U.S. President Donald Trump welcomes Prime Minister Mark Carney to the White House in October, 2025.Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters
Familiar feeling
Re “New NDP Leader Avi Lewis faces a complex political dynamic in rebuilding party” (March 30): Is this another Justin Trudeau situation, where Avi Lewis has the pedigree, family name and younger generational support, but may be more style than substance?
Having previously failed to obtain a seat, he will have to prove he can win outside his party tent. He says he’s not in a hurry to enter the House of Commons, but that’s his job.
If Mr. Lewis wants to build up the NDP, that’s fine, but let someone else do that in the background. It’s not his job to do the gardening and odd jobs around the house, it’s up to him to run and manage the party and to politic.
Douglas Cornish Ottawa
Stand on guard
Re “MAGA’s plan for Canada: not annexation, but dismemberment” (March 27): As a Canadian, I find this deeply disturbing and profoundly alarming.
There is the casual framing of Canada as a geopolitical prize to be divided and conquered, as though it were an object rather than a sovereign nation with its own identity, institutions and democratic determination. Such rhetoric disregards longstanding principles of international law, mutual respect among nations and the deeply rooted values that underpin Canada’s place in the global community.
The notion of some grand strategy to secure “complete dominion over the Western Hemisphere” – one that includes subsuming, fragmenting or dismantling Canada – seems far-fetched, but should be taken seriously.
I do find it fundamentally out of step with modern geopolitical realities: Canada is not a passive actor on the world stage, but an independent country with a strong tradition of diplomacy, multilateral co-operation and respect for sovereignty.
Dono Bandoro Calgary
“No one knows where Donald Trump got the notion of annexing Canada.” Actually, the date on my calendar is November, 2024, when Justin Trudeau went to Mar-a-Lago after Mr. Trump promised 25-per-cent tariffs on Canadian imports over border security concerns.
I believe impetus came from Mr. Trudeau’s reported plea that tariffs would “kill” our economy; Mr. Trump then joked Canada should become the 51st state. It grew from there.
A plea of weakness did not evoke the support Mr. Trudeau might have expected. Instead, Mr. Trump the businessman seemed to see an asset-rich, self-devaluing takeover target.
The Trudeau years flattened productivity growth and, while Canada has other trade agreements, there is overreliance on the United States. Along with Canada’s unwillingness to fully defend Arctic sovereignty, Mr. Trump may have asked himself how namby-pambies could defend national sovereignty.
Perhaps someday, a more self-reliant Canada may thank Mr. Trump for his goading.
Dave Baugh Sylvan Lake, Alta.
I’ve spent most of my 80 years in Northern Ontario, an inexpensive destination for working class people from Michigan and other neighbouring U.S. states.
Over the decades, we came to know many of the repeat fishermen and hunters who came north annually. They were humouristic philosophers and serious friends of Canada. Some bought properties, paid taxes and joined local bridge clubs.
I can’t put my finger on the exact moment when suspicion and mistrust began, maybe it was during Hillary Clinton’s campaign against Donald Trump. Old geezers in fishing boats were suddenly muttering about dishonesty in high places. The dullest thud came when Mark Carney said that the old Canada-U.S. relationship was “over.”
Canada has a groundswell of Republican-style politicians. The suggestion that the country’s fabric can be shredded in piecemeal ways should be a call to conscience.
Hugh McKechnie Sudbury, Ont.
Note to the contributor to the shadowy U.S. Defense Analyses and Research Corporation who proposes “the United States cannot share the longest undefended border in the world with a country so eager to court hostile great powers in our hemisphere” – Canada already does, and it’s the U.S.
Michael Locke Toronto
Right stuff
Re “Whose rights?” (Letters, March 26): A letter-writer suggests the application of human rights should be determined by a majority in a legislature. That seems utterly contrary to the concept of human rights.
They are singular and inviolable, whether derived from common law tradition, written Constitution or entrenched Charter of Rights. As part of the law, they protect us all, both as individuals and members of minorities. Without the protection of the law, as Thomas More observes in playwright Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, we have no shelter from the power of the state.
The law is adjudicated by judges chosen from among us through a process focused on knowledge, skill, experience and integrity. Their human judgments are not perfect, but far superior to the alternative.
To subject our rights to partisan majorities, possibly chosen by a fraction of the population, is to slip toward mob rule.
Remember Maurice Duplessis and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Eric Bergbusch Ottawa
A letter-writer states that for us to “truly be free and democratic,” governments should justify limits as reasonable as provided by Section 1 of the Charter. But governments already have to justify them as reasonable in the court of public opinion or risk getting voted out.
The public in Quebec already had its say at the voting booth in 2022. Since then, the province’s invocation of the notwithstanding clause over Bill 21 has already been renewed once for another five years.
The alternative is to have a simple majority of nine unelected justices determine what is reasonable, with no realistic recourse to alter such a decision. It is hard to believe how this can be characterized as more democratic, given only five people need to agree on what is reasonable versus the majority of an entire electorate.
Jason New Foothills County, Alta.
The legalistic debate over Canada’s Constitution and Charter recorded in letters and commentary here shows me how far we are culturally from the constitutional standards of our principal motherland, Britain.
Britain, with its famously “unwritten” constitution, maintains the social and political flexibility to adapt, and does so without resorting to Canada’s overbuilt regulatory statism.
Barry Stagg Brighton, Ont.
Home is…
Re “Why Tate McRae, Justin Bieber and the Weeknd don’t care about the Juno Awards” (March 30): I am shocked and disappointed that some of Canada’s superstar musical talent did not attend or even acknowledge the Juno Awards.
In the 1990s, I had the privilege to serve in executive positions with HMV Canada, BMG Music Canada and MP3.com. I had chances to meet Canadian and international superstars, and many of them had a belief or a mantra simply stated: Don’t forget where you came from.
Canada has produced some of the world’s greatest musical talent. Please, don’t forget the Junos, don’t forget Canada, don’t forget where you came from.
Paul Alofs Toronto
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