Letters to the editor, June 20: ‘On whom influences the U.S. President: depends on who he spoke with last’

Open this photo in gallery:

At the G7

Re “Plus-minus” (Letters, June 19): A letter-writer wishes Mark Carney “would show more sympathy for his fellow Canadians” while dealing with “this walking nightmare” who once again “leads” our southern neighbour. It’s unlikely any global leader could have done a more impressive job of deftly dealing with, arguably, the most dangerous person alive today.

While he clearly had to treat him with kid gloves, Mr. Carney rose to the occasion by nimbly stepping in to regain control of a press conference that the U.S. President was hijacking with more of his bluster and lies.

He also provided some sort of signal of his true feelings while delivering a deliciously subtle wink to Emmanuel Macron during a pivotal moment at the G7 summit.

Apparently “a nod is as good as a wink” … to a blind President.

Jeffrey Peckitt Oakville, Ont.

Re “PMO won’t say if Carney spoke with Modi about India’s alleged role in killing of Canadian Sikh leader” (June 19): Inviting Narendra Modi to the G7 summit, despite India not being a member, could be seen as a good diplomatic gesture. However, we should not forget the treatment the Modi administration extended to Justin Trudeau.

Without delving into the complexities of Canada-India relations during Mr. Trudeau’s tenure, it was evident to me that how he was treated did not align with diplomatic protocols. The Modi administration has every right to disagree with the Canadian government’s positions, but diplomatic protocols should never be compromised under any circumstances.

Moving forward, Canada should navigate its relationship with India with a renewed focus on mutual respect and strategic co-operation. While historical grievances should not be ignored, diplomacy should be exercised with a forward-looking approach that prioritizes national interests and global partnerships.

Mr. Modi’s invitation should be seen as an opportunity to ensure that diplomatic missteps do not hinder future collaborations between the two nations.

Anas Khan Beaumont, Alta.

Prevailing winds

Re “On Iran, Donald Trump has a legacy-defining choice to make” (June 19): On whom influences the U.S. President: depends on who he spoke with last.

If it is the hardcore isolationist “make America great again” types, then Iran will likely face Israel alone. If it is the hardcore Republican hawks, then the United States will likely attack Iran.

Difficult to say which is better or worse given the current situation. Perhaps it will be a bit of both, with a light dusting of bunker busters on Iranian nuclear facilities and then leaving the remainder of fighting to the two combatants.

Clay Atcheson North Vancouver

In other words

Re “At risk” (Letters, June 18): “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

With apologies to John F. Kennedy, I offer the following amendments to his quote: If a free society cannot encourage the investment and growth endeavours of the few who are rich, it cannot save the many who are poor.

I believe the contrary is valid and, in our slow-growth and low-productivity economy, necessary.

Ted Brough Woolwich, Ont.

Missing middle

Re “Housing remedy” (Letters, June 17): I live in a historic downtown neighbourhood. Dotted through it are multiplex buildings, typically two storeys tall, built in the 1920s and 1930s that often have eight apartments with balconies.

These apartment buildings sit on land equivalent to two single-family homes. Usually these buildings have humanely sized units, making them desirable to both renters and owners.

If we can build units similar to what already exists in these neighbourhoods, wouldn’t that be easier to sell to neighbours and planning departments? Almost every historic city centre I visit has examples of this kind of dense urban planning from 80 to 100 years ago.

How can NIMBY residents and planners deny such an application for similar development? Maybe give developers a partial break on development charges when they commit to historically appropriate infill.

There will always be pushback when proposed infill housing sticks out like a sore thumb. Why reinvent the wheel?

Mary Peirson-Cabena Guelph, Ont.

Re “Canada’s population growth slows to a crawl after moves to curb immigration” (June 19): For the first time in a long time, it feels like our government is finally getting a handle on this matter, reining in reckless policies that flooded the country with too many people too quickly.

It’s no coincidence there are now more houses for sale for longer periods of time, and not being snapped up within hours of being listed. In fact, our daughter and her partner managed to buy a house for under asking recently.

Still a lot more work to do on this file, but it’s a start.

Graham Farrell Toronto

Dry up

Re “AI adoption is upending the job market for entry-level workers” (June 18): The tech industry is rotten. I worked in software development for 33 years and I am so glad to be retired. When I look back and ask whether my industry has been a net benefit to humanity, I have to conclude that the answer is no.

All these corporate types with stars in their eyes can forget that artificial intelligence is trained on human-generated input. That means AI companies steal the hard work and intellectual property of human beings, with no compensation.

AI is also consuming ever more energy. AI data centres will likely consume more electricity than everything else, meaning higher prices for everyone else.

AI-generated output is increasingly displacing human-generated output. If there are no good entry-level jobs, how do companies expect to train workers to move up? Who do companies expect to sell their products and services to if there are legions of unemployed or underemployed people?

Dianne Skoll Ottawa

Try again

Re “Oilers can’t keep up in Stanley Cup rat race” (Sports, June 18): More telling than the 32-year drought for a Canadian Stanley Cup champion is the fact that eight Canadian teams have made the finals in that time, and are now 0 for 8.

The reason to me is obvious: too much pressure. A little indifference from Canadian fans would help.

My dream is to see a purely Canadian league with a mix of international players and a more international outlook. Players would be paid well, but not exorbitantly. Media and fan pressure on players would be less because it would be one league among others.

Don’t assume a Canadian league wouldn’t be competitive. A “champions league” can determine the best team. Don’t assume that National Hockey League clubs would dominate – we have plenty of evidence for the strength of international hockey.

The NHL is a U.S. business; let them have it.

Ed Janicki 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