Prime Minsiter Mark Carney smiles during his speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, on Sept. 17.JEAN-CHRISTOPHE VERHAEGEN/AFP/Getty Images
Well said
Re “Mark Carney marks the return of the consequential political speech” (Opinion, Sept. 26): Statesmen deliver oratory that is remembered for decades and becomes part of history. Most politicians, on the other hand, are generally salespeople whose talk is full of catchy but empty pitches which probably belong more in a car or real estate commercial.
There are very few Winston Churchills and Barack Obamas around, so it’s a treat to have a leader who can move people, rather than people moving away or rolling their eyes when they hear them speak.
Douglas Cornish Ottawa
O Canada! How lucky are we to have a Prime Minister who can so ably harness the power of words and the invaluable lessons of history to so eloquently tell the world the way it is today.
More importantly, he is unafraid to say what he means and mean exactly what he says.
Aly Alibhai Toronto
Public good
Re “Canada’s tax system needs an overhaul. Here are 11 big ideas to make it happen” (Report on Business, Sept. 26): The CEO of TMX Group asks that the government continue what it has begun with the proposed “productivity mega deduction,” including changes to the Income Tax Act to make it more attractive to invest in Canadian public companies. Well and good, but he should clean up his own backyard as part of the deal.
One reason why many companies opt to be financed privately, aside from there being far more large pools of private equity than in past years, is that the regulatory burden associated with Canadian public companies can be altogether too great.
Over the last few decades, Canada has seen a significant drop in the number of listed public companies, particularly junior listings. The loss of public-market investors should be addressed by Canadian stock exchanges and provincial securities regulators while Parliament is considering new tax incentives.
Nelson Smith Prince Edward County, Ont.
Needless to say
Re “It is cruel and unusual to force victims’ families to endure parole hearings every two years” (Opinion, Sept. 26): True, and I have a simple answer: Stop allowing it to happen.
Victims and their families weigh in at sentencing. After that there should be no reason to think they have any special insight, and certainly not more than those trained in such matters, into justice, rehabilitation and public safety.
In particular, retribution should play no role at this stage.
Doug Wiens Edmonton
An example of how an enforced rule of fairness may lead to injustice.
Justice stands against the unfairness of life. It tries for balance between human strength and weakness, so that might does not always make right. Remember the scales?
In this instance, insisting on parole hearings for all incarcerated persons, no matter how heinous their crime, can do injustice to those close to the victims of those crimes. The system tips the balance of justice askew.
Those pursuing unremitting fairness for every circumstance should remember the legal dictum: Hard cases make bad law and, in this case, bad impositions on the innocent.
Roy Darcus Calgary
AI, eh?
Re “The left and the right are united on their fear and loathing of data centres” (Opinion, Sept. 26): This rightly cautions against reacting to “truthiness” with our gut. Using environmental concerns to block data centres allows us to blame the tech elite for climate change, rather than taking individual and societal responsibility for its remediation.
Generally, trying to stop artificial intelligence is as fruitless as sabotaging an automated weaving loom. Yes, it presents dangers and challenges. But if we own the infrastructure, we can control it and its impact on our way of life.
I trust that our Prime Minister is laser-focused on the long-term future of Canada, which includes AI and climate change. He understands that we won’t survive the future unless we build it.
We should hope Canadians will bear the short-term costs for that secure future.
Len Ashby Toronto
Re “The question isn’t whether we should slow down AI development. It’s whether we still can” (Opinion, Sept. 26): Columnist Andrew Coyne frames the Oppenheimer moment: Some Manhattan Project physicists initially speculated there was the chance a nuclear bomb might ignite the atmosphere. That’s science, exhilarating and reckless.
AI is now that same high-stakes gamble: self-improving code that grows unruly, secretive and indifferent to its makers’ programming intentions. More than a 10-per-cent chance it can go rogue and end us feels almost polite as estimates go.
Contributor Stephen Marche sketches the overlooked fix. AI need not be a single, borderless colossus but feasible expressions of machine learning producing multiple intelligences. Increasingly it runs as self-contained software on ordinary machines, even home computers.
That means countries can build their own versions of AI. Not America’s free-for-all Wild West model. Not China’s surveillance-state model. Something else.
Picture a Canadian AI: measured, self-effacing, forever apologizing, the courteous alternative to extinction.
Humanity is not yet lost to the end times.
Tony D’Andrea Toronto
Political play
Re “Alexander Ovechkin used his fame to back Putin. We must remember that” (Opinion, Sept. 26): Alexander Ovechkin says he is “not in politics,” yet he is willing to appear in a political campaign and stand beside those who support Vladimir Putin. He cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Putin is responsible for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, a war dressed up with the Orwellian label “special military operation.” Ukrainian cities have been destroyed, civilians killed and millions displaced.
Mr. Ovechkin is free to support his country, but appearing in a Putin-backed political campaign is not simply patriotism, it is a political act. Calling for “peace and love” while lending his celebrity to Mr. Putin’s political machine is not neutrality, it is hypocrisy.
Peter Rozanec Toronto
Canada has sanctioned other Russian cultural figures for “promoting Kremlin disinformation and propaganda” which, by advocating for the current regime, Alexander Ovechkin is also doing.
Canada should therefore initiate similar sanctions on him.
Andrew Graham Toronto
It seems the two greatest goal-scorers of all time also share a common trait off the ice: They both seem to pay blind allegiance to two of the most destructive leaders of all time. When questioned, they also echo a similar sentiment: “I’m not in politics.”
To riff on an old song, where have you gone, Gordie Howe?
Tom Scanlan Toronto
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to JOBFlocks. 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: letters@globeandmail.com