Prime Minister Mark Carney, right, and Premiers look on as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, second from left, responds to a question during a news conference.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
If only
Re “Nuclear option” (Letters, Feb. 5): Thank you for hosting so vigorous a debate on Canada’s development of nuclear weapons. I agree these things are terrible.
But to those who would have Canada stand honourably aloof from them, I say: If Ukraine had kept its nukes when it became independent, it would never have been invaded.
Bill Atkinson Toronto
Judge of that
Re “Danielle Smith calls on Mark Carney to give Alberta more say in selection of judges” (Feb. 4): The last thing our country needs is more political influence in the appointment of judges.
Our judiciary would be greatly improved by a process that was more merit-based than the system we have utilized in our federal judicial appointments, and in many provinces for provincial courts, over the lifetime of our country. The federal government, without objection from the provinces, should create a judicial appointments process as far removed from politics as it can be. There are many international models that can be of assistance.
Danielle Smith’s demand to have provincial input into federal judicial appointments is a movement in a new direction. Unfortunately, it is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
Daniel Ish OC, KC; Saskatoon
Provinces administer justice daily and have a legitimate interest in the composition of their courts. Exploring structured provincial input need not undermine judicial independence.
The risk lies in framing this as a single-province grievance, rather than a nation-wide question of governance. Canada’s strength has long been its ability to absorb legitimate concerns through multilateral processes, rather than allowing them to harden into regional resentment.
This issue could actually serve as a pivot point for federal leadership to demonstrate how institutional evolution and national unity can reinforce one another. A multiprovincial exploration of options would show that Canada remains both resilient and adaptable as a whole.
Christine Matheson Nanoose Bay, B.C.
Northern reflection
Re “Ottawa shouldn’t prop up Canada’s fading diamond industry” (Editorial, Feb. 2): Loosen environmental standards to promote more investment in the Northwest Territories? What for? More raw resource stripping and shipping that, before long, leaves communities in the lurch when those resources run out or become obsolete?
Expectations should not be raised that resource extraction can be of lasting economic benefit. And we don’t need more expensive and environmentally deleterious giant mine fiascos.
The North does need more sustainable, value-added businesses or taxpayer-funded activities such as military bases and, yes, government jobs. If that is not possible, then we should consider a gradual depopulation of the North.
Ed Janicki Victoria
Business of politics
Re “Canadian companies should resist pressure to shun ICE” (Report on Business, Feb. 4): I don’t disagree that companies should, wherever possible, attempt to remove themselves from political debate. I do, however, disagree with the characterization of those protesting in Minnesota and other U.S. states.
Suggesting these protesters offer nothing to their community doesn’t just feel wrong, it’s insulting. I am sure that the family of the registered nurse who was shot by ICE agents would disagree. These comments are reminiscent to me of Hilary Clinton’s reference to “deplorables.”
Citizens have a right to protest. The contributor seems to prefer that ICE be allowed to do whatever it likes, as long as businesses are not affected.
How misguided.
David Harper Burlington, Ont.
Buried in here is a basic point: Corporations should stay out of politics and not get “sucked into taking sides on social and political issues.”
To be even-handed, however, the same advice should be given to pro-Trump corporations that shamelessly kowtow to the U.S. President and readily implement his often racist and discriminatory policies. Is this not also a form of political engagement by corporations, showing they have indeed taken sides on social and political issues?
Or would it be argued that these corporations are simply following orders?
Lise Hendlisz Toronto
Get in
Re “Japanese carmakers retain Canadian footprint as U.S. scales back Ontario operations” (Report on Business, Feb. 2): Canadians should take a closer look at who is actually building vehicles in our country. It’s Honda and Toyota – not the Big Three – that consistently build cars and SUVs here, providing stable jobs for Canadian workers and supporting our communities and local economies.
If we truly want to stand up for Canadian manufacturing, we should be buying from the companies that continue to invest in Canada. Let’s give our support to these automakers and their employees.
Then, when the next round of trade talk comes along, we can confidently tell Donald Trump and others south of the border: “We don’t need your cars.”
Douglas Farr London, Ont.
Re “With Chinese vehicles incoming, Ottawa faces thorny questions about how to spur EV sales” (Report on Business, Feb. 2): So the auto industry, backed by Doug Ford, wants to have Canada drop its electric vehicle mandate, and at the same time says there is little consumer demand for EVs. If there is little demand, why is the industry wetting itself about the possibility of Chinese EVs coming to Canada?
Last summer I wanted to buy an EV, but also wanted to avoid U.S.-made vehicles (and the idea of buying a Tesla, or anything associated with Elon Musk, is repellent to me). Which Canadian-made EV could I buy?
There are EVs made in South Korea, Japan, Germany and Sweden for sale in Canada. I decided on a South Korean EV, with which I am very satisfied.
Kenneth Roy Edmonton
Advance planning
Re “How Canadians are navigating the complicated, onerous and emotional task of planning for aging” (Feb. 2): Thank you for helping readers understand that as they reach their 50s and 60s, it is time to start planning for the next phase of life.
But speaking as an older adult in my mid-70s, is planning for our legal, financial and lifestyle security as we move into our 70s, 80s and 90s really any more onerous than planning for other life transitions, including postsecondary education, entering the workforce, finding a life partner, raising a family or locating a home and community to live in during our middle years?
Many seniors and retiree organizations are out there to share information, programs and services with older adults. What is needed is more attention from governments of all stripes to the need for a seniors strategy, and to the valuable role played by seniors centres and retiree groups, which sadly remain largely invisible.
Leslie Gaudette President, Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of BC; Langley, B.C.
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