A security zone is enforced near the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas on Jan. 3, after U.S. forces captured Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro.FEDERICO PARRA/AFP/Getty Images
From one leader…
Re “Carney hails ouster of Maduro in Venezuela but calls for respect for international law” (Online, Jan. 3): So Pierre Poilievre thinks Donald Trump deserves congratulations for committing the illegal act of invading a country. So I guess he also thinks Vladimir Putin’s actions are okay?
Is he not fearful of what could happen next? Today, Venezuela. Tomorrow, Colombia, Cuba, maybe Greenland or Canada. Mr. Poilievre’s words will likely just encourage Mr. Trump.
Just when I think nothing worse can come out of his mouth, Mr. Poilievre proves me wrong. Does he ever pause for reflection before speaking?
Jane McCall Delta, B.C.
Because of Pierre Poilievre’s fawning and genuflecting rhetoric, I am ashamed to be Canadian. Hopefully Mark Carney will respond in a reasoned and articulate way, cancelling the ramblings from the Leader of the Opposition.
I find Mr. Poilievre’s grandstanding unacceptable in trying to gain political advantage at the expense of our nation’s unity, and glorifying a questionable incursion into a sovereign country’s territory.
John Nightingale Ottawa
…to another
Re “Canada, allies at Paris summit should decry Trump flouting of international law, experts say” (Jan. 5): Two notorious presidents dominated the weekend news.
Both are infamous for having flouted their countries’ constitutions. Both tried their damnedest, with differing degrees of success, to violently hold onto office after they’d lost elections. Both are friendly with Vladimir Putin and other dictators.
One of them has also made a habit of authorizing extrajudicial killings in international waters, and has launched repeated violent attacks on other sovereign nations. One of them has launched economic warfare against all its allies, including Canada. One of them has directly and repeatedly proclaimed his intent to annex Canada.
Mark Carney’s public statement on the events in Venezuela offered full condemnation of Nicolas Maduro. But the statement made only the most oblique, polite, implied criticism of Donald Trump, who continues to threaten Canada’s independent existence.
Which word best describes Mr. Carney’s statement: Realpolitik, diplomacy – or cowardice?
Bart Hawkins Kreps Bowmanville, Ont.
Mark Carney’s comments leave much to be desired.
To me, the criminal nature of Nicolas Maduro’s regime is not in question. A measured international response, including nations with interests in the future of Venezuela, would have been a legitimate action. A U.S. response motivated by goodwill would be commendable, if not legitimate.
The motivation for intervention appears to have nothing to do with the well-being of Venezuelans, but rather the goals of the Trump administration. It diverts domestic attention away from issues such as inflation and the Epstein files. Greenland and Canada may regret the Prime Minister’s comments if it is deemed that, upon occasion, international law may be ignored.
Is this response an attempt to mollify Donald Trump? If so, it is unlikely to have any long-term effect on Canada’s trade negotiations, but it will likely effect our stature as a serious nation with a moral compass.
Ted Wiggans York County, N.B.
Imagine if Donald Trump posted the following on social media: “Fentanyl continues to pour across our porous border with Canada. This scourge continues to kill millions of innocent Americans, who are just trying to kill the pain of living in this great country.
“We tried punitive tariffs on the whole country to get them to stem the flow and it hasn’t worked. While I can’t say that Mark Carney, who I like very much, is a narcoterrorist like President Maduro, we have to escalate.
“I don’t think we could extract him and his wife, but I know he is a big hockey fan. So I have ordered the arrests of Sidney Crosby and Nathan MacKinnon on visa violations until the flow of fentanyl stops, or the United States wins Olympic gold in hockey.”
Ridiculous? Absolutely. But U.S. actions in Venezuela should make all Canadians more anxious about their futures.
Bryan McConachy West Vancouver
Lessons for Canada after Donald Trump’s moves in Venezuela: Build another pipeline, as Venezuelan heavy crude is likely coming to displace Alberta’s U.S. market, and be careful who we let invest in Canadian critical minerals.
The Trump doctrine seems to be: If a U.S. company develops a resource, even in a foreign country, the U.S. owns it and can invade to get it.
Tom MacDonald Ottawa
Not so fast
Re “High-speed rail is hardly the highest priority for Canada” (Jan. 2): Since the contributor wants us to build more transit within cities, how does he propose that people get between cities?
If we need to buy a car to get from Montreal to Toronto, are we likely to ride transit when we arrive? Cars are huge sunk costs in our lives; once our capital is tied up in them, we will use them.
Most people will likely still drive. But if fast, frequent intercity rail between many of our big cities allows car-less people like me to use low-carbon modes of travel, it would be transformational for our individual – and collective – lives.
Gregory Butler Ottawa
Yes, congestion, housing affordability and “nation-building” should be national priorities. But high-speed rail can be a great way to tackle them.
It would take millions of cars off roads, between but also in cities. Tracks can be shared with commuter trains, opening cheaper land for development. And while high-speed rail is expensive to build, it should not need long-term subsidies.
It would also encourage Canadians to visit their neighbours instead of flying south. Besides Toronto-Montreal and Calgary-Edmonton, we should be looking now at Calgary-Vancouver and perhaps Montreal-Halifax.
As one of the unsuccessful bidders to be Alto’s “co-developer,” we found many ways to deliver more for less. But Alto has the rights to use every element of our plan and those of the other unsuccessful team.
I look forward to learning what they have incorporated. As a Canadian who wants this to happen, I hope they have some even better ideas.
Michael Schabas Founder, Intercity Rail Developers consortium; Toronto
This position, prone to inaction, seems to say: “Yes, high-speed rail is good and necessary, but look at all those other priorities.”
A wealthy country like Canada can proceed with several priorities at once. High-speed rail, then, is a high priority. A civilized, modern country needs effective public transit, especially at a time when one of our national goals is to cut back our carbon footprint.
Let’s just get on with it and not worry about the best of all possible worlds, which is almost impossible to measure anyway. I worry that caution will promote more heel-dragging on modernizing transit.
Anthony Griffiths Vancouver
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