Deputy Whip of the NDP, Heather McPherson, looks on as NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh speaks to reporters in the Foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on March 18.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
In motion
Re “The NDP’s motion on Palestine ended up being a vain exercise in nothingness” (March 20): The Conservatives would never have opposed the NDP motion on Palestine with such vigour if indeed it were a meaningless repetition of Canada’s existing policy.
For one, the motion importantly includes a promise to end export permits for arms to Israel. That’s a first. Perhaps more significantly, Parliament is debating policy on Palestine in a harsh indictment of Israel’s violence against Palestinian civilians. What’s more, the Prime Minister and his cabinet voted in support of a motion that, among other things, agrees to support international legal investigations of Israel and its leaders.
Others can try to spin it as meaningless. But as we see it, in the convoluted world of Canadian politics, it’s not.
Thomas Woodley, President, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East Montreal
I believe the decision by our government to abandon Israel in its darkest hour, in its fight against Hamas, will bring the shame of history to Canada.
It seems, sadly, once again to be a “none is too many” disgrace.
Judith Slan Toronto
Spy vs. spy
Re “Fired Winnipeg scientists use pseudonyms in China as RCMP probe continues” (March 20): It doesn’t appear that former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Richard Fadden knows what a spy is.
He says that he wouldn’t characterize doctor Xiangguo Qiu and Keding Cheng as spies. The Oxford dictionary defines a spy as “a person who tries to get secret information about another country, organization, or person.“
Sounds about right to me.
Jim Duholke North Vancouver
Richard Fadden indicates that while he wouldn’t call the two fired scientists spies, he would call them “broadly speaking agents of China, writ-large, and of Chinese science.”
Given that they were working for China and Chinese science surreptitiously, would he at least concede that they were “secret” agents of China and of Chinese science?
John Reilly Victoria
To the point
Re “So, what expenditures should Canada cut to meet its NATO obligations?” (Report on Business, March 21): Nothing. Restore two points to the GST.
Craig Sims Kingston
Price comparison
Re “On the carbon tax, the Opposition’s cynicism neatly coincides with the public’s” (March 20): I appreciate the proposed thought experiment: What if the Liberal government had done things differently on the carbon tax and rebate?
Here’s another thought experiment: What if we didn’t expect premiers to “exploit the government’s weakness to score a cheap political point?” Imagine that.
Okay, just kidding. I don’t expect the Opposition Leader nor finger-wagging premiers to grapple with facts. No, we’ve come to expect the cynicism described here.
Dale Churchward Toronto
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has previously estimated that when the overall fiscal and economic impact of the carbon tax is considered, most households will see a net loss. This assessment seems to have been lost in favour of the Liberal talking point that the vast majority of Canadians are net beneficiaries.
I prefer the PBO’s assessment, given their independence from politicians of all stripes.
John Meldrum Edenwold, Sask.
Re “Industrial carbon price more effective to reduce greenhouse gases than consumer policy, report says” (March 21): There seems to be an inconvenient truth in the debate over carbon reduction.
Our government discloses that Canada’s share of world emissions was 1.5 per cent in 2020, and that is trending downward. Why are we acting as if our actions will make a significant global difference?
We can and should reduce our carbon output, but why are we as a country tearing ourselves apart over it? Why are we relying on consumers to make difficult choices over home heating or driving?
Squeezing an extra tenth or two out of us doesn’t seem justified, especially when other measures apparently are more effective.
William McMaster Toronto
This gives the impression that the various policies compared are alternatives. The likely reality is that they are all needed.
Luke Mastin Toronto
Personal use
Re “Hot stuff” (Letters, March 20): I can only speak to my own reduction in emissions.
I drive less. A lot less. So much so that my insurance company gives me a 10-per-cent discount as a “low-mileage driver.”
I end up paying less – a lot less – at the pumps overall; I emit less, too. I also walk more, and that’s a health benefit.
These are not “empty virtues.” These are actionable items with tangible effects.
So that’s the answer to who is accountable: I am. We all are.
George Olds Hamilton
As two moderate-income urban residents of Alberta, we receive $1,544 in carbon rebates while calculating that we pay $570 in carbon tax.
Our greenhouse gas reduction choices have gained us just under $1,000 this last year, and we stand to do better next year as the tax and rebate increases. “Spike the tax” will cost us nearly $1,000 a year.
“Spike the tax,” then, really stands for “let loose the energy hogs.”
George Haeh Lethbridge, Alta.
Week after week, people across the country write to The Globe and Mail and claim that the carbon tax is the only way we will save the planet and stop climate change.
If I am paying a carbon tax, show me how government is using those dollars to address the effects of climate change. We should have fewer articles and letters about how we can stop it, and more on what we are doing about the floods, fires and dramatic swings in weather and the impact on our daily lives.
Yes, we should continue to reduce our emissions and grow our sustainable economy, but let’s assume that climate will change and we should work on solutions to address that change.
A tax applied haphazardly and unequally only divides us. Objections to this poorly designed tax do not mean we don’t care about the environment.
Stephanie Saunders Calgary
Pay for it
Re “This is the end of the road for electric-vehicle subsidies” (Report on Business, March 21): Any transition to electric vehicles should consider a taxing scheme to replace diminishing carbon-fuel consumption levies with appropriate energy-use levies. But Alberta’s flat EV registration fee? Short-sighted, indeed.
We pay levies per litre for carbon-based fuels. Why not levies per kilowatt-hour?
Just a thought from a long-time frugal owner of a Honda Civic.
Paul Peachey 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