Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rises during Question Period, on May 29, in Ottawa.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Lost leader
Re “Trudeau needs to read the writing on the wall” (Opinion, May 25): Should Justin Trudeau step down for the good of the Liberal Party? I think not.
His Liberals trail Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives by double digits in opinion polls. Whoever is their leader, the Liberals will likely lose the next election. Many Canadians believe it is time for a change.
If Mr. Trudeau stepped down, the new leader would still have to defend the Liberal record of the last eight years. If the Liberals lose, much blame would fall on the new leader.
It would be better to let Mr. Trudeau run, and lose, a feisty campaign. After, a new leader can recraft the Liberal brand and would have a Conservative record to run against.
I doubt Mr. Poilievre would have much success fixing all the things he says are broken.
George Fallis Toronto
Sir Isaac Newton’s third law states that for every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Since Justin Trudeau catapulted to power, the Conservatives have been led by Rona Ambrose then Andrew Scheer when he called, and won, a minority decision in 2019, and Erin O’Toole when he called, and won, another minority decision in 2021.
Lesson learned: The Conservatives needed a leader as pugilistic, unapologetic and divisive as Mr. Trudeau; Pierre Poilievre fit that bill, and handily won his party’s leadership. Now I see both leaders regularly bringing shame on themselves while their parliamentary colleagues follow suit, gleefully employing name-calling and innuendo. Many Canadians have lost faith in Parliament.
By extension of Newton’s law, if Mr. Trudeau were to lose or step down, Mr. Poilievre would flounder.
Geoffrey Johnston Winnipeg
Left hand, right hand
Re “National-security intelligence is bogged down in an amateur-hour paper chase” (May 29): To its credit, the Trudeau government (when Ralph Goodale was minister of public safety and emergency preparedness) undertook a review which attempted to address the fragmentation in national security arrangements.
It resulted in legislation which created all-of-government oversight, including the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Unfortunately, as pointed out, these reforms failed to address the critical issue of co-ordination and integration of intelligence from different agencies.
It leaves the national security and intelligence adviser to the prime minister in the difficult, if not impossible, position of being responsible for providing comprehensive advice, but without the authority to impose order and structure on the still-fragmented sector, as documented in excruciating detail in the latest NSIRA report.
Scott Burbidge Port Williams, N.S.
The review describes an “unacceptable state of affairs.” While this was shocking, I thought: Where have I seen this before?
Lo and behold, there it is in David Johnston’s report from last year. On page 18, he devotes a whole section to the “Dissemination of Intelligence Information within the Government – a Problem that Needs Attention.”
Perhaps if we hadn’t spent so much energy vilifying Mr. Johnston, and instead focused on the contents of his report, we’d be farther ahead in mitigating the risks of foreign interference.
Cam Fraser Mississauga
In or out?
Re “The latest unintended consequence of Liberal immigration policy” (Report on Business, May 28): The government has come up with a novel approach to problem solving.
Too many temporary residents? Make them permanent. Poof – issue solved.
Too many “undocumented migrants?” Too much trouble to find and expel them? No problem, give them amnesty.
Has Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada decided to abdicate all responsibility for its mandate? Why have asylum-seeker reviews if Canada is just going to let those refused stay here anyway? Why issue temporary visas?
What message are we sending out to the world about admission to Canada? Anything goes.
Dorothy Speak Ottawa
With some temerity, I would contest the view that support for immigration has fallen; support for the points-based system may be as high as ever. But many Canadians have seen that system undermined by thousands who have done end runs around it to gain residency and eventually citizenship.
As for the apparent effort by cabinet to design a method for undocumented residents to gain acceptance for citizenship, I am old enough to recall that in the 1970s there was an amnesty for such individuals; this was a once-and-only-once event, we were persistently told.
Most of those politicians who made that promise are presumably in their political Valhalla, while those of us with that memory and still alive try not to be increasingly cynical.
Has Canada lost control of its frontiers?
Ian Guthrie Ottawa
Any program to regularize undocumented migrants would represent an admission that the government has so messed up the immigration program, an amnesty is the only way forward.
The last time such a broad program was put in place was 1973. After messing up immigration for a number of years, the Liberal government closed a loophole and declared an amnesty. Ironically, that loophole allowed temporary residents to apply to remain in Canada and generous appeal rights to those who were unsuccessful.
While regularizing those who are already here will not place additional burdens on the housing situation, taking such a step would send a clear message that Canada has lost, actually given up, control of its borders, and the flow of temporary residents would jump even higher.
William Lundy Ottawa
A similar regularization program was enacted in 1973, during another period of high inflation. The sky did not fall then, and it should not fall now.
The reason Canada is contemplating a regularization program is in part a recognition of the crucial role migrant workers played to keep us alive during the pandemic. They are not barbarians at the gate: They are our longstanding neighbours, hospital staff, rideshare drivers and the folks who keep our food system going from farm to table.
We should be more concerned about the unintended consequences of stoking anti-immigrant sentiment than this relatively modest amnesty program.
Ella Bedard Co-ordinator, workers rights, Workers Action Centre; Toronto
Big smile
Re “To The Globe’s letter writers and their editors, every delivery is a special one”(May 21): There was yet another delightful Globe editorial interaction available to the masses back in the day, when the Morning Smile appeared on the front page.
Successful submitters could kiddingly say: “How many people do you know personally who have been on the front page of The Globe and Mail?”
Louis Desjardins Belleville, 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