Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Oct. 30.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Canada’s move
Re “Our turn” (Letters, Nov. 8): A letter-writer suggests an immediate election to deal with Donald Trump. I could not disagree more.
I carry no torch for the Prime Minister, but I do acknowledge that his government responded well on two critically important crises. The first was the pandemic, in which Canada managed far better than most countries.
The second file was, of course, the Trump presidency. Cabinet members were deployed to meet with key Republican governors to discuss the effect that highly targeted tariffs would have on state economies, should Canada choose to instigate them in response to U.S. tariffs. The end result was that our trade agreement was renegotiated but virtually unchanged.
Thus we have a Liberal government with the bench strength, experience and plan to manage another Trump presidency. I am happy to have our “A-Team” in place for this challenging first year, rather than relying on a rookie squad.
David Bird Fernie, B.C.
Re “In defence” (Letters, Nov. 11): “We should immediately commit to spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence … by de-emphasizing the myriad social programs currently being implemented.”
I would rather see a serious effort to reduce the effects of climate change and address problems in health care, such as shortages of family doctors and unacceptable wait times in emergency rooms and for surgeries. After that we could look at military spending.
Not enough money for all that? Guess we’ll have to pay higher taxes.
Doug Brandy Ottawa
Political literacy
Re “The U.S. election shows that sometimes the people get it wrong” (Opinion, Nov. 9): As I watch elections across the world, a few questions are uppermost in my mind as an educator.
Are we sufficiently assiduous in our efforts to instill an appreciation for democracy and what it takes to sustain it? Do we provide opportunities for young people to practise what democracy looks like in all its forms?
Do we teach critical and analytical skills? Do we provide scenarios to determine fact from fiction? Can fake news be identified?
Do we teach character attributes such as respect, honesty and empathy? Are we developing solution-finders who will act upon humanistic values?
Many educators care deeply about these issues and foster them daily in their classrooms, with support from parents and community. Let’s not take our democracy for granted. Democracies can fail if we rest on our laurels.
Let’s reaffirm our efforts to ensure that Canada continues to grow as a mature democracy.
Avis Glaze Delta, B.C.
More, not less
Re “Trump victory means Canada must get serious about tax reform” (Report on Business, Oct. 8): Despite what the Fraser Institute thinks, we should resist the urge to race to the bottom after Donald Trump’s impending tax cuts.
People and businesses choose Canada not because it’s the lowest tax jurisdiction, but because we have great collective services such as schools, health care and a strong social safety net. These benefits are fraying.
In addition to hollowing out public goods, broad-based tax cuts often lead to greater wealth inequality. I’m of the opinion that this is a significant driver of global political instability.
We could address these problems by increasing taxes on the wealthiest. I’d particularly like to see improvements in targeting offshore tax avoidance. On corporate taxes, we should address base erosion and profit-shifting to put Canadian companies on a more equal footing with multinational competitors.
These increased revenue streams could provide much-needed investments in services that make Canada an attractive place to live for everyone.
Cam Smith Gatineau
Naturally
Re “Let’s stop pretending ‘natural’ gas is in any way good for the environment” (Report on Business, Nov. 6): Contributor David Miller calls for an “honest conversation” on natural gas and the environment. Okay.
Honesty would require noting that the shift from coal to gas in power generation has delivered massive greenhouse-gas reduction across North America. It would require noting that indoor air quality in the developing world improves dramatically – reducing deaths dramatically – when people cook with gas, not wood and dung. Environmental effects matter and Canada’s gas industry is addressing them in many ways.
But they’re part of a bigger picture. Here’s where those who hold Mr. Miller’s views should really be honest: People want affordable and reliable energy as well as energy that meets their environmental objectives – it is a balance.
Natural gas delivers the balance for millions of Canadians; they don’t want politicians taking this energy choice away.
Timothy Egan President and chief executive, Canadian Gas Association Ottawa
I have spent the past two years speaking with Canada’s allies in the Indo-Pacific.
Many of these countries are bigger and wealthier than Canada, but import more than 80 per cent of their energy, sometimes from unfriendly energy suppliers. They want Canada’s liquefied natural gas and have said so publicly on many occasions. They need it to get off coal and to integrate wind and solar energy.
Perhaps contributor David Miller thinks these countries don’t know what they need or have somehow been tricked. But those leaders don’t have the luxury of persisting in being wrong – the costs are paid by them.
“It is so easy to be wrong – and to persist in being wrong – when the costs of being wrong are paid by others,” said economist Thomas Sowell. The condescension I sense in this article is a bad look for C40 Cities.
Shannon Joseph Chair, Energy for a Secure Future Ottawa
Movin’ on up
Re “Canadians need homes, not just housing” (Editorial, Nov. 5): The core issue I see is the availability of land for construction and local regulations that facilitate it. The main challenge, then, is local and cultural.
We cannot continue to live in 2024 clinging to the 1950s lifestyle of single-family homes. Communities primarily made up of baby boomers should embrace orderly densification, and young families should recognize that having less private space isn’t a catastrophe, provided that public spaces and transportation are of high quality.
The solution should be to increase density around transportation nodes. Build taller structures and introduce low-rise multifamily homes in single-family neighbourhoods. Mix in public housing to reduce prices.
The character of Canadian neighbourhoods should be shaped by a sense of community that honours individuality, rather than one that relies on the size of a house and yard.
Luis Agudello Burnaby, B.C.
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