Letters, July 17

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 17/07/2025 (254 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

NATO’s value

Re: “Benefits of neutrality” (Letters, July 16)

Barry Oswald’s suggestion of leaving NATO and diverting the increased military funding to the tune of three per cent extra in GDP toward economic stimulus is misguided at best, at worst it’s a Trumpian idea.

Trump has opined much the same as Barry, equating NATO to a bunch of freeloaders. Barry comes close to expressing the same by stating that the other NATO countries can’t come to our defence via article 5.

The fact is that has never been tested.

What’s more at stake here is twofold. First, we’re a signatory to an international agreement, these agreements hold weight, they matter to our international reputation, the fact that U.S. President Donald Trump has unilaterally decided to drag America’s international reputation through the mud, then a pile of manure and then doused in gasoline and set ablaze, does not mean we need to follow suit.

Secondly, the benefits of NATO membership are farther reaching than Oswald’s vision. Countries like Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Poland stand as a bulwark against Russian imperialism. They are the only thing standing between us and a third world war, in that Russia moving beyond those countries would definitely trigger a massive conflict. But, what does it say to people living here who emigrated from those NATO countries? Sure, maybe you can disregard the Canadian Latvian Society, but there are a lot of Poles here, our abdication of a long-standing defence treaty probably sends those Canadians to vote for a party that would strengthen our military — the Conservatives perhaps.

It’s about balance, and respecting agreements and above all, honour.

Will Jones

Winnipeg

Committing to ethics

Re: PM must sell assets: Poilievre (July 15)

Pierre Poilievre continues to demonstrate his hypocrisy and irrelevancy.

The Conservatives targeted Mark Carney’s wealth during the recent election campaign. I can’t be the only one far more concerned about the taxpayer dollars wasted on an unnecessary byelection so Poilievre can get a seat in the House (after losing his fair and square) than the prime minister’s blind trust assets. Yes, we all know the PM has assets. No need to remind us, Pierre.

I would have preferred Poilievre focus on policy issues in his role as Conservative Party leader, such as the PM’s decision to cancel the digital sales tax, which will benefit some of the richest people in the world. Instead, he choose to draw attention to the PM’s personal wealth.

Poilievre can demonstrate his commitment to ethics, and increase his credibility, by footing the bill for his byelection and obtaining his long-overdue security clearance. Otherwise, he should refrain from commenting on anyone else’s behaviour.

Michelle Burdz

Winnipeg

High cost of dealing with Trump

Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced that it’s not likely we will get a trade agreement with the United States that doesn’t include tariffs. This is news? The godfather has spoken. The “deal” is a 35 per cent tariff. “Negotiations” will consist of what pieces of our sovereignty — what specific laws, policies and programs — Canada is willing to forgo to reduce the tariff.

This, in addition to our already spending a few billion to stem the phantom flood of south-flowing fentanyl, needlessly tripling our defence budget, and cravenly repealing a much-needed digital services tax.

One hopes that the PM understands, but is not saying, that he is not dealing with a national government but a criminal enterprise with which “negotiations” consist of threats that are expected to be countered by paying some form of protection.

And the payments are never fixed; they keep going up, just as they already have.

Norman Brandson

Winnipeg

Focus on simple solutions

Re: “Premier backing status quo” (Letters, July 12)

James Wilt raises the existential question of what constitutes an “obsolete and dangerous attachment to fossil fuels.” How can we start to address this question despite diverging views of climate facts and policy?

Can we agree not to prejudge proposed approaches to complex policy and technical challenges? If Premier Wab Kinew said that fire trucks should run on fossil fuels, it may not be a “trope” to support widespread fossil fuel use but a sensible policy for fossil fuels to play a transitional role in the near term and a niche role in the future.

Sometimes a fire truck is just a fire truck. Prejudging the cheapest and cleanest future sources of electricity based on geography and politics elsewhere is problematic. An extension of the “fossil fuel status quo” for thermal generation in Manitoba (i.e. very limited use) would likely have no more impact on our family’s share of the related climate emissions than our mowing our lawn.

Context matters.

Can we focus on simple solutions to the biggest problems of fossil fuels in transportation and home heating by being more supportive of carpools, buses, bikes, EV’s, super-efficient home and heat pumps? Can we have reasoned, respectful and nuanced conversations about practical changes and defer discussions of esoterica like the fuelling of fire trucks? If not, we will be prolonging our “obsolete and dangerous attachment to fossil fuels.”

Daniel Prowse

Winnipeg

Hold Carney accountable

Re: “Don’t limit Carney” (Letters, July 12)

In his July 12 letter, Robert Pruden insists that we must allow Carney to take the axe to federal government operations, slashing expenditures by 15 per cent over three years. Pruden also suggests that Carney’s critics assume that the current level of government is “correct,” which is an obvious strawman argument.

I think what people object to is austerity in the face of extremely difficult economic circumstances which, historically, never amounts to anything good for the majority of working and poor people. It is cycles of Liberal and Conservative austerity that have led to this crisis. We can all see it in our crumbling infrastructure, lack of public housing, failing health-care systems, and soaring prices for basic necessities like food, transportation and privatized telecoms.

Pruden rightly notes that governments are entitled to review priorities and adjust spending accordingly based on a hierarchy of needs. But the people are also entitled to demand that their priorities (food, healthcare, education, housing, etc) are not cut in favour of brazenly irresponsible spending — like Carney’s pledge to increase NATO spending to five per cent of GDP — and corporate handouts that do nothing but enrich executives and shareholders.

Carney and the Liberals were elected as a minority government, not as an unimpeachable monarch. Canadians are justified and correct to hold him accountable on policies that betray their trust in his government.

Evan Marnoch

Winnipeg