Prime Minister Mark Carney, right, is greeted by U.S. President Donald Trump as he arrives at the West Wing of the White House, on May 6, in Washington.Mark Schiefelbein/The Canadian Press
Meeting postmortem
Re “Carney’s meeting with Trump yields no breakthroughs, and no blowups” (May 7): May 6 was a major letdown for me.
Donald Trump again treated our country with disdain, calling again for a 51st state and deriding any benefit the United States receives from our trade partnership. I enjoyed his expression of distaste for Chrystia Freeland, as it was obvious to me that she got the better of him in the last trade agreement. She’s tough.
I thought of the scene from Love Actually, where the British Prime Minister tells the U.S. President that their talks had not gone well and Britain would no longer be bullied by America. Of course, that was just a movie showing a leader on the world stage having principles and backbone.
Perhaps Mark Carney should ask Danielle Smith to accompany him next time. She would likely have corrected Mr. Trump on the lie about a $200-billion subsidy.
For this Canadian, “nice” meetings are no longer good enough.
Simon Dean Anmore, B.C.
As I watched the first meeting of Donald Trump and Mark Carney at the White House, it was clear to me that we have elected a CEO for Canada Corp. who has the skills to deal with the U.S. President.
Your newspaper recently carried a story on how to deal with bullies (“As an expert in bullying, I have advice on dealing with Trump” – April 14) and Mr. Carney gave us a masterclass on using this advice in interacting with Mr. Trump. We have a long way to go to rebuilding the relationship with the United States, but I am now more hopeful with Mr. Carney having the reins.
William Pascal Ottawa
Why would we trust a Donald Trump who is charming and friendly any more than a Donald Trump who is angry and bombastic?
Bob Kitcher Belleville, Ont.
By the numbers
Re “The message from voters: It’s time for unity” (Editorial, April 30): Right on, except for the statement that “voters roundly rejected third parties.”
Canada has a first-past-the-post voting system that I do not believe accurately reflects voters’ true preferences. How many, like myself, voted strategically to prevent a win by their least preferred option? How many did not vote at all, because they thought their ballot would be wasted if they did not support one of two main parties?
Would a change in voting system lead to greater unity? I would be interested in seeing an analysis of these questions. I find it telling that almost all countries that score well on any democracy index (including our own recent “Measuring Democracy” report from the Library of Parliament) have a voting system that is not FPTP.
Deborah Seibel Parksville, B.C.
Re “Prominent Conservatives back Poilievre as leader after riding loss” (April 30): A consistent refrain about the election results is that the Conservatives obtained their highest popular vote ever, even beating Steven Harper when he led the party to a majority in 2011 and outperforming Andrew Scheer.
It is true that the Conservatives garnered 41.3 per cent of the popular vote, the most in recent history. But how relevant is this? We seem to be comparing apples and oranges.
With the collapse of the NDP vote, it should not be surprising that the Conservatives would gain a larger share of the popular vote. It seems more relevant that the Conservatives lost the popular vote to the Liberals by 2.4 per cent – both Erin O’Toole and Mr. Scheer led the Conservatives to wins in the popular vote by more than 1 per cent over the Liberals.
Eric Mintz Toronto
Get up again
Re “NDP federal council names Don Davies as interim party leader” (May 6): We can thank Donald Trump for decimating our third party. But we are still here, promoting fairness and kindness and compassion.
Jagmeet Singh was a wonderful leader and we miss him already. And maybe Mark Carney should not be so dismissive of us.
Diane Keeling Courtenay, B.C.
Rumours of the NDP’s passing are greatly exaggerated. Taking one bad election result as proof the party is dead seems less like reading tea leaves and more like wishful thinking.
Having said that, it’s true this is not a good time for centre-left politics. A public with real, and warranted, fears for the future tends, ironically, to vote for the status quo.
I think it’s also true that much of the NDP’s wounds are self-inflicted. It’s not that working-class Canadians abandoned the NDP – the party abandoned them, having almost entirely divorced itself from the pocketbook concerns of many voters.
The party must find a new leader and it must take a hard look at its priorities. This won’t be the first time it has had to do this. I see no valid reason to assume it can’t do again what it’s done before.
Steve Soloman Toronto
Shared history
Re “Trump’s meeting with Carney to unfold against a backdrop of renewed 51st-state rhetoric” (May 5): Donald Trump is not the first American leader to disguise his imperialist instincts by promising prosperity, power and shared “greatness.”
Thomas Raddall’s splendid His Majesty’s Yankees, published in 1942, provides a historically accurate, if fictionalized, account of the deliberations and later the cannon fire that took place in Liverpool, N.S., at the time of the American War of Independence when the town had to choose between loyalty to Britain or the United States.
Boston’s Sam Adams was busily encouraging local Yankees living in Nova Scotia to join their fight for freedom, but some resisted. Others were simply reluctant to give up their lives to trade one tyranny for another.
The irony is in the title: Yankees made up a majority of the local population, but in the end many became “His Majesty’s Yankees” – and Nova Scotia remained one of us.
David Olson Toronto
Re “A safe harbour is needed for the Bay’s charter” (Editorial, May 2): Kudos for stating the need to preserve and protect the 1670 Hudson’s Bay Company charter, a historical document reflecting the vast amount of land conferred by Britain to the HBC, which acted as a kind of economic trailblazer in the early days and, by eventually selling its land to the government, created nearly half of what comprises Canada today.
Certainly, the HBC mandate extended far beyond a business enterprise, representing Britain’s ambition to bring peace, order and good governance to a challenging, sometimes violent new world. Granted, Britain made mistakes, but over all its powerful and, perhaps more importantly, all-empowering British values led eventually to the enshrinement of our governor-general.
S. K. Riggs Guelph, 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