Matthew Tkachuk, left, of Team USA fights with Brandon Hagel of Team Canada during the first period in the 4 Nations Face-Off game at the Bell Centre in Montreal, Que., on Feb. 15.Minas Panagiotakis/Getty Images
European theatre
Re “Europe in disarray and ill-prepared after Donald Trump cuts it out of Ukraine talks. It missed a lot of signals” (Feb. 18): Hopefully it is too early to say the words “disarray” when describing Europe.
Perhaps the Trump administration, like with Canada, is mistaken in how unifying a force its wrecking ball can be once it starts swinging.
Karin Bjornson Montreal
Donald Trump promises peace between Russia and Ukraine. What he seems to be negotiating is the total surrender and capitulation of Ukraine, followed by eventual occupation by Russia.
Marty Cutler Toronto
Re “Russian and U.S. officials to discuss ending Ukraine war without Kyiv” (Feb. 18): So Donald Trump has given an assurance that Volodymyr Zelensky “will be involved” in negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war.
I am reminded of the relative levels of involvement in making a ham omelette. I hope that Mr. Zelensky will be involved the way the chicken is involved. I fear that, under Mr. Trump’s leadership, Mr. Zelensky may end up involved the way the pig is involved.
David Halliwell Vaughan, Ont.
Pay for it?
Re “Leadership qualities” (Letters, Feb. 18): Many letter-writers believe that Mark Carney is our only choice for Liberal leader and prime minister, because he was head of the Bank of Canada, is an economist and is not Pierre Poilievre.
But there is little mention of his policies that show a close similarity to Justin Trudeau’s: a green economy, carbon taxes in a different form, spending deficits and no plan to balance budgets, all while denigrating the leader to the south.
Mr. Carney is no outsider, rather quite the opposite: I see him as Trudeau 2.0.
David Harper Burlington, Ont.
Re “Mark Carney has a different idea of budget discipline” (Feb. 17): Mark Carney’s proposed budgeting plan appears to resemble the well-established financial management system used by condominium corporations throughout North America.
The separation of operating and reserve fund (capital expenditures) budgets works effectively for long- and short-term financial planning. It leads to greater control over day-to-day expenses while clearly defining planned capital costs for major infrastructure (military, health, etc.) investments.
This segregation can involve “zero-based budgeting” methodology used to control daily costs, prioritize categories of expenditures and provide greater transparency for big project costs.
It seems that Mr. Carney deeply understands how Canadians can get the biggest bang for their buck from government.
Milt Moskowitz Toronto
I was disturbed to learn that Mark Carney’s idea of working toward balancing the budget involves splitting the budget into an operating budget and a capital budget, with a focus on balancing the operating budget.
That feels like someone splitting personal expenses into housing and car payments (capital) and everything else (operating). Balancing operating costs might sound good, but we still have to come up with money to cover both.
Mr. Carney also plans to eliminate the carbon tax, which has been supported by the Liberals in the face of significant criticism. But helpfully, contributor Jatin Nathwani tells us “we don’t need the carbon tax to hit our Paris climate commitments” (Feb. 17). It makes one wonder why the Liberals forced us down that path, given its negative impact on the country.
I sincerely hope, should Mr. Carney become prime minister, he has real solutions to the many problems we face.
Robert Pruden Winnipeg
The executive suites of Canada’s various oil and gas entities should be paying close attention to contributor Jatin Nathwani final words regarding the sector’s contributions to the economy: Over the next decade or two, “its role will decline as we embrace other forms of energy.” He puts it more bluntly: “Electrons, not molecules, now hold the promise of fundamental new wealth creation.”
I believe electrification is the best bet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across three of Canada’s largest emission sectors: transportation, buildings and industry. And given the country’s track record on pipeline approvals and construction, we’d likely be well into that first (or second?) decade before the valves would be turned on.
Even assuming “within a decade or two” is an aggressive timeline, I have to wonder about the business case for massive investment in an east-west pipeline – or any new pipelines, for that matter.
Chris Gates Cobourg, Ont.
Not a fan
Re “Player brawls during the 4 Nations Canada-U.S. match show there is worth to being the bad guy” (Sports, Feb. 17): I was appalled to see the Canada-U.S. hockey game begin with three fights and, worse, to see this fiasco praised. It seems that three American players planned to begin the game that way, and the Canadian players had little choice and perhaps inclination to refuse.
What a metaphor for our debased moment in history. An American President seems clueless about the vital roles of law and the U.S. Constitution in having a peaceful and successful society. And we the fans, and players from both countries, are also lawless and aggressive.
The American President seems unable to control himself, nor can we control him, only respond wisely with strategic toughness and innovation. But in hockey, we should ban fighting immediately.
Want to be a fighter and political hero instead of a hockey player? They will get their 30 seconds, but then they should be gone from that game, or maybe two.
Robert Girvan Toronto
The three fights that kicked off the Canada-U.S. hockey game had nothing to do with hockey. They did have much to do with an outdated code that continues to exist in professional hockey culture.
Once the actual game started, both teams played skillful, creative, physical hockey. I was hoping at least one commentator would be brave enough to say that staged fighting has no place in hockey.
Unfortunately, all the commentators I listened to shared the opinion that this was the best start to an international hockey game ever. Disappointing.
Michael McLenaghen Richmond, B.C.
Perhaps the old saying, “I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out,” is still an accurate appraisal of the state of hockey.
Tom Scanlan Toronto
After waiting years for some semblance of best-on-best hockey, with all the skill, speed and excitement of this game, we instead suffer a contrived and pointless “message sent” that better belongs in a wrestling circus.
Is it too much to hope the entire National Hockey League ethos will one day embrace the talent that can make the game so entertaining?
W.D. Preshing Edmonton
Re “Booing the American anthem is our patriotic duty right now” (Sports, Feb. 15): I am reminded of lines by poet William Blake.
“I was angry with my friend;
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.”
Frank Burgess Edmonton
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