People gather outside the Supreme Court as it hears appeals regarding Quebec’s secularism law (Bill 21) in Ottawa on Monday.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Way back
Re “Long history” (Letters, March 24): A letter-writer believes “commentary that begins history only when the bombs fall is not serious.” By this standard, most commentary regarding Iran is not serious as they begin with the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and neglect what led to it.
In 1953, Britain and the United States deposed the Iranian prime minister to protect their dominance of the country’s oil industry. The shah, supported by the U.S., consolidated power and carried out Western-style modernization projects.
In 1957, the secret police force SAVAK was formed to control political dissent. Its brutal methods led to widespread discontent, which enabled the ayatollah to build support culminating in the revolution of 1979.
So the regime in Iran did not “merely get caught up in events,” it got caught up in events put in motion by the U.S.
Jacques Soucie Newmarket, Ont.
Live with it
Re “A Supreme constitutional clash: Canadians’ rights against government powers” (March 23): With Bill 21, the Supreme Court is facing one of its most sensitive and potentially damaging rulings. We can only hope the court uses its “judicious” powers to deliver a liveable result. The world is in turmoil and the last thing Canada needs is a “shoot itself in the foot” crisis.
Based on polls in Quebec, the Parti Québécois is likely headed to a win in the pending election. Like it or not, a ruling to shut down Bill 21 would be manna for the PQ’s planned referendum.
Is Bill 21 flawed? Undoubtedly, but the subject’s sensitivity is why. While our southern neighbour is intent on destroying our economy and country, can we not live with these flaws?
Canada is worth holding onto. We aren’t perfect, but our country sure beats our neighbour and much of the world. To the judges: Be wise.
Peter Belliveau Moncton
Three strikes
Re “Replacing Phoenix pay system will cost at least $4.2-billion, Auditor-General report says,” “RCMP staff shortage worsening after force misjudged number of recruits needed, A-G report says” and “Auditor-General flags weaknesses in IRCC’s anti-fraud controls for international student program” (March 24): Is there another government in the world that seems as incompetent and expensive to run than ours?
Why do we put up with it?
Thomas Verny Stratford, Ont.
Please stand up
Re “Safe and sound” (Letters, March 24): A letter-writer suggests that since Pierre Poilievre is “now attempting to smooth out” his “rough edges,” beginning with his appearance Joe Rogan’s podcast, we should now feel he’s actually an old-style Conservative from before the party’s conversion to more populist leanings, and not the populist leader who Canadians rejected at the polls last year.
So which of these two faces of Mr. Poilievre is true? Has he been misrepresenting himself for the past 20-plus years in Parliament?
Nick Bryant North Vancouver
Canadian solution
Re “As proposals for nuclear stations proliferate across Canada, ‘fleet-based’ reactor deployment remains elusive” (Report on Business, March 18): How can it be elusive if no one is pursuing it? A national approach to nuclear energy does not exist.
Instead, a collection of provincial “duchies” seem set on meeting immediate political needs while ignoring the best technical, safest, lowest-cost nuclear choices that meet the needs of taxpayers, ratepayers and industry, and proudly say “made in Canada.”
Candu reactors are a proven technology with a fine safety record and supported by an experienced workforce. Canada is also self-sufficient for Candu fuel needs; other options use enriched uranium, which Canada must buy from elsewhere.
Canada is being threatened by our southern neighbour. Many initiatives are underway to reduce our vulnerabilities, including increased interprovincial co-operation, and big-ticket items such as nuclear reactors should be obvious choices for collaboration across this great country.
Let us not squander this opportunity to pull together for our own benefit, and as a model to the world.
David Kister Kingston, Ont.
His way
Re “Ford to declare Billy Bishop Airport a ‘special economic zone’ to allow jets” (March 24): When Bill 5 was passed, Doug Ford assured Ontarians the purpose of “special economic zones” was to give government the power to fight tariffs and access critical minerals in the province’s Ring of Fire.
Now he’s decided that the municipal airport on an island in Toronto’s lakefront is somehow critical to those efforts. Allowing jets to take off and land at Billy Bishop Airport is the “crisis” he’s chosen to tackle – not housing or education, not health care or affordability, not any of the other myriad pressing problems that people deal with every day in Ontario.
This looks to me like what happens when a bully makes the rules or believes he can. But bullies can only go as far as we allow them.
Fred Hahn President, CUPE Ontario; Markham, Ont.
Blackout
Re “Ottawa should lift the shroud on bail hearings” (Editorial, March 18): An emphasis on the illegality of publishing what goes on in a bail hearing and the need for legislative reform fails to appreciate what the Criminal Code says.
Section 517 provides that a publication ban is mandatory on application by the accused. It continues only until the accused is discharged at a preliminary inquiry or, if committed to stand trial, the trial is ended.
Under the Charter, the accused has the right to a fair trial. There is a real risk of unfairness if evidence at a bail hearing, often including matters which would never be introduced at trial, is published or broadcast. Once the trial is over, the public has every right and opportunity to know what happened at the bail hearing.
That’s what the Supreme Court upheld in 2010. It’s more important than ever to maintain that balancing of interests.
Jeffrey Manishen Burlington, Ont.
The proposal, that bans on evidence at bail hearings should be imposed only where the right to a fair trial is jeopardized, fails to take into account the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence. That allegations initially brought against an accused can be lopsided, if not error-ridden, is why we have judges, defense counsels and trials. And hearings to determine evidence bans could easily become another point of argument at trial or appeal.
Current bans do not equate to justice unseen. Media outlets should commit the necessary resources to make our court system transparent to all Canadians. The argument made here is tantamount to having courts do the work for them.
We cannot alter Canada’s justice system to accommodate a news industry that may consider waiting for facts to be aired at trial or making application to lift such bans, as burdens rather than part of civic responsibility.
Paul Walton Nanaimo, B.C.
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: letters@globeandmail.com