People wait in line to register to vote at a polling station for Canada's federal election, in Toronto, on April 28.Arlyn McAdorey/Reuters
All or nothing
Re “Canada won’t sacrifice USMCA or vital sectors for quick deal with Trump: envoy” (Report on Business, May 9): What if Canada scrapped all tariffs – not as a surrender, but as a forward-thinking economic strategy?
Tariffs raise prices for Canadian consumers while offering uneven and often outdated protection to domestic industries. With inflation squeezing households and supply chains under stress, we should do everything we can to make essentials more affordable.
Such a policy would position Canada as a global leader in open markets. It would encourage innovation, enhance competitiveness and streamline trade. It would directly benefit low- and middle-income Canadians, who bear the brunt of inflated prices.
Critics may worry about the impact on certain industries. Instead of blanket protectionism, Canada should invest in smarter strategies: job training, regional support and innovation funding.
A tariff-free Canada would expose the economic cost of protectionism elsewhere. If the United States or China continue to impose tariffs while we lower ours, their consumers – not ours – would suffer.
That contrast could change the global conversation.
Dale Sutherland Frontenac Islands, Ont.
Ballot-box question
Re “Canada’s democracy had a decent day. But it can do better to reflect all Canadians in this moment of crisis” and “Canada is not as divided as some claim – or as its electoral system makes it appear" (Opinion, May 3): The riding I live in has been represented by the same party, provincially and federally, since I moved here. My guy never gets in, and so my vote counts for nothing.
Imagine if the percentage of the popular vote was reflected in seat counts. Then elected officials might be seen to be working constructively together in the development of public policy, rather than the “propping up” language used repeatedly and pejoratively when describing the collaboration between the Liberals and NDP that resulted in some progressive policies.
Instead of attempting to remain in some fuzzy past, where women and First Nations people did not have the right to vote, let’s create a system where all views are represented and the only goal for elected officials would be to work toward consensus.
Kathryn Fournier Ottawa
British Columbia had a provincial referendum on this issue in 2018, where the first-past-the-post system won with 61.3 per cent in a ranked ballot.
Though proportional representation was defeated, possible forms of it were also voted on. The most popular was mixed-member proportional, but dual-member proportional and rural-urban proportional were virtually tied on the first ballot.
I voted then to retain FPTP, believing it offered a better chance of strong and stable government. But I now think some form of proportional representation is desirable to help overcome the belief of some voters and regions that their voices are submerged under an uncaring winner. It would counter the apparent belief that there is monolithic support for one party in a given riding or region – there are Liberals in Alberta, after all.
Though Mark Carney has more important immediate priorities, I suggest he consider resuscitating this proposal which his predecessor buried.
Ian McCallum Vancouver
I have always been under the impression that the essence of democracy was “one person, one vote, majority rules.” Unless I am seriously misguided, on that basis, proportional representation seems anything but democratic.
Proportional representation may be an alternative way for people to choose those who govern them, but it would be a distortion of the word “democratic.” From what I know of those countries that use it, it is an invitation to exacerbate problems. For example, it could balkanize the Canadian electorate even further.
Arguably, the first-past-the-post system is democratically flawed. Let’s fix it, but not by throwing democracy out the window.
I personally favour two-round elections, as in France, but that may be impractical in a country the size of Canada. Ranked ballots are a compromise, but at least they preserve the essence of democracy, even if everybody doesn’t get their first choice.
Prop rep? No thanks.
Bernie Labrosse Ottawa
The discussion about proportional representation versus first-past-the-post often takes for granted the idea that democracy and good governance depends upon political parties and the roles they play.
I think the discussion ought to be redirected to the role of individual MPs. If the House of Commons rules committee were to undertake a rewrite to strengthen the ability of MPs to represent the interests of their constituents, regardless of their party affiliation, much of the concern about political divisions would be addressed. The speaker should be free to recognize any MP who has need to bring forward important issues.
The ability of MPs to represent local needs would be further enhanced by the institution of ranked ballots in elections, because they would eliminate strategic voting, diminish political tribalism and provide MPs with a better idea of the political leanings of their constituents.
Nicholas Tracy Fredericton
My losing streak is almost as long as the Leaf’s: I haven’t voted for the winning federal or provincial party for more than five decades, even though I don’t vote for fringe or extreme parties. I resist strategic voting because to me it doesn’t ring true like proper democracy.
On the plus side, I’ve had good success in municipal elections where a vote counts directly for mayor. Please bring on some form of proportional representation.
Any form would be better than what we have now, and might help smooth over some of the divisions in our country.
Ed Janicki Victoria
Sharp incentive
Re “Doug Ford says people should vaccinate children against measles but they can’t be forced” (May 8): Governments can encourage them to vaccinate their children.
Government could include an increased tax deduction for an individual who is vaccinated or vaccinates their claimed eligible dependents. Given the increased health care costs associated with treating diseases that can be prevented by vaccination, this might be the lowest cost option for public health.
Peter Noble Sarnia, Ont.
Highway to…
Re “Ford asks Carney to support Highway 401 tunnel in new letter about priority projects” (May 6): Former Ontario premier Mike Harris refused to give financial aid to extend Toronto’s subway tunnel west from Yonge-Sheppard station. His reason was that other parts of Ontario should not be expected to finance Toronto’s subway expansion.
Doug Ford, in asking the federal government to finance a Toronto tunnel, is now expecting the whole of Canada to finance local construction. I find this unacceptable.
Helena Hallett Toronto
School daze
Re “Closing Toronto school pools would be devastating to communities, parents and instructors say” (May 3): Before Mike Harris became premier in Ontario, school boards could be funded directly by local taxes. As Toronto had a large tax base, boards could afford things such as pools and outdoor education centres.
When Mr. Harris changed the funding model, these became much less affordable and drains on school budgets. Now another conservative government is blaming the school board for the problem.
The Ontario government should decide whether life-saving skills such as swimming, environmental knowledge via outdoor centres and cultural and mental health support via itinerant music teachers are important. Fairness is also important as few, if any, rural boards were ever able to afford these things.
Hugh Molesworth Orangeville, Ont.
I find it amazing how the Ford government can’t find a way to assist in funding 66 pools that serve thousands of young Torontonians, but is able to find dollars to subsidize a foreign company that will build a spa and pool catering to the more affluent.
Brian Howell Thornhill, 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