Prime Minister Mark Carney shakes hands with MP for Sarnia-Lambton-Bkejwanong Marilyn Gladu in Ottawa on Wednesday.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Trump tactics
Re “Trump’s critics question how the U.S. is better off after war with Iran” (April 9): Donald Trump doesn’t always chicken out. He just always begins negotiations with outrageous demands.
He seems to conduct them as one-time events, whereby two parties begin at extremes before settling on a midpoint agreement. Many people think this is effective negotiation, which it may be for a transaction such as buying a used car.
However most negotiations, whether between spouses or nations, are a part of continuing relationships. No professional negotiator wants their opposite number to lose big or be humiliated, they need to sit down again in the future and want to do so in a positive environment.
Mr. Trump’s approach often leaves both parties receiving less than they wanted and bearing antagonism toward each other. So much for the “art of the deal.”
John Rankin Burlington, Ont.
One more
Re “Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu crosses floor to Liberals” (April 9): What is unfolding within the Conservative caucus has rarely been seen in our parliamentary history. It raises questions about whether these moves stem from a disconnect with Pierre Poilievre, or whether deeper strategic forces are accelerating this shift in party alignment.
If this trend continues, the opposition’s ability to block legislation diminishes significantly. Bringing forward new bills for debate may become increasingly difficult, if every effort is met with an automatic veto. In the end, Hansard may be the only remaining evidence that dissenting voices ever tried to push back or offer alternative perspectives.
This moment could reshape not only how power is exercised in Ottawa, but also how future generations understand this period of Canadian political life.
Anas Khan Beaumont, Alta.
In his pursuit of a majority government, Mark Carney reveals to me that he really isn’t as different from previous prime ministers as he would like us to believe.
He has recruited an MP whose views couldn’t be more different than the purported beliefs of his party. And for what end?
The answer seems simple: power, at any cost to principles.
Colin Lockhart Carleton North, N.B.
The Liberals are still in power, but look closer: Conservative MPs quietly crossing the floor, bringing their policies with them. Elections didn’t decide this shift, floor crossers did.
Democracy thrives on choice, yet when the opposition becomes the government from within, who’s really steering the ship?
Douglas Skow Calgary
I figure that, at this rate, Pierre Poilievre himself will be joining the Liberals by September.
Jeff McLaughlin Kamloops
Re “We know bad floor crossings when we see them” (April 9): Canadians can recall the Unite the Right movement leading to the Conservative Party we have today. I remember a “unite the left” moment when agrarian socialism and the union movement joined to create the New Democratic Party.
What will history call this burgeoning Carney coalition: Unite the opportunists? The anti-Americans? The opponents of Pierre Poilievre?
Readers may have better ideas. I suggest we are seeing “unite the pragmatists.”
Tom Sherwood Ottawa
Fine line
Re “Political attacks on Canadian judges must stop” (April 6): Political attacks on judges can certainly undermine the judiciary. But, like it or not, courts are political institutions and should not be exempt from criticism, even by other branches of government.
At the same time, there is a world of difference between Doug Ford’s derisive swipe at a judge and the Charter and David Eby’s criticism, correct or not, that a judicial decision may have negative political consequences. I find the first beyond the pale; in a functioning democracy, the second should not be.
Jade Schiff Ottawa
Judge of that
Re “Justice requires face time, not a video monitor” (Editorial, April 6): I find great irony in calling upon Joe Arvay, arguably the greatest lawyer of our generation, to support a defence of greater participation in Supreme Court hearings.
As a practising litigator, I work with many former Supreme Court clerks who share my concern that the growth of the intervenor phenomenon has led to untested evidence being considered by the court.
Mr. Arvay was considered great not only for his ability to alter the social paradigm, but also the methods he employed to accomplish this. He spoke passionately about how marshalling an evidentiary record was key to his ability to change the collective mind.
Intervenors, with their version of the “legal and social context of the case,” are pontificating. They may be right or wrong, but the key is their views are untested.
The special role we give judges is based upon them assessing bodies of evidence which are challenged vigorously.
Michael Barrack Toronto
A few years ago, I attended a conference on advocacy put on by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
One of the judges on a panel was asked about pleading one’s case in person versus by video. He said he and his colleagues on the court think advocacy by video is just as effective as advocacy in person.
I chimed in and asked this judge to consider the following scenario: “Let’s say you were happily married, but your wife were to tell you she wants a divorce, and you were to want to try to persuade her to stay. Are you suggesting you’d have that conversation in person or over a video call?”
In other words, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Owen Wigderson Toronto
Canadian way
Re “The federal government faces calls to begin enriching uranium. Should it?” (Report on Business, April 4): The decision not to pursue a reactor design requiring uranium enrichment lay at the core of rationales for energy security and nuclear weapons non-proliferation in developing Canada’s nuclear energy program.
The ability of CANDU reactors to use unenriched nuclear fuel was intended to maximize energy security with an all-Canadian supply chain, as well as avoid direct engagement with enrichment processes intimately connected with nuclear weapons development.
If Canadian governments move to designs requiring enriched uranium, they would abandon these essential rationales amid intense global stresses on energy security, along with faltering nuclear weapons non-proliferation regimes. All of that leaves aside the rationality of pursuing technology that remains as uneconomic in civil applications as ever.
It would also carry risks of catastrophic accidents and weapons proliferation and for security and waste management that do not exist with other energy technologies, and for which cheaper, safer and more secure alternatives are available.
Mark Winfield Co-chair, Sustainable Energy Initiative, faculty of environmental and urban change, York University; Toronto
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