Letters to the editor: ‘The federal government needs a 30-day consultation to restrict Chinese electric vehicles?’ EV tariffs, plus other letters to the editor for June 25

So when?

Re “The Liberals will be forced to act on EV tariffs, even if it slows down their climate goals” (June 24): The federal government needs a 30-day consultation to restrict Chinese electric vehicles? The United States has already placed restrictions on Chinese EVs.

The Liberals must remember that they have committed billions of taxpayer dollars to supporting EV batteries made in Canada. Would cheaper Chinese EVs, dumped into Canada, help or jeopardize the Canadian EV industry?

Please someone rescue us from these Liberals.

Chris Robertson Stony Plain, Alta.

Free markets

Re “Big problems” (Letters, June 21): Two letter-writers from the Fraser Institute took an Ayn Randian exception to a defence of higher taxes.

One might debate whether bigger government limits economic freedom (Scandinavians and yours truly would disagree), but the indicators they list seem to dispute their thesis. Comparing the United States and Canada (relatively smaller versus larger government roles), our “longer lifespans, better literacy rates, higher levels of life satisfaction, cleaner environments, less poverty, lower infant mortality and less violence” all point to the benefits, rather than disbenefits, of our government’s larger place in the economy.

Steven Diener Toronto

Re “No gain” (Letters, June 22): A letter-writer chastises prospective Conservative tax reform. Do people really think untaxed dollars are used only to light cigars, line birdcages and wrap fish?

No, these dollars renovate homes, patronize local shops and services and contribute to charities. The more a dollar can circulate in the economy at large, without government friction, the more prosperous a nation.

John Budreski Whistler, B.C.

Up front

Re “Canada’s anti-greenwashing rules are good business. Critics exaggerate the dangers” (June 24): Perhaps it is time for some plain language in the matter of greenwashing by the fossil fuel industry.

This industry knows and understands science. The documents are clear that foreign giants such as Exxon and Shell have known for decades that burning fossil fuels causes climate change, and that they have deliberately run media and lobbying strategies to deny that fact and delay action.

It is only reasonable to assume that the industry today also knows the science, yet false advertising was caught by Ad Standards in January – and they still didn’t stop with the misleading campaign. There is a simple word for saying something known to be false: lying.

Forcing fossil fuel companies to stop lying is long overdue, and is essential if Canada is to have a meaningful national conversation about how we do our part to protect people and the planet from the worst of climate change.

David Miller Managing director, C40 Centre for City Climate Policy and Economy; Toronto

I look forward to the day when federal subsidies for carbon capture projects are conditional upon the independent verification of their efficacy, and when calculations of Canada’s contributions to the climate crisis include emissions from the burning by other nations of our fossil fuel exports.

Liz Addison Toronto

Dairy protection

Re “As grocery prices soar, the dairy lobby’s supply management has got to go” (Report on Business, June 19): I find it strange that the contributors are opposed to a bill which would prevent other countries from dismantling supply management. Remember that Donald Trump made war on Canada’s right to manage its food supply chain for dairy and poultry products.

They also suggest that since Australia and New Zealand dropped supply management years ago, Canada should also do so. Australia and New Zealand have always flooded the world market with cheap butter and cheese, since their farmers can produce milk from grass essentially 12 months of the year. The Canadian dairy industry should have protection, as winter forces farmers to store feed and house cattle.

As well, Canada is testing to keep bird flu out of our dairy foods, while many U.S. farmers are not allowing their government officials to do so. Food safety and a secure food supply chain are important to consumers.

Ted Burnside Ottawa

Re “Got milk” (Letters, June 21): Letter-writers are in support of abolishing agricultural supply management. Apparently they have never been on a dairy farm.

Normal agriculture is a segment of society excluded from the normal economy. Wages are paid in the agriculture supply chain for equipment, feed, etc., up to the farm gate, then wages begin again with the processing of farm produce. But in between, on farms, it is a compressed, wage-free social segment.

Prices are set by commodity buyers. Faced with a carbon tax, for example, farmers must eat a cost that can’t be passed up to buyers. With supply management, farmers have a known selling price to work under, without the threat of some other country disposing of surplus production here.

Should they go back to risking losing the farm owing to speculative markets? Do we support locally sourced food or not?

Kathleen McCroskey Surrey, B.C.

What happened?

Re “Businessman killed in Toronto triple shooting defrauded hundreds of victims, netted at least $100-million, records show” (June 21): There seems something very wrong with a justice system which leads to the reported vigilantism.

Multiple instances of prosecutions evaporating when charges were withdrawn without explanation. Is something being hidden? Or is it lack of expectation of conviction?

One should not be surprised that the fraud victim became so frustrated that he shot the alleged perpetrator and then ended his own life, because he could see no other way to achieve justice. It is clear to me that the network of assistance and support that enabled the alleged perpetrator to evade justice for 18 years was beyond the skills of police, multiple lawyers and Crown prosecutors to solve.

Surely there are even cleverer lawyers who could get to the root of this bizarre and lamentable situation? Would any of them like to investigate and identify the causes?

Michael Cook London, Ont.

Long time

Re “Liberal MP criticizes his own party over plans to end open-net salmon farming in B.C.” (June 20): I’m concerned that the devil is in the details.

The five-year transition period allows the industry time for continued lobbying and litigation, and the possibility that a new government could reverse this decision. It is important that government is guided by science-based decisions, especially given any suspicions around the internal workings of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and its relationship to the salmon farming industry.

The BC Salmon Farming Association will continue to cite potential loss of employment and revenue, however the loss of the wild salmon fishery would have severe economic, ecological and cultural consequences.

Gerry McKenna Clarington, Ont.

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