Raw oil-sand bitumen.Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
..................................................................................................................................
Canada’s oil sands and ‘the public interest’
And so it goes. On Friday’s front page, we saw a photograph of residents and tourists trying to cope with temperatures of 42.6 C against the backdrop of Paris’s Eiffel Tower (Extreme Heat Grips Europe, July 26).
Immediately below, on the same front page, we learned that a joint federal-Alberta review panel is recommending giving the green light to yet-another oil-sands project (Review Panel Backs Teck Oil Sands Mine, Saying Jobs, Economic Benefit Outweigh Environmental Impact, July 26). The article notes the panel did this despite finding that the mine would have a serious environmental impact.
Why is it so hard for us to connect the dots linking economic choices and environmental consequences? It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion – as if the die has been cast and there’s nothing we can do about it.
How depressing.
Chris Gates, Quinte West, Ont.
..............................
Finally, some economic sense. What refreshing words about extracting Canadian oil: “In the public interest …”
Nothing will ever satisfy oil-sands opponents short of leaving the resource in the ground and enriching Saudi Arabia.
Helen Campbell, Fredericton
..............................
So there it is, in black and white for all to see: “Although we find that there will be significant adverse project and cumulative effects on certain environmental components and Indigenous communities … the Frontier project is in the public interest.”
In other words, there is no other way to create a relatively few jobs, no other place to produce oil for which there is little market anyway, or – more particularly – no other way for Teck to make a buck. The blatant hypocrisy of this ruling boggles the mind. Even Alberta Premier Jason Kenney should be outraged.
Perry Bowker, Burlington, Ont.
‘One’ Message on China?
Re Second Former Envoy Says Ottawa Wants Single Message On China (July 25): It has come to this: I actually find myself in agreement with Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer (and former ambassador to China David Mulroney) in describing the PMO’s attempt to muzzle former diplomats as “fundamentally an undemocratic idea.”
How have we allowed ourselves to reach a point where the right to free speech must be abrogated in the name of helping the Liberals get re-elected? Both Mr. Mulroney and Guy Saint-Jacques, also a former ambassador to Beijing, have been told they should clear any remarks they make about China because of the “election environment.”
Given that these two former envoys are contacted for their input by journalists, this is an obvious example of the government trying to control what appears in the media. Controlling the media is the sort of thing one expects in an authoritarian state, and Canadians should be alarmed by the Trudeau government’s move in that direction.
This serves as further evidence that our politicians’ self-interest has become their primary, perhaps their only, motivation.
Steve Soloman, Toronto
..............................
The Canadian government’s perspective on China, I would hope, would be clear-eyed and realistic. Something former ambassador to China David Mulroney has effectively provided with his public commentary, which is a remarkable counterpoint to the cringing, hand-wringing approach of our government.
I salute Mr. Mulroney for rebuffing the PMO’s efforts to control his right to speak out – ironically, something that authoritarian regimes do. Important voices critiquing China’s actions are needed.
Ron Whyte, Hamilton
All living creatures
Thank you for Elizabeth Renzetti’s thought-provoking essay last Saturday challenging a belief system based on human supremacy, and outlining its growing impact on the environment (Are You More Important Than This Cat? – Opinion, July 20).
With the increasing awareness and recognition of animal rights, the refusal to kill and eat animals is more than just a personal decision. Ms. Renzetti wonders, “What if it’s a creed, a belief system on par with religious worship?” Indeed, it is a founding principle of Jainism, one of the ancient religions of the world with a tradition of non-violence. “I ask pardon of all living creatures; may all of them pardon me” is a core precept of Jain prayers.
As Charles Darwin, the famous naturalist known for his theory of evolution, told us, “Sympathy for the lowest animals is one of the noblest virtues with which man is endowed.”
Dhanu Kothari, Unionville, Ont.
..............................
Elizabeth Renzetti is correct that Peter Singer is the “animal rights grand poobah.” However, some context may be helpful here. Dr. Singer’s arbitrary standards regarding what makes for a justifiable life (and contrarily, what allows for some persons’ “justifiable killing”) renders his arguments regarding the role of speciesism and the importance of respecting animal rights more complex than might first appear.
As the movement to eliminate greenhouse gases gains momentum, with a reduction in animal consumption a key strategy, it is important to be aware of the full range and arbitrary nature of the ethical arguments being forwarded by one of its key proponents.
Madeline Burghardt, School of Health Policy and Management, York University
..............................
I agree with Elizabeth Renzetti that there is an essential moral hypocrisy in the way we compartmentalize “worthy” animals from those we slaughter and hunt and gawk at.
But there is irony here, as well. Because philosophically, those who believe in using animals for our own purposes can argue that we are simply playing our proper role in nature: apex predators, carnivores, natural-born hunters, while the idealists, who decry speciesism, are the ones guilty of placing man outside of nature, the true “human supremacists.”
But semantic quibbles aside, boiling lobsters alive? Really?
As we discover more about the inner lives of animals, even fish-eaters like me can no longer feel so self-righteous. So there is no real dispute here. The future will judge us, just as we judge the slave owners and male chauvinists and gay-bashers.
(Many of whom, sad to say, are still among us.)
Brian P.H. Green, Thunder Bay, Ont.
Huawei Canada’s image
Re Huawei Canada Looks To Improve Its Image (July 23): Huawei Canada’s assisting northern Canadian communities is probably tantamount to a dream come true for those in our North. While the proverb about not looking a gift horse in the mouth is usually wise, I’m hoping, however, that our politicians take a good look at this one.
By checking its mouth, our leaders will be able to determine if this gift horse is the fabled unicorn – or the legendary Trojan horse.
Gideon Bloch, London, Ont.
..................................................................................................................................
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.