Liberal leader Mark Carney responds to a question during a campaign stop on April 4 in Montreal.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Hats off
Re “Stellantis pauses Windsor and Mexico auto production, lays off U.S. workers” (Report on Business, April 4): That was quick. I wonder if laid-off auto workers who voted for Donald Trump are still sporting their “Make America Great Again” hats.
Mike Firth Toronto
Either-or
Re “Politicians should be preparing Canadians to face hard times, not showering us with gifts” (March 29): Canadians are generally expected to vote for whomever we imagine is best suited to take on Donald Trump and his economic and political threats. But on what evidence and logical calculation can we possibly make such a decision, especially when we are so distracted by personal circumstances?
My impression is that one of the most fundamental motives of any living being is the need to feel safe. So which leader is most likely to help us feel secure in our country despite our struggles and uncertainties?
Is it the international banker Mark Carney, who has successfully managed crises already and seems to project a world-wise sense of calm and control? Or the career politician Pierre Poilievre who, according to Danielle Smith, is “very much in sync” with the Trump regime?
Which one can unify the country in its existential need to feel safe? Will it be hard to decide?
Frank Olenski Brantford, Ont.
History repeating?
Re “This election is shaping up as a battle for the country’s soul” (Opinion, March 29): In comparing the 1984 and 1988 election battles between John Turner and Brian Mulroney, I believe Mr. Turner was right: Free trade has left Canada vulnerable to U.S. economic dominance. The difference today is that the threat is no longer distant; it is immediate.
Populism thrives on telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Mr. Turner, like Mark Carney today, had the foresight to recognize the long-term consequences of short-sighted decisions.
Ignoring Mr. Carney and other big-picture thinkers would be a dangerous mistake.
Katherine Sheridan Thornhill, Ont.
An even earlier election may still provide a closer likeness to the present day.
In 1968, a weak Liberal prime minister – who had failed ever to win a majority, whose governments went from crisis to crisis as ministers left owing to rifts within cabinet or party scandals, who had himself been shaken from his lapels by an angry U.S. president and who was not yet seen as the paragon he is today – resigned and gave way to an outsider recently recruited to the Liberal cause.
Strangely that neophyte went on to win, defeating Robert Stanfield who never became prime minister, though he was widely respected and admired.
The past does not predict the future. Some likenesses are better than others, but don’t bet the farm on any of them.
Eric Bergbusch Ottawa
If we are to extrapolate from history, another lesson to be drawn is that whenever Canada’s engagement with the United States becomes the central focus of a campaign, the electorate has a propensity to return the incumbent party to power.
In 1891, Wilfrid Laurier was the first to campaign on reciprocity with the U.S., but Canadians ultimately went with the steady hand of John A. Macdonald and his National Policy to continue steering Canada in its development against that country.
And yet decades later, the electorate in 1988 were convinced to hand Brian Mulroney another majority on the very U.S. relationship that Laurier had once advocated for.
The compelling feature of both was Canadian antipathy toward switching out a sitting government when navigating the U.S. relationship. This may help to explain why Mark Carney’s Liberals are eager to make this the ballot question once again.
Angelo Mele Newmarket, Ont.
Man down
Re “ ‘Our beautiful, treasured 51st state to be.’ An imaginary conversation with real numbers” (Opinion, March 29): It was interesting to see “alderman” emerge as a term that Donald Trump might favour as a putdown of a Canadian leader in this satirical commentary on “the question of Canada.”
I was reminded of the history of efforts in Calgary to change “alderman” to “councillor.” The first motion to change was presented in 1977, but not until 2010 was one finally approved, in a 9-6 vote, with the changeover to taking effect fully in 2013. Such a resilient label; patriarchy almost triumphed again.
Regrettably, toxic aspects of patriarchy still remain a prominent feature of life in North America.
Mary Valentich Calgary
Work from home
Re “World-renowned Canadian heart surgeon turns down job in U.S. over political tension” (March 29): To Dr. Marc Ruel: Thanks for staying.
Caroline Lee Deep River, Ont.
Having recently retired from a long career of operating room nursing, I was delighted to read that Dr. Marc Ruel has opted to remain practicing in Canada.
I understand the allure of prestigious positions south of the border, and I would have respected his decision to take one. I heartily applaud his decision to remain.
Thanks to Dr. Ruel.
Patricia Ley Cobourg, Ont.
The 800,000-plus Canadians who work in the United States represent a loss to this country of many dynamic, talented and entrepreneurial individuals. It shouldn’t take a tariff war to convince some of them to stay home.
Eric Pugash MD, Vancouver
For art’s sake
Re “Making theatre feels impossible, but it’s the greatest feeling when everything comes together” (March 29): I can relate.
Creating theatre in Canada can be a labour of love. Of late, this labour, which is grossly underpaid, feels fruitless.
Receiving a government grant to help further a play’s development is as likely as winning the lottery. Is it any wonder that so many artists have left Canada for brighter prospects elsewhere?
Yet we need them more than ever: to help us meet the moment, and enrich our democracy and local economies. As governments help industries in need, they mustn’t forget the arts sector, which has been on life support for too long.
Cheryl McNamara Toronto
Eat up
Re “Buy Canadian, yes – but we’ll starve, if that’s all we do” (Opinion, March 29): We probably wouldn’t starve if we only buy and eat Canadian. More likely we would get a dose of scurvy (currently reappearing in Canada) from a lack of vitamin C in our diets.
What would make a lot more sense is to stop paving farmland, so we can become more self-sufficient in food production. With climate change, we may even be able to grow our own citrus.
Patty Benjamin Victoria
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