Prime Minister Justin Trudeau looks at Anita Anand after she was sworn in as the President of the Treasury Board during a cabinet shuffle, in Ottawa, on July 26.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Our next prime minister?
Re “Anand’s new role reveals Trudeau’s priorities” (Opinion, Aug. 19): Kudos to Konrad Yakabuski for his column. Anita Anand is the smartest minister in cabinet and possibly the only one who can get anything done. She would make a great prime minister – one who could get housing built and health care improved with the assistance of the provinces because she sets goals, takes her responsibilities and promises seriously, and acts by setting spending cuts in motion in her new portfolio.
The major problem with this current government is that it promises much and delivers nothing. Each minister is given talking points which they mouth back. They don’t answer questions, just speak meaningless phrases that will result in nothing being done. Please retire Justin Trudeau and leave us with memories of your socks and lovely family. Give the people of Canada the opportunity of voting for a centrist party with a leader who understands the meaning of the word.
Marilyn Dolenko Ottawa
Hurry up and wait
Re “When foxes get to choose their watchdog” (Editorial, Aug.18): The question at the end of the editorial reads like a cry in the wilderness; that is, the bewildering indifference of the Trudeau government toward some of the most fundamental requirements of a functioning democracy.
Just as Canada’s wildfires will cost us well into the future, the failure to fulfill certain vital obligations of a democratic government will have a price none of us will want to pay.
Foot-dragging, bordering on refusal, until an essential issue disappears from the minds of an already stressed electorate, is the worst possible governance. Even worse is to assume the electorate is scarcely interested, if at all. The long-time neglect of its federal responsibility to appoint judges to our courts, until the numbers have become stuck in the high 80s, is a perfect example of the latter. It is an intolerable situation for which we are already paying dearly.
Patricia Hanley Toronto
Start with decriminalization
Re “Make supervised drug-use sites safe for all” (Aug. 19): Marcus Gee raises many valid concerns around safe injection sites, but they are secondary to the main issue, which is the illegal drug market.
The solution is simple: Decriminalize drugs and make them available free at these centres.
This simple, inexpensive change eliminates the need to steal to pay for drugs, reduces criminal incentives to distribute them, and thus removes the turf wars that are a major cause of gun violence in this and other cities across Canada.
Unfortunately, such a progressive idea is anathema to capital C conservatives. It’s easier to prey on fear and abhorrence of the human weakness and simply close the centres down. I fear this is the inevitable knee-jerk reaction to Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s “critical incident review.”
Len W. Ashby Toronto
Let’s honour Segal
Re “Distinguished conservative enriched Canadian political life” (Obituaries, Aug. 19): After reading John Ibbitson’s obituary of Hugh Segal’s life, a legacy to honour this outstanding Canadian should be a guaranteed annual income, implemented by a courageous government. Nothing could be better than that for this man.
The studies and research have been done, and even the trials in Dauphin, Man., of this necessary policy proved successful in the 1970s. Mr. Segal knew the benefits and did his best to make this policy happen. Now is the time.
Marianne Freeman Vancouver
Don’t blame Meta
Re ”Meta’s block on news leaves many in NWT in dark on wildfire updates” (Aug. 18): The article, while it presents a significant concern, disappointingly places undue blame on Meta without recognizing the complex situation surrounding Bill C-18.
This legislation was enacted with good intentions but lacked foresight, especially in the face of warnings from the companies it would affect. Thus, Meta’s decision to withhold Canadian news cannot be described in isolation.
Bill C-18 and Meta are equally responsible for the block of information in the Northwest Territories. Both parties are bound by commercial considerations, yet our government has the paramount duty to ensure its residents are informed during an emergency.
A more balanced perspective is required – one that calls for our government to reassess the impact of Bill C-18 and take steps to increase news and information accessibility. Simply blaming Meta overlooks the nuanced relationship and shared responsibilities at play. Ultimately, our government must repair what has been broken.
Sam Hollinrake Oakville, Ont.
Isn’t it bizarre that various levels of Canadian government have come to rely on U.S. social media to communicate with their citizens? And how now suddenly we see the catch?
But there’s a logical solution, which I haven’t yet seen described: the CBC.
It’s a public broadcaster, heavily subsidized by Canadian taxpayers, available to anyone with an internet connection: Surely the CBC could be “encouraged” to have a dedicated space for public service announcements.
The CBC already runs a fine online digital news service. A dedicated add-on should be no problem, and we’d quickly get used to consulting it.
Justus Havelaar Campbell River, B.C.
Interrupting cows
Re “May I interject? Interruptions can have positive effects on our conversations” (Opinion, Aug. 12): Thank you for this comprehensive exploration of how an interruption can be seen as an opportunity for a “playful dance” that can take us to new places together.
As a parent, I learned that when my kids were interrupting me, it meant they were not listening.
Lesson No. 1: Let them interrupt. I listened carefully to their interruption to figure out how I could better reach them. Then the real conversation could start. And as a professional, I came to appreciate that a colleague who was interrupting me was engaged.
Lesson No. 2: Being engaged meant interest, concern. This meant there was energy to co-create a “co-operative overlapping.” (This positive framing can be even more effective when coupled with non-threatening body language cues.)
American author Ken Blanchard once said, “Not any one of us is as smart as all of us.” To me, that means making more “room” for interruptions in our conversations.
Irene McGhee Toronto
Thanks to a letter-writer for offering a rare example of where interrupting might benefit discourse and thereby, I suppose, the human condition (“Pardon Me,” Letters, Aug. 18).
I note, however, that he used written prose to make his point, frustrating my urge to interrupt him midstream. I am reminded of a favourite rhetorical gag from my young daughter, who fell into conniptions by asking me: “Knock knock, who’s there?” Her answer: “Interrupting cow!” Then she’d shout, “Moo!” before I could finish asking, “Interrupting cow, who?”
Ron Beram Gabriola 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