Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre rises during question period on Parliament Hill in December, 2025.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Good value?
Re “The Conservative and Liberal responses to Venezuela reflect vastly different foreign-policy outlooks” (Jan. 6): Pierre Poilievre backing Donald Trump is a stance based on values?
Mr. Trump’s primary motivation in Venezuela is access to oil. He makes no pretensions of supporting democracy there.
U.S. efforts at regime change haven’t ended well in many instances. Stephen Harper’s full-throated condemnation of Jean Chrétien for not joining the Iraq war turned out to be a serious mistake. Mr. Poilievre’s position on Venezuela will probably not age well either, especially when Mr. Trump is threatening Canadian sovereignty – although it might help him keep his party leadership.
Supporting Mr. Trump’s moves in Venezuela suggests that Mr. Poilievre might support similar threatened actions in Colombia, Mexico and Cuba. Where would he draw the line, annexation of Greenland? Canada?
David Steele Saskatoon
A lesson here
Re “Venezuela’s fate is a warning for Canada” (Editorial, Jan. 4): A resource-wealthy country like Canada should take this opportunity to look inward and recognize how fast our social fabric can unwind, and prosperity turn to poverty, when politicians pursue agendas aimed at growing government at the expense of business.
As a board member of Gold Reserve, a company with people and assets in Venezuela, we intimately understand what was happening there firsthand: This dictatorial rogue state had stolen assets and illegally incarcerated and tortured our colleague with impunity. We applaud the Trump administration for freeing the people and assets of Venezuela from tyranny.
Canada should treat Venezuela not as a distant tragedy or an opportunity to cast aspersions at the United States, but as a warning that hastens the building of stronger safeguards against potential authoritarianism and anti-business sentiment at home.
Let’s move faster, innovate, build and prosper by focusing on our own work ethic, ingenuity and business acumen.
Paul Rivett Toronto
Stuck in the middle
Re “First Nation launches legal action against potential Alberta referendum on separation” (Jan. 6): Danielle Smith seems to be enabling a possibly treasonous, and certainly ridiculous, referendum. But why?
Alberta consistently has the highest per capita GDP and income of any province. As an independent country, it would have no direct access to international markets. It would become the Bolivia of North America, land-locked and poor.
I object strenuously to Ms. Smith’s ambition to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan in favour of an Alberta plan. I also object to forming a provincial police force, the cost of which would simply duplicate the RCMP.
I was born in Alberta and have lived here longer than Ms. Smith. I am a Canadian first and an Albertan second. This appears to be an effort to sabotage my country.
Kenneth Roy Edmonton
Price comparison
Re “Canada Drug Agency shouldn’t be determining cost-effectiveness of drugs” (Report on Business, Jan. 2): The contributor would have us do away with Canada Drug Agency, a pan-Canadian health organization created and funded by Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments.
The CDA looks at whether governments are getting value for the money that they spend on prescription drugs. It does this by analyzing data about how safe and effective new drugs are, and how much companies charge for them. It then compares these new drugs to ones that are already marketed for the same condition.
Britain has a similar agency, so does Australia, New Zealand and the majority of the European Union. In fact, one of the only wealthy countries that doesn’t use centralized health technology assessments is the United States, which has by far the highest drug prices in the world.
Joel Lexchin Professor emeritus, school of health policy and management, York University; Toronto
Intermission
Re “Canada must remember its defeat of the Americans in 1775″ (Dec. 31): I might add the “gap” from around 1780 until 1812.
Britain was sick of battles by then, and the United States was expanding westward. For those 30-odd years, Indigenous peoples in what would become Canada fought like hell to hold their land and were a major force against American expansion. They mostly held the fort until Britain caught its breath.
They didn’t get much for that immense effort, as they failed to hold their land against a different imperialist outfit. But at the time, they made the U.S. aware it was going to pay.
They played a major role in the creation of Canada in those years.
Miles Tompkins Antigonish, N.S.
Fair share
Re “Give us a break” (Letters, Jan. 2): A letter-writer believes that contributor Paul Kershaw “discriminates against the boomer generation.” Did we read the same article?
I am a boomer, and I understand the recommendation that government cash transfers should be fairly income-tested across all generations. This seems reasonable and just.
Retired senior couples are eligible for a full $18,000 in Old Age Security with a combined income of $182,000, while the Canada Child Benefit begins to be clawed back once a family’s income passes $81,000. OAS, then, is disproportionately generous, given it is funded from general tax revenues meant to address the needs of all Canadians.
As suggested, reduce the OAS clawback threshold and use those funds to increase OAS payments to the poorest seniors and bolster our underfunded health care systems (which will, again, benefit seniors the most). Seems a no-brainer to this boomer, while also being fair and equitable to all generations of Canadians.
Mary Peirson-Cabena Guelph, Ont.
As a boomer who may well need to access our underperforming health care system in the future, I am dismayed by a letter-writer who rejects the assertion that wealthy boomers should pay more for health care.
Having been in medical practice for 40 years, I have seen some great advances in science that have extended life expectancy as well as quality. But none of these advances, most likely to be used by seniors, come cheap.
If boomers want to reap the benefits of more modern medicine, it should be reasonable to expect them to pay the costs, even if this involves cutting back on the sacred cow of Old Age Security.
David Barker MD (retired); Whitby, Ont.
Dead right
Re “Mortgage-free and silent: Why are Canadians not celebrating this big financial milestone?” (Report on Business, Jan. 2): A mortgage, from the French mort and gage, is literally a “death pledge.”
My parents were able to pay off their mortgage after they received some inheritance money, and I was able to pay off my mortgage after I received an inheritance from my parents.
I was enormously relieved to be mortgage-free, but it did not feel like a cause for celebration: Too many people had to die to make it happen.
Hamish Telford Abbotsford, B.C.
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