Then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien, right, with the Canadian Constitution on the 20th anniversary of its signing in Ottawa in 2002.JIM YOUNG/Reuters
State at stake
Re “Carney defends recognizing Palestinian state despite Trump threat” (Sept. 24): I detect no meaningful defence of Canada’s recognition of a Palestinian state, other than some talk about U.S. trade, which seems irrelevant.
Instead Mark Carney seems to describe a fantasy world in which the Palestinian Authority, which hasn’t had a real election in nearly 20 years, is expected to form a government to oversee Gaza; Hamas will magically lay down its arms and vanish; all hostages will be released.
What school of negotiation front-loads rewards to the opposing party in the hopes they will respond in kind? Hamas is cheering Canada’s stance. Telling.
Judy Slan Toronto
Canada and other countries haven’t recognized a Palestinian state because of Hamas’s despicable terrorist attack on Oct. 7. It’s because of Israel’s attacks on the people of Gaza for more than two years.
Lorne Sabsay Toronto
All at once
Re “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should not be written off as a failure” (Opinion, Sept. 20): The pursuit of universal human rights should also require us to better recognize the reality of competing rights, and the need to compromise in addressing these overlaps or conflicts.
The parallel assertions of genocide in Gaza and increasing antisemitism represent an urgent example. One common claim of antisemitism is against calls for Palestinians to be free, which some assert would lead to the end of Israel as a state.
Such conflicts cannot be readily resolved by dismissing the rights of one group in favour of the other, nor can they be recognized sequentially (the rights of one group addressed only once those of the other are realized). Universal rights require holistic solutions that simultaneously address the rights of everyone.
This in turn requires dialogue in Canada that reflects the validity of all rights.
David Clarry Toronto
Constitutional conundrum
Re “Ottawa’s end run around the Constitution” (Editorial, Sept. 24): So is our government trying to declare our Constitution unconstitutional?
David Chalmers Ottawa
I think the notwithstanding clause is a good thing, as is the formula for amending the Constitution.
If it came to a referendum on abolishing the notwithstanding clause, I’d be on the No side.
T.S. Ramsay Guelph, Ont.
It’s true: The notwithstanding clause is part of the Constitution. So why do we try to invent restrictions on its use that have no basis in the text or historical practice?
Also part of the Constitution is the power of disallowance, which lets Ottawa block provincial laws. This hasn’t been needed in recent decades, but if the provinces are going to shield themselves from Charter scrutiny, then it would only be fair to start using disallowance again.
If the Canadian government really cared about religious minorities in Quebec or trans children in Alberta and Saskatchewan, it would veto the laws that target them. And we should hold it to account when it doesn’t.
David Arthur Cambridge, Ont.
Can you see it?
Re “We’re missing a vision for Canada” (Opinion, Sept. 20): I believe there is a vision for Canada, however it is not and has never been for Canadians to decide how it should look.
The idea of meaningfully engaging even a significant part of the population would require a new way to run our democracy. Currently, we elect representatives and they make decisions on our behalf based on knowledge they garner from various sources, including constituents.
Major public forums for civic engagement, education on how to participate in them and incentives to participate are steps that have yet to be initiated. With the technology we have today, we could create the forums, education and incentives tomorrow, but the logic to make them a priority has no clear way of being communicated to everyone.
At least Mark Carney’s book Value(s) explains a vision, and it shows.
Jamie Brougham Ottawa
Better spent
Re “Canada weighing direct contract with foreign governments for sub purchase, head of navy says” (Sept. 19): Usefully, we have been provided with a global figure in relation to the all-in cost of a Canadian submarine program: $120-billion. The order of magnitude of this naval program more or less matches that of our deal for F-35 jet fighters.
Both these costly programs are of little or no use in peacetime. At best, Canadian F-35s might help keeping Russian fighters out of NATO airspace.
In the big picture, Canada should be developing heavy icebreakers. Once operational, they would work continuously in the Arctic for sovereignty-related constructive purposes.
We need not purchase or build conventionally powered hunter-killer submarines designed to cope with Russian naval capacity in the Baltic Sea. The capacity to use deadly force at sea should be considered a side bet, only for the odd occasion where a shot across the bow is required to get someone to stop fishing in and leave our territorial waters.
John Seaman Webb Calgary
Another shot
Re “Supreme Court temporarily halts cull of B.C. ostriches” (Sept. 25): It would be helpful to retest the ostriches to see if the virus has spread.
We may be dealing with an attenuated virus strain which has a weakened capacity to spread. In essence, we may have a flock of birds that are naturally vaccinated. It has happened to other viruses.
A virologist should comment on the properties of this virus, preferably after assessing retest results. Enforcers such as those at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency seem to blindly follow the rules set down by government, and can have limited knowledge of the subject they are acting on.
Retesting is probably expensive, but the money can be raised through private donations. If other ostriches are infected, then I believe the government should go ahead with the euthanasia policy. But it would have learned something before doing so.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we developed a vaccine for future ostrich farms?
Ken Stock Veterinarian; Port Hope, Ont.
One more
Re “Canada’s run to Women’s World Cup final surprises some, but not Rugby Canada CEO” (Sports, Sept. 24): On Saturday, our Canadian women will take to the pitch in front of 82,000 fans at Twickenham to contest the championship match of the Woman’s Rugby World Cup against the home nation England.
The Canadian women are fantastic rugby players and athletes, as well as great ambassadors for both the sport itself and Canada. Historically they’ve not been well supported, but it’s time to change that. They deserve it.
Please tune in and cheer them on.
Peter McNulty Halifax
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