The Deltaport container terminal at Roberts Bank in Delta, B.C., has been proposed as the terminus for a new oil pipeline from Alberta.Jennifer Gauthier/Reuters
Not hard to see
Re “The lingering questions of the pandemic that demand answers” (Editorial, Aug. 8): In previous public-health crises, we had the wisdom to review the national response and the courage to make legislative and institutional changes, from the 1918 Spanish Flu (establishment of the first federal department of health) to the 1980s tainted blood scandal (the Krever Inquiry and creation of Canadian Blood Services), the 2003 SARS crisis (establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada) and the 2008 listeriosis outbreak (the Weatherill Report helping lead to the Safe Food for Canadians Act).
Various ad hoc reviews of Canada’s COVID-19 response have highlighted poor management of things such as school closures and vaccine mandates for truckers. Paying no heed to legal jurisdictions and institutional mandates, infectious diseases will do that.
COVID-19 tested the intersection of science and politics like never before. Before the next pandemic, we owe it to ourselves to learn and apply the hard lessons as done successfully in the past.
Rory McAlpine Victoria
Can it?
Re “It can happen here: Why an autocrat could rise to power in Canada” (Opinion, Aug. 8): Maybe not.
In our parliamentary system, the prime minister is usually a sitting MP who first has to be approved to run by their party, then obtain electoral approval in their riding and finally work their way up to become leader. A crazy populist is unlikely to obtain approval to run for election or party leader.
In contrast, the U.S. president is elected directly with little prescreening process. It is easier for a messianic figure to come to power, and in fact it has been done twice.
As well, the president can appoint whoever he wants to cabinet. Canadian cabinet members are nearly always MPs, so the likelihood of a Pete Hegseth-type appointment is negligible.
If a party ensures that both its leader and cabinet are reasonable people, most of the problems described here become moot. I do agree, though, that parties should have more capability to fire a leader.
Adam Plackett Toronto
In both the United States and Canada, I believe the responsibility for the lack of resistance to abuses of power rests with the people who are elected by their constituents. They can decide to work for their leader or for those who voted for them.
Parliamentarians can protect the integrity of democracy, and their own integrity, by withholding support for a leader who rides roughshod over democratic norms and ideals. They may not receive plum appointments or be approved to run in the next election, but they will have honoured their constituents and stood up for democracy.
If enough MPs adopted this approach, the prime minister might consider them to be somebodies rather than nobodies, and worthy of playing meaningful roles in government.
In many countries, standing up for democratic principles may have serious repercussions, including imprisonment or death. In Canada, it is simply a matter of moral compass.
Ted Wiggans Harvey Station, N.B.
My position on the rise of autocracies is based on two premises.
First, regardless of the checks and balances in a government structure, the only thing preventing an autocrat from disregarding that structure is the fact they will eventually have to face voters (unless they somehow cancel elections, as Donald Trump has suggested). Then the only way an autocracy can take hold is if there is an ill-informed and apathetic electorate.
We’ll see what kind of electorate the United States has in November.
Liz Addison Toronto
One day
Re “The 24 hours that could change Canada’s economic trajectory” (Report on Business, Aug. 8): The elephant in the room at September’s inaugural Canada Investment Summit, co-hosted by Mark Carney, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board CEO John Graham and Public Sector Pension Investment Board CEO Deborah Orida, will be the invitation to invest in Canada’s fast-tracked energy and infrastructure projects while there is worsening climate change.
Canadians will be watching how the Prime Minister’s “new sustainability” is received by global investing elites, even as some sovereign funds are limited by rules to reduce or eliminate fossil fuel investments.
The fossil fuel investment debate will be front and centre when four young Canadians eventually appear in Ontario court suing CPPIB for allegedly failing to manage climate risk. At stake in this landmark case is not only whether the court will declare that CPPIB has been ignoring threats to the Canadian and world economy, but also what version of “sustainability” will Canadians accept amid growing climate chaos.
Charles Novogrodsky Toronto
Back to the future?
Re “With a new oil pipeline, Canadians are being asked to make a bet on the past” (Opinion, Aug. 8): Mark Carney may be underestimating his political collateral in bowing to Alberta when he could be establishing our global leadership in clean energy, in its many forms, across all provinces.
It takes courage to change course, but he may well find greater support from the inaugural Canada Investment Summit next month with a more forward-looking and diverse economic and environmental strategy, both areas of strength from his past.
Let’s recall Parliament and have a healthy debate about a confident Canada in the world’s future, one that plays to tomorrow’s needs, not Alberta’s wants.
Len Ashby Toronto
The International Energy Agency is now predicting that global oil demand will keep rising until 2050.
A new pipeline to the West Coast is estimated to increase Canada’s GDP by 0.6 per cent, adding billions of dollars to tax revenues every year. By my math, the $40-billion cost would be offset after less than a decade of operation.
A new pipeline would not increase global emissions, it would just shift them. If we don’t deliver oil to global markets to satisfy the growing demands of developing countries, others will.
More importantly, having customers outside of the United States for Canadian crude oil would strengthen our bargaining power in trade negotiations and guarantee our long-term security as a sovereign nation.
James Lucas Ottawa
I tear my hair out listening to political leaders promoting more oil and gas production to save our economy. I no longer believe them.
So $40-billion for another pipeline? No. Not one more penny for fossil fuels.
Every dollar, and all of our focused energy, should go to supporting heat pumps, zero-emission buses, batteries, solar power and clean water plants for Indigenous communities. Our planet and our children’s future is at stake.
I am tired of being told that we must increase oil and gas production to diversify our economy, or else. I think we are in the fight of our lives. If we do not think about the air, water and creatures around us, there will be nothing to fight over.
Cathy Griffin Burnaby, 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
