Carbon tax doomed to be tough fight
Re: Trudeau is right; but that’s irrelevant; no one believes him (March 27)
Dan Lett is right, the prime minister seems to have lost the carbon tax battle. It was always going to be a challenge as fighting climate change is a good example of the tragedy of the commons.
As a country of just 39-odd million, our actions on their own make a small impact on a global scale, as critics have pointed out. Yet, as every country takes this position and acts in their own self-interest, we all lose. It is unfortunate that Pierre Poilievre and his supporters do not see Canada as a country that could be a leader in a real global effort to secure our future. That is the Canada I believe we can be. Instead, populists exploit the very real financial pain that many of us are in to mislead people for political gain.
Mr. Trudeau may lose, but at least he demonstrated real leadership qualities. Instead, it appears Canadians will be supporting Mr. Poilievre as he fiddles while the forests burn.
Gordon Fritzsche
Winnipeg
Dan Lett is correct and Trudeau is correct but people refuse to believe them.
Or worse than that people try to confuse the issue with slogans such as “Axe the tax.”
People tend to accept trendy sayings rather than understand the details of an issue.
The “carbon tax” (with its rebate) is a measure designed to reduce the impact of fossil fuel emissions on the environment with minimum impact on individuals. This is part of Canada’s commitment to combat climate change. Economists and scientists agree this an effective measure.
If you don’t agree (leader of the opposition), what’s your alternative? We know.
Do nothing.
Keep up the good work Dan. Some of us are listening.
Allan Jakilazek
Winnipeg
No early bonus for MPs
What we have here is a missive that cuts across all political stripes and is a clear indicator of how to alienate the entire Canadian public and voters of every denomination.
As of around March 21 the Liberals have tabled legislation to change the voting day in Canada to Oct. 27. Why, you might ask, is this necessary? We know the population of Canada is around 39 million and of that group, 44 per cent of Canadians belong to a pension plan of one form or another but when you look at the working sector eligible for this benefit the number drops to 6.7 million Canadians. Of these people how many are eligible for pension after only six years of service?
It turns out that only your MPs enjoy this privilege. Why then change the voting day?
Well, according to the National Post and the Toronto Sun, one of the benefits of changing voting day will be that, across the board, around 80 MPs will then have achieved the number of days required to be eligible for their pension. Never mind they should rightfully be re-elected to achieve this bonus, we are also fed some smoke and mirrors about other items that necessitate the change in voting day.
Do you get to vote when you are 17 years and 363 days old ? No!
Can you consume alcohol when you are 17 years and 363 days old ? No!
Can you presume your insurance will be extended past the due date? No!
So why is it necessary to change the voting date so that 80 MPs will achieve their eligibility for pension. Talk about self-serving legislation. Where is fiscally Conservative Pierre Poilievre? Where are the Liberals looking after this country? Where are Jagmeet Singh and the NDP?
This is an affront to the Canadian people and it should be removed from the table immediately or revoked, and all MPs should hang their heads in shame at the greed that they intend to foist on the Canadian populace.
Norm Norris
Winnipeg
Benefits of minority government
Re: Hate minority governments? Blame the Bloc (Think Tank, March 30)
Minority governments are not new in Canada. They were a regular occurrence in the Diefenbaker and Pearson era of politics.
Back then, there were only three major federal political parties; the Liberals, the Conservatives and the CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, which merged with the NDP in 1961). Whenever there was a minority government, the CCF controlled the balance of power over the governing party. This was not the cosy “supply and confidence agreement” that the NDP has with today’s Liberal government, but an unwritten and business-like relationship. Unlike Mr. Singh’s NDP, the CCF, under the capable leadership of Tommy Douglas, held the governing party’s “feet to the fire” on every issue.
It made the government more moderate and attentive to the needs of the electorate. Back in that era, the CCF was referred to as a “splinter party” because like a splinter it was small but its effects were noticeable. There were no sweetheart deals between the government and the CCF. The greatest display of the power of the CCF party, under the capable leadership of Tommy Douglas, was the implementation of universal healthcare in Canada.
As premier of Saskatchewan, Douglas introduced universal health care, an idea which he brought to the federal level as leader of the CCF. Minority governments are somehow seen as bad, and they are for the governing party, but effective third parties have resulted in some our best legislation and made Canada the great country that it is.
Wally Barton
Winnipeg
Weak sentiment
Re: Two wrongs, no rights (Think Tank, March 23)
I read Charles Adler’s column with considerable discomfort.
Like Adler, the trauma of the Holocaust lies under my skin and in my bones. Like Adler, the knowledge of what happened to my ancestors in the concentration camps and of the Nazis’ deliberate efforts to annihilate my people are never far from the surface.
Like Adler, I am deeply effected by the brutality of the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of innocent Israeli citizens, the suffering of the hostages and their families, and the ensuing flood of antisemitic sentiment. Moreover, I don’t doubt the sincerity of Adler’s expressed empathy for the people of Gaza.
What’s troublesome for me is that Adler makes no mention in his column of the Israeli government’s responsibility for the carnage in Gaza and the West Bank. He makes no mention of the historical context of the current manifestation of a longstanding conflict between the people of Israel and the people of Gaza. And while a newspaper column can’t serve as a historical review, some historical context is necessary.
Like Adler, I want there to be some place in this world where Jews are free from the spectre of antisemitism and the fear of expulsion. But it’s not unreasonable to argue that the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 to meet this goal was orchestrated in such a way as to make the current situation almost inevitable. And while there were many players in the geopolitical game leading to and following the founding of Israel — there still are, of course — the newly formed Israeli government’s actions can’t be excised from the record. Because those actions are directly linked to the current government’s actions.
In his diaries, Joseph Weitz, one of the key orchestrators of the Nakba, predicted in explicit terms that the expulsion of Palestinians would result in a rage and sorrow that would travel across the generations, and that the Jewish citizens of Israel would come to bear the cost of that rage and sorrow. And so it is.
Does this justify the suffering of the Israeli families who lost loved ones on Oct. 7; the suffering of Israeli hostages and their families? Not to my mind. Does it provide some needed context? I think so.
What’s most troubling to me in Adler’s expression of sympathy for the people of Gaza is his closing sentence: “It is not their fault that some of their kin murdered mine.” That strikes me as far too cheap a sentiment, one that serves to undermine empathic conversation and to reinforce divisive exchanges among those who cling to a “two-sides” response to the current horror while floating free of the historical realities of two traumatized people.
Frances Ravinsky
Winnipeg
