Green Party leader and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands Elizabeth May holds a copy of a redacted security report as she speaks during a news conference, in Ottawa, on June 11.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Who to believe?
Re ”Singh says Trudeau and Poilievre tolerate foreign interference” (June 14): Wait a minute.
Elizabeth May first said there was nothing to allegations of foreign interference. David Johnston said something similar. Jagmeet Singh says otherwise.
Who are we to believe?
Leslie Martel Mississauga
At first, I was puzzled that Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May could reach such different conclusions from their readings of the national security watchdog’s report.
Then I recalled my experience as an academic, receiving reviewers’ reports on papers I had submitted to journals. It’s amazing when reviewers do agree.
Richard Harris Professor emeritus, McMaster University; Hamilton
If Jagmeet Singh believes there are traitorous MPs sitting in the House of Commons, then he should read out their names. He could be the only party leader to take real action against foreign interference.
Stepping up on foreign interference would separate him from Justin Trudeau. He’d be the man with principles, not merely an also-ran propping up this government.
What is stopping him?
Catherine Hunt Oakville, Ont.
You cannot be a “little” traitorous. Who are these people?
Mark Knudsen Mississauga
By practice and training, lawyers are excellent at drawing different conclusions. But when party leaders Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May initially examine the same confidential report and offer dramatically different interpretations, it creates a serious undermining of Canadian confidence in all our leaders and their ability to provide clarity.
I expect better of these two leaders. It would be a service to Canada for them to meet, discuss and issue a unified statement, so that Canadians have less confusion on an issue central to parliamentary integrity.
David Pollock Ottawa
Re “Political parties need to step up and fight foreign interference” (Editorial, June 14): The editorial urging expedited passage of Bill C-70 appears directly under the wise words contained in The Globe’s masthead.
I believe the fictional Junius, while embracing the urgent need to address foreign interference, would be sensitive to the views of those advocating a thorough, albeit more time-consuming, review of the bill by parliamentary committees. Danger lurks when all parties agree to expedite an extraordinary measure.
Deviating from Junius’s course would risk the unintended consequence of ceding victory to less democratic influencers.
Edward Reeser Toronto
While it is always easy to blame immigrants and foreigners for all of our woes, in terms of interference in nomination meetings, that is not the sole domain of people from other countries.
There have been instances, for example, of anti-abortion groups cramming nomination meetings with instant members and determining a candidate. There needs to be change, but not just for foreign influence.
Randy Tait Toronto
Closer to home
Re “Alberta NDP MLA’s resignation shines a light on the fragile state of our democracy” (June 14): While foreign interference in our democratic processes is a serious threat requiring immediate attention and action, I believe the threat to our elected officials, journalists and others, particularly women, is a more insidious risk.
I find the toxicity and hyperpartisan tone of our politics unacceptable. People should be held personally accountable.
Equally threatening is activity such as the actions of the Lethbridge police officers with this MLA, made worse by the inaction of Alberta’s Crown Prosecution Service. There should be a public inquiry and again people should be held accountable.
Our democracy is equally threatened by our own citizens, which we can more quickly address.
Scott Allison Collingwood, Ont.
Elsewhere
Re “Emmanuel Macron makes a reckless bet by calling snap French elections” (June 13): Why should most French voters be “livid at the prospect of having to return to the polls at the end of the month after having just lived through the bitter campaign for the European elections?”
How has the exercise of suffrage, the winning of which has taken centuries of struggle, come to be seen as a burden?
Michael Arkin Toronto
Re “At a gathering of young, Trump-supporting women, motherhood was the ideal” (June 15): I find it ironic that these young people who see their future with pessimism are turning to the party that started it all, what with Reaganomics, deregulation, laissez-faire economics, Friedman-style shock policies, etc.
It does not help, of course, that other “centrist” parties subscribed mostly to the same ideas.
Nicholas Christoforou Hamilton
Yo-yo
Re “Up and down” (Letters, June 13): A letter-writer complains about being subjected to “government punishment” by having to pay capital-gains tax on the increased value of his business assets. In the last 40-odd years, the inclusion rate went from 50 per cent to 67 per cent, to 75 per cent, to 67 per cent, to 50 per cent and finally back to 67 per cent.
Taxes do change over decades. We’re still a long way from “a buck is a buck,” and maybe the letter-writer can be thankful for that.
Chris Smith Oakville, Ont.
Electric dreams
Re “Power play” (Letters, June 14): A letter-writer concludes that “the problem of nuclear waste is the product of failures to consider the downstream consequences of energy choices.” So true.
Have all the downstream consequences of electric cars and batteries been considered?
Don Paetkau Winnipeg
Animal instinct
Re “For Geoffrey Hinton, the godfather of AI, machines are closer to humans than we think” (June 13): “We’re by far the most advanced thing on this planet.“ Well, there might be experts in animal behaviour and cognition who would argue with this conclusion.
Justin Gregg of St. Francis Xavier University has written a wonderful book with the amusing title If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal: What Animal Intelligence Reveals About Human Stupidity (2022). On climate change, he argues that “our many intellectual accomplishments are currently on track to produce our own extinction. He concludes: “Human intelligence is not the miracle of evolution we like to think it is.”
In this context, are there artificial intelligence models that might recognize and mitigate human behaviours which are inarguably harmful to the AI model’s human partners? Those of us without an academic background might also point out that we humans seem to be the only animal that selects the least capable and most self-centred among us to be our leaders.
Martin Birt Uxbridge, 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