Danielle Smith’s politics plus other letters, June 7: ‘The rest of Canada has shown its good intentions by significantly investing in support of Alberta’s economy’

Open this photo in gallery:

Names?

Re “Opposition challenges Liberals to name parliamentarians allegedly colluding with foreign powers” (June 6): We are told that certain MPs are lobbying on behalf of foreign governments. We are also being told that, as electors, we are not entitled to know who they are. This in itself is scandalous.

Perhaps one way to deal with the issue is to proceed quickly with the establishment of a registry of Canadians who lobby on behalf of foreign governments, and apply it to MPs as well.

The filing of criminal charges against those who fail to do so would be appropriate.

John Sutherland Calgary

I would say that MPs aiding foreign governments is more than “concerning.” It borders on treason or espionage, and should be treated as such.

William Brown Huntsville, Ont.

I am so tired of foreign interference. Nobody knows what has been done or who did it.

But that doesn’t stop rampant speculation by those who have political aspirations and are focused on making the government look bad.

John and Dinah Patton Toronto

Disservice done

Re “Ottawa declines to release secret internal analysis of economic effects of carbon pricing” (June 5): No policy nor its implementation is perfect. However, supporters of the carbon tax must be rolling their eyes in disbelief that the Liberals are refusing to make this analysis available to the public.

The way we improve policies is by careful thought and analysis of data. To do otherwise appears to admit policy failure, but much worse is a slap in the face to researchers and analysts who simply want the best policies for our country.

James White, Professor emeritus, department of sociology, University of British Columbia Vancouver

Another reading

Re “A Senate reshaped in Trudeau’s image makes a showdown with a future Conservative government a near certainty” (Opinion, June 1): I am a fan of the Canadian Senate.

I see the fact that the Senate is unelected as an opportunity that we continue to inch toward. There are so many worthy Canadians who would never offer to serve, if it required the gruelling political nomination and electoral process.

I believe Canadians would welcome having sober second thought taken by those distinguished fellow Canadians holding the Order of Canada as a requirement.

Kathleen Glynn-Morris West Vancouver

The Senate might be the only defence against the tyranny of the minority.

Pierre Poilievre recently said: “I will be the democratically elected prime minister, democratically accountable to the people, and they can make the judgments themselves whether they think my laws are constitutional.”

But the laws are not his laws, they are our laws. And even “his laws” are subject to judicial review. But then there is the notwithstanding clause. Assuming that is how Mr. Poilievre intends to proceed, what is to be done?

The courts can’t overrule such action. The opposition can’t stop it. Even the electorate can do nothing until another election.

What we may need down the road is genuinely sober second thought from the Senate on this issue.

A. L. P. Carella Vaughan, Ont.

Columnist Andrew Coyne raises a concern that unelected senators might lead to important issues decided by “a clutch of partisan appointees of uncertain distinction.” The trouble I find is that description might just as well be applied to MPs.

This seems especially true in our flawed first-past-the-post system, in which representatives are commonly elected by a minority of voters, who are then all too often whipped into voting not for the good of the commonwealth, but for narrow party self-interests.

In such a system, I for one welcome corrective actions by a body that eschews petty, populist politics and takes a broader, longer view.

Daniel Patrick Visconti Toronto

East meets West

Re “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith finds unlikely ally in battle with Ottawa” (June 3): A healthy Confederation depends on both vigorous debate of contentious issues and genuine spirit of consensus-seeking. Danielle Smith and like-minded Albertans seem to selectively apply these concepts to their province’s relations with the rest of Canada.

Consider, for example, the $34-billion Trans Mountain pipeline. The rest of Canada has shown its good intentions by significantly investing in support of Alberta’s economy. I believe we badly need from Ms. Smith and her colleagues public appreciation of that and more consensus-building efforts.

I say this as someone who spent 12 years working in the Alberta and Saskatchewan oil sectors, from Zama Lake to Estevan. And in the mid-1970s, I wrote a graduate school essay on how the federal government was shortchanging Western Canada on government revenue expenditures.

Don Taylor Mississauga

Resurfacing

Re “For Canadians visiting D-Day sites, these curated itineraries help bring history to life” (June 5): While Major Stewart Duncan’s 1st Hussars of London, Ont., was the only Allied unit to reach its objective on D-Day, his amphibious duplex drive Sherman tank was sunk by high waves.

He and another survivor were picked up and transferred to a U.S. ship heading to Britain with wounded men. Asked if he required anything, he replied that he could use a strong shot of liquor, but was informed that U.S Navy ships were dry.

Further inquiry revealed a supply of South African brandy for the comfort of the wounded. This was produced and totally consumed. He never got to France.

In the 1970s, the tank was located, brought ashore and refurbished. It now sits near the Juno Beach Centre as a permanent memorial.

Major Stewart was my wife’s uncle. I met him at his retirement ceremony in London. I have his personal account of these events, labelled “D-Day Incidents.”

David McCray Brockton, Ont.

Of concern

Re “To The Globe’s letter writers and their editors, every delivery is a special one” (May 21): One way of ensuring that a Letter to the Editor is not published is to criticize The Globe and Mail severely.

For example, I would say that current letters policy is childish and narcissistic to assume that all letters worthy of publication must relate to something that The Globe has drawn attention to. There are many times when I would have liked to begin a letter with “Re: Nothing The Globe has drawn attention to so far.”

There should be a journalistic equivalent of a salon des refusés, where distinguished unpublished letters (mine, for example?) can find exposure.

Randal Marlin Ottawa

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