Alberta Premier Danielle Smith holds a news conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in October.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
No deal
Re “U.S. peace plan would leave Ukraine vulnerable to attack, says EU defence commissioner” (Nov. 24): The Trump so-called peace deal for Ukraine is, to use a biblical phrase, a “peace that surpasses all understanding.”
It would require Ukraine to cede massive swaths of territory, limit its future capability to defend itself against further Russian aggression, abandon its ambitions for NATO membership and make many more concessions. It is not a peace deal, but a call for surrender.
Donald Trump is trying to make this into an “offer you can’t refuse” by blackmailing Ukraine over weapons supply and other assistance. Volodymyr Zelensky needs all our support to strive for a lasting and honourable peace – and to reject this fraudulent one.
Tom MacDonald Ottawa
Show me the money
Re “Carney’s values-free foreign policy is on display in the UAE” (Opinion, Nov. 22): Respectfully, the vast majority of our trade is with the United States despite its human rights violations at home and on the high seas.
We are facing an unprecedented economic crisis inflicted upon us by the U.S. itself. Let the Prime Minister address our economic priorities.
Farouk Verjee North Vancouver
Inclusive of
Re “No more feminist foreign policy, Carney says” (Nov. 24): I write to express my disappointment in the government for this policy change. A feminist foreign policy is the right one, and it can and should be about substance.
There are many points to give, but one stands out above the rest: democratic consultation. It should be an absolute necessity that women receive a democratically proportional say in foreign policy decision-making.
To be concrete, the Feminist Foreign Policy Working Group at Amnesty International should be counted on to help shape Canada’s foreign policy to better represent the rights of women around the world to the Canadian government. I believe women need public policy voices to a greater extent than any other group because of gender-based inequality around the world systematically silencing them.
The mistake of ending Canada’s feminist foreign policy, rather than improving it from one about Trudeau-era labels to one about substance, represents a saddening loss for this country.
Kyle Leary Caledon, Ont.
Back to life
Re “Sweden offers Canada a chance to revive its near-dead defence aerospace industry” (Report on Business, Nov. 22): I think we are at an inflection point where the decision we make now will reverberate for many years to come.
We have the opportunity to be courageous, in contrast to 1959 when we cowardly cancelled the Avro Arrow. This is no time for half-measures: We should cancel the entire F-35 order and buy the Gripen instead.
Yes, Donald Trump would be mad. Yes, we would suffer in the short term. But future generations would thank us for being brave in the face of extreme adversity.
Adam Plackett Toronto
If the key criteria is which aircraft would perform better in a hot war between NATO and Russia, then the F-35 wins out. Let’s hope we never find ourselves in that situation.
In the meantime, the Royal Canadian Air Force has a responsibility to both support NATO in Europe and defend the homeland. It could be argued that homeland defence is now the top priority, given increased activity by Russia and China in the Arctic. Seen through this lens, the Gripen would be the better aircraft.
In a world where claims to sovereignty are no longer assured by respect for international law, Canada should patrol its northern territory as never before – or risk losing it.
Kevin Bishop Saanich B.C.
I would be much happier with Sweden than the United States as an aerospace partner.
Royal Canadian Air Force generals might like their stealth toys, but weighing that against a reliable partner, an aircraft made for our weather, domestic jobs and rebuilding a high-tech industry, the Swedish jet sounds like the right move.
If Donald Trump hiccups, it would just be another bump we have to get over.
Shelagh Barrington Toronto
Borderline decision
Re “Alberta pushes back on B.C.’s opposition to proposed pipeline” (Nov. 22): I believe British Columbia is right to resist pressure from Alberta to build a pipeline to the North Coast, a vital and pristine ecosystem.
Alberta and its oil companies would get most of the benefit from this project and bear little of the risk. B.C., on the other hand, would take on almost all the risk and only a small amount of financial gain.
Alberta received the Trans Mountain pipeline at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. This was also despite vigorous opposition from B.C.
David Eby has offered to increase the flow of oil through Trans Mountain, and BC Hydro would add additional power to this project. This should be seen by Danielle Smith as a generous compromise.
That she seems to want more feels like just plain greed. As an Albertan, I’m ashamed of Ms. Smith’s lack of respect for the people of B.C.
Garnet Ostercamp Edmonton
Let us imagine the reaction if British Columbia proposed a secret solar or wind farm project of national interest in, say, Canmore, Alta., that would send electricity back to B.C.
The howls of protest would be heard far and wide from Lethbridge through Edmonton to Fort McMurray. No project that impacts the territory of another province should ever be considered in isolation of that province’s interests.
While it can be argued that a pipeline from Alberta to a northern B.C. port is of national interest, all affected parties should be at the table from the outset and be full participants in talks. The trampling of one province’s interests by another does not contribute to national unity.
Jan Conradi Kelowna, B.C.
Safety first
Re “Peanut allergies are plummeting in children, and you can thank science” (Nov. 18): As the national advocacy organization for Canadians living with food allergy, we are pleased to see you raise the benefits of early introduction of allergens to children as part of the overall importance of following the science on prevention of food allergy. Such an evidence-based approach should also extend to the more than three million Canadians, including 600,000 children, presently living with potentially life-threatening food allergy.
These Canadians are taught early the necessity of individual responsibility in managing their condition, but there remain environments where reasonable accommodations are necessary to stay safe. For kids, this means schools and daycare should continue to take steps to reduce the risk of allergic reactions.
The best approach is one that works both to help reduce the prevalence of food allergy and help people currently living with the condition stay safe.
Jennifer Gerdts Executive director, Food Allergy Canada; 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