China is Canada’s second-largest trading partner after the U.S. It is also the second-largest destination for B.C. exports.DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press
Deterrence theory
Re “As allies abandon our namesake land mine ban, Canada must defend it” (Opinion, June 23): Canada should indeed make clear that we expect Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland to stay within the Ottawa Convention banning land mines. We should not keep our troops in Latvia if that country reneges on its commitment. Opposing Russian aggression is important, but we must not abandon our own values in doing so.
Tom MacDonald Ottawa
Urging Canada to dissuade NATO allies who have experienced brutal occupation from using land mines at their border with Russia ignores their geopolitical reality. Amanda Ghahremani idealistically argues that “it is also short-sighted to focus solely on threats to territorial security at the expense of the long-lasting human and environmental toll.” However, as the war against Ukraine shows, failing to prevent an invasion has tremendously more harmful consequences. If land mines can help deter a Russian attack, it is a cost well worth paying.
Andres Kasekamp PhD, Elmar Tampõld Chair of Estonian Studies and professor of history, Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto
Life and death
Re “My death doula training changed my thinking” (First Person, June 23): I want to thank Alessandra Sagredo for this wise and beautifully written essay. It reminds me of advice I was given years ago when I was agonizing about how to support a friend with a terminal diagnosis, and another friend said, “Just show up.” Ms. Sagredo has given us a compassionate template for both life and death.
D. J. Baptist Toronto
Economic necessity
Re “We have to do business with China – get over it” (Opinion, June 20): This opinion piece supports building B.C.’s new ferries in a Chinese shipyard but does not address the need to invest in Canada’s shipyards. China now builds over half the world’s ships. Based on price, no Canadian shipyard could win the B.C. ferry contract. Canada’s shipbuilding costs are higher due to much lower volume and higher-paid skilled trades. But Canada must build its own warships and submarines. We do not want China building these ships. This ferry contract could support Canada’s shipbuilding industry so we can build these warships for ourselves. An award to China invests in their shipbuilding capability at the expense of our own and is not in Canada’s best interests.
Julian Kenney Mississauga, Ont.
Canada does business with most countries in the world, and there is no question that our major trading partners, without exception, have been guilty of war crimes, human-rights violations or other reprehensible behaviour. So the only question is where we draw the line or, indeed, whether we have a line at all. To what extent do our economic needs and interests trump principle?
William Love Burlington, Ont.
Charter rights vs. national interests
Re “Strong Borders Act could clash with Charter: officials” (June 20): Perhaps our Charter, not a holy tablet from on high but a very human collection of directional words, like all constitutions and charters, needs some redrafting or clauses of remission to tone down it’s individualistic fervour in times of collective national emergency? Perhaps the micro-finessing of individual rights so prominent in our Charter should be reassessed and “recessed” on occasion to allow larger national efforts and interests, such as economic and national survival, to inform Canada’s direction.
Our Charter rights exist, as many Canadians would agree, inside a shell of idealistic, touchy-feely parameters that are triggered by a single word or an alleged insulting action – minor occurrences most of the world lives with daily. And the nation holding that shell is being hammered by Donald Trump and a more aggressive, uncaring, survivalist global dynamic.
Some Charter leeway is required – whether on borders, security or immigration, etc. – in order for our government to protect our interests, our borders and our sovereignty. Even idealism requires a pragmatic, existential reset on occasion.
W.E. Hildreth Picton, Ont.
Don’t poke the separatists
Re “Stuck between a rock and a separatist place” (Opinion, June 21): Robyn Urback writes: “The Alberta riding of Battle River-Crowfoot is roughly 3,000 kilometres away physically, and a good few light-years away culturally, from the Ontario riding of Carleton.” A further demeaning comparison between education levels of the two constituencies does nothing to discourage separatist talk in Alberta. To be clear, the majority of Albertans (even those poor sods without a university education!) do not support separation from Canada. But this type of snobbery only entices Albertans to move closer to that ridiculous edge.
Bill Stinson St. Albert, Alta.
Not that kind of tax reform
Re “We need radical tax reform” (Opinion, June 21): There is so much truth and so much excellent logic in the premise of this opinion. “The crisis is growth” – yes! “The crisis is urgent” – yes! But the solution is as wrong-headed as Carney’s “build, build, build” or Trump’s “drill, baby, drill.”
Andrew Coyne tells us that we need growth (i.e., economic growth) so we can “generate rising living standards,” and we can only do that by making corporations more profitable. This premise, that we need even greater living standards, would be laughable if it wasn’t so misguided (see climate change).
Yes, we need radical tax reform to accomplish an equitable level of living standards, but accomplished by an equitable distribution of wealth.
“Reform the tax system” – yes! Make it contribute toward the sharing of our communities’ wealth. If Canada’s wealth was equitably distributed, we would still have one of the highest living standards ever. Let’s get after that – a big thing that needs doing fast.
Alan Ball New Westminster, B.C.
So much hot air
Re “Carney has made carbon capture a trade-off for new pipelines. Here’s how it could finally get built” (Report on Business, June 21): For years carbon capture and storage has been touted by politicians and the oil industry as the answer for reducing emissions from the Alberta oil sands. Now the truth is coming out. Carbon capture and storage is not economically viable without massive government support for building the necessary infrastructure as well as ongoing operating costs. As an economist, Mark Carney must realize that a business model that can’t be successful without ongoing government subsidy is not a good business model.
What if those billions of dollars were put into developing renewable energy sources, battery storage, pumped water storage, compressed air storage, green hydrogen, geothermal, smart electrical grids, interprovincial electrical tie-ins, etc? With adequate support for research by industry and our universities, what new sources of energy might be discovered?
As we watch our planet warm and literally burn before our eyes in real time, when will we realize we have to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? Carbon capture and storage is not the answer.
Bill Sears Camrose, Alta.
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