industry and recreation would be severely altered. Even maintaining our current output would require considerable change.
This, then, is the bottom line.
Charles Mackay Saint-Eustache, Que.
Hold on
Re “Carbon capture moves from science fiction to reality. The next step is the tough one” (Editorial, Nov. 13) and “Get real on carbon” (Letters, Nov. 13): We have had the know-how for carbon capture and sequestration into deep geological formations for decades.
In Canada, it has been discussed, proposed and debated for at least 20 years. Some Canadian politicians put it forward as a more-or-less panacea for our carbon emissions.
For all that talk, we have only a small number of partly effective projects under way. By now we should have a hundred or more such projects: big, small and in between.
Is it the United Nations or governments on “high horses” that are blocking implementation? Not really. I find it is mostly “scientists but also engineers and businessmen” looking for handouts from the taxpaying public.
Ed Janicki Victoria
With all due respect, I believe it was the “scientists but also engineers and businessmen” who helped get us into this mess in the first place.
Ken Cory Oshawa, Ont.
In Alberta
Re “Alberta gives hint of changes to follow renewables pause” (Report on Business, Nov. 13): It is fascinating to see the Alberta requirements for significant security deposits to cover future cleanup in the renewable energy sector.
If only it had been half as serious about cleanups in the oil and natural gas sectors. But then, this seems to have nothing to do with environmental protection, but rather protection for the oil and gas industry.
Achim Krull Pickering, Ont.
Re “How we can set out ground rules for the debate over an Alberta pension plan” (Nov. 13): I think there’s one obvious ground rule to set for a potential Alberta pension plan: Alberta should be entitled to precisely nothing from the Canada Pension Plan, for the simple reason that CPP assets do not belong to the federal government – they belong to its contributors.
If Alberta wants to start an APP, it should start from zero, with pensioners receiving a pension from both the CPP and an APP based on how much they have contributed to each plan. Within a generation, most Albertans would be on an APP rather than the CPP.
At most, if an APP is formed, individual contributors should have the final say over whether their contributions plus growth stay in the CPP or are transferred to an APP.
Dianne Skoll Ottawa
Say something
Re “A bureaucrat points a finger in an ArriveCan whodunnit” (Nov. 9): Whodunnit? Not me.
I am disappointed to read that two senior bureaucrats collaborated on a narrative that no single “decision point” was responsible for the ArriveCan mess. Worse yet, it sounded much like national-security adviser Jody Thomas’s committee testimony that “no single point of failure” in the bureaucracy was responsible for failing to inform ministers of foreign threats. I see these as two examples that not only show a lack of accountability at the highest levels, but a willingness to obfuscate responsibility.
It seems the only way around this is with stronger whistle-blower protections. I’m sure there are people in the public service who would speak up when they see problems, if they were not risking their careers.
After all, one took it upon himself to leak security documents and expose a lack of response to foreign interference, at great risk to himself but in great service to Canadians.
Paul Watson Ottawa
Shine a light
Re “Redacted and out of reach: Canada’s access laws keep the country’s history locked away” (Nov. 10): Canada has more than enough problems cultivating and promoting its history. The last thing we need is a 1984-like memory hole that prevents the country’s historians from accessing documents at Library and Archives Canada. I’m appalled by the state of our materials at LAC.
What we need is a champion for Canada’s past at the cabinet level to get the needed changes to freedom of information legislation. And public pressure from Canadians who care about our history, along with excellent journalism such as this piece, will definitely help.
Let’s keep the pressure on.
J.D.M. Stewart 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