Prime Minister Mark Carney boards a government plane on May 5.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Not needed
Re “Carney urges national unity, details next steps on trade and Trump” (May 3): Mark Carney announced that King Charles III will deliver the next Throne Speech.
Given Canada’s commitment to Truth and Reconciliation, what does it mean when Canada’s first Indigenous Governor-General is asked to step aside to allow that to happen?
How strong is Canada’s message of sovereignty when we rely on vestiges of our colonial past to assert our independence on the international stage?
Janelle Khan Vancouver
Legal legitimacy
Re “Ontario Attorney-General defends Ford’s comments on judicial independence” (May 2): It’s interesting to note that the majority of the “entitled,” not “tough enough on crime” judges who Doug Ford rails against are recruited from the ranks of prosecutors: Women and men who have made careers dedicated to fighting crime and holding offenders to account.
The problem is that once they become judges, they take their prosecutor’s hat off and become judge-like, deciding each case not from any preset perspective or political bias, but impartially on its own merits, applying time-tested fundamental legal principles.
Mr. Ford may think it’s the judges he doesn’t like, but what really seems to irk him are the basic tenets of our justice system.
Peter Wilkie Retired judge, Ontario Court of Justice Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.
Fair vote
Re “Vote for change” (Letters, May 1): Postmortem pundits are clamouring for an end to our first-past-the-post system. With one voice, they call for proportional representation. But ranked-choice voting would be the better alternative for Canada.
Proportional representation can incentivize small splinter or extremist parties that will never form government, but hope to hold the balance of power for larger parties that seek to do so. This would not be a recipe for stability.
Canadians tend to skew to the centre. We are accomplished at strategic voting, our crude and inefficient attempt to do what ranked-choice voting does so much better. It gives us the opportunity to choose our first choice, then identify our preferred fallback as a second choice.
Ranked-choice voting thus tends to skew to the centre, where most Canadians like to be. This leads to more stable, competent governments that enjoy broad voter support.
And we may safely risk voting for our first choice.
Elaine Bander Montreal
No games
Re “Pierre Poilievre to run for Alberta seat after losing Ontario riding” (May 3): I applaud the new Prime Minister for setting an example.
I predicted that Pierre Poilievre would choose a riding in Alberta, and that Mark Carney would expedite a by-election without games.
I voted Conservative, but I’m okay with Mr. Carney for now. He might play things differently and he has a shot at making the whole of Canada greater than the sum of its parts. In return, Mr. Poilievre might take it down a notch and help out.
I saw none of this in Justin Trudeau‘s DNA.
Mike McCrodan Qualicum Beach, B.C.
Unity strategy
Re “For the good of the country, Liberals and Conservatives must work together” (Opinion, May 2): Mark Carney is shy of a much-needed majority.
Elizabeth May has provided strong national leadership in the past. For the good of the country, she should be persuaded to join the Liberal Party.
Two or more members from the NDP could also be good prospects to join the Liberals. They would have more influence in a ruling party instead of sitting as a group without official party status.
Perhaps a few Bloc Québécois members would also consider a move to the Liberals?
Had the Conservatives won a minority, I would like to think similar moves would be considered to strength their hand.
This is the time for country instead of party, and our Prime Minister needs all the tools he can get to fight for our future.
Sanjiv Purba Mississauga
In the interests of national unity, and the challenges we currently face as a country with our American neighbour, perhaps Mark Carney should consider including members of the Official Opposition in his cabinet.
Electors, in a strong turnout, were evenly split in the popular vote between the Liberals and Conservatives. I found the party platforms, on most key issues, not that different.
We should come together as a country, and I see a wonderful opportunity to forge a national consensus by including some Conservative voices in decision-making roles.
Why not try a new model for real change?
Don Livingston Delta, B.C.
Re “Six charts that reveal the story of the 2025 election” (April 30): Canadians surely want unity in the face of southern threats, but a look at the election results map shows a stark divide. Eastern and Central Canada are a mixed bag, but the West voted solidly Conservative.
This is the part of our country that produces most of our natural resources for export – oil, natural gas, wheat, canola, potash and many others – and which generates a disproportionately large amount per capita of our GDP and tax revenue.
The Trudeau era of anti-resource legislation has left the West justifiably alienated against Ottawa. We must overcome this rift. But how?
We are at war – a trade war, but war nonetheless. We have an existential issue in resource extraction that can be as emotional as conscription was.
We need consensus. We should have a coalition government with a cabinet built of the best Liberal and Conservative ministers available. And we should have it now.
Donald Bell Ottawa
Re “Canada is not as divided as some claim – or as its electoral system makes it appear” (Opinion, May 1): I believe the regional diversity of Canada is part of the country‘s strength. But our political system should accommodate, not alienate, that diversity.
That we’ve just had a peaceful, legitimate election should be something worth celebrating and a unifying force, especially in today’s world.
Daryl Gray Chester, N.S.
Life lessons
Re “Spending shifts” (Letters, April 29): A letter-writer highlights one of the paradoxes of our time.
Supporting department stores often means supporting “fast fashion” made cheaply in overseas sweatshops, sold at a profit while workers live on subsistence wages and soon worn out and difficult to repair or recycle, ending up in landfills.
“Thrifting” means behaving like our grandmothers: gratefully accepting preused clothing and favouring what is made to last.
I appreciate the reminder that thrifting is not only a means to survive in this time of inflation, tariffs and unaffordability generally, but also a contribution toward saving the planet.
Carol Lewis London, 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