Today’s Letters: ‘Wacko’ insult reflected poorly on Poilievre

Article content

A new low

Re: Poilievre booted out of Commons, May 1:

Article content

The escalation of personal attacks between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition, as witnessed recently in the House of Commons, reflects a new low in the political discourse in Canada. Civility and respectful debates are out the window. How did we come to this?

The answer is as varied as it is complicated. But at least three things may have influenced where we are today in our political conversation: political polarization, lack of trust and social media.

Article content

Political polarization can lead to increasingly hostile and adversarial relationships between opposing political leaders. Lack of trust can make it easier for personal attacks to escalate. Social media platforms can amplify negative rhetoric and encourage confrontational behaviour.

While Justin Trudeau is a known quality as a prime minister, this latest incident in the House of Commons, for better or for worse, crystallizes the perception of Pierre Poilievre as a potential prime minister. And, as Flip Wilson, an American comedian in the late ’60s and ’70s, used to say: “What you see is what you get.”

Dono Bandoro, Ottawa

“Wacko” affair was staged

Re: Poilievre booted out of Commons, May 1:

I’ll take False Equivalency for $1000, Alex.

For those saying the word “wacko” has been used in the House many times, yes, but not aimed directly directed at a person. For those saying the PM called Pierre Poilievre’s actions spineless, yes, he did. But he did not directly call the Leader of the Opposition “spineless.” Had he, he would have been told to withdraw it. Yes, the PM did once call someone a name, and yes, he immediately apologized and withdrew it.

Article content

“Wacko” was aimed directly at the PM, and Poilievre refused four times to withdraw it. Consequences. Something that the Conservative Party already had a press release for.

This was staged, planned to make Poilievre a so-called victim. I’m wondering what it was to divert from? Probably cavorting with Diagalon.

L.J. Ridgeway, Ottawa

Smarten up, MPs

Re: Poilievre booted out of Commons, May 1:

So one of the kids in the sandbox called another kid names and got kicked out. Was this supposed to impress me or restore my faith in the Canadian parliamentary system? It didn’t, on both counts.

It appears that Trumpish behaviour is gaining momentum here in Canada and I, for one, have no compulsion to accept or support it.

If this nonsense is getting personal, remember who you work for. Smarten up, the lot of you, and behave yourselves. Remember, what you permit, you promote.

André Clément, Orléans

Poilievre had a point

Re: Poilievre booted out of Commons, May 1:

The ejection of the Leader of the Opposition from the House underlines how desperately correct he is. His support for the B.C. government’s proposals concerning the urgent need for recriminalization of drug use is justified.

Article content

The Trudeau government has failed Canadians badly. As a senior Canadian, I want see Canada return to its world leadership on such matters as moral certitude.

Don Pajot, Constance Bay

A new acronym

Re: Poilievre booted out of Commons, May 1:

Trump = MAGA, Poilievre = MCLW (Made Canada Look Wacko).

Nick Kiriloff, Kanata

Trump of the North?

Re: Poilievre booted out of Commons, May 1:

Over the last while, people have said Pierre Poilievre is the Donald Trump of the North. Let’s see why these comments are being made.

During the COVID protests, he supported the protesters and brought coffee to groups including separatists.

During senate debate last year on amendments to the carbon tax, he, along with fellow senators, tried to bully people on a vote they ultimately lost.

During recent “Ax the Tax” travel, he willingly met and was proudly photographed with members of an extremist group.

In the House of Commons, he used unparliamentary language, which he knew was unparliamentary, and refused to withdraw it. He knew what the consequences were, then tried to play victim when he was kicked out by saying the Speaker was trying to limit his free speech.

Article content

Are we looking at the Donald Trump of the North? Maybe we are.

Randall Albertini, Orléans

A turn-off for voters

Re: Poilievre booted out of Commons, May 1:

Would I consider voting Conservative?

No. Not as long as the party has a leader who addresses his so-called parliamentary opponent with adolescent epithets.

The Conservatives could have had Jean Charest at their helm — someone who actually understands democracy and knows that civil co-operation is the best way to effect change. Kudos to the Speaker for the Tory leader’s expulsion.

Heather Mallett, Ottawa

A lack of common sense

Re: Poilievre booted out of Commons, May 1:

Walking out of the House of Commons and using unparliamentary language while raising funds to support this childish act does not inspire any confidence in a leader or party that constantly blames any problem, let it be inflation, housing, drug policies or justice, on a government addressing Canadians’ needs and concerns. This is not common sense.

A party flirts with right-wing nationalist policies, conspiracies and violence, with climate-change deniers, with anti-immigration, and with authoritarianism tendencies leading to constitutional mechanisms to overrule the courts. This is not common sense.

Article content

Is Canada leaning towards far-right tendencies to overturn our democratic institutions and governance? This is not common sense.

This government is not perfect, and far from it. However, Canadians are far better off socially and financially than they were under a Stephen Harper right-wing government.

Let’s not go back to the days of program cuts, labour unrest, job-cutting and economic disaster. Let’s enjoy our social programs that help Canadians from all walks of life. This is what makes sense.

Lucie Gagne, Ottawa

Councillors and staff should lead by example

Re: Tsunami of change coming to city, 29 Apr. 29:

I have a suggestion that could save the city “one and a half years of debate, surveys, open houses and online forums” on proposed bylaw changes, which include allowing developments without parking.

The public may support the plan from the outset, if all city councillors were to give up their own vehicles, immediately.

In fact, all city employees should be required to give up vehicle ownership, prior to the bylaw overhaul. It’s time for our city bureaucrats to lead by example.

Article content

David Langner, Ottawa

One office-day per week is fine

Re: Federal public servants to be compelled back to office three days a week, Apr. 30:

I was disappointed, if not downright angry, to read of our Premier and our Mayor advocating a return to the office. They seem to believe that their prime responsibility is to help downtown restaurants, public transit and office building owners.

They have the cart before the horse. Home working, where feasible, means for the taxpayer less funds needed to pay for public service office rentals, less funds needed to maintain or develop roads and bridges, and less funds needed to support public transit.

Home working also greatly reduces auto and bus emissions, noise and pollution, benefitting all.

For employees, home working eliminates hours wasted on commuting.

Sadly, Premier Ford sees home working as merely a privilege for public servants.

The Premier and Mayor should support and encourage home working wherever feasible. One day per week at the office should be sufficient for face-to-face meetings.

David A Kahn, Ottawa

Environmental argument looms

Article content

Re: Remote workers benefit bedroom communities, May 2:

Mayor Peckford makes some valid points regarding forced attendance at work, but in my opinion her arguments are dwarfed by today’s overriding concern: the health of Mother Earth.

When we compel attendance at the office, workers tend to live in proximity to work. Living in high-density clusters means less car use for everything from shopping to recreation. Statistically the healthiest people in the U.S. live right in downtown NYC. That makes sense when you consider that they walk everywhere because there is simply no parking.

And living in a high-rise is much cheaper, and more environmentally friendly, than living in a detached house. As a condo treasurer, I am acutely aware of the collective heating bill for the 100 units in our building. It’s a big bill, but on a per-unit basis. it’s a fraction of what we paid when we lived in a detached house.

I grew up on the West Island of Montreal in a big house on a lot with maple trees, but every morning for 30 years, my father joined thousands of others and drove into the city to work. On the weekend, we drove to the A&P and hardware stores and everywhere. You do not have to sell me on the joy of suburban living. But the yearly fires in B.C. are a subtle reminder that the earth won’t tolerate that behaviour anymore.

Article content

We need to live smarter, and that means denser. The government can show leadership by compelling attendance at work. Small-town living necessarily means a larger carbon footprint, and we simply cannot afford that anymore.

Ken Johnston, Ottawa