… and we don’t understand the premier

So Premier Doug Ford says he doesn’t understand what the federal government is thinking and is calling them out for “filling their pockets?” That goes about a thousandfold for us regular Ontarians, but who we don’t understand is Ford!

Consider any number of poorly conceived policies that Ford has proposed or implemented from opening up Greenbelt lands, wage restrictions on public service workers, merging Peel region, imposing the notwithstanding clause, changing autism funding, redesigning licence plates, resurrecting the King’s Counsel, appointing “like-minded” judges … a too many things list that are hard to understand. Ford’s government is drowning in its own gravy oozing from all its patronage decisions.

Barbara Frohlich, Thornhill

Did Premier Doug Ford really say “if they (Liberals) don’t start putting money back into people’s pockets instead of filling their pockets?”

This from the man who fought tooth and nail to keep Bill 124 limiting wage increases in the public service. The man who once cancelled scheduled minimum wage increases and a paid sick day program.

Who authorized higher rent increases. And whose privatization of heath care will inevitably lead to more out of pocket expenses. At least with the carbon levy we get the money back in our pockets. We also get some semblance of a commitment to address climate change, something we don’t have from either Ford or his federal Conservative counterpart.

G.W. Byron, Toronto

Premier Doug Ford asks the federal government to help its citizens and yet this federal government has given more money directed into the pockets of its citizens than any previous federal government.

Remember the increase in the child benefit, the initiation of $10-per-day child care, the initiation of the beginning of a pharmacare program, just to name a few!

These are big bucket items for Canadians unlike the cancellation of the licence fees made by the Ford government!

Bonnie Bacvar, Toronto

It seems we have a choice. Do we defeat inflation by cutting the carbon tax and thereby increasing carbon emissions or do we keep carbon pricing at the cost of adding to inflation but do something about limiting climate change?

In other words, do we make living in a heated up world more affordable or do we continue to contribute to environmental degradation but make living unaffordable? That seems to be the choices being offered by our politicians. Is there really no other choice?

Stephen Bloom, Toronto