Leader of the Conservative Party Pierre Poilievre speaks in the foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill on Dec. 11.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
Slow and steady
Re “U.S.-U.K. trade deal hits stumbling block” (Dec. 15): The British experience, as well as those of other countries, surely must be informing Mark Carney’s “hands-off“ approach to trade negotiations.
Thanks to the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, he has some elbow room. Mr. Carney, then, is right to let things play out and not rush into a bad trade deal.
I believe the cracks in Donald Trump’s strategies, including trade, are starting to manifest themselves.
Michael Di Paolo Toronto
Breathing room
Re “Left and right” (Letters, Dec. 17): If Pierre Poilievre is such a good leader, why can he not put his pride and partisan politics aside and start collaborating with the smartest guy in the room?
I am tired of reading that Mark Carney is stealing Conservative ideas. If it is a good idea and makes sense for Canada, why should it not be used?
I am so sick of partisan politics and lifelong politicians. That is why as a lifelong Conservative, I voted to support Mr. Carney. I am sure this is true for a number of Liberal votes in the last election.
All politicians, federal, provincial and municipal, should come together, check their political leanings at the door and work together for the good of the country and all Canadians.
That is what a good leader would do.
Brian Lowe Peterborough, Ont.
The idea that might be most attractive to current Conservative MPs who might consider joining the Liberals is a simple one: Create a Liberal majority and they mitigate the threat of an early election.
Potential floor-crossers like Michael Ma would have time to attend to their constituency finances and mend fences with voters. These opportunities could be especially attractive to MPs, again like Mr. Ma, who won their seats with thin margins.
Martin Birt Uxbridge, Ont.
Hail to…
Re “Requiring lawyers to swear oath to the King is unconstitutional, Alberta’s top court rules” (Dec. 17): I am baffled.
Our Constitution declares that the King is Canada’s head of state, so how can swearing an oath be unconstitutional? The Constitution also confirms that Canada is a secular country, so how can swearing an oath compromise anyone’s faith?
I trust this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court and that clearer heads there will prevail.
Nancy Marley-Clarke Cochrane, Alta.
Isn’t this getting a little ridiculous? And for a lawyer, whose prime duty is allegiance to the country’s laws?
Countries around the world (bar one, now, it seems) require citizens to swear allegiance to it in one form or another, whether to a flag, monarch or other symbol of the state. If we don’t require citizens to swear such allegiance, can we really call Canada a country any more?
Or is Canada just a rag tag group of people with no allegiance to anything?
Roger Love Saanich, B.C.
Not easy bein’ green
Re “Because it’s not 2015: Why Carney’s pro-oil turn isn’t turning off Canadians” (Report on Business, Dec. 16): Some credit should also be given to the Conservatives’ demonization of the ill-fated carbon tax.
In comparing China and Canada’s shares of global emissions, it would also be useful to note that Canada’s per capita emissions are almost twice those of China’s. Pound for pound, we should be known as one of the world’s top carbon polluters.
We also signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, which commits signatories to helping keep global warming below 2 C. We’ll find it hard to do our share when we keep shipping out more and more oil to be burned.
Bill Doskoch Edmonton
Re “What if pursuing carbon-free electricity does more harm than good?” (Report on Business, Dec. 15): I think we’re in trouble if this forms the basis of energy policy.
First, where is the concept of reduction of demand through efficiency, and not using energy at all?
Second, nuclear power should not be seen as “clean” or carbon-free though, at times, the immediate outputs aren’t so laden with carbon. But the toxic wastes of the fuel cycle, including relative millennia for storage, means it can be laden with long-term negatives. (There’s also a large amount of concrete and other energy-intensive materials used in nuclear plants.)
Third, natural gas should also not be seen as a “clean” fuel, though it is better in some ways. If we were able to harvest all that methane beginning to bubble up from the permafrost, then it might be more helpful.
The last few percentage points being quite hard and costly to stop usage is not without merit.
Hamish Wilson Toronto
Grounded
Re “Canada’s air passenger protection system is stuck on the tarmac” (Editorial, Dec. 11): Earlier this year, my wife and I had our flight home from Amsterdam cancelled.
When I inquired at the KLM desk (a whole other positive experience in itself), I was told the airline would pay for an extra night at our hotel and a couple of meals.
When we got home, I sent in the receipts. In reply, the airline said that under European Union regulations, we were each entitled to €600 in compensation. Such a pleasant surprise, and basically hassle-free from the beginning.
That’s the way to do it.
Nigel Brachi Edmonton
The so-called passenger bill of rights for Canadian air travellers seems like anything but.
Airlines can basically avoid consequences for terrible service, despite government assurances it would provide protection to the travelling public. We easily could have adopted the same protections as the European Union, but instead the government bowed to objections by airlines.
Earlier this year, Porter Airlines cancelled a flight to Toronto at the last minute, so we missed our connection to Miami. This caused us to be charged for a hotel room we had booked, but couldn’t use.
It seems that rules to protect passengers do not require airlines to reimburse for such losses, even though they occurred as a direct result of the airline’s actions. Pathetic.
John Arbuckle Ottawa
Fast track
Re “First segment of high-speed rail plan will link Montreal and Ottawa” (Dec. 12): This feels like nothing more than a Liberal vanity project, one they have been touting for many years.
The project is unlikely to ever pay for itself. It will likely suck up capital in competition with other wealth-creating major projects, while also raising interest rates and costs all around.
It is unlikely fares will be set high enough to cover operating costs. It will likely become a long-term drain on public finances.
The billions of dollars proposed here would be much better spent building roads to isolated First Nations reserves and resource projects.
William Lundy Ottawa
This brings to mind the quip of former cabinet minister Jean Marchand, who famously said “the best thing about Ottawa is the train to Montreal.”
Ron Freedman 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