Justin Trudeau embraces Mark Carney after Mr. Carney was announced as the winner of the Liberal Party leadership in March, 2025, in Ottawa.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Trade winds
Re “Real talk” (Letters, March 18): A letter-writer states that “no amount of trade with other middle powers can come close to replacing what we had with the United States” and, instead of diversifying our trade partners, Canada should “repair trade fences with our most important financial partner.”
As far as I understand it, nobody is suggesting we stop trading with the U.S. in favour of expanding to other countries, only that we continue to trade under our own terms, and not theirs. How is this an unreasonable plan?
Frank Foulkes Toronto
I can only shake my head when people get themselves in a tizzy because Mark Carney’s recent foreign trips haven’t resulted in instant trade “deals” that immediately benefit the Canadian economy and Canadian workers.
It’s simplistic to think two leaders can chat for a few minutes, then take up sharpies to sign a comprehensive trade agreement they’ve scribbled on the back of a napkin. The world is a complex place and instant solutions to any problem are as rare as chickens with lips.
It wasn’t all that long ago, before Donald Trump, when international “deals” were referred to as “agreements” or “treaties,” because these documents tend to be the product of considerable research, discussions and negotiations. The process can take months, if not years, to come to fruition.
The notion there’s always a “deal” to be made as quickly as a text message can be sent is unrealistic and problematic.
Ken Cuthbertson Kingston
Who’s in charge?
Re “Other side” (Letters, March 17): It was with surprise and sadness to read a letter-writer who states, “I know which party I voted for, but I must look up who my MP is.”
This is a huge contributor to the political morass south of the border. I have not seen this as widespread in Canada. Perhaps I’m just living in the world as I’d like it to be.
I do not believe political parties represent the people, only a party’s political interests. MPs and other local elected officials supposedly represent the people. But if I am not paying attention to the individual best representing me, my voice is lost.
It’s our responsibility to elect governments that represent our interests. Beware the results of blind party voting, as evidenced by history.
Craig Weindling Merville, B.C.
“I think, in most instances, people vote for a certain party in their riding, whoever the candidate may be.”
I find this an interesting slippery slope toward a Parliament full of idiots who constituents know nothing about, making caucus irrelevant. Is this what is being suggested? We should expect more of ourselves as an electorate, or we get who we vote for.
I am happy to observe that most of Canada seems to desire people who want to be part of a positive, constructive, middle-power future for Canada. They support the floor crossings and hope for a Carney majority.
Judge them all in the next election.
Harry Jennings Williams Lake, B.C.
Re “Floor-crossings are part of a Canadian tradition – and fair play in our politics” (March 16): One more thought: If the opposition keeps bleating about floor crossing being undemocratic and illegitimate, perhaps Mark Carney will be provoked into calling a snap election to win a “real” majority to assure stable government for the next four years.
Fingers crossed.
Joyce Rowlands Toronto
Again?
Re “Ottawa appeals Emergencies Act case to the Supreme Court” (March 18): I am profoundly disappointed to see Mark Carney’s government attempt to defend the actions of his predecessor. The decision to do so feels like an affront to what his government purports to represent.
From a fiscal standpoint, appealing a decision sustained by two lower courts, with scant possibility of it being overturned by the Supreme Court, strikes me as a colossal waste of taxpayer money and running counter to the narrative of this government as sound fiscal managers.
It would seem Mr. Carney has now betrayed this perception by inexplicably linking himself with the legacy of Justin Trudeau, rather than moving away from it as a majority of Canadians would prefer.
Angelo Mele Newmarket, Ont.
Two consistent decisions already provide a high degree of clarity.
An appeal would occupy valuable time in the Supreme Court and cost millions of dollars of taxpayer money. It would unnecessarily inflame divisive feelings within Canada over a matter that has, after four years, largely become settled in the public mind.
Our country does not need the distraction of rearguing this matter, especially when Canadians should be focused on the existential issues confronting the entire population.
Edward Hill Perth, Ont.
Don’t bank on it
Re “Does Ottawa think simply creating a new financial crime agency solves everything?” (Report on Business, March 17): Being a retired RCMP officer who spent most of my career in financial crime investigations, I can categorically say that retired commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli and former deputy commissioner Peter German are huge advocates for Canada’s economic integrity. Their straight talk is 100 per cent on the money.
Budget cuts from more than a decade ago and associated federal policing reorganization were a blow to the RCMP’s financial crime program. Rebuilding capacity lost during that era would take time, fenced funding and leadership.
Reinventing the wheel – and allowing abdication by law enforcement agencies – by creating a new financial crime agency with a paltry staff of 150 would have dubious results. One step forward and two steps back.
Denis Desnoyers Superintendent (retired), Ottawa
Ready or not
Re “A U.S. invasion of Canada is still far-fetched. Canadians are preparing anyway” (March 18): I have always had an overstocked pantry and freezer, which used to be an ongoing source of amusement for my husband and son, who teased that I was prepping for Armageddon.
But when we suddenly couldn’t get groceries for weeks during the pandemic, I had plenty on hand to get us through, including enough paper and disinfecting products to share with my son and daughter-in-law. They stopped laughing at me.
Now, my preparations are even more intentional and pro-active. I am preparing a serious vegetable garden in case of food insecurity. And although I am vehemently opposed to guns for the general population, I’m now seriously considering shooting lessons to be prepared.
If push comes to shove, I will do what I can to defend Canada’s sovereignty and not go down without a fight. As my husband can tell them, my resolve is nothing to laugh at.
Robin Siegerman Guelph, 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