The Peace Tower on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on June 19.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Conservative nature
Re “Does Coach Walz push the Democratic ticket too far left?” (Aug. 9): I was pleasantly surprised to hear that Doug Ford, a Canadian conservative, had such a positive reaction to Tim Walz running for U.S. vice-president.
It is a reminder, if nothing else, of the sort of extreme difference between politics, alleging to be “conservative” in the two countries, and that reminder is to Mr. Ford’s – and Canadian conservatism’s – credit.
Mary Lazier Corbett Prince Edward County, Ont.
Better debate
Re “Canadians deserve decorum in their Parliament” (Aug. 6): Yes, we do, but is it not better than the “Rat Pack” days of the Liberals when they were in opposition?
Also, MPs should be electing a non-partisan speaker who has the respect of all parties, something our current government has failed to do.
Tom Ham Ottawa
Re “By example” (Letters, Aug. 8): A letter-writer who feels less concerned about the lack of decorum than the lack of substance should heed the observations of 19th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who saw parliamentary procedure built around related fundamental principles, all aimed at encouraging the substantive debate which gives Parliament its purpose.
These were: the need to give notice for motions to allow members to better prepare for debate; a decision-making process that bills be given three readings so decisions are not rushed; the absolute impartiality of the presiding officer so that no one member, no matter their political status, has more rights than the other; the freedom of speech, the heart of parliamentary privilege.
Above all, Mr. Bentham stressed the need for decorum to encourage members to focus on what was being said, as opposed to how it was said, thus allowing the intelligence of the legislature to shine.
Gary William O’Brien Former clerk of the Senate and clerk of the Parliaments; Ottawa
I believe substantive debate is far more important, and greater decorum won’t solve the lack of it.
Most parliamentary votes are whipped. Minds are not changed by debate and MPs are not going to break ranks. I would rather have unruly parliamentary debate full of obscenities and insults if MPs were able to vote independently, according to the wishes of their constituents, without recriminations from their own party.
We should reform Parliament to give more power and independence for MPs. But that would be useless so long as MPs can be denied the chance to be nominated for re-election by their party.
France has runoff elections and Australia has ranked choice voting. But it is the system used in Alaska, with an open primary election followed by a ranked choice runoff, that would ensure MPs are more independent, even in “safe” ridings.
Brian Graff Toronto
Greater good
Re “How can the Trudeau government fix its immigration mess? Press ‘Rewind’ ” (Report on Business, Aug. 9): So 74 million adults from countries around the world want to come to Canada. Wow, it seems we have our pick, and a persuasive argument is made for “selectivity” and using immigration to fill “specialized, high-wage” positions.
Good idea, but let’s not forget the humanitarian side of the equation. There are Canada’s needs, and then there are the needs of those 74 million people. And even if adult immigrants do not bring with them the skills Canada needs today, we can bet that, in most cases, given the chance, their children will develop these skills and become significant contributors to Canada’s future prosperity.
Donald Hall Ottawa
All aboard
Re “Why Air Canada wants more Canadians to take the train” (Report on Business, Aug. 7): Analyst John Gradek wonders why Toronto Pearson “hasn’t associated itself with any of these consortiums for Via’s HFR project” or included stations in its development plans. I wish he’d asked us.
In April, we submitted a proposal to the high-frequency rail project team for bidders’ consideration. It offers our partnership on an HFR station that could bring direct HFR and legacy Via services to Canada’s busiest airport. This would enable integrated ticketing, make travel more competitive for underserved communities, reduce overall emissions and complement Union Station, Canada’s busiest multimodal transit hub.
The proposal was framed as part of our 10-year strategic plan, offering to make our staff and consultants available to move talks forward. As we understand it, the HFR team is now considering three bids for the project.
We agree that including an airport connection in the project scope would build stronger ridership and better connections for Canadians.
Karen Mazurkewich Vice-president, stakeholder relations and communications, Toronto Pearson
Charged up
Re “Just drive” (Letters, Aug. 8): A letter-writer from Ontario describes driving an electric vehicle and preventing “tons of carbon emissions.”
No mention is made concerning the quantity of used fuel-bundle nuclear waste produced from electrical generation in this province.
Sidney Joseph Thornhill, Ont.
The United Nations says the campaign of misinformation to slow down the transition to clean energy is coming from fossil fuel companies. If these companies want to have a future, they should be responsible and embrace change like the world’s vehicle manufacturers are doing.
The future will belong to industries that are part of the solution to destructive climate change, not those that are dragging their feet at massive expense to the public. My experience tells me the cost of buying and operating a climate-friendly electric vehicle is already cheaper than a traditional vehicle, and it is rapidly getting much cheaper.
Hugh Holland Huntsville, Ont.
Who’s to blame?
Re “Ontario, Ottawa clash over private operators in national child-care program” (Aug. 5): In 2021, the Trudeau government promised $10-per-day child care. Never mind that child care falls under provincial jurisdiction, that the country would need $30-billion to pay for it, that the bulk of Canada’s existing child-care infrastructure, both commercial and non-profit, is privately owned, or that owner-operators were not closely consulted.
Now Ontario is being blamed because the federal program is failing. In Ontario, all licensed centres have to adhere to the same regulations and quality standards, whether run as businesses or non-profits, or as part of the public sector. To minimize waitlists, the federal program should have allowed Ontario to expand all forms of licensed child care.
As it stands, some families are paying less for child care. But for how long? At what cost?
And what about the vast majority of families who’ve been left behind? They deserve better than just higher taxes and empty promises.
Andrea Hannen Executive director, Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario; St. Catharines, 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