Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on April 9.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Spending spree
Re “Defence policy update falls short of NATO 2% spending target” (April 9): The government is budgeting only 1.76 per cent of GDP for defence. Based on past experience, I predict that the actual spending will be well in excess of NATO’s goal of 2 per cent of GDP.
With overspending, we will do our fair share.
Randall Dutka Oakville, Ont.
A day does not pass without a public lament that the government should pour more funding into worthy causes such as, but not limited to, NATO, election interference prevention, housing, health care, Indigenous reconciliation, Arctic sovereignty, climate solutions, school lunches and opioid recovery. What seems singularly lacking from all these pleas is the provenance of the necessary financing.
There are only three possible funding sources: reallocations from other worthy causes, borrowing money so our grandchildren will bear the debt burden or raising taxes.
It would greatly enhance the sincerity of any such advocacy if the proponent stated, “I so firmly believe in this cause that I’d be happy to help pay for it. Please raise my taxes.”
Ian McKercher Ottawa
The Prime Minister has been on a charm offensive across the country, announcing prebudget multibillion-dollar expenditures aimed to correct the government’s own policy missteps.
Many of these expenditures appear to be on a jurisdictional collision course with the provinces, or are rather unlikely to be realized before the next federal election. Also, there is no mention as to where the extra money will come from.
Why do I have the feeling that the country is run for the benefit of the Liberal Party, rather than for the benefit of Canada?
Charles Slagorsky Calgary
Rebate debate
Re “Trudeau courageously sticks to the carbon tax” (April 8): We checked our records for the last year.
After the carbon rebate, our Ontario household of two in the last quarter spent only $90.19 to drive 1,722 kilometres, all in the city. Cost of gas was reduced to 49 cents per litre by the rebate.
Over the last year to April 1, gas cost us $754.11 to drive 12,072 km, or 82 cents per litre. For the next 12 months with a higher rebate, and estimating gas to average $2 per litre, we expect to spend $1,180 to drive 12,000 km, or about $1.16/L.
If we drive less, or gas is cheaper, we will pay less. We understand that it works: People spend less on gas when prices are higher. We may, too.
While we drive only 12,000 km annually, the carbon tax is an inexpensive way to do our part to reduce greenhouse gases.
Dorothy Phillips Ottawa
Last year, my total expenditure on gasoline was $746.35. My credit for the climate action incentive amounts to $849.20.
Free gas for a year as a retired Canadian: What’s not to like? Thanks to Justin Trudeau.
Kari Smedstad High River, Alta.
Perhaps the solution to the caustic carbon tax debate is not to axe the tax, but to change the rebate.
What if lower income Canadians receive larger rebates, while wealthier ones lose theirs? That could keep the current policy instrument in place, while helping with affordability for those who need it most. It would shift the burden of climate change to those who can best afford to pay.
Pierre Poilievre would scream that it is unfair for wealthy Canadians to pay more. But maybe they should.
Perhaps such a change would bring more attention to the value of the rebate for struggling families, and make it harder for Mr. Poilievre to axe those payments.
Tom MacDonald Ottawa
Deep dive
Re “Underneath the ArriveCan scandal, questions swirl about Ottawa’s Indigenous procurement requirements” (April 6) and “MPs approve rare censure of ArriveCan contractor for refusing to answer questions” (April 9): I spent the majority of my career as a management consultant to large multinational companies. I’ve done countless audits of business systems, processes and performance standards.
The best analogy I can use to describe the Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Business program and the ArriveCan debacle is that of an iceberg. I believe we are just seeing the tip of the issues.
The sinking feeling I have is that the same analogy could describe issues with countless other federal programs.
Leo Quilty Brampton, Ont.
Real talk
Re “Nuclear players making a push into heavy industry” (Report on Business, April 9): With small modular nuclear reactors, it is important to note that none of the designs being proposed actually exist yet, even as prototypes.
There continue to be serious questions about the technical and economic viability of the technologies involved, particularly in light of the failure of the flagship NuScale reactor initiative in the United States late last year, to say nothing of the scales of long-term risks and liabilities involved, with which provinces such as Alberta have had no experience.
Mark Winfield Co-chair, Sustainable Energy Initiative, faculty of environmental and urban change, York University; Toronto
Come and go
Re “Canada has a productivity problem - our young people are the solution” (April 8): Canada’s productivity has been in steady decline since 1984. At the same time, The Globe and Mail regularly reports on the sale of up-and-coming Canadian companies to foreign capital.
Such purchases reduce the value of Canada’s GDP via export of profit, the highest value product of any business, and remove intellectual property from Canadian control, further depreciating our chances to raise GDP. Such purchases are facilitated by free-trade agreements.
A Progressive Conservative government was elected in 1984 on a platform of free trade, and it is not a coincidence that we have seen a hollowing out of Canada’s productive industries since then. That productivity has consistently fallen under this regimen should not surprise anyone.
The solution for our young people, then, is not just more and better education. Canadian politicians and fund managers should engineer a more equitable economic system for us all.
Alan Ball New Westminster, B.C.
Nature of things
Re “‘Life-changing:’ Total solar eclipse rewards Niagara Falls visitors despite grey skies” (April 9): Changes in animal behaviour have been noted during an eclipse.
The great gawker migration has not been scientifically studied. Hundreds of thousands of gawkers migrate long distances to observe the total eclipse of the sun.
Perhaps I could get a government grant to study whether this phenomenon is voluntary or a biological necessity.
Scott Murray Kingston
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