‘Liberals’ track record of supporting Israel hardly stellar’
Re: Joly asks Israel not to retaliate after it was hit by missile barrage from Iran — Mia Rabson, Oct. 1
There are days — and today is one of them — when I seriously question what planet Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly is living on.
Iran fired 180 ballistic missiles at Israel today. It was a combination of the superior capability of the IDF and sheer luck that none of them caused any damage and there were no casualties. But Joly doesn’t think Israel should retaliate. … Why, pray tell?
The Liberal government’s track record of supporting Israel in its existential fight for survival is hardly stellar. When an errant rocket fired by Hamas terrorists hit the parking lot of the Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza City, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Joly wasted no time in condemning Israel for the explosion. It was proven very quickly that it was not an Israeli rocket that caused the mishap. Yet even with all the evidence, nearly one year later, Israel is still waiting for an apology and a retraction from Trudeau and Joly, which will never come.
And then of course, egged on by NDP MP Heather McPherson, Joly stopped all Canadian arms shipments to Israel last winter. Just three weeks ago, McPherson took time away from her latest project of manufacturing a Palestinian state out of thin air, to further spur Joly to ensure that no arms from Canada reached Israel via the U.S.
Given this abysmal history, does the foreign minister seriously believe for one moment that anything that comes out of her mouth will have any traction with Israel?
E. Joan O’Callaghan, Toronto
The arrogance and conceit of Mélanie Joly in her sanctimonious pontificating is astounding. Who is she (or Canada, for that matter) to be preaching on such matters elsewhere in the world, where both she (and Canada) are essentially irrelevant? It’s embarrassing to listen to her (or read her statements). Other than the cohort of Lebanese-Canadian dual passport holders, we have no skin in this game, and should keep our precious faux concerns to ourselves.
Morton Doran, Fairmont, B.C.
‘Neck-deep in far-leftist muck’
Re: Civilization is winning the war on terror — Conrad Black, Sept. 28; Ontario’s education curriculum is infected with Marxist nonsense — Jamie Sarkonak, Sept. 27; and How Canada became the sick man of North America — John Ivison, Sept. 28
Kudos to Conrad Black for trying to reassure readers that the western world is not going to hell in handbasket. In the grand scheme of things there is evidence of some tiny stirrings of common sense making themselves heard in the West, which is slowly providing some pushback to the blatant extremism of the past decade. One can almost hear the audible sigh of relief.
And then there is the painful reminder of Canada. Those who despair over how low Canada has fallen in such a relatively short time are still neck-deep in the far-leftist muck. Jamie Sarkonak writes that our public education system is and has been for decades an insidious indoctrination experiment foisted on the most vulnerable segment of the population. And John Ivison laments the dismal decline of the Canadian economy.
Valuable lesson learned: the education of the nation defines the nation.
Unfortunately we have only a few brave souls who have tried to alert the mainstream to the dire straits we are in. It is going to take decades to eradicate all those unhealthy and dogmatic sound bites that pass for educated analysis so we can get back on the road to true prosperity.
Glynis Van Steen, Burlington, Ont.
‘Is the legal system entering a post-truth world?’
Re: B.C. law society can’t handle the truth, pretends facts are ‘racist’ — Michael Higgins, Sept. 26
Reading Michael Higgins’ column about the Law Society of British Columbia reminded me of Jack Nicholson’s famous line from A Few Good Men: “You can’t handle the truth!”
I always thought that telling the truth was the bulwark of our legal system. Is the Canadian legal system now entering a post-truth world? Are judges going to add a sentence when swearing in witnesses: “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, except if it offends someone?”
I know there are a lot of question marks in my letter, but someone has to ask the tough questions. And when it comes to our woke society, it appears there are more questions than answers.
Shael Greenwood, Thornhill, Ont.
‘Two-state’ motion condemned
Re: Government policy is now in the hands of pro-Palestinian radicals — John Ivison, Sept. 25
I cannot believe that the Liberal government would introduce and pass a motion to study the quickest path to a two-state solution in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
How could any member of any Canadian party have sufficient knowledge with which to make an informed decision on this tremendously complex international issue? Members of our government, in a mere four meetings, are going to solve this generational issue; especially when Hamas and Hezbollah are committed to exterminating from the world one of the peoples who would occupy one of the states?
The Liberal government is a lame duck. I implore it to do as little damage as possible until it is out of power.
Howard Winkler, Toronto
CTV bias ingrained
Re: CTV delivers another shameful example of anti-Poilievre bias — Terry Newman, Sept. 25
So, CTV News got caught with its bias hanging out all over. Quelle surprise. It was bound to happen one of these days. The network’s news coverage, like that of CBC’s, has been biased against Conservatives for years. What makes this notable is that the network was caught red-handed. Having worked in a national television newsroom, admittedly many years ago, I don’t believe for a minute that the doctored clip was a “misunderstanding” (the excuse first offered up by CTV) or the work of rogue videotape editors (its second explanation). The bias is ingrained — which is why I stopped watching either network’s news coverage a long time ago.
Nancy McDonald, Stratford, Ont.
Empty gestures instead of reconciliation
Re: More work lies ahead on road to reconciliation — Alessia Passafiume, Sept. 30 (print only)
There is a disconnect between symbolic gestures of reconciliation and the real, ongoing needs of Indigenous communities in Canada. While the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is an important recognition of past wrongs, it’s troubling that millions of dollars are spent annually paying federal employees for this day off, while many First Nations communities still lack clean drinking water.
This feels like an empty gesture when those who were wronged are still suffering from basic inequalities. Instead of benefiting federal employees, wouldn’t it make more sense to allocate those funds toward providing clean water systems for Indigenous communities?
True reconciliation requires tangible, impactful change, and ensuring that every Indigenous community has access to clean drinking water would be a real step forward.
Richard W. Cole, Sudbury, Ont.
Defending Indigo
Re: Attacking Indigo is un-Canadian and does nothing to promote peace — Marco Mendicino, Sept. 30
On the surface, Marco Mendicino would seem to be making a noble, if not naive, case extolling the virtues of Canadian society and mores. In reality, he has taken a page out of the Justin Trudeau gaslighting playbook, passively chastising Canadians while exonerating his own government of responsibility for being the catalyst of the current wave of Jew hatred.
As opposed to being “un-Canadian,” this is in fact the new Canada, initiated by the amoral, laughable foreign policy of the Liberal party, enthusiastically and with wringing hands embraced and abetted by the NDP, Green Leader Elizabeth May, academia, unions, school boards, and all asinine points in between.
The attacks on Indigo are frankly among the least of the problems facing Canadian Jews these days. For Mendicino to write this piece while ignoring the assaults and attacks on Jews and their institutions is quite insulting. And regarding Indigo itself, Mendicino insinuates that if the company were in fact donating funds toward the military activities of the IDF, the antisemitic attacks on Indigo would be somewhat justified.
The Liberal government, supposedly trying to promote peace, is itself perpetuating hatred and violence.
Perry Medicoff, Lisbon, Portugal
PM’s ‘self-promotion junket’
Re: Trudeau on The Late Show: Cringe or Win? — Kenn Oliver, Sept. 24
With the exception of attempting to bait Justin Trudeau with the absurd conflating of fascism, Pierre Poilievre and Donald Trump, Stephen Colbert’s Late Show questions were not totally unreasonable. True to form, the prime minister responded with vague, NDP-allied policy boilerplate and the now familiar flood of ums and ahs (the patented Trudeauvian nose-stretcher tell).
His television appearance looked more like the Great Communicator was prepping for a job on American network television, given his increasing awareness that only a second-rate lecture series or a two-star academic institution will employ him once he abandons high office.
ABC, CBS, NBC and especially MSNBC would undoubtedly welcome Trudeau’s neo-Marxist, woke-infused, climate-fearing, covert anti-Israel advocacies — the former prime minister liking nothing better than seeing himself on one of the legacy media channels as a progressive icon (unwittingly preaching his hollow platitudes to the useful idiots of the blinkered political left).
All-in-all, quite a successful self-promotion junket to the Big Apple for our PM.
Arthur Ellis, Winnipeg
Listen to the families of drug victims
Re: Liberals and NDP have no time for your daughter’s tragic opioid story — Adam Zivo, Sept. 26
I feel for Greg Sword, who tragically lost his daughter, and echo his demand for immediate action. I, too, lost a child to the toxic drug crisis and understand this father’s grief. I, too, testified to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, one day before the anniversary of my son’s death. During that meeting valuable time was used up by the Conservative representatives with motions.
I found that most members listened to my testimony, except the Conservative critic Laila Goodridge, who came late and spent considerable time on her phone. She had no questions for me, never shook my hand nor expressed condolences, as other members of the committee did.
The organization I co-founded, Moms Stop The Harm, represents thousands of families across the country who have lost or support loved ones. Politicians must listen to those most affected, people who use drugs and their families, especially those with differing voices.
Petra Schulz, Co-Founder Moms Stop The Harm, Edmonton
Farmers defend supply management
Re: Don’t hold the economy hostage to supply management — Michael Harvey, Sept. 26
In his recent opinion piece in FP Comment, Michael Harvey paints a misleading picture of trade negotiations and supply management.
The “small group” of nearly 15,000 family-owned farms Harvey claims is holding the Canadian economy “hostage” creates the equivalent of 339,000 full-time jobs and contribute $30.1 billion to our GDP annually. He also fails to acknowledge that Canada has concluded 12 trade agreements with 15 countries since 1997. This is a clear demonstration that Bill C-282 can be passed while supporting our export-oriented industries.
Canadians have come to understand, in very concrete ways, what it means to be vulnerable to supply issues and global instability. Protecting supply-managed sectors is crucial for our national food security and self-sufficiency. Bill C-282 reinforces this policy, ensuring our export-oriented industries can thrive while also safeguarding the industries that provide Canadians with essential, locally produced food.
At the base of it, protecting supply management puts Canadians first.
David Wiens, President, Dairy Farmers of Canada; Roger Pelissero, Chair, Egg Farmers of Canada; Tim Klompmaker, Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada; Darren Ference, Chair, Turkey Farmers of Canada; and Brian Bilkes, Chair, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers.
Eglinton Crosstown costs clarified
Re: How Canada became the sick man of North America — John Ivison, Sept. 28
In John Ivison’s strong essay on building infrastructure, he wrote about the oft-maligned Eglinton Crosstown project in Toronto as follows: “The costs were judged at $9 billion when the contract was awarded; they are now estimated at nearly $13 billion.” This is incorrect. The facts are that the total provincially approved budget for the project is $11.990 billion and the expenditures and commitments to date are $12.639 billion so the cost overrun is $600 million or five per cent of budget, not $4 billion. Moreover, this has been achieved despite the additional costs of the COVID pandemic, which affected all construction projects, and various unanticipated costs over the past decade.
When the project was first announced in 2010, the cost was estimated to be $5.3 billion for construction costs only and not the full costs of the project including land acquisition, design, inflation and maintenance among other costs. There is lots of legitimate room to regret the delay in opening the new line, which is disappointing and frustrating. But budget management on this project has been a significant achievement worthy of acknowledgement and praise.
J. Robert S. Prichard, Former Chair, Metrolinx
National Post and Financial Post welcome letters to the editor (200 words or fewer). Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. Email [email protected]. Letters may be edited for length or clarity.