Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks during a press conference at the Shaarei Shomayim Congregation in Toronto on Nov. 23.Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press
Outside forces
Re “We are not at war on several fronts, but one” (Nov. 21): While China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are a threat to democracy here and elsewhere, they, at least, are visible and acknowledged by the thinking public and its leaders. I believe there is another threat, much more dangerous, that is becoming more widespread: economic inequity and insecurity.
Democracies can flourish only if the social contract with the populace is maintained, based on the ability of the average person and family to have a decent and secure economic existence. As economic inequality grows and more people are threatened by economic insecurity, they often look to demagogues who reinforce their fears and promise to drive it away by means fair and foul.
Canada is not immune to this threat. I fear for my children and grandchildren.
Jacques Soucie Newmarket, Ont.
It is suggested that the public and political leaders fail to recognize the threats to democracies from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and potentially other regimes.
Seems to me there is another group that likewise doesn’t recognize the threats: the United Nations.
Yet they are best placed to address the threat. They should do so, and soon.
Roger Emsley Delta, B.C.
What it’s like
Re “Joe Manchin and the enticing but fraught hopes of a third party in the U.S.” (Nov. 21): As enticing as it is for many in the United States and beyond to be fascinated with horse-race politics (complete with too many sports analogies), there is still the glaring issue of one of the world’s oldest democracies lurching toward possible and nightmarish authoritarianism.
I suppose it can be entertaining to hear about prospective candidates who are either obsessed with the most implausible of conspiracies, deny scientific knowledge or represent one of the poorest states (despite being its governor for five years and one of its U.S. senators for nearly 14 years). I suppose.
What Americans and others, who should be worried about the future of the U.S., need are stories about what it is like to live in a true fascist state. The past century is rife with quickly obtained examples.
Reading and hearing about such just might be enticing to a great many people.
Mary Stanik Tucson, Ariz.
Same script
Re “Pierre Poilievre playing to base on Canada-Ukraine free-trade agreement is a compromise on democracy” (Nov. 23): If I ever had any doubt, Pierre Poilievre is starting to show his true colours more clearly in recent weeks.
His default setting seems to be negativity. Rather than be seen to vote with Liberals and socialists, he opposes a Ukraine free-trade agreement. He complains that the Liberals are doing nothing to help the housing crisis, and then complains that they are spending too much when they actually do. The name Justin Trudeau appears in nearly every sentence.
He seems to be a man obsessed and willing to do whatever necessary to gain power. That’s a scary prospect, and eerily reminiscent of a recent U.S. president.
Luke Mastin Toronto
Costs and benefits
Re “Faced with an economic downturn, the Liberals’ fiscal framework could easily derail” (Editorial, Nov. 22): For decades, I have witnessed the cacophony and hand-wringing that surrounds government deficits and accumulating debt. Balancing budgets and overspending have become an obsession with politicians, particularly from the right of the political spectrum.
I have never observed what I consider to be negative effects of large government expenditures. Indeed, quite the opposite. Medicare comes to mind and more recently the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. Now, there is the pending massive investment in housing. More is coming.
Yet we continue to hear the usual criticisms. Even if there is a little bit of truth in some of them, I believe they pale against the benefits of large outlays of spending.
The proof lies in the significant benefits to most citizens as a result of huge government investments and, yes, producing debt which, for at least as long as Canada has been a country, has been manageable.
Robert Milan Victoria
On the job
Re “From bad blood and public bashing to an $8.9-billion deal: How Teck made nice with Glencore” (Report on Business, Nov. 18): Am I the only one who sees something odd about corporate commitments attached to a multibillion-dollar deal and their being unenforced?
Glencore’s commitments to make investments and preserve jobs in British Columbia, after it takes over Teck’s coal business, should in no way be a subject of debate. They should be the subject of legally binding conditions on the sale, imposed by the federal government.
Have we learned nothing from the past, such as U.S. Steel vacating its 2007 “commitments” to workers in Hamilton with total impunity?
Jamie Kneen, National program co-lead, MiningWatch Canada; Ottawa
Re “Ontario demands details on foreign workers at battery plant” (Nov. 22): After Ontario and Ottawa committed up to $15-billion to subsidize this electric-vehicle battery plant in Windsor, this feels like a flagrant violation of Canadian taxpayers’ interests.
LG Energy Solution says it requires the expertise of South Korean workers. However, when subsidies were announced, there was no mention of using such monies to pay foreign workers. The government should ensure that Canadian taxpayer money goes into Canadian hands.
Volkswagen has not said it is sending German workers to help build its battery plant in St. Thomas, Ont. Why does LG see the need to send South Korean workers?
This issue should require a full public inquiry.
Douglas Bradley Toronto
Own up
Re “Lessons in modesty for the Liberals from the courts” (Editorial, Nov. 21): It has been the Canadian way to launch environmental grievances toward Ottawa. The feds cannot get it right; they are doing too much, or too little.
This focus is a strange one, because for the most part federal officials defer to provinces. I could name many examples, but species-at-risk policy comes to mind.
It is provinces and territories in the driver’s seat for environmental policy. Consider recent subjects of dispute: greenhouse gases, impact assessment, plastics. Policy for these subjects could be implemented by provinces and territories much more readily than by the federal government, but they have done almost nothing, for example, to regulate microplastic pollution.
Rather than address these difficult issues, some governments have masked policy failures by blaming Ottawa for overreach. Query whether Ottawa would be reaching so far, if provinces and territories were doing more to solve these problems themselves.
Shaun Fluker Associate professor of law, University of Calgary
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