Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
A word of caution
Re “Canada open to Chinese investment in energy” (Jan. 16): It was not that long ago that, in the necessary diversification of trading partners, Canada’s leaders spoke of “friend-shoring” – expanding trade relationships with other democracies that shared our values. Former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland said “democracies should depend on democracies, not dictators.”
Our new government has landed $70-billion in investment from the UAE, while it is linked to arms sales in Sudan and genocide in Darfur. While it is important to improve diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China, caution is advisable.
China’s investment treaty with Canada grants that nation the right to pursue secret arbitration to obtain financial penalties against Canada if we enhance environmental or labour protections.
We must not exchange a subservient role as a resource colony for Trump’s America only to surrender sovereignty to dictators and other empires.
Elizabeth May, MP (Saanich-Gulf Islands) and Leader of the Green Party of Canada, Sidney, B.C.
Value proposition
Re “Ford criticizes tariff deal on Chinese EVs” and “Canada, China reach deal to cut tariffs” (Jan. 17): Why a fuss about Chinese cars? Half of our cars are already imported. The Chinese cars will displace 4 or 5 per cent of the market, mainly other imports. Cars or wine, if good value and made without slave labour, buy and enjoy.
German car exports fuelled Germany’s recovery after the Second World War. Japan followed. Their cars closed more U.K. factories than bombs did, and we fussed about that. But trade strengthened the peace and helped more people get better cars at better prices.
These Chinese cars will too. Along with cleaner air, improved quality, more exports to China and better foundations for peace. A good week’s work for a PM, regardless of party.
Ted Cowan Toronto
I drive a car that is 12 years old, so I’m in the market for a new one. If I could buy an affordable electric vehicle that was built in Canada, I would probably already have done so. But sadly, they don’t exist.
David Fickling of Bloomberg recently wrote, “If you think the EV revolution is losing speed, it’s probably just a sign that your own domestic market is getting left behind.”
While sales of EVs are rising steadily, especially in China and Europe, North America seems intent on wringing out every last dollar from yesterday’s technology. And what then?
Canada’s new agreement with China to lower tariffs on EVs is good news for Canadians like me, who want both choice and affordability.
Ruth Allen Toronto
Prevention and treatment
Re “Four-step plan” (Letters, Jan. 16): Substantive research clearly demonstrates that the majority of funding in B.C. and elsewhere goes to the law enforcement pillar. And clearly harm reduction and treatment services still have a long way to go before they are equitably and effectively implemented across the province.
I do agree that all four pillars are needed, but a fulsome and effective response should incorporate substantial investments in the prevention pillar – i.e., the social determinants of health, such as support for families, affordable and supportive housing and greatly improved access to community-based and accessible primary care and mental health care.
And for those with addiction issues, an enhanced variety of effective and evaluated treatment options and the recognition that addiction is a chronic and relapsing condition.
Involuntary addiction treatment, while enjoying a rebound in support from some quarters, has very little if any evidence supporting its benefits and very solid evidence of increased mortality risk post-intervention.
Perry Kendall, former provincial health officer, Victoria
The right thing to do
Re “Canada weighs sending soldiers to Greenland in face of U.S. threats” (Jan. 19): What’s to weigh? The U.S. threat to Greenland is a direct attack on both NATO and Europe. Standing firm with our European allies, no matter what the cost in the face of economic bullying by the U.S., is simply the right thing to do, morally and strategically.
And from a purely selfish perspective, if we don’t stand with Europe when the U.S. threatens one of them, how can we expect Europe to stand with us when it again becomes our turn to be a takeover target for the U.S.? Let’s not forget that, when it comes to U.S. aggression, we are standing in the same lineup as Greenland.
Bill Hollings Toronto
Who else is coming?
Re “Carney agrees in principle to join Trump’s Board of Peace but details to be worked out” (Jan. 19): Prime Minister Mark Carney should have respectfully declined President Trump’s invitation to join his Board of Peace for Gaza. Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Trump!
The pursuit of peace in the Middle East and the reconstruction of Gaza are noble goals, and Mr. Trump’s plans may hold potential value. More likely, this endeavour will be fraught, with many setbacks and risks, and will be a major distraction for Mr. Carney. He should be skeptical that joining this board will yield any tangible benefits, such as improved trade deals with the United States or shifts in Mr. Trump’s stands on matters such as Ukraine and Greenland.
It is vital that Mr. Carney remains anchored to the domestic issues at hand rather than potentially risking political capital on external initiatives.
Ian Mumford Ottawa
I know that Prime Minister Mark Carney has to tiptoe around the bully lunatic next door, but he doesn’t have to go to his party.
A party where there is a billion-dollar entrance fee and the only winner of all the games is the bully himself.
We would all like to see a resolution to Gaza’s problems, but this is a ridiculous scenario.
Hopefully all the guests, including our Prime Minister, will decline the “Board of Peace” shakedown.
Cathy Atkinson Belleville Ont.
Don’t make it easy for them
Re “Twas ever thus” (Letters, Jan. 17): Peaceful, co-operative and open societies have always existed alongside dysfunctional and territorial ones. That is unlikely to change.
The best counter to this is precisely the “restraint and legitimacy” of international law that has devised checks and balances to resolve disputes and exact a penalty for international acts of aggression.
Surely we can agree that laws are preferable to lawlessness, as is peace to war.
Certainly not all nations subscribe to reason and restraint, but the solution is not to increase their number by giving up the legitimacy of the moral order we already have.
Heather MacFadyen Canmore, Alta.
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