Letters to the editor, May 15: ‘Did anyone think Mark Carney was going to fill his cabinet with Conservatives?'

Globe and Mail

15-05-2025

Re 'An old Liberal front bench bolted to a new Carney mission' (May 14): It is incredible to me that a government that says it will represent all Canadians did not appoint a cabinet minister from Calgary, an economic powerhouse and one of the largest and fastest growing cities in Canada, when the opportunity was available.
I can't even imagine what the reaction would be if Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver were left out of cabinet. Same ol', same ol'.
C. Bryce Code Calgary
Those who whinge about a lot of old faces in the new Carney cabinet seem to forget that those old faces were re-elected. Their constituents must have thought they were doing a reasonable job.
Prime ministers have to build a cabinet from the MPs given to them by voters. The majority of Liberal MPs are from the previous government.
Did anyone think Mark Carney was going to fill his cabinet with Conservatives?
Tom MacDonald Ottawa
The Carney cabinet includes some capable people. But will they function as a cabinet – or will they still answer to political staffers?
Paul Edwards Calgary
The federal election was framed to be about change.
Earlier in the year, this meant Pierre Poilievre would likely replace Justin Trudeau. However, as it turned out, we got change of another kind: driven, experienced and mature leadership with Mark Carney.
The cabinet announcement brought another degree of change in capable new ministers who will be held accountable for results in key portfolios. These changes, I believe, are exactly what the country needs in the current situation.
One change we voted for, but doesn't look like we will get, is a new opposition leader. We still have to listen to the petty, negative and divisive attacks from Pierre Poilievre like we got in his blow-by-blow description of the cabinet.
One would think the Conservatives would hear voters and do themselves a favour: Move on to someone who can truly lead the country, not just tear it apart.
Dale McSween Cornwall, Ont.
Re 'Trump says new order will lower U.S. drug prices and increase them everywhere else' (Report on Business, May 13): If Donald Trump wants to ensure that there continues to be enough money for medicine research and development, there is a simple answer: Cut down on the amount of money that Big Pharma spends on share buybacks and dividends.
It has been reported that between 2012 and 2021, the 14 largest drug companies listed on the S&P 500 spent $747-billion on buybacks and dividends versus $660-billion on R&D.
Joel Lexchin Toronto
Re 'Ontario's Darlington SMR project to cost nearly $21-billion, significantly higher than expected' (Report on Business, May 9): This project can put Canada at the forefront of small modular reactors. These provide a resilient clean-energy solution to meet the projected significant increase in electrical demand.
Further, with globalization, it is important that Canada focuses on areas where we can be world class as we reindustrialize. I trust Ontario Power Generation will largely ignore criticism of the cost increases and keep going fast.
Growing expertise needs vision and takes time.
Julian Kenney Mississauga
Re 'Doug Ford is running roughshod over the environment and the law. Sound familiar?' (Opinion, May 10): I write with urgency for the withdrawal of Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025. I believe it sets very dangerous precedents.
It does not offer protection; it removes protections. Developers could focus solely on profit when planning. Existing laws protecting the environment, current inhabitants and Indigenous rights could be bulldozed over. Abandoning these protections in one place could put them under threat everywhere.
This bill would not unleash our economy; it would unleash a series of bad practices with long-term effects. It does not look at what changes would help small businesses or entrepreneurs prosper.
Instead, it takes away hard-won protections for our citizens and environment to rush through development. It takes weak arguments used to justify selling land in Ontario's Greenbelt and puts them on steroids.
What was wrong-headed then should still be wrong-headed now.
Diane DiMonte-Mohan Toronto
Re 'Opening the opaque window around pot rules' (Editorial, May 12): We commend The Globe and Mail for highlighting the inconsistencies in Canada's regulatory frameworks for cannabis, alcohol and gambling. However, we disagree with the premise that a coherent regulatory approach should focus on fairness across the commercial sphere of store operators.
Instead, such an approach should centre on health risks, preventing youth exposure and reducing societal harms associated with substance use and gambling. It should restrict marketing practices that target vulnerable populations and ensure revenue generation does not overshadow health considerations.
It is imperative to ensure that developing coherent regulation remains independent of industry influence. The policy process should be transparent, evidence-based and free from conflicts of interest.
By centering public health in developing coherent regulation for cannabis, alcohol and gambling (as well as tobacco), Canada can set a precedent for responsible governance that prioritizes the health and safety of its citizens over commerce.
Natalie Brender, Director of policy, Canadian Public Health Association; Ottawa
Re 'Carney wants big government to get into housing – a major risk to taxpayers" (Report on Business, May 13): Of course it would cost us – if there was money to be made solving the housing crisis, the private sector would be on it.
Craig Sims Kingston
Re 'By letting public spaces and services fail, our cities are breaking a fundamental promise to the people who live there' (Opinion, May 10): I'm fortunate to live in North Vancouver, recently ranked as the most livable city in Canada ('Canada's Most Livable Cities' – Dec. 14, 2024).
The city has clearly invested plenty of dollars to make density livable. Politicians and planners have obviously understood the concept that 'livable' means enjoyable.
Today we have beautifully constructed and maintained public spaces that are accessible by a large network of public transit systems. Our trails and parks draw hundreds of walkers, runners and cyclists every day. New shops line some streets cheek to cheek, creating a lively market hubbub.
The old Shipyards has been transformed into a huge family-friendly gathering place, with a myriad of possibilities to connect with neighbours and friends. It's easy to get caught up in the happy activity and chatter of the place.
I come away feeling alive and immensely grateful to have all this at my disposal. North Vancouver has most definitely done the right thing.
Marlies Newton North Vancouver
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: [e-mail]