Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre rises during during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on April 29.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Unruly behaviour
Re “Poilievre kicked out of Commons for using unparliamentary language” (May 1): Pierre Poilievre calls the Prime Minister a “wacko.” And Mr. Poilievre believes that Canadians want such a juvenile representing us in the world. He needs to grow up.
Joe O’Brien Halifax
I am disappointed, distressed, disheartened and frankly disgusted. These men cannot be called leaders if they can do no better than resorting to a six-year-old’s insults and childish behaviour. We need adults who will focus on the serious issues and concerns of our country. We need adults who will respect others, even if they disagree with them, and treat them with dignity and civility. What has our country come to?
Gail Potter Rossland, B.C.
We have all heard Pierre Poilievre’s name-calling and abusive language used numerous times outside the House, but this was far beyond any of the usual bad language allowed in an active House of Commons. I am so glad that the Speaker of the House found it truly unacceptable in a venue where the most important decisions for Canadians are made, and asked him to leave.
I also find this behaviour not only unacceptable, but truly unforgivable. Does Mr. Poilievre believe this is the kind of leader that Canadians would want for their next prime minister? I don’t think so. Anyone voting for such a leader would be asking for the future of Canada to go sideways in a landslide. He is showing his true colours. Will we remain blind not to see them?
G.A. Teske Sherwood Park, Alta.
Ewe might be surprised to learn that the obedient members of the Conservative Party were herded out of the House of Commons after their bleating leader uddered unparliamentary sounds. Too much grass?
Marty Cutler Toronto
Invest at home
A former portfolio manager recommends that “Canadian investors should maximize their foreign exposure and consider having minimal exposure to Canada – or none at all” (“It’s time for tax-burdened Canadians to look beyond domestic stocks and bonds. These ETFs are a good place to start” – Report on Business, April 23).
Elsewhere, while delivering the budget, our Finance Minister said, “We recognize that there is an urgent need today to invest in Canada, and Canadians.”
Yet our massive pension funds make the majority of their investments outside this country.
As a simple Canadian with a reasonably sized portfolio, I chose many years ago to make all my investments in Canadian companies and have had decent-sized returns. My reasons include wanting to see Canada become more productive and grow. I note that many prominent Canadian business people feel the same way (”Senior business leaders support proposal asking pension funds to invest more in Canada” – March 6).
Can our politicians not connect the dots and use some persuasion to get our pension funds to swing much higher portions of their holdings – and subsequent influence – into Canadian investments? Let’s get on with it.
Herb Westman Ottawa
Tax me more?
Re “For richer or …” (Letters, May 1): Letter-writer Peter Kirby, like many other letter-writers to The Globe and Mail, somewhat surprisingly says he is more than willing to pay higher taxes. “I am all in,” he writes. “Raise my taxes.”
Maybe housing, food and other prices in Kenora, Ont., where he lives, are lower than they are in Vancouver.
May I suggest a voluntary system. Have a box on future income tax forms whereby willing Canadians can place a tick indicating they are willing to pay a supplementary amount to central government revenues – monies that would then be disbursed as politicians, government officials choose.
Barbara Yaffe Vancouver
Lately, there have been a number of letters expressing support for increased taxes. Under other circumstances perhaps, but I don’t understand why any taxpayer would want to hand over more money to the Trudeau Liberals.
Were it not for their profligate, irresponsible spending, much of it funded by borrowed money, tax increases might not have been necessary. Instead, billions of our tax dollars will be spent servicing the ballooning interest payments on our huge national debt. Before raising taxes, let’s dramatically reduce wasteful spending and pay down some of our crippling national debt to free up tax dollars better directed at health care, national security and defence, and other crucial national spending priorities.
Kathryn Vogel Toronto
Benefit me less?
Re “It’s time to retire subsidies to rich seniors” (Editorial, April 27): As a senior in receipt of Old Age Security, I fully agree. Given my financial circumstances, it makes no sense to give it to me.
I think most Canadians in my situation would agree, when pressed, that it really should only go to those retirees who actually need it. Ironically, while politicians fear a backlash from seniors if they were to propose such a change, I think most of us actually think less of politicians who are so timid, and who prefer to blatantly pander to us even when it makes no sense.
John Arbuckle Ottawa
I receive Old Age Security. I do not receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
As an incentive, how about this: I promise to vote for the party that first commits to reducing OAS payments for financially comfortable seniors. Sadly, I do not expect to have to deliver on this promise.
Ira Greenblatt Ottawa
Hard lessons
Re “Police watchdog investigating after Highway 401 crash kills four east of Toronto” (May 1): We should not form opinions about this until the Special Investigations Unit is done its review. But it is my strong hope that someone in authority will acknowledge that it would have been better for the “bad guy” to escape completely than for innocent people to die.
Neil Jones Hamilton
Economy vs. environment
Re “Natural resources are more important to the economy than city-dwellers realize” (Opinion, May 1): Preston Manning slags the current government over its concern for environmental issues, then concludes that natural resources should be developed in the most environmentally and socially responsible way possible.
Okay. Are we to believe that a Conservative government will maintain high standards of environmental protection? Or charge ahead under the all-encompassing banner of economic development?
Noel Alfonso Ottawa
Cars vs. trains
Re “Deep Breath” (Letters, April 29): A letter-writer comments on the benefits of breathing near electric vehicles since they have zero tailpipe emissions. However, there was no mention of airborne rubber-tire particulates or volatile atmospheric emissions from stations that generate the electricity.
Instead of spending billions of dollars on subsidizing private automotive assembly facilities, taxpayer money would be better spent on public mass-rail transit.
Sidney Joseph Thornhill, 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