Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre addresses his caucus on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Sept. 15, 2024.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
Man for the job
Re “ ‘Who can take on Trump’ is the wrong question. ‘Who can make Canada resilient to him’ is the right one” (Feb. 12): The muted response of the Conservatives to the massive threat of tariffs has suddenly left me feeling that a Mark Carney win in the Liberal leadership race could make him a viable option as prime minister going forward.
Pierre Poilievre has built his reputation on sloganeering about a broken Canada. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, that shtick is looking irrelevant now that the barbarians are at the gates.
I believe Mr. Carney’s experience would be a huge asset during this critical situation. He only has a few weeks to prove to Canadians he has the chops to be Liberal leader and prime minister.
It’s early days, but so far his demeanour and comments on how to move the country forward have impressed me.
Kelly Thorsen Lethbridge Alta.
To my surprise, many of my conservative friends now agree that Mark Carney is the only viable choice to lead the country in the face of an economic war launched by the United States.
For the good of the country, the Liberals should get out of the way and hold a leadership vote as soon as possible. And bring back Parliament post-haste.
The leadership process is normally cumbersome and takes way too long. The pros and cons of each candidate seem self-evident. Canada needs a leader right now.
Ritchie Leslie Vernon, B.C.
John Diefenbaker had these observations on the United States.
In 1960, he said: “Co-operation ever; subservience never.”
And in 1974: ”The Americans, in attempting to get away from the British parliamentary system, made the president an all powerful king who might believe, as some of his predecessors did, that he is above the law.”
These quotes seem pertinent to present times.
Doug James Calgary
No problem
Re “Justin Trudeau’s final disgrace: Leaving Parliament prorogued during a crisis” (Opinion, Feb. 8): So while Donald Trump and his executive appointees issue one threat after another against Canada – without any debate in their own legislative assemblies – we are to respond with discussion in the House of Commons? What a weak response that would be.
As for the thought of enacting any legislation, let alone emergency legislation, the current House has shown me it is incapable of this, with the Conservatives largely to blame with their filibustering.
Anyway, none of this is needed. The Emergencies Act provides cabinet with all the power it needs to respond to a threat to the security of Canada. Which is exactly what this should be considered: a national emergency.
Shaun Fluker Professor of law, University of Calgary
Bring it home
Re “Canada: Now is our time to be strong and free” (Opinion, Feb. 8): There is also the issue of Canada’s “branch plant” economy, because we did not encourage Canadian ownership and control. Canada should develop domestically owned and controlled multinationals or export-oriented firms in goods and services unrelated to commodities or energy.
We do not lack capital, an educated work force or ability to create great businesses. We should have more competition and fewer takeovers or stock buybacks.
(Where Canadian corporations are strong is mostly in sectors with oligopolies such as banking, media, utilities and grocery sales.)
Look at California. Its wealth was built on gold, agriculture and commodities, then it moved into films and media, aerospace, autos and finally technology and intellectual property.
Canada should return to the 1970s policies inspired by former finance minister Walter Gordon. I believe Brian Mulroney took us down the wrong road of neo-liberalism and more integration with an unreliable partner.
Brian Graff Toronto
Role reversal
Re “The name can change, but the work must not: why Canada still needs DEI” (Opinion, Feb. 8): As pointed out, the backlash against DEI in Canada is homegrown, led by Pierre Poilievre and the socially conservative right. They see it as a Trojan horse to insidiously undermine those who have long held the reins of power.
Shielded by cries for meritocracy as a guiding principle, the right seems to be pushing “UIE” as an alternative to DEI. “U” for uniformity rather than diversity, manifested in rollbacks to immigration. “I” for inequity rather than equity, seen in the demand for a return to fair hiring practices that were never fair. “E” for exclusion rather than inclusion, evident in the backlash against gains made by gay and trans individuals.
Although I will be forever thankful to be Canadian, I have no pride in what our country is becoming.
Paul Tortolo Waterloo, Ont.
I am Canadian
Re “Like a lot of American things, the Super Bowl is no longer good for Canadians” (Sports, Feb. 8): I wrote a book, based on seven years’ research, on the history and relationship of Canada and the United States.
We are hardly the only country to be influenced by the juggernaut of American culture; indeed, how could we avoid it, given our cheek-by-jowl proximity and roughly tenfold difference in our populations? What is remarkable is the fact that, far from becoming American, Canadians have maintained a distinct identity.
Watching the Super Bowl or wearing Levi’s jeans does not mean adopting the American zeitgeist. The Canadian accent, spelling, sense of humour and “niceness” are only a few of the markers of our uniqueness, and I haven’t even mentioned our general abhorrence of guns. Evidently these differences are appreciated the world over, and they are not about to change.
Canadians will never be “estranged from their own culture,” then, least of all by our southern neighbours – with a “U.”
Layla Ford Edmonton
Re “The week Canada remembered what it stands for” (Feb. 8): As someone who immigrated from Poland more than 50 years ago, I never had to wait for my Canadian patriotism to be reborn because, having acquired it early on, I never lost it.
For almost every trip abroad, I take Canadian-flag lapel pins and gladly hand them out to locals who express curiosity about the country I come from. I proudly wear a maple-leaf pin given to me by a co-worker at a publishing company which hired me in 1973, the same year I acquired Canadian citizenship.
And, yes, I belt out O Canada at every available and appropriate occasion.
My wife and I had a choice of a number of countries to settle in: Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia, South Africa. We chose Canada, and never regretted that decision.
So here is my answer to the bully of a President who threatens to acquire my country: Stuff it.
Robert Lubinski Uxbridge, 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