.... this seems particularly apt. Thanks to my friend Gary for passing it along.
And there's this:
I've been thinking a lot lately about two polarities: compassion and outrage, and have concluded the obvious - both have their limits, thanks to the profoundly troubled times in which we live.
We are well aware of compassion fatigue. The world hurls at us an almost constant barrage of images depicting suffering, deprivation and death. We see Gazans dying on a regular basis, both adults and children, thanks to Israeli's genocidal actions. We see the constant bombardments in Ukraine, thanks to the predatory nature of Vladimir Putin. We see victims of natural disaster worldwide, most as a result our folly in ignoring the existential threat of climate change. Eventually we reach a point where the the chambers of our heart grow colder, perhaps ultimately reducing us to collective shoulder shrugs.
I suspect outrage follows a similar trajectory. If one remembers Trump's first term in office, as time wore on more and more people simply dismissed his mad mutterings and actions as, "Well, that's just Trump being Trump."
I would like to think that reactions to his second term will be different, but I have my very strong doubts. Consider what he has done in the first few days of his new presidency, the outrages already almost too many to enumerate; however, I will focus on just one: his reaction to the terrible helicopter and plane crash over the Potomac that cost 67 lives. While a normal person (or even one pretending to be normal) would have expressed national condolences and led the grieving process for the many families who suffered such devastating losses, Trump. of course, followed the path of political aggrandizement.
...on Thursday night after 67 people perished in the icy waters of the Potomac River, Donald Trump – checks notes – blamed diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies that had led to the Federal Aviation Administration hiring people with “severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities”. There was something too about “dwarves”.
This, he conceded, was not based on any empirical evidence – it was his “common sense”. You could see the bewilderment of so many of the reporters who had gathered in the briefing room.
Sure, Trump had started his remarks by talking about how “in moments like this, the differences between Americans fade to nothing compared to the bonds of affection and loyalty that unite us all”. But then – boom – the president went on the attack. The politicisation of a national tragedy was breathtaking in its audaciousness. Biden was to blame. Obama was to blame.
Clearly, the role of consoler-in-chief holds no appeal to this monstrous narcissist, and like always, he was expansive in his blaming of others, including Pete Buttigieg, who he lambasted with a profanity.
Despicable. As families grieve, Trump should be leading, not lying. We put safety first, drove down close calls, grew Air Traffic Control, and had zero commercial airline crash fatalities out of millions of flights on our watch.The transportation secretary of the Biden administration, Pete Buttigieg, said it was “despicable”, accusing the president of “lying not leading”.
President Trump now oversees the military and the FAA. One of his first acts was to fire and suspend some of the key personnel who helped keep our skies safe. Time for the President to show actual leadership and explain what he will do to prevent this from happening again.
And it seems almost redundant that Trump's crass commentary was echoed by bootlickers like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Department of Transportation head Sean Duffy. Did anyone expect anything less than compete obeisance from those Trump selected to lead key government departments?
As I said, all of this has happened within the first few days of Trump's new mandate, and I fully expect more and more outrages as the days and weeks and months go by.
In 1954, a piercing question was asked:
Special Counsel for the U.S. Army Joseph N. Welch confronted Sen. Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had attacked a member of Welch’s law firm, Frederick G. Fisher, as a communist due to Fisher’s prior membership in the National Lawyers Guild. The Guild was the nation’s first racially integrated bar association.
Welch was outraged:
Until this moment, senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or recklessness . . . . Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
I fear we are quickly approaching a time, exhausted as the world will be by the narcissist's antics, when no one will even bother asking such a question.
With the unhinged one who is now leading the U.S. seemingly intent on wreaking economic havoc upon Canada, astute readers of newspapers have a panoply of suggestions as to how to respond:
While others ponder an appropriate national response to Trump’s tariffs, here is something we can all do now: Cancel plans to holiday in the U.S.A. That won’t cost Canada a dime in lost trade.
Gregory Sorbara, Toronto
Don’t buy American
In Canada we vote with our ballots. On the international stage we vote with our wallets. Why are we waiting for the threatened “tariff axe” to fall? We as consumers can take action now by boycotting U.S. products and buying Canadian, wherever possible. Win/win. We pump more money into the local economy, encourage Canadian entrepreneurship and innovation, and send a clear message that we will not be cowed by the threats of a misinformed despot. And then we can talk about retaliation.
Michael Bines, Toronto
Make it easy to buy Canadian, Jan. 27
It may be nice, but Canadians do not need a maple leaf sticker to buy Canadian products. I have been shopping Canadian as my first choice for years, followed by products from developing countries and other Western countries, besides the U.S. Fortunately, products available in Canada from perishables, to jams, oils, washer/dryers, furniture, etc., all have country of origin labels so making a choice is very easy. To further respond to Trump’s tariffs, Canadians should stop crossing the border to buy groceries, gas, etc., and not patronize American companies, e.g. Walmart, Costco, Uber, etc.
Aquil Ali, Toronto
Why are we buying 88 F35A fighters from Lockheed-Martin and 14 to 16 P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft from Boeing when U.S. President Donald Trump has started a trade war with Canada? Time to cancel these contracts due to “force majeure.” I doubt Trump has included our military spending in his trade deficit “analysis,” not to mention the lower CAD.
Craig Steels, Calgary, Alta.
Re “Is it effective to boycott U.S. products? Evidence is mixed, but here’s what you can do to shop more Canadian” (Report on Business, Jan. 24): I will stop buying U.S. fruit, vegetables, beer and wine. I am also writing to food retailers and my provincial liquor board to ask them to stop importing these products.
Americans take commerce very seriously. It would take a concerted effort, but if U.S. businesses start seeing large export orders cancelled, they would wake up and complain to their government.
Paul Poscente Calgary
Re “Canada should respond to Trump by relaxing regulations, passing a ‘Buy Canada’ act, says National Bank CEO” (Report on Business, Jan. 24): It may be time to dust off protectionism as a potential economic survival strategy for Canada.
The global economy is increasingly dominated by large countries and mammoth global companies. Smaller countries are left with little to do other than supply commodities and cheap labour to the more powerful.
If we are to avoid this fate as open access to the U.S. market is lost, Canada should embrace both trade protectionism and ownership protectionism. Trade protectionism stops foreign interests from cornering the Canadian market, while ownership protectionism insists on keeping Canadian-owned corporations in Canadian hands.
Protectionism definitely has its downsides. But it could also result in a Canadian economy that is more resilient, diversified and dynamic, less vulnerable to economic blackmail by the United States or anyone else, and better able to provide good jobs for Canadians.
Jim Paulin Ottawa
As Canadians, we all have skin in this game. It remains to be seen whether or not we are up for the fight.
That blatant balderdash is the sorry excuse for a trip to the polls in February, a cruel choice in a cruel month where people are either huddling in their homes or fleeing to warmer climes. (However, I have been informed that there is a vote-by-mail option, a link to which I shall put at the end of this post.) Am I rash in predicting a record low turnout that will cost us at least $150 million, and the spectre of four more years of economic mismanagement?
However, judging by some letters to the editor, I don't think I am the only one feeling deep disenchantment over Ford's contempt for the citizens and taxpayers of Ontario.
With an Ontario election looming, it’s time to reflect on what has gone on under Doug Ford’s premiership. Anybody been to the hospital recently? How were the wait times? I hear ORs at SickKids are not able to function properly due to a lack of nurses. Anybody have a kid in public school or at an Ontario college? Given the chronic lack of funding during Ford’s tenure, how’s that working out ? Have you been to the grocery store? We know consumers are being gouged, but has Ford stepped in to help us? Instead of listening to voters, Ford pushed through with the closure of the Ontario Science Centre, and he plans to add a foreign-owned luxury spa to Ontario Place. People need to recognize that other leaders are as well suited to talk business with Trump, or even better. Ford is not the people’s premier. He’s in it to make himself and his buddies rich at the expense of public education, health care, and affordability. He’s not our guy.
Jennifer Chambers, Toronto
Dear Doug Ford: do not call an early election. Ontario is facing a threat of epic proportions in President Donald Trump. You already have a mandate to deal with him. Aware of the seriousness of the current situation, the opposition parties have pledged to work with you. Do not get distracted. This is not the time for crass, self-serving politicking. A real Captain Canada wouldn’t abandon the fight just as it was about to begin.
Trish Plant, Toronto
Ford’s plan to announce a provincial election on January 29 is a sham. He is again wasting taxpayers’ money to keep himself in power, and he is clearly using Trump’s tariff threats as a pretext for doing so. Ford already has a clear majority to do as he and his party see fit. Why does he need a “clear mandate” to address potential American tariffs? I feel that this just an excuse to deflect attention away from the issues Ford is facing. These include the RCMP investigation into the Greenbelt scandal; the underfunding of health care, education, and social programs; the closing of safe-injection sites; and delays to the Ontario Line and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. Ford may get a clear mandate to fight the tariffs, but that will take his government away from dealing with issues that are more relevant to Ontarians.
Joe Bortolussi, Toronto
The election Ford craves will reportedly cost between $150 million and $175 million. If you include the total cost of the $200 buy-a-vote cheques that the government is sending out now — which will add about $3.2 billion to the deficit and thus the total debt — the election will really cost nearly $3.4 billion. Last election, about 4.7 million votes were cast. To allow for some population growth, let’s estimate that maybe 5 million votes will be cast. That would make this the most expensive election ever, at about $700 per vote.
My cheque, labelled the “Ontario Taxpayer Rebate,” arrived today. It will be pinned to the wall and never cashed so that I will not be responsible for having added to the debt that Ford is using his existing strong mandate to create. Goodness knows how much more debt he can create with a “very” strong mandate. Curiously, the blurb attached to the cheque says, “to help with the costs of the federal carbon tax and interest rates, the Ontario government is putting money back into peoples’ pockets by providing a tax-free, $200 rebate....” I already get a much, much better rebate on the federal carbon price from the federal government.
Say, wasn’t it Doug Ford who, during his first strong mandate, scrapped the cap-and-trade plan that existed when he took office and thus forced the federal carbon tax on the people of Ontario? Can we afford any more mandates for Doug Ford?
Graeme Elliott, Toronto
This is the link providing information on how to vote by mail in Ontario:
https://www.elections.on.ca/en/voting-in-ontario/voting-in-provincial-elections.html
A friend sent me this. Could the cartoonist who drew this be looking at sedition charges in the future, or, at the very least, termination of the non-lethal kind?
My friend Gary, who I have known since my university days, has a sly wit whenever he comments on politics, both domestic and foreign. He sent me an email about how the always tiresome PP finds favour amongst some in his circle.
He offered this comment about our putative next prime minister:
This is how I see PP [when] he says, "This is broken [and} this is broken:
While I and many others consider the possibility of a Mark Carney-led Liberal Party, there are some obvious hurdles. While his appearance on The Daily Show, which I wrote about yesterday, may help, according to Leland Cecco, 76% of Canadians in an Abacus poll could not identify him.
But that may change, if letter writers and pundits are any indication of things political. The Star's Linda McQuaig has this to say about Carney:
Among possible contenders for the Liberal leadership, Carney seems the best bet to take on the menacing Donald Trump. Carney is smart, unflappable and has experience dealing with foolish loudmouths. His international stature as a respected former governor of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada might even intimidate the ignorant American bully.
Unlike conventional central bankers, Carney used his influence to push hard for climate action, serving as UN Special Envoy for Climate and Finance, and pressuring financial interests to divest from fossil fuels. Carney has also condemned “staggering wealth inequalities,” and criticized Canada’s corporate elite for sitting on “dead money” rather than investing its enormous profits in Canada.
Carney ... has actually stood up to the establishment; in 2019, he enraged then-president Trump by advocating scrapping the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency — a reform that would threaten U.S. global economic and political dominance.
Carney has never held elected office (whereas Poilievre has done nothing but hold elected office). So Carney will be compared to political novice Michael Ignatieff, who was crushed in the 2011 federal election. But Ignatieff was a pompous lightweight (he publicly insisted it was George W. Bush’s deep commitment to democracy that motivated him to invade Iraq). Carney is no such fool.
Letters to the editor reflect some thoughts on Carney after his Daily Show appearance:
When a former central banker walks onto The Daily Show and actually kills it, you’d think we’d celebrate. Instead, critics such as Tonda McCharles dismiss Mark Carney’s viral moment as a low-risk no-show.
Let’s be clear: comedy is a high-wire act, especially for someone eyeing the Prime Minister’s Office. One awkward pause, one failed joke, and you’re a cringeworthy meme, immortalized on the internet as a loser’s punchline. Given that Carney is a banker fighting the stuffed-suit stereotype, his appearance with Jon Stewart was a revelation. An economist with a spreadsheet mindset stepped into the arena of comedy — and somehow walked away having won the audience’s approval. That’s a big deal.
While Trudeau prorogued and Poilievre complained, Carney showed up with actual substance wrapped in wit. He demonstrated a depth of economic knowledge that went beyond the tax-cut talking points conservatives recycle every election, but without putting everyone to sleep. He framed climate change as a solvable crisis without sounding like a doomsday prophet. And he managed to be progressive without merely parroting a script. That’s leadership without the usual political theatre.
The cynics can sneer all they want. Carney has shown us that maybe, just maybe, the current Canadian political race has been altered. Perhaps Poilievre is no longer a sure thing: progressive Canadian voters now have a real chance to avoid political disaster.
Tony D’Andrea, Toronto
Mark Carney and Jon Stewart appeared to have so much fun sparring about the Canada-U.S. relationship this week on The Daily Show. When asked what he thought about the idea of turning Canada into the 51st state, Carney told Stewart, “You’re attractive, but we’re not moving in with you. It’s not you; it’s us.”
Carney was funny, humble, well-spoken and knowledgeable about Canadian affairs and politics. He displayed his skills as an economist and banker, and I believe he would be the perfect prime minister to deal with President-elect Donald Trump’s massive tariffs. Carney was the governor of the Bank of Canada during the 2008 financial crisis and helped get the United Kingdom through Brexit as governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020.
It was wonderful to see two men so quick on their feet!
Ellie McCaig, Kitchener
Will any of this make a difference in the next federal election? Your guess is as good as mine, but my suspicion is that the predicted decimation of the Liberal Party may be mitigated by a leader who stands in sharp contrast to the shrill, dour, aphoristic and repetitive PP, a man who seems to take pleasure in cutting down our country, not unlike the shrill schoolmarm who, by accident, receives an invitation to a party and casts a very wet blanket over all the festivities.
While you have probably heard of Mark Carney's appearance on The Daily Show, his performance with Jon Stewart both surprised and impressed me. He was loose, funny and, most unexpectedly, engaging. Now I certainly realize that celebrity without cerebration is popular amongst those allergic to critical thinking, it appears that with Carney, you might get both.
Would he be a more effective Liberal leader than Chrystia Freeland? I have no idea, and the fact that he has no direct political experience and has never held elected office weighs heavily on me. I'll just have to see how things develop, but offering such a contrast to the dour, humourless PP definitely works in his favour.
The following video is about 19 minutes long, and few likely have the time to watch it. But dip into it for a few minutes and see what you think.
You can watch the entire interview here.
O' Leary was there as a kind of amicus curiae of the Trump kangaroo court, offering his 'good offices' to facilitate an American-Canadian economic merger. Smith was there to ostensibly talk up Canada as an energy powerhouse - no need for tariffs on oil and gas.
Moving on from the detritus depicted above, an antidote of sorts to my ravaged psyche arrived in the form of some letters to the editor from real Canadians, a few of which I reproduce below:
Canada must be prepared to shut our doors
We need to let it be known that we will react immediately if the U.S. Head Fool implements his threats against Canada. The U.S. will be in a nasty position when he does his usual foolish stuff but we need to be ready to immediately shut our doors. This includes our exports of fuel, water, etc … so that Americans realize they made a huge mistake bringing the old, crooked guy back. Stand up Canada, support your governments and make the U.S. understand their mistake.
Chris Andrews, Vaughan, ON
Why no comment from Poilievre on Trump’s diatribes?
Threats, insults, and misinformation by Donald Trump towards Canada on a daily basis. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier Doug Ford, and Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly have put up a fight for Canada. Meanwhile, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, an insulter and bully to Canadians, curled up cowardly in a corner. Instead of making a meaningful comment, he is busy preparing to go to Trump’s inauguration to suck up to Trump and Elon Musk. I have no doubt whatsoever, that Poilievre, Danielle Smith, and Scott Moe will sell out Canada to Donald Trump. They have the same ideologies as the Republicans — they do not believe in climate change or vaccines; they support religious extremists and conspiracy theories and align themselves with racist groups and personalities like Tucker Carlton. Where are you Poilievre?
Taij Chand, Toronto
And there is this missive from The Globe:
In the early 1970s, Canada considered diversifying trade relationships away from the United States.
The concern was that the U.S. had undue economic and cultural influence over Canada, which made our great nation vulnerable. The “Third Option” did not materialize and instead free-trade agreements with the U.S., and eventually Mexico, were established. Through these agreements, Canada has become even more reliant on the U.S.
Fast-forward to the present and Donald Trump is threatening significant trade tariffs. We should reconsider the Third Option. We should undertake various actions such as joining the European Union, restarting trade negotiations with Britain, creating a bilateral-trade agreement with Mexico and developing new trade opportunities with other Commonwealth nations and emerging economies in Africa and Asia. If successful, our trade relationships would be diversified.
The best way to insulate the Canadian economy from Donald Trump is to make Canada less reliant on the U.S. for trade.
Lance Alexander Toronto
Oh, I almost forgot to include a picture of yet another rogue at the Trump love fest who, I understand, is a refugee from the woke police in Canada and currently residing in the home of the free and the brave:
Whatever you may think of Jean Chretien's political legacy, one thing to remember is that he charted his own course. That was made abundantly clear when he refused to join George Bush's "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq all those years ago, something Stephen Harper said he would have willingly joined.
On his 91st birthday, Chretien has penned an essay in The Globe and Mail that is both refreshing and a much-needed antidote to some ot the efforts that have been made to thus far appease the avarice and imperialist aspirations of the incoming felon-president-elect, Donald Trump.
While acknowledging that those efforts have had some value, at least in terms of stressing the costs to both countries of tariffs, Chretien writes of the need for what he calls a 2025 Plan B:
Let’s tell Mr. Trump that we too have border issues with the United States. Canada has tough gun control legislation, but illegal guns are pouring in from the U.S. We need to tell him that we expect the United States to act to reduce the number of guns crossing into Canada.
We also want to protect the Arctic. But the United States refuses to recognize the Northwest Passage, insisting that it is an international waterway, even though it flows through the Canadian Arctic as Canadian waters. We need the United States to recognize the Northwest Passage as being Canadian waters.
We need to be stronger. There are more trade barriers between provinces than between Canada and the United States. Let’s launch a national project to get rid of those barriers! And let’s strengthen the ties that bind this vast nation together through projects such as real national energy grid.
We also have to understand that Mr. Trump isn’t just threatening us; he’s also targeting a growing list of other countries, as well as the European Union itself, and he is just getting started. Canada should quickly convene a meeting of the leaders of Denmark, Panama, Mexico, as well as with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to formulate a plan for fighting back these threats.
Every time that Mr. Trump opens his mouth, he creates new allies for all of us. So let’s get organized! To fight back against a big, powerful bully, you need strength in numbers.
Chretien also calls out the corrosive spirit that has infected Canadian politics to the point where we are making ourselves even more vulnerable to international predations:
The current and future generations of political leaders should remember they are not each other’s enemies – they are opponents. Nobody ever loved the cut-and-thrust of politics more than me, but I always understood that each of us was trying to make a positive contribution to make our community or country a better place.
That spirit is more important now than ever, as we address this new challenge. Our leaders should keep that in mind.
I'll close with Chretien's parting words, which seem particularly apt in these turbulent and troubled times:
I am 91 today and blessed with good health. I am ready at the ramparts to help defend the independence of our country as I have done all my life.
Vive le Canada!
Who would have thought, eh?
Also, I do hope Canada is planning a more robust response to the bully than is being reported thus far:
Canada is looking at levying retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of American-made goods including orange juice, ceramics such as toilets and sinks, and some steel products as part of a targeted response should Donald Trump proceed with a threat to impose a 25-per-cent tax on all products from Canada.
It doesn't sound much like the mouse that roared - more like the cat that meowed.
That the days and weeks ahead will see detailed assessments of the Trudeau legacy, both good and bad, I have no doubt. I shall leave most of those to the professional pundits, but today I'll offer just a few thoughts.
There were many things that Mr. Trudeau did very well, not least of which was shephereding us through the Covid pandemic, the very pandemic that seemed to be the catalyst for the unhinged, who never forgave him for enacting restrictions on all of us for the sake of public health. They certainly epitomized the dumb in freedumb. You can readily read in the media other of his achievements, including the NDP pressure-induced childcare reforms and the beginnings of pharmacare and dentacare.
I heard yesterday a Brock professor characterizing his time as one of disappointment. There were so many promises of better days, sunny ways when Trudeau first took office, but, as I have expressed elsewhere in this blog, it didn't take long for the old Liberal arrogance to reassert itself. For me, that was acutely reflected first in the abandonment of his promise that 2015 would be the last election under the first-past-the-post protocol. Simple to understand, his promise of a ranked balloting system would have, in my view, induced greater democratic participation and less political cynicism. it would have been a system wherein the individual could feel her or his voice counted for something.
Yet Trudeau blithely jettisoned that promise. Here was his disinguously-expressed regret at his press conference yesterday:
The sanctimony of his statement rankled. First of all, he went into the election promising that reform. Secondly, he was elected, among other things, on that promise. Thirdly, he had a majority government, and implementing that reform would have been relatively easy. Majority governments do many things that they didn't campaign on (think Doug Ford and the Greenbelt in Ontario), so to suggest that he couldn't move without the support of the other parties is but a pathetic excuse for betraying his oath. And finally, just how much effort did he put into getting the support of the others? Not much, in my recall.
The next few months will indeed be interesting ones. With PP puffing and huffing at the door, many will be watching closely the Liberals' efforts to salvage not only their reputations but their electoral lives.
I'll start by saying that I have little use for Pierre Poilievre. His schtick, which largely revolves around catchy rhyming phraseology ("Axe the Tax'" Hard Time For Hard Crime", "Jail, Not Bail", the enigmatic but non-rhyming "Let's Bring It Home", etc.) instead of substantive policy articulation, is an insult to all who expect their intelligence to be respected. I will admit, however, that thus far it seems to be working for him, if the polls are any indication.
The following video of his recent sit-down with the always aggrieved and, quite frankly, unwell Jordan Peterson, is worth watching. In it, journalist Rachel Gilmore parses some of PP's proclamations during the interview, exposing his shallow/misleading thinking for what it is. If you don't have time to watch the entire nine minutes, I would recommend viewing the last three minutes, which are certainly revelatory.
You can read more about the interview here.
I still, however, read letters to the editor on a regular basis, and with great interest, sometimes reproducing them here. Many are succinct gems that I hope get people thinking. Today i shall reproduce three of them. The first one especially resonates with me. Although we give happily to a number of charitable causes annually, I have never, to my knowledge, given a penny to hospital fund-raising efforts. The letter encapsulates my reasoning:
Ontario hospitals should not be begging for donations
On Dec 28, there was full page ad in the Star, placed by Lakeridge Health Foundation, soliciting donations towards the purchase of five life-saving devices: Automated External Defibrillators (AED). I pay taxes. Those should be sufficient to equip a hospital in Ontario. That is the bargain between me and the government; tax me and take care of the health and education and general well-being of the citizens of Ontario. If the taxes don’t cover the costs, raise the taxes.
Needed hospital equipment purchases should not require the hospital to put a tin cup on the sidewalk begging for donations. Perhaps Premier Doug Ford could redirect the $200 vote-buying bribe cheques he has promised us and spend the $3 billion-plus on AEDs. They apparently cost $3,200 each. He could buy a million of them. They could be in every hospital ward, every bus, every subway car, every long-term-care facility, every beer and wine selling grocery store. Even at the Ontario Place spa, maybe.
Graeme Elliott, Toronto
The ironic tone in the following, dealing with the travails of our current prime minister, especially appealed to me:
Trudeau’s chosen female ministers have failed him
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must be so disappointed. In 2015, he made international headlines by naming a cabinet that was 50 per cent women. Sadly, every single one turned out to be a dud. After what I can only imagine were heartfelt efforts to position one of them as his successor, they all failed to demonstrate the necessary intelligence, character, and gravitas for the job: Jody Wilson-Raybould, a crown prosecutor who held leadership positions in both Kwak’wala and Canadian governments. Not a team player. Joyce Murray, who made a fortune planting trees. Can’t think outside the box. And Chrystia Freeland, who found common ground with Ontario Premier Doug Ford and defended Liberal trade policies from a Trump attack in 2017, couldn’t see the upside in a few trifling Christmas gifts for all Canadians. The woman simply does not understand politics. Sad. Facing a second Donald Trump presidency, Trudeau and his small circle of like-minded advisers stand alone, grimly shouldering the weight of Canada’s future. On behalf of all Canadian women, I want to apologize for leaving this lonely burden to them.
Catherine Murton Stoehr, North Bay
Finally, a letter about Kevin O'leary, the toad who leaves warts on all he touches:
Kevin O’Leary represents his own interests, not Canada’s
Kevin O’Leary posted on X that he is willing to go to Mar-a-Lago to negotiate on Canada’s behalf to unify Canada and the U.S. O’Leary’s right to negotiate on our behalf exists only in his ego. He is no elected official. In fact, he recently became a citizen of the United Arab Emirates. Not only is there no income tax in the UAE, but there is also no need to file any report on your income. Pack your ego away Mr. O’Leary. You don’t represent anyone’s interest but your own. Remember, we are the true north strong and free.
Bruce Kerr, Toronto
Not a bad cross section of Canadian opinion, eh?
