An electric vehicle charging station in Ruesselsheim, Germany, on May 23, 2019.RALPH ORLOWSKI/Reuters
Family matters
Re “Ottawa is not the parent of the provinces” (Editorial, March 25): Throughout my 30-plus year career with the B.C. government, I often represented the province at federal-provincial meetings.
I often recall one gathering where a youngish federal policy analyst repeatedly referred to the federal government as the senior level. Among growing discomfort around the table, the representative from Ontario politely advised him that in this committee, we talked about co-equal orders of government, each with a defined and legitimate jurisdiction to be respected by all.
Either bravely or foolishly, he pushed back and restated Ottawa’s “senior” role. Then I asked a simple question: Who came first, the provinces or the federal government? He looked puzzled, so I rephrased my question: Did the federal government create the provinces, or did the provinces create the federal government?
The co-chair from Nova Scotia decided we should take a break. When the meeting resumed in a more productive vein, the federal analyst had left.
Jamie Alley Saanich, B.C.
With respect, I believe you mischaracterize the Constitution by asserting that the federal government is not “superior” to the provinces.
The inference suggests they are therefore “equal.” However, the Constitution divides and allots sovereign responsibilities among the two levels and, pointedly, provides the federal power of disallowance, among other means, to rein in excesses of legislative action by any province.
Granted, the big stick has atrophied over the decades from political restraint, but it remains. Some might see its utility now to deal with, for instance, an Alberta statute purporting to allow the province to disregard federal statutes deemed “unconstitutional.”
Sure, Ottawa is not a parent, but nor should provinces behave like children. In most families, children grow up and leave; they separate. That is emphatically not the intent of our Constitution.
Ron Beram Gabriola, B.C.
Above our weight
Re “The carbon tax is dead. Long live the carbon tax” (Report on Business, March 22): I would add that Canada emits more carbon per capita than China does. In fact, Canada emits more carbon per capita than most nations.
Therefore Canadians could ask: If my personal emission reductions were equalled by millions more Westerners, would that help reduce the temperature emergency the United Nations keeps warning us about? For most Canadians, the answer is yes.
Elizabeth Murray Toronto
Re “Price comparison” (Letters, March 22): On climate change, a letter-writer asks: “Why are we acting as if our actions will make a significant global difference?”
We have a choice between showing leadership or shirking. Which approach do we think would be more helpful?
Canada is not an insignificant country. What we do does get noticed.
Jim Davies London, Ont.
It would be unproductive to assess the contribution of the emission reductions program without comparing it to the price per ton of carbon saved. That is, a measure of the program’s efficiency as well as its drag on the overall economy.
In the case of the retail carbon “tax,” the emission reductions may be relatively low but the actual cost is zero – because it’s not a tax. Rather, in a program designed to incentivize shifts in consumption toward greener alternatives at the check-out till, the upfront rise in the price of goods is entirely offset by the rebate, zero-sum.
Of course, this presumes alternatives are available – a possible flaw that would be a more valid criticism of the program.
Brian Green Thunder Bay
On your own
Re “This is the end of the road for electric-vehicle subsidies” (Report on Business, March 21): As one of those privileged middle-aged men (okay, sadly, a senior) who owns and loves his electric vehicle, I have to admit I (almost) completely support this opinion.
There is no question that it’s ridiculous for the public to subsidize these expensive vehicles for people who can afford them. If subsidies continue, they should be means tested. But better to drop them altogether.
So I have no issue with Albertans who own EVs having to pay fees to maintain the roads we use. It’s only fair and necessary as there are more EVs.
But, please, stop this nonsense about EVs being heavier and therefore more damaging to roads. Roads are designed to accommodate, and their lifespans determined by the damage that heavy transport trucks cause.
And subsidizing EV charging networks? Didn’t the federal government subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $35-billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion?
David Ross Edmonton
Decision time
Re “AstraZeneca buys Hamilton-based smart cancer drug maker Fusion Pharmaceuticals for $2-billion” (Report on Business, March 20): Fusion Pharmaceuticals is the latest in a long list of promising Canadian companies to be bought out by a foreign multinational, in this case British pharmaceutical concern AstraZeneca. As usual, motivation for the buyout is the valuable expertise developed by Fusion, with considerable support from Canadian taxpayers.
Reportedly AstraZeneca is committed to the Hamilton region, where it will expand manufacturing and build a global centre of excellence. I have no doubt there are good intentions.
What is for sure is that the fate of the Hamilton operation, and what becomes of its valuable expertise, will now be decided outside of Canada. The gravitational force of foreign economic power is very difficult to counter, and is most likely to leave us watching what others do.
Jim Paulin Ottawa
Worth it
Re “Meet Canada’s most strategic CEO – if his paycheque is any indication” (Report on Business March 25): The Royal Bank of Canada is the country’s largest company by market cap and its largest bank. I don’t want us nickel and diming its leaders over obscure strategic outcomes.
RBC is large and successful. This deserves financial rewards.
We are world beaters in the world of banking and insurance. Let’s keep it so by supporting and cheering on successes, not by carping about pay levels.
Brian Johnston Toronto
Farewell for now
Re “Brian Mulroney is remembered by family, friends and Canadian leaders at state funeral” (Online, March 23): When I heard Brian Mulroney’s voice singing We’ll Meet Again at the end of his state funeral, I thought he was having a joke on the assembled gathering. But, no, it felt like he was stating a basic belief.
Catholics are told that on the last day, we will be reunited with the risen Lord and with family members who have gone before us. Thanks to Mr. Mulroney for the reminder.
Jim Shearon Ottawa
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