Commissioner Justice Marie-Josee Hogue listens to a lawyer speak at the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Election Processes and Democratic Institutions, in Ottawa, on Feb. 2.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
A word
Re “With the Trudeau government, everything is an unacceptable situation” (Feb. 19): Unlike Merriam-Webster, it seems the word of the year for Justin Trudeau and the Liberals is not “authenticity,” but “unacceptable.”
Far too often, the Trudeau government’s response to serious issues within Canada and abroad is to tell Canadians that unacceptable things are unacceptable, which comes across as more posturing than helpful, and as easy moralizing rather than action. It implies more serious action, which seldom happens.
Canadians should expect useful action and timely response from their government on issues. Failure to respond is, well, unacceptable.
Eric Paine London, Ont.
In his other life as a drama teacher, our Prime Minister must have had at least a passing familiarity with a thesaurus, which is where I found blessed alternatives to “unacceptable” such as inappropriate, unsatisfactory, objectionable, insufferable and downright repugnant.
In the words of Mrs. Slocombe in the vintage British comedy Are You Being Served?, I find our Prime Minister and his limited vocabulary to be “weak as water.”
Sandy Blazier Mississauga
What’s the point?
Re “Second diaspora group won’t take part in foreign-interference inquiry” (Feb. 20): What other country would hold an inquiry into foreign interference – its extent, government’s knowledge of it and efforts to combat it – and make it public?
Like most bad ideas, this one seems politically driven, with the Conservatives hoping to take advantage of the hearings to gather dirt on the Trudeau Liberals. Serious interest groups with close knowledge of the real issues are pulling out, well aware that the process, for several reasons, is likely counterproductive and dangerous.
It seems to me that the security of Canadians would be better served by getting rid of the inquiry.
J. David Murphy Barrie, Ont.
Bad reputation
Re “Conservatives would cut foreign aid, reform procurement to fund military” (Feb. 16): Cutting foreign aid to fund the military would be counterproductive. The wiser and more humane investment would be to prevent the need for military intervention in the first place.
For example, Canada helps fund KAIROS Women of Courage partners, which are grassroots women-led organizations in conflict zones in the Global South. Our partners help women, who are affected by war and gender-based violence, regain their dignity and reclaim rights.
Many of these women become effective agents in laying the groundwork for sustainable peace and climate resiliency. They are improving laws, policies and structures and working on important adaptation initiatives in the face of climate change that is further fuelling conflict.
Canadians may be surprised to know that Canada’s overseas development assistance is half the international standard. As the world becomes less stable, Canada should increase its ODA contributions.
It cannot afford to cut them.
Rachel Warden Partnerships manager, Canadian ecumenical justice initiatives, KAIROS; Toronto
I commend Pierre Poilievre’s choice to fund our military instead of foreign aid.
Our contribution to defence is 1.3 per cent of GDP – well below the NATO benchmark of 2 per cent. I agree that Canada has been relying on the United States for protection. We already have a direct warning from Donald Trump about NATO commitments, a very blunt message to Canada.
I also take issue with International Development Minister Ahmed Hussen’s comment that Mr. Poilievre’s proposal would be “a diminishing of Canada’s influence on the world stage.” Where has he been these past eight years?
Our influence has declined due to lax investment in global affairs. We used to be considered a world power, but have already been demoted to a “middle power” by some.
Ottawa should wake up and start pulling our weight globally, if we want to restore our good name.
Ruth Steeves Victoria
Fight on
Re “Alexey Navalny troubled the Kremlin like no one else before him” (Feb. 17): Like many Canadians, I am angered and deeply saddened by the death of Alexey Navalny. He was a symbol of hope for a better future for Russians, and for all democratic nations.
Renaming a street in Ottawa after Mr. Navalny would be a peaceful and symbolic gesture. Two U.S. senators have already proposed renaming a Washington street after him, one within view of the Russian embassy. In Hungary, a former presidential candidate for the opposition party has proposed doing the same in Budapest.
Canada should follow suit. It would be a statement of support for Mr. Navalny’s widow Yulia Navalnaya and his supporters inside and outside Russia. It would be particularly significant if this was done on Charlotte Street in Ottawa, where the Russian embassy is located.
As Mr. Navalny himself said, “It is not shameful to do little. It is shameful to do nothing.” Canadians should do something.
Lynda Thivierge Saint-Bruno, Que.
I am deeply saddened by the death of Alexey Navalny, a courageous and principled leader.
I regret his decision to return to Russia and the cruel vindictiveness of Vladimir Putin. Mr. Navalny was, literally and figuratively, head and shoulders above Mr. Putin.
I wish that Mr. Navalny had stayed abroad after he recovered from near-fatal poisoning, so that he could have continued to speak out and inspire so many people around the world. Unfortunately, power-hungry despots are still able to assassinate critics in other countries.
We all should be aware of and speak out against threats to democracy around the world.
Elaine Petermann Ottawa
Re “A great man is hard on himself; a small man is hard on others” (Editorial cartoon, Feb. 19): A brilliant illustration of the difference between Alexey Navalny and Vladimir Putin.
Dorothy Watts Vancouver
Plus side
Re “Free-scoring Auston Matthews finessing his way into the hearts of Leafs fans” (Sports, Feb. 20): “Over his eight years here, Matthews has often struck you as a more gifted Phil Kessel.”
Auston Matthews generally plays a far more complete game than Phil Kessel, as evidenced by the fact that, at last check, his plus-minus rating is +131 for his career. Mr. Kessel has recorded a negative plus-minus in all but three of his 17 seasons and has a career total of -155. These numbers are indicative of Mr. Matthews’s efforts to be a complete player.
Any mention of Mr. Kessel and Mr. Matthews in the same breath does a disservice to Mr. Matthews.
Robert McManus Hamilton
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