From Canada's Industrial Heartland

 

While I hardly expect that Ontario should garner much sympathy from the rest of Canada, every so often I can't help but write about our poor state of politics. Led by "Captain Canada," Doug Ford, the legislature spends far more in recess than it does in session. I suspect our 'leader' finds it an irksome impediment to whatever he does with his time, given his Progressive Conservatives command a clear majority that certainly puts a damper on accountability. That is, until he does something that provokes widespread public outrage.

While there is much to condemn in this heavy-handed government's rule, it wasn't until Ford's recent purchase of a $29 million jet that public hackles were raised. As a result, Ford has reversed his purchase, but even now he insists buying it was the correct choice; as with most hubristic politicians, Ford claimed it was not a failure of policy but rather a failure of communication. He didn't do enough to prepare the public for his extravagance.

Well, many people are having none of his nonsense about what has been dubbed his "gravy plane". The following letters to the editor amply attest to this:

Time for a premier who puts Ontario first

This is a typical Doug Ford move. He appears to be driven by self‑interest and a desire for personal attention.  This runs from ordering speed cameras to be removed, mixing up Toronto’s street traffic and  removing bikes and walkways, totally ruining Ontario Place, stating that he’ll expand the island airport for larger planes and spending millions on a new plane to fly himself around. Earlier he was only interested in building new country roads and pulling down country greenspace in order to build expensive homes. None of this does anything to improve Ontario.

Ontario needs intelligent improvements for Ontarians, Canadians and visitors. It’s time to make political changes.

Chris Andrews, Vaughan, ON

Doug Ford the salesman

Ford says Ontario has sold controversial private jet at no loss, April 22

Well, done, Doug! The plane is gone. Now you should terminate the island spa agreement and return Ontario Place to the public, remove the traffic calming barriers being installed in school zones and restore speed cameras. Next, ask your construction buddies to return any money regarding the Ontario Science Centre property along with  refunding any money spent on studies for the tunnel under Highway 401. Only then will it really feel like you have listened to the people. And, oh, one more thing … let Toronto voters decide on the future of the island airport.

Carolynne Canham, St. Catharines, ON 

There was no justification for a private jet for Ford in the first place

How did Doug Ford justify spending nearly $30 million dollars of taxpayer money on his own jet in a province where most locales can be reached on a propeller plane in one hour? And most northern communities don’t even have airports that support a jet!

At a time when our medical care is compromised and our school system is crumbling this huge expense, not just for the purchase of the jet but also for its maintenance, cannot be tolerated by taxpayers.

At least Ford heard the outrage and reversed course.

Ford never campaigned on the promise to buy himself a jet.

Dianne Ness, Toronto

I find it an incredible coincidence that after eight years of Premier Ford in power, the first time he raises the issue of jets using Billy Bishop airport coincides with his now quickly reversed decision to purchase a taxpayer-funded private jet, to the tune of $28.9 million.

Some estimates for the infrastructure needed to allow jets at Billy Bishop will cost in excess of $1 billion.

Ontario taxpayers deserve transparency. Just whose interests are actually being served by expanding the island airport for jets?

At least the premier did the right thing and grounded his jet.

Norm Di Pasquale, Toronto

The problem with winning three majority governments is that you think you are invincible. Ford fatigue has begun to set in. Perhaps it is time for the premier to do some serious, sober soul searching about seeking a fourth term, as he has recently mused about. 

UPDATED: Spectacle Abounds

 

I am old enough to remember the early days of space exploration, days that included John Glenn in orbit, the Mercury space program, followed by the Apollo missions, etc. In those early days, achievements in space commanded a great deal of attention, in part because it was essentially a battle of ideologies, capitalism against evil communism, an ongoing grudge match between the U.S and the Soviet Union. Who would emerge victorious, the world wondered.

But those days are long over. The U.S.  'won', as if somehow its technological prowess atoned for its racism, its foreign wars, its naked imperialism. 

So what accounts for the current fascination with the Artemis 11 mission and its almost endless news coverage? 

There is, of course, the matter of spectacle, an always useful, time-tested way to capture the attention of the masses and divert them from the really important matters that plague all of us. Americans are especially prone to embracing such blandishments, always ready to put hand over heart in patriotic fervour. So what if they started a needless and senseless war? So what if so many of their fellow citizens live on the street, with no chance of better lives? So what if ICE' murders fellow citizens? So what if their president is a dementia-ridden despot? Such matters pall in the face of going to the moon, eh?

But beyond that, it is striking that the news networks seem willing to carry the water for those who benefit the most from such 'excursions': the billionaires who walk amongst us. Consider the fact that the majority of television media are now part of large corporate conglomerates, and you have the perfect conditions for influencing and molding public opinion; thus we become conditioned to cheer on the prospect of a permanent moon base being established in the not-too-distant future. Somehow, that has become the imperative, as if establishing such a base would confer American lunar hegemony and ensure a bright future.

But a bright future for whom? From the perspective of the billionaires, the almost limitless profits to be made from such a feat, almost totally funded by taxpayer dollars, is undoubtedly occasioning all kinds of pavlovian salivation. And while the oligarchs amass even greater profits, the general public is left to hope for a few orts from the table, reminded yet again of their true place in the scheme of things. 

Democracy's ill-health is a precondition of such predatory monetary achievement, and given that the U.S. has now devolved into a vicious autocracy, clearly the conditions are golden for new rounds of pillaging. 

UPDATE: A thoughtful letter-writer offers offers his reality check on the new space race:

Why aren’t we taking more care of Earth? It has everything to sustain life

If only the moon was made of any kind of cheese, then spending $95 billion to go there might begin to make sense. You can’t live on the moon. There is no existing photosynthesis.  Everything to establish a “moon base” must be brought from Terra Ferma. Even if after a trillion dollars or many trillion dollars are spent, building a base in order to launch to Mars is laughable. There is no oxygen on Mars, it gets extremely cold and it has a covering of iron oxide (rust). Trips can only occur every 26 months and there would be no return flights from Mars as re-fueling is not available. The human body could not sustain the change in gravity. We know that interplanetary colonization is impossible. The shame of this waste lies in the forgetfulness of just how magnificent our precious Earth actually is. Everything we need is here, with the exception of more people willing to save the planet from those who seek to destroy it. So, the question remains — why can’t we take more care of a place that provides everything we need instead of chasing dreams of inhabiting the moon?

Dave de Sylva, Aurora, ON

SOS From Ontario

 

As a resident of Ontario, I confess to being disenchanted these days. After Doug Ford has won three successive elections with very substantial majorities, he seems untethered, his megalomaniac plans substituting for competent governance.  

There is, of course, his preposterous plan to build a tunnel under Highway 401, but there are also other ideas that merit ridicule, not sober consideration, such as building an artificial island upon which to build construct a new convention centre for Toronto; he is also keen on extending the local airport (Billy Bishop) to accommodate jets, despite the fact it is a plan widely opposed by those living downtown. 

Ford is also considering opening the HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to solo drivers in 'off peak hours' (whenever that might be in perennially-congested Southern Ontario). As well, citing fiscal constraints,(after eliminating a multitude to revenue sources), he has abruptly cut OSAP aid for university students. Especially worrying for those who value transparency in government, the premier is now in the process of crippling freedom of information requests by excluding cabinet records and government 'business' conducted on personal cell phones. And, of course, there is the long-standing RCMP criminal probe (eight years and counting, I believe) into the Greenbelt scandal. Of his lengthy recesses of the legislature I will not even speak.

I have been wondering of late whether or not people are tiring of his populist poses. If letters to the editor are any measure, there is a sliver of hope that people are beginning to understand that bluster and wild schemes are not a substitute for proper government:

Ontario to make premier, cabinet ministers’ records secret as it tightens FOI laws, March 13

The Conservative Ford Government has plans to exempt the premier and cabinet from freedom-of-information (FOI) requests which would deny the public access to documents held by the office, and signatures upon agreements relating to economic, financial and corporate contracts. The EV agreements the public would love to review will certainly never be made public. With the legalities carried out within the Legislatures and NDAs,  much has been agreed upon and held deep within the shadows of conservative backrooms and corporate parlors.

Ontario is truly for sale folks, and we will never know who the new owners are, what agreements were signed and if financial largess has passed into political party hands.

Steven Kaszab, Bradford, ON 

A premier who fears FOI is a premier with something to hide

Once again, Doug Ford is moving Ontario towards autocracy and non-accountability. A premier who fears Freedom of Information is a premier with something to hide. Here is the litmus test: is this a power you would want every party to have? How would Ford have responded if former Liberal premier Kathleen Wynne had made this proposition? Something dirty is afoot. And blaming the Chinese government is just a tactic to avoid accountability. People should be horrified by this. 

Elaine Jackson, Mount Albert, ON  

Premier Doug Ford has stated his government should be exempt from releasing documents, government records, etc., under the Freedom of Information Act. Amongst his arguments for is the fact he receives 1,000 calls per day about very personal problems and says he feels like a psychologist trying to solve everyone’s personal issues. Therefore, he will not release personal information about people’s lives.  Ford should make  use of an official government phone and  use  his personal phone only when engaged in the role of “psychologist.”

Mary Morrison, Mississauga, ON 

Are HOV users legitimate ride-sharers?

Ontario wants solo drivers to use HOV lanes outside rush hours, but experts doubt it will speed up traffic, March 17

Until the creators/supporters of HOV lanes presents conclusive evidence that the majority of vehicles using HOV lanes are doing so as legitimate ride-sharers the concept of HOV lanes should be considered a sham and a waste of valuable pavement.

Robert Woodcock, North York, ON

While the machinations of Ontario politics may be of little interest to those living elsewhere in Canada, the province surely offers an object lesson for all whenever their next provincial elections may be.

Carney Undermines Himself

I had such high hopes after Mr. Carney's speech at Davos. It articulated a realistic and pragmatic view of the world,  peopled as it is with both heroes and villains. However, as previously noted, his immediate, almost reflexive endorsement of Trump's illegal war on Iran is too much to swallow. 

Toronto Star letter-writers express their disapproval:

Canada once rejected America’s aggressive, unlawful foreign policy. Today, Mark Carney embraced it, Feb. 28

During his recent, celebrated speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged that “the story of the rules-based international order was partially false” because the rules tended to be upheld or ignored depending on which state was violating them. He also stated that Canada would aim to be “both principled and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.”

In hindsight, it would be generous to describe the prime minister’s statement as “partially false,” given Carney’s immediate show of support for U.S. President Donald Trump’s attacks on the territorial integrity of Venezuela and now Iran — attacks carried out in violation of both the United Nations Charter and, for that matter, United States law. Six weeks after Carney’s speech in Davos, it’s clear that the rules-based international order remains dead, while hypocrisy is alive and well.

Bart Hawkins Kreps, Bowmanville, Ont.

Lloyd Axworthy, the former minister of foreign affairs, is right to criticize Carney for his decision to back the U.S. and Israel’s bombing of Iran. By supporting “Operation Epic Fury,” as America is calling the campaign, Canada is only helping to further dismantle the international rules-based order that the prime minister invoked in his speech in Davos. Using military force against a sovereign state absent a clearly articulated justification or objective, and without having given diplomacy a fair chance or come to a collective decision with the UN Security Council, constitutes a clear abandonment of international laws and norms. At the World Economic Forum, Carney emphasized Canada’s commitments to the values of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as to avoiding the use of military force except when consistent with the UN Charter. How are Canadians to believe his words now? The prime minister’s endorsement of this war is unnecessary and reckless.

Pamela Mulligan, Grimsby, Ont.

I commend Axworthy for his sternly reproachful op-ed, as well as Justin Ling for his piece published the same day. Carney seems blinkered by trade concerns. How else to account for his misguided, weak-kneed public statements about Trump’s war in Iran? As Axworthy and Ling both correctly assert, taking concrete actions to help free Iranians from their country’s oppressive regime is desirable, but it must be done within the bounds of international law.

Trump leaves me so incandescent with rage that I can’t bear to hear him without shouting at whatever screen he appears on. His haughty contemptuousness and delusional self-assurance would be comical if the stakes weren’t so high for the world. By rights, the president should be arrested, hauled off and convicted for his assorted crimes, and then put unceremoniously behind bars. Instead, serious people like Carney are compelled to hold their tongues and behave with deference. It’s all so farcical, yet it’s a farce without laughs.

Oliver Lenhardt, Toronto

I guess Carney has decided Canada needs to put its sign back up in the window: his recent statement on the U.S.-Israeli bombing of Iran marks a sad and cowardly retreat from the views he expressed in Davos. There, he argued that the world’s middle powers had to stick together in defence of certain fundamental principles, including “the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter.” We now see what all that amounts to when the rubber hits the road — and when 350,000 Iranian Canadians march up Yonge Street. Center-left voters have been cutting Carney a lot of slack on climate change and Indigenous rights, but I no longer trust his allegedly good intentions.

Jerry Ginsburg, Markham, Ont.

Trust lost is very difficult to regain. I predict tumultuous times ahead in Mr. Carney's relationship with Canadians.

Judged By The Company You Keep

By the titled measure, I think we know how to evaluate Jamil Javani, the peripatetic Conservative who seems to have a special relationship with his old pal, JD Vance. Indeed, he even made it over to the chief MAGA propagandist, Breitbart News (formerly run by Steve Bannon), where he said, in regard to Canadian trade tensions wrought by Herr Trump's fits of pique,

Canadians would be “shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue this anti-America hissy-fit.”

In addition to media scrutiny over his unhelpful  comments, Toronto Star letter-writers have chimed in: 

“Anti-America, hissy fit,” is a rich statement coming from Jamil Jivani. His own “hissy fit” was on full display on election night, when he complained about Ontario Premier Doug Ford. This elected official seems to only care for promoting himself.

Paul Terech, Courtice, ON 

It’s difficult and problematic to have multiple voices speaking for the same political party. Having an MP saying one thing and the leader saying another is politically strange and probably not unifying. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he speaks for the party and that Conservative MP Jamil Jivani speaks for himself. Does this mean that a member of the party can say anything, even if it’s at odds with the party line? The Conservatives have numerous opinions under their very big tent, but when dealing with the public, conflicting messaging does come across as ambiguous and somewhat puzzling.

Douglas Cornish, Ottawa, ON 

The race to sell out Canada

For the last few months, we’ve had a clear front-runner in the race to sell out to/bow down to/kiss the ring of our former American friends — the Alberta separatist movement. After reading  Conservative MP Jamil Jivani’s comments regarding Canada’s efforts to remain sovereign and united, it’s no longer clear. The separatists are  neck and neck with the federal Tories.

Craig Gibson, Thornhill, ON

In addition to being an embarassment to Canada, Jamani can't be earning any points with his leader, Pierre Poilievre, still fighting the latest defection from his party's ranks, with possibly more to come.

Some Editorial Reflections

Although throughout most of my life I have been an inveterate writer of letters to the editor, I rarely write such missives anymore, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. However, I do read editorial letters daily, and often like to acknowledge the keen insights contained therein. 

What follows are some of those insights:

Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat suspend flights to Cuba, work to return travellers on island nation, feb. 11

Three people I  know in Toronto just cancelled their trips to Cuba. The reason they were given was a “shortage of fuel.” One of them said, almost casually, “It’s too bad my parents can’t go because of the fuel situation, while another one said, “Oh well, these things happen.”

The problem is not just a shortage of fuel. There is political strangulation that produces a fuel shortage. There are people making decisions that destroy livelihoods .

Cuba is being economically suffocated, and the people paying the price are not governments, but ordinary human beings: taxi drivers, hotel workers, musicians, café owners, guides, families who make their livings from tourism and human connection.

We are watching collective punishment.

It feels like we’re all in a school with a bully. Everyone knows who he is. Everyone knows what he’s doing. The rules exist. The charters exist. The teachers exist. And yet nothing happens. Not because no one sees it. But because everyone is afraid.

The bully is rich. He controls resources. He retaliates. He ignores norms. So the institution adapts. It stops enforcing rules and starts managing damage. Leadership becomes appeasement. Silence becomes strategy. This is how systems rot.

We are told to be calm. To be civil. To avoid anger. But there is something deeply corrupt about a world that demands politeness in the face of organized cruelty. Anger is not the problem. Moral numbness is.

Mary Y. Mouammar, Richmond Hill  

Do Republicans even know why they hate Canada?

Donald Trump threatens to block new Windsor-Detroit bridge, demands part ownership, Feb. 9

It is absolutely amazing how much U.S. President Donald Trump hates Canada. He is surrounded by a large group of sycophants who seem to hate everyone, with  Canada  at the top of the list. The problem is they react to things they do not understand, and they do not seem to look at facts. The Gordie Howe International Bridge is the subject of the latest stupidity. Canada paid for the bridge with Michigan’s co-operation and help in building it. That an American and a Canadian construction worker shook hands when both sides met in the middle  says it all, but the White House has no clue. 

Jack Hughes, Welland, ON

Tired of the insults, I’m no longer buying U.S. goods

As a senior living in southern Ontario, I have for years enjoyed the purchasing options of many U.S. branded products and services. I’ve purchased automobiles, major appliances, clothing, footwear, computers and  a wide range of American brands of food, home use cleaning chemicals, personal care items, lawn equipment and tools. I have also enjoyed  multiple  American-owned restaurant experiences. I’ve travelled south of the border and bought U.S.  entertainment  over the decades.

 Now I find myself  frustrated and tired of the ongoing insults from the current U.S. president claiming lack of respect and unfair treatment to America from Canada.

Now it’s time for me to move away from American products and  focus  on domestic  products and those  manufactured outside the U.S. — in countries that   value, appreciate and respect loyal customers.

Barry Brigham, London, ON

We could do more for Cuba 

I agree with the letter-writer who said she was happy to see that Mexico is offering some humanitarian aid to Cuba.

I would like to see Canada doing likewise. Is there any way that we can help Cuba with green energy? They have a great source of energy in sunlight, wind, and the ocean  to produce power on the island.

It puzzles me that the world stands by while a deranged president bullies the world into listening to his demands.

It breaks my heart that we are not doing more to help.

What has happened to Venezuela is unconscionable.

The Cubans are wonderful people and their island country is a good place to visit for those of us who love the sun, especially in the winter.

Lillian Shery, Toronto

While our government may have to be circumspect as it creeps around the mad king, it is clear that regular Canadians cannot and will not be silenced.

Callousness Or Cowardice?

 

In my previous post, I spoke about Canada's strange silence regarding Cuba, despite its long relationship with the island nation. In today's Globe and Mail, a letter-writer addresses the issue: 

Double standard?

Re “Cuba loses its Canadian tourists” (Morning Update, Feb. 11): Mark Carney seems to understand international bullying. He calls for “a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.” So why is he silent so far about the U.S. attempt to strangle Cuba?

Mr. Carney says Canada should be principled and act consistently, “applying the same standards to allies and rivals.” That appears to be Canada’s position when it comes Greenland, but what about Cuba?

Mr. Carney specifically says we can’t “criticize economic intimidation from one direction, but stay silent when it comes from another.” So what about Cuba?

Mexico is not silent on Cuba’s situation, sending 800 tons of humanitarian aid. What about Canada?

Or are we just going to wait until we are the ones being economically terrorized by the bully?

Don McLean Hamilton

The only politician speaking out about the grave injustices Cuba is being subjected to is Don Davies, the interim leader of the federal NDP. And be sure to listen to Anita Anand's feckless non-response to him:

Canada's reaction to Trump's attempt at genocide is callous at best and cowardly at worst, and stands in sharp contrast to Mexico's. 

While Canada has many things to be proud of, this surely is not one of them.

Carney's Words Reverberate

I only have time for a short post, so I offer this point. While one hopes Mark Carney's words lead to lasting changes in international relations, one thing is certain. Many people are talking about it and even offering ways in which the Americans can be brought to heel. Two letter-writers demonstrate this:

Well, well, Prime Minister Mark Carney broke the internet. It’s not exactly on the scale of Taylor Swift but it’s so satisfying to see many political commentators, journalists and ordinary Canadians shower him with praise. Carney’s speech is well-structured and direct. It’s smart that he takes complex ideas and renders them in language that the ordinary person can understand and be convinced of. I think it is particularly smart of him to admit that Canada is a “middle power.” We are for sure not a superpower like the U.S., but if this middle power forms a strong alliance with the other middle powers of the world, our impact may exceed that of a superpower. I am extremely doubtful that Pierre Poilievre will be able to write or deliver a speech similarly powerful and substantial. Thank you prime minister, we are so proud of you.

 Gloria Fung, Unionville, ON 

How middle powers could impact the U.S. economy

As of November 2025, the top five holders of U.S. Treasury Securities were, in billions of U.S. dollars: Japan, $1,203; U.K. $889; China, $683; Belgium, $481; and Canada, $472. All others held $4,920.

NATO countries, including France; $378, Norway; $219, and Germany; $110, hold a total of at least $2,549 which is more than one quarter of all foreign held U.S. Treasury Securities.

There is already a trend for foreigners to reduce their already large U.S. Treasury holdings due to low-yield and increasing risk. If NATO countries, along with some non-NATO others, sold off their U.S. Treasury Securities in a co-ordinated response to aggressive action against Greenland, the risk of financing the increasing U.S. budget deficit would decrease incentive for foreigners to finance additional U.S. government borrowing.

The resulting higher U.S. interest rates and reduced government spending would have a major disruptive impact on the U.S. economy.

Mike Priaro, Calgary, AB 

One can only hope that the momentum continues.

And since Trump is so fond of A.I., here is a video posted by a social media wag:

Violence In The Classroom

I am a long-retired high school teacher who saw his share of unpleasantness in the classroom, but the events currently transpiring across the country are nothing I ever had to confront.

Recently, The Globe and Mail offered a detailed examination of widespread violence in  schools, and that includes violence perpetrated against both fellow students and teachers. Fortunately, because we are not a culture that worships the gun, as do the denizens of the Benighted States, most of that violence is physical and verbal, although dangerous weapons are not completely unknown.

Because the causes are myriad, there are no simple solutions. Poor parenting, frightened staff members, feckless administrators and large classes with few supports all contribute to the problem, and I shall excerpt just one paragraph from the piece that sheds some light:

The first step in addressing violence in schools is to puncture the culture of silence that surrounds it. Nobody on the ground wants to talk. Teachers are afraid they will be accused of incompetence or of betraying student confidentiality. Principals don’t want to alarm parents or to expose their own weakness as leaders. School boards worry about legal action. Victims fear retribution.

While those were problems even in my day, I can only imagine they have intensified. My retired teacher friends often lament the lack of institutional memory among today's staff, a memory that includes standing up to supine administrators and not being to afraid to make a fuss about problems. There were always firebrands amongs us, but today's staff, I suspect, are taught that having problems reflects badly on them and hence the impulse to let things fester. The norm has changed, and not for the better.

Globe and Mail readers offer some insights well-worth considering:

School of thought

Re “Violence in Canadian schools is reaching a tipping point. What needs to change?” (Opinion, Nov. 29): Schools are becoming more violent. Who is responsible? Well, everyone.

But it does start with parents who fail, often by example, to teach their children values such as empathy, compassion and respect for others. And it ends with parents, too.

As a former school trustee, here’s how I see that working: Teachers are unable to enforce discipline because they cannot rely on principals to back them up; principals in turn cannot count on support from administrators, who in turn cannot count on boards of trustees; elected trustees can be soft on discipline because of ideology or because they are terrified of voters, a great many of whom are parents.

This downward spiral will likely persist until those within the system get a grip and stop letting the buck be passed around. Instead, say “no” and hand it back.

Tom Masters Former Victoria school trustee; North Cowichan, B.C.

 

Before I retired, I taught in a school with a police officer stationed there on a daily basis (a school resource officer). He happened to be Black.

I witnessed the benefits as he broke down preconceived notions about the police, as well as prejudiced views about Black people. The students loved him and would often turn to him with their personal problems; he was like a big brother to them. There was no violence.

I witnessed the same interactions in a school where I did a stint as a supply teacher after retiring. That officer also happened to be Black. In both cases, the benefits were obvious.

I knew it was a big mistake when political groups insisted on terminating the program because of misguided concerns. The presence of these officers served not only to protect, but also offered fine role models for students.

Sheryl Danilowitz Toronto

It is said that the first step in solving a problem is acknowledging its existence. With so much evidence staring us in the face, it is past time to move on to the next step: addressing the violence in all ways possible. 

 

Setting The Record Straight

 I'm still in a bit of a writing slump, so I'll let others do the talking for me.

H/t Moudakis

A  Globe and Mail letter-writer weighs in on the F-35 versus Gripen question.

Canada should adopt a fighter jet which best meets the need for one that is cost-efficient, works well in our northern climate and falls within our control for easy maintenance and software.

I appreciate that some military officials favour the F-35 and believe while the U.S. administration is antagonistic to Canada, close co-operation with the U.S. military is possible. I think that trust is misplaced.

There is concern over a mixed fleet, but many of our allies have such arrangements. The air force currently operates more than 20 varieties of aircraft, so objections to adding Gripens to this fleet seem puzzling.

The Saab proposal to manufacture them in Canada sounds like a win-win that would allow us to rebuild our aeronautical capability. The F-35 does have better stealth capabilities, so buying the number already committed to may have merit.

Beyond that, I think the Gripen better suits Canada’s overall interests.

Carey Johannesson Victoria

 And a Star reader reflects on the hypocrisy of Pete hoekstra

Why the U.S. ambassador is wrong about his criticism of the Ronald Reagan tariff ads, Nov. 24

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra was not merely hypocritical for blaming Canada for “political interference” because of American propaganda seeking to influence politics abroad, as Éric Blais points out. The U.S. has, through use of military — either covertly or overtly, with or without allies — tried to force political change in other countries. In this century, America has exercised at least some level of political persuasion in Afghanistan (2001-2021), Iraq (2003-2011), Libya (2011), Syria (2014 to present), Pakistan (2000s to 2010), Yemen (2002 to present), Somalia (2007 to present) and the Philippines (2001 to present), not to mention Venezuela. There are dozens more examples if we go back through the previous century, including covertly supporting or waging actual violence against democratically elected regimes (Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973).

And let’s not forget the gratuitous insults against our head of state when U.S. President Donald Trump referred to Justin Trudeau as very dishonest and weak, two-faced, and “governor” while challenging Canadian sovereignty.

Hoekstra has opposed reproductive rights, gay adoption rights and gay marriage, parental leave for federal employees and expanding health care for kids. He has an A rating from the NRA for opposing gun control. He’s a true Trumpian, including the staggering hypocrisy he shows in his criticism of an ad that was simply truthful.

Barry Kent MacKay, Markham, ON

No doubt the questions will rage for some time, but the bottom line has to be that we can only retain our sovereignty by making assessments and needs that reflect our country, not the whims, passions and prejudices of foreign entities.