David Johnston, Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, presents his first report in Ottawa on May 23.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
The reviews are in
Re “It’s time to get behind David Johnston’s plan on foreign interference” (May 26): David Johnston’s call for public hearings into China’s election interference “deserve a chance to succeed.”
And I would be more open to a hugely expensive, time-consuming public inquiry if I thought calls for one came from disinterested parties worried about the security and well-being of the nation. But I don’t.
Does anyone believe that Pierre Poilievre’s slagging of Mr. Johnston and demands for an inquiry come from a place of sincere concern? Despite the criticisms, I can see that the recommendation for a public hearing, and protecting the country’s secrets and national security, is a prudent, non-partisan solution.
I believe Mr. Johnston is a public servant acting in good faith. I wish I could say the same for politicians braying for a public inquiry.
Paul Benedetti Hamilton
Given the hoo-ha around David Johnston’s appointment, it is an apt coincidence that I have recently been rereading Winston Churchill’s Second World War memoirs.
It is amazing how often Churchill picked friends and close acquaintances for critical positions, based on his direct knowledge of their skills, and how often the choices worked out. (Including the key appointment of Lord Beaverbrook, a newspaper proprietor, as minister of aircraft production, which was not an obvious choice but which contributed as much as anything to Britain’s survival.)
Perhaps Churchill believed that one should pick the best person for the job. That would be seen as hopelessly naive in today’s political world but, who knows, maybe he was smarter than Pierre Poilievre.
A.S. Brown Kingston
Re “Mr. Singh, axe your alliance with the Liberals” (Editorial, May 26): I believe David Johnston to be a man of integrity and high intelligence. If he said that a public inquiry is costly and would take time, far be it for me to disagree.
Rather than calling for an inquiry, I strongly suggest we call on Jagmeet Singh to stop his support of the Trudeau Liberals and allow Parliament to call an election. Let Canadians decide if the present government is really capable of dealing with foreign interference, runaway deficits, etc.
We would perhaps get the benefit of an inquiry without the inquiry, especially since, as Mr. Johnston suggests, we mere Canadians should not be exposed to the inner secrets of our intelligence agency.
Stew Valcour Halifax
It is unclear to me what Jagmeet Singh would achieve by looking at the evidence and documents provided by David Johnston. Mr. Singh has already voiced his desire for a public inquiry.
If, after reviewing the information, he pronounces that there is nothing significant enough to prevent an inquiry, will he feel compelled to remove his support for the government should the Liberals not change their stance? I doubt that, and he would likely lose public support in the process.
If, on the other hand, he does agree with Mr. Johnston, then Mr. Singh is saying: “If you don’t trust Mr. Johnston, you can trust me.” Back to square one on the credibility issue.
Stephen Flamer Vancouver
Re “I met with David Johnston for his report – here’s what happened” (May 24) and “Stephen Harper thinks foreign interference is ‘far worse than we think’ ” (May 27): First Erin O’Toole, then Stephen Harper. I look forward to hearing from Stockwell Day and Preston Manning.
John Little Toronto
Funny to hear Stephen Harper positioning himself as a voice of reason on Chinese influence.
When in government, he had no problem welcoming Chinese interests and allowing them to buy up Canadian companies and invest in our resource industry. And don’t forget the Canada-China Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments Agreement, for which Mr. Harper was widely criticized for bending over backward to China with this “deal” that we are stuck with for 31 years. He also signed a deal to share customs information, a move that was criticized for providing China with access to far too much sensitive information.
One would have to be naive to believe that Chinese business and political interests are not entwined.
David Smith Victoria
Health failures
Re “B.C. sending patients to the U.S. for cancer care is another disturbing sign of a collapsing health system” (May 23): “The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago.” Here is a list of federal health ministers since 2003 who apparently wouldn’t recognize a shovel or a looming demographic disaster if they tripped over one: Anne McLellan, Pierre Pettigrew, Ujjal Dosanjh, Tony Clement, Leona Aglukkaq, Rona Ambrose, Jane Philpott, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Patty Hajdu and Jean-Yves Duclos.
Seems as if all of them have failed miserably. Ask these people what they were thinking when they were in charge. They talk about rights; what about responsibility?
Paul White Toronto
Re “How Canada’s emergency rooms are faring as major staffing shortages persist” (May 26): Having worked in both the British National Health Service and the B.C. health system, I’ve witnessed how governments have taken over health care, shifting it from a focus on prevention and general practice to a repair-shop mentality.
I’ve seen the importance of community family doctors undermined, education moved away from learning directly from consultants and communication deteriorated. Doctor-driven initiatives, such as specialized units for joint replacement surgery, are often disregarded.
Despite increased funding, the system remains broken. British Columbia’s centralized repair service is expensive and often ineffective, mirroring unsuccessful attempts in other countries.
It’s time to address these issues and prioritize a more efficient and patient-centred approach.
Charles Ludgate MD Victoria
Justice and reform
Re “The flip side of bail reform in Canada” (Editorial, May 25): Missing are more judges, more court officials and more courtrooms. When the justice system has adequate resources, the accused can have their day in court without delay, and spend fewer nights on remand or on bail.
Michael Arkin Toronto
Re “Isolation cells in women’s prisons used almost exclusively for Indigenous prisoners, panel finds” (May 29): Instead of promises to try harder, how about legislating an end to the practice?
Or, if not quite the end, a limit of two days in isolation no more than twice a year. In effect, this would mean using isolation as a temporary cooling-off measure.
B.C. Green Party MLA Adam Olsen’s private member’s bill is a good example: a limit of three days no more than twice a year, with minimum conditions such as sunlight by day and darkness at night.
Lynn McDonald CM; co-founder, Campaign for the Abolition of Solitary Confinement Toronto
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