Prime Minister Mark Carney appears with the leaders of Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland at the Canada-Nordic summit in Oslo on March 15.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Underestimated
Re “One year later” (Letters, March 21): It is remarkable that letters about Mark Carney appear to overlook what our Prime Minister has accomplished in the last year.
As Canada’s “senior bureaucrat,” he has applied his firsthand knowledge of economics and banking to our finances at a time when the world is in upheaval. Unfortunately, defence has become as important as butter.
The “elite” who Mr. Carney hobnobs with are world leaders with whom he is establishing alliances and signing trade agreements. They will enrich Canada’s coffers by billions of dollars and provide many new jobs for Canadians, while leaving the door open to a mutually beneficial agreement whenever the United States decides to return to the negotiating table.
Mr. Carney’s time, then, has been well spent in the interests of all Canadians.
Heather MacFadyen Canmore, Alta.
How you remind me
Re “Locals only” (Letters, March 21): One wonders if a letter-writer, who extolled the fact that Canadians are protected from liquefied natural gas price increases precisely because we lack the capacity to export it, is repeating almost verbatim the National Energy Program enacted by Pierre Trudeau, which led directly to the Western alienation still resounding today.
The only difference is that Pierre Trudeau wanted to impose a “made in Canada” price on producers through legislation in order to benefit the Eastern Canadian industrial base, whereas Justin Trudeau imposed a “made in Canada” price by prohibiting exports. The outcome is the same: LNG-producing provinces are denied the true value of natural resources which, constitutionally, belong to them.
After nearly 50 years of feeling the consequences of the NEP, including the current Alberta separation movement, one would hope that Canadians had learned something.
Tom Curran Prince Edward County, Ont.
Yes, we do not export much liquefied natural gas, but we export about 45 per cent of our conventional natural gas to the United States, which gives us a connection to international markets.
Since the end of February, when the current war in the Middle East began, the market price of natural gas at the Alberta hub has risen roughly 25 per cent. In other words, our protection is rather limited.
Jim Davies Professor emeritus, department of economics, Western University; London, Ont.
Passive, aggressive
Re “Doug Ford has utterly wasted an extraordinary mandate” (Opinion, March 21): Doug Ford’s overwhelming majorities in the 2022 and 2025 Ontario elections rest on the votes of less than half of the province’s electorate. His most important enablers, then, have been the majority of Ontario electors who didn’t vote.
The directionless and impulsive approach to governance described here is a testament to the consequences of voter disengagement and a deeply flawed electoral system.
Mark Winfield Toronto
Re “Ford to declare Billy Bishop Airport a ‘special economic zone’ to allow jets” (March 24): A special economic zone is a tool used to make a given area immune from laws and regulations which normally apply.
Fundamentally, it is an auger-like tool used to make a hole in the legal fabric. Creating one separates a civic space from its surroundings to permit resource exploitation in the absence of public oversight.
It helps to think about special economic zones as a power tool for DIY autocrats. The Ontario government should not have this in its tool kit.
Clifford Ottaway Dysart et al, Ont.
Too much?
Re “Lowering the Old Age Security income threshold is no longer politically taboo” (Report on Business, March 21): I couldn’t agree more.
Old Age Security was never meant to be for a majority of Canadians. It was started in 1952 to help poverty-stricken Canadians and is funded out of general tax revenues with no associated funding pot like the Canada Pension Plan.
I am at the tail end of the baby boom generation and I’d fully support reducing qualifying income levels to $50,000 a year per individual. CPP we pay into throughout our working lives and so we should reasonably expect a pension when we retire; OAS, not so much.
Patrick Eckert Mississauga
The proposed savings plan of clawing back Old Age Security for “wealthy” seniors does not take into account the taxes they pay.
As an example, a couple with an income of $216,000 including OAS pays about $5,000 extra in taxes. At the other extreme, at a combined income of $300,000, most of the $18,000 in OAS would be lost to the taxman.
So the proposed changes in OAS eligibility would decrease taxes paid by seniors. Instead, I suggest the Canada Revenue Agency figures out what proportion of taxes it receives from OAS payments to wealthy seniors, then transfers that amount to an OAS pot to increase payments to poorer seniors.
Please reconsider the definition of wealthy seniors. Two decades or so ago, $100,000 was enough to put one on a “sunshine list.” But not now with inflation, higher property taxes and, yes, even a mortgage.
Czesia Nalewajko Pickering, Ont.
Does it bring joy?
Re “At what point do our things start owning us?” (Opinion, March 21): How liberating to not be owned by stuff.
We let stuff have power over us, like keeping a big home clean instead of spending time in nature with family and friends or volunteering to make the world a better place. We fill garages with stuff, making life harder during the winter. Some people pay for storage units, money that could feed families in need.
All for what? I have spent many years as an interior designer helping people create more functional (i.e. easier to live in) and beautiful homes, making life more enjoyable.
I know the deep emotional value of some things. Those should be honoured, but those should also be precious and few.
Think how many people could attach more meaning and usefulness to our discarded things. Think how life is richer when spending time on meaningful pursuits, instead of pursuing and maintaining more stuff than we need.
Lillias Cowper Calgary
Out to lunch
Re “Half-hearted Maple Leafs commit to the tank. For now” (Sports, March 23): I’m glad I caught this column about last weekend’s Leafs-Senators game. I thought it was just me. I watched until I couldn’t.
If I wanted to see pleasure skating, any local arena on a Sunday afternoon might do. Three of my grandchildren play hockey; when they have a game, they focus and go out with determination to win because that’s why they’re on the ice, and they’re not even paid.
They may win, they may lose, but they never give up.
Bernice Chopowick Mississauga
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