Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks during a joint press conference with French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal at the Sir John A. Macdonald building in Ottawa on April 11.PATRICK DOYLE/Getty Images
Breathe in
Re “Justin Trudeau owes the premiers a meeting” (April 11): The premiers want a meeting with the Prime Minister.
Do they want to discuss the need to increase defence spending, responses to the opioid crisis, better ways to deal with the housing shortage or better paths to reconciliation? No, no, no and no.
Do they want to discuss how to cut back subsidies to the oil and gas industry? No. Do they want to discuss incentives for solar panels, heat pumps or electric vehicles? No, no and no.
It seems all the premiers want to do is demonstrate to their electorates that they are strong and the federal government is the enemy. Do they present better proposals for carbon reduction? Do they care about climate change and the future of the next generations? Only, it seems, if it gets them re-elected.
We as Canadians have created our climate problem. Only a hayseed would think we can solve it for free.
Bruce Henry Waterloo, Ont.
I am tired of hearing premiers complain about the federal carbon tax. They can take control of it any time. Let me help them.
Provincial fuel taxes are higher than the carbon tax. On April 1, the Alberta tax went from nine cents to 13 cents, a larger increase than the carbon tax increase, simply because the provincial government wanted the revenue.
Provinces can eliminate the federal carbon tax by imposing their own tax. The money could go into general revenue instead of being rebated back to families through federal tax. The provincial tax could then drop commensurately, keeping provincial revenues neutral and delivering a break to residents equal to the current carbon tax.
Such a simple “fix.” Of course, this assumes that complaints are sincere, and not just cover for political ideology and desire to garner support by beating on the federal government.
Mike Jensen Calgary
Who gains?
Re “How to tactically retreat on the carbon tax” (Report on Business, April 9): “Mr. Poilievre as prime minister may find himself in a trap of his own making” in devising an alternative climate plan.
Another pitfall would be taking away carbon rebates that have grown noticeably large: A family of four will receive $1,120 in urban Ontario and $2,160 in rural Alberta during 2024 to 2025.
“Axe the tax” is a good slogan, but “keep the rebate” could become more compelling.
Erin Weir Former MP, Regina-Lewvan
It is true that many people will get back more dollars from the climate rebate than they paid for gasoline. But don’t forget the tax paid on natural gas for heating.
In the past 12 months, I paid $87 a month for gasoline and $188 for natural gas. It could be argued that if one installed a heat pump, there would be no climate tax.
I wonder how long electricity will be free of this tax as governments are in the red.
Edward Hretchka Halton Hills, Ont.
Re “Rebate debate” (Letters, April 10): Letter-writers highlight the reality that the carbon tax and rebate are often a wealth transfer to retirees. The inflation impact of the tax also affects lower-income Canadians more.
While the carbon tax is a relatively sound policy, I find the rebate system is not. Much better would be to replace the rebate with an equivalent reduction in GST. The fundamentally regressive nature of the GST means that any reduction would favour lower-income Canadians.
David Pitt Edenwold, Sask.
Performance review
Re “Pay CEOs for performance, not failure” (Editorial, April 10): Many boards of directors do a poor job protecting shareholder interests when it comes to executive compensation. I offer this for consideration.
Salary: A CEO’s salary should be no more than a set multiple of the lowest-paid full-time employee, say 25 times. This would eliminate the ridiculous sums paid for performing the basics of the job.
Bonuses: Capped at 50 per cent of salary and based mainly on non-financial targets such as increased market share, productivity and customer satisfaction, rather than growth in revenue and profit that can be significantly affected by factors out of management control.
Stock options: Eliminate and replace with the option of using up to 50 per cent of cash compensation to purchase shares at market price. This replaces the “no risk-reward” model with a “risk-reward” one.
Mark Roberts Calgary
As a shareholder of both BCE and Toronto-Dominion Bank over the past year, I was struck by the variable pay awards in a year when senior leaders failed shareholders.
Where should blame fall? I believe directly on the heads of human resources and the boards of directors who approved payouts without delivery of results.
Why is accountability so difficult when it comes to CEOs? Kudos to Canadian Tire.
Stephen Kouri Toronto
Next steps
Re “The first goal of drug overdoses policy: Keep people alive” (Editorial, April 11): Hear! Hear!
And continue, as rapidly as possible, to build a continuum of accessible and effective prevention, harm reduction and treatment opportunities within a regulatory framework that minimizes its unintended consequences.
It really shouldn’t be that hard.
Perry Kendall CM, OBC, FRCPC; former B.C. provincial health officer, Victoria
Alberta seems out of step with the free world.
On March 22 at the 67th session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, harm reduction was recognized for the first time as an important part of an effective public-health response to the global drug-poisoning crisis.
Thirty-eight countries, including the United States (a historic first), voted in favour of the resolution. Russia and China voted against it, and Iran abstained. Alberta’s government appears to align with these three authoritarian states as it steadily reduces harm-reduction measures while drug-poisoning deaths increase.
Lorna Thomas Edmonton
Heat of the moment
Re “Climate change won’t just make the world a hotter place – it will make it a more violent one, too” (Opinion, April 6): Meursault, the protagonist of Albert Camus’s The Stranger, could have relied on the defence of “temporary thermogenic delirium” rather than simply blaming the sun for his otherwise inexplicable act of shooting and killing an Arab man on an Algerian beach – although the verdict would no doubt have been the same, given Meursault’s unpardonable atheism.
Bruce Baugh Kamloops
I am …
Re “Three Canadians shortlisted for Carol Shields Prize for fiction” (April 9): From what I know, Eleanor Catton is as Canadian as Ted Cruz.
Edward Sadowski New Westminster, B.C.
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