Canadian and American flags fly near the Ambassador Bridge at the Canada-U.S. border crossing in Windsor, Ont.Rob Gurdebeke/The Canadian Press
Teamwork makes …
Re “Opposition in the House is not obstruction” (Editorial, Feb. 21): This suggests a shift in vocabulary between the opposition and governing party from “obstruction” to “co-operation,” or even “compromise.” May I suggest that this shift be even more dramatic toward “coherence” or even “confluence.”
U.S. trade relations are closer to economic warfare than a dispute. One has only to look at Cuba to see how devastating a trade war can be.
We should be looking at Canadian governance through a wartime lens and create collective agreement and common support for the economic transformation we need – and the sacrifices required.
Eaton Lattman Toronto
The job of smaller parties should not be to oppose, it should be to propose. The job isn’t to stop the governing party from doing something, it is to get them to do better.
The first step is to stop treating the governing party as unpatriotic usurpers who want to weaken or destroy our country. Most politicians want to make their country a better place to live and help others live better lives. Minority parties should assume the governing party is trying to solve problems they perceive.
Next, try to better understand those problems and decide if they should be solved. They may want to identify alternative problems and advance them as more important. The final step is to find better solutions, present them and explain why they are better.
No legislation is perfect. When government proposes legislation, other parties should propose improvements.
That is the best kind of compromise.
Dave Parnas Ottawa
In defence
Re “Canada’s defence industrial policy would rather Buy Canadian than Buy the Best” (Opinion, Feb. 21): The new policy is a step in the right direction to support Canadian companies in supplying the best equipment that also happens to be Canadian.
A significant number of Canadian companies have good products to sell now or are at various stages of development. I see these technologies every day, they are impressive. It is also hard to sell to another country’s military if our own military has not itself been a customer.
Seven countries are mentioned that import most of their defence equipment, with at least two importing Canadian equipment. I have worked in five of them, and I can assure readers that each one strives to turn their purchases into economic and defence preparedness projects. They are asking, “How can you help us develop in-country capabilities?” and providing their versions of Canada’s Industrial and Technological Benefits policy.
The world has changed. Canada and our allies are changing with it.
Tim Runge Constructive Edge; Guelph, Ont.
Decades have proven to me that Canadian defence companies do not understand the meaning of on time, on budget and meeting specifications.
If we want to equip our forces quickly with gear that actually works, it is evidently wrong to give the work to companies merely because they are Canadian. Is an inability to deliver not a factor?
The military should also stop changing specifications once contracts are awarded, but that is a different problem.
Ritchie Leslie Vernon, B.C.
Spending on military equipment is one of the few tools for Canada to rebuild high-value industrial capacity and safeguard our supply.
There are few trusted suppliers at a time when strategic autonomy matters. In times of crisis, we cannot assume access to products, parts and intellectual property.
Meanwhile, military capability is shifting rapidly toward artificial-intelligence-enabled and unmanned systems. We should aspire to be technology leaders and design, develop and own key technologies both we and our allies require.
Canada should not just build products designed elsewhere. Investing more in defence should mean more than spending money abroad.
It should mean building Canadian industry to deliver meaningful capability and ensure our military has the best technology available.
Julian Kenney Mississauga
Facing fascism
Re “What do you do when you’re living next door to a fascist state?” (Opinion, Feb. 21): I have never lived before under the threat of occupation, annexation or military invasion. I have no experience of being a citizen living in a vassal state and I do not want it.
Canada should commit to the five guiding principles shared here. We should learn from the experience of others who have also lived next to fascist states and survived.
Sarah Anson-Cartwright Ottawa
There is no question that developments under Donald Trump are highly concerning and must lead to changes in how Canada deals with the United States. But has “fascism” taken a firm hold?
What is the U.S government? One frequent mistake is to reduce it to the President. Yet the U.S. federal system is highly fragmented and only Congress can authorize funds for the executive to act.
Any reasonable analysis of the political landscape should lead to the conclusion that the Democrats will win a significant majority in the House after November midterm elections. Yet it is predicted here that since Americans have, en masse, already submitted to fascism, there can only be one outcome: more fascism.
I will make a different prediction: Mr. Trump’s misrule and abuse of executive authority is leading to significant backlash, which will bring a renewal of American Republican values.
Mark Wolfgram Ottawa
League of our own
Re “Sport is Canadian. It’s time to start acting like it” (Opinion, Feb. 21): If sports organizations really want to do their part for this country, perhaps they could set up their own top-tier Canadian leagues, like every other serious country, instead of remaining wholly integrated with U.S. ones as if the border never existed.
David Arthur Cambridge, Ont.
Lines crossed
Re “The blurring line between journalism and activism is being used as a cudgel” (Opinion, Feb. 21): Unfortunately, the current realpolitik for journalists is that if someone is embedded with activists, the police may see them as an activist and arrest them. That’s just a risk one runs.
However, there is constitutionally protected freedom of the press in Canada. So should the RCMP and other agencies have the right to arrest credentialed journalists if they aren’t obstructing or otherwise interfering with police?
I imagine they considered photojournalist Amber Bracken’s presence at the Wet’suwet’en protest to be a nuisance, but should her choice to remain with Indigenous activists constitute grounds for arrest and being held for four days?
The RCMP’s political masters and the courts should make it clear that such conduct by officers is not acceptable. Journalists should be freed of the fear that doing their jobs responsibly will land them in jail.
Bill Doskoch Retired journalist, 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